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

[jmbrown]

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.

Vassal A pops his head above the parapet and says “Your mother is an hamster and your father smells of elderberries!” He begins raining arrows down forcing you to run. He's definitely not giving up the fief you gave him without a fight and his troops are loyal to his cause.

I'm satisfied with the other answers.

[JadedDM]

Vassal A pops his head above the parapet and says “Your mother is an hamster and your father smells of elderberries!” He begins raining arrows down forcing you to run. He's definitely not giving up the fief you gave him without a fight and his troops are loyal to his cause.

I'm satisfied with the other answers.

All right...what if we build a large, wooden badger...

[tynger1234]

Vassal A pops his head above the parapet and says “Your mother is an hamster and your father smells of elderberries!” He begins raining arrows down forcing you to run. He's definitely not giving up the fief you gave him without a fight and his troops are loyal to his cause.

I'm satisfied with the other answers.

Usually an adventuring party knows enough about one of the members feifs to cast teleport to inside Vassal A's and ruin Vassal A's plan of raining arrogant death upon his former ruler

All right...what if we build a large, wooden badger...

they did'nt try the rabbit yet

[Zen Master]

Scenario 1:Vassal A has started a witch hunt to root out hedge wizards along his border.

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.

Scenario 3: A knight and his army, weary from prior battles and half starving, seeks sanctuary in your domain.

Scenario 1: Raise an additional peasant militia of those races and genders targeted by vassal A's pogrom. Bring the question before the church, to have vassal A excommunicated - he has, after all, denied the command of his King, who rules by Divine Providence.

Scenario 2: No commoner may ever lay hands on a servant of the King. The punishment for such crimes is death, but the King may show leniency. Naturally, any guard anywhere in the kingdom is by extension a servant of the King.

Scenario 3: If the knight in question, however much he may be a known blackguard, has broken no laws, and his appeal for sanctuary is reasonable, I see no reason why the Paladin-King would deny him. He could certainly make demands - no evil deeds while in Paladin-Kingdom, obey the laws of the land - but only in a total extremist regime would his alignment in itself be a crime.

It goes to reason that it all depends on what make-believe mideaval setting you aim for. That commoners are barred from laying hands on a guard - no matter the circumstances - is realistic in a given setting. But a fantasy campaign world might be far more enlightened that that - possibly, commoners might even be freemen, allowed to travel as they please and own land.

=)

[jmbrown]

Usually an adventuring party knows enough about one of the members feifs to cast teleport to inside Vassal A's and ruin Vassal A's plan of raining arrogant death upon his former ruler

Still talking about AD&D here where casters weren't super-invincible-untouchable-by-melee godlings. You still had teleport and could probably get in the castle but a small party isn't going to do crap against 80 house guards. A 9th level fighter practically gets that by default. A vassal to a powerful king would probably have double plus his own casters as backup.

Scenario 3: If the knight in question, however much he may be a known blackguard, has broken no laws, and his appeal for sanctuary is reasonable, I see no reason why the Paladin-King would deny him. He could certainly make demands - no evil deeds while in Paladin-Kingdom, obey the laws of the land - but only in a total extremist regime would his alignment in itself be a crime.

Chivalric code and everything meant you had to extend a hand to a knight in need even a rival but the paladin code directly conflicts by saying "Yeah, dude's evil. Send him away." Since there's no alignment detection in AD&D you really have to see someone commit atrocious acts to know their evil so this could probably be hand waved.

[Thane of Fife]

Still talking about AD&D here where casters weren't super-invincible-untouchable-by-melee godlings. You still had teleport and could probably get in the castle but a small party isn't going to do crap against 80 house guards. A 9th level fighter practically gets that by default. A vassal to a powerful king would probably have double plus his own casters as backup.

Your average adventuring party capable of casting Teleport would slaughter 80 house guards. They'd probably take some meaningful damage, but, especially if you're using 1e, they could kill quite a few level 0 soldiers each round.



As for your scenarios, I don't really see how the paladin-hood of the ruler affects them. In the first, what does a non-paladin ruler do? Remember that failing isn't against the paladin code. The second case is similar; as long as the paladin is reasonable, and can defend his ruling as Good, it doesn't matter who he sides with.

The third case is, I suppose, more related to paladins, but it bears no importance to the ruler part of the equation - if the paladin is living in a dilapidated shack in the woods and is approached by a known blackguard in need of shelter, does he let him in? The money that the man will pay could be donated to charity.

[Jayabalard]

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 three pieces of land to four three vassals in exchange for a cut of their revenue (going to kingdom treasurey) and military service.

Fixed one hole in this (numbers), but there are still a couple of holes in this scenario.

1. If the paladin was a just ruler (and I'm sure he was) then he probably still has a fair bit of loyalty in the lands of Vassal A. Remember: 1e Paladins needed a 17 charisma minimum, though I'm not sure what requirements 2e paladins had. The idea that he cannot fairly overcome Vassal A with his own men, the men of Vassal C, mercenaries, and the support of those still loyal to him in the lands of Vassal A seems rather far fetched.

2. The speed of escalation doesn't seem realistic as presented.

3. The risk Vassal A takes by breaking his oath is too high for the gain, seems rather hard to believe, though I'm sure real people have done stupider things.

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.

Pardon

Scenario 3: A knight and his army, weary from prior battles and half starving, seeks sanctuary in your domain.

Depends on the hospitality customs and what you mean by blackguard. In any case you grant sanctuary to the army, and you may either wind up granting sanctuary to the knight or challenging him (or both).

[hamishspence]

Depends on the hospitality customs and what you mean by blackguard. In any case you grant sanctuary to the army, and you may either wind up granting sanctuary to the knight or challenging him (or both).

Hospitality is pretty traditional.

That said, whether a paladin can "invite in" someone who is evil, may depend on the setting. Don't "normal evil beings" not detect as Evil in 1st and 2nd ed?

"associating" may only apply to real long term alliances, rather than "normal dealings" such as putting up a visitor for the night.

[hamlet]

Hospitality is pretty traditional.

On Earth, and not really much any more as people have become nasty and suspicious of everyone else. The concept of "neighbor" is far less a fellow member of a community and more "that jerk who lives next door and won't pick up his leaves in the autumn."

Hospitality doesn't neccessarily have to be a tradition in the campaign world.

That said, whether a paladin can "invite in" someone who is evil, may depend on the setting. Don't "normal evil beings" not detect as Evil in 1st and 2nd ed?

Largely a judgement call, but generally speaking, your average evil aligned human would not "pop positive" on a detect evil ability or spell. The power generally specified things of inherent evil, evil aligned persons of sufficient personal power, or persons immediately contemplating or performing evil deeds.

However, this is not always the way with various campaigns.

"associating" may only apply to real long term alliances, rather than "normal dealings" such as putting up a visitor for the night.

A judgement call, really. "Associating" with someone who is evil might be existing in a long term, full knowledge cooperative relationship, or as basic as nodding to him on the street depending on how the DM feels. Most folks would say that a Paladin who is unaware of the evil nature of an associate would probably be excusable, but upon realizing or suspecting the nature of said evil person, the paladin would be expected to do something about it.


I also feel compelled to say that a paladin's purpose in AD&D is NOT to enforce his own vision of what is right upon the world, nor to hunt down and slay all that is evil. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Lawful Good alignment. A paladin rule would most likely fit into the mold of a ruler promoting the good of his kingdom and its citizens by the creation and enforcement of laws designed to do the same with sufficient built in leniency for the odd case where strict application of the law would, in fact, lead to the perpetration of evil. Basically, the "good and honest lawyer" principle.