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

[LostSoul]

Either approach is preferrable than putting a player in an unwinnable situation for a character with no way out.

I think that the unwinnable situation is only a problem because the Paladin loses his abilities (ie. becomes Rath, the unplayable character) either way. Take out that (awful) rule and everything is cool.

 

[FireLance]

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.

I guess the problem is that the standard paladin code does require a paladin to "act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)", and honor tends to get mixed up with chivalric and bushido ideas. The fact that different people can have very different ideas of what is honorable behavior (or at least, what isn't dishonorable behavior) further muddies the waters. It is dishonorable to attack someone from behind, even if he knows you are there and he turned his back on you to attack your ally? Is it dishonorable to intentionally mislead your opponent, even if you tell him nothing but the truth? Is it dishonorable if you agree not to use your ability to smite evil against an opponent in exchange for him freeing a hostage, but go ahead and use it anyway, because the only things that matter are protecting innocent lives and defeating evil as expeditiously as possible?

Hmmm, thinking through, I think the real question is not what is honorable, which most people would agree on, even if they think it is idealistic, impractical and unwise, but how far you can go before you reach dishonorable.

 

[Herobizkit]

Since the thread has come around to it again, I will again say and expand upon it: Paladins are military men.

See, I see the Cavalier as a military man. I see a Paladin as an emissary of whatever God/dess s/he serves. Paladins (like Cavaliers) are all about honour, personal and on the battlefield. I think that's why the Cavalier was a subclass of Paladin in the original Unearthed Arcana (1st ed.) I see Paladins as people who may direct an ambush, but they themselves would not ambush unsuspecting foes UNLESS they were known to be evil. Even still, a Paladin still may demand a surrender before s/he decides to wail on their evil heads.

I would suggest watching the movie "Kingdom of Heaven" for a good example of Paladin-type behaviour.

 

[Gentlegamer]

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.

Very well said.

 

[Ranger REG]

Also, many DMs don't 'get' paladins. All the restrictions those DMs attach to the class are not in the PHB.

DM's Campaign, DM's Rules. The paladin class mentioned that they belong to some kind of knightly order or pledged to a patron deity but that is also not specific. They tend to be either joined or pledged because they have common interest, or have been indoctrinated while growing up in the order. Whatever his mentor have taught him, be it "goblins are evil so they must be slain on sight," he will do it simply to advance the cause of his order or deity and to be dutiful.

DM must provide that not only as a backstory for the paladin PC, but to give them a strict sense of Code to follow, and that may vary between orders and patron deities. For paladins of patron deities, the code tend to be vague for the sole purpose of testing them. Whether they are justified in their action or not, only the deities can determine whether the paladins violate their Code, and deities tend to be a fickle bunch. Though Man may have been created in their image, that's not the case when it comes to the mind. The only comfort we mortals can rely on is that they too adhere to alignment, but from their POV, not mortal's.

 

[Endur]

Let's analyze and apply what Sun Tzu is really saying.

18. All warfare is based on deception.

If everyone has perfect knowledge, rulers are rational and will only attack if they will win due to greater force. Defenders will always lose to the greater force, given that the attackers will always win. So there never would be any wars in a world of perfect knowledge. However, we don't have perfect knowledge, and it is the absence of knowledge and the deception of forces that causes battles to happen and be unpredictable.

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.

Rule 19 applies once we are at war. Before you go to war, rule 19 is different. Once you are at war, it is best to be humble and yet capable. As JFK said, walk quietly and carry a big stick.

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

Rule 20 is interesting, but unnecessary for a Paladin. Paladins by their nature will seek to protect innocents, and therefore, there are many baits already available to attract the attention of the enemy.

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

This seems reasonable for a Paladin. Although there are some that will not wish to evade the superior enemy.

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

Be Humble. Preaching to him of Goodness and Mercy may provoke your enemy into a mistake.

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

Reasonable for a paladin.

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

This is reasonable, although you will want to be honorable about it. There is no rule that says a Paladin must wait until the evil baron has assembled his entire army. Although the Paladin may wish to wait until the Baron has drawn his weapon before slaying him.

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

Not revealing one's plans is reasonable.

 

[Thotas]

Paragraph 18 was a generalization, of which all succeeding paragraphs are specifics. Perfect knowledge has nothing to do with that.

When I say paladins are military men, I pull that from the fact that they belong to an organization that encourages them to gather together with their allies in a knightly order, dress up in armor and proceed to use their good BAB on their enemies.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

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.

Start from a paladin's alignment. The lawful thing (depending on the campaign setting, of course, and the fact the paladin knows this is an ambush set to rob the noble, not a surprise party set by a few misguided villagers ) would be to bring the ambushers to justice. As the local figure of authority is around (the noble), or close-by (liege-lord of the land this happens on), the paladin should be duty-bound to bring those ambushers in alive, for the authorities to judge them if they have broken a law already by hiding in the bushes. The good thing would be to do this with the least possible loss of life (ideally, no loss).

After these considerations, you can go about this as your "individual code of conduct" allows.

Me personally, I'd handle it the following ways:

a) If my paladin was unsure about what this situation really is about, he'd ask the nobleman if he and his retinue are allowed to join them for a part of the way, or otherwise ride just ahead of them to make clear they are along with the noble. Then he'd take one of his best men along, ride up to the ambushers, hail them and simply call them out, thus ruining their ambush and place the ball in their court. Their reactions would determine my next actions.

b) If my paladin was sure about it being an ambush agains the noble, and not of the "Robin Hood" variety (meaning a BBE nobleman leeching the country dry with disregard to local law and morals, for example), I'd try to place my men in the best tactical position around the ambushers, then call them out and give them one chance to surrender, making it perfectly clear what the consequences of disobeying are, and then go with their reaction.

Remember, just because you should always give them the chance of keeping their lives doesn't mean you shouldn't use a tactical advantage if it increases the chance of your opponent giving up before the fight has started.

Also remember, this is my very personal opinion and take on this example. Basically, even the alignment restrictions of a paladin allow some leeway as long as DM and player are on one sheet of paper where that is concerned.

 

[Herobizkit]

If that's what Paladins do in your campaign world, then I see your point.

In my gaming group, we all agree that Paladins are quite rare, and usually quite solitary. They're often on the road, and seldom settle in one area. They're like "The Littlest Hobo"* with swords, or Kwai Chang Caine with armor.

One DM allows for Paladins to be female only, taking on a "Slayer" aspect. It factors in well to his campaign theology; the LG god of "Good" is male, and his CG wife is the Goddess of Love and Passion. We just thought it'd be great that the two of them decide who gets to be a Paladin; the chosen one will be pure of heart with the passion to destroy evil and the love to protect that which is Good.

IMC, only Aasimars can be Paladins (male or female). As they advance in level, they become Half-Celestials and by 20th, they become an actual Deva. Of course, IMC, Aasimars and Tieflings (as well as the other Planetouched races) are the equivalent of fallen angels; some good, some evil, all oucasts from their home world.

* For those of you who don't know (mostly the whole world and Canadians under the age of 15), "The Littlest Hobo" was a Canadian-made 80's TV series about a wandering dog that helped people with trouble in their lives, then left to wander elsewhere at the end of each show.

 

[FireLance]

* For those of you who don't know (mostly the whole world and Canadians under the age of 15), "The Littlest Hobo" was a Canadian-made 80's TV series about a wandering dog that helped people with trouble in their lives, then left to wander elsewhere at the end of each show.

I loved that show . Yes, it was actually broadcast several years ago in Singapore. I still remember the theme song:

There's a voice, keeps on calling me.
Down the road, that's where I'll always be.
And every stop I make, I'm making a friend.
Can't stay for long, just turn around and I'm gone again.

Maybe tomorrow, I'll want to settle down.
Until tomorrow, I'll just be moving on.
Until tomorrow, the whole world is my home.