Coup de grace

[StreamOfTheSky]

And yet, even in the case of the Paladin, where what isn't allowed is explicitly spelled out, people still feel the need to insert restrictions that are "within the spirit of the code" that aren't freaking there. Like no coup de grace. Or restrictions on sexual activity / use of prostitutes or drug usage (see the Sir Cedric thread, "Would you allow this Paladin in your game?" by Shilsen).

So I guess the take-away lesson is that having your code explicitly spelled out is a lose-lose. You can't do the stuff it says you can't, obviously, but many DMs will STILL feel the need to add even more crap to the list. On the flipside, if you have a less defined code that's more up to the DM and player to establish, at worst you get the arbitrary restrictions a Paladin would get from a nit-picky DM that wants the codes to be strict (ie, you at the very worst tie), and at best the code never comes up at all as long as you don't blatantly go against your alignment because the DM never bothers to establish a formal code for you.

 

[frankthedm]

Here is the thing. The group REALLY needs to discuss such matters when they sit down to play any game with a morals set. Right and wrong are touchy subjects and it falls on the game master to make sure the entire group is on the same page on how the GM is going to rule on Alignment / Humanity / Sanity.

by discussing how the GM will run the moral set, it gives players fair warning if their comfort zones will be breached or if their paladins will be Nerfed By The Comic Code Authority.

 

[El Mahdi]

...And as for spirit...the class's overriding theme is "kill evil." ...

No it's not. The overiding theme is to be a Champion of Good; as both a Defender of Good, and as an Example of Good. As per the PHB, a Paladin needs to have "The compassion to pursue good, the will to uphold law, and the power to defeat evil...", as well as "the purity and devotion that it takes to walk the paladins path...". That would mean the attributes of a D&D Paladin, by the book, are:

• Compassion (things like Mercy...)
• Pursue Good (that means endeavor to do the right thing...)
• Will (Strength, Courage, Faith)
• Law (Justice)
• Defeat Evil (also Strength)
• Purity (prostitutes...drugs...I don't think so)
• Devotion (Faith, Steadfastness, Sacrifice)

Code of Conduct:

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if he ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents. - 3.5E PHB, pg. 44

Punish or prosecute Evil: Yes.
Kill a helpless opponent: No.

Be an example of Good: Yes.
Destroy Evil by any means possible: No.

Defend against and fight Evil while endeavoring to be the paragon of Charity, Chastity, Faith, Honor, Honesty, Virtue, Morality, and Mercy: unequivocally Yes.

This is the very definition of both a classical D&D Paladin, and a historical Chivalrous Knight.

Doesn't mean it can't be played differently, and there obviously needs to be allowances/considerations made for being in a non-Christian setting (as most D&D worlds are polytheistic) - but if it is played differently than the above, then it's no longer a Standard Paladin. In such a case, the class and it's code should be houseruled/changed, and most definitely agreed upon before play.

But, although not killing a helpless enemy is within the spirit of the above code, I do not agree that a coup de grace is an evil act. I believe it falls under the virtue of Mercy, and at least has historical precedence (if not in-game precedence). Not killing a defenseless foe most specifically referred to not killing an unarmed opponent, or an opponent that has surrendered or stated/showed their intention to not fight. A Goblin that was fighting just before being knocked unconcsious, is first: A MONSTER; and second: an opponent that has shown their intention to fight, has fought, and is a fair target to kill. More than okay for a Paladin or a Knight, let alone any other class (such as the OP's LN Druid).

And yet, even in the case of the Paladin, where what isn't allowed is explicitly spelled out, people still feel the need to insert restrictions that are "within the spirit of the code" that aren't freaking there. Like no coup de grace. Or restrictions on sexual activity / use of prostitutes or drug usage (see the Sir Cedric thread, "Would you allow this Paladin in your game?" by Shilsen).

So I guess the take-away lesson is that having your code explicitly spelled out is a lose-lose. You can't do the stuff it says you can't, obviously, but many DMs will STILL feel the need to add even more crap to the list. On the flipside, if you have a less defined code that's more up to the DM and player to establish, at worst you get the arbitrary restrictions a Paladin would get from a nit-picky DM that wants the codes to be strict (ie, you at the very worst tie), and at best the code never comes up at all as long as you don't blatantly go against your alignment because the DM never bothers to establish a formal code for you.

Dude! You must have had some serious conflict with a past DM or DM's. That sucks. I feel for you.


Even though some of the things you mentioned (sexual activity, prostitutes, drugs) aren't explicitly mentioned in the code, they are within the spirit of it. Also, the code in the PHB isn't an explicit code, but a very general one, and general on purpose (so as to allow each DM/player/gaming group to decide for themselves what they want it to mean within each individual game). However, the classical definition of a Paladin does not allow the things you mentioned.

First of all, historically there is no such thing as a Paladin (as a specific class). The term Paladin was initially used as a name for Roland's, and then later Charlemagne's, trusted peers (of which some weren't even Knights; one was a Dane more akin to a Barbarian, and another was actually a Sorcerer). However, in Late Medieval literature, the term Paladin came to describe one who was a particularly Chivalrous Knight. A Knight was simply a very well trained warrior specialized in both mounted and unmounted warfare, and usually a noble...period. A Paladin was a true Defender of the Faith and Chivalrous Knight.

The D&D Paladin is based upon a combination of the Chivalrous Knight and the Monastic Knight (Templars, Hospitalers, etc.).


The Code of Chivalry includes the attributes of:

• Strength
• Courage
• Justice
• Mercy
• Charity
• Faith
• Humility
• Chastity

It wasn't a secular thing, but a thing derived from the Christian Church. It was adherence to Medieval Christian Values. Chastity didn't mean celibacy, but sex outside of the bonds of marriage is not adhering to Medieval Christian values or the Code of Chivalry (of which this restriction is part of the motivation behind the concept of "Courtly Love").


The vows of a Monastic Knight however were much more restrictive. A Monastic Knight, in all but their use as Warriors, were no different than Christian Monks. They swore Vows of:

• Celibacy (no sex, period)
• Poverty (no money, property, noble title, and no ownership of any material goods - weapons, armor, and horses were property of the order itself)
• Obedience (obedience to God, their Order, and the Pope).

So, historically, to be a Paladin one would have to at the least, adhere to the Chivalric Code, and possibly even swear Monastic Vows. Even adhering only to the lesser code (the Chivalric Code), prostitutes, drugs, and killing a helpless enemy would be violations of the Paladins Ethos. (Even drinking to get drunk would be against these values. Drinking alcohol, such as wine and beer, in and of itself was okay. Drinking to get drunk was not.)

So, the Spirit of a D&D Paladin, is that of a Chivalrous Medieval European Knight or Monastic Knight. And No, people are not inserting restrictions that aren't there.


However, I don't understand the magnitude of your reaction after reading what I posted. Especially as the point of what I was saying was this:

As for the codes (the Paladins and Knights codes), in my games I use them for what they were supposed to be: not as a set of black-and-white requrements, but as a set of guidelines that such characters use to make the value judgements and decisions that are integral to these characters ethos. If they are continuously and honestly evaluating their actions based on these codes, then I really have no problem with any of their choices. If they however, start using their interpretations of these codes to justify things (and you'll know the difference when your players do this), then they have violated their code and should suffer the consequences.

That sounds to me to be exactly what you say you want...unless what you want is simply a Warrior imbued with Divine Might, that basically does whatever he wants...

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

No it's not. The overiding theme is to be a Champion of Good; as both a Defender of Good, and as an Example of Good. As per the PHB, a Paladin needs to have "The compassion to pursue good, the will to uphold law, and the power to defeat evil...", as well as "the purity and devotion that it takes to walk the paladins path...". That would mean the attributes of a D&D Paladin, by the book, are:

Sure. But the "example of good" seems to be at issue, some have much more strict rules on that than others.

• Compassion (things like Mercy...)
• Pursue Good (that means endeavor to do the right thing...)
• Will (Strength, Courage, Faith)
• Law (Justice)
• Defeat Evil (also Strength)
• Purity (prostitutes...drugs...I don't think so)
• Devotion (Faith, Steadfastness, Sacrifice)

Compassion and Pursue Good naturally conflict with Law and Defeat Evil. Especially when a DM expects a Paladin to aply the former to a foe who's been disabled in combat but otherwise had no intentions to stop attacking. That's just not fair.
As for purity...since that's the ONLY area where prostitution and drugs can be labeled as a problem...I could see an argument for mind-altering drugs. But regular stimulants/depressants and consenual sex? There's nothing inherently impure about those that would prevent a Paladin from following the path of good.

Punish or prosecute Evil: Yes.
Kill a helpless opponent: No.

Why is killing a helpless opponent who was made helpless through direct combat wrong? It's ok for the mage to turn him to ashes with a fireball, but if he instead puts him to sleep it's wrong for you to stab the evil bastard through his heart?

Be an example of Good: Yes.
Destroy Evil by any means possible: No.

Destroy Evil by any means that isn't evil or illegal (like performing a coup de grace, so long as you're not in an area ruled by legitimate authority that requires sending offenders to the jail rather than offing them yourself): Yes. It's more wordy than yours, but far more accurate. No one thinks it's ok for a Paladin to do something blatantly evil to defeat evil.

Defend against and fight Evil while endeavoring to be the paragon of Charity, Chastity, Faith, Honor, Honesty, Virtue, Morality, and (when appropriate) Mercy: unequivocally Yes.

Better now.

Doesn't mean it can't be played differently, and there obviously needs to be allowances/considerations made for being in a non-Christian setting (as most D&D worlds are polytheistic) - but if it is played differently than the above, then it's no longer a Standard Paladin. In such a case, the class and it's code should be houseruled/changed, and most definitely agreed upon before play.

So a typical setting isn't Christian, and yet you think a typical Paladin follows christian ideals? Say what? I'd say unless you're explicitly playing that sort of setting, which is VERY different assumptions than the rules are made for, Paladins don't have that real world religious baggage. It's, you know, more consistent.

But, although not killing a helpless enemy is within the spirit of the above code, I do not agree that a coup de grace is an evil act. I believe it falls under the virtue of Mercy, and at least has historical precedence (if not in-game precedence). Not killing a defenseless foe most specifically referred to not killing an unarmed opponent, or an opponent that has surrendered or stated/showed their intention to not fight. A Goblin that was fighting just before being knocked unconcsious, is first: A MONSTER; and second: an opponent that has shown their intention to fight, has fought, and is a fair target to kill. More than okay for a Paladin or a Knight, let alone any other class (such as the OP's LN Druid).

And I agree with you. I don't even really care if it's considered an act of mercy. Paladin's under no obligation to take alive someone who never surrendered or hadn't tried to fight.

Even though some of the things you mentioned (sexual activity, prostitutes, drugs) aren't explicitly mentioned in the code, they are within the spirit of it.

Objection!

Also, the code in the PHB isn't an explicit code, but a very general one, and general on purpose (so as to allow each DM/player/gaming group to decide for themselves what they want it to mean within each individual game). However, the classical definition of a Paladin does not allow the things you mentioned.

Do you mean classical as in prior editions? Because lots of things changed over time. The whole True Neutral back-stabby switch sides every round so that no one maintains an advantage interpretation went away, for example. As for literary inspirations, those also expand and change over time and are dependent on the group to determine. If I were playing a Paladin, I'd probably use Kanetsugu Naoe's depiction in the Samurai Warriors video game series as a role playing reference, for instance.

The Code of Chivalry includes the attributes of:

• Strength
• Courage
• Justice
• Mercy
• Charity
• Faith
• Humility
• Chastity

It wasn't a secular thing, but a thing derived from the Christian Church. It was adherence to Medieval Christian Values. Chastity didn't mean celibacy, but sex outside of the bonds of marriage is not adhering to Medieval Christian values or the Code of Chivalry (of which this restriction is part of the motivation behind the concept of "Courtly Love").

No Paladin I've ever played, will play, or have seen played adhered to those exact virtues. Because...wait for it...that religion doesn't exist in the game and there's usually at least three flavors of "Lawful Good" gods or LG-adjacent gods for Paladins to pick from.

The vows of a Monastic Knight however were much more restrictive. A Monastic Knight, in all but their use as Warriors, were no different than Christian Monks. They swore Vows of:

• Celibacy (no sex, period)
• Poverty (no money, property, noble title, and no ownership of any material goods - weapons, armor, and horses were property of the order itself)
• Obedience (obedience to God, their Order, and the Pope).

So, historically, to be a Paladin one would have to at the least, adhere to the Chivalric Code, and possibly even swear Monastic Vows. Even adhering only to the lesser code (the Chivalric Code), prostitutes, drugs, and killing a helpless enemy would be violations of the Paladins Ethos. (Even drinking to get drunk would be against these values. Drinking alcohol, such as wine and beer, in and of itself was okay. Drinking to get drunk was not.)

This list is so clearly ridiculously unrealistic to expect of any D&D character, it's silly to even reference in regards to the inspiration for the Paladin code. IMO, referencing it only hurts your own argument.

So, the Spirit of a D&D Paladin, is that of a Chivalrous Medieval European Knight or Monastic Knight. And No, people are not inserting restrictions that aren't there.

Yes, they are. As you posted, the actual Paladin code (the text before about purity is nice and all, but ultimately it's fluff and flavor text) that determines the rules:

"A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if he ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents. - 3.5E PHB, pg. 44"

First of all, have to be LG, not willingly commit an evil act, and respect legitimate authority. The last item can cause a little trouble in defining what makes an authority legitimate, but for the most part, you can just assume that if the authority is not doing evil and has fair rules and justice system, there should be no issues. After that...

Act with honor: This is the only category that drugs and sex can be placed, and possibly the coup de grace issue. But why is consensual sex dishonorable? Just how broad do you want to cast the net? Is using the wrong fork at a formal dinner, or not bothering to learn the proper etiquette before the dinner dishonorable? Same with drinking. I guess it boils down to "how much of an ass can a Paladin be before it becomes so dishonorable that it violates his code?" I don't see how discreetly having relations with another willing person or drinking in moderation could possibly dishonor the Paladin. As for CDG...is it dishonorable to kill a helpless person, when he's been diabled in that way through your side's abilities? Why not step it up and say a Paladin has to announce himself before attacking and his party can never get a surprise round, then? Maybe because these are precise game terms/conditions and if the designers ever WANTED a Paladin to be so restricted, they could have easily said so. You can play your Paladin as one who'd never fight someone with an advantage if you want to. But it's unfair to force someone to when the rules never require it.

Help those in need: Nothing really at issue here. Is the ONLY part of the code even vaguely close to caring about mercy. Not for weakened enemies, though. For those in need.

Punish those who harm inoocents: If anything strengthens the whole coup de grace "judge, jury, and executioner" attitude. While punishing can mean lots of things, if you're in an area that allows no vigilante justice at all, may actually cause conflict for the Paladin. Not with his "sense of mercy," though!

And that's it. Nothing else at all in the code. If you can't fit X restriction to the above 3 things, it doesn't belong by RAW.

However, I don't understand the magnitude of your reaction after reading what I posted...That sounds to me to be exactly what you say you want...unless what you want is simply a Warrior imbued with Divine Might, that basically does whatever he wants...

I think we both want Paladins and others with codes to not be arbitrarily punished and constantly under DM microscope, overall. We just differ on some specifics.

 

[Dross]

Defend against and fight Evil while endeavoring to be the paragon of Charity, Chastity, Faith, Honor, Honesty, Virtue, Morality, and Mercy: unequivocally Yes.

This is the very definition of both a classical D&D Paladin, and a historical Chivalrous Knight.

Doesn't mean it can't be played differently, and there obviously needs to be allowances/considerations made for being in a non-Christian setting (as most D&D worlds are polytheistic) - but if it is played differently than the above, then it's no longer a Standard Paladin. In such a case, the class and it's code should be houseruled/changed, and most definitely agreed upon before play.

See, this is where I'm having trouble. To me you are coming from the wrong direction. You should START at the bolded part and change things if you want a more historically accurate portrayal of a paladin in a Christian setting.

The D&D Paladin is based upon a combination of the Chivalrous Knight and the Monastic Knight (Templars, Hospitalers, etc.).


The Code of Chivalry includes the attributes of:

• Strength
• Courage
• Justice
• Mercy
• Charity
• Faith
• Humility
• Chastity

Based on certainly, but does not follow in the game sense you seem have them following. I have no problems if this is the code you want your paly to follow but in terms of chastity and humility, I just don't see it as RAW and I can't see it as RAI either.

I base all such decisions on the Class Feature: Code of Conduct. There is no mention of Chastity or Humility (respect legitimate authority is the closest I can come here and that is an extremely long bow to draw).

I also take the "purity and devotion" phrase as more spiritual than physical in intention. It comes out in the multiclass restriction of not being able to advance as a Paladin if you take another class.
The entire sentence is: Few have the purity and devotion that it takes to walk the paladin’s path, but those few are rewarded with the power to protect, to heal, and to smite.

I would only limit a paly to no premarital sex if it was the norms of that society, which potentially affects all classes.

But I think we have hijacked this thread enough. If we continue we probably need to start a new thread.

 

[Dross]

by discussing how the GM will run the moral set, it gives players fair warning if their comfort zones will be breached or if their paladins will be Nerfed By The Comic Code Authority.

Is the use of COMIC and not COSMIC intentional?

I rather like the idea of an apparently strait man (the paladin) being ruled by a bunch of clowns.

 

[El Mahdi]

Sure. But the "example of good" seems to be at issue, some have much more strict rules on that than others.

I agree. Good is way more subjective than an objective alignment allows. One shouldn't be punished due to different subjective interpretations. In real life it shouldn't happen either, though it's more understandable. In a game...well that just takes all the fun out of it.

Compassion and Pursue Good naturally conflict with Law and Defeat Evil. Especially when a DM expects a Paladin to aply the former to a foe who's been disabled in combat but otherwise had no intentions to stop attacking. That's just not fair.

Of course there's a conflict. If it was easy, it wouldn't be worth the trouble of trying to adhere to such a Code. The Code is a means of making a value judgement in any given situation, so that one can balance oneself in favor of Good and Law over Chaos and Evil (and this is where the game conceit supersedes or alters the historical conceit). As to the disabled opponent, I agree, which is why I don't have a problem with the OP's Goblins being coupe de grace'd.

As for purity...since that's the ONLY area where prostitution and drugs can be labeled as a problem...I could see an argument for mind-altering drugs. But regular stimulants/depressants and consenual sex? There's nothing inherently impure about those that would prevent a Paladin from following the path of good.

I agree, but what you're talking about is a modern view of morallity. Not the conciet upon which the class was based.

Why is killing a helpless opponent who was made helpless through direct combat wrong? It's ok for the mage to turn him to ashes with a fireball, but if he instead puts him to sleep it's wrong for you to stab the evil bastard through his heart?

Again, I agree with you here, I don't believe such actions are wrong or Evil. However, the in game D&D conceit has been that it is. I don't agree with it for personal reasons, and because it isn't consistent with the historical model upon which the class was based.

Better now.

So a typical setting isn't Christian, and yet you think a typical Paladin follows christian ideals?

Yes, because it's the conceit upon which the class was based. Show me a historical Paladin like character (one with an ethos based upon or indistinguishable from a Chivalric Knight) from one of our own polytheistic cultures? That's right, there aren't any. Yet that's exactly what the class attempts to create. It attempts to shoehorn a Christian concept into a polytheistic world.

Also, a Chivalrous Knight is a concept that's practically impossible to actualize in real life. I doubt there was ever a real living person that ever measured up to the concept of Chivalry. But that is what existed in Medieval Literature, and was the benchmark that was encouraged to pursue. Putting such a character into a polytheistic world is a bit like trying to apply modern morals to a game based on a Medieval European world.

But that's what the game attempts to do. So, we make a European Knight character class that is the Champion of one God in a Pantheon of Gods. But it doesn't change the moral conceits with which the class was based upon - unless you choose to, in which case it's now a Paladin only in name...in application, it's only a God's Champion with the morals and restrictions of that God. The historical Paladin is an icon of a specific time and culture, one for which the class was originally designed to emulate.

Do you mean classical as in prior editions?

No. Classical as in the High Medieval and Late Medieval Literature upon which the class is based. (Arthur's Knights from Mallory's le Morte d'Arthur, Charlemagne's Paladins from Taillefer's Song of Roland, etc. - basically the European myths and stories collected in Bullfinch's Mythology)

This list is so clearly ridiculously unrealistic to expect of any D&D character, it's silly to even reference in regards to the inspiration for the Paladin code. IMO, referencing it only hurts your own argument.

How did I hurt my own argument? I referenced it because you said people were inserting things that weren't there. Which isn't correct. The Code of Chivalry (that list) is the conceit upon which the class, and the code, was based. The class has changed a bit through the editions, but that underlying spirit has always been there. One can't insert something that already exists within it.

Although I don't normally like to use Wikipedia as a source, in this instance I am because I just don't feel like digging out the quotes and references from the actual D&D books right now. I'm afraid I'm just a bit tired and lazy tonight.

Paladin (Dungeons & Dragons)

Creative origins

The development of the Dungeons and Dragons Paladin, first introduced in the original Greyhawk supplement, was heavily influenced by the fictional character Holger Carlson from Poul Anderson's novel "Three Hearts and Three Lions," which was in turn based on the epic poetry of "Chanson de geste."[2] Also mentioned as a basis were the paladins of Roland, the palatine guard of Augustus deified, the papal guard of the same name, and the Christian myths of King Arthur.

I think we both want Paladins and others with codes to not be arbitrarily punished and constantly under DM microscope, overall. We just differ on some specifics.

Absolutely. The code used (whichever code used) should just be a guideline for roleplaying the character. Not a stick by which the DM beats the player into compliance.

 

[El Mahdi]

...But I think we have hijacked this thread enough. If we continue we probably need to start a new thread.

Agreed. Although such threads have probably been done to death, if someone wants to start one, I'm game.

 

[Jhaelen]

Is the use of COMIC and not COSMIC intentional?

I rather like the idea of an apparently strait man (the paladin) being ruled by a bunch of clowns.

strait as in strait-jacketed?

To the OP: D&D (pre 4e) uses an absolute alignment system. You can do pretty much whatever you want to creatures of pure evil. But you better be extra-sure they are really 'pure evil'. Goblins, e.g. possibly don't qualify, since they might have any alignment. Fiends or undead, however are fair game (except if your DM is pulling tricks on you...).

 

[ValhallaGH]

So if a Wizard cast Sleep on a group of goblins we were in combat with and my LN Druid runs over and Coup de Graces them he shouldn't receive a alignment based XP penalty for killing a helpless opponent instead of taking away there weapons and taking them captive??

If the DM says so then it should be so.

That said, there are no written guidelines form Alignment-based XP anything, so he's winging that part entirely. And killing a sleeping foe is a time-honored D&D tradition, one that led to the invention of the Paladin class specifically to prevent PCs from doing that.

Of course, if you do it then the DM is likely to use the same trick against your PCs. Be warned.