What is considered ok for paladins in your game?

[Ace]

Interesting questions on the poll.

IMC I do Paladins a little differently than most, basically there are several kinds of them, Some are trained other born to it ,some are called.

Paladin is actually a slang term, the polite term is Lightsworn or Light Called. All of them are servent/warriors of good and may be of any good alignment.

Most standard paladins are Lawfull Good and follow the PHB

There are other types .

Among them I the Chaotic Good Freeseekers who have a slightly different skill and spell list. While they predate the publication of 3e they are somewhat like Holy Liberators

A Light Called can be anyone or any class, although all of them are good aligned. It is basically a prestige class version of the paladin.

There is also the Black Gate Order who for the most don't call Warhorse (they man a keep on the outskirts of a Hell Gate) .
They have huge wardog companions instead.

Non Humans rarely produce paladins, Halfling do occasionally when the whole race in danger. Normally there are maybe a dozen or so at a time otherwise.
The are pretty much the same as in the PHB but they ride wardogs or sometimes ponys, tend to use misssles more than most paladin types.
They are called Gaurdians

Elven and Gnomish Paladins are absurdly rare as the default alignments for the races are Chaotic Nuetral and True Neutral repectivly

Dwarven Paladins are pretty tough although they don't have mounts as far as I know
No one had wated to play one yet so I haven't figured out what to give them. I was thinking of a little DR (1 -3 points) or some limited bonus feats. Or I may just give them mounts I may also allow them to take a souped UP Dwarven defender PRC freely.

As for the half humans, Same as Humans

 

[Gargoyle]

My opinion, btw, is that an evil ruler or government is never a "legitimate authority" and does not need to be respected by a paladin. A paladin is free to ignore any laws of such a ruler, and would be expected to do so in order to depose him. But the paladin would still be forbidden from committing evil acts, no matter how good the result.

As far as whether an act is evil or not, let's please not discuss that here too much. This thread is about what you consider to be "gross violations" of the Code of Conduct of a chaotic or dishonorable nature, not "what is evil?", and I'd like to stick to that to avoid heated arguments and a premature thread closure. Thanks!

 

[King_Stannis]

Then the faith would be evil. You don't have to believe that you're evil to be evil. In all probability, most evil people would think that their behavior is acceptable and perhaps just.

i don't know....using the example of the nazis, do you think EVERYONE who thought it was humane to euthanize the severely retarded was evil? i'm willing to wager there was probably some otherwise well meaning but perhaps ignorant people - easily swayed by the propaganda films the nazi's made.

let me put it in modern day terms. and, by the way, the debate begins and ends with this example. i have no interest in having this turn into something more.....but there are plenty of people who think that killing an unborn child is evil. people on the other side of that argument would most likely beg to differ.

morals are relative. in feudal times i could see no problem with this sort of edict being passed down from an ignorant clerical order. they could argue that it is cruel to let one suffer on this world in a state of severe retardation....

once again, i am NOT for any of this. it's just a game question, that's all.

the same thing happens when one of my characters talk of marrying a 13 year old girl. the immediate reaction from the table is "you pig!" you cradle robber!"...those are 21st century values. not 8th century values, where a woman of 14 might have already started a family with her husband. today, the man would be a child molester. back then?

 

[shilsen]

From the list:

Using the Disguise skill - Sure

Attacking unaware opponents - Sure (no need to yell, "Hey, buddy!" before shooting the dragon)

Attacking helpless opponents - In combat (coup de grace), yes. Out of combat, very rarely (see above)

Using Sneak Attacks at any time - Sure (it's a standard combat maneuver)

Using Sneak Attacks only when flanking - See above

Using Sneak Attacks only against aware opponents - See above

Attacking Melee Opponents With Ranged Weapons - Sure (unclear). If they're already in melee with you, you're better off with a melee weapon, but if they're some distance away, use that longbow.

Using the Bluff skill to feint - Sure. Just like he can use a shield to block a weapon.

Breaking the laws of an evil ruler or government - Definitely. Evil rulers/govts. are not "legitimate" authority for the paladin.

It depends on the paladin's order - Yes. But it depends even more on the paladin's code, in the rare case that they conflict.

 

[S'mon]

I guess it really depends on your definition of good, which is something that's been debated by far greater minds than mine for many years. I guess I just have to much of a judeo-christian ethic, but I can certainly see Gary's point. If you were to look at it from a strictly utilitarian point of view the Malthusian method of allowing 10 people to starve rather than feeding them and allowing them to each have five kids who you can't feed is "good". Because you're killing 10 to save 50, but I can't imagine letting a paladin do that sort of thing.

"The needs of the many outway the needs of the few" seems quintessential lawful-good to me. However your example is poor since if you kill the 10 the 50 never exist to start with.

"The needs of the one (individual) outway the needs of the many" seems chaotic-good if altruistic, or neutral/evil if the one is the person making the decision.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

I allow all of the above.

Defeated Paladin to fleeing refugee: Gee, I am really sorry that I did not defeat the evil overlord and save your people from enslavement. But it would not have brought glory to The Shining One if I had attacked that guy from behind. I challenged him and he won, fair and square. Glory to the highest and honor over all.

NOT!!!!!


To me a paladin should put saving others from evil above everything else.

That does not make him a simple fighter who must be a good guy. He still must consider honor at all times. It would be very hard for me to find a case where it would be ok for the paladin to lie, for example. And he will always face lots of judgement calls in terms of how to best defeat evil while staying within his code. But that makes for great roleplaying chances.

I guess I see the code as:
First, serve to cause of goodness for all
Second, Defend the innocent
Third, <major details of the code>
Last, All of the above before your own gain or welfare.



Death before dishonor
Dishonor before evil is allowed to do harm

A certain paladin order that requires a Knights of Solomnia type behavior is perfectly valid as well, and can be just as fun to play. But that should never be forced on every paladin everywhere.

 

[Rahkan]

I, myself, would think that "the needs of the many outwiegh the needs of the few" would be a lawful neutral viewpoint while "the needs of one above all", would be a lawful good viewpoint.

The paladin won't allow injustice to be done to one person, for instance squelching an outspoken radical, even if it destabilizes the government. The paladin fights for the little man, against what everybody else wants.

I suppose its just a viewpoint though. I tend to be more Romantic. I like those corny shows where the captain won't retreat without every man accounted for (like the book Starship Troopers.)

 

[Roland Delacroix]

i don't know....using the example of the nazis....

Stopped reading the thread after this point, tripped the 'Nazi' alarm, Mods should close this now before it becomes flame-fest.

 

[S'mon]

Originally posted by Rahkan
I, myself, would think that "the needs of the many outwiegh the needs of the few" would be a lawful neutral viewpoint while "the needs of one above all", would be a lawful good viewpoint.

The paladin won't allow injustice to be done to one person, for instance squelching an outspoken radical, even if it destabilizes the government. The paladin fights for the little man, against what everybody else wants.

Sounds chaotic-good to me. Assuming it's a non-evil government.

I suppose its just a viewpoint though. I tend to be more Romantic. I like those corny shows where the captain won't retreat without every man accounted for (like the book Starship Troopers.)

That's different - it improves group morale to know you won't be left behind, so this as a general policy is not chaotic IMO.

I've just been watching some Angel & Buffy episodes where they won't kill certain 'sympathetic' (but evil) vampires, because they know them personally - in the Angel case it didn't seem to matter that the vamp would still be killing people off-screen. That seems at best chaotic-good to me.

 

[reapersaurus]

To me a paladin should put saving others from evil above everything else.

Death before dishonor
Dishonor before evil is allowed to do harm

Good core principles for a paladin, in my eyes.

To ME, a paladin is a protector of the innocent more than anything.
He will fight evil to his last breath on behalf of those that cannot fight for themselves.

It would not do to recklessly waive an advantage in combat for some point of 'honor'.

Not using the tools at his disposal is effectively shirking his responsibility to protect his charges.

His duty is not a pleasant one - he must bear the mental scars of his battles as well as the physical.

Slaying evil is NOT romantic.

To uphold your precious "code of honor" above your responsibility to protect the innocent against evil is a terrible choice, IMO.
This leads you down an unpretty path, to be sure, but as long as you don't let the death and violence overtake you, and always do things for the right reasons, you should NOT be in danger of grossly violating any paladin's 'codes'.