Dilemma of A 3.5e Paladin

[ShiftedChampion]

Hello.

Now as both a DM and a player of paladins, I never *quite* understood the whole "Code of Conduct" section. I normally just say "Don't do anything stupidly non-lawful and we're all good."

I am well aware of that Paladins are supposed to be Paragons of Virtue and so on but the particular code of conduct they follow never sat right with me.

I send a beacon of "HELP" to the forums to suggest ways around this particular dilemma.

[Baka Nikujaga]

I would recommend reading this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34312).

[hamishspence]

For paladins, "non-lawful" is much less important than "evil".

Now what qualifies as an evil act, and what qualifies as a "justified therefore not evil" act, is a little tricky to define.

Self defense and defense of innocents is generally considered Justified.

Other forms of violence might be a bit more debatable.

[Winds]

Some of the secondary books do better about that, stating what rules a paladin of a given deity would follow. I agree that it needs to have slightly more give than a brick wall, but it mostly depends on the DM. DMs I've worked with have mainly done the alignment thing-it would take an incredibly drastic action to break the code instantly, same as with alignment changes. Also, most rules have some leeway, as can be seen with the fact that pallies adventure at all, such as how their code doesn't stop them from slaying bandits in the course of their duties.

But if you want the short version, put it like this. Paladins need to be Lawful Good, as opposed to Lawful Stupid or what have you, but they don't all belong in the BoED.

[Flame of Anor]

Hello.

Now as both a DM and a player of paladins, I never *quite* understood the whole "Code of Conduct" section. I normally just say "Don't do anything stupidly non-lawful and we're all good."

I am well aware of that Paladins are supposed to be Paragons of Virtue and so on but the particular code of conduct they follow never sat right with me.

I send a beacon of "HELP" to the forums to suggest ways around this particular dilemma.

Well, as a short-term measure, you could look at Hinjo, O-Chul, and Thanh* to see how a paladin should be played, and at Miko to see how a paladin should definitely not be played.
*Also Lien, but she hasn't made a hard decision in a hugely important crisis as often as the other three have.


I would recommend reading this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34312).

Wow. This is amazing.

[Almaseti]

My usual rule of thumb for this is: a paladin should be a good role model. She or he should "be the change you want to see in the world" and lead by example. Don't try to make people act how you want them to, obviously. Just do it, and let them come to their own conclusions.

[Callista]

Yeah, Good>Lawful for a paladin. Note that they have to atone for any evil act at all, but chaotic acts are okay so long as they don't take them away from LG. A paladin won't like chaotic acts; that's not their style. They don't like being dishonorable or disorganized or impulsive. But if it's a choice between honor and doing the right thing, they'll reluctantly let go of honor. It's a paladin's worst flaw to think of her honor as more important than the welfare of others.

Look at Miko for an example of what happens if you prioritize Law. She's played exactly the wrong way for a paladin: She values Law above Good, and so in the end she falls, permanently. Most paladins will occasionally have to atone, but Miko's fall was pretty extreme, the sort that most paladins will never recover from, or at the very best will die trying to atone for. She was vulnerable to that because she didn't have her priorities straight--focused too much on laws, rules, and being right. If you go through the Azure City battle you'll notice that nowhere is she shown caring about the welfare of the people around her, even though she's in a city under siege by a huge evil army.

Another thing: Well-built paladins have charisma, and charisma means people skills. They understand people, empathize with them, can understand their motives and their thoughts. Because they're Good-aligned, that results in a person who is very altruistic, who in most cases will feel more distress knowing someone else is hurting than they would if they were in that situation themselves. That doesn't mean they have to stupidly throw their lives away on lost causes (though, let's face it, that's always a temptation for them)--that's where the Lawful alignment and the decent Wisdom score comes in. It lets them think ahead, plan, and avoid acting on impulse. Most paladins learn and use tactics on the battlefield, and many are good leaders for anything from an adventuring party to an army.

There's a certain style to them--the careful, planned approach to changing the world, backed up with compassion for other people, a sense of honor, and enough hope and courage to believe that they can actually make a difference.

Of course they aren't perfect, and it's really the flaws that make a paladin interesting. Unless you want to play Miko-style, don't pick severe fatal flaws, but you shouldn't be playing the paragon of perfection, either--not unless you mind having a character who doesn't have room for growth and character development. You can be a very decent, honorable sort of individual and still have all kinds of flaws, all the way from things like physical hindrances, political entanglements, or a weakness for gambling to a naive trust in everyone or a tendency to lose one's head and charge into battle without thinking. "Lawful Good" does not mean "perfect" and there's a pretty big range of personalities and philosophies that fit into it.

[hamlet]

One of the old Dragon Magazines (from the before times) had an excellent article on not only Paladin codes of conduct, but on the Lawful Good alignment in general. It's absolutely worth the read if you can lay hands on a copy of it.

I'll see if I can't find the issue number somewhere on the intertubes for you guys . . .

EDIT: Rats, can't find it, especially from behind the firewall. However, I'll look when I get home tonight and see if I can't locate it.

It's quite good and essentially recommends writing out your own code for the campaign defining in stricter terms what conduct is expected of a Paladin and what actions would cause a Paladin to fall or have to atone and making it available to players. It also covered some of the general nature of good alignment tenets in better detail.

[Civil War Man]

I do remember that Pathfinder really loosened up the Paladin restrictions, even allowing association with evil people if the sole reason for the association is defeating a greater evil.

Could still use some improvement, though. The Code of Conduct technically doesn't allow associating with evil people if the end goal is to redeem them.

It also leaves a lot of grey areas. Lying to or stealing from a tyrant are dishonorable acts, but they can serve the greater good by undermining an evil authority (lying to protect innocents, or stealing to aid a resistance). So whether those acts result in the Paladin falling will change depending on the DM.

But if those actions are okay, what about killing an unarmed prisoner? What if the prisoner is working for the tyrant, but is not an evil person? He views the tyrant as a legitimate authority, and considers the resistance to be bandits and thugs? You cannot let him go, since he will immediately go to the tyrant and tell him everything he knows. So the choices are either a) killing the prisoner, b) conducting a kangaroo court (since the only charges that could be brought up are Working for Someone We Don't Like), or c) imprisoning them indefinitely without trial, which carries both ethical and logistic concerns since such an act is tyrannical in itself and the resistance may not have the resources to keep the prisoner sheltered and fed.

The Paladin Code of Conduct needs to be revamped a bit. The easiest solution would probably be allowing some customization. Clerics can either worship a God, or gain their divine spells by dedicating themselves to an ideal. Paladins should be allowed to work similarly. The Paladin dedicates their life to a higher purpose, something like defeating tyranny where ever they find it, or protecting the innocent from those who would harm them. If they willfully violate their purpose, they must seek atonement. If they repeatedly violate it, then they fall.

[Callista]

It also leaves a lot of grey areas. Lying to or stealing from a tyrant are dishonorable acts, but they can serve the greater good by undermining an evil authority (lying to protect innocents, or stealing to aid a resistance).Dishonorable, but not Evil. If given a choice between LE and CG, the average paladin will pick CG, live with the dishonor (probably with some guilt), and go on. That's why Good takes precedence over Law; otherwise you have a character with divided loyalties.


what about killing an unarmed prisoner? What if the prisoner is working for the tyrant, but is not an evil person? He views the tyrant as a legitimate authority, and considers the resistance to be bandits and thugs? You cannot let him go, since he will immediately go to the tyrant and tell him everything he knows. So the choices are either a) killing the prisoner, b) conducting a kangaroo court (since the only charges that could be brought up are Working for Someone We Don't Like), or c) imprisoning them indefinitely without trial, which carries both ethical and logistic concerns since such an act is tyrannical in itself and the resistance may not have the resources to keep the prisoner sheltered and fed.Creativity goes a long way here! Flesh to Stone is one option; you can Break Enchantment on them when you can get them a proper trial. Other magical options include a Geas or Dominate Person, which are unpleasant but better than killing enemy civilians.

Some paladins may be authorized to act as executioners. It all depends on the law of their land, and how guilty exactly that enemy prisoner is. He's a prisoner of war, essentially, with all the things that means. Quasi-medieval nations don't have the Geneva Conventions, but the paladin's conscience would want to act pretty close to that.

When it comes down to it, though, a lot of paladins will take the risk of the prisoner getting away--maybe leave them tied up, hope it gives the paladin and his party enough time to get away, for example--rather than kill someone who doesn't deserve to die. Sometimes doing the right thing means taking risks like that.

I think it's deliberately left with a lot of room in it because the writers didn't want to dictate exactly what decision a paladin should make in any given situation. There has to be room for the character's personality and the wishes of his deity and his paladin order and his church and his country and whatever else he's loyal to. Different paladins will solve these problems differently. I like it that way.

[HunterOfJello]

If you want some alternate material to check out, then reading up on Deontology and the theories of Immanuel Kant could help.

An important concept to remember is that many people IRL follow theories of morality based on Consequentialism (a.k.a. Teleology). Consequentialism states that an immoral action can be justified if it achieves a good result. Paladins never accept this form of justification. Morality for paladins is just judged based on the result. For them it is based on the action and the circumstances surrounding purely the action itself. This can anger individuals who do not think of morality in the same light, but that's a large part of what being a paladin is about.

The one fictional character who I think best maintains an intelligent lawful-good alignment is Samuel Vimes, Commander of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch from the Discworld book series. He maintains order without allowing himself to resort to evil methods in doing so within one of the strangest cities imaginable.

[Beowulf DW]

I think this might help a bit:

The Code of Chivalry
From the Rifts: England Supplement
• Live to serve King and Country.
• Live to defend Crown and Country and all it holds dear.
• Live one's life so that it is worthy of respect and honor.
• Live for freedom, justice and all that is good.
• Never attack an unarmed foe.
• Never use a weapon on an opponent not equal to the attack.
• Never attack from behind.
• Avoid lying to your fellow man.
• Avoid cheating.
• Avoid torture.
• Obey the law of king, country, and chivalry.
• Administer justice.
• Protect the innocent.
• Exhibit self control.
• Show respect to authority.
• Respect women.
• Exhibit courage in word and deed.
• Defend the weak and innocent.
• Destroy evil in all of its monstrous forms.
• Crush the monsters that steal our land and rob our people.
• Fight with honor.
• Avenge the wronged.
• Never abandon a friend, ally, or noble cause.
• Fight for the ideals of king, country, and chivalry.
• Always keep one's word of honor.
• Always maintain one's principles.
• Never betray a confidence or comrade.
• Avoid deception.
• Respect life and freedom.
• Exhibit manners.
• Be polite and attentive.
• Be respectful of host, women, and honor.
• Loyalty to country, King, honor, freedom, and the code of chivalry.
• Loyalty to one's friends and those who lay their trust in thee.
• Die with honor.
• Die with valor.

[Hiro Protagonest]

• Never attack an unarmed foe.
• Never use a weapon on an opponent not equal to the attack.
• Never attack from behind.

:smallmad:

If it's a duel with those terms, then you can't do that! Otherwise, fair game!

[Beowulf DW]

:smallmad:

If it's a duel with those terms, then you can't do that! Otherwise, fair game!

I didn't say it, I just presented it to you guys. You have to remember that the Code of Chivalry didn't necessarily apply to all people. In this case, I suspect that it refers to a fight with a fellow knight.