Post/Author/DateTime	Post
karyakar 05-02-05, 05:14 PM	Hello all, WARNING: kind of a long intro here. Please be patient as you read along. I am facing a serious dilemma... one that involves my first Paladin character? BACKGROUND: Ok the setting is a greyhawk based world... I decided to play a gish with a sorcerer paladin base. I initially started out as a sorcerer at the first level mainly for role play reasons. Also the DM has decided to change the sorcerer's 2 skill points to 4 skill points after much coaxing by others in our group. THE STORY SO FAR We ended the first session at a small town with a couple of major temples including one to Pelor. Which worked out just fine because I wanted to play a paladin of Mayaheine. For those who may not know this, Mayaheine was a LG Paladin of Pelor before ascension and her clergy are favoured by Pelorians. The DM let me meet with Mayaheine's priests during my stay here and take the time to get initiated by them into Paladin hood. Then I met up again with other adventurers and continued onwards... Here is where the troubles began. Now I know paladins are brave and at times fanatical in their pursuit of evil and glorious battles. But seeing as how I could wear little in the way of armor, fearing arcane spell failure, I decided to stick with my Mage armor and shield. In case we were ambushed... i would suffer the consequences of a low AC = 13 (10 + 3dex) Or if I had time I figured, if my initiative was high, I would cast: mage armor (round 1) --> shield (round 2) --> charge into battle if the initiative was low, I would cast: shield (round 1) and charge into battle Now in our very first encounter I rolled a measly 5 for initiative (suffice to say i went last in the group, even after the monsters). I was playing rear guard and so I was not rushed by monsters. I cast shield on myself and then charged into battle. PROBLEM 1: some of the other players (outside the game) suggested that was not a very paladin like thing to do. Their argument was that our poor rogue was downed by a monster who rolled a critical in just one hit... seeing that I should not have taken the time to cast shield and instead rushed to the rogues aid... In another encounter: We were able to spot an encampment of 30-45 orcs who were sending regular patrols. Since charging the camp would have been suicide... our group conferred amongst each other to set up defensive position and wittle down the patrols. Sort of like gurrilla warfare. The rouge setup some traps with the assistance of the ranger. And we waited to in effect AMBUSH the orcs.... and then it began... Again i rolled the lowest initiative. We surprised the orc patrol and started lobbing arrows into the mix. The dwarf fighter charged into melee combat with the axe, he had no ranged weapons. I began to shoot my longbow at the orcs (the longbow is Mayaheines favoured weapon by the way). We killed 5 orcs and the 6th one turned to run away. Since I went last and there was not time for long thoughts (our DM is very careful about matching game time to real time), I had to do something or the orc would warn the others... In a moment of impulse (being used to playing only fighters, rogues etc) I took aim at the Orc and shot him... I even managed to do enough damage to kill him. Sadly i shot him in the back... The DM did not immediately clue in and did not issue any penalties. He may not have realised it at all actually and then ended the session soon after issuing us our experience. In an out of game conversation after the session another player called me out on that. For one he thought that I was playing the paladin for only the divine grace bonus... he mostly plays clear cut characters and frowns upon what he considers "power characters" like the gish... I mean I obviously thought the bonus of taking paladin levels was great, but i wasn't actively trying to build a game breaking character. And I am not even the most blatant power-gamer type in the group. I mean he wasn't hostile or anything... but he certainly expressed his displeasure at what he though was my attempt to play a paladin like a sorcerer. Question: was I powergaming? PROBLEM 2: Needless to say again what I did was not very paladin like... Even if the DM didn't catch it and penalise me... participating in an ambush... shooting a foe in the back... all sound pretty bad. SIGH... ok... so my questions for you all are: THE QUESTIONS 1. Do you think I have been making serious in-game errors? Don't sugar coat your responses... let me have the bitter pills please. And as a follow-up... what should I do differently? Remember I am a secondary caster with a measly 13 AC and acting like a tank may not be a smart move just yet. Also mage armor lasts for only 1 hour and shield for 1 min at this level, and I have only 4 spells a day to cast. 1. Can someone help me clarify the CODE of CONDUCT of Paladins? If possible, specifically those of Mayaheine... I would imagine it would be very similar to Pelor's in the greyhawk setting. To date I have been doing things to help the poor... giving the majority of my earnings to charity... helping put out fires and standing at guard duty etc... I am so confused about how to play this character. Please help. Its my first paladin character and I just don't feel right about retiring him, or even sending him to his death if I can avoid it by being "more paladin like" (as that confrontational player in my group suggested I do). Thanks in advance for your help... I really appreciate it!!!! ---Cheers
Rathis Darkwielder 05-02-05, 05:31 PM	I don't think you made a mistake. Paladins may be lawful good by default, but never have I seen a single description of LG that included not ambushing and not shooting people in the back. These two things would be defined as 'honourable' by me and may or may not be appropriate for your paladin. I'd rather say these are appropriate for an oriental samurai (please don't quote me on the samurai part, I really don't have much knowledge on these things). The way you are portraying a 'typical paladin' would mean confronting every foe head on and charging recklessly into combat everytime. That's not lawful good, that's lawful stupid. Every paladin should know that his first mission is to battle the minions of evil with the divine powers bestowed upon him. A secondary concern might be doing so in an honourable way, but that should never overshadow the first part. Some things a paladin should do are: - faithfullness to your god (duh!) - respect your superiors - act 'good' (helping the oppressed/poor/miserable, you might want to check the book of exalted deeds for a more detailed description of good/exalted deeds) - act lawful (adhere the law, respect superiors, etc) - combat evil - try to redeem evil people if possible (ie. they are not demon/devils/etc) - kill evil people if redemption is impossible That's all I can think of right now, Rathis
b6 05-02-05, 05:49 PM	first of all, i don't see any problem with your paladin participating in an ambush. he would have realized that rushing an enemy without planning is stupid, especially if the party rogue pulled the party together and said ANYTHING like "ok, let's plan this first." secondly, shooting the orc in the back is an unfortunate side-effect. it was not intended, after all (i should hope). however, if you want you could still RP your paladin asking for forgiveness for that act in prayer to his deity, and that would probably be very acceptable. honestly you took the correct course of action -- he was running for help, and you ended up saving many lives. even more so, he had been engaged in combat with your party... so it was a continuation of sorts. if the player gives you more grief for it, tell him that if he has a direct line of communication with the deity you've chosen to please patch you in. you would be ever so appreciative. finally, here are some quick links for your own personal reference if you'd like. a useful essay: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a a recent topic with pally questions: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=423141
Sir Gimp 05-02-05, 06:00 PM	yeah im with b6 on this one.given the circumstaces(you being a mage and such) you did EXACTLY the right thing..i dont see any problem with how your going and if the group has a problem with how you cast your spells..remember your only good to them if your alive and as for the powergaming thing..i think that dude just wants to bellyache every group has one lol anyway good gaming
karyakar 05-02-05, 06:36 PM	Rathis, Sir Gimp: Thanks for your notes on playing my paladin. I will probably take a bit of time to develop a personal "code of conduct". In a time of arguement or as Sir Gimp put it so fittingly "belly-aching" I can pull it out as a reference. b6: the articles at the links you provided were very helpful... thanks cheers
MT-296 "Dagger" 05-02-05, 08:05 PM	You did nothing wrong, Actually i congratulate you for not playing a Pally as Lawful Stupid, If you ever need a definition for lawful stuipid i have the perfect link for it.
karyakar 05-02-05, 09:32 PM	MT-296 "Dagger": Could you please post the link... purely for the fun of it. You've got me curious now.
Leap 05-04-05, 07:12 AM	Ambushing is fine when those you ambush are unservingly devoted to doing evil. However, ambush someone who is wavering is not paladinlike as the person is clearly offering an opening to turn them from doing evil.
BradSmit 05-04-05, 07:21 AM	You could always just say "Well, his back was to me. What else was I to do?" about the orc in the back thing. Other than that you did fine.
Ashianyl 05-05-05, 07:19 AM	Here's my two cents worth... Are you going to issue a challenge to a powerful necromancer or are you going to ambush him when he is weak and not surrounded by hundreds of minions? There is nothing wrong with ambushing an enemy if it means that by doing so, you save more lives (and possibly the lives of your companions as well). It also makes no sense to risk the lives of those who travel with you. As for the rogue, it may have been proper to rush in to defend the poor fella... but if doing so would have put you in more danger, then again, it makes no sense to charge in blindly instead of preparing yourself. :)
Shaqspaere 05-05-05, 03:11 PM	I agree with the other posters. I love playing the Paladin, for the challenge of it. As for rushing into battle unprepared, to save a fallen ally... Think of a firefighter, rushing in to a burning building to save someone. He must take the time to prepare for his own survival in order to make a rescue. No one would expect him to charge into the building without his mask or protective clothing.
Frostbite_Ravenheart 05-05-05, 03:49 PM	What it really comes down to is your faith: What would you god say? I'm not familiar with your game but in some, certain gods demand or really value man-to-man one on one kind of fights. Others, may just be extremely zealous about killing the bad guys. What would your god do? In real-life and in every good character I play I hold one rule and one rule alone: The end justifies the means as long as the end is justifiable. I see nothing wrong with your characters action. Flirting with the kings wife to get to him is one thing. Setting fires to the goblins villages and capturing the women and children is one thing. All you did was finish a fight before it got worse, potentially endangering more people. In fact, if anyone bothers you a good thing to say would be "I will just taking the life of a coward who would run from battle." Or something to that affect. -Frosty
Quoriil 05-09-05, 11:31 AM	Just playing the devil's advocate here, but you can participate in an ambush AND maintain your honor and valor in combat. IMO your concern is as valid as your actions, shooting someone in the back as they flee is not so honorable despite its necesity. You can set yourself in position so that you step out from cover between the orcs and their encampment, you can challenge them openly and shoot one as soon as he turns around, then your friends can open up on them in your defense. This is not lawful-stupid if there is some planning involved. As you seem to be doing here, Paladins have to hold themselves to a higher standard despite the situation or the inclinations of your group-mates.
Nuntius128 05-09-05, 02:52 PM	PROBLEM 1: some of the other players (outside the game) suggested that was not a very paladin like thing to do. Their argument was that our poor rogue was downed by a monster who rolled a critical in just one hit... seeing that I should not have taken the time to cast shield and instead rushed to the rogues aid... You could rush to the Rogue's aid, yes, but would it have been smart? If the monster critted him and dropped him that easily, crush the beast before it does it again, then aid the Rogue. PROBLEM 2: Needless to say again what I did was not very paladin like... Even if the DM didn't catch it and penalise me... participating in an ambush... shooting a foe in the back... all sound pretty bad. An ambush is indeed bad. Its sneaky, and dishonest, whether its smart or not. The smartest thing to do would have been to wait for one of the patrols to go out, stop them, and interrogate them. If they choose to fight, you'll be killing in self-defense. However, while you shot the Orc in the back, were you aiming for the Orc's back? Did you think to yourself "He has no chance to survive, because I'm gonna lay him out while he's not looking?" If you didn't, then you're ok. Also, powergaming? No, I don't think so. Nothing keeps Sorcerors from being champions of good, so why not?
Cadfan 05-09-05, 02:55 PM	There is no "One True Code of Conduct." Work one out for yourself. As long as it doesn't involve willfully committing evil acts, you have nearly free reign. Make sure your DM approves it, then don't complain if/when he enforces it against you. Its perfectly fine to play a humble Paladin who is well aware of their own limitations, and who accomplishes good through planning and forethought. It could be fun to play a paladin of, say, Pelor, who looks at the paladins of Hieroneous as being self centered glory hogs who rationalize their desire for personal fame and achievement by claiming that they are upholding a code of conduct which requires flashy confrontation instead of prudent care.
Ty 05-09-05, 06:06 PM	You did just fine. Paladins are not lawful stupid. Paladins do not have to comply with the 1st edition cavalier description since the introduction of the 2nd edition. I congratulate you on playing intelligently in combat. My only suggestion is to incorporate your religion into your role-playing.
pres_man 05-09-05, 11:45 PM	Here is a link for some ideas of codes of conduct for knights, which might help for your paladin. http://www.virtopia.com/KnightsCode/ Now about your situations. Get some armor and a shield, go light armor and buckler if you want, but stop wasting precious time on casting while your friends are dying. You are paladin now, it is time to start fighting smart. Suck up the spell failure. Downed rogue incident: As long as if after you cast your spell you moved to assist your companion there should be no fault on you for this (though if you had been wearing armor at the time ...). Orc ambush/shot in the back incident: First off you need to discuss with your DM how monster races are dealt with. Can they be redeemed or are they like the LoTR orcs and are basic evil to the core? If they can be redeemed, then attacking from ambush could be evil since you are taking lives for convience (safest way so you don't risk your own lives). Shotting in the back could also be evil then. In either case, it is dishonorable behaviour in the most generic sense. A more honorable approach would have been to tell the group to wait until you step out, and tell the orcs to surrender or you and your allies will have to kill them. When the orcs attack, you are well within your honorable rights to defend yourself. If an orc runs, you shouldn't shot him in the back, instead you should try to chase him down. I'm sure some of the other posters will say I am suggesting you play lawful stupid when in fact to be honorable you have to play smarter than most players. Of course a lot of them won't understand that because they play by the "honorable" code of "In war, nothing is more honorable than victory" to justify all kinds of actions. Good luck, paladins are the most heroic of all of the classes just because they often have to make the toughest choices.
Wizards_White_Knight 05-10-05, 03:59 AM	Her favoured weapon is a Longbow? Many people around here describe honor as 1 on 1 battles. If you are using you dieties favoured weapon, the Longbow, then you would want to hope you had a different set of ethics and honor, cause you wont survive long in that world. Longbow has range of 110 feet. Lets say he didnt ambush. Let's say he stood in the open and started raining death on them from far away. Is that any less honorable? If not, why not? If so, why? HIs god did it! WHy should he be punished for it? And jsut because he used the range of to his weapon to his advantage in a battle, doesnt mean he is dishonorable. If he had a sword, and he chased after the orc, how would it have been any different? We would have had to attack the fleeing orc somehow to stop it. I am sure the orc wouldnt have turned around to face the attack honorably. I feel like saying as long as you didnt shoot to kill, there is no problem, but I think considering the fact taht your diety favors the Longbow, it is to be expected that in battle, you shoot to kill. Yes you shot a fleeing enemy, but that is using your weapon in the way it supposed to be used. WWK
pres_man 05-10-05, 08:14 AM	Many people around here describe honor as 1 on 1 battles. I certainly wasn't. 1 on 1 combats certainly can be honorable combats, but not all honorable combats are 1 on 1. Honorable combats are often combats where each side has a reasonable expectation of some form of success. Let's say he stood in the open and started raining death on them from far away. Is that any less honorable? If not, why not? If so, why? Being out in the open gives his opponents a chance to attack back with their own ranged weapons, it also makes it clear that hostilities have started. Declarations of combat are often seen as honorable behaviour. HIs god did it! WHy should he be punished for it? And jsut because he used the range of to his weapon to his advantage in a battle, doesnt mean he is dishonorable. Did what? Use a bow? I don't think anyone is claiming using a bow is inherently dishonorable. Certain codes may not allow their use though. If he had a sword, and he chased after the orc, how would it have been any different? We would have had to attack the fleeing orc somehow to stop it. I am sure the orc wouldnt have turned around to face the attack honorably. Well there is that whole -4 to do non-lethal damage thing that you can do with a melee weapon that you can't do with a range weapon. But hey don't pay attention to that, that is crazy talk. Yes you shot a fleeing enemy, but that is using your weapon in the way it supposed to be used. Riiigggghhhtt, because range weapons are meant to be used to shoot people in the back.
Wizards_White_Knight 05-10-05, 09:02 AM	I dunno about you, but if an enemy that is known for murdering innocents started to flee from me, I would call shooting the enemy in the back the correct use of the bow. Yes, there is the -4 roll to do subdual damage. And, by the way, that is the perfect point for your argument. It's not at all crazy! Silly man. However, you would have to catch up to the fleeing orc to be able to use it. You could try aiming for the leg to disable the orc, but called shots arent a part of the game anymore. All you can do is fire and hope for a non lethal shot. Even so, if called shots were in the game, I would still not punish my players for not taking the negatives on the roll to try and hit the leg, because they would be letting the orc get away if they missed, who would warn the tribe, either killing the party and then killing hundreds of more innocents, or forcing hte party to flee (OOOO dishonor!!!!!oneoneexclaimation mark!!111) and leaving htem open to kill hundreds of innocents. Once engaged in combat, if they orcs are trying to kill you, unless they literally withdraw from the fight by dropping to thier knees and crying MERCY, they are free game. As they are fleeing, it doesnt mean they are reformed. It means they no longer hold the greater advantage, and letting htem get away because "it is the honorable thing to do" is jsut plain stupid, especially if you have a bow in hand. Yes, it would have been better if the shot wasn't lethal, but it is no way damning that it was. WWK
pres_man 05-10-05, 10:46 AM	Get-out-of-honor-free-phrase: "In war, nothing is more honorable than victory." To each his own, happy gaming.
Wizards_White_Knight 05-10-05, 10:26 PM	I understadn you are trying to diffuse what could be a silly board argument, and I respect that. However, I want to make clear I do not subscribe to that view. There are more honorable acts in battle than victory. Accepting a surrender is one of them. Calling off your troops as you go head to head with the enemy commander. Surrendering after your commander has fallen in honorable battle. Going by the "In war, victory is most honorable" theory would mean I could poison the enemy camps drinking water. Those who don't die will be like lambs to the slaughter. That is in no way whatsoever honorable. NIether is outnumbering the enemy. If your enemy does not fight on honorable terms, I see no reason why a Paladin needs to. Paladins need to uphold honor, not enforce it into every situation. In this case, the PC's were outnumbered. I would not have called it honorable to stand on the path and let the party of orcs see you. If the orcs were at least semi intelligent, all but one would have rushed, the other would return to camp and wanr the others. That act alone has prevented you from saving lives of innocents. So therefore, I see the ambush as perfectly acceptable. Had the Paladin attacked from ambush first, effectively making it a sneak attack (flat-footed enemies) then yes, that would be rather sneaky/dishonorable. As long as the other party memebers lead teh attack, and let the orcs know that there are enemies, I see that as acceptable. Shooting a fleeing enemy I will admit is dodgy territory, but I still see teh fact that he had friends up the road, and had he the oppurtunity to shoot you in the back, he would take it. It is niether honorable nor dishonorable to shoot him in this situation. But yes, those are my opinons, and I respect the way you handled them. WWK
Xaraan 05-11-05, 02:35 PM	Sounds to me like you did the right things as well. I love playing paladins. In fact, my name Xaraan, is from one of my favorite characters a paladin. Anyways. Preparing for battle before rushing blindly in is not against and paladin code, unless you invent one to make your character generically and stupidly cavalier in that way. Rushing into battle blindly would be more a reaction if after years of adventuring with these folks and forming relationships, you rushed in without thinking because of an emotion reaction, not a "paladin" reaction. Sounds like your fellow players are a little weak on the role-playing, falling into what they believe to be the generic class rolls. Plus, the GM should have put a stop to any whining about what you should have done right there. As for shooting the Orc in the back. No big deal. Shooting one in the front while they were not paying attention, i.e. suprised, isn't much different. And once again, you are simply using tactics in battle. Now if they happened to be some sort of Orc family instead, and you allowed them to get shot down and then the little Orc girl ran away and you shot her down. Now that would be a little messed up.
pres_man 05-12-05, 01:30 AM	Going by the "In war, victory is most honorable" theory would mean I could poison the enemy camps drinking water. Those who don't die will be like lambs to the slaughter. That is in no way whatsoever honorable. Listen to Xaraan, Xaraan knows how to play a paladin. And once again, you are simply using tactics in battle. See, tactics, that's all it is. If you didn't poison an enemy camp when you had the chance you might be losing any chance to defeat the enemy. And then who knows how many lives would be lost. You have a responsibility to others that you can't let some twisted idea of honor or morality or anything stop you from fulfilling. Tactics, that's all they are. No good, no bad, no honor, no disgrace, tactics plain and simple.
Fearless 05-12-05, 04:48 AM	Listen to Xaraan, Xaraan knows how to play a paladin. See, tactics, that's all it is. If you didn't poison an enemy camp when you had the chance you might be losing any chance to defeat the enemy. And then who knows how many lives would be lost. You have a responsibility to others that you can't let some twisted idea of honor or morality or anything stop you from fulfilling. Tactics, that's all they are. No good, no bad, no honor, no disgrace, tactics plain and simple. Useing poison to wipe out a village is considered evil(atleast by me). You kill everyone even the children, women, etc. There is no honor in that. Honor and morality is the only thing that makes a paladin GOOD, sacreficing those is an evil act as you risk the balance and give Evil another tip on the balance(according to BoED).
Xaraan 05-12-05, 08:02 AM	LOL maybe he was being sarcastic but yea, poisoning an enemy camp is pushing it IMO; unless you just poisoned them to knock them out and just captured them all (depends on how big a camp we are talking about here) Also if the orc had fallen to his knees begging for mercy, then maybe you just take him prisoner. It would have been a bit evil to just strike him down at that point. But he probably wasn't just running for his life, but to warn the rest of the camp.
pres_man 05-12-05, 10:01 AM	Useing poison to wipe out a village is considered evil(atleast by me). You kill everyone even the children, women, etc. There is no honor in that. Ok, but let's say there is no village, no non-combatants. Only a military force, would it be honorable then? What if it was the only way to defeat a superior force? What if a bunch of women, children, and men are counting on you to defeat this force, in order to save their lives? Do you have the right as a paladin to not use the tactics at your disposal to defeat your foes and risk the lives of everybody who is counting on you? but yea, poisoning an enemy camp is pushing it IMO; unless you just poisoned them to knock them out and just captured them all (depends on how big a camp we are talking about here) Now I'm confused. We are just talking about tactics here. This is just another tactic. I mean how is it so much less honorable then say attacking someone without them knowing your there? How is the arrow any more honorable then the poison? Both are just ways of killing people, whats the difference? But he probably wasn't just running for his life, but to warn the rest of the camp. Riiigggghhhtt. Because having just seen 5 of his companions get killed made him think, "Heck, I could probably handle them, but my friends back at camp! They would probably get killed just like these other guys. I better go warn them."
aleshandre 05-12-05, 10:37 AM	Riiigggghhhtt. Because having just seen 5 of his companions get killed made him think, "Heck, I could probably handle them, but my friends back at camp! They would probably get killed just like these other guys. I better go warn them." More like he would be thinking "Unholy crap these guys just killed 5 of my buddies!! I'd better get the rest of the camp, so that we can overwhelm them and kill all of them!!" Now, take it from a person who genuinely thinks like a paladin; there is no dishonor in striking an enemy from protection and cover, if you are certain that they are evil or that they will kill you or your family/loved ones if they aren't killed. It depends on the circumstances how you should act in combat. In melee combat, there is no way to defeat a foe unless you can both see each other (except by ambush). I think that the biggest stigma against ambushes where paladins is concerned is that ambush is the primary way that thieves and assassins kill and everyone knows that they are absolutely evil. What isn't considered is that in combat, good and evil people die and that good people will die more often if they never use ambushes, because evil people have no stigma against it.
Fearless 05-12-05, 04:12 PM	Ok, but let's say there is no village, no non-combatants. Only a military force, would it be honorable then? What if it was the only way to defeat a superior force? What if a bunch of women, children, and men are counting on you to defeat this force, in order to save their lives? Do you have the right as a paladin to not use the tactics at your disposal to defeat your foes and risk the lives of everybody who is counting on you? According to BoED, there is no way any evil act can be justified, commiting any evil act brings one closer to being evil itself, tiping the scales of balance in the favor of evil. I consider poison an evil act(others might not). I don't think an ambush has to be evil percé. Strikeing someone in the back isn't usually a Good thing, however shooting someone in the back that might bring reinforcements would not be evil. That person is a combatant and activly participating in it(getting backup). However it is sometimes hard to see wether someone is getting help or fleeing in terror. I personaly don't have a problem with shooting fleeing enemies that much, unless they are non-combatants, people/monsters/animals without defense are non-combatants to me. combatants always have the option to fight or especially with a paladin, to surrender. Dropping your weapon and fleeing(thus being defenseless) is a grey area to me, dunno what to think of it, probably depends on the circumstances, however some enemies can't drop their weapons as the are magical or natural.
aleshandre 05-12-05, 04:59 PM	I don't think that selective poisoning is necessarilly evil - poisoning one evil person for example; however, poisoning large groups at a time definitely is. When you poison a water supply, there is no way to know that only the evil die. Poison of any kind has no concern for who is good, neutral or evil. An arrow on the other hand is a weapon that is aimed, which means that the user of the arrow can select the targets that he/she is certain is evil, making it far more acceptable. That said, only just means can be justified by a just end. Example: A person runs a large charitable organization, which regularly gives to needy people. That person decides that it would be a good idea to steal the funding needed to continue to make the above donations. The question is; Is stealing justified by giving the money stolen to those who need it? If you answer yes to that question, I ask this one; If a person is poor and has no way to feed himself, is he justified in stealing to get food, or should he find a legal and morally acceptable means of obtaining food? The good person's answer to both of these questions is No, stealing is never justified. I would be inclined to say that good and noble intentions would be enough to provide mittigating circumstances to an evil act, but they would not justify one. Example: A person belives that he knows the identity of a murderer and rapist. This person has no evidence to prove it, but takes it on himself to kill the suspected criminal. It is later proven that the person who was killed was not responsible for the crimes he was killed for, though he had murdered once in a fit of rage and was never caught. In the end a murderer was "executed", thus justice was done. Is the means (murder) justified by the "just" end? The answer to this is no, but the fact that the man who is now a murderer/vigilante intended to bring a hardened criminal to justice may be a mittigating circumstance, which could reduce the sentance.
Xaraan 05-12-05, 08:25 PM	confused by some of your quote choices on me pres man, I was saying that shooting the orc in the back was definitely a good choice on his part because he was probably running back to the camp for help. was only comparing it to a situation where he could just run away to escape, not for help (even then I wouldn't have a problem with it) so there was really nothing you disagreed with there? and poisoning a water supply is tactical, but just because it's tactical doesn't mean it's paladinesque I think everyone is simply saying that the ambush was not evil, only tactical; they were not saying everything that was tactical is not evil. It goes to poisoning a water supply can effect a lot more than just the camp, even if you know the camp is only full of soldiers. Unless, like I said, you can just poison them to uncounsciousness or something. But really, how much should a Paladin know about poisoning people? It's one thing to try and justify it to use in a clinch, but another to practice and perfect the art.
pres_man 05-12-05, 10:43 PM	According to BoED, there is no way any evil act can be justified, commiting any evil act brings one closer to being evil itself, tiping the scales of balance in the favor of evil. I consider poison an evil act(others might not). Right others don't including the game designers. A paladin can't use poison because it is considered dishonorable, not because it is evil. I don't think an ambush has to be evil percé. Strikeing someone in the back isn't usually a Good thing, however shooting someone in the back that might bring reinforcements would not be evil. That person is a combatant and activly participating in it(getting backup). However it is sometimes hard to see wether someone is getting help or fleeing in terror. Or both. If I'm running to get help it is usually because I scared shirtless. But we aren't talking about evil, we are talking about honor, two totally different concepts. Lawful evil people can be quite honorable, but they sure ain't good. I personaly don't have a problem with shooting fleeing enemies that much, unless they are non-combatants, people/monsters/animals without defense are non-combatants to me. combatants always have the option to fight or especially with a paladin, to surrender. Dropping your weapon and fleeing(thus being defenseless) is a grey area to me, dunno what to think of it, probably depends on the circumstances, however some enemies can't drop their weapons as the are magical or natural. Especially a paladin? What paladin? The one that attacked from ambush? the one who shoots people in the back? Claiming you are a paladin don't make it true, you got to walk the walk and talk the talk. Did the paladin tell them to surrender or offer to accept a surrender? Or did he just start attacking and killing people. If you were walking around and people started shooting you and your friends without any say as to why, are you going to naturally think that they would be willing to stop if you put down your weapon? Notice the OP never said that the orcs did anything, just that they were found and they sent out scouting parties. That deserves to be attacked and killed? Too many players want to be fair-weather paladins. Oh yeah they'll be all honorable and good while things are in their favor, but throw in the possibility of a little difficulty and whamo, suddenly they are shooting people in the back, using greater invisibility to attack people in melee, killing prisoners whose surrender they accepted. Guess what being truly honorable means you probably are going to get into some difficult situations. It might mean that the orcs get rallied and you have to run away for the moment and come back later once they have calmed back down. You might have to face a superior force and lose. People might get hurt. It is tough to be honorable. Here, try to go the next month without lying once. Try to go without saying you will do something and don't. Trying going an entire month being true to your word to a fault, keeping it even when nobody else cares and it is a real pain in the rear for you. It's damn hard.
pres_man 05-12-05, 10:56 PM	I think everyone is simply saying that the ambush was not evil, only tactical; they were not saying everything that was tactical is not evil. It goes to poisoning a water supply can effect a lot more than just the camp, even if you know the camp is only full of soldiers. Unless, like I said, you can just poison them to uncounsciousness or something. Nobody is talking about it being good or evil really, the question is, is it honorable? I say its not, but as I said, few people truly understand what it means to be honorable, and so they play by the code "In war, there is nothing more honorable than victory." That is fine if that is what you're going for. Shoot people in the back, no problem. Sucker punch people, no problem. Cut somebody's throat in the middle of the night, no problem. Edit: Here is a question, is it more good to try to scare off the orcs, or to kill them to the last man? Here's another one, do orcs deserve the same level of respect that humans get when it comes to combat and honor?
Fearless 05-13-05, 05:24 AM	Right others don't including the game designers. A paladin can't use poison because it is considered dishonorable, not because it is evil. Or both. If I'm running to get help it is usually because I scared shirtless. But we aren't talking about evil, we are talking about honor, two totally different concepts. Lawful evil people can be quite honorable, but they sure ain't good. Especially a paladin? What paladin? The one that attacked from ambush? the one who shoots people in the back? Claiming you are a paladin don't make it true, you got to walk the walk and talk the talk. Did the paladin tell them to surrender or offer to accept a surrender? Or did he just start attacking and killing people. If you were walking around and people started shooting you and your friends without any say as to why, are you going to naturally think that they would be willing to stop if you put down your weapon? Notice the OP never said that the orcs did anything, just that they were found and they sent out scouting parties. That deserves to be attacked and killed? Too many players want to be fair-weather paladins. Oh yeah they'll be all honorable and good while things are in their favor, but throw in the possibility of a little difficulty and whamo, suddenly they are shooting people in the back, using greater invisibility to attack people in melee, killing prisoners whose surrender they accepted. Guess what being truly honorable means you probably are going to get into some difficult situations. It might mean that the orcs get rallied and you have to run away for the moment and come back later once they have calmed back down. You might have to face a superior force and lose. People might get hurt. It is tough to be honorable. Here, try to go the next month without lying once. Try to go without saying you will do something and don't. Trying going an entire month being true to your word to a fault, keeping it even when nobody else cares and it is a real pain in the rear for you. It's damn hard. You are correct on the honorable part. Shooting people in the back, useing poison, etc. isn't and never will be honorable. I think a Paladin can get away with shooting messengers in the back, but it isn't very honorable. An Honorable paladin can ambush though, but he has to capture his victims and not kill em. An Honorable paladin should only kill when terms of surrender have been offered. A less honorable paladin could do it, depending on who the deity is.
Andreas0815 05-13-05, 10:05 AM	Ok, one thing that comes to my mind: If shooting someone is an evil act (or something a paladin shouldn´t do) because you have a great advantage over your enemy, how could a paladin ever win a battle? The moment he realises he might win he had to drop his weapon (longsword or whatever) because he has shown that he is a better fighter than his enemy and so has an (unfair) advantage over him... In gameterms this means a level 10 paladin should surrender to a level 1 goblin or just let the goblin go, because else he would behave unfair. The goblin has no chance on beating the paladin in battle... Therefore i don´t think ambushes, shoting from far away and other such things are forbidden for paladins (or should be).
Xaraan 05-13-05, 10:18 AM	well, you are right about it coming down to honor, not good vs evil. But it should be up to the player and GM to work out what sort of honor code his paladin follows before the game gets rolling. There are lots of different things that different knights/samarai/paladins/etc have considered honorable. Me personally, I don't care about a paladin being a bit rougher with evil creatures than with good or neutral, he can detect the difference after all. But to shoehorn a player into playing the cheesy paladin that for some reason folks thinks is "the" paladin role is wrong. A paladin that declares himself and tells the war party to throw down their weapons is not honorable, he is stupid. Because if he has any experience, he knows what the answer will be. He is only endangering himself and other good people (his allies) by doing that and to me that is more wrong than ambushing evil people. To me Paladins are upholders of good, upholders of laws that are good, and destroyers of evil. Hence why they can fight so good: they were meant to. Now sure there has to be a line drawn somewhere. That is for the DM and player to work out, poisoning and such to me is a definite line. But good roleplaying is coming up with a personality and sticking with it, not pouring yourself into a preconceived generic idea of what a class should be.
pres_man 05-13-05, 12:10 PM	If shooting someone is an evil act (or something a paladin shouldn´t do) because you have a great advantage over your enemy, how could a paladin ever win a battle? The moment he realises he might win he had to drop his weapon (longsword or whatever) because he has shown that he is a better fighter than his enemy and so has an (unfair) advantage over him... Nope, sorry, try again. Attacking an opponent that does not know you are present is dishonorable. Killing an opponent just because you can, is evil. For a paladin who has clearly defeated an opponent, or can do so easily, he would ask for the person to surrender. There is no honor in killing a weaker opponent. If the person continues to fight, the paladin has an obligation to protect those under his charge, and a duty to defend himself. He may be forced to kill the other person, but there is no honor in it (or glory). Or he might be able to disarm the person, trip them, knock them unconscious, or a whole host of other choices besides killing them. It is simple minded to think the only choices for a paladin is to kill his foes or to surrender to them. A paladin that declares himself and tells the war party to throw down their weapons is not honorable, he is stupid. And what would you call the paladin who killed a group of orcs without declaring himself and telling them to surrender, only to find out later this is the Holy Hand of Heironeous, who were raised by LG clerics after they were rescued by a paladin when their village was destroyed by a black dragon. I would call him evil and stupid. Perhaps if he had declared himself, they could have declared themselves and the mistake wouldn't have been made. Paladins should, like all good characters, realize that though violence is needed at times, it isn't the only way to deal with creatures. If people want to play a paladin as a kill first speak to dead second type of character, then they really should become a rogue, because what they really want to do is play CN. Besides, if declaring yourself is stupid, please explain how NEVER lying isn't. You're telling me there aren't situations where the smart thing for a paladin to do isn't to lie? Doing the smart thing isn't always compatable with doing the honorable thing. If a player can't stand not being able to do the smart thing, then they should play a more free class, how about ranger?
b6 05-13-05, 01:20 PM	having reread the initial post, i think i see what pres is trying to say here. We were able to spot an encampment of 30-45 orcs who were sending regular patrols. Since charging the camp would have been suicide... our group conferred amongst each other to set up defensive position and wittle down the patrols. Sort of like gurrilla warfare. The rouge setup some traps with the assistance of the ranger. And we waited to in effect AMBUSH the orcs.... in this situation, unless the group of orcs had done something to the paladin or something that gave the paladin reason to suspect them, there is no reason for him to agree to such tactics. while it might have been the smart way to handle the groups, from what i have seen here, there was no reason to engage them at all. in this light, the ambush takes on a different feel. that the attack was an ambush doesnt have any effect on its morality/goodness/honor; that it was unprovoked does. it was unmerited, and THEREFORE the stealth and lack of calling for surrender, etc. was dishonorable. that said, once the combat began, and the orcs fought back, killing them might have been self-defense, which is fine. but the guy who fled... that, once again, returns to the question of, "why are we killing these guys again?" if there is no reason other than "they are orcs," then i fully expect your Paladin to Atone. he needs it, badly. if, however, this particular group (or the bigger camp) of orcs had previously attacked the party before, or was infamous as being ruthless or what have you, then i might give a bit more leeway.
Xaraan 05-14-05, 09:14 AM	I may have said this in another paladin related post, but the paladin should be able to detect that the orcs are evil, I'm assuming they already knew they were evil and if not, then your right about the orcs could have been "good". As orcs in my campaigns can be whatever they want just like any other race. But other than that, most of that is just opinion pres. Getting surprise on someone is not dishonorable (ie ambushing) unless you choose it to be for your character. Also killing because you can is allowable if handled right. If a paladin has a chance to kill a chaotic evil demon with a coup de grace or whatever to finish him off even if helpless, then I think he would be able to. you just seem to only like the generic cavalier "sturm brightblade" paladin, which is cool, but the game is a little more flexible than that
pres_man 05-14-05, 11:47 AM	As I said, feel free to play, "In war, there is no greater honor then victory." Happy gaming.
aleshandre 05-14-05, 12:57 PM	As Yoda said, "Wars not make one great!" A Paladin does not think "In war, there is no greater honor then victory." A Paladin thinks, "There is no victory unless I keep my honor."
agent_paper 05-15-05, 10:49 AM	I agree that you should probably come up with your own Code of Conduct. That should make an adequate guideline for you. But be aware that such a coda, if you write it in the form of laws, may become moralistic instead of just moral. Were you battling with the orcs to the death as it was? Was there any reasonable chance of their surrender or flight? Personally, I tend to prefer to cause enemies to flee. But it is an amazing stretch to say that shooting a enemy in combat in his back makes you an evil person. I also find it quite an exaggeration that attacking a foe with an arrow, potentially killing the foe, is anywhere near as much of a concern as poisoning a village's water supply. Poisoning a village's or camp's water supply isn't tactics - it's guerilla behavior. Shooting an opponent who is already engaged in combat with you and your allies, even if you shot him in the back, isn't anything like that. And you can't expect your Paladin to follow his code perfectly, anymore than you can expect yourself to follow it perfectly. Didn't you say that you did it in an impulsive moment, without thinking? If you really feel that it was dishonourable and that you did something wrong in terms of you coda, then I suggest playing that out (perhaps praying for forgiveness or some other act in game) and integrating that into your coda for future reference.
Azri 05-23-05, 01:13 PM	In my opinion, the PHB paladin is unplayable, because his code is ridiculous. (no, I can't poison that iron golem with magical rust dust, it'd be...uh...wrong!) On top of that, people often read in additional limitations into the paladin's code, to the point where he can't use a ranged weapon, sneak attack, or run from combat. :rolleyes: If you haven't written down your pally's code of conduct yet, you should work with your DM to do so. Your character would've received this kind of training before becoming a paladin, or he or she would just have a feel for it--it's difficult to follow the rules when you do not know what they are. Your DM should work with you to see that you understand and follow the code ("Are you sure you want to kill that helpless orc child?") instead of playing gotcha ("You said your wife didn't look fat in her jeans when she did. You lied!").
RedWizard 05-24-05, 10:47 PM	Paladins are tough to play thats never been in doubt. But the reason they are tough to play is because of the set of ideals they seek to live by and in turn lead others to live by example. Think of Galahad from the Arthurian legends, sure a lot can be said for Lancelot and Arthur but neither would have made the perfect paladin and both had to do a lot of atoning for messing up even once regardless of the cause. Galahad was the only one of the group to get the prize. My point is this, the rules for a paladin are black and white, there are no grey areas that are dictated by circumstance. None at all. This was taken into account when the idea of doing penance was conceived both in the game and in real history. The orc going off to warn the others made you a tough spot, you had no time to think you just had to act and you did. But despite all the best intentions you still committed a dishonourable act by shooting a enemy in the back and if I was your DM I would have called you on it. Besides part of the fun of playing a paladin is going through the motions of making penance for past transgressions. Noone is perfect and every paladin will have to do it a few times in their career. It can even give you opportunity to have fun in a custom fitted adventure to get out of the dog house. The ambush could be deemed simple tactics. Still wouldn't hurt to work out a way with your DM whenever your involved in such a thing to redeem yourself later. Perhaps extra tithings or services to your deity. It might even get you brownie points with the DM for showing that you recognize the need to be ever vigilent against even possible transgressions. The little things do eventually add up after a while. I do not advocate lawful stupid but neither do I like standing by as people use it as a shield to rationalize playing their paladin as a fighter with lots of neat-o perks. Too often I have had to address players for ignoring the downside of their character class. Every class has some and they are meant not just to be a equalyzer but to add to the flavor, so embrace the fatal flaw and your fellow gamers will notice.
Leap 05-25-05, 11:38 AM	Honor is whatever saves the village without destroying it yourself....
Amalric 05-25-05, 06:39 PM	I don't know how much is built in to the concept of Paladinhood in your campaign world specifically, but I'd say that it's really up to the DM to tell you about what's involved in being a Paladin. Think of it this way: your character was a common sorcerer who popped in to the local church and asked to become a Paladin. Well, that's a pretty big life choice there. What was involved in the process? If the church fathers just tossed you a longsword and said, "Welcome to the club, don't killl any babies," you're character's probably going to be just as confused as to "proper conduct" as you are as a player. What's more likely is that they sat you down and told you the rules and regulations involved in Paladinhood. Your character swore oaths and stood vigils and memorized codes, but none of that was roleplayed. Well, ASK your DM what they told you and taught you. Ask what "code of conduct" you're expected to live up to. If it's just "retain lawful good alignment," you're probably fine as long as you don't break laws or kick puppies. If it's something more involved, find out what. And by the way, I'd recommend not worrying too much about arcane spell failure if you're leveling up as a Paladin from here on out. Just give up those sorcerer levels for lost and strap on the platemail. If you're planning on switching right back to sorcererhood with only a token level or two of Paladin... well, then I have to agree with your groupmate and guess that you're in it for powergaming reasons.
Kothardarastrix 05-26-05, 08:32 AM	First, I'd like to say that I dont like divine/arcane mixes, other than the theurge. Secondly, don't worry about the spell failure, Get the best medium/heavy armor you can find, as well as a shield. If you are really worried about spell failure get some mythril armor and shielding, at a later date when you have the pieces to buy it. Now on to the enemy, he dishonored you by running from combat, he wasnt retreating he was fleeing. On the other hand, if he was unarmed and had no levels in monk, your morality should be questioned. For the rogues KO, you had a bad roll with initiative. He went knowing full well that the creature can score a crit, its not like you couldve taken the blow for him, unless you took a couple feats just for that. I also find a longbow to be a favorabe weapon, though not nearly as much as my bastard sword.
General_Ridley 05-26-05, 04:59 PM	According to the BoED, only one poison is allowable to good characters, if they choose the straight and narrow. ironically, its the same poison the drow favor.