Creating a Paladin Code [Archive] - Wizards Community

Creating a Paladin Code [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
elsajeni
01-13-07, 02:33 AM I'm about to start playing a paladin for the first time, and my DM has given me some leeway in terms of creating my own code of behavior -- that is, thinking carefully about how my character interprets "being Lawful Good" and what she would consider acceptable actions as a paladin. I've come up with a couple of basic ideas, but the main thing I'm having trouble with is, I'm not totally sure what questions I should be asking myself. The issues I've dealt with are:

1. Under what circumstances is it acceptable to kill?
2. What is my view on looting?

What other kinds of questions do you think I should be asking in order to construct a usable code of ethics for adventuring?
Herobane
01-13-07, 02:45 AM Paladin codes are usually pretty boring. They're usually like "no unnessesary killing" and "no stealing" and stuff like that. So in other words, paladin codes are about as intersting as a Spike Lee movie.
Rerecros
01-13-07, 02:58 AM 1. If it's going to kill/maim/torture you, you can kill it. Just don't kill anything and everything that detects evil.

2. Depends if said loot has a legitimate owner. Goblins are especially touchy about foreigners in their ancestral tombs.
JulesCARV
01-13-07, 03:58 AM My ideas!

Killing:

1. Creatures with intelligence as a nonability may be destroyed without repurcussions -- killing a zombie is okay, even if it's just standing there without any orders to kill anyone. This permission does not imply animosity toward all creatures with intelligence as a nonability (for example, a friendly wizard's Shield Guardian construct should not be attacked needlessly, any more than a friendly wizard's spellbook should be sundered): it is merely that killing creatures with intelligence as a nonability doesn't have the same moral implications as killing other beings.

2. Creatures with an intelligence score of 1 or 2 may be killed for a good purpose, such as acquiring their meat, hides/leather, or the like (unless you want to play a vegetarian-type paladin. I did once, and it was fun, and more power to you if that's what you want: just ignore #2), or if they are aiding other creatures against whom the paladin is fighting (for example, horses used by enemy soldiers are fair targets).

3. Creatures with an intelligence score of 3 or higher may be killed in defense of self or in defense of other 3+ int creatures threatened by aggressor creatures. In addition, creatures of 3+ int may be killed if they are an armed part of an organization with which the paladin or her superiors are at war and have a just casus belli, such as self-defense, liberating the oppressed, or stopping attacks on civilians or unjustified aggression against third parties. (Britain attacking Germany because Germany launches an unprovoked attack on Poland is a just cause, for instance) However, while the paladin may attack armed forces in service of a justified enemy, he may not slay them if they are helpless and must accept any surrender they offer.

4. Evil beings which essentially exist to cause suffering -- fiends and shadows, for instance -- may be attacked even if not currently engaged in any reprehensible action, unless they prove themselves not to be horribly evil and live to cause suffering. For instance, a demon who demonstrates that he isn't evil shouldn't be attacked, but a paladin may place the burden of proof on the demon to show innocence, rather than on himself to show guilt when encountering a fiend in everyday adventuring (respecting the fiend's evidence if it can demonstrate innocence, of course). The rules of respecting surrender and not killing the helpless still apply from 3, however.

Looting:

1. Any possession on a dead creature first go to any legitimate claimant to the property. For example, if a drunken man tries to kill the paladin, but is himself killed instead (suppose that the paladin could not have easily subdued him -- say the man was a level 2 fighter and the paladin was only level 3 himself), if the paladin finds out that legally, his death would lead to all possessions being divided among his kids, then the property should be turned over to an executor who could divide it among the heirs.

2. If the heirs are legitimately enemies of the paladin -- as outlined above in #3-4 of the killing section, then the possessions go to the paladin by default. For example, if the paladin kills a gangster in a fight, and knows that all of the gangster's heirs are also gangsters, the paladin keeps any loot.

3. The paladin may commandeer such possessions as are essential for the completion of a just mission if they are returned once the specific, limited mission is completed, or compensated for if destroyed or damaged, and are not forcibly taken from someone who is not legitimately an enemy.

4. A paladin is expected to give approximately 10% of the value of her loot to the church or military organization employing her, or to a well-respected charity if she is freelance. If she encounters people more directly in need of financial aid, she may give aid at her discretion and deduct any direct aid she gives from the required donation to the institution. She must, however, be intelligent and not too credulous when giving such aid. (so that, for instance, it doesn't just help a homeless alcoholic kill himself faster with drink, or be defrauded of most of her income by well-to-do con-artists pretending to be in desperate straits)
elsajeni
01-15-07, 01:52 AM To clarify, the questions given above are the questions I've already answered for my character. I am looking for additional ethical questions related to adventuring that I ought to think about. Will type more clearly next time. :)
JulesCARV
01-15-07, 02:33 AM Since the paladin's code specifies that you must "respect legitimate authority," I think that a clear definition of "legitimate authority" would certainly be useful.

Another issue you may want to look into is how truthful you must be: direct lies are prohibited: what about unsaid implications, selective omissions, etc?
Morin
01-16-07, 08:34 PM Respecting "legitimate authorithy" is a good question to ask. I am in a campaign now where I can not answer this question myself. The king has died, the King's son has declared a new Steward of the Realm, who has passed unjust laws that are imprisoning innocents.
I have to ask myself, do I believe that these laws are just because they are laws laid before the realm by the interim king, or do I go against these laws because they are unjust, and laid before the realm by the Steward who serves Hextor (my Paladin is a Paladin of Heironeous).

I guess I'd like suggestions on how to handle this, myself.
elsajeni
01-17-07, 12:28 AM Morin, the question of unjust laws is actually something I considered in my decision on how to handle being "lawful". I decided that the important thing for my character was primarily to follow the laws established by her god, and that laws made by humans (or other worldly authorities) were fallible. In circumstances like yours, I would say that the law, being unjust, presumably violates a law of my god and that I am permitted, if not duty-bound, to stand against it. As for whether the steward's authority is legitimate or not, I would say that, by making laws that violate those of my god, he has proven that, although he acquired his authority legitimately, he does not meet my god's standards for rulership, and I would consider myself within my rights to seek to depose him. I consider "what makes an authority legitimate" one of the trickiest parts of the paladin code, though, and your paladin could certainly come to a wildly different conclusion than mine would.

And JulesCARV, those are great ideas, thanks. The lying issue hadn't occurred to me at all.
Infantryman
01-18-07, 02:53 PM One question to consider might be: How important is my personal safety compared to upholding what I believe?

For example, if you encountered a large, well armed group of bandits attacking a caravan, would you intervene to help, even if it seemed unlikely that you would survive? Would your code allow you to withdraw and go after the bandits later with reinforcements?

My inclination would be to try and make your paladin heroic and plunge in against the odds, but obviously you need to think of the needs of the game as well. No sense in dying in your first adventure!

Out of interest, what answers did you come up with on the questions of killing and looting?

Infantryman

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
elsajeni 01-13-07, 02:33 AM	I'm about to start playing a paladin for the first time, and my DM has given me some leeway in terms of creating my own code of behavior -- that is, thinking carefully about how my character interprets "being Lawful Good" and what she would consider acceptable actions as a paladin. I've come up with a couple of basic ideas, but the main thing I'm having trouble with is, I'm not totally sure what questions I should be asking myself. The issues I've dealt with are: 1. Under what circumstances is it acceptable to kill? 2. What is my view on looting? What other kinds of questions do you think I should be asking in order to construct a usable code of ethics for adventuring?
Herobane 01-13-07, 02:45 AM	Paladin codes are usually pretty boring. They're usually like "no unnessesary killing" and "no stealing" and stuff like that. So in other words, paladin codes are about as intersting as a Spike Lee movie.
Rerecros 01-13-07, 02:58 AM	1. If it's going to kill/maim/torture you, you can kill it. Just don't kill anything and everything that detects evil. 2. Depends if said loot has a legitimate owner. Goblins are especially touchy about foreigners in their ancestral tombs.
JulesCARV 01-13-07, 03:58 AM	My ideas! Killing: 1. Creatures with intelligence as a nonability may be destroyed without repurcussions -- killing a zombie is okay, even if it's just standing there without any orders to kill anyone. This permission does not imply animosity toward all creatures with intelligence as a nonability (for example, a friendly wizard's Shield Guardian construct should not be attacked needlessly, any more than a friendly wizard's spellbook should be sundered): it is merely that killing creatures with intelligence as a nonability doesn't have the same moral implications as killing other beings. 2. Creatures with an intelligence score of 1 or 2 may be killed for a good purpose, such as acquiring their meat, hides/leather, or the like (unless you want to play a vegetarian-type paladin. I did once, and it was fun, and more power to you if that's what you want: just ignore #2), or if they are aiding other creatures against whom the paladin is fighting (for example, horses used by enemy soldiers are fair targets). 3. Creatures with an intelligence score of 3 or higher may be killed in defense of self or in defense of other 3+ int creatures threatened by aggressor creatures. In addition, creatures of 3+ int may be killed if they are an armed part of an organization with which the paladin or her superiors are at war and have a just casus belli, such as self-defense, liberating the oppressed, or stopping attacks on civilians or unjustified aggression against third parties. (Britain attacking Germany because Germany launches an unprovoked attack on Poland is a just cause, for instance) However, while the paladin may attack armed forces in service of a justified enemy, he may not slay them if they are helpless and must accept any surrender they offer. 4. Evil beings which essentially exist to cause suffering -- fiends and shadows, for instance -- may be attacked even if not currently engaged in any reprehensible action, unless they prove themselves not to be horribly evil and live to cause suffering. For instance, a demon who demonstrates that he isn't evil shouldn't be attacked, but a paladin may place the burden of proof on the demon to show innocence, rather than on himself to show guilt when encountering a fiend in everyday adventuring (respecting the fiend's evidence if it can demonstrate innocence, of course). The rules of respecting surrender and not killing the helpless still apply from 3, however. Looting: 1. Any possession on a dead creature first go to any legitimate claimant to the property. For example, if a drunken man tries to kill the paladin, but is himself killed instead (suppose that the paladin could not have easily subdued him -- say the man was a level 2 fighter and the paladin was only level 3 himself), if the paladin finds out that legally, his death would lead to all possessions being divided among his kids, then the property should be turned over to an executor who could divide it among the heirs. 2. If the heirs are legitimately enemies of the paladin -- as outlined above in #3-4 of the killing section, then the possessions go to the paladin by default. For example, if the paladin kills a gangster in a fight, and knows that all of the gangster's heirs are also gangsters, the paladin keeps any loot. 3. The paladin may commandeer such possessions as are essential for the completion of a just mission if they are returned once the specific, limited mission is completed, or compensated for if destroyed or damaged, and are not forcibly taken from someone who is not legitimately an enemy. 4. A paladin is expected to give approximately 10% of the value of her loot to the church or military organization employing her, or to a well-respected charity if she is freelance. If she encounters people more directly in need of financial aid, she may give aid at her discretion and deduct any direct aid she gives from the required donation to the institution. She must, however, be intelligent and not too credulous when giving such aid. (so that, for instance, it doesn't just help a homeless alcoholic kill himself faster with drink, or be defrauded of most of her income by well-to-do con-artists pretending to be in desperate straits)
elsajeni 01-15-07, 01:52 AM	To clarify, the questions given above are the questions I've already answered for my character. I am looking for additional ethical questions related to adventuring that I ought to think about. Will type more clearly next time. :)
JulesCARV 01-15-07, 02:33 AM	Since the paladin's code specifies that you must "respect legitimate authority," I think that a clear definition of "legitimate authority" would certainly be useful. Another issue you may want to look into is how truthful you must be: direct lies are prohibited: what about unsaid implications, selective omissions, etc?
Morin 01-16-07, 08:34 PM	Respecting "legitimate authorithy" is a good question to ask. I am in a campaign now where I can not answer this question myself. The king has died, the King's son has declared a new Steward of the Realm, who has passed unjust laws that are imprisoning innocents. I have to ask myself, do I believe that these laws are just because they are laws laid before the realm by the interim king, or do I go against these laws because they are unjust, and laid before the realm by the Steward who serves Hextor (my Paladin is a Paladin of Heironeous). I guess I'd like suggestions on how to handle this, myself.
elsajeni 01-17-07, 12:28 AM	Morin, the question of unjust laws is actually something I considered in my decision on how to handle being "lawful". I decided that the important thing for my character was primarily to follow the laws established by her god, and that laws made by humans (or other worldly authorities) were fallible. In circumstances like yours, I would say that the law, being unjust, presumably violates a law of my god and that I am permitted, if not duty-bound, to stand against it. As for whether the steward's authority is legitimate or not, I would say that, by making laws that violate those of my god, he has proven that, although he acquired his authority legitimately, he does not meet my god's standards for rulership, and I would consider myself within my rights to seek to depose him. I consider "what makes an authority legitimate" one of the trickiest parts of the paladin code, though, and your paladin could certainly come to a wildly different conclusion than mine would. And JulesCARV, those are great ideas, thanks. The lying issue hadn't occurred to me at all.
Infantryman 01-18-07, 02:53 PM	One question to consider might be: How important is my personal safety compared to upholding what I believe? For example, if you encountered a large, well armed group of bandits attacking a caravan, would you intervene to help, even if it seemed unlikely that you would survive? Would your code allow you to withdraw and go after the bandits later with reinforcements? My inclination would be to try and make your paladin heroic and plunge in against the odds, but obviously you need to think of the needs of the game as well. No sense in dying in your first adventure! Out of interest, what answers did you come up with on the questions of killing and looting? Infantryman