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

[Dragonblade]

It seems like playing such a character in such a game would an exercise in frustration. Before playing, I would suggest a looooong talk on what exactly you can and cannot do in great detail so there are no surprises later.

I personally subscribe to the notion of the paladin as a divinely sanctioned judge, jury, and executioner. "Kill all the infidels" inquisitorial zealot types. Now those are fun characters to play.

But for some good inspiration on playing a courtly paladin who is also not so hamstringed in their badassness, I would check out the character of Sir Mandorallen in David Eddings Belgariad series. He is a good example of a courtly knight who is bound by the rules of chivalry but who is also an unstoppable engine of destruction on the battlefield.

For the ultimate literary example of a LG paladin, I think Galad from the Wheel of Time works well. Although, Galad doesn't follow the courtly chivalrous model of paladin as knight in shining armor. He is more of the zealous crusader type.

 

[Janx]

In unlawful lands, if the Paladin is not the party leader, he does NOT have full authority over deciding the fate of captives. In theory, if the party captures some orcs, the party (or the party leader) decides what to do. Based on that, an outcome can arise, that the paladin would not have chosen (or voted for). Because the paladin should accept the rulings of goodly authorities (aka the party decision), he can accept the ruling of the party, despite it not being his personal preference.

The point, being, the paladin is NOT the final authority over anybody, if he's adventuring with others. This can be used as a rationalization to EASE conflicting choices in the group, so the game can proceed. Basically, the paladin has an out to accept the ruling of the party, rather than to start a fight over what to do with the prisoners (or some other scenario).

In combat, a Paladin's preference is to fight his foes one on one. Should an ally try to help him, he may wave him off. However, there's nothing to say, that a paladin fighting one foe, can't be standing in a square that flanks another foe (so the rogue can get flank attacks on the other guy, while the paladin appears to be fighting 2 foes (but is only actually attacking one).


In general, the Player and DM should accept that SOME paladin compromises should be made (providing reasonable justifications) that reduce inter-party conflict. Strict interpretation of paladin code, tends to lead to strong-arm tactics by the paladin, which leads to inter-party conflict. If the paladin player is forced to play a certain way, and the rest of the party is not any such compulsion, then there will be conflict, or the paladin would not join the party. The result is, for rational and fun play, the party has to be able to make its own choices, differently than the paladin would have done alone. The point being, while the paladin should not associate with liars, theives and evil people, he will need to work with people who use strategies he would not employ himself. Thus, he should not foil their strategy, but he should work to follow his rules of combat, while not impeding the party's strategy.

A paladin should not force his will over others. He may try to share his view on the matter, and participate in the form of government that the party uses. Ultimately, he must accept the party's decision.

If the party is employing a strategy that is less than honorable (but isn't evil), he should sit out, waiting until honorable combat is joined. During the planning stage, he should suggest a more direct approach, but accept that the situation may call for a different tactic if the party chooses. There's a difference to not being a party to a sneaky strategy, than not associating with "evil" people. As a strategist, the paladin must accept that stealth sometimes plays a role in information gathering, and in defeating a force stronger than the party.

If facing enemies that apear weaker, or equal in strength, the paladin should engage in single combat, where possible. If facing an obviously stronger opponent (a dragon), this constraint should not exist. A larger opponent (by at least a size category) is the usual sign that this is acceptable.

 

[IcyCool]

Recipe to follow:

Take the Knight's code from the Knight class. Mix with the non-fuzzy aspects of the Paladin's code from the PHB, add the Chivalric code from the Pendragon RPG. Shake together, chill, and enjoy.

 

[Harmon]

Few suggestions

Couple ideas (have to make this quick, Bug is waking up and she might be hungry)-

Keep your word (implied or otherwise).
“We will save them or die trying!” Which means you won’t kill yourself if you fail, but you have broken your word.

Vow of chastity, and you should have a rather low view of those whom cavorts with sexual activity, though you need not chastise or keep others from it as they have not taken a vow.

Fights should be equal- for the most part this means no flanking or one on one fights only.
“The demon will take all of us to kill, so we must dispatch his servants in all haste; each of us should combat one.

Declare that your foes may surrender at the beginning of the fight, and when you have them “on the ropes.”
“I have drawn a lot of blood from you, surrender, or parish here in battle.”

Declare why you are present to your enemies
“You have kidnapped the Princess of Yodle, release her or suffer the wraith of a paladin of Torm!”

Reduce your ego, after all you sever the most common of common men.
“Yes, sir, we banished the devil back to its lair, your farm should be safe. I am sorry for the damage that was caused during the battle. Might I offer our services to help you rebuild? We have no skills at such a thing, but I think our strong arms, our wizard’s mind, and our skills might serve you.”

You are not a cop or law enforcement, however you will help them.
A cutpurse being chased towards you through a crowded city street with a constable on his tail- “stop that man!” Stiff arm the thief, wrestle him to the ground then hand him over to the officer, expect no reward, if any if offered- decline, if its forced on you, give it away to the needy.

Do your best to reduce evil’s chance at winning the war of good vs. evil.
You find an Unholy weapon make sure it is destroyed (give it to your church- expect no payment). Even if you take a hit to your coin purse, hunt evil down, and bring it to its end.

Do not be afraid to heal someone at random (just make sure they have no evil within them first).

Hope that helps (need to go feed the kid).

 

[Darklone]

About flanking: Personally I don't care if paladins use sneak attack in combat. But I do know that other DMs have another opinion... so ASK.

 

[sniffles]

I've always thought that what seems to get people off on the wrong foot with paladins in the assumption that everyone is automatically a sinner or lawbreaker. Too many players seem to think that because paladins can detect evil, they should do it all the time, on everybody they meet. I can see this really being overdone with a paladin of Torm, since Torm's dogma is all about stopping evil and corruption.

I'd suggest having your paladin think well of everyone. He doesn't have to be naive, but he automatically proceeds on the assumption that everyone is good and law-abiding at heart, and that those who are doing evil or breaking laws must have some extenuating circumstances. Use detect evil sparingly, when there seems to be a compelling reason to do so. Be willing to heal the injured without checking for an evil aura first. Assume that your kindness will help to turn them to the path of good.

Then when he finds out that some people or creatures are evil lawbreakers just because they choose to be, he can get really righteously angry and punish them with the full might of Torm's divine wrath.

I tend to think of a paladin as the most shining example of a follower of the deity's dogma. The description of Torm's tenets in Faiths and Pantheons has some good information about the Penance of Duty code that his clerics follow, which I'm sure you've seen. That looks like a great place to start. Otherwise I think your paladin should be able to do whatever seems right to him at the time, so long as that doesn't go against the tenets of his faith. Torm's dogma doesn't say anything about "never surrender" or "never flee from battle".

I think Dragonblade has a good suggestion, though: make sure you know very clearly what the DM expects of a paladin in his campaign. The biggest stumbling blocks with playing a successful paladin seem to be differing expectations between player and DM.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

Personally, I hate this sort of thing, but the OP doesn't want to hear my rant. Anyway, you need to talk to the GM some more. Someone brought up the point of not hitting a woman. Why not? In our (western) history woman were seen as weak and defenseless creatures. (Ha!) But in most D&D worlds this just isn't so. Make sure from the get go how the GM feels about this in his world.

Also, talk to the other players first as well. Not much point in playing the character if they're gonna slit his throat at night the first time he screws over their plans.

 

[Janx]

sniffles brings up a good point about Detect Evil. As a DM, I hated that ability, it always messed with roleplaying situations where you wanted the NPCs to be a bit grey...

In older editions, asking an NPC his alignment was considered rude. Take that to the theme that using Detect Evil is a verification tool, and might be construed as a distrustful act.

Therefore, the Paladin should be using it to validate his assumption about someone when he has cause to question them. Particularly for prisoners, and before acting as a judge. Otherwise, in normal conversation and activity (even combat, which could leave you blinded if you did it on a strong bad guy), the Paladin should not be scanning everybody he meets.

This method might allow some bad guys to sneak in under the radar, which has some roleplay value, as well. On the other hand, it won't become an overused tool, nor will it put you in the situation of having to deal with every "Evil" that you find.

 

[Janx]

Personally, I hate this sort of thing, but the OP doesn't want to hear my rant. Anyway, you need to talk to the GM some more. Someone brought up the point of not hitting a woman. Why not? In our (western) history woman were seen as weak and defenseless creatures. (Ha!) But in most D&D worlds this just isn't so. Make sure from the get go how the GM feels about this in his world.

Also, talk to the other players first as well. Not much point in playing the character if they're gonna slit his throat at night the first time he screws over their plans.

To be equal opportunity then, revise the code to mean: thou shall not strike a defenseless person.

A barmaid or child is defenseless, the village idiot is defenseless. A monk, or female barbarian with a great-axe is not. Given the presence of female fighters and weaponless monks, it would be tactically stupid to have a code of behavior that left you open to obvious attack. Going mano-y-mano with a monk sans weapons is very stupid, as the monk is NOT without weapons, his very limbs are his weapons.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

One thing I've found very helpful in resolving moral dilemmas at the level you're at is the stonement spell ... specifically the application that permits someone to willingly change his or her alignment instantly.

If a foe surrenders or you otherwise find yourself with prisoners you are -- for whatever reason -- ill equipped to handle, your party cleric (assuming Good), can use atonement.

"My companions and I are on a holy quest," Sir Gravemore informed the prisoner, in his usual solemn tone. "Time is of the essence. You have thrown yourselves on our mercy, and we are prepared to grant it, and more ... provided you are willing to forever give up your evil ways. My companion, Sister Solaria, commands powerful magic that will allow you to be reborn in the light, if you willingly embrace it. If you will not do so, we can offer a quick and painless death. Choose."