paladin code of conduct

[Handsomeman]

heres a guide that i found on paladins the other day i found to be very helpful in understanding the nature of paladins.
http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=c...ct&hl=en&gl=us

[Kaeldorn]

Interesting read. I especially like the part about retreat. Sometimes, both DM's and players have the tendency to think that a paladin needs to stay and fight until his last breath against overwhelming odds. But what these guidelines very clearly iterate is that doing so is only considered honourable if the sacrifice has a purpose. If one gets involved in a hopeless battle and sees a chance to escape the clutches of evil, despite how his companions might be left behind, there is no point in swallowing it and sticking around to wait until everyone dies. It is far better to get away and inform one's allies in attempt to prepare a rescue mission, or to at least ensure that crucial information is brought to important people so than repercussions against the enemy can be prepared and more suffering is prevented through it. Throwing that chance away may be brave, but it's also stupid. That said, sticking around can still be acceptable if it's done to offer moral support to one's friends in their darkest (and quite possibly their last) hour.


Although the part about undead animation doesn't apply here completely. After all, in Sundren it is against the law to do so. That means it's definitely 'wrong'.

The part about intelligent undead also doesn't apply in D&D.. A vampire IS always evil, he doesn't 'just detect' as it because of what made him. It's their nature. However, a newly embraced vampire may - according to some legends - still have a road to salvation open before the beast fully takes control. But it's more difficult than just defying it by force of will and ignoring the urge, and usually one must undergo a ritual of some sort and be freed even before feeding for the first time. Else it is too late.

As such, it is absolutely fair to consider any intelligent undead an immediate threat, and it's up to the paladin's judgement if that means it needs to be dealt with harshly right away or not.

[prismaticcrow]

Slight tangent:
Well... I wouldn't say vampires can never be neutral or good. While the "Always" heading under creature alignments usually does apply, exceptions can and do exist although they are rare and unique (as per the Monster Manual pg.305). Such things are usually DM ideas and projects. As a DM, you are encouraged to never say never. You are, however, certainly allowed to say no to a player wanting to be a good vampire. I know I would.

[Kaeldorn]

True, there is always some room for pushing the rules aside a bit. Take for instance Fall-From-Grace in the Planescape: Torment game. A lawful neutral succubus who is borderline good, and at least very kind.

What is stated in those guidelines, though, is that one cannot immediately brand a vampire as evil. The rarity of such creatures being good/neutral is so extreme however that it is very plausible to brand them as such anyway, and that it should not be considered unjust. After all, vampires and demons can be very persuasive and deceptive. So is it really worth taking the risk of giving them the benefit of doubt? 99.99% of the time, no. It isn't.

Which brings me to another something that's not really been mentioned in the guide: association with evil.

It's a widely accepted idea among paladins that associating with evil on a personal level, or consciously relying on it to accomplish any kind of task is foolish and immoral. There are times when one is left with no choice however, especially when tricked. But I've experienced that on Sundren people have been given a little too much leeway in some cases (and too little in a select few others). This 'rule' is often ignored for the sake of being able to interact with OOC friends. That, I feel, goes a little too far. Evil = bad, and unless it's an admitted evil that has shown active interest in redemption, going on adventures with them or befriending them = bad too. You can safely have a conversation with them, as long as you maintain a heels-in-the-sand stance that you don't trust them as soon as they start to encourage you to do anything, or invite you to.. whatever. It's a bit of a guilty until proven innocent thing, in a way.

As a side-note, lots of people find it annoying when a paladin uses detect evil to scan his companions. Now it's indeed fair to consider it rude and non-chivalrous if it's done on a whim (especially just casting on every random stranger one meets), but I find there's an exception when it concerns important missions for the good of the people. This is the primary reason they got it to begin with; to avoid their most important quests being sabotaged by corrupted souls. It's also useful as a general 'scan' on the people joining a meeting in which vulnerable/tactical information is to be discussed with regards to future missions.

[Fezzik]

maybe we can put something like this in the Wiki somewhere?

[Gamling]

Vampires are ALWAYS evil.

[Cornuto]

The PHB:

Characteristics: Divine power protects the paladin and gives her special powers. It wards off harm, protects her from disease, lets her heal herself, and guards her heart against fear. The paladin can also direct this power to help others, healing their wounds or curing diseases. Finally, the paladin can use this power to destroy evil. Even the least experienced paladin can detect evil, and more experienced paladins can smite evil foes and turn away undead. In addition, this power draws a mighty steed to the paladin and imbues that mount with strength, intelligence, and magical protection.

Alignment: Paladins must be lawful good, and they lose their divine powers if they deviate from that alignment. Additionally, paladins swear to follow a code of conduct that is in line with lawfulness and goodness.

Religion: Paladins need not devote themselves to a single deity—devotion to righteousness is enough. Those who align themselves with particular religions prefer
Heironeous (god of valor) over all others, but some paladins follow Pelor (the sun god). Paladins devoted to a god are scrupulous in observing religious duties and are welcome in
every associated temple.

Background: No one ever chooses to be a paladin. Becoming a paladin is answering a call, accepting one’s destiny. No one, no matter how diligent, can become a
paladin through practice. The nature is either within one or not, and it is not possible to gain the paladin’s nature by any act of will. It is possible, however, to fail to recognize one’s own potential, or to deny one’s destiny. Occasionally, one who is called to be a paladin denies that call and pursues some other life instead. Most paladins answer the call and begin training as adolescents. Typically, they become squires or assistants to experienced paladins, train for years, and finally set off on their own to further the causes of good and law. Other paladins, however, find their calling only later in life, after having pursued some other career. All paladins, regardless of background, recognize in each other an eternal bond that transcends culture, race, and even religion. Any two paladins, even from opposite sides of the world, consider themselves comrades.

...

Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Associates: While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.

So..

1. Be lawful (for some clarity, consult Uri's post here.)
2. Be good.
3. Never willfully commit an evil act.
4. Respect legitimate authority.
5. Act with honor.
6. Help the needy.
7. Punish the wicked.
8. Don't hang out with evil or morally bankrupt people.

That seems to be the entirety of the code.

[The Almight Red]

But I've experienced that on Sundren people have been given a little too much leeway in some cases (and too little in a select few others). This 'rule' is often ignored for the sake of being able to interact with OOC friends. That, I feel, goes a little too far. Evil = bad, and unless it's an admitted evil that has shown active interest in redemption, going on adventures with them or befriending them = bad too. You can safely have a conversation with them, as long as you maintain a heels-in-the-sand stance that you don't trust them as soon as they start to encourage you to do anything, or invite you to.. whatever. It's a bit of a guilty until proven innocent thing, in a way.

I have to mirror this sentiment. Though, truth be told, there aren't many paladins around at all, currently. As far as I know, Baragorn's been the only active paladin since I've arrived. I've seen Pericles around every once in a blue moon. Seen Rodderick a couple times. And I saw a Kelemvorite Paladin that seemed to last two days and then vanished.

But now a new halfling Paladin has arrived, Shea. So, hopefully she sticks around.

Anyway, my point is, I've had some people even talk to me OOC, saying I'm being unfair with Baragorn's unwillingness to cooperate with evil people, help them on their quests, not tolerate their words, etc. A lot of people seem to think just as Kaeldorn mentioned. That they should be RPed to tolerate others, just to 'get along' and 'work together.' What's the point of a Paladin, then?

If the Paladin can dismiss their vows/religion to work with others, then there's really nothing that sets them apart, RP-wise, and instead it just comes down to some mechanics they get from their class. Which, the whole reason that one should play a Paladin on a RP server is for the RP associated with a Paladin. At least, that's my opinion.

If a Paladin never creates any conflict, they're probably not doing a good job of RPing them. Because it's pretty damn clear in the code that they don't even tolerate people that continually go against their code of ethics. Someone doesn't have to be evil for a Paladin to become frustrated with. So then consider someone that's evil on top of that.

Of course, I've already met several people that RP Evil people who then play the schtick, "They don't know they're evil!" What the hell? That one makes me roll my eyes, to be honest. D&D isn't about existential philosophy. It gave palpable morals to its world. But, this is an aside, anyway.

I'm under the impression this isn't a RP-lite server. A Paladin is a Paladin is a Paladin. If people don't want to play a Hard-Ass that doesn't tolerate un-Paladin like actions, then play a Lawful Good Fighter! Seriously, you'll get the same RP you want then. Could even go Fighter/Divine Champion.

[Ebannon]

I always thought that a paladin of Hoar would be kind of a badass concept. Hoar's LN so can take LG followers. His dogma is as follows:

Uphold true and fitting justice and maintain the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law. Fitting recompense will always accrue for one's actions. Violence will meet violence and evil pay back evil, but good will also come to those who do good. Walk the line of the Doombringer's teachings, seeking retribution, but do not fall into the trap of pursuing evil acts for evil's sake, for that way is seductive and leads only to one's downfall. Vengeance must be sought for all injustices, and all punishments must fit the crime. Revenge is sweetest when it is sharpened with irony. All attacks must be avenged. Those who do not respond to attacks against their person or that which they hold dear only invite further attacks.

According to the FR wiki Bane and Tyr are duking it our for Hoar's allegiance as well.

Both Tyr and Bane contested for Hoar's tormented soul, as the Dark God sought to turn him into a servant of blind vengeance and bitterness while the Maimed God sought to unlock Hoar's bittersweet humor and shift his portfolio to favor irony and poetic justice.

So I'd imagine you'd get a paladin that...
1. Bestows harsh punishments on the wicked, but retrains his actions to a strict moral code.
2. Respects legitimate authority, but operates outside the letter of the law.
3. Champions and protects the innocent, by indulging in vengence.

In other words you get:

[Tome]

Are all paladins the same?
No, not in personality nor their agreements entirely upon what is truly good and righteous.

I really don't think Baragorn acted in a 'wrong' way. However, neither would I say did Balthasar or the Triumvirate.

When the Triumvirate first considered using forms of power outside of their own, it was not said by anyone there that the power was 'evil'. It was not until later when one of the Seekers handed over a book to the pcs that 'evil' power. Balthasar lost to frustration may have spoken in a way a lot of paladins would not smile upon, but he was not entirely serious. He also held the mindset that as a leader of the community is it lawful or 'right' for him to decide the fates of many lives. One could argue that such a thing is putting himself above the role of man and in the mantle of a god. He was being mostly sarcastic anyway (a trait you don't usually see in paladins, especially the bullheaded Balthasar, but sarcasm is hardly an 'evil' trait).

However, much of that comes down to opinion. Rather than try to say who was 'right' and who was 'wrong' between Baragorn and the Triumvirate should not carry over to OOC opinion. On the contrary, this is a story with interesting, but make-believe, characters. Rather than be concerned about what we think is 'Lawful Good', we should just follow what we believe our characters to be like that.

Granted there are somethings I think we ALL can agree a paladin would not do, but I don't think neither Baragorn crossed that path by questioning the Triumvirate nor the Triumvirate crossed that path by getting temporary discouraged and frustrated. It's just a matter of different in-character opinions and if you ask me the idea of two paladins disagreeing on the 'right way' is such an interesting story concept that we should not waste time on ooc.

Am I sounding a bit much like a diplomat? Perhaps. But we're here to be storywriters, not ethics teachers. Believe me, irl I'm very opinionated and dedicated to my faith and principles. But this is not real life, is it?

P.S. I applaude the pally that sticks to the letter and does not oocly apologize for it. I kinda applaude for any character that does that really, but pallies and clerics seem to get the most flak for it lol.

[The Almight Red]

I'm not sure if anyone was really even referring to that event, in this topic, until now, to be honest.

Personally, I'd rather just get back to the generalities of the Paladin Code. I think more what was being referred to, is, say: Two friends create characters. One of them is a Paladin, one of them is a Red Wizard. And the Red Wizard rolls an evil character. And people even know this person's evil, as does the Paladin, from Detecting Evil.

But, the Paladin still associates with this Red Wizard, and uses some reason like, "I can keep them under tabs, this way." Frankly, it's pretty clear by the code, this isn't how you go. Unless there is some extraneous circumstance such as the Red Wizard literally saying, "I want to redeem myself, how can I do this?" and the Paladin helping; then I think they're going to have to pretty much say, "I won't associate with you." Otherwise, what's the point to the Code?

I mean, seriously, what is the point, then?

(This question isn't directed at any specific individual.)

[Kaeldorn]

I'm not sure if anyone was really even referring to that event, in this topic, until now, to be honest.

Personally, I'd rather just get back to the generalities of the Paladin Code. I think more what was being referred to, is, say: Two friends create characters. One of them is a Paladin, one of them is a Red Wizard. And the Red Wizard rolls an evil character. And people even know this person's evil, as does the Paladin, from Detecting Evil.

But, the Paladin still associates with this Red Wizard, and uses some reason like, "I can keep them under tabs, this way." Frankly, it's pretty clear by the code, this isn't how you go. Unless there is some extraneous circumstance such as the Red Wizard literally saying, "I want to redeem myself, how can I do this?" and the Paladin helping; then I think they're going to have to pretty much say, "I won't associate with you." Otherwise, what's the point to the Code?

I mean, seriously, what is the point, then?

(This question isn't directed at any specific individual.)

It's kind of funny that you bring up exactly this example, because that was what I had in mind when I wrote my statement about DMs/players sometimes expecting/tolerating too much tolerance on a paladin's part. I'll name no names, but older players probably know what I'm speaking of.

To avoid misunderstandings, I'm by no means saying that a paladin should be completely cold and intolerant and have a complete lack of humour (though the last bit is common ). In fact, paladins are supposed to radiate a certain 'warmth'. They care, they give hope. Only thing to keep in mind is that they'll do what is needed and what is possible within their code to put a stop to people who very obviously do not care, and who spread pain and despair to have their way. In other words, those who wittingly destroy what the paladin himself is trying to create. That is why a paladin shouldn't get along with the bad guys.


On the other side of the coin, if a paladin is thrown into a situation he couldn't possibly have foreseen and is really given no way out that could allow him to make any sort of difference, if he then decides to watch in shock how things unfold (to possibly set things right later) as a companion turned to evil resources to battle another evil, then that's not really a breach of the code as far as I can see. This has happened in the past as well. Using such a poor excuse to 'nail' a paladin and dump him from lawful to neutral is a bad thing also. This was ages ago, though, and Nulinus was the victim. It was staged from start to finish and someone else was deliberately spared the 'inconvenience'.


I had no truly recent situations in mind, as I was not even aware what exactly happened at that discussion between the Triumvirate and Baragorn. Sorry if it seemed that way.

[Thief Of Navarre]

I always thought that a paladin of Hoar would be kind of a badass concept. Hoar's LN so can take LG followers. His dogma is as follows:



According to the FR wiki Bane and Tyr are duking it our for Hoar's allegiance as well.



So I'd imagine you'd get a paladin that...
1. Bestows harsh punishments on the wicked, but retrains his actions to a strict moral code.
2. Respects legitimate authority, but operates outside the letter of the law.
3. Champions and protects the innocent, by indulging in vengence.

In other words you get:

I had a character just like that for a while! A Bard/Wanabe blackguard who uses a spear and sheild (Hoar's favoured weapon). His name was Kashel Silverleaf, might have seen him around a couple of times till I deleted him (yes, he had too few hitpoints for a frontliner).

The concept is really nice to play around with because you can be caring and sympathetic to the victim then mercilessly slaughter your foes afterwards Evil doesnt mean you dont care it is defined by your actions I think;

e.g. A paladin would bring a criminal to justice whereas a blackguard would just punish them. This is just my interpretation of course and it states in the player's handbook that a blackguard is a champion of evil not a mislead paladin like I enterpret it!

[GodBeastX]

It's important to note Paladins in FR have small differences from standard paladins in D&D. It's mostly revolving around gods. However, there is an FR specific book "Champions of Valor" that outlines some paladin guidelines. For example, people think paladins can't harm people, taking a passive mentality. Champions of Valor, for example, outlines that it's okay for a Paladin to beat someone's ass who is trying to stop the paladin from doing good.

"Where's the little girl?"

"I'll never talk!"

*Paladin beats his ass*

"Okay, I'll talk!"

That's 100% okay.

[Urithrand]

Slightly OT, but I always thought Blackguard should be a base class instead of a PrC. There should always be an antithesis of any extremist imho.