Paladins and Self Preservation

[Arnwyn]

Say a paladin is confronted alone by possibly or probably or definitely overwhelming force. What would you say to the paladin fleeing?

"Smart move."

 

[sword-dancer]

To create another paladin thread. . .

Say a paladin is confronted alone by possibly or probably or definitely overwhelming force. What would you say to the paladin fleeing?

Quasqueton

Under normal circumstances,
a honorable and responsible decision.

. Nor is it acceptable for him to flee an enemy if doing so would violate his orders, e.g. a paladin with a military unit ordered to fight to the last man to hold a bridge. .

No, it would be the right act to retreat if the orders are outdated through circumstances.
From Officers i expect to adept their mission on the circumstances.

I'd expect the paladin to be the last one out -- no retreating until he or she is sure that everyone else is safe, and for the paladin to guard the rear of a retreating group. .

Under the reason, that this is reasionable for the pally to do.
A Pally who isn`t longer fit for combat, had to lead the retreat or is charged with other duties, may`ve to act in other ways.

 

[Silveras]

The thing about it is that it would be great role-playing, the battle, the withdraw (but the commander dies before issuing it and things get confused) the trial of the paladin, the stripping of his badges, the breaking of his sword, he becomes outcast...

Sounds like the rifleman TV show.

I think you mean "Branded". Same actor, though, so the confusion is understandable. And it remains a good example.

 

[Dancer]

Originally Posted by the Jester

. Nor is it acceptable for him to flee an enemy if doing so would violate his orders, e.g. a paladin with a military unit ordered to fight to the last man to hold a bridge. .

No, it would be the right act to retreat if the orders are outdated through circumstances.
From Officers i expect to adept their mission on the circumstances.


There really isn't a lot of leeway or interpretation needed for "hold this bridge at all cost, to the last man if need be". Unless given a direct order, or say extraordinary circumstances (such as the entire force flying over the bridge), then I say the Paladin wins or dies at the bridge.

 

[Hand of Evil]

I think you mean "Branded". Same actor, though, so the confusion is understandable. And it remains a good example.

My error...

 

[Deadguy]

There really isn't a lot of leeway or interpretation needed for "hold this bridge at all cost, to the last man if need be". Unless given a direct order, or say extraordinary circumstances (such as the entire force flying over the bridge), then I say the Paladin wins or dies at the bridge.

I think a Paladin is meant to be a smarter warrior than that. If the effect of holding the bridge is negligible then he is obliged to protect resources, including himself, for better uses. To stubbornly hold to an order that serves no purpose is the act of a fool, not a hero. It's not that a Paladin will usually lack for opportunities to fight for Good and Honour

I can't help feeling that some DMs, not content with throwing up opportunities to screw over a Paladin by subverting his Code, also want to use that Code to just arbitrarily kill a character. I've played characters who are happy to lay down their lives for others, even those they despise. But that death has to mean something to make it satisfying. Otehrwise it's just a sadistic act on the DM's part. He might enjoy it - in his sick way - but it will kill the game for me, and for the otehr players too, I suspect.

 

[the Jester]

I think a Paladin is meant to be a smarter warrior than that. If the effect of holding the bridge is negligible then he is obliged to protect resources, including himself, for better uses. To stubbornly hold to an order that serves no purpose is the act of a fool, not a hero. It's not that a Paladin will usually lack for opportunities to fight for Good and Honour

Very often, in war, the commanding officer doesn't know the larger strategic situation. That bridge might be vital. And ask anyone in the army- if your commander tells you to fight to the last man, anything else is disobeying orders or worse.

The paladin's job, in such a situation, is to do his best to faithfully execute his orders. If his liege commands him to lay down his life for the cause, he should do so cheerfully and spend it as dearly as he can.

Witness Faramir.

 

[Deadguy]

Very often, in war, the commanding officer doesn't know the larger strategic situation. That bridge might be vital. And ask anyone in the army- if your commander tells you to fight to the last man, anything else is disobeying orders or worse.

The paladin's job, in such a situation, is to do his best to faithfully execute his orders. If his liege commands him to lay down his life for the cause, he should do so cheerfully and spend it as dearly as he can.

Witness Faramir.

In war that might well be true - actually it is true. But this isn't a war. This is a game and I expect the DM to remember that it focusses on the PCs not on his big screen. Wiping out the PCs like that is fine if it's part of the deal for teh campaign. But as a typical 'adventurer' story it isn't fine in my books. Like I say, it's just a sadistic little game for the DM that doesn't help the campaign.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I think I'll post a differing opinion here to most:

In most cases the Paladin should stay and fight.
Unfortunately, I'll most likely be thrown into the lawful "stupid" category here but here's a little bit of reasoning - or useless dogma if you will.

If one of the core tenets of your deity or code is bravery and courage, then running away would shame either or both. A Paladin who fears his or her own death does not deserve the title of Paladin.

However, looking at the situation represented by Quasqueton, the real question put to the paladin is not should I be brave or not, but what purpose or benefit is gained by my sacrifice?
If the story of the Paladin's heroic sacrifice propogates what happens to both sides of the war?
Does it strengthen the resolve of those fighting on the same side?
Does it weaken the resolve or change the hearts of enemies?

If it is thought that the Paladin's sacrifice could accomplish one of these things, then such a sacrifice is not only honourable but of benefit to many.
And you never know, powerful clerics of the deity in question will look much more favorably upon those who have provided such stout affirmation of their faith in terms of deciding who they may resurrect and who they will not.
A Paladin who has sacrificed himself and dies with his faith so strong is someone who deserves to be returned to the land of the living - if such is their wish.

Some will regard this as playing "Lawful Stupid" but in terms of Paladinhood what is more important - one's life or one's ideal?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Hejdun]

I think it's time for a PHB check.

Here is what the PHB defines as the Code of Conduct.

1. Must be Lawful Good
Retreating isn't chaotic or evil, so we're good there.

2. No intentional evil acts
See #1

3. Respect legitimate authority
In a dungeon, there isn't one, so we're good here.

4. Act with honor
Dictionary Check:
Honor - "honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs or actions" Looks like we're ok there as well.

5. Help those who need help
Not a problem as long as the paladin isn't abandoning anyone in his retreat.

6. Punish those who threaten innocents
The only questionable one, but I think any DM will rule that self-preservation (and thus, the ability to punish evil in the future) over-rides this in a case of overwhelming numbers.

It should be noted that the PHB Code of Conduct does not mention chivalry once. Unless a custom code is written, a paladin has no obligation to adhere to any code of chivalry.