LG Paladin riding the fence...

[Darth K'Trava]

A lawful good paladin riding the fence?

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


...

Different strokes for different folks......

 

[Arkhandus]

Using poison or backstabbing would be dishonorable and ignoble, and thus unfit for a Paladin. It's craven and cowardly. It doesn't pit the strength of the Paladin and his faith against the forces of evil, it just subverts the whole righteous thing and gets right to slaying or crippling the foe without any true valor or honor. There's nothing righteous, honorable, noble, just, or brave about poisoning or backstabbing someone, even if you do face them in battle for a moment to do the poisoning/backstabbing. A Paladin cannot be cowardly, dishonorable, dishonest, or the like, it goes against their code and their alignment restrictions. They cannot lie (at least not directly, they can tell half-truths and leave out details), they cannot attack a helpless or unaware foe (unless, perhaps, that foe's only helpless/unaware because of an injury the Paladin inflicted on them in the heat of true battle), and they cannot use poison. Personally I find the Book of Exalted Deeds to be rather stupid in its' ravages, which are just basically 'good' poisons, which is really quite the contradiction.

Using poison, even if openly declaring it to the foe and putting it on your blade, is still a dishonorable and cowardly method, circumventing the whole point of nobly confronting the forces of evil mano-a-mano to deliver righteous justice face-to-face. One or two slashes and the foe will be paralyzed/staggering/blinded/dying from the poison, an act of deceit that leaves them unable to defend themselves properly, thus a violation of the Paladin's code and alignment restrictions. Likewise, stabbing someone in the back is generally an act of cowardice and dishonor, the same as stabbing them in their sleep or while they are otherwise unaware of you. Most backstabbing and poison use is dishonest too, though not quite all of the time, just most of the time.

Paladins can still use tactics, so they can still 'feint in combat' with the Bluff skill, and they can still sneak around with Hide and Move Silently, but they have to be careful how and why they use such skills, since most uses of those skills would be un-Paladin-like. Paladins just have to be direct and honest in their attacks, giving their foes a chance to at least draw a weapon or something and hear/see them coming. They can still sneak into an opponent's keep, they just have to declare their purpose once they reach the foe's chamber to slay them, and wait for the foe to ready a weapon or something, since attacking a defenseless foe is beneath a Paladin's honor code, not to mention just plain cowardly and craven.

Someone who does anything to accomplish their task, even if the purpose of that task is good and noble, is still being Machiavellian and utilitarian, ignoring the unjust, evil, or dishonest nature of the act itself. This is the behavior of someone who is Chaotic Good, at best, or True Neutral/Chaotic Neutral, or any shade of Evil. Someone who's Neutral Good can be somewhat Machiavellian/utilitarian, but someone like a Paladin who is bound to Lawful Good behavior cannot be high Mach. It's just too unethical, as the ends are not the only important part of an act, the means matter too. For instance, if you rob an innocent rich man to feed a poor guy, you're still stealing from the innocent, which is evil, regardless of how noble the goal itself may be. The rich guy may even have earned his wealth (however unlikely), because y'know, sometimes honest hard work and ingenuity actually does pay off once in a while.

SRD quote, for reference:

Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she 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.
Associates: While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.

 

[Torm]

I would disagree with the use of poison. <snip> I see paladins as fighting up front, meaning no backstabbing. <snip> She's got fairly the same Code as the Klingons.

Don't misunderstand me - I'm not saying a Paladin should by any means prefer poison or guerilla tactics. I'm saying that, as long as combat was honorably offered and the foe was put on notice that battle was to occur, either of these seems like a valid tactical consideration against a superior foe - especially if the only other options are to withdraw and fail in your Duty (the reason you had to fight in the first place), or fight "Lawful Stupid" until you die, and still possibly fail in your Duty.

No fair throwing my own "What Would Worf Do?" thing back at me! But he can illustrate what I mean: I don't see Worf poisoning an evenly matched foe in order to gain an unfair advantage - but I can completely see him sabotaging a superior foe to make the fight fair and honorable, just as he might handicap himself against an inferior foe. Worf ain't no dummy!

 

[Turanil]

In our campiagns Paladins are <...> here to do what they got to do, and in there case they are here to kill evil, period. <...> A Paladin is a hunter and killer of evil. <...> Although the Paladin cannot just walk up and back stab a evil guy he must challenge them.

I completely agree with you as far as all supernatural evil is concerned (black magic, demons, etc.), or people who clearly dabble in supernatural evil (such as high level necromancers raising the dead). Now for common selfish people whose actions may lead to others being hurt, things become more complex, and a paladin IMC may have to bring him/her to justice rather than simply put a sword through his/her body...

I agree that since paladins are expected to act like honorable knights, not just slayers, they are forbidden to use poison and backstabb. On the other hand, it's not as if they were medieval knights so obsessed with chivalry code that they may not use ranged weapons and must always engage their enemies in melee...

In any case, my next campaign will include the Champion class (AU by Monte Cook) rather than the paladin, for a class of inquisitor-crusader who act as intimidating fanatics and witch hunters, and don't lose their powers when inadvertently slaying innocents. But this is not your typical D&D Dragonlance campaign type, but a gritty Warhammer type of campaign...

 

[Darkness]

I'd let a paladin use poison against non-sentient creatures (animals, mindless constructs or undead (well, if he has a poison that affects them), and the like).

 

[Piratecat]

A lawful good paladin riding the fence?

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

You stole my joke.

 

[Thanee]

You were going good there untill you got to the "no backstabbing" part. Paladins IMC can use any and all tactics necessary to get the job done, no handwaving about "dishonest" tactics. Oh, and I drop the "no poison" bit too, how the heck is poison any less honorable than stabbing someone in the gut? Or bestow curse for that matter.

Because it's not knightly. Paladins are assumed to be honorable. Fighting an opponent face to face is honorable, daggers in the back or poisoned blades are the weapons of a coward (or those of the smart, others might say ).

Bye
Thanee

 

[Numion]

Hi-

My group adventurer's are a tough lot, but they also include a Paladin (Hi Joe ; ) )
Well, I put poor Joe in a real nasty situation, the players wanted to kill these two Youn-ti chicks, they have been harrassing the players since day one, finally, they were able to knock them down a notch so instead of fighting to the death, the two chicks surrendered. So the Paladin had to keep the rest of the players from killing these two dirtbags because, well, he's a Paladin, and if a foe surrender's, the paladin like any chicago cop, has to accept that surrender.

But he doesn't have to keep them alive. Paladin is a judge, a jury and an executioner in the same person. If after apprehending the criminals the paladin feels that the penalty of death is appropriate, he can do the execution.

Yuan-ti are usually quite evil in their practices (what was the pair doing?), and death penalty wasn't uncommon in 'ye olden times'. You do the math.

 

[Darth K'Trava]

Don't misunderstand me - I'm not saying a Paladin should by any means prefer poison or guerilla tactics. I'm saying that, as long as combat was honorably offered and the foe was put on notice that battle was to occur, either of these seems like a valid tactical consideration against a superior foe - especially if the only other options are to withdraw and fail in your Duty (the reason you had to fight in the first place), or fight "Lawful Stupid" until you die, and still possibly fail in your Duty.

No fair throwing my own "What Would Worf Do?" thing back at me! But he can illustrate what I mean: I don't see Worf poisoning an evenly matched foe in order to gain an unfair advantage - but I can completely see him sabotaging a superior foe to make the fight fair and honorable, just as he might handicap himself against an inferior foe. Worf ain't no dummy!

I've had a paladin face a superior foe. She got offed in that fight but she was determined to take the foe with her.... She later came back. But the sacrifice was worth it as she knew she was gonna die; it was better to die fighting than to just die without trying....

Can't help it if I spent abt 6 years hanging around Klingons and even portraying myself as one during the heyday of Klingon fandom in the mid-to-late 90s..... That and being heavily into Trek fandom and watching the various incarnations on TV at the time. BTW, just don't give Worf a phaser and he'll do quite well..... I just see that their Honor Code fits most paladin's Codes so closely that it works well to utilize it.

Worf may not be a dummy, but he can't hit the broadside of a Federation Starship to save his life, much less his career as a Security Chief..... The man does not need to utilize anything more advanced than a Levek or a Bat'leth!

 

[Darth K'Trava]

But he doesn't have to keep them alive. Paladin is a judge, a jury and an executioner in the same person. If after apprehending the criminals the paladin feels that the penalty of death is appropriate, he can do the execution.

They may be "judge, jury and executioner" but they are to show mercy if the foe/criminal/BBEG begs for it. But if someone attacks either the paladin or a member of his party, all bets are off! They'd be toast and in for a major smitin' for doing that!