Why is the "universal" Paladin Code enforced?

[Cel'Daren]

Just as the name says, I want to know why the Staff team of BGTSSC enforces the "universal" Paladin Code of Conduct that is found within the 3.5 PHB.

I am personally completely against the universal Paladin Code, as evidenced elsewhere on this forum. I believe it to be a needless restriction against Paladins. For example, a Paladin and a Lawful Good monk are both placed within the same situation:

In order to complete Lawful Good goal A, Evil person B must be defeated. The most efficient way to do so is by deception and poison, other routes are immensely harder to pull off, near to the point of suicide.

Paladin X, Y, and Z would one and all be barred from the path of deception and the use of poison, because of the universal Paladin code. Each may try the other routes as they like, but all are barred from the efficient path, and each has a likely chance of dying.

Monk M, N, and O could have vastly different approaches to the problem. Monk M may be disallowed from deception, and Monk N may be disallowed from poison use, but Monk O may not be disallowed from either choice. Each Monk, depending solely upon the code of the character themselves, can choose notably different tactics.

Paladin X, Y, and Z are more or less the same person in this simplified scenario. Monk M, N, and O however can differentiate themselves radically from each other even in such a scenario, far more so than the Paladins. Comparatively, the Paladins in this scenario look more like cookie cutter clones of each other than true characters.



So, again, why does staff enforce the universal Paladin Code of Conduct? Is there some intrinsic value to enforcing each Paladin to follow the same Code when they could just as easily all form their own Code to follow?

[DM Ioulaum]

The short answer is that there exists a short set of principles which all Paladins are considered bound by. These cover situations described by D&D source books which BG:TSCC is based on, as a Forgotten Realms setting. But these rules are only an overlapping framework. There is for example no universal principle against Paladins performing sneak attacks / deceptions, or ambushes, though Paladins commonly take individual vows to avoid such acts. Because they are perceived as dishonorable.

The larger answer is that the use of poison and deception is permitted depending on the circumstances. For example on ones self to develop toxin immunity, or as medicine (becoming poison by degree). Depending on the effect of the poison it is considered dishonorable or even outright evil. It is generally accepted that Paladins should not be cruel, nor cause unnecessary suffering. The use of certain terrible poisons is therefore practically forbidden. In any case most paladins consider the use of poison in battle dishonorable and would have taken personal vows against its use to take down opponents.

Hidden: show

DM Mouse: Now you want the reasoning, not the rules. The Defenders of the Faith source book has this to offer: "Some parties may be leery of you because they would rather keep their options open: lying, cheating, and using all the weapons at their disposal, including poison. You know that these methods breed weakness in those who use them and, like any evil act, create future consequences that are ultimately harmful."

I would add to DM Mouse's citation that in-characterly a Paladin who deceives and uses poison ought to face scorn, wariness, and even ridicule from fellow Paladins, and potentially other folk. In order to join a Paladin order it is moreover commonly required that the Paladin applicant posses an unblemished reputation and impeccable sense of honor. The use of poison and deceptions are therefore likely to disqualify the applicant from joining an organization with higher standards, or may result in his disbarment if he had already joined prior to the dishonor.

Your other implied question was why poison isn't on the Paladin spell list. The answer to that is because Wizards of the Coast and Ed Greenwood feel it doesn't belong on their spell list. Just like they don't get the sneak attack feats either. This presumably reflects the view that the use of poison and sneak attacks is normally considered dishonorable, even if there is no framework rule against it per se. Blackguards for example do get the Poison spell and sneak attack feats, implying that their use fits dishonorable and evil characters. This is sensible because the Poison spell permits the use of some rather painful and cruel poisons, which it does automatically in NWN2.

As you have read the use of poison and deception is not universally forbidden. What is universally forbidden in any case is to willingly bring about evil, even for a supposed greater good, unless ordained by your deity (through a Dungeon Master!). The use of spells or items with the evil descriptor / effect is therefore a universal violation of the paladin code. As are cruelty, causing unnecessary suffering, cowardice, and disloyalty to the deity. The breaking of a personal vow means disloyalty to ones self as a servant of the deity and is therefore also against the code unless there are legitimate reasons, such as a command by your Deity. The consequences depend on the infraction. One wrong act is normally not enough to immediately become a fallen paladin, though consistent cruelty certainly would be. An exception is murder, which normally does mean the Paladin falls from grace.

(This is my personal interpretation, for a definitive answer refer to DM Maecius and DM Mouse)

[DM Golem]

There were several good posts in the original thread you opened about Paladin RP (and some less good ones) but intrinsically, the Paladin class has more restrictive RP than other classes and yes, sometimes must sacrifice expedience (and their own lives!) to idealism.

It is, pretty much, a romanticised chivalric knight, akin to one of the Knights of the Round Table (its a valid question to ask whether this is a good thing or not, but its what the base class represents). This is qualified by the fact there is much room for variation in flavour in FR given the mandatory close ties to a church/faith and the vagueness of the code (really just a few intrinsic guidelines) but those common elements do remain.

Paladins are not cookie cutter characters and in the vast majority of situations they will have a range of options as to how to act, based on faith and personality. Its just that some peripheral options are not open to them.

[NegInfinity]

In order to complete Lawful Good goal A, Evil person B must be defeated. The most efficient way to do so is by deception and poison, other routes are immensely harder to pull off, near to the point of suicide.

Paladin X, Y, and Z would one and all be barred from the path of deception and the use of poison, because of the universal Paladin code. Each may try the other routes as they like, but all are barred from the efficient path, and each has a likely chance of dying.

Paladin follows Ideal, you see? Efficiency and your survival are secondary goals.

And yes, (suicidal) self-sacrifice is part of being lawful good or extremely lawful good. "Death before dishonor".

[DM Novus]

A paladin may Fall, but may also rise up again, under the Faith of his God, a God that guides each individual Paladin to shape his/her own Code. Unless, the Paladin is pledged to an Order, where a Code is most likely doctrine and would be absorbed as the Paladin's own (as a sworn member of that Order).

A Paladin has no implied "barring" from his/her actions. However, each action has a more severe consequence to the Paladin, based on the Lawful Good morality they uphold, but more specifically, to the Code the individual follows, as an unrelenting dogma.

Thus a Paladin is a high-bar, high investment Class, and the in-character Role-play of a Paladin becomes one of the most challenging to honor, as a Player, because each action/deed/response of the Paladin, defines the Paladin, in contrast and comparison to the Code by which he/she follows, with dogged strictness.

Deception, deceit, fraud, artifice…these are all terms that define actions that undermine the penultimate example of striving for goodness that a Paladin classed PC is about. Being Lawful Good in alignment is not strict unto the Paladin themselves—any Player Character can follow those ideals and embody that morality. It is the Paladin, however, that creates or swears to uphold a Code that has no leeway, no interpretation, no maybes…only the strict Code, that is unwavering.

That is why a Paladin may Fall…but they may also rise up, through future deed.

There is an intrinsic value to supporting the idea of a Paladin Code— a Paladin is not a Monk, by class and by profession. A Monk may carry the exact same morality and a code of action as a Paladin—there is no restriction there in D&D—but a Monk does not—by definition—receive his powers from a God (unless you multi-class, but please, do not dig down into that black hole as an argument).

Please do not read the above interpretation I have place here as a DM saying "you cannot play your Paladin the way you wish." Instead, I ask you, Cel'Daren, to consider what makes a Paladin completely different than all other Classes/Professions that also follow a Lawful Good alignment/morality, and how the Paladin's existence, their definition of Class, is based on the extreme end of devotion and conduct, that is related to their relationship to their own Code, that of their God, and/or that of the Order of which they are sworn.

[Cel'Daren]

@ Ioulaum

I can understand that this universal Paladin Code is set up in the rules. It's just that, in 2nd Edition, It wasn't a rule that all Paladins followed the same base Code of Conduct. Each Paladin had a personal Code of Conduct they followed in 2nd Edition. Then Comes 3rd Edition. Then when we go to 4th Edition Paladins can suddenly be any Alignment, throwing the concept of a universal Code of Conduct out the window altogether. I assume 5th Edition follows the same trend as 4th.

So we have one edition, and it's halfway child 3.5, that call for Paladins to have a universal code, while many editions around it say that Paladins can each have their own code for differing reasons.

So, given all that information... why do we stick to the 3.0/3.5 version when most of the other versions are much looser in their restrictions?

I'm not asking to open up Paladins to other alignments, like 4th and 5th E have, I'm not here to rock the boat (too much). I just want Paladins to be able to form their own Code of Conducts that does NOT have to follow the "base code". I can understand keeping Paladins as Lawful Good, but I'd like to have the full flexibility that comes with the alignment, not be hedged into a sub-section of a single alignment.

I would add to DM Mouse's citation that in-characterly a Paladin who deceives and uses poison ought to face scorn, wariness, and even ridicule from fellow Paladins, and potentially other folk. In order to join a Paladin order it is moreover commonly required that the Paladin applicant posses an unblemished reputation and impeccable sense of honor. The use of poison and deceptions are therefore likely to disqualify the applicant from joining an organization with higher standards, or may result in his disbarment if he had already joined prior to the dishonor.

That sounds like fun actually! A lone Paladin whose is able and willing to use tactics and weapons considered dishonorable to most Paladins, facing scorn by his Holy peers but continuing to fight evil in his own way, the strength of his devotion to Protecting Innocents and Defeating evil gleaming in his eyes even as he slowly sneaks up behind an unwary foe, a debilitating poison dripping from his Holy Weapon. THAT sounds like it has the potential to really stir up some good Roleplay with people! I love it. Sign me up.

@ Golem

According to the PHB, Paladins are disallowed from Poison Use and Lying (considered the most common form of deception) because of the "universal" Paladin code. It's pretty much been established by the forum here that just about no one thinks either thing is inherently wrong, with the exclusion of certain horrific poisons that cause undue pain and suffering. At this point the ONLY thing that prevents a Paladin from using these things is the universal Paladin code.

@ NegInfinity

Pardon my bluntness, but you've completely misunderstood what I was getting at here. It's not that having a code is a problem; it's that my character has to obey a code that I had no part in making, and even if I try to make my own code, I get told it breaks the rules because it doesn't include a tenant found in the universal code.

@ DMs

I also dislike the Universal Paladin code because of its superceding even a character's faith! Despite being a divine servant, a mortal devoted to a single deity enough to be granted power by that deity, a Paladin apparently has to put his own deity on the backburner in order to keep the powers his deity is giving him. Or at least that is what the DMs have told me; for when I submitted a personal Code of Conduct for my character to use, it was rejected because of tenants that were drawn either from the Red Knight's Dogma or that of her Superior, Tempus.

Essentially I'm capable of mechanically making a character that should by current rules immediately lose its powers because it doesn't follow those rules. That doesn't sound right. There's two quick answers. Either disallow Paladins of the Red Knight, or let a Paladin of the Red Knight make a more personal Code of Conduct that lets them include their deity's dogma. The first one is pretty simple, requiring a quick edit in the toolset disallowing Paladins from taking the Red Knight as their deity. The second one is even simpler: don't lift a finger and let someone write up a CoC that's suitable for a Lawful Good worshipper of the Red Knight. If you want to keep things simple for most Paladins, just assume any Paladin that doesn't write up their own Paladin Code is using the Universal Code, but those that do get to use their own instead.

I sincerely hope the DM team would consider this second option. I mean, I fully admit this interest is pretty selfish of me, but on the flipside, how would such a change damage mechanical balance or the quality of roleplay?


@ Novus

My problem isn't that I don't want to put in the investment for a Paladin. It's that apparently I can't play a character who is both a follower of the Red Knight, as well as a Paladin. I've been told indirectly that certain tenants of the Red Knight's dogma are unsuitable because they go against the universal Paladin code. I also desire my character to have the option, the option!, to be able to use deception and Poison without Falling for it. From talking with people on the forums most don't consider deception or most poisons (some horrific examples aside) as something that would effect your alignment. Which is another reason I want the ability to form my own Paladin Code independent of the universal one, as the universal code bars it, but my own personal Code might not.

Also. This is a game. I can't make myself think of playing any type of character as an "honor". I'm here to enjoy myself and hopefully write some good stories with others. A Paladin is no different from other characters except that it is far more restrictive in 3.5 Ruleset, which was changed in 4th Edition because it was such a burden on anyone who wanted to play a Paladin. Playing a character should not be a burden, it should be fun. That's all I'm trying to do. Loosen the restrictions on the Paladin enough that I can play it and have fun without being told I'm doing something badwrongfun.

[DM Golem]

I would debate that second edition was wider in its interpretation (the Complete Paladin's Handbook would carry more weight in 2nd Edition, and its very restrictive) but its a red herring as we use 3.0/3.5 rules mechanically.

There is no requirement on followers of the Red Knight to lie or use poisons. Indeed, there is no mention of such within the dogma of the Red Knight (Indeed the lawful nature of the Red Knight suggests against lying as a core tool as it plays to law vs chaos, but I'll admit there is no ban). That alone means that a follower of the Red Knight could choose to embrace the paladin ideal and restrict their means. Bear in mind there is no one single interpretation of any god's dogma, this is how you get different schools of theology and schisms in FR churches. The Red Knight's dogma can easily incorporate paladin ideals (as can, for example, Helm and Jergal).

Paladins are divinely ordained warriors, yes, but also adherents to "noble" ideals - Knights, who are faithful, in a sense. The divine servants who are holy ordained warriors enacting a god's will - those are adventuring clerics.

What this comes down to, though, is a question for the DMs, which has been answered by the DMs privately, and now in this thread.

The type of RP you want is very valid RP, its just not paladin RP. Might I suggest a cleric or divine champion of the Red Knight?

[Archaos]

Because a Paladin is a Paladin.
And a Paladin is not a generic divine champion class. They're not Clerics, Favored Souls or Divine Champions.

And that's the rules of playing and being Paladin.
If you want a generic chosen of some deity, play a Favored Soul.

The Code of Conduct is part of the RP of the class.

[Storm Munin]

@Cel'Daren

One of the many problems with your concept is that by your own words, as read by me admittedly, it has a lot more in common with the dogma of Garagos and to some degree Tempus rather than the Red Knight.

Neither deity at this point in the timeline promotes Paladins, for a reason perhaps?


I have no qualms about writing down a Code for a chaotic evil Lolthite Paladin build, it can be done.
Convoluted but it can be done, alas is it truly something we all could agree on as a paladin?

Of course not and thus the creative and novel idea holds no merit.
Because if not more or less all of us can see the merit of the idea, no matter how twisted it is, just how much fun will actually be added to our shared experience?

You can get away with a ton of things in a PnP gaming group, this server holds something like 300 players and DMs who all needs to have a basic understanding of what is what for the server to be a meaningful environment.

Still we have the endless semantic arguments on this forum over monster and freak race cuddling, good drow/orc, good necromancers and all the other things that gets tossed in counter to or tweaking the supposed common lore.

What stops me and I guess most others from promoting such Codes are the common idea of what a Paladin is supposed to be. IE the Codes of Conduct.
I understand your point of reason mind, I just do not agree with it.


Yet I am in your same situation when it come to redefining what being a paladin truly means, as a Lawful Good Paladin of Mielikki.
The answer I came up with are that all the Codes of Conduct are still as valid.
What differs is to some extent how and what are deemed vile deeds and heretical thoughts in need of adressing to preserve the balance of nature.
Arguably the same go for a paladin of the Red Knight.
See the paladin in the dogma and game on.

I thank you for your initiative in posting this thread and others for adding to it.
Some of what has been said has helped me in my ideas of how such a paladin would work.

IMHO

/M

[mireigi]

A paladin isn't supposed to incorporate everything his Deity of choice. A paladin is supposed to uphold the tenets and integrity of his faith, carry out the deeds as dictated by his lord or guild master, and weigh both against his personal vows when deciding upon which action to take in order to carry out either.

A paladin of Lathander, who serves a king whose kingdom is threatened by marauding orcs would likely have to adhere to the following:

Deity vows and tenets:

• Destroy undead wherever they may be.
• Kill or arrest those who meddle with undead.
• Seed new life in the world by planting flowers, bushes and trees.
• Inspire hope in those around him.
• Aid others along the path redemption, even if they have shown evil tendencies in the past.

Ruler vows:

• Kill orcs who come too close to settlements in the kingdom.
• Help with rebuilding settlements after orc raids.
• Arrest any who ally themselves with orcs or aid them.
• Obey any order given by the king that is honorable and do not break any of the Deity vows and tenets.

Paladin vows and tenets:

• Must offer quarter to any why yield in battle.
• Must not cause undue suffering.
• Must remain honorable, both on the battlefield and in the dealings with others.
• Must seek out and destroy evil.

Personal vows:

• Never kill an enemy unless threatened by it or it threatens others.
• Remain chaste until having been wed, and even after that only engage in such activities to father children.
• Never speak of war, evil, death, or other unpleasant topics during the first hour of each dawn.

This makes for a paladin who:

• Will allow an orc to pass him by if it doesn't pose a danger, despite his king ordering him to kill all orcs.
• While fighting an orc, if it yields, will stay his hand and not kill it, but instead take it into custody, as well as offer it a chance at redemption and a life without war and hatred. The same must be done to any known necromancer who yields in battle.
• Even if succeeding in redeeming an orc, thus gaining an ally, can't use his new ally to arrange ambushes by asking the orc to lure its kin out.
• Must defend his new orc ally from his king when/if the alliance is revealed.

This is just some of the combinations. There are a lot more to it of course.

For a decent example of what a paladin could embody, I suggest you take a look at Balian from the 2005 movie Kingdom of Heaven. Although Balian isn't a paladin, much of what he does would be considered something a paladin would do.

[DM Golem]

I have approved the last three posts but I would like to remind posters that this is a thread for asking a question of DMs, which some DMs have chimed in on, and more may yet do. I'd just put the reminder down that if this thread becomes another discussion thread it looses any clarify as to the DM position.

[DM Ioulaum]

An important point which I believe has been buried beneath the significant amount of text in this topic is that the Deity plays a large role in shaping the interpretation of the universal principles of Paladinhood. And personal vows as well.

I believe that already answers the spirit of Cel'Daren's question about a universal paladin code. There is no hard set of rules which is exactly the same for each and every character. There are principles which come with a standard explanation of how they are commonly used, but that explanation is not universal. Its an interpretation of the principle.

The mentioned principles which forbid cruelty, cowardice, disloyalty, sloth, and so on, give you a lot of personal lee way to interpret them as a person, and as a worshiper. Of course there are limits but I think no body here is arguing that the use of poison or sneak attacks is automatically forbidden to Paladins. Other principles depend on which deity you follow, such as Lathander's hate of the undead, and so on.

If you or anyone else have / has any questions concerning a character's Paladin code and whether it is an acceptable interpretation of the principles of Paladinhood then you should contact us.

---

As for the amount of potential leeway with which the Paladin code can be interpreted by a character, it depends on the deity in question and personal preferences.

Regarding associating or knowingly assisting evil my own view is that Paladins must always take take steps to avoid that. Its a paladin code principle. But an alliance builder sort of Paladin is possible. The nuance is that some deities permit for a narrower interpretation of Evil and the steps one might need to take to avoid assocation. (Such as Jergal, Helm, Mystra, Azuth, the Red Knight, Savras)

For example by judging that an association with evil doesn't exists so long as the paladin makes plans to immediately destroy the foe he is using once his goal has been achieved. Which could permit Paladins of Jergal to use Undead, but not to raise or create them - because that would be an evil act by itself.

Or by interpreting 'evil' to be an active force for evil instead of the random evil commoner who may be asked for directions and guidance somewhere. Or paying a regular wizard, who is selfishly evil but not an actual 'force of evil' in the world, for some magical assistance. However, facilitating or permitting the harming of innocents is a limit which can be said to make an evil 'active' in some form. But broader views of when an evil is active is also posible. For example by considering minor crimes and transgressions as evil, such as corruption. A Tyrran Paladin might deliver a harsh punishment for that while another Paladin might not consider it active evil at all.

I think that the D&D novels demonstrate that flexibility in the Paladin code, but it depends on the deity and the Paladin (I vaguely recall that but I'd have to look it up). Certainly Casimir in NWN2 was prepared to travel with Neeshka and Bishop in the party. Which some Paladins would surely condemn, but others clearly wouldn't. The same principle applies for both opinions, but the interpretation varies. What is clearly not acceptable is ignoring the principle or only paying it lip service.

[Cel'Daren]

*frustrated growl*

Apparently everyone is misunderstanding. What I want to do:

1. Take a stereotypical Paladin.
2. Add in Poison Use and Sneak Attacks/Feinting
3. Add in this Dogma

Hidden: show

"War is won by those with the best planning, strategy, and tactics, regardless of the apparent odds. Any fool can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory with fortune's aid. Only a master strategist can ensure lasting victory. War is a series of battles. Losing a battle does not necessarily indicate the war is lost. Seek out your opponent's weaknesses and recognize your own; avoid an opponent's strengths and play to your own. Only by focusing one's own strengths on the opponent's vulnerabilities can triumph be ensured. In times of war prepare for peace; in times of peace prepare for war. Seek out your enemy's enemies as allies, and be prepared to compromise. Life is an endless series of skirmishes with occasional outbreaks of war. Be ready -- and have a contingency plan."

4. Add in select (read that: appropriate) parts of this Dogma

Hidden: show

"Tempus does not win battles, he helps the deserving warrior win battles. War is fair in that it oppresses and aids all equally and that in any given battle, a mortal may be slain or become a great leader among his or her companions. It should not be feared, but seen as a natural force, a human force, the storm that civilization brings by its very existence. Arm all for whom battle is needful, even foes. Retreat from hopeless fights but never avoid battle. Slay one foe decisively and halt a battle quickly rather than rely upon slow attrition or the senseless dragging on of hostilities. Remember the dead that fell before you. Defend what you believe in, lest it be swept away. Disparage no foe and respect all, for valor blazes in all regardless of age, sex, or race. Tempus looks with favor upon those that acquit themselves honorably in battle without resorting to such craven tricks as destroying homes, family, or livestock when a foe is away or attacking from the rear (except when such an attack is launched by a small band against foes of vastly superior numbers). Consider the consequences of the violence of war, and do not wage war recklessly. The smooth-tongued and fleet of feet that avoid all strife and never defend their beliefs wreak more harm than the most energetic tyrant, raider, or horde leader."

What stops me from doing that? Is it alignment? Nooo. It's easy to incorporate those factors into a Paladin because as has been established by the forumites, including some DMs, that the use of Deception or Poison doesn't necessarily put a mark against your Lawful Good alignment. A Paladin is also supposed to be a divine servant; they should follow the Dogma of their deity.

What actually stops me from doing this is the universal Paladin code. Found in the 3.5 PHB it says:

Hidden: show

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

So I want to be able to create a new Code of Conduct for my Paladin. It would indeed contain many of the same tenants, but would allow me to include what I've wanted to do with the character. The character would still be Lawful Good, it would still carry out missions of justice and purity, it would still save those who can be saved, and it would still put the smack down on irredeemable evil. It would still be a Paladin. It's. Still. A. Paladin! The only difference is the character would use Sneak Attacks and Poison to smack down the irredeemable evils, would actively seek out enemies of the irredeemable evils as his own allies against them, and would be willing to boldface lie to said evils if it was of benefit towards fulfilling some Lawful Good deed.

That's all I'm wanting to do here. Is that really so far from what a Paladin does that it's not considered a Paladin anymore?

[DM Golem]

Unfortunately, your concept/code as outlined - yes.

[DM Ioulaum]

The following is under discussion by the entire DM Team and pending review after internal discussion arose regarding lore sources

Cel'Daren,

I believe you have already been informed that the Universal Paladin Code is not stopping you at all. My understanding is that the DM Team on Baldur's Gate doesn't enforce the section you are citing to the letter. Instead we consider the code to be a set of principles which each Paladin interprets for himself based on his faith.

The issue is that you are proposing a code which compromises on the principles of Paladinhood. The use of poison and deception has nothing to do with that assessment as described above. Paladins aren't automatically barred from the feats and abilities you describe.

To clarify what DM Golem wrote: you actually went so far as to use the word compromise in regard to your Paladin vows:

Seek out your enemy's enemies as allies, and be prepared to compromise. Life is an endless series of skirmishes with occasional outbreaks of war. Be ready -- and have a contingency plan.

This is at odds with the Paladin code because as a holy warrior you do not compromise on your principles and vows. If you do then you will begin the process of falling from grace.

Some of the underlying principles of Paladinhood have already been related to you but I will reiterate them again in a clearer format so that its hopefully clear where your 'code' stopped being a Paladin code:

The core principles of Paladinhood:

• A Paladin supports and defends Good and opposes Evil.
• A Paladin prevents harm to the innocent and prevents unnecessary suffering.
• A Paladin is loyal to his deity and church, personal vows, liege(s), and laws or edicts decreed by a legitimate authority. (observe the order)

These principles embody the various interpretations and personal vows that a Paladin may use to form his or her personal code. But there can be no compromise on these core principles . To be a Paladin they have to be honored in your code without compromising what they represent.

Now when you describe working with 'the enemy of another enemy' and 'willingness to comromise', you effectively say 'hang the code, so long as it serves the greater good'. But without further nuance that attitude conflicts with the second and third principle.

For example most Paladins and Holy Orders interpret the principle of 'preventing harm to the innocent' to mean that association with Evil is forbidden, even if it is contained to the best possible degree. Because it is the nature of evil to hurt and abuse the innocent, thus aiding it any form is wrong. But other Paladins interpret it more broadly to mean that a temporary truce or even collaboration is not out of the question, so long as that evil is not permitted to hurt innocents and steps are properly taken to prevent that, and deal with it. There is therefore room for different interpretations so long as the principle isn't 'compromised'. (Though other Paladins may disagree)

Another example is the principle to avoid unnecessary suffering. Its normally interpreted to mean that mercy must be offered to the vanquished, and to avoid collateral damage and the hurting of innocents. But just what is necessary can be more broadly interpreted in the struggle against evil, so that harm to innocents is justified if no more reasonable path is available.

Mercy can moreover take many forms. It can mean letting a defeated opponent leave, but it can also mean a quick death. Some form of disfigurement could also be justified to avoid an opponent from committing evil deeds, but to give him the chance to better his life. But again: most Paladins abhor the broader interpretations and they undoubtedly bring a Paladin closer to making mistakes which will lead to a fall from grace.

Broad interpretations carry risk because they set a trend. A trend for repeatedly broadening the interpretation of a principle so as to be able to justify or do something that would otherwise be forbidden. The principles are then potentially stretched too far for the sake of convenience, for that reason there is a very thin line between compromise and broadening the interpretation of a principle. This reflects what the Paladin class is: Paladins are an uncompromising beacon for all that is good in the world in opposition of all that is evil. They either adhere to their holy principles or fall from grace and stop being Paladins.

Examples of optional personal vows:

Hidden: show

• Charity: Give succor to widows, orphans, and other needy people.
• Chastity: No sexual acts before marriage.
• Courtesy: Pay respect to those who deserve it as befitting to their abilities, accomplishments, and station.
• Celibacy: No flirting or other further such actions.
• Chivalrous: Ensure a fair fight, help a downed opponent. Ambushing fails to show who is the better warrior.
• Humility: Accept praise with humble thanks, and do not seek attention unless necessary.
• Mercy: Be merciful, offer quarter to vanquished foes who are not beyond atonement.
• Truthful: At all times speak the truth and avoid deception. (including feinting, but not poisons or sneak attacks)
• Just: To eschew unfairness, meanness, and forms of deceit. (including poison and sneak attacks, but not feinting and other skillful 'sword work' deceptions).
• Unbreakable: To never to turn the back upon a foe.
• Poverty: Do not posses nor accept ownership of any objects or entitlements other than necessary for the task at hand.
• Proselytize: Convert evil or non-good heathens to the goodly faith of your deity, saving their souls.
• Perseverance: Once a quest or task is undertaken it may not be abandoned.

Variations on these vows are also possible, for example one Paladin might interpret poison to be at odds with 'causing unnecessary harm' while another might not, but might take a vow preventing its use instead. Truthfulness could exclude limiting yourself in combat to avoid feints and melee deceptions, so that it only applies to social interaction. And so on. There is a lot of leeway.