Can stealth be honorable? Can an Oath of Devotion Paladin be stealthy?

[Tersival]

New (backup) character idea for a campaign that has reached L16 - an Oath of Devotion paladin that survived and escaped capture by drow in the underdark through becoming a Gloom Stalker. (idea to bring back a paladin from an old campaign that fizzled)

But is the Oath of Devotion's commitment to honorable deeds compatible with being stealthy (surely necessary to survive the underdark)?

[ezekielraiden]

New (backup) character idea for a campaign that has reached L16 - an Oath of Devotion paladin that survived and escaped capture by drow in the underdark through becoming a Gloom Stalker. (idea to bring back a paladin from an old campaign that fizzled)

But is the Oath of Devotion's commitment to honorable deeds compatible with being stealthy (surely necessary to survive the underdark)?

It depends on what you mean by "stealthy." And I'm not being pedantic when I say that. There are two different general things under the umbrella of stealth: avoidance and subterfuge. Avoidance, particularly if it is avoidance of unnecessary danger or immoral authority, is not dishonorable and may even be honorable! Subterfuge is about getting the upper hand on someone, pulling the wool over their eyes (almost always for personal gain), and is pretty much always dishonorable. (The only type of subterfuge that gets a pass is exact-word shenanigans to get out of a promise/oath/duty that would clearly result in evil if fulfilled in spirit, but which does no meaningful/lasting harm if fulfilled only to the letter.)

Being an honorable person should not mean suicidally flinging yourself at every dangerous thing, nor being foolhardy or irrational. Caution and wisdom are not disohorable features, and the best exemplars of honor exhibit both.

Edit:
A better way to say this is, did this Paladin survive the Underdark by preying on drow? Or did she do so by living off the land, knowing when to avoid battle and when to take the initiative, etc.? If the former, I'd argue that's not super compatible with the Oath of Devotion, even if it might be technically compatible. Even if you fight evil, actually preying on the members of an oppressive society is at least Dirty Business even if it isn't evil per se, and the Oath of Devotion pretty purely sets you against such things. Resorting to dubious means, even when hard-pressed, is for lesser men. You prove your strength and the rightness of your cause by being stronger than that.

[Yora]

Also depends on what you mean by honorable. It could be about personal decency or about martial prowress and reputation. Stabbing someone through the heart from the front or back makes no difference as far as cruelty and personal motivations are concerned. Though it does make a huge difference for people who believe that showing their strength and courage is more important than their own lives.

[Tersival]

I think avoiding unnecessary confrontation is straight forward for most, but what about striking from hiding to seize the initiative against a dangerous foe or when you realise combat is inevitable? Whether it’s because the foe can’t be avoided or because the foe needs to be struck down to protect the innocent?

Does honor demand that you never strike from hiding, that you announce your presence before striking? Even if it greatly increases danger to yourself and your companions?

Or is there room to say that only striking from hiding when it serves the greater good can be honorable?

[Trask]

Stealth by way of war and combat I'd say are fine. Historical knights did not eschew the use of tactics and strategy (all the time) out of honor. I think that code of honor applies more on a personal level, like you striking down someone who turned their back after you surrendered, or pretending to be someone you're not to get them alone then cutting them down. Things that diminish your personal honor as a warrior and a chivalrous person.

But sneaking around and taking down guards to gain access to a fort, or waiting in ambush to spring upon an hapless foe, these aren't dishonorable uses of stealth because there was no promise broken. We are enemies. I think the real dishonor is pretending or otherwise beguiling someone into thinking you are their ally or at least not dangerous and then taking advantage of their misplaced trust.

[Tersival]

...did this Paladin survive the Underdark by preying on drow? Or did she do so by living off the land, knowing when to avoid battle and when to take the initiative, etc.?.

He ventured into the underdark in pursuit of drow raiders taking slaves. In their territory, outnumbered, I imagine stealth would become necessary for survival and to have any hope of defeating the slaver raiders.

[ezekielraiden]

Also depends on what you mean by honorable. It could be about personal decency or about martial prowress and reputation. Stabbing someone through the heart from the front or back makes no difference as far as cruelty and personal motivations are concerned. Though it does make a huge difference for people who believe that showing their strength and courage is more important than their own lives.

I mean, the Oath of Devotion makes it pretty clear what they're referring to.

The Oath of Devotion binds a paladin to the loftiest ideals of justice, virtue, and order. Sometimes called cavaliers, white knights, or holy warriors, these paladins meet the ideal of the knight in shining armor, acting with honor in pursuit of justice and the greater good. They hold themselves to the highest standards of conduct, and some, for better or worse, hold the rest of the world to the same standards. Many who swear this oath are devoted to gods of law and good and use their gods' tenets as the measure of their devotion. They hold angels – the perfect servants of good – as their ideals, and incorporate images of angelic wings into their helmets or coats of arms.

Tenets of Devotion
Though the exact words and strictures of the Oath of Devotion vary, paladins of this oath share these tenets.

Honesty. Don't lie or cheat. Let your word be your promise.
Courage. Never fear to act, though caution is wise.
Compassion. Aid others, protect the weak, and punish those who threaten them. Show mercy to your foes, but temper it with wisdom.
Honor. Treat others with fairness, and let your honorable deeds be an example to them. Do as much good as possible while causing the least amount of harm.
Duty. Be responsible for your actions and their consequences, protect those entrusted to your care, and obey those who have just authority over you.

It "binds the paladin to the loftiest ideals of...virtue," and expects them to "meet the ideal of the knight in shining armor, acting with honor...." Knights who "hold themselves to the highest standards of conduct" don't sound like the kind of people who stab others in the back because it will win the duel, nor like the types who don't care about having a reputation of cruelty. It sounds pretty much exactly antagonistic to that, actually. Yes, you're supposed to have a well-earned reputation for martial prowess, because you're a knight, but earning that reputation through dirty business and underhanded fighting is not acceptable.

[ezekielraiden]

He ventured into the underdark in pursuit of drow raiders taking slaves. In their territory, outnumbered, I imagine stealth would become necessary for survival and to have any hope of defeating the slaver raiders.

Okay, so...this isn't quite the sense I got from the original post. It sounded like he got lost in the Underdark and had to fight to survive before he could get out. This is...different, and it depends EXTREMELY heavily (I cannot emphasize this enough) on exactly what he did, why he did it, and what the consequences were. Trying to take on just...drow slavery in general? As a single person? That's very hard to not immediately write off as inherently foolhardy, and I agree that there is a very, very significant risk of slipping up.

As for your other bits, about laying ambushes and such...I mean, in a genuine warfare context, that can be perfectly acceptable. The Oath doesn't forbid setting a trap for bad guys* and fighting with a clear numbers advantage or the like. It's fine to fight smart. But this is where the avoidance vs. subterfuge distinction starts to get muddy, as the former can quickly become the latter. Consider, for instance, your Paladin (somehow) manages to take down a drow caravan full of slaves. One drow, disarmed and frightened, books it down the road toward the nearest drow settlement. If that drow makes it there, overwhelming force will almost certainly swiftly follow back to the caravan. Would your Paladin strike down a defenseless, fleeing combatant in order to prevent that? It's not an evil act per se, but it's definitely a dishonorable one....and it will almost certainly be a repeated temptation if he's waging a one-man crusade against drow slavery.

So: do you believe your Paladin can fight a one-man crusade against drow slavery, while never doing something obviously underhanded along the way, like striking down a fleeing defenseless opponent, or concealing dangerous trap-devices in the middle of a seemingly-safe and frequently-travelled road? If so, you're alright, though frankly I'd want to hear some of that story before it got my DM seal of approval.

In other words: Are you ready to commit to a guerrilla fighter who refuses to kill fleeing enemies, even if it means a particular sortie ends in failure as a result? If not, I don't think you can have a Devotion Paladin here. In fact, this whole thing sounds an AWFUL lot more like someone who initially took the Oath of Devotion, and has flipped to the Oath of Vengeance in trying to defeat these slavers.

*To be clear, I mean this as "doing something like tempting them to attack a seemingly-vulnerable target," not "setting bear traps" or the like. Many physical traps are unnecessarily painful and debilitating. Tricking someone into a foolish act like "attack a vulnerable-looking town" is probably okay, but lining the road with land mines probably isn't. It IS a judgment call, no question. I guess I'd say, if the trick is YOU, e.g. you're lying in wait for them to do something they clearly should not do (like attacking the town), it's okay. If it's something that you have specifically made to look okay to do, like hiding bear traps under fall leaves on the road into town, then it's probably not okay. Err on the side of caution--presume stuff isn't okay unless you can get consensus that it is okay.

[Trask]

Consider, for instance, your Paladin (somehow) manages to take down a drow caravan full of slaves. One drow, disarmed and frightened, books it down the road toward the nearest drow settlement. If that drow makes it there, overwhelming force will almost certainly swiftly follow back to the caravan. Would your Paladin strike down a defenseless, fleeing combatant in order to prevent that? It's not an evil act per se, but it's definitely a dishonorable one....and it will almost certainly be a repeated temptation if he's waging a one-man crusade against drow slavery.

Personally I wouldn't consider that to be dishonorable, as a DM. I think taking hostages or accepting surrenders is only honorable when your enemies have displayed the same kind of valor as you, or if they were also paladins, knights, countrymen, maybe even just lawful races who had earned your respect to warrant accepting a surrender. Surely a Paladin as powerful as in the OP isnt required to accept the surrender of every common filthy goblin, drow, troll, or whatever other chaotic and cruel monster races are running about causing trouble. It would just become ridiculous as he has to take prisoners of everyone and cart them around, endangering someone else.

Example scenario, the paladin is attacking Drow slavers and raids a town full of them. Hes cutting down guards, when a powerful looking drow warrior blocks his way, letting everyone else escape at the cost of his own life. The paladin beats him down, but spares him in his final moments as he recognized the drow's valor in battle and unmistakable selflessness. I'd buy that. But a common drow slaver, groveling for his life after losing his shipment of slaves? No mercy for such a knave.

[Tersival]

I mean, the Oath of Devotion ... "binds the paladin to the loftiest ideals of...virtue," and expects them to "meet the ideal of the knight in shining armor, acting with honor...." Knights who "hold themselves to the highest standards of conduct" don't sound like the kind of people who stab others in the back because it will win the duel, nor like the types who don't care about having a reputation of cruelty. It sounds pretty much exactly antagonistic to that, actually. Yes, you're supposed to have a well-earned reputation for martial prowess, because you're a knight, but earning that reputation through dirty business and underhanded fighting is not acceptable.

It sounds like you're saying that if confronted with a situation where rescuing innocents from evil raiders, and pursuing the raiders means venturing into their territory where an open fight would be suicidal... an Oath of Devotion paladin should shrug and find something else to do, or throw themselves on their sword - either literally, so they don't endanger companions through their suicidal frontal attack tactics, or figuratively by sacrificing their abilities by oath violations necessary to survive their quest?

Not trying to be narky. I'm trying to reconcile the issue myself. If a dangerous quest to save innocent lives can only be achieved through stealth (avoiding combat where possible and striking from hiding where combat can't be avoided) does that mean the Oath of Devotion paladin has no place taking up the quest? They must abandon those innocents to their fates and look for another quest that comfortably aligns with their oath?

[Trask]

Not trying to be narky. I'm trying to reconcile the issue myself. If a dangerous quest to save innocent lives can only be achieved through stealth (avoiding combat where possible and striking from hiding where combat can't be avoided) does that mean the Oath of Devotion paladin has no place taking up the quest? They must abandon those innocents to their fates and look for another quest that comfortably aligns with their oath?

I think one of the key conflicts here is the conflict between a sacred oath and results. Paladins hold themselves to a high standard, but is keeping that oath more important than saving a life? Sounds like a a classic kind of story, repeated in many forms throughout fiction, and I dont think its necessarily a problem to be wrangled with, but a part of playing a paladin and deciding where you stand. For the record, I would let both kinds of paladins keep their oaths and let it be a factional difference within that order.

[Throne12]

Ya it can have you ever heard of ninjas.

[diplomancer]

Stealth is ok, even to the point of surprise strikes. Deception is not. You can ambush, but not lie to infiltrate.

Think of it like this: there probably is no more honorable character in book LotR than Faramir (with the possible exception of Sam). And the one war action we see him doing is commanding an ambush. No one even thinks to question that what he did was in any way wrong or dishonorable. On the other hand, he also states "I would not snare an orc with a falsehood".

[Forum Explorer]

I mean, the Oath of Devotion makes it pretty clear what they're referring to.


It "binds the paladin to the loftiest ideals of...virtue," and expects them to "meet the ideal of the knight in shining armor, acting with honor...." Knights who "hold themselves to the highest standards of conduct" don't sound like the kind of people who stab others in the back because it will win the duel, nor like the types who don't care about having a reputation of cruelty. It sounds pretty much exactly antagonistic to that, actually. Yes, you're supposed to have a well-earned reputation for martial prowess, because you're a knight, but earning that reputation through dirty business and underhanded fighting is not acceptable.

No one said anything about cruelty or fighting duels for that matter. And if you look at the tenants, nothing denies ambushes and stealth as an option.

Honesty: You aren't lying by avoiding someone or ambushing them.

Courage: It calls out caution as being wise. Avoiding fights by not being seen is fine, and ambushing numbers greater then your own is still very brave.

Compassion: Doesn't involve stealth at all.

Honor: Treat others with fairness and do the most good with the least harm. The latter does sound perfect for ambushes, particularly when fighting slavers. And you aren't exactly cheating in a duel here, so the former is good too.

Duty: Doesn't involve stealth at all.


Personally, I don't see anything wrong with it.

[Nidgit]

Honor is culturally subjective. A Devotion Paladin follows a particular god's teachings, and that god might be more inclined to utilitarianism. Is it honorable to risk the lives of hundreds just to get a square fight? A truly Devoted knight should have no problems with putting the needs of the many above the needs of the few.

The Honor tenets specifically says to maximize the good you do while minimizing the evil. I'd say stealth can be a major component in that.

[Tersival]

So much great feedback and considerations.

Thanks everyone, I think I have a much better handle on the issue. The Faramir example was particularly helpful.

Since the old campaign fizzled unresolved, if I get a chance to bring him back it will be after he was captured defending his companions escape with some of the prisoners they’d come to rescue. Enslaved himself until liberated by deep gnome gloom stalkers fighting for their own people. Aiding their cause, he learned their ways and fought beside them for several months before making it back to the surface world.

From the gloom stalkers he learned that stealth can be as valuable a weapon as an enchanted blade. A weapon that can deflect enemy attacks by avoiding the enemy’s awareness entirely, or help strike down deserving enemies when necessary. A weapon that, like a blade, should only be used where necessary to preserve lives and serve the greater good.

[Wizard_Lizard]

'tis it surely not more honourable to qvoid unnescessary conflict and thus prevent unnescessessary loss of life?

[Yunru]

'tis it surely not more honourable to qvoid unnescessary conflict and thus prevent unnescessessary loss of life?
But what if, alas, avoiding combat would be the cause of unnecessary loss of life?

[TIPOT]

I don't think there are any insurmountable problems with the idea thematically, I'd be more quick to point out the mechanical issues with it.

Firstly as a Ranger/Paladin you need 4 different scores to be at least 13. Annoying but if you roll maybe not a big deal? Second, Paladin of devotion's best unique oath feature is the ability to make their sword glow. This is a bit counterproductive when gloom-stalkers want to be in darkness all the time. I'd actually question why you wouldn't go for like vengeance or tyranny or any other oath tbh.

[Gryndle]

I think there is an important distinction between tactical uses of stealth that accomplish a mission vs. sneaking/lying out of cowardice.

Nothing in any of the paladin tenants require them to be stupid or foolhardy. I could absolutely see even a devotion paladin engaging in commando type operations against an enemy. Sneaking into an enemy compound to destroy resources, kill enemy leadership, rescue..so on. I see that as absolutely honorable. I would draw the line at poisoning wells or laying traps in public areas that could endanger non-combatants though.

I would have a harder time imagining the same paladin being able to pull off any kind of "undercover" op without endangering his oaths. If a player can actually pull that off, then I would call that an awesome game indeed.

In the example above about ambushing the drow slave caravan and a drow guard escaping for reinforcements- there is a priority of life issue here. It's no longer you vs the enemy, you now have innocents/non-combatants under your charge, and their safety has priority over that of the drow guard, and even over your personal honor. Compassion/civility towards the enemy gets trumped by protect the innocent. I mean that is supposed to be the core of justified violence is it not?

[Chronos]

Whenever you play a paladin, you should always start by sitting down with the DM before the first session and establishing exactly what their ideals mean. You can make a paladin for whom stealth would be against her oath. You can also make a paladin for whom it's routine.

[Kane0]

Neg, freeborn scum! A formal batchall is required before each and every trial, quiaff?!?

[ezekielraiden]

Personally I wouldn't consider that to be dishonorable, as a DM.
You're talking about something I wasn't. Though, in fairness, someone literally begging for mercy, and you cut them down where they stand? Not a great look. Doesn't matter if they're a slaver. The "highest ideals" of honor and justice include the quality of mercy, and pity--knowing that all life is precious, that taking any life, even a life of evil, is something one should deeply regret. As Gandalf said, "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."

I'm not talking about someone begging for mercy--I'm talking about someone running away. You've physically beaten them--they've dropped their weapon. They aren't asking for your mercy, they're just fleeing for their life. You demonstrate no strength by striking them down, not even the "strength" that dismisses those both physically and morally weak as unimportant. That emphatically does not sound like the Oath of Devotion, which quite literally is "be the goodest good you can be." Killing a fleeing, unarmed person and/or killing someone begging for mercy? That's Oath of Vengeance.

I had had more to say on the subject, but it sounds like the OP gets the gist of what I wanted to communicate, and that's what matters.

[Anymage]

Paladin falling is a lot less of a thing here. So while it wouldn't be living up to the highest ideals of devotion, I'd say that the good ends of freeing slaves means that the character's class features aren't at any risk.

Paladins in general and devotion paladins in particular don't really have much that synergizes with stealth. Your subclass features tend to involve a lot of glowing. So I could see a strong case for both practicality and outlook causing this character to swear a new oath, even if he continues to see himself as a devotion paladin at heart and tries to uphold those tenets in addition to the new ones.

[diplomancer]

If you are deep into enemy territory and you let a defeated enemy escape you are severely jeopardizing your mission. If your mission involves rescuing innocent civilians, you are severely jeopardizing THEM. You, being a PC, will probably escape with your life but the people you are supposed to protect won't. There is absolutely nothing honorable about that.

This scenario has nothing to do with stealth per se, though.

Switch the scenario around and I would agree that things start to get murky. If you are defending a village from raiders and they break ranks and start fleeing, I suppose you could say it is not honorable to shoot the fleeing enemies in the back.

Going back to Faramir, his first thought upon seeing that Gollum had discovered Henneth Annun was to shoot him without warning. It was Frodo's insistence that changed Faramir's mind. And, considering the risk that Gollum posed to the whole guerrilla operation in Ithilien that Faramir was running (already enemy held territory by that point), it would not be dishonorable to do so. Frodo himself does not claim that it would be dishonorable of Faramir to shoot Gollum, but that he himself has a personal debt to Gollum and cannot condone the action for that reason. Though he agrees with Frodo's suggestion of trying to capture him, the scene makes it clear that, if Gollum managed to escape capture, the archers were ready to shoot him dead.

Tldr: War sucks, especially if you are the weaker belligerent.

[Mordaedil]

But what if, alas, avoiding combat would be the cause of unnecessary loss of life?
I think if this is the case and you are aware of it, then you know what you have to do. But your lot does not have to be your party's loss. Send them ahead while you fight the group.

[Tersival]

I'd actually question why you wouldn't go for like vengeance or tyranny or any other oath tbh.

I’m actually remembering back to my very first character who was an AD&D paladin and felt the Oath of Devotion was the closest 5E version of that class in general and the character in general.

Yes other oaths would synergise with gloom stalker better mechanically but I’m trying to reincarnate the original, allowing for his best chance to survive the end of that old campaign, not hit maximum crunch.

Before this thread I’d also never considered paladins changing oaths (except Oath Breakers) but I can certainly see how it could be justified for many.

(Edit: spelling fix)

[patchyman]

Not trying to be narky. I'm trying to reconcile the issue myself. If a dangerous quest to save innocent lives can only be achieved through stealth (avoiding combat where possible and striking from hiding where combat can't be avoided) does that mean the Oath of Devotion paladin has no place taking up the quest? They must abandon those innocents to their fates and look for another quest that comfortably aligns with their oath?

I think it is kind of the opposite: the kind of character that feels strongly enough about the Tenets of Devotion to swear that Oath *know* that they would be terrible in an infiltration mission or at acts involving subterfuge.

To clarify, especially for a Paladin, their tenets should reflect their character, not the other way around. I’m AFB, but if I recall correctly, it is stated that the tenets provided are examples, and that the DM and Player can adjust them to something that better fits the character.

[GreyBlack]

Absolutely. No doubt in my mind that stealth can be honorable.

I'm going to get a bit real world here for a moment to demonstrate my point. In the Song of Roland (the same story that inspired D&D Clerics back in the day of Gygax), the Chivalric code is listed as such:

To fear God and maintain His Church
To serve the liege lord in valour and faith
To protect the weak and defenceless
To give succour to widows and orphans
To refrain from the wanton giving of offence
To live by honour and for glory
To despise pecuniary reward
To fight for the welfare of all
To obey those placed in authority
To guard the honour of fellow knights
To eschew unfairness, meanness and deceit
To keep faith
At all times to speak the truth
To persevere to the end in any enterprise begun
To respect the honour of women
Never to refuse a challenge from an equal
Never to turn the back upon a foe

In that code, there's only one moment that might apply; "To eschew unfairness, meanness, and deceit." But... if the enemy is trying to take you unaware, does that qualify as being unfair? You're both on level playing field. Otherwise, you could never take advantage of, for example, surprise rounds.

The Code of Chivalry here deals less with battlefield etiquette and more with interpersonal relations, the idea being that, because of the violence you have to do during war, you have to keep yourself pure and clean in your everyday life. If you wanted to play a Devotion Paladin, I would look at it that way. Because of the terrible deeds you have to do in combat, you have to keep yourself pure and blameless outside of combat in atonement for what you do. Otherwise, your god might become angry and strip you of your powers.

And _that_ is how you play a Devotion Paladin with stealth.

[Misterwhisper]

I would not think there is anything dishonorable about stealth in general.

Now if you are using it for espionage and assassination, yes that could easily be dishonorable.

If it is your duty to eliminate the threat of goblins raiding your villages and you use stealth to harass and harry their camps and squads, sure that makes sense. If you use it to sneak in and kill their leader in his sleep, probably not.

Stealth is just part of combat and war, no better or worse than using ranged weapons against people at long distance in rough terrain, it is just good tactics.

[Chronos]

Espionage is dishonorable. Reconnaissance is honorable. What's the difference between the two?

[GlenSmash!]

"I can avoid being seen if I wish" Aragorn son of Arathorn, one honorable dude.

Stealth is a useful skill for a variety of purposes. Like say, getting the drop on some Nazgul or Gollum. Or quietly getting though Moria.

Of course if you use it for nefarious purposes then you are a nefarious person.

[Yunru]

Honour is only for the honourable.
There is no dishonour in slaying a dishonourable foe however you wish.

[Trask]

Honour is only for the honourable.
There is no dishonour in slaying a dishonourable foe however you wish.

Agreed. Codes of honor follow a more warrior/aristocratic kind of morality where you are only required to show honor and mercy to your peers, exceptional people, or to specific groups seen as more gentle in nature like women and children. Its a rough fit to make codes of honor extend to every individual, especially monstrous races enslaving your people.

[Tersival]

Honour is only for the honourable.
There is no dishonour in slaying a dishonourable foe however you wish.

This I must disagree with for the Oath of Devotion which binds the paladin to the loftiest ideals, and their tenet of honor demands the be an example to others.

If circumstances make sparing a dishonourable foe’s life unwise, the foe should be dispatched quickly. If the only mercy that can safely be offered is a painless death, give that mercy.

[StoicLeaf]

I'd like to know which god you serve.
I think someone like Tempus would probably have a problem with being sneaky.
The Red Knight, on the other hand, would commend it.

[Wizard_Lizard]

But what if, alas, avoiding combat would be the cause of unnecessary loss of life?

Well then, if only by bloodshed may loss of life be prevented, then verily bloodshed must be used!

Because 'tis it not said that through violence, one can prevent further violence?

[ezekielraiden]

I’m AFB, but if I recall correctly, it is stated that the tenets provided are examples, and that the DM and Player can adjust them to something that better fits the character.
Actually it's rather the other way around--the specific wording of the oath can vary between characters, but (at least for Devotion, and implicitly for the other Oaths) every paladin's oath must be consistent with the listed tenets. Specifically: "Though the exact words and strictures of the Oath of Devotion vary, paladins of this oath share these tenets." It's pretty clear that the tenets are meant as high-level summaries of the more specific wording that any given paladin/order uses, so no, the tenets themselves really aren't negotiable. At best you can argue that the intent permits you to finesse them, to allow for more nuance than the high-level summary gives. But, again, the Oath of Devotion pushes really damn hard on the "you are a paragon of goodness specifically to be an example of how someone can be both extraordinarily moral and still a strong warrior." It's going to take a hell of a lot of finesse to put in something that allows you to deviate from that, given how nearly every sentence used to describe this oath mentions, at least once, how noble and upstanding these paladins are.


Espionage is dishonorable. Reconnaissance is honorable. What's the difference between the two?
I mean, I literally spoke of avoidance vs subterfuge in the first reply, so....read that?


Honour is only for the honourable.
There is no dishonour in slaying a dishonourable foe however you wish.
Hard, hard, hard disagree. The Oath of Devotion isn't tit-for-tat morality. Tit-for-tat may not be openly abhorrent, but it's certainly not "lofty ideals," otherwise we would not have phrases like "turn the other cheek" and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." If tit-for-tat were the loftiest ideals, there would be no need for the Oath of Vengeance, and Devotion Paladins would be terrifyingly dangerous. To steal a conversation from Girl Genius and turn it to my own ends (emphasis in original):
Woman: "hmf. She sounds like an idiot."
Man: "Well, yes. But she was never a malicious one."
Woman: "Is that important?"
Man: "Heavens, yes!"
Man: "If I let everyone I thought was an idiot die, there wouldn't be many people left."

Same idea, it's just about honor. As a Devotion Paladin, if I killed--to say nothing of letting die--everyone without honor, there wouldn't be many people left. That's kind of the whole point of the oath, to be an inspirational figure, to show others that being moral and being strong--exhibiting not just a general care for others, but the highest and loftiest ideals of honor, justice, and virtue--are not only compatible, but mutually-reinforcing.

[Lord Vukodlak]

I'm not talking about someone begging for mercy--I'm talking about someone running away. You've physically beaten them--they've dropped their weapon. They aren't asking for your mercy, they're just fleeing for their life. You demonstrate no strength by striking them down, not even the "strength" that dismisses those both physically and morally weak as unimportant. That emphatically does not sound like the Oath of Devotion, which quite literally is "be the goodest good you can be." Killing a fleeing, unarmed person and/or killing someone begging for mercy? That's Oath of Vengeance.
But you are talking about someone making a tactical retreat to summon reinforcements.

One drow, disarmed and frightened, books it down the road toward the nearest drow settlement. If that drow makes it there, overwhelming force will almost certainly swiftly follow back to the caravan.
The Drow is still trying to kill the paladin the fact he's going to get friends instead of charging forward with a weapon doesn't change he's still part of the battle. If he was running away to pull a level and flood the chamber you're in with water and drowned you would it be honorable to kill him before he does that? Of course because he's still trying to kill you.


If his intent is to kill you he's still part of the battle no matter what direction he goes in.

[diplomancer]

Actually it's rather the other way around--the specific wording of the oath can vary between characters, but (at least for Devotion, and implicitly for the other Oaths) every paladin's oath must be consistent with the listed tenets. Specifically: "Though the exact words and strictures of the Oath of Devotion vary, paladins of this oath share these tenets." It's pretty clear that the tenets are meant as high-level summaries of the more specific wording that any given paladin/order uses, so no, the tenets themselves really aren't negotiable. At best you can argue that the intent permits you to finesse them, to allow for more nuance than the high-level summary gives. But, again, the Oath of Devotion pushes really damn hard on the "you are a paragon of goodness specifically to be an example of how someone can be both extraordinarily moral and still a strong warrior." It's going to take a hell of a lot of finesse to put in something that allows you to deviate from that, given how nearly every sentence used to describe this oath mentions, at least once, how noble and upstanding these paladins are.


I mean, I literally spoke of avoidance vs subterfuge in the first reply, so....read that?


Hard, hard, hard disagree. The Oath of Devotion isn't tit-for-tat morality. Tit-for-tat may not be openly abhorrent, but it's certainly not "lofty ideals," otherwise we would not have phrases like "turn the other cheek" and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." If tit-for-tat were the loftiest ideals, there would be no need for the Oath of Vengeance, and Devotion Paladins would be terrifyingly dangerous. To steal a conversation from Girl Genius and turn it to my own ends (emphasis in original):
Woman: "hmf. She sounds like an idiot."
Man: "Well, yes. But she was never a malicious one."
Woman: "Is that important?"
Man: "Heavens, yes!"
Man: "If I let everyone I thought was an idiot die, there wouldn't be many people left."

Same idea, it's just about honor. As a Devotion Paladin, if I killed--to say nothing of letting die--everyone without honor, there wouldn't be many people left. That's kind of the whole point of the oath, to be an inspirational figure, to show others that being moral and being strong--exhibiting not just a general care for others, but the highest and loftiest ideals of honor, justice, and virtue--are not only compatible, but mutually-reinforcing.

I would argue that "turn the other cheek" and "let him without sin cast the first stone" fits the Redemption Paladin better than the Devotion Paladin.