AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

Lend me your- well. Codes, actually.

I've found myself doing a great deal of research lately on the Paladin as a class. The alignment system is one of the most difficult aspects in the game to roleplay properly, especially with an idea that is so debatable as "good" and a class so dependent on that alignment.

Playing one myself now, I thought it would be interesting to hear other people's thoughts on paladins, their ethos, behavior and so forth. In particularly, I would invite any who might to share their paladin's code.

I would prefer this be a more serious topic, preferably from players who have experience in playing either the Paladin, or strict Lawful Good.

I would like to avoid anything concerning debate about the alignment system itself, and any arguments concerning "lawful stupid" etc. Those aren't particularly constructive to the topic at hand.

I look forward to hearing what more experienced Paladin players have to say on the subject.

Thank you.

As a seasoned rper of both good and evil, I would like to put my quick note in here.

While playing lawful good, or particularly a paladin, it is not only your duty to protect the innocent from evil, but also to actively seek out evil and cleanse it from the land.

Also remember, just because you defend the good people, and uphold the law, doesnt mean you have to be a goody goody nice guy about it. Some of the best paladins are total jerks! >:(

As a seasoned rper....

In any case - whilst maintaining a lawful good stance, it can have it's downfalls. Taking your vow to the Deity of your choosing means that if you break that vow it's "bye-bye" to your Deities favor and you're left in the dark to chew and gnaw on your feeble moral codes. Understand what it is you want your Paladin to be, and choose your Deity from there (if you haven't already).

As lawful good, it is also frowned upon to loot from corpses; it is a sign of homage and respect to leave the fallen warrior with all his items as he ventures into the next world etcetera...

The Peacock wrote:

As a seasoned rper....

In any case - whilst maintaining a lawful good stance, it can have it's downfalls. Taking your vow to the Deity of your choosing means that if you break that vow it's "bye-bye" to your Deities favor and you're left in the dark to chew and gnaw on your feeble moral codes. Understand what it is you want your Paladin to be, and choose your Deity from there (if you haven't already).

As lawful good, it is also frowned upon to loot from corpses; it is a sign of homage and respect to leave the fallen warrior with all his items as he ventures into the next world etcetera...

I'll clarify. I understand the premises of Paladinhood and have done quite a bit of research on it all. I have also picked my diety and understand his rules, I've written my code, and so forth. I'm asking not because I need help writing my character, per se (1st/2e Lore is a gold mine).. so much as I was interested in hearing how other players viewed paladins, played paladins and so forth.

Thank you for your response though.

Oh, well in that case!

I play Paladins, despite their being Lawful Good, in a way that they'd be confused to the victim of his tyranny whilst he goes about his do-gooder regime. Naturally, I play Elves primarily, and my characters are often affiliated with the term "evil" and, for lack of a better word, "biggot". So, as that Gnoll said above me - I've played my Paladins with a strong sense of direction for what they want to achieve for their Deity, and nobody will stand in their way for them to achieve that.

I didn't write this:

My Paladin's Oath wrote:

As an honorable Knight in the Order of the Aster it shall be my duty to uphold these tenets:
I shall not falter at adversity, but push on and persevere through strength and faith.
I shall use my judgment and not resort to physical violence to solve problems that do not warrant it.
I shall always remember to act in an honorable, forthright, just and responsible manner.
I shall have no hesitation in calling upon another of this fellowship when help is needed.
I shall endeavor to use my strength to defeat evil and to defend the innocent and the helpless.

Becoming a Knight of the Aster is not merely a pastime or occupation but an indication of my life philosophy. I am but one piece of a larger fellowship that has come together in faith, honor, friendship and strength to form a bond that transcends death and carries on to the next world.

As an unseasoned rper....

I try to play my paladin as close to a true hero as I can: someone that could be loved by the commoners. She's very pragmatic and uses violence as a last resort; taking Amia as it is, where death is temporary and changes nothing. Annoyingly proper and humble at all times. She cares more about helping people than crusades. She's tolerant of other religions and races too. She's also very careful with whom she travels with.

Undead is the one thing she'd not reason with. It's a mockery of life and her duty is to always destroy it.

The Peacock wrote:

As lawful good, it is also frowned upon to loot from corpses; it is a sign of homage and respect to leave the fallen warrior with all his items as he ventures into the next world etcetera...

That's a society thing, not necesarially a pure alignment thing. Its true if you believe in items carrying on to the afterlife, and that sort of preserve the fallen as a sign of respect as part of your moral code, yes, it's lawful good. However, it can also be justifiable to recover items of value to distribute to the fallen warrior's kin, or to help recompensate those who he may have wronged. In some societies leaving the gear on the corpse would fall into the concept of wastefulness. I can think of quite a few other reasons as well that would fit the Lawful Good archtype these are just off the top of my head.

It all boils down to making sure you're serving the greater good (the good part) and following your code of honor, laws, and personal morals (the lawful part).

I think the important part is before you start playing to nail down your paladin's code and your paladin's personal belief system. It makes for greate guidelines even if it's not quite what everyone else would believe as "the right thing."

Well, I've never really spent much time playing a paladin (I tried, but just couldn't get into the character), but a lot of my characters tend to have BG or cleric in them and are also subject to the same adherence to a certain code as a paladin.

The best paladins I've seen RP'd walked that fine line between "Evil! Kill eet!" and "Oh, he's just misunderstood. I'll talk to him." What I mean to say is, don't be a self-righteous PvP freak and don't be a passive pansy. In my opinion, the best RP lies between the two extremes.

As a seasoned roleplayer on Amia itself, as well as a frequent player of nearly every alignment, I'm going to put my two cents in here. It has come to my attention (and great distress) that Paladins get the short stick, OOCly and ICly, from most Amian's opinions. Why? If you ask me it is because people don't understand how to properly roleplay them (most of the time).

As a bit of a side note, I played a Paladin on Amia for roughly two years. I currently plan on bringing him back.

At any rate, here is my take on the "Paladin Code" and morality as it is viewed / portrayed by someone who is Lawful Good. I am going to attempt to break this down into key OOC tenets that should be broad and simple enough to emulate and specify into IC terms.

1. Your motto, as a paladin (or LG character) should simply be "Justice Tempered with Mercy."

- What does this mean? This means that your character understands that the world is black and white - that there is good which is clearly defined by his religious orientation, and that there is evil (also clearly defined by his religious orientation). However, certain aspects are universal "goods". Two of these things are "justice" and "mercy".

Justice: The belief in a law that is sovereign enough to fight and die to uphold it (ie, uphold in the personal, not the extrapersonal or societal); the concept that there is righteousness (following said law) and depravity (breaking said law), and that there is fair and equivalent punishment for depravity as called for by the law.

Mercy: The acceptance that sentience, in it's basic form, is to some greater or lesser extent depraved in comparison to the righteous laws of a deity. In other words, no man (or humanoid of any kind) is capable of perfectly following the tenets their god sets before them. Mercy also acknowledges that other persons do not (nor do they claim to) uphold the same righteousness as the paladin. As such, a paladin's supreme goal is to uphold the law while fostering righteousness (which means not physically destroying all evil, but at times, through the act of mercy allowing evil the opportunity to be transformed into righteousness through redemption).

2. Purity is a primary concern of yours.

Purity of the Faith: You must uphold the righteous laws of your deity by disallowing any attempt at corrupting or misconstruing its tenets and beliefs. At the same time, you must also prevent your beliefs from being "watered down" or secularized so that they are more socially acceptable. A faith that is pure maintains its integrity and remains the same no matter how much time has passed or how many cultures it has been transplanted into.

Purity of Self: You must refuse to partake in any action that is not only obviously morally wrong according to your conscience, but also to the clear tenets of your belief. Now, we often run into the vague notions in modern day theology of relativism and "What is evil? What is good?" These questions do not exist in a black and white world view (something necessary for roleplaying a paladin character). Nothing is relative. Good is outlined in your deity's code of justice, as well as the universal outline of moral goodness. The absolute best list I have seen of universal moral tenets are as follows:

Compassion, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, kindness, faith, humility and temperance.

Your deity's code expounds upon these, further defining and clarifying them as well as adding other moral qualities and immoral avoidances. As such, a paladin of Helm would follow the tenet of "Defend those who cannot defend themselves, no matter their allegiance, faith, or creed" (Helm being the Lawful Neutral deity of Guardians).

That's how I've come to understand roleplaying a paladin from my own personal experience and contemplation concerning the issue.

ticket wrote:

I try to play my paladin as close to a true hero as I can: someone that could be loved by the commoners. She's very pragmatic and uses violence as a last resort; taking Amia as it is, where death is temporary and changes nothing. Annoyingly proper and humble at all times. She cares more about helping people than crusades. She's tolerant of other religions and races too. She's also very careful with whom she travels with.

Undead is the one thing she'd not reason with. It's a mockery of life and her duty is to always destroy it.

Then your paladin is a beautiful example to Amia.

Quote:

1. Your motto, as a paladin (or LG character) should simply be "Justice Tempered with Mercy."

Quote:

2. Purity is a primary concern of yours.

These ar enice guidelines but do remember that many, many gods accept Paladins, and what is just and merciful for one is not just and merciful for another. Ilmater's concept of "mercy" is very different than Hoar's concept of "mercy" for example, and both of them accept paladins.

The same goes for "purity". A Paladin in Neverwinter is likely to hold very different opinions on faith than a Paladin in Calimshan, wher hedonism, slavery, and debauchery are expected of the 'pure upper class', or even different in Cormyr, or Aglarond, or the Silver Marches.

As guidelines, they are fantastic, but as hard lines, I fear they are as black and white and restrictive as the notions about the class that you seek to destroy.

This is highly reductive, but bears mentioning:

The paladin is a person who is asked to do, and to be, the impossible. And the paladin does so, having no guarantee of success, with a smile.

Yossarin wrote:

This is highly reductive, but bears mentioning:

The paladin is a person who is asked to do, and to be, the impossible. And the paladin does so, having no guarantee of success, with a smile.

I love this. Thank you, Yossarin.

Also: Tormak, what do you mean? I don't understand how I seek to destroy the paladin class.

Not e class, but the incorrect preconceived notions and the bad roleplay you see. That's what you want gone.

TormakSaber wrote:

Not e class, but the incorrect preconceived notions and the bad roleplay you see. That's what you want gone.

While you are correct - my notions could be incorrect and/or preconcieved - I have neither explained nor explicitly stated any example of what I feel is "bad roleplay" on a paladin's part. I do not want to ruin anything, nor do I want to see any roleplay disappear. Perhaps I was unclear.

What I would like to see is the average Amian paladin spend more time contemplating whether or not their actions are actually both "good" and "lawful", not solely one or the other.

brooksthegreat wrote:

so much as I was interested in hearing how other players viewed paladins, played paladins and so forth.
Thank you for your response though.

Hate 'em, think they suffer from holier then thou syndrome, and swear to god to keep them away from any access to arcane magic :evil:

A well played paladin starts with a well conceived paladin code. The code should be central to the character, his/her motives and actions, and should reflect his/her particular faith.

A paladin should live and breathe his code. If he finds himself straying outside it for whatever reason, he should seek atonement immediately, or expect to fall.

I will share a code I devised for a Knight of Holy Judgment on another server (that is the lawful-leaning Tyrran order). The individual tenets are meant to be in decreasing order of importance, so that if there is a conflict the ones listed first take precedence.

--------------------

Uphold the law wherever you go, even if unfair. Seek to reform unjust laws, and seek to remove from power those who corrupt the law.

Do not harm innocents, or through inaction, allow innocents to come to harm. (Yes, I stole this from Asimov. But it works so well here.)

Never lie or willfully withhold the truth. Always seek to bring the truth to light.

Do not consort with evil or tolerate it in others. Seek to redeem those who can be redeemed, and destroy those who cannot.

Punish those who are guilty of wrongdoing. Expose corruption wherever it lies, and bring justice to those responsible.

Be humble in all thought, word, and deed. Always accept that your actions may be the wrong ones, no matter how well intentioned. Be mindful of alternatives so long as they do not conflict with the code or the faith.

Show honor, valor and compassion in combat. Never strike from behind, grant quarter when asked for, and never strike a helpless foe.

Show courtesy and respect to friend and foe alike.

TormakSaber wrote:

These ar enice guidelines but do remember that many, many gods accept Paladins, and what is just and merciful for one is not just and merciful for another.

Which, unless I am mistaken, stated in my original post with clarity.

SwallowtheStars wrote:

Your deity's code expounds upon these, further defining and clarifying them as well as adding other moral qualities and immoral avoidances. As such, a paladin of Helm would follow the tenet of "Defend those who cannot defend themselves, no matter their allegiance, faith, or creed" (Helm being the Lawful Neutral deity of Guardians).

Perhaps I lacked an example to the contrary. Apologies for such.

TormakSaber wrote:

The same goes for "purity". A Paladin in Neverwinter is likely to hold very different opinions on faith than a Paladin in Calimshan, wher hedonism, slavery, and debauchery are expected of the 'pure upper class', or even different in Cormyr, or Aglarond, or the Silver Marches.

You're right - I didn't expound upon cultural differences. However, I'd like to think that Amia's culture is much closer to Neverwinter's than it is to Calimshan's.

TormakSaber wrote:

As guidelines, they are fantastic, but as hard lines, I fear they are as black and white and restrictive as the notions about the class that you seek to destroy.

This is really the part I don't understand. All I intended to do was set out guidelines and describe my own personal view of a paladin - in no way did I claim to want to destroy, or even change, anything. I stated as such in my original post, saying that "this is from my personal experience" and "this is my opinion". I think that I must not have communicated something effectively, because I sense some hostility here and I don't see how such is warranted.

Mountain of a molehill, Reese. Don't worry about it.

n.b. You should add me to MSN; I don't have either you or Avadon and we talk a lot.

i should make a paladin from calimshan on a holy quest to bring back slaves for his lord. That'd raise a few eyebrows i wager.

TormakSaber wrote:

Mountain of a molehill, Reese. Don't worry about it.

n.b. You should add me to MSN; I don't have either you or Avadon and we talk a lot.

He never turns it on often, neither of them do. The losers. /clawshake

I have so many opinions that it would take all day to present them. However, here are some example paladin types that I wrote:

Paladins of the Realms

I'm very strict with paladins, but I also think their strict lifestyle should come from within, by being responsible and wise both as a character and as a player. Adhering to external blanket rules is never enough for a paladin, who must question and test his faith constantly in order to be unwavering in it. In a way, I'm also very loose: I don't really care what rules, specifically, they swear to go by. If you think your concept makes sense considering faith and cultural background, then that's much more important than some universal rule which says you can't own excessive wealth, for example. But once you have chosen your code and ethos, then it becomes extremely important and normative.

Paladins can come in a rainbow of flavors depending on their cultural heritage and patron deity, that leaves a certain deal of creative freedom in the player's hands. When playing my Hoarite paladin for example, I held one universal guideline close to heart when unsure what he would do in a given situation. I asked myself:

"What would Batman do?"

You can't fail with that, because Hoarite paladins are basically Batman, trufax. :wink:

Worst part is, I'm not sure whether I'm kidding or not here. Because it was actually kind of like that.

Simply read up your diety's dogma and code of conduct, see how it matches up with your actual character's methods and play it out that way. My Kobadin lets people fight their own fights if and when possible, but if asked for assistance he wouldn't refuse and he'll look after even his enemies should he defeat them. Inaddition to just turning the other cheek when a racist / stereotypical comment is thrown his way.

I've tried LG PCs and have always found them to be the most difficult to maintain. Consistency is one of the most important and undoubtedly one of the hardest things to have in your characters. When you add the nature of the paladin class restrictions to this then you're in for a challenge and a half.

Personally I doubt I'd be able to stop a paladin PC from 'falling' but I also believe that they are interpreted as being far more belligerent then a 'real' paladin of any kind would be.

An old adage that I would assume works well with RPing a paladin would be 'pride commeth before the fall'.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Care to elaborate?

Thoice wrote:

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Care to elaborate?

Well, paladins struggle with being an avatar of their gods demands. In some elements they obviously succeed otherwise they'd not be blessed as a paladin. So, they must perform as a 'god on earth' whilst maintaining the humility of a lords humble servant.

A paladin may for example feel righteous in striking down a cult which stands against their god. The question here is should they feel righteous? Would their god frown on them taking pride in 'their' work when the paladin themself may not be sure which 'their' they serve.

They should be more humble and not consider themselevs in that fashion, some may a bit over confident, yes, but going too far would indeed make them fall from grace and their god's favour. Possibly they'll get some kind of indication/warning prior to this occuring, but it is how the mighty do fall. Afterall, they are a vessel to carry out deeds in their god's name.

I remember playing a paladin once.
I remember a person was expressing a criminal behaviour, which was noticed only by my paladin at first.
My paladin held him down(not literally, just prevented him from escaping) until the attention "spreaded" and caught the eye of a pc guard. After the guard came to it (and showed his badge), my paladin backed down.
what was most strangest thing that somebody came next to me and started to moan something like "Why don't you lend down your holy mighty justice upon the criminal?"
my paladin told that his jurisdiction ends there, and the local law has higher authority than some adventuring paladin.
.
.
.
He still kept on complaining.
any thoughts about this? Did I rp my paladin right or wrong? :S

and I hope this answers the current topic too(at least partly).

TeroSNS wrote:

I remember playing a paladin once.
...

He still kept on complaining.
any thoughts about this? Did I rp my paladin right or wrong? :S

and I hope this answers the current topic too(at least partly).

I think you RP'd the paladin wonderfully. Law was upheald without causing another harm. Smiting the criminal into a bloody mass... I can't really see that fitting as firmly into the "good" side of things nearly as well as how you RP'd the paladin.

erroch wrote:

TeroSNS wrote:

I remember playing a paladin once.
...

He still kept on complaining.
any thoughts about this? Did I rp my paladin right or wrong? :S

and I hope this answers the current topic too(at least partly).

I think you RP'd the paladin wonderfully. Law was upheald without causing another harm. Smiting the criminal into a bloody mass... I can't really see that fitting as firmly into the "good" side of things nearly as well as how you RP'd the paladin.

Upkeep the laws of the mortals, but the divine laws of your god is always superior. (IG paladin code section 11)

Indeed, but still refer to logical laws and let law-enforcers do their duty, eh?

Completely context-specific. Some paladin in some time and place might have acted different and done the right thing. I can't think of any reason why a paladin would interfere with the legal authority in the situation described, where a criminal is being justly confronted (as opposed to a watchman capturing and punishing an innocent, for example).

All Paladins are different, depending on Race, Faith, Homeland, etc. But I think they all have something in common. There would be more to it than this, for each Paladin - Eg attitudes towards Slavery, but I think in all cases:

-A Paladin is Lawful Good. He respects the laws of all Goodly lands and opposes the laws of all Evil lands.
-A Paladin respects the judgement of other Paladins of superior Rank/Level, regardless of Faith.
-A Paladin always has perfect manners, even towards his sworn enemy.
-A Paladin does not tell a lie. He might withhold the truth or refuse to answer a question, but he does not say something he knows to be false.
-A Paladin will not associate with Evil. That doesn't mean Evil is Kill on Sight, but a Paladin will never be friendly (to any degree) with someone he knows to be evil.
-A Paladin dies before abandoning his faith, or those he has sworn to protect.

....There would be more to it than that depending on your Paladin's Order.

Tero, you were exactly right. Taking the law into your own hands within the confines of a presumably goodly settlement is spectacularly fallworthy. There are different levels of fall, I think. All would require atonement, but falling for calling the Dark Lord of the Sith a dickhead might require a week cleaning the temple floor in pennance. Killing someone like that....eh. That might well be permenant fall or even death from above.

Just run head on into any combat vs. evils and be really, really thick.

A paladin is born.

Thoice wrote:

Indeed, but still refer to logical laws and let law-enforcers do their duty, eh?

I can only speak for Kohlingen now. The law enforcers (PCs and NPCs) there probably won't mind if a paladin is doing his divine duty, by attacking an undead/demon/devil or someone who is trying to defile either the temple or the city. In that case the divine laws are definitely more important.
In case if a paladin acts in situations when he should rather warn the law enforcers, then it is not favored by the law enforcers.
p.e:Red wizard enters the city, but does not show any hostile intent, he simply visits Drerem's mythal forge. The paladin is telling him to leave, but the red wizard does not. The paladin warns him and draws his weapon (which is definitely an illegal action in Kohlingen if it happens without guard permission) and wants to chase the wizard out. This is the case when the individual paladin disturbs the public peace, because he should have warned the guards.

There are many different context, because the divine law is different in each deity.

-Cloak-and-Dagger- wrote:

-A Paladin is Lawful Good. He respects the laws of all Goodly lands and opposes the laws of all Evil lands.
-A Paladin respects the judgement of other Paladins of superior Rank/Level, regardless of Faith.
-A Paladin always has perfect manners, even towards his sworn enemy.
-A Paladin does not tell a lie. He might withhold the truth or refuse to answer a question, but he does not say something he knows to be false.
-A Paladin will not associate with Evil. That doesn't mean Evil is Kill on Sight, but a Paladin will never be friendly (to any degree) with someone he knows to be evil.
-A Paladin dies before abandoning his faith, or those he has sworn to protect.

Hoorah! Let's pick this apart! :twisted:

Re: laws. A paladin will probably oppose evil laws, but not necessarily the legitimacy of an evil government and its whole body of laws. How he reacts to individual actions of law he encounters will probably depend on his mission. If he is escorting a goodly man through an evil land, and the local law condemns the man to be unjustly stoned to death, the paladin will probably outright break the law and get the hell out of there with his buddy (after talking has failed). If, on the other hand, he has been ordered to settle in a village and establish an outpost, he's unlikely to break any laws and will instead work to change them peacefully and legitimately. Inciting an uprising will be a last resort, I suppose.

Re: respect for other paladins. Churches compete and have different motives. Paladins probably feel some kinship to each other, but their judgement is ultimately based in the interests of their god. If a Lathanderite paladin deems that justice has been served, it's very possible that a Hoarran paladin will disagree.

Re: manners. I agree: the paladin ideal, regardless of faith, seems to be one of dignity and manners. I don't think any paladin order would encourage bad manners towards enemies. However, I wouldn't be quite so extreme as to say a paladin always has perfect manners. Perhaps he should, but they're all human with different personalities. Impeccable manners is not central enough to (most) paladins' codes to determine whether they Fall or not. It's plausible that there are rude and arrogant paladins out there, but this is clearly a fault of theirs. Failure to fix the issue after reprimands from your superior might be enough of a cause for Fall.

Re: lies. Here I'm uncertain. The difference between a direct lie and intentional misdirection is technical and hypocritical. It seems paladins should be anything but hypocrites. I find it hard to believe paladins of the gnomish god of intentional misdirection and secrecy would make a strong moral distinction between a lie and something that's practically the same and also part of their dogma. There's also the issue of conflicting values which is especially common when it comes to lies, and I think most paladins (and gods) would consider truthfulness the lesser of values when it conflicts with saving lives or achieving holy goals.

Re: associating evil. This is a very ambigious rule in the PHB. The term "associate" has several possible meanings. Not associating with evil might mean that a paladin will not accept someone evil as their associate, that is, business or adventure partner, or "friend" or "ally" to use Merriam-Webster's definition. That's probably the original intention: a paladin will not party with, accept as retainer or hired help, or perform paid tasks for an evil character. Association isn't synonymous to interaction. A paladin may very well be cordial with an evil character and work for a limited shared goal, if the situation is very specific. Imagine a Planewalking party trapped in a realm ruled by evil overlords, forced to operate under one fiend's jurisdiction and against another if they want to get out of there, or just stay alive for more than a day. A paladin would have to conform, rather than condemn the entire party to death. Or Piergeiron Paladinson, who is surely forced to negotiate treaties with evil representatives of different nations and trade guilds as the ruler of Waterdeep. These are very specific cases, and I agree that a paladin shouldn't ally himself with evil if it can be avoided.

Re: death before abandoning faith and others. Well, the faith thing is pretty moot, since we're talking about abstract paladins and not real people. A person who is a paladin might abandon his faith in dire straits, and he wouldn't be a paladin anymore. It's logically impossible to both abandon your faith and be a paladin, so in that sense you are absolutely correct. Whether a paladin chooses to die before abandoning those he's sworn to protect depends on the situation, I guess: the god may command you to live for a greater purpose. Especially if the situation is over, your friends are captive, and your only choice is a suicide mission against the prison, a paladin might be instructed to choose otherwise. But I agree: in combat, a paladin will be the last to retreat, even if it means his death.

TL;DR

...Sorry Iron.

So, basically, you agree. Apart from in a few very specific cases.

In the case of the Hoarran and Lathanderan, I feel the Hoarran is wrong. He should respect that the Paladin of Lathander carries the same weight on his shoulders as he does and should defer to his will. He might not like it, but he shouldn't act against it.

To me, Paladin RP is all about the essential struggle of morals, adherence to faith, doing the right thing by those. Constant plaintiff introspective questions, the struggle of adhering to their code, its difficult. In my opinion, the most difficult class to Roleplay in a persistent world. Its not something that they would Lawyer about. It is in essence honor, the spirit of what they are which they struggle to upkeep.

This is how I interpret the Paladin Code of Conduct:

My tongue and my quill know only words of truth.
My foe shall know my intent, fairly, before I meet him in combat.
My life will be led by my faith, it will show it, as it is my faith which guides me in everything.
By action I shall brook no evil in my presence. By allowing it; I condone it. In doing so, it taints me.
I will be wary of the evil which lurks. Never shall it act through me as proxy; even lost in the zeal of righteous indignation.
My blade will smite the wretched as it must; but so shall it bring second chance to those who have fallen before it.

Transcendental Templar wrote:

TL;DR

I look away for an evening and this topic exploded

A lot of really good comments above. I will say that I believe the spirit of the class - and the core of it's RP - has to come from maintaining a code of conduct. As a history nerd myself, I know that the difference between the barbarous and murderous knights of the 10th century and the Holy Warriors of the church of the 11th century were the series of oaths and doctrines the Church pushed onto the knightly class. They owe their mystique to this.

I also believe that a paladin's code should be more than the sum of their deity's dogma. It is what makes them a Paladin, rather than a cleric. Especially when you read in the PnP sources, Paladinhood seems to be portrayed as something apart from the church, but a title unto itself and deserving of special respect regardless of deity.

IronAngel wrote:

Re: lies. Here I'm uncertain. The difference between a direct lie and intentional misdirection is technical and hypocritical. It seems paladins should be anything but hypocrites. I find it hard to believe paladins of the gnomish god of intentional misdirection and secrecy would make a strong moral distinction between a lie and something that's practically the same and also part of their dogma. There's also the issue of conflicting values which is especially common when it comes to lies, and I think most paladins (and gods) would consider truthfulness the lesser of values when it conflicts with saving lives or achieving holy goals.

I'm not sure I could agree with this statement. Almost universally among both historical codes (such as in the Song of Roland) or PnP Paladin codes from various sources is the concept that a Knight/Paladin does not lie. Their oaths bind them absolutely, even if it means their death. In PnP sources, it usually states that they may decline to answer a question and they may withhold information, but they cannot lie or mislead. I think this is a big part of the class and the ethos, or at least it is in my mind. Central to all other oaths they may swear and the code that they must uphold is the fact that they cannot lie. Their word is absolute.

This emphasis was likely done for similar reasons historically - as the knight who views it as acceptable to lie can't be particularly trusted in his oaths to the rulers above him, no?

Of course, I know nothing of gnomes..or if there is a gnomish god of misdirection and secrecy.. But I can't imagine he'd be a particularly good god for a Paladin. I was under the impression that even if the god was chaotic, or non-good, if they supported paladins the Paladin was still required to be Lawful Good. I would think the dogma's would conflict with that, unless that their Paladins were tasked with a very specific task that had little to do with the main dogma.

Last edited by IronAngel on Wed, Sep 22 2010, 21:11 PM, edited 1 time in total.

I was speaking specifically of Baravar Cloakshadow, who in fact has a knightly order.

I see no reason why different paladins from different faiths, cultures and races should adhere to the same archetype. It is one thing to say that a Paladin of Torm will not lie (though of course he will, if it means preventing a greater evil; he'll probably just have to Atone for it). That's part of the traditional, chivalric image of paladins. But it's quite a different thing to assume that all PCs with the Paladin class, everywhere, would have the same standards. I'm not even talking specifically rules-wise: I've long since established to myself (as you can see in a dozen topics, if you're masochistic enough to search for them) that the class is contradictory and ridicilous, if we accept everything the rules tell us about it. But we have to use common sense here: a paladin is the foremost holy warrior of his god. Even mechanically, they're the strongest class in the game to serve the divine. Therefore, the idea that the paladin's code could contradict his patron's dogma is absurd.

There is absolutely no reason why, say, Baravar Cloakshadow the patron of "illusions, deceptions and traps", would sponsor paladins who were prohibited from actually abiding by his dogma. The dogma begins with these lines: "The world is a dangerous place, and the only sure defense is to cloak oneself in shadows under a web of deception. Strive to master the art of illusion and the game of deceit for therein lies security." Would he empower paladins and demand absolute truthfulness from them? Put yourself in Baravar's shoes, and ask yourself: is this a good idea?

IMO, you can't consider whether a certain god would make a good paladin patron, and then decide if such paladins exist. The god is the one who sets the rules and chooses to grant the power, after all. So we can take for granted that every god capable of sponsoring paladins will sponsor them, due to the prestige and power they hold. The only question left to ask is how those paladins have to conform to the deity's dogma, not the other way around.

Lying is very culture-specific. It's not evil or chaotic as such. If a paladin exists in a culture where no one frowns upon deception and it's in fact a virtue, there's simply no way for a doctrine of honesty to make its way into the paladin's code. It doesn't come from the god and it doesn't come from the environment, so where could it possibly come from? If we want to make sense of paladins and reduce them to the lowest common denominator, the few basics of the basics that definetely apply to all paladins by virtue of them being paladins, then these are the three things I would hold normative: goodness, lawfulness and absolute loyalty to one's god. Everything else is fluff. It may apply 99% of the time, but it's still concievable that it wasn't always the case. And even a single counter-example is enough to falsify their universal truth.

Cloak-And-Dagger: I don't agree with you. You said, "in all cases." There's a huge difference between that and "99% of the time." It was a good description of what paladins are, to someone who doesn't know them, but we can't treat it as certain truth if there are cases when it doesn't apply.

Here's my reply plain and simple:

Does Baravar Cloakshadow support LG as an alignment for his worshippers?

Grymia wrote:

Here's my reply plain and simple:

Does Baravar Cloakshadow support LG as an alignment for his worshippers?

Yes. He is NG and has a canon knightly order. Actually, there's even a feat/background option that adds stealth and invisibility spells into his paladins' spell list.

My argument stands with or without Baravar, though. It's concievable that there was another similar deity at some point in time, even if we couldn't find one in the current pantheon. (Though I can think of several, in specific instances, who would expect their paladins to lie sooner than fail their greater task. A Hoarite exacting poetic justice on a swindler. A Helmite who, through an unforseeable turn of events, had to either lie or break a contract he'd signed. An Ilmatari who had the option of either lying or watching a dozen innocent people get tortured; this is possible, and there's no "say nothing" option in this example.)

"Never lie" is way too general a rule to apply 100% universally.

I can see where you're coming from, Iron. I had thought though that lying, deceit, dishonesty, etc..were fundamentally chaotic behaviors though..And thus a society that honored those traits would have a fundamental shift towards Neutral, if not Chaotic.

Unless we're also then arguing that "Lawful" as an alignment is relative to the society in which they live.. or we're arguing that Paladins don't have to be lawful.

Not attempting to be argumentative, mind you. Simply seeking clarification.

The 1% disagreement, though Iron, is a slight bend in the rules rather than breaking them.

A follower of Baravar might be quite the exquisite liar. But a Paladin of Baravar is not. They would dodge the truth, and perhaps misdirect, but never lie. Exhibit A is my old character. "What is your profession?" "I'm a cook." True. No need to mention anything else. I made a delibirate attempt to not have a liar Paladin. And if she ever did tell an explicit lie that was my failing as a player rather than hers as a character. Sometimes a Paladin's way of being comes into conflict with the Dogma of the deity (In the case of NG, CG, and LN deities), and in those situations the Paladin's edicts must win out - else the character is not a Paladin, merely some sort of Divine Champion. Paladin's of those deities do not have permission to break the rules. But truthfully they (especially Baravar) do unlock something of a shitstorm and are probably best left aside in widespread discussions. The bluff checks of a Gnome are hardly relevant to most Tyrrans.

Regarding Paladinson. He might negotiate with the Thayan ambassador. But he's not inviting him round to his house for lunch afterwards. The ban on associating with Evil does not mean all evil is Kill on Sight. It merely bans fraternising, as far as I'm concerned.

The manners thing. Thats just something of a philosophy I have. I imagine a Paladin to be something of a self perfectionist, trying to be the best he can be in all things. For himself, and also for the image of his church, I suppose. Being Ill-mannered, or badly groomed, well. I think thats lazy. Conduct unbecoming a Paladin and a gentleman.

Good is good.
Evil is evil.
Lying is bad. The paladin code says it, flatly, you will not do this.

I would say a land where slavery and lying is okay, is not 'Goodly'.
I'm sick of moral relativism being applied to a universe where GOOD and Evil, exist, are real palpable incarnated forces.
It cheapens the concept of paladin to me to try to rules lawyer them.

Dwagin wrote:

Good is good.
Evil is evil.
Lying is bad. The paladin code says it, flatly, you will not do this.

I would say a land where slavery and lying is okay, is not 'Goodly'.
I'm sick of moral relativism being applied to a universe where GOOD and Evil, exist, are real palpable incarnated forces.
It cheapens the concept of paladin to me to try to rules lawyer them.

I have to agree with Dwagin.

While there are lands that have Slavery and yet have deities that support Paladins, the Slavery they practice is a LOT different then typical slavery.

Dwagin wrote:

Good is good.
Evil is evil.
Lying is bad. The paladin code says it, flatly, you will not do this.

I would say a land where slavery and lying is okay, is not 'Goodly'.
I'm sick of moral relativism being applied to a universe where GOOD and Evil, exist, are real palpable incarnated forces.
It cheapens the concept of paladin to me to try to rules lawyer them.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that lying is an evil act on the cosmic scale.. but I can't imagine for a moment that it is a lawful one, regardless of what local attitudes are. Aren't societies themselves given alignments? How can they be if we begin to talk about societal norms? Likewise the very premise of the alignment system to my understanding is that good, evil, law and chaos are themselves absolute cosmic values that need no reference points within the bounds of individual society.

This is why lawful good celestials (particularly archons ) will not, for instance, lie.

Paladins!

Who is online