The Furyondian paladin leading a troop of Furyondian soldiers have a great opportunity to ambush a band of orc raiders from Iuz by attacking during the day and from the higher ground. They would inflict maximum damage while minimalizing the risk of loss. However, the Furyondian paladin thinks that to attack before the enemy can defend himself would be unfair and unchivalrous, so he orders his troops to launch a frontal assault against the group at night, when the orcs can stand up for themelves.
The humans all get killed.
Earlier, that paladin had routed a larger group of raiders, and had set off in pursuit of the wizard leading the band, who had fled. The paladin had an opportunity to take him down with a holding spell or a bow with a sleeping drug on it, but refused to do so, saying it was not fair and lawful to do so. The wizard gets away, and is eventually promoted to the Lesser Boneheart.
I can fully understand why paladins would not poison rivers to kill all their enemies, or why certain clerics would refuse to do the same. But do the codes of honor that divine spellcasters follow mean that they should be forced to do stupid things because their deity would not approve otherwise? In the above example, I as DM assuming the role of Hieroneous would care less about the use of sneak attacks and good strategy than I would about making sure the orcs don't pose a threat to innocents and the young who could be living nearby. If I were St. Cuthbert, I would have no objection to my priests using spells to tie down lawbreakers, bandits and villains, or even using sleep extracts and potions to capture them if they prove too dangerous.
In the above examples, it seems like abiding by the rigid straitjacket of rules of a deity or knightly order overrides common sense. The ideals of courtly battle and chivalry work fine if it's say, Furyondy vs. the Shield Lands, but against the murderous and scheming orcs, who cheerfully break all the rules of warfare as it suits them, I as a deity would give my servants more leeway in dealing with these enemies. There would still be lines to cross-no slaughter of innocents, no use of deadly poison, no use of torture techniques to get information, and so forth. But if a paladin performed "chaotic" acts such as using clever conversation and negotiation to discover the true nature of an enemy in disguise, or puts on a disguise to infiltrate a city held by enemy forces with the intent to free it, then I would let it go, since fussing over little rules like this would prevent the job from getting done. There would be a difference between using clever intuition and negotiation to get information, and breaking an enemy's fingers one at a time until he talks. There would also be a difference between simply disguising yourself as a mercenary and sacrificing a human while disguised as the priest of an evil god.
That's the general idea. What are your thoughts? Do you think that St. Cuthbert, Pholtus, or Hieroneous would allow their followers some leeway in getting important tasks done, so long as they do not cross the overall lines that the deities have set out? Or should every rule, every tiny aspect of dogma, be followed at all times to ensure doctrinal purity?
In the above examples, it seems like abiding by the rigid straitjacket of rules of a deity or knightly order overrides common sense.
See the movie Troy for a good example of deities overriding common sense. Another good movie, Saving Private Ryan. Anyone who has been called an Upham knows why.
As for your question,
Heironeous, no. Chivalry, justice and honor at all times. The LGG gives good credos for this religion. Only a Heironeon on the edge would dare stretch the codes.
Cuthbert teaches honesty and truthfulness, but that may just be among their own order. He is the god of common sense so I don't think a Cuthbert general would lead his Billets into a night battle with orcs. Yet due to their rivalries I'd say they are a shade under Heironeous and a shade above Pholtus in ethics.
Pholtus yes, the LGG says they no respect for other religions(which would mean Heironeous or Cuthbert's dogmas) and in their pursuit to smite chaos I would say they would do anything to win as long as it's advancing their vision of Law. Not only would the Pholtans attack the orcs in the daytime, they'd cast Daylight spells to further blind them!
Surely there are those paladins who rigidly adhere to the tenants of their faith to the extreme that would lead into the scenarios discussed above. But being LG does not mean being dumb.
The concept of chivalry, with its honor duels and fighting on even terms would only apply to those who deserve them. That is, knightly orders are generally snobbish and elitist. Only other knights gain such valorious treatment in all circumstances. Other knights, by definition, could include the knights of the Horned Society, the Fiend Knights of Aerdy, and certainly knights from rival lords. Lesser beings (common foot soldiers, non humans, anyone identifiable with Iuz, etc.) do not gain such a protected status and thus can be attacked under the most logical tactics available within reason.
In the Furyondian campaign, there is an openly declared war againt the forces of Iuz. Any being openly wearing the grinning skull is readilly identifiable as being the enemy. Orcs are the soldiers of Iuz and are also readily identifiable. Tha paladins in question can be tactically intelligent and suffer no penalty for dealing with the orcs in the best manner possible.
Now this is, of course, subject to abuse. Breaking treaties and oaths, using invisibility magic, poison, false retreat/surrender, attacking obvious non combatants are all examples of a paladin not living up to his ideals of fair play (even to non-nobility). Paladins should, as a rule of thumb, scrupulously detail to their superiors every encounter with the enemy and if necessary atone for minor strayings from strict chivalry. Straying from strict adherence to chivalry is likely to be viewed as a lesser offence then letting your people get butchered.
As far as the different faiths go, Saint Cuthbert is very much a common sense diety that would allow paladin to act as the circumstances dictate. Pholtus is very strong on smiting the wicked (and I see their paladins as having a very snobbish streak), so my philosophy mentioned above would most fit them. Pelor/Rao/Mayheine tend to be more peaceful paladins, but they are primarily more concerned with defending of the weak then being overly chivilrous in combat. So they would likely act as the circumstances dictate, with the paladin taking into account all factors (thus making them take more time in coming to tactical decisions then the other paladins).
Now Hieroneous is a patron of fair play. But this is where the fact that there is an openly declared war plays in. There is an war going on that allows the paladins leeway to determine, in their respected opinions and experiences, what the proper course of action should be when dealing with a military situation.
Remember, Hieroneous is also a war diety who encourages sound tactics, so acting in a completely stupid manner to creatures unworthy of honor (demons and Iuzite priests mostly, but orcs can be lumped as well) is to cause shame to the order and danger to those Hieroneous is charged to protect. I see paladins of Hieroneous acting as logic dictates in the Furyondian wars.
The only place I see their logic flying right out the window is against opposing priests and warriors of Hextor. In those situations, the religion has a vested interest in showing how much better they are then the Hextorians and thus may act rather tactically follish in order to make this point.
So thus, paladins have a very strict code to live up to. But being LG does not mean that these rules are perfect or that some are held to higher standards then others. Knights can be LG, but never give quarter to orcs or never honor agreements with Iuzites. These can lead to a paladin's fall from grace if abused, but that is up to DMs to judge based on all the facts in each case.
I agree that being Lawful Good does not equate to mandantory idiocy in regards to battlefield tactics. Does ambushing an orcish warband during the day violate the tennants of LG belief? Nah. However, it very well could violate a Knight's Oath to his order as far as their beliefs on chivalry or martial code.
I would not think Hieronious would get bent out of shape behind it, but the Knight's commander very well could. Allthough I believe waiting till night time to mount the offensive if foolish, the attack could have taken place during the day, just head on instead of an ambush and chivalry could have still been heald intact with a tactical advantage.
Look at the Knights of the Watch/Dispatch. Primarily a difference in tactics, priests exist on both side and priests within the Dispatchers (who utilize the ambush tactics) still have the blessings of their gods.
So, does it make their gods mad? Likely not, as I stated previously it boils down to the mortal orders of knights and their codes.
Another good movie, Saving Private Ryan. Anyone who has been called an Upham knows why.
Off topic, Upham and CPT Miller made the right choice. No question. CPT Miller, at least, knew exactly what would happen when he made that choice.
On topic, the paladin and all his men were slaughtered? Sounds like fitting enough punishment to me. If your campaign has an afterlife, I would consider casting the paladin from Heironeous's grace for this tactical error which caused the useless death of his company and allowed the humanoids to run unchecked. If he survived, I would consider withholding abilities for similar reasons. Allowing aggression to go unchecked, especially when in a tactically superior position, is probably unconscionable to Heironeous's church.
I agree with Dangerdwarf's assessment. I was just trying to make slight distinctions in the LG behaviors of Heironeous, Cuthbert and Pholtus worshippers to avoid them blending and becoming generic.
I agree with Osmund-Davizid and Mortellon in their general assessment of the differences between Hieronauis, Pholtus, and Cuthbert in terms of acceptable tactics.
As many people mentioned, codes of honor in part depend on who you are dealing with. Only other knights or nobility need to be treated respectfully. Enemy commoners need not have the same courteseys extended, and enemy orcs are likely regarded as vermin that can be dispatched in any way, preferably in a way that doesn´t endanger the ¨good guys¨. Samurai lived by a very stringent code, but were allowed to kill peasants with impunity. In my campaign, it is Pholtusian Doctrine that only humans have souls, therefore all other races (orcs etc. but also demi-humans) can be treated with the same treatment given animals. The moral repurcussions for killing an orc or an elf or a cow are the same under Pholtussian Canon Law.
What hasn´t been mentioned is that Paladins hold themselves to a stricter code than they do others. This means that a Paladin serving in the capacity of commander may ¨lower his standards¨ for the sake of the people under his command. A Hieroniean Paladin would never ambush an enemy *himself*, but probably would not be above ordering his men to prepare an ambush against an emeny. The common people are not expected to have the same code of conduct as the paladin, and it is his duty to protect those under his command. If he was seen during the course of the ambush, and the enemy commander or other worthy foe ¨called him out¨or personally challenged him, however, many a Hieronain Paladin would order his men to stop fighting and then participate in a duel, where he would fight fairly regardless of the tactics used by the opponent. Personal honor is different than doing an honorable job as a commander.
I came across an article while looking through my Dragon Mag Archive in Dragon #51 pg 33. It's called It's Not Easy Being Good by Roger E. Moore. It has a very good write up about Paladins and their LG behaviors that I think would be somewhat relative the topic at hand, though I merely skimmed.
See, Andy had the dilemma here. Use good tactics, you've acted unchivalrously, and are punished by Hieroneous in the next life. If you don't use good tactics when you have the chance and get killed, then you get punished anyway. It's a grossly unfair Catch-22, and one I would not punish a player with. Other respondents have made good distinctions here-fair and chivalrous actions are taken against most human enemies (such as in Nyrond-Aerdi wars, border clashes between Urnst and Nyrond, low-grade conflicts between Gran March and Geoff, or Veluna and Bissel) but giants, orcs, and other such monsters merit no such courtesies, since they do not hold to any sort of rule of war.
That said, I agree with most of what Kirt, Osmund-Davizid, and DangerDwarf have said. And the paladin above, if he had the sense to attack during the day, might be violating his code if he shot the leader of the troop with an arrow in a cowardly manner, but using tactics that allow the advantage of terrain or the brightness of the sky is acceptable if the knightly leader has a chance to confront the orc boss of this band one-on-one.
See, Andy had the dilemma here. Use good tactics, you've acted unchivalrously, and are punished by Hieroneous in the next life. If you don't use good tactics when you have the chance and get killed, then you get punished anyway. It's a grossly unfair Catch-22, and one I would not punish a player with.
You misunderstood me. I never said anything about a paladin being punished for using good tactics. I posited that acting in a tactically stupid manner and allowing the enemy to run free was anathema to Heironeous.
Thus, I was saying that Heironeous's would expect his servant to engage in an ambush in daylight. He obviously arranged for them to be in a poor position, who is a paladin to refuse such a gift from his god?
To me, from the since introduction of the Paladin, they have been put in a straight jacket. The paladin in the Player's Handbook is a reasonable Holy Warrior for Heironus. For anyone else, I think this is silly. We use the Dragon Magazine alternative published last year (or maybe the year before, I do not have it in front of me) which allow significantly more choices for a holy warrior. We have Chaotic Good Avenger in our campaign, as well as a Paladin of Al' Akbar, and their interchanges are among the most fun of any that we have.
However, back to the first question, you are right, and the Base paladin should come preconfigured, with the only choices being Character Name and Sex. Otherwise they are generally the same. And as I try to make the Kings, Generals and Villans intelligent, a Paladin only leads parades. Such stupidity as you describe above is in line for a paladin, not for the leader of Troops.
Our Paladin to Al' Akbar has resolved this nicely though... His duty is to enter combat fairly... not enforce this on others. He comes into battle from the east, shouting of how he will destroy all the Orcs single handedly, in the name of Al Akbar; everyone else enters combat from the West, usually after giving the orcs a fair chance to beat on the Paladin.
In sum, the Paladin is broken. Always has been. Fix it and you can still have the Chivalrous lovers of single combat, but you can also have holy warriors, following codes of conduct.
PS: Having Studied Medieval Studies in College, one should read the histories, not the ballads, to find out how Knights followed their codes of conduct. Codes of Conduct only covered those of same type/kind, all with the blessing of God. Another Knight could yield; they boarded up Saracen houses with children inside, set it on fire, and then went to confession with a clear conscience.
Where is it written that a paladin may not engage in battle intelligently? The must "act with honor...and punish those that harm or threaten innocents" (D&D3E PHB, p43). In the situation originally presented, how does ambushing the orcs in the daylight violate either of these precepts?
"Law and good deeds are the meat and drink of paladins" (AD&D PHB, p22). Again, how is slaying a horde of orcs on the battlefield in favorable conditions a chaotic act? An evil act?
This kind of behaviour is common. So common, in fact, that it has a nickname, 'Lawful Stupid'.
If players want to be stupid, let them. Then find another group. _________________ In more modern times, only Delglath of Rinloru is known to have crafted any items from the stone of this atrocious place. Even masters of the dark arts such as Xaene and Karoolck would hesitate to follow.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
