Paladin ethics

Which system are we talking about?

>>50119952
This is all dependant on in-setting knowledge, in game ethics, and subjective interpretation. Also, what game system are you using? What does you GM think?

well, I guess it's up to your interpretation of "paladin." if they're instruments of some divine good who essentially have no free will and can only ever resolve things 1 right way, then yeah, you've got a big moral conundrum on your hands. if they're holy warriors who follow a code, it doesn't need a "right answer," just a reasonable justification. was their order founded by some dude who had a massive beef with the concept of undead and wanted them exterminated no matter what? do they have some leniency

my inclination would be to have them extremely hostile to the undead and to try to impose some sort of strict rules or monitoring on their existence, but not outright attack them as long as they were communicating

either way, I don't know why your player is trying to tell you how to run your game. I sure hope he isn't doing it DURING the session, because that shit is boring as fuck

>>50119952
Paladins are oath-takers, but they are also people.
What does their oath say about the undead? Does it say anything about sentience?
What kind of people are these paladins? What do THEY think of the undead? What do THEY think of sentience?

Also, remind your player that not all paladins are paragons of goodness. Some people are just assholes.

>>50120127
Op here. Im at work so replies are scarce. Their edicts dictate that any undead must be slain outright

>>50120116
No he waited until after the session to discuss it

>>50120575
Well then they should do it.

>>50120575
They aren't divinely powered and are sworn to a secular oath. I can see pretty reasonable doubt on part of some of their members. I would not, as a player, have a problem with the paladins demurring on the attack. Depending on their closeness to the inner hierarchy, they might even decide to keep it on the hush hush so that the higher ups, who might not be so lenient, don't catch wind of this community, and thos particular group of paladin's travels elsewhere to wipe out the truly mindless undead.

>>50120638
>aren't divinely powered
>sworn to a secular oath

then they aren't paladins you faggot

>>50120716
Read the OP. And paladins have been sworn to a cause more than a deity for ages now.

>>50120716
Also
>confirmed for not playing tabletop

>>50119952
Well you;re falling into the natural trap of trying to force a paladin to be "lawful" and "good". This is incorrect. A paladin is "Lawful good". A paladin who is "lawful good" only follows laws that are good and is only good in a lawful way.

So you have these undead. They are sentient and, despite their natural evil, can still be good. The law says undead are to be killed. In this sense, for these particular undead, is this law "good?" I would say not. These undead, like demons and other evil outsiders, should be closely monitored due to their innate evilness. However, they themselves, as individuals, are innocent until proven guilty. This will be a good roleplay moment for your paladin as he no longer has Detect Evil to turn the world black and white when determining good.

File: misuse of fedora.jpg (7KB, 211x238px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 211x238px

>>50119952
How should I, or anyone else, know? What defines a paladin in your setting? What forces are they beholden to and by what standard are they judged? Would King Arthur be a Paladin in your setting? How about Saladin or Richard the Lionheart?

Only the DM can define what makes a paladin in their setting.