|Words to Live By: an Alignment thread about Codes of Conduct

[Janx]

Noticing how many of these codes have a "chain of command" built into them. So, I ask the question; Do you provide a hierarchy for your players, does a cleric out-rank a paladin? How about a monk?

Most of medieval society had a chain of command. That's the whole point of the social order back then. The concept of people being "free to pursue their own goals" took time to evolve.


A couple of points:

A paladin is a character who follows a code of conduct, traditionally one espoused by a military order. Knights Templar or King Arthur's Round Table generally being held as examples. Therefore, as GM I create the Order and the Code the player might make a paladin for, or the player provides me with comparable. No paladin runs in my game without a code I can't see and verify his behavior against.

On code violations, what I'm looking for is blatant disregard for the values they espouse. Being mean to women, choosing profit over helping the needy. In alleged no-win situations, the paladin can't lose if chooses trying to do the right thing. Thus, if the paladin gets orders to make a suicide mission, unless he switches sides or flees without regret, he should be fine.

On CoC, for NPCs I trend to two patterns. Bossy NPCs who aren't good leaders and give crappy orders. This is usually meant as a challenge for the PC to figure out how to deal with them. As such, I expect rebellion and the players to find a way to take this guy down. He's meant to be a villain of sort.

The other kind of leader NPCs don't order, they ask. The build a rapport with their underlings that earns respect. Thus, PCs tend to be happy to follow orders and move up.

For parties with rank hierarchy, I remind players that fun is still the meta-game rule. As such, players are not to abuse their fellow players with their rank. I advise players to be more like Captain Picard and ask for input from their fellow PCs, before making a decision. The result is, the party is still making the decision, under the guise that the PC issued the order.

On more code, this time Google found me the Templar Knights Motorcycle Club, with a workable code:

• I shall defend the Templar Knights, laws of the land, and the constitution of the United States.
• I shall respect and defend the weak, the sick, and the needy.
• I shall patriotically love and protect my country.
• I shall not retreat from adversity nor from challenge.
• I shall ceaselessly oppose evil and deceit.
• I shall perform scrupulously my civic duties
• I shall remain faithful to my pledged oath.
• I shall prudently give alms and aid.
• I shall be everywhere and always the champion of right, good, and tolerance against injustice.

Note the second to the last, prudently giving alms and aid. I read that as, don't be stupidly helpful, but be helpful.

 

[Thunderfoot]

Noticing how many of these codes have a "chain of command" built into them. So, I ask the question; Do you provide a hierarchy for your players, does a cleric out-rank a paladin? How about a monk?

It really depends upon the order - the one I mentioned would be Yes...sort of.
Now comes the long drawn out explanation.

Clerics are the spiritual heads (therefore heart and mind) of the order and their guidance is always assumed to be divinely inspired. The Paladins are the "sword arm" thereof and are therefore utilized by the hearts and minds behind the order. This does not meant that a cleric always has the last word. If a paladin sees a threat that the cleric has either missed or ignored, they can intervene. Likewise, there are ranks within the order as well.

For instance a Captain of the Paladins is not under compulsion to take the orders of an initiate, but would be hard pressed to directly disobey the order of a full priest.

If it sounds overly difficult, think of the Military Chain of Command of the US Military when dealing with the elected government:
As a Soldier I obeyed the orders of the officers and officials appointed over me. A Captain earned his/her rank by training and education, just like I did, the Secretary of Defense was a political appointee with no requirement other than being able to be approved by the Congressional Approval committee after being named by the President.

And speaking of the Commander in Chief, he/she is not required to have any military experience before being able to take charge of the nation's armed forces. So in that respect there is a real world example of the sort of multi-layer CoC I describe.

Also, it can make for some very good Role Play when you have a couple of
Paladins of various ranks and a full priest in the party all of the same deity. That's one of the reasons I posted the Codes I posted, I has 2 pallys and a cleric all of the big 'E'. What was even better, the cleric was a commoner, but both of the pallys had noble blood, with one being the crown prince.

Made for some great table moments - and only once in three and a half years did I ever question a decision that any made or had to give the "straying from the alignment" warning.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Careful HoE, you should caveat that as BS of America, remember, the original BS Law only had 10 points, not 12. And it's still that way in many countries...

Sri, as a former ASM, I felt it my duty to inform... Carry on.

Ah, but that is a plot point. Paladin of the same order, loyal to a different country, with most of the same rules but just a tad different.

 

[haakon1]

Paladin . . . it's a class that gives many GM's the bizarre notion that they suddenly have a "say" in the motivation of my character, and what he should or shouldn't do. Quite frankly, that's just unacceptable.

I have a somewhat similar attitude, as a DM of paladins and as a player.

I've never seen a need for written codes as a player, as I've always had an intuitive sense of what they should do.

I've never asked for a code as a DM, because I figure the player can just play a paladin, and wouldn't have picked one if they didn't want to play in a paladin-like way.

Interestingly on Saturday, playing a 4e paladin, one of the other players (playing a cleric) mentioned that his code didn't allow him to attack bloodied enemies (some rules tradeoff feat). He started talking about the codes for 2e paladins, and I realized the main reason I have no interest in codes: I never played 2e -- went straight from Greyhawk AD&D (no Unearthed Arcana, thanks) to 3e.

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

For those who do like codes, I offer the Ranger Creed (adopted 1974):

-- Recognizing that I volunteered as a Ranger, fully knowing the hazards of my chosen profession, I will always endeavor to uphold the prestige, honor, and high esprit de corps of my Ranger Regiment.

-- Acknowledging the fact that a Ranger is a more elite soldier who arrives at the cutting edge of battle by land, sea, or air, I accept the fact that as a Ranger my country expects me to move further, faster and fight harder than any other soldier.

-- Never shall I fail my comrades. I will always keep myself mentally alert, physically strong and morally straight and I will shoulder more than my share of the task whatever it may be, one-hundred-percent and then some.

-- Gallantly will I show the world that I am a specially selected and well-trained soldier. My courtesy to superior officers, neatness of dress and care of equipment shall set the example for others to follow.

-- Energetically will I meet the enemies of my country. I shall defeat them on the field of battle for I am better trained and will fight with all my might. Surrender is not a Ranger word. I will never leave a fallen comrade to fall into the hands of the enemy and under no circumstances will I ever embarrass my country.

-- Readily will I display the intestinal fortitude required to fight on to the Ranger objective and complete the mission though I be the lone survivor.

Ranger Creed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

The Code of Conduct for POW's from all the US armed forces (adopted 1955, post-Korean War, based on the experiences of Korean War POW's):

Code of Conduct is a personal conduct mandate for members of the American armed forces throughout the world.

Article I: I am an American, fighting in the armed forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.

Article II: I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.

Article III: If I am captured, I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.

Article IV: If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information nor take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.

Article V: When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service, number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.

Article VI: I will never forget that I am an American, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.

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

U.S. Air Force Academy's Honor Oath, is beautiful in its simplicity, IMHO:

We will not lie, steal or cheat, nor tolerate among us anyone who does.
Furthermore, I resolve to do my duty and to live honorably, so help me God.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Because at the end of the day, if I have a notion in my mind about what my paladin character's code of conduct entails (or doesn't) then anyone else getting in my shorts and telling me what they think a paladin should be doing, even my DM, is--quite simply--overstepping his bounds and messing in something that's not really any of his business.

I totally disagree with this. D&D presumes a world in which an objective good exists. This objective good is a characteristic of the world, not of the player. As such it is the DM's job to define it. Same goes for knightly orders. A requirement for a paladin is to act in accordance with this objective good. If you don't want to do that, that's fine, but you can't be a paladin.

Negotiating out a code of conduct between the DM and the player before play starts is a really good idea. It lets you clear up any misunderstandings or disagreements before they have an impact on play.

 

[Desdichado]

I totally disagree with this. D&D presumes a world in which an objective good exists. This objective good is a characteristic of the world, not of the player. As such it is the DM's job to define it. Same goes for knightly orders. A requirement for a paladin is to act in accordance with this objective good. If you don't want to do that, that's fine, but you can't be a paladin.

Like I said; at best, you've removed the paladin class from play, then. Is that the goal here?

At worst, you've removed your game from consideration altogether. :shrug:

If that works for you, great.

I will also point out that the concept of "knightly orders" and the mechanics of the paladin class have nothing to do with one another necessarily.

 

[Mallus]

This objective good is a characteristic of the world, not of the player. As such it is the DM's job to define it.

Pssst... it's the DM's job if they want it. The DM can just as easily hand that off to their players. The game runs fine that way, too.

D&D is great fun in subjective morality mode, where the players are free to make their own codes of conduct, motivations, and moral systems --to the extent capricious murder-hobos can be said to have ethoi). Let the DM's job be to create interesting and challenging opponents (in an interesting and challenging milieu), regardless of what the PCs believe or disbelieve. A DM doesn't need to tell a player they're playing their PC wrong in order to create an interesting world (they have more and better tools at their disposal).

FYI... I had a great time designing the religion and, ahem, idiosyncratic code of conduct for my 4e paladin, and then playing it out, with many a modification/refinement, over the next 2.5 years. Nothing in the game broke. Nothing in the setting broke (well, I did help write it, but that shouldn't matter -- campaigns work well when they're as much outlets for the players creativity as the DM/setting authors).

 

[howandwhy99]

I don't think a DM could define good or bad or evil in a game, but when I have seen it attempted it generally comes down to creation versus destruction. Detect Evil used to detect destructive intentions towards the PC or his carried items.

Also, watch out for the roaming bands of murderous hobos.

 

[haakon1]

D&D presumes a world in which an objective good exists.

Yes.

As such it is the DM's job to define it.
. . .
Negotiating out a code of conduct between the DM and the player before play starts is a really good idea. It lets you clear up any misunderstandings or disagreements before they have an impact on play.

I disagree. It's the player's job to do the playing, which includes running their own character, even if it's a paladin.

If someone insists on calling a character a paladin, but doing clearly evil stuff, as a DM I'd say, "WTF, why are you playing an evil guy and calling him a paladin". But that situation has NEVER actually arisen in 30 years now of playing.

Has it EVER ACTUALLY HAPPENED in a game you ran?

If not, you're solving a problem that doesn't exist, which is a waste of time -- and annoying, since you're bossing one of the players around for no necessary reason.

If you have, I'm thinking it's a convention/gaming store game. My solution to the problem of possible rule-bending players trying to "win D&D" is not to play with them. By playing with my actual friends from real life, I know their understanding of good and evil is pretty similar to mine, so we don't even really need to discuss it. It's super clear to us that thinks like stealing from other PC's, torturing prisoners, or murdering for no good reason are evil actions -- we don't need a written code for that.

Heck, the only guy playing a paladin in the two games I run is a Sunday school teacher . . . I'm not going to lecture him on the nature of good and evil!

England has live without a written constitution for a thousand years; my D&D game can sure live without one too.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Like I said; at best, you've removed the paladin class from play, then. Is that the goal here?

At worst, you've removed your game from consideration altogether. :shrug

Huh? Do you mean that you wouldn't play a paladin in such circumstance? If so, then yes, that's no big deal to me. AFAIK it's never stopped anyone from playing a paladin in my game. If that's not what you're saying then I've no idea what you're talking about.

...

Has it EVER ACTUALLY HAPPENED in a game you ran?

...

In my game, no. In others, sure. Search the board for threads about paladin moral dilemmas, or disagreements about whether a paladin committed an evil act or not, and you'll find quite a few. I've read of a fair number here and elsewhere that have turned into fights about how the game should go.

The basic issue of course is that not everyone has the same idea of what good is. Getting everyone on the same page to start with heads off this problem. That may be why I've never had an issue with it.