|
A lot of these fall into "cultural" differences. Meaning the society in which the paladin comes from and/or the gods themselves might see it differently.
Below are general answers.
...ambush enemies from hiding...
Not a violation.
...make a pre-emptive strike against an enemy or enemies prior to their having shown actual hostility...
Cultural difference. Zealot orders would have no problem with this.
...pelt enemies to death with ranged attacks from afar while said enemies are unable to return fire...
Cultural difference. Killing barbarians in such a way who've themselve shown no mercy might be seen as justice.
...bring harm to the enemy WHILE his/her innocent spouse and young children bear witness...
Bring harm is pretty broad. Are we talking about a duel that ends with the enemies defeat? Then it's no a violation. Ends with the enemies death, beheading or swabbed? Guess it depends on the circumstance.
If it's justice, an execution could in fact be considered a lesson to the next generation.
...slay an enemy who has just been disarmed, or otherwise rendered ineffectual...
Cultural difference. Disarmed doesn't mean disabled/surrendered. There's no honor in killing a prisoner who's truly surrendered.
Though klingons wouldn't let you capture them, they'd consider it honorable to fight to death.
...kill an enemy who is clearly outnumbered/overpowered by the paladin and/or his allies...
Depends on the circumstance. Is the enemy really going to change because you didn't kill them? Are they leaving you with another choice?
|
|
First I'll say trying to define what does and doesn't define a paladin's code is one of the biggest mistakes I see players and DMs do in D&D. I believe a DM who questions a player's action should ask the player to justify how their action isn't a violation. If the player can't or the DM totally disagrees, then it's the DMs job to warn the player their god may see differently.
Anyway..
A lot of these fall into "cultural" differences. Meaning the society in which the paladin comes from and/or the gods themselves might see it differently.
Below are general answers.
...ambush enemies from hiding...
Not a violation.
...make a pre-emptive strike against an enemy or enemies prior to their having shown actual hostility...
Cultural difference. Zealot orders would have no problem with this.
...pelt enemies to death with ranged attacks from afar while said enemies are unable to return fire...
Cultural difference. Killing barbarians in such a way who've themselve shown no mercy might be seen as justice.
...bring harm to the enemy WHILE his/her innocent spouse and young children bear witness...
Bring harm is pretty broad. Are we talking about a duel that ends with the enemies defeat? Then it's no a violation. Ends with the enemies death, beheading or swabbed? Guess it depends on the circumstance.
If it's justice, an execution could in fact be considered a lesson to the next generation.
...slay an enemy who has just been disarmed, or otherwise rendered ineffectual...
Cultural difference. Disarmed doesn't mean disabled/surrendered. There's no honor in killing a prisoner who's truly surrendered.
Though klingons wouldn't let you capture them, they'd consider it honorable to fight to death.
...kill an enemy who is clearly outnumbered/overpowered by the paladin and/or his allies...
Depends on the circumstance. Is the enemy really going to change because you didn't kill them? Are they leaving you with another choice?
|
|
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....
...wow.
you do realize that a complete, up to date set of rules is available in multiple locations, for free, including one hosted by paizo itself?
site hosted by piazo:
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/index.html
site put together by fans, which has a "better" presentation:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/
Also, the pdf is only $9.99. The fact that you purchased it is tied to your account, and it can be re-downloaded at any time, so you'll be able to get a revised version for free if and when they come out with one.
EDIT: I'm not trying to be insulting, but really, there's no excuse for using the beta rules. Unless, of course, you want to, which is fine.
|
you do realize that a complete, up to date set of rules is available in multiple locations, for free, including one hosted by paizo itself?
site hosted by piazo:
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/index.htmlsite put together by fans, which has a "better" presentation:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/Also, the pdf is only $9.99. The fact that you purchased it is tied to your account, and it can be re-downloaded at any time, so you'll be able to get a revised version for free if and when they come out with one.
Courtesy of your friendly neighborhood linky patrol :)
Clerics not of an order are out there also, especially under the select two domains to represent the characters bent.
What part of "they can choose not to be that kind of cleric" did you not understand?
I swear you can't say anything around here without someone pointing out some case where what you specifically said didn't apply to everyone doesn't apply.
|
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.
STRONGLY disagree with this (bolded mine for emphasis). You are making an assumption that just because you are using a bow to attack something, it automatically cant attack back. What about other ranged weapon users? What about that flying wizard flinging fireballs? What about any flying monster out of melee range? These all have some way of attacking you back if you were using a ranged weapon. And in the case of some bandits charging at you, there is a very big difference, in my mind, between unable to attack back, or unable to attack back AT THIS MOMENT. Shooting at bandits that cant immediately attack back, but could move into range to attack, NOTHING dishonorable about that. They have the chance to get to you and attack you back, just not at this immediate moment. Now shooting at bandits stuck in a pit trap who cannot get out, dishonorable. Someone used the phrase "fish in a barrel", think it applies here. That I can agree with, also I MIGHT possibly concede Shoot-n-scoot tactics, constantly staying out of range of melee so they cant attack back. I can see the argument for that being dishonorable and not for a paladin. Basically as long as the target can do SOMETHING to attack you back in the immediate sense of combat, ranged is a-ok.
The paladin class itself is not oriented for the enforcement of laws and does not inherently have any legal authority. It may be that there are individuals with levels in the paladin class that have a position in the game world of legal authority, but the class itself isn’t a law enforcement role. A paladin is bound to respect the laws of legitimate authority; if an authority has laws that are evil, a paladin is not bound to them. Indeed, he is likely obligated to combat them.
The lawful aspect of the class alignment is indicative of how the paladin conducts itself in relation to others who are willing to co-exist peacefully. Chaos is not their mortal enemy; evil is. A paladin is almost certainly not going to hunt down chaotic good elves for living their lives according to their alignment, whereas he will almost certainly war against a tribe of lawful evil hobgoblins living according to their alignment. Most of the paladin’s abilities are targeting evil, but not chaos.
Based on the class, I believe it is fine for a paladin to use stealth and tactics to work toward their goals. So sneak attacks, archery, etc. Go for it. The concept of honor in combat consisting of proclaiming your presence, waiting for the enemy to be ready, not using certain tactics or weapons, is a decidedly human-centric perspective. The races most likely to have paladin archers, elves and halflings, consider attacking from concealment or tactical advantage to be quite laudable.
A paladin also does not need to broadcast his presence in social situations any more than they do in combat situations. Even his spell list, allowing him to magically conceal his alignment, supports this. If a paladin walks into an establishment on a mission and the proprietor asks his business, he doesn’t have to loudly proclaim he’s hunting such-and-such villain and his henchmen; he can honestly say that his business is his own, or the proprietor would be better off not knowing.
Just my take on it….
Just because the typically concept of paladin as slayer of evil is dominant (and admittedly abilities like detect evil, smite, etc assist this immensely) does not mean that an ultra hardline Chaos-is-bad paladin totally inappropriate in the game.
The prevalence of various form of evil in the world certainly makes it a desirable target but I could also see a LG Paladin of a LN Diety (Adabar for example) being fixated on stopping an invasion of proteans or Slaad into the prime material. The presence of the proteans and chaotic energy might be enough to cause mutations in the population around a chaos-portal. The Paladin because of his immunity to diseases has been tasked to investigate and cleanse the area if necessary. He interrogates chaos cultists and if they are shown to be in league with the proteans or possess mutations the paladin is tasked with slaying the heretic and cleansing with fire.
Vuron - putting the grimdark back into D&D ;)
Sorry this going to break outside the serious discusion but.... How does a 20th level paladin know if a 1st to 5th level who has been acused of a crime is evil? Simple, you pull off your gauntlets, declare you smite and let him have it (with our off-hand). If he is non-evil he'll only take 1d3 + 1/2 your strengh bonus, which should hopefully be no more the 8 total. If he was evil he'll take an extra 20 non-leathal damage and likely be heavly injured or killed out right from spillover to lethal.
...And you loose your paladin status for not respecting his life and definintly not his diginity, even if he was evil :-) .
STRONGLY disagree with this (bolded mine for emphasis). You are making an assumption that just because you are using a bow to attack something, it automatically cant attack back. What about other ranged weapon users? What about that flying wizard flinging fireballs? What about any flying monster out of melee range? These all have some way of attacking you back if you were using a ranged weapon. And in the case of some bandits charging at you, there is a very big difference, in my mind, between unable to attack back, or unable to attack back AT THIS MOMENT. Shooting at bandits that cant immediately attack back, but could move into range to attack, NOTHING dishonorable about that. They have the chance to get to you and attack you back, just not at this immediate moment. Now shooting at bandits stuck in a pit trap who cannot get out, dishonorable. Someone used the phrase "fish in a barrel", think it applies here. That I can agree with, also I MIGHT possibly concede Shoot-n-scoot tactics, constantly staying out of range of melee so they cant attack back. I can see the argument for that being dishonorable and not for a paladin. Basically as long as the target can do SOMETHING to attack you back in the immediate sense of combat, ranged is a-ok.
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.
I agree that attacking people that refuse to close with you is not dishonorable. They committed the breach of honor and you can return fire. Creatures do not have the same rules for combat as humanoids, and can be hunted and killed with bows, and it is traditional to do so on the hunt. Shooting bandits charging at you is where I disagree. The honorable thing to do is to ready an attack for when they close with you with your sword, thus meeting them on a level field of combat. Dropping them before they close is not honorable.
Paladins also face different rules for small skirmishes and duels than they do for large campaign battles.
I also argue that you must use the same tactics against orcs that you would other humanoids. It does not matter that they are evil. That affects their behavior, not yours. You must still follow the same rules for combat.
|
|
I agree that attacking people that refuse to close with you is not dishonorable. They committed the breach of honor and you can return fire. Creatures do not have the same rules for combat as humanoids, and can be hunted and killed with bows, and it is traditional to do so on the hunt. Shooting bandits charging at you is where I disagree. The honorable thing to do is to ready an attack for when they close with you with your sword, thus meeting them on a level field of combat. Dropping them before they close is not honorable.
Fair enough. I understand your reasons, its just we are at a point where we disagree on something at such a basic level that there is no way to get around an "agree to disagree" situation. I don't think it would be dishonorable, they have the chance to reach you and engage in combat. Again, this is a point that I think is beyond debating about,because we have different ideas at such a fundamental level.
Paladins also face different rules for small skirmishes and duels than they do for large campaign battles.I also argue that you must use the same tactics against orcs that you would other humanoids. It does not matter that they are evil. That affects their behavior, not yours. You must still follow the same rules for combat.
The way I see it, honor is a two way street kind of deal. James Nelson had a fantastic post in the ranged paladin thread that expressed my thoughts on the subject FAR better than I could ever state myself. It boils down to you can't fight honorably against an opponent who doesn't have honor. If you haven't read his post, Id suggest giving it a read over. Ill attempt to locate it and edit in a link here if I can.
Just to reiterate, Im not telling you that you are wrong. Im just saying I have a difference of interpretation and understanding, which is bound to happen in a system as complex as PF.
A scenario, just out of curiosity:
A vile and evil man has spread a highly contagious, nigh unstoppable plague across the land. Thousands of innocent victims have died already and thousands more may well die yet. A paladin tracks down the vile man who started it all. They do battle with the paladin rising as the victor. Moments before delivering just punishment to the villain, the vile man spouts a vile truth: that to kill him, the paladin must first doom a nation. For only the vile man knows of the cure to the plague, which is kept safely in his head (as a schemer, assume he has a seriously high Will save along with other mental safeguards). Being a vile creature of evil, the vile man refuses to tell the paladin of the cure.
The paladin is left with only a few options:
1) Punish the vile man with death, condemning thousands along with him.
2) Torture the vile man until he begs for death and gives the cure for the plague.
3) Sit and deliberate about alternative options while more victims die.
If you were said paladin, how might you handle the situation? If you were the GM of said paladin, would you condemn the paladin for brutally torturing the vile man into confessing the cure and saving thousands of lives?
I'm curious to hear your responses.
A scenario, just out of curiosity:
A vile and evil man has spread a highly contagious, nigh unstoppable plague across the land. Thousands of innocent victims have died already and thousands more may well die yet. A paladin tracks down the vile man who started it all. They do battle with the paladin rising as the victor. Moments before delivering just punishment to the villain, the vile man spouts a vile truth: that to kill him, the paladin must first doom a nation. For only the vile man knows of the cure to the plague, which is kept safely in his head (as a schemer, assume he has a seriously high Will save along with other mental safeguards). Being a vile creature of evil, the vile man refuses to tell the paladin of the cure.
The paladin is left with only a few options:
1) Punish the vile man with death, condemning thousands along with him.
2) Torture the vile man until he begs for death and gives the cure for the plague.
3) Sit and deliberate about alternative options while more victims die.If you were said paladin, how might you handle the situation? If you were the GM of said paladin, would you condemn the paladin for brutally torturing the vile man into confessing the cure and saving thousands of lives?
I'm curious to hear your responses.
In my opinion, option 3 is not an option because Paladins must be decisive. Inaction shows a lack of courage to make a decision. Option 2 is not valid because you cannot sink to your enemy's depths to defeat him. Then you have given up your oath, and thus are not a man of honor. Option 1 is the only one, though you should try to mittigate the damage as much as possible, perhaps finding a cure yourself.
edit: TriOmega's action is also valid, though removing his fingers seems vindictive and dishonorable.
|
|
The paladin is left with only a few options:
1) Punish the vile man with death, condemning thousands along with him.
2) Torture the vile man until he begs for death and gives the cure for the plague.
3) Sit and deliberate about alternative options while more victims die.If you were said paladin, how might you handle the situation? If you were the GM of said paladin, would you condemn the paladin for brutally torturing the vile man into confessing the cure and saving thousands of lives?
I'm curious to hear your responses.
I believe a paladin would choose #1 for the same reasons Caineach stated.
The paladin will never torture, regardless of the cost. The paladin does not believe the ends justify the means. That is completely antithetical to everything the paladin believes.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
A scenario, just out of curiosity:
Drag him back in chains to a spellcaster who can magically pry the information from his mind or research the answer with commune or somesuch. If you don't know a spellcaster like that... well, there's a quest for you, paladin: race against the clock to find the archbishop/mage/druid of Wherever that can obtain the cure. If there's a real possibility he could escape his bonds, beat him into negs and stabilize him first. You can't make a Will save if you're unconscious.
EDIT: TriOmegaZero, it's against the paladin's code to ninja my posts.
|
edit: TriOmega's action is also valid, though removing his fingers seems vindictive and dishonorable.
Brutally pragmatic maybe. English longbowmen captured by the French would have their index and middle fingers cut off so they could never draw a bow again. Hence why the 'peace' sign is offensive in France. RD didn't say he was a spellcaster or I would have said 'cut off his HANDS'.
Obviously a paladin who used brutal torture to get the results would fall so hard Asmodeus would wince. Lawful and Good characters cannot conceive of torture. It goes against their very nature.
edit: TriOmega's action is also valid, though removing his fingers seems vindictive and dishonorable.Brutally pragmatic maybe. English longbowmen captured by the French would have their index and middle fingers cut off so they could never draw a bow again. Hence why the 'peace' sign is offensive in France. RD didn't say he was a spellcaster or I would have said 'cut off his HANDS'.
Obviously a paladin who used brutal torture to get the results would fall so hard Asmodeus would wince. Lawful and Good characters cannot conceive of torture. It goes against their very nature.
British Longbowmen were also not Paladins.
|
|
British Longbowmen were also not Paladins.
Indeed, and neither were the French knights.
If I were to hold a paladin to a 'knights honor' type of thing, I would spell it out very clearly what is honorable and what isn't. Pragmatism is only dishonorable in some cases.
And attitude is important as well. Vindictive injuries are dishonorable, but restrained violence to a good end without ill will is not.
But I don't care to hold paladins to an undefined societal norm when they already have a restrictive code as is. If you've read the Game of Thrones series you know that honor will get you killed. :)
Some time ago I had a player in a 3.0/3.5 that ran a paladin. The basic guidelines for actions were these:
1. It is never permitted to perform an evil act, even for a good end.
2. There are two degrees of evil: mortal and venial.
3. Mortal evil means (1) you know what you're doing is evil and (2) you freely choose to do it anyway. This leads to you becoming an ex-paladin.
4. Venial evil lacks one or both of the previous two elements. It leads to temporary loss of abilities.
5. If you're not sure about an action, ask.
Worked like a charm through the entire campaign, which ranged from 1st to about 15th level, IIRC. The paladin lost her abilities once because the forces of Hextor set her up with an impossible situation: Perform an evil act, or else doom the entire party to imprisonment in a demi-plane.
She regained her paladin status before the campaign ended.
You can't make a Will save if you're unconscious.
That's not true at all. An unconscious person is considered willing, but even willing people get a save against hostile magic effects. (Note that being willing is not the same thing as deliberately failing the save.)
The paladin is left with only a few options:
1) Punish the vile man with death, condemning thousands along with him.
2) Torture the vile man until he begs for death and gives the cure for the plague.
3) Sit and deliberate about alternative options while more victims die.If you were said paladin, how might you handle the situation? If you were the GM of said paladin, would you condemn the paladin for brutally torturing the vile man into confessing the cure and saving thousands of lives?
I'm curious to hear your responses.
(1) Then run off and find your own cure.
I think that (3) is a poorer option, as it means letting inaction cause more death.
(2) would appear to be the worst option as, the way you have set up the situation, if he is practically immune to magical information extraction, he is likely to be immune to magical lie detecting abilities.
Then, since torture is much more likely to result in lies, especially this vile man who isn't willing at all to release the cure, than the actual truth, you will not only have cause the death mentioned in (3) (if not more resulting from acting on the villain's lies), it would mean having spent much time torturing and following up false leads rather than actually coming up with a better solution.
He actually seems to have set himself up so that torture would be the only way to get the information, making it incredibly likely that path is a trap. It seems as likely that, if he were ever to give the information, he would give it to halt the paladin's blade right then and there.
British Longbowmen were also not Paladins.Indeed, and neither were the French knights.
If I were to hold a paladin to a 'knights honor' type of thing, I would spell it out very clearly what is honorable and what isn't. Pragmatism is only dishonorable in some cases.
And attitude is important as well. Vindictive injuries are dishonorable, but restrained violence to a good end without ill will is not.
But I don't care to hold paladins to an undefined societal norm when they already have a restrictive code as is. If you've read the Game of Thrones series you know that honor will get you killed. :)
Awesome series, and good old dad is exactly what a Paladin should be, though with a little more sense motive.
What about looking at a Paladin's Code from a different angle?
Personal Code: which would cover stuff like honoring good deities, nice to furry animals, not using poison, honoring yourself by not drinking/eating to excess, etc.
Battle Field Honor: Fighting those of similar status, not using peasent bow and arrow, giving quater, honoring those fallen, etc.
Adventuring with your buddies honor: Probably very similar to Battle Field Honor but a lot less restrictive.
On my honor I will do my best To do my duty to my god; To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.
|
|
I try not to do that, because I want the players to respond to the world, not the world respond to the players. A little tweaking here and there is fine, but I want their choices to mean something for the most part.
Deciding if he was lying after he's been killed is similar to deciding which door was trapped after they pick one. It makes their choice more of an illusion, and I don't like when the illusion is disbelieved.
It would be very interesting to see the different "codes" for paladins based upon which Gods they support. It must be very different to be a Paladin for Gorum then say one for Iomedae.
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
Here is my take on your questions. Take it for what it's worth:
...ambush enemies from hiding...
This is a valid military tactic, so it is not dishonorable to do so. Remember, a Paladin is also a warrior, so he/she should have a solid base in tactics. The element of surprise is a tactic that can spell the difference between victory and defeat.
...make a pre-emptive strike against an enemy or enemies prior to their having shown actual hostility...
This would depend on the intel available. Does the Paladin know the enemies' plans? If so, the nature of those plans could determine if a pre-emptive strike would be necessary. Once again, this comes down to tactics. Firing first is not dishonorable if the Paladin knows the enemy's intent beforehand. Paladins should not be reactive based on enemy action - they must be proactive at times by using information to strike first when necessary. Being proactive can save more lives than being reactive and waiting for the enemy to strike first.
...pelt enemies to death with ranged attacks from afar while said enemies are unable to return fire...
See my response above. Ranged attacks are a valid military tactic and, as such, are not dishonorable. Otherwise, why would a Paladin be proficient with ranged weapons?
...bring harm to the enemy WHILE his/her innocent spouse and young children bear witness...
This is some muddy water. Depending on the nature of the harm, and if quarter was offered, this could go either way. If you are providing a warning to stay away from a certain area and delivering the consequences for disobeying the directive, I would say this is honorable.
If it is decapitating your enemy in front of his/her spouse, then it would depend on whether the Paladin's enemy has surrendered. If the Paladin offers the enemy quarter, and he accepts it, then harming him in front of his/her spouse is dishonorable.
If quarter is offered and refused, then harming the enemy in front of his/her spouse is honorable, as quarter was offered.
...slay an enemy who has just been disarmed, or otherwise rendered ineffectual...
Same answer as above. Was quarter accepted? If so, slaying the enemy is dishonorable. If quarter is refused, then slaying the enemy is honorable. Paladins should always offer an enemy quarter, when possible.
...kill an enemy who is clearly outnumbered/overpowered by the paladin and/or his allies...
Once again, the Paladin should offer the enemy quarter. If they accept, killing them is dishonorable. If they do not accept quarter, it is honorable as the enemy made their choice.
Assume that the vile man does know of a cure, and that the paladin also knows this fact, as the vile man has been surrounded by his own plague for a long, long time without showing any symptoms of his own (and not belonging of a particular class or race that is immune to disease).
On my honor I will do my best To do my duty to my god; To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.Awesome reference, but paladin's aren't Boy Scouts.
Divinely enhanced Boy Scouts with big swords? At certain level that's what they are.
I don't see why people need to be incredibly precise and exact on what the code says you must or must not do.
It takes a gross violation to make you fall.
Again, stop using the code as a crutch and learn to roleplay. If your DM is going out of his way to make your fall, then your issue isn't with the class - it's with the DM, the kind of jerk who thinks making paladins fall makes for "good roleplaying." Paladins don't have to be super super shining idealist knights that never ever do anything wrong. GROSS violation. Learn some leeway.
I don't see why people need to be incredibly precise and exact on what the code says you must or must not do.
It takes a gross violation to make you fall.
Again, stop using the code as a crutch and learn to roleplay. If your DM is going out of his way to make your fall, then your issue isn't with the class - it's with the DM, the kind of jerk who thinks making paladins fall makes for "good roleplaying." Paladins don't have to be super super shining idealist knights that never ever do anything wrong. GROSS violation. Learn some leeway.
And your deffinition of a "gross" violation can be very different from mine. I, for instance, think that using a ranged weapon on a peer who cannot attack back is a major violation. Premptively striking an opponent who has not yet shown hostile actions, even if you know they will, is a major violation.You can chose to define them differently, but those are marks of a coward in my book. Cowardice is against a Paladin's code.
Just for the Record, I would kill the guy. Find a priest that could raise him, use speak with dead to talk to him and see if he wants to speak. If he does, test the cure, if it works, raise him and arrest him for the last of his days.
How does that sound?
And your deffinition of a "gross" violation can be very different from mine. I, for instance, think that using a ranged weapon on a peer who cannot attack back is a major violation. Premptively striking an opponent who has not yet shown hostile actions, even if you know they will, is a major violation.You can chose to define them differently, but those are marks of a coward in my book. Cowardice is against a Paladin's code.I don't see why people need to be incredibly precise and exact on what the code says you must or must not do.
It takes a gross violation to make you fall.
Again, stop using the code as a crutch and learn to roleplay. If your DM is going out of his way to make your fall, then your issue isn't with the class - it's with the DM, the kind of jerk who thinks making paladins fall makes for "good roleplaying." Paladins don't have to be super super shining idealist knights that never ever do anything wrong. GROSS violation. Learn some leeway.
Just to be clear, those tactics are much more depandable on culture than on cowardice. Historically the most corageous people alive were the Samurai, and bushido, was the closest thing to a paladin code.
Now, they did attack preemptively, they did use ranged weapons, and they did use tactics. They did not, cheat, murder or steal.I don't like paladin using ranged weapons, it wasn't like this before, so I don't see why it should be like this now, but they changed it, nothing I can do. Essentially, what you are saying is that ANYONE using a ranged weapon, or a preemptive tactic, is a coward, and that doesn't make any sense.