Combat Pragmatism and Paladins

[Slayer Lord]

I've been pondering a bit on how to improve my role playing, which led me to realize that although I admire the paladin ideal for it's dedication to honor and fighting the good fight (which is why it is the class I play most often), my brain is geared more towards combat pragmatism. When I watch a movie or read a book and there's a fight going on, my mind tries to come up with more efficient ways to beat the bad guy than what is often presented, even if it's a lot less "nice." Now I'm not saying that I'd go and drop a nuke or put poison on my sword, but general underhandedness like getting him while his guard's down, or sniping him from a distance. The last time I played paladin my group ended up killing the evil king and his bodyguard of clerics with poisoned muffins, though admittedly that wasn't my idea. I think it would add an interesting new dimension to how I play characters if I can combine these seeming-contradictory personality traits. Any thoughts on how to be a combat pragmatist while still being a champion of good justice?

Please note the point of this is to be pragmatic without losing the core of being a paladin. That means without falling (at least permanently).

[Comet]

I might be remembering wrong, but I think the original paladins (of Charlemagne and Roland) did a few underhanded things when bringing violence to the enemy in some story or another.

Furthermore, going for a quick Wikipedia on the notion of chivalry which I think is relevant, I found this 'rule':

5. Show no mercy to the Infidel. Do not hesitate to make war with them.

Which is not hard and fast but does speak of the spirit of this whole thing. As long as your enemy is demonstrably evil, or monstrous, you can wail on him with all the violence you have and it will be good. If there's any honour to be found in the opposition, however, you give them the opportunity to explain themselves and then duel them to bloody death fair and square.

edit: Poisoned muffins are maybe out, though. Getting your hands dirty is kind of the point.

[Segev]

In combat, ruthlessness and "anything goes" is largely not going to make a paladin fall unless the DM has very restrictive ideas of what "honorable combat" means. I tend to find such concepts often self-contradictory and arbitrary, because often "honorable combat" just means "whatever is my preferred method that gives me advantage for being big and strong."

I've seen some arguments as ludicrous as claiming that a feint to get your foe to drop his guard is "dishonorable."

Personally, as long as you are honest and up-front surrounding the combat, anything can go within it when you and your foe are fighting to the death. Use whatever you have to to win; if your cause is just, winning the fight against the villain is not something to risk on making sure he has a weapon in hand and is on secure footing.

What you need to avoid, as a pragmatic paladin, is "pragmatism" that amounts to dishonesty. Guile is one thing, but you do not lie about your intentions nor your methods. You do not tell somebody your intentions are peaceful and then poison them. You do not falsely surrender to stab them in the back when they accept. You do not agree to terms of a fight and then violate them. (You might refuse to agree to terms, though.)

You DO engage in surprise attacks. You absolutely attack the foe when they're weak. You definitely secure victory BEFORE giving them a chance to surrender. You could even deceive them as to your strength (without out-and-out lying about it) to fool them into surrendering and putting themselves into your hands when you couldn't have won in a straight-up fight. You might even use poison or the like to disable the foe before the fight starts, or to hasten your victory in a fight.

You also avoid needless cruelty, but that's fairly easy to judge by whether there's a genuine pragmatic reason for it.

But you remain honorable not by being stupid, but by being forthright and keeping your word. You behave even-handedly, and if you have to be ruthless, you do it as efficiently as possible to minimize overall suffering, and you do it with a heavy heart.

[hamishspence]

BoVD does say something along those lines, when discussing the Exalted Rogue - there's nothing inherently evil about Sneak Attacks.

[Garimeth]

I have to agree with Segev.

I had an NPC once who was a paladin of the god of war/competition/strength. He was ruthless but fair. He never helped anybody (intervention) because it was the will of Tempest that they be strong enough to take care of themselves and learn about themselves and unlock their potential. He WOULD teach people though (prevention). In battle he was ruthless, and only spared those who surrendered. But if he was going to fight you, you'd know it was coming, and it would be mostly fair. I'm reminded of Fezzik:

Fezzik: We face each other as God intended. Sportsmanlike. No tricks, no weapons, skill against skill alone.
Man in Black: You mean, you'll put down your rock and I'll put down my sword, and we'll try and kill each other like civilized people?
Fezzik: [brandishing rock] I could kill you now.
Man in Black: Frankly, I think the odds are slightly in your favor at hand fighting.
Fezzik: It's not my fault being the biggest and the strongest. I don't even exercise.

Also, i agree with Segev about having a heavy heart about doing what must be done, and when less than honorable methods must be employed, make it absolutely clear that he finds them utterly distateful. "Fine archer, shoot bandit scout. It wouldn't do to have their whole camp alerted that our force is flanking them. *walks off muttering.* DEITY, give me an honest fight in the morning..."

[BRC]

The thing is, a lot of the 'Honorable Combat' stuff only really makes sense in the context of a Formally Declared duel, where there is a set of mutually agreed-upon rules for the combat.
Paladins are Lawful. However, that does not mean they need to subscribe to the chivalrous nonsense that tries to transplant the rules of a duel onto the battlefield.

Once you have set out to defeat an enemy, it is a Paladin's duty to do so as swiftly and effectively as possible, while risking innocents as little as possible. Depending on the foe, it may be the Paladin's duty to give their opponents a chance to surrender beforehand.

That's really the only situation where I could see the Paladin's code discouraging Combat pragmatism (in a direct manner, rather than a general Being Honorable=Lawful And Good sense). A Paladin, in their attempt to spare as many lives as possible, may feel it is their duty to give their foes a chance to surrender beforehand. In addition, they may feel it is their duty to maximize the chance of surrender by showing their full strength (With the argument being that the stronger the Paladin and company appear, the more likely the opponent is to surrender).

Otherwise, Paladins are not glory hounds. Combat is not supposed to be Fair, they don't owe the forces of evil a chance to win. Quite the opposite in fact. Anybody a Paladin would feel obligated to give a good chance to win, is somebody a paladin shouldn't be fighting in the first place.

[BWR]

Paladins must fight honorably, but they can fight smart. Setting up the battlefield in advance, playing to their strengths, using stealth to scout out the enemy and place themselves in advantageous positions, using feints, disarms, distractions, trips, knee to the groin, etc. etc.; all this is not going to be punished at my table. Individual paladins and their patrons may have strictures against some of these, but there is nothing inherently dishonorable, unlawful, evil or unpaladin-like about them.
Stabbing someone in the back is sometimes ok - an enemy about to kill innocents or allies is fair game. Stabbing someone unsuspecting in the back without giving them a chance to surrender to justice is generally frowned upon.
LG people - paladins or otherwise - in my games do not use poison, they don't assassinate unwitting foes, they don't trap people in burning houses, they don't attack without warning or giving the enemy the chance to surrender, and so on.

[jedipotter]

I think it would add an interesting new dimension to how I play characters if I can combine these seeming-contradictory personality traits. Any thoughts on how to be a combat pragmatist while still being a champion of good justice?

Well, first off, when your talking about combat the line of ''good'' moves. Deception is not good, but deception in combat is OK. The same way killing is not good, but killing in combat is OK.

And this takes us to ''at war'' good vs. ''at peace'' good. When things are ''normal'', good has to do set things to be good. Like not use force or infringe freedoms of people. But, suddenly, when ''at war'' things that are wrong suddenly become right.

So a good person ''at war'' has tons more options then a good person at peace. And a paladin is ''at war''.

And not that ''at war'' and ''at peace'' are just made up things. So it is kinda gray, but good is good....

[Segev]

Once it has come to the point that something can only be settled with violence, it is because at least one side has made a demand and attempted to back it with force and violence and will not back down. Typically, when a Paladin is involved, he is NOT the one who initiated the violence, but is the one who will respond to it with the intent to put an end to it.

"All's fair in war" is a platitude that sounds like empty justification, but is in truth very, very honest. If you genuinely believe that your cause is just, and that you should NOT submit to the demands and actions of the others willing to use violence to get their way, then you should escalate as much as necessary to dissuade them. If they will not be dissuaded - if they resort to violence - then it is good and honorable to use as much force as is necessary to make them stop as fast as possible.

Outside of war - in interpersonal conflict - there is room to argue about appropriate levels of force, but while the appropriate level may be less than lethal even when the other guy swings first, it is always appropriate to use sufficient force to break their will to ever fight you again. It will prevent the maximum violence overall, and, if your cause was just to begin with, it will protect justice and virtue from further aggression more than any sort of "proportionate" response, which invites the bad guy to withdraw to lick his wounds, and come back when you aren't ready with enough violence to win outright.

War itself is pretty easily identified. Even if you could try to find fuzzy borders, it's generally possible to show somebody a situation and say, "yep, that's war" or "nope, that's not."

Ultimately, though, any life-or-death fight is characterized by one side, at least, being willing to kill. The moment that line is crossed, you have no obligation to avoid crossing it, yourself. If they're willing to kill you, you should be prepared to kill them.




On a somewhat different topic, am I the only one who notices that Fezzick's line about it not being his fault he's big and strong doesn't actually address the problem Wesley points out? The problem is that "honorable," "honest" combat is distinctly combat which gives advantage to Fezzick.

It's funny how often "fight fair!" is used to tell a mage, psychic, rogue, or other oddly-powered hero that he has to avoid using his advantages against the big, strong, agile warrior who is a master of the kind of fighting that is deemed "fair."

Why shouldn't the rogue tell the paladin to "fight fair" and mean "with small concealed weapons and without armor?" Why can't the psychic demand that the gladiator "fight fair" and mean "by hurling telekinetic mind bullets at each other?"

Why is "stand in this arena with no hiding place and in full armor while using nothing but the strength of your arm and skill with the blade" the only way to "fight fair," when clearly it offers advantage to only one side?

[Mastikator]

Just don't kill the target, merely neutralize them.

You don't owe them a chance to defeat you, but you might owe them a chance to surrender and be redeemed. Unless you just can't, in which case, take em out.

[Janus]

For what it's worth, medieval/Renaissance European martial arts were all about pragmatism, with a heavy focus on killing the foe quickly. It was supplemented by grappling techniques, and other manuals employ biting, eye gouging, and shots to the groin.

There's nothing dishonorable or unfair about a paladin using feints and other "dirty" fighting methods. It's an inherent part of fighting, and something the paladin should know how to both use and defend against, just like any regular swing of the sword.

[Xuc Xac]

Why shouldn't the rogue tell the paladin to "fight fair" and mean "with small concealed weapons and without armor?" Why can't the psychic demand that the gladiator "fight fair" and mean "by hurling telekinetic mind bullets at each other?"

Why is "stand in this arena with no hiding place and in full armor while using nothing but the strength of your arm and skill with the blade" the only way to "fight fair," when clearly it offers advantage to only one side?

It offers advantage to one side, but it's possible for both sides. The psychic can swing a sword even if he lacks the same level of skill as the fighter, but the fighter can't hurl telekinetic mind bullets.

[Slipperychicken]

Kicking people in the nuts and putting sand in their faces isn't an Evil act.


You should be fine as long as it isn't something like shooting hostages or lying. I think the poison = evil thing is kind of BS, though: one poisoned food item can save many lives, ending the target's life with a lot less pain than a greatsword will inflict.

[Garimeth]

Kicking people in the nuts and putting sand in their faces isn't an Evil act.


You should be fine as long as it isn't something like shooting hostages or lying. I think the poison = evil thing is kind of BS, though: one poisoned food item can save many lives, ending the target's life with a lot less pain than a greatsword will inflict.

I think we'd agree though that poison and assassination are more chaotic good than lawful good though.

The code the paladin needs to follow is typically defined by his deity, unless he is a knight of the kingdom, and that is what he must follow - not a hard and fast sticking to the description of lawful good.

[hamishspence]

The code the paladin needs to follow is typically defined by his deity, unless he is a knight of the kingdom, and that is what he must follow - not a hard and fast sticking to the description of lawful good.

I'd say it's the other way round. A great Paladin, if their deity personally orders them to do something exceptionally immoral - would defy them and Do The Right Thing instead.

Their deity's code matters (in the Realms, even a few LN and CG deities have paladins) - but the basic Code, and LG-ness as a whole, matters more.

[Garimeth]

I'd say it's the other way round. A great Paladin, if their deity personally orders them to do something exceptionally immoral - would defy them and Do The Right Thing instead.

Their deity's code matters (in the Realms, even a few LN and CG deities have paladins) - but the basic Code, and LG-ness as a whole, matters more.

I guess that depends on whether you belive the paladin is more of a knight or a warrior for his religious order. The paladin recieves his powers from his deity, without that he's just a lawful good fighter. The paladin loses his powers if he ceases to be LG as well (in 3.X and 2e), without that he is fighter that is religious.

I disagree with the idea that they matter more, because there are non LG deities who have paladins, and some other game editions (such as 13th Age, and I think 4e?) even allow for evil paladins. The OP never specified a system, and following a deity (or in 13A a holy cause) is a requirement in all of them afaik.

[Illven]

It offers advantage to one side, but it's possible for both sides. The psychic can swing a sword even if he lacks the same level of skill as the fighter, but the fighter can't hurl telekinetic mind bullets.

And if the psychic is too weak to wear a full suit of armor, and a big heavy shield, and a big heavy sword?

Plus that does nothing to address the rogue style of fighting.

[ReaderAt2046]

Kicking people in the nuts and putting sand in their faces isn't an Evil act.


You should be fine as long as it isn't something like shooting hostages or lying. I think the poison = evil thing is kind of BS, though: one poisoned food item can save many lives, ending the target's life with a lot less pain than a greatsword will inflict.

I think there are a couple of problems with poisoned food or drink or gas. First, it is very easy to misfire, killing a lot of random innocents. Poisoned water doesn't just kill the villain, it kills everyone in the castle, many of whom are civilians.

Second, poison by its very nature denies the opponent the chance to surrender, resulting in many unnecessary deaths.

[Yora]

I might be remembering wrong, but I think the original paladins (of Charlemagne and Roland) did a few underhanded things when bringing violence to the enemy in some story or another.

For what it's worth, medieval/Renaissance European martial arts were all about pragmatism, with a heavy focus on killing the foe quickly. It was supplemented by grappling techniques, and other manuals employ biting, eye gouging, and shots to the groin.

The problem here is that paladins are completely unrelated to amything from history. They are pure fiction. The word paladin existed before, but the modern fictional archetype has nothing in common with them but the name. Historic precedent is about as useful for paladins as it is for ninja, maybe even less.
And I think the real problem is that the paladin is a fictional creation that hasn't been really thought through, and the same goes for alignment. No wonder holes are showing up anywhere when you try to make a paladin character be consistent with all the individual tropes people have applied to them.

At the very base, a paladin is a warrior who strives to live by a higher standard than most, and expects more of himself than he would from everyone else. He is willing to make more than the necessary sacrifices and suffer more pain to uphold his values than would be expected of others. When others have given enough for the cause, the paladin is still determined to give even more, so that others don't have to.
A paladin will not flee a battle because he fears for his life, or abandon allies who could still be rescued to save himself. He has to restrain his anger and let go of his hate, but chose his actions objectively. A paladin would kill because it is necessary, but not because he desires vengeance.
And he has the ability to endure more and sacrifice more, and to control his fear and anger because of his faith that sacrifice and mercy will get better results in the long run.

I think this is pretty much what makes the paladin an appealing idea. This is what makes people want to play a paladin.
And I think a big problem with paladins in D&D is their code. People tend to latch onto the letter of the code instead of it's spirit. And in some iterations the person who wrote it didn't really think the whole thing through enough. A paladins code should be interpreted as the Pirate Code. It's actually more of a kind of guideline.

A better code for paladins would probably be:

• Never attack in anger.
• Never let others suffer in your stead.
• Do not allow injustice to happen if you are in a position to prevent it.
• Admit your mistakes and accept the consequences.
• Do not lie to improve your station.
• Honor your promises.
• Forgive enemies who are repentant.
• Never target innocents to get to your enemy.
• Accept gifts and rewards to honor your hosts, but never take more from them than they can afford.
• Do not use peoples gratitude and admiration for your own personal benefit.

[BWR]

The problem here is that paladins are completely unrelated to amything from history. They are pure fiction. The word paladin existed before, but the modern fictional archetype has nothing in common with them but the name. Historic precedent is about as useful for paladins as it is for ninja, maybe even less.

Not quite true. The basis of the paladin is the chivalrous knight portrayed in many mediaeval romances.

[Slipperychicken]

I think there are a couple of problems with poisoned food or drink or gas. First, it is very easy to misfire, killing a lot of random innocents. Poisoned water doesn't just kill the villain, it kills everyone in the castle, many of whom are civilians.

Second, poison by its very nature denies the opponent the chance to surrender, resulting in many unnecessary deaths.

Last time I checked, I'm pretty sure arrows, catapult stones, bombs, and fireballs sometimes hit unintended targets too, but the rules seem to think they're neutral, and no-one's calling to make use of siege weapons into an evil act.

Also, if you want to ask the target to surrender, just do it before you have the food poisoned. What happens next is up to him: if he refuses, poison him. If he accepts, don't.

As far as "necessary deaths" go, it might take hundreds of lives and loads of collateral damage to get to someone in his lair by "honorable" means (and that's not including the civilians unavoidably lost during such operations), while targeted poisoning might only cost a few dozen at most. It's basic math.

[kyoryu]

Michael from Dresden Files is a great example. He fights honorably - but isn't above letting someone's treachery walk them right into a trap he prepared, one that wouldn't have been triggered if they fought honorably.

Of course, Michael from Dresden Files is just a pretty awesome paladin template overall.

[BRC]

I think there are a couple of problems with poisoned food or drink or gas. First, it is very easy to misfire, killing a lot of random innocents. Poisoned water doesn't just kill the villain, it kills everyone in the castle, many of whom are civilians.

Second, poison by its very nature denies the opponent the chance to surrender, resulting in many unnecessary deaths.

I could see a Paladin hitting their foes with some sort of not-instantly lethal poison, then offering them the antidote if they surrender.

[Yora]

Not quite true. The basis of the paladin is the chivalrous knight portrayed in many mediaeval romances.

Which are fiction.

[Slipperychicken]

I could see a Paladin hitting their foes with some sort of not-instantly lethal poison, then offering them the antidote if they surrender.

That works unless the villain has access to a third level divine caster, and is completely laughed off if he has or can get higher level divine spells.

[123456789blaaa]

That works unless the villain has access to a third level divine caster, and is completely laughed off if he has or can get higher level divine spells.

Or if he's modeled in a system that doesn't have that kind of magic. This is the general RPG section after all.

[Yora]

Are there any other games that have paladins?

I only know the Warcraft RPG, which is a D&D adaptation.

[BRC]

Are there any other games that have paladins?

I only know the Warcraft RPG, which is a D&D adaptation.

Perhaps not explicitly in the "Divine-powered Warrior who falls if they violate a strict oath of lawful goodness" sense, but you could easily have a character who follows a paladin-style code, even if it's not mechanically enforced.

[Garimeth]

Are there any other games that have paladins?

I only know the Warcraft RPG, which is a D&D adaptation.

13th Age, which while made by developers of previous editions of D&D, is also somewhat different from D&D.

[Slipperychicken]

Or if he's modeled in a system that doesn't have that kind of magic. This is the general RPG section after all.

Is there even a system with paladins forbidden from using poison, and also a lack of poison-neutralizing magic? I'm pretty sure we were talking dnd here.