If a paladin enters into a contract, does he always have to respect it?

[MonkeySage]

If one of the terms of the contract involves the preservation of a creature that later turns out to be evil, is the paladin at odds with his code no matter what his decision is? lets say the paladin did not have augury at the time he signed on

[comicshorse]

I'd say if the Paladin was deliberately lied to, was told 'go save this good and innocent creature' then he's fine breaking the contract as the person he made it with has already broken it by misleading him.
If the other person simply said 'go save this creature' and the Paladin neglected to check up on it first then he's in trouble

[Waar]

If one of the terms of the contract involves the preservation of a creature that later turns out to be evil, is the paladin at odds with his code no matter what his decision is? lets say the paladin did not have augury at the time he signed on

That would surely depend on the code, which isn't given.

[Mr.Moron]

As a GM I certainly wouldn't extend the Paladin "Code"* to include contracts that were made in bad faith, when circumstances have greatly changed the nature or scope of the agreement after the fact, or agreements that were made off a limited understanding of the situation.


*in the vaguely, generic d20-ish version of the concept.

[endur]

If one of the terms of the contract involves the preservation of a creature that later turns out to be evil, is the paladin at odds with his code no matter what his decision is? lets say the paladin did not have augury at the time he signed on

There is nothing above that indicates a paladin would be in violation of his code.

If a damsel (or anyone else) is in distress, a Paladin is not required to check alignment before saving the person in distress. If a paladin rescues a town from destruction, there may well be one or more evil people in the town who were saved. The SRD makes the distinction that the paladin should ensure that their help is not used for evil or chaotic ends. i.e. The paladin should not save people from lawful executions.

"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." SRD

The SRD does state that the Paladin should act with honor, which would mean that the paladin should honor contracts. However, suppose a paladin signed a contract that require evil deeds. In that case, the Paladin would have to find a way to lawfully end the contract without having to perform the evil deeds.

One last comment on Paladin codes, as a GM, if the player is attempting to role play their behavior within a paladin's code, then I delegate the determination of whether they are successful to the player. If the player tells me that his or her character has fallen, than that is up to the player. I also do the same for the players of Clerics and Druids (some of whom can stray pretty far from a particular God's alignment).

[Nerd-o-rama]

An honorable Paladin will honor contracts he makes in good faith, but I don't feel "honor" covers a contract made to intentionally mislead him/not made in good faith. Even if it dings him for an Atonement, a Paladin should always choose to do the Good thing over the legalistic thing.

A wise Paladin (or the rare intelligent one) would insist on a moral termination clause, i.e. "the Paladin may cancel this contract at any time if its execution would lead to Evil or Chaotic ends, as defined by <preferably some third-party supernatural arbiter>."

[TheOOB]

If one of the terms of the contract involves the preservation of a creature that later turns out to be evil, is the paladin at odds with his code no matter what his decision is? lets say the paladin did not have augury at the time he signed on

Assuming you're talking about a classic D&D paladin, their duty to never perform evil outweighs their duty perform lawful acts. While a paladin should uphold a contract when possible, if the contract was made under false pretenses or would require them to perform an evil act they need to defy it. As per the 3e code they wouldn't even need atonement for that.

[theNater]

If one of the terms of the contract involves the preservation of a creature that later turns out to be evil, is the paladin at odds with his code no matter what his decision is?

A lot of people make the mistake of assuming that the "punish" in the paladin's code means "kill". It does not. A paladin can quite easily preserve a creature which is in a prison cell or, in extreme cases, has been turned to stone.

Note also that in addition to the moral termination clause Nerd-o-rama suggests, most contracts carry a default clause; penalties that will be levied in the case that the primary obligations of the contract go unfulfilled. A paladin who violates the primary obligation and pays the penalty is still honoring the contract.

[ComaVision]

By law, a contract that is purposely misleading and outright lies is void already. A paladin that learns that the contract had a false basis wouldn't have any obligation to fulfill it.

[Zyzzyva]

Short answer: no. A paladin shouldn't go around casually violating agreements they've made, obviously, but they don't need to be held to the letter of everything they've ever said. If they've been tricked into helping out the bad guys, saying "no, this is garbage" and walking away is perfectly legitimate, IMO.

Plus, all of the stuff people have said above about actual real-world contracts, IANAL.

[johnbragg]

The most paladin-y thing I've ever had a paladin do was to break a contract at the cost of losing his Paladin status.

His brain had been eaten (mostly) by a mind-flayer, bringing him down to Int 6 or so. He made a verbal agreement with an NPC "theurgist" (homebrewed 2nd Edition 36 Cleric-36 Wizard-36 homebrewed "theurgist" class taken from a fantasy book series) to perform a service in return for restoring his intelligence. With a temporary Int of 6, he said "A-yup" without asking any questions.

Commanded to turn on the party fighter and kill him, my paladin refused. (Party fighter was CN and totally down with killing the paladin.) DM pulls my Paladin status, I say my guy doesn't care, betraying a friend is dishonorable and he's not going to do it just to hold on to his paladin powers.

That was the first time we actually roleplayed instead of murderhobo'd.

[Karl Aegis]

Don Quixote would be disappointed you didn't live up to your just and reputable reputation. You wouldn't want to disappoint the great Don Quixote, would you?

[johnbragg]

Don Quixote would be disappointed you didn't live up to your just and reputable reputation. You wouldn't want to disappoint the great Don Quixote, would you?

Don Quixote De La Mancha, Knight of the Woeful Countenance and bearer of the Golden Helmet of Mambrino would have torn off his armor and broken his sword over his knee before he harmed Sancho or the Lady Dulcinea.

[Solaris]

One last comment on Paladin codes, as a GM, if the player is attempting to role play their behavior within a paladin's code, then I delegate the determination of whether they are successful to the player. If the player tells me that his or her character has fallen, than that is up to the player. I also do the same for the players of Clerics and Druids (some of whom can stray pretty far from a particular God's alignment).

I'd like to call attention to the genius of this statement. While it doesn't work with someone playing a murderhobo paladin, I think it pretty much solves every player-DM conflict involving paladins and a lot of the problems with other people playing in the same party as a paladin.

[Beta Centauri]

I'd like to call attention to the genius of this statement. While it doesn't work with someone playing a murderhobo paladin, I think it pretty much solves every player-DM conflict involving paladins and a lot of the problems with other people playing in the same party as a paladin.

It is genius and it does work with any kind of paladin. The player gets the outcome that they think makes sense. If it's a punishing outcome, then they think that makes sense, and are bought into it; their enjoyment is enhanced, not dampened. If a punishing outcome doesn't make sense, then it just doesn't occur. I highly recommend letting players decide things like this. If it vastly changes the way the GM expected the game to work, then the players clearly didn't want to play that game or that way, and forcing it would have just caused problems.

[Jay R]

A classic theme in medieval fiction and folk takes, from Chaucer's "The Franklin's Tale" to "The Brave Little Tailor" to Sir Orfeo, is making an oath which turns out to commit you to something you didn't intend. And in all such tales, the hero goes ahead and agrees to keep his word, and somehow it turns out that either you don't have to ("The Franklin's Tale"), or that doing so winds up being the best thing anyway.

The king offers his daughter's hand in marriage and half the kingdom to whoever can slay the giant, but instead of a great noble knight, it's a peasant - the brave little tailor. But he turns out to rule well and honestly, as a good husband and king.

In Sir Orfeo, the king of the fairies offers a filthy wandering bard any reward he asks, and the bard asks for the beautiful captive lady.
'Nay,' said the king, 'that would not do!
A sorry sight, you'd make, ye two.
for thou art black, and rough, and lean,
and she is faultless, fair and clean.
A monstrous thing then would it be
to see her in thy company.'

'O sir,' he said, 'O gracious king,
but it would be a fouler thing
from mouth of thine to hear a lie.
Thy vow, sir, thou canst not deny,
Whate'er I asked, that should I gain,
and thou must needs thy word maintain.'

The king then said: 'Since that is so,
now take her hand in thine, and go;
I wish thee joy of her, my friend!'

But the dirty disheveled bard turns out to be her husband, Sir Orfeo, who's been looking for her for ten years.

If I had such a situation in my game, the paladin would need to keep his word, and doing so would somehow turn out to be the right thing.

From Shakespeare in Love:
"Strangely enough, it all turns out well."
"How?"
"I don't know. It's a mystery."

[veti]

A wise Paladin (or the rare intelligent one) would insist on a moral termination clause, i.e. "the Paladin may cancel this contract at any time if its execution would lead to Evil or Chaotic ends, as defined by <preferably some third-party supernatural arbiter>."

I think this is the correct answer. It should be part of the paladin's basic training, not to sign anything without a get-out clause.

It might not be as simple as "may cancel at any time" - you might have to go through some formal procedure of repudiating the contract and/or compensating the other party - but the basic form would be "I don't have to go through with this if it would require doing something inconsistent with my code".

[icefractal]

If you're talking about a D&D Paladin, they're not Lawful Good, they're Lawful Good. They can do the occasional un-lawful act, especially for the purpose of preserving good.

Which also means johnbragg's Paladin shouldn't have fallen either, even if the contract was legitimate. Which it wasn't - you think any court would honor a contract made while one of the parties was significantly mentally impaired, and the other party was entirely aware of that fact?

[Strigon]

First of all, paladins aren't bound by oath to seek out and destroy every evil creature they come across. A low-level paladin wouldn't fall for not finding and fighting that Great Wyrm Red Dragon that hasn't been terrorizing anyone yet.
However, dishonoring a contract is much more iffy. As others have said, if it were deliberately misleading the paladin (save this innocent guy, make sure he's okay), then of course the paladin could ignore it.
On the other hand, if it was something like "There's a person being held prisoner by goblins; bring him to me without harm", then even if that person were evil, the paladin has no reason to renege on his deal. If, however, he learns that fulfilling it will lead to innocents being harmed, then nothing is stopping him from taking appropriate action. (Note: appropriate action does not have to mean death.)

[johnbragg]

If you're talking about a D&D Paladin, they're not Lawful Good, they're Lawful Good. They can do the occasional un-lawful act, especially for the purpose of preserving good.

Which also means johnbragg's Paladin shouldn't have fallen either, even if the contract was legitimate. Which it wasn't - you think any court would honor a contract made while one of the parties was significantly mentally impaired, and the other party was entirely aware of that fact?

Well, of course he shouldn't. HE fell because "Paladin Sux! Lawful Stoopid!" But it was really the first time anyone in our group actually roleplayed something besides "find things to kill, kill them and take their stuff." (My friend thought about having his fighter try to kill the (suddenly ex-) paladin anyway because it was a chance to kill something and take his stuff, and it would have been funny.)

[Coidzor]

If one of the terms of the contract involves the preservation of a creature that later turns out to be evil, is the paladin at odds with his code no matter what his decision is? lets say the paladin did not have augury at the time he signed on

If it means that the contract was made in bad faith, then the Paladin will invoke the severance clause though if they need to bust some heads and be a big damn hero, they'll bust some heads and be a big damn hero.

If a paladin was coerced into a contract in the first place, well, they're not going to respect that sort of unlawful behavior, either. How they'd go about things after that depends on how they were forced into it in the first place and what's set up to keep them there.

Now, for instance, if it's capturing an evil creature for magical research or something, they're not going to be especially likely to break their contract and kill the captured specimen once they find out it's evil unless they find out that the researchers are going to use it for evil ends.

[illyahr]

"Go to this place and escort a person to this other place. Make sure he isn't harmed."

If this is actually "Pick up murderer from a jail and transport him to his trial and make sure he is unharmed" he still has to fulfill his contract even if it means protecting an Evil man from Good citizens.

If this is actually "Pick up this woman from her kidnapper and transport her to the slaver she is being sold to" then he is not obligated to help and, in fact, would be more bound to help the woman escape.

[goto124]

Contract says 'give the woman to the slaver'. Give her to the slaver... and immediately take her back :P

May not work well, but the thought amused me.

[LibraryOgre]

Even assuming the Paladin MUST honor the contract (which I think there's some wiggle room, as noted, for contracts made in bad faith, though not ones entered into out of negligence on the paladin's part), the Paladin is better breaking the contract that committing evil.

After all, chaotic acts can be Atoned. Evil acts are harder to get forgiven, and preserving something that's Big E Evil is going to be more difficult to atone than breaking a contract.

(Of course, there's always the option of "I preserved it from that threat, as specified in the contract; I then killed it myself, because it was an abomination.")

[illyahr]

Paladins fall if they willingly commit an Evil act. They also fall if they grossly violate their Paladin's code. One infraction, especially if it's for a good reason, hardly qualifies as a gross violation in most cases.

[The Random NPC]

This reminds me of a story I heard once. A paladin was tricked into an agreement by an evil necromancer, to bring the necromancer the head of the king. So the paladin does so. Along with the rest of the body, in full armor, and backed up by the king's army.

[Othniel]

The short answer is not necessarily. Obviously, a Paladin with a brain wouldn't enter into a contract that would blatantly require he commit an evil or unlawful* act. If a Paladin enters into a mundane contract and for whatever reason is unable to complete it, he breaches the contract. This happens to normal people every day. Breaching a contract does not make you an unlawful person. If a Paladin signs a contract in good faith, and for some reason is unable to fulfill it, I would think it would be permissible to provide immediate notice to the injured party, and be 100% willing to pay damages. What WOULD probably test his alignment is if he refuses to pay the damages resulting from his breach. If, on the other hand, the Paladin signs a contract, and then decides, "Eh, I don't wanna" and skips town to avoid fulfilling the contract, then we have an issue.

*With certain exceptions, of course. In my opinion, a Paladin could, for example, agree to save someone from execution if he knows or is convinced that the person is innocent, but he should not commit an evil act while doing so (such as killing a guard).

[Darth Ultron]

I think most paladins would be very careful about entering any contract. By default, a paladin will follow a contract like a robot.

There is a tiny bit of wiggle room. If they discover they are doing evil or have been tricked into doing evil, they can break the contract. But anything less then that and they are stuck. They can't just ignore the contract if they don't like it. They might be able to twist the wording though....but only a little bit. The best thing they can do is simply get out of the contract.

[Jay R]

If the goal of the game includes in some way entering into a medieval frame of mind, then the paladin must keep his word as given, and the story will somehow make that the right choice.

[And if the goal of the game does not includes in some way entering into a medieval frame of mind, then what's with all the swords?]

[Coidzor]

If the goal of the game includes in some way entering into a medieval frame of mind, then the paladin must keep his word as given, and the story will somehow make that the right choice.

[And if the goal of the game does not includes in some way entering into a medieval frame of mind, then what's with all the swords?]

That's the worst possible answer because then you're punishing players of Paladins for trying to do the right, honorable, and good thing and also for not following the rails blindly and mindlessly.

I think most paladins would be very careful about entering any contract. By default, a paladin will follow a contract like a robot.

There is a tiny bit of wiggle room. If they discover they are doing evil or have been tricked into doing evil, they can break the contract. But anything less then that and they are stuck. They can't just ignore the contract if they don't like it. They might be able to twist the wording though....but only a little bit. The best thing they can do is simply get out of the contract.

Thinking that Paladins should default to acting like robots in any situation is part of the problem with Paladins, I'd say. They shouldn't ever turn their brains off to the consequences and ramifications of what they're doing.

Nah, they also should keep an eye out for dishonorable things or things that are unscrupulous but not technically Evil or even illegal, but are still wrong.