Paladins at war (apologies in advance)

[jollyninja]

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.

I envision the following, the paladin and his troops spring out of a concealed position, weapons drawn, clearly with the upper hand, offering terms and looking menacing. If an enemy force does not honor the sanctity of life enough to surrender, they forced the combat, not the paladin.

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."

Meaning essentially that if the war is not clearly between a force that is legitimate and one that is not, or a force of good vs one of evil, the paladin has no place in that war. He's the agent of a god on the material plane, not a cavalry soldier. his duty lies to his god, not whatever government happens to be in power in his current geographic location, though unless that government is doing things that mark them as his enemy, he must do his best to not undermine their authority.

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.

Personally, in any battle worthy of the paladin's time, i would consider it far more of a shot to his honorable status for him to not take every available opportunity to win. not feinting? why swing a sword? you might hurt someone with that, princess! Not hitting an exposed flank with available troops? if your enemy is foolish enough to expose his flank or in some other way offer you an advantage in the middle of battle and you do not take it, the unnessisary deaths of your soldiers are at your feet. Is your personal honor worth thousands of lives? if you think so, you clearly should not be a paladin.

I mean if you have agreed to a duel with rules that say "stand there and hack at each other until the shields are splinters and you are not allowed to move your feet" well then follow those rules but if the terms of the battle are "anything goes, two men enter, one man leaves" it's a different story. If you have archers, use them. If you are able to gain knowledge about the enemy that is being offered by someone using means short of torture to get it, use it.

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.

Spies? are they murdering people? are they torturing people to get the information? if not the paladin is fine. If you take the high ground and the enemy attacks you anyway, that was their choice, they could have surrendered. in the case of two to one, once again, what are the stakes? if the force would flee from you only to burn and loot a villiage elsewhere, your overwhelming numbers will only help to lessen your casualty count in a just battle. if they do not surrender when outnumbered 2 to 1, they are a respectable foe for their courage but they brought it on themselves.

once again, if the paladin has a commander who is ordering him to do borderline things like taking out supply trains, he's in the wrong army and that guy is sending the wrong tool for the job, you can drive a nail with a wrench but you might lose a wrench. It's all about what will happen if the paladin doesn't go through with it, it's never a better option to let the innocent die. If you believe that the war you fight is worth having a paladin fight in, you do what you must to win it. and yes, fishhooking an orc commander is honorable if it keeps him from ordering his troops to slaughter a villiage in my opinion.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

Lawful Stupid (Brimshack's post is a good example of this, IMO) is why I never have, and never will, play a Paladin. Oh yes, about those wonderful codes of honor in the middle ages? 99.9% of the time they were the first things to go when the fighting started. If not sooner. But they used the most convoluted locic around to convince themselves that they hadn't been violated. (Invite your Lord, whom you in rebellion against, to dinner under a flag of truce to talk things over and then take him prisoner? Happened all the time. But the Lord usually let it go after being released. After all, he might be in the same position, but on the other side of the broken truce, someday.)

 

[Turanil]

If I were to run a warfare oriented adventure with a paladin, I would take reference on Luc Besson's movie "The Messenger", which is about medieval warfare and a paadin-like girl leading armies.

Furthermore, I would depict all the dirty and horrible aspects of war, with agonizing people needing the paladin's lay-on-hands, etc.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

I have played a paladin in a war-time scenario... And my DM allowed me to get away with most of the tactics of conventional warfare without too much difficulty.

I started out being not in charge of anything, so I had only myself to worry about for the most part. For a while, I had only to follow orderd, which were mostly, "Hold the Line!" or "Charge" or whatever. Pretty straightforward stuff... The way that I saw it, and my DM agreed, killing on the battlefield, in open war, was okay. If you and your troopies are charging toward the enemy troopies, and everybody knows that you're there to kill each other, and everybody comports themselves in a soldier-ey manner, its all good.

Later on, I got put in charge of, first, my squad, and then my platoon, company, battlegroup, and so on...

As time went on... while I still had orders to follow, I was granted more and more leeway in how to carry out those orders... and so, my paladin-y-ness got expressed more and more often.

For instance, while leading my squad of skirmishers, I got the chance to take a few prisoners, rather than just killing whoever was trying to kill me and mine. As company commander, I got to engage in a short campaign of harrass and retreat, harrass and retreat, so that I could draw the enemy forces away from populated areas, thus saving civilian lives. As the battle group leader, I got to requisition some extra spies, so that I could have better information, and bring the fight to an end that much sooner, with that much less loss of life.

In all cases, I worked to minimize damage to the locals and my own troopies, and to make sure that those around me did the same. It was a good time, and led me to some fun roleplaying situations...

Later
silver

 

[Glyfair]

Ambushing an enemy force -- as long as it allows for a reasonable chance of surrender -- is good tactics, not base deceit.

I wonder about this. This modern idea that if something is "good tactics" it's not dishonorable makes me wonder.

One of the things I was taught about the American Revolutionary war in school* was that the British considered the American strategies dishonorable. They believed you met your opponent on the field of battle and met them face-to-face. When the American's didn't follow this procedure, they were quite upset. You can find examples of this sort of thing through history, including today. There are tactics of war some consider dishonorable while their opponents disagree.

I believe there are certainly things that would be "good tactics" that a paladin would not engage in. At the same time, the main problem in game are that when a paladin walks a line, DMs often overreact. Some refuse to allow a paladin to follow the action, others outright remove paladinhood because of minor actions (or lack of actions). That's the real issue in game. Much better to have the paladin questioning his proper course than have the players of the game doing so.

* I'm haven't studied it closely enough to see how accurate this was, and don't want to argue the minutia.

 

[Brimshack]

Lawful Stupid (Brimshack's post is a good example of this, IMO) is why I never have, and never will, play a Paladin. Oh yes, about those wonderful codes of honor in the middle ages? 99.9% of the time they were the first things to go when the fighting started. If not sooner. But they used the most convoluted locic around to convince themselves that they hadn't been violated. (Invite your Lord, whom you in rebellion against, to dinner under a flag of truce to talk things over and then take him prisoner? Happened all the time. But the Lord usually let it go after being released. After all, he might be in the same position, but on the other side of the broken truce, someday.)

I can well understand a decision not to follow such an approach, both as a DM and as a player. To describe it as Lawful Stupid is NOT, however, a fair description. There is no reason to believe the Paladin does not understand the consequences of his code or that he is unable to realize that it may cost him his life or lead to failure of his cause. The point is that he has foresworn a number of options available to commoners. It is among other things the source of his own divine powers.

I think one thing a lot of people miss is the notion of trial by ordeal which was at the heart of chivalry. When knights fought each other, especially in duels, it was a foregone conclusion that God would help the righteous. If one person was accuse of a crime, he and his accuser fought. The outcome of the battle was assumed to resolve the truth of the accusation, because it was unthinkable that God would allow a scoundrel to defeat a righteous person. Things like not striking from behind, not striking a fallen foe, or an unarmed (recently disarmed) one were all part of maintaining that righteousness. It was necessary to ensure victory, even though such decisions might look stupid to the rest of us. A Paladin doesn't see his decision as stupid; he sees it as the cost of divine favour. And in D&D that favour takes a very tangeable form in every Supernatural Ability that the Paladin gains through his class. While the Paladin is perfectly aware of the risks he takes that by allowing a fallen foe to get up, he is also aware that much of his power stems from the high standards of conduct he sets for himself. That is what sets him apart from common warrios and makes him worthy of the divine favour which is at the heart of his power. It's not stupid at all; it's a conscious choice with clear costs and clear benefits as well.

Whether or not the Paladin's code needs or ought to be anywhere near as stringent as I set it in my own campaign is a fair question. But construing the hyperdeveloped sense of fairness as stupidity doesn't fly.

The notion, btw, that knights of old migt have abandoned their codes of conduct in real battle seems plausible to me, though it is by no means obvious. To me though this falls under the same scope as all the other mythology that we assume to be real in D&D. If we can assume for gaming purposes that the gods these characters pray to are real, or that the powers a Paladin gets from being honourable are real, then why can we not assume that his code of conduct is a viable norm which he will actually try to live up to?

 

[Klaus]

Tactics and morality are almost always seperate issues.

Ambushing, attacking with superior forces, attacking supply lines, etc? All perfectly valid. Nobody's got a problem with them, not even a paladin.

Now the paladin would have a problem with things like poisoning wells, spreading plague amongst enemy lands, or sacrificing otherwise uninvolved civilian population for a strategic advantage, but that's hardly a supprise. Non-paladins see that sort of thing as equally despicable.

Paladins can use stealth, fight intelligently, and take advantage of tactics. They are not relegated to being stupid by an extension of their code of conduct.

QFT.

Don't confuse the Paladin with the Knight (who will *not* attack from surprise, will *not* ambush and will not flank an enemy).

And guess what, you can not only have paladins fighting in a war, you can have them on both sides! Fighting each other! And both can remain Lawful Good with full Paladin status!

 

[Cedric]

These are just my thoughts. Forgive the cliche, but ...All's fair in love and war.

Seriously, if you are engaged in warfare, to my thinking it is MUCH more important that the cause for your war is just.

In the actual conduct of your war, you should treat your enemy with respect when the situation calls for it. The heat of battle does NOT call for it. Pausing excessively to assess the specifics of your actions during battle endangers those around you fighting with you.

A Paladin would not support torturing prisoners in any way, but reasonable interrogation through magical means or coercion would be fine.

Chivalry, honorable challenges and stately conduct are fine, in a non-battle field environment. However, once again, on the battle field if you stop for this minutia, you're going to endanger your compatriots.

Honestly, I don't dwell too much on how Paladins behave during the conduct of a warfare. I think about it like...if the U.S. Marine Corps did this, would I admire it? or be shamed by it? As long as the answer isn't shame, you're good to go.

 

[Aaron L]

Placing personal honor above the well-being, safety, and life of others is a Chaotic act. It's the sin of Pride. Samurai place honor above all. Paladins are supposed to place Law and Good above all.

If a Paladin in a game I was running risked the lives of his companions to needlessly finish a "fair" fight that could be just as easily be finished more quickly without Evil or Chaotic actions, it would be a major strike against him, and would put him on a definite path toward Ex-Paladin.

A Paladin should do everything within the bounds of Law and Goodness to end a war as quickly as possible, so that as few as possible have to suffer. That is where a Paladin's honor lies. A Paladin should take every advantage available to him in war that isn't Evil.


As Spock said, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one. The Paladin is one. His needs, and his honor, are surpassed by the needs of the many; The Cause he's fighting for. If the cause isn't worth surpassing his personal honor, it either is not a Just Cause, or he isn't being a good Paladin.

Don't mistake Paladins for 1E Cavaliers. One will attack Orcus with a butterknife if he shows up for dinner uninvited. Paladins are supposed to be wise enough to know better.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Some thoughts provoked by this thread:

Paladins as leader: I can see them as kings, commanders & generals...but I see them more as field leaders. Most Paladins would be loathe to send someone to do something they would be unwilling to do themselves, either as a matter of bravery or as a matter of ethics.

Paladins in an ambush: As long as the target is of military value, an ambush is a valid tactic. If we're talking about a supply train, the Paladin would definitely offer surrender- these are not fighting men he's facing, after all.

Paladins as assassins: Depending upon the definition, I have no problem with this. I can easily visualize a Paladin coming up with a "Lone Gunman" type plan if he decided that the only reason there was a war at all was because of 1 or 2 people. Remove those people from the land of the living, and the war goes away. Still, despite being an "assassin" in name, the tactics used would still be 100% paladin-ly. No poison, for instance; no stab to the chest of the sleeping villain.

Weapons of war: standard weapons & magic would be permissible, but weapons of terror and disease wouldn't. No poisoning the wells, no launching of corpses (dead or undead) over city walls to spread pestillence, probably no use of fire against civilian dwellings- though that may be permissible against barracks or garrisons, etc. Siege would be a 50/50 thing- some would object because the starvation caused is indescriminate, others would support it because it has the chance to win with a minimum loss of life. Special troops (say, Dragonriders, Outsiders or Undead) would only be used for special missions against difficult targets, which is to say those of similar power- no using a unit of Stone Golems or Elementals against local militia, for instance. The chance of a complete slaughter in such instances would overwhelm the consideration of superior force ending a battle more quickly.

POWs: Depends upon the Paladin. An "Old School" Paladin will likely pre-judge his opponents, "sorting them out" into 2 categories- those who can be redeemed and those who can't. Those who can't can be killed indescriminately, even if they surrender, because their innate evil is so great or immutable, taking them alive only delays the inevitable fate that justice demands, and will ultimately save lives. "New School" Paladins will accept any surrender they deem legitimate, feeling that any being can be redeemed.

Role in a war: A Paladin can find a legitimate role in almost any war, even if its just protecting innocents and minimizing loss of life. Even if his Liegelord orders him to fight a war without provocation, he can fight that war in a 100% ethical fashion...announcing to his foe that he plans to attack at this location "at this time" and advising the foe that "surrender would be advisable", and that all who surrender would be "treated with honor" would be one way. Keeping his troops from the "raping and pillaging" of those they conquer would be another.