My Perspective on the Paladin's Code of Conduct

[Master Arminas]

The Paladins Code of Chivalry

Recently, there have been a number of threads on the Code of a Paladin on the Paizo boards. It has been rather suprising to me how many people appear to want to treat this Code as merely a mechanic of the class to justify the raw power of the Paladin. That isn't the point of the Paladin's Code of Conduct. It shound not be merely a means to off-set those parts of the class that grant power. Abiding for a set of rules only to gain power is not what a Paladin is about.

The Paladin's Code is--it should be, rather--a guide for how they live their life. It is with good reason that Paladin's are restricted to a Lawful Good alignment. This is because the Paladin--above and beyond all other classes--is a character of staunch moral and ethical beliefs, who sacrifices his own freedom of actions (of choices) to uphold a higher sacred trust.

Paladin's are not just fighters by another name; they are more than a knight in shining armor. They are--or rather, should be--pious and virtous, honorable and merciful, charitable and chivalrous. In all things. And this isn't something that a Paladin has to do to retain his powers; it is something that the Paladin does because that is who and what he is.

His Code does not restrict him; a Paladin's ethics and morals and his very life makes him live up to his beliefs.

The origin of the Paladin was based on the knights of Charlemagne, and on Sir Galahad from the Arthurian legends. Such beliefs are not suited for everyone--neither Arthur himself, nor Lancelot, nor any other of his Knights of the Round Table were Paladins. Because that is a hard path to follow. It is an act of faith and belief that the Paladin must live, everyday, so that he is true to himself.

Let's look at the Code of Conduct as presented in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook.


A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willing commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using posion, 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.

There is nothing that inherently wrong with this Code, except that it is vague. Many players, whether because they want the rules spelled out for them, or because of a desire to garner a Paladin's power without restriction on his actions, treat these words as nothing more than law that can be twisted, obeyed by the letter while forsaking the spirit of the words.

That should not happen when you play a Paladin. A Paladin lives by the the spirit of the law, not the letter. He, and his deity, know that absolute and unswerving allegiance to a Code is a path towards Evil. Laws must be adjusted for circumstances, to show compassion and mercy, to ensure that Good is upheld. Evil actions, and the breaking of the law must be punished, but a Paladin never (in my opinion) exacts a punishment greater than the crime.

For my own game, I modify the Code of Conduct above. I use a version of the old Medieval Code of Chivalry which represents what Paladin's in my game should life up to. Cavaliers, and many Fighters even, are taught the Code of Chivalry, although they can freely ignore it (as many Knights did in history). Paladin's though, should break the code only in the most dire of circumstances, and only for the right reasons.

I shall give oath to fear God and maintain His Church; to serve the liege lord in valor and in faith; to protect the weak and defenseless; to give succor to widows and orphans; to refrain from the wanton giving of offence; to live by honor and for glory; to despise pecuniary reward; to fight for the welfare of all; to obey those placed in authority; to guard the honor of fellow Knights; to eschew unfairness, meanness, and deceit; to keep faith; to at all times to speak the truth; to persevere to the end in any enterprise begun; to respect the honor of women; to never to refuse a challenge from an equal; to never to turn the back upon a foe.

Not so different from the Pathfinder Code, now is it? I prefer this one, however, though some might think it more archaic. Why? Because it fits the theme of the class.

1. to fear God and maintain His Church. Paladin's in my game must choose a Lawful Good deity. I run a Greyhawk campaign and although such Gods and Goddess as Pelor and Ehlona (both NG) represent GOOD, neither can have Paladin's in their service. There are no 'paladin's of an ideal'. This is because the very concept of Paladin means little without a God (or Goddess) and a Church. This places Paladin's in the strict heirarchy of their Church, their religion, their faith. They are not priests, nor clerics, but are Holy Warriors dedicated to the ideals of their chosen deity.

2. to serve the leige lord in valor and in faith. Paladin's hold a dual responsibility. Not just to the Church whose faith they hold dear, but to the secular authorities of the realm. They are Knights and their service is that of all Knights who have sworn oath. Having the right, in game, to add 'Sir' or 'Dame' before one's name is a very powerful tool in the game itself. As such, a Paladin should, of his own will, faithfully serve his temporal lord, much as his does his spiritual one.

3. to protect the weak and defenseless. This is the core of a Paladin. He adventures not for reward for himself, but to serve those in need, as much as he does his Church and his Leige. He defends those who cannot otherwise defend themselves, and he does his best to ensure that they do not suffer at the hands of others.

4. to give succor to widows and orphans. Charity. Paladin's are charitable and generous by nature. It goes hand in hand with helping people who need the aid and assistance of the Paladin. If he is able, he does not let others go hungry or without shelter. He is no miser who hoards his wealth, for the Paladin knows that what he uses to help others will be returned to him in full.

5. to refrain from the wanton giving of offence. Respect. Paladin's respect all life. They are not braggarts, nor do they fling witty cutting barbs designed to insult or injure another's sense of self-worth. They hold themselves to a higher standard--and they live by that standard.

6. to live by honor and for glory. Not to say that Paladin's don't have flaws, LOL. They seek glory, but the best Paladin's seek glory not for themselves, but for their Church and their Liege. They do their best to live their lives in a honorable fashion. A Paladin's word should be his bond; for he will not break it if it can be avoided.

7. to despise pecuniary reward. Ah, the wailings of munchkins doth arise in full. A Paladin doesn't need a monetary award to do what is right. He acts because he can, not because someone offers him money. Wealth, for it's own sake, is never something that a Paladin desires.

8. to fight for the welfare of all. This stanza refers to Justice. A Paladin should believe that all life is worthwhile. That all people should be treated with a basic modicum of dignity and respect, regardless of their station in life or what misfortune's may have fallen onto them. The Paladin will oppose those who do not care for the basic welfare of their own people, be he a Lord or a Knave; a Church elder or a King.

9. to obey those placed in authority. This is not the same thing as all authority, no matter how legitimate such authority might be. This refers to those placed in authority over the Paladin. His Church, his Leige, and those whom they appoint as his superior and commander. Sheriffs and baliffs and magistrates who serve them; generals and commanders who lead their troops.

10. to guard the honor of fellow knights. A Paladin is not one to let anyone speak ill of a brother in service of the Church or the Leige. Such men, by their oaths, have sacrificed themselves for the greater good; and for that respect is due, not malicious speech or gossip. If he suspects that a fellow Paladin or Cavalier or Cleric or Fighter has put himself in a position where their honor is compromised, a Paladin must speak up and confront them.

11. to eschew unfairness, meanness, and deceit. A Paladin does not take advantage of others. He does not use poison. He does not ambush his foes from hiding, or assault them in the darkness of an alley from behind. Others might, but not a Paladin.

12. to keep faith. Faith, in this instance, does not mean belief in a God or Goddess or in following the precepts of a Church. Rather, it means that the Paladin will remain true. He can expected to hold onto his given word, he can be trusted, he is stalwart and noble in bearing and his actions.

13. to at all times speak the truth. Truth is a very important issue for a Paladin. A Paladin does not lie, where it can be avoided. However, I would just remind you that truth is very much, at times, dependent upon one's point of view.

14. to persevere to the end in any enterprise begun. Paladin's do not give up. They do not stop. They do not quit when the going gets tough. Once a Paladin makes a commitment, he is expected to carry through and finish what he has started.

15. to respect the honor of women. Here is the reason that many today feel that Chivalry is misogynist in nature. It was a precept of Chivalry often violated in history, but a Paladin will always honor women, and respect them. For those women who choose the path of an adventurer, a knight, a priest, a wizard; a Paladin will support their choice. To do otherwise would be disrepectful.

16. to never to refuse a challenge from an equal. Honorable combat is part and parcel of being a Paladin. Although he might well try to avoid lethal combat or even try a Diplomatic means to resolve such a challenge, in the end if a matter can only be settled by the sword, he is a Holy Warrior.

17. to never to turn the back upon a foe. Evil creatures are, by their very nature, the antithesis of a Paladin. Trusting one to act against his own nature, to providing him an opportunity to strike at you most vulnerable point, is not something a Paladin should engage in. He must respect his foes, and he must acknowledge that given the opportunity, many dishonest, untrustworthy, and evil opponents will take advantage of any opportunity he gives them. Accordingly, he is warned against allowing them that opportunity.

This Code is merely what I use, for those wishing to play Paladin's in my game. Use what you will from this; borrow all that you want. Just remember this: no God or Goddess that has Paladin's as servants would go so far to strip their powers from a minor violation. They may well require an atonement and a confession of the action that was not worthy, but a Paladin's Fall should be based on more than telling a woman, "No, that dress doesn't make you look fat."

Pathfinder is a game, and it is a game which we play to have fun and enjoy ourselves in the company of men and women whom we like. Arguments and debates over every last comma are something for lawyers, not gamers. Have fun. That is what we are here for.

In closing, I hope that my words might make some sense and give you some idea of how I see the Paladin's Code of Conduct. Not as a straitjacket, but as a personification of what a character of Lawful Good alignment simply does.

[Solaris]

I'm guessing the PF paladin is much, much stronger than the 3.5 paladin.

I've found it most helpful to work out with the player the specifics of the Code, rather than just going with the deliberately ambiguous PHB Code. This particular Code is pretty much the default I suggest, but I've had players come up with other ones.

[Righteous Doggy]

Erm, Paladin's aren't and probably shouldn't be restricted to one alignment. His code is his own, all that extra lettering is what gives way to the lawful stupid paladins. Sure you say he can turn against it, but you also gave them something to follow during most if not all circumstances. Did you make one for a paladin who follows Tyranny, Slaughter, or Freedom too? Or how about different gods. What if I follow a nuetral good/evil goddess of nature? She could still give me powers sure, and I'm still aligned to smite my opposing alignment, but the code would be radically different right?
Maybe I'm just crazy about bending and giving players options though.

[Amphetryon]

I'm guessing the PF paladin is much, much stronger than the 3.5 paladin.

I've found it most helpful to work out with the player the specifics of the Code, rather than just going with the deliberately ambiguous PHB Code. This particular Code is pretty much the default I suggest, but I've had players come up with other ones.

They're OGC: Decide for yourself (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/paladin) how much stronger they are. :smallsmile:

[Deophaun]

If the Paladin's Code was not a straightjacket, it would be optional.

[nedz]

If its about power, maybe Wizards should have a code of conduct ?
If its about divine power, then certainly Clerics should have a code of conduct ?

Actually its about role-play: which means that the player should have some say about their characters code and, by extension, whether they fall should they break it.

OP: Do you see many Paladin characters in your games ?

[Shadowknight12]

I personally hate the idea of telling a player how to roleplay their character. I know you make good points about how paladins fit within a hierarchy and so forth, but I simply can't stomach being given roleplaying guides and being told I must adhere to them in order to play my character. That's the reason I chafe at alignment restrictions and codes of conduct.

What I personally do in my games is to remove alignment restrictions and make everyone tell me if their characters have a code of conduct (regardless of class), and if so, to write it down. I get the exact same benefits a paladin's code of conduct does, but I put choice and freedom back into the player's hands (where it belongs). I also arrange whether the players want their characters to fall for violation of their code (some people, like me, find that flavourful and dramatic), otherwise I remove the Fall mechanic entirely (or, conversely, apply to classes that do not have it, like druid, cleric, bard, ranger, wizard, sorcerer, monk and so on).

TL;DR: I hate not having control over how to roleplay my own character.

[Master Arminas]

If its about power, maybe Wizards should have a code of conduct ?
If its about divine power, then certainly Clerics should have a code of conduct ?

Actually its about role-play: which means that the player should have some say about their characters code and, by extension, whether they fall should they break it.

OP: Do you see many Paladin characters in your games ?

Not many, but some. Paladins have always (since 1st edition AD&D) been a difficult class to play. And I get that people don't like the lawful good alignment restrictions and the additional restrictions on their behavior. That's fine. Play a cleric/fighter!

But for me, Paladins always have been, and always will be, Lawful Good.

Master Arminas

[hamishspence]

As written though, the paladin oath doesn't actually forbid some evil deeds- like torturing villains for info or as legal punishment- though "eschew meanness" and "protect the defenseless" may cover those.

Most issues with the code come in situations where the paladin is outclassed enough that sneaking, or laying traps, or knockout poison- might be argued as preserving the greatest number of people.

In the early Realms novel The Crystal Shard, when Wulgar confronts the apparently defenseless (trapped in ice) dragon Icingdeath, he wakes it up, and his words are:

"I am a warrior of honor and will not kill you under these unfair circumstances"

Though when he mentions taking the treasure, the dragon's rage is enough that it breaks the ice.

The narration says "A more experienced fighter, even a knight of honor, would have looked beyond his chivalrous code, accepted his good fortune as a blessing, and slain the worm as it slept. Few adventurers, even whole parties of adventurers, have ever given an evil dragon of any color an even break and lived to boast of it"

[Roguenewb]

The Paladin archetype is based on a certain fantasy/quasi-historical element, the knight sworn to God(s) and good above all. If you don't want to have to deal with being that kind of character....why do you want to be a paladin? If its so you can dip in and grab armor profs and divine grace, you're doing something wrong anyway. A knight sworn to freedom isn't a paladin, its a different thing, which is represented by different class features.

[joca4christ]

The Paladin archetype is based on a certain fantasy/quasi-historical element, the knight sworn to God(s) and good above all. If you don't want to have to deal with being that kind of character....why do you want to be a paladin? If its so you can dip in and grab armor profs and divine grace, you're doing something wrong anyway. A knight sworn to freedom isn't a paladin, its a different thing, which is represented by different class features.

THIS.

And...

I get the whole "freedom of expression" aspect of the argument against alignment restrictions and/or code of conducts. But I agree with those who say that if you want the mechanics of the paladin (i.e. the class features) but not so much the fluff, then you aren't really wanting to be an archetypal paladin. Can a DM choose to homebrew a class that has the mechanics but different fluff? Absolutely! But again, it wouldn't be an archetypical paladin.

Imagine if wizards were hardy and could use armor and weapons as well as magic with no penalties and what not. Would it be cool? Heck yeah! But would you consider that an archetypal wizard? Not likely.

What about a cleric who has all the divine abilities that a cleric has, but doesn't believe in anything? I mean, no ideals or gods. Just...hey, I want to wield divine power because I'm just that cool. Would that be interesting to play? Yeah. Would it appeal to those who in RL struggle with belief in a god or even higher ideals? Sure. Would it be a cleric in the classic sense? Absolutely not.

I think those of us who struggle against the idea that a Paladin can be whatever alignment they want aren't trying to suck the fun out of other players games. We're just saying, objectively, that's not what is usually understood by most people to be a classic paladin.

Me personally? I LOVE playing pallys! To me, it is the fluff, the code of conduct and alignment restrictions, which make the class appealing to play. That it has cool mechanics is only a bonus, in my opinion.

I agree that there are ways that you can play that type of character which abuse the lawful good alignment (hence lawful stupid.) Just like I agree that some folks who like to play Chaotic Neutral really only do so because they feel like it gives them license to do WHATEVER they want, without being evil.

But that's just my two copper pieces.

[Righteous Doggy]

Not many, but some. Paladins have always (since 1st edition AD&D) been a difficult class to play. And I get that people don't like the lawful good alignment restrictions and the additional restrictions on their behavior. That's fine. Play a cleric/fighter!

But for me, Paladins always have been, and always will be, Lawful Good.

Master Arminas

Well... A Cleric/Fighter isn't a paladin. In fact it might be a higher tier? and without being told what to do.
Its hard to play becuase you don't get to do much other than smite and get told what to roleplay imo. How about it if I told you every barbarian or fighter had to be stupid or uncharismatic(especially them orcs)? Or every wizard was a nerd(especially them snooty elves)? that would be mean... But I mean, thats what they look like at a glance. Thats what people always think of them. Right? but oh thats a different case I suppose.

Do you only do core games btw? There are a lot of paladin variants out there. UA varients on the SRD has one for the other 3 exetreme alignments, and I'm pretty sure the dragon magazines have one for every other alignment(if not twice), but I pointed that out in an earlier post that got no love. So... yeah.

[Hiro Protagonest]

...People on the Paizo boards seriously think the code is because paladins are overpowered?

They really do hate optimization.

But I don't think the paladin has any less right to not be straightjacketed than the cavalier, or even the fighter. So at the most restrictive, the alignment would be "any good" and there would be some guidelines and abilities based on a chosen order of paladins (including "loner" for those that don't have an order).

[Emperor Tippy]

If someone wanted to play a Paladin without the Code (or with any code) I would be more than willing to let them.

If someone from another class wanted to add a Code (either as a Flaw or just because) that had real penalties for failure to uphold it then I would be fine with that as well.

That being said, IC as an adventurer I wouldn't join a party with anyone using the OP's code; I wouldn't even come within 10 feet of them. My character might respect the Paladin who obeys that code but he wouldn't trust them to do what is necessary.

[Deophaun]

Crazy idea: new class.

Name: Not-A-Paladin

Class features, progression, saving throws, spells-per-day, etc.: Exactly like a Paladin except no code, and can be whatever alignment he darn well chooses with no penalties for alignment shifts or cross classing. Levels of Not-A-Paladin are treated as levels of Paladin for all effects, prerequisites, class features, whathaveyou.

There. Now we have eliminated the whole need for this Paladin debate, because we have this Not-A-Paladin class, which is ready made to be dropped into any existing system that includes a Paladin. No one can complain that "Paladins should be this" when the Not-A-Paladin comes around, because the Not-A-Paladin is not a Paladin.

[Sutremaine]

...I'd hate to be the high-level Evil Not-A-Paladin casting Holy Sword for the first time. :smalltongue:

[nedz]

...
That being said, IC as an adventurer I wouldn't join a party with anyone using the OP's code; I wouldn't even come within 10 feet of them. My character might respect the Paladin who obeys that code but he wouldn't trust them to do what is necessary.

Even if the meta-intent of the character was to fall after contracting some faustian deal ? Not my style of play but I have seen it, actually I can't remember a paladin being played otherwise - but then paladins are rare in the groups I play with.

[Amphetryon]

Even if the meta-intent of the character was to fall after contracting some faustian deal ? Not my style of play but I have seen it, actually I can't remember a paladin being played otherwise - but then paladins are rare in the groups I play with.

I have seen a player who wanted to play a Paladin because he was interested in the RP of the fall + redemption bit, but the DM allowed a Rage-analog for the time while the Paladin had "ex" prefixed to his Class in the interest of "not letting his RP choices drag the party down too far."

[Emperor Tippy]

Even if the meta-intent of the character was to fall after contracting some faustian deal ? Not my style of play but I have seen it, actually I can't remember a paladin being played otherwise - but then paladins are rare in the groups I play with.

If they honestly do hold to a code like that as a part of their basic nature then a Paladin falling without magical influence is something like a once in a generation rarity, it will simply very rarely be worth the effort required to make them fall.

[Shadowknight12]

THIS.

And...

I get the whole "freedom of expression" aspect of the argument against alignment restrictions and/or code of conducts. But I agree with those who say that if you want the mechanics of the paladin (i.e. the class features) but not so much the fluff, then you aren't really wanting to be an archetypal paladin. Can a DM choose to homebrew a class that has the mechanics but different fluff? Absolutely! But again, it wouldn't be an archetypical paladin.

Imagine if wizards were hardy and could use armor and weapons as well as magic with no penalties and what not. Would it be cool? Heck yeah! But would you consider that an archetypal wizard? Not likely.

What about a cleric who has all the divine abilities that a cleric has, but doesn't believe in anything? I mean, no ideals or gods. Just...hey, I want to wield divine power because I'm just that cool. Would that be interesting to play? Yeah. Would it appeal to those who in RL struggle with belief in a god or even higher ideals? Sure. Would it be a cleric in the classic sense? Absolutely not.

I think those of us who struggle against the idea that a Paladin can be whatever alignment they want aren't trying to suck the fun out of other players games. We're just saying, objectively, that's not what is usually understood by most people to be a classic paladin.

I think that's exactly the issue behind a lot of bad blood in the hobby. Not just the paladin's code, I think that's one of the main divides between 3e and 4e, why some people hate being told "play a swordsage" when they want to play a monk, the whole DMPC debacle, and so many other endless debates.

I think a vast, vast majority of people have some highly specific ideas about what certain things are. A lot of people didn't like 4e because "it didn't feel like D&D." They had a highly specific idea of what D&D was. And as you say, a lot of people have a highly specific idea of what paladins are. Likewise for monks and DMPCs. Combine that with the natural resistance to change the human mind possesses and you get why so many debates can be boiled down to people having mutually incompatible (or just different enough) ideas, both highly specific, and both of them getting defensive over the feeling of being pressured to change (regardless of whether it's true).

I personally cannot comprehend such a thought process. To me, having a specific ideal for anything (like, as you say, having an 'archetypal paladin') is both limiting and boring. What happens when you've played the archetypal paladin once? Where do you go from there? Do you play them again? And again and again and again? I mean, I get that there might be minute changes made (like gender, personality quirks and race), but is that enough to warrant basically playing the same character over and over?

I know that we all have different tastes and that's fine, but to me, the best way to handle such variety of tastes is by removing restrictions and letting everyone play what they want, not adding them, in the hopes that the rest of the world will adhere to my personal perspective. So what if Bob is not playing something I'd never remotely even call a paladin? Is he having fun? Is everyone else having fun? Is the story interesting? Am I having fun? If all the answers are yes, then what's the problem with a wizard in heavy armour or a cynical, jaded, godless cleric?

[moritheil]

The Paladin archetype is based on a certain fantasy/quasi-historical element, the knight sworn to God(s) and good above all. If you don't want to have to deal with being that kind of character....why do you want to be a paladin? If its so you can dip in and grab armor profs and divine grace, you're doing something wrong anyway. A knight sworn to freedom isn't a paladin, its a different thing, which is represented by different class features.

Being sworn to a deity - even a good aligned deity - does not necessarily imply being sworn to mercy. Paladins are avengers and soldiers first and foremost. Yes, they are required by the code to defend the innocent, but they are not required to give the enemy a fair chance by not attacking when they are not prepared (that would be KNIGHTS, in PHBII) nor are they required to always accept surrender, or any of a number of other things which we tend to conflate with real-world ideas of holy knights.

"That which the law does not forbid, justice always allows."

Since DnD is supposed to take place in a fantasy world separate from reality, I would say the baseline of conduct is the Paladin code of conduct, no more and no less, and you should be very clear with every new player you come across about what you expect from paladins in your games.


Would it appeal to those who in RL struggle with belief in a god or even higher ideals? Sure. Would it be a cleric in the classic sense? Absolutely not.

So what's more important in a game? Your sense that the archetypes are being respected, or the cleric's player being able to play something that appeals to him or her?

[Deophaun]

...I'd hate to be the high-level Evil Not-A-Paladin casting Holy Sword for the first time. :smalltongue:
Cast the wrong spell and your sword wigs out and kills you? That's a fall mechanic I can get behind :)

[nedz]

If they honestly do hold to a code like that as a part of their basic nature then a Paladin falling without magical influence is something like a once in a generation rarity, it will simply very rarely be worth the effort required to make them fall.
I think the player's intention was to highlight the hypocrasy and then fall to greed. The effort on the DM's part was minimal, simply facilitatory.

I think that's exactly the issue behind a lot of bad blood in the hobby. Not just the paladin's code, I think that's one of the main divides between 3e and 4e, why some people hate being told "play a swordsage" when they want to play a monk, the whole DMPC debacle, and so many other endless debates.

I think a vast, vast majority of people have some highly specific ideas about what certain things are. A lot of people didn't like 4e because "it didn't feel like D&D." They had a highly specific idea of what D&D was. And as you say, a lot of people have a highly specific idea of what paladins are. Likewise for monks and DMPCs. Combine that with the natural resistance to change the human mind possesses and you get why so many debates can be boiled down to people having mutually incompatible (or just different enough) ideas, both highly specific, and both of them getting defensive over the feeling of being pressured to change (regardless of whether it's true).

I personally cannot comprehend such a thought process. To me, having a specific ideal for anything (like, as you say, having an 'archetypal paladin') is both limiting and boring. What happens when you've played the archetypal paladin once? Where do you go from there? Do you play them again? And again and again and again? I mean, I get that there might be minute changes made (like gender, personality quirks and race), but is that enough to warrant basically playing the same character over and over?

I know that we all have different tastes and that's fine, but to me, the best way to handle such variety of tastes is by removing restrictions and letting everyone play what they want, not adding them, in the hopes that the rest of the world will adhere to my personal perspective. So what if Bob is not playing something I'd never remotely even call a paladin? Is he having fun? Is everyone else having fun? Is the story interesting? Am I having fun? If all the answers are yes, then what's the problem with a wizard in heavy armour or a cynical, jaded, godless cleric?

I agree almost entirely but verisimilitude to the setting is important, you just need to make the setting open enough - which the OP's suggestion isn't. You also have to consider if Bobs fun is someone else's grief, etc.

Some people do like their trainsets though, which is the root of the problem I think ?

[Shadowknight12]

I agree almost entirely but verisimilitude to the setting is important, you just need to make the setting open enough - which the OP's suggestion isn't. You also have to consider if Bobs fun is someone else's grief, etc.

Is it really? I am of the "everything's allowed" mentality, and I've never had problems with versimilitude. Even if something seems out of place, I can always fix it by fabricating a proper explanation. Someone's playing a psion in a setting with no "canon" psionics to speak of? That's fine, they're the heralds of a new magic, the product of a freak accident, blessed by the gods, etc. Someone's playing a CE paladin of no god, with no code of conduct to speak of? That's also fine, he comes from another nation with a different expectation regarding paladins (or he has been turned evil by their backstory, etc).

With enough effort, you can smooth the wrinkles in anything.

As for "Bob's fun being someone else's grief", that's a perfectly valid point, which is why one of my questions was "is everyone else having fun?". Now, I try to be fair. I really do. I try to sit down and work out a compromise with everyone so that we can all have fun. But if push comes to a shove and such compromise cannot be brokered, I will most likely side with the person who is not clinging irrationally to their own ideals and forcing everyone else to accept them (that is, I'll probably side with Bob). Of course, situations vary, so it could well be that Bob is trying to force his vision of paladins on another player's, which means I'll have to side with the other player if no compromise can be brokered, and so on.

Bottom line, I try to make sure everyone has fun far away from everyone else's and nobody infringes on anyone else's boundaries. And if I can do it, why can't everyone else?


Some people do like their trainsets though, which is the root of the problem I think ?

I think that's quite true.

[joca4christ]

I personally cannot comprehend such a thought process. To me, having a specific ideal for anything (like, as you say, having an 'archetypal paladin') is both limiting and boring. What happens when you've played the archetypal paladin once? Where do you go from there? Do you play them again? And again and again and again? I mean, I get that there might be minute changes made (like gender, personality quirks and race), but is that enough to warrant basically playing the same character over and over?


Again, my argument isn't that a guy shouldn't be able to play a variant paladin if he/she desires and the GM allows it. If that floats the boat, then okay.
What I am saying is that these restrictions are what makes a paladin the classic paladin. If it is played otherwise, then it isn't a classic paladin.

Personally, I feel like it's the fluff that makes the class appealing. If I played it once or twice and got bored, I'd try a different class. I mean, I could run a variant for the class abilities, but usually if I'm bored with the class, changing the fluff won't make a difference, because it's the mechanics that I'd get bored with.

[Shadowknight12]

Again, my argument isn't that a guy shouldn't be able to play a variant paladin if he/she desires and the GM allows it. If that floats the boat, then okay.
What I am saying is that these restrictions are what makes a paladin the classic paladin. If it is played otherwise, then it isn't a classic paladin.

See, that's also something I don't get. To the people who say "X is not a classic Y", what makes them say that? Do they feel like their vision of what a classic Y is is actually widely shared? Or are they aware that there isn't a single person out there that shares the same idea of what a classic Y is?

Human psychology puzzles me so.


Personally, I feel like it's the fluff that makes the class appealing. If I played it once or twice and got bored, I'd try a different class. I mean, I could run a variant for the class abilities, but usually if I'm bored with the class, changing the fluff won't make a difference, because it's the mechanics that I'd get bored with.

I think the exact opposite. To me, what makes the class appealing is the mechanics, because there are only so many classes, which means that you will eventually have to play with the same mechanics more than once. Fluff, on the other hand, is infinitely mutable, which means that you can play the same class over and over again but rendered completely different because each time, the fluff is completely unique.

[Righteous Doggy]

Again, my argument isn't that a guy shouldn't be able to play a variant paladin if he/she desires and the GM allows it. If that floats the boat, then okay.
What I am saying is that these restrictions are what makes a paladin the classic paladin. If it is played otherwise, then it isn't a classic paladin.

Personally, I feel like it's the fluff that makes the class appealing. If I played it once or twice and got bored, I'd try a different class. I mean, I could run a variant for the class abilities, but usually if I'm bored with the class, changing the fluff won't make a difference, because it's the mechanics that I'd get bored with.

You create the fluff though, within the ideas of the class you create the personality of the character. A class isn't named "george" and has set feats and skills nor attributes. You have your own idea of what a paladin is, and you fabricated a character based on it. Should I make my paladin, I will base it upon my ideas of what I want my character to be. And there is a very good change, Carrotcake the Paladin will be very different from yours or George.
Just throwing that out there.

[joca4christ]

For those who feel like it is the mechanics that appeal most to you...great. I agree that the fluff is mutable. It can be whatever the player wants and the DM allows. Not arguing this point at all. Whatever enables you to have the most fun. It's the mechanics of a class that don't change all that much, by and large (again, if a DM allows, and a player is creative, a class's base mechanics can be somewhat alterable I'm sure...but by and large...they are the same.) That's why I'd be more likely to get bored of the mechanics of a class before I'd get bored of the fluff. You can RP to your hearts desire, make whatever quirks or whatever to make the CHARACTER more interesting to you. Does this change the BASE mechanics of the class? I don't think so. I think it only changes how you use said mechanics to establish the character you have designed.

We seem to be at an impasse regarding archetypes. I guess I should expand my line of thought to make it seem more objective. It just seems to me awfully complicated to say, "The sky is the color commonly referred to in the English language as blue" when I could just say, "The sky is blue" and intend the same.

Thus, "the paladin's fluff as written in the core rulebooks of both 3.x DnD and Pathfinder is typical of what is generally assumed to be the archetypal paladin by people some what familiar with the mythys/legends/stories about said type of individuals." Can another individual have in mind a different idea of what a Paladin should be? Yes! Are they entitled to that perspective? Yes! Does it change the objective validity of my above statement? No, no it doesn't.

If I were saying all paladins SHOULD follow the fluff as written, that there was no room for creativity or players' perspective, then I would be trying to force my point of view on others. But by saying that the paladin's fluff is what is commonly considered "the classic" paladin, and to veer from this makes the paladin in question less like the "classic perception" of what a paladin should be, I'm merely stating fact, from objective point of view.

Not saying that to do differently is fun or more entertaining. Not saying that it shouldn't be allowed. I am saying that, from a personal perspective, I not only like the fluff associated with the core rulebook paladin, but I prefer that to the variant roles out there. That's my opinion. It's factual only in so far as it is truly how I feel about it.

[Shadowknight12]

A perfectly valid point, but what concerns me is the strangeness of assuming that one's views are shared by others. I don't want to get too philosophical about it, but nobody's going to share your views to the last detail, there will always be (minor) differences, so it sounds strange to attempt to codify the (sometimes radically) different views of a majority into something inflexible, rather than creating rules that allow and encourage different interpretations of the same archetype.

Why do we have to point fingers and say "that's not a classic paladin", when we can simply let everyone play whatever they want without unnecessary judgement? Because that's what confuses, the way the judgement ("This is not what I identify as a paladin") adds absolutely nothing to the table. It only serves to reduce the player's fun, as they have to choose between conforming to some ideal they do not share or getting labelled/slightly discriminated for wanting to play something they enjoy.

[joca4christ]

A perfectly valid point, but what concerns me is the strangeness of assuming that one's views are shared by others. I don't want to get too philosophical about it, but nobody's going to share your views to the last detail, there will always be (minor) differences, so it sounds strange to attempt to codify the (sometimes radically) different views of a majority into something inflexible, rather than creating rules that allow and encourage different interpretations of the same archetype.

Why do we have to point fingers and say "that's not a classic paladin", when we can simply let everyone play whatever they want without unnecessary judgement? Because that's what confuses, the way the judgement ("This is not what I identify as a paladin") adds absolutely nothing to the table. It only serves to reduce the player's fun, as they have to choose between conforming to some ideal they do not share or getting labelled/slightly discriminated for wanting to play something they enjoy.

I agree that it would be strange to assume that everyone shares my views. I don't expect everyone to think that a paladin beholden to the code is the most fun way to play that class. I also don't think it's pointing fingers or being judgemental to say, "Hey Bob, your champion of freedom paladin is cool. He isn't your typical paladin." It's no more judgemental to say, "Hey Bob, your brown hair is nice, but it isn't blonde like Jerry's." If I were to infer that Bob was somehow less of a person for having brown hair and not blonde, then I'd be being judgemental.

Now, let's throw this in here. If I were running a game, and one of my players wanted to be a "paladin" but not follow the code as written, I would ask the player why he/she wanted to be a paladin. Was it the mechanics? I'd be good with allowing a variant role, assuming there was some type of "code" this champion of a cause had to follow. Why? Because I like the story element of a possible fall from grace and possible redemption. I think that having a rule written to that effect for paladins is no different from a wizard having to have his spellbook for his spells. If the wizard loses his spellbook, it causes conflict. I think it's no different from a rogue not being able to wear full plate and still do some of the classic rogue activities (tumbling, being sneaky) without penalty. It adds flavor, it adds zest, it adds adventure. IMO, that is.

[Deophaun]

If I were saying all paladins SHOULD follow the fluff as written, that there was no room for creativity or players' perspective, then I would be trying to force my point of view on others. But by saying that the paladin's fluff is what is commonly considered "the classic" paladin, and to veer from this makes the paladin in question less like the "classic perception" of what a paladin should be, I'm merely stating fact, from objective point of view.

The classic Paladin is a hired gunslinger dressed in black.

Classic is a funny word. It means different things to different people, which makes it impossible to talk about objectively.

[joca4christ]

The classic Paladin is a hired gunslinger dressed in black.

Classic is a funny word. It means different things to different people, which makes it impossible to talk about objectively.

That's fair. I'll concede that point.

[nedz]

I agree almost entirely but verisimilitude to the setting is important, you just need to make the setting open enough - which the OP's suggestion isn't.Is it really? I am of the "everything's allowed" mentality, and I've never had problems with versimilitude. Even if something seems out of place, I can always fix it by fabricating a proper explanation. Someone's playing a psion in a setting with no "canon" psionics to speak of? That's fine, they're the heralds of a new magic, the product of a freak accident, blessed by the gods, etc. Someone's playing a CE paladin of no god, with no code of conduct to speak of? That's also fine, he comes from another nation with a different expectation regarding paladins (or he has been turned evil by their backstory, etc).

With enough effort, you can smooth the wrinkles in anything.


Which is exactly what I meant by making the setting open enough.

There is the sense though that adding restrictions can aid creativity. Sounds paradoxical perhaps, but it does work. In a game I've been running for some time there is a restriction that everyone has to play a dwarf. This doesn't really cramp anyone's style too much unless you really wanted to play a drow or an elf say. I should add that this restriction was the players choice. Things like this can add a lot of flavour to the game.

[Shadowknight12]

Which is exactly what I meant by making the setting open enough.

There is the sense though that adding restrictions can aid creativity. Sounds paradoxical perhaps, but it does work. In a game I've been running for some time there is a restriction that everyone has to play a dwarf. This doesn't really cramp anyone's style too much unless you really wanted to play a drow or an elf say. I should add that this restriction was the players choice. Things like this can add a lot of flavour to the game.

Well, see, that's the only kind of restriction I'd approve of. I don't mind restrictions when they fall squarely under the control of those that will be affected by it. If the players are all gonna play X, it's only natural if they get to decide what X is.

[Master Arminas]

Perhaps I am alone in this, but I view the Paladin in much the 1st edition AD&D way. It saddened me when they took away the wealth restrictions in 3.0 and 3.5 and Pathfinder, although I understand why that was done. The newer (well, later) editions were designed far more with a certain base level of wealth than AD&D or 2nd edition ever were.

But that takes us away from the gist of this discussion. If the Paladin is just a class with mechanical benefits, then by all means eliminate the alignment restrictions and fluff and code. If that works for you, then fine. It doesn't work for my games (although I have had players who would have loved it). The path that a Paladin walks should never be easy, and his Code reflects that. But really, take a look at that code back on the first post.

I'll wait.

Tell me, what does that code entail that is so very different from how ALL Lawful Good characters are supposed to conduct themselves in life? If you jot down that LG on your character sheet, you don't normally tell lies, you don't steal, you don't betray your oaths, you show mercy and charity.

Why do you do this? Because you are GOOD. Functionaly, the Code of a Paladin isn't different from what should be expected of every Lawful Good character. The only difference being, that in order to stay a Paladin, a player character must live by the morals and the ethics of his chosen alignment. A wizard? A cleric? A fighter? All of them can wake up one morning and say screw this, I'm going to change to Chaotic Good so I can do some cool stuff. The cleric might even be able to keep the same God and domains, provided that worships a NG God in the first place. The Paladin can't.

Back in '92 or '93, I was playing in a game with some good friends. My best buddy (a guy named John who died a few years back, may he rest in peace) and I both decided (independently of each other) to play Paladins. When we showed up at the game and told each other our idea, that immediately led to us playing TWINS.

We were both LG, we both followed the Code of Conduct, but we were SO different. My Paladin was a charity and mercy sort, the diplomatic who wanted to talk things out before resorting to the sword. John's Paladin was the law and order justice type where EVIL MUST DIE. Now, I was no slouch with a sword, and he ALWAYS made sure to take care of widows and orphans. We both followed the Code. But in two very different ways.

So even with the confines of one alignment, bound by the restrictions of the Code, two paladins can be played with a marked difference. Because of that experience, among others, I can't buy the 'you are cramping my style' arguments. To my mind what that boils down to is people who want to play a, well, a caped crusader who takes what he fears as his symbol and fights evil in the night. And don't get me wrong, Batman is cool. But he isn't a Paladin.

What I am trying to say is simple: if you as a player find that the Paladin's code is too restrictive, and that a single alignment is too restrictive, are you playing a Paladin because you want to be a Paladin? Or are you trying to get the most possible mechanical advantage that you are able to squeeze out of a class?

Master Arminas

[Amphetryon]

Perhaps I am alone in this, but I view the Paladin in much the 1st edition AD&D way. It saddened me when they took away the wealth restrictions in 3.0 and 3.5 and Pathfinder, although I understand why that was done. The newer (well, later) editions were designed far more with a certain base level of wealth than AD&D or 2nd edition ever were.

But that takes us away from the gist of this discussion. If the Paladin is just a class with mechanical benefits, then by all means eliminate the alignment restrictions and fluff and code. If that works for you, then fine. It doesn't work for my games (although I have had players who would have loved it). The path that a Paladin walks should never be easy, and his Code reflects that. But really, take a look at that code back on the first post.

I'll wait.

Tell me, what does that code entail that is so very different from how ALL Lawful Good characters are supposed to conduct themselves in life? If you jot down that LG on your character sheet, you don't normally tell lies, you don't steal, you don't betray your oaths, you show mercy and charity.

Why do you do this? Because you are GOOD. Functionaly, the Code of a Paladin isn't different from what should be expected of every Lawful Good character. The only difference being, that in order to stay a Paladin, a player character must live by the morals and the ethics of his chosen alignment. A wizard? A cleric? A fighter? All of them can wake up one morning and say screw this, I'm going to change to Chaotic Good so I can do some cool stuff. The cleric might even be able to keep the same God and domains, provided that worships a NG God in the first place. The Paladin can't.

Back in '92 or '93, I was playing in a game with some good friends. My best buddy (a guy named John who died a few years back, may he rest in peace) and I both decided (independently of each other) to play Paladins. When we showed up at the game and told each other our idea, that immediately led to us playing TWINS.

We were both LG, we both followed the Code of Conduct, but we were SO different. My Paladin was a charity and mercy sort, the diplomatic who wanted to talk things out before resorting to the sword. John's Paladin was the law and order justice type where EVIL MUST DIE. Now, I was no slouch with a sword, and he ALWAYS made sure to take care of widows and orphans. We both followed the Code. But in two very different ways.

So even with the confines of one alignment, bound by the restrictions of the Code, two paladins can be played with a marked difference. Because of that experience, among others, I can't buy the 'you are cramping my style' arguments. To my mind what that boils down to is people who want to play a, well, a caped crusader who takes what he fears as his symbol and fights evil in the night. And don't get me wrong, Batman is cool. But he isn't a Paladin.

What I am trying to say is simple: if you as a player find that the Paladin's code is too restrictive, and that a single alignment is too restrictive, are you playing a Paladin because you want to be a Paladin? Or are you trying to get the most possible mechanical advantage that you are able to squeeze out of a class?

Master ArminasIf you're trying to "get the most possible mechanical advantage that you are able to squeeze out of a class" - and you're playing 3.X - you almost certainly don't want a Paladin on that basis alone.

The other issue is that a Paladin's player doesn't need to say "screw this, I'm going to [act outside my Alignment]"; it can happen without intent, or via "rock and a hard place" RP decisions where the DM's idea of the right answer is different than the players. If this happens to the Sorcerer, the Cleric, or the Rogue's player, perhaps the DM scribbles a little note behind the screen about possible Alignment drift. If it happens to the Paladin? He's mechanically punished for it, immediately, in a way that may not be quickly redeemable.

In previous editions, this was partially justified by the fact that the Paladin was a more powerful option than many of the other classes, and certainly more powerful than most other melee types. In 3.X, it's simply mechanically punishing a mechanically weak class, often because of weak communication between DM and player regarding expectations.

[Hiro Protagonest]

All lawful goods act like paladins? :smallmad:

Try telling that to my lawful good special ops agent named Mac. MacGyver. His profession requires stealth and trickery. He's laid back and a bit sarcastic. But he sighs and willingly follows whatever mission the government has given him this time.

[Shadowknight12]

Words.

Of course. Because the paladin is a highly powerful class that needs a code of conduct to balance its innate power, and anyone who dislikes the restrictions clearly only wants to take advantage of the paladin's immense gamebreaking abilities ("cleric? puhlease. Play a paladin instead! Those dudes break the game in half!").

Nobody could want to play a paladin because they like the fluff, the knightly archetype and other non-mechanical aspects, and still chafe at the restrictions. Of course not. That's crazy talk.

[Righteous Doggy]

Erm... I'd argue that Batman is a better paladin than most. Find me a good guy who just knocks people out and doesn't kill and always gives a chance for atonement and tries to help people while maintaining a philonthropic empire based around several feilds including medicine... no, seriously, how many PCs are just that good?

Anyways, you kinda proved our point though. You and John were very different. I've played good characters who've been at the throat of other good characters and I've had someone playing a chaotic nuetral character try and complain about how my nuetral good character was being too vile for him. I thought he wasn't being good enough at the same time. Was funny and rather complicated.

What I don't like about your code in particular is that it orders me and confines me to a more particular Paladin. I Must follow a Lawful Good Diety, I must be a major part of a church, I must follow all laws('welcome to tyrant land, we're we follow bizzaro laws. Pay the 50 plat toll nao plz'), They are saints who don't insult any life(So if I say a bad thing to an evil tyrant I lose my pally powah?), a life of immodesty, Turning down quest rewards(I hate this in everygame), mandatory lack of subtlety when dealing with someone you suspect of betraying the church, I can't lie when it benefits the whole, I have to be sexist, I have to accept gory challenges, and apparently I'm not allowed to trust evil people.

Theres a nice list, I can go on more so, but theres a list of things someone might have wrong with your code.

[huttj509]

The classic Paladin is a hired gunslinger dressed in black.

Classic is a funny word. It means different things to different people, which makes it impossible to talk about objectively.

That kinda sums up PCs.

"Have sword, will travel."

[Master Arminas]

What I don't like about your code in particular is that it orders me and confines me to a more particular Paladin. I Must follow a Lawful Good Diety, I must be a major part of a church, I must follow all laws('welcome to tyrant land, we're we follow bizzaro laws. Pay the 50 plat toll nao plz'), They are saints who don't insult any life(So if I say a bad thing to an evil tyrant I lose my pally powah?), a life of immodesty, Turning down quest rewards(I hate this in everygame), mandatory lack of subtlety when dealing with someone you suspect of betraying the church, I can't lie when it benefits the whole, I have to be sexist, I have to accept gory challenges, and apparently I'm not allowed to trust evil people.

Theres a nice list, I can go on more so, but theres a list of things someone might have wrong with your code.

Where in my Code does it say you must follow all laws? Seriously. I didn't write that, so where you are getting it? The closest thing is the following point:


9. to obey those placed in authority. This is not the same thing as all authority, no matter how legitimate such authority might be. This refers to those placed in authority over the Paladin. His Church, his Leige, and those whom they appoint as his superior and commander. Sheriffs and baliffs and magistrates who serve them; generals and commanders who lead their troops.

Turning down Quest rewards? I believe my exact phrase was "to despise pecuniary reward." Number 7 if you are playing along at home. A Paladin shouldn't be adventuring merely to gain wealth--and he (in my opinion) NEVER decides not to do what is right simply because he isn't getting paid.

Did you fellows even read the entire post? I said that a Paladin shouldn't be stripped of his powers for minor violations. He might need to seek out an atonement and ask for his deity to forgive the violation, but he doesn't automatically get hit by a blue bolt of lightning from heaven for uttering a disparaging word. Major violations, including changing his alignment, yes; that does strip him of his god-given abilities. But not minor violations, or unintentional violations, or violations that arise from the no-win situations so many DMs seem to enjoy placing Paladins in. Not in my game.

We obviously have differing views on what a Paladin and what their Code should be. Sorry if my view offends you.

Master Arminas

[Righteous Doggy]

2 and 9, though they do only state that they need to follow the laws of whatever authority they're under at the moment. It bothers me because you automatically place the paladin's loyalty's.

The way you talk about money sounds very much like the many games I've played that think your the better person for turning down money. Gold is power, I don't want to despise it, i want to use it for the greater good.(an example of someone playing someone who's still very good, but breaks that.)

And eh, you impose what your idea is on people. What do you expect? Even if its not on us, we'd still like to make comments about not liking it when you ask about it, and I've always had a radically different idea of a paladin from the narrow viewed ones about them being so good they're stupid. Morality does vary from person to person. My idea of a paladin is someone who follows an ideal, and therefore doesn't have nearly as many restrictions. As long as they fight for something that can give them strength. The idea that he be chained unwillingly to a lord, or specific church is madness.

Edit: btw, Changing your alignment isn't an ingame action, and there are plenty of arguements over alignment on this board me thinks.

[Master Arminas]

Despise pecuniary reward does not mean despise all wealth. What it means is that a Paladin does not act because he is paid. That is mercenary, be its very defination. When he sees an evil being inflicted upon the people, he doesn't check with the town elders to see if a reward is being offered; that isn't Good. He deals with the problem, and if--if--the townsfolk reward him, he will accept their gift. Not out of a desire for money and wealth, but out of respect for the sacrifice the community is willing to make. Some Paladins might well ask that a poor community take back half (or more) of their offering, but not all.

All that really means is that a Paladin does not wait to act in order to find out if there is a paycheck waiting at the end.

Why do so many people assume that a well-played Paladin who lives by the Code of Conduct is so good that they are stupid? I have met folks who played lawful stupid, and it wasn't because they were following a Code. It was because they were *******s. Or they were actually stupid. But someone playing a moral and ethical and GOOD aligned Paladin does not necessarily translate to stupid.

At least in my opinion.

Master Arminas

[Righteous Doggy]

Should a good paladin be told how to be a paladin?

[Deophaun]

Despise pecuniary reward does not mean despise all wealth. What it means is that a Paladin does not act because he is paid.
If that were true, it would read "Is apathetic to pecuniary reward." Instead, he DESPISES it. The very notion of taking money makes his skin crawl. This is not someone who simply doesn't require payment. This is someone who will actively refuse, perhaps to the point of violence, being paid.

[Bayonet Priest]

Why do so many people assume that a well-played Paladin who lives by the Code of Conduct is so good that they are stupid? I have met folks who played lawful stupid, and it wasn't because they were following a Code. It was because they were *******s. Or they were actually stupid. But someone playing a moral and ethical and GOOD aligned Paladin does not necessarily translate to stupid.

At least in my opinion.

Master Arminas

I think when a paladin is involved both the players and the DM need to make sure they are on the same page. RAW about the Code of Conduct needs to take a back seat to what the group agrees makes sense. You can't have a paladin in a group where the DM makes you fall for any technical violation or no win scenario. You can't have a paladin who interprets his Lawful Goodness in a way that makes him a controlling, lawful stupid **** to all the other players. Ironically I think that when it comes to a Paladin's strict Code you have to be willing to be more flexible than you would with another character, just because so much more is riding on it. Not flexible like "well he only killed that one innocent for financial gain but that shouldn't make fall" but for more minor things or stuff with mitigating circumstances. Hell, someone should want to play a paladin because of the restrictions, they should do all those things on the Code because they want to play that character. If you don't enforce the Code in a stupid, adversarial way then there is a lot of variation there. One Paladin might hold one part of the code somewhat higher than another. Now, I'm not 100% on the OPs particular code but that's ok. The specific code is less important than the feeling it evokes.

Now, I'm of two minds about restricting the Paladin as a class to just Lawful Good. On the one hand it clashes with my usual highly inclusive nature. I think there is a lot of room for "paladins" (as in armored, knightly church militants fueled by faith and driven by their cause) of many alignments for many deities and causes as a character concept. One distinct from "just play a cleric". On the the other hand I have a deeply romantic view of the traditional Paladin, restrictions and all (sane restrictions though, no adversarial bull**** from players or DM). I like the idea that when the villagers hear that someone is a Paladin they are that much more likely to trust that person, because Paladins are Good, they are honest, they protect those who cannot protect themselves.


In the end it's a clash between some romantic notions that I love and some more pragmatic gaming philosophy. If there were two classes, a Paladin and a Champion or something then I could have my cake and eat it too. And yet nothing is stopping a 4e paladin from voluntarily taking up all the restrictions and duties he wants. I really have no real answer for this debate, it rages within me as well sometimes.

Edit: Another thing, incredibly vague statements like the SRD's " if she ever willingly commits an evil act" are terrible. Alignment itself is a can of worms and when you get incredibly vague yet iron hard rules like that the Paladin is completely screwed. I think any sane DM would ignore that bit and just play it by ear.

[Andorax]

Whew. Reminds me of a campaign I ran...sadly, it was back in 2E so a lot of the mechanics have changed.

I wanted to advance the idea that despite the LG requirement, not all Paladins are identical, and in fact can be played in decidedly different ways. To that end, I worked up a complex set of rules, some of it adapted...I do not recall the source...for designing more individualistic (but still LG) Paladin codes. I set up the campaign (set in Birthright, in an area designed to be something of an idealistic Camelot) to involve a lot of paladin-friendly concepts (high chivalry and the like). Each Paladin had their oath of faith (religious duty), their oath of fealty (their "king and country" duty) and their personal oaths (what they individually stand for).

Then I made them ALL play Paladins. Yes, a party of 8 Paladins. And we had a great time with it!

Without regurgitating the entire 6 page document, the whole thing boiled down to the virtues:

Charity, Chastity/Celibacy, Chivalry, Courtesy, Faith, Fealty, Honesty, Honor, Hope, Humility, Industry, Justice, Moderation, Poverty, Tolerance and Valor.

Of these, four virtues were chosen to be upheld as principle virtues, and two selected to be 'neglected' virtues. Additional can be added on a 1:1 basis. Violations of the neglected virtues were essentially ignored, so long as the over-arching LG alignment was never grossly violated.


A "standard" paladin upheld Fealty, Courtesy, Honesty, Valor and Honor, and neglected Hope, Industry and Tolerance.

Other "packages" (which got a more favorable ratio for taking a pre-packaged set) included:

The Healer upheld Charity, Humility, Moderation and Industry, neglected Chivalry, Valor and Courtesy

The Courtier upheld Fealty, Courtesy, Chivalry and Tolerance, neglected Poverty, Chastity, Humility and Industry

The Inquisitor upheld Fealty, Valor, Honesty, Justice and Chastity, neglected Honor, Moderation, Toleration and Courtesy



Each of the 8 players worked up their own vows and oaths, and chose their virtues both upheld and neglected...and they all played out different from one another. The whole group was, indeed, LG...but they were hardly cookie-cutter identical.

[hamishspence]

This reminds me a lot of Quintessential Paladin II's "build your own code" rules- you can emphasise some parts of the code, following them very strictly, while having other parts be followed more loosely.

It also had aggravating and mitigating factors for violations, as well as scaling the amount of paladin abilities lost if a violation was committed.

A minor violation might only cause bad dreams (-1 penalty to a few things) going on to losing one paladin ability, losing several, losing all but one, and losing all.

This sort of thing- not a "You Fall/You Don't" dichotomy, but "You Fall Just A Little Bit" being possible- seemed pretty interesting to me.

[TuggyNE]

Whew. Reminds me of a campaign I ran...sadly, it was back in 2E so a lot of the mechanics have changed.

I wanted to advance the idea that despite the LG requirement, not all Paladins are identical, and in fact can be played in decidedly different ways. To that end, I worked up a complex set of rules, some of it adapted...I do not recall the source...for designing more individualistic (but still LG) Paladin codes. I set up the campaign (set in Birthright, in an area designed to be something of an idealistic Camelot) to involve a lot of paladin-friendly concepts (high chivalry and the like). Each Paladin had their oath of faith (religious duty), their oath of fealty (their "king and country" duty) and their personal oaths (what they individually stand for).

Then I made them ALL play Paladins. Yes, a party of 8 Paladins. And we had a great time with it!

Without regurgitating the entire 6 page document, the whole thing boiled down to the virtues:

Charity, Chastity/Celibacy, Chivalry, Courtesy, Faith, Fealty, Honesty, Honor, Hope, Humility, Industry, Justice, Moderation, Poverty, Tolerance and Valor.

Of these, four virtues were chosen to be upheld as principle virtues, and two selected to be 'neglected' virtues. Additional can be added on a 1:1 basis. Violations of the neglected virtues were essentially ignored, so long as the over-arching LG alignment was never grossly violated.


A "standard" paladin upheld Fealty, Courtesy, Honesty, Valor and Honor, and neglected Hope, Industry and Tolerance.

Other "packages" (which got a more favorable ratio for taking a pre-packaged set) included:

The Healer upheld Charity, Humility, Moderation and Industry, neglected Chivalry, Valor and Courtesy

The Courtier upheld Fealty, Courtesy, Chivalry and Tolerance, neglected Poverty, Chastity, Humility and Industry

The Inquisitor upheld Fealty, Valor, Honesty, Justice and Chastity, neglected Honor, Moderation, Toleration and Courtesy



Each of the 8 players worked up their own vows and oaths, and chose their virtues both upheld and neglected...and they all played out different from one another. The whole group was, indeed, LG...but they were hardly cookie-cutter identical.


This reminds me a lot of Quintessential Paladin II's "build your own code" rules- you can emphasise some parts of the code, following them very strictly, while having other parts be followed more loosely.

It also had aggravating and mitigating factors for violations, as well as scaling the amount of paladin abilities lost if a violation was committed.

A minor violation might only cause bad dreams (-1 penalty to a few things) going on to losing one paladin ability, losing several, losing all but one, and losing all.

This sort of thing- not a "You Fall/You Don't" dichotomy, but "You Fall Just A Little Bit" being possible- seemed pretty interesting to me.

These two ideas, especially in combination, seem vastly well.

Trying to agree on a singular vision of a "classic" paladin is likely to fall into No True Scotsman territory and other problems, but these cover most of the aspects most people would agree on and give some flexibility in ways most would accept.

[hamishspence]

Plus you can describe your ex-paladin as having "Not So Much Fallen As Sauntered Vaguely Downwards" :smallamused:

[Gavinfoxx]

Here's an alternative code for Lawful Good paladins I came up with, some time ago, which I put in threads about these discussions. I'd like to hear what you all think of it:

*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 pursuit of goodness.

*Show kindness towards guests.

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

[Andorax]

Gavinfoxx, I cringed every time you used the phrase "and especially".

Do this...but it only REALLY counts in this case. The rest of the sentance before this doesn't matter so much.

Other than that, it sounds pretty good.

[Gavinfoxx]

Hey, I was trying to go for an antiquated, formal sounding sort of feel for the code.

And I only did that twice!