Few questions about paladin's Code of Conduct

[Jon_Dahl]

Well first of all, I think there aren't right or wrong answers to these questions. They are just things that I can't decide whether they are ok for a paladin or not. Some sort of consensus would help me to make my decision.

Can a paladin...
...conceal weapons on his/her body? Game-mechanically: Use Sleight of Hand to hide a dagger or two.
...disguise himself/herself?
...ambush enemies?
...kill surrendered enemies? Let's imagine this enemy is a chaotic neutral highwayman, caught in the act.
...leave enemies without a burial?
...fight for entertainment? If the local government wishes a criminal to be executed in a gladiatorial arena and the paladin is invited, how does he/she respond?

[Elemental]

It really depends on the particular paladin's code on most of those points.
But with some of them...

Paladins cannot kill surrendered enemies or prisoners. They count as defenseless individuals. They have to be taken to the relevant legal authority.
It's your job to protect and serve, not to enforce and execute.

Ambushes are iffy...
It really depends upon the circumstances.
Same with not burying your enemies. If you can, then you should perform suitable rites.

Fighting in a gladiatorial arena where your enemies are criminals to be executed would be rather frowned upon. Other forms of gladiatorial combat should be acceptable provided they are not to the death.

Concealing weapons and using disguises are usually acceptable.

[Yora]

Aks your DM how these things are handled in your campaign.

[Jon_Dahl]

Aks your DM how these things are handled in your campaign.

I am the DM and I'm basically asking for an outside opinion because I'm having problems making decisions about these situation.

[Talakeal]

These are all gray areas. Some might be forbidden, some might actually be required (I have been in games where a paladin fell for showing mercy to captured foes). Best discuss these issues with any paladin players before the game as everyone will have a different oppinion.

[Killer Angel]

While I believe this belongs more to D&D subforum, the correct behavior, for many of the things you'd listed, depend on circumstances.
That said...



Can a paladin...
...conceal weapons on his/her body? Game-mechanically: Use Sleight of Hand to hide a dagger or two.
...disguise himself/herself?
...ambush enemies?
...kill surrendered enemies?
...leave enemies without a burial?
...fight for entertainment? If the local government wishes a criminal to be executed in a gladiatorial arena and the paladin is invited, how does he/she respond?

For the bolded question, the answer is "no".

[Kol Korran]

In my book a paladin is the main fighter against evil, upholder of good values, and protector of those who can't appropriately defend themselves. this does not means he is stupid, or that he will take unnecesessary risks. a paladin might be as savvy and cunning as a fighter.



...conceal weapons on his/her body? Game-mechanically: Use Sleight of Hand to hide a dagger or two.
...disguise himself/herself?
...ambush enemies?
all of these are tactics of war, they harm no innocent, and degrade no high value, and are in fact used to fight evil.


...kill surrendered enemies? Let's imagine this enemy is a chaotic neutral highwayman, caught in the act.
I think this is a "no", at least the way i see paladins. once they have surrendered they should be trialed, but you are not the judge (unless you treat paladins as a sort of "judge dread/ i am the law".


...leave enemies without a burial?
that mostly depends on the religious beliefs of what happens to a body that isn't buried. some will say "the soul has departed, the body is but an empty husk, a thing to decay" while others might say "the body must be laid to rest so the soul might be laid to rest, and it's the last respect we may show this fallen creature" as two extremes.


...fight for entertainment? If the local government wishes a criminal to be executed in a gladiatorial arena and the paladin is invited, how does he/she respond?
fight for entertainment i'd say would be ok, if it's purely for entertainment, no one will get hurt, and THERE IS NOTHING BETTER TO DO for the time. fighting in the arena might prove a great example to the masses and lead them to a more righteous life, or support the paladin and/or his order more.

but a spectacle of an execution- this reaches out to the most base, the most violent, perverse and voyeurisitic tendencies of the audience, not a thing the paladin might participate.

and before lots of people will start saying i may contradict myself here and there (as goes on with alignment and paladin debates). that's just how it feels to me.

hope it helped. :smallsmile:

[hamlet]

Actually, as far as Gladiatorial combat goes, I'd say it really depends on the campaign setting. I recently ran a bit of Kalamar where gladiatorial combat was a simple fact of life and lots of people went in conciously and willingly either for the fame or to earn some quick cash. The party's paladin was a frequent combatant in the arena and built a good bit of fame in the region.

Of course, he never fought anybody that was enslaved or compelled to be there, so there is that.

[Whybird]

Can a paladin...
...conceal weapons on his/her body? Game-mechanically: Use Sleight of Hand to hide a dagger or two.
...disguise himself/herself?
...ambush enemies?
...kill surrendered enemies? Let's imagine this enemy is a chaotic neutral highwayman, caught in the act.
...leave enemies without a burial?
...fight for entertainment? If the local government wishes a criminal to be executed in a gladiatorial arena and the paladin is invited, how does he/she respond?

The questions ask myself when I think about codes of honour are:

1. Does forbidding the paladin to do this prevent the party from encountering plot?

2. Does forbidding the paladin to do this present her with difficult moral choices?

The key there is to focus on moral, not tactical, choices: having to choose between following your code and being more effective in combat is a boring choice; having to choose between breaking your code in one way and breaking it in another is an interesting one.

The other thing is to try and avoid things which restrict the paladin's ability to work with others: if there was a "Nobody you work with is allowed to ambush people" then you've got a major problem if another player is playing a rogue. On the other hand "You're not allowed to ambush people" lets the paladin play the game he signed up for while the rogue plays the game he signed up for.

[Jay R]

Well first of all, I think there aren't right or wrong answers to these questions. They are just things that I can't decide whether they are ok for a paladin or not. Some sort of consensus would help me to make my decision.

There are right and wrong answers to some of them, but most of them are campaign-specific or situational.


Can a paladin conceal weapons on his/her body? Game-mechanically: Use Sleight of Hand to hide a dagger or two.

There is nothing evil with regard to having a weapon that can't be seen. But a paladin can't do so to circumvent law or custom. If she is invited somewhere where weapons are not allowed (court, etc.), she cannot violate that restriction by hiding her weapon.


Can a paladin disguise himself/herself?

For what purpose? She doesn't have to announce her presence at all times, but gaining an unfair attack on her enemy would not be up to the standards of a true paladin.


Can a paladin ambush enemies?

In a war, certainly. If the enemies are on a raid, yes. If there are no hostilities yet, I would expect the paladin to announce her presence and her challenge, even if she waited in hiding for her enemy to show up.

But this one is highly subjective, and others would give different answers. It's also situational. If the enemy has a Death spell, I wouldn't feel bad about not giving him a chance to use it. But what if the enemy is a known coward with a Teleport spell?


Can a paladin kill surrendered enemies?

That depends. If the paladin is a magistrate or peer (Baron or above), and has the legal authority of High Justice, then she can hold a trial, declare the highwayman guilty, and execute him as a convicted criminal. But unless she has legal authority to both try and execute, no, of course not.


Can a paladin leave enemies without a burial?

What's the situation? The paladin doesn't have to spend time burying an enemy during a velociraptor migration.

This should be based in large part on the situation, and on the religious beliefs of the paladin (and the enemy).


Can a paladin fight for entertainment? If the local government wishes a criminal to be executed in a gladiatorial arena and the paladin is invited, how does he/she respond?

Those are two different questions. Fighting for entertainment is neither good nor evil. Most training exercises can fall into this category. Doing so as a public spectacle might be considered vulgar, and beneath the paladin's dignity, but it's not evil.

However, if the gladiatorial arena is a lawful part of the criminal proceedings, like a judicial duel, a paladin is certainly allowed to take part as invited by the legal magistrate, and she might deem it her duty to do so, in support of the law.

If it's not part of the legal proceedings, the paladin might deem it her duty to prevent the gladiatorial lynching, even for a prisoner who will otherwise be hanged.

[A fun exercise would be to have a paladin show up in town where somebody has been accused of treason and challenged to a Judicial Duel, but the accused is not a fighter. Nobody in town will fight on his behalf. The paladin does not know if he is guilty or not. Does she offer to fight for him, to allow him a fair trial? I would only use this situation in a game like my current one, in which a couple of players understand the legalities of the Judicial Duel.]

In my world, most of these would be opportunities for a paladin to gain role-playing xps, based on how she interprets it. If she comes up with a great reason for her actions, that's excellent, even if I wouldn't have chosen that direction. But if she's clearly just rationalizing away her moral decisions, and inventing reasons to act tactically instead of morally, then her paladin status could be endangered.

[Gavinfoxx]

As a DM...

The first thing you should do is throw out the default Paladin of Honor code of conduct.

SERIOUSLY.

That thing is a mess of garbage!

Create a completely new code of conduct, one that actually makes sense for Paladins of Honor.

Here's an alternative code for Lawful Good paladins I came up with, some time ago:


*Show kindness to children and others that are weak.

*Never stand idly by while the weak become the victim of the strong.

*Defend hearth and home, family and friends, stranger and ally, and especially defend innocents.

*Once given, a paladin's word is a solemn contract.

*Refrain from abusing or overusing intoxicants.

*Whenever possible, work for and give to noble charities.

*It is an unspeakable act to deny any soul its rightful afterlife.

*Never use lethal poison.

*Respect life, even that of the foe, only kill when necessary, and show quarter if possible.

*Respect the terms of an honorable and fair duel.

*Never willfully commit an evil act, and combat evil whenever possible. This does not mean that it is appropriate to be violent against evil all the time; seek justice tempered with mercy more than a violent solution.

*Use power to aid and help others, except towards evil ends. Do not seek out power simply to have power.

*Be courteous in all you do, and seek to never be crude.

*Be humble before the forces of light and good.

*Uphold virtuous laws whenever possible.

*Lead by example.

*Respect and hold dear the trust that others place in you.

*Be heroically brave in persuit of goodness.

*Show kindness towards guests.

*Care for and be kind towards those you employ, and especially your mount.

[Bahamut Omega]

Well first of all, I think there aren't right or wrong answers to these questions. They are just things that I can't decide whether they are ok for a paladin or not. Some sort of consensus would help me to make my decision.

Can a paladin...
...conceal weapons on his/her body? Game-mechanically: Use Sleight of Hand to hide a dagger or two.
...disguise himself/herself?
...ambush enemies?
...kill surrendered enemies? Let's imagine this enemy is a chaotic neutral highwayman, caught in the act.
...leave enemies without a burial?
...fight for entertainment? If the local government wishes a criminal to be executed in a gladiatorial arena and the paladin is invited, how does he/she respond?

I see nothing wrong with any of these actually. Almost all of them are situation dependent, though. I think the two which would draw the most criticism is killing surrendered enemies or fighting for entertainment, so I'll address them.

Killing a surrendered enemy is not necessarily an evil act. Lawful good does not make one stupid. Suppose the surrendered enemy just massacred a mother, father, and their children in the countryside. There's no legal authority to turn them over to, so the Paladin passes divine judgement upon them and feels execution is appropriate. What would likely be unacceptable is torturing them to death, but swiftly taking their head I think would fall well within the code.

For the example given, he may not execute the highwayman, it would depend on his crimes. Did he just rob people, maybe the paladin cuts off his hand and seizes his ill gotten gains. Perhaps he places a mark of justice on him. If he was wantonly killing people and then looting the bodies, the paladin may feel execution is just.

As for fighting for entertainment, this depends strongly on the paladin's background. Suppose he is from a culture where gladatorial games are a means of deciding whom has divine favor. In such a case he may feel compelled to respect what he views as a legitimate authority asking him to participate and kill other gladiators in the arena to appease the gods.

[Agrippa]

I'd generally say that summary executions are frowned upon in the paladin's code. However there are individuals, I shudder to use the term "people", who through sheer cruelty, brutality, disregard for the lives of innocents and danger they pose to others would fall under the principle of hostis humani generis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostis_humani_generis) or enemies of mankind (plus any other sapient races in your setting). Against that sort of person a summary execution might not only be morally justified but a moral nececssity.

[JonRG]

Paladins are permitted to disguise their affiliations when open display would endanger their lives. Ambushes are a bit iffy, though to ease conflict with a party rogue, I'd just have my hypothetical paladin character decline the surprise round and join initiative when his enemies do.

[Lord Tyger]

The way I see Paladins is that they're sworn to uphold a certain code, whether that be something that derives directly from their deity, from their Order, or from their own philosophical interpretation of their principles if you're going with the "Individual paladin serving a cause but not a specific God or group". So you need to decide where their code derives from, and then answer your questions based on that.

For deities: I'm not sure whether a Paladin who derives his power from a God has to serve a Lawful Good God or is allowed to pick Lawful Neutral/Neutral Good, so for the moment I'll just stick with LG. In Pathfinder's Golarion, the setting I'm most familiar with, Ragathiel is a Lawful Good god (well, Empyreal Lord, technically) of Vengeance, Chivalry, Chastity and Destruction. On the other hand, you have Andoletta, another Lawful Good Empyreal Lord, who is essentially described as a grandmotherly matriarch, and whose portfolio includes consolation. A Paladin serving Ragathiel would probably come down on the side of executing surrendered enemies for serious enough crimes, while a Paladin serving Andoletta would be more likely to try and reform them.

For Orders: What circumstances was the Order formed under? An Order of Paladins born in an area ruled by Chaotic Evil forces would probably tend more towards extreme measures than one created to serve as paragons of virtue in a Lawful Good kingdom. They might also be more likely to embrace subterfuge, or go the other way and gloriously martyr themselves by charging impossible odds.

[JackShandy]

I am the DM and I'm basically asking for an outside opinion because I'm having problems making decisions about these situation.

If you have a paladin PC, just throw a situation at him and make him justify his response. As long as the player has thought through the moral consequences of his characters action he's doing a good job roleplaying a paladin.

[NM020110]

Well first of all, I think there aren't right or wrong answers to these questions. They are just things that I can't decide whether they are ok for a paladin or not. Some sort of consensus would help me to make my decision.

Can a paladin...
...conceal weapons on his/her body? Game-mechanically: Use Sleight of Hand to hide a dagger or two.
...disguise himself/herself?
...ambush enemies?
...kill surrendered enemies? Let's imagine this enemy is a chaotic neutral highwayman, caught in the act.
...leave enemies without a burial?
...fight for entertainment? If the local government wishes a criminal to be executed in a gladiatorial arena and the paladin is invited, how does he/she respond?

Please keep in mind that this is solely my opinion, and that it is likely to differ from others.

1.) This would be acceptable, given the right circumstances. Hiding weapons to give the false impression of non-hostility would probably be frowned upon. Hiding them to put an actual ally at ease might see more acceptance.

2.) Approximately the same as my answer to number 1. If it is being used honestly, then it's probably fine. If it is being used to mislead, then it probably isn't. For most cases, this would likely be a minor infraction, and rendered moot by other acts committed.

3.) Acceptable. I'm not sure where it was, but there was a very good explanation for this. I'll paraphrase from it.


"A declaration of war against a state is a declaration of intent to combat any representative of that state. Ambush, poison, and other manners of attack are perfectly acceptable against declared enemies who know that you are their enemy. Above all, however, do no evil."

4.) Unlikely to be acceptable, unless death is the only means of restraint, and the danger posed is great. If such is the case, and I were playing the paladin, then I would execute the surrendered enemy and bring their remains intact to the most relevant authority for trial. If they are not judged worthy of execution, then I would pay to have them revived.

5.) This should be determined on a case by case basis, using the beliefs of the deceased, if known, as the deciding factor. In case of durress, it would be excuseable to not do so, but if the option is available and the deceased would want burial, then burial should be given.

6.) This one has been covered quite well elsewhere, so I'll keep it brief. This act depends entirely on the context. If the paladin is entering the arena with good intentions, then it is likely a good act. An example would be entering a slave arena where the slaves are freed if they win, with the intent to lose. If entering the same arena with the intent to free the slaves through death, then it is likely a neutral act. If entering to take joy in the slaughter, then I would be looking at one of the paladin variants...

On the specific case, if the gladitorial execution is considered lawful by the government in question, and the paladin feels that the government in question is just, then there should be no difficulty. If either of those conditions are false, then the paladin should probably refuse.

All of these assume that the paladin follows the standard model, characterized by the following:

1.) The ideal of Good is one to be honored, and followed.
2.) The ideal of Law is one to be honored, and followed.
3.) The means by which any action is carried out should be justified.
4.) The end result of any action carried out should be justified.

If that's not the case, then the above answers are probably not accurate.

Furthermore, the answers assume that the paladin is following the general ideal of Lawful Good, rather than a specific god. If the paladin is following a god specifically, then that god's beliefs, rules, and traditions should be used as the base.

Edit: That...is a tad longer and more wordy than I intended it to be. Oh well, I hope that it is helpful.

[LibraryOgre]

Can a paladin...
1)...conceal weapons on his/her body? Game-mechanically: Use Sleight of Hand to hide a dagger or two.
2)...disguise himself/herself?
3)...ambush enemies?
4)...kill surrendered enemies? Let's imagine this enemy is a chaotic neutral highwayman, caught in the act.
5)...leave enemies without a burial?
6)...fight for entertainment? If the local government wishes a criminal to be executed in a gladiatorial arena and the paladin is invited, how does he/she respond?

All of these are "it depends", but

(the above was edited to add reference numbers)

1) Usually, they will not, but there's nothing specifically forbidding it, IMO.
2) Again, I don't see a problem here. It's not something he'd make a habit of, but hiding his identity for the safety of himself and (especially) others? Certainly. Being a paladin does not mean blindly throwing your life away for no gain; it means throwing your life away for measurable gain, and preserving your own life if that is the greater gain.
3) Sure, no problem here. It is strong tactics, and assuming they are evil or chaotic forces aligned against a non-evil government, there shouldn't be an issue. It is likely not his preferred tactic, but there's no requirement that a paladin be stupid.
4) The iffy one, but it would largely depend on whether they were empowered to do so. In large parts of AD&D FR, for example, rangers were more or less automatically lawkeepers outside the cities. If they said someone needed to die, they died. Similarly, a paladin may be in a situation where they are legally empowered to execute criminals. Surrendering just means you get to make peace with your god and it's made quick, instead of a lingering gut wound because you pissed of the paladin.
5) Sometimes, yes, if they have more pressing matters. If they don't have anything particular to do, I think most would see to their disposal (not necessarily burial).
6) Invited to kill him for sport? I think the paladin would usually refuse, unless there were extenuating circumstances. OTOH, I can see a paladin serving as a lawful executioner... for example, take a look at the "Samurai Executioner" series of graphic novels. Yamada Aesamon is definitely a paladin-type, balancing mercy and justice while chopping heads off. (note that the Samurai Executioner series is pretty graphic, but you might be able to find it in your library).

[tyckspoon]

I'm sure I'm repeating somebody else's points by this point in a thread like this, but if it helps, here's what the default Code of Conduct rules actually break down to:

Paladins Must Not do Evil. Paladins Must promote Good. Paladins *do not like* to act unLawfully (which is not the same thing as acting unlawfully, ie, breaking a law), but they are not restricted against doing so- if a Paladin determines that a Chaotic act best promotes Good in a situation, he can act Chaotically. (However, he should *prefer* to act Lawfully whenever possible- if this ever changes, he has likely changed alignments.)

Most of the situations the OP has posed are actually about honor, which is an entirely different thing- it's not really related to Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos. It is part of the code, but it's in the same section as the other 'a paladin shouldn't..' things- a paladin may act dishonorably if it serves Good to do so. The most important thing, tho, is probably that there isn't a universal standard of 'honor', unlike the cosmic objective forces of the alignments. Honor is more of a cultural thing; the Paladin's own values and the precepts of his god/Order, if any, will determine what it means for him to be acting with honor. He could safely be anywhere on the spectrum of "any advantage used against a known enemy is ok" to the Knightly extreme of refusing to take advantage of a prone, disarmed, or flanked enemy.

[Telonius]

Can a paladin...
...conceal weapons on his/her body? Game-mechanically: Use Sleight of Hand to hide a dagger or two.

Absolutely. This falls under "Don't be stupid."

...disguise himself/herself?

Yes. Paladins aren't forbidden from going undercover if necessary.

...ambush enemies?

A little more of a gray area. Paladins aren't required to fight stupidly, and ambushes are a standard part of war. However, a Paladin should take great care that any ambush (or any fight in general) doesn't accidentally target innocents or noncombatants.

...kill surrendered enemies? Let's imagine this enemy is a chaotic neutral highwayman, caught in the act.

No. Killing surrendered enemies is one of the big no-nos. [EDIT: This is assuming that the Paladin himself is not actually the legitimate authority, legally able to be judge, jury, and executioner. If he is, then he can dispense justice as law, custom, and his own conscience demand.]

...leave enemies without a burial?

Generally, Paladins should never be required to do the impossible; but they should be required to try, and at minimum to care. If you're being overrun, and pursued by hostile forces (or hungry monsters), but you defeat a detachment of foes, killing several? That's the sort of case where you could legitimately leave the enemy's fallen for them to take care of.

...fight for entertainment? If the local government wishes a criminal to be executed in a gladiatorial arena and the paladin is invited, how does he/she respond?

Lethal combat just for the lulz? No. I'd have absolutely no problem with a Paladin doing a joust, joining a wrestling tournament, or a boxing tournament, or basically any sporting combat. If the kingdom has a tradition of "trial by combat," where the accused goes free if he beats the king's champion (since obviously the gods have favored him), I'd say that's fine too. But if it's just your standard gladiator pit, where the criminal is supposed to be hunted down with no chance of escape? That strikes me as needlessly cruel, therefore Evil. Even a public execution could be quick, (relatively) clean, and (relatively) pain-free - more of a neutral act than an evil one.

[hamishspence]

...kill surrendered enemies? Let's imagine this enemy is a chaotic neutral highwayman, caught in the act.

No. Killing surrendered enemies is one of the big no-nos.
True- even in really old editions, like Basic, it was on the list of typical inappropriate this for Good aligned characters to do. (this was in the 5 alignments version of Basic).

BoED is the only source that explicitly states this in 3.5 though.



Even a public execution could be quick, (relatively) clean, and (relatively) pain-free - more of a neutral act than an evil one.
The main source that states that execution in general (for serious crimes) is normally Not Evil is, again, BoED.

PHB does say that paladins punish those who "harm or threaten innocents"- but it's not clear how far this goes, and how subject to rules like "fair trial" this is.

[Starbuck_II]

Well first of all, I think there aren't right or wrong answers to these questions. They are just things that I can't decide whether they are ok for a paladin or not. Some sort of consensus would help me to make my decision.

Can a paladin...
...conceal weapons on his/her body? Game-mechanically: Use Sleight of Hand to hide a dagger or two.
...disguise himself/herself?
...ambush enemies?

Yes. Nothing dishonorable about it.


...kill surrendered enemies? Let's imagine this enemy is a chaotic neutral highwayman, caught in the act.
...leave enemies without a burial?
...fight for entertainment? If the local government wishes a criminal to be executed in a gladiatorial arena and the paladin is invited, how does he/she respond?

These are grey areas.

[Talakeal]

Paladins are required to act with honor, and to punish evil people or those who threaten innocents. Really, the above questions are just asking how far you are willing to go for these requirements.

Also, I do not believe there are any rules that waive these requirements if doing so would be non-good or non-lawful. Sometimes it sucks to be a paladin.

[tyckspoon]

Also, I do not believe there are any rules that waive these requirements if doing so would be non-good or non-lawful. Sometimes it sucks to be a paladin.

The only absolute requirement is Do No Evil. You can do neutral stuff all you like, and you are only required to be Lawful to the extent that you maintain a Lawful Good alignment- doing something Chaotic doesn't make you fall, and neither does contradicting the other 'a Paladin is required to...' stuff (immediately, at least.) That's where the primacy of Do No Evil/Do Good comes from- that's the one clause that specifically says 'Go Straight to Fall, Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Atone.' Everything else may be some degree of un-paladinish, and the character who finds it necessary to break the rest of the code should probably feel bad and seek an Atonement when available, but he'll still be a Paladin.

[Talakeal]

The only absolute requirement is Do No Evil. You can do neutral stuff all you like, and you are only required to be Lawful to the extent that you maintain a Lawful Good alignment- doing something Chaotic doesn't make you fall, and neither does contradicting the other 'a Paladin is required to...' stuff (immediately, at least.) That's where the primacy of Do No Evil/Do Good comes from- that's the one clause that specifically says 'Go Straight to Fall, Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Atone.' Everything else may be some degree of un-paladinish, and the character who finds it necessary to break the rest of the code should probably feel bad and seek an Atonement when available, but he'll still be a Paladin.

By RAW any gross violation of the paladin code is cause to fall. There is no provision that allows a gross violation for a good cause. Of course, if you are playing by pure RAW you can violate the code all you want just so long as you don't do it in a "gross manner".

Note that commiting an evil act or ceasing to be lawful good also cause a paladin to fall, but these are seperate clauses from the paladin code which requires them to act with honor, respect legitimate authority, aid others, and punish evil.

[Starbuck_II]

By RAW any gross violation of the paladin code is cause to fall. There is no provision that allows a gross violation for a good cause. Of course, if you are playing by pure RAW you can violate the code all you want just so long as you don't do it in a "gross manner".


I'd argue that gross means 144 (another definition of gross) acts not meaning major.

As I said, those are Grey areas because the code isn't written like lawyers so no one knows.

[Razgriez]

From personal experience as playing a Paladin, and talking with my DM on sometimes similar situations.


Can a paladin...
...conceal weapons on his/her body? Game-mechanically: Use Sleight of Hand to hide a dagger or two. Overall, I'd say yes this is fine, as long as you don't use it to lie when asked "Do you have any weapons on you?" or the like. As long as you admit to it when asked, you can carry it. Think of it as akin to lawfully carrying around a concealed weapon. Just simply answer honestly if asked about whether you have them, and provided the guards aren't evil, listen to their instructions about either carrying them revealed, or hand them over to be held during your stay somewhere.


...disguise himself/herself? Over all it's fine, just if you're confronted and asked who you are, just don't lie


...ambush enemies?Yep! As long as it's for a good cause, you're fine on this one.


...kill surrendered enemies? Let's imagine this enemy is a chaotic neutral highwayman, caught in the act. This one varies from DM to DM, and situation to situation. But in your example, this would be considered against the code. Executing an enemy that has surrendered, is best reserved only for those of Evil alignments, who have made no efforts to repent for their actions. up to that point. I.E. if they surrender with no evil intentions, spare them. if they surrender with evil intentions, or just after you fought them and doing it for the selfish purpose of saving their skin? Well there's quite a bit more room for executing the villain on the spot. PHB II even makes note of this for a "Bound in Honor" themed Paladin. Mercy is only deserved by those who deserve it. Giving mercy to those who are not truly repentant, is tantamount to letting evil foster.


...leave enemies without a burial? Varies for each character and their faith. On top of that, certain abilities, and rules. The Exalted feat "Vow of Purity" from BoED for example, requires you to have no contact with dead flesh, aside from from Raise Dead/Resurrection spells purposes, and requires you perform purifying rituals ASAP upon your self should you accidentally come in contact with dead flesh, or fight undead.

For the most part, though, you are not required to bury them, but if you feel they still deserve that respect, or for a purpose of a greater good (I.E. because the area's cursed and causes slain creatures who are not given final rites and burred to raise as undead) it's fine to bury them.


...fight for entertainment? If the local government wishes a criminal to be executed in a gladiatorial arena and the paladin is invited, how does he/she respond? This one's quite a bit tougher. In your specific example, I'd have to say, respond no. Your job as a Paladin when fighting the guilty who have received death as punishment, is meant as a serious execution, not a form of entertainment to please the blood lust of others.

That said, if the roles are reversed (Your arrested by Lawful Evil Tyrant who forces you to fight in a Gladiatorial match) That's fine, as long as you are doing it for the sole purpose of surviving to continue your duty.

There are Fights of Entertainment as listed in Complete Warrior, that a Paladin may enter with no problems. Jousting is fine. Gladiatorial combat meant to test skill at arms is fine as well, as long as you use any rewards for good causes. The same applies to Archery competitions. Participating in an Alabaster Cup competition is fine. As long as you do these while upholding your code and your honor, (And there isn't something more pressing to do, like say, saving the world from the BBEG). These form of Entertainment are all perfectly fine for a Paladin to enter

[SimonMoon6]

Well first of all, I think there aren't right or wrong answers to these questions. They are just things that I can't decide whether they are ok for a paladin or not. Some sort of consensus would help me to make my decision.

Can a paladin...
...conceal weapons on his/her body? Game-mechanically: Use Sleight of Hand to hide a dagger or two.
...disguise himself/herself?
...ambush enemies?
...kill surrendered enemies? Let's imagine this enemy is a chaotic neutral highwayman, caught in the act.
...leave enemies without a burial?
...fight for entertainment? If the local government wishes a criminal to be executed in a gladiatorial arena and the paladin is invited, how does he/she respond?


A quote of the Code would probably help:


a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Concealing a weapon, depending on the circunmstances, may not be acting with honor. It's pretty close to cheating or lying. It's an implicit lie rather than an explicit lie, a lie of omission. It's like saying, "No, I'm not carrying a weapon," when actually he is. I'd say concealing a weapon wouldn't automatically instantly make a paladin Fall, but it would be a black mark on their permanent record.

Disguising him or herself? I'd say that, again, is NOT acting with honor, depending on the circumstances. I can imagine situations where it might be okay ("I'll disguise myself as a goblin so that I don't scare the goblins when I go to make a Diplomacy check on them. Of course, I WILL have to state that, yes, I'm actually a human because to do otherwise would be a dishonorable lie of omission."), but for the most part, it is effectively a dishonorable sort of lying. Disguising oneself to get a tactical combat advantage or to sneak past the enemies... those are not paladin tactics. Doing so would immediately cause a paladin to Fall.

Ambushing enemies is not exactly honorable. Of course, what is an ambush and what is not may be debatable. But hiding and lying in wait for your opponent to come by is a no-no. That's very dishonorable.

Killing surrendered evil enemies seems okay by the code (though some book somewhere may call it evil). After all, the enemy MUST be punished, according to the code, and in areas where there are no legitimate authorities to respect, the paladin (like any other adventurer) is judge, jury, and executioner. Of course, the situation may change things. But some minor goblin can't escape justice just by saying "I stab you! Now, I surrender!" And one must consider: Is it reasonable to bring the criminal to justice. If it's someone encountered in some desolate peaks of the South Pole, thousands of miles away from any legitimiate authority... yeah, there's no way a paladin can reasonably be expected to keep a prisoner. But, if the jail's just down the street, then, yeah, killing a surrendering foe is dishonorable.

Leaving enemies without a burial? Depends on the society. Really, if someone kills a colossal dragon are they really expected to have to dig that big a pit just to bury the sucker? I can't recall any campaign ever where anybody ever buried a dead enemy, so I have to assume that one is not expected to do so, though unusual societal norms may change things.

Fight for entertainment? Paladins *are* allowed to have fun, despite what people might think. So, sure, go nuts. And if the government (Legitimate Authority that Must Be Respected) has a gladiatorial method of execution? Well, the paladin must respect that. Or, he can say the authority is clearly not legitimate and must be overthrown. So, he's got options.

[SimonMoon6]

Well first of all, I think there aren't right or wrong answers to these questions. They are just things that I can't decide whether they are ok for a paladin or not. Some sort of consensus would help me to make my decision.

Can a paladin...
...conceal weapons on his/her body? Game-mechanically: Use Sleight of Hand to hide a dagger or two.
...disguise himself/herself?
...ambush enemies?
...kill surrendered enemies? Let's imagine this enemy is a chaotic neutral highwayman, caught in the act.
...leave enemies without a burial?
...fight for entertainment? If the local government wishes a criminal to be executed in a gladiatorial arena and the paladin is invited, how does he/she respond?


A quote of the Code would probably help:


a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Concealing a weapon, depending on the circunmstances, may not be acting with honor. It's pretty close to cheating or lying. It's an implicit lie rather than an explicit lie, a lie of omission. It's like saying, "No, I'm not carrying a weapon," when actually he is. I'd say concealing a weapon wouldn't automatically instantly make a paladin Fall, but it would be a black mark on their permanent record.

Disguising him or herself? I'd say that, again, is NOT acting with honor, depending on the circumstances. I can imagine situations where it might be okay ("I'll disguise myself as a goblin so that I don't scare the goblins when I go to make a Diplomacy check on them. Of course, I WILL have to state that, yes, I'm actually a human because to do otherwise would be a dishonorable lie of omission."), but for the most part, it is effectively a dishonorable sort of lying. Disguising oneself to get a tactical combat advantage or to sneak past the enemies... those are not paladin tactics. Doing so would immediately cause a paladin to Fall.

Ambushing enemies is not exactly honorable. Of course, what is an ambush and what is not may be debatable. But hiding and lying in wait for your opponent to come by is a no-no. That's very dishonorable.

Killing surrendered evil enemies seems okay by the code (though some book somewhere may call it evil). After all, the enemy MUST be punished, according to the code, and in areas where there are no legitimate authorities to respect, the paladin (like any other adventurer) is judge, jury, and executioner. Of course, the situation may change things. But some minor goblin can't escape justice just by saying "I stab you! Now, I surrender!" And one must consider: Is it reasonable to bring the criminal to justice. If it's someone encountered in some desolate peaks of the South Pole, thousands of miles away from any legitimiate authority... yeah, there's no way a paladin can reasonably be expected to keep a prisoner. But, if the jail's just down the street, then, yeah, killing a surrendering foe is dishonorable.

Leaving enemies without a burial? Depends on the society. Really, if someone kills a colossal dragon are they really expected to have to dig that big a pit just to bury the sucker? I can't recall any campaign ever where anybody ever buried a dead enemy, so I have to assume that one is not expected to do so, though unusual societal norms may change things.

Fight for entertainment? Paladins *are* allowed to have fun, despite what people might think. So, sure, go nuts. And if the government (Legitimate Authority that Must Be Respected) has a gladiatorial method of execution? Well, the paladin must respect that. Or, he can say the authority is clearly not legitimate and must be overthrown. So, he's got options.

[Jon_Dahl]

More info about the Gladiatorial combat:
The society is Lawful Neutral and the public combat is made to be as a warning to those who consider perpetrating evil crimes. Only rape and murder receive death-penalty (and treason and other more exotic crimes).

If the paladin doesn't accept the invitation from the legitimate rulers, some else else execute the criminals.

It's not for the "lulz", it's about a public punishment for the worst of criminals. Paladin is not required to kill the criminal slowly.

[hamishspence]

Fight for entertainment? Paladins *are* allowed to have fun, despite what people might think.

Defenders of the Faith does say

"Paladins are not required to be tea-drinking, celibate sticks-in-the-mud"

after all

[Hazzardevil]

*Never use lethal poison.

*Respect life, even that of the foe, only kill when necessary, and show quarter if possible.


I disagree with the first one.
Lethal Poison is fine in my opinoin, as long as it is poison on a sword you stab someone with and not poison someone elses meal.

As for the second one, it is too open to interpretation, killing only when nessecery might mean the paladin is forced to become a technical pacifist and gimp himself in combat by taking a -4 penalty on all attack rolls to try and avoid killing someone.

[Rejusu]

Some of those are kind of grey. While disguise, ambush, and concealed weapons may be valid war tactics the Paladins code requires them to "act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)". A disguise would definitely flag the "lying" part, and ambushes and concealed weapons could be considered dishonourable methods of fighting similar to the use of poisons.

Oddly enough the public execution and the killing of surrendered enemies is technically fine and dandy under the code as it requires the Paladin to "punish those who harm or threaten innocents". However killing a surrendered enemy might fail the "acting with honour" part, especially since punishment doesn't automatically mean death. It may also count as being kind of evil.

It's a common misconception but the code doesn't actually require you to show mercy or even kindness. Though technically while you're not restricted by the code you may be restricted by your alignment. Regularly acting without mercy could shift your alignment towards evil. Good characters are supposed to show respect for life and concern for the dignity of sentient beings. So yeah, there's that.

At any rate I'd say your Paladin probably isn't playing quite as he should. You might want to consider asking him if he wants to switch to playing the variant Paladin of Freedom. It's basically the same just with a few different spells and a slightly different aura (immunity to compulsions instead of fear) but with chaotic good alignment.

[hamishspence]

Grey Guard paladins in particular tend to use tactics like disguising, hiding, and so forth.

Quote from a villain:

"How are we supposed to see the pally coming when he wears armour darker than ours?"

[Talakeal]

I disagree with the first one.
Lethal Poison is fine in my opinoin, as long as it is poison on a sword you stab someone with and not poison someone elses meal.

As for the second one, it is too open to interpretation, killing only when nessecery might mean the paladin is forced to become a technical pacifist and gimp himself in combat by taking a -4 penalty on all attack rolls to try and avoid killing someone.

Paladins are NOT allowed to use poison of any sort by RAW. This is actually one of the more clear cut portions of the paladins code, the PHB disallows it because it is dishonorable, and the BoED disallows it because it is evil, there is nothning ambiguous about it.

[hamishspence]

The BoED goes out of its way to specify that use of poison that does not do ability damage, such as drow sleep poison, or oil of taggit, is not evil though- and provides a reason why the other stuff is evil: "causes excessive suffering".

A DM could choose to ignore this- based on observations of how painless some real-life poisons are reported to be.

[Jon_Dahl]

After the first session I'm already fuming about this paladin.

Currently PCs are residing in a LN city which is sliding into madness due to an unknown curse.
PCs were attacked in a local tavern by a fighter gone crazy. After the enemy was slain the tavern keeper went to alert the city watch and requested everyone to stay put. His daughter remained to supervise the scene.

The paladin and the CN PC-fighter both lured the shy girl to get them drinks (solid diplomacy checks). Then the CN PC stole some of the dead fighter's possession. The paladin did nothing about it.

Later on city watch came and recovered the body. No one actually knows the full inventory of fighter's items but everything they find will be return to the family of the deceased. Except of course what PCs stole...

Quite frankly I didn't bother to do anything about this at the moment but somehow I feel really pissed off about this. I'd love to hear some good advices how to handle this in the future, please.

[Gavinfoxx]

How about this.

Unless everyone has an extended conversation about what it means to be a paladin in this game, and expectations, and what does and does not cause a fall, and EVERYONE agrees, ban the class.

[Rejusu]

After the first session I'm already fuming about this paladin.

Currently PCs are residing in a LN city which is sliding into madness due to an unknown curse.
PCs were attacked in a local tavern by a fighter gone crazy. After the enemy was slain the tavern keeper went to alert the city watch and requested everyone to stay put. His daughter remained to supervise the scene.

The paladin and the CN PC-fighter both lured the shy girl to get them drinks (solid diplomacy checks). Then the CN PC stole some of the dead fighter's possession. The paladin did nothing about it.

Later on city watch came and recovered the body. No one actually knows the full inventory of fighter's items but everything they find will be return to the family of the deceased. Except of course what PCs stole...

Quite frankly I didn't bother to do anything about this at the moment but somehow I feel really pissed off about this. I'd love to hear some good advices how to handle this in the future, please.

First off never let PC's play Chaotic Neutral unless you trust them completely. There's a reason the nickname for it is "Chaotic stupid" (though this can also refer to Chaotic evil). People think of it as a license to do whatever they please and so often end up playing characters that have no real motivation behind their actions beyond whatever the player feels like doing at the time. Keep an eye on how many acts you'd consider to be evil (like this instance) compared to how much good he does.

As for the Paladin, he's definitely not being Lawful and it's questionable if he's being Good if he lets stuff like that slide. If it keeps happening then the only way you can handle it is to either tell him to:

1) Change his ways or fall. Thus losing his class features.
2) Change his class to better fit how he's playing it. As I recommended before it sounds like this guy isn't acting as a standard Paladin would. The Paladin of Freedom is still good, but it's chaotic good and has a more relaxed code. It stands more for liberty than it does law so is probably a better fit for him.

There's a lot of problems with the Paladins code and alignment restrictions sure. But this guy doesn't sound like he's even trying.

[Telonius]

Yeah, this is an out-of-game problem. I would strongly advise not trying to fix it in-game without at least talking to the guy about it first. And I would fix it now rather than later; the longer you wait the more annoyed everybody is going to be.

[Talakeal]

FThere's a reason the nickname for it is "Chaotic stupid" (though this can also refer to Chaotic evil).

You act like there is a difference.

[Rejusu]

You act like there is a difference.

The one's playing Chaotic Evil are more honest about their characters alignment at least. Instead of proclaiming that they're totally neutral while they butcher orphans.

[Bahamut Omega]

I always think of Chaotic Neutral as looking at for #1 first and foremost. Sort of like Captain Jack Sparrow where you're changing sides at the slightest hint of an advantage for the opposing side. That said, a terrible and impractical party member. Probably not one I'd allow if I were DMing.

Overally, CN is a lot more believable to me, though, than True Neutral, which simply tells me the player wants to desperately avoid the effects of all the alignment based spells. Given that, I'd probably force an alignment change on them based on the first thing they do. As alignments go, TN only makes sense to me for a tree.

[hamishspence]

there's also the "just not strongly aligned in any direction" version.

Too self-centred to be Good, too respectful of other people's rights to be evil- and neither particularly lawful or chaotic.

[Talakeal]

I always think of Chaotic Neutral as looking at for #1 first and foremost. Sort of like Captain Jack Sparrow where you're changing sides at the slightest hint of an advantage for the opposing side. That said, a terrible and impractical party member. Probably not one I'd allow if I were DMing.

Overally, CN is a lot more believable to me, though, than True Neutral, which simply tells me the player wants to desperately avoid the effects of all the alignment based spells. Given that, I'd probably force an alignment change on them based on the first thing they do. As alignments go, TN only makes sense to me for a tree.

I disagree, I think most people are ultimately true neutral. Most people are innately self centered, but not actively spiteful or altruistic most of the time, and lack strong convictions one way or another toward law or chaos, or exhibit such conflicting views on various lawful / chaotic subjects to render them equal.

[hamishspence]

I'm a but dubious about it being most people- that would make humans Usually True Neutral- which would contradict the line in PHB (page 13) about how "humans tend toward no particular alignment, not even Neutrality."

However, the "typical" alignment for humans, on the PHB alignment chart for various races (page 104), is True Neutral- suggesting it may be slightly more common than the other alignments, at least.

Quintessential Paladin II (a third party book) actually discusses the various campaign models-
one of which has Good, Neutral, and Evil humans occurring with roughly equal frequency,

Low Grade Evil Everywhere
In some campaigns, the common population is split roughly evenly among the various alignments - the kindly old grandmother who gives boiled sweets to children is Neutral Good and that charming rake down the pub is Chaotic Neutral. Similarly the thug lurking in the alleyway is Chaotic Evil, while the grasping landlord who throws granny out on the street because she's a copy behind on the rent is Lawful Evil.

In such a campaign up to a third of the population will detect as Evil to the paladin. This low grade Evil is a fact of life, and is not something the paladin can defeat. Certainly he should not draw his greatsword and chop the landlord in twain just because he has a mildly tainted aura. It might be appropriate for the paladin to use Diplomacy (or Intimidation) to steer the landlord toward the path go good but stronger action is not warranted.

In such a campaign detect evil cannot be used to infallibly detect villainy, as many people are a little bit evil. if he casts detect evil on a crowded street, about a third of the population will detect as faintly evil.
one of which has Neutral being significantly commoner than the others,

Evil As A Choice
A similar campaign set-up posits that most people are some variety of Neutral. The old granny might do good by being kind to people, but this is a far cry from capital-G Good, which implies a level of dedication, fervour and sacrifice which she does not possess. If on the other hand our granny brewed alchemical healing potions into those boiled sweets or took in and sheltered orphans and strays off the street, then she might qualify as truly Good.

Similarly, minor acts of cruelty and malice are not truly Evil on the cosmic scale. Our greedy and grasping landlord might be nasty and mean, but sending the bailiffs round to throw granny out might not qualify as Evil (although if granny is being thrown out into a chill winter or torrential storm, then that is tantamount to murder and would be Evil). In such a campaign, only significant acts of good or evil can tip a character from Neutrality to being truly Good or Evil.

if a paladin in this campaign uses detect evil on a crowded street, he will usually detect nothing, as true evil is rare. Anyone who detects as Evil, even faintly Evil, is probably a criminal, a terrible and wilful sinner, or both. Still, the paladin is not obligated to take action - in this campaign, detecting that someone is Evil is a warning, not a call to arms. The paladin should probably investigate this person and see if they pose a danger to the common folk, but he cannot automatically assume that this particular Evil person deserves to be dealt with immediately
and in one Evil and Good are so rare as to be supernaturally associated- even serial killers are not Evil aligned (for Detection purposes) unless they're doing it as part of devotion to a fiend or evil deity.

Evil As A Supernatural Taint
Another alternative is that Evil is essentially a supernatural quality, a spiritual taint that comes only from dark powers. Merely human evil would not be detected by the paladin's power - only monsters, undead, outsiders, and those who traffic with dark powers are Evil on this scale.

A murderer who kills randomly would be evil on the human scale, but the paladin's senses operate on a divine level. However, if this murderer were killing as part of a sacrificial ritual to summon a demon, then his evil would be supernatural in nature and therefore detectable by the paladin.

In this campaign, a positive result on detect evil means that the paladin should immediately take action. This is a morally black-and-white set-up - anyone who is Evil should be investigated or even attacked immediately.

Suffice to say that this last does not fit "standard 3.5 D&D" at least (maybe other editions) - though the other two could both be argued as valid interpretations of 3.5 alignment.