Paladin code question/opinion...

[Desdichado]

But what's really going to be wild for your campaign is when you permit both kinds of paladins to serve the same diety.

Exactly. Those debates about paladin behavior are much more interesting in character than out. Nothing worse than bogging down the game with arguments about "how to play your character" and few things are better than characters "on the same side" coming to blows over questions of method.

 

[Green Knight]

(If a Paladin must grant mercy to every one that asks for it and the bad guys know this then every bad guy will of course ask for it, and use it to manipulate the Paladin, maybe to avoid the Paladin from shooting him with a bow as he's escaping yelling "I beg for your mercy oh mighty one, you wouldnt shoot me in the back would you, your righteousness?.") In our campaign the Paladin takes the shot every time

The Book of Exalted Deeds says in pretty clear and explicit terms that, yes, a Paladin MUST grant mercy every time. Now, this would be enough to cause even me to stop playing Paladins, but fortunately, they give you a new use for the Diplomacy skill, which gives the Paladin the chance to redeem the captured villain. Changing his alignment to Neutral, and possibly even Good (I.E. Say you capture an Orc. You can potentially change his alignment from Chaotic Evil to Chaotic Neutral or even Chaotic Good). That, IMO, offsets the whole "must grant mercy" schtick. So all you really need is for you and your DM to have an understanding that he shouldn't have villains asking for mercy unless he REALLY wants to see the game tied down with the reformation of that villain. Besides, any DM worth his salt wouldn't have villains asking for mercy all the time, with the PC's having to travel with 30 prisoners in a chain gang, so it's not something one really needs to worry about. Besides, I personally like the idea of redeeming the occasional villain.

A Paladin can ambush an known evil doer with deadly force. This would be reserved to evil outsiders, evil clerics etc.

I take it you mean a Paladin can NOT ambush an evil doer with deadly force? Well, if the question is regarding Sneak Attack, then both Book of Exalted Deeds and the Complete Adventurer answer this question in a roundabout way. In Book of Exalted Deeds, which goes into pretty heavy depth as to what's okay for the Exalted (All Paladins are Exalted, btw) character and what isn't, and nowhere is Sneak Attack mentioned as the action of a dishonorable character. In addition, they have a statted NPC who's a Rogue 3/Paladin 1.

Secondly, Complete Adventurer features several options for the Paladin who wants to have Sneak Attack. They have a Feat which allows for a Paladin to freely multiclass with the Rogue class, as well as a Prestige Class called the Shadowbane Inquisitor, which not only advances Sneak Attack damage, but can also freely multiclass with the Paladin, AND allows the Paladin to freely multiclass with the Rogue. So to sum up, it appears that Sneak Attack isn't a problem.

He must challenge the Blackguard anbd give him time to arm hiself

"Why you cowardly son of a bitch. You just sneak attacked an unarmed orc!"

"Well, then, he should've armed himself ... if he's gonna decorate his armor with my friends scalp."

This is a tough one, but once again, I don't recall anything being said about not being able to attack unarmed enemies, so long as you KNOW they've done something wrong. You can't just attack someone for BEING evil, but you can attack them for DOING evil.

Anyway, I suggest picking up the Book of Exalted Deeds first chance you get. It really is the best source when it comes to defining what a Paladin in specific, and Exalted characters in general, can and can't do.

 

[robberbaron]

I've now read several threads about the behaviour of Paladins and the conclusion I have reached is...

figure it out for yourself.

If you're the GM, make Paladins exactly how you want them.
If you're a player, discuss your take on Paladins with your GM and come to an agreement.

For my pennyworth:
In my campaign a Paladin is the physical embodiment of a god's ideals.
Paladins are Holy Warriors and are not limited to Lawful Good - evil gods are just as likely to want mighty champions as good ones - though being paladinly requires a modicum of "lawfulness" so chaotic gods would not have paladins very often or for long.

Many people out there will be enraged by my cheek at changing their favourite character class but they'll just have to get over it.

 

[Darkness]

Maybe he's a she and elvin at that? Maybe she has open sexual relations with several men? Maybe she uses a bow and doesnt even own a sword or armor? This same Elvin vixon of a Palidon may use her good looks to aid her vs evil...show a little leg to lure the bad guy. Sounds rogue like but is completly feasable. She must remain withen her own code.

There's a CG paladin class in UA. You might want to try that one. It would fit this elven girl very well. Even gets Bluff as a class skill.

 

[Hand of Evil]

I say look to the gods and the DM, the gods will give the paladin their code based on the domains, the DM should define evil in the game also based on the domains of the gods as he sees fit.

 

[DragonLancer]

I have seen the topic of poison come up in a few threads lately and here is my reasoning why Paladins should be forbidden its use. The problem with poison is that it can only be used for evil acts. There is no good thing to ever come from poison.

What about primitive tribes that use poison in hunting? Thats not evil. Poison by itself is not evil. Evil is what's done with it. Poison use is neutral for the most part.

 

[RuminDange]

To me a paladin is a champion for a cause either of his own choosing or a deity. The cause he champions defines him and his code. Not all paladins are "knights in shining armor" or paragons of alignment. IMC, there are various paladin's that champion a deities cause and must abide by the code set forth by them, then there is the paladin's that champion their own cause and choose their own code of behavior. To each their own when dealing with paladins since many tend to attach a whole lot other meanings to the word paladin and therefore what the class should represent.

As far as poison use goes, it is a tool. Granted most of the time not much good can come out of it, but that depends on the users goals as well. I have had PC's use poison to knock out people who were under the influence of an evil artifact just so they would have time to find the artifact and dispose of it and free them. Would I disallow a paladin to do such? No. If a paladin wishes to use poison it better not be against his code and / or he better have a very good reason for its use, such as this case. Using a poisoned blade in combat, it just goes back to whatever code has been defined for the paladin's cause and if the use is warranted.

Basically to boils down IMHO to choose the cause to champion and define the code based on that and have fun from there. I see no reason to have one code to define them all, and no two paladins should be exactly the same unless championing the same cause under the same deity, but even that should leave the chance for two champions to come at odds with the way each interprets the code.


RD

 

[Shuffle]

Im my campaigns, option #2 with the villan getting away and the villagers being safe is really the only option for a paladin. Protecting the innocent is their biggest priority.

Flanking is a nonissue, utilizing sound tactics in combat is expected.

Sneak Attacks are ok, case by case vs. unarmed/unprepared foes (an evil orc on watch is prepared whether he'he knows you're there or not).

I'm a stickler for LG paladins myself, but I can understand why some people disagree.
Conversly I think Blackguards should be CE only.

I tend to think of them as Diametric opposites. Paladins aspire to everything that makes a strong good society. Compassion, fair laws, supporting of those less fortunate, defending those unable to defend themselves and other such things.

Blackgaurds are everything that breeds fear and weakness (over time)

I would NEVER continuously punish a paladin for allowing opponents to surrender, that is bad form on the DM's part (IMO), unless the DM gives every capture an opportunity to be "turned".

Poison isn't used in self defence, it is used (except the 1 exception in BoED) to kill and cripple. That makes it dishonorable, and beneath a paladin

my 2 cents

 

[Sir ThornCrest]

Conversly I think Blackguards should be CE only.

Yah Blackguards (blagurd) should be the Anti Palidon of 2nd edition, same abilities and powers but all for Ch-Evil, there lay on hands should be = but damaging to others and only able to heal himself. They shouldnt have to be a fallen Palidon to = that of a Palidon of same level. They also shouldnt be a Prestige class, they should start off a t 1st level just like a Palidon does. They should radiate fear in 10' radius and should not be immune to it themselves as they are after all is said and done cowards.

Thorncrest

Im my campaigns, option #2 with the villan getting away and the villagers being safe is really the only option for a paladin. Protecting the innocent is their biggest priority.

Flanking is a nonissue, utilizing sound tactics in combat is expected.

Sneak Attacks are ok, case by case vs. unarmed/unprepared foes (an evil orc on watch is prepared whether he'he knows you're there or not).

I'm a stickler for LG paladins myself, but I can understand why some people disagree.
Conversly I think Blackguards should be CE only.

I tend to think of them as Diametric opposites. Paladins aspire to everything that makes a strong good society. Compassion, fair laws, supporting of those less fortunate, defending those unable to defend themselves and other such things.

Blackgaurds are everything that breeds fear and weakness (over time)

I would NEVER continuously punish a paladin for allowing opponents to surrender, that is bad form on the DM's part (IMO), unless the DM gives every capture an opportunity to be "turned".

Poison isn't used in self defence, it is used (except the 1 exception in BoED) to kill and cripple. That makes it dishonorable, and beneath a paladin

my 2 cents

 

[Darkness]

Conversly I think Blackguards should be CE only.

Yah Blackguards (blagurd) should be the Anti Palidon of 2nd edition, same abilities and powers but all for Ch-Evil, there lay on hands should be = but damaging to others and only able to heal himself. They shouldnt have to be a fallen Palidon to = that of a Palidon of same level. They also shouldnt be a Prestige class, they should start off a t 1st level just like a Palidon does. They should radiate fear in 10' radius and should not be immune to it themselves as they are after all is said and done cowards.

Thorncrest

There's a CE paladin class in UA that's not immune to fear. You could use that.