Here is a current thread in the class board for this topic so that I can immediatly reply to your posts:
Discussion for the Seven Virtues of the Paladin
The Seven Virtues of the Paladin
Good:
The paladin must never to an evil act, even in hope of doing good. The paladin must always do what is morally good and right. He may never associate or deal with those of evil, and he may never stop his quest against evil and to do good in the world. To fail in these things would allow evil to spread to the ruin of all.
Law:
The paladin must always obey legitimate law, even against the paladins interests. The paladin may never follow a corrupt or evil law. The paladin must never do a chaotic or lawless act, even in the hope of spreading law. The paladin must vow to end all oppressive and evil governments and to change all laws who are corrupt or evil. The paladin must always bring corrupt officials and persons of power to justice. The paladin must insure that all peoples have a fair and just government to follow. The paladin must vow to bring all who break the law to justice. The paladin must make sure that he nor any governing body gives punishment that is worse then the crime. The paladin must always insure that those who are brought to justice get a fair and balanced trial, and at the least, enemies are allowed a duel so the gods may decide the outcome. The paladin must respect titles of power, such as lords and kings. To fail this is to spread chaos to the ruin of all.
Honor:
The paladin must always go with honor. The paladin may never use poison or similar forms of guile to kill or incapacitate an enemy. Those who the paladin faces must always be aware of the paladin before the paladin strikes, and the paladin may only attack those who are capable of defending themselves. The paladin must not lie or mislead others, and the paladin must always respect and be cordial to members of the opposite sex. To disobey these things is to lose respect and face in the eyes of your god and the world.
Compassion:
The paladin must always temper law and justice with mercy and compassion. The paladin must vow to always protect the weak, the poor, the innocent, the helpless, and those who can not defend themselves. The paladin must help others who need his help, and help lead others, even those of evil, to see the light of good. Always have mercy upon your enemies and spare them whenever they yield. Do not end another’s life if there is a way around it, and never harm another unless there is a way around it. The paladin must always heal those who deserve it and help ease others who are dieing. Never inflict unneeded pain or suffering upon any person. To fail in these things is to bring pain to the world and end the paladin’s glorious mission.
Wisdom:
The paladin must always use wisdom in his doings. The paladin must see situations from all angles, and must look to the future to try and see all ends of his actions. Always be sure of evil, and only act when you have proof of their corruption. And the paladin must always remember that the end does not justify the means, evil begets evil, and chaos begets chaos, even the wise can not see all ends.
Combat:
The paladin must be able and willing in combat. He must never fight an enemy that is beyond him, and must always make sure that he is capable of completely ending that evils influence. The paladin must always be ready for combat, and make sure his armor and weapons are always well oiled and able to be effective. The paladin has the right to defend his persons and fight back in self-defense. To fail this is to allow our enemies to overrun us to the ruin of all.
Religion:
The paladin must always believe in his god and follow his dogma. In times of doubt, the paladin must always remember his religious teachings. Respect and defend the clergy, and respect others beliefs and the clergy of their gods.
Unity:
But this is not enough, the paladin must learn to use all of these points in conjunction and equity, to temper all of the virtues in equal parts to form that which makes a paladin. To fail in this lesson is to slip from the glory of the paladin to the ruin of your soul.
First how is there a "just" law that goes against paladin interests. A paladin interests (assuming he is not corrupt) is always to create justice for all, and to ensure everyone gets a fair chance in life. Perhaps I'm missing something but it seems to me, that "just" laws do the same thing.
On the issue with compassion, (and yes this has come up in a campaign I play in), must a paladin continue to work with someone to comfort them even if they constantly refuse his aid.
Allow me to float a scenerio:
A party comes across a person who is stewing in his (I use his, because this actually happened in a campaign) self pity and depression. The paladin attempts multiple times to explain to him that he can escape this life and find the joy in venturing to help others, he refuses. The paladin steps back an thinks, there are hundreds of people dying in the wake of the BBEG (vampire) and he is standing here arguing with a self damned person. The question becomes, what to do? Give up on the one to save the hundreds, or save the one and let the hundreds suffer.
The idea here is a sort of "Greater Good" paladin. In this situation, (unlike in one where evil is used in a attempt to bring about good) there is no truly evil act. Rescuing the one from his self inflicted damning is a good, especially if he joins the party to help stop the BBEG. However, on the flip side, saving the hundreds is also a good.
So where do the Paladin's interest lie? In this scenerio, there can be no middle ground. You know the BBEG is somewhere else doing BBE things, but you aren't there, you happend ot be in the same place as our depressed friend, If you argue long enough, you might convince him to see your side, but while you argue scores of people die. A tough situation.
First how is there a "just" law that goes against paladin interests. A paladin interests (assuming he is not corrupt) is always to create justice for all, and to ensure everyone gets a fair chance in life. Perhaps I'm missing something but it seems to me, that "just" laws do the same thing.
More like this... If a person that the paladin has detected evil on has a home, and he wants to break into that persons home to find proof of his evils in the town. But the town has a law that you must have a warrent to search someones home. So although the paladin would like to go in, he has to first get a warrent.
On the issue with compassion, (and yes this has come up in a campaign I play in), must a paladin continue to work with someone to comfort them even if they constantly refuse his aid.
You know, this is a good question. I think the answer is that it depenends on the paladin and the situation. Some points are left broad for paladins to put in their own ideas, etc.
A party comes across a person who is stewing in his (I use his, because this actually happened in a campaign) self pity and depression. The paladin attempts multiple times to explain to him that he can escape this life and find the joy in venturing to help others, he refuses. The paladin steps back an thinks, there are hundreds of people dying in the wake of the BBEG (vampire) and he is standing here arguing with a self damned person. The question becomes, what to do? Give up on the one to save the hundreds, or save the one and let the hundreds suffer.
This is great! Again, he has to decide wether he follows the virtue of good more then compassion, or vice versa. Of course, a vampire (according to the 3.0 D&D rules) is a person of infallable evil (meaning the alignment of the creature is: Always Evil. The compassion virtue does not count tword those of infallable evil in most cases (since there is no chance they could be turned to good). In this case, I would reccomend that the paladin have compassion, and tell the vampire to make peace with himself and god, and then kill him or cast a ressurection spell on him (to reverse the vampirism).
I hope I have been helpfull, keep um comen!
The Seven Virtues of the Paladin
Good:
The paladin must never be responcible for an evil act, even in the hope of doing good. The paladin must always strive to do what is morally good and just. He may never associate or deal with those who follow an evil path. He may never relent in his quest against evil and the pursuit of righteousness. To fail in these things would allow evil to spread to the ruin of all.
Law:
The paladin must always obey legitimate law, even against the paladins interests. The paladin may never follow a corrupt or evil law. The paladin must refrain from lawlessness, even in the hope of spreading law. The paladin must vow to tear down all oppressive and evil governments and to change all corrupt or evil laws. The paladin must bring corrupt officials and persons of power to justice. The paladin must insure that all peoples have a just government to follow. The paladin must vow to bring lawbreakers to justice. The paladin must make sure that he nor any governing body dispences punishment that is worse than the crime. The paladin must always insure that those who are brought to justice receive a fair and balanced trial, and at the least, enemies be allowed a duel so that the gods may decide the outcome. The paladin must respect titles of power, such as lords and kings. To fail this is to spread chaos to the ruin of all.
Honor:
The paladin must always go with honor. The paladin may never use poison or similar forms of guile to kill or incapacitate an enemy. Those whom the paladin faces must be aware of the paladin before the paladin strikes. The paladin may only attack those who are either capable of defending themselves or about to cause harm to innocents. The paladin must not lie or mislead others, and the paladin must always respect and be cordial to members of the opposite sex. To disobey these things is to lose respect and face in the eyes of your god and the world.
Compassion:
The paladin must always temper law and justice with mercy. The paladin must vow to protect the weak, the poor, the innocent, the helpless, and the defenceless. The paladin must help others, and lead others in times of peril, even those who practice evil, so that they may see the light of good. Have mercy upon your enemies and spare them whenever they yield. Do not end another’s life casualy. The paladin must attempt to heal those who are deserving and help ease the pain of the dieing. Avoid inflicting unneeded pain or suffering upon any person. To fail in these things is to bring pain to the world and end the paladin’s glorious mission.
Wisdom:
The paladin must always use wisdom in his doings. The paladin must see situations from all angles, and must look to the future to try and see all conclusions of his actions. Always be sure of evil, and only act when you have proof of corruption. The paladin must remember that the end does not justify the means, evil begets evil, and chaos begets chaos, even the wise can not see all ends.
Combat:
The paladin must be able and willing to fight. He must avoid fighting an enemy that is beyond him if possible. The paladin must die well if that is his fate. The paladin must make sure his armor and weapons are in good repair. The paladin has the right to defend his person. To fail this is to allow our enemies to overrun us to the ruin of all.
Religion:
The paladin must always trust in his god and follow his dogma. In times of doubt, the paladin must always remember his religious teachings. Respect and defend the clergy, and respect others beliefs and the clergy of their gods.
Unity:
But this is not enough, the paladin must learn to use all of these points in conjunction and equity, to temper all of the virtues in equal parts to form that which makes a paladin. To fail in this lesson is to slip from the glory of the paladin to the ruin of your soul.
BTW, have you ever researched real paladins? I mean, WotC didn't make up the word or the concept. You seem like the kind of person who'd be into that.
I read this code, and it looks to me like it's all the virtues in balance. Cool, but what if you have a paladin who stresses one or more virtue above the others? IE, a gentle giant paladin, if he went by this code, might stress Compassion and Good over Honor. And what about a fire-and-brimstone archetypal paladin, who might stress Law and Honor above all? Or a templar, who is first and foremost a servant of his church? Are any of these any less of a paladin than another?
You could make these virtues rankable on a case-by-case basis, perhaps, even Unity, and the pally who follows that version of the code will try to keep everything in a proper balance. I predict frequent moral dilemas for him, but as you like it.
But above all, I think giving the description that seems "woefully inadequate" is to give players options to take their characters in whichever direction they like--be it to an archetype, or something they've conceived on their own.
I also must stress that it's a good defined and expanded code.
"He must never fight an enemy that is beyond him...," you stated. I disagree. While most of the time this would be a wise rule to live by, what about martyrdom? If a paladin is trying to save a village from some terrible (insert monster here), and he or she stands his or her ground to fight in order to give friends and villagers a chance to escape, is that wrong? I believe it to be indicative of the deepest devotion to the paladin's cause, not a sign of disobedience to the paladin's duty.
My other concern is simply that, while the seven precepts that you enumerated are, in my opinion, very good, they are probably a bit too limiting. Do all paladins in all campaigns have to be the same? I think that is up to the players and DM of each individual campaign. That, I believe, is why Wizards never put any particular code of conduct in the book.
Keep the creative juices flowing, Kevmann.
Bill
"Honor: To be of Merit or Worth, to one's self and to others".
I think your description of Honor would fall into "Combat". Whereas "Compassion" may be a part of "Honor".
Though, you do have a good idea. The Paladin's Code is important. It should also be "alive", subject to the rules of growth and learning.
Originally posted by wplee_ii
"He must never fight an enemy that is beyond him...," you stated. I disagree. While most of the time this would be a wise rule to live by, what about martyrdom? If a paladin is trying to save a village from some terrible (insert monster here), and he or she stands his or her ground to fight in order to give friends and villagers a chance to escape, is that wrong? I believe it to be indicative of the deepest devotion to the paladin's cause, not a sign of disobedience to the paladin's duty.
Hm....well, let me spin it this way. Fighting an enemy who was beyond you could mean that it's pointless to fight an enemy who you can't achieve victory over. But in this case, victory would be defined as allowing the innocents a chance to escape, thus, even though it would mean his death, the paladin is achieving victory. A rewrite specifing a paladin need not throw away his life for no reason would probably be in order though
There is one problem. People ALLWAYS assume that Paladins are just veriant Clerics, that they MUST worship a god to get their powers, that they are nothing but a militant branch of a good religion. (Probably inspired by FR).
According to the PHB, the Paladin gets his powers from his belief in what he does and his own good & lawful alignment. No outside force is necessary.
It always sends me into either depression or rage when I see people talking about how a Paladin "Must" be a member of a church, or how his God gives him his spells. Paladins are not clerics. Could be please understand that? MANY paladins follow a God, yes, but so do Wizards and Rogues.
So I concur with the previous poster that the "Religion" virtue should be called "Faith", OR that we all see that this is not how all paladins must live.
One thing A LOT of people loose sight of, is of the god whom the Paladin worships. Yes, all paladin codes should use law, justice, protecting the weak, and the like in their creation, but each code should be different than the last. (To keep it interesting, if anything, lol.) They should be tailored to each character. -And one of the funnest ways to tailor a paladin's code, is incorporating the beliefs of the god they worship.
Just some thoughts.
Originally posted by wplee_ii
I like it. A lot. I think that it provides a much better explanation than the book for those of us who have not ever played the paladin class. I merely have two concerns about it, the main one being about the description under the 'combat' virtue.
"He must never fight an enemy that is beyond him...," you stated. I disagree. While most of the time this would be a wise rule to live by, what about martyrdom? If a paladin is trying to save a village from some terrible (insert monster here), and he or she stands his or her ground to fight in order to give friends and villagers a chance to escape, is that wrong? I believe it to be indicative of the deepest devotion to the paladin's cause, not a sign of disobedience to the paladin's duty.
Bill
I agree, I think it would be better worded as
"He must never fight an enemy without purpose." Thus if a dragon were attacking the village he would defend it but he would not just go out and find dragons to kil.
Originally posted by Kevmann
Law:
The paladin must always obey legitimate law, even against the paladins interests. The paladin may never follow a corrupt or evil law. The paladin must never do a chaotic or lawless act, even in the hope of spreading law. The paladin must vow to end all oppressive and evil governments and to change all laws who are corrupt or evil. The paladin must always bring corrupt officials and persons of power to justice. The paladin must insure that all peoples have a fair and just government to follow. The paladin must vow to bring all who break the law to justice. The paladin must make sure that he nor any governing body gives punishment that is worse then the crime. The paladin must always insure that those who are brought to justice get a fair and balanced trial, and at the least, enemies are allowed a duel so the gods may decide the outcome. The paladin must respect titles of power, such as lords and kings. To fail this is to spread chaos to the ruin of all.
Just two problems with this - ending any government, even an oppressive, tyrannical and/or evil government is by its very nature a chaotic act. And to a lawful character, it is often necessary - or even desirable - to have laws that proscribe punishments greater than the crime committed. For example, if the theft of 20gp is punished by a 20 gp fine and nothing else, this does not suit a lawful character.
In fact, the conflicts between good and law can come up frequently if you run a campaign during an insurrection against a legitimite, but tyrannical (Lawful Evil) ruler.
Second, this can be a code of conduct or words to live by. Some of these virtues are set against each other, this was purposefull, because some paladins will favor one virtue over another. Unity was added to make sure that although a paladin may favor a virtue over another that he still follows that other virtue as well.
The combat thing seems kind of unimportant, or at least not worthy of one of "the seven virtues" -- seems like more of a knightly concept. Then again, knights and paladins are similar people.
Well, the paladin does have a +1/1lvl BAB and is considered a warrior class. I put this in because if the paladin doesn't do combat (his primary form of offinse), he isn't realy that much good in the war against evil
This is of course, my opinion, some others may have a different idea and change it if they wish.
Very well done. I really like what you have done here and will be using this in an upcoming campaign. Thanx a bunch!
I'm glad you liked it! Hope it goes well!
Just a thought, but why not use "Faith" instead of "Religion" as a virtue heading. Somehow it just sounds better to me. Maybe it's just me.
Yes, I play in a campain were the idea of good does not have any powers of its own. This is open to changes depending on your campain, if you play in one that does not require you to follow a god, then please feel free to change it!
Hm....well, let me spin it this way. Fighting an enemy who was beyond you could mean that it's pointless to fight an enemy who you can't achieve victory over. But in this case, victory would be defined as allowing the innocents a chance to escape, thus, even though it would mean his death, the paladin is achieving victory. A rewrite specifing a paladin need not throw away his life for no reason would probably be in order though
Exactly, fighing an enemy that is beyond you has no use, you will die without having contributed to the fight agianst evil. Now, if you fight a guy that is beyond you to allow innocents to escape, you are favoring the virtue of compassion.
One thing A LOT of people loose sight of, is of the god whom the Paladin worships. Yes, all paladin codes should use law, justice, protecting the weak, and the like in their creation, but each code should be different than the last. (To keep it interesting, if anything, lol.) They should be tailored to each character. -And one of the funnest ways to tailor a paladin's code, is incorporating the beliefs of the god they worship
I like to think of the virutes as a base code. Different gods favor different virtues. Tyr may favor honor, while illmater may favor compassion.
Some of the things in the code are a MUST, you must fight agianst evil, etc. Some of them are more open, and allow for different views and different paladins to make their own belifs of the system.
I agree, I think it would be better worded as
"He must never fight an enemy without purpose." Thus if a dragon were attacking the village he would defend it but he would not just go out and find dragons to kil.
This is a great example of a balance between combat and compassion!
The fun thing about the virtues is that it is open at the same time it is restrictive. Just because the paladin favors combat over compassion does not mean he is bad, he just favors that over the other. The important thing to remeber with any paladin is although you may favor one virtue over another, you still must spend time on that other virtue to maintain a balance and make sure you do not stray from the course of good!
Thank you for writing back!
I will answer any more questions you guys may have!
Just two problems with this - ending any government, even an oppressive, tyrannical and/or evil government is by its very nature a chaotic act.
This is true...however, replacing a tyrannical, evil govermnet with a lawful government that takes the wishes of the people under it into consideration can hardly be considered a chaotic act. If you just assassinate the king and his men because the govermnet is corrupt and/or evil, then it is indeed a chaotic act, but I hardly think that installing a newer, better government (better by the standards that you as a paladin live by) is a chaotic act in and of itself.
And to a lawful character, it is often necessary - or even desirable - to have laws that proscribe punishments greater than the crime committed. For example, if the theft of 20gp is punished by a 20 gp fine and nothing else, this does not suit a lawful character.
The 20gp from the fine would cover the 20gp that was stolen, but it would not punish the act of theivery itself. The act of thievery should have its own standard for punishment and shouldn't be completely dependent on the amount that was stolen. For instance, a petty theft might warrant 30 days is jail and the reparation of the amount stolen plus a gold piece for each day that the money was on in the owner's possession. In this, there is a punishment and there is a reparation. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Kevmann, for the most part, this looks like an excellent guideline. Very well done.
This is true...however, replacing a tyrannical, evil govermnet with a lawful government that takes the wishes of the people under it into consideration can hardly be considered a chaotic act. If you just assassinate the king and his men because the govermnet is corrupt and/or evil, then it is indeed a chaotic act, but I hardly think that installing a newer, better government (better by the standards that you as a paladin live by) is a chaotic act in and of itself.
Thank you Fixxer, that is a great description. And, as I stated later in the Law part, the paladin MUST replace the previous government with a better one!
The 20gp from the fine would cover the 20gp that was stolen, but it would not punish the act of theivery itself. The act of thievery should have its own standard for punishment and shouldn't be completely dependent on the amount that was stolen. For instance, a petty theft might warrant 30 days is jail and the reparation of the amount stolen plus a gold piece for each day that the money was on in the owner's possession. In this, there is a punishment and there is a reparation. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Again, great! Because returning the money in of itself is not punishment.
I love this. One question, regarding the Religion virtue. Waht about godless paladins?
If you play in a campain that does allows paladins not to have a god, then it is up to your DM. he could just take the religon out all together, or he could change it to say that you do not have to follow a god, but respect clergy and the like. It is all up to you! Of course, a paladins belif system could be a religion all of its own!
It reads like the tenants of Bushido. It seems to me that both of these lists are geared toward kind of a perfect person. The person that can hold true to all of them...under all situations is quite impressive indeed.
There SHOULD be debate about the individual traditions. I think it would be neat if the traditions were very old and there is discension between new paladins and old ones.
"Compassion is not the only tradition elder" says the whelp
"Neither is Unity, but the rest are useless without it" retorts the elder
If you play in a campain that does allows paladins not to have a god
Like the Core D&D rules....
This was what I commented earlier: Paladins need a god just as much as a druid or Sorcerer does. As a personal and spiritual help, perhaps as a moral guide, but NOT as a asource of magic power. At least, not according to the PHB.
Other than that issue, I must say I really like this list.
First of all, Paladins are not required to follow a religion. devotion to the cause is enough for some. This information is in your Player's Handbook (assuming you have one).
Secondly, the Paladin is not required to show herself to the enemy. Although the Paladin has honor, valor, and a thirst for justice, she is also a trained warrior. Many tactics, such as flanking and ambush, are open to her, and while she has courage, she is wise enough to know when the enemy, no matter how evil, is too strong to handle by herself.
Oh, and she will kill a vampire or other "Always Evil" being on sight, she has mercy and compassion for the innocent, but is relentless to her enemies, despite their alignment.
Originally posted by SirGog
Just two problems with this - ending any government, even an oppressive, tyrannical and/or evil government is by its very nature a chaotic act.
If the government in question is breaking its own lawful stated principles, or acting in an otherwise chaotic manner, and after the Paladin has exhausted lawful means to change this, he may become obligated to use other means.
As a real life example of using lawful means, Mohandas Ghandi used entirely lawful means to end the oppressive British regime in India, by using the British legal system, and by embarrassing the British to the extent that they could not defend their own actions. (Incidentally, an example of a paladin who eschewed combat - I say paladin because he was after all, a lawyer sworn to defend the law, and he "fought" for justice and fairness).
An example of of attempting to end a tyrannical regime, generally one does not have long to wait before such a regime commits acts of egregious evil, and then the paladin has to weigh the goodness vs. the chaos in acting directly. Could not such people as Steve Biko and Nelson Mandela still be considered Paladins fighting for good and justice?
And to a lawful character, it is often necessary - or even desirable - to have laws that proscribe punishments greater than the crime committed. For example, if the theft of 20gp is punished by a 20 gp fine and nothing else, this does not suit a lawful character.
How about 20 gp restitution, + 20 gp fine (punishment), plus court costs (not to exceed some reasonable amount). It is historically notable that some of the first laws in ancient Europe established the "weregild", which was a fine imposed for causing unlawful death, which essentially established an equivalence in monetary terms for the value of a life. This is a (lawful) case of the punishment being perhaps less than the crime, and yet if the people have accepted this as their law, who is the Paladin to change it?
I suspect that some lawful minded Americans might not be satisfied by mere restitution and costs, but many other societies that consider themselves both lawful and good would be content with proportionate restitution. Its is arguably Lawful Neutral to desire punishment to exceed the crime. This is apparently based on the deterrent principle, and also appears to go counter to the compassionate virtue described above, which is (in my view) an essential component of "good".
I've been playing Paladins for about 18 years. And more than half of your 'guidelines' in no way apply to me.
"The paladin must never be responsible (sp) for an evil act, even in hope of doing good."
Have you ever played the Bastion of Broken Souls? There is a defining moment where the adventuring party is forced to kill an angel defending an artifact to save the lives of unborn souls, because the angel will not recognize the necessity and step aside. *No* *other* *recourse* was an option.
You would have let millions suffer a fate worse than death (non-existence), because killing a lawful good creature doing their noble duty is an evil act, if one were to insist on defining things in such narrow-minded terms.
"The paladin must always obey legitimate law, even against the paladins interests."
My interests are always that of my god, and no law set by any man will supercede it. Paladins follow and support law in general because it keeps people from degenerating into monkeys who climb trees and fling crap at each other all day. By no means is it intended to be the be all and end all of his existence.
"The paladin may never use poison or similar forms of guile to kill or incapacitate an enemy. Those whom the paladin faces must be aware of the paladin before the paladin strikes."
A Paladin's purpose is to stop evil from harming innocents at any cost to himself. Notions of a coup de grace or other forms of death dispensed to evil force being 'dishonorable' is preposterous.
"Have mercy upon your enemies and spare them whenever they yield."
You are making the same classic mistake that so many others have fallen for. *Paladins are not Knights*. They are two entirely different animals, though they may seem the same at first glance.
Only honorable opponents are worthy of honor in return.
"He paladin must see situations from all angles, and must look to the future to try and see all conclusions of his actions."
True...which makes it contradict and clash with all of your other 'tenets'.
"He must avoid fighting an enemy that is beyond him if possible."
This is a bizarre personal opinion with no real ground in the general philosophy. To each his own.
"Respect and defend the clergy, and respect others beliefs and the clergy of their gods."
Have you ever heard of the Crusades? One society of lawful good warriors collided with another society of lawful good warriors, and waged war over opposing philosophy. Both were 'correct' in their dogma, and doing their duty in doing so.
"But this is not enough, the paladin must learn to use all of these points in conjunction and equity, to temper all of the virtues in equal parts to form that which makes a paladin."
This is personal opinion. I personal have never known a Paladin player who attempting the task of 'balancing' any one 'code' against another. If you don't have a focus, you're just wandering.
This isn't any sort of attack. I make it a point to counter the old stereotype with something closer to reality, should any new players be reading.
The discussion of the Seven Virtues on the Classes thread
Now, on to your points:
"Your" Seven rules of the Paladin are incorrect. Pick up the Defenders of the Faith accesory, it will set you correct.
This is my opinon of what the paladins code should be, there is no right or wrong, and this is MY code, I do not take codes from other books.
First of all, Paladins are not required to follow a religion. devotion to the cause is enough for some. This information is in your Player's Handbook (assuming you have one).
As I have already said if you would have read the whole thread that if you play in a campain that does not require a god, then go ahead and change the religon aspect, because it was made for FRCS and other places that require a god.
Secondly, the Paladin is not required to show herself to the enemy. Although the Paladin has honor, valor, and a thirst for justice, she is also a trained warrior. Many tactics, such as flanking and ambush, are open to her, and while she has courage, she is wise enough to know when the enemy, no matter how evil, is too strong to handle by herself.
To me, honor is not attacking a persons back when they are not aware of you, that seems just as dishonorable as poison. And I never said that the paladin could not use flanking or ambush, as long as the enemy is aware of the paladin before he attacks, that is all.
Oh, and she will kill a vampire or other "Always Evil" being on sight, she has mercy and compassion for the innocent, but is relentless to her enemies, despite their alignment.
Of course, the paladin could always want to show compassion and get a raise dead or other such spell cast upon him, so that he may return to the land of the living and his old alignment back. Compassion can always be found.
I've been playing Paladins for about 18 years. And more than half of your 'guidelines' in no way apply to me.
As I said before, if you do not like my code, feel free not to use it.
"The paladin must never be responsible (sp) for an evil act, even in hope of doing good."
Have you ever played the Bastion of Broken Souls? There is a defining moment where the adventuring party is forced to kill an angel defending an artifact to save the lives of unborn souls, because the angel will not recognize the necessity and step aside. *No* *other* *recourse* was an option.
You would have let millions suffer a fate worse than death (non-existence), because killing a lawful good creature doing their noble duty is an evil act, if one were to insist on defining things in such narrow-minded terms.
Could he not have used subdual damage to knock the guy out? Could he not have the cleric in the party cast dismissal to send the angel back to the planes? Could he not engage the angel while the others went for the baston? I don't know the module, but there seems to be a million other things that he could have done.
BUt, I do undertsand what you mean, a paladin is encouraged to choose the lesser of evils "I have to kill this child or millions will die" but he still looses his paladin powers and must repent to gain them back. An evil act is an evil act, there is no way to get around it.
"The paladin must always obey legitimate law, even against the paladins interests."
My interests are always that of my god, and no law set by any man will supercede it. Paladins follow and support law in general because it keeps people from degenerating into monkeys who climb trees and fling crap at each other all day. By no means is it intended to be the be all and end all of his existence.
The paladin IS NOT the mouth of god. He is a mortal and a person, and as such must obey legitamite laws. Now, as I said in the description itself, the paladin does not need to follow evil laws, such a slavery, in fact he has to go against such evil laws as best he can. But if a law is fair and just, he must follow it, even if it goes against his best wishes. Otherwise his pride and arogance is putting him on the path tword blackguardom.
"The paladin may never use poison or similar forms of guile to kill or incapacitate an enemy. Those whom the paladin faces must be aware of the paladin before the paladin strikes."
A Paladin's purpose is to stop evil from harming innocents at any cost to himself. Notions of a coup de grace or other forms of death dispensed to evil force being 'dishonorable' is preposterous.
I never stated that he could not use a coup de grace, in fact it is a very unpainfull and humain wait to kill an enemy. What I ment is not to use GUILE or POISON or other dihonorable actions.
"Have mercy upon your enemies and spare them whenever they yield."
You are making the same classic mistake that so many others have fallen for. *Paladins are not Knights*. They are two entirely different animals, though they may seem the same at first glance.
It doesn't matter, this has nothing to do with knights or whatever. If you are fighting someone and they yeild, then it is your lawfull duty to not kill them, and to strip them of what makes them dangerous, and put them infront of a legitamite court for trial. If you kill someone that has yielded, then you are killing when you need not kill, and you are killing those who are not defending themselves, both which go against the paladin's code of good.
Only honorable opponents are worthy of honor in return.
THis is incorrect, with this line of logic you could say that "only compassionate oppents are worthy of compassion" meaning you could do whatever you wanted with them "Only good oponents are worthy of good" meaning you can do any evil act you wish upon them. The paladin lives by example, and though his enemy may use giule, decete, evil to get their way, he is the beacon of what is good, and defeats his enemys without lowering himself to their evil. If you see this as otherwise, you don;t have a paladin, you have a blackguard.
"He paladin must see situations from all angles, and must look to the future to try and see all conclusions of his actions."
True...which makes it contradict and clash with all of your other 'tenets'.
Yes, I am glad you noticed that. Most of my virtues clash agaisnt each other, and are sometimes direct oposites (compastion and law for one). This was done on purpose, it represents a struggle that the paladin must always have, what virtue is more important at the time, which virtue should be followed. But it tis unity that states you must strive to use all virtues in equal amounts. It is one of the unique things about my vitures, it is more then a code, it makes the person think and delve deeper into the meaning of pure good.
"He must avoid fighting an enemy that is beyond him if possible."
This is a bizarre personal opinion with no real ground in the general philosophy. To each his own.
The paladin is no good in a world if he is dead. Now, if he is distracting while others escape then good, but then he should retreat with them. As I said, a dead paladin helps none.
"Respect and defend the clergy, and respect others beliefs and the clergy of their gods."
Have you ever heard of the Crusades? One society of lawful good warriors collided with another society of lawful good warriors, and waged war over opposing philosophy. Both were 'correct' in their dogma, and doing their duty in doing so.
Let me ask you, have YOU ever heard of the Crusades? A basic slaughter of the enemy, **** their wemon, loot their churches, split their childern on sticks. If you call this lawful good and compare it to the paladin, I am afraid again that you have a blackguard.
"But this is not enough, the paladin must learn to use all of these points in conjunction and equity, to temper all of the virtues in equal parts to form that which makes a paladin."
This is personal opinion. I personal have never known a Paladin player who attempting the task of 'balancing' any one 'code' against another. If you don't have a focus, you're just wandering.
As I said, many of the virtues clash against each other, are even opposites. Without unity, a paladin could not do a virtue all together, like never do compassion at all in favor of law and honor, then you are on the path of the blackguard.
Originally posted by dimonic
If the government in question is breaking its own lawful stated principles, or acting in an otherwise chaotic manner, and after the Paladin has exhausted lawful means to change this, he may become obligated to use other means.
paragraph skipped
An example of of attempting to end a tyrannical regime, generally one does not have long to wait before such a regime commits acts of egregious evil, and then the paladin has to weigh the goodness vs. the chaos in acting directly. Could not such people as Steve Biko and Nelson Mandela still be considered Paladins fighting for good and justice?
People such as Steve Biko and Nelson Mandela were chaotic good, no doubt about it. Biko's attempts to agitate amongst ordinary black people and sympathetic whites in particular were the typical, highly chaotic acts of a CG person in a dictatorship. And whilst Mandela has since shifted (to become more LG or LN) since the end of apartheid, he was certainly a CG during the early part of his life. Any act which aims to wrest power from any organised government is chaotic - and any act which aims to place this power in the hands of the majority (such as Biko formenting revolution) is about as chaotic as you can get.
A paladin is in a very difficult situation in a tyranny, and whilst I'd expect them to sympathise with rebellions, they certainly be opposed to some of the things that need to be done if a rebellion is to win.
...It is historically notable that some of the first laws in ancient Europe established the "weregild", which was a fine imposed for causing unlawful death, which essentially established an equivalence in monetary terms for the value of a life. This is a (lawful) case of the punishment being perhaps less than the crime, and yet if the people have accepted this as their law, who is the Paladin to change it?
I suspect that some lawful minded Americans might not be satisfied by mere restitution and costs, but many other societies that consider themselves both lawful and good would be content with proportionate restitution. Its is arguably Lawful Neutral to desire punishment to exceed the crime. This is apparently based on the deterrent principle, and also appears to go counter to the compassionate virtue described above, which is (in my view) an essential component of "good".
I don't know much about the 'wereguild', but I'd assume that it was a system for allowing the rich to kill anyone they wanted, whilst still stopping the poor from killing. As such, it sounds like a law deigned to increase class divides in society - a LE law, one which a paladin should oppose.
I'd say that it's not the specfic severity of punishment that determines the alignment of a law, but the intent. Laws which specifically oppress one group of people (for example, the unwritten law in America that black people are punished more severely than whites for equivalent crimes, or a law which stated that any non-elf found to kill someone in a town should hang, or South African apartheid laws) are LE. Laws which are intended for the sake of ensuring the rule of law only (for example, heavier sentances for assaulting police than similar attacks on civilians) are LN, and laws which are intended to make the jurisdiction safer/better for the majority are LG (for example, laws banning arson and ****). Of course, there are exceptions, but this is my general framework.
Oh, and I'm CG, in real life