Cavalier's code of conduct from Unearthed Arcana

[Gentlegamer]

Of course humility will sound lame if you purposefully make a lame caricature of it. (Though, that said, "All the glory goes to my god; it is he who empowered me to enact your deliverance" wouldn't be a bad answer).

When people discuss humility as a virtue, they aren't referring to a dishonestly low assessment of their own abilities (pretty women calling themselves ugly or smart men telling everyone how dumb they are) just as, when people talk about pride as a vice, they're not talking about accepting awards or compliments or believing that you can succeed at ordinary tasks (though believing you can succeed where you actually can't often IS pride). Exactly what people do mean is a bit hard to express concisely, but it has several main ingredients: 1. A willingness to endure humiliation and to give up glory when needed (when needed is the important part). In the knightly context, Sir Gareth (the kitchen knight) is an example of this where he puts up with the whiny, snobby maiden he is tasked with escorting. To use an example from OotS, a humble paladin does not need to sleep in a muddy ditch every night, but neither is the paladin too good to sleep in a muddy ditch if the situation requires it.
2. A willingness to forgo the honor and accolades due to one's station. (In this sense, as in the previous sense, the humility required of a paladin directly conflicts with the pride required of a UA cavalier: the cavalier would not be humiliated by wearing the armor of a thief--even to infiltrate a thieve's guild; a paladin who valued humility, on the other hand, would be willing to do so).
3. A willingness to obey and an ability to take commands. A humble person is not above taking orders from someone with the authority to give them. This is one of the most important aspects of humility in the human relationship with the divine. A humble character does not think he knows better than his god.
4. Acknowledging one's place and giving others the accolades and praise that they deserve. A humble knight will kneel before the king. (Though he may refuse to kowtow to an emperor if he believes that absolute submission is only appropriate to God). A humble knight will congratulate a rival on his victory and will compliment skill without worrying that he is calling attention to his own weaknesses.

Excellent explanation of the matter! For a similar discussion on humility and pride, see C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity.

 

[ForceUser]

This is one problem I see in almost all discussions of Paladins. The problem here is that when thinking of Diety/worshipper relations, everyone wants to treat it like christianty. King Arthur's knights had a very mideval christian code, but that doesn't mean that every paladin must or even should have a similar code.

Just to pull the easiest example; Thor would not want a humble paladin. Humility isn't really a big virtue in that sort of pantheon. You don't go down on bended knee and pray like some sort of Gorean slave to Thor, that's no way to get into Valhalla. You prove your worth by deed and mutter a prayer when you think it'd be a good idea.

That's just the easiest example to use, though. I'm not saying any of the paladin code arguements are wrong, I'm just (again) pointing out that no one paladin code is good for every paladin, and that there is no Unified Paladin Code or Ideal that can be applied to every paladin, because the outlooks and ideals desired by different gods are pretty different.

It's like the arguement that a world-weary, hard-drinking paladin who's on a first-name basis with the local Madam and greeted by name by her girls when he invariably walks in must be stripped of his paladinhood. The arguement, when applied with a broad, all-encompassing brush, is garbage. If the paladin is the servant of his god(s), then his code is also dependant on his god(s). And if the paladin is simply the servant of the ideal of Lawful-Good, then I'd personally rather see a paladin code that focuses on Lawful Good instead of some kind of chaste flawless paragon of all victorian virtues figure.

But, that's just me.

I understand your point, but I go with what I know. The medieval chivalric Christian knight is the basis for paladins in my campaign. I use other classes, such as the Champion from Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed, to represent holy warriors of non-European cultures.

 

[EdL]

-Honor to all above your station
-Obedience and respect from all beneath your station
- Scorn for those who are lowly and ignoble (this includes knightly limitations on weapons and armor)
-Courtesy to all ladies (if the cavalier is male)
-War is the flowering of chivalry
-Battle is the test of manhood
-Combat is glory
-Personal glory above all in battle
-Death to all who oppose the cause
-Death before dishonor
In enforcing this code, the DM may reduce or eliminate experience that is gained by the cavalier if its gaining violates the spirit or letter of the code. A cavalier who retreats from battle, even to save fellow party members, would receive half experience for the beasts slain in his or her retreat. Similarly, a cavalier who dons leather armor to infiltrate a thieves guild to effect a rescue will gain no experience, since the rescue would be done in means not approved of by the code. Note that even neutral and evil cavaliers are bound by this code, but in their cases the obedience is to non-good masters.

In other words, you have to be a boot licking, arrogent, bigoted, chauvinist murderer.

I'm glad to see that ForceUser isn't going that route!

(I was also going to quote the bit from WolvOrine about Thor and different codes for Paladins of different deities. But ForceUser had a good answer to that one.)

 

[Ranger REG]

Humility?

The way I see it, if a man was humble, he would not strive to be a paladin. Paladins are so far above the common man, paladins have more in common with their god than their own family.

Perhaps, unless his order do practice humility. Not all paladins are from the rich and wealthy orders, like the Templars.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Lewis's discussion there shaped my understanding of humility, so it's not surprising that it's similar.

Excellent explanation of the matter! For a similar discussion on humility and pride, see C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

This is one problem I see in almost all discussions of Paladins. The problem here is that when thinking of Diety/worshipper relations, everyone wants to treat it like christianty. King Arthur's knights had a very mideval christian code, but that doesn't mean that every paladin must or even should have a similar code.

Just to pull the easiest example; Thor would not want a humble paladin. Humility isn't really a big virtue in that sort of pantheon. You don't go down on bended knee and pray like some sort of Gorean slave to Thor, that's no way to get into Valhalla. You prove your worth by deed and mutter a prayer when you think it'd be a good idea.

That's just the easiest example to use, though. I'm not saying any of the paladin code arguements are wrong, I'm just (again) pointing out that no one paladin code is good for every paladin, and that there is no Unified Paladin Code or Ideal that can be applied to every paladin, because the outlooks and ideals desired by different gods are pretty different.

It's like the arguement that a world-weary, hard-drinking paladin who's on a first-name basis with the local Madam and greeted by name by her girls when he invariably walks in must be stripped of his paladinhood. The arguement, when applied with a broad, all-encompassing brush, is garbage. If the paladin is the servant of his god(s), then his code is also dependant on his god(s). And if the paladin is simply the servant of the ideal of Lawful-Good, then I'd personally rather see a paladin code that focuses on Lawful Good instead of some kind of chaste flawless paragon of all victorian virtues figure.

This has been hashed out before. Myself, I think the class abilities of the paladin and the description of the class DO in fact seem most appropriate to characters that are at least highly similar to the ideals of medieval chivalry. Characters that are the products of other ideals should use a different class that grants more appropriate abilities. (Thor, at least is an easy example since Deities and Demigods pegs him as Chaotic Good, one might expect that he won't have actual paladins at all though he could well have holy warriors of some kind or other. (Bear Warrior (for the bearserk warrior), Frenzied Beserker, and Mighty Contender of Kord (I mean Thor) all come to mind as classes with a more appropriate set of abilities than the paladin).

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

In other words, you have to be a boot licking, arrogent, bigoted, chauvinist murderer.

And an idiot, given the bit about not donning leather armor to infiltrate a thieves guild.

Nothing in a reasonable code should prevent the paladin/cavalier from using intelligent tactics -- it's really the social class bit associated with this particular take on the cavalier that considers the use of missile weapons and leather armor beneath the cavalier's station, and (somehow) considers the use of intelligent tactics such as scouting and infiltration dishonorable.

A reasonably broad code, IMO, shouldn't force the PC into being an elitist, arrogant idiot, unless (1) that's the sort of PC the player wants to play, or (2) the DM is really out to strip the PC of paladinhood at first opportunity. Drop the scorn bit from this code and it will probably work fine.

 

[tonym]

Great reply, Elder Basilisk. Thanks! If a DM told me my paladin must be humble, I'd want to know what he meant by humble. To me, humble is personified by Kwai Chang Caine from "Kung Fu." But apparently you people don't mean that humble, or humble in that way.

For clarity's sake, Forceuser, I'd suggest skipping "humilty" as a requirement and replace it with Elder Basilisk's 4 points of behavior.

And, by the way, folks, the paladin in my example was not exhibiting false humilty when he put himself and his abilities down to the farmer. He was being 100% honest. Which goes to show, DMs can be overly critical when it comes to how a guy roleplays his paladin.

Heck, if I roleplayed that conversation with my paladin and the DM said my roleplaying of humility sucked, and that I was roleplaying FALSE humility, I'd rip my character sheet in half, roll the pieces into a ball, and...

Calm blue ocean...calm blue ocean...



Tony M

 

[ForceUser]

For clarity's sake, Forceuser, I'd suggest skipping "humilty" as a requirement and replace it with Elder Basilisk's 4 points of behavior.

Fortunately, my players and I are on the same page with regard to what it means to be humble from a Christian perspective. I'm certainly incoporating EB's comments, though.

And, by the way, folks, the paladin in my example was not exhibiting false humilty when he put himself and his abilities down to the farmer. He was being 100% honest. Which goes to show, DMs can be overly critical when it comes to how a guy roleplays his paladin.

I'd say that it merely shows that we are complete strangers posting anonymously on an internet messageboard, with no shared experiences on which to base a common understanding.

 

[tonym]

Fortunately, my players and I are on the same page with regard to what it means to be humble from a Christian perspective.

But the Christian diety is like 40 times more powerful than the five most powerful D&D gods put together. So it makes sense for a paladin to be 'less humble' in a D&D universe than our real universe. In D&D-land, gods can be killed or tricked by other gods, and make blunders all the time. I wouldn't expect paladins in that world to be humble in the same way, or to the same extent, as paladins in ours.

For example, I ran a paladin that blasphemed. See, the paladin's god was in a bind and could no longer bestow spells to his clerics, and he needed my paladin's help to reverse the situation (this is a published adventure written by Monte Cook). Several times my paladin used his own judgement, citing that his god had "dropped the ball" and could not be relied on in certain situations to know the correct course of action.

I'd say that it merely shows that we are complete strangers posting anonymously on an internet messageboard, with no shared experiences on which to base a common understanding.

No shared experiences? Then you never watched "Kung Fu"? Well, I'll fill you in. Caine was so frikkin humble, that when a jerk would insult him, Caine would apologize. The jerk could even throw food on Caine and push him around, and Caine would apologize.

But I bet you don't want your paladins to be that humble. Your Christian-modeled paladins gotta earn XPs after all.


Tony M