Universal Paladin's Code

[talysman]

Spurred by a side discussion in the thread about dwarf paladins, I decided to come up with a simple, universal paladin's code. Players can have any number of quirky vows or personal prohibitions, like "don't use a ranged weapon when your opponent only has a melee weapon", and the GM could apply similar behavior restrictions to NPC paladins. However, for the purpose of judging whether a character has transgressed or lost the calling of the paladin, I propose this simple code.

A paladin's priorities should be:

1. The innocent and helpless;
2. Their comrades;
3. Their opponents;
4. Themselves.

This is meant to work like Asimov's Laws of Robotics: #1 trumps #2, which trumps #3, with #4 at the very bottom. When choosing how to act, paladins are supposed to put other people's needs ahead of their own, and ahead of vengeance or love of combat.

So, in the other thread, the example of the paladin firing arrows from a safe distance into a group of ghouls munching on the paladin's comrades is clearly a violation of the paladin's code: the character is putting personal safety first (hanging back to fire arrows) and killing enemies second, placing the paladin's friends at risk. A more acceptable response would be to step in and rescue the people being munched on, perhaps only fighting off the ghouls while enabling the party as a whole to retreat.

There may be other possible responses, but at least this gets the priorities right.

[Finarvyn]

I agree about #1 and #4. It's the range of #2 and #3 that get to be fuzzy, in my book.

We know that the Paladin is willing to sacrifice himself in order to achieve the greater good, but I guess the question comes down to: is he willing to sacrifice his comrades for the same purpose?

In other words, is it more important for the Paladin to stay back to protect the party against a dragon, or to charge the dragon to slay it when the party is left undefended.

Discuss.

[Porphyre]

Well, better protecting his comrades(#2)than destroying the dragon (#3); so talysman order of priorities seems good to me.

[JMiskimen]

When playing Paladins, I've always asked myself what would Superman or Captain America do. That hasn't steered me wrong yet and it doesn't conflict with Talysman's list either.

[derv]

The list of priorities seem good as a guideline and I think the order is good. I'm not sure I like the word "priorities" though. That's what seems kind of fuzzy to me and requires a person to interpret. So, the word "priorities" means "to help and protect" when I read it, but may mean something else to others.

[talysman]

Not sure what you mean there, derv. I meant the word "priorities" literally: the order of importance for what the person should be doing. I guess you could say "to help and protect" is the first priority (the helpless and innocent.) Basically, it's a list of interests in order of most selfless to most selfish.

[derv]

Basically, "priorities" is the subject. "Paladin" is an adjective. Your list are direct objects. "Should be" when used together are helping verbs. Your sentence is missing an action verb. The action verb that is missing could be read as anything someone wants to put into the sentence. So, instead of "helping and assisting" a person could put in "hacking and assassinating".

[Azafuse]

Aug 13, 2013 6:10:17 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

We know that the Paladin is willing to sacrifice himself in order to achieve the greater good, but I guess the question comes down to: is he willing to sacrifice his comrades for the same purpose?

In other words, is it more important for the Paladin to stay back to protect the party against a dragon, or to charge the dragon to slay it when the party is left undefended.

The answer is in the middle, IMHO.

If killing the dragon could save 1000 lives (for example the nearby village) then just charge the dragon (not in [3.X] or you would get AoO ) and screw them up; otherwise protect them and try to make them fold back out of the dragon's lair.

Same for a demon possessed girl: save her if you can, otherwise chop her head off if things could get worst.



This is a generic answer, anyway: things change from Paladin to Paladin, because it all depends on personal values and beliefs.

[talysman]

Aug 24, 2013 11:15:08 GMT -6 derv said:

Basically, "priorities" is the subject. "Paladin" is an adjective. Your list are direct objects. "Should be" when used together are helping verbs. Your sentence is missing an action verb. The action verb that is missing could be read as anything someone wants to put into the sentence.

Change "anything someone wants to put into the sentence" to "anything someone could put in a sentence" and I might agree.

The part of speech analysis is still confusing, though. You seem to be restricting the meaning of "should be" to a very narrow sense, but I'm not sure if you are saying "should be" *must* be interpreted that way or you are suggesting interpreting it that way.

[derv]

talysman, I thought my original post may have been too vague. So, I was trying to be more specific with my second post. My intent was to offer the suggestion of being more specific with the word "priorities". If someone only read your list, they would not know what a paladins priorities should be. They would only know what the objects (focus) of a paladins priorities should be. Maybe that's all you wanted to communicate and if this is no help to you or doesn't seem to make sense, I'm not sure I can be any more clear. Your Universal Code is missing an action verb that helps define the character of the paladin. You should be able to read a list as a coherent sentence.

A paladin's priorities should be caring for, thinking of, helping, looking after, defending, focused on the innocent and helpless, their comrades, their opponents, themselves.

[crusssdaddy]

Shouldn't the paladin's first priority re: transgression be his/her deity?

[Azafuse]

Aug 24, 2013 19:19:25 GMT -6 crusssdaddy said:

Shouldn't the paladin's first priority re: transgression be his/her deity?

Yes, but not in 0e where a Paladin was a magical boy-scout.

[talysman]

Yeah, I totally avoid the later version of paladin as servant of a deity. Religious devotion may be one of a paladin's quirks, but it's the selflessness that really distinguishes them, in my view. You can have an atheist paladin in my campaign.

[theophage]

Now I'm going to have to create a character named Sir Hitchens...

[Deleted]

Derv is correct that the list is missing information. We know the order to prioritize, but we have no idea what action should be taken. In other words, the code you have says:

"The innocent and helpless are the most important; a paladin's comrades are the second most important; a paladin's opponents are the third most important; the paladin is the least important."

Something more like:

As a paladin my priorities are:

1. To protect and serve the innocent and helpless;
2. To protect and serve comrades;
3. To oppose those who seek to harm others;
4. To defend myself.

[talysman]

It's *any action*. Although it's possible to include actions in a list of priorities, most of the time I've seen priority lists that just show what to focus on first, second, third, etc. I think I've seen more "noun" priority lists than "verb" priority lists.

If it helps, you can think of it as prioritizing needs. When trying to decide which action to take, prioritize the needs of the innocent and helpless first over those of your comrades, and prioritize the needs of your comrades over the need to win or get vengeance; place your own needs last.

[zeraser]

While I understand and respect the rules-investigative impulse behind making this list of priorities, let me ask: As a practical matter, do players (i.e., not just us, but players in general) really need to structure their roleplaying so formally? In other words, is it not enough for most players just to be told that a paladin is supposed to behave in an extremely upright and selfless manner?

Because a good-faith effort (pun intended) on the part of the player to behave in a paladin-like way would certainly be enough to satisfy me as a DM, and if the player isn't willing to put forth that effort and instead needs some sort of chivalry flowchart to get her act together, I can see myself gesturing pointedly to the exit.

[Porphyre]

1. Serve the Public Trust 2. Protect the Innocent 3. Uphold the law ?

[Porphyre]

Aug 25, 2013 10:22:34 GMT -6 talysman said:

Yeah, I totally avoid the later version of paladin as servant of a deity. Religious devotion may be one of a paladin's quirks, but it's the selflessness that really distinguishes them, in my view. You can have an atheist paladin in my campaign.

+1

[Mjollnir]

Aug 26, 2013 15:29:40 GMT -6 theophage said:

Now I'm going to have to create a character named Sir Hitchens...

I think he may have trouble with the 17 Charisma.

[llenlleawg]

Aug 25, 2013 10:22:34 GMT -6 talysman said:

Yeah, I totally avoid the later version of paladin as servant of a deity. Religious devotion may be one of a paladin's quirks, but it's the selflessness that really distinguishes them, in my view. You can have an atheist paladin in my campaign.

It's not that "servant of a deity" is a later version, as though the earlier versions were agnostic about such things. The archetype of the paladin is the flowering of Christian chivalry, so serving God and king/emperor through his knightly deeds is core to his identity, not incidental, and hardly a "later version."

Where I would agree with you, however, is that for a campaign in which the gods are not God, that is, in which they are not the source of all being, the source of Goodness and Law and Right, then it becomes perfectly possible, even plausible to be a paladin who has nothing to to with the gods. Indeed, if the gods are either especially capricious or notably absent from life, a paladin might go out of his way to distance himself from them and belief in them.

[captainjapan]

I'll hijack this and ask, How callous and unwavering might a paladin be played? Col_Pladoh (Gygax) had this to say, on Dragonsfoot:

...a paladin can freely dispatch prisoners of Evil alignment that have surrrendered and renounced that alignment in favor of Lawful Good. They are then sent on to their reward before thay can backslide.

Can you imagine any other extremes a paladin might go to when their god or their king has made them judge, jury, and executioner? Shall their foes receive no mercy? Sounds like a Game of Thrones paladin, to me.

[Red Baron]

My paladin priorities:

1. Will only use swords of same alignment.
2. May not aim for helm when jousting a fighting man of the same alignment.
3. May not attack those of same alignment for personal gain or without provocation. A
paladin may only kill others of his
own alignment to defend his
person/retinue, his honor, or to advance the interests of his alignment.

[Punkrabbitt]

Ah... Paladins to specific Gods and dedicated to furthering their ethos... once upon a time, back in the 2e days, my girlfriend asked me to play a paladin dedicated to the fertility God in her campaign. Good times roleplaying that...