What are the strictest interpretations of a paladin's code?

[lukelightning]

Frankly, Luke is the only decent one amongst the lot of them.

You mean Luke "It's ok to blow up a whole Deathstar of people to save people, but not ok to kill the Emperor to do the same" Skywalker? Luke "It's ok to let the Ewoks be cannibals, let's just intimidate them into worshipping an effeminate golden droid as a god" Skywalker?

 

[delericho]

You mean Luke "It's ok to blow up a whole Deathstar of people to save people, but not ok to kill the Emperor to do the same" Skywalker? Luke "It's ok to let the Ewoks be cannibals, let's just intimidate them into worshipping an effeminate golden droid as a god" Skywalker?

Good point. I take it back - there are no decent Jedi.

(Though the first Death Star was a valid target, what with being a military vessel that was, at that very time, intent on wiping out an entire planet. The second Death Star, not so much, what with being full of civilian contractors, George Lucas' statement that they were 'only' bug people notwithstanding.)

 

[WayneLigon]

With the restriction on bows it really sounds like he's going for the full-on high romantic ideal of a chivalrous courtly knight.

I'd suggest:

Never entering a battle with unequal weapons. If your foe has a knife and you have a greatsword, then you have to use a knife. That also means you won't be using some of the weapon and armor buffing spells against most sentient opponents. This plays off chivalry's willingness of restraint and unwillingness to take undue advantage. The normal ideas of 'use the most effective tool to do the job' and 'anything worth doing is worth overdoing' must be squashed.

Politeness. Never crude or lowly, you'll be polite and courteous even to the blackest villain. (Like where Luke keeps referring to The Emperor as 'sir'). Not losing one's composure in the face of adversity is key, and remaining civilized when others are not is as well.

Humility. Unwilliness to use the authority of position. A true knight is never haughty or demeaning, even to the lowest of the low.

The five virtues of a knight: One is temperance, another is courage, another is love, another is loyalty, and another is courtesy.

One of the main things I'd ask about is what if the foe does not behave in a chivalrous manner himself? Classically, if the foe was not a knight himself or a representative of the king you had greater leeway. You could run from a foe that surprised you with overwhelming odds, or use a normally unfair weapon against someone who was revealed to be unfair.

That last part is important. A classic knight is not suspicious or cynical: he will always assume his foe will act as honorably as himself, so he might not prepare for the ventuality o treachery. To do so demeans the foe's good name unless it has been proven that he is honorless.

 

[Yair]

Well.

I think the key is to think in terms of a morality of virtues rather than consequences. You seem focused on the concept of Honor, and with a pretty good conception of it. Along those lines:
* Never abandon a mission, nor accept another mission until the previous one has been fulfilled, rescinded, made obsolete, or shown to be deceitful or wrong. If you are accept a quest to find the poor woman's son, you cannot go on a sidequest to save the kingdom.
* Deceiving the enemy is a big no-no (you DID ask for extremes). You would not flank a foe, nor lay in ambush, hide or use invisibility. Never accept a surprise round, let it pass by merely announcing yourself so that your foes may face your fairly. You may need to clearly announce your presence when you walk into enemy land. You should trust to the enemy's lack of knowledge, for this is dishonorable - do not use guile in war, do not distract your opponent and cast him into uncertrainty.
* There is no honor in vanquishing a foe less equipped than you. You shall not charge a foe with weapons if he is without one, nor fight with armor when your opponent has none, nor fight from horseback when your opponent does not. Should your foe drop his weapon, or armor, or dismount, he is without honor - this does not mean you should lose yours, face him as he wishes you to face him, in this you shall find great honor.
* There is no honor in vanquishing the wounded and dying. Never attack a dying or helpless man, never attack those wounded when you are hale - let them heal first. Should they attack you, the honorable thing to do would be to attack them but while handicapping yourself.
* A man cannot be honorable when he is fleeing. Never retreat, paladins do not fear. Trust in god that this is for the best.
* There is no dishonor is fighting the best your can. If a man assualts you armed when you are unarmed, there is no dishonor in fighting back. If a dragon swallows you, there is no dishonor in cutting its gut. But do not do the same - do attack with arms and unarmed man, do not depry another his abilities (e.g. Dex modifier) in battle.
* The company you keep reflects on you. While you cannot force them (you have no authority over them), it is dishonorable to let dishonorable plans come to fruition. Announce the ambush, light a torch as you advance under darkness, throw away the poison. Act so that your battles will be fought honorably.

You may want to consider things from the prespective of other virtues:
Charity: How much should you give? To whom?
Valor: Should you ever refuse an honest request for aid?
Piety: Should you accept the service/worship of ther deities? How shall you oopose it? What service are you to give?
Mercy: Should you accept anyone's surrender?
Responsibility: Killied the orcs? You should look out for their children and wifes.

You DID ask for the extreme, so I went there...

 

[Stormborn]

As others have pointed out DnD's races bring up an issue for the classic knight. Talk to your DM about which races are civilized and therefore given the benifit of the doubt to be Honorable (most PHB races I would suspect) and which are not (Goblinoids for example). Of non-honorable intelligent races you probablly still have to give them some leeway, such as fighitng only with equal weapons, giving chance to surrender, accepting surrender, etc. and those that are the Paladin has licence to fight with extrodinary means (demons for example) but not all means.

I would say that you can use magical weapons, but only those provided to you by your church/order. You would see these as part of your divine resources just as much as smite or your mount and therefore would be allowed to use them as you see fit. If the other guy has a sword and you have a +2 holy longwsord well then his god must not like him as much as yours likes you. But I agree, if the other guy has a knife and the other guy is not a devil, undead, or abomination then you leave the sword in its sheath. On the other hand, if he attacks you with a knife when you were not threatening him, assume he has some advantage and use your weapons as best you can. If he is an evil outsider or unnatural thing then you just kill him as quickly as possible for the good of all.

I do think ambushing is out, and thus the group you are with, if they want you to participate, cannot ambush any except those EvilBadRaces mentioned. Flanking is OK as that is a legitimate tactic that pits your wits and skill against your opponents as long as he is aware of you.

 

[Wraith-Hunter]

Good point. I take it back - there are no decent Jedi.

(Though the first Death Star was a valid target, what with being a military vessel that was, at that very time, intent on wiping out an entire planet. The second Death Star, not so much, what with being full of civilian contractors, George Lucas' statement that they were 'only' bug people notwithstanding.)

You need to watch the original Clerks

Episode 1,2,3 are not Starwars. But that is another argument

Not all good people always do the right thing and some evil poeple do some good things.

Resistance to tyrany is NOT evil. Anyone who calls them selves an American should know that.

What is more important in a Paladins alignment? Good or Lawful. I can see a paladin getting in lots of trouble in a LN or LE soceity or even a LG society with different cultural standards. There is a differance between something that is WRONG (murder/rape/theft) or simply against the law.

You could play a LAWFUL good paladin or a lawful GOOD paladin.

I think some things would be very campaign specific.
LotR orc's are EVIL. Not much question of good or evil to kill them.
D&D orc's are less cut and dry, less of a race twisted by an evil god than a brute warlike race. In one campaign you would act MUCH different.

Also depends on what there is for law and order in the area, and if that law and order is corrupt or not. The paladin maybe the only law in an area and may have to act as judge, jury and executioner. Depends on the paladins culture (the JJE is very much against american ideals of juctice but this is a cultural convention. For instance the idea of a king is very distastful to us, but not so for the British).

Good / Evil is less a hard and fast thing but rather more about culture. Though certain crimes are universal Mala in se. Evil in themselves (muder/rape/theft)

 

[Darklone]

Many good suggestions, I'll add some general remarks:
- Start with being an idealistic fool. Young goody goody boy playing by the rules. Be the knight in shining armour.
- Every time you end up in a situation where you can't decide which is the good way (or better way, shout an ejaculatory prayer to your God for guidance and act. Example: Innocents are attacked, you're too far away. Pray, grab a bow and give one shot of warning. Next shot kills.
- After every action you're not sure of, pray and meditate or go to a cleric for spiritual counsel.

About how to treat prisoners or how to act in combat... that's a grey zone. Ask your DM about flanking, that's pretty important (whether you're allowed or not). Ask him whether you're allowed by the law to kill prisoners who confessed their crimes (highwaymen e.g.). I played in campaigns where the pretty medieval DM let a paladin fall from grace because he showed mercy to some highwayrobbers.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

I have to say that I disagree on one particular point that's come up a few times: flanking.

Flanking is not duplicitous or deceptive in any way. I suppose you could argue it's outnumbering the target, and maybe in most cases that is true. It cerainly doesn't have to be though. Flanking is nothing more than good positioning. There's no facing in 3E combat, so flanking isn't stabbing someone in the back. It's not that your foe is unaware of you or your ally. It's just that they become much easier to hit due to the distraction your friend provides. In a one-on-one combat situation, no it certainly would not be fair. But in a fight with a large number of foes I think it's a perfectly reasonable tactic.

Sounds like your DM might feel differently though, so I guess what I think doesn't really matter.

 

[Cabral]

A wiki for the Wicket: Chivalry (Including the discussion page). You may also want to look at Bushido since the Chivalry article is a bit sparse for my tastes.

 

[Ferghis]

* The company you keep reflects on you. While you cannot force them (you have no authority over them), it is dishonorable to let dishonorable plans come to fruition.

This is a pretty heavy one, but it's true. If the party you are with starts to do something bad, it reflects on your paladin. So you cannot let them. This leads to the annoying result that the paladin behaving as "sheperd" of the rest of the party, with the exception of a cleric or priest of his god, who can almost order him about. You should talk about this briefly with the other players, just to ward off possible irritation.

There will be some situations where you are damned if you do, damned if you don't. Someone mentioned using a bow in dire circumstances (to save the innocent from evil). Many knightly restrictions (stemming from tradition) can be overcome, in my opinion, if the situation warrants it. You can strike a woman if she is an evil wizard about to do evil. But the act will warrant contrition and penance, which plays out in religious rituals, usually, or with greater sanctions imposed by a high level cleric of the paladin's faith, in the case of more striking violations of the knightly code. Accepting these penances are part of being a paladin, in my mind.