I've thought about this but cannot come to a conclusive ending.

How do paladins typically see morality in society and individuals? With the absence of judeo-christian religions in Forgotten Realms, and a wide selection of gods with different dogmas, is there any specific paladin code on such subjects as: Sex, marriage, modesty, alcohol, ettiquite, etc?

The most I can think of after digging through Paladin references is that they are "honorable", but have far more important things to concern themselves with than prostitutes and drunkards. Would a Paladin fall if he was virtuous and right with his god, but also kind of a glutton, a flirt, or just plain foul-mouthed? ... Can they be racist?

Lawful good doesn't mean lawful nice... does it mean Lawful Clean?

Tyrran slaves in calimshan can own slaves.

Tormite Paladins of the Golden Lion, specifically, can in VERY SPECIFIC SITUATIONS, make use of undead.

idk. Always exceptions.

You need to posit a deity and race for the paladin before you can get adecent answer, imo.

_________________
Davion Telemos - Monk of the Four Winds
Korthan Isharnos - Dragon Shaman of Thunder Spirit Zamasham

Very yes, to Tormak's answer.

I'm kind of weary of the constant assumption that every paladin has to be the paragon of the knight-in-shining-armor trope that gets lifted from fairy tales and medieval Hollywood movies: i.e., they're all tall human male blond square-jawed chivalrous polite STR/CHA builds who wear heavy armor and carry a longsword and tower shield.

I'm not accusing anyone specific (including the OP) of holding that view, but every time a "would a paladin do X" question comes up, it seems like a lot of the subsequent discussion is based around that assumption. And it's wrong. Just flat-out wrong. Paladins *can* be that, but to say they *must* be is sooooo boring.

Tormak cited tolerance of slavery and undead as possible (very situational) glitches in the "shining human knight" stereotype of paladins, but there are way more: depending on the paladin's race and god, it might be acceptable -- or even *mandated* -- for a paladin to engage in stealth, sneak attack, racial hatred, torture, or any number of other behaviors. A paladin that does all those things indiscriminately is probably going to get Fallen, sure. But one who's cautious about obeying what only *her own* god and *her own* culture say a paladin should be is way more interesting than one who just tries to be a Disney cartoon version of a knight.

_________________
Winner of Amia's "Most Ethical Time Traveler" award 2026

Character Portraits!

+1 very nicely said wifey

_________________

I would love to agree with Lizzy and I do, but I'm a little hesitant about some examples: I'm not sure torture would ever be mandated of a paladin. It's a fine balance, trying to incorporate the shades of gray in the paladin's culture and still maintaining a high, difficult standard. A paladin must work according to the will of his deity and culture, but on the other hand just doing what's the norm in your culture isn't very challenging or commendable. A paladin must also distance himself and evaluate those practices.

But yes, it always depends on context. As you can see in the Paladins of the Realms series in R&L, there are very different ways paladins act, and even those are riddled with "may", "in general" and "for example" clauses. It's important to remember one thing: many things can be acceptable to a paladin in a certain context, but that doesn't mean they can be justified for just any paladin in any context. You shouldn't think of a gimmick and then try to justify it; I think the paladin's flaws and borderline ideas should arise naturally from his faith, culture and personality. Sneak Attack is perfectly acceptable for some paladins, but that doesn't mean you should try to justify it for your paladin if it doesn't come naturally.

The recognition that there is no universal Paladin's Code gives a lot of diversity to paladins, but it also gives you a lot of responsibility: you have to be perceptive enough to realize what rules would apply to your paladin and what exceptions are reserved for others. Nobody is telling you in advance what you can or can't do. The flipside of freedom is always responsibility and risk.

A quick note regarding honor, Good and Lawful: Lawful and Good are absolute and universal requirements for all paladins (though they can take different forms in different contexts), but honor is a social concept. Paladins are expected to act honorably, but the contents of that word are obviously determined by your social context. Dalesmen would consider marksmanship an honorable skill, but the knights of Tethyr would despise anyone who didn't engage in honorable single combat. There's no universal meaning to honor, so it's the most flexible of the core paladin requirements.

_________________

In my personal opinion a paladin has five defining characteristics. This is what I pretty much came to a conclusion after doing the ic and ooc research for the second edition of the Tome of Heraldry Robert has begun writing.

Ethos: The Ethos consists of the universal principles of a paladin. Do good, do no evil, etc. Torture for instance will fall any paladin.
Edicts: Edicts are the commands, instructions, and traditions the paladin serves as a servant of a particular deity. (Dogma of the God)
Race: The specifics of a race also impact the manner of the paladin. A halfling, a dwarf and a human paladin will differ.
Culture: The culture is where he grew up. A cormyte and a calimsha paladin will be different.
Background: What manner did he grow up? With what values? In what caste or class?

So no, there will be not many universal specifics. The Ethos may overlap and be almost universal, but I think the specifics such as the topics such as sex, marriage, modestly, acohol, ettiquette are matters influenced by the other four. As much as they are restrained by being lawful and good, they can be extremely different. The southern paladin who has a harem and wears only fine silks, the calimsha paladin who holds slaves, the hoarite paladin who hunts down criminals and poetically conducts his justice, the dwarven paladin who drinks too much and eats too much (of course not by standard of his peers).

Heh, if I had the time, one of my favorite concepts is a batman-esque Paladin of Hoar anti-hero that pursues good ideals at any cost.

Not at any cost, though. A paladin of Hoar is not a true neutral or lawful evil priest of Hoar. He's still the best and fairest the church has to offer, and takes the contradictions of his faith very seriously. (He'd probably advocate the educational, poetic justice side of Hoar rather than go around chopping off hands and burying people alive.) He walks a narrow path and he's very mindful of the potential costs.

I'm really happy that it's finally turned around and I'm arguing for healthy convervatism, though. In the past I had to be the voice of dissent, advocating more diversity and freedom. It seems the idea is gaining ground, so now I can make a U-turn and start nagging about the responibilities that come with it.

_________________

I'm sticking by torture as provisionally, occasionally acceptable for some paladins. I'm thinking for example of a land in which harsh penalties are legitimately encoded into a long-standing tradition of publicly known laws, designed to be deterrents to future offenders. (Calimshan, maybe.) If the rightful punishment for significant thievery is that the thief gets a hand chopped off, or if the rightful punishment for attempted desertion from the military is fifty lashes, then why should a paladin of Tyr shy away from ordering such a sentence, or even carrying it out herself? Those things are certainly torture: "the act of inflicting excruciating pain, *as punishment* or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty." (Link.)

I'm not about to argue that a paladin of Tyr should just go around whacking people's limbs off willy-nilly. But if a Tyrran finds herself as the lawful judge of someone who's repeatedly and unrepentantly offended against a system of harsh laws? Then yes, the maximum sentence is probably mandatory. And if the maximum sentence is fifty lashes, then a faithful Tyrran would have a divine, moral obligation to swing the whip.

_________________
Winner of Amia's "Most Ethical Time Traveler" award 2026

Character Portraits!

Oh, well. I think that's a bit loose of a definition, but I don't know if it's widely accepted. What you describe about chopping off hands or flogging, to me, fall into the category of corporal punishment. Different forms of corporal punishment were quite common until very recent history, but they weren't considered torture. Waterboarding is torture, throwing a witch into the lake tied to a rock is not. Burning someone alive is not torture, but slowly grilling them on a skewer is. I suppose it's a fine line and a matter of semantics, but (for example) medieval people strictly condemned cruelty and torture but didn't shy away from just corporal punishment.

What I understand as torture and what a paladin should not do, even if he had compelling reasons to, would be torturing a necromancer to extract a confession and/or information about partners-in-crime. The greater good might demand it, but the paladin couldn't personally cross that line without suffering the consequences. (Though a paladin more concerned with saving the world than his personal career might still do it, knowing that he sacrifices his exalted status to prevent a terrible wrong.)

That's an aspect I don't often see emphasized: sometimes the greater good may require breaching your code, and I'm sure the truly wise and good paladins might be willing to make that sacrifice. It's perfectly possible to do the right thing and still Fall, because a paladin's code is so restrictive. The potential for tragic martyrdom is woven into the fabric of paladinhood.

_________________

This is why I love this forum.

Thanks for all the replies; I did not intend to push the "all paladins are paragons of man" ideal, but since FR sticks paladins as Lawful Good (not allowing chaotic good zealots as seen in other universes) I wasn't sure if parading a paladin of (far away country) would get into a big beef with one of the local puritans for getting drunk and picking up a willing woman after a long day of bringing the justice.

I also often see people walking around in (relatively) skimpy clothing, only to be called out by someone in shining armor to "put some clothes on!" as if Torm came down and said to be ashamed of your body. I suppose this is more in the window of personal morals based on environment and upbringing than anything to do with the church?

Absolutely. There's paladins of Sune running around out there, after all. A goddess of, among other things, beauty and romance, who calls her followers to present themselves in the most attractive way possible, appropriately for whatever context they're in. That doesn't inherently mean showing a lot of skin, but for some people on some occasions, it can. A paladin of Sune might feel herself divinely obligated to go around in a clingy sheath mini-dress with a neckline down to there. And a stodgy paladin of Moradin from a conservative place like Barak Runedar (for example) might feel that sort of attire to be shocking and inappropriate regardless of context.

And they're both right.

_________________
Winner of Amia's "Most Ethical Time Traveler" award 2026

Character Portraits!

Cool topic. I have always found myself intrigued by or curious about the different opinions and approaches from different types of paladins towards subjects like forced castration, abortion, euthanasia, racial politics, eugenics, homosexuality, "harmless" sexual perversion, substance abuse, socioeconomics, gender equality, existentialism, masturbation, and lawyers.

I'm not sure how to classify that clergy.

INCOMING TOPIC CHANGE

To prevent my making an entirely NEW topic for more paladin junk, let me ask another thing.

There are some orders, which have been mentioned here, who may utilize undead for the greater good before putting them to rest-- and rightly so, as undead themselves aren't inherently evil, simply distructive yet unfortunate victims. I can see a paladin taking a pitable stance on them more than disgust.

However, how does this same sort of deal operate with demons? Well, you could technically kill a demon on sight and send him back to wherever in the abyss he came from, but could a paladin also... Drill it for information before sending it back, to see whats going on? Stalk and follow it around? Put it to work before sending it back?

If a paladin happened across some impish thing on his adventures, overpowered and shackled it (or other magical means), could he put it to work in routing out evil? I see it like putting criminals to work instead of outright killing them... Only you still kill them after they're done, you know, remove the problem and have them make up for whatever they've done.

Obviously there are moral and ethical questions here, and evil will be evil unless forced to do otherwise, but is this another personal moral / specific church deal? What things could a Tormite do with a demon? A follower of Bahamut?

Thanks, i'm bad at paladins that aren't FOR THE EMPEROR

Put the brakes on.

Are you sure you want the answers to those questions in advance of you actually going ahead with doing the actions? You're drifting into metagame territory.

Well, I have no actual plans to play a paladin to be honest. The combat and character style in a setting where allignments exist in a solid way and not a pragmatic way is grating. I prefer the 4e paladin setup 100% of the time.

I'd love to do a write-up of why I think religiously sticking to an allignment system that cannot be consistant is bad, but I'm sure I'm beating a dead horse. Yes, though, I'd actually like to know. If you had a codex of control demon whatever, could you "punish" (clearly undefined term) demons by forcing them into doing good things against their will, and then send them back to the abyss? Summoning demons, obviously not okay.

The problem with paladins over every other class is that they are locked into 1 allignment, all the gods who support paladins allow and offer different things, and many people have a very rigid idea about the class that can be played under drastically different deities. My original topic was to illuminate whether or not rude/lustful/dirty paladins would be acceptable to their gods, to which I think I got some great answers from the community.

I've been pouring through sourcebooks and campaigns and seeing things like Succubus Paladins who live in constant struggle for their redemption, straight from WOTC. I've seen Grey Guards who don't lose the paladin template despite how nasty they be to evildoers, and Paladins who are -way- more pragmatic in dealing with evil when it means they could dish out MORE justice by using them in furthering their gods portfolio. (Guns are bad, but it's okay if we use them to shoot the bad guys, etc.)

By that logic, what's keeping a paladin of ____ who doesn't specifically mention demons, devils, yuan-ti, whatever from having a den full of shackled monsters he pulls out and lets loose in vampire covens and castle of dark warlords?

Who knows?

I really don't think they're the kind of answers you should get beforehand. There are no universal guarantees, because every decision and action is evaluated independently in the proper context. Maybe that would be acceptable, maybe not; it depends on your justifications, the deity, church and culture evaluating you, the actual consequences, and the cosmic impact of alignment forces. In this case, what's good for the goose is not always good for the gander. You'll just have to try and see what happens.

By asking too many questions and going into too much detail you not only undermine your responsibility but also eliminate your freedom.

_________________

Well, no, if I were asking for a character in a specific situation that could be considered metagaming. However, I'm inquiring about the nature of Lawful Good and the Paladin code in the realms. "Kill this evil thing on sight, but not that" is a very important thing your character should already know upon becoming a paladin, not trial and error in the field. I don't think gods would accept paladins in the first place, let alone NOT fall one who says "lol i didnt know."

My problem in getting this information is that the allignment system is very "aloof" and forgiving, for the most part, since it does not reflect anything based in reality-- moral greys, etc. However, in a Paladin's case, often Lawful Good is extremely strict on them. I think "Can a paladin consort with demons for the greater good" is just a valid question as "Can a paladin show off his rippling abs and thighs for the ladies?"

Both of these questions are not for specific situations in mind, just... Is they universal paladin rules, or is it deity/church based.

"Try it out!" is just bad advice when talking about universal class truths, and I am of the idea that there are no bad paladins-- paladins that would have been bad are dead or fallen.

So basically, you don't want the question answered for yourself in advance; you want it answered for everyone else. I'm not being snarky, that's just what your post actually means if you think about it.

You still seem to miss the central point: there are no universal rules. Or rather, universal rules are always interpreted and applied to unique situations that will never happen again.

"Don't support unjust governments" may be a rule for some paladins, but as universally as it applies to all their actions, it doesn't automatically produce yes/no answers to questions. It requires interpretation of both the rule and the context where you intend to apply it. What does "supporting" mean and what alternatives do I have? What's an unjust government? Do I have the necessary information about this situation? Is there a conflict with some other, equally important rule?

I don't think the DMs or most players want to determine paladin behaviour beforehand. That leaves no point in role-playing the class. Alignment is ambigious, and we certainly shouldn't chain ourselves to one incomplete interpretation. Evaluations are always best done case by case.

But if it's unclear: "consorting" with evil is very vague. A paladin will most probably not ally himself with a fiend. But then again, what if your party was trapped in some fiendish world where your only hope of getting your friends to safety was to work for some fiend lord against another? Responsibility implies freedom, and when there is no choice there can be no responsibility. But it would be highly questionable to enslave fiends and use them as your foot soldiers against evil. I don't think it would fly. Forcing an already summoned fiend to do something good before banishing it, however, might be acceptable. But there's no definite answer beforehand, and it depends on dozens of factors.

_________________

My question was a hypothetical example building on my basis of expected paladin morality.

However, you pretty much answered all of my questions in that one line. Missing the central point was really why I made this topic!

It took sort of a roundabout way to happen, but thank you.

There are certain things that apply from the whole Lawful aspect; stability, reoccurence, wholeness.....as opposed to chaos with its instability, divergence and individualism (the last is a polite word, a more accurate is fragmentation ). So because of that, they will "strongly favour" both marriage (over "casual encounters") and families with children (over dinkies).