LG Paladin riding the fence...

[Breakstone]

A lawful good paladin riding the fence?

Wow, I usually only allow Warhorses as mounts for paladins.


...

 

[maddman75]

IMC, I defined several different orders of paladin. Some believe in honor and law above all, others seek to smite evil, others want to alleiviate suffering and protect the defenseless, and others seek glory for thier King and god. But I'm greedy that way, I don't want A, B or C, I'll put all of them in together.

 

[CrusaderX]

I *heart* SHARK.

Thanks for posting that.

 

[DragonLancer]

What go with these day is this:

The Knights Code.

Uphold the code at all times. Your honour is your life. Without it you have nothing.

You are defender of the kingdom. You are protector of nobleman and commoner alike. It is your duty to protect the innocent, the frail, and those who cannot defend themselves.

Never lie to, nor dishonour those to whom you hold respect whether liege, commander, or serf.

Perform only good deeds, but know that one may skirt the borders of shadow on occasion in order to perform such tasks.

The fate of many is more important that the fate of one.

Your duty lies to your liege, your land, your deity, and then to family & friends.

Honour is your sword, wear it with pride. Be noble, just, honest and respectful. Do not abuse your position nor your status as a knight. Your words and deeds speak for more than just yourself.

Respect your opponent, but do not fight dishonourably in order to defeat him. Treat your enemy as you would have him treat you.

Be respectful of the dead, whether friend or foe. Disturb neither without good reason.

Do not judge a man by his race or appearance. Just as evil can wear a pleasant face, so the opposite is true of good.

Not every crime requires harsh judgement. Temper your actions with wisdom.

I prefer to think of Paladins in the Knightly Authrian style rather than holy warrior types.

 

[Torm]

I *heart* SHARK.

I agree with everything SHARK said, except his section on sexuality. In my opinion, a Paladin may enter into any sexual relationship he or she desires to, provided it is honest and free-willed on the part of all parties, and the "laws" that the parties establish for the relationship upfront are followed.

But, generally, this will result in what SHARK said, and yeah, SHARK rules.

 

[Mallus]

For your enjoyment, here is the Paladin Code by SHARK:...snip...

That's really kinda cool; Paladin as Jihadist.

Its interesting to see a take on Paladins that moves away from Arthurian Romance.

 

[Seeten]

The Libris Mortis(I think) has some poisons for use against Undead. I'd have no problem allowing a Paladin access to those. Access to poison of a regular sort, I wouldnt allow, because its not something he'd get training in, and I think its kinda silly. If you are trained at chopping people into little bits, you dont need to also poison them. You poison them if you dont think your sword is capable.

 

[azmodean]

First, extremely nice post by SHARK, thanks for reposting it. Similarly to Torm, I didn't see anything I dissagree with except the poverty and the chastity. The chastity issue for the same reasons, and the poverty issue because it requires some rather large changes to game balance and the campaign setting.

Not that I'm saying this wouldn't be a wonderful code of conduct for a paladin to have in my game, just that I wouldn't require all of it.

The main things I dislike in many people's interpretation of the paladin's code are ambush and poison.

SHARK made a good distinction, offering a parley or raising a white flag and then attacking the enemy would be completely unacceptable, but I see no reason to require a paladin to announce his presence and intent to fight to every enemy he comes across. It is not chivalrous to call out a craven murderer or thief for "honorable" combat, you can only engage in honorable combat with an opponent who has honor. I do not consider an ambush or an implied deception (disguising yourself as a non-paladin, for instance) to be dishonest or dishonorable.

The other issue I have is with poison use, I completely disagree with poison use being an evil act. Now there are some vile poisons, but that is a different issue entirely, just as there are vile spells that a paladin could not cast and vile equipment that he could not use. For instance a fighter might find an unholy sword and make use of it, suffering the negative levels it imposes, but a paladin could never do such a thing, even if it means fighting with his bare hands against a superior opponent.

This however is what I require or allow for all paladins, particular gods might indeed have trouble with disguises, or ambush, or poison, but rarely if ever would they not allow any of them.

 

[The Amazing Dingo]

In some ways, I do have a problem with the "sexual" idea of a paladin. And then again, in some ways I don't. And the only reason I don't have a problem with the sexual paladin was the example I saw put forward by Aethramyr in Wizardru's Story Hour. I remember reading when he engaged with a woman and I didn't find a problem with that. He's always been easy going and at times I forget he's actually a paladin: while he is a beacon of his faith he doesn't force others to follow or to have to constantly hear about it. He just does what he does. And in one scene it involved at least one other elven woman during a feast. The thing was he did it respect, curtesy, and dignity.

After, in my world and since the nations are very racially based but worship the same gods (though by different names and slightly different ideologies behind each) I just created a different "sect" of religion for the LG elf worshippers (of which there aren't too many). And one of the differences between them and their human counterparts is their view on the sexuality of the clergy and paladins.

 

[Darth K'Trava]

Paladins should never backstab as the opening of combat. Once a Paladin has approached his foe and offered him honorable combat, though, that foe had better not forget or lose track of where the Paladin is, IMHO.

I, also, think the rule about no poisons is a little off. It should be, "no SECRET poisons." As in, a Paladin would never sneak poison into a foe's drink or food, but to put it on a blade, well, his foe would have to be an idiot not to know the blade is there to hurt him, poisoned or not!

I would disagree with the use of poison. I find it a dishonorable tactic. It's sneaky, not to mention letting something else do your job for you. If you can't fight on your own without help, then you should just concede the fight and save your honor for lesser foes.

I see paladins as fighting up front, meaning no backstabbing. Letting your foe come after you first and attacking first. You don't know certain intent until he acts first that he's actually going to fight. Even if he mocks you and your fighting style... that's still just words. Until it becomes substance, then it's just all wordy fluff.

I think that Torm would do better than this. I don't see him as a "sneaky bastard" who has to cheat to win..... I see him as a noble warrior who would fight honorably and forthwith without tarnishing his honor by any means. Which would be equal to a Klingon's Honor Code. They have the same honor system as most people see paladins. Just not quite the lawful bend that paladins have to have to keep their paladinhood. But they do fight fair and honorably. They don't fight lesser-armed foes nor do they backstab or use poison.

Or at least, that's how I depict my paladin's Honor Code. She's got fairly the same Code as the Klingons. Not to mention, she has to go more the Justice bend as she worships Tyr, not Torm (as my cleric, Rozhena, did). So I think she has to fight more fair than a Tormian cleric/paladin would who usually has one main goal: vanquish evil. (see sig )