Lawful Stupid Paladins (Got your Attention?)

[Ilen]

Okay, It’s another Paladin thread please forgive me.

Anyway, do Paladins have to be Lawful Stupid? Now I can see the hair rising on the back of your necks, and are those your canines I see? What I mean by Lawful Stupid is those Paladins who seem to have no sense of self preservation, those cooks who won’t hold back for the one round that it would take to let the Wizard hurl a fireball at a gaggle of ghouls, or the one who refuses to do anything anymore subtle then kicking in the door, the front door. That is what I mean by Lawful Stupid, those Paladin’s with so much zeal that they’d attack an Evil creature that was many times more powerful then him (apparently so, not asking for Metagaming) with his bare teeth even if it will be for no gain? I’m completely fine with the Paladin who will attack said evil with his bare teeth to grant his companions or an innocent time to flee, that’s being heroic not stupid IMHO.

I want to create a Paladin who is not against ambush tactics and holding back to let the artillery handle things if it is the best method. I want him to flee from that evil if nothing will be gained but the loss of his own life. Is he a Paladin? Or is what I crave simply a LG Cleric/Fighter and I just don't get the ideals of Paladins?

 

[Rashak Mani]

This phenomena is sometimes known as Awful Good... too good and little Brains.

Its not hard to have a smart paladin... ambush may be a little to far thou depending on your DM. Instead of thinking champion of good... think hunter of evil... hunters tend to be smarter.

In general I agree paladins shouldnt be suicidal stupid fanatics...

 

[Ilen]

Tis nice to know I'm not completely alone in my opinion.

 

[takyris]

In a lot of cases it depends on the DM.

Here's my take on paladins, based largely off a paladin-rogue character that I introduced. The question came up as to which abilities he got to use without getting in trouble.

Evasion: Nothing dishonorable about dodging a fireball.

Trapfinding: Perfectly honorable and good, providing you're doing it for a good purpose -- if you're looting a tomb, that's bad, but if you're getting through a trapped dungeon to rescue a princess or something, where's the evil in that?

Sneak attacks: These were the tricky ones. A lot of people had some real difficulty with this -- here's what I eventually decided -- and I'm under no illusion that it's final, but here's how it went.

A sneak attack is not in and of itself dishonorable -- it's simply using an opportunity to strike at a critical area. The three common opportunities that come up for a Sneak attack are a stunned opponent, a flanked opponent, and a surprised or unseeing opponent.

Stunned opponent: There's nothing dishonorable about hitting someone who is stunned, unless it's in an honorable duel. Honorable duels, of course, have a lot of crazy restrictions on them, and as an honorable paladin, you've got to follow those. But if you're fighting a manticore and your buddy the monk stuns it, causing it to lower its defenses, how is it dishonorable to take that opportunity to stab it in a vital spot? The entire system of combat is based on stabbing creatures in vital spots. A sneak attack is just a more limited-use version that does extra damage.

Flanked opponent: Ditto. If you're in an honorable duel, of course you shouldn't use flanking (and it's unlikely to come up then anyways, since most honorable duels are single combat). But in the heat of battle, if you and your ally flank a powerful enemy, to NOT use that flanking to quickly defeat the enemy and strike home for your God is an affront to honor. That's combat tactics, not evil.

Surprised opponent: This is the one that is gray and difficult to define. If a paladin opens a door and finds a surprised orc on the other side, I think he's perfectly within his rights to cut the beast down, thanking God for his quick reflexes. On the other hand, if a paladin snuck through the shadows in order to take out a villain from hiding with surprise attacks, I'd ding him for that.

What it came down to for me in the end with surprise and stealth was "Is it breaking the rules, or is it considered part of the rules of battle?" If a paladin is part of a force laying siege to an evil warlord's castle, and the warlord and the paladin's commander have discussed terms, and it's all official, then the rules of war should apply. That means that if the paladin/rogue can sneak into the castle as part of a commando unit, getting past enemies who are prepared for this, that's acceptible and honorable -- it's a valid move in the Chessgame of War. I'd even let the paladin surprise opponents in this case, taking out guards -- because the guards are always assumed to be ready, and war has been declared.

What I wouldn't allow would be for the paladin-rogue to act as an assassin. Killing guards who would have alerted the warlord to the paladin's presence is one thing. Killing the warlord in his sleep is another.

So anyway -- that's my take. Paladins can use tactics and judgment and good thinking -- they just have to take into account when it's considered an evil surprise attack, and when it's considered a good tactical move.

Example:

"Sir Kyan, we're thinking of sneaking into Lord Malfrey's house and stealing his scepter. You know, he's evil, and it would be for a good cause."

Sir Kyan gets aggravated and says that for their safety, he'll pretend he didn't hear that, and that he can't be part of thievery.

"Sir Kyan, Lord Malfrey has declared that if he is not given permission to wed the Widow Duchess, he shall use his magical might to destroy the city. He has been warned, but has remained adamant, and has likely prepared his fortress against incursion. A frontal assault will only lead to thousands of innocent deaths, and as he has been warned, there is no dishonor in a covert attack. We could use a strong arm in our assault."

Sir Kyan agrees, and offers to ask a cleric at his church for divine assistance, possibly in the form of some guide to how to get into the fortress without being detected.

I just threw a lot of that up without a ton of thought, so there's bound to be holes in it, but fundamentally, that's my take. A paladin can be smart and he can be subtle -- he just has to follow the accepted rules for the situation.

-Tacky

 

[reapersaurus]

Is he a Paladin?

Short answer:
ABSOLUTELY.

 

[Ilen]

Re: Re: Lawful Stupid Paladins (Got your Attention?)

Short answer:
ABSOLUTELY.

Care to give long answer? Or is the long answer simply, "Yes, absolutely!"

 

[Xarlen]

I have to agree with Tacky.

There's a difference between Honorable and Heroism, and Stupid.

Example: This happened in a low-magic campaign a friend of mine was in. The party was attacked by a baby Purple Worm (basicly a watering down of the stats, but could still sting and swallow). Anyways, the court wizard of the Paladin's king was eaten. And, the Divine Oracle of his order was stung and killed.

So, instead of Fighting, the paladin Jumps Down the Worm's Throat.

He climbed down the worm's throat, and Layed Hands on the wizard.

That is Heroic.

A paladin with a high intelligence or, hey, a decent Wisdom should realize that what he's doing is Stupid. Have him roll wisdom checks to realize something is Not A Good Idea. A 1st level paladin should not try and fight a Succubus, no matter how Evil she is. If he's going to simply be a body count, not do any harm to her, and not delay her from doing something, then he shouldn't try.

Besides, Paladins should enforce mercy, and offer redemption. If he can subdue an apponent, and offer him freedom for dismissing his evil ways, he will. A paladin will not destroy Red Dragon eggs.

Furthermore, all paladins do not need to just 'Go and whoop some Evil'. It should depend also on their god. Paladins of Tyr focus on justice, on finding the guilty, and bringing them to justice, or dispensing his own. A paladin of Sune, goddess of Love and Beauty, will uphold, protect, and defend what is beautiful, and seek out creatures that corrupt Love and Beauty, like Succubi, Rakshasas, Destruction of Landscapes and scenery, and so forth.

Lawful Good, basicly, is the Upholding of Law, and the Persut of Good. This does not mean 'You're evil, I'm going to smite you'. Remember, you can always smite them later.

 

[Cullain]

Ah, yes, evil will always triumph over good because good is dumb.

Here's the way I see it:

paladin comes across a vampire, about to feast on a young girl. The paladin has no magic items, and will undoubtedly be killed by the vampire. Should the paladin engage the vampire anyway? Yes. Attacking the vampire will allow the young girl to escape, even at the cost of his own life.

paladin comes across a vampire, by himself. The paladin has no magic items, and will undoubtedly be killed by the vampire. Should the paladin engage the vampire anyway? hell's no. The vampire will kill the paladin, and the cause of justice will not have been served.

Cullain

 

[JESawyer]

I've said it before: playing a paladin is like playing jazz. If you don't understand it, I can't explain it to you.

 

[Ilen]

I've said it before: playing a paladin is like playing jazz. If you don't understand it, I can't explain it to you.

Does this mean you agree or disagree with the idea of attacking overwhelming Evil even if all it does is result in your death? Ambushing? What about holding back from battle instead of just rushing head on with zeal in your eyes? ? And refusing to do anything but enter by bashing down the front door?