Miko and the Paladin Code

[Flame of Anor]

I happened to see this comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0374.html) recently, and I noticed this:

:mitd: First I hit you as lightly as I can, then you hit me as lightly as YOU can.
:miko: Yes, of course. I accept your challenge
:miko: (aside) I intend to lose this "game" intentionally.

But I seem to recall a little passage in the Paladin Code where it says that the paladin may not lie or cheat.

So did the MitD accidentally save Miko from falling 33 strips early?

[hamishspence]

Lying to Miko was portrayed as "not a gross violation" by a couple of paladins, in a War & XPs bonus strip.

Same might apply to lying from Miko.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Throwing a match is not lying or cheating.

[Shred-Bot]

Throwing a match is not lying or cheating.

Particularly this sort of game, with nebulous rules, no paying spectators expecting a fair match, and no officially sanctioned federation tasked with keeping corruption out of the sport.

(Not to mention, she's looking to maybe go warn/defend Azure City and MitD works for the people attacking it.)

[factotum]

I don't think playing to lose counts as cheating, and Miko certainly didn't *lie*--she just withheld an important part of the truth. (Note that O-Chul did exactly the same thing in strip #663 and didn't Fall then, so withholding the truth is apparently OK as far as the paladin code is concerned, too).

[Xelbiuj]

What everyone else said.
Cheating to lose is hardly dishonest when there's no gambling, especially considering the risk.

[137beth]

Also, if a single insignificant statement made to a villain causes your paladin to fall, get a new GM.

[Kish]

Miko should Fall for her inaction! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=506786&postcount=299)

[sims796]

Miko should Fall for her inaction! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=506786&postcount=299)

This just raises further questions.

[Carry2]

I don't think Miko deceiving the MitD would strictly be grounds for a Fall, but actually killing him might have been. (He isn't threatening her, her only clue to his alignment is mild embarrassment at working for Xykon, and she has no specific evidence that he's actually done bad stuff.)

Not that that was likely to happen, but it does say something about her state of mind at this point.

[veti]

I don't think Miko deceiving the MitD would strictly be grounds for a Fall, but actually killing him might have been. (He isn't threatening her, her only clue to his alignment is mild embarrassment at working for Xykon, and she has no specific evidence that he's actually done bad stuff.)

Miko gives her reasoning in that very strip: "If you serve [Xykon] even if it results in such a great loss of life, you are an enemy to me."

Looks fair enough to me. Regardless of the MitD's alignment, if he's working for Xykon - and won't stand down to let Miko pass, even after she's explained what's at stake - she's justified in doing whatever it takes to get past him.

[Rakoa]

Miko gives her reasoning in that very strip: "If you serve [Xykon] even if it results in such a great loss of life, you are an enemy to me."

Looks fair enough to me. Regardless of the MitD's alignment, if he's working for Xykon - and won't stand down to let Miko pass, even after she's explained what's at stake - she's justified in doing whatever it takes to get past him.

I would completely agree with you on this. Even if she blasted him with Detect Evil and he registered as either Neutral or Good, his unwillingness to stand down and continue to serve Xykon would regardless compel her to strike him down by whatever means necessary for the greater good, in this instance saving countless lives.

[Thrillhouse]

Um...I'm assuming that Paladins are allowed to lie for good ends, no? Like if, say, Thanh was asked by Redcloak before he killed him if any of the Resistance fighters had escaped, he could say no to protect Niu, right?

Again, no DnD experience. But there are situations where telling the unvarnished truth would be evil, no?

[Warren Dew]

I don't think playing to lose counts as cheating, and Miko certainly didn't *lie*--she just withheld an important part of the truth. (Note that O-Chul did exactly the same thing in strip #663 and didn't Fall then, so withholding the truth is apparently OK as far as the paladin code is concerned, too).
Also see Miko's tactics against the ogres.

[Rakoa]

Um...I'm assuming that Paladins are allowed to lie for good ends, no? Like if, say, Thanh was asked by Redcloak before he killed him if any of the Resistance fighters had escaped, he could say no to protect Niu, right?

Again, no DnD experience. But there are situations where telling the unvarnished truth would be evil, no?

Very DM dependent. It is possible to say no for the sake of saving her, which is a good act in itself but in violation of the Paladin Code, though not a gross one because it still holds the core ideals of the Code. Ideally, he would simply not answer and wait for his death.

[Holy_Knight]

Um...I'm assuming that Paladins are allowed to lie for good ends, no? Like if, say, Thanh was asked by Redcloak before he killed him if any of the Resistance fighters had escaped, he could say no to protect Niu, right?

Again, no DnD experience. But there are situations where telling the unvarnished truth would be evil, no?

Yes. Also, of course. A dedication to honest dealings doesn't mean it's wrong to deceive villains in order to hinder their nefarious ends.

[Snails]

Yes. Also, of course. A dedication to honest dealings doesn't mean it's wrong to deceive villains in order to hinder their nefarious ends.

That is the key point. Deception and misdirection is the norm for war. The paladin is a professional soldier and is expected to be a competent one.

One of the things that make the paladin different is a specific assertion or explicit promise will "never" be purposefully wrong. That offers the hope for brokering peace, even in ugly days of war.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Yes. Also, of course. A dedication to honest dealings doesn't mean it's wrong to deceive villains in order to hinder their nefarious ends.

I disagree. No lies period.

[Geordnet]

Um, is the Paladin's Code really that strict? :smallconfused:


Is it so unyielding that even the slightest violation is dealt with with such extreme prejudice? :smalleek:

[Rakoa]

Um, is the Paladin's Code really that strict? :smallconfused:


Is it so unyielding that even the slightest violation is dealt with with such extreme prejudice? :smalleek:

Again, it is a matter of opinion. To lie would indeed be against the Code, but to tell the truth would go against the Paladin's alignment.

[Nilehus]

Um, is the Paladin's Code really that strict? :smallconfused:


Is it so unyielding that even the slightest violation is dealt with with such extreme prejudice? :smalleek:

Depends on the DM. My old DM would let minor things slide if the paladin wasn't doing it for self gain, but for the greater good.

Lying to gain a greater reward was not okay, lying to the villain when telling the truth would have cost hundreds of innocent lives was just fine. Following the ideals is important, but ensuring the wellbeing of those relying on you is far more important. (My view, anyway.)

[Kish]

I would hope that lying to the villain when telling the truth would cost hundreds of innocent lives was mandatory, not merely just fine.

[Thrillhouse]

What about O-Chul lying to Redcloak? It was a (terrible because of his low Charisma) attempt to save lives, for sure, but it wasn't just a matter of "I'm not telling".

[Nilehus]

I would hope that lying to the villain when telling the truth would cost hundreds of innocent lives was mandatory, not merely just fine.

You'd think, but never underestimate people's ability to mess things up.

[rodneyAnonymous]

I would hope that lying to the villain when telling the truth would cost hundreds of innocent lives was mandatory, not merely just fine.

If Durkon can creatively avoid lying with no lives at stake ("'Twas a mechanical defect"), surely so could a paladin that follows a much more strict code of honor.

[Kish]

If Durkon can creatively avoid lying with no lives at stake ("'Twas a mechanical defect"), surely so could a paladin that follows a much more strict code of honor.
We have two fundamental differences of opinion here.

1) Whether "'Twas a mechanical defect" was in any way morally superior to an outright lie, and as a corrollary to that, whether playing word games to deceive while "technically not lying" is worthy of a paladin--or demonstrates the contemptible thinking of someone like Tarquin.
2) Whether playing any kind of word game with hundreds of innocent lives at stake is worthy of a fall in and of itself.

[Rakoa]

We have two fundamental differences of opinion here.

1) Whether "'Twas a mechanical defect" was in any way morally superior to an outright lie, and as a corrollary to that, whether playing word games to deceive while "technically not lying" is worthy of a paladin--or demonstrates the contemptible thinking of someone like Tarquin.
2) Whether playing any kind of word game with hundreds of innocent lives at stake is worthy of a fall in and of itself.

Kish has struck the main point. A gross violation of a Paladin's Code of Conduct may be worthy of falling. A change in alignment always is. From there, you can easily judge whether something as small as a lie (to an blatantly evil individual for the sake of thousands of innocent lives) is more likely to cause an alignment shift than is allowing thousands of people to die.

And of course, playing word games to get around rules, while certainly Lawful, is not very much Good.

[Flame of Anor]

It's great to see how much...interest...there still is in Miko around here. :smallbiggrin:


Oh, and I don't actually believe that it would have been bad enough to make her fall. I just thought it would be an interesting conversation point. :smallwink:

[Nilehus]

And of course, playing word games to get around rules, while certainly Lawful, is not very much Good.

Case in point, Tarquin saying he sent reinforcements to that city the Weepies were attacking.

[factotum]

What about O-Chul lying to Redcloak? It was a (terrible because of his low Charisma) attempt to save lives, for sure, but it wasn't just a matter of "I'm not telling".

I'd completely forgotten about that, for some reason...yes, O-Chul actually engaged in a bare-faced lie while being interrogated by Redcloak on the rooftop, and again he didn't Fall for it. Frankly, if he *had* Fallen at that point (considering he was lying to try and save the lives of the dozen or so slaves Redcloak was going to sacrifice to the Snarl) it would have been far more of a crime than his supposed transgression!

[Copperdragon]

This just raises further questions.

It does not. It perfectly answers everything raised in this thread.

[J's]

A soldier being forced to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth even to the enemy would be lawful stupid, not lawful good.



And of course, playing word games to get around rules, while certainly Lawful, is not very much Good.

I disagree. Playing word games to avoid the law would not be lawful, but it could be good (depending on situation*). All laws (even murder, with most recognizing a difference between premeditated or not) have an arbitrary nature to them. But If you participate in an action that falls in a grayish area and play word games to make your actions fall on the lawful side you are not demonstrating adherence to law, but an avoidance of it, that is you trying to commit a perfect crime (ie getting away with it).

It gets a bit murky in typical stories, not just d&d. Because stories need conflict. So an action story often has some sort of broken law system, whether it be in the bones of an evil empire or corruption in a decent systems execution. Those settings give ample reasons for the lawful good protagonist to break every law 'to see justice served'.



*goodwin's law warning- a German in WWII double speaking to avoid turning in a group of Jews to the SS would be a good act, but it would break German law.

[Holy_Knight]

I disagree. No lies period.
And I say that's silly. Lying is not always wrong. We think of it as generally bad because the most common reasons that people lie are shameful ones which involve trying to unfairly exploit people or cover up one's transgressions. But going from that general point to an assumption that to be really good you must never lie regardless of motivation or circumstance is simply poor reasoning.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Lying is not always wrong.

A) That is an opinion / subjective moral framework. Another framework might say that lying is indeed always wrong.

B) Even if there were only one ultimate objective concept of right and wrong, the Paladin Code is not precisely the same.

[KillianHawkeye]

Paladin's don't fall for lying. Only MAJOR violations of his code of conduct will strip a paladin of his powers.

[Morty]

I really wouldn't suspect the Giant of adhering to the vision of the paladin code as a minefield that just waits for the paladin to slip up.

[Snails]

If Durkon can creatively avoid lying with no lives at stake ("'Twas a mechanical defect"), surely so could a paladin that follows a much more strict code of honor.

There is no logical reason to assert that a Paladin, who is mechanically pretty much a Fighter/Cleric with interesting flavor, should be held to a higher standard in the eyes of their particular god or cause than the Cleric who is empowered to urinate pure divine mojo all over their enemies over and over and over again.

We just do not list codes for Clerics because it would make the PHB section incredibly ponderous while also annoying DMs who would constantly be rewriting the same.

[sims796]

It does not. It perfectly answers everything raised in this thread.

Welcome to the site. I can tell this is your first time here.

[rodneyAnonymous]

There is no logical reason to assert that a Paladin, who is mechanically pretty much a Fighter/Cleric with interesting flavor, should be held to a higher standard in the eyes of their particular god or cause than the Cleric who is empowered to urinate pure divine mojo all over their enemies over and over and over again.

Sure there is a logical reason: it's in the Rules As Written. There are no corresponding Code of Conduct rules for a fallen cleric. A paladin is not "pretty much a Fighter/Cleric with interesting flavor", they have a bunch of special mechanics.

[Snails]

A) That is an opinion / subjective moral framework. Another framework might say that lying is indeed always wrong.

Even if, for the sake of argument, lying were always wrong. It does not resolve the question on hand. One can easily deceive and mislead by carefully withholding information within a well crafted, literally truthful narrative.

To argue that a Paladin can never never ever ever deceive leads to the conclusion that the Paladin must sometimes actively help Evil succeed in order to not Fall.

With respect to OotS, O-Chul's actions settles the question.

[rodneyAnonymous]

It only settles the question of whether lying makes a paladin fall ("no"), not whether it's okay to lie to a villain. It could have been bad-but-excusable.

[Snails]

Sure there is a logical reason: it's in the Rules As Written. There are no corresponding Code of Conduct rules for a fallen cleric. A paladin is not "pretty much a Fighter/Cleric with interesting flavor", they have a bunch of special mechanics.

100% incorrect. There is a Code of Conduct, it is just not explicitly stated to the same degree of detail. A Fighter/Cleric also has a Code of Conduct.


A cleric’s deity influences his alignment, what magic he can perform, his values, and how others see him.



Ex-Clerics

A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by his god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. He cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until he atones (see the atonement spell description).

[veti]

A) That is an opinion / subjective moral framework. Another framework might say that lying is indeed always wrong.

B) Even if there were only one ultimate objective concept of right and wrong, the Paladin Code is not precisely the same.

We've established that, in OOTS, lying isn't a gross violation of the paladin code (at least, the code as applied to paladins of the Sapphire Guard - other orders may have quite different codes for all we know). Nor are word games that fall just short of telling outright untruths.

So what exactly is the point you're trying to argue now? That it's theoretically possible to construct alternative versions of the paladin code? I don't think anyone doubts that.

[rodneyAnonymous]

So what exactly is the point you're trying to argue now?

Only that "lying is not always wrong" is just an opinion. It may not even apply to the OotS paladin code, which may forbid lying in any context, but (depending on context, probably) doing so is not a "gross violation".

[Imgran]

It only settles the question of whether lying makes a paladin fall ("no"), not whether it's okay to lie to a villain. It could have been bad-but-excusable.

If it's excusable, is it really bad?

It doesn't matter who you are or what you profess, everyone has some flavor of absolute moral code, and everyone is confronted with situations that challenge that code. Paladins in D&D are different from us only in that their direct combat abilities and skills are dependent on how they combine the two into something that works. It was the failure to do that that ultimately damned Miko, in fact.

We all need to rationalize situation ethics with our objective morality and vice versa. Normal humans have to reconcile the two all the time. Paladins are allowed to be human (/sapient) beings. They are allowed, in other words, to look at the situation and make a reasonable judgment on what the best course of action might be so long as they're doing their best to adhere to their code. Anyone who wants to pretend otherwise should stop DMing and get out into the real world for a few decades, see what some real world experience does to his interpretation of the alignment system.

[rodneyAnonymous]

If it's excusable, is it really bad?

Um, possibly? If it were not possible to commit minor transgressions of the Code, the rules would not specify that major violations will cause a paladin to fall. There would be no qualification and the "fall condition" would be any violation at all.

Lying isn't evil, it's chaotic. One (or even a few) lies wouldn't change a paladin's alignment.

[Snails]

That lying is chaotic is also just an opinion.

Lying is such a useful tool for Chaotic ends that many serious Lawfuls are willing to pay a high price to avoid employing lies. But the Lords of Hell are quite comfortable with many, many kinds of lies, just not every kind of lie.

[Rakoa]

If a Paladin lies consistently for the sake of lying, or for unjustifiable reasons, then a fall is in order. But if that Paladin lies as infrequently as possible, and only to advance a cause in the name of Good, then that should be acceptable. In what world would telling an evil person a lie to save thousands be a gross violation of the Code?

[Caractacus]

In what world would telling an evil person a lie to save thousands be a gross violation of the Code?

No one is arguing this (my bolding).

[Tragak]

This is going to get locked, isn't it?

[Flame of Anor]

This is going to get locked, isn't it?

Yeah, probably.

Sorry guys, I should have known better than to bring up Miko. :smallsigh:

[Carry2]

Looks fair enough to me. Regardless of the MitD's alignment, if he's working for Xykon - and won't stand down to let Miko pass, even after she's explained what's at stake - she's justified in doing whatever it takes to get past him.
Possibly, but engaging him in direct combat isn't necessarily the only, or even the most efficient, way to get past him (especially given that her initial assault didn't even leave a scratch, and she knows this.) She could try to talk him down (given that his commitment to Xykon is iffy), distract him with a ruse (given that she's willing to deceive him anyway,) or, heck, just somersault over his head (given that she's pretty gymnastic.)

I just think that the circumstances might have warranted a different tack.

[Souju]

If Paladins could Fall for lying, they'd be a huge liability as the sort of military special forces they usually are.
Who would want to send a paladin out on anything involving enemy territory if they couldn't lie? Especially since their lack of fear makes them less inclined to retreat, a sufficiently powerful enemy force could just capture them and interrogate them until they spilled the beans about everything.
Hell, they don't even have to wait til they're alone! Every paladin stronghold could be seen as a cornucopia of easily exploitable stool pigeons.
They wouldn't even be very good diplomats. All it would require to break down a paladin is a bunch of yes/no questions.
But, if they can lie, all that is at least stymied. Which, as far as the Sapphire Guard goes at least, they CAN lie.

[dps]

Possibly, but engaging him in direct combat isn't necessarily the only, or even the most efficient, way to get past him (especially given that her initial assault didn't even leave a scratch, and she knows this.) She could try to talk him down (given that his commitment to Xykon is iffy), distract him with a ruse (given that she's willing to deceive him anyway,) or, heck, just somersault over his head (given that she's pretty gymnastic.)

I just think that the circumstances might have warranted a different tack.

But that wouldn't have been in character for Miko. She had basically 2 ways of dealing with people--demand that they do what she said, or kill them.

[Byzantine2]

If anyone has ever read The Wheel of Time books you would have experienced for yourself that not telling a lie does not, under any circumstances, make you more trustworthy. One group the the story is magically prevented from ever telling an outright lie. The rest of the world (probably rightfully) considers them the most deceptive and misleading people in the world.

For example in the last book a character so bound was asked if someone couldn't hear them, they said yes, because the exact wording of the question made it technically true, yet it was tricky enough that a good half the people who read it though it was a typo! The power of partial truths and ambiguous statements is immense.

While telling a lie may be a minor violation of the Paladin code it is certainly not enough to make them fall, particularly if telling the truth would end up causing evil to take place. Lying to say a city is very different from lying to get away with a crime.

[GigaGuess]

If it's excusable, is it really bad?

Yes, from a strictly Lawful viewpoint, anyways. Look at it this way. A cop sees you jaywalking, he might stop you, he might not. It is illegal, but if it's on a quiet road, no chance of harming yourself or causing an accident, he'll likely let it slide. He may come over and inform you that you broke a law, but let you off with a warning. If he sees you shoot someone, he will arrest you. Both are illegal actions, just one is much more serious, and requires attention. The other one can slide, and would be considered "excusable."

[Snails]

If anyone has ever read The Wheel of Time books you would have experienced for yourself that not telling a lie does not, under any circumstances, make you more trustworthy. One group the the story is magically prevented from ever telling an outright lie. The rest of the world (probably rightfully) considers them the most deceptive and misleading people in the world.

An acquaintance of mine once described her stint in a co-op/commune back in hippie days, where the rules were to absolutely never tell a lie. It quickly devolved into something less than open and honest. Those who put their minds to it can easily use "the truth" to deceive and manipulate.

Lying and truthfulness are communication tactics. What ultimately matters is the strategic goal. A little polite lie can be a big kindness. Truth can be used to deceive or hurt.

[Carry2]

But that wouldn't have been in character for Miko. She had basically 2 ways of dealing with people--demand that they do what she said, or kill them.
I think that's something of an exaggeration, but for our purposes this is beside the point: The unnecessary killing of an innocent person is typically considered an evil act. (You can argue killing Shojo was 'in character' for her, but she still Fell.)

[Heksefatter]

Perhaps O-Chul should fall too, for deceiving not only Xykon and Redcloak, but also his friend the MitD about the cage that was supposed to keep him in.

[Math_Mage]

I think that's something of an exaggeration, but for our purposes this is beside the point: The unnecessary killing of an innocent person is typically considered an evil act. (You can argue killing Shojo was 'in character' for her, but she still Fell.)

And this is where we get into those "That random encounter you just killed was actually one of the last great forces of Good in the world and you are now an Evil person for having killed it" scenarios. Miko is functioning on imperfect information here; it is entirely rational for her to conclude that it IS necessary to kill the MitD to escape, and that the MitD is not innocent. Whereas it was not rational for her to conclude...well, anything she said in this strip. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0406.html) Miko is not morally obligated to make absolutely, 100% sure that the MitD deserves to die before attacking him, because that is not possible even in the D&D world.

[Carry2]

Miko is functioning on imperfect information here; it is entirely rational for her to conclude that it IS necessary to kill the MitD to escape...
For reasons which I covered here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15033757&postcount=52), I'm not certain that is the rational conclusion here. She has much less information about the MitD than she had about the Order or even Shojo prior to fighting them, and even on grounds of pure expediency it might be worth considering alternative approaches.

Whereas the argument I was addressing was the idea that Miko, descriptively, "doesn't consider alternatives", and pointing out this wouldn't make her actions any more or less advisable.

.

[Flame of Anor]

Perhaps O-Chul should fall too, for deceiving not only Xykon and Redcloak, but also his friend the MitD about the cage that was supposed to keep him in.

Well, he didn't break his word, though. There's a difference between that and just regular lying.

[Holy_Knight]

A) That is an opinion / subjective moral framework. Another framework might say that lying is indeed always wrong.
And that framework ultimately would not be rationally defensible. As I stated before, but you failed to quote, my point is about reasoning. Lying is not always morally wrong, not because "I say so", but because rational grounds for right and wrong will not justify that conclusion. Any moral framework makes use of certain critera to determine the rightness or wrongness of an action, and I'm arguing that any rational construction of such will rule out the idea that lying is always wrong, even if it turns out that it is typically wrong. For instance, I alluded to motivation and circumstances as relevant factors for whether an action is right or wrong in general, which is common to many moral systems.

Rather than going further on that point right now, though, I'll note that I don't think you really believe that a moral framework that includes "lying is always wrong" will be plausible. (Most people don't, once they reflect on the idea.) But if you do, or would like to play devil's advocate, be my guest, but just be aware of something. This:


Only that "lying is not always wrong" is just an opinion.
is incorrect, and it is not an argument. I have not offered "just an opinion", I have made a claim for which I've given an argument. You think I'm wrong about what I'm saying? Fine, give reasons and try to establish your point. But don't hide behind "someone else might disagree!" as if pointing that out had anything to do with actual discourse.



B) Even if there were only one ultimate objective concept of right and wrong, the Paladin Code is not precisely the same.
This is the wrong way to think about this. The idea behind the paladin class is that they are strongly committed to always doing what is right. Their code of conduct is supposed to reflect this, which means, among other things, that interpreting it means being wise enough to see what righteousness involves in a given situation.

[rodneyAnonymous]

"This ethical system is logically correct and others are mistaken"? Yikes.

[The Second]

Let's say we have a paladin who tells the truth 100% of the time, regardless of consequence. Let's call him Dudley. Dudley has been captured by an evil overlord while en route to deliver the plans for the evil overlord's nigh-unstoppable superweapon to the rebels so that the rebels can find the weapon's weakness and send a group of adventurers to destroy it.

When the evil overlord asks Dudley if he has the secret plans to the weapon, Dudley says, 'Yes I do.' When the overlord asks where the plans are, Dudley says, 'In my back pocket.' When the overlord asks where the rebel hideout is, Dudley says, 'A hundred miles to the east, look for the really big tree with a blue ribbon around it, you can't miss it.'

The evil overlord takes the plans, tosses Dudley in a cell, and sends the superweapon to wipe out the rebels and their families, including non-combatant women and children.

Let's put another paladin, let's call him Pete, to the test. Pete's responses to the questions? 'I did,' 'Somewhere nearby,' 'Right under your nose.'

The evil overlord decides to torture Pete until he gives up the plans, but like a good paladin should, Pete went to his grave without revealing anything. Unfortunately, the overlord found the plans in Pete's back pocket, canvases the area for the hideout, and commenced with the slaughter.

Let's try one last time, with Steve. Steve's answer? 'I had the plans, but just before I was captured I gave them to my page who, at this moment, is a hundred miles to the west, delivering the plans to the rebels. If you hurry, you might catch him be fore he gets there.'

Steve just told a bald-faced lie, but the overlord, not wanting to take the change that Steve might be lieing, sends the superweapon west and tosses Steve in a cell for later interrogation. Steve manages to escape the cell and complete his mission.

So, who had the better grasp of the Paladin's Code? Dudley who, by being a doofus, sent hundreds to their deaths? Pete who, by being a martyr failed to accomplish anything? Or Steve who, by telling a lie, managed to complete the mission and give the rebels a fighting chance?

I'll let you decide.

[Holy_Knight]

"This ethical system is logically correct and others are mistaken"? Yikes.
Actually, it's "The claim 'lying is always wrong' is implausible." Nice try, though.

[rodneyAnonymous]

^ Claims about what actions are right and wrong are exactly what ethical systems are all about. "I only meant one aspect of an ethical system, not an entire one" is not a relevant objection.

^^ Paladins (and the perspectives of D&D Lawfulness generally) tend to be deontologist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics), not consequentialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism). Evaluating the moral rightness of an action based on its consequences is inherently flawed (when analyzing a hypothetical Paladins' Code, not in general). "I'll tell you, if you hadn't gone back, then whether he lived or died, I would be chucking your file into the True Neutral bin right now." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0488.html) I'm not saying they're right, I'm saying they're paladins.

The first two were truthful and the third lied, period, regardless of the outcome.

"Using Chaotic means to fulfill Lawful obligations strikes me as fairly Neutral..." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html)

[Tragak]

This thread is going to get locked isn't it?

[Shadowknight12]

This thread is going to get locked isn't it?

A thread about Miko, the paladin code, alignment and "morally justified" subjects?

In these boards?

It will stay open forever.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Locked. Also, please see the Forum Rules regarding "threadcrapping" and "doomsaying." If a thread is a problem, just report it.