Paladins at war (apologies in advance)
- Thread starter RangerWickett
- Start date
Endur
First Post
RangerWickett said:
I think you already know the answer to these questions.
There are multiple interpretations of the Paladin code. Some Paladins will act in ways you don't like, others will act in ways that are not distinguishable from the typrical fighter.
Plus the Knights of the Watch would tell you that you are wrong. There is no need to ambush enemies in war. Nor do you have to attack with overwhelming numbers or use deception. Goblins do those things. The Knights of the Watch and some other Paladin orders do not do those things.
On the other hand, the Knights of Dispatch do the things that you find necessary in war.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
My general rule is "If there is a question as to whether or not it is honorable in my mind, it probably is."
Feinting in combat? Using spies? Sure thing.
But the paladin himself could not be a spy, nor could he be an assassin. He will not attack an unarmed individual (unless that person's arms are their arms...like a monk). He will leap to the defense of the helpless. If he has an enemy at his mercy, he will show mercy.
Deception used against him earns deception used in turn. It is not dishonorable to lie to a liar, cheat a cheater, or steal from a stealer (it's something of the essence of Justice, really.
)
It is, however, dishonorable to lie to your confessor, cheat your friends at the card table, and steal from the local noble just because he's rich.
Feinting in combat? Using spies? Sure thing.
But the paladin himself could not be a spy, nor could he be an assassin. He will not attack an unarmed individual (unless that person's arms are their arms...like a monk). He will leap to the defense of the helpless. If he has an enemy at his mercy, he will show mercy.
Deception used against him earns deception used in turn. It is not dishonorable to lie to a liar, cheat a cheater, or steal from a stealer (it's something of the essence of Justice, really.
) It is, however, dishonorable to lie to your confessor, cheat your friends at the card table, and steal from the local noble just because he's rich.
Where does this come from?
It would certainly seem at odds with what I know of military history.
Treebore
First Post
Read about Charlemagnes Paladins. The were far from the "idealized" version in D&D.
Anyways, I don't expect their code to make them do stupid things or to cost others their lives. So as long as the player can show that as their motivation to play loose with their code, I let it fly.
I also allow Paladins to use poisons, as long as it only disables, and those affected are taken prisoner, not killed.
If such prisoners are later executed through "due process", everything is fine.
Paladins have no problmes withothers using poisons in similiar fashion either. So, as an example, the thief in the party can use poisons that disable, and make themselves more useful in the combat as a result. As long as those poisoned are then taken prisoner and dealt with in the proper manner (Due process, whatever that may be in the campaign) the Paladin won't care. Not enough to cause party conflict, anyways.
Plus Paladins should offer surrender, take prisoners, and encourage conversion or change of loyalty to the "proper" cause, etc... whenever possible.
Heck, I even have a handful of "converted" orcs and other goblinoids in my campaign, as a result fo this. They often get training in a "class" of some type and then serve the Paladin, at least for a while. Partly due to the Paladins kindness, etc... and partly because the goblinoids quickly realize that they can only be a part of civilized society (easily, anyways) while close to or directly in service to the Paladin who converted them.
There is even a converted Frost Giant in my camapign, who rode a Mammoth (fans of "Against the Giants" probably know who I am talking about). He died in service to the Ranger. He was then reincarnated by the Rangers Druid friend, into a pixie.
Yeah, I have a lot of fun with this kind of stuff.
Anyways, I don't expect their code to make them do stupid things or to cost others their lives. So as long as the player can show that as their motivation to play loose with their code, I let it fly.
I also allow Paladins to use poisons, as long as it only disables, and those affected are taken prisoner, not killed.
If such prisoners are later executed through "due process", everything is fine.
Paladins have no problmes withothers using poisons in similiar fashion either. So, as an example, the thief in the party can use poisons that disable, and make themselves more useful in the combat as a result. As long as those poisoned are then taken prisoner and dealt with in the proper manner (Due process, whatever that may be in the campaign) the Paladin won't care. Not enough to cause party conflict, anyways.
Plus Paladins should offer surrender, take prisoners, and encourage conversion or change of loyalty to the "proper" cause, etc... whenever possible.
Heck, I even have a handful of "converted" orcs and other goblinoids in my campaign, as a result fo this. They often get training in a "class" of some type and then serve the Paladin, at least for a while. Partly due to the Paladins kindness, etc... and partly because the goblinoids quickly realize that they can only be a part of civilized society (easily, anyways) while close to or directly in service to the Paladin who converted them.
There is even a converted Frost Giant in my camapign, who rode a Mammoth (fans of "Against the Giants" probably know who I am talking about). He died in service to the Ranger. He was then reincarnated by the Rangers Druid friend, into a pixie.
Yeah, I have a lot of fun with this kind of stuff.
Hmmm...
The only way I can see a Paladin using poison is if he actually offers it to someone, as in:
"Your misdeeds are great, and your punishment shall be commensurate. Before you lies a sword and a cup of hemlock. I would advise you to use one or the other, or perhaps both, if such is your need. It is your chance to do something right for a change."
The only way I can see a Paladin using poison is if he actually offers it to someone, as in:
"Your misdeeds are great, and your punishment shall be commensurate. Before you lies a sword and a cup of hemlock. I would advise you to use one or the other, or perhaps both, if such is your need. It is your chance to do something right for a change."
FreeTheSlaves
Adventurer
I can certainly see the paladin being a poor soldier. As far as the combat fundamentals go they're better than great, the problem being that they're more complex than that.
A pseudo-medieval/fantasy army is probably still going to resemble a late medieval army in structure and leadership. The leadership is going to also be political (no separation of military & civilian rule) and the structure made up of Lords and their own vassals.
The political leadership could declare war on many politically justifiable grounds but the paladin takes a greater interest in the moral grounds: e.g. defending a sparsely populated outlying march from desperate barbarian refugees. The kings says this but moral values say that.
Then we've got the structure problem. If said paladin doesn't care for the cause they may not answer the call. Furthermore they probably have greater influence than their non-paladin peers. If their lord commands them they are paralyzed by conflicting signals, hardly good soldier material. If they are a lord they simply play a bit of politics and as mentioned don't come to the party.
I'd even think that the paladins in a kingdom could actually wield some influence on the ability to wage war. It could be that the king must consider their influence on the fighting spirit of the army before declaring war.
All this aside, the in the classical fantasy threats of monstrous invasion the paladin would really shine very brightly. In such a scenario the cause is just and morality clear cut.
As for the tactics side of things I don't see subterfuge or cunning being unacceptable. Combat is by definition unfair - the strongest win regardless of their cause. That however is not good enough for the paladin. They not only must win but they must also win in style.
A pseudo-medieval/fantasy army is probably still going to resemble a late medieval army in structure and leadership. The leadership is going to also be political (no separation of military & civilian rule) and the structure made up of Lords and their own vassals.
The political leadership could declare war on many politically justifiable grounds but the paladin takes a greater interest in the moral grounds: e.g. defending a sparsely populated outlying march from desperate barbarian refugees. The kings says this but moral values say that.
Then we've got the structure problem. If said paladin doesn't care for the cause they may not answer the call. Furthermore they probably have greater influence than their non-paladin peers. If their lord commands them they are paralyzed by conflicting signals, hardly good soldier material. If they are a lord they simply play a bit of politics and as mentioned don't come to the party.
I'd even think that the paladins in a kingdom could actually wield some influence on the ability to wage war. It could be that the king must consider their influence on the fighting spirit of the army before declaring war.
All this aside, the in the classical fantasy threats of monstrous invasion the paladin would really shine very brightly. In such a scenario the cause is just and morality clear cut.
As for the tactics side of things I don't see subterfuge or cunning being unacceptable. Combat is by definition unfair - the strongest win regardless of their cause. That however is not good enough for the paladin. They not only must win but they must also win in style.
That "paladin-like girl leading armies" would be Jean D'Arc, one of the quintessential Paladin archetypes- right up there with Lancelot du Lac, Charlemagne and several of his 12 Peers-Orlando/Roland, Huon of Bordeaux, Oliver, Rinaldo/Renaud de Montauban and Astolpho.
Hmmm...kinda begs the question as to why there isn't a requirement that the PC be French as well!
Similar Threads
