[AD&D] Can a Paladin be a ruler?

[LibraryOgre]

Given the restrictions Paladins have on committing evil actions, having retainers who are not LG, and on possessions, can a Paladin be the ruler of a country?

[Jayabalard]

Given the restrictions Paladins have on committing evil actions, having retainers who are not LG, and on possessions, can a Paladin be the ruler of a country?

For certain values of "country" I'd say yes, but I'd think that they'd generally be fairly small, without a large bureaucracy.

[Matthew]

Sure; there are examples in Greyhawk. Steering the best course in a corrupt world seems perfectly viable, whether as a king or simple knight.

[jmbrown]

Paladin's make terrible rulers for all the reasons you mentioned. I can imagine a paladin ruled countryside being a "benevolent" dictatorship with a carefully watched cabinet of the paladin's closest retainers. He would have to be extremely selective about his allies and very strict on society to root out evil.

Paladins are better suited serving the whims of their deity or leading armies against evil humanoids than trying to maintain a nation. It's possible but really difficult. Paladins can't even keep money outside of upkeep for their stronghold or have more than 10 magic items so you're practically relying on other allies to help you.

[PlzBreakMyCmpAn]

Paladins can't even keep money outside of upkeep for their stronghold or have more than 10 magic items so you're practically relying on other allies to help you.

3rd Edition? if so cite and does anyone's DM enforce this? poor pallies

[The Glyphstone]

3rd Edition? if so cite and does anyone's DM enforce this? poor pallies

The thread is tagged [AD&D], ya know.

[hamishspence]

Gareth Dragonsbane seemed to cope OK.

Though Road of the Patriarch does make it clear that ruling well and being moral can be difficult- especially when ruling a big country.

The Open Lord of Waterdeep doesn't rule alone, but is still the closest thing to "first among equals" for the city- since all the others are anonymous- and the one in the novels (2nd ed to 3rd ed) is a paladin.

[LibraryOgre]

3rd Edition? if so cite and does anyone's DM enforce this? poor pallies

Take a look at the edition tag, Plz... I specified AD&D, where there were some more restrictions on Paladins.

[snoopy13a]

Given the restrictions Paladins have on committing evil actions, having retainers who are not LG, and on possessions, can a Paladin be the ruler of a country?

Based on those conditions, it depends on DM interpretation.

The restriction on evil actions can be met. There have been fictional and even a few (alleged) historical examples of good and noble kings. Obviously, the DM would have to support "black and white" morality instead of "shades of gray" but this is plausable.

The retainers who are not LG depends on ones definition of retainers. Are they only personal attendants such as ones valet, personal bodyguards, and chief advisor(s)? Or is the definition expanded to all palace servants and guards? All kingdom employees? All kingdom citizens? If it is the narrowest interpretation then yes, if it is expanded any further then no.

Finally possesions must be interpreted. It is only ones personal possessions? If so then it is possible. Or does it include the kingdom's purse, magical items in the kingdom's storeroom, the crown jewels, etc? If it is interpreted this way then obviously not.

Therefore, it depends on how the DM interprets these restrictions.

[hamishspence]

"shades of grey" could be used, with the DM having a very liberal interpretation of what is evil. As long as the paladin does not knowingly associate with evil beings, and not commit any "outright evil" acts, they can be focused on doing good acts + avoiding doing "outright evil" acts, but not be an absolutely perfect guy.

[jmbrown]

A paladin controlled society is going to be more or less entirely restrictive. Personal freedoms would be limited (curfew, mandatory military service, mandatory community service) in order to reduce crime and improve the living conditions of everyone.

As a paladin you're all about maintaining the greatest good with the least harm done. You're an exemplar and champion of your religion. If every waking moment isn't spent furthering your god's goals or the well being of mankind you're doing it wrong.

Hence why paladins are better in the fields making a direct difference than in a throne listening to commoners and merchants whine about taxes levied against them.

[Slayn82]

@jmbrow: Not all Paladins are tied to a God in 2nd edition. They are tied to their oaths. Sometimes there is not a real "evil" to beat, so back to the merchants and commoners. Paladins and Ranger rulers apeared a lot in Forggoten Realms.

I guess that in order to do Good, and be rulers in name of Good, they must be able to review their original oaths or worldviews in name of their duties and aims as good rulers. More explicitly, a Paladin King will not live in a court full of luxuries if there is famine or war in his kingdom, and will aim for circunspection, piety and modesty. Instead of donating for a church, he donates his personal treasures for a higher cause: the moral and spiritual improvement of the kingdom. And the magical item limit is more along the lines of "what from the treasury he decides to carry for his personal use". The remainder are lent or donated to worthy champions of the kingdom ( followers, cohorts, etc).

[HCL]

No, being a ruler is inherently evil and nonlawful.

[jmbrown]

@jmbrow: Not all Paladins are tied to a God in 2nd edition. They are tied to their oaths. Sometimes there is not a real "evil" to beat, so back to the merchants and commoners. Paladins and Ranger rulers apeared a lot in Forggoten Realms.

I guess that in order to do Good, and be rulers in name of Good, they must be able to review their original oaths or worldviews in name of their duties and aims as good rulers. More explicitly, a Paladin King will not live in a court full of luxuries if there is famine or war in his kingdom, and will aim for circunspection, piety and modesty. Instead of donating for a church, he donates his personal treasures for a higher cause: the moral and spiritual improvement of the kingdom. And the magical item limit is more along the lines of "what from the treasury he decides to carry for his personal use". The remainder are lent or donated to worthy champions of the kingdom ( followers, cohorts, etc).

Paladins and rangers can't own wealth and paladins can only keep in their stronghold what's necessary for emergencies. I don't even see how they can rule because their coffers are essentially empty and they have to rely on the help of everyone else.

Rangers I can see ruling a small commune like Robin Hood. Paladins? I'm sure there's an evil robber baron somewhere terrorizing the roads. No time for holding audience or levying taxes. Round up my knights, mobilize the catapults, and send a request to the temple for supplies and medics. It's war!

[hamishspence]

Simple answer- its not their wealth, its the realm's wealth. They don't own the kingdom and its treasury- they rule the kingdom, and manage its treasury- but the wealth belongs to the realm, not them.

[jmbrown]

Simple answer- its not their wealth, its the realm's wealth. They don't own the kingdom and its treasury- they rule the kingdom, and manage its treasury- but the wealth belongs to the realm, not them.

And a simpler answer "A paladin never retains wealth. He may keep only enough treasure to support himself in a modest manner, pay his henchmen, men-at-arms, and servitors a reasonable rate, and to construct or maintain a small castle or keep (funds can be set aside for this purpose). All excess must be donated to the church or another worthy cause. This money can never be given to another player character or NPC controlled by a player."

If it's the kingdom's money and the paladin is the king then the paladin owns the money. Add in the fact that he can only hire lawful good henchmen and you've got a guy who's generally unfit for ruling without some major changing of his restrictions.

A paladin's fluff makes him more likely to swear an oath of fealty than to rule. He's a leader of armies but also a servitor to both his lord and to the people. The way I look at it, a paladin's stronghold is basically Castle Camelot; full of boisterous, noble knights inbetween adventures but completely empty when a quest is called for or evil is mobilizing.

[hamishspence]

And when the paladin is elected or appointed, as in Waterdeep?

Rulers do not "own all the kingdom's wealth"- often, they are accountable. A ruler who treats taxes as his own money, rather than the money of the kingdom, is likely to get overthrown then charged with crimes against the kingdom.

Since paladin rulers exist in the D&D novels, its clear that "being a king" does not violate the paladin's code.

[Premier]

If it's the kingdom's money and the paladin is the king then the paladin owns the money.

Prove that. Cite reliable sources which state that under the feudal system the money in the Kingdom's or Empire's Treasury legally constitutes the ruler's personal property.

And even if you do, that would only mean it's so in an AD&D campaign that accurately portrays historical feudalism. Since 99.9% of AD&D campaigns don't, it would still be a largely moot point.

[The Glyphstone]

Prove that. Cite reliable sources which state that under the feudal system the money in the Kingdom's or Empire's Treasury legally constitutes the ruler's personal property.

And even if you do, that would only mean it's so in an AD&D campaign that accurately portrays historical feudalism. Since 99.9% of AD&D campaigns don't, it would still be a largely moot point.

that seems a bit unfair, demanding him to prove a point to back his opinion up and pre-emptively stating that said proof will not actually matter...

[nyarlathotep]

I would say yes he would just have to rule very benevolently and make sure to try and hear every citizen's concerns, thus a small country would be a necessity. As for an example of a good monarch or ruler I'd say the final king of Bhutan is most definitely NG and it wouldn't take much to make him a paladin, basically just the actual oath swearing.

[Riffington]

If it's the kingdom's money and the paladin is the king then the paladin owns the money.

Right, so it depends what kind of King he is. He cannot be the kind of King who claims the entire kingdom as his own personal property. If he is one, he must give the property to the people/kingdom, and make his role one of leadership rather than ownership. This is quite consistent with roles of kingship espoused by (say) Charles I.
"For the people. And truly I desire their Liberty and Freedom as much as any Body whomsoever. But I must tell you, That their Liberty and Freedom, consists in having of Government; those Laws, by which their Life and their Goods may be most their own. It is not for having share in government, that is nothing pertaining to them. A subject and a sovereign are clean different things, and therefore until they do that, I mean, that you do put the people in that liberty as I say, certainly they will never enjoy themselves."

So if he is ruler (particularly under a council or under his Deity) rather than owner, he may do well for the nation and help the people and nation become enriched without personally profiting financially.

--

Now, as to whom he may associate with: there are two types of people in government. There are those whom the King cannot depose (perhaps there is a Council of Lords, or the Church has some role in government, or whatever) - going to meetings with them without allying with them does not count as "associating" for the Paladin's code any more than going into battle with an evil enemy counts as "associating" with that enemy. It is, however, possible that the King would have to compromise and ally with these people to get some greater Good accomplished. If this is truly necessary and those people are evil, then the Paladin would probably have to step down or fall or be less effective.

The second group is those whom the King may depose. It is possible that his butler (or Minister of Finance, or Ambassador to Thay) does a spectacular job but is Evil. In this case, the Paladin King would likely have to depose the minister - he really shouldn't have these evildoers working for him (and perhaps believes they will not continue to do a good job).

[Tiktakkat]

Given the number of instances of paladins appearing as rulers and military commanders in AD&D sources, both 1st and 2nd ed, I would have to say that both RAW and RAI support them being able to be such.
Whatever issues may exist in regards to the limit on retaining wealth must obviously not be construed as applying to whatever treasury or royal demsnes he possesses in his capacity as a ruler. (This same would, by similar reason of examples, apply to rangers.)

Whether or not paladins make suitable rules because of their limitations against Chaotic or Evil acts and types of retainers, is more subjective according to campaign, but again, based on the number of extant examples, RAW and RAI clearly establish no inherent contradiction.
Perhaps the closest to suggesting an outright statement on the effectiveness could be found in the Birthright setting rules, where quite simply, being Lawful Good carries rather explicit "implied limitations" that will ultimately make it less effective than being Lawful Neutral, extending further to "explicitly implied" roleplaying limitations that would make paladins and rangers less effective than fighters.

[Jayabalard]

If it's the kingdom's money and the paladin is the king then the paladin owns the money.

No, that's not necessarily the case. It's quite possible that the people own the money, collectively, and that he's just the caretaker. It might be quite illegal (or even impossible) for him to use the money for his own benefit, and being a paladin, he will abide by that restriction. He'd refuse any sort of payment from the realm. It's possible that he has no control over how money is being spent (that may be controlled by some other body of the government). He'd give guidance, direction, sit in judgment when it was required, make policies, enforce the laws, ratify the decisions of parliament, etc. There may be many people who work for the realm that are not his retainers; they may have been elected by the people, or some council of lords, or might even have their positions out of heredity, but they serve the realm, not the paladin.

A paladin as the ruler of a kingdom is the epitome of the the idea "to lead is to serve"

[MickJay]

More often than not, the ruler's own purse is separate from the realm's wealth. The ruler might own some land as well, either because it is his ancestral wealth or because the laws specify that each monarch can make use of certain lands (which he cannot give away or sell) for as long as he remains on the throne.

[Roderick_BR]

Paladins can't even keep money outside of upkeep for their stronghold or have more than 10 magic items so you're practically relying on other allies to help you.

You can say that a paladin can't keep any personal money, so any treasure or loot is taken to the kingdom's keep, used only to improve the kingdom. The paladin is not allowed to use any of it (other than his normal share) for personal stuff. And no, buying "royal armor and weapons the paladin might have to use" can't be used as excuse.

I can imagine someone like King Arthur as a sort of paladin ruler.

[jmbrown]

You can say that a paladin can't keep any personal money, so any treasure or loot is taken to the kingdom's keep, used only to improve the kingdom. The paladin is not allowed to use any of it (other than his normal share) for personal stuff. And no, buying "royal armor and weapons the paladin might have to use" can't be used as excuse.

Someone has to delegate what "improving the kingdom" is. Someone has to maintain the treasury itself. This person could be an embelisher or gambler, skimming off the top, or even involved in a thieves guild or merchants guild. Just an example of the paladin not being aware that his resources are going to evil causes. Not a reason to fall, but if I were a paladin I wouldn't even take that risk.

No, that's not necessarily the case. It's quite possible that the people own the money, collectively, and that he's just the caretaker. It might be quite illegal (or even impossible) for him to use the money for his own benefit, and being a paladin, he will abide by that restriction. He'd refuse any sort of payment from the realm. It's possible that he has no control over how money is being spent (that may be controlled by some other body of the government). He'd give guidance, direction, sit in judgment when it was required, make policies, enforce the laws, ratify the decisions of parliament, etc. There may be many people who work for the realm that are not his retainers; they may have been elected by the people, or some council of lords, or might even have their positions out of heredity, but they serve the realm, not the paladin.

This is pretty important because you've stripped a great deal of power from the paladin. If the land's treasurey isn't his, it's owned by someone else. This person could be the church or the council in which case the paladin's job has been reduced to a simple figurehead. He can influence the decision to spend kingdom resources but ultimately it relies on the organization.

So who has the power here? The paladin's income is purely through adventure and donation and that's only to upkeep his stronghold and house guard. Everything else has to go to someone else and that someone else is the one who carries the power.

A paladin as the ruler of a kingdom is the epitome of the the idea "to lead is to serve"

Indeed, to lead but not to rule. It's interesting to note that the description for fighters say they can tax their land but not paladins.

Now, as to whom he may associate with: there are two types of people in government. There are those whom the King cannot depose (perhaps there is a Council of Lords, or the Church has some role in government, or whatever) - going to meetings with them without allying with them does not count as "associating" for the Paladin's code any more than going into battle with an evil enemy counts as "associating" with that enemy. It is, however, possible that the King would have to compromise and ally with these people to get some greater Good accomplished. If this is truly necessary and those people are evil, then the Paladin would probably have to step down or fall or be less effective.

As in the above example, if the paladin isn't in charge of his money than he's the one who can be deposed. He's a simple figurehead with absolutely no power except those granted by the organization that does.

---------

In short, a paladin ruler has to A) have the absolute loyalty of his retainers and B) have the utmost trust in his people to do the right thing. He can't delegate kingdom resources because if he does then it's under his ownership. He has to ensure that whomever owns the resources is loyal to his cause because once they go, he goes.

If I were a paladin I wouldn't even bother with ruling. It requires too many compromises. If I inherited a kingdom or even a fief as a paladin, I'd delegate a regent in my place whom I trust to carry out my will while acting as figurehead. There are always evil monsters to destroy and dark cults to root out. If I want to do some good I trust my church or regent to spend the 100,000 gold pieces I amassed in the last adventure well enough. Let politicians handle political work, I'm an f'ing champion.

Prove that. Cite reliable sources which state that under the feudal system the money in the Kingdom's or Empire's Treasury legally constitutes the ruler's personal property.

And even if you do, that would only mean it's so in an AD&D campaign that accurately portrays historical feudalism. Since 99.9% of AD&D campaigns don't, it would still be a largely moot point.

The lord who provides his vassal with land is still in control of that land and can revoke it. Normally he had to have a good reason (disloyalty or death) and it was stupid to do so without reason, but the lord still had the right to claim it should he choose.

[jmbrown]

Just out of curiosity, I want to hear some people's reactions to these scenarios.

Scenario 1: Assume you have a lord; I'll call him Paladin-king. Paladin-king owns four pieces of land, one which he controls himself and four others by hereditary right. He gives these four pieces of land to four vassals in exchange for a cut of their revenue (going to kingdom treasurey) and military service.

Paladin King
-Vassal A
-Vassal B
-Vassal C

Keep in mind that detect evil didn't tell you character alignment in AD&D. The only way the king knows these people are loyal and trustworthy is by their actions and words.

Vassal A has started a witch hunt to root out hedge wizards along his border. He takes it too far by targetting people by gender and nationality even if they have no relation to foul magics. Paladin-king finds this an unreasonable waste of resources and subjigation of human rights and demands a stop. Vassal A refuses and breaks his oath of fealty. Paladin-king decides the only way to depose Vassal A is through force.

Vassal B is Vassal A's brother but he doesn't want to break his oath of fealty so he offers Paladin-king a scutage (tax paid to avoid military service). Paladin-king uses the scutage to hire a band of mercenaries but they're not as skilled as Vassal B's troops. With the combined forces of the mercenaries and Vassal C, the military is strong but still lacking for a prolonged siege of Vassal A.

A siege is possible but undue suffering and massive losses on both sides are predicted as forces are about even. How should the paladin king handle this situation?

Scenario 2: The Paladin-king holds an audience with a commoner-woman who pleads for a pardon on her husband who killed a guard in self defense. The guard, who was drunk, attacked the man at the tavern. All the guard at the tavern including the esteemed sheriff who was there claim the commoner started the fight in a drunken stupor while the bartender and a handful of commoner witnesses say the latter. A member of the clergy who arrived on scene to disperse the fight says all the witnesses (except the barkeep) "reeked of the spirits." The penalty for murder is death. Would the Paladin-king grant the pardon or deny the pardon given the situation?

Scenario 3: A knight and his army, weary from prior battles and half starving, seeks sanctuary in your domain. The knight himself is a foul blackguard known for his cruel methods but his army is made up of humble peasants conscripted into service and wishing only to return to their serfs. Furthermore, the blackguard offers a fine purse for the Paladin-king's services and having recently endured a drought the people of the land could certainly use the money. Would the Paladin-king grant sanctuary, however temporary, to an evil rival and his tired band knowing his offer could benefit the entire kingdom?

[Riffington]

Someone has to delegate what "improving the kingdom" is. Someone has to maintain the treasury itself. This person could be an embelisher or gambler, skimming off the top, or even involved in a thieves guild or merchants guild. Just an example of the paladin not being aware that his resources are going to evil causes. Not a reason to fall, but if I were a paladin I wouldn't even take that risk.

Well, keeping himself pure is not the Paladin's main goal (that would be some ascetic monastic). The Paladin's main goal is to pursue justice actively. As such, he must do what is right even if it puts him at risk. He can't stay cooped up in a monastery all day.


[quote[
This is pretty important because you've stripped a great deal of power from the paladin. If the land's treasurey isn't his, it's owned by someone else.[/quote]
The People or the Nation. The Paladin can certainly be the one who decides how the treasury is used without it becoming his personal property.

Indeed, to lead but not to rule.

Good Rulership is primarily advanced leadership. It is only tyrants whose rule involves ownership of all they rule.

[bosssmiley]

Given the restrictions Paladins have on committing evil actions, having retainers who are not LG, and on possessions, can a Paladin be the ruler of a country?

Yes. Both Elinie and Ariya in the Birthright setting are ruled by paladins. In fact Player Secrets of Ariya maintains that Ariyan custom and law dictate that only a paladin is deemed virtuous enough to rule justly.

As for the money questions. As jmbrown & hamishspence observed, the privy purse is not the exchequer of the realm. You can control and direct vast amounts of wealth, but still live abstemiously.

A paladin is probably the archetype of the just king. Laying on of hands (touching for the King's Evil), distributing largess, dispensing justice, protecting the weak...

[Cuaqchi]

Scenario 1: Assume you have a lord; I'll call him Paladin-king. Paladin-king owns four pieces of land, one which he controls himself and four others by hereditary right. He gives these four pieces of land to four vassals in exchange for a cut of their revenue (going to kingdom treasurey) and military service.

Paladin King
-Vassal A
-Vassal B
-Vassal C

Keep in mind that detect evil didn't tell you character alignment in AD&D. The only way the king knows these people are loyal and trustworthy is by their actions and words.

Vassal A has started a witch hunt to root out hedge wizards along his border. He takes it too far by targetting people by gender and nationality even if they have no relation to foul magics. Paladin-king finds this an unreasonable waste of resources and subjigation of human rights and demands a stop. Vassal A refuses and breaks his oath of fealty. Paladin-king decides the only way to depose Vassal A is through force.

Vassal B is Vassal A's brother but he doesn't want to break his oath of fealty so he offers Paladin-king a scutage (tax paid to avoid military service). Paladin-king uses the scutage to hire a band of mercenaries but they're not as skilled as Vassal B's troops. With the combined forces of the mercenaries and Vassal C, the military is strong but still lacking for a prolonged siege of Vassal A.

A siege is possible but undue suffering and massive losses on both sides are predicted as forces are about even. How should the paladin king handle this situation?

Take your retinue (IE. Adventuring Party) and march straight to Vassel A's keep. As his liege you have right of access to the keep and from there you demand an audience, which as your vassel he must accept. You then lay down the law as is divinely presented forcing him to either discontinue his witchhunt or to suffer for the evils he has commited.

Scenario 2: The Paladin-king holds an audience with a commoner-woman who pleads for a pardon on her husband who killed a guard in self defense. The guard, who was drunk, attacked the man at the tavern. All the guard at the tavern including the esteemed sheriff who was there claim the commoner started the fight in a drunken stupor while the bartender and a handful of commoner witnesses say the latter. A member of the clergy who arrived on scene to disperse the fight says all the witnesses (except the barkeep) "reeked of the spirits." The penalty for murder is death. Would the Paladin-king grant the pardon or deny the pardon given the situation?

Grant the pardon. The barkeep is the only reliable witness as the cleric present can state that only his words and actions are not effected by the spirits. Since the barkeep says the man killed in self-defence he did not murder the guard. However the man (and the guard if he had lived) would still be charged with breaking the peace and have to serve time in the stocks or in prison as a result. The man lives, justice is served and everyone goes home happy.

Scenario 3: A knight and his army, weary from prior battles and half starving, seeks sanctuary in your domain. The knight himself is a foul blackguard known for his cruel methods but his army is made up of humble peasants conscripted into service and wishing only to return to their serfs. Furthermore, the blackguard offers a fine purse for the Paladin-king's services and having recently endured a drought the people of the land could certainly use the money. Would the Paladin-king grant sanctuary, however temporary, to an evil rival and his tired band knowing his offer could benefit the entire kingdom?

This has multiple outcomes, however all of them result in the serfs having 'sanctuary'.

The first option is that the knight is not an enemy of the state, having been fighting an enemy or non-associate state. He can be given sanctuary on grounds that while in your kingdom your laws shall be followed.

The second option is that the knight is an enemy of the state, sanctuary is denied and the knight is challenged to single combat to spare the peasant army from further harm caused by the evil knight.