Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 3233831" data-attributes="member: 8835">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.</blockquote>

Verification