What is considered ok for paladins in your game?

[S'mon]

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'.

I agree with this, very well put. A paladin who is genuinely seeking to do the right thing and protect the innocent should not IMO be in danger of losing his paladinhood, even if that requires lying, stealing or sneak attacking the bad guys. Doing so for personal glory or personal gain is another matter.

BTW by 'the many' I do not mean 'the government' or 'the state', I mean merely the greatest number of sentient individuals, especially 'decent right thinking individuals' as Gygax put it in the 1e PHB.

 

[Gargoyle]

I agree with this, very well put. A paladin who is genuinely seeking to do the right thing and protect the innocent should not IMO be in danger of losing his paladinhood, even if that requires lying, stealing or sneak attacking the bad guys. Doing so for personal glory or personal gain is another matter.

This seems to describe "neutral good" more than the stringent "lawful good" of the paladin in the PHB to me; it's more of the viewpoint that the "end justifies the means".

IMO, paladins are hard to play because they try to win while following the rules. If protecting the innocent were more important than being lawful good and honorable, I would think it would be mentioned first in the Code, instead of last.

 

[Rashak Mani]

If you want to wack away at anything that even seems evil you should go for the Holy Liberator... Chaotic Good has its advantages.

Paladins are examples primarily and fighters of evil secondarily in a larger sense. When things get dirty they shouldnt get dirty... that is the challenge of the Paladin. Prime examples of virtue not combat.

Hitting an unaware Demon is fine... his nature is pure evil and no qualms on that. The same does not apply to Humans that might or might not be involved with evil... mercenaries or men at arms that simply follow orders. Its one thing to have to fight them to the death if they attack you... its another to sneak on them and lop their heads off.

I love Nietsches saying: "Beware those that fight Monsters that they do not become monsters themselves. When you look into the Abyss, the Abyss looks into you."

Paladins must always resist that impulse for carnage, violence and becoming simple executioners. They must adhere to principle no matter what. Its silly to call a demon for a duel... granted... but its not justifiable to launch a fireball into an area full of innocents even if it kills a major villain. Gamewise it doesnt show up too frequently maybe... or becomes distorted. Most of the time characters are facing certainly evil stuff... no doubt...

Most of what people said before me is good... its just a question of good sense I think. DM and player should sit down and discuss the style of paladinhood. Different Dieties might make different distinctions as well.

 

[GnomeWorks]

Attacking opponents with ranged weaponry is allowed, as is using the Bluff skill to feint, and breaking the 'laws' of an evil government is allowed completely, provided that they are not laws of the paladin's order.

Of course, everything else is dependent upon the order of the paladin, IMC - some deities would allow sneak attacks on unaware opponents in any case, some in only a few situations, and some - none at all.

 

[King_Stannis]

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

good god, have we become this sensitive that we can't even use the term "nazi"? i guess i shouldn't even tell you that i used abortion in my arguments, too.

it's a shame you didn't read the rest of my argument, because it was, IMHO, damn good. hmmm, not being able to use historical facts to support an intellectual discussion.....wow.

respectfully, next time, instead of trying become some sort of vigilante moderator, please post something relevent or nothing at all. i've seen you post before and you seem a pretty intelligent person. i'd like to hear your views instead of what you would do if you were a moderator.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by S'mon

I agree with this, very well put. A paladin who is genuinely seeking to do the right thing and protect the innocent should not IMO be in danger of losing his paladinhood, even if that requires lying, stealing or sneak attacking the bad guys. Doing so for personal glory or personal gain is another matter.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This seems to describe "neutral good" more than the stringent "lawful good" of the paladin in the PHB to me; it's more of the viewpoint that the "end justifies the means".

IMO, paladins are hard to play because they try to win while following the rules. If protecting the innocent were more important than being lawful good and honorable, I would think it would be mentioned first in the Code, instead of last.

[/B]

I partly agree, but mostly disagree. I am guessing that the lying and stealing comments are the sticking point for you?

I agree that these are never lawful. As such, I find it very hard to imagine a time when a paladin would choose to do either and still stay within code.

But I do not see anything to indicate a pecking order in the code. (My personal campaign orders DO have pecking orders, so I support the idea) I just see a list. Plus, being Lawful good is at the start of the list and all of the above falls under that, so the argument gets a bit circular.

But I can't imagine a Lawful Good god putting telling the truth ahead of saving innocent lives. For an extreme example, if a paladin was totally outmatched with no hope of saving fleeing people from a demon, but could delay the demon with a lie, thus letting the people get further away, he better lie. If, OTOH, he could stand and fight for just a few rounds and get the job done as well that way, lying would break the code.

True stealing is even harder to imagine. I can't even think of a potential example at this time. So I guess I agree on that part.

But I really disagree that the order of items in the list is important. (At lest for generic paladins, your Order may vary.)

Put another way, to lie would be a chaotic act, to let innocents die would be an evil one. Only evil acts are automatic ex-paladin crimes. Chaotic acts are not listed. So to me THAT is a clear pecking order, evil is worse than chaotic.
A lie would be a violation, but a lie that did not serve the paladins personal interest, but only served to protect the innocent, would not be a GROSS violation.

Evil acts leave no wiggle room, chaotic acts must be considered "gross violations"

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

If you want to wack away at anything that even seems evil you should go for the Holy Liberator... Chaotic Good has its advantages.

Paladins are examples primarily and fighters of evil secondarily in a larger sense. When things get dirty they shouldnt get dirty... that is the challenge of the Paladin. Prime examples of virtue not combat.

Hitting an unaware Demon is fine... his nature is pure evil and no qualms on that. The same does not apply to Humans that might or might not be involved with evil... mercenaries or men at arms that simply follow orders. Its one thing to have to fight them to the death if they attack you... its another to sneak on them and lop their heads off.

I love Nietsches saying: "Beware those that fight Monsters that they do not become monsters themselves. When you look into the Abyss, the Abyss looks into you."

Paladins must always resist that impulse for carnage, violence and becoming simple executioners. They must adhere to principle no matter what. Its silly to call a demon for a duel... granted... but its not justifiable to launch a fireball into an area full of innocents even if it kills a major villain. Gamewise it doesnt show up too frequently maybe... or becomes distorted. Most of the time characters are facing certainly evil stuff... no doubt...

Most of what people said before me is good... its just a question of good sense I think. DM and player should sit down and discuss the style of paladinhood. Different Dieties might make different distinctions as well.

I agree with you about the fireball, of course.

But not the men at arms. The code clearly states "... punish those that harm or THREATEN innocents." Now the paladin will have a burden of proof that a fighter will not. But if he KNOWS that the lackey's are following orders of an evil leader, they are fair game. If the "might or might not" part of your statement holds, then the paladin must hold back. But if he knows that they are "following orders" from an evil leader, "might not" is gone.

It does not say punish EVIL that threatens innocents, it says punish THOSE that threaten innocents.

 

[Roland Delacroix]

good god, have we become this sensitive that we can't even use the term "nazi"? i guess i shouldn't even tell you that i used abortion in my arguments, too.

it's a shame you didn't read the rest of my argument, because it was, IMHO, damn good. hmmm, not being able to use historical facts to support an intellectual discussion.....wow.

respectfully, next time, instead of trying become some sort of vigilante moderator, please post something relevent or nothing at all. i've seen you post before and you seem a pretty intelligent person. i'd like to hear your views instead of what you would do if you were a moderator.

Been on this board since shortly after opened, been on many other boards as well of all intrests. Its a known rule of thumb that in any controvercial thread a critical mass is reached and someone will eventually mention Nazis. This person is usually an idiot (not saying you are, but usually). This point, the Nazi Horizon, is where threads degenerate into flaming piles of innane giberish. Heheh, there are plenty of closed thread test cases but they might all be on old boards now. Obviouslly you didn't know about this, I appologize for not being clearer.

WWII was a very complex time in history, Germany was a very complex regime and its history has been severly distorted. It was also a large regime designed to allow a very few twisted individuals to make decisions that reverberated deeply. I'm not sure if you can pull anything 'Historically factual' out of it that applies since as a system it is follows the course set by, well, crazy people. Respectfully, if you thing you can make any comparisons to this period of time or regime IMO you are outright wrong. In addition 'Nazis' hold very different meanings and feelings for different people. There are plenty of non-nazi examples an intelligent person can use that are much more simple and won't offend half the world.

When you become a moderator you can tell me what to post and where. Once you post a thread it is out of your hands, its a public owned thread now. Its a shame, I was interested in this thread too. Playing a rather different Paladin now in fact.

Sorry to derail this a little, just ignore everyone else!

 

[S'mon]

This seems to describe "neutral good" more than the stringent "lawful good" of the paladin in the PHB to me; it's more of the viewpoint that the "end justifies the means".

IMO, paladins are hard to play because they try to win while following the rules. If protecting the innocent were more important than being lawful good and honorable, I would think it would be mentioned first in the Code, instead of last.

On the one hand, the paladin should not lie, cheat or steal (Lawful).

On the other, they should protect the innocent (Good).

The balance between the two determines whether the paladin tends towards Lawful Neutral (putting the Code's restrictions before protecting the innocent) or Neutral Good (putting the greatest good before the code's restraints). Clearly a perfect Lawful-Good balance between the two is not easy, and paladins are not the ultimate defenders of Good, else they'd be NG not LG, agreed.

 

[S'mon]

On the one hand, the paladin should not lie, cheat or steal (Lawful).

Of course these acts may be evil as well as chaotic, but lying to a demon, cheating a troll of its human prey, or stealing from the evil overlord don't seem evil to me, if they have greater good effects. I use:

Evil = hurting people.

Good = helping people.