Paladins, their methods, and the Shininess Factor™

[Renegade Paladin]

Split from this thread.

For a long time, and not just on this board, I've noted a large trend towards defining paladins as being knight-in-shining-armor, stick up the butt meatheads, and that anything "less" makes one less a paladin, or not one at all. The sentiment is hardly universal, so if you don't agree with the above, I'm not talking about you.

The portion of the post quoted was the immediate catalyst for my writing this, but I've been kicking this subject around for some time now and probably would have done a thread like this sooner or later. I want to clarify that I agree with Peregrine's position on the Grey Guard (which is what was under discussion) and wrote all this as a clarification of the one point, which I thought would fit better out of that thread after I finished.

Paladins are Lawful Good. The less-than-shiny, whatever-needs-to-be-done style of play strays either to less Lawful or less Good (or both).

I agree that a paladin, by definition, cannot be willing to do whatever "needs" to be done in the estimation of those who see evil as a legitimate short-term tool, but being shiny isn't exactly a requirement. Example time:

For instance, my favorite D&D character, and the one I've transplanted to the Town here on GitP, is Lord Gaheris Trollbane of the church of Tyr, distinguished knight, paladin lord, and leader of his own knightly order. The catch? He grew up an orphan on the streets of what is possibly the most lawless city in Faerun; has multiple rogue levels; is more than willing to use disguises, sneaking about, spying, and various concealment and information-gathering spells available to him and his men (undetectable alignment, discern lies, zone of truth, and mark of justice are favorites); and operates his order underground in the fashion of the Harpers or more aptly Waterdeep's Red Sashes. It has been posited to me that a paladin of Tyr could never get away with that, but I can justify everything within the god's portfolio and dogma, which is the important part in the Forgotten Realms (in contrast to Greyhawk).

1.) All the dogma about upholding the law notwithstanding, Tyr stands in opposition to tyranny. If a Banite or (worse) a Cyricist is making the laws, Tyr's clergy is in no way required to enforce them. Ilmatians have a stronger case for this, and the order has even more of them than Tyrrans for this reason. Faiths & Pantheons doesn't list "the oppressed" among Tyr's typical worshipers for nothing. This justifies operating cells in Dambrath, Luskan, the Moonsea, and other places west of Thay that suffer under tyrannical gods and governments.

2.) This is often overlooked by Realms aficionados, but when the law becomes so broken down as to become meaningless, the Tyrran church just says "Screw this," and starts openly defying evil and exacting justice for those who cannot defend themselves while attempting to restore order. This justifies operating in Westgate (oh does it ever), the center of his order. They have to be exceedingly careful elsewhere, because when there isn't a total breakdown of law, Tyrrans may defy unjust laws in civil disobedience of sorts, but still see themselves as worthy of punishment and accept it. (Which is actually a fundamental principle of civil disobedience, which certain groups seem to have forgotten of late, but that's neither here nor there.)

3.) The opening line of Tyr's dogma is "Reveal the truth," which might be problematic for subterfuge, but sometimes, yes, it does become a matter of priorities. Besides, there's no set schedule for revealing everything. They all know in the end, and when fighting a thieves' guild or secret police force, you might not be able to reveal the truth without going in there to get it and drag it out kicking and screaming.

So, to sum up, Gaheris' shininess is considerably stained. Heck, his armor is blackened and has the silent moves and shadows enhancements (both of the Improved variety) on it. But he's not dark, because you have to remember one simple fact: Through it all, he keeps working even though the task is nigh impossible. The Night Masks control Westgate's government for all practical purposes and could probably easily kill him if he slips up even once. Pragmatism on the Dragon Coast means rolling with it, paying your protection money, and keeping your head down. So he and everyone who works with him, from his lieutenants all the way down to the 2nd level commoner street informants are all idealists in one form or another, and when you're talking paladins, next to the Code that's the most important thing. If a paladin gives up his idealism, his fall is only a matter of time. But riding around in broad daylight on a horse wearing mithral full plate that passersby can see their reflections in is no intrinsically better in alignment terms than sneaking about in the dark with a dagger; it's all in what you do with it.

Thoughts?

[martyboy74]

Paladins get their power from gods?

[TricksyAndFalse]

Paladins get their power from gods?

Well, they are holy warriors.

[Peregrine]

For a long time, and not just on this board, I've noted a large trend towards defining paladins as being knight-in-shining-armor, stick up the butt meatheads, and that anything "less" makes one less a paladin, or not one at all. The sentiment is hardly universal, so if you don't agree with the above, I'm not talking about you.

Firstly, just wanted to say that I didn't quite mean 'shiny' in my post to mean 'shining armour, mounted on a white steed'. I meant it as 'shining, spotless morality', and even then I was meaning to use hyperbole. I know paladins don't have to be perfect (though they ought to strive for perfection); I was trying to say that my observations and opinions were directed against 'paladins' who act less than 'shiny' and embrace such a path.

So I don't agree with this 'shining, stick-adorned meathead' stereotype, but I get the feeling that you might think I do. Just wanted to clear that up.

In fact I find no fault whatsoever with Lord Gaheris. Operating in secrecy is absolutely fine by me, as is lying to protect that secrecy. Such actions are a minor breach of some aspects of Lawful behaviour. The paladin is called upon to commit no Evil act. They are allowed to commit un-Lawful acts, as long as they remain Lawful aligned -- that is, those acts remain the exception rather than the rule. A secret order of paladins that is run along Lawful lines but hides itself from outsiders is quite all right by me. It even gives me an idea...

Remember, the Good-Evil axis is called the 'moral' axis, and it's in their morality that paladins are called to be 'shiny' and spotless. Law-Chaos is the 'ethical' axis, and paladins are allowed to get a little smudged in their ethics.

Paladins get their power from gods?

Oh no... There was a discussion on this in this thread (it was sort of off topic there, and it would be sort of off topic here too). The gist of the matter as I understood it was that paladins get their powers from 'the divine', which is never explicitly stated to mean 'from gods', and in fact sometimes 'gods' and 'divine' seem to be somewhat different. But I think everyone can just decide for themselves whether 'divine' means 'gods' or not.

(Actually, that thread contains a lot more of my thoughts on paladins, if anybody wanted to look...)

[Lemur]

Paladins get their power from gods?

Well, they do in Forgotten Realms, where every person who can cast divine spells has to have a patron deity to get spells. However, this isn't necessarily true of other settings. Depending on how a DM wants magic to work in his setting, paladins (and other casters as well) could potentially draw their power from a variety of different sources.

[PaladinBoy]

Hmm..... that's interesting.

Personally, I like it. It's an excellent example of how you don't have to play a paladin the "knight in shining armor" method. It demonstrates that not all paladins are the same.

However, I wonder a little. You don't mention any overtly dishonorable tactics in your list of things that Lord Gaheris uses (depending partly on your view of dishonorable), but most of what you mention would encourage dishonorable tactics in combat, particularly the sneak attack from rogue levels. Sneaking around to gather information is all well and good, but when he ends up in a fight, does he stand up and fight or hide in a corner and knife someone in the back?

[Illiterate Scribe]

The feat Devoted Inquisitor gives synergy between sneak attacks and smite evil.

[Mewtarthio]

Hmm..... that's interesting.

Personally, I like it. It's an excellent example of how you don't have to play a paladin the "knight in shining armor" method. It demonstrates that not all paladins are the same.

However, I wonder a little. You don't mention any overtly dishonorable tactics in your list of things that Lord Gaheris uses (depending partly on your view of dishonorable), but most of what you mention would encourage dishonorable tactics in combat, particularly the sneak attack from rogue levels. Sneaking around to gather information is all well and good, but when he ends up in a fight, does he stand up and fight or hide in a corner and knife someone in the back?

He flanks with his allies and stabs critical spots.

[Pocket lint]

Excellent post, Renegade. What you say about fighting against unjust laws is highly interesting, but I would add that breaking tyrannic laws still doesn't mean a paladin has stopped being LG - he believes in *a* law, just not this one. A paladin acting in a non-evil society with some unjust laws would probably use civil disobedience as you say - I can see him calmly waiting for the city guard to show up :) In an outspokenly evil society, things become more problematic, since the paladin is flat against the whole system. I'll have to think about that one.

The tactics used (subterfuge) are in breach of the whole "acting with honour" aspect of the paladin's code, since it forbids lying. Lying isn't evil, by the way - it's dishonourable, but not evil in itself. That is not to say that Tyr would not allow you these tactics - it depends on the wording of the code, and how much leeway you are given. I obviously can't speak for Tyr, but lying to your opposition to further the cause is a minor infraction anyway, and definitely forgiveable since you have a very clear view of why you are doing it. It depends on the situation - I would say that doing something like luring a villain into a bunch of beholders with a lie is crossing the line. Merely hiding your identity or purposes from a tyrant's guards does not.

[Roderick_BR]

I agree. One thing I noticed most is how people dislike the "lawful" part of the paladin, and forgets the "good" part. Likewise, many players and DMs enforce the lawful part of the paladins.
There's a reason paladins have "detect evil" and "smite evil", and not "detect chaos" and "smite chaos."
Interesting note: There's a prestige class in Song and Silence, where you play a batman-like character, and you gain "Smite criminal", that you can use against people that broke laws, no matter the alignment.

[EvilElitest]

Three points
1. Great character. To me he seems fine as a paladin. Unless he commits evil for the "greater good" he seems fine. Lying (while not very honorable) is not in its self evil, as is sneaking around, backstabbing, being rude, and disobeying laws. Those crimes are not in themselves evil, just often are used by evil people. Crimes that are inthemselves evil inculd torture, rape, slavery, murder, making drizzt clones, and genocide. If he does not commite any evil deeds like those above, or hurt innocent people then he his a perfecly good paladin.
2. I agree with you statment about lawful. Paladins who oppose the whole system of law in one place don't have to obey it. In Westgate, where hte nightmasks run the law, a paladin is justifyied in disobeying the laws. In fact, if he wins his fight to free westgate, he can try to make a just law styem after wards.
3. No, paladins don't get their spells from gods. about 99% of paladins can worship gods, but they don't have to. Even in FR, a paladin does not need to worship a god to get spells, he will just get screwed when he dies.

I think you should post that story on the Grey Guard thread. It is quite relevent.
from,
EE

[Jade_Tarem]

I'm not sure that your post directly lines up with the "psycopath paladins" thread... The main issue there is whether or not a paladin can or should be able to get away with outright evil methods and keep his paladin abilities. Being devious in the pursuit of evil is one thing - and other than the lying part I agree that there's no problem with your character - but I didn't see "torture of the innocent and only mildly guilty" as one of your character's favorite tactics.

There is a country mile of difference between your paladin and the PrC that sparked the thread you're basing your OP on. No paladin is required to be stupid in the pursuit of evil, nor are they required to be self-righteous snobs (see the early appearances of Hinjo in OOTS). A Hinjo paladin - or even a Roy paladin, is perfectly fine. A Kore-paladin from the Goblins webcomic, however, is not.

[Renegade Paladin]

Perhaps I should clarify a couple things.

When I made the point about Tyrrans not being required to uphold the law of a tyrannical government, I was perhaps presuming that the people reading would know more about the Tyr of the Forgotten Realms (as opposed to the Norse pantheon version in Deities & Demigods) than perhaps they do. Tyr's clerics are, in most cases, commanded and bound to uphold local law, whatever it may be. The three general exceptions are laws that are unjust (as defined by consistence with the legal code that hosts them; that is to say, a law that's inconsistent with the rest of its specificl legal code would not be upheld but a harsh one from a consistently harsh code of law would be), the laws of a government that's broken down to a state of practical anarchy, and the laws of outright despotic governments. So normally, you will find a Tyrran enforcing laws, even onerous ones. Because of this, the Vara'Dome (Gaheris' order) often meets stiff resistance from orthodox Tyrrans who are afraid that they might go shattering laws that they don't like; this paranoia is often enhanced by the fact that one of his top lieutenants is a Sunite paladin/bard and another follows Mielikki.

Also, yes, paladins do have to worship gods in the Forgotten Realms. This is spelled out in the FRCS, page 25.

All paladins of Faerûn are devoted to a patron deity, chosen at the start of their career as paladins. Like paladins of other lands, the paladins of Faerûn must be lawful and good. The paladin's deity must be lawful good, lawful neutral, or neutral good. <snip example deities> Sune, the goddess of beauty, love, and passion, is an exception to the alighment rule, for her followers include paladins even though her alignment is chaotic good.

In the Forgotten Realms, rangers are the only divine casting class that don't have to follow a patron deity to advance in the class; they don't have to choose one until 4th level. If they don't, they don't get their spells but can otherwise advance as normal. There is no divine magic without the gods in the setting.

[Ditto]

Conversation fodder.

This, you might call a gray guard. I think it's just thinking outside of the box. I'd definitely allow this Sir Cedric - a fine example of an unshiny paladin. His story gets a bit more morose as it goes on, but the beginning leaves quite an impression. Give it a read!

[JellyPooga]

Conversation fodder.

This, you might call a gray guard. I think it's just thinking outside of the box. I'd definitely allow this Sir Cedric - a fine example of an unshiny paladin. His story gets a bit more morose as it goes on, but the beginning leaves quite an impression. Give it a read!

Just read the first bit of fiction on that guy...he sound well good! I want to play him in a game now (and I normally stay well clear of Pallys...far too upright and direct for my liking).

If I were running a game, I'd certainly allow someone to play Sir Cedric.

[headwarpage]

Because I love the paladin threads/alignment debates...

Gaheris is definitely a paladin, as evidenced by the fact that nobody really seems to be disagreeing with that premise. I think the problem is that once you stop being "shiny", you enter onto a slippery slope. Not every act a paladin commmits has to be Good, but he can't do anything evil. It's the huge gray area of "neutral" acts that causes problems. In this area, people have to start making judgment calls on what crosses the line and constitutes an actual evil act. It's hard to make those calls - circumstances, intent, and the values of the person doing the judging play a vital role. And if you and your DM draw the line in different places, you're going to have a problem.

I think a lot of people try to avoid that gray area altogether when playing a paladin, either because they don't know where their DM draws the line or because they don't want to figure out where they do. And I wouldn't be surprised if some DMs don't want paladins doing anything that's not flat-out Good just so they can avoid potentially contentious moral areas. There's nothing wrong with that, necessarily, but I think it's one of the things that shape people's perceptions of what a paladin should be.

Finally (this is a pet peeve), there is no right or wrong way to play a paladin. It's not a contest to see who can be more Good. It's not a challenge to play a friendly, stick-free paladin to prove that it can be done. The goal is to play a character that you like. There's no set of standards you can apply to say "Paladin character X is better than Paladin Character Y," other than whether the character is well-developed and the player and the rest of the group are having fun.

[Nahal]

Conversation fodder.

This, you might call a gray guard. I think it's just thinking outside of the box. I'd definitely allow this Sir Cedric - a fine example of an unshiny paladin. His story gets a bit more morose as it goes on, but the beginning leaves quite an impression. Give it a read!

Now THAT is a Paladin. In fact I really can't fault the characters for hitting a brothel after a near-TPK, for obvious reasons. OOC, however, most of us find it in poor taste for players to want to hit a brothel regardless of how their characters might be feeling.

[Logos7]

I'd have problems with ninja strikes ( Ie Lethal Sneak Attacks in the surprise round or catching the enemy unawares)

But as for the general sneaking around i don't have a problem with, Far too many people when they say A paladin without a stick up their ass, really mean a LN fighter with better stuff than fighter.

Personally i run

No Lethal Sneak Attack with the enemy unaware

No Lying ( doesn't include feinting )

Respect the Law, the break and enter is fine, but the problem you mention doesn't seem to be a problem with the law but with those who enforce them. Look at the Empire from star wars, is their really a problem with the law, no it's who's enforcing it, just because the town's mayor and theives guild is LE i don't think that's an excuse to say start burning down warehoues ( even if you make sure no one get's hurt ) etc. Sneak/Gather Info/some sneak attacks are fine, but the whole kit and kiboddle, i'd be talking with my pally

That said has anyone attempted to make a paladin code that works more like the Knights code ( Not that they loose a single use of what not, but that the thing's prohibited by the code are defined in game and not moral terms)

Logos

[Sardia]

My take having to respect "Legitimate Authority" was that the highest authority the Paladin's likely to respect is that of his deity. Mortal authority wouldn't compare, barring a deity-specific injunction otherwise.
Fortunately, the guy only loses his abilities for "grossly violating" the code of conduct, implying that small bends to it when necessary are fine. Evil's right out, but the occasional bit of misinformation might be fine, depending.

Personally, I'd say there's a good bit of natural selection going on to encourage use of every option available without losing Paladinhood-- the guy who puts on full armor, screams "Surrender or die, foul villain" and charges bravely isn't going to last as long as they guy who makes a careful plan that may involve little bits of misdirection ("Send the rogue around and have him make some noise. We'll charge in after they spread out to search")

[iceman]

A lot of people have pointed out that lying would be a violation, if not a minor one, of the paladin's code. However, I would like to point out that lying and not telling the whole truth can be very differnt. By only revealing some of the truth or making statements that could be misleading would not violate the code in the least. In fact a walking that line can be one of those tough things that paladins do.
As for sneak attack, as long as the character is not flat footed (unless made that way by the use of a feint) then it would be alright. There is nothing wrong with using combat abilities to their fullest.

[MandoFTR]

OP:
I like this. I like the fact that someone recognizes that stealth and being a Paladin are not in conflict, especially in the law/good terms.

[Sardia]

OP:
I like this. I like the fact that someone recognizes that stealth and being a Paladin are not in conflict, especially in the law/good terms.

Yeah, and they're even allowed to wear armor and carry a weapon, while we're listing things that Paladins can do to avoid being dumb and dead.

[EvilElitest]

I don't like that paladin Sir Celdric, but he is still a paladin as he has not broken his code. A paladin can be gritty, just not so much so as other classes.
from,
EE

[Nahal]

I'm a big fan of paladins that remove the stick and start beating demons with it. In fact, that's part of the reason I'm such a fan of the Archivist class. They're like clerics without the formality.

[Stephen_E]

I think Cedric is an example of a Paladin who is slipping, not into evil but into despair.

Paladin does = shining example.
All the original examples made this clear, and frankly the best fantasy literature on Paladins that I'm aware of (Deeds of Paksenarrion - Elizabeth Moon) also makes this clear.
The purpose of Paladins isn't killing those Demons or any of the other glorious deeds. That's like saying a Paramedics job is riding around in a ambulance, because that's what she does most of the day. The Paladins job is to provide an example to your average Joe that evil isn't unstoppable, whether it be a big demon, the local bully, or shortchanging a customer. It's to convince people to straighten up and make that little bit of effort to do the "right thing". This doesn't neccesarily involve running around in shining armour, and it doesn't require a stick up the **** approach (indeed this is probably counterproductive) but it does require presenting yourself is such a way that after meeting you men will suck in their stomachs and and give someone a helping hand who's struggling under a load. People will give strangers a smile and a friendly word. That old saying "all that evil needs to win is for good people to stand by and do nothing". The purpose of the Paladin is to convince those good people not to stand by.

Sir Cedric is looking very dodgy, Sir Galahedris <sp> is probably meeting that given the conditions he's working under. Miko was failing, even before she fell (sure, she did good deeds, but not in a way that inspired people) but Hinjo has the right stuff.

Stephen

[Nahal]

When a paladin retires from active questing I imagine it's expected and acceptable for him to get married and raise children or else shut himself up in a monastery and serve as a shining example of propriety and virtue. Up until then, he's facing death at almost every turn and I hope few will begrudge him indulging eros in thanatos when he walks out of yet another narrow scrape. His reasons are legitimate for not wanting a commitment, even if people won't at first understand it. But yeah, he's dangerously close to falling and should look to naming a successor soon before he slips over the line.

[Mewtarthio]

Now, I just read the first post, but it appears to me that Cedric is just trying to put that knight in his place for being so offended at his pleasures. If anything, Cedric's cynicism actually makes him braver: He recognizes that his line of profession will likely end up getting him horribly killed, and he believes that it probably won't mean anything in the long run, but he fights anyway, knowing that it's probably leading to his death.

[Stephen_E]

When a paladin retires from active questing I imagine it's expected and acceptable for him to get married and raise children or else shut himself up in a monastery and serve as a shining example of propriety and virtue. Up until then, he's facing death at almost every turn and I hope few will begrudge him indulging eros in thanatos when he walks out of yet another narrow scrape. His reasons are legitimate for not wanting a commitment, even if people won't at first understand it. But yeah, he's dangerously close to falling and should look to naming a successor soon before he slips over the line.

I'm not sure Paladins get to retire, other than through disability.
But if they do then marrying and raising a family is fine. What better way to continue to provide a shining example of propriety and virtue. Sitting in a manastry is a poor example IMHO. Monastrys aren't particuly inspiring to the average Joe/Jill Bloggs.

Stephen

[PnP Fan]

I'd be all about a Gaheris in my game. He has a very clear purpose, the violations of Lawful are well within both the Lawful Good descriptor, and the religious restrictions of his deity. Yeah, no problem.

Cedric. . . <sigh> ;-) Alas poor Cedric, he has fallen. At the very least he has the feel of a Grey Guard. Here's why I feel this way:
1. I would wager that it's not actually fun to be a prostitute (can't say from personal experience, but. . .). The girls presented here seem to act as though they are happy to work in a brothel. I would bet that it's more an act of desperation, even in a medieval society where there weren't as many taboos against this sort of behavior. But in general, the disease, potential for violent customers, lack of respect from society, and lack of every having a potential husband (something important in a medieval male-dominated society) would make it a grim future indeed. Even with Cedric coming by to visit and curing those diseases, he could only heal a handful per week (no pun intended). Meanwhile, customers still catch diseases, commit acts of infidelity, etc. . . While Cedric is good for healing, the idea of supporting this institution by partaking of it's fruit, is hardly good. There are lots of other ways he could "help" these women besides the manner in which the author presents.
However, there are no rules about celibacy any more, so that does not preclude him from having meaningful relationships (or at least a "mutual understanding" with someone between adventures). Though this route seems unlikely given his personality. I would drive this character towards Grey Guard (grumble grumble), or a fallen paladin/fighter character. Perhaps a fighter/cleric combo suggested by one of the posters on the EN forum.

BTW, fun piece of writing! I can definitely see using him in a game sometime. Perhaps as a fallen paladin who is in denial, or something similar.

[Stephen_E]

One question.

Where does it say a Paladin can't sneak up up and stab the BBEGs guard.
There is nothing inherently dishonourable in this. Knights might not be happy with it, but Paladins don't actually have a Knights code of conduct (although many treat them as if they did). Sure, cutting the throat of a sleeping person would be dishonourable, but Guards are by definition "ready" for attack. So sneak attacking a guard on watch, or leaping into a room and sneak attacking the surprised (but armed) people in the barracks is all fair.

Stephen