Paladins Code

Quote:

---

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.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">A question, since it currently affects an elven paladin of mine... are there variances on the Code or additions to it depending on race or the deity followed?

For example, Delnarith has tended to a guy who was at zero hitpoints to make sure he lives. On one hand, "punish those who harm or threaten innocents" is a very vague term. Does that mean Del can kill the guy now without endangering his paladinhood? Is a certain punishment for the criminal proscribed?

I guess that I am under the assumption that the paladins would know better than their players on what is or is not allowed by their gods...

This is an excellent question, and I believe it is very much to the interpretation of players and GM's based on the system, gods, government and characters involved.

Isuues such as Abortion Rights, homosexuality and capital punishment all cause schism down the lines of morality in varying societies. These three issues usually get people so frenzied in what they believe that they cannot even conceive of the opposite camp believing as they do. I believe the slavery issue in the late 1800's caused similar problems between North and South, so much so that it helped to escalate a war. I believe recently the battle of executing minors is just as heated.

Who can really say what is correctly justified morally? I have always found it to be the epitome of irony (and hypocrisy) that as many wars have been fought on this planet in the name of god (or at least religion) as there have been for greed or survival, if not more.

A Paladin refusing to heal a wounded evil man or enemy might rationalize "Let Solaris judge him". A paladin might heal him believeing it is the good thing to do. They are opposite responses along the same alignment axis in my mind. Torturing him, adding in a gut wound to increase his suffering or hanging him on a sign post to suffer and be there on display and an invitation for the wild animals are all responses that CROSS that line.

Even the paradox of killing is wrong...unless he is evil, still boggles my mind (and why my wife and I agree on just about everything but capital punishment).

The D&D gamne has "destroy evil if you are good written all over it". But compassion works too. Which is why Garrick had no problems fighting and killing, but never relished the taking of life.

I would love to hear other viewpoints, and I hope I have answered your question.

This by the way is a perfect use of this forum, so seldom used.

I agree with what Starshadow said. The interpretation of Law is pretty straightforward for a Paladin. You obey the laws of the land to your fullest capacity.

Interpretation of Good and Evil is a bit more vague. One Paladin might have killed the wounded attacker because he is evil, and that would fall within the Paladin code. Sparing his life shows mercy, which is also a trait of Good. Furthermore, had we two Paladins in the party they might've differed in their decisions as to what to do with him, and neither would be wrong.

Personally, I tend to try to blend the elements of Law and Good when I play LG characters, to a stance of Righteousness which falls into the old Chivalry code. Do what is Right, uphold the cause of Justice. My CFI Paladin, Celene, is not a "Saint." She has flaws, but she's a good person at the core and acts according to what she feels is the right and just course.

To illustrate: at one time, she went ahead without the party into an area of certain danger. The young green dragon was evil and so had to be stopped. A dragon is no small foe, and so she gave the others the choice of whether to risk themselves or not. By her inner code, that dragon HAD to die, or she HAD to die trying to vanquish it. Self Sacrifice for the greater good.

Well, for Delnarith, I figure since he is a paladin of Stellari, a normally very Chaotic (and good) deity, I figure the Circle (or Order) of the Constant Star is where her elven paladins found their niche. Someone has to be the one who sacrifices their personal freedoms to serve others. The constant star that guides or at least holds the fort while the constellions twirl. At their best, those of the Order would be very self sacrificing and noble, at worst, they probably seem to have a martyr complex. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I figure mercy is a big thing, but of course, it is one thing to let a scum wad live and turn him into justice, another to let a scum wad live and let him go, and another to let a scum wad live KNOWING he'll just go out and kill innocents. That last isn't really mercifiul at all, at least to the theoritical innocents. I imagine the first would be preferable, but of course, rulers aren't always in walking distance.

Heh, that's true, though Del's made his choice. Killing him after healing and questioning him might be construed an evil act, unless he starts the fight. The heroes in Devonshire had a similar situation with the apothecary we spared.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyssandra:
Heh, that's true, though Del's made his choice. Killing him after healing and questioning him might be construed an evil act, unless he starts the fight. The heroes in Devonshire had a similar situation with the apothecary we spared.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oh, he doesn't plan to kill, torture, etc. He might give the guy a choice of "You want to die, stay tied up here, or swear to me in the name of your gods that you'll head to the baroness to turn yourself in for her justice?" and see what he picks [img]wink.gif[/img]