Blood Crazed Paladin Fights The Man

[Darkness]

The paladin is perfectly within his rights to slay the evil monsters. He is under no obligation to accept their surrender or offer them mercy.

Right - he can decide to risk (or even lose) his lawful alignment (and thus, paladinhood) any time.

If he intends to stay lawful (and a paladin), though, he must not act as chaotically as you are suggesting.

A paladin is not a Robin Hood-style freedom fighter, or even a vigilante in defiance of the laws of the land; he's a warrior of law and good.

Thus, he can't just slay anyone he feels like, but instead has to see to it that evildoers are captured and made to stand trial (i.e., the proper, lawful procedure for such matters); he can only hurt them if they are resisting the lawkeepers.

Holding up a code of honor or chivalry will inconvenience you sometimes (duh!); it's never the easy way.
But it's exactly these principles (and the commitment to good, of course) that separate a paladin from a (morally) lesser man.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Copied from the other pseudo-paladin thread:

Lawful has nothing to do with laws, people. It has to do with adherence to a set code of behavior and the belief that a regimented society is preferable to anarchy. The D&D development team would have done us all a service if they'd changed the term from "Lawful" to "Order." Heck, the counter to Chaos Hammer is Order's Wrath.

That being said, being a paladin has little to nothing to do with "respecting the laws of the land." The paladin respects that the land has laws, because he believes that the order of a society with strict laws will produce the greatest good. But he does not have to follow every law. He does not have to turn over every prisoner to "local authorities."

Ordered means the paladin has a code he follows. He does things the same way in the same situation. He follows his beliefs unwaveringly. If his code demands that he kill every evil creature he comes across, then he does so. If it demands that he whack every villian he comes across with a wet fish, he does that every time. There is no case-by-case, there is no second-guessing. A particular cause has a particular effect, every time.

A Chaotic character does what seems appropriate when the situation comes up. He has no set rules, follows no guidelines. One day, setting the prisoners free might seem the "good" thing to do. Another day, killing the prisoners where they stand might seem the "good" thing to do. He is free to choose each day, each instant, what he feels is the good and proper thing to do. And he does.

 

[Darkness]

Copied from the other pseudo-paladin thread:

Why bother, though? It's quite flawed.

Without going into any more detail, I submit the following:

PHB, p. 43:
... Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor ...

 

[Kyramus]

ok this is what I would do.

1) he is a paladin, paladins are known to accept mercy and take prisoners.

2) he is a paladin among paladins that has accepted the surrender of enemies. WHY would he go against it? Does he want to play the fallen paladin route and try to atone? if so, oblige him, otherwise inform him that his actions is against the code of paladins.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I can play the quote game too:

From the PHB:

Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy.

Note how it doesn't say "fights evil until it surrenders, then takes it to jail."

You quote that a paladin must respect legitimate authority, as if that in any way proves a paladin must obey the laws of the land, which it doesn't. Respect doesn't mean obey. And legitimate is in the eyes of the beholder, in this case, the paladin.

Perhaps you should go into further detail, instead of taking cheap shots, like "why bother?", eh?

[Edit] While citing a Story Hour is hardly proof, I believe you read Piratecat's SH? Recall when Mara decided against taking Malachite in, in spite of the mandate of her Church? Clearly an example of a paladin respecting an authority, without necessarily obeying it. [/edit]

 

[Darkness]

I can play the quote game too:

Heh. You can play, but you can't win.

Note how it doesn't say "fights evil until it surrenders, then takes it to jail."

Stop trying to muddy the issue, dude.

Okay - let's try this again.

The description of a paladin's code of conduct clearly states that they are to respect legitimate authority.

With me so far?

Now, as you quoted in your post, some paladins "kill evil without mercy."

So what does this mean?

It means, of course, that paladins can "kill evil without mercy" as long as they are "respecting legitimate authority."

You can't just selectively remove parts of a paladin's code of conduct; it's a code of conduct, not a salad bar.

So if the legitimate authority of the land ruthlessly murders all enemy combatants no matter what, doing so, too is all fine and dandy for the paladin (unless it's not compatible with the rest of the paladin's code and alignment, of course ).
(Of course, if the paladin is not part of the armed forces (or an equivalent body) of the nation in question, he might be more limited in his actions regardless.)
[campaign-specific consideration]
On the other hand, if his religion is considered especially important in the nation, paladins of his faith might be granted more authority than normal soldiers/lawkeepers/whatever; but that's something that can only be answered by the campaign's DM rather than the core rules.[/campaign-specific consideration]

Otherwise, murdering enemy combatants is against the law - and breaking the law is kinda the opposite of respecting it IMNSHO. And there are few crimes more vile than murder, are there?

 

[Dragonblade]

Again it comes back to the phrases like "legitimate authority" and the "paladin must obey the law".

Whose "law" and what "legitimate authority"? It is the paladin's code and god who determines which laws the paladin follows and determines which authority is legitimate.

 

[Darkness]

Perhaps you should go into further detail, instead of taking cheap shots, like "why bother?", eh?

Perhaps you can learn to accept legitimate criticism (complete with proof reinforcing it, even) instead of brushing it away as "cheap shots," eh?

While citing a Story Hour is hardly proof, I believe you read Piratecat's SH? Recall when Mara decided against taking Malachite in, in spite of the mandate of her Church? Clearly an example of a paladin respecting an authority, without necessarily obeying it.

Sorry, but I don't recall it; it's been a while since I last read it.

What was her reason for doing so? A character flaw (like the paladin this thread is about seems to have - i.e., bloodlust in his case), or something more justifiable?

 

[Darkness]

Again it comes back to the phrases like "legitimate authority" and the "paladin must obey the law".

We're talking about paladins here - so why does that surprise you?

Whose "law" and what "legitimate authority"? It is the paladin's code and god who determines which laws the paladin follows and determines which authority is legitimate.

Sorry, but that's normally not quite the case:

PHB, p. 41:
...Paladins need not devote themselves to a single deity. Devotion to righteousness is enough for most of them. ...

 

[bondetamp]

You know, all this would could have been avoided if people played a good game.

Like Exalted, for instance.