Paladins at war (apologies in advance)

[Numion]

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.

What about sieges? In ye olden times that was a pretty common occurence because of the difficulty of storming fortresses. Now, it's still a valid tactic in D&D if the opposing side doesn't have enough clerics to feed them all (which I think is the case with most armies).

Would organising a siege be problematic for the Paladin? Civilians would be the first to suffer, because any supplies would be redirected to the fighting troops.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Civilians suffer in any war. A siege will most likely result in fewer collateral casualties than the actual breaching of walls with things like catapults and trebuchets, or slinging area effect spells over the walls.

If a Paladin can go to war, a siege is probably one of his foremost tactics.

 

[Sejs]

An idle thought:

So a lot of the no-ambushes thought flows along the line of it's dishonorable to attack the enemy when they don't know you're a-comin'.

... But say you're in open warfare, one nation against another - is it really the same thing to ambush enemy forces? I mean they already know you're coming. They know there's a fight going on somewhere and you're the other side, so it's not as if they're not prepared.

 

[Yair]

I think paladins have grave shortcomings in warfare. I don't see their code as extensively as the OP alludes to, but their code still disallows them from using several much needed tactics and strategies.

The point of a paladin isn't that he's the most effective warrior. It is that he is the most exalted.

IMC, NPC paladins largely behave according to what I think the code encourages (see below). Paladins don't actually lose their abilities unless they willingly commit an evil act, however - all other stipulations in the code are things paladins abide with, but are not divinely censored for violating. Particularly for PCs, I'm willing to go a long way towards accepting violations of the code - it will take a truly EVIL act to elicit divine censure.

That said, I'll give my opinion on how paladins behave in war. It's all IMC, IMO, and so on.

* Feinting in Melee: This is a lie, a deliberate attempt to mislead someone as to some fact (in this case, your manuevere). It isn't evil, perhaps not even unlawful, but it isn't honorable. A paladin should not feint in combat.

* Feinting in War: It is equally dishonorable to lure an enemy to some action by deceiving him. So you cannot send a small force to fool the opponents into thinking this is the main force.

* Honorable Distractions: It is perfectly honorable to send a small force to lure an enemy into pursuing it, to assail your enemy from multiple sides until you decide which direction is most promising to commit to, to withhold information regarding your movements and intentions (but not to provide false information!), and so on. For example, you could send a small force to overtake a small guardpost (perhaps withdrawing later), luring your opponents to invest more in that sector while your main force makes its way towards the area now depeleted of enemy forces. As long as the small force doesn't make claims of being a larger force, any imaginings and worries of the enemy are due to his own lack of information and any pursuit he might give is due to its lack of discipline - there is nothing wrong with expoliting those, you are not under obligation to inform the opponent of your troop movements or not rely on his lack of honor.

* Long Range Weapons: It is unvalorous to use long-range weapons if the other side lacks them, as you do not put yourself at risk while combating them. Although the code doesn't stipulate it, I think paladins should espouse Valor as well as Honor. When shooting at opponents beyond their effective firing range, you are no longer engaged in war but in massacre. If the opponent has the capability to engage you at long range, you can engage him too. If he lacks it, you need to move to melee range - within his Reach. (For this reason too you must not kill a helpless victim, who lacks any ability to attempt to harm you, such as an enemy tied up.)

* Ambush: There isn't dishonor in hiding from your opponent until you choose to reveal yourself, but you must not remain hidden once you engage nor be out of range for the opponent to engage you. It is dishonorable to strike while concealed, however, so you'd want to announce yourself before attacking proper - no surprise round, and no staying in hiding while attacking.

* Spies: A spy lies, so is dishonorable, and using one is dishonorable. Scouts deep in enemy territory and magical divinations are the means to obtain information.

* Higher Ground and Other Tactical Advantages: It is not dishonorable to use your tactical and equipment advantages. You don't need to strip your armor to engage a naked wrestler, and you don't need to get to relinquish higher ground. Your enemy must be able to engage you with what resources he has, however, for it to be honorable to engage him - as noted above. So pouring acid onto men from death-holes is not honorable, using flying mounts against infantry is not honorable, and even firing arrows at men storming the castle walls isn't honorable. (The honorable thing to do is to face them with valor, on the walls or beneath them.)

* Legitimate Authority: When an authority-figure gives a dishonorable command, the command does not stem from legitimate authority - the figure has no legitimate claim to make that command. In principle, the various strictures in the paladin's code cannot be inconsistent. In practice, a paladin is expected to obey the commands or not according to the implications to other parts of the code - if your command orders you to help those in need but you come across villains that threaten innocents en route, you should delay carrying out the command if the threat is greater than the need - and to try to carry out the commands' purpose somehow regardless of any such obstacles (informing his superiors of the delay, hiring mercenaries to take care of the other issue, trying to conclude it quickly enough to accomplish both goals, whatever).

This is all for my picture of a "typical" paladin order. I'm quite willing to consider atypical ones, especially for a PC.

 

[Klaus]

Where does this come from?

It would certainly seem at odds with what I know of military history.

"Knight" here means "D&D Core Class introduced in PHBII", of course. The Knight code of conduct specifially precludes attacking a flat-footed foe and gaining the +2 bonus from flanking.

 

[Numion]

I think paladins have grave shortcomings in warfare. I don't see their code as extensively as the OP alludes to, but their code still disallows them from using several much needed tactics and strategies.

SNIP

Wow. It seems the best strategy for any evil force is to dupe or trick it's opponents into recruiting Paladins into their army.

What you said means, for example, that an army comprised mostly of good meleers, (say, trolls or giants), should throw away their ranged weapons so none would be used against them.

 

[Yair]

What you said means, for example, that an army comprised mostly of good meleers, (say, trolls or giants), should throw away their ranged weapons so none would be used against them.

Basically, yes. If the paladin's strength is not sufficient to overcome them in an honorable way, they won't be overcome. Again, being a paladin isn't about winning the fight. It's about upholding virtues such as valor and honor. Upholding virtues has real drawbacks, that can be taken advantage off.

Paladins make a good auxiliary element on the side of good, they have a lot going for them, but if all good folks fought like they did they would all be dead by now. (But, on the plus side, in heaven ) IMC paladins are rather rare, and for good reason. They have many military drawbacks. Most professional armies aren't led by paladins, and even the forces of Good or Lawful Good are mostly led by (and composed of) other classes.

Although once more, I'd be prefectly willing to conceive of an order of paladins that didn't place much value on valor, or none at all. The above is just my typical view of the matter, not necessarily a universal one even in a single campaign. This doesn't change the principle however, only the technique used to take advantage of the paladin's "stupidity" of sticking to their virtues. Paladins espouse virtue-morality, not utilitarianism.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

"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."

Let's examine that statement.

"A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act."

I'd say "evil acts" includes using torture to gain information, killing prisoners (unless there has been a legetimate trial that condemns them to death for some offense outside the realms of warfare), and so on. No surprises there.

"Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority,"

That means respecting their commanding officer in these circumstances. Which can be hard when that guy is an evil bastard of a general. Whether or not it is possible to remove such people from the "legetimate authority" category depends on the legal, ethical and cultural context, and thus is highly game world dependent. Still, obeying the direct orders of a superior is something that should never be done lightly, and a paladin will need to realize what fighting as part of an army will need for him. If he finds himself in a situation where he can't follow such orders because they violate his ethics, he must face the consequences - which usually means explaining his actions before a military tribunal, and accept its rulings, up to and including execution.

Because of these reasons, paladins will probably be reluctant to serve under anyone who isn't another paladin, or else known for being very honorable. In many cases, paladin-led units will be under a seperate chain of command from the "regular" army...

"act with honor"

This means "obeying the accepted rules of warfare", such as they exist in this setting. This can mean obeying the rules of chivalry, if such exist in the setting for the warrior class, but does not have to. The middle ages didn't have fireballs or huge monsters as part of large-scale warfare, and it is likely that combat docrines will be different under these circumstances.

With chivalry, the assumption was that all noble warriors would fight like this. If this isn't the case, then it is unlikely that these rules would apply to paladins only.

Examples from the modern-day rules of war that might apply here include neither attacking nor hiding in hospitals or religious buildings, no fighting under "false colors" (the uniforms of an enemy), and no fighting without a uniform or other insignia that mark you as a soldier. If such rules exist in the setting as well, then a paladin has to adhere to them even if his enemy don't.

"(not lying"

Where does this restriction come from? Well, people must be absolutely certain that they can take a paladin at his word. If a paladin tells you something, you must be able to trust his word as you trust the rock on which your feet rest.

However, this does not prevent the paladin from misdirecting the enemy as long as such misdirection does not violate the rules of warfare. A possible example is sending out messages to other units that contain fake orders in plain text, and the true orders encoded into the message. If the enemies intercept the message and jump to the wrong conclusions about the order, then that's their problem - the paladin wasn't addressing this message to them, after all. The same goes for concealing troop movements or making units appear larger than they are - all of these are simply clever use of warfare. Only when he gives his actual word to someone is it different. If he tells an enemy commander: "We will cease the battle for the night to retrieve the dead bodies if you do likewise", then he must adhere to it.

"not cheating,"

Again, this means "adhering to the rules of warfare". "Cheating" is when someone breaks the rules - whether it is at a game or at war. A paladin can still play poker and bluff his way to victory as long as he does not lie. And a paladin can still use deception and misdirection as long as these are accepted parts of warfare (which does not need to be the case if the chivalric code is prevalent - see above). That includes hiding and attacking from ambush, if that's what it takes.

not using poison, and so forth)

In warfare, this can apply to "poisoning the well" and similar tactics - like using disease. I'd also extend it to "scorched Earth tactics" that destroy the land in order to deny resources to the enemy. Creating long-term suffering for the land and its people to win against a foe probably qualifies as an evil deed.

"help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends),"

If enemies have surrendered and the paladins have them in their power, he should treat them well and give them food and water. Not neccessarily more than to his own troops, but he shouldn't let them starve or even kill them.

and punish those who threaten innocents."

The paladin must make sure that his own forces understand exactly what is and what is not acceptable in warfare - especially concerning civilians, which count as "innocents" for the purpose of warfare. And he also will make special efforts to punish those enemy troops who purposely harm civilians, if at all possible.


Anyway, these are my two cents on the issue.