What is considered ok for paladins in your game?

[Gargoyle]

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

You're correct. The rest of the post didn't bother me. Lying is clearly against the Code, and stealing will usually be against the 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.

Ok, I'll admit that the idea that there is an order to things in the Code is weak. That's just how I perceive it, since the part of Lawful Good and evil acts is first, and the "dishonorable/chaotic" acts are after the word "additionally".

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.

This is where we disagree. I would argue that the Lawful Good god's answer to whether you should put the truth ahead of saving lives is that you must do both. Gods are like that. The end does not justify the means for a paladin. But the DM has a lot of leeway here. If you as the DM feel that the lie was not a "gross violation" of the Code, there is no loss of powers. Even if you do feel that it was so, and take away his powers, he can use atonement to get his class abilities back, since it clearly wasn't an evil act. So in a sense, we're both right - you could rule one way, and I could rule another and we'd both be within the rules.
Personally, I would take his powers away until he atones. After all, if lying to a demon under such circumstances seems ok, it's just another step to lying to someone else under less stressful situations...etc.

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.

That's a valid way to view it. Here's another point of view:
The paladin refuses to lie, and the demon slaughters all the innocents. The paladin didn't kill those people, the demon did. That's the true evil. If following the Code was an evil act, then the paladin's god or the forces of good that called him must answer to it, not the paladin.
Also, paladins must willingly commit an evil act to lose their powers forever. Put in a catch 22 situation like this, I don't feel they're willingly committing evil even if you consider "letting" the innocents die an evil act, which is debatable.
Finally, (As long as we're talking extreme examples...) what if the lie the paladin told saved all those lives, but inadvertantly caused the demon to kill many more people in the long run? Does that make the lie any more chaotic (or even evil)? Since no one (even the DM) truly knows all the consequences of a lie, how can you say the end justifies the means for such an action? Telling a lie is clearly chaotic (not even neutral), and to me, is always a gross violation.

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

Agreed. And YMMV on what a "gross violation" is, depending on the DM. There's a lot of leeway in that last part, and even the first part seems open to wide interpretation.

But really, I think we could all think up dozens of extreme examples that cause moral conundrums for paladins. I'm not sure how useful that is. I'll take a stab at coming to some conclusions from the above:

Straying into chaotic behavior instead of evil seems to be a valid tactic for a paladin, especially one who leans toward good behavior. But I think sticking to the letter of the code would work for a paladin leaning towards lawful behavior as well. As much as their hands seem to be tied, it appears to me that paladins do have some leeway in their behavior.

 

[Gargoyle]

I have never fully realised what it is that get's everybody knickers in a knot whenever you talk about alignment - and especially paladins.

To me it's simple. A paladin has to act like a heroic knight.

No need for particularities: If he doesn't act heroic, and if he doesn't act as a knight, then he's doing it wrong. Play by the spirit, not the letter!

Despite my rambling about the letter of the Code, I also agree. This sums up what a paladin should be quite well.

 

[Gargoyle]

Yeah - of course the problems arise when my Paladin PC finishes off the wounded orcs and the GM thinks I've breached the Code...

As you say, it all comes down to opinion as to what constitutes LG and there really is no solution, but I don't like it when people try to impose clearly NG or CG values on LG just because they're seen as 'better'.

That's the #1 problem I have with paladins: The DM and players have different ideas about what's LG or within the Code, and it has an impact on the gameplay. The paladin is the only entity in the game where rules are balanced with roleplaying.

 

[S'mon]

Unless your LG god is a real old-testament type it seems unlikely they'd prefer to see innocents slaughtered than that the paladin tell a lie.

To me the quinetessential paladin deity is the Norse Tyr, who put his hand into Fenrir's mouth, as surety that the gods would not bind Fenrir with the magic thread.

He lied.

This act of heroic self-sacrifice, giving up his hand to bind Fenrir, made Tyr the Norse god of law and justice.

Yet according to you he _should_ have said:

"Well, of course we're going to bind you!"

And anything else would be a 'gross violation' of the paladin's code?

And of course the Nazi example comes to mind - if they ask you whether you're hiding Jews in the attic you can tell them secure in the knowledge of your lawful-goodness...

This seems more like extreme Lawful Neutral to me.

 

[Gargoyle]

Unless your LG god is a real old-testament type it seems unlikely they'd prefer to see innocents slaughtered than that the paladin tell a lie.

To me the quinetessential paladin deity is the Norse Tyr, who put his hand into Fenrir's mouth, as surety that the gods would not bind Fenrir with the magic thread.

He lied.

This act of heroic self-sacrifice, giving up his hand to bind Fenrir, made Tyr the Norse god of law and justice.

Yet according to you he _should_ have said:

"Well, of course we're going to bind you!"

And anything else would be a 'gross violation' of the paladin's code?

I'm not familiar with Norse mythology, but I'll say that if Tyr lied, he's not a paladin anymore, at least not the D&D version of a paladin. And let's not get the Norse Tyr mixed up with the one in the Forgotten Realms; I know enough to know that they're not the same.

And of course the Nazi example comes to mind - if they ask you whether you're hiding Jews in the attic you can tell them secure in the knowledge of your lawful-goodness...

This seems more like extreme Lawful Neutral to me.

And after you tell them, you bust their heads. There's nothing wrong with playing a LG fighter that lies in such an extreme situation. But playing a paladin that does so has repercussions. If you don't play it that way, that's fine. It's up to the DM what a gross violation is after all. But if you ignore lies altogether, you're not playing the paladin as presented in the PHB.

Edit: Clarified the last couple of sentences.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

Gargoyle,

I think we are dancing on pinheads now

I agree with you that the paladin must do both. But I feel that the GOOD side is the side they will err on when an extreme circumstance comes up. This would be VERY rare.
But the code clearly shows that evil is "worse" than chaos. (I would be quite cool with a paladin order of a LN diety that found Chaos worse than evil, but that is not the default.) The detect Evil and Smite Evil abilities are further evidence that evil is more important.

The long term consequences are far less important. The paladin may be LG, but the world itself is very much Chaotic.

What if a paladin saved a child from an orc, no breach of code in any way, simple heroic action at its best. Forty years later the kids grows up to be his world's Pol Pot. (I can say Pol Pot right? Just not Hitler?)

If you hold paladins responisble for the UNPREDICTABLE consequences of their actions, you will never see a level 3 paladin that does not have 6 levels in mental patient. Foresable consequences are completely different, of course.

In the end, the god will know the paladin's intentions. As long as the paladin is both sincere and NOT INEPT he can remain a paladin.

A reasonable compromise could be that a noble lie still requires an atonement, but no powers are lost as long as you get right on the antoning. Even then I would select a very minor atonement.



Also, I totally agree that DM player understanding up front is critical.

 

[Gargoyle]

Gargoyle,

I think we are dancing on pinheads now

I mostly agree, especially with the sentiment that given a choice between a chaotic act and an evil act, he will certainly err on the side of chaotic.

 

[maddman75]

Also, I totally agree that DM player understanding up front is critical.

This is the key, IMO

THe best way to avoid all these misunderstandings about killing orc babies and such is to have the paladin's player and the DM WRITE out the code in advance. They player should know exactly what his order expects of him. Even different orders of paladins, each with a slightly different take. One could work on the frontiers, defending helpless villages against marauding humanoids. Others could cling to strict ancient codes, etc.

Again, this shouldn't be a general agreement, but something specific written down that the player can refer to.

 

[BLACKDIRGE]

I have a question for all the Paladin authorities out there. I play a Gnoll Paladin of Torm in a new campaign recently begun by a friend of mine. The whole Gnoll Paladin thing is a long story I wont go into here. My question is, my paladin sometimes tries to hide his appearance in areas where gnolls are likely to be attacked on sight. he usually wears a large cowled cloak and tries to pass himself off as a large human. Would this be a violation of the paladin code?

Dirge

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

I honestly think that question could only be answered by you and your DM.

Being ashamed of who you are does not seem very paladin-like.
If I was DM I would probably be against it, but you might be able to convince me if you presented a really good case.