Paladin Actions - Appropriate?

[Kahuna Burger]

My wife and I are reading the last book together, and we're only up to chapter 12. If someone reports a post in a Harry Potter thread that contains spoilers, I'm gonna permaban the both of you.

Think I'm joking? Do you feel lucky, punk? Well, do ya?

Daniel

[Disclaimer: okay, I'm joking]

That would be so great.... In that un paladiny, evil sort of way....

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

My wife and I are reading the last book together, and we're only up to chapter 12. If someone reports a post in a Harry Potter thread that contains spoilers, I'm gonna permaban the both of you.

Well, just so you know ... Spoiler for the world!

 

[Wolfwood2]

Ah. That is a fair and reasonable question. Many have asked it, few have definitive answers. It seems likely that perhaps Paladin fans enjoy the roleplaying tension caused by the code, or maybe they like the fact that NPCs will know they follow the code and thus be able to trust the Paladin more completely (this is the case for the Aes Sedai in the world of the Wheel of Time, for instance--they adopt their Three Oaths for that same reason).

Another possibility is that people read the code way too strictly, and that it's possible for different paladins to take different positions on a wide variety of matters without either one being in objective violation of the code.

Smite the imp, don't smite the imp... isn't it possible that both decisions are in keeping with proper paladin behavior?

 

[irdeggman]

Another possibility is that people read the code way too strictly, and that it's possible for different paladins to take different positions on a wide variety of matters without either one being in objective violation of the code.

Smite the imp, don't smite the imp... isn't it possible that both decisions are in keeping with proper paladin behavior?

Or, as is my belief, people read what is in the PHB as "The Paladin's Code of Conduct". The reference in the text refer to it as "a". I have stated that each paladin requires his own that reflects his beliefs and what the character is going to be held accoutnable for.


Unearthed Arcana upened the door for paladins of different alignments and Dragon magazine followed that up.


At Birthright.net we did the same thing - based on the 2nd ed Br materials that had a paladin with a CG alignment.

Here is a summary of what we did with paladins in Birthright. It fits the rules as written and the "variants" opened up by official WotC products.

Cerilian paladins must be devoted to a specific patron deity, chosen at the start of their career as paladins. No paladin may serve just a cause, philosophy, or other abstract source of divine power. Only the gods Haelyn, Avani, Cuiraécen, Nesirie, and Moradin accept paladins into their service. All paladins must serve one of these five deities. Paladins are recognized as knights throughout Cerilia, and bear the responsibilities for behaving as such. Except as specified below, paladins are as written in the Player’s Handbook.

Paladins of Avani must be Lawful Neutral in alignment.

Code of Conduct: Paladins of Avani follow a Code of Conduct and they lose all class abilities if they ever fail to defend places of learning or to protect Avani’s people against those who would use magic against them. They also must respect legitimate authority and not act chaotically or without fore thought. All paladins of Avani know the Five Oaths of Service that the Khinasi require to be taken by all capable of casting true magic. They maintain and keep to these oaths as a point of honor, even though they do not undergo the same rituals that those taking them do. They are frequently used as hunters of those who refuse to take them but don’t hold other nationalities to the same standards since they are considered less civilized and knowing than are the Khinasi. These are the basic codes of conduct for Paladins of Avani, individual sects have varying interpretations of them and any paladin belonging to one will adjust his code of conduct to reflect that interpretation.

They substitute Smite Chaos for Smite Evil as a class ability that works exactly the same except that it applies to chaotic creatures vice evil ones.

Paladins of Avani may freely multiclass as a magician or wizard but not both, without losing their ability to advance as a paladin.

Paladins of Cuiraécen must be Chaotic Good.

Code of Conduct: Paladins of Cuiraécen follow a Code of Conduct and they lose all class abilities if they ever willingly commit a cowardly act, oppress a weak person or fail to defend a helpless one. Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she act with valor (not retreat from a fair fight, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents. These are the basic codes of conduct for Paladins of Cuiraécen, individual sects have varying interpretations of them and any paladin belonging to one will adjust his code of conduct to reflect that interpretation.

Paladins of Cuiraécen may freely multiclass as a fighter without losing their ability to advance as a paladin and most multi-class in a balanced fashion

Paladins of Haelyn bear additional privilege and responsibility as they are traditionally recognized as having the power to travel wherever and do whatever they must to execute Haelyn’s justice. This does not put Paladins of Haelyn above the law, but it traditionally exempts them from states of war, treaties, or any other laws that interfere with their ability to bring justice to those who require it. Ultimately, Paladins of Haelyn are expected to answer only to the church and their god for their actions.

Paladins of Haelyn may freely multiclass as a fighter or noble but not both, without losing their ability to advance as a paladin.

Paladins of Moradin consist only of dwarves.
Paladins of Moradin may freely multiclass as fighters or experts, but not both, without losing their ability to advance as a paladin.

Paladins of Nesirie must be neutral good in alignment and are always female.

Code of Conduct: Paladins of Nesirie follow a code of conduct and they lose all class if they ever willingly commit an evil act or fail to show compassion to those in need. Additionally a paladin’s code requires her to defend the weak and to always try to find a diplomatic solution to any situation. These are the basic codes of conduct for Paladins of Nesirie, individual sects have varying interpretations of them and any paladin belonging to one will adjust his code of conduct to reflect that interpretation. “Heal the injured, comfort the lost, and negotiate peace among all men” is the credo of Nesirie. While her priests usually make their temples near the water, her paladins travel freely to care for those in need and are often called upon to negotiate or at least oversee peace treaties.

Paladins of Nesirie may freely multiclass as clerics without losing their ability to advance as a paladin.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Or, as is my belief, people read what is in the PHB as "The Paladin's Code of Conduct". The reference in the text refer to it as "a".

Well, yes? The Class Feature of the Paladin class, Code of Conduct, states "A paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority..."

Does this mean "One example of a code is one that requires..."? No - the 'a' refers to 'a paladin'. Does it mean 'one example of a paladin'? No, it means 'Anyone who is a paladin'.

Just like "At 2nd level, a paladin gains a bonus equal to her Charisma bonus on saving throws" refers to anyone who is a paladin, and "At 3rd level, a paladin gains immunity to all diseases" refers to anyone who is a paladin.

If you're playing a class which is not, in fact, the PHB Paladin, like the Paladin of Freedom or Paladin of Slaughter or whatever, this doesn't apply - you use the class features of the Paladin of Freedom, not the class features of the Paladin. But if you're playing a Paladin, you are subject to the class feature Code of Conduct, and you meet the criterion for "A paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority..."

-Hyp.

 

[irdeggman]

Well, yes? The Class Feature of the Paladin class, Code of Conduct, states "A paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority..."

Does this mean "One example of a code is one that requires..."? No - the 'a' refers to 'a paladin'. Does it mean 'one example of a paladin'? No, it means 'Anyone who is a paladin'.

-Hyp.

I'm sorry but I read it as saying that a paladin's code of conduct must include these. . . .

Not that that is the entire Code of Conduct.

That is how I distguish "a" from "the".

If not than every PHB will be identical and I can not see that as ever being the intent of the designers.

I see each paladin's individual code of conduct relfecting their own behaviour.

For example the "detect evil"/"smite" style of play can be one way of running things (and that paladin's code should reflect that).

Likewise the diplomacy first and then lawfully "imprison" the evil is likewise a different means of meeting the same core principles.

 

[RigaMortus2]

What if there were a town full of defenseless commoners just over the hill and the imp was headed that way?

What if there wasn't?

 

[RigaMortus2]

Here's an interesting side-question based on that. What if there actually were not innocents in danger.

I present to you the following scenario. It may be unlikely, but it is possible given the above scenario:

Til'dik the imp lived to serve in the eternal Blood War between the demons and the devils. Thus, it was with great disgust that he was forced to journey to the mortal realms, but he knew the need was great. A being of pure evil and law, Til'dik could not abide by the fact that a cultist of Baphomet was about to collect the seventh piece of an artifact that would bathe that realm in chaos and death, as demons walked the world and rent it asunder. Hey, he had nothing against killing mortals, but that sort of chaotic destruction was ghastly compared to the careful nurturing of lawful evil souls to serve as his masters' energy, and besides, that would give the demons a huge advantage. The only possibility to stop it was to grab the final piece of the artifact himself and return it to Avernus. Lord Bel had determined that only in the fiery rivers of Avernus could it be destroyed, thus ending the threat. Although he'd dearly like to torture or corrupt some pathetic mortals for his trouble in leaving Hell, he knows that he doesn't have the luxury--he must return to Baator as soon as possible on recovering the item or risk the demon cultists recovering it. He hopes he will never have to go to this disgusting mortal plane ever again. In his dreams, he will serve in the Blood Wars until he dies and is absorbed by the perfect order of Baator or succeeds enough to be promoted to a mort suitable combat form and continue to even greater victory.

~~~

Fast forward--Til'dik is killed by the Paladin. The party either leaves the thing the imp wanted behind (in which case the cultists recover it) or take it with them (after the cultists figure it out, they steal it from the party). The land is bathed in death and slaughter. And Baphomet himself comes forth, sending an Aspect and rejoicing in the mayhem. The only one from the kingdom who is spared is the Paladin, for letting his hatred overwhelm him and single-handedly allowing this to happen!

I don't think you can hold a person (Paladin or not) responsible for something they have no knowledge of.

Here are two examples...

Paladin climbs a mountain to battle an evil sorcerer who is about to sacrifice the mayor's daughter. As he climbs the mountain, he accidentially starts an avalanche which destroys the small town below. Obviously the Paladin would feel bad about this, and would want to atone, but I don't think his choice to climb the mountain was "evil", because he didn't know that was going to happen.

versus

Before he climbs, the town mayor says, "Be careful, that mountain can be rigourous to travel and the wrong step could cause an avalanche." and the Paladin chooses to climb it anyway.

I see a difference between these two things. Others may not I suppose. I guess you could say, I look at intentions as well as actions, whereas I see a lot of people here only thinking that actions matter, not the intetion behind the action.

 

[RigaMortus2]

An agreement with an evil creature should never have been made in the first place,

But it was, due to extenuating circumstances, and now the Paladin has to deal with it. He has many choices to deal with it (I will only list 2, but I am sure there are others):

1) Finish the bargain and warn the imp that if you ever cross paths again, it will be smited. I see this as being a non-evil action, and an honorable one.
2) Kill the imp who "tricked" you. I see this as being a non-evil action, but a dishonorable one.

Given those two choices (like I said, I am sure everyone can come up with others), I think the first is more in the Paladins favor. I don't think the second choice would make the Paladin change alignment or fall from grace, I just think that it is less optimal than the first choice.

 

[RigaMortus2]

The paladin never agreed. If you're being arrested by a cop, are you passively agreeing to his assumption of guilt because you go along with him (with little/no protest)?

That is a horrible anaology. No, because when a person is being arrested, they aren't being arrested because they are guilty. In fact, it is the opposite. Innocent until proven guilty. A person usually gets arrested because they are suspected of a crime.

Also, a lot of people on this board seem to feel that being Lawful means never or not being able to lie or break an agreement. That's not true either. Lawful people everyday, everywhere tell lies in some magnitude. Maybe to spare someone hurt feelings, maybe something more dramatic, but it happens. And it doesn't make them Chaotic to do so. Or even Neutral. It just means they are Lawful and lie on occassion. Remember, part of being Lawful (Good) is taking the concerns and welfare of society over your own personal needs (such as the compulsion to fulfill your word). No one in their right mind would think the paladin wrong for not continuing his agreement with the imp. Besides his class prohibits him from continuing such agreements without facing the consequences of losing his status as a paladin.

No one in their right mind would equate "not continuing the agreement" with "permission to kill target with prejudice".