Paladins at war (apologies in advance)

[RangerWickett]

I dreadfully hope this thread doesn't descend into flames.

Despite their obvious combat talents and clear inspiration from classical chivalrous knights, paladins seem ill-suited to actual warfare, except in the most white-washed and happy settings. In real war you need to ambush foes, attack with overwhelming numbers, and use deceptive maneuvers to outwit your enemies. Some interpretations of the paladin code would suggest that paladins ought to stay the hell out of a war.

You can imagine a scene where a group is waiting to attack a supply convoy, but when the convoy comes within range, the paladin stands up and issues a noble challenge. A minute later, the enemy convoy has either retreated or has managed to kill half the paladin's allies. Good job with that honor of yours, buddy.

Then again, the paladin code states what, exactly?

"A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who threaten innocents."

A lot of wriggle room there. Is it lying to feint in combat? Is it cheating? Is it evil? If it is none of those, then would it be alright for a paladin to engage in a mission with the goal of luring foes away so that the bulk of the paladin's allies can attack elsewhere? However if you think that it is dishonorable, there are many tactics that are not allowed to a paladin. He is apparently only allowed to attack an enemy head up. I know a player who even thinks paladins should be forbidden from using ranged weapons.

What about laying an ambush? Ambushing a merchant, definitely dishonorable. But ambushing a military company that is cutting a swath through the heartlands of your nation? One could argue that by initiating a war, the enemy is considered constantly engaged, and thus it is completely honorable to engage them anywhere.

Are paladins allowed to utilize spies in war, or is that lying?

Is it dishonorable to fight when you have high ground? When you outnumber your enemies 2 to 1? Is it dishonorable to use flying mounts? After all, that's kind of unfair if your enemies can't fly.

What about the statement that you must respect legitimate authority? Here we come to the old samurai dilemma of ninjo versus giri -- human feeling versus duty. It's clear cut if your commander orders you to kill innocents, but if he orders you to set fire to your enemy's supply caravan, what are you to do if you think that it is dishonorable to win that way? Does your desire to fight a good, honorable battle supercede your duty to your commander (who he himself has a duty to his nation to defend it from enemies)?

It's a tricky subject, and I'd like to hear your opinions.

 

[Voadam]

I'm very loose on paladin codes and players and NPCs are free to interpret them in different ways without losing their powers IMC.

Paladins can be very Judge Dredd in their pursuit of smiting evil IMC and I have no problems with them ambushing or feinting or using tactics in the wars of my games.

 

[The_Gneech]

Assuming that the nation the paladin is fighting for is a "good" nation (as opposed to "lawful neutral" for instance), they're not likely to go to war for trivial reasons and as such the paladin can expect to be on reasonable moral ground when it comes to serving king and country.

However, while a paladin is expected to wage war "honorably," that doesn't mean "stupidly". Ambushing an enemy force -- as long as it allows for a reasonable chance of surrender -- is good tactics, not base deceit. After all, the foe knows they are at war and that they should be ready for an attack. The paladin at war should prefer capture over killing and the destruction of supplies or armaments over the taking of life. "Wage war on the foe's ability to wage war," as it were.

Paladins won't slaughter innocents, nor stand by and allow them to be slaughtered, and once a foe has surrendered they'll honor it. But that doesn't mean they can't kill an enemy combatant in battle. It just means they'd prefer not to if they have an alternative.

You don't see Luke Skywalker turning to the dark side for killing stormtroopers, for instance.

EDIT: Oh, and on the unfairness of using mounts, that's spurious at best. The more overwhelming an advantage you have over your foe, the more quickly you can force them into a surrender and minimize the loss of life.

-The Gneech

 

[Stalker0]

The more overwhelming an advantage you have over your foe, the more quickly you can force them into a surrender and minimize the loss of life.

-The Gneech

Yep, if two sides are equal in strength, the war could be long and bloody. If your side is superior, you can often decrease the duration.

 

[Lanefan]

A Paladin most likely wouldn't be in the ambush party. She'd be the commander who sent the ambush party out.

More seriously, I do see Paladins...well, the half-smart ones, anyway...tending toward the role of field commander. I mean, what do we have: high charisma, combat knowledge, some grasp of strategy and tactics...sounds like officer material to me.

This happened in my game - an Elvish Paladin led the Elves to war against a rather serious Giant invasion (there were others fighting the Giants as well). The Elves nearly got wiped out, but then they had no way of knowing the Giants had been specifically ordered to target Elves whenever possible...it wasn't the Paladin's fault...really.

Lanefan

 

[an_idol_mind]

Maybe I'm a candy-ass DM. Maybe I don't run enough games involving paladins. But I don't think it's too hard to distinguish good/honorable actions from evil/deceitful ones.

I think it all comes down to a matter of judging the situation. Executing a prisoner who faces a death penalty is not an evil or chaotic act. Interrogating a monster under the pretense that he will be set free and then killing him would be a violation of the paladin's code. There's nothing wrong with pulling a feint maneuver in combat, but there is a problem with hiding around a corner and then punching somebody out. Waging an attack against an unsuspecting fort is not dishonorable; poisoning that fort's water supply is.

Paladins are lawful good, not lawful stupid. Their code dictates a certain set of behavior, but they shouldn't be straightjacketed into ignoring useful tactics because of it. They are a warrior class, which means that they likely have a solid knowledge of tactics and the battlefield. Forcing them into a mode of behavior that disallows anything but standing in front of someone and swining a holy avenger at him is essentially telling players that there is no fun to be had in role-playing a paladin to begin with.

 

[Tonguez]

A Paladin most likely wouldn't be in the ambush party. She'd be the commander who sent the ambush party out.

I agree and imc the Alt.Paladin PrC has as a prereq 'must have lead troops in battle'
As a commander the Paladin is able to issue honourable challenges to opposing leaders and in fact such 'battles of champions' might be how many wars are in fact settled

And yes I think Samurai are a good model of how Paladins might act in reality

 

[schporto]

In war things get a bit of a leeway, and therefore paladins should be careful as the rules still apply to them.
So go to that ambush. If its a group that will put up a fight no prob. But if it turns out you are ambushing 10 commoners and 5 warriors (1st level all), with a force of 50 veterens, I think a call for surrender is in order.

But really I see paladins in the midst of a battle. Look at war movies. War is scary, people freeze up, run away, loose hope etc. Paladins counteract all this.
Paladins should probably also seek out reasonable foes. A powerful (10th) level paladin, shouldn't be smacking down the lowly warrior, but going after that fighter over there. Yeah run through anyone in your way, but work in that straight line to preserve your honor.

Paladin's alignment defines who they are. They should keep that in mind and act accordingly.
-cpd

 

[green slime]

I understand that this is just my own interpretation, and that others play by less strict rules.

IMC, IMO, YMMV, etc, and so on: Paladins are the very eitome of chivalry. They do not seek to gain an unfair advantage over a foe. Ambushes are clearly right out. They are for the cowardly and devious. Note, however, that it is perfectly reasonable, to "ambush" the enemy with the intent of gaining their surrender. That is, when they are vulnerable, expose your ambush, and give them a chance to weigh their chances and surrender, or die for their cause.

Doubtless there are commanders who get frustrated at the paladins lack of enthusiasm for the "practical" sides of warfare. However, if you have fielded an army and need some unit to hold your flank together from the onslaught of barbarian ogres, or to hold your centre together against the tide of the orcish horde, the unit you can count on to never break until they have been slaughtered almost to a man, is the paladins.

You don't send a catapult unit to an ambush site either. You pick the tool for the job at hand.

With regards to spying, how do you mean "utilize"? Utilize information gained? Send out paladins dressed as peasants to observe? Peddling in information? The question is very general.

Legitimate authority would not request the paladin do something beyond his code.

"Outnumbering" is a question of whether it is a fair fight or not, and giving the opponent the opportunity to see his predicament, and allowing him or her to make the right choice (i.e. surrender).

Why all these battles are between paladins and cretins that never fail their morale checks, (and therefore are to the death), is far beyond me. One of the big fringe benefits of fighting paladins, is that you can be assured you will be dealt with fairly and with justice if you surrender. Something you cannot be guaranteed when fighting others.

 

[haakon1]

I don't think it's too hard to distinguish good/honorable actions from evil/deceitful ones.

I think it all comes down to a matter of judging the situation. Executing a prisoner who faces a death penalty is not an evil or chaotic act. Interrogating a monster under the pretense that he will be set free and then killing him would be a violation of the paladin's code. There's nothing wrong with pulling a feint maneuver in combat, but there is a problem with hiding around a corner and then punching somebody out. Waging an attack against an unsuspecting fort is not dishonorable; poisoning that fort's water supply is.

I'm with you, except I don't see any problem with the paladin doing a sneaky attack, like lying in wait to pounce upon an enemy. I don't see what tactics have to do with alignment. If it's not violating "the laws of war" -- use the Geneva Conventions if you don't feel like thinking up your own -- then I don't have a problem with it. The Geneva Conventions say: prisoners must not be harmed, civilians must not be deliberately targeted (collateral damage from attacks on military targets or infrastructure is OK), civilians cannot be enslaved, poison can't be used, etc. They don't prevent ambushes, camouflage, or even strategic bombing with nuclear weapons.

Paladins are lawful good, not lawful stupid. Their code dictates a certain set of behavior, but they shouldn't be straightjacketed into ignoring useful tactics because of it. They are a warrior class, which means that they likely have a solid knowledge of tactics and the battlefield. Forcing them into a mode of behavior that disallows anything but standing in front of someone and swining a holy avenger at him is essentially telling players that there is no fun to be had in role-playing a paladin to begin with.

That can be a fun role, but it's not the only way to play paladin. There's nothing wrong with paladin who is a noble warrior of a Viking tribe, dedicated to the glory of Heimdall (LG Norse god of guardianship) or Tyr (LG Norse god of war and law) and the safety of his king/people/fjord or whatever. Ditto on a horse warrior of courage and honor, dedicated to the Thunderbird (LG American god) and protecting the Sioux from the coming of the Americans. Plate mail and "sir" titles aren't technically required, nor are ineffective tactics.