Paladin Actions - Appropriate?

[Arkhandus]

I think it's perfectly possible to play a "viscous", gritty paladin

Just to quibble, but for future reference, it's spelled "vicious". Viscous is a term for describing fluids, as being similar to glue or just not flowing well.

*the Grammar Patrol drives off*

 

[irdeggman]

Something about D&D that I really, really believe is that its paramount, when someone expresses an interest in playing a paladin, for the DM and the player to have some serious discussions about how they view the class. Because different people can have such different ideas about paladins.

Sometimes, the player can adapt to the DM's view. Sometimes, the DM might be able to accommodate the player. Perhaps there can be compromise, or revelation.

And sometimes, it's just not a good idea for a particular player to try to run a paladin under a particular DM, because they'll never mesh.

I had a DM tell me once "No, you can't multiclass paladin and rogue, because rogues are thieves!" I elected not to try a paladin under that DM.

I think it would be futile for me to play a paladin in Hawken's game, and I'd discourage him from running one in mine, 'cos I just don't think we could make it work.

-Hyp.

QFT

Something else to remember is that each paladin and cleric is required to have a code of conduct. The PHB paladin entry for Code of Conduct is not the only one, nor is it a complete one. IMO each player running a paladin (and also a cleric) should write down his code of conduct as part of his character write up and include it on his character sheet to remind him of how his PC is commiting to behave.

This will help with the DM/player interaction aspects and assist in pinning down any "misunderstandings".

 

[Patlin]

That just feels like villain behaviour to me.

When one person agrees that yes, the agreed objectives have been achieved, and the other laughs and presses the button that releases the cage from the ceiling and summons the horde of minions because he's no longer bound by their agreement to abstain from their long-standing feud, I'd have no hesitation in saying "That's the bad guy!" even if I'd skipped the first six chapters.

I'm not sure you can get away with "He's evil, so he was obviously going to betray me, so I just betrayed him first!" and still call it honorable conduct.

-Hyp.

How many villains announce their intention to do battle and give you fair warning before attacking? Seems to me LE attack at the first 'legal' opportunity, LG gives fair warning first, and must accept the risks inherent: loss of surprise, a higher probability of escape, etc.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

Something about D&D that I really, really believe is that its paramount, when someone expresses an interest in playing a paladin, for the DM and the player to have some serious discussions about how they view the class. Because different people can have such different ideas about paladins.

<snip for space, but the content is still good!>

I think it would be futile for me to play a paladin in Hawken's game, and I'd discourage him from running one in mine, 'cos I just don't think we could make it work.

-Hyp.

Thirded. Good post.

Personally, I don't buy into the whole "paladins get carte blanche" when dealing with an outsider. Paladins of certain deities, perhaps. But paladins of all deities? No way. I don't buy into generalizations that broad!

To me, being a paladin is so much more than just smite the evil foe. I mean, look at the abilities a typical paladin receives. The only outright offensive ones are smite (and I admit that's a biggie) and turn undead (which since it is at a reduced level may be more important for activating certain feats ... some of which are offensive and many are not).

But on the other hand you've got special mount - which could be used offensively in a charge, but it certainly could also be used as simple transportation, too. You've got lay on hands - which could be used offensively, but most often is used for healing. You've got remove disease, which is obviously intended for something other than making a blow to the enemy. You've got detect evil - which should be used to avoid evil and identify it, but itself is not outright offensive in nature. You've got divine grace which is clearly defensive in its abilities. You've got aura of courage - which is also clearly defensive. And there's divine health - which is also clearly defensive.

Now, a case can easily be made that a good offense comes from an excellent defense. But looking at the class abilities, I personally do not accept the argument that a good paladin is one who smites because he can. There are many types of good paladins. A paladin who heals more than smites is perfectly acceptable. A paladin who is interested in being the benefactor for the downtrodden is perfectly acceptable.

In summary, I don't have a problem with the big offensive paladins. In the OP's case, I think the paladin could have done many things better. But then again I'm also much more interested in changing lives, not destroying them. "You catch more flies with honey than vinegar" type person. In my campaigns, I'd personally rather see a paladin who errs on the side of mercy. After all, a big bad paladin slaying a lowly imp does nothing but fuel the enemy's hatred. Capturing them and granting them some measure of mercy (and potentially converting them to your side) at least makes the enemy think and not just hate.

As a side note, this argument reminds me of the latest OotS cartoon - the one where Belkar tries to attack the creature under the umbrella. There are two references to people in that strip who are the attack first and ask questions later type. Interestingly enough, they are Belkar (a visual reference) and Xykon (a verbal reference). I think it's been made clear that both of these characters have a bent towards evil, and I'm being nice here. I'm not trying to make generalizations about all characters, but personally I think that paladins who are about smiting evil at will without evaluating the ramifications of their actions upon their code are in danger. Being a paladin is hardly ever that black and white. I think there hae been plenty of posts already about how the paladin could have acted differently and been far more close to the paladin code.

 

[Wolfwood2]

Like most paladin threads, this one reinforces my conclusion that DMs should shut up and leave paladin code strictly to player determination.

DM: Do you think this is within keeping with a paladin's code of conduct?

Player: Yep!

DM: Your call.

It's amazing how many issues this resolves. Surrender the power, DM's. 19 cases out of 20 the game will be better off for it. You take a huge load off your shoulders and put it on the player. If the player uses this as an excuse to ignore the code- so what? Who cares? Really more his problem than yours. The paladin is balanced with the code of behavior or without.

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Separatist = Solo Adventurer

Like most paladin threads, this one reinforces my conclusion that DMs should shut up and leave paladin code strictly to player determination.

Dissing Rule #1 already? It must be Monday.

-Samir

 

[Wystan]

...Anyway, we're wrapping up a combat. Prior to the combat starting, some of the party made an agreement with an invisible NPC to essentially work together. They had similar goals. The party was looking for a specific item in a house (guarded by fighters and animals) and the invisible NPC was looking for something else in the house.

... and after the combat the party found what they wanted, as did the imp. But as things are wrapping up, the paladin attacks the imp, smites him, and kills him with one critical smiting hit..... but I'm not sure if he should have any repercussions as a paladin for his actions.

Any thoughts?

He killed him after the deal was concluded in any case.
No Penalty

 

[billd91]

I have no qualm with what the paladin did. There was no code violation that wouldn't be fixed by standing vigil for a night in the chapel as penance for unknowingly getting into deal with a fiend in the first place.

You know, if any paladin PC isn't doing the fantasy religion equivalent of a few extra rosaries every couple of sessions, then I don't think the paladin is being played right. That paladin should be holding himself up to such standards that he's always finding failings within himself to reflect on and perform extra devotions as punishment. And the DM shouldn't have to impose it for anything but huge, blatant violations of the code.

 

[udalrich]

I'm seeing a lot of "good trumps law" in this discussion... I don't agree with that; it depends entirely on the campaign.

Not by the rules. A Paladin who commits a chaotic act is just that. A Paladin (with all his powers) who has just committed a chaotic act. A Paladin who commits an evil act is an ex-Paladin.

One chaotic act does not cause an alignment change. Even a Paladin who knowingly commits an evil act is still a lawful good ex-Paladin.

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Alignment Semantics

Even a Paladin who knowingly commits an evil act is still a lawful good ex-Paladin.

It depends on the act, and the DM.

-Samir