What is considered ok for paladins in your game?

[S'mon]

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...

I would rule that if the paladin knew he had no real chance to defeat the bad guy in a straight fight, that the bad guy had to be defeated or more innocents would die and the paladin had sneak attack ability (as an ex rogue, say) or other backstab ability, he could use it and backstab the foe without need for atonement, although I'd reduce the XP award for the victory. I would probably require a paladin to fight honorably against honorable foes, were such a situation ever to arise.

 

[Gargoyle]

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

Yes, you have selected a sub-optimal class combination, at least IMC. Paladins, and the Code, were designed to be warrior-types, not rogues. This is not a bad thing, and even if it is, it's inevitable that some combinations are going to be harder to play than others.

Just like some race/class combinations are more difficult. For instance, if I were to play a gnoll paladin in your game, I would be at a disadvantage, hmm? For a less extreme example, suppose I choose to play an elf fighter in heavy armor, or a half-orc paladin in a campaign where any hint of orcish blood is reviled? Or a single classed fighter with feats that enhance his unarmed combat ability, saving throws, and skill focus? What about a wizard with average Intelligence? None of those choices are good examples of min/maxing, and all have repercussions. But they are all valid choices.

As far as the "knight in shining armor" archetype not being applicable, I disagree. Consider the following alternative:

"The paladin stepped from the shadows, and locked eyes with his heavily armored foe. 'Your dawn has come. Surrender or be destroyed by the light of Pelor'.
The dark knight's grin could almost be seen beneath his skull visor as he charged his leather-clad foe. His blackened great sword swung into a great arc and sliced into the side of the paladin.
Wincing in pain for only an instant, the noble warrior faltered, apparently in fear. The black knight saw his chance and raised his blade for a mighty blow. But the paladin was not as wounded as the evil one believed, and certainly not afraid. With stunning speed and precision, his holy rapier lunged upwards, and drove into the blackguard's exposed side, and onwards through his corrupted heart.
Sweating and panting, his leathers soaked with the blood of his evil foe, the paladin sat and prayed thanks to Pelor as his wound closed."

He used Bluff to feint, and then sneak attacked. Yeah, he took some damage and could have died. In the earlier example, he used Hide and sneak attacked an unaware, flat-footed opponent. Shining armor? Not really, but that stereotype has less to do with appearance than it does with behavior.

The way I limit sneak attacks for rogue/paladins in my game, which hasn't come up yet btw, it doesn't cripple the class combination, it makes it more challenging, which is just what I want.

I feel like I'm repeating myself, but I'll say it again: Paladins aren't merely concerned with winning. How they win is important. That's my take on it, anyway.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

Yes, a gnoll paladin would be suboptimal. But a gnoll is not a core race. Rogue and Paladin are both core classes.
Not that all class combinations are equal, wizard/sorcerer for example.

I'll repeat myself as well, I don't have a problem with Paladin Orders that require a more stringent code. I just don't see that the requirements you place on the are demanded by the PH anywhere.

Honestly, I don't see how your example addresses my knight in shining armor concern. Your example WAS still a knight in shining armor. Perhaps he was not a full Cavalier Lawful Stupid stereotype. But he was still an "I challenge thee" Knight in shining armor. I find the idea that this attitude is a MUST to be depressing. There is so much more roleplaying potential in the Paladin class that gets buried in these narrow stereotypes.

And if you are think that being a paladin in one of my games would be easy, NOT AT ALL. I just think I have a wider variety of what may make the paladin's duty challenging. I am confident that I make it just as challenging as most anyone else.

You say that paladins are supposed to be warrior types, not rogue types. Of course you are correct. The fighter class is also supposed to be a warrior type and not a rogue type. But, to me, these comments greatly miss one of the fundamentals of 3E. Characters are no longer defined by A SINGLE class, but rather the whole of their parts. Just because the fighter is not a rogue type, does not mean a rogue with levels of fighter is not a rogue type. By the exact same token, a rogue with levels of paladin is still a rogue. Fighters and Paladins are not rogues, but characters are the sum of their parts. Paladins are also not arcane spellcasters. But a paladin sorcerer would gain all the abilities of both classes. And yes, you have not crippled the rogue, you have simply made him fight with one hand behind his back.

Allow me to tweak your alternative example:

The paladin watched the heavily armored foe step blindly by and considered attacking him from behind, certain that he could destroy the threat to the city in one quick thrust. But his honor would not allow it. So instead....

"The paladin stepped from the shadows, and locked eyes with his heavily armored foe. 'Your dawn has come. Surrender or be destroyed by the light of Pelor'.
The dark knight's grin could almost be seen beneath his skull visor as he charged his leather-clad foe. His blackened great sword swung into a great arc and sliced into the side of the paladin.
Wincing in pain for only an instant, the noble warrior faltered, apparently in fear. The black knight saw his chance and raised his blade for a mighty blow. But the paladin was not as wounded as the evil one believed, and certainly not afraid. With stunning speed and precision, his holy rapier lunged upwards,

But the foe's smashing blow rang true and darkness fell upon the paladin. The foe, thinking the paladin killed, fled before the battle drew attention. The paladin later recovered and healed himself, but the foe knew he was being hunted and could not be caught unaware again. Within weeks the town was conquered and the people enslaved. But, on the bright side, the paladin had his honor. The surviving townsfolk recalled the ancient saying, 'Dear god, save us from dragons, demons and self-righteous paladins' "

(Remember, bluff is a standard action that gives a bonus the NEXT time, the other guy gets a turn in between.)

Oh, and I also never said that paladins are not concerned about HOW they win. They are. A paladin rogue will be more limited in action than a lawful good fighter rogue. That does not mean that there is only one narrow path to victory that is allowed.

 

[Gargoyle]

Yes, a gnoll paladin would be suboptimal. But a gnoll is not a core race. Rogue and Paladin are both core classes.
Not that all class combinations are equal, wizard/sorcerer for example.

Gnolls aren't a core race, agreed. That's why I gave all those other examples of sub-optimal decisions, which are all core examples. But we agree, not all combinations are equal.

I'll repeat myself as well, I don't have a problem with Paladin Orders that require a more stringent code. I just don't see that the requirements you place on the are demanded by the PH anywhere.

I agree with this statement. You may have misunderstood me. Think of the "no sneak attacks on unaware opponents" restriction as my personal interpretation of the "dishonorable" part of the Code for my campaign. There is nothing in the PHB to directly restrict sneak attacks by paladins in any way. Some DMs will do so, because they will perceive it as dishonorable and a gross violation. That's my POV, and I'm applying it to all orders of paladins IMC, even though it will probably not be an issue in actual gameplay. I doubt I'll have any rogue/paladins.

Honestly, I don't see how your example addresses my knight in shining armor concern. Your example WAS still a knight in shining armor. Perhaps he was not a full Cavalier Lawful Stupid stereotype. But he was still an "I challenge thee" Knight in shining armor. I find the idea that this attitude is a MUST to be depressing. There is so much more roleplaying potential in the Paladin class that gets buried in these narrow stereotypes.

And if you are inplying that being a paladin in one of my games would be easy, you are wrong. I just think I have a wider variety of what may make the paladin's duty challenging.

Sorry, I guess I didn't understand the question. I do see all paladins as "knights in shining armor" as far as behavior is concerned. The Code of Conduct backs that belief up. By its nature, it's a restrictive class.
What you find depressing, I find challenging. Nothing wrong with disagreeing on something that subjective.

And I wasn't implying anything, except maybe that playing a rogue/paladin in your campaign would be easier than playing the same character in my game. Probably a gnoll paladin would be easier to play in my game than yours. Anyhow, I doubt playing any character in your game would be easy, since you're a card-carrying member of B.A.D.D. My players certainly haven't had an easy time lately.

You say that paladins are supposed to be warrior types, not rogue types. Of course you are correct. The fighter class is also supposed to be a warrior type and not a rogue type. But, to me, these comments greatly miss one of the fundamentals of 3E. Characters are no longer defined by A SINGLE class, but rather the whole of their parts. Just because the fighter is not a rogue type, does not mean a rogue with levels of fighter is not a rogue type. By the exact same token, a rogue with levels of paladin is still a rogue. Fighters and Paladins are not rogues, but characters are the sum of their parts. Paladins are also not arcane spellcasters. But a paladin sorcerer would gain all the abilities of both classes.

I agree with this sentiment for all classes except the paladin.

Another underlying principle of 3E is that roleplaying restrictions should not be used to balance game mechanics. The paladin does just that. Paladins are special because they have such strict roleplaying restrictions that balance their game mechanics.

A rogue character with levels of paladin would consider himself primarily a paladin, regardless of his skill set. Answering the call of being a paladin defines a character. The paladin class is much more than a skill set.

And yes, you have not crippled the rogue, you have simply made him fight with one hand behind his back.

Nonsense. He still has plenty of options to use sneak attack, and has plenty of use of the other rogue abilities and skills.

Btw, isn't "crippled " the same as "fight with one hand behind his back."? Or is my sarcasm detector broke?

The same argument could be made regarding other classes. If I think that a paladin/wizard who casts a chaotic spell (And I'm not saying I feel that way) has acted dishonorably then there will be repercussions. This doesn't cripple the wizard class. And even if it did, the player made the choice to play such a character, not me. You can choose to play a wizard with an Intelligence of 9, btw, or play a sorcerer with the Quicken Spell feat, but I don't recommend it. The freedom of choice extends to the freedom to make bad choices. Caveat Player.

Have I weakened paladin/rogues IMC? Yeah, a little. But I can do that IMC. And I haven't stepped outside of the core rules to do so.

Allow me to tweak your alternative example:

The paladin watched the heavily armored foe step blindly by and considered attacking him from behind, certain that he could destroy the threat to the city in one quick thrust. But his honor would not allow it. So instead....

"The paladin stepped from the shadows, and locked eyes with his heavily armored foe. 'Your dawn has come. Surrender or be destroyed by the light of Pelor'.
The dark knight's grin could almost be seen beneath his skull visor as he charged his leather-clad foe. His blackened great sword swung into a great arc and sliced into the side of the paladin.
Wincing in pain for only an instant, the noble warrior faltered, apparently in fear. The black knight saw his chance and raised his blade for a mighty blow. But the paladin was not as wounded as the evil one believed, and certainly not afraid. With stunning speed and precision, his holy rapier lunged upwards,

But the foe's smashing blow rang true and darkness fell upon the paladin. The foe, thinking the paladin killed, fled before the battle drew attention. The paladin later recovered and healed himself, but the foe knew he was being hunted and could not be caught unaware again. Within weeks the town was conquered and the people enslaved. But, on the bright side, the paladin had his honor."

(Remember, bluff is a standard action that gives a bonus the NEXT time, the other guy gets a turn in between.)

Oh I know how it works. I envisioned the paladin as readying a Bluff action when attacked, then sneak attacking before the black knight on the 2nd round because of his higher Dex.
Not important though.
The point I was trying to make is that a rogue/paladin can behave like a traditional paladin and still use sneak attack, and that I haven't crippled that class combination or tied anyone's hands.

Oh, and I also never said that paladins are not concerned about HOW they win. They are. A paladin rogue will be more limited in action than a lawful good fighter rogue. That does not mean that there is only one narrow path to victory that is allowed.

Despite that statement, it's clear from the scenario you wrote that you (and many others) favor more of a "the end justifies the means (as long as it's not evil means)" approach to playing a paladin, and I favor an approach that is more of "the way you fight is as important as whether you win" approach. I put more emphasis on the honor of the paladin than most seem to.

The cool thing is that we're both right. The vagueness of the Code allows both interpretations. The un-cool thing is when the player of a paladin and the DM have a misunderstanding over something like this. It's clear that communication is key.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

I did think you were saying that "no sneak attacks on unaware opponents is a direct interpretation of the PH, which should be clear to all". Now that it is clear that you are not, the stereo-type is less bad. I'll will never question anyone's freedom to establish their own interpretations for their own game. (I'll just debate the reasoning to death )

I doubt you will have any paladin/rogues either. At least now I do.

But the PH says that "A paladin will not continue to associate with someone who consistently offends her moral code." So it could be hard to have a paladin and rogue even in the same group, if sneak attacks against unaware opponents is offensive.

I just see the knight in shining armor thing as being a throwback from other games, unrequired by the balance of this game. To bad.

I agree that being a paladin does define the character. But, obviously, the debate is over what that definition is.

Yes, I was saying he is not crippled, he must just pretend to be. Obviously your meter got a small blip, you just had to "J" flag it. (inside analytical chemistry joke)

Yeah the details of the encounter are not important.

But I balk at your "ends justifies the means" characterization. That is just not accurate. Paladins may not perform any evil act and effectively may not perform any chaotic act. "Ends justifies the means" implies you can do Bad things if you think they lead to good results. Dirty Harry is not a paladin.

We are ultimately debating exactly 3 words in the code, "act with honor". To say that sneak attacking unaware opponents can still be honorable is a very long way from saying "the ends justifies the means".

*IF* you put more emphasis on the honor of the paladin than me it would ONLY be because I put more empahsis on the protection of innocents than you. But I still don't allow "the ends justifies the means"

I guess if some where to, say, write a book about paladins, they might want to tread lightly on the code. Based on your survey it looks like any effort to directly interpret the code will be viewed as "wrong" by about half the readers.

BTW, I still don't follow your example as possible. Even with a readied action, you can not both bluff (standard action 1) and attack (standard action 2), in between your opponents 2 turns.

 

[Gargoyle]

I did think you were saying that "no sneak attacks on unaware opponents is a direct interpretation of the PH, which should be clear to all". Now that it is clear that you are not, the stereo-type is less bad. I'll will never question anyone's freedom to establish their own interpretations for their own game. (I'll just debate the reasoning to death )

Cool, glad that's cleared up. I had a feeling there was a misunderstanding there. And I knew you weren't trying to squash anyone's freedom to customize the game for their own personal use. (and don't worry, I'm trying not to let my personal POV influence the book too much. That's why I started this poll.)

But I balk at your "ends justifies the means" characterization. That is just not accurate. Paladins may not perform any evil act and effectively may not perform any chaotic act. "Ends justifies the means" implies you can do Bad things if you think they lead to good results. Dirty Harry is not a paladin.

Agreed. But "Bad things" is pretty vague; it's figuring out what is bad (ie dishonorable or evil) that is subjective.

We are ultimately debating exactly 3 words in the code, "act with honor". To say that sneak attacking unaware opponents can still be honorable is a very long way from saying "the ends justifies the means".

Depends on whether you consider that to be a "bad thing" or not. If you consider it a bad thing, then using such a tactic is the end justifies the means. So it's all relative.

*IF* you put more emphasis on the honor of the paladin than me it would ONLY be because I put more empahsis on the protection of innocents than you. But I still don't allow "the ends justifies the means"

Please note that I said you and others had "more of an 'end justifies the means' attitude." I'm not accusing you of allowing Dirty Harry paladins. I'm just saying you're somewhere farther towards that extreme than I am; didn't mean to imply you were anywhere near that extreme.

I guess if some where to, say, write a book about paladins,...

Who'd be stupid enough to do that?

they might want to tread lightly on the code. Based on your survey it looks like any effort to directly interpret the code will be viewed as "wrong" by about half the readers.

As long as the interpretation is done objectively, and still gives the DM lots of leeway on matters of honor, I think it would be useful. The poll indicates to me that there is quite a bit of misunderstanding going on between players and DMs. That's the biggest problem.

BTW, I still don't follow your example as possible. Even with a readied action, you can not both bluff (standard action 1) and attack (standard action 2), in between your opponents 2 turns.

Correct me if I'm wrong on the below combat; I've been wrong before:

Round 1
Paladin has initiative 20, knight has initiative 1.
On 20 - paladin makes a 5ft step, uses a free action to speak, then readies a Bluff action in case the black knight doesn't surrender.
On 1 - black knight moves 10ft, attacks and hits, wounding the paladin. The paladin bluffs pretending to be mortally wounded, and succeeds, so the black knight has lost his Dex modifier to AC against the paladin's next attack. The paladin's action goes first, but the nature of the action leads me to describe it as happening at the same time. This is known as artistic license. Initiative counts are now both on a 1.

Round 2
On 1 - They both have the same initiative, but the paladin has a higher Dex, so he goes first. He uses a sneak attack against the bluffed knight.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

Ok. We understand each other.

I don't follow how we can agree that the terms are vague and then still have an absolute, never wavering interpretation. But, what more can be said?

To play somantics, I think it is clear that MY interpretation is the moderate one, while yours is "extreme". I allow flexibility, not my-way-or-the-highway. Oh well.

I completely agree that DM/Player understanding is the crux of the problem. I would even go so far as to recommend that if agreement can not be reached, the player should strongly be encouraged to select another class.

I guess your combat could work, though if I were a player and you used it against me, I might complain that temporal adjustments go beyond artistic license.

 

[S'mon]

Oh BTW, I'd allow a 'Dirty Harry' paladin. At least, I can't think of any cases of Harry breaching the Paladin's code. He even allows the enemy to draw their guns before shooting them - very Paladinesque. Admittedly I haven't seen all the later DH films but as far as I can tell he adheres rigidly to a code which fits the paladin's code fine. Maybe he's a bit disingenuous about knowing whether his gun's fired six bullets or only five.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

Oh BTW, I'd allow a 'Dirty Harry' paladin. At least, I can't think of any cases of Harry breaching the Paladin's code. He even allows the enemy to draw their guns before shooting them - very Paladinesque. Admittedly I haven't seen all the later DH films but as far as I can tell he adheres rigidly to a code which fits the paladin's code fine. Maybe he's a bit disingenuous about knowing whether his gun's fired six bullets or only five.

I think we'd get along fine.

 

[S'mon]

I think we'd get along fine.

Not that I'd allow _all_ would be paladins - eg Travis Bickle (sp?) in Taxi Driver _thinks_ he's a paladin, and eventually is treated as such by society, but isn't - his ends do not justify his means (shooting several fairly harmless pimps to free a child prostitute). Characters who actively seek out and assassinate bad guys rather than bring them to justice, like The Punisher or the bad cops in the 2nd Dirty Harry movie (The Dead Pool) likewise don't make the grade, the latter ultimately turning out to be greater villains than the mafiosi they hunt. But nor do characters whose concern for individual life overrides the greater good of society - eg possibly Batman, since he never kills the baddies even though they invariably escape to wreak more havoc, he's more NG-CG than LG IMO.