A paladin disobeying a direct order?

[Dr TPK]

I have a slight dilemma... In our last session of session of D&D 3.5., there was a major battle. A PC paladin of Pelor was a sergeant, one of the PCs was a lieutenant, and both were under the command of an NPC captain, and the army had a general, an NPC cleric/paladin of Pelor.

The general died against a red dragon. In the confusion of the battle, the PC lieutenant thought his captain had died too, and he sounded the retreat. The captain found this a bit weird, but he agreed with his lieutenant and sounded the retreat too (much to the surprise of his lieutenant!). The paladin sergeant heard them but refused to retreat. He continued fighting for some time while the rest of the army fled. None of the opponents followed in suit, and the paladin's refusal made little difference in one way or the other. The paladin followed the rest the army after he had managed to kill the opponent with whom he had been fighting when the retreat was sounded (by the captain).

Should I, as the DM,...
...judge that the paladin violated his code? “...a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority...”
...commend the paladin's personal determination to fight and cover the retreat of other?

[Kazuel]

I don't see how the palidan broke the code.

Respecting legitimate authority is different than being a puppet that blindly does what he's told. I think having someone in game mentor him on his decision would be the best option.

[Maglubiyet]

It probably depends on his motivation to continue fighting in direct contradiction to orders. If he was following a "higher power", like his god demands no one leave the battlefield while a friend is in need or something, that might trump an order from an officer and maintain his LG status.

[Necromancy]

Lawful does not mean obedient. It means the paladin strictly follows the laws and tenets of his order.

From the wiki on Pelor Paladins

Crusaders believe that laws are helpful, but that they are at best a secondary goal and must be tempered with mercy. Their slogan is Equity for the Meek with Perseverance and Strength.

I would say disobeying a direct order to protect his allies retreat seems within character

[Psyren]

Continuing a fight to cover his allies' retreat is exactly what a paladin would do. No fall.

[Maglubiyet]

Just re-read OP. Does he have a code of honor, personal or religious, that he must see any personal combat to its conclusion?

"Once I cross swords with a foe I will not leave the field of battle until either he or I are slain". That type of thing might work.

[goto124]

I hope you and your DM get into an agreement (painlessly).

[Firest Kathon]

I do not see how the paladin disregarded the order at all. The order was to retreat, not to blindly run away, and the Paladin did retreat. Unless there was an instruction beforehand that the retreat signal meant immediate disengagement from the combat.

[Red Fel]

Should I, as the DM,...
...judge that the paladin violated his code? “...a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority...”
...commend the paladin's personal determination to fight and cover the retreat of other?

I'm going to agree with others and say #2. The expectation that a Paladin respect legitimate authority isn't the same as blindly obeying. Particularly in a combat situation, obeying orders becomes a complicated thing.

The point of the Paladin Code - the RAI, instead of the RAW - is to create the fluff of an honorable, chivalric knight. Would someone like that be the first to retreat when it's sounded, or the last? I wouldn't penalize a PC for adhering to the spirit, rather than the letter, of the Code.

As an aside, even assuming for sake of argument that this Paladin violated his Code, I would argue that it was a harmless violation. Remember that a Paladin only suffers for ceasing to be LG, willfully performing Evil acts, or committing a gross violation of the Code; even assuming that this was a violation, it was hardly a major one.

At best, the Paladin earns praise for the willingness to fight on; at worst, a slight finger-wag.

[Metahuman1]

So, here's the deal.

If he was explicitly continuing to fight to cover the retriet before he himself pulled out, after everyone else was clear, meaning that he put himself at greater risk to make the order successful with full intention of following it once OTHER'S were safe....

...Then hell, give him a metal or a promotion or something.

But.

If his intention was outside this, sorry, rules say that's a strike against him. Not fall worthy perhaps, but a point against him certainly. Paladin's are a horrible class that way.

[LoyalPaladin]

The point of the Paladin Code - the RAI, instead of the RAW - is to create the fluff of an honorable, chivalric knight. Would someone like that be the first to retreat when it's sounded, or the last? I wouldn't penalize a PC for adhering to the spirit, rather than the letter, of the Code.
Once again, LG agrees with LE. I actually think the Paladin did a good thing. Pelor is looking down from the heavens and thinking "That's my boy." If he isn't, Torm is always recruiting. That's only a planeshift away right?

[RoyVG]

Technically he did not disobey his orders, it just took a longer time for his ears to pick it up.

The guy did everything a typical paladin would do, he was the last one to leave the battlefield, ensuring the rest of his fellow soldiers would make it out alive, before he himself left the battle. Commend him for his bravery. Heck, do what every movie does and start with a lecture on disobeying a direct order from his superios and possibly endangering the entire army, before finally dropping the act and show gratitude for his services.

That said, if he only did it for himself and for personal glory, don't drop the act and punish him, no mercy.

[Vhaidara]

It's been covered to death, but general rule of thumb: Unless the action was actively malicious, don't screw the paladin. They sacrificed enough by playing a paladin.


Once again, LG agrees with LE. I actually think the Paladin did a good thing. Pelor is looking down from the heavens and thinking "That's my boy." If he isn't, Torm is always recruiting. That's only a planeshift away right?

Wow, stealing from your fellow? What have the forces of Good come to these days?

[LoyalPaladin]

Heck, do what every movie does and start with a lecture on disobeying a direct order from his superios and possibly endangering the entire army, before finally dropping the act and show gratitude for his services.
I bet Snowbluff has a TV trope for that.


Wow, stealing from your fellow? What have the forces of Good come to these days?
I did say if Pelor didn't appreciate him. Paladin's have been unionized since 1358 DR.

[BWR]

The OP is a bit unclear on the details:
did the paladin refuse to immediately obey because he wanted to cover the retreat? Give the man a medal! No problem here unless the superior is really uptight.
Did he refuse to immediately follow the order because he judged it that was safer to dispatch his current enemy then retreat, thus making his superior's goal more likely to be achieved? Or that this particular enemy was enough of a danger that taking him out now would be a significant advancement for the cause of Good? ehhh.... Being to liberal and creative in interpreting orders is a dangerous thing and can end up working against their intention. Unless the paladin makes a habit of this it shouldn't be a problem in this particular instance.
Did the paladin refuse for reasons of personal glory or bloodlust or disagreement with the superior's decision without just cause or just because? Much more serious. This is selfishness and disrespect of lawful authority and should be seriously punished. The paladin was not only risking himself but also his allies and lord by risking himself unnecessarily. Regardless of the outcome, this should be handled with gravity, possibly some sort of divine punishment (not an actual fall, but possibly some loss of powers until atoned).

If the paladin is in the army it stands to reason he is sworn to obey his superior officers, and any refusal to do so without good reason is a black mark, possibly fall-worthy. Obeying a superior officer is the lawful thing to do.

[Flickerdart]

Only a gross violation of the code is grounds for a fall. Whether or not this was a violation, it was not gross - the paladin took his time to follow a single order, rather than spitting into the officer's face personally and then deserting the army.

Remember, the paladin falls for any Evil act, but not for a Chaotic one. Good is far more important than Law for a paladin, and covering the retreat is definitely a Good act, since it is selfless.

[Doctor Awkward]

I bet Snowbluff has a TV trope for that.

Chew Out Fake Out (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChewOutFakeOut)

And yes, what most of the others have said.

Actually, it would probably be best to construct a scene in game where someone asks the Paladin to explain himself.

[Kid Jake]

OP, PLEASE don't go looking for reasons to make your paladin fall. Unless you catch him posing in a suit made out of murdered babies it's usually safe to say that he doesn't deserve it.

Do you watch over other classes with the same fervor? "Hey druid, your battle just disturbed the mating dance of the rare speckled wren! Now nature hates you!" "Hey wizard, you took your hand off your spellbook for a brief second; now it belongs to me. Have fun!"

[Tindragon]

Lawful does not mean obedient. It means the paladin strictly follows the laws and tenets of his order.

From the wiki on Pelor Paladins

Crusaders believe that laws are helpful, but that they are at best a secondary goal and must be tempered with mercy. Their slogan is Equity for the Meek with Perseverance and Strength.

I would say disobeying a direct order to protect his allies retreat seems within character

Rearguard, That about does it.

[Flickerdart]

OP, PLEASE don't go looking for reasons to make your paladin fall. Unless you catch him posing in a suit made out of murdered babies it's usually safe to say that he doesn't deserve it.

Do you watch over other classes with the same fervor? "Hey druid, your battle just disturbed the mating dance of the rare speckled wren! Now nature hates you!" "Hey wizard, you took your hand off your spellbook for a brief second; now it belongs to me. Have fun!"
Indeed; quite frankly, the druid's code is much more interesting to explore (to me, at least) than the paladin's. The druid's power comes from being in balance with nature, but what that actually means is very broad. Is nature good, and something people should live in harmony with, and even benefit from? Should people be kept safe from nature's wrath? Should nature be protected from the malicious humans who seek to exploit it? Is a farmer a murderer of wheat, or a steward of the soil from which it grows, since he keeps it watered and fertilized? These are all questions for an NG druid to ponder, and then there are four other kinds of druid out there.

The paladin's power, on the other hand, comes from his courage, honor, and loyalty. What he did should not stain any of those.

[hamishspence]

Chew Out Fake Out (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChewOutFakeOut)

Arson Murder and Lifesaving (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ArsonMurderAndLifesaving) sometimes would fit, as well.

[Metahuman1]

You know, the mere fact that this question even needs to be asked is a perfect example of why I honestly feel Paladin's should default to Neutral Good.

[LoyalPaladin]

You know, the mere fact that this question even needs to be asked is a perfect example of why I honestly feel Paladin's should default to Neutral Good.
I could see plenty of times where NG would fit well as a Paladin. I think they wanted to give them the authoritative feel though. Which usually means putting lawful in their alignment...

[Flickerdart]

IIRC the paladin's initial LG restriction was meant to be a bone thrown to LG, the most restrictive alignment to play. They were pretty damn awesome in 2e if you had the ability scores to play one, and then 3e botched it all.

The historical paladins were warriors of Charlemagne's court, and serving their liege was as much part of their identity as protecting the weak. With a dedicated knight class, there's no reason to keep that as part of the class though (and fighters were supposed to be the knights before PHBII, anyway).

[Doctor Awkward]

Paladins were put in D&D to represent the idealized knight from medieval times. The ones that are supposed to serve the laws of the land while also adhering to a strict code of chivalry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chivalry).

The Code of Conduct is supposed to reflect that. And the Paladin class itself was designed to be someone who draws mechanical benefits from their own sense of honor, pride, and courage.

[Vhaidara]

The Code of Conduct is supposed to reflect that. And the Paladin Knight class itself was designed to be someone who draws mechanical benefits from their own sense of honor, pride, and courage.

FTFY. Paladin was supposed to draw his power from all that is good and righteous. Knights literally draw from their own oversized egos. Which is why I love them.

[Sith_Happens]

Arson Murder and Lifesaving (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ArsonMurderAndLifesaving) sometimes would fit, as well.

It's the closer of the two to this case, in fact.

[Psyren]

You know, the mere fact that this question even needs to be asked is a perfect example of why I honestly feel Paladin's should default to Neutral Good.


I could see plenty of times where NG would fit well as a Paladin. I think they wanted to give them the authoritative feel though. Which usually means putting lawful in their alignment...

The idea behind LG is that Paladins don't just care about the outcome, they care about the means used to achieve it. A CG or even NG character would be perfectly okay lying, cheating or stealing if it meant stopping a greater evil (see also Shojo or Haley); the Paladin meanwhile would take the harder path and find another way. This is not to say that their form of good is more "pure" - just that that is a character archetype some enjoy, and that striving for that ideal can be rewarding in its own way.

For this particular scenario however, the paladin did nothing wrong. Even if his orders were specifically "stop fighting and retreat this very instant" - a single chaotic act, especially one so minor, would not shift his alignment all by itself like that.

[Doctor Awkward]

FTFY. Paladin was supposed to draw his power from all that is good and righteous. Knights literally draw from their own oversized egos. Which is why I love them.

Except I'm pretty sure that Paladins were in the game first, and that the appearance of another class that you think fits the trope more suitably doesn't change design intentions of the ones that came before it.

And in D&D Paladins are empowered from their deities, not from "all that is good and righteous". Their god picked them because of who they are, not the other way around (like clerics). Almost like they were holy warriors chosen by divine destiny to be crusaders of some sort... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades)
Now go look and tell me who inspired the ideas of chivalry again.

[Vhaidara]

And in D&D Paladins are empowered from their deities, not from "all that is good and righteous". Their god picked them because of who they are, not the other way around (like clerics).

And how do you arrive at that conclusion when Paladins are even less required to have a god than Clerics?

[LoyalPaladin]

And how do you arrive at that conclusion when Paladins are even less required to have a god than Clerics?
I know this is a 3.x forum, but I think in 4e they were chosen by a deity? It gets fuzzy when you try to mix everything together from the editions, but it seems like they were aiming to have the Paladin to be a chosen champion. Then everyone went "Who needs deity?" After a couple decades of face-desking (http://31.media.tumblr.com/6f8c44f894ccfca76b291a05cf2d8c04/tumblr_mus6ncs6qz1sloiaoo1_500.gif) they decided to write it into the fluff.

[squiggit]

Nope. Deities are even less relevant in 4e and completely optional for everything. Godless neutral paladin go.

[LoyalPaladin]

Nope. Deities are even less relevant in 4e and completely optional for everything. Godless neutral paladin go.
Huh, I wonder where I got that impression then.

[Doctor Awkward]

And how do you arrive at that conclusion when Paladins are even less required to have a god than Clerics?


Background: No one ever chooses to be a paladin. Becoming a paladin is answering a call, accepting one’s destiny. No one, no matter how diligent, can become a paladin through practice. The nature is either within one or not, and it is not possible to gain the paladin’s nature by any act of will.

...Honestly, could not tell you off the top of my head...


Oh wait, did you mean this nonsense?

Religion: Paladins need not devote themselves to a single deity—devotion to righteousness is enough.

I can picture the development meeting going something like this:

Dev A: Okay, 2E to 3E update is going pretty well so far. What's next?
Dev B: Paladins. Are we putting them back in the game?
Dev A: Sure, they're a fantasy staple. Honorable knight. Holy warrior. Draws strength from personal belief. Why wouldn't we keep them?
Dev B: Well, the whole religious thing. I mean worshipping nature as an ideal is inoffensive enough, but I think a lot of gamers today would be a little off-put by the idea of being in a party with "god's chosen" y'know?
Dev A: Eh, I doubt it. But, just in case, let's do the ideal thing again. We did it with clerics right? Just let Paladins do that too.
Dev C: But doesn't that directly contradict literally everything about the rest of paladin fluff? I mean, how can you be "chosen" by an ideal? If he isn't empowered by, and acting in the name of, a specific deity, then where is he drawing his powers from? I mean clerics can at least have someone looking out for them without them knowing about it, because they are about faith. I don't think that same concept really works here.
*several seconds of silence*
Devs A and B: ...Ahh, shut it, Monte...

EDIT: And if you are still wondering, yes. In games I run, players playing paladins have a deity.

[Sith_Happens]

I mean, how can you be "chosen" by an ideal?

If the Abyss can have a will of its own then so can Celestia.

[Flickerdart]

I mean, how can you be "chosen" by an ideal?
Destiny. Not everything in the universe spins at the whim of the gods.

[Psyren]

Destiny. Not everything in the universe spins at the whim of the gods.

Indeed, it's heavily implied the gods themselves are beholden to higher offices/powers, when they explicitly exist as entities at all.

[Doctor Awkward]

Destiny. Not everything in the universe spins at the whim of the gods.

Indeed, it's heavily implied the gods themselves are beholden to higher offices/powers, when they explicitly exist as entities at all.

...And that, students, is why they told Monte to shut up. Class dismissed.

[atemu1234]

Continuing a fight to cover his allies' retreat is exactly what a paladin would do. No fall.

Yep, no fall. I don't even think this is really disobedience.

[Chronos]

Disobeying a direct order by one's lawful and recognized superior is definitely a chaotic act. Note the "recognized": A freedom fighter seeking to overthrow a tyrant can still be perfectly lawful, because the freedom fighter presumably doesn't recognize the tyrant's legitimacy. But this paladin presumably did recognize the lieutenant and captain.

On the other hand, it's only a chaotic act, not an evil one. Paladins are allowed the occasional chaotic act, as long as they're not too extreme. Retreating instead of obeying an order to fight on might be fall-worthy, but fighting on instead of retreating probably isn't.

And on the gripping hand, it's not even clear that the paladin did disobey orders. Temporarily holding the line to ensure that the retreat is an orderly one is perfectly consistent with an order to retreat. If he had to be dragged off of the battlefield by his own men, that might be disobedience (valorous or not, you don't want your soldiers wasting their lives), but it sounds like he did follow on his own, just later than he could have.

[Shining Wrath]

It's an odd situation because the Paladin is actually in the army. The rules for soldiers are very different than for civilians fighting next to them; a soldier has usually made some sort of pledge to obey lawful orders.

So I'd say that the order to retreat needed to be obeyed - but an order to retreat cannot always be obeyed immediately, as disengaging can take time.

If the paladin was engaged with someone capable of pursuing the retreat and interfering, defeating that foe could be construed as a necessary first step to obeying the order. If the foe was slow or otherwise incapable of pursuit, defeating the foe is putting the paladin's pride ahead of obeying legitimate authority.

[BWR]

Dev A: Okay, 2E to 3E update is going pretty well so far. What's next?



...except that paladins were not required to have divine sponsors in 2e (read the Complete paladin's handbook) or in BECMI/RC (where I'm pretty sure gods weren't even mentioned in relation to paladins - I'm AFB now so I can't check). can't speak for 1e.

[Vizzerdrix]

OP that is a silly question. The Paladin must ALWAYS fall! Disobeys the alarm clock and sleeps in? Fall! Forgets to do the morning chores? Fall! Eats meat or plants for breakfast? FALL! Mwaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha haa! Everything must make them fall! And then make them earn their abilities back at level 20, because that is good story telling!:smallbiggrin:

I'd like to second the rearguard mention. And even if he gets a chewing out, maybe the rank and file do him some small favors for covering the escape, as a way of showing gratitude and respect.

[Eloel]

Religion: Paladins need not devote themselves to a single deity—devotion to righteousness is enough.
...Honestly, could not tell you off the top of my head...


Oh wait, did you mean this nonsense?


Background: No one ever chooses to be a paladin. Becoming a paladin is answering a call, accepting one’s destiny. No one, no matter how diligent, can become a paladin through practice. The nature is either within one or not, and it is not possible to gain the paladin’s nature by any act of will.


Two can play at this game.

[SowZ]

You should really stop looking at every instance as a did the Paladin fall or not scenario where they must act absolutely perfectly and in line with your ethics in order to avoid falling. DMs seem to act like IRS agents auditing their Paladin behavior. This is no fun. If it is a gray area on whether or not he should fall, he shouldn't. If he does something blatantly evil and it is a pretty big deal, only then should he fall.

[Twilightwyrm]

Battles tend to be chaotic, jumbled and messy. Once the general is dead, and someone else sounds a retreat (especially when there is confusion as to who is alive or dead), command structures can become a bit messy. Here's the pertinent thing though: the Paladin was covering the retreat, not strictly speaking disobeying an order. He did not command his men to stay with him, he did not issue contradicting orders to the rest of the army and call the person who sounded the retreat a coward, and in fact acted in defense of their order (covering a retreat ensures the retreat goes better than would otherwise be expected). This was a general order, not an order specifically to him, and unless he was in an unusually axiomatic army, commanders are generally allowed some leeway as to how best to implement a command. This was not a direct order for him, personally, to retreat, so he did not violate a direct order, and indeed, he helped the wider order be carried out (even if that was not his intent). He seems free and clear in my book.

[Chronos]

How does being called in any way imply that a paladin has a deity?

[Blackhawk748]

How does being called in any way imply that a paladin has a deity?

It doesnt. As has been mentioned they can be chosen by destiny just as much as they can be chosen by a overpowered outsider with a massive ego god

[Doctor Awkward]

{scrubbed}

[Eloel]

Why would you want to write an essay about AD&D paladins in a 3e subforum?

[BWR]

Why would you want to write an essay about AD&D paladins in a 3e subforum?

Because 2e did paladins better than 3e?

[Eloel]

Because 2e did paladins better than 3e?

Different, yes. Better is subjective.

[Dr TPK]

Lots of good and well-reasoned opinions, but still...
When the paladin signed up for the army, he accepted that he has to follow all the command to a tee. He didn't do this, and he didn't have a real reason not to, so it was a violation. A small one, though.

His superiors can have him disciplined for not followed a direct order, and he could be even be discharged dishonorable. We are still talking about paladins here, right?

[atemu1234]

Why would you want to write an essay about AD&D paladins in a 3e subforum?

Because in later editions, earlier edition fluff can be considered a "baseline", the point from which the designers work. In a rules argument, it's bringing a water buffalo to a horse race and expecting to be able to compete. In a fluff argument, it's a little bit more like showing the horse's family tree.

[Shining Wrath]

I am currently AFB, and it'd be a tedious project, but there are a number of 5e items usable by clerics and paladins and no one else; a redeemed Oathbreaker Paladin is expected to choose a new alignment and deity, and I've noticed a whole bunch of other stuff like that.

No, the rules do not require that a Paladin worship a god.
Yes, lots and lots of fluff dating back to 2e implies that the Paladin has a similar viewpoint as a cleric.

It depends on your setting. In Eberron, a non-theistic Paladin makes some sense; in Faerun, it makes considerably less sense. In a world in which deities walk the earth and meddle in the affairs of mortals (which describes most D&D settings), non-theism is an odd choice. You have to admit the gods exist, are powerful, that there's one with almost exactly the same general philosophy as you have, whatever that is, because there's so many of them ... and yet you choose to ignore the help that deity can give you in favor of some abstract concept.

[LoyalPaladin]

This thread is awesome.
<Insert popcorn eating gif here>