PDA

View Full Version : Paladins Code: is Dragon magazine official enough as a source?



hamishspence
2008-03-12, 05:19 AM
In Dragon 358, Paladin Guide, the section on the code goes:

Lawful Good Alignment:
A paladin cannot willingly commit an evil act. A paladin might unwittingly commit an evil act, or do so under magical compulsion. In this instance, performing an atonement spell on the paladin incurs no XP cost to the caster. The paladin must attempt to rectify the situation and put right whatever harm her deeds caused. Magical compulsion or ignorance do not offer a paladin carte blanche to commit evil acts she secretly thinks are justified and get away with it.

Respect Legitimate Authority:
A paladin may not break the law simply because she feels the law is inappropiate or hinders her pursuit of justice. Individuals who pose as agents of the law while supporting the cause of evil- such as a corrupt lord who orders a paladin to commit an evil action- do not support the legitimate authority. A paladin is under no obligation to obey their commands, so long as she continues to serve the cause of good and takes steps to expose the corruption.

Act With Honor:
A paladin many not lie, cheat, double-cross, or take advantage of anyone. She may not use poison, although she may make use of ravages (holy substances that deal damage only to evil creatures, see Book Of Exalted Deeds, for mature audiences only). A paladin must uphold any promises she makes, to the best of her ability. Any violent act the paladin undertakes must be motivated by good intentions and undertaken in such a way to minimize damage (a paladin may not slay every evil creature she sees in hopes of preventing future violence). She cannot levy violence against noncombatants, children, or helpless creatures, even evil ones.

Refuse to Associate with Evil Creatures:
A paladin may only accept nonevil henchmen, followers and cohorts. She may associate with an evil creature on a limited basis for the purposes of redeeming that creature.

Do you think that the Guide articles, which are rules compilations and clarifications only, are valid sources to resolve questions on the Paladin's Code?

I do, since it is simply written, logical, and consistant. I would use this more detailed version of the major tenets if I had a player playing a paladin in my games.

Zincorium
2008-03-12, 05:26 AM
In my experience, there are two types of people who want to play paladins:

1. Want to actually be a real goody-two-shoes and save kittens from trees (thinkin' Piffany here). Don't screw these people over with excessively convoluted moral dilemmas where there is no right answer. That just makes you a bad person.

For these people, the above code should work just fine, although it's perfectly reasonable for them to pray for their deity for help figuring out what they should do. You may wish to restrict them from playing a paladin in a group where generally nice behavior cannot be expected.

2. Want to smite everything evil and get away with it. Having a code in this case just means the party will very soon have a bounty on their heads and a fighter with no feats, if you catch my meaning. There isn't a good answer in this case other than to convince them to play something with less strenuous ethical requirements.

Miraqariftsky
2008-03-12, 05:43 AM
Response by-paragraph follows...

On the last sentence of the first paragraph: "...she secretly thinks are justified..."<<< Therefore it's still implied that the palaidn in question willfully committed those evil acts, right?

Ah... corruption in high places... what if the effort to expose the corruption requires subterfuge, underhanded means and intrigue, maybe even hypocrisy in the form of deceit and backstabbing? What if to try and excise the corruption in the hierarchy, especially if it's a case of corrupt clergy would mean exposing innocents or even the paladin herself to harm? What if those corrupt clerics would then go after the paladin and any or all of her associates to root out a threat to their supremacy and because of their clout are able to cover up the paladin's demise--- thus making vain the original effort to destroy corrupion within the clergy/hierarchy/society?

Can a paladin with the feat Improved Trip rightfully take the second attack on a just-tripped opponent? Can a paladin rightfully use the Improved Feint feat or is it just the CG variant that can do so? Also, suppose that... say... a vampire... a vampire that has terrorized towns, fed upon infants, desecrated a local temple complex with dark energies and on top of all that has turned the paladin's significant other into an undead abomination which s/he was forced to put down... and that vampire, on the brink of defeat and destruction at the hands of the vengeful paladin, suddenly surrenders and asks for mercy and succour--- how is the paladin to respond to that?

What if the paladin does not know that one of her folk is evil? Corollary to the response to the second paragraph, what if nonviolent protracted relations with evil folk involving minimal redeeming becomes necessary for the greater good?

And yes, it seems to be a good guide.

kamikasei
2008-03-12, 05:57 AM
Most of it is as good as can be expected of a discussion of the paladin's code as-is, and suffers from the usual problems of ambiguity, edge cases, etc., some of which Nexus has pointed out.

However:


Individuals who pose as agents of the law while supporting the cause of evil- such as a corrupt lord who orders a paladin to commit an evil action- do not support the legitimate authority.

This doesn't make sense in and of itself. "Pose as agents of the law"? How is a corrupt lord "posing" as anything? He's a lord. He has whatever authority and legal agency his title and position give him, and the fact that he may be corrupt doesn't make that authority illegitimate. This seems to be saying, basically, "you don't have to obey evil people who are in positions of legitimate authority over you, because their evilness automatically makes them illegitimate". That's nonsense, or at least a very radical interpretation, and has nothing to do with "posing" in the first place.

Zincorium
2008-03-12, 05:57 AM
Nexus-

When you talk about corruption and back-alley dealings, what you're describing is a way of running a campaign, not a universal constant. If you're playing that sort of game, you'd be amiss not letting people know, and smart people won't play a paladin in that situation because it just isn't as fun even if you don't become an ex-paladin. Barbarian and druid are also really poor choices.

As far as combat goes, all combatants are presumed to be doing quite a bit of maneuvering and even fencing, rather than standing face to face and exchanging blows. The extra attack gained from improved trip isn't any more unreasonable by this code than making an attack of opportunity, because you are trying to kill your opponent.

Feint would be an odd choice, and it's reasonable to suggest to a player that as a paladin they shouldn't focus on deceit in combat. Automatically having them fall? I think that's going a bit too far.

A reasonable DM should make it clear when a player is getting away from the spirit of being a paladin (most have a diety that can tell them such), but falling shouldn't be taken lightly by either the DM or the player.

hamishspence
2008-03-12, 06:16 AM
It was written down word for word, so some of their perspectives may look a little odd.

Secretly thinks are justified: act cannot clearly be identified as evil at first, when it is revealed to be evil, paladin cannot say: I did not know so its OK, if they think the consequences of the evil act were good enough.

Posing as agents: a paladin's ruler who is sufficiently evil might be a secret criminal, if paladin learns this be the ruler taking him aside and ordering him to do something evil, the paladin might feel that the criminal nature of his boss demands arrest and trial.

Helpless is the keyword, a tripped foe who is still armed and dangerous isn't exactly helpless.

kamikasei
2008-03-12, 06:32 AM
Posing as agents: a paladin's ruler who is sufficiently evil might be a secret criminal, if paladin learns this be the ruler taking him aside and ordering him to do something evil, the paladin might feel that the criminal nature of his boss demands arrest and trial.

If that is the intent of the passage then it is terribly worded. In the real world we have situations where someone can refuse an order from a superior because the order is illegal or immoral and exceeds the bounds of the superior's authority. In a knights-and-lords system you might have such legal bounds on the authority a lord has to give orders to a paladin, but this basically assumes that any evil thing a corrupt lord might order a paladin to do is also illegal and exceeds his authority. That is a shaky assumption. Can a lord order a knight to execute someone? Couldn't this order be given with evil motives, yet be a legitimate exercise of authority?

Basically the idea that a paladin's conscience can overrule a superior's orders, or that an order to perform an illegal act is illegitimate, should be spelled out as such and not obfuscated with a pretense that only fake nobles are evil.

Saph
2008-03-12, 07:11 AM
Looks fairly sensible. It's more or less how I run Paladins in my games.

Kami - While I agree with what you're saying, I don't think you should take it as gospel. Gaming articles aren't written by people with legal training. I'd have just said something like "In case of conflict, Good comes before the laws of the land", but I think the message gets across.

- Saph

Shhalahr Windrider
2008-03-12, 07:51 AM
Depends how seriously you take that "100% Official Dungeons & Dragons Content" stamp on the cover.

Dragon magazine is entirely 100% official. The actual publishing may have been outsourced to Paizo, but it carries just as much weight as any WotC product. Which is to say, it's as valid as your DM allows.

kamikasei
2008-03-12, 08:23 AM
Kami - While I agree with what you're saying, I don't think you should take it as gospel. Gaming articles aren't written by people with legal training. I'd have just said something like "In case of conflict, Good comes before the laws of the land", but I think the message gets across.

Oh, I don't expect this to be read with the sort of legalistic eye that gets turned upon the RAW code; my impression (though I don't have access to the context in the rest of the issue) was that it's just an explanation or clarification of the intent and implications of the code in the PHB. I just think that on that point it failed at clarifying the "legitimate authority" clause by muddying the waters and being, well, weird.

Elsewise I do agree that it's a good and sensible guide, reading more or less as a distillation of the various common-sense interpretations of the code that people offer hereabouts when the topic comes up, and I would say it's quite valuable to have such a guide in an official source; if we're lucky maybe 4e paladins will have such a breakdown in core. I do wish they'd come down in favour of allowing incapacitating/nonlethal poisons, though.

Ryver
2008-03-12, 08:28 AM
If that is the intent of the passage then it is terribly worded.
The way I read it seems to imply that if the ruler is acting outside the laws, twisting loopholes in the laws, changing the laws on a whim, or otherwise contradicting the rules that they were supposed to be enforcing, the Paladin is no longer required to obey any actions that result from this. In my opinion, the Paladin's "conscience" does not factor into it.

Bear in mind that were a Paladin to serve a ruler (in addition to his/her deity, of course), the society and ruler would be LG at the time. If the Paladin finds out that the ruler is performing Evil acts (and having the Paladin perform acts with Evil intentions), the Paladin may decide that the ruler is not their legitimate authority after all. Then comes the "bringing to justice" and such.

For example, when King Arthur was away, King Richard did things his way in order to make himself rich. Arthur was LG, but Richard would have no authority over a Paladin due to his selfish and blatant disregard for the laws of the land.

Until such things are proven, though, the Paladin should follow orders. Of course, if it is later discovered that (s)he unintentionally did an Evil act, refer to the first paragraph.

That's how it came across to me, at any rate.


In the real world we have situations where someone can refuse an order from a superior because the order is illegal or immoral and exceeds the bounds of the superior's authority. In a knights-and-lords system you might have such legal bounds on the authority a lord has to give orders to a paladin, but this basically assumes that any evil thing a corrupt lord might order a paladin to do is also illegal and exceeds his authority. That is a shaky assumption. Can a lord order a knight to execute someone? Couldn't this order be given with evil motives, yet be a legitimate exercise of authority?As I mentioned above, the Paladin is behooved to exercise the will of the law unless (s)he feels that the orders are not in accordance with the (spirit of the) laws.

That being said, I wouldn't ask a Paladin to execute somebody. The "killing helpless" people thing strikes me as being a good clause to have in there, and taking the sword to a bound prisoner doesn't seem very Paladin-like to me.

Of course, that's only my opinion. Each DM and each Paladin will have to make their decision on whether or not executing the person is the right course of action.

I think that this Code is a great way to run a Paladin, but it's not the only way. As always, the DM has the last call - consult with yours before trying to insert these beliefs into your game. Likewise, GMs, talk to your potential Pallies about expected behaviors beforehand to avoid future conflicts.