So we know that Paladins are holy warriors, blessed by their gods to fight evil in all of its forms and generally be all round nice guys. Most Gods which have paladins are good, (NG or LG), so paladins of their gods don't have this problem. But Some... Paladins of the LN Gods might run into problems

We know that with the one step rule, Clerics and other divine casters can be within one alignment step of their gods alignment and still receive spells, presumeably being an accepted part of the Clergy. So with gods such as Helm, The Red Knight, Kelemvor etc, You can have paladins serving alongside Lawful Evil Clerics of that god. How is a paladin meant to deal with evil within the followers of his own god?

Can he kill them? Is he meant to work against them? Are they an Exception?

_________________
Avatar Picture from Brinawilliamson.com

Player of:
- Whurak Thunderhammer
King of Barak Runedar and all round Vengeful Dwarf
- Alvian Tegleiwalla
Nerdy Painter Elf with a Silly hat

There's nothing special that stops them, no. They can do to them what they would do to any other evil person, though as always it can depend heavily on circumstance. Evil Helmite going to kill you/innocents? Lethal force to stop them, sure. In most circumstances a paladin will probably be compelled to try and mend them of their evil ways, and maybe take special attention to do so because it's super-important to a paladin that their deity does not have corruptive/evil followers.

_________________
@Thanatopsis#6293

Eh, there's no blanket answer to that, certainly no authoritative lore source which would clearly dictate it. So this probably should be in the General Discussion forum.

My take on it is that a paladin's allegiance is first and foremost to god and church. If your superior priest is evil, you can protest but you ultimately have to obey (ideally, ask for a transfer). You certainly don't go around beating your brethren if they are acting within the dictates of the deity and established church practice, but you may try to stop them by other means. It also depends on who outranks who. If the paladin outranks some priest doing wicked deed and orders them to stop, and they refuse, then the priest is out of line and probably can be brought in or stopped with whatever means necessary.

There is some Amia canon paladin lore I wrote years ago (which probably should be posted in R&L finally, since I never got around to writing more of them and the series is pretty much finished). This paragraph about Hoarite paladins is of relevance here:


What it basically says that there's no easy way out: you're walking a fine line in the cases where you have to work with evil faithful, and you face the risk of Falling on both sides: you can't work against your own orthodox church, but you can't really condone its actions either. What it comes down to is how well an individual paladin balances his actions in his unique circumstance, and how the DMs judge his success.

_________________

The Paladin's code is pretty clear on evil and willing/knowing association with them. The most polite way to oblige the code is to protest the evil priest by become a knight errant wandering the land righting wrong and spreading the faith yourself.

Or serve the evil cleric with the intent to convert him from his evil ambitious ways and if you can't and are still fell obligated to serve twist any orders he gives you that involve bringing harm to good people against him using the letter of the law. He demands the head of rebel whose only wrong is speaking his mind? Bring him the head attached to the body in full health. He orders you to protect him when he is attacked for having done some dark deed? Knock him out cold so he can be taken to lawful authorities, he is less likly to suffer lethal injury if he is knocked out.

But ultimately as a Guideline I'd go to the Paladin's Code of conduct before religion. Unless its Torm then its almost one in the same.

I would say the exact opposite. You have to think about this from the deity's and church's point of view, first and foremost: why do they sponsor paladins? I'm sure they would be capable of granting those very same powers to any random divine champion without a code if they so pleased. Yet they do choose to sponsor paladins. This means it must make sense for them. A god or a church wouldn't give the highest power and prestige to someone who served them only secondarily and conditionally. You also have to remember there isn't one Paladin's Code, every paladin theoretically has a unique personal code (though some, if not most, are obviously determined by your knightly order). So even if you had a rule of thumb like that, it wouldn't tell you much because you had no printed, canon reference to your code.

Granted, there's no lore answer to this and the DM team was very uncertain about this issue back in the day when it was discussed and I was comissioned to write more fluff around FR paladins. The general consensus seemed to lean towards "god comes first" (it was Nekh's outspoken position for certain, who's the only other one who I remember putting it in clear terms), but with the caveat that each situation must be judged individually and you can't escape responsibility by citing generalisations.

That's not to say you just choose one and ignore the other when trouble arises. I don't so much care what the ultimate answer is, or if there is one. But I do think no paladin should dismiss the issue lightly and be too sure of themselves. They have been given an enormous resonsibility, and relying on a rule of thumb like "god before code" or "code before chuch" is not behaviour worthy of that responsibility. The whole point of playing a successful paladin is in solving - or trying to solve - these moments of contradiction. There's nothing interesting about the class when things are simple and easy, and you go around smiting evil or feeding orphans without complications.

When you have a duty, you fulfill it. End of story, and not a very interesting one. The worth of a paladin (and a player) is tested only once two duties conflict, and you can't afford to compromise either but can't seem to reconcile them either.

_________________

The Paladins Code right from the players handbook

Code of Conduct

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Associates While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.


The Paladin is someone of higher ideals, chosen by the gods akin to an elemental force of good and order not just some knight selected by the church because he prays real good.

That is a (non-setting-specific) game mechanics description. Not the IC code of any paladin. Also, it says Code of Conduct, not The Paladin's Code (and Associates is a seperate paragraph).

It only says four things about paladin codes in general: that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor, help those in need and punish those who harm or threathen innocents. We can even take those as inaccurate generalizations, because there are two branches of Ilmatari paladins for example, one of which focuses on helping those in need and the other on punishing the wicked. Either way, the final paragraph is game information and not under the Code of Conduct heading (though your formatting is a little misleading). Both headings are under the "Game Rule Information" heading, after the lore.

As I said, there is no Paladin's Code. There are several codes, each of them specific to faith, order, culture, even the individual. It even says so right there: "a paladin's code." Not "the Paladin's Code." This is covered in much greater detail in the revised FRCS, 2e. It should be your go-to source for FR, not a generic Player's Handbook. This is the basic premiss we need to accept before we can even begin to discuss paladins of various faiths in the Realms. If you're going to apply simplified interpretation of the already cookie-cutter Greyhawk paladin, you'll go astray in our more mature setting.

On another note, now that I actually read the paragraph about associating with evil, it's obvious how badly it's been misinterpreted. "Associates" here clearly refers to adventuring companions and henchmen. As such, it isn't even relevant to discussion of church superiors (let alone shopkeeps, quest informants etc. like I've seen some fanatics argue online). The very first sentence puts the entire paragraph in context, in no unclear terms: "while she may adventure."

It's amazing what you actually find out when you read every passage closely in context, and remember to use all the relevant books in your synthesis. Paladins are just one example of people having really adamant ideas based on very vague clues. I guess they're such archetypical figures that people feel the need for them to remain pure and untouched. That, of course, is just irrational idealization.

_________________

This seems to be the crux of the issue, really. Most of the gods who sponsor paladins don't give a damn about the "elemental force of good." It's different in other settings, where paladins serve only a few cookie-cutter goodie gods, or even ideals. In our polytheistic setting, though, a variety of petty gods with diverse, petty churches sponsor paladins to serve their needs. For some reason, they still want them to be Lawful Good and honorable, but the paladin's situation is much more complicated and precarious. He is constantly faced with conflicting expectations and he must balance between being the epitome of righteousness and a useful servant of his god (represented physically by his church and superiors). If you neglect either side too much in favor of the other, your'e going to Fall.

If you are a paladin of Mystra and the goddess has tasked a wizard to look into some new secrets of necromancy, you cannot go destroy his work and ruin Mystra's plans; but simultaneously, you can't really condone and help him either. You have to find some acceptable middle way, and that's what makes paladins an interesting class. Not because they have all the answers or because there only is one answer for them, but because finding the answers is especially challenging for a paladin. That's why they need a high Wisdom score, after all. (A game-mechanical feature that doesnt at all support the interpretation of paladins as single-minded fanatics; that is not wise.)

And one more thing: being chosen by the god is, in most cases, actually represented by being chosen by your church (because you "pray real good" or fulfill what other tests the priests and elder paladins put you through). So it's a false dichotomy. The true church of the god represents the will of the god in the world. And in practice, of course paladins aren't just divinely appointed by the gods, they apply to become squires and go through rigorous training like any knight (MOST of the time - exceptions of course exist). The fact that they make it and become real paladins is taken as a sign that they were chosen by the god. There's no reason to believe the average paladin is called to service by some fantastic phantasm who announces his new status to the world. Just because the gods are real doesn't mean mortals don't have to do any work.

_________________

I was going to have an opinion on this, but the IronAngel had it for me. So... yeah, what he said.

_________________
Winner of Amia's "Most Ethical Time Traveler" award 2026

Character Portraits!

Its quite clearly a code, its called a code of Conduct.

Rules are rules and nothing in the Forgotten realms setting says paladins can break their code of conduct because their faith says its "okay". As for reading paragraphs its the remainder that pertains most to this topic.

"a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code."

The setting may alter and tweak some rules a bit but a Paladin is still a paladin in 3.0-3.5, and nothing in their code of conduct says a paladin would tolerate serving the whims of an evil cleric of his or her faith.

Erm... "Code of conduct" is the heading, title or whatever of that paragraph. I have a book called Republic on my shelf. It doesn't mean the book contains a republic. It means it's about the republic. Just like that paragraph is about the codes of conduct paladins adhere to. It doesn't specify their content or form beyond the four points mentioned, though.

As I said, "associate" in that context means "adventure with or take as henchman." It's pretty clear from the very first sentence. You don't connect two propositions with "while" unless they have something to do with each other, generally a contrast. The sentence is talking about adventuring parties. If you put yourself in the game designer's position, the intention is obviously to restrict the kind of PCs you can have in a party with a paladin. Not to dictate that the paladin must perform Detect Evil on every innkeeper he wants to buy some food from. So no, the Player's Handbook doesn't actually infallibly solve this issue. Besides, we should take any Player's Handbook or other core material with a lot of salt: they're not lorebooks, they're just rulebooks to facilitate a generic D&D fantasy game.

You're just spouting tautologies like "a paladin is a paladin" and generalities about "breaking rules" that don't really pertain to this topic, so I'm not sure how to answer them. Who is talking about breaking rules? Not I, and not the OP. Nothing in the imaginary "code of conduct" you insist on says a paladin would tolerate his neighbour planting flowers in his garden, either. Common sense tells you that. So it's a really bad argument to say a paladin would rebel against his god and church because his superior was evil, just because a book doesn't say he wouldn't.

_________________

Since you still seem to insist on some universal Code though, allow me to quote you the relevant bit from the second FRCS that sets this issue to rest for good. Page 14:


And this is the virtues part of Quentin's Monograph, an IC treatise of a single paladin's view much like some theological or spiritual pamphlet of today:


(I aplogize for the missing 's and such, copy-paste doesn't seem to read them from the pdf.)

Anyway, I already quoted my article on paladins of Hoar. The DMs have yet to reapprove and post them to R&L, but they were originally written as canon precisely to protect paladin players from these kinds of arguments and persecution. It shows you some possible limits of paladin behaviour, though states nothing normative because every case is judged individually by god and clergy (and DMs).

_________________

Working with and adventuring with is not at all different then associating with with an evil person who is a member of your faith and allowing them to do evil violates the Paladins code of conduct as would associating with them so long as they continue to refute the ethical and moral standards you as a paladin live up to. Its quite plainly a rule that's part of playing the class. That paladin may not be required to check if everyone is evil but if someone is they should either distance them self form that person or try to get that person to change their ways. Especially if that evil is a member of your faith, a paladin can't just let evil deeds stand because they are being committed by a fellow member of the faith. Otherwise that's violating the code of conduct and the paladin falls period end of story.

Also having thoroughly read Forgotten Realms: Faiths and Pantheons I have yet to see about special rules for Paladins of Hoar getting special treatment or the Paladins of any god.

I don't think anybody's disputing that paladins can't associate with evil characters. The question is, what's the definition of "associate"? That's a pretty vague word. In its context in the PHB (which you specifically omitted from your quote), it's seems clear that the "association" has to be a close working relationship: "While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good."

Just being a member of the same church as an evil character, or someone who worships in the same Temple as an evil character, or works in the same building, isn't enough to offend the code of conduct.

(In my entirely unofficial opinion, of course.)

Edit: Massively ninja'd.

_________________
Winner of Amia's "Most Ethical Time Traveler" award 2026

Character Portraits!

I rather agree with you. And then again, I don't.

I agree that it's not right for the paladin to work with evil. He should try to change their ways or distance himself from them, if not outright smite them or bring them to justice.

But what you seem to not understand, is that sometimes duties are in conflict. While the above stands true, it's also true that a paladin should respect legitimate church hierarchy. And sometimes, the one with legitimate, god-sanctioned authority over you is evil. Not just some random villain who worships your patron. No, this is the guy on whom your god has personally bestowed favor and trust. The guy who actually communicates with your patron in holy rites and receives direct guidance.

If you have two duties and you cannot seem to find a way to fully meet both, you need to weigh them. Which is more important? And make no mistake: sometimes you have to decide. You can't always find a loophole or reconciliation. That's the problem with duty-based ethics in general, even in the real world: it's very possible that two rules conflict, and you're not allowed to break either.

You seem to think somebody's advocating paladins hanging out with evil priests no problem. That's not the case. We're not even talking about random evil deeds. We're talking about things like your superior cleric of Hoar enacting just a little too severe revenge that's well within the dogma of Hoar, and your paladin who'd rather focus on poetic justice having to work under him on an assignment. I'm saying, the answers aren't obvious or readily given. You seem to completely ditch one duty in favor of another. That's way too easy, and not very paladin-like, IMO.

In short: if your god clearly approves of something your personal moral compass is iffy about, which do you trust? Is it hubris to think you know better than your god? Or is it a test of faith, to show that you will keep to the path appointed? I don't know. But if a paladin didn't stop to seriously consider the question, he wouldn't be much of a paladin.

_________________

I think its quite clear that evil even of the same faith is no exception and shouldn't be. There is a line between polite disassociation and drawing your sword for a smite-fest of course. As is the degree of the evil deeds they commit.

If your a paladin of Red Knight and your commander is about to sacrifice the lives of a dozen non-combatants and children because it will give an advantage to your side should have a different reaction then a priest of Hoar who is a bit crueler then most when delivering justice.

A Paladins life is hard, having to do the right thing is the most difficult but necessary choice any paladin will face. For a paladin of a neutral god who excuses evil acts done with in the dogma its even harder. Odds are if you won't do whats right because whats wrong is acceptable to others around you then your probably not cut out to be a Paladin.

I don't necessarily disagree. You seem to think doing the right thing is the hard part. I think figuring out what the right thing to do is, is the greatest challenge. You have it all figured out, but I sure don't and I doubt most paladins do, either.

_________________

evil and being a enemy of paladins isnt the same, greedy merchants are evil too..just very diet coke of evil..

paladins arnt smite on sight of evil, only the big dark evils

_________________
-Ja'acira Arrows'R'Us
-Balorin Wolfhammer- A dwarf so old he remember when the Beer stein was invented
Saisha Jai'diem Knight of bahamut, and abit of a looker