The bandit is begging for mercy

And a criminal who may have ended lives of his own and assaulted the party with a weapon. Their victims also had spouses and children. A paladin is judge, jury, and executioner. This isn't the modern justice system.

Since I refuse to jump through his hoops of redemption I guess I'm just some wandering expaladin demanding for true lawful good justice in this world

Killing helpless prisoners is not very chivalrous. I don't like paladins very much because their code of honor is restrictive and intrusive, but this actually seems like one of the bigger things to me.

The GM is a shithead for having the pally fall. If I were the player I would demand it reversed or leave the game.

Throwing your weapon to the ground does not make you a prisoner

>live a life of merciless crime
>get off easy because you told the paladin you were "sowwy :("

no

He's not a helpless prisoner. He's an enemy combatant who just realized he's going to lose and doesn't want to die. If the paladin accepts his surrender, then he'd be a helpless prisoner, and if the paladin killed him at that point, he'd deserve to fall.

Chivalry frequently does not achieve the optimal results. Like many honor codes, it can be a great hindrance at times (and the chivalric code is more intrusive than most). If you want an alignment that's not concerned with honor, you want chaotic.

if you don't ask for an insight check before killing him the fall is legit :you are a paladin not a butcher ...

>Kill an entire village
>Paladin troopers come into town.
>With the heart of a child half-eaten in my hand I drop my sword and surrender.
>Immediately backstab the paladin who comes to put me in handcuffs.
>Throw down knife and surrender again.
>Backstab
>Surrender
>Repeat until whole paladin order is dead
>Anything to the contrary has the Paladins fall.
No wonder demons and evil get so powerful, gods are retarded.

That is one of the handicaps/hooks of playing a Paladin, if you don't want to be bound by strict monastic rules, be a Cleric or a Fighter with a very strong moral code. Don't roll a PC with rules then bitch when you don't want to follow those rules.

There is no difference to being a Druid and killing a dog that bit you or abusing any sort of animal.

You're the reason there aren't more GMs in the world. Also why Gods no longer speak to us.

It's not "honorable good", or "chivalrous good", it's lawful good. Robbery is a crime. Fuck you Tyrone.

"I would demand it reversed or leave the game"
lol making demand if the gm think you have done something wrong will get you nowhere

Wait you murdered an oponent who surrendered in cold blood. And you asking why you fell?

Really?

You understand that this is a paladin we're talking about here, right? You can make sensible arguments all you want, but killing somebody who has surrendered is not an honorable thing to do according to the romanticized chivalry of our pop culture, which is what a paladin is based on. Do you not understand what a paladin is? It's like you're taking a guy whose powers depend on his vow of silence and then complaining your GM won't let him speak, when not speaking is clearly stupid and hampers you a lot.

Chivalry is a medievil code of conduct between people of good breeding, of course it was not opitmal...

I'm bound by strict rules. Showing mercy to common killers because the fight didn't go their way isn't among them.

Who the fuck are you to say that killing bandits isn't allowed by the rules? Did you write the rules? Did the player agree to your rules or to the rules supported by a god they brought to the table?

Either way it's a stupid rule at odds with the basic notion of being a paladin. You'd probably let a lich get multiple free rounds by throwing his staff to the ground and saying he's sorry over and over.

7 years later I come back to Veeky Forums and you guys are still doing Paladin Fall threads.

What's next, "Women Get -4 STR" threads?
Sergals?

>It's not "honorable good", or "chivalrous good"
A paladin is the embodiment of chivalry. It's one of their main fucking things. It's what defines them. They are chivalrous holy warriors.

If he's a shithead like you, probably, in which case yeah, I'd probably end up leaving, good fucking riddance.

This is really the OPs fault for not giving the context of the begging

Then you aren't a typical Paladin. It's pretty fucking simple.

The rules for any Paladin or Priest of any duty/honorable God are always quite clear about these things. If you are doing your own homebrew God that lets you do shit that's on you, but for any tradional game and god it's against the Paladin's code.

Yeah, and chivalry is 99% rules about single combat. Your point is?

Do YOU not understand what a paladin is? It's not whatever code of conduct you decided on, based on your vague notions of popular culture. It's based on the code of conduct as decided by whatever god or gods the character is supposed to be representing, in universe. There is no set in stone rules for all paladins, across all systems and settings. In many systems paladins don't even necessarily have to be good at all.

and what is the law of the deity concerning the matter:
i can see a paladin of Iomedae kill the bandit without trouble
but paladin of sarenrae should certainly fall by doing this

>playing a paladin in the first place
>not convincing someone else to be one to see how the DM enforces the paladin rules

Face it, regardless of right or wrong of killing a surrendering bandit, you fucked up by playing a paladin without knowing how the DM would enforce it.

Chivalry is a set of rules for nobles to play soldier and not have to worry about getting stabbed like the plebs. It's about ransoming people and armor and all that crap.

It certainly doesn't apply to bandits and thieves. A knight would be totally in the right to stomp on fools who try to rob him.

...No it's fucking not. It's all about loyalty to the Church, rules in court and fealty to the Sovereign and providing to the weak.

Chivalry has nothing to do with that. It's a simple agreement that you won't rape, extort, and pillage because you have the upper hand (horse and armour). It says nothing about showing illogical mercy ( having a wife and child is nothing special and won't save you from judgement).

*Your code is not everyone's code.*

Especially since you're at best projecting modern law enforcement onto it. Sorry to say.

Seriously, even Gygax disagrees with you.

These arguments are actually defensible, and it all depends on the slant on chivalry you're taking. Of course, in real life, knights were often little more than hired thugs, so much of what we're talking about here is firmly in the realm of fiction. Some conceptions tend to ignore class distinctions while others don't, and obviously the GM should let you know which way he's doing things. But if anything, the "chivalry applies to all" is the more commonly held view on paladins (even if it's a shallower, less interesting one). The GM could've been capricious in the manner in which he made the paladin fall, failing to give fair warning about what kinds of behavior would cause it to happen, but the example in the OP does not seem ridiculous in any way.

For regular, typical Paladins that require no further explination other than 'They are Paladins' the rules are nearly all the same, somantics change but the core remains. Killing surrendered opponents (even the BBEG) is against that code. Now weird 3rd party shit can justify stuff like Grey Paladins, they are a minority and most laymen would not know what they are.

>the bandit is begging for mercy
>I got a wife and kid!
>"Your wife will be sent to a convent and your son become a ward of the Holy Church and serve as a squire to the Knights Templar!"
>kill him
>GM stands and applauds

Source, faggot. What god in pathfinder or whatever system you were using says you're not allowed to finish a fight with a murderer because he dropped his weapon?

None of that says "If a man drops his sword, you must take him prisoner regardless of whatever he has done or will do".

You should go anti-paladin. Then abuse the GMs falling filling when paladins come to take you out.

Nothing about staying your hand when a dangerous criminal tries to kill you with a weapon. Do you need to be reminded how "mercifully" criminals were treated throughout history?

It does not even say that, knights raped and pillaged it was how they got payed. It was an agreement between those of Gentle birth.

Yeah, that's true. But saying all paladins in general should fall because of it is retarded. If there isn't an explicit rule against it, and it's not out of line with the concept of doing Good, then it should never make a paladin fall.

> (OP)
>You should go anti-paladin. Then abuse the GMs fall mechanic ruling when paladins come to take you out.
Fixed

Good to know I can escape judgement by dropping my weapon and begging for my life no matter the weight of my actions or the evils I commit.

The difference is that usually the Paladin Falls threads are based on the GM making the paladin fall for something he clearly shouldn't have, or forcing him into a no-win situation. In this case, we have an example that's actually pretty reasonable.

I don't know why you keep implying this happened or was even said.

>Killing surrendered opponents (even the BBEG) is against that code.

Absolutely not. You're full of shit. It's only a problem when the person doesn't represent a threat; say, if they were already in jail or tied up. But merely saying you give up and discarding a weapon does not eliminate you as a threat.

Low quality bait detected. OP is a knave.

Does having a wife and kids exclude you from facing the consequences of your actions? Should I just go to all the families of the people who got bandit-murdered and say 'whoops no justice for you, turns out this guy had loved ones too!'

What the paladin did was unlawful, assuming that the bandit was attempting to surrender, but not not so extreme as to be evil. Even if the bandit had surrendered successfully, he'd likely face execution later.

The paladin class is about as historical as the magical powers it has. It is highly romanticized. It's the fantasy equivalent of the wild west gunslinger who engages in quickdraw showdowns at high noon.

>Literally in the OP it states that a bandit did bad things and the paladin fell for not taking him prisoner as soon as he dropped his weapon.
Fag.

I show mercy depending on who my enemy is. If they're a mercenary, soldier, or other enemy who's just on the wrong side because of duty, I try to spare them, and offer them a chance to surrender after they're defeated. At least, as long as they haven't been party to any atrocities. If they have, then they fall in the second category - as do all bandits, criminals, masterminds, and cultists. If they have willingly embraced evil, they get a single chance to surrender - before I draw my sword.

If they believe what they've done is wrong, and they want to repent, I'll give them that chance. I'll still take them to be punished however the law demands it, but I'll ask for mercy - for a punishment designed to correct them, so they can earn a second chance. But after my sword is drawn? No more chances. Anyone who asks for mercy only after they've been defeated hasn't realized the error of their ways - they've just realized they're about to die, and are desperate to live. They'll go back to evil again as soon as they get a chance. So why should I give them one?

You are purposefully combining the chivlaric code from our own medevil history which was about loyalty to the church, look it up on, it's all there.

Then you have the fantasy chivalry code of Paladins and Noble Knights. First two links of google

weirdness-central.co.uk/downloads/rpgstuff/guidelines-for-paladins.pdf
>Be Honourable (especially in Combat)
>You must engage the enemy in an honourable fashion
>You may willingly employ no unfair advantage against your opponent.
>Do not kill needlessly
>Prisoners, Should an opponent ask for quarter, you must grant it unless: blah blah blah miles away from etc

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paladin_(Dungeons_&_Dragons)
> it was taboo for a paladin to lie or use poison,
>the paladin class has one of the most restrictive codes of conduct in their single-mindedness and utter devotion to good
>Failure to maintain a lawful good alignment or adhere to the code of conduct causes paladins to lose their paladin status

I fail to see what the confusing is.

>the bandit is begging for mercy
Giving mercy when it is asked is one of the key points of a chivalrous knight.

the second he asked for mercy meant you would have been honor-bound to provide it. And no you can't turned a blind-eye towards one of the other PC's offing the guy because then that'd make you look like a liar, another big deal of any code of chivalry.

And these points are so universally recognized as the benchmarks of chivalry that it wouldn't just be the Paladin having to stick to this, the cavalier/knight and possibly a Samurai PC would also have had issue with your chosen action.

Maybe you should look into playing a different PC class because clearly you are having trouble grasping the concept of your current one.

IT'S ONE OF THE MOST COMMON TROPES OF A BAD GUY, I SURRENDER, PARLEY. IT IS BASED IN THE PALADIN'S CODE

>What the paladin did was unlawful, assuming that the bandit was attempting to surrender, but not not so extreme as to be evil.
Nobody is arguing that it would be Evil. They're arguing that it would be un-Lawful on the Law-Chaos axis. Even more specifically, they're arguing that it wouldn't be in keeping with the crazy restrictive far-Lawful code of conduct that paladins follow.

If the BBEG is a Necromancer or a fallen knight of course the best chance to take him before the courts is something a Paladin would consider... if it is a dragon or a Beholder then obviously you should be locked in a cellar and left to rot.

Doesn't even say he did bad things to be honest familia, robin hood was a "bandit"

everyone stop posting ITT after this guy now thanks.

And what about the hundreds of people the bandit has killed who demand lawful good justice ?
I am not Jesus, I am a Paladin.

Then its completely acceptable for paladins, as they don't fall from doing chaotic acts. PERIOD.

>weirdness-central.co.uk/

Lmao

Bringing justice to a murderer is both lawful and good. Repentance earns mercy with the gods, not the lawman, but more importantly, accepting repentance in the heat of battle is a good way to get fucking killed, or at least lose the criminal, and thus allow the public to be harmed by not doing your job.

OP, the only option is to turn your character into what you mentioned earlier

Become true justice
Even if the Gods have forgotten what it is
You must show them

>Good to know I can escape judgement
No, it just means that the Paladin won't off you at this exact moment. More likely, it means being hogtied, dragged back to town, where you will stand trial, be found guilty of all the crimes you likely made no attempt to hide if it got the PC's attention, and then get offed by the executioner's ax if you are lucky.

Yeah, there is no 'get out of this' card to be played, only a change of venue.

Robin Hood was a bad person who deserved to be hanged

>Be bandit
>Get caught by paladin
>Surrender and get bound by rope.
>Shimmy my hands free while the paladin is sleeping and slit his throat with my hidden dagger.
>Steal all his stuff and go be a better bandit.

hm, funny thing is, its nowhere in there. Punish those who harm or threaten innocents is in there, be nice to those who harm or threaten innocents is not.

All the paladin's code requires him to do is MAYBE grant him a quick death, period.

I hate this "paladins must be morally acceptable by MODERN first world standards and never hurt my feelings" moral relativist nonsense.

That's why you either demand he pick his weapon back up and die on his feet or sheath your own to make it a fair fight.

>you aren't a typical paladin
Source: my ass

Checking some of EGG's posts in Dragonsfoot would tend to contradict you

All of you saying a Paladin has to be exceedingly merciful are automatically wrong via the guy who made this bullshit.

"Paladins are not stupid, and in general there is no rule of Lawful Good against killing enemies. The old adage about nits making lice applies. Also, as I have often noted, a paladin can freely dispatch prisoners of Evil alignment that have surrendered and renounced that alignment in favor of Lawful Good. They are then sent on to their reward before they can backslide.

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is by no means anything but Lawful and Good. Prisoners guilty of murder or similar capital crimes can be executed without violating any precept of the alignment. Hanging is likely the usual method of such execution, although it might be beheading, strangulation, etc. A paladin is likely a figure that would be considered a fair judge of criminal conduct.

The Anglo-Saxon punishment for rape and/or murder of a woman was as follows: tearing off of the scalp, cutting off of the ears and nose, blinding, chopping off of the feet and hands, and leaving the criminal beside the road for all bypassers to see. I don't know if they cauterized the limb stumps or not before doing that. It was said that a woman and child could walk the length and breadth of England without fear of molestation then...

Chivington might have been quoted as saying "nits make lice," but he is certainly not the first one to make such an observation as it is an observable fact. If you have read the account of wooden Leg, a warrior of the Cheyenne tribe that fought against Custer et al., he dispassionately noted killing an enemy squaw for the reason in question.

I am not going to waste my time and yours debating ethics and philosophy. I will state unequivocally that in the alignment system as presented in OAD&D, an eye for an eye is lawful and just, Lawful Good, as misconduct is to be punished under just laws.

-Gary Gygax

1e: 100%, you don't have to show mercy to evil foes, period.
2e: Good has no absolute values, etc. etc., its completely cultural
3e: Alhandra "fights evil without mercy," and the paladin MUST punish those who harm or threaten innocents. but more importantly, he respects legitimate authority, so do what legitimate authority (your god or king) wants.
4e: whatever you want
5e: whatever you want, very vague guidelines from your oath

Stop projecting your modern morality. You want to be your vision of chivalrous. Do it. But don't say YOUR CODE is everyone else's.

as a gm i make the paladin fall is that case if the player don't agree with my call i ask a few simple question like:
on what basis have you decided to execute a death sentence? if the player have a real answer like in town i heared about this warband earlier in the session those are the butchers of whatever i can retcon the fall
but i the player say something like it's a bandit he should deserve it then i ask how he tell the differance between greedy bandit and starving desesperate peasant who have made a bad choice ?
and confirm that the fall is legit

1st edition AD&D was the first time the paladin was in the core rules. Read this passage from the Players Handbook.

At the battle of Agincourt large numbers of prisoners were killed when the prospect of them being released and re-armed by the french seemed apparent and the Henry really didn't suffer a loss of face because of it.

Why do people who want to play as pragmatic, ruthless adventurers ever play as Paladins? If somebody asks for Mercy you grant it and take it prisoner. But no you don't have to keep granting it over and over to the same guy. Start playing with a little intelligence and stop playing Lawful Good characters if you aren't going to be Lawful Good.

It's part of the Arthurian code of chivalry.

Would the party engaging in guerilla tactics against an encampment of evil goblins intent on either skinning or raping a nearby village of farmer not-wookies be categorized as neutral good? Or should I look past the method in this case and be more focused on the goal and intent?

And I think Gary fucking Gygax is a higher authority here when it comes his own class in his own game.

>post modernism whoa man you can't think anything about anything don't judge

Go fuck yourself

Good is always more important than Law. Law is the favored tool, but Good is the goal.

It's lawful good not lawful stupid

Some people just don't get it user

>Don't roll a PC with rules then bitch when you don't want to follow those rules.

Noone ITT has a problem with following the rules. The problem is people *making up new rules* on the spot, just to make the paladin fall.

Also druids don't have to be "nice to animals" that bite them. Humans are neither automatically special to them, nor are animals automatically sacred to them; a druid can be anything from a kind healer who's a friend to the animals and strangers in need and so forth, to a madman performing human sacrifices on lost travelers, to a cultist who spreads plagues to every town he visits in the hope civilization will collapse.

>boohoo I'm so poor now I'm gonna rob some people at knife point

Play stupid games win stupid prizes.

Did he sense evil the bandit?
If not it's valid.

With due respect, Gygax said a lot of things, some of them contradictory, and some of the stupid. That's not to say that the way he endorses of looking at things is the wrong one, by any means. But it's not the only one, and it's not even the most obvious one. It's up to the GM and is something that should be established beforehand. But it's certainly not ludicrous that murdering somebody who threw down arms and surrendered would be seen as a gross violation of the paladin's code.

If allowing them to live presented reasonable danger to others than it is perfectly just to kill him even if he gives up the fight

-4 STR

>villagers suffer from these bandits every day
>these bandits have killed and robbed from hundreds of people
>but you didn't KNOW he's evil

>bandits gonna bandit
>anti fun police show up
>bandits get their shit pushed in
>LOL I DROP WEAPON AND BEG FOR LIFE HUR DUR THE PALLY MUST SPARE ME!!!!

Gotta smite ALL the evil boy.

cause in the fact that a paladin can dispense a quick judgement the key word is judgement :

killing someone after he surrender only because he try to hurt you is barbarian moral not paladin's

also nice argument
>Go fuck yourself

Um, no. Why would someone who doesn't give Gygax any credence on paladins cite his work on them? How weaselly of you.

In 1e, as you would know if you were even slightly familiar, the answer is no, the paladin would not be performing a chaotic act in the least, he's fully entitled to kill the bandit. The alignments are far more expansive in 1e than in 3e (the edition that paladin hating alignment weasels love).

OP's char would be a straightforward LG paladin, no chaotic acts involved.

Dispensing justice isn't "pragmatic and ruthless." Its what they exist to do.