Paladin Questions

[Boddynock]

Agree to disagree then, Lawful is relative based on the fact that law itself is relative. What is lawful in Dambrath is very different from what is lawful in Amn. Law and justice in the human pantheon is not necessarily the same in the dwarven pantheon, or elven, or gnomish, for example.

In fact, even in human pantheons, Tyr is a god of justice, but so is Hoar. And their definition of justice is very different, and neither can be counted wrong. Morality is only really set in stone for outsiders, angels are made of good, devils are made of evil. Mortals on the prime have much more leniency. And even then, eryines are the descendants of fallen angels...

Hoar's dogma in itself is interesting because it specifically allows for the committing of evil acts and warns simply not to commit evil for evil's sake, but only in the pursuit of vengeance. Vengeance itself is a concept many people would consider evil, but in every iteration of D&D I am aware of, the gods of vengeance have been neutral. (St. Cuthbert, Sheverash) Even in fourth edition when Hoar becomes an exarch of bane (which in our timeline it isn't Bane he is "flirting with" he is being courted by Shar and Tyr) he remains lawful neutral.

The point being, that for a warrior of the church, the tenets of the church come first. And adherence to the dogma of a paladin's religion can never be considered chaotic, as they are adhering quite lawfully to what they believe to be true and right. Alignment is about intent moreso than actions. This is why it isn't evil for a paladin to slay marauding orcs. Murder is murder, but if the intent of the paladin is to stop evil, and not simply to murder the orcs, this too isn't evil.

An on the subject of Sune, the fact that she allows worshippers from any non evil alignment, and her dogma contains nothing that could be considered overtly chaotic, suggestes that her alignment being CG instead of NG could also be an oversight similar to Hoar allowing paladins (Which let's be honest, is probably an oversight).

But, I have always been a fan in tabletop of houseruling allowing paladins of any extreme alignment, as provided by several sources books (they technically had a different class name, like the CG pally was like a freedom fighter or something like that, the LE one was a Knight of Tyranny, etc etc.)

Law and chaos, good and evil, are always going to be intrinsically relative to some degree because that is the only way human beings understand it. That is the only way we understand it because morality is an invention of sentient culture. This is reflected in 4th edition rules as well, where paladins alignment simply has to match that of their deity.

Alignment represents your characters personality and the goals to which he or she is committed, not what they are made of. A paladin committed to the dogma of a chaotic god is still being lawful if he respectfully obeys the rules of the church, since they aren't his own rules. A chaotic good character does what he believes is right, a LG paladin does what the church tells him is right. If the church tells him chaos is good and right, and he obeys it, that is a lawful act.

[Boddynock]

Oh, and for those of you interested in a good paladin story and a good read overall. I highly recommend The Deed of Paksenarrion. While it is not set in Forgotten Realms, or to my knowledge a D&D book at all, it does a god job at portraying a paladin and is just a good read. (For those of you interested in evil RP, there is also some particularly memorable evil stuff, one scene in which the main character is tortured horrendously comes to mind...)

In short, novels are a great source of creative ideas that you can borrow and modify for your own use.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Deed-Paksenar ... 0671721046

[R0ninknight]

One of my favorite classes is the 'Paladin of Freedom' CG variant class in Unearthed Arcana (I think that's the sourcebook off the top of my head).
That said, as a player I've been trying to balance the influences and nuances of my Sunite paladin most of the time and also have the two cosmic forces cause inner conflict in him sometimes. For example, he has just stood up randomly to give Isabella a hug completely on a whim before but he is also very lawful and dutiful when it comes to anything professional or when in formal situations. Basically, he is more chaotic when it comes to affection and charity (he spontaneously gives gifts, too) but very lawful with just about everything else. Am I on the right track in terms of how I'm thinking, here?

The question at hand has also haunted me for a long time when I think about alignments. The example I often use to torture my mind is this: 'If a member of a thieve's guild is ordered to steal a duke's crown, is that thief being chaotic or lawful when he steals it? Is he being both at the same time?'

I think its really 'both at the same time' in terms of the real world. Thing is... DnD can't mechanically support 'both at the same time' as far as I know. At least.... not very well. It is a weakness of the system, really. Yeah, there is true neutral but.... I'm not really satisfied with that.

So this 'both at the same time' principle applies to paladins pretty often, too, in my opinion. It makes things very challenging for players- though challenge can be a good thing.

[Boddynock]

One of my favorite classes is the 'Paladin of Freedom' CG variant class in Unearthed Arcana (I think that's the sourcebook off the top of my head).
That said, as a player I've been trying to balance the influences and nuances of my Sunite paladin most of the time and also have the two cosmic forces cause inner conflict in him sometimes. For example, he has just stood up randomly to give Isabella a hug completely on a whim before but he is also very lawful and dutiful when it comes to anything professional or when in formal situations. Basically, he is more chaotic when it comes to affection and charity (he spontaneously gives gifts, too) but very lawful with just about everything else. Am I on the right track in terms of how I'm thinking, here?

The question at hand has also haunted me for a long time when I think about alignments. The example I often use to torture my mind is this: 'If a member of a thieve's guild is ordered to steal a duke's crown, is that thief being chaotic or lawful when he steals it? Is he being both at the same time?'

I think its really 'both at the same time' in terms of the real world. Thing is... DnD can't mechanically support 'both at the same time' as far as I know. At least.... not very well. It is a weakness of the system, really. Yeah, there is true neutral but.... I'm not really satisfied with that.

So this 'both at the same time' principle applies to paladins pretty often, too, in my opinion. It makes things very challenging for players- though challenge can be a good thing.

Yes it can be a challenge, but in these sorts of situations I normally rely on intent. The thief isn't (or at least probably isn't) stealing the crown due to a sense of duty to a higher authority, he is doing it to get rich or out of fear of punishment should he disobey. Doing so to get rich is probably a chaotic act. Although obeying out of fear could also be considered lawful, as tyranny is typically portrayed as lawful evil.

A characters motivation in doing any sort of deed is a huge factor in alignment considerations.

[thids]

Agree to disagree then, Lawful is relative based on the fact that law itself is relative. What is lawful in Dambrath is very different from what is lawful in Amn. Law and justice in the human pantheon is not necessarily the same in the dwarven pantheon, or elven, or gnomish, for example.

In fact, even in human pantheons, Tyr is a god of justice, but so is Hoar. And their definition of justice is very different, and neither can be counted wrong. Morality is only really set in stone for outsiders, angels are made of good, devils are made of evil. Mortals on the prime have much more leniency. And even then, eryines are the descendants of fallen angels...

Hoar's dogma in itself is interesting because it specifically allows for the committing of evil acts and warns simply not to commit evil for evil's sake, but only in the pursuit of vengeance. Vengeance itself is a concept many people would consider evil, but in every iteration of D&D I am aware of, the gods of vengeance have been neutral. (St. Cuthbert, Sheverash) Even in fourth edition when Hoar becomes an exarch of bane (which in our timeline it isn't Bane he is "flirting with" he is being courted by Shar and Tyr) he remains lawful neutral.

The point being, that for a warrior of the church, the tenets of the church come first. And adherence to the dogma of a paladin's religion can never be considered chaotic, as they are adhering quite lawfully to what they believe to be true and right. Alignment is about intent moreso than actions. This is why it isn't evil for a paladin to slay marauding orcs. Murder is murder, but if the intent of the paladin is to stop evil, and not simply to murder the orcs, this too isn't evil.

An on the subject of Sune, the fact that she allows worshippers from any non evil alignment, and her dogma contains nothing that could be considered overtly chaotic, suggestes that her alignment being CG instead of NG could also be an oversight similar to Hoar allowing paladins (Which let's be honest, is probably an oversight).

But, I have always been a fan in tabletop of houseruling allowing paladins of any extreme alignment, as provided by several sources books (they technically had a different class name, like the CG pally was like a freedom fighter or something like that, the LE one was a Knight of Tyranny, etc etc.)

Law and chaos, good and evil, are always going to be intrinsically relative to some degree because that is the only way human beings understand it. That is the only way we understand it because morality is an invention of sentient culture. This is reflected in 4th edition rules as well, where paladins alignment simply has to match that of their deity.

Alignment represents your characters personality and the goals to which he or she is committed, not what they are made of. A paladin committed to the dogma of a chaotic god is still being lawful if he respectfully obeys the rules of the church, since they aren't his own rules. A chaotic good character does what he believes is right, a LG paladin does what the church tells him is right. If the church tells him chaos is good and right, and he obeys it, that is a lawful act.

What about a CG cleric of Sune? A cleric who follows Sune's dogma to the letter with zeal and fervor. Are you saying that such cleric should receive lawful points? What about every other cleric of every other god? Should every cleric be lawful by default? They must follow their gods dogma to the letter, does that make them lawful?

We can agree to disagree, but in the end I'm only interpreting the setting as it's presented to me

Two gods of the same pantheon can't hold the same porfolio (Tyr and Hoar are both part of the Faerunian pantheon). Tyr holds the portfolio of Justice while Hoar holds the portfolio of Poetic Justice, those are two different things. Also, I think Tyr is the only god in FR among all pantheons which holds the justice portfolio and it is his only portfolio. Though that is likely just a coincidence, far be it from wotc to actually build a deeper and complex system which doesn't contradict itself several times between the novels and sourcebooks


I know that the setting would make much more sense and would be more pleasant to RP in if good, evil, law and chaos were relative and open to interpretation. But if you even look at the mechanical aspect of the game, it soon becomes clear that all four of those things are set in stone. There are magical properties, spells, effects etc. which specifically affect someone who is lawful/good/chaotic/evil. There is no room for interpretation in regards to those 4 things (IC interpretation, we can OOCly try to interpret what's good, evil, lawful or chaotic all we want if the situation is unclear).

Another subject that often comes up is the paladin's code of conduct. This is also from Player's Hand Book, page 44:

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.

Again, this is the core, basic code of conduct of a paladin. Different gods in Forgotten Realms will obviously add more nuance.

This explains the situation in the simplest way. The gods dogma can add to this core code of conduct, but it can never override it.

[Boddynock]

Good and evil can not be anything other than relative. You cannot have one without the other. This stands true even in FR...and saying that alignment has mechanical effects, well mechanics have no bearing in a conversation about role play.

And anyone laboring under the beleif that Helmite paladins would have no conflicts that push them towards LN should remember the time of troubles. Helm slays Mystra, who is not evil nor trying to commit an evil act by re-entering heaven. She is trying to prevent widespread destruction, chaos, and death caused by an out of control weave. Helm slays her because he is ordered by Ao to prevent the return of the deities to heaven, and for no other reason. Helmites take duty very seriously, and that grey area is ripe for some DM to come in and give some Helmites some very difficult choices to make.

I can't really comment on Sune's dogma, because I am not particularly well versed. But I would argue that a cleric of a CG deity is allowed more leeway to follow what they believe to be right than strictly adhere to the tenets of a church authority. And why would a CG god look poorly on them for doing so?

I would also argue that any arguement of law, chaos, good, and evil can only be argued IN character, as only in OOC mechanics is it set in stone.

And I am aware no two gods can have the same exact portfolio, but there is a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT of overlap.

[thids]

So the clerics of chaotic deities stray away from their gods dogma on purpose... just to keep their alignment? That doesn't make much sense. Not every chaotic deity has chaos as their domains nor do they strive towards chaos.

We can continue to discuss this at length, and it would provide for an interesting discussion as our views clearly differ. But I'm tired and lazy to write long rebuttals and replies, so I'll just turn to my good friend Champions of Valor once again

Several
nongood deities allow paladins in their service, promoting only
the most lawful and good aspects of their faith.

[Boddynock]

So the clerics of chaotic deities stray away from their gods dogma on purpose... just to keep their alignment? That doesn't make much sense. Not every chaotic deity has chaos as their domains nor do they strive towards chaos.

We can continue to discuss this at length, and it would provide for an interesting discussion as our views clearly differ. But I'm tired and lazy to write long rebuttals and replies, so I'll just turn to my good friend Champions of Valor once again

Several
nongood deities allow paladins in their service, promoting only
the most lawful and good aspects of their faith.

No they do not purposely stray, but rather why would a CG deity have a church based on a huge amount of strictures and codices and rules to begin with? There would be little to stray from in that regard. Rather I see a CG church as everyone working towards a common goal in individual ways.

And I hope you understand I am not trying to be rude or argumentative or anything, but continuing to respond in the hopes that someone struggling with Paladin RP finds something in my messages or your own that resonates with them and breathes some life and realism into their characters (also I'm not sleepy yet lol). Ultimately while I don't agree with your interpretation of some things (I do with some) it is up to the player of any particular character to decide what is right for their playstyle. To that end, the more points of view we can provide, and the more insight into each, can only be a good thing.

And supplemental sourcebooks aren't really applicable IMO when Unearthed Arcana has rules for both a paladin of Tyranny and a paladin of Slaughter. ((Pathfinder even has a freakin awesome variant base class called antipaladin...so fun to play))

[thids]

I didn't think you were being too argumentative or anything, I just really am tired (woke up way too early today ). In any case, I was referring to gods dogmas, clerics are required to follow those dogmas if they want to continue receiving spells from their gods (unless they are heretics, which some gods not only allow but even encourage... but that's a whole other mess), yet the act of following their gods dogma does not grant them lawful points on the law/chaos axis unless the dogma they follow makes them commit lawful actions. If it makes them commit chaotic actions, they receive chaotic points, and so on. Otherwise all clerics would eventually be lawful just by following their gods dogma. The effects of their actions are not removed by their intention.


Champions of Valor is a Forgotten Realms specific 3.5 sourcebook which deals with some key differences between the generic 3.5 D&D setting and Forgotten Realms in terms of good and evil. It is even stated that the FR setting is not so black and white, yet good and evil are clearly defined. It's a great sourcebook IMO that answers plenty of questions.

[NeonAvenger]

While standing on a wall with a horde of undead charging, really wishing I had some kind of AoE weapon, it occurred to me to ask: Are paladins permitted to use alchemist's fire and other "exotic" weapons?

I tried to do my own research and failed:
Apart from an oblique line "... acid and other poisons ..." (I think it was in the 2nd ed. DMG).
And "Character Classes Table II. Armor and Weapons Permitted" in the 2nd ed. PHB which says use of burning oil is permitted.
I didn't manage to find any references at all.

My instincts are to think:

• Holy Water - Yes... I mean it would be strange world if paladins didn't use holy water.
• Choking Powder - No. Far too much like poison.
• Acid - No. I'm leaning towards the oblique line on this one.
• Tanglefoot Bags - Probably not banned, but I don't think they'd be used for appearances sake.
• Thunderstones - Probably yes, they're the D&D equivalent of flashbangs. Then again I've never seen any around so probably doesn't matter either.
• Alchemists Fire - Really not sure. Depends on which side of this Pratchett quote the gods of Faerun fall: "The Klatchian Fire Engine has been banned by eight countries and three religions have said that any soldiers found using it would be excommunicated (Five others embraced it as a holy weapon and commanded that it be used on infidels, heretics, gnostics and people who fidget during the sermons)"

So what do the people with far better lore knowledge and references think?

[Ariella]

To comment on the sune part, There are no aspects of Sunes dogma that require one to be chaotic. Sune her self focuses very heavily on the good aspect of her alignment, as is show in future additions when CG simply becomes good. While Sune has a touch of chaotic in her, Her message dose not share it and thus she can have paladins.

To comment on church laws, I believe you are both correct. While a paladin must respect legitimate authority and just laws. Its faith oftern determins what falls under just and legitimate. Other wise paladins would be forced to respect the laws of tyrant kings and there are many examples of them doing other wise.

[R0ninknight]

To me, as I interpret alignments in FR:

Lawful Good talking about Chaotic Good: "Yeah, that fellow is a bit of an odd duck but his heart's in the right place at least. He gets on my nerves sometimes but I don't mind sharing a drink with him, as well. Afterwards he goes his way (wherever the crazies go to lay about in the woods or whatnot after a good drink); I go mine; we're all happy enough with each other at the end of the day."

Lawful Good talking about Lawful Evil: "Bleed and die, tyrant! No more shall you make slaves of babes! Your laws suck!" *Smite-Smitey-McSmite-Smite* "Okay, then. Time to write up some new, good laws! Done and done."

Lawful Good talking about True Neutral: "Error! Error! Does.... not.... compute...." *brain combusts*

As far as item usage goes, in my opinion that would depend on the deity the paladin serves. The exception is poison which is bluntly banned, as you mentioned. As for the others I could see a paladin using alchemist fire depending on his or her deity's dogma as an example. I have yet to come across any stated restrictions other than poison and personally unless something is explicitly banned like poison is I'd allow it.
Paladins are not known for creativity on the level that, say, chaotic bards are but they don't have to be traditional to the point of emulating dodo birds walking into the same trap over and over again. I say 'go ahead and show a bit of tactical creativity'.

[Arn]

Can a paladin sneak attack without breaking the code of conduct?

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.

Sneak Attack: If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage. Basically, the rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target.

In other words, is it cheating or deceptive to strike an opponent when he is unable to "effectively" defend himself? Must a paladin always wait for his opponent to raise his defenses completely? I would have agreed that catching an opponent completely unawares by literally jumping out of the shadows would probably be breaking the Code of Conduct. But then, may a paladin use a feint in the heat of battle? May a paladin flank an opponent or strike from behind?

I thought the answer was probably a resounding "NO SNEAK ATTACKING PALADINS." But then an old player referred me to the Shadowbane Inquisitor:

Almost all shadowbane inquisitors were once paladins who took a few levels of rogue to better understand and combat the subtle forces of evil. This unusual class combination gives the inquisitor a remarkable ability to resist the manipulations of evil creatures and confront them without fear.

And on page 69:

Multiclassing Note: A paladin can multiclass as a shadowbane inquisitor without losing his ability to take additional levels of paladin. In addition, he can multiclass freely between the paladin and rogue classes and may even gain additional rogue levels. He must still remain lawful good in order to retain his paladin abilities and take paladin levels.

And on page 104, there is a general feat (ie: NOT specific to Shadowbane Inquisitor) called Devoted Inquisitor. Its requirements are Smite evil and sneak attack. Description: "Use smite evil and sneak attack together to daze a foe"

All this seems to suggest that paladins may, in fact, sneak attack.

Thoughts?

[Tekill]

Interesting question.
I do not think all paladins may agree with what I am about to say but, paladins have more wiggle room regarding their codes and alignment than a lot of folk think.
Either that or one day soon my paladin will fall...heheh.

I think the decision to use sneak attack can or should be decided on a case by case bases.

I think it is more important to evaluate what happens leading up to that sneak attack to justify the use of a sneak attack in the first place.

Once the Paladin has decided that deadly force is required, then the most efficient and merciful death should be chosen.
I always pictured a sneak attack or the old fashioned 'back stab' as generally going for a vital spot on the opponent such as vital organ or an artery.
With that thinking in mind, a sneak attack, is an efficient way to take out a deadly threat quickly and relatively painlessly before that threat can cause more harm to others.

The rules of engagement, will differ depending on the situation.
But, in the heat of battle of war, in that chaos, when you are out there on the battlefield, Lawful Good or not it is kill or be killed.

Circling around behind a foe to take them out quickly might be distasteful to some warriors or paladins, but it is also a clever tactic that will eliminate a evil and dangerous threat.
That said, regarding game mechanics and PVP- it might be more proper and just, to circle behind the opponent and just knock them out instead of driving a sword through their liver...heheh.

So yeah a sneak attack like many battle tactics can be used dishonorably, especially in regards to a surprise attack.
Such as maybe just sneaking up behind someone and slitting their throat.

But that Troll that is ravaging a damsel in distress- are you going to walk up to it demand it release that damsel then challenge it to a duel?
Or are you going to do what it takes to save that damsels life, including driving that flame blade up its butt?