Limitations of the Paladin's Code


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 433 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

If there's anything 4e did right, it made Paladins ambiguous, and made the code circumstantial depending on the deity they served.

Feels good man.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

People seem to overlook it due to the sheer massive numbers of posts, but...

Ravingdork wrote:

Some clarifications to put things in perspective...

In my list of scenarios above, assume that the enemy is an evil civilized humanoid (not an orc or goblinoid) that has committed past atrocities, all of which the paladin is aware. Unless stated otherwise, assume he is in some form or another in position to bring immediate harm upon you or others (he and his band are about to enact their devious plot [sack a nearby town or summon an unstoppable demon perhaps?] or is otherwise actively, visibly threatening you or another). Also assume that the enemy may surrender to the paladin, though not without exhausting his resources and combat/escape options first.

In the case of the preemptive strike assume there is ample evidence leading you to believe that the enemy is a serious threat of some kind (beyond a reasonable doubt), though none of the evidence is truly condemning (that is, not 100% certainty).

In the case of the innocent loved ones, assume that the enemy has done nothing recently (rather you are there to arrest/kill him for past crimes, or in the case of preemptive strike, likely future crimes). Prior to you entering the enemy's home you were unaware that his innocent loved ones were present, though now that you've exposed yourself the enemy has since become an immediate threat (to you, not to his family). The family may take actions to protect your enemy, though they otherwise strive not to bring harm upon anyone.

In the case of an disarmed/ineffectual enemy, assume that the fight is more or less over. The enemy did not surrender without having exhausted all options (and has technically not yet asked for quarter). The enemy is either out of spells, disarmed of all serious weapons, at 0 hp, and/or no longer a meaningful threat.

...I hope that helps.


Caineach wrote:


Ambush: Dishonorable to attack a foe without clearly displaying your intent.
Pre-emptive strike: Dishonorable - see above
Arrows: Dishonorable to strike a foe who cannot dirrectly attack back

Trickery: you can mislead a foe but never by lying or intentionally presenting information as complete when it is not. In this way, when asked, Lancelot clad in nondescript armor, can tell his foes that he is...

So lets say your paladin is in charge of an army. The opposing troops happen to be archers. Do you run them headlong into the archers likely resulting in certain defeat/death, or take the other option of using cover and terrain to get the flank and attack them so they are not aware of the attack?

If you take the straight ahead approach how do you justify the tactics to your king and country men?


you explain, but my code....
your king: guards seize him.
advisor to king: he should be executed, sure he won; but he lost to many of our best soldiers in the battle....
your King: agreed, sentenced to death.
you: nooooooooooo

I'd imagine that is how it would go.

Dark Archive

Some people have really ridiculous ideas of how limited the Paladin is. Lawful Stupid was 3.5 Welcome to Pathfinder, folks, let me take you on a tour.

The Paladin's Code of Honor

PFSRD wrote:

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

So that pretty much boils down to the five following directives:

1. Respect legitimate authority and therefor laws made by such an authprity. Not so bad. But depending on where you are, there may be no law, or at least no legitimate law enforcement official or arbiter. In which case, Paladins, especial of Iomedae, should not have any issue taking the law into their own hands, so to speak.
2. Don't lie, cheat or steal. No poison. There are no further specific restrictions on how a Paladin should fight.
3. Help decent folks when they need it.
4. Beat the living hell out of bad people.
5. Be good and lawful. Lawful is straightforward in that it pretty much just means #2 above. Nowhere in the description of Lawful does it say you actually follow every law to the letter. Being good is actually the trickiest. What is good? Lets take a look!

Good Alignment

PFSRD wrote:
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Evil Alignment

PFSRD wrote:
Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit. Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

So you pretty much want to protect innocent life, ensure the dignity of those around you an so forth. Note that it nowhere says you can't kill a guy. You can't kill an innocent guy. But everyone else? Fair game as long as you have a good reason for it. Killing without a reason or with nothing but a bad reason is what makes a killing evil in the terms set forth above.

So the OP's questions:
Would you condone any of the following...

RavingDork wrote:
...ambush enemies from hiding...

Not evil. Smart.

RavingDork wrote:
...make a pre-emptive strike against an enemy or enemies prior to their having shown actual hostility...

Are they evil? A Paladin knows. If evil, go to town. If not, wait for your buddy with a short temper to throw the first punch.

RavingDork wrote:
...pelt enemies to death with ranged attacks from afar while said enemies are unable to return fire...

Not evil. Smart.

RavingDork wrote:
...bring harm to the enemy WHILE his/her innocent spouse and young children bear witness...

Including your clarifications here, you kind of got to do what you got to do. The Paladin should take care not to harm the family (assuming they aren't evil, too) but otherwise I see nothing in the code or description of "good" that prevents the Paladin from doing his duty.

RavingDork wrote:
...slay an enemy who has just been disarmed, or otherwise rendered ineffectual...

If there is another possibility like locking the enemy up in a prison that can handle a spell caster or a dragon then sure go for it. But since those things rarely exist, a summary execution is usually the safest thing to do with an evildoer. Punish the evildoer. Its right there in the code.

RavingDork wrote:
...kill an enemy who is clearly outnumbered/overpowered by the paladin and/or his allies...

You're required to respect innocent life. No one is making the Paladin be a vegan or some crap. So what if he's outnumbered. Scourge the heretic. Punish the evildoer.


Tactics & Expediency sound good, look good on paper, etc. but I do think they run the risk of violating the standard LG code. Not that you have to play Lawful-Stupid, au contraire, you have to be that much SMARTER to win while operating within your code. Its a lot like being a Prosecuting Attorney; the other side will use whatever dirt they can to throw things off course, but you are beholden to a greater audience and a greater good. While you might know the dirt bag is guilty as sin and should be shot right now, you have to work within the confines to see that it is a sentence that is agreed upon by the important aspects.

As to tactics and the battle field, there is nothing wrong with a tactical retreat. There is nothing wrong with creating a situation that allows you to use smaller numbers to your advantage, there's nothing wrong with using ranged forces to take out ranged forces. The catch lie in the steps and the enemy. Odds are good that unless you're facing off against rampaging hordes of demons or similarly evil-to-the-core groups, there's no reason not to show civility on the field.
So, basically, use your tactics to create a fair, regulated field without undue death and carnage. Don't use overwhelming ranged support to decimate a ground force, don't stupidly lead a ground force into obvious ranged fire. Use an ambush only to even the odds OR reign in your own superior numbers; while a show of strength at the open might deter some, holding back forces to tire the enemy then roll in fresh support can, by itself, be enough to demoralize a force without further bloodshed.
Use tactics to make the enemy fight on your honorable terms. Don't compromise those terms for expediency's sake, don't use them to crush the enemy. Even the field and the odds as best you can, offer the chance to step down, duel to the last man standing, offer quarter and mercy at the end or dispatch a foe in honorable combat.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Are you all taking the clarifications I posted above (twice) into consideration when you respond?


Ravingdork wrote:
Are you all taking the clarifications I posted above (twice) into consideration when you respond?

For me, bit of even your clarification, bit of other posts.

WHY there is this need to grim & gritty, "Its a tough world, we have to be tougher", that kind of bugs me. Conditional ok-ness, that kind of bugs me. And the idea that the only alternative is the aforementioned "Lawful-Stupid" bothers me.
Tactics can take MANY things into account, and they need not always be the direct, head-on, attitude. SHOULD the paladin take EVERY pain to ensure they do not violate their core values in the least? Yup. Straight up. Makes it more fun, because they you can see how far you're willing to go to uphold the morality and values of the character, as well as how clever the character might be. Winning a battle with one hand tied behind your back is a greater accomplishment than rolling over top of an enemy.

Regarding the ambush; a quick recon to realize what the options are, if they have guards, allies, etc. all while stealth, no harm done. Recon. Positioning your allies so that they can deal with guards discovered, no problem. Sneaking into the camp? No sweat. But at that point, the proper thing to do would be to announce presence, demand the group stand down, and alert them that should they take a move to harm the paladin then allies strategically placed will render the offenders ineffectual. Most of that should amount to non-lethal disarming. All could be done with probable cause, little bloodshed, and uphold honor. Should the enemies flee, effort should be taken to immobilize and disarm the enemies such that even if they DO get away, they have no immediate means with which to harm others. Afterward, should someone escape, alert anyone, even passerbys on the road, of potential bandits.

Regarding the pelting of enemies, who cannot respond, from afar: nope. Show of force, this is what we're capable of, pen in the enemies, prevent them from causing further harm, then offer them honorable combat; their leader versus you. If they swarm the field, they have set the rules themselves, respond accordingly. Otherwise, accept the duel and have it out. But the point is the Paladin should exhaust all of their own options as well before resorting to outright killing.

So many of the examples above, decisions are made leaping from the base idea to an "acceptable" outcome, when steps exist in between that could be taken. And, with VERY rare exception, there are few scenarios that are truly of a caliber where the paladin MUST act now and KILL or bad bad things happen. Other steps can be taken to control the situation and make them fight on your honorable terms. Can it come back to bite them in the ass? Yes, but part of being a paladin is upholding the code at all costs. Otherwise, you could be a LG Fighter with some Cleric perks for freedom to decide and similar abilities.


If you're looking for things that a Paladin can and can't get away with according to the technical rules, you probably shouldn't be playing one. Be good, be honest. When you're faced with a difficult choice, act with good sense and restraint. Always give them the chance to surrender - if they break faith on it, they're fair game.


These threads keep claiming that using a bow is dishonorable, and I'm not seeing it.

Why is a sword honorable but a bow isn't?

What about reach weapons. Are those dishonorable? Paladins have mounts to trample enemies underfoot - is THAT dishonorable? It sure SOUNDS rather dishonorable by the qualifications being given.

Bows are no more honorable or dishonorable then the next weapon. Ambushing a group of brigands isn't an evil act. Nor is it dishonorable.

Paladins do not fall from ambushing someone. Paladins fall from 1) knowingly committing an evil act, or 2) grossly violating their code. Notice the italicized word.

Go learn to roleplay and stop treating the code like a g@!&~+n crutch.


I think the primary reason against using ranged weapons in D&D among cavaliers was the related to Pope Innocent II's edict against use of crossbows against Christians in 1139.

The crossbow was seen as an abomination on the battlefield (primarily because of it's ease in penetrating armor) and as such should be limited to use in hunting and against heathen saracens, etc.

While the Medieval Knight most likely learned archery it seems that at least in battle Archers were largely composed of peasants whereas the knight typically functioned in the role of cavalry and/or heavy foot.

Of course Medieval Knights typically did not fight monsters, especially flying monsters, so assuming that fantasy paladins would follow the same conventions is pretty silly.

But the restrictions against Clerics learning how to use bladed weapons was also a gamist solution so perhaps ranged restricted cavaliers were intended to be a break on the power of the class (1e Cavalier was clearly crazy powerful).


Paladins are being veiwed in a very goody goody light on this thread for some reason.

You can play a paladin as a justicar, judge dread, Texas Ranger, why do you suppose paladins have detect evil intent so they have to sit around and wait for the scoundrel to act, wait till the person actually gets attacked or stabbed.

Detect lies is also a good spell for trials immediately after surrender or capture of a foe. The Paladin is the judge the battlefield is the court, that was the trial, Other PCs can act as a jury...
If the offender attempts to get away they are slain for failing to be judged.

What are the purposes of these abilities other than as I have suggested?

Sovereign Court

vuron wrote:

I think the primary reason against using ranged weapons in D&D among cavaliers was the related to Pope Innocent II's edict against use of crossbows against Christians in 1139.

The crossbow was seen as an abomination on the battlefield (primarily because of it's ease in penetrating armor) and as such should be limited to use in hunting and against heathen saracens, etc.

While the Medieval Knight most likely learned archery it seems that at least in battle Archers were largely composed of peasants whereas the knight typically functioned in the role of cavalry and/or heavy foot.

Of course Medieval Knights typically did not fight monsters, especially flying monsters, so assuming that fantasy paladins would follow the same conventions is pretty silly.

But the restrictions against Clerics learning how to use bladed weapons was also a gamist solution so perhaps ranged restricted cavaliers were intended to be a break on the power of the class (1e Cavalier was clearly crazy powerful).

Bows were only frowned upon for class reasons. Knights disliked archers (bows and crossbows) because they were commoners, and they could still kill nobleman. Man, that really pissed them off!

Paladin code restrictions relating to ranged weapons are nonsense and only apply to medival ntions of 'chivalry,' which many have stated, is not the same as the paladin honor code. You can take argument against ranged weapons to an infinite regression, back to polearms (they can't strike back), back to fighting against enemies with less than 5' reach (they can only strike back if you get in their square), back to fighting someone of lower skill (i.e. if they can't penetrate your AC or you can land a hit on anything but a "1").


Ravingdork wrote:
Are you all taking the clarifications I posted above (twice) into consideration when you respond?

Yes. I answered prior to your clarifications, but they didn't really change any of my answers.


Freddy Honeycutt wrote:

Paladins are being veiwed in a very goody goody light on this thread for some reason.

You can play a paladin as a justicar, judge dread, Texas Ranger, why do you suppose paladins have detect evil intent so they have to sit around and wait for the scoundrel to act, wait till the person actually gets attacked or stabbed.

Detect lies is also a good spell for trials immediately after surrender or capture of a foe. The Paladin is the judge the battlefield is the court, that was the trial, Other PCs can act as a jury...
If the offender attempts to get away they are slain for failing to be judged.

What are the purposes of these abilities other than as I have suggested?

Part of the deal is, they're LG, not CG or LN. If they were CG, then they could get away with more of "I'm doing a bad thing to achieve a good goal." They can't use poison, for example, because their code says they can't, and *they're lawful*. The Lawful Stupid part is that they do legitimately have to follow laws and rules that they don't entirely agree with, just like any soldier or police officer.

They're no more lawful or good than any other LG character. In addition, they have a code (much of which any LG character would follow anyways.) IMHO:

1. A paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority - I'd expect this from any LG

2. act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth) - In general, I'd expect any LG to be truthful and good for their word. An LG would have a high bar to get over to justify the use of poison. For a Paladin, it's simply off the table.

3. help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends) - Again, expected of any LG

4. and punish those who harm or threaten innocents. - A specific obligation for paladins, but I would expect LG adventurers to generally do this.


vuron wrote:

I tend to avoid the rather tight Lawful Stupid interpretation in regards to Paladins.

I also to view the tenets of Paladinhood as more what is desirable behavior rather than what is prohibited. Further if there is a list of banned behaviors that list is highly dependent on the faith of the Paladin (I pretty much enforce Paladins that worship Gods).

Using Golarion as an example, a Paladin of Iomedae might have a different set of restrictions than a Paladin of Shelyn or Adabar.

I typically go with something simple at first like

  • Protect the innocent
  • Defend civilization from those who would destroy it
  • Fight evil in all it's forms
  • Deal honestly with friend and foe
  • You are the shining chosen of your god, do them justice in all your acts

Pretty simple list and really open to interpretation. On top of that I might add specific restrictions of that religion (Shelyn's paladins might be charged with preserving beauty, Adabar's paladins might be required to serve as judges and arbitrators, etc). If the PC really wants to get into a character we will even expand that to dietary restrictions, or celibacy, or poverty.

Basically the less absolute the rules concerning acceptable behavior the more open the character is to interpretation. I really like the image of a Paladin that is forced to decide for himself between 2 conflicting tenets of his faith. Not to the point he needs an atonement spell but more that his faith tortures him as much as it liberates him.

Vuron has hit upon something that I've always personally found an interesting option for paladins. Different paladins of the same deity could choose to follow or emphasize different tenets of their faith. This opens up the possibility for different sects to exist within the ranks of a deities faithful, each choosing to interpret the deities spheres or domains differently. Among followers of a single deity you could have ultra-hardline zealots, progressive reformers, or even radicals that the other sects feel are a little heretical, but are tolerated.

Apologies for the minor threadjack. I guess my point was don't see the code as shackles to chain and trap a paladin. See them as a vehicle for a better roleplaying experience. I can be as strict as a player wants me to be with regard to a paladins code, but in general if the player doesn't specifically request a very strict code, I will let them play it loose and easy, like I said earlier.


The paladin is the legitimate athority!

in a town/city etc the paladin would defer to local, in a dungeon, forest whatever with no other legit authority the paladin is defacto, judge jury executioner (or other penance, recompense, ect) that can be extracted for the crimes.

Think more millitary tribunal and less modern american court system (miranda rights)

A paladins ligitimate authority granted by divine right and the abilities gained as being a paladin.

Again what are those abilities for?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Freddy Honeycutt wrote:
The paladin is the legitimate athority!

The paladin is a servant of legitimate authority.

As such, he has to be very justified in assuming that authority. Police officers are not allowed to just excute criminals on their own whim.


Sammy123 wrote:
Freddy Honeycutt wrote:

Paladins are being veiwed in a very goody goody light on this thread for some reason.

You can play a paladin as a justicar, judge dread, Texas Ranger, why do you suppose paladins have detect evil intent so they have to sit around and wait for the scoundrel to act, wait till the person actually gets attacked or stabbed.

Detect lies is also a good spell for trials immediately after surrender or capture of a foe. The Paladin is the judge the battlefield is the court, that was the trial, Other PCs can act as a jury...
If the offender attempts to get away they are slain for failing to be judged.

What are the purposes of these abilities other than as I have suggested?

Part of the deal is, they're LG, not CG or LN. If they were CG, then they could get away with more of "I'm doing a bad thing to achieve a good goal." They can't use poison, for example, because their code says they can't, and *they're lawful*. The Lawful Stupid part is that they do legitimately have to follow laws and rules that they don't entirely agree with, just like any soldier or police officer.

They're no more lawful or good than any other LG character. In addition, they have a code (much of which any LG character would follow anyways.) IMHO:

1. A paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority - I'd expect this from any LG

2. act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth) - In general, I'd expect any LG to be truthful and good for their word. An LG would have a high bar to get over to justify the use of poison. For a Paladin, it's simply off the table.

3. help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends) - Again, expected of any LG

4. and punish those who harm or threaten innocents. - A specific obligation for paladins, but I would expect LG adventurers to generally do this.

Everyone is quick to bring up the "Lawful Stupid" angle, but I think it's important to remember they're not "Lawful Perfect" either.

They are human (well, sometimes) and are subject to the same weaknesses and temptations as everyone else. A paladin can be greedy, slothful, a wencher, and an alcoholic.

A paladin with a few faults is more interesting than Shining Knight With No Flaws #138.


ProfessorCirno wrote:

These threads keep claiming that using a bow is dishonorable, and I'm not seeing it.

Why is a sword honorable but a bow isn't?

What about reach weapons. Are those dishonorable? Paladins have mounts to trample enemies underfoot - is THAT dishonorable? It sure SOUNDS rather dishonorable by the qualifications being given.

Bows are no more honorable or dishonorable then the next weapon. Ambushing a group of brigands isn't an evil act. Nor is it dishonorable.

Paladins do not fall from ambushing someone. Paladins fall from 1) knowingly committing an evil act, or 2) grossly violating their code. Notice the italicized word.

Go learn to roleplay and stop treating the code like a g&@#$&n crutch.

Bows: It is dishonorable to attack someone who cannot attack you back. Therefore, ranged combat was seen as dishonorable in medieval times. Paladins must maintain their honor, therefore bows should not be used agaisnt other humanoids.

Ambushes: same thing. It is a gross violation to attack a helpless opponent. Someone who is suprized is helpless agaisnt you. Therefore it is a gross violation of your code of honor to ambush someone.


As an old Runequest player and GM I tend to use the Cult of Humakt as a basis for players running paladins. For those interested it can be found here.
I'm not saying its perfect for your average D&D world but its a nice start IMO.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

I composed the following post yesterday, but the site went down. I repost it here in its entirety. Ravingdork, I didn't see your clarifications until afterward, but I address some of the issues you brought up with those clarifications.

A few general observations before I get into the specifics.

1. Paladins are both lawful and good. Good is the first thing in our minds about paladins, but do not forget about the lawful part... it matters.
2. Honor is more than just avoiding lying, cheating, and stealing. It's more than personal integrity. Honor means keeping a good reputation. A paladin represents ideals. A paladin strives for honor and a good reputation in order to promote those ideals. It's absolutely about perception. A paladin should even be permitted, no, REQUIRED to lie in certain situations--hiding Jews from the Nazis, for example. [GOODWINNED!]
3. Paladins are held to a higher standard. Higher.
4. Paladins are warriors. Their role is to defend the weak, bring justice to the wicked, while tempering strength with mercy. In some lands, paladins may have legal authority to dispense justice, even capital punishment.
5. Monsters are different. Dealing with monsters requires a lot of case-by-case judgments. Dealing with normal folk is much, much simpler.
6. Paladins are not required to be nice to evil.

Ravingdork wrote:
...ambush enemies from hiding...

Depends. Against equal odds (for instance, a lone enemy knight), with no other considerations, might be seen as cowardly and therefore dishonorable. If a dragon's about to eat that villager, don't stop and show yourself and demand his surrender... just charge, even if he didn't see you coming.

Quote:
...make a pre-emptive strike against an enemy or enemies prior to their having shown actual hostility...

Not OK if it could be construed as cowardly, for instance, Pearl Harbor. A pre-emptive strike against the orc horde gathering on the border, totally OK.

Quote:
...pelt enemies to death with ranged attacks from afar while said enemies are unable to return fire...

That kind of situation is usually the result of good strategic maneuvering. Bringing strength (superior standoff range) against an enemy's weakness is just good tactics. Paladins shouldn't be penalized for exploiting a military advantage.

Quote:
bring harm to the enemy WHILE his/her innocent spouse and young children bear witness...

As long as the reasons are made clear (even after the fact is OK). The innocent parties are not being punished. They are seeing justice done. Hopefully they will learn from this and not follow down that same path of evil... but if they do, justice will find them too. If they follow good, they will be treated with compassion, mercy, and friendship. It's the paladin's judgment call if the children are too young to understand; but even if they turn to evil, it's their choice and not the moral responsibility of the paladin.

Quote:
...slay an enemy who has just been disarmed, or otherwise rendered ineffectual...

Depends. If it's an enemy under the flag of surrender, or a prisoner of war, not OK--particularly if it's a prisoner who is presumed to abide by the laws of war. Chivalric rules may apply: you can execute your social equals if they refuse quarter, but you just beat peasants and let them go, or arrest them. Monsters are different. OK to kill all the orcs; if you free them, they'll just eat the next set of commoners they find. OK to kill the outlaw who's under a sentence of death--the paladin is executing justice. The question is: are the innocent weak defended? If I let this [whatever] go, is it going to go harm someone?

Quote:
...kill an enemy who is clearly outnumbered/overpowered by the paladin and/or his allies...

Again, are the innocent weak defended? Is the threat ended? In war, this is a good tactical situation. A paladin doesn't necessarily have to always be the underdog.


wraithstrike wrote:
Caineach wrote:


Ambush: Dishonorable to attack a foe without clearly displaying your intent.
Pre-emptive strike: Dishonorable - see above
Arrows: Dishonorable to strike a foe who cannot dirrectly attack back

Trickery: you can mislead a foe but never by lying or intentionally presenting information as complete when it is not. In this way, when asked, Lancelot clad in nondescript armor, can tell his foes that he is...

So lets say your paladin is in charge of an army. The opposing troops happen to be archers. Do you run them headlong into the archers likely resulting in certain defeat/death, or take the other option of using cover and terrain to get the flank and attack them so they are not aware of the attack?

If you take the straight ahead approach how do you justify the tactics to your king and country men?

No, you plan your location of attack based off of where the archers will do the least good to the opponent. This does not mean that you can suprize the enemy, however, and attack them at night when they are unprepared. Attacking unexpectedly from a flank is perfectly valid, assuming they are expecting combat, but jumping them on the road would not be. There are rules to honorable combat that the Paladin must follow. If its not, and he forsakes his sacred vows, he should lose the powers granted by them. And to a Paladin, defeat is preferable to loss of honor. This sentement is repeated over and over in fiction.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Caineach wrote:

Bows: It is dishonorable to attack someone who cannot attack you back. Therefore, ranged combat was seen as dishonorable in medieval times. Paladins must maintain their honor, therefore bows should not be used agaisnt other humanoids.

Ambushes: same thing. It is a gross violation to attack a helpless opponent. Someone who is suprized is helpless agaisnt you. Therefore it is a gross violation of your code of honor to ambush someone.

Care to back that up with some historical evidence? At the moment I am more likely to believe the "the noble nights didn't like bows/crossbows because it allowed simple peasants to kill them" explanation. I also believe that honorable 1 on 1 combat was reserved for 2 equal opponents (such as 2 knights who met on the field of battle after trampling "worthless" peasantry under their steeds to get to one another).

In other words, I think it had less to with honor than it did with class and station (and a distorted "perceived honor").


Can't find anything requiring the Paladin to follow any organized religion only following the divine and receiving the benefits granted by that power.

Please stop equating paladin to police officer and legitimate authority to some type of court system/central government.

Yes the paladin directly serves the legitimate authority his GOD, in leu of the big guy coming down to do it himself....

What are the paladins abilities for other than as I have suggested.

A paladin can be played either way the PC wants, just as the mythic "noble savage" "Tarzan" nonsense can be applied to Barbarians OR NOT...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:


I wish to discuss the limitations of the paladin's code, specifically the bolded text above. What does the highlighted text mean to you?

Would you condone any of the following...

...ambush enemies from hiding...
...make a pre-emptive strike against an enemy or enemies prior to their having shown actual hostility...
...pelt enemies to death with ranged attacks from afar while said enemies are unable to return fire...
...bring harm to the enemy WHILE his/her innocent spouse and young children bear witness...
...slay an enemy who has just been disarmed, or otherwise rendered ineffectual...
...kill an enemy who is clearly outnumbered/overpowered by the paladin and/or his allies...

...or would you cite it as a code violation?

The context of the acts bear a rhythm here. I generally use Arthas as an example. His was a long slow but ultimately final fall from grace. In certain of these cases the Paladin may or may not violate a code. but if these acts are a consistent pattern of behavior... the Paladin has left his code behind long ago.

For another example... think Batman. He will use surprise, tactics, and superior gear in his battle to stop crime and protect the helpless. but there are lines he WILL not cross even for an advantage. That's what makes him Batman.

The definition of a Paladin is setting those lines which are not crossed.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Freddy Honeycutt wrote:
Please stop equating paladin to police officer and legitimate authority to some type of court system/central government.

I'm not equating anything to a court system. The paladin serves the tenets of Law and Good. Be it a deity or just the concepts, a servant that performs improperly will be chastised. So they must use discretion.

It may be Lawful to pronounce an evil guilty and carry out the sentence. But depending on the circumstances it may not be Good. So a paladin must take great care when he chooses to judge.

The paladins abilities are meant to be used to protect Good and fight Evil. Including Evil within himself.


Agreed

It is lawful and good to pronounce sentence and to carry out that lawful and good sentence.

I would assume that a paladin would take even the pleas for life of the most base and foul offender into consideration for the sentence,

Taking a wizards spellbook and equipment (magic items) may be harsh but also maybe fair..It is not theft (pn the paladins part) if he decides an evil character is seperated from his funds and forced to pay a village restitution.

I'n not expecting a paladin to kill a thief, I am expecting some RP on the paladins part and the Villian (besides converting an evil character is better than killing them!)...

I would expect the paladin not to enjoy the job, if he did I would wonder....

Batman would be a good example if and only if he was acting within a lawless society (he bends a few laws), batman maybe chaotic good and an urban ranger. The movies seem to depict a "broken" legal system so batman may fit the Paladin idea in that world.

Liberty's Edge

Freddy Honeycutt wrote:

Paladins are being veiwed in a very goody goody light on this thread for some reason.

You can play a paladin as a justicar, judge dread, Texas Ranger, why do you suppose paladins have detect evil intent so they have to sit around and wait for the scoundrel to act, wait till the person actually gets attacked or stabbed.

Detect lies is also a good spell for trials immediately after surrender or capture of a foe. The Paladin is the judge the battlefield is the court, that was the trial, Other PCs can act as a jury...
If the offender attempts to get away they are slain for failing to be judged.

What are the purposes of these abilities other than as I have suggested?

There are all kinds of replies to this.

I could list them, but others have done a great job of that.

Instead, I'll just point out that not only can evil creatures hide their own natures with the right magic or items, they can also alter the apparent natures of others.

Paladin gets word of a evil gnome illusionist causing trouble. Goes out, sees a "boy" pick up something and go running off, uses detect evil on boy who registers as evil, so paladin charges and kills an innocent child who had a false aura cast on him.
Paladin loses paladin abilities for behaving recklessly (chaoticly) and for killing an innocent, illusionist pops out and blows paladin up before he can get redeemed.
Paladin dies a failure.

Paladins are tasked with the impossible - they must be absolute in a world that is always shaded with gray. Caution is required.


Evil gnome illusionist and paladin not using at least detect magic...

I think that is idiocy

I have always used detect magic in any encounter, I don't see the paladin deciding on deadly force for an apparent theft as you described.

Evil intent gives you the heads up and lets you get into position to prevent an act not to kill before the act occurs.... Ever watch Minority report?

If you don't have detect lies or the patience to wait for a captured opponent to remove magic items and for buff/illusion spells to expire I am not certain what is going on.

More likely I would follow that individual after seeing if any other stronger evil is around. (kid won't register very high on the good old evil meter!) Might even ignore it completely and not do anything at that moment.

Also how much trouble are evil gnome illusionists???


Detect Magic is a 3rd level spell for Paladins meaning he gets it at 10th at the earliest. Further GMW and Magic Circle are at that level so burning a slot on detect magic seems pretty pointless.

Detect Evil only registers people with 5+ HD unless they are undead or cleric or outsiders so the vast majority of people in any setting simply don't show up as evil even if they are John Wayne Gacy or Jeffery Dahmer.

Spells are a useful tool but they aren't necessarily evidence. It's not like the Paladin can go around killing people in cities because they show up as evil, they need to gather evidence to convince the authorities (religious or secular) that villian x is a bad guy and I'm justified in killing him. Even a village in the boondocks is going to be reluctant to blindly follow the paladin's lead if he accuses a fellow villager that they've been friends with for years. Remember evil doesn't necessarily mean that they can't be ingratiating and nice to others as needed.

Dark Archive

Caineach wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Caineach wrote:


Ambush: Dishonorable to attack a foe without clearly displaying your intent.
Pre-emptive strike: Dishonorable - see above
Arrows: Dishonorable to strike a foe who cannot dirrectly attack back

Trickery: you can mislead a foe but never by lying or intentionally presenting information as complete when it is not. In this way, when asked, Lancelot clad in nondescript armor, can tell his foes that he is...

So lets say your paladin is in charge of an army. The opposing troops happen to be archers. Do you run them headlong into the archers likely resulting in certain defeat/death, or take the other option of using cover and terrain to get the flank and attack them so they are not aware of the attack?

If you take the straight ahead approach how do you justify the tactics to your king and country men?

No, you plan your location of attack based off of where the archers will do the least good to the opponent. This does not mean that you can suprize the enemy, however, and attack them at night when they are unprepared. Attacking unexpectedly from a flank is perfectly valid, assuming they are expecting combat, but jumping them on the road would not be. There are rules to honorable combat that the Paladin must follow. If its not, and he forsakes his sacred vows, he should lose the powers granted by them. And to a Paladin, defeat is preferable to loss of honor. This sentement is repeated over and over in fiction.

Where does it say that ambushes are dishonorable in the only book that matters, the Core Rule Book? People like you attach your own ideas of what honor and the Paladin Code is that is completely unsupported by RAW. Paladin Alan can be that kind of goody two shoes. But Paladin Bob can be an avenging avatar of his god, destroying all who get in his way. And thats ok in the code, too.


Where is this information that only 5+HD for the detect evil spell I can't find that in the spell description or under the paladin's info.
Not sure where that is from. Please clarify how dahmer or gacy would be excluded?

As far as willy nilly killing people just for showing up as evil, not sure where in my post that was.

Also lets say a paladin does kill an innocent through some trickery/deception...
That is not willingly commiting an evil act, that is a mistake...

Usually pick up detect magic and a few other things at first level and enter Paladin at level 2.

Agreed an evil person who chooses not to act is kind of a tragic hero whether they would/could have been a serial killer...

Sovereign Court

The important thing to get from this thread is that before you play a paladin, you and your DM should have a clear idea of what code your paladin follows and how that works in the game world.

Personally, I think that a lot of the "Oath and Measure" type codes of conduct would be too constricting to play by in a lot of the games our group runs. Therefore, the code for a palading in Dragonlance would be a lot different than the code of conduct for a game set in a Dark Sun type of world.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Freddy Honeycutt wrote:

Where is this information that only 5+HD for the detect evil spell I can't find that in the spell description or under the paladin's info.

Not sure where that is from. Please clarify how dahmer or gacy would be excluded?

Aura strength chart at the bottom of the page.

Dahmer and Gacy would not have enough HD to register an evil aura.


Yeah I'm not buying the faux chivalry paladin interpretation going on by some people in this thread. A) it's inaccurate outside of the 1e UA Paladin-Cavalier and b) it's horribly dismissive of any concept of an honor warrior outside of a very limited western european tradition.

I think a Paladin's acts are always related to intent and context.

Ambushing a peaceful caravan? Evil
Ambushing a military caravan? Situationally evil, doing it to known good or allied forces is probably bad, doing it to a force of hobgoblins looking to pillage and rape? Definitely good.

Killing defenseless innocents? Evil
Killing people under a banner of truce? Evil
Killing honorable opponents that offer to surrender? Evil
Killing defenseless prisoners without a fair trial? Evil

Note I really don't like the old gambit of the orcs realizing that they are facing a paladin surrendering in order to gain protection from the rest of the party. If the party wants to capture the brigands for trial fine but I don't like forcing the party to play ferry the prisoner to jail unless they really want to.

Evil foes that act in an honorable (if despicable manner) generally get the benefit of the doubt. If the LE soldiers serving the LE devil-worshiping cleric surrender after the defeat of the LE cleric, I often frown on immediately putting them to the sword. A lot of this determination is very situational.

Paladins that start acting like 40k Inquistors are probably treading very close to the LN boundary if not even further. Putting a whole village to the torch to root out heresy is definitely LN or LE in my mind.


Freddy Honeycutt wrote:

Can't find anything requiring the Paladin to follow any organized religion only following the divine and receiving the benefits granted by that power.

Please stop equating paladin to police officer and legitimate authority to some type of court system/central government.

Yes the paladin directly serves the legitimate authority his GOD, in leu of the big guy coming down to do it himself....

What are the paladins abilities for other than as I have suggested.

A paladin can be played either way the PC wants, just as the mythic "noble savage" "Tarzan" nonsense can be applied to Barbarians OR NOT...

If you're in town, fighting someone, and the militia comes along and yells stand down, you stand down, or at least back down. In cities, there is legitimate authority, and you follow their directions unless you believe them or their orders to be evil.

IMHO, if a Paladin believe he only listens to his God, and pays no mind to local authorities, doesn't abide local laws (no weapons in town, etc.) then that doesn't fit my definition of lawful.

Outside of town, in ungoverned areas, the Paladin just falls back on LG and their code.


Great not worried about evil less than 5 + HD anyway, why bother with small potatoes. Thanks for the update, been too cheap to use anything other than Beta playtest for info....


Two hours ago posted Paladin would defer to local authorities, pointed out big difference between in town/municipality, etc and the unclaimed areas.

The idea that everyone has to brought in doesn't quite fit the role of the paladin Which was a response to a scenario early on with an escaping druid.....

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nebelwerfer41 wrote:

The important thing to get from this thread is that before you play a paladin, you and your DM should have a clear idea of what code your paladin follows and how that works in the game world.

Personally, I think that a lot of the "Oath and Measure" type codes of conduct would be too constricting to play by in a lot of the games our group runs. Therefore, the code for a palading in Dragonlance would be a lot different than the code of conduct for a game set in a Dark Sun type of world.

Or maybe Paladins should not exist in your Dark Sun type of world. Not every class can fit everywhere.


I have a pet theory about why some parts of medieval Europe decided that ranged combat was dishonorable. (Honestly, I think as long as they have a chance to flee or surrender, or if they have bows/other ranged of their own, even the most rigid definition has to be okay with it.)

Me: working the archery booth at the ren faire, teaching kids to shoot, catcalling patrons, shooting the targets myself when we have slow moments.
A particularly slow afternoon- the weather was unseasonably cold, so attendance was a bit low. One of our knights comes over to shoot; since there's no line we let him, sure. I give him the basic instruction, he lines up, and...

Whoa. His stance is perfect, he should be doing fine... but he's wearing full plate and his joints don't allow him to rest his pull-hand on his cheek to sight.

I find myself thinking "Oh my gosh! He's wearing heavy armor and it's restricting his max DEX!"

Also, crossbow bolts were one of the only attack types that could actually do any decent damage to your full-plate knight. So sure, decree that it's evil and wrong, give him a Holy Excuse to protect his own hide by bearing down on those Evil Archers. :)

(The next day that same knight came back in mundane clothes- he had the day off- and won the archery competition, outshooting everyone else CRAZY well. It was DEFINITELY the armor that was throwing his aim.)


PC DM collaboration,

IF your DM says a paladin is a goody two shoes you can assert something different or find another DM.

If you want to play the goody goody go for it.

Paladins and rangers with favored enemies undead can exist in ravenloft or end up there....or darksun....

You play your paladin how you like and I will play mine the way I like...

Don't usually see such a restricted view of any class or alignment more than the Paladin and LG.


btw.... what type of poisons....

I'd have poisons on a paladin that were temporary affects of either paralyzing or make the target go to sleep....
serious poisons thT cause major harm tend to be out....

besides long ago
I made this out, that any and all of my characters would carry atleast 3 weapons.
main weapon
back up weapon
ranged weapon.

for a paladin.
light crossbow loaded and ready to go( may only get off one shot anyway
spear
a weapon for sword and board style( sword and shield)
4 daggers in the boots.


I will give the specific answers I would rule as GM, because I believe this rule MUST include GM arbitration or it becomes meaningless and silly. Situations can be invented to subvert the intentions of the paladin's code, so it is important for a GM to have his own "code" for arbitrating this rule. The rule is at its best when the GM puts an experienced paladin in a position to willfully violate the code, but not by being excessively rigid about it.

My rulings:

  • ...ambush enemies from hiding...

    Yes. Especially if war has been declared and the enemies are known to be hostile. No if there is no ongoing context to support the maneuver.

  • ...make a pre-emptive strike against an enemy or enemies prior to their having shown actual hostility...

    Yes. See above. The paladin's role is as a bulwark against evil, not a slave in service to an abstract code. The code MEANS something, it is not just a restriction, but a statement about the paladin's character.

  • ...pelt enemies to death with ranged attacks from afar while said enemies are unable to return fire...

    Depends on the nature of the enemy. Any creature against whom he receives his greater smite damage is a candidate for such treatment, especially undead and evil outsiders. Against humans or people who could potentially surrender when helpless, I think it is the paladin's duty to ensure surrender or at least seek a way to neutralize the foe without murdering them outright.

  • ...bring harm to the enemy WHILE his/her innocent spouse and young children bear witness...

    No — although situations might arise that would change this. An abusive parent, for instance, could not expect a paladin to sit idle. In general, in these situations where a rational player-race enemy is involved, the Paladin has recourse to diplomacy and/or subdual damage, which would allow him to act without causing undo harm to the innocent.

  • ...slay an enemy who has just been disarmed, or otherwise rendered ineffectual...

    Again, undead and evil outsiders offer no quarter and receive none. If a mortal race opposes the paladin, they ought to receive mercy. Subdual damage is a very good rule for paladins to know.

  • ...kill an enemy who is clearly outnumbered/overpowered by the paladin and/or his allies...

    Nope. Unless the enemy is undead, and evil outsider, or I will add a predatory beast that can only pose a threat, the paladin has recourse to subdual damage, restraint, and imprisonment. Even a wild beast that should be relocated without further harm to innocent life if it is possible. If it is not, the paladin will do what he must, but with regret.

  • Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
    Freddy Honeycutt wrote:


    Don't usually see such a restricted view of any class or alignment more than the Paladin and LG.

    As it should be. the Paladin is given a good chunk of power by the forces of Law and Good. Such gifts come with strings attached. I'm personally not in favor of alternate alignment Paladins unless similar baggage is part of the deal.

    (if you follow the Blackest night series in DC comics the various Lantern Corps of the other colors, Purple, Yellow, Red etc... are good inspriations on running Paladins other than the LG of the Green Lantern Corps.)

    RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32

    TriOmegaZero wrote:
    Freddy Honeycutt wrote:
    The paladin is the legitimate athority!

    The paladin is a servant of legitimate authority.

    As such, he has to be very justified in assuming that authority. Police officers are not allowed to just excute criminals on their own whim.

    Under our concept of due process. But depending on the campaign world, it's entirely possible that a paladin is endowed by the law he serves with the authority to pass judgment and impose the sentence, including execution. You really have to be able to trust your paladins not to abuse this authority, since they are both lawful and good. That means trying and judging a prisoner, and potentially killing him while he's helpless, if he's been determined to be guilty of capital crimes. That's not evil. That's the law.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
    Christopher Dudley wrote:
    Under our concept of due process. But depending on the campaign world, it's entirely possible that a paladin is endowed by the law he serves with the authority to pass judgment and impose the sentence, including execution. You really have to be able to trust your paladins not to abuse this authority, since they are both lawful and good. That means trying and judging a prisoner, and potentially killing him while he's helpless, if he's been determined to be guilty of capital crimes. That's not evil. That's the law.

    Even if he has been given that authority he has to exercise strong judgement and care in wielding it, because that is the quickest route to falling for a paladin. And it is a short step from enforcing the law for good and enforcing the law for evil.

    RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32

    TriOmegaZero wrote:


    Even if he has been given that authority he has to exercise strong judgement and care in wielding it, because that is the quickest route to falling for a paladin. And it is a short step from enforcing the law for good and enforcing the law for evil.

    Granted.

    IMC, PCs can be endowed with legal authority. Being a cleric implies by default holy orders in the church of the god one worships. That carries some privileges and responsibilities behind it. They can choose not to be that kind of cleric, and that's OK, too, but that's what I assume until they tell me otherwise in their character history.


    Evil Lincoln wrote:
    Any creature against whom he receives his greater smite damage is a candidate for such treatment, especially undead and evil outsiders.

    FWIW, my Paladin says, "Killing undead ain't even killing."


    Clerics not of an order are out there also, especially under the select two domains to represent the characters bent.

    51 to 100 of 433 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Limitations of the Paladin's Code All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.