Official Paladin Code of Conduct

[Mournas]

It means what it says. If they're evil, and you know it, they're leaving the party, or you are. If someone has an evil aura, that means they've done evil things to get that aura. You don't trust those people with yourself or the people you're responsible for because they've made a life of taking advantage of other people.

I understand, but that's just not the case in all situation. Nor should it be, and what happens if you can actually talk some sense into a person, make a difference, rather than just ignore and segregate yourself from any chance of making that difference. Furthermore, how much of a failure in duty is it to say oh this group has an evil person in it so I'm going to leave just so he can freely take advantage of these people? This is the same as not taking action.

[Lotus]

I understand, but that's just not the case in all situation. Nor should it be, and what happens if you can actually talk some sense into a person, make a difference, rather than just ignore and segregate yourself from any chance of making that difference. Furthermore, how much of a failure in duty is it to say oh this group has an evil person in it so I'm going to leave just so he can freely take advantage of these people? This is the same as not taking action.

If someone is evil, that person does predominately evil things. That's not debatable.

And leaving the group isn't the same as not taking action. It goes like this:

Paladin: "That person is evil, and I will not travel with him. He leaves, or I do."
Party: "Hey, evil guy, hit the bricks. We're not looking to get screwed over" or "Whatever, paladin. Go peddle your zeal somewhere else."

The paladin isn't responsible for someone else's choices, and an adventure isn't the place to try and adjust someone's morality.

Finally, the paladin's main goal isn't the redemption of evil: it's the destruction and prevention of evil. Redemption and atonement are awesome, but sins have to be paid for. Of more concern to the paladin is what sins were committed to make someone evil and pursuing justice for them. Among the goodly races, evil is a conscious decision that has been made, and a paladin is likely to do more for the cosmic advantage of good over evil by removing those who do and have done evil than in trying to convince the evil in question to improve their life decisions over a pint.

[Mournas]

an adventure isn't the place to try and adjust someone's morality.

I can accept this, but it still causes some conflict. There were plenty of evil characters on Team good during many major events. So when is it right to look the other way? In my opinion some matters may be of importance that supersede this matter of "Oh that one guy is evil ..." If the pursuit is both virtuous and important does the Paladin walk away because someone who is evil is willing to commit to a good cause?

[Laurk]

Wether the Paladin will try to redeem or destroy evil I think largley falls to the God he/she follows. Again this goes toward custom paladin ethos dependant on their religeon. I think in "general"with very few acceptions, a Paladin should heavily weigh toward "destroy" evil, unless the evil person is a hot female in which every lamebrain male paladin is suddenly interested in redemption.

Seriously though. The only Paladins I know of who should lean toward "redemption" rather than smiting are Paladins of Sune and Ilmater. Among Ilmater, this is on an order by order basis. A Knight of the Golden Cup for example is basically a bodyguard for a healer and will have to be vastly more tolerant of evil to do his duty, while a Companion of the Noble Heart is basically just a confused Paladin of Tyr who wants to smite evil. Paladins belonging to the Holy Warriors of Suffering on the other hand are somewhere between and will persue evil but attempt to redeam first, and smite later.

A Sunite Paladin might seek redemption unless you're ugly, in which case they'll attempt plastic surgery first, and smiting later.

[Dispater]

They must greet everyone that greets them, they must help anyone who ask for help as long as it's not evil deeds, they must always be working if they are awake.

Obviously this means I am a Paladin IRL. My job has this same code.

As for a set code, it is hard to lump every religion together. DnD is very diverse. Many great ideas are posted above, but it's also been said that some religions would approach things very different. I am sure there is a decent amount of lore out there for the different orders and their respective codes.

[Clangeddin]

I'm pretty sure that there have been many attempts at making the paladin more uh "versatile" and not stuck into the lawful good only type.
Pretty much the idea is to make the paladin an "extremist", someone dedicated to an ideal with no compromise allowed. Of course, this means that from an alignment standpoint, he's the complete opposite of a druid, he can't be neutral.
There have been various UA submission for DnD 3.5 in http://www.dandwiki.com/ that add different types of paladin:

from http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/UA:Pala...r,_and_Tyranny

"The three paladin variants presented here demonstrate examples of alternative-alignment paladins. Each one follows a specific code of conduct tailored to its specific alignment. The paladin of freedom is chaotic good, dedicated to liberty and free thought. The paladin of tyranny is the opposite, a lawful evil villain bent on dominating those weaker than she. The paladin of slaughter is a brutal champion of chaos and evil who leaves only destruction trailing in his wake. (If you use these versions of the paladin class, you might consider designating the standard paladin in the Player’s Handbook as the “paladin of honor” to differentiate it from the variants.)
These paladin variants aren’t meant to be unique classes in and of themselves, but rather alignment-based variations of the paladin. They have the same Hit Die, skill points per level, weapon and armor proficiencies, and spells per day as the standard paladin in the System Reference Document. Their class skill lists are nearly identical, with exceptions noted below. Their spellcasting functions identically to that of the standard paladin (though their spell lists are somewhat different). When a class feature has the same name as a paladin class feature, it functions the same as the one described in the System Reference Document."

Paladin of Honor. (Lawful Good) (This is the standard paladin we all are used to deal with)
Paladin of Freedom (Chaotic Good)
Paladin of Tiranny (Lawful Evil)
Paladin of Slaughter (Chaotic Evil)

And DnD next edition follows this "blueprint" as well, if I'm not mistaken.

[Jhickey]

There must be some leeway within the code, based on deity; for the simple fact that Helm is LN and supports both good and evil. Within his church there could be a Paladin and an evil cleric sitting within the same barracks; in order to fulfill their deities orders/creed they must work together. We can easily use the nation of Cormyer, while they are predominantly a good society (by game rules), they would still have evil amongst their ranks. So lets say a Pally is assigned to a certain battalion; does he forgo his orders because their are evil amongst the ranks or kill the evil with out knowing its cause; even if they both share the same goal.

We have to remember that the PnP paladin (idea) is based on a system of morality that just does not exist in society, and is carried on an axis that does not move often.

Just my late night thoughts on this idea. After a day of reading papers I am worn out, and not sure if I make any sense at all.

[LOLC2k]

Paladins of Hoar in particular are in an interesting position, as MANY followers of Hoar are evil. I have played one, I paid careful attention to evil Hoarites. Instead of "Smite them!" I played my Paladin of Hoar as someone trying to show them different forms of retribution and just punishments, and poetic justice. Additionally, I drew STRONG attention the "good will cause good" aspect of Hoar that everyone always seems to forget.

Hoar doesn't call many paladins, but why might he? In 3.5, before he went under Bane eventually, Hoar was LN, and being "courted" by both Tyr and Bane. A paladin called by him, in my view, would be more about keeping some of his more evil in the fold and using their revenge appropriately.

That's just one example of how to play a paladin of a LN deity, still being good and not "tolerating" evil without being a moron and killing your own clergy and followers because you clicked "detect evil".


Hoar is probably the hardest to play since Hoar is VERY far from LG, moreso than Helm and Red Knight, who often attract mostly LN and LG followers, Hoar attracts more evil than good. With a little creativity, paladins are extremely playable, and do not need to kill evil on sight.
Not tolerating evil has nothing to do with trying to kill every single person who is remotely evil.

Redemption, for example. Almost all paladins should prefer redemption to smiting, though for very different reasons. lathanders major aspect is redemption, so that's obvious. Why might a Paladin of Red Knight want to redeem? What's a bigger tactical advantage, killing an enemy or converting the enemy into an ally?

Playing a paladin does not mean one needs to set half the server hostile every time they log in. It *CAN* mean that, depending on what you do.
Now, that being said detect evil exists and works on this server. So no, without good reason you shouldn't be drinking with people you know are evil, or even travelling with them. Now, there are extenuating circumstances. You happen to notice the rogues a bit evil... while you're killing demons. Killing the demons takes priority. You can tell the rogue why you don't wish to associate with him after the demons are dead.

If the rogue expresses interest in changing (or bluffs you into believing that) things change yet again. Even in D&D, paladins do not have to completely black and white. They have many things they can NEVER do, but the allies clause is rather flexible. I think people confuse it with the hireling + cohort clause, where they must be LG. of course, this requires roleplay on the half of evil as well. If you react defensively and 'fuck you paladin!" when they say you're evil, of course the paladins are going to hate and not associate with you.
Dupe them into believing you want to change. Or make a character actually open to change. If your character is evil enough that they aren't open to that, then more than just paladins are going to hate you.

[cmosier]

The only thing I really know about paladins.

http://youtu.be/XtbZRqu5s7c

[Torgar]

I would like this as part of the code.

1. A paladin will NOT walk around with detect evil turned on all day every day, because to do so would unhinge the mind of the paladin from the effort on concentrating on seeing aura's all day. A paladin only looks at the aura of an individual when that individual is suspected of currently doing wrong, or having done wrong in the past.

IMHO, it's "no bueno" for someone to walk around with ANY detection ability up all day and night, every day and night, because that would eventually break the mind of even the strongest willed individuals. Not only that, but every time you saw any kind of evil aura at all, you'd have to stop and deal with it, and just seeing someone walking around with an evil aura in the middle of a city doesn't really mean you get to just drop-kick him for it, unless you've some suspicion or personal proof of their wrong doing. Murder of an individual, even if you see an evil aura, is not a good act unless you have some proof, even if it's only proof you've seen, that they did something to deserve death. That's what being Lawful is.

That's just my opinion though.

*Edit* I would like to add that there are varying degree's of evil aura's, and as such someone with an aura granted by their deity, such as an evil cleric/FS or a Blackguard, is quite different from some random rogue who just does evil things and has a blacker soul then the normal person. A paladin can tell the difference quite easily, and is WELL within his rights to stick his sword through the chest of an enemy cleric or blackguard for the horrendous things they do in the name of their dark gods. They have an aura that strong because they don't just DO evil, they EMBODY evil. Also all undead PC's are evil, and have strong aura's of evil as well, so don't hesitate to beat that sucker down for being a veritable source of evil.

So, regular evil rogue or fighter? Moderate evil aura at level 20, at most. Watch carefully and try to find proof to bring them to justice.

Evil cleric or blackguard or undead? Overwhelming evil aura at level 20. Insert sword into chest, repeat process until desired results achieved.

[Laurk]

Id say a good alternative for people who like the idea of being a Paladin, but who are not Lawful Good would be the Divine Champion PrC.

[LOLC2k]

I would like this as part of the code.

1. A paladin will NOT walk around with detect evil turned on all day every day, because to do so would unhinge the mind of the paladin from the effort on concentrating on seeing aura's all day. A paladin only looks at the aura of an individual when that individual is suspected of currently doing wrong, or having done wrong in the past.

IMHO, it's "no bueno" for someone to walk around with ANY detection ability up all day and night, every day and night, because that would eventually break the mind of even the strongest willed individuals. Not only that, but every time you saw any kind of evil aura at all, you'd have to stop and deal with it, and just seeing someone walking around with an evil aura in the middle of a city doesn't really mean you get to just drop-kick him for it, unless you've some suspicion or personal proof of their wrong doing. Murder of an individual, even if you see an evil aura, is not a good act unless you have some proof, even if it's only proof you've seen, that they did something to deserve death. That's what being Lawful is.

That's just my opinion though.

*Edit* I would like to add that there are varying degree's of evil aura's, and as such someone with an aura granted by their deity, such as an evil cleric/FS or a Blackguard, is quite different from some random rogue who just does evil things and has a blacker soul then the normal person. A paladin can tell the difference quite easily, and is WELL within his rights to stick his sword through the chest of an enemy cleric or blackguard for the horrendous things they do in the name of their dark gods. They have an aura that strong because they don't just DO evil, they EMBODY evil. Also all undead PC's are evil, and have strong aura's of evil as well, so don't hesitate to beat that sucker down for being a veritable source of evil.

So, regular evil rogue or fighter? Moderate evil aura at level 20, at most. Watch carefully and try to find proof to bring them to justice.

Evil cleric or blackguard or undead? Overwhelming evil aura at level 20. Insert sword into chest, repeat process until desired results achieved.

Again, it isn't this black and white. Take an evil cleric of Helm, and a paladin of helm. Helm would not support running a sword through his chest simply because he is evil. I am not saying killing him causes the paladin to fall. I am saying NOT killing him does not, either. Killing is not the only available weapon a paladin has. And for non irredeemable things (Which is basically all non outsiders and barely intelligent undead) it isnt even often the best one.

[Torgar]

Not killing him may not cause the paladin to fall, but working with him WILL, regardless of the fact they share the same deity. That IS black and white, and in every paladin code that they can NOT work with someone they know to be evil. Makes no mention of "Unless you share a deity" Paladin's of Helm and evil clerics of Helm can not work together, and the cleric should know enough about paladin's to know to stay the hell away from them, or risk being destroyed. A very large tenet of Helm is to root out any corruption from within his hierarchy and destroy it. If a paladin see's an evil cleric of Helm, and feels that the cleric is corrupting the faith away from it's path, then he's fully within his rights to root that cleric out. It's actually demanded by his god to do so. IT's why there is now a council of watchful eye's in charge of the overall faith, and not just one single individual as there was until the year 992 in faerun time.

So, for a paladin, it actually is a bit black and white, and they are one of the few people around who actually NEEDS to have instances of black and white.

So, in the end, Helm totally would support running a sword through the evil clerics chest if the paladin fully believed he was corrupting the faith.

[Jhickey]

Not killing him may not cause the paladin to fall, but working with him WILL, regardless of the fact they share the same deity. That IS black and white, and in every paladin code that they can NOT work with someone they know to be evil. Makes no mention of "Unless you share a deity" Paladin's of Helm and evil clerics of Helm can not work together, and the cleric should know enough about paladin's to know to stay the hell away from them, or risk being destroyed. A very large tenet of Helm is to root out any corruption from within his hierarchy and destroy it. If a paladin see's an evil cleric of Helm, and feels that the cleric is corrupting the faith away from it's path, then he's fully within his rights to root that cleric out. It's actually demanded by his god to do so. IT's why there is now a council of watchful eye's in charge of the overall faith, and not just one single individual as there was until the year 992 in faerun time.

So, for a paladin, it actually is a bit black and white, and they are one of the few people around who actually NEEDS to have instances of black and white.

So, in the end, Helm totally would support running a sword through the evil clerics chest if the paladin fully believed he was corrupting the faith.

This is not even correct; please see silver marches source material. If the Evil Cleric and the Paladin of Helm are tasked to the same goal of the faith, they must work together and any in fighting is handled from senior clergy, who could just as likely be evil. And Helm must follow rank and Order or will not be supported by Helm in any manner (He is himself Lawful over all) He does not support anyone that is willing to turn on his dogma (faiths and pantheons). There is even mention going back to advanced, and an article about 12+ years ago in Dragon Mag where (Greenwood himself made mention of the dynamics of the inner workings of Helm and his church). Just a quick outline; it is not black and white by any means.

[[DM] Grinning Death]

I love the source citing, gets my lawyer senses all a tingle. ^