Paladin and the Paladin code

[keaton13]

Hello all, so I'm thinking of dipping into the Paladin class for my sorc, (yay cha to saves)but I'm trying to figure out changes to personality, my character started out as a sorc who acted like a rogue (sneaking, ease dropping, stealing, etc. etc.) but he's evolved as a character since then so much that his alignment shifted from CN to LG, now he's not going to suddenly become a stick up his ass lawful stupid paladin cause ya that makes no sense, I'm trying to figure out ideas for being a pally without breaking the code. So obviously the lying and stealing is out, but other ideas, can I still do things like taunt the enemy/insult them etc. etc. other suggestions or personality ideas for non-traditional pally's would be fun

[ParagonDireRaccoon]

I would pick a cause- a particular deity, hatred of undead, healing children afflicted by the plague, etc. It could be that your sorcerer gets separated from the party in an underground labyrinth filled with undead, and is saved by the ghost of a paladin of Sarenrae. The ghost saves your sorcerer and your sorcerer vows to complete a sacred quest of the ghost paladin.

Your GM might be willing to work with you on an adventure to set this up, and possibly a magic item/plot device. It could be the ghost has a longsword that grants +2 effective paladin level while you are working towards a particular goal (eliminating undead, eliminating CE outsiders, something along those lines) but a -2 effective paladin level while not being used towards that goal. So while on your crusade one level of paladin gives you level 3 paladin abilities, but normally you have no paladin abilities. You and the GM can work out parts of the paladin code that are always in effect for you, and some potential grey areas of the paladin code (things that would be an issue in a strict interpretation of the paladin code) that the GM will let slide to a certain extent when you have an effective paladin level of -1.

[keaton13]

oh I already have story reason for the pally thing, that's not an issue, just working in the code without being the stereotype

[keaton13]

Character wise he's a Sylph who when young caused a building to blow up while trying to learn his arcane magic, so for "community service" we went to live and work in the temple of Ironi, he stayed there for the long term (70 years) shying away from all his magic afraid he might hurt people again, eventually Sylph itchy feet had him travel, and eventually became comftorble with his powers and learned control, now he likes to think Ironi has had a subtle hand in moving him to accept who he is, his innate powers, and teach him the dicipline he lacked so he could become a Paladin of Ironi, even giving him a Holy Avenger when the time came (the shift to LG came about the time the party found the sword, hence the thinking of taking the class and making sence in character like a sign from Ironi herself) the sylph has Dragon diciple levels and is actually capabable in melee combat so it's not a huge stretch him going toe to toe with someone using his sword

[Bjørn Røyrvik]

In my games not all paladins are equal. those dedicated to different causes have different priorities and different limits. One paladin in my game has no problem sneaking around, scouting, setting up ambushes etc. She will always reveal herself and demand her enemies surrender before attacking, but she is not entirely averse to taking advantage of surprise should the enemy have proven unreasonable. While lawful, she is something of a free-spirit lawful, if you can imagine that. The law is there to protect people and build a better society. In order for this to happen, laws need to be based off goodness and fairness.
She has a sense of humor that does not preclude practical jokes (she snuck into the dwarf's room once and tied pretty pink ribbons in his beard while he slept) or making the odd joke at someone's expense. Joyous, easygoing and vivacious are good words to describe her.

And we've seen other paladins who refuse to take advantage of flanking, combat maneuvers or daze/stun/etc. and generally disliked anything but one-on-one combat opponents because that's dishonorable. Humorless and gruff and strict are keywords.

Or one who always tries to be quiet and reserved and show perfect manners in all situations.

[rorek55]

and so, we come full cycle...

[Ascalaphus]

I recently started playing a paladin of Sarenrae. He's (of course) LG, but actually quite comfortable with other people not being Lawful. He considers being Lawful necessary to doing a good job as a paladin - there has to be discipline, restraint and focus. Some people have to be Lawful so that other people don't have to be.

So I focus on setting a good example, showing mercy, respecting the religious idiosyncracies of harmless people, respect for property rights and such. I don't lie, but I'll shut up and let other people talk if telling the truth would be a bad idea. I'll tell party members we're not going to condone the sale of poison or kidnapping of innocent people, but I also take the front line against a monster nobody in the party really wants to be in melee with. That doesn't mean I rush into foolish combat, but if we have to take a beating, I should be the one taking it rather than the squishies. After all, all these paladin protective powers were meant to be used to protect others, and hopefully survive the process.

Regarding the search for Evil: I'll use Detect Evil liberally, but a Ping doesn't mean a fight, just that I'll be watching that person very sharply to figure out if he's up to something.

[Matsu Miyuki]

Coolest Paladins I know are the knights of justice from black moon chronicles.

[Serious Frog]

What ever it takes to defeat evil.

[Hawriel]

Serious Frog wrote:

What ever it takes to defeat evil.

And thus you become what you fight, evil.

To give a good example on paladins or LG characters done right check out the fallowing characters

Micheal Carpenter from the Dresden Files by Jim Butcher.

Percival from the Mongoliad by Neal Stevenson (and others).

Itkovian from Memories of Ice Malazan Books of the Fallen. By Steven Erikson.

Andy Tailor from the Andy Griffith Show.

Atticus Finch from To Kill a Mocking Bird.

Clark Kent The man known as Superman. Pretty much any thing before the New 52 crap DC is putting out, and Christopher Reeves' Superman. Not that ignorant Man of Steel movie.

[bfobar]

Also, Kaladin from the Stormlight Archives by Brandon Sanderson has a pretty good honor code. He even falls for a bit in the second book.

[bfobar]

I would say just try to come up with a personalized honor code that has elements of lawfulness and goodness that your GM agrees with. And no loopholes. If you think of a loophole, its not a good code.

[Orfamay Quest]

Serious Frog wrote:

What ever it takes to defeat evil.

That's a great way to become an anti-paladin within two sessions.

[The Shaman]

Well, a paladin is lawful enough to fall within the lawful good alignment and have a code s/he adheres to strongly... apart from that, and that the paladin most likely has a deity whose dogma s/he follows, you have a fair bit of leeway. Personally, to me Carrot Ironfoundersson from the Discworld series acts in a way to make many paladins give a standing ovation, although he seldom considers himself anything but a watchman.

Have a code, a fairly strict one, and follow it always, with one exception:

If you have to choose between doing good and following the code, do good.

It could be that you fall, but if you are willing to risk life and limb, you can risk that as well. Perhaps... no, you WILL be wrong. You are a mortal, and fallible, and sometimes change your mind. Sometimes, though... well, I will quote one of the best paladin inspirations: your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world — "No, you move."

And if it doesn't, you will darn well move it or break every bone in your body trying. When push comes to shove, you are the big damn old-school hero.

[rorek55]

Orfamay Quest wrote:

Serious Frog wrote:

What ever it takes to defeat evil.

That's a great way to become an anti-paladin within two sessions.

thats a great way to ruin a players view of his character and his fun.

[The Shaman]

If the player has this view and wants to play a paladin, this CAN lead to a lot of issues in the game.

Whatever it takes to defeat X is a valid philosophy. However, it is not necessarily a fitting philosophy for good characters as PF defines them. These characters are usually defined by, among other things, not doing certain things to people.

[blahpers]

There's nothing in the paladin codes I've read that preclude taunts or insults.

[Orfamay Quest]

rorek55 wrote:

Orfamay Quest wrote:

Serious Frog wrote:

What ever it takes to defeat evil.

That's a great way to become an anti-paladin within two sessions.

thats a great way to ruin a players view of his character and his fun.

Good. There are, as far as I can tell, two character concepts that are very likely to ruin everyone else's fun. The first is the PvP specialist, and the second is the lawful obnoxious paladin. If I can premptively ruin the player's view of his character so that he plays something else, I've saved the fun of four more people at the table.

[HarbinNick]

Inquisitor....what ever it takes to defeat evil
Paladin...what ever it takes to preserve good.

Not the same thing...

[Jaelithe]

HarbinNick wrote:

Inquisitor....what ever it takes to defeat evil

Paladin...what ever it takes to preserve good.

Not the same thing...

Praise be to Allah that someone actually differentiates between the two.

[Cubic Prism]

Play the character, not the box. You can have rude Paladins, nice Paladins, smelly Paladins or ugly Paladins. Try starting out as a nice guy, who believes in his society and genuinely wants to do what's right. See where it goes from there.

[rorek55]

Orfamay Quest wrote:

rorek55 wrote:

Orfamay Quest wrote:

Serious Frog wrote:

What ever it takes to defeat evil.

That's a great way to become an anti-paladin within two sessions.

thats a great way to ruin a players view of his character and his fun.

Good. There are, as far as I can tell, two character concepts that are very likely to ruin everyone else's fun. The first is the PvP specialist, and the second is the lawful obnoxious paladin. If I can premptively ruin the player's view of his character so that he plays something else, I've saved the fun of four more people at the table.

what about "whatever it takes" screams lawful obnoxious to you? If anything, I feel this paladin would bend the law so hard people wonder. the way I see it, unless it really urks the players. Let him play what he wants. tbh, you style seems to encourage DM vs Player mentality. Not bashing your way of GMing, just remind me not to play with you.

there are lines, I agree. But torturing someone perceived as evil to stop the deaths of hundreds if not thousands its fine for a paladin to me. So is stopping the torture of an evil person even under the same circumstances.

[Jaelithe]

Quote:

But torturing someone perceived as evil to stop the deaths of hundreds if not thousands its (sic) fine for a paladin to me.

Then you should be neither playing nor DMing for a paladin, because your moral compass is doing a pirouette.

[Deadmanwalking]

HarbinNick wrote:

Inquisitor....what ever it takes to defeat evil

Paladin...what ever it takes to preserve good.

Not the same thing...

Nothing about the Inquisitor class necessitates this attitude. Inquisitors can, if you like, be the nicest people ever (though they don't have to be).

You're right on the Paladin thing, though.

[Aerotan]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

HarbinNick wrote:

Inquisitor....what ever it takes to defeat evil

Paladin...what ever it takes to preserve good.

Not the same thing...

Nothing about the Inquisitor class necessitates this attitude. Inquisitors can, if you like, be the nicest people ever (though they don't have to be).

You're right on the Paladin thing, though.

I believe the APG's entry for Halfling Inquisitors states this pretty well.

My personal 'defining' Paladin is and likely always will be Michael Carpenter, as someone else mentioned. Good runners up include Uther Lightbringer from Warcraft, al'Lan Mandragoran from the Wheel of Time series, or Obi Wan Kenobi from A New Hope.

[ngc7293]

From Ultimate Magic:

Quote:

All paladins are holy champions of law and good, yet some
devote themselves to specific causes with exceptional
zeal, swearing great oaths to solve specif ic problems
or give their lives trying.

Seems to me the CODE is what you make of it. It isn't written in stone and won't destroy your character. If it does, find a better GM.

[rorek55]

Jaelithe wrote:

Quote:

But torturing someone perceived as evil to stop the deaths of hundreds if not thousands its (sic) fine for a paladin to me.

Then you should be neither playing nor DMing for a paladin, because your moral compass is doing a pirouette.

I don't mind the personal attack, everyone has there own views, I never said I would agree that a paladin would do this 100%. But It doesn't give me the right to bash someones character because they think they would, It is a perfectly viable though that a paladin, who has fought at the world wound for years, would torture a demon, or demon summoner in order to stop a horde of beings rampaging throughout the world. I would also not even begin to consider it an evil act.

[Jaelithe]

rorek55 wrote:

Jaelithe wrote:

Quote:

But torturing someone perceived as evil to stop the deaths of hundreds if not thousands its (sic) fine for a paladin to me.

Then you should be neither playing nor DMing for a paladin, because your moral compass is doing a pirouette.

I don't mind the personal attack, everyone has there (sic) own views, I never said I would agree that a paladin would do this 100%. But It doesn't give me the right to bash someones character because they think they would, It is a perfectly viable though that a paladin, who has fought at the world wound for years, would torture a demon, or demon summoner in order to stop a horde of beings rampaging throughout the world. I would also not even begin to consider it an evil act.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, rorek55. Not all opinions are of equal weight.

Pointing out a flaw in someone's moral stance is not necessarily a personal attack, but in many cases, like this one, more an attempt to enlighten—though I could certainly have been more helpful, circumspect and pleasant about it. My apologies.

That said ...

... all you did above was further assert, spuriously, that an objectively evil act like torture is acceptable to a character class that strives to defeat evil of any sort. The ends do not justify the means to a paladin; therefore, employing a lesser (but clear) evil in an attempt to perhaps avert a greater one is not, by any means, allowable for a paladin. They are idealists, not pragmatists. Torturing an evil being simply lowers you towards, or even to, their level.

So ... no, it is not "perfectly viable," nor is it simply a matter of your opinion versus mine. Objectively, paladins do not commit evil acts if they can by any means avoid them; and the way you avoid torturing someone is by not torturing someone. She would find another way, because that's what paladins do.

On a practical level, United States Army Field Manual FM 34-52: Intelligence Interrogation, explains that torture "is a poor technique that yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say what he thinks the interrogator wants to hear."

An illustration: Say your paladin decides to torture a devil for the purpose of extracting information. She begins her interrogation by asking a few pertinent questions, then smacks him in the face. He's largely unconcerned, and ignores her. She ratchets up the discomfort by punching instead of slapping, punctuating her blows with questions. He continues to resist, but grunts a response or two. She sees this as progress. Eventually, through a long night, she progresses to the point where she's removed three fingers, put out an eye and flayed the skin off his back. Finally, he begs her to stop and answers each and every one of her questions, weeping and broken.

A day later, her disciplined, formidable army, thinking to strike a decisive blow, marches into a perfect ambush that the devil's disinformation—his own superior, knowing his capture a likelihood, lied to him about the disposition and intent of their forces—made possible. (This is an ... ahem ... viable diabolical tactic.) In addition, her opportunity to rally her troops and at least manage an orderly withdrawal and escape comes to naught when her powers fail her at the worst moment—a result of employing torture to extract information ... attempting to break the free will of another being, who, though evil, has the right to their own ego structure and decision-making.

Her splendid troops, dismayed at her failure, are demoralized and slain to a man; she is the last to fall. Her eyes close ...

... and instead of opening on her god(dess), instead she awakens to the sight of the very devil she tortured, now fully recovered, who smiles.

"And now," he says ...

"... let us continue our conversation."

[rorek55]

ok? I never said torture was a good way to gain information, only that the act of it, is not inherently in itself always an evil act though it is Amoral.

That aside, my first point wasn't about army vs a army. It was about gaining information on a plot to loose that army, and by gaining that information, stopping Them before they summon the army. Thus saving countless lives.

I wouldn't play my paladin that way, that doesn't mean I will nessicarlly punish my player for playing a paladin with zeal of that kind.

I am not arguing whether or not torture it a good idea, imo, some people deserve it, but that's beside my point.

from my perspective, someone who has committed many, many evil, and horrible acts, has no right to any rights, at all nor free will that is also slightly beside my point, anyway.

my point is, not to ruin a players fun, that was the whole point of my posting. If a player plays a paladin as an avenger, a purger of evil and protector of the land and if he tortures an evil man, who has committed evil acts in an attempt to stop even more horrible things from coming, or of the sort, I will not rofl god stomp said paladin.

If he begins to torture constantly, without any cause, or for "fun" that's when you rolf god stomp them.

[Jaelithe]

OK. I understand your perspective.

Thanks for clarifying it.

[Deadmanwalking]

rorek55 wrote:

ok? I never said torture was a good way to gain information, only that the act of it, is not inherently in itself always an evil act though it is Amoral.

And this part right here is where you are utterly, terribly, wrong.

Actual, serious, torture is an utterly terrible thing to do to someone in every possible way. It violates their personhood in a profound and awful fashion, and has serious potential to mess them up permanently, to the tune of giving them PTSD, never letting them feel safe again, and other similarly horrifying consequences. It is definitively not an okay thing to do to somebody on a moral level for, well, basically any reason.

I'm gonna use a really ugly example I've used once before when discussing this subject. My apologies if anyone's offended, but the idea that torture is acceptable needs to die in a fire. People need to realize the gravity of what they're saying.

So, to use said example: What about rape? Do you think rape isn't always an Evil act? Because torture and rape are wrong to about the same degree and for all the same reasons. Replace the word 'torture' with 'rape' in my first paragraph and see what I mean.

Now, an argument can theoretically be made that you don't rape someone to get information...except that many real world torturers have done precisely that. And, as was already stipulated, torturing for information is a notoriously bad interrogation strategy anyway.

So, if it's not for information, the only reasons to torture someone are for fun, or to punish the person in question. Those sound a lot like the reasons rapists give, now don't they?

Now, you could argue that the people you're punishing are actually bad and actually deserve it (unlike rape victims)...but would you really be morally okay with raping even people who've done horrible things? Most people wouldn't. Nor believe that having such an attitude was remotely acceptable.

[Jaelithe]

Deadmanwalking is a bit vehement ... but his points are time on target.

[Gregory Connolly]

"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me."

[rorek55]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

rorek55 wrote:

ok? I never said torture was a good way to gain information, only that the act of it, is not inherently in itself always an evil act though it is Amoral.

And this part right here is where you are utterly, terribly, wrong.

Actual, serious, torture is an utterly terrible thing to do to someone in every possible way. It violates their personhood in a profound and awful fashion, and has serious potential to mess them up permanently, to the tune of giving them PTSD, never letting them feel safe again, and other similarly horrifying consequences. It is definitively not an okay thing to do to somebody on a moral level for, well, basically any reason.

I'm gonna use a really ugly example I've used once before when discussing this subject. My apologies if anyone's offended, but the idea that torture is acceptable needs to die in a fire. People need to realize the gravity of what they're saying.

So, to use said example: What about rape? Do you think rape isn't always an Evil act? Because torture and rape are wrong to about the same degree and for all the same reasons. Replace the word 'torture' with 'rape' in my first paragraph and see what I mean.

Now, an argument can theoretically be made that you don't rape someone to get information...except that many real world torturers have done precisely that. And, as was already stipulated, torturing for information is a notoriously bad interrogation strategy anyway.

So, if it's not for information, the only reasons to torture someone are for fun, or to punish the person in question. Those sound a lot like the reasons rapists give, now don't they?

Now, you could argue that the people you're punishing are actually bad and actually deserve it (unlike rape victims)...but would you really be morally okay with raping even people who've done horrible things? Most people wouldn't. Nor believe that having such an attitude was remotely acceptable.

As I said, if he starts doing it frequently, or for no REAL reason, feel free to rofl stomp him. There is a context I am using in the "its ok for -this- that you all seem to be overlooking.

as for your question, If I saw a rapist, being raped. Several times over, I wouldn't bat an eye lash. Just desserts.

[Jaelithe]

rorek55 wrote:

...as for your question, if I saw a rapist, being raped, several times over, I wouldn't bat an eyelash. Just desserts.

"Grammy Flash used to say that the trouble with 'an eye for an eye' is that everyone ends up blind."

[Jaelithe]

blahpers wrote:

There's nothing in the paladin codes I've read that preclude taunts or insults.

Especially taunts or insults that employ the truth to devastating effect.

[rorek55]

Jaelithe wrote:

rorek55 wrote:

...as for your question, if I saw a rapist, being raped, several times over, I wouldn't bat an eyelash. Just desserts.

"Grammy Flash used to say that the trouble with 'an eye for an eye' is that everyone ends up blind."

I never said I advocated it, but I sure wouldn't feel the least bit sorry for him.

[Deadmanwalking]

rorek55 wrote:

As I said, if he starts doing it frequently, or for no REAL reason, feel free to rofl stomp him. There is a context I am using in the "its ok for -this- that you all seem to be overlooking.

No, I'm not overlooking it, I just don't see how it's relevant in context. Doing it once is an Evil act, and Evil acts make ex-Paladins. Depending on context, torturing someone might not change your Alignment...but it's sure as hell an Evil act.

rorek55 wrote:

as for your question, If I saw a rapist, being raped. Several times over, I wouldn't bat an eye lash. Just desserts.

There's a moral distinction between going "Yeah, okay, he had that coming." and doing it yourself. Say the rapist in question is your preferred gender...are you gonna do it? Is that morally acceptable? I'd argue it's not, and the people 'raping the rapist' are doing something morally wrong there. As is standing by and allowing such to happen, to be fair, though to a much lesser degree.

[Jaelithe]

rorek55 wrote:

Jaelithe wrote:

rorek55 wrote:

...as for your question, if I saw a rapist, being raped, several times over, I wouldn't bat an eyelash. Just desserts.

"Grammy Flash used to say that the trouble with 'an eye for an eye' is that everyone ends up blind."

I never said I advocated it, but I sure wouldn't feel the least bit sorry for him.

You can't help how you feel. You can help what you do about it.

A paladin, for example, who had the power to prevent a rape—even the rape of, say, a demoness—and did not intervene, should lose his powers.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

There's a moral distinction between going "Yeah, okay, he had that coming," and doing it yourself.

There is, indeed ... but it's not sufficient to excuse a paladin from inaction.

"All that is required for evil to triumph is that men of good will do nothing."

[I am responding and adding to your post, not correcting you.]

Doing nothing, remember, is a choice to do nothing.

[Deadmanwalking]

Jaelithe wrote:

There is, indeed ... but it's not sufficient to excuse a paladin from inaction.

"All that is required for evil to triumph is that men of good will do nothing."

[I am responding and adding to your post, not correcting you.]

Doing nothing, remember, is a choice to do nothing.

True. Note my final sentence in the above post. It's not as bad, but it's still bad.

I'm not sure I'd have a Paladin fall for allowing the torture of something truly Evil...but he sure would be walking on the edge there.

[Calybos1]

I'd have ANY good-aligned character penalized for permitting torture to occur. It's an unquestionably, objectively evil act--always. Period.

[Jaelithe]

Calybos1 wrote:

I'd have ANY good-aligned character penalized for permitting torture to occur. It's an unquestionably, objectively evil act--always. Period.

Calybos, it's easy enough to penalize a paladin, but how would you go about penalizing a neutral good rogue for doing such a thing?

[Orfamay Quest]

Jaelithe wrote:

Calybos1 wrote:

I'd have ANY good-aligned character penalized for permitting torture to occur. It's an unquestionably, objectively evil act--always. Period.

Calybos, it's easy enough to penalize a paladin, but how would you go about penalizing a neutral good rogue for doing such a thing?

The neutral good rogue does not need to be "penalized" for such a thing, but he would simply cease to be good, and the rest of the world would react accordingly.

[Darien Cedric Espoir]

Calybos1 wrote:

I'd have ANY good-aligned character penalized for permitting torture to occur. It's an unquestionably, objectively evil act--always. Period.

so if you saw a rapist/ child molester being tortured "beaten up" by a mob, you would go out of your way and attempt to stop it? (if you don't see yourself as a -good- person, then this question is mute, note I am not trying to be offensive in any way here.) I would at most, ask why, and ask for proof. If given, I would probably walk away.

personally, in the game, if the paladin asked why this man deserved this torture or "punishment", and was given a good reason, I don't see how he can be called evil for walking away. Lawful good =/ ( I can't stress this enough) does NOT = lawful nice, kind, merciful, or any of that. He follows his gods/churchs laws, the law of the land whenever possible, and his gods "laws". Take torag paladin code for instance. He is ordered by his code to destroy all of his enemies. image

that being said, it is not an act -most- paladins would run around committing. Though LG inquisitors can have a blast!

[Orfamay Quest]

Daren Cedric Espoir wrote:

Lawful good =/ ( I can't stress this enough) does NOT = lawful nice, kind, merciful, or any of that.

Except for the fact that that's exactly what the "good" part of lawful good means.

Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Quote:

He follows his gods/churchs laws, the law of the land whenever possible, and his gods "laws".

You've done a very good job there of defining lawful neutral. NOT lawful good. There's literally no element of "good" there at all.

[Darien Cedric Espoir]

Orfamay Quest wrote:

Daren Cedric Espoir wrote:

Lawful good =/ ( I can't stress this enough) does NOT = lawful nice, kind, merciful, or any of that.

Except for the fact that that's exactly what the "good" part of lawful good means.

Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Quote:

He follows his gods/churchs laws, the law of the land whenever possible, and his gods "laws".

You've done a very good job there of defining lawful neutral. NOT lawful good. There's literally no element of "good" there at all.

A paladin of Torag (LG IIRC) must show NO MERCY or break his code seriously, it states that explicitly. I do not buy that a paladin truly cares about the dignity of a demon/devil, or one who has shown he whole heartedly follows those beings. Perhaps, if he believes he can be redeemed, but this goes only so far.

not many paladins of non-good gods. Most good gods laws are good. most of those who follow good gods tenants/laws are seen as extremely good. Most who do this are of good heart. If your god has tenants against torture, mercy, hatred or the like, then yes, those are barred, doing those things will most certainly draw the ire of your deity. Serving your deity (Iomedea/Sarenrea/Erastil) is usually doing GOOD. When all else fails, a paladin -should- usually fall back onto the tenants of his deity and his code to determine what is good.

[Orfamay Quest]

Daren Cedric Espoir wrote:

I do not buy that a paladin truly cares about the dignity of a demon/devil, or one who has shown he whole heartedly follows those beings

Well, then you can house rule as you like at your table. If you believe that killing and torturing people is a good action, you can make such a sociopathic ruling. Unfortunately, the rules are rather explicit that good people do care about the dignity of sentient beings and that paladins are expected to be good, not neutral.

What you described literally has no aspect of good in it -- therefore it is in no way good.

[The Shaman]

The Torag code has come up as problematic before. A paladin IS supposed to be lawful good, and more ... liberal interpretation of the Torag code is LN at best. Which is sort of ironic, since the Abadar paladins don´t have to be that quite so harsh (though their mercantilistic tendencies are... strange).

By the way, that particular precept can be extremely self-contradictory. You do not accept surrender, so if an enemy tries to flee, what do you do - pursue and kill people who are not defending themselves? The next sentence states that "...even in the struggle against our enemies, I will act in a way that brings honor to Torag." The thing is, most codes of honor do not look favorably on killing someone who does not want to fight, or oppressing non-combatants. Not accepting the surrender of a band of vicious bandits is one thing, but ethnic cleansing of the neighboring kingdom sounds like a direct trip to LN central.

Now, a paladin doesn´t have to be nice or gentle... but s/he must be good, even if it isn´t the easy thing to do.

[Darien Cedric Espoir]

Orfamay Quest wrote:

Daren Cedric Espoir wrote:

I do not buy that a paladin truly cares about the dignity of a demon/devil, or one who has shown he whole heartedly follows those beings

Well, then you can house rule as you like at your table. If you believe that killing and torturing people is a good action, you can make such a sociopathic ruling. Unfortunately, the rules are rather explicit that good people do care about the dignity of sentient beings and that paladins are expected to be good, not neutral.

What you described literally has no aspect of good in it -- therefore it is in no way good.

please tell me when I said torturing people was considered a good act? Several times in fact, I have admitted that torturing people for no reason is evil. And that doing so even with good cause would be Amorale. The LG inquisitor can torture people yes? Why does no one bash him for it? Have you even read my posts?

Paladins kill people, They are the Sword of their god, They feel no remorse in doing what must be done in the face of evil. If you feel killing a demon or demon summoner is an evil act, Feel free to houserule that. If you feel that a paladin not caring about the feelings of a demon or devil, something that he was BORN TO FIGHT, is an evil act, feel free to house rule that as well.

Also I note you do not ever attempt to argue my other points, you pick pieces out of my posts. What about the paladin of torag? How does that work with your view of good? Are paladin of Torag evil because they follow there code?

Are paladins evil, or anyone for that matter, for killing a man, that has committed murder several times over, escaped and killed several captors, and will most certainly do so again? I say they would be evil if they continued to let this man live and carry on with his killing.

are paladin evil if they despise there complete opposites (demons)? If they truly hate them to the point of wiping them out if they could? (well if that's true, I am sure many paladins fall around you)

I have given several examples of why these paladins are good. As of yet you have given nothing to state they are evil/neutral. Since when was following a LG deities tenants considered neutral, or heaven forbid evil?