The Paladin Problem: how do you interpret the Code?

[NunoM]

Granted: Paladins don't need a god.

Not wanting to change rules, or go off-topic, why can't Paladins champion other kinds of morals...? They could simply be the embodiement and enforcers of a certain set of attributes (call it "the code"). Yeah, a CE Paladin would be a weird sight, but he would still be "Lawful" to his own creed, right?

Personally, i've recently considered creating a Paladin of Oliddamara. A sort of holy warrior-thief, a taste of divine boosted thievery or thief for a cause thing... yes, i could do it with a priest, but why not with the Paladin? Are the good deities or principles the only ones with the right to have champions?

[Kajhera]

I always rejected the notion that paladins need to have a god. Clerics are the holy warriors. Paladins are the embodiment of goodness. They can be good for goodness' sake, as the song says.

They don't. Only in FR.

I know, but 4E codified that they do need a god, and a large number of people seem to be under the assumption that this is true in 3.5, too.

Well, you're also operating under the faulty assumption that Paladins can be good for goodness' sake. Paladins in 3.5 aren't the Paragons of Good that, I feel, most people associate them with. A 3.5 Paladin's goodness is tempered by justice. When his good deeds start to undermine legitimate authority, then he must reconsider his actions. It goes the other way, of course, but the implication of being good for goodness' sake is being unfettered by any other motivation than to do and be good.

Since I got my Lawful alignment from being a cleric of a LN god, I felt free to associate my paladinhood with untempered Good... and I think it's a valid approach for a paladin to operate by codified goodness. Keeping a sharp eye on when authority is legitimate is definitely within the duties of a servant of all.

Admittedly, as paladins go, I'm a bit of a maverick.

[Kajhera]

Granted: Paladins don't need a god.

Not wanting to change rules, or go off-topic, why can't Paladins champion other kinds of morals...? They could simply be the embodiement and enforcers of a certain set of attributes (call it "the code"). Yeah, a CE Paladin would be a weird sight, but he would still be "Lawful" to his own creed, right?

Personally, i've recently considered creating a Paladin of Oliddamara. A sort of holy warrior-thief, a taste of divine boosted thievery or thief for a cause thing... yes, i could do it with a priest, but why not with the Paladin? Are the good deities or principles the only ones with the right to have champions?

Think this is what the variant paladins in Unearthed Arcana and Dragon Magazine are for. Also crusaders, soulborns, incarnates, and ardents. 

[caelic]

What is with everyone and their "sex is bad" mentality? Sex is a beautiful and natural part of being a human being, as long as it is more or less vanilla sex with no kinks. And, don't forget, species are based on its continuing practice!

It's not so much "Everyone and their "sex is bad" mentality."  It's "Thomas Malory and his "sex is bad" mentality."

The D&D Paladin is more-or-less lifted wholesale from Malory's Morte d'Arthur, and similar courtly romances--hence the universal code of conduct, which is based more on an idealized version of chivalry than on religious faith.  (Naturally, it fails to take into account the specific desires of the paladin's deity because, in the source material, all the paladins worshiped the same deity.)

I think this is where the bulk of problems stem from: the paladin, as written, is a very genre-specific character, and the genre to which it's specific is courtly romance, not modern fantasy.  Modern fantasy draws on courtly romance--and sword-and-sorcery novels, and the Greek epics, and about a zillion other sources--but it's distinct from them.  As time goes on, it diverges more and more from these sources, and the old-school Paladin becomes more and more out of place.

A Paladin, as written, might fit fine into a campaign designed to recreate Arthurian England, or perhaps the doings of Charlemange...but it's not going to fit into a Norse campaign, or a campaign set in feudal Japan, or a campaign in a Steampunkish world where all morality is shades of grey...and all of these are D&D, and equally as much D&D as "Knights in shining armor rescuing princesses from dragons."

[SorO_Lost]

Here is what I think.

Code of Conduct
1. A paladin must be of lawful good alignment.
UA variants remove this.

2. Respect legitimate authority.
Required of all lawful characters to begin with.

3. Act with honor, not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth.
Required to some degree all good characters to begin with. Deceit & deception are bad, using poison is evil, etc.

4. Help those in need.
UA variants remove this, evil doesn't help anyone but them selves. Also, what is need? Should I give a hobo a newspaper to build a home, volunteer at the shelter, or smite the crap out of hellspawn and otherwise act like a good aligned adventurer out to save the world?

5. Punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Again UA variants remove this. Do you know why? It's all part of being active LG and active people of other alignments do other things.

Monseigneur: And I am reminded on this holy day of the sad story of Kitty Genovese. As you all may remember, long time ago almost 30 years ago. This poor soul cried out for help time and time again, but no person answered their calls. Though many saw, no one so much as called the police. They all just watched as Kitty was being stabbed to death in broad daylight. They watched as her assailant walked away. Now, we must all fear evil men. But, there is another kind of evil which we must all fear most … and that is the indifference of good men!

Those people call them selves good and probably were. But they didn't stand up, they are weak unwilling cowards. A Paladin puts his foot forward. His CoC is nothing more than a reflection of his required alignment (which varies) and requires the willingness to act to some degree. So things can really be boiled down to a guy willing to be a civil servant instead mucking the stables.

No sex, wears shiny plate and rides a white horse, rescues princesses from dragons, is a total asshat, omg King Arthur the only story I know!, etc are all just vied imaginations of what you pidgeon hole the Paladin to be. Claiming he is out of place is to claim your limited ideas is out of place. I can also say based on experience, it doesn't matter which class they are playing, a dick is still a dick. He'll be the stick up the ass paladin or the pissed up fight seeking barbarian, it doesn't matter as long as he can fuck things up like he is playing Saints Row.

[Kajhera]

This is true ... respect legitimate authority, act with honor, help those in need, and protect innocents isn't exactly the most complicated, or time-period-specific code now that you mention it.

As I worked out my paladin's morality in more depth she wound up drawing more on the traditions of Hinduism than chivalry. (Though I had to nip the 'pacifism' part short for obvious reasons.) I think it's pretty culturally flexible.

[Iceciro]

I think the Paladin code is something it's simply super-important to discuss with your local DM/GM before you play one. Especially in 3.5 where fighting the code makes you the Fighter Without Bonus feats.

Personally, as a DM, I derive a lot of the aspects about how heavily I push the code relative to the deity the paladin serves. A Paladin of Illmater is going to be expected to sacrifice himself at any time, while a Paladin of Pelor (who has the shadowguard/grey guards) has a little more leeway, and a Paladin of Hieroneius could even (with much effort) justify keeping himself alive if it might allow him to save even more people later.  And I think that's the best way to do it - consider the full deity in the code.

[caelic]

No sex, wears shiny plate and rides a white horse, rescues princesses from dragons, is a total asshat, omg King Arthur the only story I know!, etc are all just vied imaginations of what you pidgeon hole the Paladin to be.

I think you missed my point.  I wasn't saying that I thought this is what Paladins should be; I was commenting on why it's the dominant, stereotypical image of the paladin, and why so many players cling to it.  It's the archetype on which the class was originally based, though we can throw Poul Anderson in there for good measure.  This really isn't a matter of opinion; Gygax came right out and said it.  Heck, at least the modern paladin isn't as bad as the paladin circa first edition UA, who was not only forced to adhere to the Paladin's code of conduct, but also to the Cavalier's code of conduct.

Claiming he is out of place is to claim your limited ideas is out of place.

...you mean "to claim the limited ideas of the original designers are out of place."  Which was sort of the point of my original post.  We're not talking about "Paladin after you remove most of the code and drastically modify the class as UA did"--we're talking about Paladin as presented in the PHB, and why so many people envision him as the knight in shining armor with all the hang-ups.   

Sure, you can reimagine the Paladin in a different cultural context (though you're really going to have to obliterate large parts of the code, as UA does, for some campaign worlds.  Running a Paladin straight off the shelf in a Viking campaign would be problematic, just for instance.)

[veekie]

Naturally, it fails to take into account the specific desires of the paladin's deity because, in the source material, all the paladins worshiped the same deity.

Quite possibly the root of the whole problem, since that God was supposed to set the definition of Law and Good there.

[Halinn]

His CoC ... requires the willingness to act to some degree.

[NunoM]

Just (as we say in my home country) to throw some more wood into the fire of the discussion :

I've always seen the Paladin, straight of the shelf, to be more of a Cavalier and knight of the round table than anything else... The canon knight in shinning armor of old, fighting dragons and saving princesses, only to throw a Galahad/Spiderman routine and reject their love (the princesses, of course) claiming that there's more world to be saved...

I seem to remember an old tabletop RPG called "Pendragon" which included two opposed abilities (i don't remember how it was called back then): Lust and Virtue (actually, it was both in one)... Everytime the character "suffered" from temptation, he would make a check. If he failed he would give in to temptation and might actually end up sleeping with his Lord's wife!!! hehehe

Anyway, i digress... The Paladin has all to gain, imho, from dettaching from the narrow corridor of behavior the basic PHB instills into the character. Presenting a personal CoC to the DM or following a certain deity's ethos is perfectly legitimate and acceptable. The main difference (and difficulty) of the class, compared to and what seperates it from the seal of "Warrior with perks", is that the Paladin has to be the embodiement of that code, with all it's plus and cons.
Example:
- "Protect the Innocent" => he has to be the first in line to fight a horde of orcs and the last to leave if needed...
- "Respect the dead" => You'll never see this guy openning a tomb to loot it and may even enter a fight, if one of his party companions attempts such a foul thing (actually this happened in one of my game sessions; the rogue eventually gave in, but the fight was eminent...)
- "Destroy the Undead" => another game session comes to mind: 2nd level Paladin vs. 3 Wights. Everyone wanted to run, after an in-game day of many encounters; the Paladin insisted... heck of fight! I believe two of the PCs died - the Paladin wasn't one of them... and then came the dilema: should he lose his Paladin status, since it was his insistance that eventually caused the companions demise?

(sorry for the long post... i just got carried away, i guess... )

[veekie]

Well, one thing the code should do is to give him the power to stick to it better, if you're building the conduct in. So if you're doing Truth, Honor, Justice and Mercy he should have abilities reflecting those virtues even as he upholds them. And he does, but mostly Justice.

[NunoM]

Even those are a bit too broad, in my book...
If the Paladin upholds "Justice", for example, how would he, for example, settle a contention between a poor man who steals a bread to feed his family, and the rich proprietor of the bakery the man stole if from?
- the man stole, he should go to jail!
or
- the proprietor is wealthy enough, the man is hungry, poor and his cause is just. He should go free! I'll pay for his bread...
(i'd go for the 2nd one...)

...but to make the task easier, maybe if he could assign priorities on the values he upholds, but as notions (not the right word, i'll edit this if i remember a better one) and not exactly broad values.
Small example:
1. Protect the innocent
2. Destroy the undead

Situation: a vampire attacks a person while the Paladin is on watch.
The priority will be: take the person to safety, destroy the undead... but if the second one doesn't happen and the 1st one is achieved, no problem.
If the priorities were reversed, i'd expect the Paladin to strike the vampire, and if the person died, well...

hmm... it would almost be like turning the Paladin into a kind of Robocop with it's directives... coming to think of it, i'm not sure if that's a good thing  :/

[veekie]

Naw, conflict of values is part of the themes involved, the legends are full of the knight/samurai not caught between an external situation and their code, but rather being stuck where two mutually exclusive things are right.
Its also why the codes can use more gradation than 'Fully adhere to codes and retain abilities' and 'Not adhering to part of code, abilities lost until atonement'. Lesser breaches such as violating one part in pursuit of another, or violating the code without intent is distinct from clear and direct breach of conduct after all.

Ability wise, it can be that you gain greater ability to exercise judgment. For example, Detect Evil/Detect Thoughts allows you to make a call for the greater good more easily, as does Augury/Commune.
To protect the innocent you need options to bolster or substitute their defenses.
To exercise mercy you need to have some means of subduing foes non-lethally AND deal with them afterwards(social abilities? punch the evil out of them? I dunno).
Just some random thoughts.

[MrWolfe]

Haven't really seen it come up, except in my group's current pathfinder campaign. One of the party members recently switched to playing a Paladin of the church of Murlynd. (Specifically a Paladin 5/Gunslinger 1, in our GM's campaign, firearms are a closely kept secret of the church.)

Even then the paladin's code has only come up once since he started playing that character:

Last week we were hired by a local shopkeeper to put a stop to this gang that had been shaking down local businesses for protection money. In addition, we found out the town guard had a bounty on the gang--but it was only payable if we brought them in alive.

After tracking down the gangs' hideout and having my character scout the location, the psion and I worked out a great plan:

The psion has an ability that lets him create a large quantity of any organic substance--including alcohol and organic poisons. My character (an emissary of Cayden Cailean) would buy a wagon and some barrels, and bring it to the part of town where the gang's hideout was. The psion would hide in the back and use his power to keep the barrels filled with conjured beer, which we would then pass out for free as part of a "community outreach program" on behalf of my church.

Once we identified the gang members in the crowd, my character would challenge them all to a drinking contest, at which point the psion (still hidden in the back of the wagon) would conjure up a barrel-full of booze spiked with poison for the bandits, and a barrel of alcohol-free beer for me. I would then proceed to drink them all under the table (with help from massive doses of wisdom-damaging poison) after which we would tie the gang members up and drop them off at the local prefect's station.

Everyone loved the plan, even our GM...

...and then the Paladin started whining.

30 minutes later, we finally shut him up by pointing out that we hadn't actually told his character about the plan--it was just something my character and the psion had been discussing together. Honestly, I think his only problem with it was that we were going to bypass the combat and he (the player) wanted to bust heads.

In the end, it worked out great. My halfling emissary/scout drank the entire gang of humans into a stupor except one who nat 20's his save against 15 doses of poison. The two of us kept going for another minute until I flubbed a fort save to hold down all the liquid I'd been drinking, and as he raised his arms in victory the next batch of poison kicked in, and he failed his save and fell over.

The rest of the party took the wagon down the street to lead the crowd away, and the Paladin and I ended up taking down the gang's leader by ourselves when he came out to check on his guys.

I am now a legend in that part of town.

[cvar]

Even those are a bit too broad, in my book...
If the Paladin upholds "Justice", for example, how would he, for example, settle a contention between a poor man who steals a bread to feed his family, and the rich proprietor of the bakery the man stole if from?
- the man stole, he should go to jail!
or
- the proprietor is wealthy enough, the man is hungry, poor and his cause is just. He should go free! I'll pay for his bread...
(i'd go for the 2nd one...)

The second one is good, but not lawful, while the first is lawful, but not good.  The thief should be punished for his crime and the paladin sees to the care of the family.

[Kajhera]

Even those are a bit too broad, in my book...
If the Paladin upholds "Justice", for example, how would he, for example, settle a contention between a poor man who steals a bread to feed his family, and the rich proprietor of the bakery the man stole if from?
- the man stole, he should go to jail!
or
- the proprietor is wealthy enough, the man is hungry, poor and his cause is just. He should go free! I'll pay for his bread...
(i'd go for the 2nd one...)

The second one is good, but not lawful, while the first is lawful, but not good.  The thief should be punished for his crime and the paladin sees to the care of the family.

Well, it depends what your laws are. In my society, we'd convene a jury to mediate between the baker and the man, and determine just recompensation. Being successfully alerted to the plight of the man's family, we might also determine to lend aid as poverty to the point of theft does not strengthen our community, and I as a paladin would certainly give them a fish then teach them to use the net (either metaphorically or literally) presuming I had time to do more than the fish.

[NunoM]

The "justice" part, was "covered" by the fact of the baker being fully repaid - in this case, by the paladin. The baker wouldn't lose the rightful dues for his work. At the same time, the poor man wouldn't be taken away from his family. Even if the family was provided for, during the man's time in jail, that wouldn't solve the problem... Taking up on Kajhera's words: they still wouldn't know how to fish...

Another option could be (if the paladin had the authority for it): "sentence" the man to work for the baker for a period of 1 month. As payment for his work, the baker would have to give the man enough loafs of bread to feed his family during that period. My reasoning is: the baker would get an employee (almost) for free and the poor man would feed his family *and* learn a profession. Sure the man's family wouldn't be able to live off bread alone, but it's a start...
There's a number of ways this could turn out, but i would be hoping for a happy ending, like the man becoming a full-time (fully paid) employee for the baker

[Agrippa]

I found an interesting blog post about paladins through the editions. If you take what I consider to be the best of each code you'd get a noble-minded leader, willing to take the blame for defeat and eager to share the credit for victory. In battle the paladin would be a fierce and bold champion of righteousness and a scourge of the wicked, and outside of it both kind and humble. His or her sheer goodness and wisdom is legitimacy enough for a paladin to stand in judgement of others, for he or she can be trusted to act without bigotry or prejudice of any sort. In sort I'd recomend this thread for guidence. Please note that while paladins require faith, that faith need not rest in one or deities.

[midnight_v]

Hmm... every since I saw it I used the "Kantian Paladin" code in my games. It made sense and it stopped a lot of nonsense. I... I think I have it around here somewhere.

Ah here it is.

“  Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.  ” 
—Immanuel Kant 

A paladin believes in a set of duties based on a universal moral law. Whether paladins are right about this is a matter of dispute among philosophers to this day, but wise men don't raise the topic to a paladin's face. Despite this ideological inflexibility, most paladins are pretty nice people: they keep their promises, help the needy, and work to make the world a better place to live.
   

Code of Conduct: Kantian Paladins follow a strict moral philosophy with two key features: only intentions, not consequences, matter; and any moral obligation applies to all rational creatures, at all times. Kantian Paladins derive their duties from considering if they would want everyone to act as they do all the time. If they would, that's a universal duty; if not, that action is forbidden. Kantian Paladins respect the autonomy and free wills of rational creatures, and treat all rational creatures, even evil ones, as ends in themselves, rather than as means to an end. Kantian Paladins imagine a hypothetical kingdom where all rational creatures both follow and create the laws, and choose laws based on what would make this kingdom a better place to live. Of course, since they believe that everyone else should act this way too, they aren't much fun at cocktail parties.

While adventuring, Kantian Paladins encounter a lot of creatures with alien mentalities and biologies. Most Kantian Paladins consider monsters with incomprehensible or inflexible viewpoints outside the community of rational creatures, even if they're otherwise intelligent, so feel no obligation to treat them any differently from animals. Similarly, most Kantian Paladins feel that creatures obligated to kill other rational creatures for sustenance, such as vampires and illithids, should voluntarily commit suicide, and that if they fail in this duty, other rational creatures may "assist" them in its performance.

The list that follows is some examples of how Kantian Paladins interpret their code in practice. However, it's not exhaustive.

- Kantian Paladins may not lie or deceive. If no one told the truth, language would be useless.

- Kantian Paladins must fulfill their promises. If everyone broke promises, there would be no point in making them.

- Kantian Paladins may not use mind-affecting effects. Mind-affecting abilities destroy the autonomy of rational creatures.

- Kantian Paladins must slay evil when possible. Remember that not only does an afterlife exist, but one can go there and visit it to watch Evil souls receive rewards from Evil deities. Since killing Evil people makes both them and everyone else better off (because they're no longer around in life to do Evil), it is in fact a moral duty to send successful Evil to the afterlife expediently.

- Kantian Paladins may not steal. If everyone stole, the concept of property would be meaningless. This doesn't, however, prevent Kantian Paladins from killing evil creatures, then taking their stuff.

- Kantian Paladins must offer reasonable aid to those needier than themselves. If no one gave appropriate charity, than they could not expect any assistance when they needed it.

- Kantian Paladins must seek to develop their talents; thus, most Kantian Paladins are adventurers. If no one cultivated their abilities, the world would be a poorer place.

- Kantian Paladins must not treat animals and similar creatures with cruelty. Deliberate cruelty deadens the feeling of compassion that promotes moral behavior towards rational creatures

There's actually huge amounts of cool stuff in that work devoted to alignment issues and therefore "paladins" get special notice. Things get clarified like "Paladins are GOOD and must be lawful" as they're not getting "smite chaos" etc.
And how the whole not lying thing interacts with gameplay and how they act within the laws of the land (when the laws aren't "good" and so on.
I'll post the rest of it as I get time to dress it a little. . or you can just google it. Its nice.