How To Play A Paladin Correctly.

[Olive]

That piece by Shark is, as always, well considered, well writen, and based on a whole pile of assumptions that I don't share. The main one is of course that paladins are the ordained holy knights of a particular society. IMC, they're no such thing. They're the despised warriors of an ethic minority. So the peasants etc. generally ignore them or try to hinder them.

Now, my case is extreme, but not as much as some might thing. What if the nation isn't montheistic? Shark's seems to be, but most DnD games don't have that sort of religious background. What if the Paladins, the king and the peasants all have different gods?

Anyway, there's some really good stuff in there, but it's obviously not suitable to my game. That being said it's certainly not a 'wrong' way to play the class.

 

[Dragonblade]

Of course, Olive. Every campaign is different. SHARK's paladins have heavily influenced my own, although paladins in my world have always had a Punisher-like style.

But basically, there is no "right" way to play a paladin. It all depends on the campaign and the DM.

 

[Rashak Mani]

hehe I figured Paladin codes would get bigger in order to avoid convenient loopholes...

 

[tonym]

The benefit of the doubt is given to the Paladin. He is not second-guessed for each and every decision he makes, or fails to make. It is assumed that if the Paladin had thought it was reasonable to save whoever, he would have done so. If the Paladin thought it was possible to take so and so prisoner, he would have done so. The fact that the Paladin didn't, it isn't therefore assumed that he is wrong. People assume that the Paladin executed Judgement, Wrath, or Mercy, as needed, and as the Paladin thought best.
---SHARK

Brilliant!


Tony

 

[Olive]

Brilliant!

All I could think was that it must be fun to be a fallen paladin in Shark's games before anyone knows...

 

[reapersaurus]

That piece by Shark is, as always, well considered, well writen, and based on a whole pile of assumptions that I don't share.

What if the nation isn't montheistic? Shark's seems to be, but most DnD games don't have that sort of religious background.

I completely agree.
SHARK's world is scarily monotheistic, and IMO fascist (this is verifiable if you can access his Vallorea threads).

It is an extreme world, with an equally-extreme approach to Paladins.
Anyone is free to play like that, but don't be pushing that approach on a D&D Paladin, because it doesn't hold up.
D&D Paladins are NOT like Punisher.
If that is your preferred style of play, you should make a alternate class to fit it better.

 

[babomb]

Here's a paladin code I stole from someone else on the boards.

Actions that may result in a paladin’s punishment:
<ol>
<li>If the paladin commits rape. </li>

<li>If the paladin purposely violates a lawful order given by proper authority. (rulers, etc.) If the order was unlawful/unjust, or despite being lawful, the disregarding of said orders was appropriate because of information that the paladin has, then no punishment is warranted.</li>

<li>If the paladin purposely, and with malicious intent, murders someone who:
<ol> <li> Isn't attacking him, or anyone, with deadly force, or credibly threatening to do so. (E.g., drunken old men in the tavern do not count.)</li>
<li> The paladin does not have warrant to attack. (No foreknowledge of said villain, dangerous criminal, rebel, or cultist, etc.) </li>
<li> A creature, or class of beings that is not generally assumed to be EVIL: e.g., demons, devils, great and terrible monsters (Evil/Chromatic Dragons, Bullettes, Purple Worms, the Tarrasque, etc.), non-intelligent undead, and most intelligent undead. Non-intelligent creatures may safely be slain. Creatures with intelligence of 1 or 2 (for reasons other than ability damage) are animals, and killing them doesn’t constitute murder. However, the paladin respects all life, and only kills such creatures if the pose a “real” threat to the paladin or others, or if needed for food or materials. (Slaughter of animals may be punished to a lesser extent.)</li></ol></li>

<li> If the paladin is has purposely, maliciously been deceitful for purposes beyond serving an "ultimate good." That is:
<ol> <li> Paladins should generally act in a loving manner towards people (Loving being defined as what is ultimately the best for them, expressing the most respect for them as people, wanting the best in life for them, and treating them how you would desire to be treated).</li>
<li>"Always" being totally honest with people can sometimes get people killed, cause the loss of jobs/reputation, or simply really hurt someone’s feelings needlessly. Thus, the paladin should strive to be honest when possible, but he may, and in certain cases should, be dishonest if doing otherwise would cause loss of life, suffering, or unwarranted punishments to befall any creature. He may also exercise tact. He may not be dishonest to serve any greedy or malicious purpose.</li>
</ol></li>

<li>If the paladin commits theft of whatever amount or value. Stealing an apple is, in the larger context, dishonorable in the same way that stealing a masterwork greatsword, or whatever. The punishment won't be the same, of course, but the level of disapproval is the same. Stealing may be justifiable only in the name of good (raiding villains’ armories, stealing medicine or food for needy people - only if the paladin cannot otherwise reasonably obtain it).</li>
<li>If the paladin becomes involved in a lifestyle of sexual immorality. For example, if the paladin gets wild one night during celebrations, and enjoys a relationship with a whore, and afterwards, he feels bad about it, feels guilty, enters into prayer, and so on--by himself--no punishment is necessary. Should he do it again, and again, by degree, frequency, and so on, the paladin may receive a vision, have some kind of dream, onwards up to the loss of powers.</li>

<li>If the paladin should act in such a way as to be dishonorable. If the paladin was to shaft a friend, or desert a comrade in need. Or heartlessly ignore the pleadings of innocent people suffering under attack or oppression. For example, should the paladin pretend to offer to parley, only to go ahead and stab the other party, or if the paladin formally gives his word of honor that he will do, or not do, whatever, and then violates it. As an example, a group of Orcs after combat specifically offers to peacefully surrender, if the paladin promises not to kill them, and to treat them well. If the paladin agrees, and then instead tortures them, and executes them, major punishment would come down!

However, if the paladin then escorts the Orc-prisoners and someone of HIGHER AUTHORITY takes control of them, and later executes them, or does any kind of atrocity to them, the paladin in question may be angry, or sad, and may try to save them or whatever, but the paladin isn't held to be guilty at all. He did what he promised. That is keeping his word of honor. Any vicious atrocities committed would be accounted to the person who did them. The paladin isn't responsible for what other people choose to do. He would, let’s say, while escorting the Orc-prisoners, feed them, water them, and protect them, even with his life, from all harm. Until the Orcs be turned over to higher, proper, authority. Proper authority, of course, is empowered to then render an official and binding judgment.</li>

<li>If the paladin should offer sacrifices and offerings to false gods, evil gods, etc. The paladin's patron god/gods expect faithfulness from such a worshipper who has been so blessed. The paladin may freely give offerings or pray to good or neutral gods who are not his patron deity.</li>
<li>If the paladin should begin a process of attitudes, or adopting philosophies, that are anathema or heretical to the "True Faith." This, while not damnable in one instance, over time represents a form of "spiritual adultery" that will, eventually, bring wrath and judgment down upon the compromising paladin.</li>
<li>If the paladin should take direct actions, or refuse noble duties and requests, out of a sense of greed. Of constantly wanting more and more wealth, of being willing to sacrifice a friend, or the mission, so as the paladin may gain wealth: gold, gems, magic, whatever. Even the prospect of acquiring a Holy Avenger while honorable in itself, acquiring it at the expense of your comrades, or your honor, is thus guilty of getting a "right" thing by the wrong methods, or attitudes.</li>

<li>If the paladin should use poison, unless this is absolutely necessary. A true paladin would consider the undue use of poison cowardly, at best. The use of starvation tactics (e.g. laying siege, cutting off supplies of food/water from troops) is only slightly more tolerable, and the paladin will try to allow enough food and water to ensure that no deaths result, if circumstances permit.</li>

<li>If the paladin ignores requests for help, except in the event that more pressing needs present themselves. Not trying to help a kid being attacked by thugs because he needs to go shopping is bad. If, on the other hand, the paladin is racing against time to save the world and passes by a city that is under attack by a huge Orc army, he is not obligated to help since:
<ol><li> it’s debatable whether or not the one paladin would have made much of a difference, and </li>
<li> if the world blows up, it doesn’t matter whether the Orcs took over the city or not.</li></ol></ol>
The paladin may commit minor offenses in extreme circumstances, and to prevent more major ones from occurring. It is generally reasonable, and justifiable, both in a moral sense, and logically, that the acknowledged sacrifice of "some" innocent lives, while prosecuting the struggle against the forces of darkness is while tragic, and regrettable, is nonetheless often unavoidable, and thus generally acceptable. What constitutes a reasonable violation is up to the paladin’s god, and thus the DM. The player is entitled to defend the actions of his paladin, but if the DM afterwards decides that the paladin was still guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then the matter is closed. Note, however, that it is important to distinguish between "Evil" behaviors/actions, and "foolish/dumb/immature/wrong" behaviors, as they are not the same. The paladin may do many of the latter, and shouldn't be punished, beyond a possible censure or slap on the wrist for repeated behavior. The other in-game consequences of such behavior should be more than enough to teach the character his lesson without losing his powers in addition.

 

[Dragonblade]

I completely agree.
SHARK's world is scarily monotheistic, and IMO fascist (this is verifiable if you can access his Vallorea threads).

It is an extreme world, with an equally-extreme approach to Paladins.
Anyone is free to play like that, but don't be pushing that approach on a D&D Paladin, because it doesn't hold up.
D&D Paladins are NOT like Punisher.
If that is your preferred style of play, you should make a alternate class to fit it better.

Vallorea is not monotheistic. The Vallorean pantheon is composed of many gods, several of which have paladin orders but not all of them.

Paladins of the gods Ulrick and Valinar are the most famous and militant of his paladin orders and when he wrote the above code it was probably with them in mind. But I believe the code is broad enough to apply to most paladins but ultimately, there is no "right" way to play a paladin.

The play of a paladin, must by its very nature depend heavily upon the campaign and the DM running it. SHARK's game and my own are not nice sugar coated worlds where every bad guy wants to negotiate and keeps his word.

They are fantasy worlds replete with dark gods, cults, necromancers, and millions of orcs, beastmen, ogres, trolls, demons, etc. whose insatiable hunger for death, oppression, conquest and the enslavement of people everywhere can only be turned back by ruthless and militant paladins.

Modern political thought cannot be applied so easily to a fantasy world because the context is wholly different.

In our modern society we condemn the Inquisition because we know that there were no demons and the threat of heretics within the church was likely fabricated to maintain the personal power of certain corrupt officials through terror and censorship. There were not really any witches, cultists, or heretics to be rooted out and burned at the stake.

However, in Vallorea and in my own campaign world, magic is real, dark gods are real too. There really are secret cults of bloodthirsty necromancers devoted to demonic lords. If the church didn't hunt down and destroy evil, if the church didn't promote devotion to the faith to protect people, the people really would be enslaved, sacrificed, raped, or murdered. The threat is not rhetoric, it is all too real.

Furthermore, there is no socioeconomic oppression in Vallorea or censorship or bookburnings. There is national pride, but such is to be expected when you know that your gods are real and you know that they consider you their chosen people. When you can look around you and see the benefits of your god's protection and magic, and you can see the threat that dark magic and gods hold for your civilization.

Valloreans are free to live as they will, to own property, to run a business, to travel freely. There is no oppression.

Likewise, racism implies that orcs are a race capable of moral self-determination. In SHARK's world that isn't the case. They are twisted minions of chaos and the dark gods, corrupt and evil much like Tolkien's orcs.

But to races that are not vile creations of the dark gods, and even to such individual orcs who prove to be exceptions to their kind, the Valloreans would treat them with respect and even kindness. Certainly there are some Valloreans who could be called "racist" in the modern sense, but they do not reflect the culture as a whole.

And finally, I have yet to hear any argument of why the Punisher would not be a paladin. Most arguments revolve around the "he breaks the law" notion. That is surely true when you look at the Punisher in the context of a modern society built upon secular foundations of jurisprudence.

But if you put the Punisher in the context of a medieval fantasy world, where modern secular notions of law do not exist and where the Punisher's actions are perfectly in line with the doctrine of a LG church, then you see the Punisher as a paladin is a natural fit.

 

[Endur]

Shark's code is not really a punisher code.

Its more of an idealistic knight code. A knight who has been empowered to do "justice."

It definitely fits the "Lawful Good" ideal.

Now, there may be some that see it as the "punisher" from other threads, but it doesn't mean you have to role play a "punisher".

 

[hong]

The play of a paladin, must by its very nature depend heavily upon the campaign and the DM running it. SHARK's game and my own are not nice sugar coated worlds where every bad guy wants to negotiate and keeps his word.

They are fantasy worlds replete with dark gods, cults, necromancers, and millions of orcs, beastmen, ogres, trolls, demons, etc. whose insatiable hunger for death, oppression, conquest and the enslavement of people everywhere can only be turned back by ruthless and militant paladins.

with bubblegum.


Hong "out of bubblegum" Ooi