What is considered ok for paladins in your game?

[Gargoyle]

ok, I'm changing my mind...

Well said, Shark. Uni - I don't think the blind adherence to the Code Gargoyle advocates would be Chaotic, though, or evil, it seems a very good example of Lawful Neutral behaviour, like the bliblical example of the pharisee in the Good Samaritan story.

That is my feeling as well. And if a paladin can commit acts that are Neutral Good occassionally, then they can also commit acts that are Lawful Neutral occassionally. Lying to save lives would be NG, refusing to lie even though innocents may die would be LN.

The more I think about it, the more I think that both behaviors should be allowed (when there are such extenuating circumstances), and that I shouldn't come down too hard on paladins that lie in such a situation. Congratulations, you've all just changed my mind, which is hard to do.

Allowing both behaviors without calling it a "gross violation" can create a much more diverse set of choices for paladins. Some lean towards LN, some towards NG. In a group of paladins, this would be an especially good thing, since it would generate some conflict between them without stripping one side of their powers. After all, the gods don't really want to take their champion's powers away from them, and would probably have more leniancy than I considered earlier.

But really, I don't mean to advocate any particular interpretation of the Code. I'm just stating my opinions. I like the fact that the Code is fairly vague and can be interpreted differently by different DMs. The only thing I advocate is that the DM and players communicate on the Code to avoid issues during the game.

 

[bret]

I find that discussions involving paladins and the paladin's code often revolve around sticky little concepts just like this. For example, which is more important for the paladin:

(1) Accomplishing the mission, and thereby fulfilling the whole purpose;

OR

(2) Adhering to the letter of the paladin's code--but failing in the accomplishment of the mission?

It seems that some feel that the paladin needs to adhere rigidly to the letter of the code in being "honorable"--while at the same time evincing a more casual attitude about the mission being accomplished.

You forgot an option:

(3) Accomplishing the mission, knowing that they will be sacrificing their Paladin powers. After it completes, ask for atonement.


Seems to me, the third option is best. Provided the act is only chaotic, they can atone.

It is the difference between the written code and doing what is right.


If the religion preaches humility, this third option is the correct one. Not all LG religions would require humility, and many might actively encourage excessive pride. Still, if a Paladin isn't willing to sacrifice something when that is what it takes to complete a mission, it seems to me there is a problem.


In this case, it would be appropriate for the GM to give a handslap as the 'punishment' (has to be a punishment if they broke the rules), and then privately congradulate the person on a job well done.

 

[Gargoyle]

Edit - Caught myself going too far off-topic. I'll start another thread later...

 

[Corinth]

A LG god that punishes a paladin for doing what he called that mortal to do does not exist, and neither would the situation; in no way should a paladin that, in the pursuit of his holy duties and observance of the spirit thereof, uses deception (etc.) to get that holy job done ever be punished for doing so. I'll go so far as to say that no god, of any alignment, would do such a thing; gods do not punish success.

 

[S'mon]

A LG god that punishes a paladin for doing what he called that mortal to do does not exist, and neither would the situation; in no way should a paladin that, in the pursuit of his holy duties and observance of the spirit thereof, uses deception (etc.) to get that holy job done ever be punished for doing so. I'll go so far as to say that no god, of any alignment, would do such a thing; gods do not punish success.

I think a Lawful Neutral god of 'Absolute Law' might well put adherence to His Law above mission success or anything else.

I agree that it's not LG for the god to expect the Paladin to lie AND to have to atone for doing _what the god wants_! Atonement is for lapses.

 

[S'mon]

Re: ok, I'm changing my mind...

The more I think about it, the more I think that both behaviors should be allowed (when there are such extenuating circumstances), and that I shouldn't come down too hard on paladins that lie in such a situation. Congratulations, you've all just changed my mind, which is hard to do.

Allowing both behaviors without calling it a "gross violation" can create a much more diverse set of choices for paladins. Some lean towards LN, some towards NG. In a group of paladins, this would be an especially good thing, since it would generate some conflict between them without stripping one side of their powers. After all, the gods don't really want to take their champion's powers away from them, and would probably have more leniancy than I considered earlier.

Hear hear!

Personally I think there's room for both Dirty Harry and TV-show-Hercules type Paladins, this approach assists roleplaying rather than straitjacketing it.

 

[bret]

A LG god that punishes a paladin for doing what he called that mortal to do does not exist, and neither would the situation; in no way should a paladin that, in the pursuit of his holy duties and observance of the spirit thereof, uses deception (etc.) to get that holy job done ever be punished for doing so. I'll go so far as to say that no god, of any alignment, would do such a thing; gods do not punish success.

Mortals are fallible, they might not come up with the right answer. The gods have to recognize this. Gods that require humility might even force such a situation on a Paladin, see if their pride will prevent them from acting.

The punishment is precisely because the god is lawful. If the Paladin has broken one of the tenants, he should expect to be punished. It is necessary that people know that even a Paladin can not escape punishment regardless of circumstance. It is very lawful to say 'No exceptions to the rule.' In a Lawful Good social structure, the rules are in place to prevent evil and chaos from taking over.

If the Paladin can come up with no way to accomplish the mission without breaking the tenants of his religion, he has failed. Now it is just a matter of damage control.


This does get more sticky if you start looking at a Paladin without a god. Then again, whom does such a Paladin go to for Attonement?

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Hmmm...It doesn't seem that if the paladin can't find a solution within his code, then *the paladin* has failed. There are situations in the campaign world that don't neatly fit into the paladin's *code* As far as I know, life isn't guaranteed to submit and conform itself to the neat little ideas of the paladin.

For example--

If you lie, then a group of innocent people live.

If the paladin insists on telling the truth, then the people die.

That situation alone, in many different configurations, can easily happen in many campaigns. That doesn't mention the many other types of odd and life-threatening situations that can face a paladin, where the neatly proscribed lines of conduct must be crossed.

What do you think?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK