What *is* it about paladins that makes people nutty, anyway?

[Hussar]

Actually, under both LN and LE in the PHB, there is no specific mention of a character having to be honest (as in, tell the truth). Even LG states that they "tell the truth", but doesn't say they are incapable of doing otherwise. On that score, I would be tempted to read that as being implied, but still, the rules are annoyingly vague when taken literally as written.

While that is true, it helps to read the previous page as well. From Law vs Chaos:

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

First sentence in the SRD. Would mean to me that telling the truth is important. Granted, I agree that lawfuls will lie, it's just that when they do so, they are acting in a manner contrary to their alignment.

Again, I have to repeat that Paladin =/= Cavalier. Attacking from ambush is neither evil nor chaotic although it can be. True, it is not honorable, but, then again, honorable has nothing to do with morality. Any issue you might have with attacking from ambush is an ethical one, not moral. Again, like I said before, the situation will dictate things to some degree. Ambushing a fat merchant to steal his money is evil. Ambushing a marauding group of ogres is good. It's difficult to be good, but not impossible.

Again, I make a distinction between lying and deception. Actually, in the case of ambush, where is the lie? You allow the enemy to believe that you are not there, but, at no time did you actively lie to anyone. Granted, you might be camoflaged, or even invisible, but, at no time did you step forward and tell people that this path is safe. IIRC, there is a paladin assassin PrC in the Complete Divine that would back me up on this.

Like has been said umpteen times, people need to figure out alignments before they start stripping paladin status from players.

On a side note, I played a 1e paladin under the Unearthed Arcana rules. If you want a munchkin's soggy dream, try that one sometime. IIRC, there actually wasn't a whole lot of difference between the 1e and 2e base paladin, but it has been a long time, so I could be wrong.

 

[Aus_Snow]

While that is true, it helps to read the previous page as well. From Law vs Chaos

---snip---

Indeed. My bad.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

The problem is actually cultural.

The truth is that Paladins are the only character class that are built around the idea that there is an absolute of right and wrong, good and evil.

The modern west is becoming a relativistic society. Generally truth in the society is becoming a personal thing. According to this way of thinking what may be true for me is not true for you. There is the idea that there really is no evil, its just a matter of perspective and opinion, or that there is evil but it is really rare and everything else is just a matter of perspective and opinion.

The paladin as a character class introduces a character that believes that there is only one truth and that evil is real. The values of the paladin are not relativistic. And that is why we have a big problem integrating the concept of it into the relativistic world view that most people seem to have and base their campaigns around.

In short I agree but I would like to elaborate from my personal view.

The paladin is indeed built around absolute right & wrong by building on & elaborating further the alignment system. So already this class is annoying those who do not like d&d's alignment system.

There is indeed a growth in relativism in Western society, based on the growing valorization of rationalism since the rennaissance & enlightenment. However this growth is still young & with shallow roots when compared to sacralism, such as the worship of Christianity for example. Relativism is certainly not as widespread nor as strong as relativists would like & Relativism itself is under serious attack from rational critics to boot. An absolutist hero archetype (the paladin) is then introduced is into an already air of confrontation in our western culture, the class becoming a symbolic battleline which draws the competing camps together in conflict.

The more traditionally defined hero which the paladin embodies is also a magnet for contention. Today the anti-hero is being valorized by some who point to the hero as being a mere tool of the oppressive status-quo, such as excessive militarism & patriarchy. The paladin archetype is geared to look something like a valorized Christian Knight Crusader which then brings in the historical oppression that the Crusaders caused. The hero proponent however points to the anti-hero as symbolizing the loss of social values & disillusionment with social norms. The anti-hero is perceived as being a self absorbed loner that contributes less than they what they take from society. Here I think is another battleground that is being fought over.

 

[swrushing]

First sentence in the SRD. Would mean to me that telling the truth is important. Granted, I agree that lawfuls will lie, it's just that when they do so, they are acting in a manner contrary to their alignment.

Again, I have to repeat that Paladin =/= Cavalier. Attacking from ambush is neither evil nor chaotic although it can be. True, it is not honorable, but, then again, honorable has nothing to do with morality. Any issue you might have with attacking from ambush is an ethical one, not moral.
.

From the SRD about three lines below your cite...
"“Law” implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. "

This is where we perhaps differ in our views.

to me, both the telling the truth parts and the honor parts apply to the law/chaos side, so perhaps the thical side if you use the ethics = law/chaos and moral = good/evil.

So what i don't get is why "not following the lie thing" is bad and right out for lawful, but not following the honorable thing by say ambush tactics is perfectly fine and not a problem at all for lawful.

I would regard both lying and ambushing as equally "contrary to alignment" given the alignment is lawful and not set one as contrary and the other as fine. Actually, i might prefer the phrase "inconsistent with lawful alignment."

Now, my view is that alignments serve as broad categories and its certainly NOT a case where every lawful guy has to be all things lawful. Nor does any good guy have to be all things good. Each can have bits of the code that he doesn't follow much or may not follow at all. I could see a lawful aligned character who lied routinely (but who fits the bill or tows the line in most other lawful aspects) just as i could see a lawfullly aligned character who is frequently dishonorable and uses ambush tactics for their "expediency" yet who is still lawful in most of the other lawful traits.

its not a straightjacket that says "you must be every one of these traits" but rathermore of a "these traits are commonly found in lawful people."

So, for me, I would not be looking to have "cannot tell a lie" but "can ambush freely" (assuming no other alignment difficulties with the actions) so clearly set forth.

but get four people in a room and you likely have six views on alignment.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Where does subterfuge end & tactics begin? A paladin as a warrior must abide by tactical considerations to carry out their task successfully. I'd assume that suicidal behaviour is both contrary to the chivalric code & respect for (ones) life & so should be eschewed.
Without concluding let us then consider melee combat at its most elementary level, it is all about getting oneself into a position to strike a victorious blow. Is it unchivalric to use ones unfair advantage is superior skill, strength or weaponry to deliver this blow?
What about the honour of the opponant? Is it demeaning to ones honour to bestow prestige on a base foe & treat them as an equal if they are undeserving? Likewise does defeating an honourable foe carry prestige if they are struck down by some cheap trick?

I find chivalric codes to be pretty fun to work with. Feudal Europe & Japan have some pretty good ones to begin with.

 

[Thotas]

Since the thread has come around to it again, I will again say and expand upon it: Paladins are military men. And as military men, they use strategic and tactical advantages. Otherwise, they die, wasting the investment their deity has made in them so far, wasting the potential their deity saw in them, and leaving the innocent and the defenseless with one less staunch defender. Which is neither Lawful, nor Good. When does subterfuge end and tactics begin you ask. I don't know, so I'll ask Sun Tzu. Of the five constant factors to be considered, he mentions The Moral Law, Heaven, Earth, The Commander, Method & discipline(I, 4). That sounds like the concerns we're dealing with. So it's interesting that he also says:
"18. All warfare is based on deception.

19. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable;
when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we
are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away;
when far away, we must make him believe we are near.

20. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder,
and crush him.

21. If he is secure at all points, be prepared for him.
If he is in superior strength, evade him.

22. If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to
irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant.

23. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest.
If his forces are united, separate them.

24. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where
you are not expected.

25. These military devices, leading to victory,
must not be divulged beforehand."

When the forces of evil are marching on your village, that is the Paladin's Code.

 

[kenobi65]

A lot of that problem stems from the fact that a number of people think that paladin = jedi.

ROFL! I play a lot of Star Wars RPG, and there, we see a lot of people having problems properly playing Jedi. It's often remarked that the problem is that players coming from D&D make the mistake of thinking that Jedi = paladin!

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

Where does subterfuge end & tactics begin?

obviously, there wont be a common or universal answer. many of the distinctions will be cultural. In RPGs many will be campaign specific."

A paladin as a warrior must abide by tactical considerations to carry out their task successfully. I'd assume that suicidal behaviour is both contrary to the chivalric code & respect for (ones) life & so should be eschewed.

actually, some codes of honor do have "died honorably" ahead of "survived with less than honorable means" as part of their makeup. Consider the notion of a warrior being better off being killed in combat rather than surviving and falling prey to disease or hunger or such.

Without concluding let us then consider melee combat at its most elementary level, it is all about getting oneself into a position to strike a victorious blow.

sure.but a code of conduct may have more than just that.

Is it unchivalric to use ones unfair advantage is superior skill, strength or weaponry to deliver this blow?

thinks of duels where more skilled foes took a disadvantage to "make it sporting"... sure perhaps it is unchivalric for a armed and trained knight to lop the head off an unskilled child simply because "its in melee".

What about the honour of the opponant? Is it demeaning to ones honour to bestow prestige on a base foe & treat them as an equal if they are undeserving? Likewise does defeating an honourable foe carry prestige if they are struck down by some cheap trick?

probably not, and thats where the codes kick in.

I find chivalric codes to be pretty fun to work with. Feudal Europe & Japan have some pretty good ones to begin with.

consider... your paladin and troupe of warriors pass a noble's carriage.
further up ahead, you spy people waiting in ambush. You can sneak up on them.

What do you do?

One option is to sneak up behind the "brigands and attack them to save the noble before he gets in range. Brigands might die but the noble never comes in danger and your own men suffer little if any risk performing this deed.

one option is to do the same but wait until the "brigands" attack. More risk but no "preemptive strile."

one option is to set up the ambush but annouce to them to surrender and give them a chance. greater risk to you and yours but there is no ambush dishonor and they might surrender without a fight.

do you ride back and warn the noble and just avoid the conflict, hoping the "brigands" or perhaps "peasants" go home.

do you ride into the middle of the road and wait for the noble hoping your presence discourages any conflict at all.

etc etc...
depending on what your code says about honor, about the sanctity of life etc... your answers will vary

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

consider... your paladin and troupe of warriors pass a noble's carriage.
further up ahead, you spy people waiting in ambush. You can sneak up on them.

What do you do?

One option is to sneak up behind the "brigands and attack them to save the noble before he gets in range. Brigands might die but the noble never comes in danger and your own men suffer little if any risk performing this deed.

one option is to do the same but wait until the "brigands" attack. More risk but no "preemptive strile."

one option is to set up the ambush but annouce to them to surrender and give them a chance. greater risk to you and yours but there is no ambush dishonor and they might surrender without a fight.

do you ride back and warn the noble and just avoid the conflict, hoping the "brigands" or perhaps "peasants" go home.

do you ride into the middle of the road and wait for the noble hoping your presence discourages any conflict at all.

etc etc...
depending on what your code says about honor, about the sanctity of life etc... your answers will vary

Very true. Depending on the Paladin's Holy Order, what he does will be different.

But you forget one particular thing they could have done.

The Paladin, upon detecting the ambush, could order his men in for the attack. An ambush depends on a critical few seconds of inaction, and without it, ambushes often turn into blood baths for the ambushers.

A Paladin, the situation you shown, could very well order his men to level lances and charge.

But I'm still seeing a lot of "It depends on what the definition of is is" hair splitting.

 

[Hussar]

consider... your paladin and troupe of warriors pass a noble's carriage.
further up ahead, you spy people waiting in ambush. You can sneak up on them.

What do you do?

One option is to sneak up behind the "brigands and attack them to save the noble before he gets in range. Brigands might die but the noble never comes in danger and your own men suffer little if any risk performing this deed.

one option is to do the same but wait until the "brigands" attack. More risk but no "preemptive strile."

one option is to set up the ambush but annouce to them to surrender and give them a chance. greater risk to you and yours but there is no ambush dishonor and they might surrender without a fight.

do you ride back and warn the noble and just avoid the conflict, hoping the "brigands" or perhaps "peasants" go home.

do you ride into the middle of the road and wait for the noble hoping your presence discourages any conflict at all.

etc etc...
depending on what your code says about honor, about the sanctity of life etc... your answers will vary

The trick here is though, all the above answers are right. No matter which choice the paladin makes here, he is not violating his code as per the PHB. Any DM who strips his PC Paladin of his status for making any of those choices is a prat. I actually had this sort of happen to me years ago when playing a paladin.

Our group had chased an elven theif into a darkened warehouse and were searching for him. The elf thief pops out between me (the paladin) and one of the other characters and backstabs the other character in full view of me. Granted, he had his back turned to me. Without a word, I smote his butt. Poof, instant fighter because I attacked from behind.

Last time I ever played with that DM.

Ambush is a standard military tactic. Paladins are not stupid and will not give up glaringly obvious advantages to an evil opponent. This is not lying, nor is it particularly deceitful. Again, Paladin =/= Cavalier. Nor does a paladin equal samurai. There is NO chivalric or Bushido code built into the paladin.

Now, it can be, that's true, but its not there as a baseline.