Paladin moral delima

[was]

not really a dilemma...it's not logical to assume you'd get a fair chance at one-on-one combat when you're in the middle of an enemy encampment with no backup

 

[Janx]

not really a dilemma...it's not logical to assume you'd get a fair chance at one-on-one combat when you're in the middle of an enemy encampment with no backup

Yeah.

I'm not sure where this mentality that the Paladin is Mr. Honor Duel all the time.

The circumstances ANY enemy would agree to resolve a conflict through the outcome of one-on-one is limited. Let alone, that subset is further reduced when you factor in enemies that woudl abide by the outcome.

Let's also not discount that like beggars, prisoners are not choosers. Once I've captured you, there is no negotiation with you, I have you, you are mine.

Therefore, the paladin will have no opportunity to actually negotiate any kind of honor duel. His only choice is wait until I release him or kill him, or try to escape.

 

[GreyLord]

No and hell no. In any system -- at any time.

Lawful Good is not a synonym for stupid; nor is honourable another way of saying "suicidal".

In all honesty, I find these kind of questions quite aggravating, because so often they betray a tendency among some groups to enforce this sort of nutty code of conduct when discussing Paladins. There simply is no justification for this in any code of honour or alignment, for any version of the game, at any time, over the past 36 years the Paladin class has been in the game (since OD&D - Greyhawk).

No wonder the Paladin gets a bum wrap so often.

Lest ANYONE take offense at the above post, I believe this person,...did not read 1eUA page 16 and allow for differences of play. (Edit:1eUA is another edition of D&D, notably under AD&D...different rules and different ideas. This is where the idea of Paladin's, who were considered Cavaliers...must engage enemies on sight. There was even an order to what they would have to engage. This was a balancing factor due to some of the bonuses that Cavaliers and Paladin's recieved...such as an additional percentage to their STR, DEX, CON, every level...till they hit 18's, etc..., I would not be so stringent in my interpretation of the rules in THAT edition, but if a DM was clear about that interpretation, I wouldn't have a problem with that interpretation IN THAT EDITION. This IS and WAS NOT 3e...just to be clear. This is merely where some of the ideas came from.)

While I agree Lawful Good is not Lawful Stupid (or as per page 16 in UA, Lawful doesn't necessarily mean lawful stupid, the rule that a Cavalier [or which the paladin is a subclass in UA rules] MUST CHARGE an enemy can also be seen as a weakening of what some may call an overpowered class).

Many would play Cavaliers, or Paladin's who were under the Cavalier rules, and blatantly ignore rules. It was more a roleplaying item to balance out mechanical rules.

UA page 16 is a different playstyle and a different edition than 3e or Pathfinder...but holdouts may still adhere to these rules which is where such confusion for the original poster came from. In those editions as long as the DM was clear on how he/she interpreted such Codes of Conduct from a Cavalier or Paladin, I find it completely acceptable.

Such codes ARE NOT FOUND in 3e or Pathfinder to my knowledge.

The reason the Paladin get's a bum wrap under the new editons with their code of conduct has more to do with them attacking party members and evil on sight as per the original 3e rules under Paladin Code of Conduct regarding associates which reads

"A paladin will never knowlingly associate with evil characters. A paladin will not continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may only hire henchmen or accept followers who are lawful good."

Which has probably resulted in more than a few clashes within a party and the deaths inherent to such a clash.

I personally probably allow more leeway (both in the 1eUA case and the 3e case)...unless the person is an absolute rules lawyer in which case I'd enforce the rules...BUT...in either of the cases 1e or 3e...I'm not going to butt in and say it's not acceptable to play by those rules.

Also, as stated earlier, 3e is NOT AD&D or D&D from the older editions, it has other rules and there is no reason to follow the rules of an older edition. If a DM is doing so they should make it abudantly clear.

In regards to 3e, and Paladin's sneaking off I agree with what has already been stated in this thread, and that there should be no penalty for such. In fact perhaps such a move should be rewarded even.

I wouldn't think enforcing a 3e mindset on another version of the game is apt however...anymore than enforcing a UA rules mindset on 3e without player consent is apt.

Just my two cents, and trying to be polite and not offensive in my reply.

 

[haakon1]

Yeah, if all things were equal I'd say the same thing. But when it comes to alignment and paladins in particular the most grounded, sensible player can't "just play" without knowing where the DM has planted the mines in his morality minefield. The player gets to make the decisions for his PC but it's the DM who decides where the edge is: what the paladins code is, what the alignment restrictions REALLY are (since its quite uncommon that two people at the table see a given alignment the same way without talking to each other first), etc.

I may not have a particular problem with "just playing" a paladin. You might not either. But the frequently recurring number of alignment and paladin "discussions" on any message board will tell you that there are A LOT of people out there who won't let that happen.

I've never actually seen this problem in real life, and I've played a lot of paladins and DM'd a lot of paladins.

I've also never seen anyone play a "Drizzt clone".

Maybe both issues are caused by 2e-style play, or Forgotten Realms novels? I've never been into either, and most player I know mostly skipped 2e and FR, dropping out sometime after AD&D's heyday and coming back in the 3e heyday.

Or maybe both "bete noires" are creatures of internet D&D discussions, not actual play? Or problems that arise in "pick up games" with a more adversarial style in gaming stores and cons, but don't often happen in home games among friends?

Anyhow, my advice is: If you are playing a paladin and wondering "where the line is", you're not playing a paladin right. A paladin isn't interested in skirting the line of what's right or allowed -- he is trying to be a paragon of the ideals he lives for. In his heart, the paladin knows what's right.

As the DM, I don't try to trap or mess with the player of paladin's. Some will come up with dilemma's of their own, but most just get on with the game. I'd get more annoyed at someone stopping play to philosophize then I do at them NOT deeply examining the moral depth of each situation.

On a slightly different vein, I've never viewed Unearthed Arcana as core AD&D rules. I view it as Edition 1.5, or as optional rules. I never played in a group that adopted the cavalier rules. Mostly, we like the polearms section, the demihuman and humanoid gods, and the social status table, for our AD&D games.

 

[GreyLord]

On a slightly different vein, I've never viewed Unearthed Arcana as core AD&D rules. I view it as Edition 1.5, or as optional rules. I never played in a group that adopted the cavalier rules. Mostly, we like the polearms section, the demihuman and humanoid gods, and the social status table, for our AD&D games.

They weren't core rules. I can see the 1.5 thing.

 

[orion90000]

Wow, I step out of the room for 5 mins (or days i lost track) and a flame war has erupted!

More info is needed of course, I'll elaborate some more.

A war with a hobgoblin tribe breaks out and in the heat of the action the mighty paladin is ambushed from behind and is taken prisoner to be sacrificed later to the evil god Maglubyet (sp?). Certain circumstances allow him to escape his prison later and in a behind enemy lines (hobgoblin camp, not just 1 evil mob) should he flee outright or sneak around and eliminate leaders if possible? I would easily say grab what supplies you can and run, but I can also see the paladin code saying to act when you can act and run when you must.

Again not just running around starting a one man war, but strategically moving about eliminating key opponents.

I'm just asking for opinions, so quit flaming each other.

 

[Janx]

Wow, I step out of the room for 5 mins (or days i lost track) and a flame war has erupted!

More info is needed of course, I'll elaborate some more.

A war with a hobgoblin tribe breaks out and in the heat of the action the mighty paladin is ambushed from behind and is taken prisoner to be sacrificed later to the evil god Maglubyet (sp?). Certain circumstances allow him to escape his prison later and in a behind enemy lines (hobgoblin camp, not just 1 evil mob) should he flee outright or sneak around and eliminate leaders if possible? I would easily say grab what supplies you can and run, but I can also see the paladin code saying to act when you can act and run when you must.

Again not just running around starting a one man war, but strategically moving about eliminating key opponents.

I'm just asking for opinions, so quit flaming each other.

I think an orderly thing to do, is to escape and report back to his superiors and come back with reinforcements.

It enters the realm of John McClainism to try to take down the whole thing by himself. Which really, should only happen when you are certain that help is not coming, and that you really are the best prepared to do so. That's a pretty prideful assumption.

 

[Dausuul]

A war with a hobgoblin tribe breaks out and in the heat of the action the mighty paladin is ambushed from behind and is taken prisoner to be sacrificed later to the evil god Maglubyet (sp?). Certain circumstances allow him to escape his prison later and in a behind enemy lines (hobgoblin camp, not just 1 evil mob) should he flee outright or sneak around and eliminate leaders if possible? I would easily say grab what supplies you can and run, but I can also see the paladin code saying to act when you can act and run when you must.

Again not just running around starting a one man war, but strategically moving about eliminating key opponents.

Ah, that's rather different from what was originally described. In this situation, I think the paladin code is silent. It's a tactical decision, and the paladin is free to go either way according to his own sense of what's best.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Wow, I step out of the room for 5 mins (or days i lost track) and a flame war has erupted!

More info is needed of course, I'll elaborate some more.

A war with a hobgoblin tribe breaks out and in the heat of the action the mighty paladin is ambushed from behind and is taken prisoner to be sacrificed later to the evil god Maglubyet (sp?). Certain circumstances allow him to escape his prison later and in a behind enemy lines (hobgoblin camp, not just 1 evil mob) should he flee outright or sneak around and eliminate leaders if possible? I would easily say grab what supplies you can and run, but I can also see the paladin code saying to act when you can act and run when you must.

Again not just running around starting a one man war, but strategically moving about eliminating key opponents.

I'm just asking for opinions, so quit flaming each other.

Well, if the DM hasn't otherwise set some kind of obligation or restriction on what the paladin must do then it's just up to the player. It's otherwise not a matter of morality or ethics - it's just a question of military expediency. If the paladin can escape cleanly he can bring back help to destroy the encampment and rescue all the prisoners. If he starts playing Secret Agent is he risking blowing the whole deal or can he still get away after offing just a few of the enemy leaders?

As I read the "code" and class restrictions in the PH I see nothing that tells me as a player what I am otherwise obliged to do in this situation.

 

[Baron Opal]

A war with a hobgoblin tribe breaks out and in the heat of the action the mighty paladin is ambushed from behind and is taken prisoner to be sacrificed later to the evil god Maglubyet (sp?). Certain circumstances allow him to escape his prison later and in a behind enemy lines (hobgoblin camp, not just 1 evil mob) should he flee outright or sneak around and eliminate leaders if possible?

Whichever the character deems most prudent. Assassination of (evil) enemy leaders can be very useful to the war effort, but so would reporting back to base and bringing back valuable intelligence of enemy forces.

There is nothing in the basic paladin package that would make one or the other problematic.

I'm just asking for opinions, so quit flaming each other.

What flames? I missed flames? I'm becoming unobservant in my old age.