Paladin code question/opinion...

[Sir ThornCrest]

I see posts and speak with gamers about this very subject and opinions do differ, drastically. As usuall with any subject you will have the extreme opposing versions on either side, combating over details, and then there is me in the middle.

1st side:
Why shouldnt Paladins be allowed to use pioson on their blade? The blade isnt meant to tickle the enemy its meant to kill him, so is the pioson. The blade is a man made weapon to kill and so is the alchemist pioson. Neither the alchemist nor the pioson are evil. Why shouldnt a Paladin take advantage of a evil doers back? The Paladin can take advantage of flanking in combat, right? So then why is a back attack, surprise attack even questioned, or ambush an evil doer with a bow. Role playing is fine, I dont expect all hack n slash, but Im not gonna walk around and use all my healing on the sick and injured, I must save some for myself incase of battle.
QUESTION:
Bad guys getting away, and summons 10 zombies to kill the innocents in a town, I go after the bad guy every time. Sure a few innocents may die, but if I get the bad guy then he cant do this again. Plus I will return to kill any left over Zombies in just a minute.

2nd side:
The Paladin is a almost cellestial being infused with purity of good and might. He must be as mercesful as he is stalwart. He must heal the sick with as much enthusiasm as vanquishing an evil foe. He is the knight in shining armor, an example of honor, valor for all.
QUESTION:
Bad guys getting away, and summons 10 Zomies to kill the innocents in a town, I go kill the Zombies every time. Sure tha bad guy might get a step on me but this way I will save as many innocents as possible. Plus I will pursue the bad guy as Im done here in just a minute

My side:
A Paladin can do whatever he thinks is going to rid the area of evil. Magic, feats, tactics are just tools to do so. As long as his own code of honor is not compromised. Paladins enforce a code upon themselves in our campaigns, they serve no one god, just the LG agenda. Some may swear an oath to 1 god and fight to further his end. But this will adventually lead to enforcing the gods will and not the LG agenda, if the god is not LG himself. He can use holy water as an "poison", vs evil, use spells to blind, slow even injure enemies, but he cannot use pioson. His righteous might nor his skill, power, magic, or goodness is represnted when the ranger pours 1d6/dex DC16 pioson over the Paladins blade. Though his blade can be endowed with magic a magic potion (like Keen etc) to better kill evil. Anything with the discription of poison, should be excluded. He is not a worshipper of the god of healing automatically, he may chose to heal and spend all his magic doing so. But maybe tomorrow he thinks a battle is coming and heals others minamally if at all. He may say I will return later to heal etc. But he will never be punished by me for not immediately jumping off his horse and healing/curing. But if he doesnt return when possible to heal or at least help, then he will be in violation. Nor does he necessarily come with any vow that stops him from killing, he may take it if he wants, but he doesnt have it automatically. (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, he may even chose to shoot the bad guys horse first just to slow it down or kill it. A Paladin can ambush an known evil doer with deadly force. This would be reserved to evil outsiders, evil clerics etc. If a Paladin breaks open the door of the N-evil mayors office and scewers him to death because he is stealing money from the city to help with his Kurf addiction. Then this Paladin is in violation of his code. The Palidon must give the bad guy time to pull a weapon out before attacking. Example a Blackguard may be ambushed if he is in the middlew of doing a evil act. But if the black guard is kissing his baby goodbye for the day the Palidon cannot burst in and slay him. He must challenge the Blackguard anbd give him time to arm hiself.

Thorncrest

 

[BiggusGeekus]

Both are valid dending on the nature of your campaign and its view of relative or absolute morality. Personally, I pick #2 as the power of the paladin comes directly from a divine entitey who has presumably given this matter some thought. The first guy is just a fighter with a justice fixation. In my opinion only.

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

 

[ThirdWizard]

For me, #2 is more fun.

No, the poison thing doesn't make a lot of sense when magic is everywhere that does worse and isn't hindered. I don't think there's anything in the code about not being able to make use of sneaky tactics, though. Rushing in head long all the time is one of the defining features of the short-lived paladin. Not healing someone so that you can have a better chance at a possible battle later in the day isn't evil, probably netural, but I would frown heavily upon a paladin who let another suffer so that they might have a better chance at an encounter that might not even happen. And finally, innocents in danger is a more immediate threat than innocents that might possibly be in danger in the future when you arn't there; trust in the gods and their designs.

I'm lenient with paladins, though, when I DM. Not that there have been many...

 

[Fingol]

If you're sitting in the middle on this one, don't worry about it. Spend your time being creative in other ways. As whoever plays a paladin in your games might find another way of roleplaying his character, something that you or me have not thought of, there is no point worrying about it until it happens. He might want to be much more lawful than good, his orientation might be to follow the letter of the law. If poisons are illegal substances in the society he belongs to he might never use them because of those reasons.

He might not be consistent; one fight he might try to rescue to villagers from the 10 zombies the next fight he might go after the reason they were there. He might have good reasons for both actions that will make sense to him, as situations are never exactly the same.

You can't control the players minds so don't worry about it, just have fun. I like the idea of being able to play both paladin types worshipping the same god, that would be very nice. It stops the debate and you can concentrate on what the necromancer is going to next, and what sort of moral questions he can present your paladins with next time.

 

[DragonLancer]

IMO it boils down to the idea that use of poison is a dishonourable act for a chivalric and honourable figure. Sure theres nothing against using it, poison itself is not evil its just a tool, but I think a good deity and his priesthood would frown upon a Paladin using such a tool.

 

[Sir ThornCrest]

Palidons arent knights automatically...he might be an archer type

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.

Thorncrest

 

[billd91]

I disagree that a paladin can do anything he want to fight evil. For a paladin, a lawful character, the methods are important too. Doing anything he wants, or anything as long as its effective, is more the turf of the chaotic good character. Finding a golden mean between the two is the area neutral good characters stake out.
If there's no difference in the methodologies of paladin and good-hearted outlaws, then what's the point of having paladins? Paladins stand for something stricter and, in their views, purer because they never sink to the enemy's methods and thus sully the victory.
That's why I don't see paladins using poisons. They aren't cricket.

 

[Sandain]

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.

A sword can be used for both attack and defence. Carying a sword can be a deterent and a symbol of peacekeeping. Its a highly visible sign of the threat to evil a Paladin is. If you commit evil, then the Paladin will be foced to use this deterent.

People own weapons to protect themselves and others, but always hope that they never have to use them in violence.

People who own poison plan to use it, and it can never be for a good cause. All it does is injure and kill. Its like a Paladin owning a rabid wolf or having a blood starved vampire on a leash.

Paladins imho should be above using such things.

 

[Testament]

billd91 nailed it. A Paladin is better than their opponents, and would never stoop to their methods. Poison is the weapon of a dishonourable coward, you cannot see it, nor can you defend yourself against it though your skill at arms.

Number 2 there is more in line with how I see a paladin being.

 

[Khafre]

In my opinion, this is the sort of question that always begins with "it depends". What it depends most on is the god that the Paladin follows, and to a somewhat lesser degree to that of the greater society.

I think the thing to keep in focus though is not just someone who follows laws of the land and fights for good. That's just a lawful good fighter. A paladin is an exemplar of a person who fights for justice and good, because to do anything less is to deny everything that he stands for. A lawful good fighter might be able to take the position that the means justify the ends (putting good before law), but for a paladin, it is those little things that determine who you are.

This is of course an overly broad generalization. Written rules always come into conflict with each other at some point or another. Whether the paladin follows the code of his deity (above local law), the code of his country (over that of his deity), or a personal code of honor (above all) - it is the intent of the laws that the paladin holds dear. That means there can be a lot of variety in what different paladins feel is the correct course of action.

This does place some limits on a paladin's actions. Attacking from the rear for example - if there is a reasonable chance that they might be facing someone other than who they think they are, instead of taking the easy shot they first need to verify that they are not smiting an innocent. A LG fighter might take the hit figuring they can heal the person later if it really is an innocent, but for a paladin, that would be wrong as he has no right to strike someone who has not done a wrong deserving of a smiting. This is also part of the stricture against poison - with poison, if you are wrong as to their guilt, it is even harder to undo the harm.

That's not to say paladins are dumb. Sacrificing your life for a noble cause might be valiant, but most gods aren't going to look kindly on someone who sacrificed their lives needlessly. That means they should be just as tactical, if not more so, than most figthers. The bit about being a paragon of virtue just puts certain tactics off limits to them.

That is also why most paladins are not carousers. They are a paragon of order and discipline - the fact that they aren't violating any laws is irrelevant.
That of course is an abstraction based on the attitudes of most LG societies and LG deities. If the paladin follows a LG deity of whom being a carouser IS being a shining example to the community, well, then you almost expect that paladin to be a carouser. Off the top of my head, I'm not aware of any LG god that follows that path though.