You're confusing a Lawful alignment with acting within the law, when they do not innately have anything to do with each other.
Also, I don't think Dex drain (numbness and eventual paralysis) is worth falling if you consider taking them down with non-lethal damage (cracking them in the head until they lose consciousness) to be the Paladin thing to do.
As you said, it's best judged on a case-by-case basis and would mostly depend on the deity that the paladin serves.
Not really more complicated than that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From the paladin description under code of conduct:
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.
Poison use isn't forbidden because of alignment, it is forbidden because of that entry about honorable behavior. A lawful good character can arguably use poison without affecting their alignment. A paladin however has both alignment and the code to worry about, and by RAW, poison use is explicitly forbidden.
I personally prefer to alter and personalize paladin codes, and prefer to allow poison use.
While I consider it dumb, the code of conduct specifically calls out using poison as a dishonorable act, which is against the paladin's code. It's not an evil act to use poison in and of itself. That's determined by what it is used for. But it's still forbidden by the paladin's code. So they would still fall as the code says any violation of it makes you fall.
I really miss when it read Grossly Violates the code of conduct.
Gray Paladins can.
People read the parenthetical bits after 'act with honor' as some kind of strict rules text, but they're there to try to give general examples of honorable behavior. It's possible to come up with situations where lying or even using poison could be considered the 'honorable' thing to do, even if it's pretty unlikely. Trying to lawyer through Code issues instead of using sense and judgement tends to produce obnoxious results (and maybe obnoxious players or GMs).
From the paladin description under code of conduct:
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.Poison use isn't forbidden because of alignment, it is forbidden because of that entry about honorable behavior. A lawful good character can arguably use poison without affecting their alignment. A paladin however has both alignment and the code to worry about, and by RAW, poison use is explicitly forbidden.
I personally prefer to alter and personalize paladin codes, and prefer to allow poison use.
Given a world with absolutes of alignment, why would anyone have a problem with codes involving absolutes of behavior? Absolute prohibitions in this case. The people who do probably have problems with the alignment system too. But as Makeitstop points out this prohibition has to do with honor. For me, the no poison rule is about honor. It's not supposed to be easy. Being a Paladin. You're supposed to give, and receive, hard blows. Hard to do when the opponent is paralyzed or asleep. What have you risked then? What have you sacrificed? It's a kind of medieval mind set, but hey, my game has a strong dose of that in it.
Further I would argue that lawful good is built around codes of behavior. Hence the lawful. The Paladin's code is just pickier and more exacting than most. I would expect chaotic good characters to decide behavior on the fly, situationally btw.
All imo, of course and, as always, ymmv.
Now, could you construct a different code for a different take on Paladins? I suppose so, but then there's no need to ask questions about poison use then.
Treaty, & treaties.
Treatise is a fancy word for writings on a topic.
Creating repeated typos is definitely a chaotic act.
Perhaps one of the most frustrating elements of pathfinder is the tendency of players to Rules lawyer absolutely everything.
The paladin is the honorable knight in shining armor atop a noble steed bleed by his god to be a black and white instrument of his will in a grey world. Spoofs on the paladin exist and so do different codes, but this is the iconic archetype. So, the paladin comes with a code. Don't be evil. Don't be dishonorable. Meet your enemies on the field of battle. Make the right decision even when it's hard. Especially when it's hard. That means no poison or cheap shots or dirty tricks or black mail. Pretty clear. That also means no getting your enemies drunk so they are an easier fight. No poisoning them, even with sleep arrows. That's dishonorable. Violation of the code.
Pretty simple. Don't try to play lawyer ball to find a way to justify poison use. Other good people can use poison, the paladin is better than that.
If you want to use the paladin class as a basis to play something that isn't a paladin because it most closely resembles the concept you have, talk with your GM. But don't try to twist the rules as written to technically get away with something not in the spirit of the class. Just be honest, sit down with your gm and tweak some stuff to fit the GMs fame world.
And now we have Tyrant Anti-Paladins, who really can be Paladins of Asmodeus.
What a time to be alive.
Poison is great for killing Fiendish Termites, just ask Sir Ortho! Unfortunately he fell since the Paladin's "Code of Conduct" specifically mentions not using poison. Now he's a twisted vestige of his former self, an Anti-Paladin who tracks down and murders intelligent arthropods wherever he finds them.
Perhaps one of the most frustrating elements of pathfinder is the tendency of players to Rules lawyer absolutely everything.
The paladin is the honorable knight in shining armor atop a noble steed bleed by his god to be a black and white instrument of his will in a grey world. Spoofs on the paladin exist and so do different codes, but this is the iconic archetype.
You do understand that the moment an iconic archetype appears, the urge to deconstruct it immediately follows? Especially in a generation that can't help, but meet the concept of the Paladin with cynicism and suspicion in a world that's considerably more greyer than that which included the original Gygax home games.
I've had Paladins who fit the icon, in fact the last one I've played with has. I've also had gritty Paladins in mostly unkempt armor, worn and worldweary, who had contempt for most authority. Yet that one kept to the code as much as the first one did. The latter Paladin wouldn't use poison because of squeamishness, but because he considered it the tool of the corrupt nobility he so despised.
The code does allow a lot of roleplaying variety while keeping within it.
The problem with that is that the world isn't black and white, and the element's of a paladin's code will often come into conflict. If using poison is necessary to "help those in need" or "punish those who harm or threaten innocents" a paladin might be not only permitted to do so, but obliged to. For that matter, any circumstance in which failure to use poison constitutes an "evil act" can justify its use on the basis of the paladin code.
See, that's the difficulty of a paladin. His expectations are black and white. Divinely set. And he has to keep to those even if it feels bad. But he doesn't get to lower himself to the level of his foes. His code says no dishonorable acts - no poison.
Now, a cleric or an inquisitor? They aren't so tightly bound. Poison that group of bandits for the good god. That's all kosher.
Meet your enemies on the field of battle. That means no... cheap shots or dirty tricks or black mail. Pretty clear.None of these are actually prohibited by the code, unless the circumstances make them dishonorable or evil.
And this is part of what I'm talking about. The code says "Act with honor" and then lists a few examples, which is by no means a comprehensive list. Despite that, people act like that's not only a comprehensive list, but it can be bargained around. No, behave with honor. Don't do cheap shots. Don't sneak attack.
Now, could a fighter use poison, cheap shot people and spit wine in their face to blind them all while being honorable? Sure. But the paladin isn't about "Mostly honorable", it's about being the bar by which honorable, good and noble are set. Even if it's hard.
Lots of wikipedia links of different concepts of honor throughout human history, many of which are quite varied
Look, when I said "The honorable knight" you don't imagine a guy spitting wine into somebody's face, kicking them in the crotch, or refusing to snitch to the police. You get a clear image. That's the guy you play when play the paladin. That's the image the class is designed for. Sure, you can bring up how advil is technically a biological poison based on how it behaves with the body systems and use that to justify why paladins can use one type of poison and thus all of them. You can bring up omerta and insist that the core paladin class can exist using the laws of omerta. That's not what the class was designed to evoke.
Wanting to play those things, the knight of omerta? That sounds freaking bad ass. I want to play that. But it's not the paladin. I'd design an archetype to capture that with a different code of honor that specifically addresses that, change up some of the abilities.
You do understand that the moment an iconic archetype appears, the urge to deconstruct it immediately follows? Especially in a generation that can't help, but meet the concept of the Paladin with cynicism and suspicion in a world that's considerably more greyer than that which included the original Gygax home games.
The code does allow a lot of roleplaying variety while keeping within it.
Of course! That's part of the fun of the game. One of the best prestige classes in 3.5 was the Gray Guard. It was Jack Bower the Paladin. I'm actually think the Paladin shouldn't have been brought over to pathfinder, but should have been relegated to an archetype. Same with the bard exactly because they don't have the same power they did back last generation.
But either way, I'm not opposed to people playing "Something like a paladin, but not quite there" - in fact I have a stable of custom archetypes I've designed for and with players to help them meet character concepts. And if it's really close, like many of your example, just talking with your GM will do it and going over where it deviates from the traditional paladin.
My problem isn't any of that - it's when people feel the need to try to play lawyer ball to get around a limitation they don't like. Because every rule in this game is designed to help you facilitate a style of play that is enjoyable to you and your group. That means throwing entire books out, or classes, or archetypes, or tweaking things. But when you look at the core paladin and say "I want to play that" - you are signing up for something straight out of 1975. Enjoy that! It's a lot of fun to try to play the pure character in a dark world, and see him stumble along the way (Especially if you can talk with your GM about maybe going 3 strikes instead of 1 and done.)
If that's not what you want, tweak it. Don't try to argue that honor is a nebulous concept that can't be accurately applied to any individual in a diverse and complex world, thus any attempt to pursue it will automatically be doomed to fail, meaning that honor isn't a thing you can uphold at all, thus it doesn't apply to you. All of that might be true from a greater sociological standpoint, but it isn't to the paladin.
This is not a RAW answer, but it seems to me that using poison secretly would cause the paladin to fall. Poisoning an enemy's food, shooting a poisoned dart from hiding, etc. However, I suppose I might allow it in combat when the paladin and enemy are face to face, and each knows that it is a fight to the death. Seems no more evil than just hacking at an enemy with a sword until it stops moving and dies.
It always boils down to which aspect of code is superior to another. - It would be impossible for any paladin to live very long if it were not possible for one to make a judgement as to which code takes precedence at a given time.
Yes, there is an awful lot of self-sacrifice when it comes to the Paladin code but it is not meant to be a suicide pact.
A paladin tasked with dealing with someone who has been possessed by an evil force under the spell of evil force could easily be encouraged to make use of poison in order to ensure the safety of the spiritual hostage while making attempts to excorcise the beast within. - That same paladin could also decide to slay the host. - Both are technically correct, but the obvious choice in order to uphold the majority of the code would be to use poison to save the hostage, and then go after the spirt.
A paladin tasked with hunting a creature that cannot be effectively killed without making use of a specific type of poison is also unlikely to have much of a dilemma when it comes to the code. I doubt the paladin's chosen deity encourages the paladin to submit himself to certain death. - If this is the case, then paladins should never fight vampires with silver weapons, amongst other myriad examples.
A paladin that eats meat (especially true 'gentleman', i.e. one with a gentle disposition), could easily justify the use of sleeping/paralisys poisons when taking game in order to avoid unnecessary pain for the animal.
Alignments are not absolutes. Alignments are only poles on the moral compass. In the case of a paladin, the 'fluctuation' between poles is on a much narrower margin, but it is still there. - As soon as you start trying to force absolutes, you end up with absolutely ignorant situations that violate the spirt of the paladin's code even more than the perceived rules break would.
(EDIT)It is this assumed absolutism that generally makes the paladin to be the character that everyone else in the gaming group wants dead. Further, by mere association with an adventuring party, this paladin should authomatically fall.
If poison use is absolutely wrong, why is associating with someone who is using poisons on my behalf OK?
If sneak attacks and indirect assaults are absolutely wrong, why is it OK for me to affiliate with a mercenary fighter who prefers ambush and flanking tactics?
If I must destroy all evil in my path, than it must be OK for me to destroy those who are possessed, misguided, or have 'forgiveable' motives as well.
If I must do everything in my power to save innocents, how come I do not immediately surrender to enemies taking hostages?
And now we have Tyrant Anti-Paladins, who really can be Paladins of Asmodeus.
What a time to be alive.
What book is this in?
When the code mentions poison I am think it means with the attempt to harm someone. I am sure if a paladin used wolfsbane(poison and cure for lycanthropy) on someone he would not fall.
Another thing about this discussion is that some of you seem to be using the most literal reading of the code, and others are using an intent based reading. It might help if everyone clarifies how they are reading it.
Another thing about this discussion is that some of you seem to be using the most literal reading of the code, and others are using an intent based reading. It might help if everyone clarifies how they are reading it.
It has to be read from a perspective that balances intent of the action against the both potential and actual consequences.
Surrendering to a hostage taker might save an innocent in the short term, but leads to the death of the paladin and the hostage both in the long term.
Setting of an apocalyptic event may save a whole lot of innocents (If they're dead they can't be corrupted by evil, right?) while vanquishing evil at the same time, obviously falls short of the paladin code somehow.
Selling off your equipment to feed the poor might be awesome, but now you don't have the equipment anymore to slay evil.
Trying to work in absolute causes absolute choices to need to be made in an either/or fashion. In most cases it is a qualified both. I need to slay evil and protect the innocent, but not too much of either.
I guess some clever DM could construct a devilish trial where you are forced, perhaps even magically compelled, to choose "the lesser of two Evils" and either press a button to administer deadly Poison to a despicable Demon behind a Wall of Force or allow that Demon to eat some children. I suppose how harshly to judge the Paladin who presses the button ("At least I saved the children") or the one who refuses to press it ("At least those children might now become Archons who can take holy vengeance upon Demons.") is up to the DM, "the gods", maybe the Multiverse, and perhaps James Jacobs.
I hope that moral conundrums like that are pretty rare in actual play though. I'd guess that more often somebody who wants Paladins to be able to use Poison without falling either wants extra power or perhaps just to be oppositional or ironic like "My Paladin specializes in Poison. Isn't that unusual?" They could also just be some kind of message boards innovator trying to start a big thread on Paladins falling. I think I've seen something like that before...
Oh, look... A Paladin Code thread...
Aaaaaaand... Hide.
XP
Oh, look... A Paladin Code thread...
Aaaaaaand... Hide.
XP
One secret trick to hiding is not engaging in conversation...
When the code mentions poison I am think it means with the attempt to harm someone. I am sure if a paladin used wolfsbane(poison and cure for lycanthropy) on someone he would not fall.
Another thing about this discussion is that some of you seem to be using the most literal reading of the code, and others are using an intent based reading. It might help if everyone clarifies how they are reading it.
I read it literally, but I also recognize that doing so leads it to be nonsensical. I mean poison doesn't have to be lethal, and can help with nonlethal take downs. But RAW, which was an edit from the original 3.5 code where the paladin could actually get away with using poison to a degree, says no using poison.
Ultimately boils down to codes frickin' awful if you're forced to play by the rules as written. I personally when I run just return the misplaced word Grossly right between the words who and violates.
While I'd never resort to poison use as a paladin (at least not the ones I've played thus far), I could see a paladin of the appropriate deity (Erastil, Torag, or Irori perhaps) using drow poison or oil of taggit to knockout an enemy without dealing excessive damage. Resorting to unconsciousness instead of crippling injuries or death is far more merciful. I just can't see ability damaging poisons ever being used by paladin.
Of course, you could always use the Gray Paladin archetype from Ultimate Intrigue, which gives you more freedom to fulfill your role as a paladin (including using poison) without becoming fallen.
Code of Conduct: A gray paladin must be of lawful good, lawful neutral, or neutral good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act (for example, casting a spell with the evil descriptor). She should strive to act with honor and uphold the tenets of her faith, but failing to do so is not a violation of her code, and other than evil actions, she can do whatever else she feels is necessary to uphold the causes of law and good.
This ability replaces the paladin’s code of conduct and associated abilities and alters the section on ex-paladins.
Unfortunately, AFAIK there isn't anything saying that the alternative codes replace the normal one. It makes the whole thing a little more murky.
Hmm, I might pop over to the "ask JJ" thread and toss the question out there.
EDIT: ...and done.
In my campaign:
The rules of chivalry prohibited the use of poisons, ranged weapons or offensive spell casting (healing / protective were allowed) during combat by the knight in question. Thus Paladins, Cavaliers, etc were bound by these restrictions. Should they violate these rules they were considered "fallen". Paladins lost their spells, where as other characters such as a knight / cavalier lost their honor and prestige.
NOTE: this is how I ruled on it in my home game, and is a discussion I'd encourage you to have with your DM to see how they would rule on it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...The deity-specific paladin codes are 100% meant to exist the "normal" paladin code. The normal code is for world-neutral generic paladins, and once a paladin worships a deity on Golarion, they're no longer world-neutral and must follow deity specific codes.
If a code doesn't cover a topic, then the paladin needs to extrapolate from the code. In this case, nothing in Shelyn's code says anything about using ANY sort of poison, so she's perfectly fine using knockout poison or any other to help her live up to the code.
(Remember, while poison is often used by assassins and other evil characters, poison itself is NOT evil. Guardian nagas and couatls both have poison that can kill outright, and both of them are lawful good. It's how you use the poison that affects alignment, as with any other tool, not the mere fact that you use it.)
And there we have it.
...
The deity-specific paladin codes are 100% meant to exist the "normal" paladin code. The normal code is for world-neutral generic paladins, and once a paladin worships a deity on Golarion, they're no longer world-neutral and must follow deity specific codes.
If a code doesn't cover a topic, then the paladin needs to extrapolate from the code. In this case, nothing in Shelyn's code says anything about using ANY sort of poison, so she's perfectly fine using knockout poison or any other to help her live up to the code.
(Remember, while poison is often used by assassins and other evil characters, poison itself is NOT evil. Guardian nagas and couatls both have poison that can kill outright, and both of them are lawful good. It's how you use the poison that affects alignment, as with any other tool, not the mere fact that you use it.)
And there we have it.
Homebrew forum. No setting mentioned. Discussing generic Paladin Code, honor and poison. It's already been mentioned upthread that a different code might change the use of poison... and various other Paladin Codes have been mentioned. If the code in question didn't have a poison prohibition we wouldn't be having this discussion. Well, not this specific one anyway. At times people in this thread has seemed to want a distinction between lethal and non lethal poisons for the generic code. And of course the "use poison or watch children be murdered" bit has been trotted out to attack the generic poison prohibition... pretty much your standard paladin alignment / code thread :)