What is considered ok for paladins in your game?
- Thread starter Gargoyle
- Start date
Axiomatic Unicorn
First Post
Henry said:
On that line of reasoning, does anyone think that a Lawful Good pure rogue should not be allowed to sneak attack and remain Lawful Good?
In legend, I'm not sure the Tyr did anything more than a 'lie of ommision' when he stuck his arm in the Fenris wolf's mouth.
I don't think that Tyr ever told the wolf that he would not be bound. I think someone else did the bargaining, and it ended up that the wolf would only agree to it if someone would stick their hand/arm in his mouth. Tyr was willing to do this.
On the issue of honor, there have been many who believed that honor was reserved for those who acted honorably themselves. If you showed yourself to be dishonorable, then the honorable person had a less strict code. It is entirely possible that trolls and demons would be considered incapable of honorable conduct, and therefore a Paladin could strike them down when they were defenseless.
Paladins really can be a challenge to play, since very few people agree on exactly what type of behavior is appropriate.
I don't think that Tyr ever told the wolf that he would not be bound. I think someone else did the bargaining, and it ended up that the wolf would only agree to it if someone would stick their hand/arm in his mouth. Tyr was willing to do this.
On the issue of honor, there have been many who believed that honor was reserved for those who acted honorably themselves. If you showed yourself to be dishonorable, then the honorable person had a less strict code. It is entirely possible that trolls and demons would be considered incapable of honorable conduct, and therefore a Paladin could strike them down when they were defenseless.
Paladins really can be a challenge to play, since very few people agree on exactly what type of behavior is appropriate.
Gargoyle
Adventurer
I've decided to take a snapshot, and calculate the percentage of votes for each question:
(130 votes)
The following is ok for a paladin:
75% (97) Using the Disguise Skill
60% (78) Attacking Unaware Opponents
21% (27) Attacking Helpless Opponents
43% (56) Using Sneak Attacks at any time
34% (44) Using Sneak Attacks only when flanking
25% (33) Using Sneak Attacks only against unaware opponents
80% (104) Attacking melee opponents with ranged weapons
74% (96) Using the Bluff Skill to feint
73% (95) Breaking the laws of using an evil ruler or government
60% (78) It depends on the paladin's order
(130 votes)
The following is ok for a paladin:
75% (97) Using the Disguise Skill
60% (78) Attacking Unaware Opponents
21% (27) Attacking Helpless Opponents
43% (56) Using Sneak Attacks at any time
34% (44) Using Sneak Attacks only when flanking
25% (33) Using Sneak Attacks only against unaware opponents
80% (104) Attacking melee opponents with ranged weapons
74% (96) Using the Bluff Skill to feint
73% (95) Breaking the laws of using an evil ruler or government
60% (78) It depends on the paladin's order
Axiomatic Unicorn
First Post
Gargoyle said:
Ok.
So we are drawing a clear distinction between being honorable and being Lawful Good. No problem there.
It sounds to me like many people require a strict chivalric code in order to be honorable. I don't see it that way.
And even if I did, I still stick to:
Death before dishonor
Dishonor before evil is allowed to do harm.
Gargoyle said:
It kinda sounds like a confusion between the Cavalier Code (I use the one from 1st ed UA) and the Paladin's Code. I don't allow cavaliers to sneak attack, use missile weapons, etc, as 'dishonorable', but Paladins serve Lawful-Good above their personal honour, IMC. So in a way paladins are more pragmatic - they serve the Greater Good and yes, this means that the ends can justify the means. And when it's a choice between serving their personal honour (not lying) and serving the greater good (protecting innocents) no paladin's LG deity will punish them for doing the latter. I can't even see St Cuthbert doing this.
Gargoyle
Adventurer
S'mon said:
I believe that "how" a paladin fights evil is just as important as if he wins. Otherwise, why mention honor in the Code at all?
"The paladin slunk into the shadows, waited for the dark knight to walk by, and stealthily slipped his rapier through the chinks in the back of the dark armor. Gasping in surprise, his evil foe fell the ground, blood gushed from his mouth; his dead eyes never saw his holy enemy. "
- Some people consider the above use of sneak attack to be "dishonorable" some don't. I happen to think it is a bit dishonorable for a paladin, and would require atonement. And I'll let paladin players in my game know that ahead of time. If you don't agree, that's ok. But surely you can see my point of view...
Axiomatic Unicorn
First Post
Can we explore that a little further?
You conclusion seems, to me, to assume the knight in shining armor paladin.
What if I am playing a Paladin1/Rogue9?
I am dedicated to fighting evil, but I am not a straight up fighter.
I use my stealth and ambush skills to help protect the people of my town from an evil overlord. Can I not do things to the best of my ability?
Have I simply selected a highly sub-optimal class combinaton?
In your example, the bad guy was taken out in one blow. In D&D this is not likely to occur unless you have some sneak attack (or the bad guy was 1st level). So I am assuming that the paladin had some levels of rogue. The rapier through the chinks part also implies the rogue sneak attack ability. So the knight in shining armor stereo-type is already not applicable.
How does this work in your mind?
Edited to improve wording
You conclusion seems, to me, to assume the knight in shining armor paladin.
What if I am playing a Paladin1/Rogue9?
I am dedicated to fighting evil, but I am not a straight up fighter.
I use my stealth and ambush skills to help protect the people of my town from an evil overlord. Can I not do things to the best of my ability?
Have I simply selected a highly sub-optimal class combinaton?
In your example, the bad guy was taken out in one blow. In D&D this is not likely to occur unless you have some sneak attack (or the bad guy was 1st level). So I am assuming that the paladin had some levels of rogue. The rapier through the chinks part also implies the rogue sneak attack ability. So the knight in shining armor stereo-type is already not applicable.
How does this work in your mind?
Edited to improve wording
Last edited:
Axiomatic Unicorn
First Post
Gargoyle said:
True, but the definition of honor may vary.
Perhaps my Rogue/Paladin must establish some level of proof of guilt of a specific crime(s) before he can set out to target an individual. This could be a flavor only thing where his god simply lets him know when the burden of proof has been met, or perhaps he must get approval from church clerics.
So he still must work within a structured system in order to maintain his honor. In other words, he can't be a paladin and then just go act like Dirty Harry. But once he gets the go ahead, alls fair in love and war, for that ONE target.
Other examples could also be developed.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
