Paladins and Self Preservation

[babomb]

However, looking at the situation represented by Quasqueton, the real question put to the paladin is not should I be brave or not, but what purpose or benefit is gained by my sacrifice?
If the story of the Paladin's heroic sacrifice propogates what happens to both sides of the war?
Does it strengthen the resolve of those fighting on the same side?
Does it weaken the resolve or change the hearts of enemies?

A paladin shouldn't plan to be a martyr; that's vanity. It could easily backfire as well: perhaps nobody learns of his death. Worse, if the paladin is a widely-reknowned champion and he's defeated, that could dishearten the paladin's side. If martyrdom is the only argument for fighting, run away.

Now, if collapsing the cavern above him will stop the ghoulish horde, a paladin will do it. But if the only good result of fighting the horde is a slightly smaller horde and POSSIBLE martyrdom, the wise paladin would do well to fall back and regroup.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

A paladin shouldn't plan to be a martyr; that's vanity. It could easily backfire as well: perhaps nobody learns of his death. Worse, if the paladin is a widely-reknowned champion and he's defeated, that could dishearten the paladin's side. If martyrdom is the only argument for fighting, run away.

Now, if collapsing the cavern above him will stop the ghoulish horde, a paladin will do it. But if the only good result of fighting the horde is a slightly smaller horde and POSSIBLE martyrdom, the wise paladin would do well to fall back and regroup.

It is not through vanity that a Paladin would wish such a death. Matyrdom is generally for others to judge. However, there is a certain level of wisdom required to quickly evaluate the consequences of ones actions. If those actions would bring about the greatest good and be a beacon for others, then this is the most obvious course of action for one so devoted to their cause. Running away (or euphemistically "falling back" or "regrouping") should always be the last course of action for a Paladin.

As you say however, there are certain cases where the greater good would not be served by a "meaningless" death.
Often though, heroic acts and acts of honour have a habit of living much longer than the participants of these acts. If you have ever read David Gemmel's Rigante series, you would know exactly the concept I am referring to.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Dancer]

Perhaps staying and fighting is a test of the Paladin's faith. If he doesn't have that faith then he should be a LG fighter. Those special abilities come with a price and a responsibility.

If obediance is one of the tenents that the Paladin has to live by, then he should stand by his vows and his word. It's easy to be honorable when you know you are going to win. It's when all hope is gone then you find where your honor (and faith) truly lies.

 

[Goobermunch]

I think it's time for a PHB check.

<snip>

4. Act with honor
Dictionary Check:
Honor - "honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs or actions" Looks like we're ok there as well.

<snip>

It should be noted that the PHB Code of Conduct does not mention chivalry once. Unless a custom code is written, a paladin has no obligation to adhere to any code of chivalry.

Fair enough, but lets contextualize the term a little bit. The New American Heritage Dictionary reflects a thoroughly modern sense of honor.

But drawing from the source materials a little more, honor implies valor, dignity, integrity, and nobility. Honor is a more complex word than the dictionary presents it to be.

That said, I think the paladin probably shouldn't stand and face overwhelming odds for no reason. If a Pal 1 stumbles into a red dragon's lair, she should probably head on back to town as quietly as possible.

Things are different if there's a purpose behind the action. If the same Pal 1 finds herself standing at one end of a bridge with orders not to allow the enemy to cross, lest they wipe out a defenseless village, the enemy oughtn't get across without stepping over her corpse.

But at the end of the day, the real problem is this: Why is your DM putting your paladin into unwinnable situations? Gaming is cooperative entertainment. It's not supposed to be about punishing a player for picking an archetype to play. If your DM is the type to do this, he or she doesn't know how to play a game.

--G

 

[Joshua Randall]

Further detail on what D&D's Book of Exalted Deeds has to say on this topic.

A good character might ask a number of other questions before leaping up from her seat and charging to the village's aid: good characters aren't necessarily stupid. A good character can be cautious... It's just good sense to learn as much as possible about a foe before plunging into battle.

While not directly relating to fleeing from an overwhelming foe, the above quote does make clear that good characters do not have to attack blindly. They can be circumspect in picking winnable battles.

Some good character might view a situation where an evil act is required to avert a catastrophic evil as a form of martyrdom: "I can save a thousand innocent lives by sacrificing my purity." For some, that is a sacrifice worth making, just as they would not hesitate to sacrifice their lives for the same cause. After all, it would simply be selfish to let innocents die so a character can hang on to her exalted feats.

Unfortunately, this view is ultimately misguided. ... What the character sees as a personal sacrifice is actually a shift in the universal balance of power between good and evil, in evil's favor. (emphasis added)

The passage being quoted is actually about using evil means to a good end. However, I think that arguably, foolishly sacrificing your life against an overwhelming foe is evil -- you are throwing away yourself as a tool of goodness to no purpose other than martyrdom.

A character who dies in combat has not automatically made a heroic sacrifice, nor is she necessarily a martyr. Both sacrifice and martyrdom require a clear decision on the part of the character, a willing sacrifice in order to achieve a higher purpose.

I think this quoted passage is the nail in the coffin of the belief that simply dying in battle is glorious or heroic. It's not. Throwing your life away against a superior foe is just stupid and pointless. There's no higher purpose to getting yourself killed for some miguided concept of honor.

The prosecution rests, Your Honor.

 

[Dancer]

Define "misguided concept of honor"

Honor is only a misguided concept if you don't understand what it is. In game terms, you and your gm have to be clear on what's expected of you. There's a reason that the paladin class is one of the more difficult to qualify for. I don't think you can apply a blanket definition of what is "good" and leave out the tenents of one's religion and god (since in most campaigns, this is the source of a paladin's special abilities).

But, in almost all cases, honor is counted as good and in medieval society, lawful. People top often cover lack of honor as doing what is expedient, so that they can beat the game/monster/dm/dungeon/scenario. Need to torture a prisoner for information, the paladin leaves the room. Getting beat bad in battle, time to run (excuse me, retreat strategically).

Part of the problem is trust in one's gm. If you are playing a paladin, you have to trust that your gm will not constantly put you in situations where the only way out is death or dishonor. But, I'm thinking that same standard applies no matter what alignment or class one is playing.

 

[billd91]

Very often, in war, the commanding officer doesn't know the larger strategic situation. That bridge might be vital. And ask anyone in the army- if your commander tells you to fight to the last man, anything else is disobeying orders or worse.

The paladin's job, in such a situation, is to do his best to faithfully execute his orders. If his liege commands him to lay down his life for the cause, he should do so cheerfully and spend it as dearly as he can.

Witness Faramir.

Well, more appropriately, witness the movie version of Faramir in an exchange with his father. In the books, the mission is not so suicidal as frontally assaulting the overrun city of Osgiliath. It's going out to hold the outer defenses of the Pelennor Fields, which they ultimately retreat from when in danger of being overrun there.
The movie version is a shorthand to show just how far Denethor is willing to push Faramir because he has survived so long while Boromir has died.

But in the case of the forces of good, blatantly suicidal orders should be avoided when at all possible unless the benefit greatly outweighs the loss forces. In modern days, it's typically only the most brutal of dictators who issue such orders. Usually, it's better for an army to give up ground rather than lives. Calculated risk of high casualties is one thing, blatant disregard for the lives of your command is another. Would a paladin be serving in an army characterized by the latter?

 

[sword-dancer]

Originally Posted by Dancer
There really isn't a lot of leeway or interpretation needed for "hold this bridge at all cost, to the last man if need be". Unless given a direct order, or say extraordinary circumstances (such as the entire force flying over the bridge), then I say the Paladin wins or dies at the bridge..

If the necessity or reasons for doing this are outdated, as far as the pally knows then no.
When the forces of evil have taken the and holding the bridge with overwhelming force.
Or thy had bypassed the bridge, or else.. then the sacrifice of the man under his command would b in vain.
And every officer, owns his men not to let them die in vain.

OPr on the march to the bridge the pally detects enemy forces to ouflank their own,would it be wrong to hold them at bay?

 

[dren]

1. depends upon his code of conduct
2. depends upon his god
3. depends upon the circumstances; what is the "greater good." Sometimes if the best way is to break the vow to serve others, so be it. The individual paladin must sometimes pay the price.

My paladin players choose their code, which adds more commandments, as they advance in level. If they chose "no retreat, no surrendur"; that's exactly what it means. In their heart, their life is secondary to their role and their duty. While it may be argued by others that their death will advance the cause of evil or chaos, the paladin will not view it this way.

"Better that you die with honour, then disgrace the vows you have taken. For every act of cowardice will diminish the cause you believe in."

 

[Nasma]

Personally, I think that the key term here is "overwhelming odds", this suggests that the paladin knows that he will not survive the battle if he stays. Given this, we have to look at the situation from the two perspectives of the paladin's alignment: Lawful(ness), and good(ness).

Goodness: This is probably the simplest issue to address, will more good be achieved through staying and dying, or from running away? The issue with this question, however, is that it is the paladin who is making this decision. He must firstly ensure that concerns for his own wellbeing are not overshadowing the larger cause. Secondly, if he has been told to stay, then he must ask himself if he is able to make as informed a decision as his superior is. Does he know all of the facts? Is he as wise as the person who gave him the order? After taking these into account, he must decide whether is is better (from a good perspective) to stay or leave.

Lawfullness: This is a much more difficult situation, as often laws are not entirely clear, or contradict each other. An example where killing one innocent will stop the world exploding (no, there isn't any other way to stop it happening) illustrates the point. In a situation such as this the paladin must ask himself which law takes precedence, "don't kill", or "stop people dying". In the similar situation of the bridge (where the extra few second s will make no difference) the question is "obey orders" vs "stop people dying"/"help the cause".

Even if the paladin can come up with reasonable answers to both of the above sections, there are countless situations where the two will be in conflict. In these situations I believe that it is unduly harsh to penalise the paladin for making either decision, as no answer was "right".

There is another area that the paladin must also consider, that of his own importance. He should be able to put modesty aside and think just how valuable his own exstence is. The situation would be very different if the paladin were on the verge of retirement as opposed to if he were the only person who could close the portal allowing the demonic hoardes to attack his homeland.

Given all of the above concerns, I do not think that it is possible to give a definitive answer as to whether it is OK to run away from overwhelming odds. Each situation must be assessed on its merits. Of course, one could ask why the DM would ever put the PC in a situation where the only choice was death or acting in an unpaladin like manner, as such lose/lose scenarios aren't fun for anyone.