Paladin Archers, Honorable?

[Threeshades]

The divine hunter is a paladin archetype focused around the use of ranged weapons. That should be indication enough that by pathfinder setting standards bows and crossbows should be honorable enough.

Discussions about honorable combat are always iffy to me.
Reminds me of a scene from the new (2012) TMNT show in which (if i recal correctly) the turtles return home beaten and bruised from a Foot ambush. When splinter tells Leo he's disappointed in their performance, Leo complains that it wasn't a fair fight. Splinter proceeds to swipe Leo off his feet and puts his walking stick up to leo's throat and asks him wether that was fair. (the point is much more prominent there since they are ninjas, despite their popular image, the least likely type of warrior to fight "fair" or "honorably")

When you are in a fight for life and death honor has no place. No general in history has become famous for beating his opponents in a fair head on fight. It was always the one that had superior numbers or could outmaneuver the enemy that won be that to the dismay or the relief of those affected by the outcome of the battle. I wouldn't fault even a paladin for using superior tactics and weapons in order to survive or achieve goals for the greater good.

[pennywit]

Threeshades wrote:

I wouldn't fault even a paladin for using superior tactics and weapons in order to survive or achieve goals for the greater good.

As far as this goes, I think that if he is a paragon of lawful goodiness, a paladin has to do a few things:

• Keep his word
• Help the helpless
• Don't be evil
• Conduct himself with honor

Beyond that, I think there's a lot of acceptable variation among paladins. One might view it as a stain on his honor if he ever fights in a way that is unfair, while a much more pragmatic fellow might believe that if his opponent is an honorable warrior, then he has brought with him the things he must use to fight.

As far as tactics, weapons and such, I don't even think a "greater good" is necessary. Misdirection and skill both have their place in combat, as does maneuvering to gain tactical advantage. There's a fair bit of distance between Lawful Good and Lawful Stupid.

I think of it this way:

Eddard Stark is Lawful Stupid. Ser Barristan the Bold is Lawful Good. Sir Camaris (of Tad Williams' Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn) is also a great Lawful Good hero.

[The Shaman]

A paladin at war is at war, and there the definitions of honorable tend to be quite different. When a declaration of war is issued, I don´t see a problem with a paladin leading or participating in an ambush. On the other hand, using disease-ridden catapult missiles or torturing captives is still not ok, at least imo, and a word, once given, is kept - i.e. in negotiations, accepting surrender, or not breaking an alliance when convenient.

The dogma of the cult the paladin is a part of will probably also play a huge part. If for whatever reason the paladin order does not like missile weapons, a paladin should not use them... unless they have to choose between failing his or her order and an even worse fate. And if your divine patron for some reason decreed drugs are immoral, then you don´t do them, regardless of what society considers acceptable or indeed honorable.

P.S.: Eddard Stark wasn´t particularly stupid imo. That he was politically outmaneuvered by more skillful foes does not necessarily constitute stupidity.

[pennywit]

The Shaman wrote:

A paladin at war is at war, and there the definitions of honorable tend to be quite different. When a declaration of war is issued, I don´t see a problem with a paladin leading or participating in an ambush. On the other hand, using disease-ridden catapult missiles or torturing captives is still not ok, at least imo, and a word, once given, is kept - i.e. in negotiations, accepting surrender, or not breaking an alliance when convenient.

Concur in this. If Realm A is in war with Realm B, then Realm B's troops should be alert to ambushes in Realm A. Of course, said paladin should not ambush Realm A troops if they are traveling under a flag of truce.

Quote:

P.S.: Eddard Stark wasn´t particularly stupid imo. That he was politically outmaneuvered by more skillful foes does not necessarily constitute stupidity.

I don't think he was entirely stupid. But, IMO, he was a bit too devoted to his own honor.

[Umbriere Moonwhisper]

i have no problems with paladins using any of the following

Archery

Ambush

Skirmish Tactics

Guerilla Warefare in General

Feinting and Misdirection

Flying Mounts such as Pegasi, Dire Bats, and Hippogryphs

in fact, most of this stuff, allows duelist/dervish paladins to actually be viable.

spring attack or shot on the run, are hardly dishonorable

Hell. i allow paladins to situationally tell white lies if they help protect the hearts of the innocent, or allow them to use such sadistic tactics as poison (or Ravages, Exhalted Poisons) or torture against demons and their followers

[Ashiel]

I was just discussing the notion of "honorable combat" with my friend on Skype.

Quote:

I think the reason "honorable combat" cannot be defined is for the same reason you have "scrubs" (I actually hate this word but I don't know of another to use at the moment) and skilled players in fighting games.

"Omg, you keep grab-spamming, cheesemeister! Don't you have any honor?"
"Well...I have more wins, does that count?"

^ The above is an example of a player who turtles a lot, never bothered to learn how to tech-resist throws, or to punch people before they throw them. Since it disrupts their comfort zone, it's dishonorable.

The guy using throws is seeing this guy who is really vulnerable to throwing and does so as long as it's working, but would likely be just as happy mixing it up but the blocking guy just keep turtling. :P
[5:22:41 PM] ashiel87: Kind of like when I'm playing Soul Calibur 5. I do a lot of mind games with my opponent (shifting high and low attacks in different patterns, or making the opponent think I'm moving in for a big attack and they block, only to get grabbed).

"But I was blocking!!" is a common result. XD

Which is not to be confused with EVIL combat, which is much easier to spot in D&D/PF. When you do stuff like harm or oppress your enemies' loved ones to gain advantage over the enemy, you're moving into a dark place.

Soon to be Ex-Paladin: "I cannot destroy you lich, so I kidnapped your daughter! Either you hand over your phylactery and surrender or I will kill her, and she won't come back so easily!"

[Mikaze]

Ashiel wrote:

Which is not to be confused with EVIL combat, which is much easier to spot in D&D/PF. When you do stuff like harm or oppress your enemies' loved ones to gain advantage over the enemy, you're moving into a dark place.

Soon to be Ex-Paladin: "I cannot destroy you lich, so I kidnapped your daughter! Either you hand over your phylactery and surrender or I will kill her, and she won't come back so easily!"

And Liam Neeson shooting a guy's innocent wife in front of their children to motivate him to talk.

[Ashiel]

Mikaze wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

Which is not to be confused with EVIL combat, which is much easier to spot in D&D/PF. When you do stuff like harm or oppress your enemies' loved ones to gain advantage over the enemy, you're moving into a dark place.

Soon to be Ex-Paladin: "I cannot destroy you lich, so I kidnapped your daughter! Either you hand over your phylactery and surrender or I will kill her, and she won't come back so easily!"

And Liam Neeson shooting a guy's innocent wife in front of their children to motivate him to talk.

Yeah, good example. :P

[Junar]

Would a paladin use a longbow to slay the evil undead? Then he might as well use it to slay the evil living.