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

[Ferghis]

In the egalitarian fantasy world of DnD, I think that doesn't fly. He's not going to spare the High Priestess of Lolth just because she's female...

I didn't say he should. Respecting ladies is the same sort of traditional restriction that prevents use of the bow, or associating with thieves. There may be very good in-game reasons to set the restriction aside, and if they're really good, it should be (albeit with contrition and penance, etc.), as I already said. But if you're playing a paladin under the "strictest interpretations" of his code, the rule exists, and you have to deal with it. It doesn't matter that the world doesn't fit the rule.

I realize this will mean that the paladin spends lots of time praying for forgiveness, given the realities of an adventuring world (and a DM that likes to see paladins squirm). But that is (or should be) the norm for a "pious" paladin. One idea that I had recently (after seeing The Fountain) was a paladin who's evening rituals included self-flagellation: whipping his back to punish him for all his sins, even the involuntary ones. It's pretty insane, but it's not as if paladins are laid back, completely reasonable people.

On the other hand, I think the paladin can retreat at negative hp. He is beaten and contribute nothing more to combat. There is some dishonor in being beaten, but that's the extent of it, and I don't think immolation is required.

I think he can also retreat as a strategic decision, when in charge of troops. His code doesn't require him to be cavalier (no pun intended) with the lives of the troops with which he's charged. But this only applies to larger scale battles. You should talk to your DM and see when a fight is just a fight, and what elements might make it a battle (number of troops involved, formal military organization, homogeneity of troops, etc.).

 

[WayneLigon]

While in Georgia it's a crime to fornicate, I highly doubt that's the case in any setting created by Ed Greenwood. *grin*

I think your character needs to be meeting up with a Paladin of Sune, who might think it's a crime not to...

"Wouldst thou join me in prayer, brother paladin...?"

 

[Imagicka]

Greetings...

Here's the thing, playing a boyscout isn't fun, unless there are certain things that go with it. Personally, I like playing a Paladin boyscout who is so rigid, and so stollic that even his companions and himself suffer in his unwavering code of ethics.

There is a character in the Wheel of Time series that is described as: He is extremely virtuous, and will do whatever he thinks is right regardless of who it hurts, even himself. Though I find the character to be terribly two-dimensional, the more ethical situations such a character can be placed into, the more interesting they become.

I'm starting with an idea sort of similar to the classic samurai, who holds his honor in such high regard that he would be willing to punish himself if he was forced to take the lesser of two evils. I won't loot, lie, or fight uneven battles, and will view those who do so as misguided. As long as their goals are noble I will still assist them, but when I have the chance I will try my best to convince them that such tactics are unnecessary. I will try to encourage everyone to be goodly, while striving to the utmost to avoid being a prick, since I don't want to piss off the other players.

So, they are misguided. What are you going to do about it? What is your character's position on people who are misguided? How evangelical do you want your character to be?

Thing is, being a samurai means that you are above commoners, and commoners and lords know this. As such, playing by the rules only applies to those who deserve it. A commoner insults a samurai, that samurai has every right to kill them where they stand. No quarter given, none taken. Monsters are below honour and should be treated as such. Honesty, honour and respect are laudable ideals, but only worthy if you have the ability and fire-power to back it up. After all, if you belong to an order that works by a code of honour. When your enemies don't, then where does it leave you when they slaughter you?
Would you kill a prisoner? Well, does that prisoner deserve respect? Honour? Fair-treatment? When someone breaks their word, then they have shown that they aren't worthy of respect and honour and should be treated like the dog they are.

Remember the phrase, "Never bring a knife to a gun fight." Why should you be suicidal in facing off a horde of enemies? Being honourable is one thing... being stupid is another. Look at all the 'honourable' knightly orders there are in history. Do you think that any military force dumbed themselves down just because their enemy didn't match their firepower? Do samurai put down their katana and use a bamboo stick to beat up criminals because they know that they are no match for them in a fight? Did the british put down their rifles and pick up spears and use bows and arrows in the Zulu war? No. I don't think there should be any reason for ANY paladin to enter into battle without their full abilities and powers. "My lord and god Torm has allowed me to be his champion, to bring truth and justice to the world. To bring justice to you. If you enter into battle with me heathen, than be prepared to die. This is your one and only warning. I shall give you no mercy, unless you honestly ask for it."

Just because you have griffon mount and your enemies don't doesn't mean that you should stupid enough to face them 'fairly'. A fair and just fight is only in one-on-one combat when your enemy requests it. Such as when two commanders of opposing armies ask to resolve the issue with one-on-one combat. Just because your enemy didn't bother to bring mounts is their problem, not yours. This is mortal combat we are talking about. Your suppose to take any advantage you have and can take. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.
As for the idea of 'no spiked gauntlets', that seems a little looney to me, as well as not using ranged weapons. I can see the point that you don't want to use something that is simply used to inflict pain and suffering. But like I and others have said there shouldn't be any reason not to use the best means to defeat your enemy without being underhanded about it. Remember chivalry only applies to fellow members of your religion (or perhaps race, or whatever else you want to use as a quantifier). In a historical context, we are talking about fellow christians.

The idea of 'innocent until proven guilty' is only a western one. In France it is 'guilty until proven innocent'. So, unless you want to play it that way, there is no reason why you should have to give people the benefit of the doubt, or be trusting of anyone. Especially if your dealing with a world full of non-believers, villians and monsters.

 

[hopeless]

Reg: Paladins

I played a Paladin based on a certain female vampire slayer and ran a Kingdoms of Kalamar game where one of the players a self professed former biker turned accountant ran what i consider to be the best roleplayed paladin i have ever witnessed.
He used his code to bypass traps that I had worried would cause a Total party kill in such a way to make it look almost karmic.
I then played in a Greyhawk campaign where i ran a halfling sorceress and the dm who runs the Faerun campaign ran a Paladin and to keep it short he efectively villified the class as far as I was concerned...
He started off well trying to turn 2 half orc barbarians to the light by making them his squires and then REALLY messed up.
Out of curiosity what would you call someone who orders a pair of captives dangled over a cliff edge and then has them dropped ignoring all bar his two squires (then npcs) when their comrades start dropping rocks on him?
And when we secure a helpless captive who is willing to talk even though his character CANNOT speak goblin then moves to kill the captive over the protests of the other 2 present (my character is NG the other a LG Monk) and uses his detect evil ability to hunt down the fleeing goblin being led to safety even though they're inside the goblins lair and last time I checked should have made that ability useless since they were located in a enlarged tomb with a spectre lying low in a sealed off portion...
He also goaded another player to set off a trap my character had detected and was trying to confirm but because he wasn't willing to wait got a new player to set off the trap and then blocked off the corridor claiming he was trying to turn the undead and only the monk beating him there saved that player's character (who was later possessed by a mummy's spirit courtesy of the Book of Vile Darkness).
And then there's the Paladin using his detect evil to sense a Rod of Withering even though he's facing the wrong way after another character had opened the entrance to the mummy's resting place yet the Paladin's plyer after claiming he told the dwarf not to do this chooses to scan an obscured area behind him that he knows is clear just because the dm has revealed to the sorceress the magical items she has found (including the rod) to which the dwarf's player immediately trots over to claim a suit of enchanted chain mail...
Sorry there's much more to this but I better get to the point.
That player I believe based his character on a style of play that seems common to Faerun novels in particular one called Thornhold where an ancient artefact only descendants of a family line can use and when the last survivors consist of a cleric of Cyric, a Harper based in Waterdeep and said cleric's daughter who has been kept innocent so she can access that artefact on her father's behalf. The Paladin sent after the child murdered her foster parents who although one was a cleric of cyric both were atypical concerned parents the father was turned down his dark path by a posse of paladins who wiped out an elven community when a demon teleported past their forest home and they refused to take the long way round choosing to chase through their settlement over their objections and as for that Paladin he was treated as being a fanatic with no concern for the people he was supposed to be protecting and I believe he was a follower of Torm...

All the best with your character, drop us a line to let us know what happened and what viewpoints you come across...

Before I forget merry christmas one and all!

 

[Thurbane]

You might be interested in referring to the The Oath of Peace of the Bloodguard in Stephen Donladson's novels...

"Do not hurt where holding is enough; Do not wound where hurting is
enough; Do not maim where wounding is enough; Do not kill where
maiming is enough; the greatest warrior is one who does not need to kill"

 

[Ferghis]

What is your character's position on people who are misguided? How evangelical do you want your character to be?

Very good point, worthy of exploration. I'm just too tired to really think about it now. Apologies.

Do samurai put down their katana and use a bamboo stick to beat up criminals because they know that they are no match for them in a fight? Did the british put down their rifles and pick up spears and use bows and arrows in the Zulu war? No. I don't think there should be any reason for ANY paladin to enter into battle without their full abilities and powers.

I don't think any of your examples refer to paladins, and especially not to the kind of setting that the OP asked about (stricter than usual paladin code). Specifically, samurais that kill small time criminals are certainly not engaging in good acts, and a paladin should strive to engage in good acts every waking minute.

As for the idea of 'no spiked gauntlets', that seems a little looney to me, as well as not using ranged weapons. I can see the point that you don't want to use something that is simply used to inflict pain and suffering. But like I and others have said there shouldn't be any reason not to use the best means to defeat your enemy without being underhanded about it. Remember chivalry only applies to fellow members of your religion (or perhaps race, or whatever else you want to use as a quantifier). In a historical context, we are talking about fellow christians.

I don't think it's a no-pain-and-suffering issue, I think those rules are rooted in the notion that victory in fair melee combat proves your cause righteous because your god guides you to victory. Fair melee combat is taken to mean, I think, a straigt-forward duel with no "tricks". So ranged weapons are not allowed because they allow you to attack an enemy who may not be able to respond appropriately, and, IIRC, weapons with reach weren't allowed for 1e cavaliers because they allowed the wielder to keep the opponent at bay. I have no idea why gauntlets are out, but I'll guess it's because they're not standard "knightly" weapons. The fight was viewed as a trial of the paladin's faith, so had the solemnity of a duel. I have no idea why I'm writing in the past tense...

The idea of 'innocent until proven guilty' is only a western one. In France it is 'guilty until proven innocent'. So, unless you want to play it that way, there is no reason why you should have to give people the benefit of the doubt, or be trusting of anyone. Especially if your dealing with a world full of non-believers, villians and monsters.

Two objections:
The minor one is that there is a presumption of innocence in France, and there has been since ancient Rome (whether or not it's practiced is another debate, and off-topic in this forum). But I'm sure there are places where there is little or no presumption of innocence.

The major one is that a paladin shouldn't apply one moral standard to an ingroup and another to an outgroup. I'm not saying that different groups cannot be treated differently, but the moral standard should be the same. Justice is blind, and so should the paladin's moral values. Again, no need to invite the opposing army over for dinner, just don't judge them till you know they're evil and a threat to someone.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Obi-Wan Kenobi lies repeatedly, disregards legitimate authority ("These are not the droids you're looking for")...

I'm pretty sure Obi-Wan didn't consider the Empire's authority to be "legitimate."

 

[delericho]

I'm pretty sure Obi-Wan didn't consider the Empire's authority to be "legitimate."

I don't think a Paladin can pick and choose which authority is legitimate. Still, I'll grant you that one.

But what about his repeated lies to Luke? And what about the excess of moral flexibility he shows? "What I said was true, from a certain point of view" is not something a Paladin should be saying.

And there's one more issue. On Mustafar, having defeated Anakin, Obi-Wan walks away and leaves him to die a long, drawn-out and painful death. It strikes me that there were not one but two courses of action open to him that would have been far batter. In the first scenario, he kills Anakin, putting the boy out of his misery (and, incidentally, preventing the rise of Darth Vader and all the horrors that result from that). In the second scenario, he drags the wounded Anakin to safety, and spends the next several months redeeming him. (This also has the side-effect that he can tell Padme that Anakin is wounded but going to be okay. She may well then not die of a broken heart, and they all live happily ever after.)

But no, he fails to take the difficult decision, and instead takes the quick and easy path. And, as Yoda predicted, thereafter that decision dominated his destiny.

 

[hamishspence]

Paladins and FCII

FCII introducesthe rule that corrupt acts taint the soul with evil REGARDLESS of how many good acts one does.
Key acts: Evil spells, humiliating a subordinate, stealing from the needy, and inflicting gratuitous injury (which includes ability-damaging spells of any kind)
More directly relevant here are Obesiant acts (acts of Law) which do the same for law rather than evil:
Accepting the commands of a superior you do not respect, acting in support of a superior at your own expense, carrying out lawful corporal punishment, carrying out a lawful execution

This is more of a problem for I AM THE LAW paladins: they MUST be obesiant, which means they must be EXTRA careful not to be evil: because 9 points of obesiant + 1 point evil (or 9 points evil + 1 point obesiant) guarantees ones soul to the Nine hells regardless of alignment.

Atonement (SERIOUS roleplaying needed) can get one off though.

On the Jedi: the novels have more insight on the subject: DS1: legitimate target, DS2: lesser of two evils.
Jedi are a long way from paladin levels of good, especially in SW 1,2,3. More often chaotic good, or even Lawful Neutral (Jorus C'baoth from Outbount Flight) Qui-Gon is chaotic enough to alarm Jedi Council, which is why he's not on it. Obi Wan is rather like him.

The question of whether Empire is legitimate or not is a complex one. Jedi say: once Palpatine had corrupted senate enough to make them chuck away democracy, it became a illegal dictatorship. Palpatine say: he got the power the democratic way, and democracies can choose to abolish their own authority in favour of his.

 

[Dross]

If you do have the authority to judge someone, remember that where a normal tribunal might condemn the act, a paladin might not, becuase you have a strong obligation to give the benefit of the doubt, which prevails over a mere probability of guilt. In other words, if you're not dang sure the guy's done the bad deed, you gotta let him go, even if you think he's the one. While regular law enforcement might just take the guy, beat him until he fesses up, and then sentence some forced labor. So having authority might actually turn out to be more of a pain in the neck than just handing over a prisoner to some other authority.

The cases that confuse me the most are where authority conflicts with good. So you catch the fact that the sheriff is evil, but he's still the one formally empowered to administer justice. That's a tough call in my book. Especially if I only have the alignment to go on, but no evil acts...

When the number of enemies is over a certain amount and acheives a certain homogeny, you can call the enemy an army, and the rules of war are different. There you can flank, use missile weapons (the bigger the better), use tactical advantage, oil and siege weaponry. As long as you are leading your troops, not doing anything shady (no poison, no ambush, no hostages) offer a chance to surrender if the odds are clearly in your favor, and always be open to parley, you should be okay.

Late reply but:

partially agree with this, but presumption of innocence may not be the norm in the campaign, DM view etc.

Also, a chaotic act is "better" than an evil act. The first one needs atonemnt, the 2nd strips you of pally abilities. Going against the sherif may be a chaotic act if he is evil but lawabiding (Lawful Evil say) but may be for the "good" of the area.