PDA

View Full Version : Paladin Code of Conduct Suggestions



Arislyn
2007-06-13, 03:09 PM
I'm currently playing a fighter in an alignmentless game who is going to multiclass to paladin. Now, the game is D&D 3.5 but it is highly house-ruled and a lot of the things that you would normally just take for granted about Class A or Class B simply aren't so.

The problem I'm having is coming up with a Code of Conduct for her that would give the DM some opportunities to throw some character growth challenges at her. You see, I came up with a great code and the DM liked it, but it pertained to how she would treat people. In the game we are in, we are going to be coming into contact with people less and less, so the code of conduct would not come into play very often. What's the point of having a code of conduct if you never have to abide by it?

My character had a very bad childhood and grew up in a setting where she had to play dirty to survive. So, many of the chivalrous actions in battle are just plain stupid to her. Give up a flank bonus? I think not. Never strike a flat-footed opponent? That's not smart if you want to live to see next week.

So, I guess what I'm asking for here is this: Does anyone have suggestions for a battle based code of conduct that doesn't put the paladin in a weakened position? (Again, you just have to remember my character's point of view that to not take advantage of a weakness in battle means you get dead real quick.)

I'm just drawing blanks, here!

Thanks,
Ari

Matthew
2007-06-13, 03:30 PM
Something like:

Don't kill unarmed opponents, women or children (watch out for Monks, Warrior Women and unusual children)
Accept the surrender of defeat foes.
Opponents of equal or lesser skill should be defeated without aid.

Jayabalard
2007-06-13, 03:54 PM
I can't think of any either, and really that's because you're asking for something that's contradictory; being chivalrous is pretty core to what it means to be a paladin, even if you're not talking about D&D or gaming.

You could lift something like the pirates code of honor from GURPS; that sounds a little more like what the character you describe, though it doesn't sound very paladin like. To put that in perspective, the pirates code of honor is a 5 point disadvantage (compared to 10 points for the "gentleman's code of honor" or 15 points for the chivalric code of honor, and 5 points for "stays bought" from gurps cyberpunk).

YuanTi
2007-06-13, 04:08 PM
Do your best to uphold law, justice and peace at all times. This is the real cornerstone of all Paladins. Maybe attaching an oath to a King/Lord will help out a bit too.

Starsinger
2007-06-13, 04:09 PM
Something like:
*snip*
Don't kill women

In D&D that wouldn't fit. Real world Chivalry's protection of women was because women were considered the "weaker" sex. But in D&D, men and women are equal... so that's not being honorable, so much as being sexist... which it may be viewed as such, depending on the woman.

Matthew
2007-06-13, 04:18 PM
Oh please, D&D is built on the rescue the princess model. However, the idea was not intended to be set in stone, just to invoke the idea of 'not harming those who pose no threat'. Not all women in D&D are capable warriors, any more than are the men, but you can bet that there are going to be campaigns where the unarmed peasant menfolk will attempt to defend their families without starting a gender discrimination war.

Arislyn
2007-06-13, 04:20 PM
I can't think of any either, and really that's because you're asking for something that's contradictory; being chivalrous is pretty core to what it means to be a paladin, even if you're not talking about D&D or gaming.

I really don't feel like it's contradictory at all. The way one treats, say...civilians, authority figures, everyday joes...doesn't have to be the same as the way you treat Bob Gutripper who is currently trying to tear your face off.

Plus, I interpret paladinness as being a little different. You don't necessarily have to be chivalrous so much as you have to strive to do what is good and right. You can still do what is good and right without being nice to your enemies. She's going to be facing demons and undead and icky, nasty things that will kill you first if you are lucky.

Plus, I did come up with a perfectly good Code of Conduct that dealt with many chivalrous acts in everyday life: help those who can not help themselves, protect the innocent, respect personal freedoms and liberties, etc. As I said, though, these won't come into play much when she's whacking away at demons and such. The DM wishes to have something that will come into play even under those circumstances.

That's my hangup.

TheLogman
2007-06-13, 04:35 PM
No poisoning, no lying, no stealing, even from Outsiders. Kill them first, then the Rouge can get the now "Spoils of Victory"
Attacking Flatfooted Enemies and Flanking aren't against Paladin code, however, cause those are just good battle tactics, not underhanded stuff.
No leaving a party member behind, finish what you start, do not accept a demon/devil/evil person's deal, even if it means your life. Rescue Hostages, respect lives that are not evil, accept the surrender of ANY foe, and offer them redemption, but don't believe that they are truly good right away, you have detect evil, and Alignment changes don't happen in a day. Those will cover pretty much everything you might encounter during a dungeon crawl.

dauphinous
2007-06-13, 05:02 PM
respect personal freedoms and liberties

I know this isn't the issue at hand, but since when do paladins respect personal freedoms and liberties? That's a chaotic trait. Unless you're talking about a Pally of Freedom, that shouldn't be part of your code of conduct.

Tengu
2007-06-13, 05:12 PM
You have to be chaotic to protect personal liberties? That's nonsense. Look at history - Abe Lincoln for example was lawful good.

Starsinger
2007-06-13, 05:20 PM
Which is a problem with the lawful-chaotic axis. It's not clear, it's not concise, and most of the time, it's not necessary. It's very easy to tell if something is good, evil, or neutral. Deciding whether something like, freeing a group of people who've been enslaved for centuries, is lawful or chaotic, is a harder question. Is it lawful because everyone deserves to abide by the same rules, or is it chaotic because you're setting someone free to do as they wish?

Green Bean
2007-06-13, 05:24 PM
I suggest you look here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33551) for Code ideas. This is Fax's awesome homebrew paladin, and it's got lots of great ideas for paladin codes, from the minor (no drugs or alcohol) to the major (no killing non-evil people ever). Plus, there's versions for most of the alignment spectrum, so you can find non-lawful stuff.

Tengu
2007-06-13, 05:27 PM
Alignmentless campaign. You don't need to debate whether an action is chaotic or lawful, just stuff that'd fit a paladin. Fax's mantles seem very nice - pick those Lawful and Good ones you like, and make a code out of them.

Oh, and the "don't kill women" part seems a bit reduntant, seeing as the paladin in question is female. A classical male paladin might've had this in his code (and regret it the moment he starts to fight, for example, Drow), but I can't see a reason a female one would.

Arislyn
2007-06-13, 05:36 PM
I know this isn't the issue at hand, but since when do paladins respect personal freedoms and liberties? That's a chaotic trait. Unless you're talking about a Pally of Freedom, that shouldn't be part of your code of conduct.

We're playing in an alignmentless game.

Matthew
2007-06-13, 05:53 PM
Oh, and the "don't kill women" part seems a bit reduntant, seeing as the paladin in question is female. A classical male paladin might've had this in his code (and regret it the moment he starts to fight, for example, Drow), but I can't see a reason a female one would.
I don't think even classical Paladins stick to this sort of thing so closely. Of course, the question really is how does the Paladin treat Monstrous women and children? Does he he defend the defenceless in all cases or does it only apply to discrete types?

Tengu
2007-06-13, 05:57 PM
I mean the classical classical paladin of course, from the neolithic age of RPG - when all elves were bowmen treehuggers, rogues were kleptomaniac thieves, all mages had long beards and wore robes in stars and moons (male mages, of course - female ones barely had any clothes on), etc.

Kurald Galain
2007-06-13, 05:58 PM
Serve the public trust.
Protect the innocent.
Uphold - ah, never mind :)

PaladinBoy
2007-06-13, 06:13 PM
I know this isn't the issue at hand, but since when do paladins respect personal freedoms and liberties? That's a chaotic trait. Unless you're talking about a Pally of Freedom, that shouldn't be part of your code of conduct.

I don't think you have to be chaotic to protect personal freedom and liberty. In fact, a paladin that refused to respect the rights of other good people would probably Fall in one of my games........ if not immediately for a lack of "concern for the dignity of sentient beings", then soon afterward for going too far and "oppressing" others by denying them their rights.

As for the female bit, that does seem a little shortsighted, but a general provision on not harming noncombatants or innocents seems to fit. Your character can be suspicious and refuse to trust them, though. I suppose if you'll be fighting evil outsiders and undead that that might not come into play too often, though.

You also might want to consider a provision about avoiding evil acts no matter what the benefit would be, depending on your character's, your DM's, and your attitudes are regarding the ends justifying the means. I do not believe that the ends do justify the means, which is why I suggest adding that. If you or your DM disagrees...... *shrugs*. Your choice, not mine.

Other than that, I can't think of anything else that hasn't already been said.

Matthew
2007-06-13, 06:16 PM
I mean the classical classical paladin of course, from the neolithic age of RPG - when all elves were bowmen treehuggers, rogues were kleptomaniac thieves, all mages had long beards and wore robes in stars and moons (male mages, of course - female ones barely had any clothes on), etc.
Hah, hah. Are you sure that's not some sort of reverse golden age propaganda?

Neon Knight
2007-06-13, 06:27 PM
You also might want to consider a provision about avoiding evil acts no matter what the benefit would be, depending on your character's, your DM's, and your attitudes are regarding the ends justifying the means. I do not believe that the ends do justify the means, which is why I suggest adding that. If you or your DM disagrees...... *shrugs*. Your choice, not mine.

Other than that, I can't think of anything else that hasn't already been said.

I would argue the opposite. You mat wish a provision stating that at times normally undesirable actions can bring about desirable outcomes.

After all, your character has shown that she would rather use combat actions normally considered dishonorable rather than die, so she might be a canadite for the view that comitting an evil act to avoid a greater evil or to bring about a good outcome might be acceptable.

fractal_uk
2007-06-13, 06:46 PM
After all, your character has shown that she would rather use combat actions normally considered dishonorable rather than die, so she might be a canadite for the view that comitting an evil act to avoid a greater evil or to bring about a good outcome might be acceptable.

Committing an evil act for the greater good is still evil - people who do this are at best neutral. A Paladin would be the first sort of character to tell you that the destination is less important than how you get there - to commit evil even to do greater good is still simply unnacceptable.

Many evil charcters believe they are acting in the greater good but it does not change the fact that what they are doing is evil.

Neon Knight
2007-06-13, 06:48 PM
Committing an evil act for the greater good is still evil - people who do this are at best neutral. A Paladin would be the first sort of character to tell you that the destination is less important than how you get there - to commit evil even to do greater good is still simply unnacceptable.

Many evil charcters believe they are acting in the greater good but it does not change the fact that what they are doing is evil.

This, of course, is an opinion. As is my reccomendation.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-06-13, 07:05 PM
1. Honor and goodness above all else.
2. A paladin must never compromise with evil, even to serve a greater good.
3. The easy way is the road to damnation.
4. A paladin must act with humility. A paladin's powers are an ally, never a tool.
5. Pity the sinner, suffer the prisoner, spare the defeated.
6. Lead by example, never the tip of a sword.

fractal_uk
2007-06-13, 07:07 PM
Code of Conduct

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

There is no "if the evil act is commited for a greater good" clause in there, it is just a matter of comitting any evil act and it's bye bye Paladin powers. The lawful good alignment deals in moral absolutes and strictly adheres to its codes of conduct.

Paladins are paragons of virtue and allowing evil for the greater good is absolutely what the class is against. Changing this really requires expanding the alignment restrictions upon the Paladin.

PaladinBoy
2007-06-13, 07:14 PM
There is no "if the evil act is commited for a greater good" clause in there, it is just a matter of comitting any evil act and it's bye bye Paladin powers. The lawful good alignment deals in moral absolutes and strictly adheres to its codes of conduct.

Paladins are paragons of virtue and allowing evil for the greater good is absolutely what the class is against. Changing this really requires expanding the alignment restrictions upon the Paladin.

I think the point of asking for suggestions for the code of conduct is that the one presented in the SRD isn't going to be used and/or doesn't quite fit. The OP is playing an alignmentless game after all.

I do agree with you on the immorality of saying that the ends justify the means and make an evil act non-evil or good, but I was hoping to avoid drawing the thread into a morality debate, as it's not going to help the OP get any suggestions. The OP and the DM involved will make the decision themselves, and it's highly unlikely that a 23 page debate will change that decision.

Arislyn
2007-06-13, 07:22 PM
Sorry for the short post earlier. Heh! When your 1 1/2 year old crawls into your lap and starts playing "Let's headbutt Mommy!" it's hard to do much other than laugh and wrestle with the diaper monkey until he wears himself out. :P

Thanks for the link to Fax's paladin brew. Those good and chaotic mantles are awesome. I'm thinking the Paladin of Entropy would work, for her. I may have to work with my DM to tweak it a bit, but that is exactly the way she is on the battlefield. In her opinion, leaving an enemy alive is just asking for a knife in the back, later on down the road. (Or, if your enemy is particularly nasty...a knife in friends and family as he takes his revenge indirectly.)

I was beginning to lose hope that I would find something that worked for her. I know this may be rambling a bit, but let me explain why I wanted to move to paladin with her. If anyone has any other ideas (not necessarily paladin) that might enhance the character concept that I have, I would love to hear them!

------

Though I am playing in an alignmentless campaign, it's most concise for me to explain her using alignments. She started out pretty much TN. She had a rough life, fought tooth and nail to survive and understands that, sometimes, you have to do bad things just to ensure your own survival (e.g., steal food, kill in self defense, lie, cheat, etc.) She has done each and every one of the things listed to keep herself alive. For the longest time, all she was concerned with was making it from day to day, the rest of the world could wither away, for all she cared.

Now, I've been playing her for about a 1 1/2 years, real time. Over the course of the campaign, she has changed quite a bit. She has witnessed great sacrifice made by others to save people they didn't know. She has faced the possible evil within herself as a shard of an evil sword that was destroyed was lodged in her body. (It wasn't strong enough to dominate her after being broken, but it could still suggest things and influence her. Once it was removed, she had quite the time separating what she wanted and did from what the shard wanted.) She has come to realize that everybody just wants to live and be happy, because when she was scrapping and fight to survive that's all she truly wanted...and that everyone deserves that right. These are just a couple of the things that have been pivotal moments in her existance.

So, basically, she's made a transition from TN to somewhere between CG and NG. I decided to multi to paladin to reflect this great transformation and self-realization. So much of what it means to be a paladin applies to this but...she simply can't give up her combat tendencies. Everything about how she fights is too ingrained in her (Never give an enemy the advantage, never leave an enemy alive, do what you need to do to protect yoursel and your companions on the field of battle, etc.)

-------

So, given that, if anyone has any other ideas about classes/prestige classes that could also reflect that, I'd love to hear about them.

Jack Mann
2007-06-13, 07:36 PM
Reading this (http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/archetypology31jan02.html) might give you some ideas.

Neon Knight
2007-06-13, 07:45 PM
There is no "if the evil act is commited for a greater good" clause in there, it is just a matter of comitting any evil act and it's bye bye Paladin powers.


True per Raw. However, does an evil act qualify as an evil act if it cause a good end? This is a matter of opinion.



The lawful good alignment deals in moral absolutes and strictly adheres to its codes of conduct.

That depends. If the lawful good character's code of conduct includes dealing in moral absolutes, then yes. If not, then no.

Being lawful is about adhering to certain behavioral patterns and personal codes. What those codes are is up to the individual lawful player. Lawful characters can deviate from their codes and beliefs, but only for an extremely good reason.



Paladins are paragons of virtue and allowing evil for the greater good is absolutely what the class is against.
For my point of view, the Paladin class is against those who are evil. Is someone who commits evil in the name of the greater good evil? That is an opinion.

We are, as PaladinBoy noted, off topic. I'd prefer to continue this discussion either in PM or in another thread where we will not derail the current discussion.

Arakune
2007-06-13, 07:59 PM
code of Honor of Heores:
1- Never refuse a call for help.
2- Always protect a person or creature more weak than you.
3- Always stay true to your word.

Code of Honor of Honestdy (that's how you spell?)
1- Never steal, cheat, lie or disrespect the local laws or local autority and never let your friends disrespect it.

That's the classic, but you can add this one (for a very, very, and veeeerrrrry locked down character):
Code of Honor of Combat (good for monks and some fighters):
1-Never use any ability (stun attack, smite something, flury of blow, etc) or weapons that your oponets can't use.
2-Never take advantage of some short of situation(flanked attacks, outnumbered oponets) that will be warnfull to your oponent.

There are others, but for paladins, thats enough.
Also, in this game, woman can be as much (if not more) deadly than man, so no meaning to be so strict about not warming then (if they are the vilians, of couse, if not they fall in the "victms" and "helpless" field). Same for childrens.

Matthew
2007-06-13, 08:05 PM
Reading this (http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/archetypology31jan02.html) might give you some ideas.
Be careful when using that article. It contains many interesting points, but it is also very one sided and sometimes simply mistaken.

Douglas
2007-06-13, 08:40 PM
As I said, though, these won't come into play much when she's whacking away at demons and such. The DM wishes to have something that will come into play even under those circumstances.

That's my hangup.
Ok. Don't use poison, traps, theft, or anything else that is generally considered underhanded or "cheating". Use of maneuvers that are simply good tactics that you would expect any random fighter to use without compunction are fair game. Flanking is ok, ganging up on more powerful foes is just fine ("fair" fights are for when the outcome is almost guaranteed or doesn't matter very much), and using most abilities you might have is not a problem. Sneak attack is a bit more questionable, but it could easily be viewed as legitimately taking advantage of an opponent's distraction.

Overall, any paladin's code that I would agree with has a LOT more to say about who and why you fight than how you fight.

Tobrian
2007-06-13, 09:11 PM
Serve the public trust.
Protect the innocent.
Uphold - ah, never mind :)

Omni Consumer Products called, they want you to sign their organ donor card.
:smallbiggrin:

Godhand
2007-06-13, 11:54 PM
Agree to disagree. Your views may not mesh well with others in your party and a paladin who can at least see both sides of an argument could find new direction from a new perpective.

This might get a bit of flak but I disagree with the not working with evil idea. Perhaps it's just an idealist belief, but ends sometimes do justify the means. A paladin could be on a quest to stop some pack of rampaging werewolves and the best companion and guide is an evil ranger out for revenge. Would it be insane to work together with an evil character towards a common good?

The direction your actions take you and the reasons to follow your path should be the most important aspects, working with evil is a vile thing, but sometimes a helping hand is needed, no matter how decayed it is.

fractal_uk
2007-06-14, 06:32 AM
Flanking is ok, ganging up on more powerful foes is just fine ("fair" fights are for when the outcome is almost guaranteed or doesn't matter very much), and using most abilities you might have is not a problem. Sneak attack is a bit more questionable, but it could easily be viewed as legitimately taking advantage of an opponent's distraction.

Agreed, I don't see any problem with a Paladin flanking an opponent or even using sneak attacks - this is using favourable circumstances against those who the Paladin is fighting. Perhaps some of the more typically Knightly Paladin sorts wouldn't even think about doing anything like that - but that stereotype is not for all Paladins.



This might get a bit of flak but I disagree with the not working with evil idea. Perhaps it's just an idealist belief, but ends sometimes do justify the means. A paladin could be on a quest to stop some pack of rampaging werewolves and the best companion and guide is an evil ranger out for revenge. Would it be insane to work together with an evil character towards a common good?

There is no inherent prbolem with the Paladin working with said ranger - so long as the Paladin does not allow the ranger to commit evil acts while he is able to. If the ranger does try to do anything criminal or evil while in the Paladin's presence it is his duty to stop him and he risks his Paladin powers if he doesn't.

As for the ends justifying the means - I subscribe to the belief that for a paladin, not commiting a chaotic act is more important than commiting a good act and not commiting an evil act is more important than commiting a lawful act - if the two come into conflict. This means - for example that if you in a lawful evil country ruled by the clergy of Hextor, you cannot hand over your companions to the lawful authorities if they are wanted (a lawful act) due to what the clergy would do to them (evil acts which you would become party to).

Revisiting comitting evil for the greater good for a moment - If anyone wants to read more on this i'd suggest they take a look at the Book of Exalted deeds which goes into a large amount of detail on the subject.

Nero24200
2007-06-14, 06:41 AM
OP
You don't need to be a paladin to be a knightly character. A knight is simply a warrior who has been knighted.
Being a paladin is very different. A paladin is supposed to be the epitome of Good and Law Which means they aren't likely to delve into underhand tactics.

From the description of your character, I'd say it makes more sense to multiclass into rogue, since shes willing to exploit weaknesses during a fight (which is what sneak attack is meant to be)

Though if you are playing an alignmentless game, why would you want to be a paladin anyway? The standard RP tools that come with being a paladin are out the window, as are their class features like smite evil. The RP idea is even gone as well, since a paladin is supposed to hunt and smite evil, which becomes very difficult when there are no fixed alignments.


Agreed, I don't see any problem with a Paladin flanking an opponent or even using sneak attacks - this is using favourable circumstances against those who the Paladin is fighting. Perhaps some of the more typically Knightly Paladin sorts wouldn't even think about doing anything like that - but that stereotype is not for all Paladins.
During a large battle, then yes, the paladin shouldn't have any problem with flanking an such. Only in an hourable duel would the "no attacking flat-footed or flanking" become an issue (which is shouldn't be, since duels are supposed to be 1-on-1)

Matthew
2007-06-14, 07:01 AM
Multi Class into Rogue? I don't think that's what the OP his in mind. I have to agree that there is no reason to actually Multi Class into Paladin, though. An Alignment change by itself is all that is necessary to reflect a change of heart and a Neutral Good Fighter would be perfectly capable of reflecting that.

Arislyn
2007-06-14, 07:37 AM
It's true that I don't have to multi to show this inner change. However, due to campaign/plot circumstances, the DM is asking everyone to choose a second class to multiclass in. So, I need to choose something and I want something that is going to reflect this.

I don't see how having an alignmentless system defeats the purpose of the paladin. How is roleplaying hindered in any way by the lack of a label to stick to people? If she sees someone about to kill a child, does she simply not do anything because she can't cast a spell to see that that person is evil? Does she simply not go out and aid the poor because...well...she's not technically LG?

In fact, I think being an alignmentless paladin offers great challenges. Where your typical paladin can simply cast a spell and say, "Yup. That guy is evil", in an alignmentless campaign a paladin has to be much, much more careful. He has to depend on his own common sense, to carefully watch and listen to everything around him to be able to tell what is "evil" and what is not. Just because the game is alignmentless doesn't mean that, suddenly, there is no such thing as right and wrong. Morality still exists. It's simply no longer a hard game mechanic and now an aspect of roleplaying.

Okay, now you've all got me off topic! This wasn't supposed to turn into yet another alignment thread. :P

Thanks for all the suggestions, guys! I'm going to type up a new code for the DM today and we can hash it out. Once we have something we both like, I'll post it here. Since you all helped, I think you should see what I decide to use. :D

Edit: Oh, and just so we're all clear. I'm not chosing paladin for all the class features. I don't care if I were to lose some abilities due to an alignmentless system (which I won't. The DM and I will work it out.) I'm doing this for the flavor.

Matthew
2007-06-14, 07:51 AM
Have you considered taking a Prestige Class or is the DM only allowing Base Classes? It seems like some sort of good aligned Prestige Class would be really good for this sort of thing, especially if it were tailored for your Character.

Arislyn
2007-06-14, 07:56 AM
Oh, yeah! PrCs are fine. In fact, he's even willing to let me go with a custom PrC, if I so desire.

I just haven't found anything else, yet, that strikes me as "right." Of course, there are a bajillion and a half PrCs out there and I only have a handful of the 3.0/3.5 books, so I'm sure there may be another class/PrC out there that would be better....I just don't know what it is.

Matthew
2007-06-14, 08:07 AM
If you provide a synopsis of your Character Statistics, it might be easier for people to suggest something:

i.e. something like:

Human Fighter X
Attributes: Strength ?, Dexterity ?, Constitution ?, Intelligence ?, Wisdom ?, Charisma ?,
Feats:
Skills: Climb ?(?), Jump ?(?), Swim ?(?), Ride ?(?)
Equipment:

Jayabalard
2007-06-14, 08:46 AM
In D&D that wouldn't fit. Real world Chivalry's protection of women was because women were considered the "weaker" sex. But in D&D, men and women are equal... so that's not being honorable, so much as being sexist... which it may be viewed as such, depending on the woman.this is getting kind of off topic (especially considering the person asking the question is asking about a female paladin), but there may other people who are looking for the same sort of info

WoTC avoids publishing content that would get them into trouble for being "sexist". That doesn't mean that they are equal, just that WoTC isn't going to officially say that women are weaker. To assume that means that "in D&D men and women are equal" is pretty absurd; they just don't want to get sued.

Besides, the primary reason to protect women has nothing to do with whether they are weaker: "All societies are based on rules to protect pregnant women and young children. All else is surplusage, excrescence, adornment, luxury, or folly which can-and must-be dumped in emergency to preserve this prime function."

Amphimir Míriel
2007-06-14, 12:35 PM
Chivalric codes

There were several lists written down during the Middle Ages. One example code can be found in the book Chivalry by 19th century French historian Leon Gautier:[3]


Thou shalt believe all that the Church teaches, and shalt observe all its directions.
Thou shalt defend the Church.
Thou shalt respect all weaknesses, and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them.
Thou shalt love the country in which thou wast born.
Thou shalt not recoil before thine enemy.
Thou shalt make war against the Infidel without cessation, and without mercy.
Thou shalt perform scrupulously thy feudal duties, if they be not contrary to the laws of God.
Thou shalt never lie, and shall remain faithful to thy pledged word.
Thou shalt be generous, and give largess to everyone.
Thou shalt be everywhere and always the champion of the Right and the Good against Injustice and Evil.



Definetely needs work... But if you substitute "Infidel" for "The Forces of Evil" and "perform thy Feudal Duties" for "observe and uphold the Laws of the Land", it becomes a good starting point for a D&D Paladin Code...

Please note that since it lacks mention of women (only mentions defending the weak), and any bull**** about fair play or not flanking an enemy... Even more, it speaks of "not recoiling nor giving mercy" to enemies, yet sparing a defeated opponent's life could be justified by the "generous" clause.

Jayabalard
2007-06-14, 04:27 PM
You have to be chaotic to protect personal liberties? That's nonsense. Look at history - Abe Lincoln for example was lawful good.Actually, Lincoln asserted the rights of the federal government (the whole) over that of it's components (the states); if you think that the American civil war was about "protecting personal liberties" you need to study more history. I'd stat him more at lawful neutral; a politician paying lip service to higher ideals doesn't really mean very much.

Tengu
2007-06-14, 05:02 PM
Well, actually, I do not know much about Lincoln (just like a typical, even well-educated American does not know much about Piłsudski), just the first real-world figure of the rather recent past that could be LG sprung to my mind.