PDA

View Full Version : Paladins, their methods, and the Shininess Factor™



Renegade Paladin
2007-03-04, 07:56 AM
Split from this thread. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36000)

For a long time, and not just on this board, I've noted a large trend towards defining paladins as being knight-in-shining-armor, stick up the butt meatheads, and that anything "less" makes one less a paladin, or not one at all. The sentiment is hardly universal, so if you don't agree with the above, I'm not talking about you.

The portion of the post quoted was the immediate catalyst for my writing this, but I've been kicking this subject around for some time now and probably would have done a thread like this sooner or later. I want to clarify that I agree with Peregrine's position on the Grey Guard (which is what was under discussion) and wrote all this as a clarification of the one point, which I thought would fit better out of that thread after I finished.

Paladins are Lawful Good. The less-than-shiny, whatever-needs-to-be-done style of play strays either to less Lawful or less Good (or both).
I agree that a paladin, by definition, cannot be willing to do whatever "needs" to be done in the estimation of those who see evil as a legitimate short-term tool, but being shiny isn't exactly a requirement. Example time:

For instance, my favorite D&D character, and the one I've transplanted to the Town here on GitP, is Lord Gaheris Trollbane of the church of Tyr, distinguished knight, paladin lord, and leader of his own knightly order. The catch? He grew up an orphan on the streets of what is possibly the most lawless city in Faerun; has multiple rogue levels; is more than willing to use disguises, sneaking about, spying, and various concealment and information-gathering spells available to him and his men (undetectable alignment, discern lies, zone of truth, and mark of justice are favorites); and operates his order underground in the fashion of the Harpers or more aptly Waterdeep's Red Sashes. It has been posited to me that a paladin of Tyr could never get away with that, but I can justify everything within the god's portfolio and dogma, which is the important part in the Forgotten Realms (in contrast to Greyhawk).

1.) All the dogma about upholding the law notwithstanding, Tyr stands in opposition to tyranny. If a Banite or (worse) a Cyricist is making the laws, Tyr's clergy is in no way required to enforce them. Ilmatians have a stronger case for this, and the order has even more of them than Tyrrans for this reason. Faiths & Pantheons doesn't list "the oppressed" among Tyr's typical worshipers for nothing. This justifies operating cells in Dambrath, Luskan, the Moonsea, and other places west of Thay that suffer under tyrannical gods and governments.

2.) This is often overlooked by Realms aficionados, but when the law becomes so broken down as to become meaningless, the Tyrran church just says "Screw this," and starts openly defying evil and exacting justice for those who cannot defend themselves while attempting to restore order. This justifies operating in Westgate (oh does it ever), the center of his order. They have to be exceedingly careful elsewhere, because when there isn't a total breakdown of law, Tyrrans may defy unjust laws in civil disobedience of sorts, but still see themselves as worthy of punishment and accept it. (Which is actually a fundamental principle of civil disobedience, which certain groups seem to have forgotten of late, but that's neither here nor there.)

3.) The opening line of Tyr's dogma is "Reveal the truth," which might be problematic for subterfuge, but sometimes, yes, it does become a matter of priorities. Besides, there's no set schedule for revealing everything. :smallamused: They all know in the end, and when fighting a thieves' guild or secret police force, you might not be able to reveal the truth without going in there to get it and drag it out kicking and screaming.

So, to sum up, Gaheris' shininess is considerably stained. Heck, his armor is blackened and has the silent moves and shadows enhancements (both of the Improved variety) on it. :smalltongue: But he's not dark, because you have to remember one simple fact: Through it all, he keeps working even though the task is nigh impossible. The Night Masks control Westgate's government for all practical purposes and could probably easily kill him if he slips up even once. Pragmatism on the Dragon Coast means rolling with it, paying your protection money, and keeping your head down. So he and everyone who works with him, from his lieutenants all the way down to the 2nd level commoner street informants are all idealists in one form or another, and when you're talking paladins, next to the Code that's the most important thing. If a paladin gives up his idealism, his fall is only a matter of time. But riding around in broad daylight on a horse wearing mithral full plate that passersby can see their reflections in is no intrinsically better in alignment terms than sneaking about in the dark with a dagger; it's all in what you do with it.

Thoughts?

martyboy74
2007-03-04, 08:42 AM
Paladins get their power from gods?

TricksyAndFalse
2007-03-04, 10:20 AM
Paladins get their power from gods?

Well, they are holy warriors.

Peregrine
2007-03-04, 10:47 AM
For a long time, and not just on this board, I've noted a large trend towards defining paladins as being knight-in-shining-armor, stick up the butt meatheads, and that anything "less" makes one less a paladin, or not one at all. The sentiment is hardly universal, so if you don't agree with the above, I'm not talking about you.

Firstly, just wanted to say that I didn't quite mean 'shiny' in my post to mean 'shining armour, mounted on a white steed'. I meant it as 'shining, spotless morality', and even then I was meaning to use hyperbole. I know paladins don't have to be perfect (though they ought to strive for perfection); I was trying to say that my observations and opinions were directed against 'paladins' who act less than 'shiny' and embrace such a path.

So I don't agree with this 'shining, stick-adorned meathead' stereotype, but I get the feeling that you might think I do. Just wanted to clear that up. :smallsmile:

In fact I find no fault whatsoever with Lord Gaheris. Operating in secrecy is absolutely fine by me, as is lying to protect that secrecy. Such actions are a minor breach of some aspects of Lawful behaviour. The paladin is called upon to commit no Evil act. They are allowed to commit un-Lawful acts, as long as they remain Lawful aligned -- that is, those acts remain the exception rather than the rule. A secret order of paladins that is run along Lawful lines but hides itself from outsiders is quite all right by me. :smallsmile: It even gives me an idea...

Remember, the Good-Evil axis is called the 'moral' axis, and it's in their morality that paladins are called to be 'shiny' and spotless. Law-Chaos is the 'ethical' axis, and paladins are allowed to get a little smudged in their ethics.


Paladins get their power from gods?

Oh no... :smallannoyed: There was a discussion on this in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34312) (it was sort of off topic there, and it would be sort of off topic here too). The gist of the matter as I understood it was that paladins get their powers from 'the divine', which is never explicitly stated to mean 'from gods', and in fact sometimes 'gods' and 'divine' seem to be somewhat different. But I think everyone can just decide for themselves whether 'divine' means 'gods' or not.

(Actually, that thread contains a lot more of my thoughts on paladins, if anybody wanted to look...)

Lemur
2007-03-04, 12:29 PM
Paladins get their power from gods?

Well, they do in Forgotten Realms, where every person who can cast divine spells has to have a patron deity to get spells. However, this isn't necessarily true of other settings. Depending on how a DM wants magic to work in his setting, paladins (and other casters as well) could potentially draw their power from a variety of different sources.

PaladinBoy
2007-03-04, 03:35 PM
Hmm..... that's interesting.

Personally, I like it. It's an excellent example of how you don't have to play a paladin the "knight in shining armor" method. It demonstrates that not all paladins are the same.

However, I wonder a little. You don't mention any overtly dishonorable tactics in your list of things that Lord Gaheris uses (depending partly on your view of dishonorable), but most of what you mention would encourage dishonorable tactics in combat, particularly the sneak attack from rogue levels. Sneaking around to gather information is all well and good, but when he ends up in a fight, does he stand up and fight or hide in a corner and knife someone in the back?

Illiterate Scribe
2007-03-04, 03:42 PM
The feat Devoted Inquisitor gives synergy between sneak attacks and smite evil.

Mewtarthio
2007-03-04, 03:42 PM
Hmm..... that's interesting.

Personally, I like it. It's an excellent example of how you don't have to play a paladin the "knight in shining armor" method. It demonstrates that not all paladins are the same.

However, I wonder a little. You don't mention any overtly dishonorable tactics in your list of things that Lord Gaheris uses (depending partly on your view of dishonorable), but most of what you mention would encourage dishonorable tactics in combat, particularly the sneak attack from rogue levels. Sneaking around to gather information is all well and good, but when he ends up in a fight, does he stand up and fight or hide in a corner and knife someone in the back?

He flanks with his allies and stabs critical spots.

Pocket lint
2007-03-04, 04:14 PM
Excellent post, Renegade. What you say about fighting against unjust laws is highly interesting, but I would add that breaking tyrannic laws still doesn't mean a paladin has stopped being LG - he believes in *a* law, just not this one. A paladin acting in a non-evil society with some unjust laws would probably use civil disobedience as you say - I can see him calmly waiting for the city guard to show up :) In an outspokenly evil society, things become more problematic, since the paladin is flat against the whole system. I'll have to think about that one.

The tactics used (subterfuge) are in breach of the whole "acting with honour" aspect of the paladin's code, since it forbids lying. Lying isn't evil, by the way - it's dishonourable, but not evil in itself. That is not to say that Tyr would not allow you these tactics - it depends on the wording of the code, and how much leeway you are given. I obviously can't speak for Tyr, but lying to your opposition to further the cause is a minor infraction anyway, and definitely forgiveable since you have a very clear view of why you are doing it. It depends on the situation - I would say that doing something like luring a villain into a bunch of beholders with a lie is crossing the line. Merely hiding your identity or purposes from a tyrant's guards does not.

Roderick_BR
2007-03-04, 05:17 PM
I agree. One thing I noticed most is how people dislike the "lawful" part of the paladin, and forgets the "good" part. Likewise, many players and DMs enforce the lawful part of the paladins.
There's a reason paladins have "detect evil" and "smite evil", and not "detect chaos" and "smite chaos."
Interesting note: There's a prestige class in Song and Silence, where you play a batman-like character, and you gain "Smite criminal", that you can use against people that broke laws, no matter the alignment.

EvilElitest
2007-03-04, 05:31 PM
Three points
1. Great character. To me he seems fine as a paladin. Unless he commits evil for the "greater good" he seems fine. Lying (while not very honorable) is not in its self evil, as is sneaking around, backstabbing, being rude, and disobeying laws. Those crimes are not in themselves evil, just often are used by evil people. Crimes that are inthemselves evil inculd torture, rape, slavery, murder, making drizzt clones, and genocide. If he does not commite any evil deeds like those above, or hurt innocent people then he his a perfecly good paladin.
2. I agree with you statment about lawful. Paladins who oppose the whole system of law in one place don't have to obey it. In Westgate, where hte nightmasks run the law, a paladin is justifyied in disobeying the laws. In fact, if he wins his fight to free westgate, he can try to make a just law styem after wards.
3. No, paladins don't get their spells from gods. about 99% of paladins can worship gods, but they don't have to. Even in FR, a paladin does not need to worship a god to get spells, he will just get screwed when he dies.

I think you should post that story on the Grey Guard thread. It is quite relevent.
from,
EE

Jade_Tarem
2007-03-04, 05:53 PM
I'm not sure that your post directly lines up with the "psycopath paladins" thread... The main issue there is whether or not a paladin can or should be able to get away with outright evil methods and keep his paladin abilities. Being devious in the pursuit of evil is one thing - and other than the lying part I agree that there's no problem with your character - but I didn't see "torture of the innocent and only mildly guilty" as one of your character's favorite tactics.

There is a country mile of difference between your paladin and the PrC that sparked the thread you're basing your OP on. No paladin is required to be stupid in the pursuit of evil, nor are they required to be self-righteous snobs (see the early appearances of Hinjo in OOTS). A Hinjo paladin - or even a Roy paladin, is perfectly fine. A Kore-paladin from the Goblins webcomic, however, is not.

Renegade Paladin
2007-03-04, 06:23 PM
Perhaps I should clarify a couple things.

When I made the point about Tyrrans not being required to uphold the law of a tyrannical government, I was perhaps presuming that the people reading would know more about the Tyr of the Forgotten Realms (as opposed to the Norse pantheon version in Deities & Demigods) than perhaps they do. Tyr's clerics are, in most cases, commanded and bound to uphold local law, whatever it may be. The three general exceptions are laws that are unjust (as defined by consistence with the legal code that hosts them; that is to say, a law that's inconsistent with the rest of its specificl legal code would not be upheld but a harsh one from a consistently harsh code of law would be), the laws of a government that's broken down to a state of practical anarchy, and the laws of outright despotic governments. So normally, you will find a Tyrran enforcing laws, even onerous ones. Because of this, the Vara'Dome (Gaheris' order) often meets stiff resistance from orthodox Tyrrans who are afraid that they might go shattering laws that they don't like; this paranoia is often enhanced by the fact that one of his top lieutenants is a Sunite paladin/bard and another follows Mielikki.

Also, yes, paladins do have to worship gods in the Forgotten Realms. This is spelled out in the FRCS, page 25.
All paladins of Faerűn are devoted to a patron deity, chosen at the start of their career as paladins. Like paladins of other lands, the paladins of Faerűn must be lawful and good. The paladin's deity must be lawful good, lawful neutral, or neutral good. <snip example deities> Sune, the goddess of beauty, love, and passion, is an exception to the alighment rule, for her followers include paladins even though her alignment is chaotic good.
In the Forgotten Realms, rangers are the only divine casting class that don't have to follow a patron deity to advance in the class; they don't have to choose one until 4th level. If they don't, they don't get their spells but can otherwise advance as normal. There is no divine magic without the gods in the setting.

Ditto
2007-03-04, 07:08 PM
Conversation fodder. (http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=113405)

This, you might call a gray guard. I think it's just thinking outside of the box. I'd definitely allow this Sir Cedric - a fine example of an unshiny paladin. His story gets a bit more morose as it goes on, but the beginning leaves quite an impression. Give it a read!

JellyPooga
2007-03-04, 07:35 PM
Conversation fodder. (http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=113405)

This, you might call a gray guard. I think it's just thinking outside of the box. I'd definitely allow this Sir Cedric - a fine example of an unshiny paladin. His story gets a bit more morose as it goes on, but the beginning leaves quite an impression. Give it a read!

Just read the first bit of fiction on that guy...he sound well good! I want to play him in a game now (and I normally stay well clear of Pallys...far too upright and direct for my liking).

If I were running a game, I'd certainly allow someone to play Sir Cedric.

headwarpage
2007-03-04, 08:01 PM
Because I love the paladin threads/alignment debates...

Gaheris is definitely a paladin, as evidenced by the fact that nobody really seems to be disagreeing with that premise. I think the problem is that once you stop being "shiny", you enter onto a slippery slope. Not every act a paladin commmits has to be Good, but he can't do anything evil. It's the huge gray area of "neutral" acts that causes problems. In this area, people have to start making judgment calls on what crosses the line and constitutes an actual evil act. It's hard to make those calls - circumstances, intent, and the values of the person doing the judging play a vital role. And if you and your DM draw the line in different places, you're going to have a problem.

I think a lot of people try to avoid that gray area altogether when playing a paladin, either because they don't know where their DM draws the line or because they don't want to figure out where they do. And I wouldn't be surprised if some DMs don't want paladins doing anything that's not flat-out Good just so they can avoid potentially contentious moral areas. There's nothing wrong with that, necessarily, but I think it's one of the things that shape people's perceptions of what a paladin should be.

Finally (this is a pet peeve), there is no right or wrong way to play a paladin. It's not a contest to see who can be more Good. It's not a challenge to play a friendly, stick-free paladin to prove that it can be done. The goal is to play a character that you like. There's no set of standards you can apply to say "Paladin character X is better than Paladin Character Y," other than whether the character is well-developed and the player and the rest of the group are having fun.

Nahal
2007-03-04, 08:45 PM
Conversation fodder. (http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=113405)

This, you might call a gray guard. I think it's just thinking outside of the box. I'd definitely allow this Sir Cedric - a fine example of an unshiny paladin. His story gets a bit more morose as it goes on, but the beginning leaves quite an impression. Give it a read!

Now THAT is a Paladin. In fact I really can't fault the characters for hitting a brothel after a near-TPK, for obvious reasons. OOC, however, most of us find it in poor taste for players to want to hit a brothel regardless of how their characters might be feeling.

Logos7
2007-03-04, 09:06 PM
I'd have problems with ninja strikes ( Ie Lethal Sneak Attacks in the surprise round or catching the enemy unawares)

But as for the general sneaking around i don't have a problem with, Far too many people when they say A paladin without a stick up their ass, really mean a LN fighter with better stuff than fighter.

Personally i run

No Lethal Sneak Attack with the enemy unaware

No Lying ( doesn't include feinting )

Respect the Law, the break and enter is fine, but the problem you mention doesn't seem to be a problem with the law but with those who enforce them. Look at the Empire from star wars, is their really a problem with the law, no it's who's enforcing it, just because the town's mayor and theives guild is LE i don't think that's an excuse to say start burning down warehoues ( even if you make sure no one get's hurt ) etc. Sneak/Gather Info/some sneak attacks are fine, but the whole kit and kiboddle, i'd be talking with my pally

That said has anyone attempted to make a paladin code that works more like the Knights code ( Not that they loose a single use of what not, but that the thing's prohibited by the code are defined in game and not moral terms)

Logos

Sardia
2007-03-04, 09:57 PM
My take having to respect "Legitimate Authority" was that the highest authority the Paladin's likely to respect is that of his deity. Mortal authority wouldn't compare, barring a deity-specific injunction otherwise.
Fortunately, the guy only loses his abilities for "grossly violating" the code of conduct, implying that small bends to it when necessary are fine. Evil's right out, but the occasional bit of misinformation might be fine, depending.

Personally, I'd say there's a good bit of natural selection going on to encourage use of every option available without losing Paladinhood-- the guy who puts on full armor, screams "Surrender or die, foul villain" and charges bravely isn't going to last as long as they guy who makes a careful plan that may involve little bits of misdirection ("Send the rogue around and have him make some noise. We'll charge in after they spread out to search")

iceman
2007-03-04, 10:31 PM
A lot of people have pointed out that lying would be a violation, if not a minor one, of the paladin's code. However, I would like to point out that lying and not telling the whole truth can be very differnt. By only revealing some of the truth or making statements that could be misleading would not violate the code in the least. In fact a walking that line can be one of those tough things that paladins do.
As for sneak attack, as long as the character is not flat footed (unless made that way by the use of a feint) then it would be alright. There is nothing wrong with using combat abilities to their fullest.

MandoFTR
2007-03-04, 11:06 PM
OP:
I like this. I like the fact that someone recognizes that stealth and being a Paladin are not in conflict, especially in the law/good terms.

Sardia
2007-03-04, 11:29 PM
OP:
I like this. I like the fact that someone recognizes that stealth and being a Paladin are not in conflict, especially in the law/good terms.

Yeah, and they're even allowed to wear armor and carry a weapon, while we're listing things that Paladins can do to avoid being dumb and dead.

EvilElitest
2007-03-05, 12:35 AM
I don't like that paladin Sir Celdric, but he is still a paladin as he has not broken his code. A paladin can be gritty, just not so much so as other classes.
from,
EE

Nahal
2007-03-05, 03:51 PM
I'm a big fan of paladins that remove the stick and start beating demons with it. In fact, that's part of the reason I'm such a fan of the Archivist class. They're like clerics without the formality.

Stephen_E
2007-03-05, 07:01 PM
I think Cedric is an example of a Paladin who is slipping, not into evil but into despair.

Paladin does = shining example.
All the original examples made this clear, and frankly the best fantasy literature on Paladins that I'm aware of (Deeds of Paksenarrion - Elizabeth Moon) also makes this clear.
The purpose of Paladins isn't killing those Demons or any of the other glorious deeds. That's like saying a Paramedics job is riding around in a ambulance, because that's what she does most of the day. The Paladins job is to provide an example to your average Joe that evil isn't unstoppable, whether it be a big demon, the local bully, or shortchanging a customer. It's to convince people to straighten up and make that little bit of effort to do the "right thing". This doesn't neccesarily involve running around in shining armour, and it doesn't require a stick up the **** approach (indeed this is probably counterproductive) but it does require presenting yourself is such a way that after meeting you men will suck in their stomachs and and give someone a helping hand who's struggling under a load. People will give strangers a smile and a friendly word. That old saying "all that evil needs to win is for good people to stand by and do nothing". The purpose of the Paladin is to convince those good people not to stand by.

Sir Cedric is looking very dodgy, Sir Galahedris <sp> is probably meeting that given the conditions he's working under. Miko was failing, even before she fell (sure, she did good deeds, but not in a way that inspired people) but Hinjo has the right stuff.

Stephen

Nahal
2007-03-05, 07:13 PM
When a paladin retires from active questing I imagine it's expected and acceptable for him to get married and raise children or else shut himself up in a monastery and serve as a shining example of propriety and virtue. Up until then, he's facing death at almost every turn and I hope few will begrudge him indulging eros in thanatos when he walks out of yet another narrow scrape. His reasons are legitimate for not wanting a commitment, even if people won't at first understand it. But yeah, he's dangerously close to falling and should look to naming a successor soon before he slips over the line.

Mewtarthio
2007-03-05, 07:41 PM
Now, I just read the first post, but it appears to me that Cedric is just trying to put that knight in his place for being so offended at his pleasures. If anything, Cedric's cynicism actually makes him braver: He recognizes that his line of profession will likely end up getting him horribly killed, and he believes that it probably won't mean anything in the long run, but he fights anyway, knowing that it's probably leading to his death.

Stephen_E
2007-03-05, 07:43 PM
When a paladin retires from active questing I imagine it's expected and acceptable for him to get married and raise children or else shut himself up in a monastery and serve as a shining example of propriety and virtue. Up until then, he's facing death at almost every turn and I hope few will begrudge him indulging eros in thanatos when he walks out of yet another narrow scrape. His reasons are legitimate for not wanting a commitment, even if people won't at first understand it. But yeah, he's dangerously close to falling and should look to naming a successor soon before he slips over the line.

I'm not sure Paladins get to retire, other than through disability.
But if they do then marrying and raising a family is fine. What better way to continue to provide a shining example of propriety and virtue. Sitting in a manastry is a poor example IMHO. Monastrys aren't particuly inspiring to the average Joe/Jill Bloggs.

Stephen

PnP Fan
2007-03-06, 01:03 AM
I'd be all about a Gaheris in my game. He has a very clear purpose, the violations of Lawful are well within both the Lawful Good descriptor, and the religious restrictions of his deity. Yeah, no problem.

Cedric. . . <sigh> ;-) Alas poor Cedric, he has fallen. At the very least he has the feel of a Grey Guard. Here's why I feel this way:
1. I would wager that it's not actually fun to be a prostitute (can't say from personal experience, but. . .). The girls presented here seem to act as though they are happy to work in a brothel. I would bet that it's more an act of desperation, even in a medieval society where there weren't as many taboos against this sort of behavior. But in general, the disease, potential for violent customers, lack of respect from society, and lack of every having a potential husband (something important in a medieval male-dominated society) would make it a grim future indeed. Even with Cedric coming by to visit and curing those diseases, he could only heal a handful per week (no pun intended). Meanwhile, customers still catch diseases, commit acts of infidelity, etc. . . While Cedric is good for healing, the idea of supporting this institution by partaking of it's fruit, is hardly good. There are lots of other ways he could "help" these women besides the manner in which the author presents.
However, there are no rules about celibacy any more, so that does not preclude him from having meaningful relationships (or at least a "mutual understanding" with someone between adventures). Though this route seems unlikely given his personality. I would drive this character towards Grey Guard (grumble grumble), or a fallen paladin/fighter character. Perhaps a fighter/cleric combo suggested by one of the posters on the EN forum.

BTW, fun piece of writing! I can definitely see using him in a game sometime. Perhaps as a fallen paladin who is in denial, or something similar.

Stephen_E
2007-03-06, 02:17 AM
One question.

Where does it say a Paladin can't sneak up up and stab the BBEGs guard.
There is nothing inherently dishonourable in this. Knights might not be happy with it, but Paladins don't actually have a Knights code of conduct (although many treat them as if they did). Sure, cutting the throat of a sleeping person would be dishonourable, but Guards are by definition "ready" for attack. So sneak attacking a guard on watch, or leaping into a room and sneak attacking the surprised (but armed) people in the barracks is all fair.

Stephen

Logic
2007-03-06, 02:38 AM
I try to make usre that every paladin code fits the concept of the character. Usually the only things I always consider intolerable of a paladin are commiting and evil act, using poison, willfully working with evil characters. Others are open to interpretaition, and each paladin code should fit completely with the character's personality.
Where a paladin has vowed to never lie, that does not mean that he cannot tell the truth with the intent to deceive. (Streching the rules, but denying the enemy information is very important to warfare, and no paladin would risk telling the enemy the truth)
EX:
Theif: So, are you a paladin?
Paladin: Paladin? What makes you say that? Do I look like a paladin to you? I have met far too many paladins that seem to have a stick up their ass and think they are so much better than everyone else. Do you really think that is me?


One question.

Where does it say a Paladin can't sneak up up and stab the BBEGs guard.
There is nothing inherently dishonourable in this. Knights might not be happy with it, but Paladins don't actually have a Knights code of conduct (although many treat them as if they did). Sure, cutting the throat of a sleeping person would be dishonourable, but Guards are by definition "ready" for attack. So sneak attacking a guard on watch, or leaping into a room and sneak attacking the surprised (but armed) people in the barracks is all fair.

Stephen
I think that disabling an unaware opponent is more in line with a paladin's typical code of conduct, however, he is going to do what he can to minimize causualties.

Beren One-Hand
2007-03-06, 03:15 AM
Because I love the paladin threads/alignment debates...

Gaheris is definitely a paladin, as evidenced by the fact that nobody really seems to be disagreeing with that premise. I think the problem is that once you stop being "shiny", you enter onto a slippery slope. Not every act a paladin commmits has to be Good, but he can't do anything evil. It's the huge gray area of "neutral" acts that causes problems. In this area, people have to start making judgment calls on what crosses the line and constitutes an actual evil act. It's hard to make those calls - circumstances, intent, and the values of the person doing the judging play a vital role. And if you and your DM draw the line in different places, you're going to have a problem.

I think a lot of people try to avoid that gray area altogether when playing a paladin, either because they don't know where their DM draws the line or because they don't want to figure out where they do. And I wouldn't be surprised if some DMs don't want paladins doing anything that's not flat-out Good just so they can avoid potentially contentious moral areas. There's nothing wrong with that, necessarily, but I think it's one of the things that shape people's perceptions of what a paladin should be.

I agree with this completely. Paladin's live in the grey zone, striving to be perfect but failing (at least sometimes). To me the first hallmark of a falling Paladin is stopping striving to be perfect.

I can't understand why so many players are unwilling to explore the gray area, instead fixating on a narrow interpretation and rigidly sticking with it. If you're unsure what DM's interpretation is, buy a Phylactery of Faithfulness. For the onetime investment of a mere 1,000 gp, when you're given a situation that isn't clear-cut you can have your paladin take a moment to think and then turn and ask the DM what to do.

headwarpage
2007-03-06, 11:02 AM
I agree with this completely. Paladin's live in the grey zone, striving to be perfect but failing (at least sometimes). To me the first hallmark of a falling Paladin is stopping striving to be perfect.

I can't understand why so many players are unwilling to explore the gray area, instead fixating on a narrow interpretation and rigidly sticking with it. If you're unsure what DM's interpretation is, buy a Phylactery of Faithfulness. For the onetime investment of a mere 1,000 gp, when you're given a situation that isn't clear-cut you can have your paladin take a moment to think and then turn and ask the DM what to do.

The Phylactery of Faithfulness feels like cheating to me. I know it exists for the exact use you described, but it takes away the experience of wrestling with tough decisions, choosing the best of bad options, and really striving to do the right thing even when it's not clear what that is. Luckily, I can easily retain this roleplaying opportunity by not buying one, so to each his own and all that.

I think that a well-played paladin could very easily fall one or more times in a long-running campaign, depending on how the DM rules on various things. The average paladin is willing to kill or die to serve his cause, so if he finds himself in a situation where the only way he can see to accomplish his goal is to do something that's going to cause him to fall, it's entirely reasonable to think that he might do it anyway. If the entire world will fall under the sway of the demon lord Not-Walter unless the paladin say, kills an innocent child (no idea why that would be the case, it's just an example), he might do it. He also might decide that there was no way that he would do such a vile thing, but then Not-Walter would rule the world and millions would suffer, so it's not an easy choice.

That's a very extreme example, obviously, but it seems like there's a lot of potential for the greater good to require less-than-nice things to be done, or simply something that's explicitly against the paladin's code of conduct, even if it isn't actually evil. Since anything else allows evil to win, the paladin has to choose. If he falls while trying to do the right thing, he'll atone, continue trying to do the right thing as a fighter, curse the gods, or whatever happens to suit the character. If the paladin decides that his principles won't allow him to do whatever it is that's necessary to win the larger conflict, he'll have to live with the knowledge that he could have prevented whatever bad stuff happens. You could even make the argument (though it's kind of weak) that he should fall for allowing such an evil to pass when he could have prevented it. You could likewise make the argument (and this one's better) that he shouldn't fall for doing what he had to do in the service of Good, however repugnant it may have seemed.

Even these are extreme examples because there's no other choice, and they should never come up in a game unless the player is ok with it, because otherwise he'll just get angry at the DM for putting him in a situation where he couldn't win. But if the DM and player are up for it, there's some roleplaying fun to be had in situations where there's really no good choice.

Tobrian
2007-03-06, 11:20 AM
But if they do then marrying and raising a family is fine. What better way to continue to provide a shining example of propriety and virtue. Sitting in a manastry is a poor example IMHO. Monastrys aren't particuly inspiring to the average Joe/Jill Bloggs.

There was a married Paladin NPC in Baldur's Gate II computer game. You could make him part of your group. The quest connected to him was by far the one I liked most. :smallsmile: YEah I managed to get him reunited with his wife without any fatalities.

THere's nothing in the PHB that states a paladin should be celibate, but unfortunately the guy who plays a paladin in my group seems to think so. Well, it's his decision. If his character doesn't want to attach himself to anyone, fine. But he keeps rolling his eyes heavenwards every time the bard has a little intimate meeting, cherchez la femme. :smallwink:

Sardia
2007-03-06, 11:26 AM
But he keeps rolling his eyes heavenwards every time the bard has a little intimate meeting, cherchez la femme.

I'd certainly not call the bard's wandering nature evil, but the Paladin might be on the level in disapproving it for being chaotic.
If nothing else, does the bard make sure the potential line of kids that stretch through the countryside would be well taken care of?
Or, heaven help us, does someone make a Knowledge(nature) or Heal roll to lecture a bard on birth control?

its_all_ogre
2007-03-06, 12:04 PM
paladins should not do the evil act regardless of the consequences.
read druss the legend for paladin attitudes to life, without the shinyness.

Pocket lint
2007-03-06, 02:40 PM
I'd certainly not call the bard's wandering nature evil, but the Paladin might be on the level in disapproving it for being chaotic.
If nothing else, does the bard make sure the potential line of kids that stretch through the countryside would be well taken care of?
Or, heaven help us, does someone make a Knowledge(nature) or Heal roll to lecture a bard on birth control?
Dwarf paladin with a stick up his pi-gu: "Are your intentions towards those ladies honourable?"
Me (CN swashbuckler with heavy investment in Bluff): "I think they're pretty sure of my intentions..."

Those situations are what the famed pig intestine is for. Why use something so useful to make sausage?

headwarpage
2007-03-06, 03:07 PM
paladins should not do the evil act regardless of the consequences.
read druss the legend for paladin attitudes to life, without the shinyness.

See, I don't like the idea that somebody's character class should determine their response to everything. Let's take a simplified hypothetical situation: Would you kill one innocent person, quickly and cleanly, to prevent ten (or 100, or 1000) innocent people from dying slowly and painfully? In this simplified hypothetical situation, the results are known and guaranteed - the single death has a 100% chance of preventing the other ten, and there is no other way to save those ten people. Now, I'm not claiming that there's a right or wrong answer to this question (though I do have an opinion). But I am claiming that the reasons a person has for making their choice should go beyond whether their character sheet says "paladin" on it.

Yes, this is entirely unrealistic, but it's possible to construct a more realistic scenario while maintaining the fundamental elements of this choice, wherein all options are, in some way, Evil (with the capital E). Is it an evil act to kill an innocent? Absolutely. Is it an evil act to allow innocents to die when you could have prevented it? I'd say so, and though a paladin might retain their class features, that doesn't mean it's a better choice.

Taken out of the context of the absurd, just because a character is a paladin doesn't mean they can't make choices based on the greater good. They might lost class features, temporarily or permanently, but that doesn't mean they can't do it. It's easy to say that, for a paladin, the ends don't justify the means. But I don't think that's a fair statement. "A Paladin" isn't making that choice. "Steve of Riverville, son of Darrell" is, and whether he's a paladin or not doesn't make that choice for him.

Beren One-Hand
2007-03-06, 09:05 PM
The Phylactery of Faithfulness feels like cheating to me. I know it exists for the exact use you described, but it takes away the experience of wrestling with tough decisions, choosing the best of bad options, and really striving to do the right thing even when it's not clear what that is. Luckily, I can easily retain this roleplaying opportunity by not buying one, so to each his own and all that.

I agree that in an ideal situation the Phylactery should not be nececary. It just amazes me that people would rather stick to a narrowly defined personality (that realy is annoying) for fear of falling when such an item removes the fear - thus allowing a richer role playing experience. (Being able to explore a broader spectrum of the characters personality without the ooc fear of DM vindictiveness)


I think that a well-played paladin could very easily fall one or more times in a long-running campaign, depending on how the DM rules on various things. The average paladin is willing to kill or die to serve his cause, so if he finds himself in a situation where the only way he can see to accomplish his goal is to do something that's going to cause him to fall, it's entirely reasonable to think that he might do it anyway.

This is so true. In fact, this is the prime manner that I see paladins becoming the stereotypical Paladin turned Blackguard. Once you're in the situation where you must choose the lesser of two evils it becomes easier to choose an evil path when there is a choice that avoids it.

Wehrkind
2007-03-06, 09:57 PM
Heh, we might need to make a new forum titled "Morality, Paladins and D&D: All angles examined!"
We don't want to dilute the CoDZilla threads too heavily :)

Stephen_E
2007-03-07, 01:53 AM
I'm impressed we've managed to keep 3 seperate Paladin threads running concurrently with out any of them getting locked or having the moderators step in.

Stephen

Hallavast
2007-03-07, 02:25 AM
I'd certainly not call the bard's wandering nature evil, but the Paladin might be on the level in disapproving it for being chaotic.
If nothing else, does the bard make sure the potential line of kids that stretch through the countryside would be well taken care of?
Or, heaven help us, does someone make a Knowledge(nature) or Heal roll to lecture a bard on birth control?
Guh? Sleeping around is chaotic? I wouldn't think so. It's pretty commonplace in mainstream society (at least where I live). To say that it's chaotic would make a lot of people lean towards chaos. I'd say promiscuity is neutral. Even animals are naturally inclined to do so.

I giggle at the thought of said bard composing a ballad or sonnet about birth control - then he'd probably get hanged by some conservative group of puritan pilgrims or some such. :smalltongue: Funny.

headwarpage
2007-03-07, 07:03 AM
This is so true. In fact, this is the prime manner that I see paladins becoming the stereotypical Paladin turned Blackguard. Once you're in the situation where you must choose the lesser of two evils it becomes easier to choose an evil path when there is a choice that avoids it.

From what I've seen, most PC Blackguards were planned ahead of time, and the paladin levels were just an unfortunate inconvenience until they could qualify for the PrC and trade them in. :smallbiggrin: A paladin who falls while trying to do the right thing could just as easily atone, or decide that the paladin's code of conduct was too restrictive and keep trying to do the right thing as an ex-paladin.

As far as the lesser of two evils leading to greater evils, I think a very good definition of wisdom is the ability to stand smack dab in the middle of a slippery slope and say, "This far, and no farther." Which isn't to say it can't happen, but it's not a foregone conclusion.

Sardia
2007-03-07, 08:03 AM
Guh? Sleeping around is chaotic? I wouldn't think so. It's pretty commonplace in mainstream society (at least where I live). To say that it's chaotic would make a lot of people lean towards chaos. I'd say promiscuity is neutral. Even animals are naturally inclined to do so.

I giggle at the thought of said bard composing a ballad or sonnet about birth control - then he'd probably get hanged by some conservative group of puritan pilgrims or some such. :smalltongue: Funny.

Not so-- many species mate once and are monogamous thereafter. And doesn't that just sound lawful?
And it's always possible that many people do lean toward chaos-- personal satisfaction, and all.

Golthur
2007-03-07, 10:39 AM
I'm impressed we've managed to keep 3 seperate Paladin threads running concurrently with out any of them getting locked or having the moderators step in.

Stephen
QFT. I think this is the first time I've actually seen that happen. Everyone's being so civil. With PALADINS! I'm impressed.

Dervag
2007-03-07, 10:45 AM
Well, the "Psychopathic Paladins" thread is oscillating wildly between civil and uncivil, but that's mostly because it's collapsed into an irresolvable debate about ethics.

Were-Sandwich
2007-03-07, 11:09 AM
I think that players should be grateful for the occasional lesser-of-two-evils situation. Simply because it opens the door for a LOT of complex RP, character development, and, most often, really heroic speeches and confrontation scenes.
However, when every adventure involves deciding between the baby and the whole village, it really gets old fast.

Golthur
2007-03-07, 11:11 AM
I think that players should be grateful for the occasional lesser-of-two-evils situation. Simply because it opens the door for a LOT of complex RP, character development, and, most often, really heroic speeches and confrontation scenes.
However, when every adventure involves deciding between the baby and the whole village, it really gets old fast.

Yes, IMHO, that's the DM mercilessly targeting the paladin. It would be the same as if every adventure started with the wizard's spellbook getting stolen.

headwarpage
2007-03-07, 11:26 AM
I think that players should be grateful for the occasional lesser-of-two-evils situation. Simply because it opens the door for a LOT of complex RP, character development, and, most often, really heroic speeches and confrontation scenes.
However, when every adventure involves deciding between the baby and the whole village, it really gets old fast.

Yes, absolutely.

Although, if I were a BBEG, and I knew that there were one or more paladins opposing my villainous schemes, I would try to engineer as many of these situations as possible. Best-case scenario: the paladins just won't do what's necessary to stop me, and I win. Second-best-case scenario: the paladins all become ex-paladins and are far less able to oppose me, so I win. Worst-case scenario: at least it's amusing to watch.

its_all_ogre
2007-03-07, 05:18 PM
See, I don't like the idea that somebody's character class should determine their response to everything. Let's take a simplified hypothetical situation: Would you kill one innocent person, quickly and cleanly, to prevent ten (or 100, or 1000) innocent people from dying slowly and painfully? In this simplified hypothetical situation, the results are known and guaranteed - the single death has a 100% chance of preventing the other ten, and there is no other way to save those ten people. Now, I'm not claiming that there's a right or wrong answer to this question (though I do have an opinion). But I am claiming that the reasons a person has for making their choice should go beyond whether their character sheet says "paladin" on it.

Yes, this is entirely unrealistic, but it's possible to construct a more realistic scenario while maintaining the fundamental elements of this choice, wherein all options are, in some way, Evil (with the capital E). Is it an evil act to kill an innocent? Absolutely. Is it an evil act to allow innocents to die when you could have prevented it? I'd say so, and though a paladin might retain their class features, that doesn't mean it's a better choice.

Taken out of the context of the absurd, just because a character is a paladin doesn't mean they can't make choices based on the greater good. They might lost class features, temporarily or permanently, but that doesn't mean they can't do it. It's easy to say that, for a paladin, the ends don't justify the means. But I don't think that's a fair statement. "A Paladin" isn't making that choice. "Steve of Riverville, son of Darrell" is, and whether he's a paladin or not doesn't make that choice for him.

so have you read the books that i refer to?
cause Druss is certainly in no way a paladin as portrayed.
if not....then how can you comment on what i am referring to?

headwarpage
2007-03-07, 05:30 PM
No, I actually have absoultely no idea what you're referring to. But my point is that being a paladin doesn't necessarily dictate the choices a character might make. It seemed to me that, in addition to suggesting some reading material, you were saying that paladins should never commit an evil act, even if some greater good would come of it. That was what I was addressing.

Hallavast
2007-03-07, 08:58 PM
Not so-- many species mate once and are monogamous thereafter. And doesn't that just sound lawful?
And it's always possible that many people do lean toward chaos-- personal satisfaction, and all.

Hmm... well, let's examine dogs. Dogs are iconic in the animal kingdom for their obedience, loyalty, and trainability (all lawful traits). Yet they're far from monogamus with one partner. By no means am I saying promiscuity is a pillar of lawfulness, but the natural factor in it makes me put it in the neutrality bin.

You could be right in saying many people are chaotic, but I would guess that a vast majority follow lawful tendancies. People seek secure societies and are wary of change. We are creatures of habit more than anything, and promiscuity is a natural habit pointing towards neutrality.

Zim
2007-03-07, 09:36 PM
Defining "The Paladin's Code of Conduct" holds much interest for me. I've often wondered how paladins from societies with different moral and ethical standards would behave and what their codes would entail.

The Unapproachable East in FR is a great example. How would a Thayan paladin of Kossuth (they can exist) behave? The dogma of Kossuth is all about "survival of the fittest," and "the strong will survive." How would a paladin from this culture and faith differ from a paladin of Lathander in Waterdeep? How does s/he interact with the Red Wizards, who are the legitimate government and generally evil? How does s/he interact with clerics of his/her own faith that are evil? Kinda fun to think about.

Another area to think about is how Paladins behave in a LG society where slavery is not only legal, but run by the very church s/he belongs to? Paladins of Horus-re in Mulhorand would face this problem every day.

There is a really good article in The Book of Vile Darkness on what constitutes a good or evil act. It is actually more useful than the information from The Book of Exhalted Deeds, which is pretty toothless by comparison.

Renegade Paladin
2007-03-07, 09:59 PM
Mulhorand? That's hardly hypothetical; the Pharaoh is a paladin and the biggest slaveowner in the empire. Pisses me off, but that's part of the way the setting is.

Zim
2007-03-07, 10:15 PM
Yes, but how do they justify/accept that glaring problem? Slavery is clearly defined as evil in BoVD, but the LG theocrat is, as you said, the biggest slave holder in the region. Quite a puzzle. Perhaps the Code is not universal on all subjects and varies with culture and faith?

One way I can think of is that the slaves are property of Horus-Re himself not any individual, so slavery is a state of blessed servitude, therefore it is not only moral, but lawful and good. People who keep slaves are merely subcontracting their services from the church/diety. Obviously, slaves should not be mistreated, because one does not abuse the property of a god. :smalleek:

EvilElitest
2007-03-10, 12:13 AM
Defining "The Paladin's Code of Conduct" holds much interest for me. I've often wondered how paladins from societies with different moral and ethical standards would behave and what their codes would entail.

The Unapproachable East in FR is a great example. How would a Thayan paladin of Kossuth (they can exist) behave? The dogma of Kossuth is all about "survival of the fittest," and "the strong will survive." How would a paladin from this culture and faith differ from a paladin of Lathander in Waterdeep? How does s/he interact with the Red Wizards, who are the legitimate government and generally evil? How does s/he interact with clerics of his/her own faith that are evil? Kinda fun to think about.

Another area to think about is how Paladins behave in a LG society where slavery is not only legal, but run by the very church s/he belongs to? Paladins of Horus-re in Mulhorand would face this problem every day.

There is a really good article in The Book of Vile Darkness on what constitutes a good or evil act. It is actually more useful than the information from The Book of Exhalted Deeds, which is pretty toothless by comparison.

You should bring this to the GG thread.
from,
EE

Renegade Paladin
2007-03-10, 12:33 AM
Why? The thread on the grey guard is about the grey guard prestige class. His post has absolutely nothing to do with that.

EvilElitest
2007-03-10, 10:43 AM
Why? The thread on the grey guard is about the grey guard prestige class. His post has absolutely nothing to do with that.

I commenting on the fact that WOTC changes the paladin code when it suits them. That is relevent to the post to an extent. I would be arguing against it though so maybe not.
from,
EE