Signup
Welcome to... Canonfire! World of GreyhawK
Features
Postcards from the Flanaess
Adventures
in Greyhawk
Cities of
Oerth
Deadly
Denizens
Jason Zavoda Presents
The Gord Novels
Greyhawk Wiki
#greytalk
JOIN THE CHAT
ON DISCORD
    Canonfire :: View topic - My Perspective on the Paladin's Code of Conduct
    Canonfire Forum Index -> World of Greyhawk Discussion
    My Perspective on the Paladin's Code of Conduct
    Author Message
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Oct 29, 2011
    Posts: 110


    Send private message
    Sat May 05, 2012 9:38 am  
    My Perspective on the Paladin's Code of Conduct

    The Paladins Code of Chivalry

    Recently, there have been a number of threads on the Code of a Paladin on the Paizo boards. It has been rather suprising to me how many people appear to want to treat this Code as merely a mechanic of the class to justify the raw power of the Paladin. That isn't the point of the Paladin's Code of Conduct. It shound not be merely a means to off-set those parts of the class that grant power. Abiding for a set of rules only to gain power is not what a Paladin is about.

    The Paladin's Code is--it should be, rather--a guide for how they live their life. It is with good reason that Paladin's are restricted to a Lawful Good alignment. This is because the Paladin--above and beyond all other classes--is a character of staunch moral and ethical beliefs, who sacrifices his own freedom of actions (of choices) to uphold a higher sacred trust.

    Paladin's are not just fighters by another name; they are more than a knight in shining armor. They are--or rather, should be--pious and virtous, honorable and merciful, charitable and chivalrous. In all things. And this isn't something that a Paladin has to do to retain his powers; it is something that the Paladin does because that is who and what he is.

    His Code does not restrict him; a Paladin's ethics and morals and his very life makes him live up to his beliefs.

    The origin of the Paladin was based on the knights of Charlemagne, and on Sir Galahad from the Arthurian legends. Such beliefs are not suited for everyone--neither Arthur himself, nor Lancelot, nor any other of his Knights of the Round Table were Paladins. Because that is a hard path to follow. It is an act of faith and belief that the Paladin must live, everyday, so that he is true to himself.

    Let's look at the Code of Conduct as presented in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook.

    Quote:
    A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willing commits an evil act.

    Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using posion, 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.


    There is nothing that inherently wrong with this Code, except that it is vague. Many players, whether because they want the rules spelled out for them, or because of a desire to garner a Paladin's power without restriction on his actions, treat these words as nothing more than law that can be twisted, obeyed by the letter while forsaking the spirit of the words.

    That should not happen when you play a Paladin. A Paladin lives by the the spirit of the law, not the letter. He, and his deity, know that absolute and unswerving allegiance to a Code is a path towards Evil. Laws must be adjusted for circumstances, to show compassion and mercy, to ensure that Good is upheld. Evil actions, and the breaking of the law must be punished, but a Paladin never (in my opinion) exacts a punishment greater than the crime.

    For my own game, I modify the Code of Conduct above. I use a version of the old Medevial Code of Chivalry which represents what Paladin's in my game should life up to. Cavaliers, and many Fighters even, are taught the Code of Chivalry, although they can freely ignore it (as many Knights did in history). Paladin's though, should break the code only in the most dire of circumstances, and only for the right reasons.

    I shall give oath to fear God and maintain His Church; to serve the liege lord in valor and in faith; to protect the weak and defenseless; to give succor to widows and orphans; to refrain from the wanton giving of offence; to live by honor and for glory; to despise pecuniary reward; to fight for the welfare of all; to obey those placed in authority; to guard the honor of fellow Knights; to eschew unfairness, meanness, and deceit; to keep faith; to at all times to speak the truth; to persevere to the end in any enterprise begun; to respect the honor of women; to never to refuse a challenge from an equal; to never to turn the back upon a foe.

    Not so different from the Pathfinder Code, now is it? I prefer this one, however, though some might think it more archaic. Why? Because it fits the theme of the class.

    1. to fear God and maintain His Church. Paladin's in my game must choose a Lawful Good deity. I run a Greyhawk campaign and although such Gods and Goddess as Pelor and Ehlona (both NG) represent GOOD, neither can have Paladin's in their service. There are no 'paladin's of an ideal'. This is because the very concept of Paladin means little without a God (or Goddess) and a Church. This places Paladin's in the strict heirarchy of their Church, their religion, their faith. They are not priests, nor clerics, but are Holy Warriors dedicated to the ideals of their chosen deity.

    2. to serve the leige lord in valor and in faith. Paladin's hold a dual responsibility. Not just to the Church whose faith they hold dear, but to the secular authorities of the realm. They are Knights and their service is that of all Knights who have sworn oath. Having the right, in game, to add 'Sir' or 'Dame' before one's name is a very powerful tool in the game itself. As such, a Paladin should, of his own will, faithfully serve his temporal lord, much as his does his spiritual one.

    3. to protect the weak and defenseless. This is the core of a Paladin. He adventures not for reward for himself, but to serve those in need, as much as he does his Church and his Leige. He defends those who cannot otherwise defend themselves, and he does his best to ensure that they do not suffer at the hands of others.

    4. to give succor to widows and orphans. Charity. Paladin's are charitable and generous by nature. It goes hand in hand with helping people who need the aid and assistance of the Paladin. If he is able, he does not let others go hungry or without shelter. He is no miser who hoards his wealth, for the Paladin knows that what he uses to help others will be returned to him in full.

    5. to refrain from the wanton giving of offence. Respect. Paladin's respect all life. They are not braggarts, nor do they fling witty cutting barbs designed to insult or injure another's sense of self-worth. They hold themselves to a higher standard--and they live by that standard.

    6. to live by honor and for glory. Not to say that Paladin's don't have flaws, LOL. They seek glory, but the best Paladin's seek glory not for themselves, but for their Church and their Liege. They do their best to live their lives in a honorable fashion. A Paladin's word should be his bond; for he will not break it if it can be avoided.

    7. to despise pecuniary reward. Ah, the wailings of munchkins doth arise in full. A Paladin doesn't need a monetary award to do what is right. He acts because he can, not because someone offers him money. Wealth, for it's own sake, is never something that a Paladin desires.

    8. to fight for the welfare of all. This stanza refers to Justice. A Paladin should believe that all life is worthwhile. That all people should be treated with a basic modicum of dignity and respect, regardless of their station in life or what misfortune's may have fallen onto them. The Paladin will oppose those who do not care for the basic welfare of their own people, be he a Lord or a Knave; a Church elder or a King.

    9. to obey those placed in authority. This is not the same thing as all authority, no matter how legitimate such authority might be. This refers to those placed in authority over the Paladin. His Church, his Leige, and those whom they appoint as his superior and commander. Sheriffs and baliffs and magistrates who serve them; generals and commanders who lead their troops.

    10. to guard the honor of fellow knights. A Paladin is not one to let anyone speak ill of a brother in service of the Church or the Leige. Such men, by their oaths, have sacrificed themselves for the greater good; and for that respect is due, not malicious speech or gossip. If he suspects that a fellow Paladin or Cavalier or Cleric or Fighter has put himself in a position where their honor is compromised, a Paladin must speak up and confront them.

    11. to eschew unfairness, meanness, and deceit. A Paladin does not take advantage of others. He does not use poison. He does not ambush his foes from hiding, or assault them in the darkness of an alley from behind. Others might, but not a Paladin.

    12. to keep faith. Faith, in this instance, does not mean belief in a God or Goddess or in following the precepts of a Church. Rather, it means that the Paladin will remain true. He can expected to hold onto his given word, he can be trusted, he is stalwart and noble in bearing and his actions.

    13. to at all times speak the truth. Truth is a very important issue for a Paladin. A Paladin does not lie, where it can be avoided. However, I would just remind you that truth is very much, at times, dependent upon one's point of view.

    14. to persevere to the end in any enterprise begun. Paladin's do not give up. They do not stop. They do not quit when the going gets tough. Once a Paladin makes a commitment, he is expected to carry through and finish what he has started.

    15. to respect the honor of women. Here is the reason that many today feel that Chivalry is misogynist in nature. It was a precept of Chivalry often violated in history, but a Paladin will always honor women, and respect them. For those women who choose the path of an adventurer, a knight, a priest, a wizard; a Paladin will support their choice. To do otherwise would be disrepectful.

    16. to never to refuse a challenge from an equal. Honorable combat is part and parcel of being a Paladin. Although he might well try to avoid lethal combat or even try a Diplomatic means to resolve such a challenge, in the end if a matter can only be settled by the sword, he is a Holy Warrior.

    17. to never to turn the back upon a foe. Evil creatures are, by their very nature, the antithesis of a Paladin. Trusting one to act against his own nature, to providing him an opportunity to strike at you most vulnerable point, is not something a Paladin should engage in. He must respect his foes, and he must acknowledge that given the opportunity, many dishonest, untrustworthy, and evil opponents will take advantage of any opportunity he gives them. Accordingly, he is warned against allowing them that opportunity.

    This Code is merely what I use, for those wishing to play Paladin's in my game. Use what you will from this; borrow all that you want. Just remember this: no God or Goddess that has Paladin's as servants would go so far to strip their powers from a minor violation. They may well require an atonement and a confession of the action that was not worthy, but a Paladin's Fall should be based on more than telling a woman, "No, that dress doesn't make you look fat."

    Pathfinder is a game, and it is a game which we play to have fun and enjoy ourselves in the company of men and women whom we like. Arguments and debates over every last comma are something for lawyers, not gamers. Have fun. That is what we are here for.

    In closing, I hope that my words might make some sense and give you some idea of how I see the Paladin's Code of Conduct. Not as a straitjacket, but as a personification of what a character of Lawful Good alignment simply does.

    Master Arminas


    Last edited by masterarminas on Sat May 05, 2012 6:48 pm; edited 1 time in total
    Black Hand of Oblivion

    Joined: Feb 16, 2003
    Posts: 3835
    From: So. Cal

    Send private message
    Sat May 05, 2012 4:00 pm  
    Re: My Perspective on the Paladin's Code of Conduct

    masterarminas wrote:
    The Paladins Code of Chivalry2. to serve the liege lord in valor and in faith. Paladin's hold a dual responsibility. Not just to the Church whose faith they hold dear, but to the secular authorities of the realm. They are Knights and their service is that of all Knights who have sworn oath. Having the right, in game, to add 'Sir' or 'Dame' before one's name is a very powerful tool in the game itself. As such, a Paladin should, of his own will, faithfully serve his temporal lord, much as his does his spiritual one.


    That is the only point on which I will say to be wary of. Being a knight of a holy order does not make one a knight of the realm. The only sort of place where that even remotely makes sense is in a theocracy where a knight of *the* holy order and a "knight of the realm" are one and the same. The Pale is the obvious place for that.

    A knight of the realm is made by the ruler of the land, not by the church, who then forces the knight on the ruler, or vice versa. That is at odds in all but a theocracy. A holy knight has only one master- the church. While a knight surely is sworn to protect lands/people, by simple virtue of the paladin's code, there is no secular power that holds him to account should be go off somewhere (i.e. adventuring) and not be available to protect said land/ people, should bit be required, like there is in the secular set-up. Most of the time a knight owns their lands, is served by men-at-arms, collects taxes to pay for the upkeep of all of it, etc., and the paladin's vow of poverty precludes all of which makes that even possible.

    So, paladins can protect, but cannot own, cannot be directly served by standing men-at-arms because they have no money to equip/pay for them, etc. They have little to offer a liege lord that isn't the church, as at least the church can front the money for all of those things, and just put the paladin in charge as a steward. *That* is allowed. That doesn't really serve a temporal cause all that directly though, does it?

    And, church and state are never at odds, ever (particularly in a fantasy setting with many faiths), such that a paladin sworn to two masters will have to break his oath to one of them sooner or later because they can't agree on something that might essentially be trivial in the grand scheme of things. There are going to be a lot of fallen paladins atoning for stuff resulting from being in the middle of that rock and a hard place. Which of course would be lame. Paladins have only one master- the church.

    There is a very big difference between a religious order, which paladins might be members of, and secular orders, which they usually will not be members of, excepting that there is an understanding that any secular authority would not supersede any strictures set by the paladin's faith. Then it would work, as it does notably in Furyondy and similar nations, but then again the paladin would, in effect, have membership in two separate groups- the church's order and the secular order.

    So, with the exception of the above applying to theocracies, I think you have this part waaay wrong. I think the only person who would up such a restriction/requirement for a paladin would be somebody who has invested heavily in atonement ceremony supplies. Laughing Paladins serve the church, who is literally their liege lord, but they must also follow the rightful laws of the land. That is their only responsibility to secular authority.

    Also, paladins are not knights unless their church actually has a knightly order. Many churches simply wouldn't have knightly orders, and, while they would generally be respected, a knight of the church would have no secular authority whatsoever, and even the title "Sir" would be an honorific in the secular realm, as the title was not bestowed by a secular ruler in most cases. Think of it like The Three Musketeers. There were the Queens Musketeers and the Cardinal's Guard. Oh yes, they were the best of friends to be sure, and the Cardinal's Guard were oh so loyal to the Queen of France. Laughing While paladins would not be quite so much at odds, their oaths/loyalties would be tested often enough to see them fall like glass bottles at a shooting range.

    I would be a good exercise to write up how various good nations reconcile the existence of paladin knights, and how they are, as scions of the church, allowed to operate potentially as knights of the realm too.
    _________________
    - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -


    Last edited by Cebrion on Wed Oct 17, 2012 2:48 am; edited 3 times in total
    Grandmaster Greytalker

    Joined: Jul 10, 2003
    Posts: 1234
    From: New Jersey

    Send private message
    Sat May 05, 2012 4:16 pm  

    Great post.

    This would of made for a great submission as well. I like your thought provoking ideas. Keep them coming.

    Later

    Argon
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Oct 29, 2011
    Posts: 110


    Send private message
    Sat May 05, 2012 4:27 pm  

    I can't say that I disagree, Cebrion. It is having to walk a tightrope in some (not all, but some) cases. However, in lands such as the Pale, Furyondy , Nyrond, Urnst, Tenh (pre-GW), the Shield Lands (pre-GW), Almor (before it got absorbed), and Veluna that dual responsibility would be true, no?

    A Paladin's first duty is always to his Church and his God, but after that, he is responsible for following the laws of the Realm and for providing whatever aid and assistance his (temporal) Leige may ask. At least in my opinion. There are also places (the Old Great Kingdom under the Ivids, the North Kingdom in the post-GW, lands occupied by Iuz, the Pomarj) where such allegiance is so against what the Church stands for that a Paladin cannot, in good conscience, pledge himself to those causes. Of course, in many of those locales, just being a Paladin means you are marked for death anyway.

    In later editions (3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder) that restriction on a Paladin's wealth was done away with--a point that I think was a mistake. But we play by the rules of the game (except where we as DMs change the rules, Laughing ), and I was writing this primarily for Pathfinder. But the basic Code itself applies to any edition, or so I believe.

    That said, I realize that there is a built-in potential for conflict between Church and State within the Code. How a Paladin deals with such, in large part, that is what determines how well respected a Paladin becomes. Especially if he acts as a bridge between Church and State when the two are divided.

    Anyway, that is my thoughts.

    MA
    GreySage

    Joined: Jul 26, 2010
    Posts: 2695
    From: LG Dyvers

    Send private message
    Sat May 05, 2012 6:36 pm  

    MasterArminas, this is a very well though out article and shows that your Master's title is well-earned. Smile

    It's something that I think can be used in my own campaign as an excellent basis for a LG knightly code. (I also appreciate Cebrion's input regarding the conflict between church and state in realms that I do, however, allow Paladin-like knights of other alignments in my campaign simply because I think it is silly for only LG and CE alignments in a fantasy setting to have their own holy warriors. It will be quite an excercise to write knightly codes for the other alignments, but your code with its explainations will make a great basis for adjustment to other alignments.

    Thanks! Happy

    SirXaris
    Black Hand of Oblivion

    Joined: Feb 16, 2003
    Posts: 3835
    From: So. Cal

    Send private message
    Sat May 05, 2012 11:31 pm  

    masterarminas wrote:
    I can't say that I disagree, Cebrion. It is having to walk a tightrope in some (not all, but some) cases. However, in lands such as the Pale, Furyondy , Nyrond, Urnst, Tenh (pre-GW), the Shield Lands (pre-GW), Almor (before it got absorbed), and Veluna that dual responsibility would be true, no?


    No, it wouldn't. For one, a paladin is not knight unless they are knighted. If they are a knight, that means they belong to an order of knighthood, whether secular or religious. Simply being a paladin, regardless of the faith, does not a knight make. If the paladin is a member of a religious order that exists in a secular nation, then that order already has permission to exist from the ruler in the first place, meaning there would be no conflict of interest, as an understanding has already been reached (that usually being in the form of a royal charter) between the ruler and the church. Otherwise the church would not be allowed to have any knightly order within that ruler's lands, and for obvious reasons.

    For instance, a church couldn't just make its own order or knights and literally raise up an independent army in a nation, and do so without the permission of the ruler. Rulers are kind of not so keen on private armies that they have no control over springing up in their lands. "But we're your buddies, so just let us do it." doesn't quite cut it as a reason for any ruler.

    Also, Greyhawk isn't the real world Middle Ages where one church dominates most of the rulers/nations through wealth/threat of excommunication/worse should they not allow a religious order to set up shop in their lands. Greyhawk has many churches of similar alignments, and they are very much known for not getting on all that well in many cases, and they jockey for position/influence among themselves. The real world Middle Ages dynamic of church knights and how they were necessarily recognized by the various secular rulers of the day simply does not apply to the Flanaess in any sense whatsoever, as there is no single church in the Flanaess with such overarching influence and power to be able to enforce its will however it sees fit.

    It will very much be the exception in the Flanaess where church knights are accepted as literally knights in a land, and duly have secular responsibilities (and, once again, there would not be muddy waters to wade through, but there would be agreements already in effect) as well as their church responsibilities, not the norm. There are really only two nations in the Flanaess where you would see paladins having this sort of secular authority/responsibility, and that is only due to those nations having inordinately strong ties to a particular church. Those two nations would be the Pale (with respect to Pholtan paladins who are also church knights) and the Shield Lands (with respect to Heironean paladins who are also church knights). None of the other nations are so dominated by a single church that they would feel obligated to accord church knights the same level of secular power that they have bestowed upon knight of their own secular orders.

    Besides, a paladin cannot knowingly swear an oath to a second lord in good faith if they know that even the possibility exists that there could be a conflict of interest. That alone would violate number 12 on your list. people tend to give some thought to oaths before they make them, particularly a paladin knight who has more at stake than the average knight. A paladin is held to a higher standard than a knight. A knight may talk the talk, but not necessarily walk the walk, but a paladin must do both, or else. There is no gray area. There is no finagling of things.

    This of course just serves to make a paladin's role within the knightly orders of the Flanaess all the more interesting. All I am saying is that DM's should carefully consider all of the implications of church/secular relationships before of unleashing a pious and fervent paladin church knight upon the unsuspecting Flanaess. Laughing
    _________________
    - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
    Black Hand of Oblivion

    Joined: Feb 16, 2003
    Posts: 3835
    From: So. Cal

    Send private message
    Sun May 06, 2012 12:05 am  

    Oops! One other bit:
    masterarminas wrote:
    Paladin's are not just fighters by another name; they are more than a knight in shining armor. They are--or rather, should be--pious and virtous, honorable and merciful, charitable and chivalrous. In all things. And this isn't something that a Paladin has to do to retain his powers; it is something that the Paladin does because that is who and what he is.

    That is just so wrong. Piety and virtue are very much required for a paladin to even be a paladin, and continue to be a paladin, for a paladin is not even able to be a paladin without having achieved and maintained the state of grace that is only reachable through being pious and virtuous. Galahad wasn't awesome because he was just a nice guy. He wasn't pure because he just so happened to follow the Golden Rule, because it is the right thing to do. He was pure because of his piety, virtue, and being an example of the "Christian ideal" of a knight. Without piety and virtue (chastity didn't hurt either), Galahad would not have achieved what he did, for he would not be pure in eyes of God. A paladin who does not exist in a "state of grace" will have no powers at all.

    There is a bit more to being a paladin than following the Golden Rule. Piety and virtue are cornerstones for a paladin, as their power flows from the divine, and the divine have rules. If a paladin does not live and breathe their faith and what it espouses, and not only because it is right thing to do, but also because they believe in their innermost heart that their god's way of doing so and that it supersedes the ways of any other god, they are no paladin at all.
    _________________
    - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -


    Last edited by Cebrion on Sun May 06, 2012 1:52 pm; edited 2 times in total
    GreySage

    Joined: Jul 26, 2010
    Posts: 2695
    From: LG Dyvers

    Send private message
    Sun May 06, 2012 9:49 am  

    @ Cebrion:

    I'm confused. I think you're saying the same thing MA said in the post you last quoted regarding piety and virtue. Confused

    SirXaris
    Black Hand of Oblivion

    Joined: Feb 16, 2003
    Posts: 3835
    From: So. Cal

    Send private message
    Sun May 06, 2012 1:50 pm  

    Look at the bold portion of the quote and you will see that I am not. Perhaps masterarminis doesn't mean for it to come off that way (but it looks pretty blatant that he does), but piety and virtue are very much required to be a paladin. A paladin can't just be a pretty good guy or mostly follow their faith, they must be the living embodiment of their faith's highest ideal (i.e being pious and virtuous as defined by the paladin's faith), at all times, or their powers go bye bye.
    _________________
    - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -


    Last edited by Cebrion on Sun May 06, 2012 2:35 pm; edited 1 time in total
    GreySage

    Joined: Jul 26, 2010
    Posts: 2695
    From: LG Dyvers

    Send private message
    Sun May 06, 2012 2:28 pm  

    Ah. I read the entire quote without focusing on the bolded portion. Silly of me. Embarassed

    SirXaris
    Black Hand of Oblivion

    Joined: Feb 16, 2003
    Posts: 3835
    From: So. Cal

    Send private message
    Sun May 06, 2012 2:36 pm  

    I just bolded it, so you had a good chance of missing it before. Happy

    What would make for a good article would be one that examines the minor differences between paladins of various faiths. Paladins usually get whitewashed with the same brush, but there are surely, at the very least, subtle differences between paladins of various faiths. This would go to heart of examining the various faiths that have paladins, and what each puts forth as its main beliefs/tenets.
    _________________
    - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Oct 29, 2011
    Posts: 110


    Send private message
    Sun May 06, 2012 2:48 pm  

    Cebrion wrote:
    Oops! One other bit:
    masterarminas wrote:
    Paladin's are not just fighters by another name; they are more than a knight in shining armor. They are--or rather, should be--pious and virtous, honorable and merciful, charitable and chivalrous. In all things. And this isn't something that a Paladin has to do to retain his powers; it is something that the Paladin does because that is who and what he is.

    That is just so wrong. Piety and virtue are very much required for a paladin to even be a paladin, and continue to be a paladin, for a paladin is not even able to be a paladin without having achieved and maintained the state of grace that is only reachable through being pious and virtuous. Galahad wasn't awesome because he was just a nice guy. He wasn't pure because he just so happened to follow the Golden Rule, because it is the right thing to do. He was pure because of his piety, virtue, and being an example of the "Christian ideal" of a knight. Without piety and virtue (chastity didn't hurt either), Galahad would not have achieved what he did, for he would not be pure in eyes of God. A paladin who does not exist in a "state of grace" will have no powers at all.

    There is a bit more to being a paladin than following the Golden Rule. Piety and virtue are cornerstones for a paladin, as their power flows from the divine, and the divine have rules. If a paladin does not live and breathe their faith and what it espouses, and not only because it is right thing to do, but also because they believe in their innermost heart that their god's way of doing so and that it supersedes the ways of any other god, they are no paladin at all.


    Mechanically, yes, the Paladin has to do this to retain his powers. But I was actually speaking about the Paladin's reasons for being pious and full of virtue. In my own humble opinion, any player who chooses to play a Paladin and abides by his code of conduct only to retain his Paladinhood, who views it as a straitjacket that restricts him, who thinks up ways to get around it; that type of character is heading for a Fall.

    To play a Paladin, the player must have the right mindset. His Code is not (in character) a set of mechanical restrictions. It is his own view of the world. He is not Lawful Good because he is a Paladin; he is a Paladin because he (the character) is Lawful Good.

    Faith, Hope, Charity, Mercy; all of these virtues can be regulated in game by the DM warning the player. But if the player behind the Paladin has the proper mindset and desire to play his role properly, those warnings will never be needed. He is Lawful Good. Everything on his Code is part and parcel of being Lawful Good.

    It's more of a slap to bad players, and I do apologize for not making that clearer, gentlemen.

    I should have said this: Acting in such a fashion should not be something a person who plays a Paladin should view as a restriction upon his actions, it is merely the way which a Paladin (the character) lives his life, because that is how and what he is. A Lawful Good man or woman of high morals and impeccable ethics, who does what is RIGHT. Not because he is FORCED TO, but because he CHOOSES TO.

    MA


    Last edited by masterarminas on Sun May 06, 2012 4:15 pm; edited 1 time in total
    Black Hand of Oblivion

    Joined: Feb 16, 2003
    Posts: 3835
    From: So. Cal

    Send private message
    Sun May 06, 2012 3:23 pm  

    That's much better. Happy
    _________________
    - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
    Journeyman Greytalker

    Joined: Aug 30, 2001
    Posts: 170
    From: Niflheim, 9to5

    Send private message
    Mon May 07, 2012 7:30 pm  

    I like the debate about paladins serving the church and not the state, and attempting to distinguish between paladins and knights. In the 1st edition Unearthed Arcana, paladins were made sub-classes of the cavalier, and most cavaliers were nobles, with level title names like knight errant, knight bachelor, knight, etc.

    However, the cavalier attracted followers and retainers, while the paladin only attracted retainers. That never made sense to me. But, if I look at the paladin as one who has turned his back on his inheritance, perhaps because he is low the birth order, or because his family has suffered a blow in status, or perhaps been exiled, it makes more sense. What happens when the family regains its status, or the other family members are assassinated, though? Does the paladin resume his temporal responsibilities? Can he without losing his paladin status?
    Journeyman Greytalker

    Joined: Jan 21, 2010
    Posts: 196


    Send private message
    Mon May 07, 2012 8:24 pm  

    I like your views about paladins' code, I really do, but if I were to play in your game I'd rather give up on the idea about paladinhood than memorize all that Smile

    The best of option would be as short and simply code as possible, with possible troubleshooting section with problematic situations, with short and clear examples.

    I think you could easily do that too, I'm sure Smile
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Aug 17, 2004
    Posts: 924
    From: Computer Desk

    Send private message
    Tue May 08, 2012 8:36 am  

    Such a code is great in the abstract but one must be flexible for the sake of playability as well as harmony to maintain the fun factor. While atmosphere is important; remember the more complex the code, the more loopholes for "rules lawyers" to exploit.

    However, even the most virtuous player can have honest disagreements over interpretations of acceptable behavior. These disputes can quickly devolve into personal pettiness and "gotcha moments" which ruin the group.Both the player and referee, must be open to each others views rather then memorization for the paladin to flourish within the setting.
    GreySage

    Joined: Oct 06, 2008
    Posts: 2788
    From: South-Central Pennsylvania

    Send private message
    Tue May 08, 2012 1:19 pm  

    I have mentioned before now that Paladins are not a game invention, but are a reality of our very real world. I have heard it expressed -- in other forums here at CF -- that in the real world the term "Paladin" only refers to the 12 Companions of Charlemagne. But this is not so, for there have been others referred to as "Paladin."

    The publication Who's Who in Military History, pps. 14-15 speaks of Alva, Fernando Alvarez de Toledo, duque de (1508-1583) and refers to him as "The Catholic Paladin." This was approximately 700 year after Roland and his fellow knights. And yes, there are others.

    In addition, the publication German Knighthood 1050-1300 tells us that Churches and Monasteries kept their own "knights," which they would sometimes loan to the secular Emperor for the defense of the Empire.

    All nobles of the realm, including the Emperor, recognized them as knights, pure and simple. The book also goes into long and boring discussions of how the term "knight" came into existence as well.

    So in our own real world history, Paladins were associated with "the Church," a.k.a. Religion. And our own history shows that these Paladins were known as, and referred to as, "knights" and were associated with "knighthood" . . . by everyone.

    On page 19 this publication tells us how the Bishop of Bayeux was able to supply Philip III with 100 "enfeoffed knights" and compares this to the fact that the "richest churches in England owed the crown the service of forty to sixty knights."

    On page 22 we are told that: "In 1161 Archbishop Rainald of Cologne was said to have brought 500 (knights) . . . to the siege of Milan," compared to the 600 knights brought to the battle by Duke Frederick of Rothenburg and Landgrave Louis of Thuringia.

    So, in your GAME you can make a Paladin anything you want . . . it's YOUR game. But, in real world history, a Paladin is a "religious" Knight . . . plain and simple. In the real world, a "Paladin" is a Knight in service to the Church, rather than a nobleman.

    So, yes, Paladins would -- most definitely -- live by a different "code" than would a more debased "secular" knight.

    And Crag? That's exactly why Paladins are so hard to play. I do not allow my PCs the latitude that you're suggesting. A PC will often wish to do something that a Paladin simply cannot do: "Well, MY Paladin would do it!" No, he/she wouldn't. Not if they are really a Paladin.

    The same is true of an "evil" alignment. My PCs will lose their "evil" alignment when they save the proverbial "drowning puppy." No matter what they are, their character is supposed to be "evil." The "evil wizard" is supposed to let the puppy drown -- unless he's saving the puppy for . . . dinner. Or to sacrifice. Evil Grin

    I award extra XP for good (correct) role play. Wink

    Nice topic, MasterArminas. Cool
    _________________
    Mystic's web page: http://melkot.com/mysticscholar/index.html
    Mystic's blog page: http://mysticscholar.blogspot.com/
    GreySage

    Joined: Sep 09, 2009
    Posts: 2470
    From: SW WA state (Highvale)

    Send private message
    Tue May 08, 2012 3:39 pm  

    Anyone with access to "The Complete Guide to Paladins" may find this sourcebook helpful (that's my 2e plug), particularly regarding the code of conduct and ethos aspect.

    I also believe that each faith/Power would have its own perspective as to which of these various codes is most important, a stratification if you will. I doubt that the Church of Pholtus and Church of Rao (or St Cuthbert, Heironeous, Pelor, etc) holds each of those 'laws' to the same degree. True, there are overarching codes to be upheld, but I also believe that the Power served also colors them its own unique flavor.

    Just my two coppers to a very interesting thread. Also, didn't someone, somewhere (and I cannot seem to locate it) come up with a Code for a Paladin of Heironeous (SirXaris, was that you on a post or article???)?

    -Lanthorn
    Journeyman Greytalker

    Joined: Mar 05, 2007
    Posts: 290
    From: The Pomarj

    Send private message
    Tue May 08, 2012 6:24 pm  



    Last edited by BlueWitch on Thu Feb 13, 2014 11:08 pm; edited 1 time in total
    Grandmaster Greytalker

    Joined: Nov 07, 2004
    Posts: 1846
    From: Mt. Smolderac

    Send private message
    Tue May 08, 2012 9:33 pm  

    Mystic-Scholar wrote:
    So, in your GAME you can make a Paladin anything you want . . . it's YOUR game. But, in real world history, a Paladin is a "religious" Knight . . . plain and simple. In the real world, a "Paladin" is a Knight in service to the Church, rather than a nobleman.


    I have to dispute you on this, MS. While I think it's correct that the term paladin is only applied to knights who nominally fight for their faith, that's a different thing than being a knight in service to the church. The Knights Templar, Knights Hospitaller, and Teutonic Knights are all examples of crusading military orders, which at least in theory, directly served the Pope and the Church. Charlemagne's Twelve Peers, Arthur's Knights of the Round Table, the 3rd Duke of Alva, and Rainald of Dassel, while they might have been nominally fighting for the Christian faith, in that their overlords considered God to be on their side, fought primarily for their overlords. Rainald may have served the church as Archbishop of Cologne, but in battle he was helping to put down subjects of Frederick Barbarossa who were rebelling. Likewise with Alba. While to the Pope he was a paladin for putting down Dutch heretics, that was secondary to him putting down Philip II's rebellious Dutch subjects.
    That aside, I think we're talking about the same thing. Smile
    GreySage

    Joined: Oct 06, 2008
    Posts: 2788
    From: South-Central Pennsylvania

    Send private message
    Wed May 09, 2012 7:18 am  

    @Blue-Witch,

    Thanks for pointing out that third example in comparison to my two:
    Quote:
    The "evil wizard" is supposed to let the puppy drown -- unless he's saving the puppy for . . . dinner. Or to sacrifice.


    I'm sure someone will be along shortly to point out examples four, five and six. But if your "evil wizard" has a reason for rescuing every "drowning" thing he/she sees, then he/she is not an "evil" wizard. Not in my game.

    @Smillan,

    Smillan, you know well that you and I tend to disagree even when I quote from the Britannica Encyclopedia. So . . .

    At any rate, this same publication -- quoting from others, shown in the foot notes -- states this:

    "The autogenous authority of the lords therefore had firm foundation in the legal and social geography of medieval Germany . . ." and ". . . from the start the nobles possessed lordship and powers in their own right, outside the king's reach . . ."

    It compares the Holy Roman Emperor's powers to those of William the Conqueror and others showing the difference. One of the things it compares is the fact that William legally owned his Kingdom, all the land of his Kingdom.

    The Holy Roman Emperor did not.

    Any lord could legally refuse him service and sometimes did so. This brought about civil wars and yet . . . though the Emperor might remove the man he could not, by law remove the family. Why? Because "the man" had done nothing illegal in refusing service to the Emperor. So, though he was "gone," his son became the new Duke . . . whether the Emperor liked it or not.

    In an agreement worked with the Pope, the Holy Roman Emperor appointed Church officials -- like, Bishops and Archbishops. Therefore, it was never in the Bishop's interest to refuse the Emperor, but that does not mean he could not legally do so, because he could.

    Not so in William's England. For any Lord, or Knight, to refuse William service was to commit treason. The Lords and Knights of England could not legally refuse William service.

    So, the knights of the "church" in Germany were a slightly different thing than the "church" knights in England. The German "church" knights owed no legal obligation to the Emperor, so it would be wrong to suggest that they were somehow "servants" of Otto, or Philip, and therefore had no choice but to fight for them.

    They did have a choice. So did the knights of any of the Dukes, or Counts, of the Holy Roman Empire. These knights were legally bound to their immediate liege lord, not the Emperor.
    _________________
    Mystic's web page: http://melkot.com/mysticscholar/index.html
    Mystic's blog page: http://mysticscholar.blogspot.com/
    Grandmaster Greytalker

    Joined: Nov 07, 2004
    Posts: 1846
    From: Mt. Smolderac

    Send private message
    Wed May 09, 2012 8:37 am  

    MS, I always love debating with you, brother. You always do your research and have your citations lined up when presenting your case. I wish more people did that. Smile

    So, going back to the in-game discussion of the paladin's code, how about the idea that each faith, no matter the alignment of the god, can have their own paladins? This works for me, as long as that paladin is the embodiment of the doctrine of that faith and its god.
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Aug 17, 2004
    Posts: 924
    From: Computer Desk

    Send private message
    Wed May 09, 2012 9:15 am  

    Perhaps; my last post was misunderstood
    I was not advocating "carte blanche" for paladins rather wanted the DM and Player to reach a meeting of the minds. Paladins and to a lesser extent priests because of the religious aspect by definition adhere to a spirtual code which the other classes simply don't.

    Expectations from the DM and the player should be clear before the choice is made. Otherwise; the inevitable "if I would have known, I would have been a fighter" comment arises. Nothing can poison a group faster then a resentful player especially if they blames the DM. Often, the goal of such resentful players become to wreck the game.

    Remember; the most important responsibility of the DM is to ensure the players have fun Exclamation
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Oct 29, 2011
    Posts: 110


    Send private message
    Wed May 09, 2012 9:51 am  

    Yes, the Code of a Paladin is hard. It is a rough path to travel. Which is why in my game, I have venial violations of the Code and mortal violations.

    This mirrors to the real-world definations of sin by the Roman Catholic Church: venial meaning that the violation is a lesser infraction that does not automatically result in a Paladin being stripped of his power. It still requires that the Paladin recogonize his violation, confess it to a cleric or priest of his clergy, and atone (either via the spell or through performing a deed of contrition [more on that to follow]). Whereas a mortal violation is an infraction so dramatically and grossly opposed to what the Paladin claims as his beliefs that it is all but unforgiveable. Now, to be a mortal violation, the Paladin must willingly and knowfully commit the act, having made a deliberate decision to do so, fully knowing that the act is against his stated beliefs, and choosing to act in such a manner regardless.

    A mortal infraction consists of (but is not limited to) changing one's alignment to any other than Lawful Good, the deliberate and willing commission of an evil act (torture, murder, rape, etc.), and becoming an aposate to (or the recanting of) one's faith in his own Deity. Such actions always result in the Paladin immediately losing his powers. An atonement (the spell) is required to even stand a chance at returning to grace. But, in addition to the spell, the Church or the Deity himself or herself, might well require a Quest that shows the contrition of the Paladin. Mortal infractions normally result in a permanent Fall.

    All other infractions are, generally, considered as venial. Multiple venial infractions could well result in a Paladin being stripped of his abilities, but these are not unforgiveable sins. This includes such things as telling a lie for the right cause, or offering a disrespectful comment towards another, or failing to give honor and respect to women.

    I know that many prefer the any violation is a Fall ideal. But this is how I do things for my own game. Being a Paladin is hard enough without rigging the game against him and putting him in circumstances where an innocent slip of the tongue might well strip him of all his divine powers.

    At least in my own opinion.

    Master Arminas


    Last edited by masterarminas on Wed May 09, 2012 10:49 am; edited 3 times in total
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Oct 29, 2011
    Posts: 110


    Send private message
    Wed May 09, 2012 10:03 am  

    Deeds of contrition, are my term for acts which allow a Paladin to atone for his past deeds without the use of a spell. Such deeds are normally assigned by the church, typically when a local temple doesn't have a cleric of high enough level to cast an atonement. They always deal with Evil, they usually consist of multiple tasks, and they are always a challenge to the Paladin to complete. (In 3.5/Pathfinder game terms, any deed of contrition will consist of at least three encounters with a CR of +1, +2, and +3 to the Paladin and his adventuring party's average party level).

    Undertaking a deed of contrition automatically wipes the Paladin's slate clean of any venial infractions committed by the Paladin. In order to be a deed of contrition, the Paladin must speak with a cleric of his faith and then be assigned the task--he cannot declare after the fact that an adventure he just finished is his deed.

    Once a Paladin starts a deed of contrition he is expected to complete it, as a show of faith and devotion. If the Paladin willingly turns away from the deed for longer than a single day, he is stricken of his powers as if he committed a mortal infraction until he resumes his quest for the deed or renounces his faith completely.

    A Paladin may receive aid and assistance from others (i.e., his party) during a deed of contrition, and XP, gold, and treasure are handed out normally. However, the Paladin must take part in all of the encounters and he must deal damage to the Evil beings he confronts.

    If the Evil assigned to the Paladin as part of his deed of contrition is vanguished, then the Paladin is forgiven for his past venial infractions in full. A Paladin may only undertake a deed of contrition once each level of experience (if your Paladin is slipping more often than that, perhaps he should ask if he really wants to play a Paladin, eh?).

    Master Arminas


    Last edited by masterarminas on Wed May 09, 2012 10:50 am; edited 1 time in total
    GreySage

    Joined: Oct 06, 2008
    Posts: 2788
    From: South-Central Pennsylvania

    Send private message
    Wed May 09, 2012 10:10 am  

    Smillan, that's the reason I enjoy debating with you as well. Happy

    What I am really trying to point out is this:

    Knighthood in the Holy Roman Empire (Germany) was a very different thing than it was in England or France. I mentioned:

    Quote:
    . . . the Bishop of Bayeux was able to supply Philip III with 100 "enfeoffed knights" . . ."


    I mention this because in Germany all knights were not "enfeoffed." They did not have a "fief" of their own. They were not considered "free" and independent.

    Most of the knights of the Holy Roman Empire literally lived off the largesse of their liege: Emperor, Duke, Count, Bishop, et al. They were considered servants. Albeit, they were "higher ranking" than the maid or butler, but servants none the less.

    So there is plenty of room in the game for many variations of knighthood and even the degree of fealty owed.

    And I agree, in regards to the "Church" served by the Knight/Paladin the requirements would be different. A Paladin of Heironeous would behave differently and have a different "rule set" than would a Paladin of Hextor.

    Though, to be honest -- and this is just in MY game -- I associate Paladins with "Good" as much as I associate them with "Law." So I prefer to refer to "knights" of "evil" deities by a title other than "Paladin." But that's just me. Laughing

    Crag, I couldn't agree more. It's all about the fun. The reason I discuss these types of matters is simple: Without Law there is Chaos. You may read "rules" there, of course.

    You should always game with those who see things much along the same lines as yourself, otherwise you're going to have the chaos no matter what. But, when this is not possible, you have to reach a compromise -- everyone must "give" something, in order to get something.

    I'm gaming with people who like 3.5. I do not like much of 3.5 and can give examples why, but not here. Still, I'm DMing 3.5, otherwise, there's no one for me to game with. Wink

    But, by all means, never lose sight of the game's purpose . . . to have fun! Cool

    MasterArminas, methinks thou art confused. You offer a way to be forgiven . . . for an unforgivable sin? Confused
    _________________
    Mystic's web page: http://melkot.com/mysticscholar/index.html
    Mystic's blog page: http://mysticscholar.blogspot.com/


    Last edited by Mystic-Scholar on Wed May 09, 2012 4:52 pm; edited 1 time in total
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Oct 29, 2011
    Posts: 110


    Send private message
    Wed May 09, 2012 10:46 am  

    The classifications are similar, but not exactly the same. And most mortal infractions will result in a Fallen Paladin. Not all, but most. And you had best have a REALLY good reason to explain to your Deity, like a Helm of Opposite Alignment that your Magic-user misidentifed as a Helm of Brillance before you put it on, or something.

    Master Arminas
    GreySage

    Joined: Oct 06, 2008
    Posts: 2788
    From: South-Central Pennsylvania

    Send private message
    Wed May 09, 2012 11:08 am  

    Hmm. Well, I see that your "original" post has been edited three times. I don't recall that it originally said this:

    masterarminas wrote:
    Whereas a mortal violation is an infraction so dramatically and grossly opposed to what the Paladin claims as his beliefs that it is all but unforgivable.


    I believe you may have reworded it since my first read. After all -- "all but unforgivable" -- is not the same as unforgivable. So . . .

    Nice "save." Evil Grin

    And remember this: Having lived in Hattiesburg and Petal MS from the ages of 12 to 16, with family in Brookhaven and McComb and a grandfather who lived and died in Poplarville . . . I really do "know where you live." Mwahahahahahaha! Evil Grin

    Keep your doors locked and windows shuttered! Laughing
    _________________
    Mystic's web page: http://melkot.com/mysticscholar/index.html
    Mystic's blog page: http://mysticscholar.blogspot.com/
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Oct 29, 2011
    Posts: 110


    Send private message
    Wed May 09, 2012 11:23 am  

    Actually, I didn't change that section--it was in the original post. I corrected some spelling errors and replaced the second word in the second paragraph with mirrors instead of equates, so to make clearer it wasn't meant as an exact match for the real-life and game terms.

    Good to see another Mississippian!

    Master Arminas
    Grandmaster Greytalker

    Joined: Nov 07, 2004
    Posts: 1846
    From: Mt. Smolderac

    Send private message
    Wed May 09, 2012 12:51 pm  

    Mystic-Scholar wrote:
    Smillan, that's the reason I enjoy debating with you as well. Happy


    Good points all. The other reason I like these kinds of discussions is I usually end up reading something I might not have found out about otherwise.

    And now I have to go find a book on the Knights of St. Lazarus, who supposedly were founded in Jerusalem as an order of leper knights. What would be the GH equivalent, lycanthrope knights? I claim first crack at this!
    GreySage

    Joined: Oct 06, 2008
    Posts: 2788
    From: South-Central Pennsylvania

    Send private message
    Wed May 09, 2012 4:55 pm  

    smillan_31 wrote:
    What would be the GH equivalent, lycanthrope knights? I claim first crack at this!


    You'd better claim I.P. -- I just might write a story about them! Wink

    Mwahahahahahaha! Evil Grin

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Saint_Lazarus

    Hmm. So, they had their "beginning" in a Leper hospital founded by the Knights Hospitaller. Cool. Cool
    _________________
    Mystic's web page: http://melkot.com/mysticscholar/index.html
    Mystic's blog page: http://mysticscholar.blogspot.com/
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Oct 29, 2011
    Posts: 110


    Send private message
    Mon Oct 15, 2012 8:18 pm  

    Crag wrote:
    Such a code is great in the abstract but one must be flexible for the sake of playability as well as harmony to maintain the fun factor. While atmosphere is important; remember the more complex the code, the more loopholes for "rules lawyers" to exploit.

    However, even the most virtuous player can have honest disagreements over interpretations of acceptable behavior. These disputes can quickly devolve into personal pettiness and "gotcha moments" which ruin the group.Both the player and referee, must be open to each others views rather then memorization for the paladin to flourish within the setting.


    I shall give oath to fear God and maintain His Church; to serve the liege lord in valor and in faith; to protect the weak and defenseless; to give succor to widows and orphans; to refrain from the wanton giving of offence; to live by honor and for glory; to despise pecuniary reward; to fight for the welfare of all; to obey those placed in authority; to guard the honor of fellow Knights; to eschew unfairness, meanness, and deceit; to keep faith; to at all times to speak the truth; to persevere to the end in any enterprise begun; to respect the honor of women; to never to refuse a challenge from an equal; to never to turn the back upon a foe.

    That is too long?

    MA
    GreySage

    Joined: Jul 26, 2010
    Posts: 2695
    From: LG Dyvers

    Send private message
    Tue Oct 16, 2012 8:31 am  

    masterarminas wrote:
    I shall give oath to fear God and maintain His Church; to serve the liege lord in valor and in faith; to protect the weak and defenseless; to give succor to widows and orphans; to refrain from the wanton giving of offence; to live by honor and for glory; to despise pecuniary reward; to fight for the welfare of all; to obey those placed in authority; to guard the honor of fellow Knights; to eschew unfairness, meanness, and deceit; to keep faith; [to] at all times to speak the truth; to persevere to the end in any enterprise begun; to respect the honor of women; [to] never to refuse a challenge from an equal; [to] never to turn the back upon a foe.


    You need to remove the extra 'to' in three of those lines. I suggest you remove the ones I bolded for the wording to sound more archaic.

    Furthermore, "...to despise pecuniary reward;" fits with the requirements of a Paladin in the earlier editions of D&D, but, in the real world, was a part of the oath put in there by the lords in order to prevent their knights from demanding exorbitant fees or land grants as rewards for service. It was pretended that the requirement was to abide by the Bible's call to 'give all and follow Christ', but it was very convenient for the nobles to use it to avoid having to pay out too much gold for a knight's service.

    You might want to alter the manner in which you apply that game mechanic by allowing your Paladin PCs to keep their treasure as long as they use it to further a good cause - like building a castle and paying troops to protect the people in a frontier land from monsters and bandits - instead of having to just give 90% of it away.

    SirXaris
    GreySage

    Joined: Sep 09, 2009
    Posts: 2470
    From: SW WA state (Highvale)

    Send private message
    Fri Oct 19, 2012 10:43 am  

    Masterarminas,

    There have been a lot of threads around this topic, including one written by Nerdcav entitled "To Protect and Serve," followed by one I started regarding "Paladins and their Retinues." I believe both are found in this forum...if not, check out the 2e board.

    Hope some of the discussion from those two proves of interest.

    -Lanthorn
    Display posts from previous:   
       Canonfire Forum Index -> World of Greyhawk Discussion All times are GMT - 8 Hours
    Page 1 of 1

    Jump to:  

    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

    Contact the Webmaster.  Long Live Spidasa!


    Greyhawk Gothic Font by Darlene Pekul is used under the Creative Commons License.

    PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.
    Page Generation: 0.43 Seconds