Would you allow this paladin in your game? (new fiction added 11/11/08)

[GammaPaladin]

I'd allow it.

The Player's Guide doesn't require a Paladin to be religious at all, simply to have strong belief in a cause. I tend to assume the Paladin's powers come from his own conviction.

I would, however, gently suggest to the player in question, that he change his monologue slightly, towards the other knight in the brothel. His irritation at the knight is understandable, as the knight's contempt for the prostitutes and patrons of the establishment is very *un*-paladin-like, in my opinion, but I would suggest to the player that he make more of a point of pointing that out to the other knight, for the sake of clarity, and just because it seems like that would be something Cedric would want to do.

 

[Furby076]

I dunno - gotta stand by my "taking advantage of them" statement. He is. Whether he means to or not, whether the girls think he is or not, he's taking advantage of the situation. He can always just not sleep with them and pay anyway.

I can always pay the cab driver and not ride in his vehicle. Anyhow it is opinion. Not every country/person believe prostitution is wrong - and I am talking about industrialized countries (e.g. Germany). Not even every part of America believes prostitution should be illegal (e.g. nevada)

I have to say I find the 2nd edition comment quite funny, since I never played 2nd edition. All the same: I think you have characterized my comment as if I said, "only direct, frontal assaults are ok" - which I did not. (It's strange to me that "direct, frontal assaults" are characterized by some as the only alternatives to devious tactics.) I think there's a pretty big gap between "using tactics" and "using dishonorable tactics." Poison use is another good tactic to use: but paladins are forbidden, a la RAW. Does that make them stupid? No. It just makes them more honorable in their use of tactics. Traps are pretty much in the same class. Surely we can agree that there's a big gap between "not knocking before breaking down the door" and "setting up a trap designed to kill people unawares?"

Shil never played 2nd ed but is familiar with a lot of it's rules. I never played 1e but am familiar with it. Also, even if you are not familiar with 2nd ed, you have encountered many of its legacies (e.g. paladins having to act lawful stupid) by people you have encountered who still believe in it.
Where in the raw does it say paladins may not use poison? Or Traps?
I can't agree on the trap issue. What if the trap is used to kill a pitfiend and that is the only way to kill the pitfiend?...the alternative is letting the pitfiend live to go pillage a village.

 

[shilsen]

Shil never played 2nd ed but is familiar with a lot of it's rules.

Actually, I played (and DMed) 2e from 1999 until the start of 3e.

Where in the raw does it say paladins may not use poison? Or Traps?

It (the poison reference) is in the description of the Code of Conduct in the paladin class section of the PHB. It says that the code requires a paladin to "act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)". There's no mention of traps, so the individual player/DM will have to decide whether that falls under "and so forth" or not.

 

[evilbob]

I had put in the bit about the trap on purpose because it's another of the things that is not something commonly associated with paladins but which is in enough of a gray area that I think it is usable.

Right - and that's totally fair. It's not called out specifically, so it can't be definitive either way. Personal opinion abounds.

Paladins, by the RAW, are evidently able to use some degree of subterfuge...

Agreed.

Do you let a paladin benefit from flanking bonuses? Or attack flatfooted enemies? Can he hit a clearly weaker enemy with a sword during a battle? Can a paladin/rogue use sneak attacks? Can he let his mage buddy cast a displacement spell on him? Can the mage cast Greater Invisibility on him? Can he use a trap? I would say "Yes" in all of the above cases.

It is interesting that you give this list and then followed it with the sentence about unawares, because it made me think: all of those actions except using traps involves a personal decision on the paladin's part; he is gaining an advantage, but he is not using the advantage unless he wishes to do so. All of those seem like good tactics to me (and I would allow the paladin to do them). The trap use, by contrast, is more like creating a negative situation and unleashing it on the world. He doesn't have as much control over the situation, or who the trap affects. Perhaps this is one substantive difference?

All the same, I guess I still see a clear difference between "taking advantage of an opponent's misstep or distraction in battle" (flanking, AoOs, etc.), or "buffing yourself with spells to maximize your advantage" (greater invisibility, displacement, etc.), and "intentionally tricking someone with something many would consider 'cheating' or 'unfair' in battle, or at the very least disingenuous" (trap use, poison use, etc.).

 

[evilbob]

I can always pay the cab driver and not ride in his vehicle.

Yeah... Don't think you can really compare the two. (Also, the fact that there are a small number of exceptions to whether or not it is illegal doesn't actually challenge my point.)

What if the trap is used to kill a pitfiend and that is the only way to kill the pitfiend?

There's always another way - or else your GM might be railroading you.

 

[evilbob]

And you are a kinder, gentler and happier man for it.

But I heard from a reliable source that playing 2nd Ed. gives you a 19 Int and a 20 Wis! I need those kind of stat boosts!

 

[Furby076]

With regards to poison. If a paladin wants to subdue someone and uses debilitating poison (e.g. Sleep) would that be bad? What if the paladin decides to use poison that reduces stats with the purpose of knocking someone unconscious (disabling them) would that be considered bad? Isn't it more merciful to try and subdue someone then to try and kill someone - as with putting a sword through someones head?

That is why the poison verbage is antiquated and poor. It's OK to smash a mace into someones face, but not OK to put poison on your sword?

I would say a paladin should not use longterm debilitating poison (e.g. something that will cause the person excruciating pain over hours or days). Look at the book of exalted deeds where they have ravages - which is basically a type of poison - that allows exalted good characters to use.

 

[Furby076]

Yeah... Don't think you can really compare the two. (Also, the fact that there are a small number of exceptions to whether or not it is illegal doesn't actually challenge my point.)

There are a large number of exceptions with regards to the legality of prostitution. Not even including Nevada there are many countries that legalized prostitution a long long time ago. It even used to be legal (wholesale) in the US. It does challenge the point.

There's always another way - or else your GM might be railroading you.

Or using poison against an evil creature is ok. Remember things are based on perspective. Hitting an innocent baby with a sword = bad. Hitting a pitfiend with a sword = good. Hitting an innocent baby with poison = bad. Hitting a pitfiend with poison = ??? I say good. YOu say tomato.

 

[evilbob]

That is why the poison verbage is antiquated and poor. It's OK to smash a mace into someones face, but not OK to put poison on your sword?

Oh I know - I agree with you. It's hard, especially in modern times, to conceive of anything that's not an oxymoron when describing "honorable combat." That's partially why this question exists: it's already absurd before you even get started.

 

[evilbob]

It does challenge the point.

Sorry - not going to go there.