The Oath of Light

Edited and re-posted from my old blog

I recently ran across a twitter thread from a disgruntled player whose paladin
had been made to fall, due to them not preventing their party from killing a
child. The player had protested both in and out of character, but ultimately
failed to prevent the act. Their contention was that since:

• Their paladin had objected
  and

• They had not participated

That they should not fall, since the sin was not theirs. Initially, my reaction is probably similar to many OSR players, that being that of course the paladin should fall. A paladin is a paragon of justice, and would not allow a child to be killed in front of them, regardless of who was trying to commit the attempt. A paladin would defend, to their death and the deaths of the aggressors, the child’s life. However, upon further reflection, I remembered two events from my early days of role-playing that are eerily similar to this case.

In the first, I was playing a paladin and was placed into a similar situation. The party had found a man we suspected of plotting to kill us, though we had no proof. They decided the best course of action was to kill him first, to prevent any issues. They ignored my objection and advanced on the man. As a paladin of a god of justice, I could not stand idly by, so I lept into action prepared to defend the man, to the death of myself or allies if necessary. Immediately, my DM steps in, my paladin falls. The party then killed the man and the newly minted Fighter of Equivalent Level. The DM’s argument was that planning to kill my allies, if necessary, was an evil act and so my Oath was broken. I took my lumps and rolled up a new character, but it never sat right with me.

The second incident happened later, to a different player. Same world, same DM, same god of justice. In this incident, the party was planning on firebombing a small fortress, to root out our enemies, regardless of the innocents inside who might be hurt. The paladin objected, but was once again outvoted. This time though, he stepped aside, not wanting to disobey the tenet of not betraying your allies to uphold a higher good. Once again, the DM steps in, paladin falls. This time for not preventing the bad action. Paladin was not played under that DM after this.

It later came out that this DM was of the opinion that Good always loses, and that those who uphold the side of Good are always doomed to be betrayed by their own ideal. So every moral choice was a no-win situation which lead to a fallen paladin. All this to say that the aforementioned twitter thread is missing crucial context, on both the player's actions and the DM's. It is possible that the exact oath the paladin took prevents the taking of life in any circumstances. Or, even more strictly, prevents any sort of betrayal. It's possible that the DM just did not like paladins and would come up with any reason to make one fall. Either way we don't know.

After that long intro, here is the point of this post. I want to present a way to know. Paladins are deontological by nature. A paladin would know exactly what would be required of them in any trolley problem, their god would have laid it out in the oaths they took (if they have a god as in 5e, if they are the OSR variety paladin the codes of law and chivalry they uphold would be drilled into them during training). A paladin's player should never be confused as to the exact nature of any given action. That's why a paladin can fall after a single action, it has to be taken consciously and with full knowledge that it is against the will of their Oath. This is backed up by the wording in AD&D, quote:

Law and good deeds are the meat and drink of paladins. If they ever knowingly perform an act which is chaotic in nature, they must seek a high level (7th or above) cleric of lawful good alignment, confess their sin, and do penance as prescribed by the cleric. If a paladin should ever knowingly and willingly perform on evil act, he or she loses the status of paladinhood immediately and irrevocably All benefits are then lost, and no deed or magic can restore the character to paladinhood; he or she is everafter a fighter.

Note the use of "knowingly." Clearly, a paladin should not be confused at to what constitutes what a evil or chaotic act.

This immediately causes a rub in our modern world of moral relativism, since many people passively assume some level of moral relativism, and think that these sorts of "gotcha" moral decisions are par for the course for a paladin. This is not the case. Nor do I think its the case that a DM or player must write an ethical or theological thesis on every action they take in game, to prove they took the correct one. These things should be obvious. This may be a case of the player simply asking their DM "what would my paladin know to be correct in this situation." I think this is a fair question to ask, although it may lead to boring play where a player always just does whatever they answer is, regardless of if makes sense. People do consciously do things they know are wrong, even men of faith. Paladins should be no different. Maybe the paladin from the twitter thread has been demoralized or corrupted by the evil people they are surrounded with (not something allowed in AD&D, as a side note). Maybe the paladin has legitimately lost faith in the greater Good they fight for and are willingly denouncing it. Those are role-play elements. The point is the player should be able to ask and receive a straight answer. If they don’t ask and make choices blindly, that’s on them.Because in Dungeons and Dragons, morality is not relative, it is objective.

To help with that, I am thinking about stealing something from 5e going forward. That being Oaths. However, instead of the Oaths being wishy-washy and open to interpretation, they will be concrete rules like the actual Code of Chivalry or Ten Commandments. There will also only be one, and it can be used with or without a patron god. The one I am presenting here.

The Oath of Light

This Oath binds the man that takes it with holy magic. It grants such a man the boon of the Lord of Light, god of justice and law, and details how he should conduct himself. Should a man break the tenets herein, he forsakes the boons granted and makes a shameful mockery of himself. These tenets are unchanging, handed down by the Lord of Light himself upon a golden scroll, any man seeking to commit himself to the Oath may do so under the guidance of a cleric, by writing his name upon the scroll.

The Tenets of Light

1. The Oathsworn shall conduct himself with honor upon the battlefield. He shall not kill a defenseless enemy, or a civilian. Should an enemy yield, he must be taken into custody and detained with all possible civility until justice can be meted out.

2. The Oathsworn shall not allow an innocent life to be taken, by himself or anyone around him. He shall make all efforts to defend an innocent life, including taking the lives of the aggressors, should they not yield. An innocent life is any life that has committed no known crime against the Lord of Light's law.

3. The Oathsworn shall not use deceit or trickery to accomplish his tasks. This tenet does not prohibit honorable battlefield tactics, such as false retreats or feints. False surrenders are dishonorable. 

4. The Oathsworn shall take all direction from any cleric or member of the clergy. If directly ordered to violate the Oath, the Oathsworn may object. If the order is repeated, the Oathsworn must obey. Any violation caused by this will be the fault of the clergy or cleric, not of the Oathsworn. The clergy member or cleric will be punished accordingly. The honor of the Oathsworn is not Impugned.

5. The Oathsworn must remain chaste and unwed for as long as they are in active service. Should an Oathsworn wish to wed, he may be released from his vows with his honor in tacked, provided a cleric consents to the union. An unchaste or wedded man cannot become an Oathsworn. 

6. The Oathsworn must not associate with anyone known to be guilty of breaking the Lord of Light's law. They must make all efforts to apprehend those guilty, and take them into the Church's custody.

7. The Oathsworn must carry out the death penalty on the guilty when required.

8. In a situation where the Oathsworn's action or inaction could change the number of people harmed, he must take the path that saves the most people. If he knows that taking an action that will lead to one person's death, but save two, he must take that action. The resulting death will not impugn his honor.

This may not be the most compressive list possible, but I have tried to hit the major "gotchas" I've seen, those being:

• your party killed someone innocent

• defenseless combatant, what do

• uh-oh you have to lie about something

• a priest tells you to do a bad

• trolley problem :D

Notice, that this makes reference to the Law of Light, a text which is strikingly absent from this post. This can be assumed to be the lawful laws of a bog standard fantasy world. Also notice that the tenets take a stance on the trolley problem (tenet 8), but make no attempt to defend that stance. This is the law passed down from the god of justice, he doesn't need to defend himself to his champions. The Lord of Light is an ethereal and eternal being, not a Hellenistic god whose whims change with the wind. This is the sort of being a paladin should serve (and is what the historical paladins would have served, i.e. Christ). Notice also, that these tenets do leave room to fall. Maybe a romance springs up between a paladin of light and a lawless barbarian woman. She has committed no crime against the Lawful civilization, but the clergy will not agree to a marriage, due to the cultural differences. So the paladin has to make a choice. The point is its a choice in which he knows he is disobeying the direct order of the force he fights for.

Either way, I hope this provokes some discussion and thought among other
paladin enjoyers. Maybe a more nuanced take or better way of framing the
thoughts I am clumsily laying out. But for the time being, sail on!

-ShockTohp