PDA

View Full Version : An insane player.



Insert Name Here
2007-06-30, 09:46 AM
Okay, so I'm starting a D&D game at home with people I know. It seems to be going alright, I have the campaign ready and everything.

However, one of my players wants to be a paladin for 5 levels....

And then switch to beguiler. It's technically allowed. And he knows that everyone can trust a paladin. Which is why he's doing this. Well, that, and to twist my mind into an undoable knot. But broken minds are fun.

But still... A paladin/beguiler. :smallconfused: :smallannoyed: :smalleek: :smallfurious:

And he'll probably be the face of the party, too. It will be interesting to watch him avoid outright lying in violation of the code. But I know him. And he will twist these facts into knots. Heck, he'll turn them quantum and make them non-existent while still existing!

Isn't this going to be so...fun?

Solo
2007-06-30, 09:49 AM
The Gods will lay down some smack on him.... I predict.

Inyssius Tor
2007-06-30, 09:59 AM
I know we're going to get into another argument about the Greyguard, but I think that's just awesome.

Miraqariftsky
2007-06-30, 10:07 AM
A fine line shall he tread.
A holy warrior with serpent's tongue?
Hard put, his balance to keep
As forth he sallies
On a precipice,
A knife's edge
With abyss' doom
And damnation on either side.

Miles Invictus
2007-06-30, 10:17 AM
That build actually sounds kinda neat. You'd have a paladin fighting evil through subtle, non-violent means.

mikeejimbo
2007-06-30, 10:29 AM
I would suggest to him that he go Beguiler straight, but tell people he's a Paladin. :smallbiggrin: He'll probably have a good bluff, after all.

Quietus
2007-06-30, 10:33 AM
Some deities, like Olidammara, might not have quite AS much of a problem with their Paladins twisting the truth a little..

Kizara
2007-06-30, 10:38 AM
I would suggest to him that he go Beguiler straight, but tell people he's a Paladin. :smallbiggrin: He'll probably have a good bluff, after all.

This is a good idea.

Also, there's more to playing a Paladin then keeping the exact letter of your code. There's also it's spirit, your duty, your honor, and your deadication to your cause.

Deciet, lying, treachery and such are all evil, not good. Even by a more liberal defination, they are chaotic.

Personally, if you have a strong grasp of what a Paladin is, and you feel your player is going to standing his code on end and constantly breaking the spirit of it. Have him be warned/reminded once, about the spirit of Paladinhood and how the point of his holy journey isn't to be a mischievious halfing, it's to be a paragon of virture, justice, order and the light. If he doesn't get it, he gets 5 levels of featless fighter to enjoy.

And yea, players like this piss me off too. I feel for you.

Dark Knight Renee
2007-06-30, 10:38 AM
Alternatively... nothing in the Beguiler's crunch says they have to lie, cheat, steal or do anything else that doesn't go well with paladins. A paladin with beguiler crunch doesn't have to be a "Paladin/Beguiler" in the fluff.

... Though I get the impression the player is going for a rather sneaky, underhanded paladin.:smalltongue:

Kizara
2007-06-30, 10:48 AM
Alternatively... nothing in the Beguiler's crunch says they have to lie, cheat, steal or do anything else that doesn't go well with paladins. A paladin with beguiler crunch doesn't have to be a "Paladin/Beguiler" in the fluff.

... Though I get the impression the player is going for a rather sneaky, underhanded paladin.:smalltongue:

Sneaky? Possibly in some rare circumstances. But you fight with honor, this doesn't mean you fight within the strict letter of your code.

Underhanded? Lose class abilities. Now.
And btw I play a whole lot of Paladins, and I never lose my code unless I wanted to RP it that way. It's about understanding a divine purpose.


Another thought is that with the variant Paladin's, there's some precendent to have a CN Paladin. I mean, I personally find this downright offensive, but it beats playing a normal LG Paladin completely out to left field.

Artemician
2007-06-30, 11:18 AM
@ Kizara: Some people play this way. Some people play another way. As long as everyone's having fun, i see no reason why playing in any particular way is "wrong".

Back to the OP: Well, playing a Beguiler who can't lie is going to be tricky. Your player had better be good with word play. For a good example, read "The Truth", by Terry Pratchett, where the main character twists his way into a Police-only area without telling a single lie.

Kizara
2007-06-30, 11:38 AM
@ Kizara: Some people play this way. Some people play another way. As long as everyone's having fun, i see no reason why playing in any particular way is "wrong".

Back to the OP: Well, playing a Beguiler who can't lie is going to be tricky. Your player had better be good with word play. For a good example, read "The Truth", by Terry Pratchett, where the main character twists his way into a Police-only area without telling a single lie.

I voiced my opinion on the nature of Paladin's and their code. I'd like you to show me where I said "the way you play is wrong" or anything remotely like that. In fact, I have voiced earlier that I understood and sympathsied with the OP. Quite the opposite sentiment.
If you want to play the virtous, devout and honorable holy warrior as a underhanded, rogue-like mercenary that uses stealth, disception and generally disgraceful tactics, its your game.
I'd only suggest that you read some material involving the Paladin and think of what spirit they are trying to invoke there. Such as the descriptive text in the PHB, or supplimentry material such as the Complete Divine or (which I think is fluff-better) the 3.0 Defenders of the Faith.

Insert Name Here
2007-06-30, 11:50 AM
At Artemician: I've read it. And a good deal of other Terry Pratchett books.

Knowing him, he's read it and he's already good at things like that.

Artemician
2007-06-30, 11:59 AM
I voiced my opinion on the nature of Paladin's and their code. I'd like you to show me where I said "the way you play is wrong" or anything remotely like that. In fact, I have voiced earlier that I understood and sympathsied with the OP. Quite the opposite sentiment.
If you want to play the virtous, devout and honorable holy warrior as a underhanded, rogue-like mercenary that uses stealth, disception and generally disgraceful tactics, its your game.
I'd only suggest that you read some material involving the Paladin and think of what spirit they are trying to invoke there. Such as the descriptive text in the PHB, or supplimentry material such as the Complete Divine or (which I think is fluff-better) the 3.0 Defenders of the Faith.

That is correct, you have never said explicitly that playing Paladins in this way is wrong. However, you have said that intepreting the Paladin Code of Conduct in the way that the OP said is wrong, which leads in to the logical conclusion that you do not wish to see Paladins being played with that intepretation of the Code of Conduct.


At Artemician: I've read it. And a good deal of other Terry Pratchett books.

Knowing him, he's read it and he's already good at things like that.

Ah. That's good. I think you're going to have a lot of fun in your game. Best of luck, and the same to the player.

Captain van der Decken
2007-06-30, 12:06 PM
I don't have the PHB to hand, but the SRD says
act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth) Although, apparently, Paladins can use stealth, trickery and underhand combat. See the Shadowbane Inquisitor PrC from CAdv.

PaladinBoy
2007-06-30, 12:37 PM
I believe that there is nothing inherently dishonorable about dominating/charming opponents to end a fight, or using diplomacy, or using any one of the various non-violent means to fight evil.

Lying, on the other hand, might not be evil, but is dishonorable. I would say that a paladin that lies regularly is not going to be a paladin for very long. It falls to the DM to decide if partial truths and the like are as dishonorable as lying and can make a paladin fall.

I do agree with Kizara that this doesn't seem to quite mesh with the spirit and idea of a paladin, but it's not as bad as something like the Grey Guard. And I think it would be funny to watch the player coming up with inventive ways to avoid lying with false impressions and half-truths. Personally, though, I think that in my game he would fall for that eventually....... maybe. I'm not sure.

Thanatos 51-50
2007-06-30, 12:53 PM
Silly people.
Everyone reads the Paladin's Code of Conduct and they all seem to forget one esstential basic priciple of the Paladin.
The Paladin is a warrior!

He is a military mind and the Church's strong arm, the Body of his Diety's Will, whereas the Cleric is the Spirit, and thet Diety Himself is responsible for the Mind.
A Paladin is NOT restricted to calling the enemy all around them and waking their foes before they attack. A good Paladin would relise the tactical advatage to fight evil and capitalise on the situation.
Any military operation involves deception, and as the Paladin is the Chruch's military, let him be deceptive!
Bluff your way into the enemy's favor, and then turn at the last moment, slaughtering the Bandit King as he sleeps, and return to your Chruch with the Leader's Head, and your blade drenched in the blood of the Evil that you slew on the way out.

Also, this is why I don't like the GreyGuard as a prestige class, becuase the GreyGuard is basically a "real Paladin", whereas the "white" Pladins are prissy sissy boys.

I played a Paladin rather GreyGuard-ly without the PrC, even taking the inititave to pan a strike which involved pre-emptivly soaking the enmy in some highly flammible substances and then launching fireballs and flaming arrows into the oil.
I didn't loose any class features.
(Amitidly my role was in the planning and melee mop-up of the survivors, but I seriously doubt the DM would take offense if my Paladin were on the cliffs with his own bow, as well. I only played Melee mop-up becuase I was a better mounted sowrdsman then I was an archer)

Damionte
2007-06-30, 12:59 PM
You also don't have to be a lawful stupd palladin. Palladins now coem in chaotic and neutral forms as well.

Kizara
2007-06-30, 01:05 PM
"Bluff your way into the enemy's favor, and then turn at the last moment, slaughtering the Bandit King as he sleeps"

And enjoy your new blackgaurd levels. You just fell. You were treading a fine line on the path even bluffing your way in, by decieving (read: lying; read: broke your code) but then you BETRAY the trust you falsely earned?

Betrayal is evil. Period. In fact, it is generally Lawful Evil but can also at times be Chaotic Evil.

Using intelligent tactics, such as an ambush, is debatable and depends on the exact nature of your church's code and customs, but I would say is generally frowned upon. I wouldn't say you need to be Miko and call out all your opponents either, just simply attack.
Attack at dawn when your enemies are least prepared, attack from multiple angles. Fight a withdrawl into a more advantageous position, whether by terrain or allied ambush. Use flanking, use higher terrain, use mounted combat skills. There's more to combat then a courtly duel for sure, but treachery isn't in it for a Paladin.

Let me reiterate this for everyone who thinks being a Paladin has anything to do with deception on some level. Deception is lying, lying is expressly forbidden by the code as RAW. This is not my opinion or interpretation, it's how the class is written. Unless you precieve deception as somehow not lying, in which case... I don't think you 'get' Paladin and are indeed decieving yourself.

EDIT: On another note, regarding the OP's issue, I would reccomend the Paladin of Freedom. It's CG and I could see a PoF/Beguiler working quite effectively and keeping in both the RAW and spirit of the class.
Here's a nice SRD link for you:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#paladinVariantsFreedom SlaughterAndTyranny

Artemician
2007-06-30, 01:08 PM
"Bluff your way into the enemy's favor, and then turn at the last moment, slaughtering the Bandit King as he sleeps"

And enjoy your new blackgaurd levels. You just fell. You were treading a fine line on the path even bluffing your way in, by decieving (read: lying; read: broke your code) but then you BETRAY the trust you falsely earned?

Betrayal is evil. Period. In fact, it is generally Lawful Evil but can also at times be Chaotic Evil.

Using intelligent tactics, such as an ambush, is debatable and depends on the exact nature of your church's code and customs, but I would say is generally frowned upon. I wouldn't say you need to be Miko and call out all your opponents either, just simply attack.
Attack at dawn when your enemies are least prepared, attack from multiple angles. Fight a withdrawl into a more advantageous position, whether by terrain or allied ambush. Use flanking, use higher terrain, use mounted combat skills. There's more to combat then a courtly duel for sure, but treachery isn't in it for a Paladin.

Let me reiterate this for everyone who thinks being a Paladin has anything to do with deception on some level. Deception is lying, lying is expressly forbidden by the code as RAW. This is not my opinion or interpretation, it's how the class is written. Unless you precieve deception as somehow not lying, in which case... I don't think you 'get' Paladin and are indeed decieving yourself.

There is no any one way to "get" the Paladin class. I can "get" the Paladin class in a completely different way from you, but I don't make the claim that they way you "get" it is wrong.

Kizara
2007-06-30, 01:13 PM
There is no any one way to "get" the Paladin class. I can "get" the Paladin class in a completely different way from you, but I don't make the claim that they way you "get" it is wrong.

Do you think deception is not lying? If so, explain to me, in detail how. Without using circular logic.
Don't attack the phrase without looking at the context please.

EDIT: And, to be precise, I specifically said that "I don't think you get it". Meaning, in my opinion, you do not understand this. I did not say that my opinion was the only correct one, you assumed that. Stop demonizing me through assumptions please, this is now the second time.

Artemician
2007-06-30, 01:22 PM
Do you think deception is not lying? If so, explain to me, in detail how. Without using circular logic.
Don't attack the phrase without looking at the context please.

I think you're working under the assumption that I do not think that I think the Code of Conduct permits deception. Which it doesn't. However, a Paladin who uses deception is perfectly legitimate.

Paladins, for me, are not "Holy Warriors", or "Consecrated Knights", or any character archetype in particular. For me, Paladins are Class with XYZ ability and JKL restrictions. If I can make a fun character with XYZ ability, but restrictions prevents me from doing so, I talk to my DM to ask for permission to modify restrictions JKL.

Case in Point: I'm currently playing a Psychic Warrior/BloodStorm Blade with Call Weaponry. However, I Roleplay him as a Scottish Highlander who rips trees out of the ground and hurls them at opponents. Most people would say that Psychic Warrior and Scottish Highlander don't exactly roll off the tongue. But as long as the mechanics match, who cares about the fluff? Fluff is immutable, it can be manipulated any way you like it. And since it's more fun that way, I think that's the way it should be.

If you have a different playstyle, it's not wrong. But this is just the way I see things.

Tellah
2007-06-30, 01:24 PM
Do you think deception is not lying? If so, explain to me, in detail how. Without using circular logic.
Don't attack the phrase without looking at the context please.

Easily. An illusionist entertaining a crowd of children places an image of an apple on a table, while keeping a real apple in his pocket. "Grab the apple!" he says, and the children dive for the illusory apple.
"Ah ha! I'm afraid I win our little game again, for I have the apple!" shouts the illusionist, producing the real apple from his pocket. He then tosses the apple to the hungriest-looking urchin he sees.

The children were deceived, but were not lied to. A form of deception like that would be quite possible with the Beguiler's skill set, and the routine would be completely in keeping with a Paladin's behavior.

You do not have a monopoly on interpretations of the Paladin code.
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y279/Beholden_Caulfield/getoffyourhighhorse.jpg

Rachel Lorelei
2007-06-30, 01:25 PM
Kizara, if deception is lying, a Paladin wouldn't be allowed to feint in combat (and essentially all combat involves feinting, not just use of the Feint maneuver)! Nor would she be able to tactically deploy troops in a misleading way, lie by omission, benefit from Disguise Self, et cetera et cetera.

Thanatos 51-50
2007-06-30, 01:26 PM
"Bluff your way into the enemy's favor, and then turn at the last moment, slaughtering the Bandit King as he sleeps"

And enjoy your new blackgaurd levels. You just fell. You were treading a fine line on the path even bluffing your way in, by decieving (read: lying; read: broke your code) but then you BETRAY the trust you falsely earned?

Betrayal is evil. Period. In fact, it is generally Lawful Evil but can also at times be Chaotic Evil.

Using intelligent tactics, such as an ambush, is debatable and depends on the exact nature of your church's code and customs, but I would say is generally frowned upon. I wouldn't say you need to be Miko and call out all your opponents either, just simply attack.
Attack at dawn when your enemies are least prepared, attack from multiple angles. Fight a withdrawl into a more advantageous position, whether by terrain or allied ambush. Use flanking, use higher terrain, use mounted combat skills. There's more to combat then a courtly duel for sure, but treachery isn't in it for a Paladin.

Let me reiterate this for everyone who thinks being a Paladin has anything to do with deception on some level. Deception is lying, lying is expressly forbidden by the code as RAW. This is not my opinion or interpretation, it's how the class is written. Unless you precieve deception as somehow not lying, in which case... I don't think you 'get' Paladin and are indeed decieving yourself.

I did also mention that the Paladin is a military man and a tactican. Tactics are expressly realted to Deception and the military, they're inseperable.
There wa no betrayal involved in killing the Bandit King, no more than Bluffing your way past the guard and sneaking into his bedchamber to accomplish the same goal. Is that Evil?

The deadliest thing in a battle is a single, well-aimed shot, and likewise, the deadliest thing to an organization is a single, well-aimed attack. All the Paladin did was get the viper to not bite him before he got close enough to chop off its head and eat it (the Viper, not the head) for dinner.

And the battle was against a group of Evil creatures who were directly opposed to our goal, but not yet aware that our caravan was near their location, its like employing a Sniper or Guerilla Tactics.

storybookknight
2007-06-30, 01:29 PM
Heh, we've been discussing all these sorts of things in the game I'm playing, A Paladin's Heart (down there in the sig.)

There's like six or seven of us, all paladins of one stripe or another... I'm playing one with a few levels of Rogue!

Kizara
2007-06-30, 01:34 PM
Kizara, if deception is lying, a Paladin wouldn't be allowed to feint in combat!

Mine don't; they also don't Sneak Attack (Blackgaurd class ability). And I think "Feinting is dishonorable" is a perfectly valid argument.

As for the apple guy: nope. Good try tough. I would certinally say your example could've been a CG character though.

1) Illusionist makes statement: "Grab the apple on the table!" and thus gives testimony that he indeed believes there is a real apple on the table. This is untrue and a lie.

2) The children, being children, trust the man and go try to grab the apple. They are decieved and their trust is betrayed.

Personally, if I was that kid, I'd be fairly angry at the man for lying to me like that about the apple and not want to talk to him again. I certinally wouldn't trust him again.

Thanatos 51-50
2007-06-30, 01:37 PM
<INGSOC'd>
Personally, if I was that kid, I'd be fairly angry at the man for lying to me like that about the apple and not want to talk to him again. I certinally wouldn't trust him again.

I'd just be upset that Billy got the Apple instead of me, and ask the man if he had another apple for me.

Or maybe an apple for ALL of us! Yeah!
"Mr. Magick Man, do you have any more apples for the rest of us?"

Talya
2007-06-30, 01:38 PM
Y'all haven't seen an insane player until Corolinth is in your campaign playing Doctor François von Hösen, Gnomish swashbuckling performer and pirate. And ship's doctor.

(The bastard refuses to make a bardic knowledge roll. Instead, he makes up bull**** and rolls bluff.)

Rachel Lorelei
2007-06-30, 01:40 PM
Mine don't; they also don't Sneak Attack (Blackgaurd class ability). And I think "Feinting is dishonorable" is a perfectly valid argument.

Uh, I don't know if you've ever fenced, but I don't think you understand how armed combat works. If your Paladins don't feint, they couldn't ever win a fight with a trained humanoid opponent: feinting, shifting your blade so it's not where they expect, et cetera is an integral part of combat. I spar hand-to-hand, and someone who just strikes exactly where it seems like they will goes down fast--eye-fakes, jabs to cover up shifts, feigning openings are vital parts of combat. Feinting is more than just the PHB use of the feat--D&D mechanics don't cover the minutiae of combat.
"Feinting is dishonorable" isn't a valid argument. It is absolutely senseless.

Also, Sneak Attack is simply precise strikes, much like critical hits. There's nothing dishonorable or evil about that, either.

Kizara
2007-06-30, 01:41 PM
I did also mention that the Paladin is a military man and a tactican. Tactics are expressly realted to Deception and the military, they're inseperable.
There wa no betrayal involved in killing the Bandit King, no more than Bluffing your way past the guard and sneaking into his bedchamber to accomplish the same goal. Is that Evil?

The deadliest thing in a battle is a single, well-aimed shot, and likewise, the deadliest thing to an organization is a single, well-aimed attack. All the Paladin did was get the viper to not bite him before he got close enough to chop off its head and eat it (the Viper, not the head) for dinner.

And the battle was against a group of Evil creatures who were directly opposed to our goal, but not yet aware that our caravan was near their location, its like employing a Sniper or Guerilla Tactics.

You bluffed the man into believing you were his friend, and then killed him in his sleep. If you honestly do not believe this is betrayal (even if it is of a brief and falsely gained trust) then nothing I say will convince you otherwise. Needless to say, in my game, your God wouldn't agree.

"The deadliest thing in a battle is a single, well-aimed shot, and likewise, the deadliest thing to an organization is a single, well-aimed attack. All the Paladin did was get the viper to not bite him before he got close enough to chop off its head and eat it (the Viper, not the head) for dinner."

If, following your logic, the Paladin had used invisibility magic to sneak in and kill him, and then fought off all his followers, that might be seen as acceptable. But that isn't what you did. Likewise, if you charged in on your horse, killed the leader ("one well-aimed shot") and then fought his followers, that would be hailed as heroic and daring.

The fact that they were Evil and opposing you justifies your attacking and killing of them easily, not the dishonorable tactics you used to accomplish it. The very fact that you feel the need to say that part gives evidence that you feel your actions need a manner of justification because they were not inherently right.

Alex Kidd
2007-06-30, 01:43 PM
I think this could work. I say give him some leeway with deception and trickery(though not outright "kill in their sleep" betrayal as that's definitely evil), just make sure to hold him VERY strongly to the good side of the spectrum, to the point even morally neutral acts get him in trouble. Unable to ignore anything in need, full of mercy etc. Thinking about it Doctor Who(or at least the latest one) is kinda how I'd see this guy being played. At least until the chips are down, becuase being a paladin, he can actually fight.

Kizara
2007-06-30, 01:47 PM
Uh, I don't know if you've ever fenced, but I don't think you understand how armed combat works. If your Paladins don't feint, they couldn't ever win a fight with a trained humanoid opponent: feinting, shifting your blade so it's not where they expect, et cetera is an integral part of combat. I spar hand-to-hand, and someone who just strikes exactly where it seems like they will goes down fast--eye-fakes, jabs to cover up shifts, feigning openings are vital parts of combat. Feinting is more than just the PHB use of the feat--D&D mechanics don't cover the minutiae of combat.
"Feinting is dishonorable" isn't a valid argument. It is absolutely senseless.

Also, Sneak Attack is simply precise strikes, much like critical hits. There's nothing dishonorable or evil about that, either.

I think I will not continue to make that particular argument, because as you correctly assumed I have not ever personally engaged in armed combat. I would very much like to, as I have a good personal Str and Dex, but alas...

Sneak Attack is unfortunately a gray area, one use of the skill (striking while flatfooted) I say is dishonorable. The other use, striking vital spots like criticaling, is a good combat tactic. Like power attack is. So, I ammend my earlier statement. The most common use of Sneak Attack is dishonorable (striking unaware opponents), but it CAN be used honorably as part of other combat actions.

Kizara
2007-06-30, 01:50 PM
I think this could work. I say give him some leeway with deception and trickery(though not outright "kill in their sleep" betrayal as that's definitely evil), just make sure to hold him VERY strongly to the good side of the spectrum, to the point even morally neutral acts get him in trouble. Unable to ignore anything in need, full of mercy etc. Thinking about it Doctor Who(or at least the latest one) is kinda how I'd see this guy being played. At least until the chips are down, becuase being a paladin, he can actually fight.

Again, this is a Paladin of Freedom. Which is a very good, holy warrior that is CG, and more of a robin-hood type.

I think both you and your player would enjoy your game more if he played that class instead. It's just as good as the normal paladin, allows tons more freedom (hence the name) and is a blast to RP.
Here's the SRD link for it again:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#paladinVariantsFreedom SlaughterAndTyranny

Rachel Lorelei
2007-06-30, 01:58 PM
I think I will not continue to make that particular argument, because as you correctly assumed I have not ever personally engaged in armed combat. I would very much like to, as I have a good personal Str and Dex, but alas...
Well, you can take my word for it, since I fence, have done kendo, and--more to the point--fight people (often larger and stronger people, much like BBEGs are stronger than PCs) hand-to-hand in a pretty "real" way (few rules beyond no joint-work or breaking bones, no going for the genitalia, people hit hard, etc). Combat is all about deception--if you telegraph every blow, you'll never land one. Eye-fakes are deception. Faking an opening is deception. Hell, just luring people in so that they're in your reach when they don't think they are, or using a strike to cover a quickstep into infighting range--deception.
Furthermore, what do you think military tactics are? The entire point is to out-think, mislead, and deceive your opponent. Paladins are often military leaders; should they parade their armies around in plain sight and get their men slaughtered?
And above and beyond that, no one tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth 100% of the time. It is simply impossible. Not only that--you can tell someone the truth in such a way that they come to the wrong conclusions. You can deceive without lying, lie without deceiving (we call it "sarcasm"--by your strict standards of lying, a sarcastic paladin would fall), and so on.


Sneak Attack is unfortunately a gray area, one use of the skill (striking while flatfooted) I say is dishonorable. The other use, striking vital spots like criticaling, is a good combat tactic. Like power attack is. So, I ammend my earlier statement. The most common use of Sneak Attack is dishonorable (striking unaware opponents), but it CAN be used honorably as part of other combat actions.
Why is striking a flatfooted opponent an different from striking a flanked opponent? Or from striking an opponent who is a less-capable swordsman and probably can't beat you? Or just one who has made a mistake and left himself wide open?

The paladin code is already very restrictive. You are making it much, much more restrictive than it already is. If paladins were to follow your interpretation of the code, well... there wouldn't be any of them left.

Kizara
2007-06-30, 02:10 PM
Well, you can take my word for it, since I fence, have done kendo, and--more to the point--fight people (often larger and stronger people, much like BBEGs are stronger than PCs) hand-to-hand in a pretty "real" way (few rules beyond no joint-work or breaking bones, no going for the genitalia, people hit hard, etc). Combat is all about deception--if you telegraph every blow, you'll never land one. Eye-fakes are deception. Faking an opening is deception. Hell, just luring people in so that they're in your reach when they don't think they are, or using a strike to cover a quickstep into infighting range--deception.
Furthermore, what do you think military tactics are? The entire point is to out-think, mislead, and deceive your opponent. Paladins are often military leaders; should they parade their armies around in plain sight and get their men slaughtered?
And above and beyond that, no one tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth 100% of the time. It is simply impossible. Not only that--you can tell someone the truth in such a way that they come to the wrong conclusions. You can deceive without lying, lie without deceiving (we call it "sarcasm"--by your strict standards of lying, a sarcastic paladin would fall), and so on.


Why is striking a flatfooted opponent an different from striking a flanked opponent? Or from striking an opponent who is a less-capable swordsman and probably can't beat you? Or just one who has made a mistake and left himself wide open?

The paladin code is already very restrictive. You are making it much, much more restrictive than it already is. If paladins were to follow your interpretation of the code, well... there wouldn't be any of them left.

You make some very good points, and with a limited amount of experience it's hard for me to effectively argue with you.

As for "fighting for real" I'm not going to address that, sorry.

As for "military tactics", the key here is not pretending you are something you are not, or claiming to wish to do something (like parley) and then attack anyways. For instance, I would say dressing up as peasants, sneaking in and raiding supply lines was cowardly and dishonorable. Waiting for your enemies to walk into a valley and charging them is not.

As for the truth, the point here is intent. You speak the whole truth, as much as you can effective communicate, and to the best of your knowledge. If you are misunderstood because of whatever reason (not including that it was your intention to be misunderstood), were simply mistaken (cant always be right), or don't know, that's not deception.
My definition of lying is not "not telling the truth" its "leading someone to believe something other than the truth intentionally".

And, for the record, I play what I preach, and I have a great fondness for playing Paladins.

Thanatos 51-50
2007-06-30, 02:23 PM
As for "military tactics", the key here is not pretending you are something you are not, or claiming to wish to do something (like parley) and then attack anyways. For instance, I would say dressing up as peasants, sneaking in and raiding supply lines was cowardly and dishonorable. Waiting for your enemies to walk into a valley and charging them is not.

No general worth his obscene paygrade (or position in mideval settings) Is going to go into a parley session without a few heeavily-armed cohorts in case the deal goes sour., or it was a ploy to get the enemy to lower their guard.

If My Paladin rides in under a Parley/No Harm Flag, he has some of his party-members with him and his sword in his scabbard, but is definatly there to parley, like he said.

Likewise, I expect my enemy to have his right-hand man, a few other well-trusted and powerful cohorts (read "officers") with him, and maybe his left-hand man, as well.
In fact, I expect my foe to have his left-hand man, becuase if he is my foe, hes probably Evil.

I wouldn't bring my left-hand with me, however. Left-hand is in charge of the rescue in case the deal goes sour.
(Although, if he, even though I didn't order it, takes advantage of the distraction to slip behind the lines, I'm not complaining. Will I fall if he does that, too?)

Also, what are your views on retreat? How about just plain RUNNING AWAY from an opponent who is clearly your better and whom you have zero chance of defeating?

Kizara
2007-06-30, 02:44 PM
No general worth his obscene paygrade (or position in mideval settings) Is going to go into a parley session without a few heeavily-armed cohorts in case the deal goes sour., or it was a ploy to get the enemy to lower their guard.

If My Paladin rides in under a Parley/No Harm Flag, he has some of his party-members with him and his sword in his scabbard, but is definatly there to parley, like he said.

Likewise, I expect my enemy to have his right-hand man, a few other well-trusted and powerful cohorts (read "officers") with him, and maybe his left-hand man, as well.
In fact, I expect my foe to have his left-hand man, becuase if he is my foe, hes probably Evil.

I wouldn't bring my left-hand with me, however. Left-hand is in charge of the rescue in case the deal goes sour.
(Although, if he, even though I didn't order it, takes advantage of the distraction to slip behind the lines, I'm not complaining. Will I fall if he does that, too?)

Also, what are your views on retreat? How about just plain RUNNING AWAY from an opponent who is clearly your better and whom you have zero chance of defeating?

Regarding [long description of parley details] the point I simply made was to not go in under a flag of true/parley and then attack. Of course evil is treachous, and should be dealt with with a good deal of caution.
You are responsible for your underlings actions. For instance, if Roy was a paladin and consistantly turned a blind eye to Belkar's evil acts (as he does as a LG fighter in the comics) he would quickly lose his grace. You cannot sanction dishonorable acts by failing to object to them: it is your duty to object to them, especially if performed in your name (as it is for a direct underling). As for your particular example, when it escalated to conflict you would have no choice but to simply fight and defeat your enemy. But your victory was marred by your cohort's dishonorable tactics, and you have an obligation to deal with such sternly. If you, as you put it, "am not complaining" afterwards, you are sanctioning his act by not objecting to it and thus are responsible for it and have taken one very big step towards falling.


Running is shameful, and should be avoided, but you are not samuari, and it doesn't break your code. However, there may be times that staying and fighting to the death to prevent a greater evil or protect innocents is needed and then running WOULD break your code (to defend the innocent).

Alleine
2007-06-30, 03:07 PM
Is it really evil to betray evil? Can you betray their trust, do they have a sense of trust as a paladin does?

And anyway, I think a normal paladin would have trouble pretending to be allies with an evil enemy just to get close enough to kill him. There would most likely be tests of loyalty that involve killing innocent people. As for military tactics, I don't think it really requires anything that would make a paladin fall. Have a portion of your army pull back, so the enemy presses forward and the rest of your army, presumably hidden, rushes in to suprise and destroy. In that case, did you lie to the enemy?

There is another side to the paladin code of conduct, "don't tell the enemy your plans" Not even a paladin would send a messenger up to the enemy with a rough outline of a battle plan so that everything stays honorable on the paladins side. Suprise attack ≠ lying, I also think in personal combat, that a feint isn't lying, its survival. Not that I know anything about combat...

Kizara
2007-06-30, 03:30 PM
"Is it really evil to betray evil? Can you betray their trust, do they have a sense of trust as a paladin does?"

Yes. Betrayal is evil, period. Perhaps a CG character might say "while they deserved it" and could possibly get anyway with it. A Paladin can't.
Do they have a sense of trust, loyalty, intergrity, etc as a Paladin does? Unlikely, especially not the trust part. Doesn't mean you should betray them.

And the truth is, now that I think about it more, that a Paladin would SAY "betrayal is evil" but, really, its unlawful, and can very easily be evil.

Here's an example from a RL campaign of mine.

It's erm, slightly racey, be warned.

My Paladin of Freedom (who has a deep sense of honor) was captured by a Marilith during an adventure. Now, she's only level 8, and she can't possibly fight the Marilith even though she wishes she could. The Marilith proceeds to treat her... poorly shall we say. And my character, not wanting to be tortured and treated.... unpleasantly by some zombies shall we say, talks the Marilith into letting her do things 'her way' and proceeds to um, help the Marilith go to sleep. Now, she had this collar on that can constrict, which the Marilith had taken off beforehand. She used the collar on the creature at full force, the thing apparently had no limit to its power and killed the creature (I think it was very Deus ex machina of my DM and also very imba for an item to do that, but it happened like this).

She whispered "I'm sorry" as she put it on, and she truly was, because she had just very earnestly and geuininely been trying to convince the Marilith to trust her. When she saw the results, she felt such shame at her dishonorable act that she wept for 15 minutes (mind you she was alone) and wished with all her heart that she hadn't used it so strongly. For she had figured that the Marilith was a powerful creature and wished to incapacitate it so she could run. She donated all of its treasure to charity (being a normally fairly indulgent person) because she couldn't stand the shame of her dishonorable victory, and didn't feel she deserved one coin of it. She kept only the creature's... body adornments, as a reminder to herself that some victories may not be wroth the cost.

The alternative, in no uncertain terms, was to be taken to the abyss itself for horrific torment, torture and perversion, and likely a near-future death at the hands of such methods.

She still regrets doing it to this day.

Droodle
2007-06-30, 03:49 PM
Yes. Betrayal is evil, period.
No, it isn't. It is chaotic more often than not (but, sometimes, it's lawful). It is often evil (but is sometimes good). It is definitely outside of the Paladin's code in most instances. Not every betrayal is evil. Who you betrayed, how you betrayed him, and why you betrayed him is what determines whether or not it's evil.

Fax Celestis
2007-06-30, 03:57 PM
"Bluff your way into the enemy's favor, and then turn at the last moment, slaughtering the Bandit King as he sleeps"

And enjoy your new blackgaurd levels. You just fell. You were treading a fine line on the path even bluffing your way in, by decieving (read: lying; read: broke your code) but then you BETRAY the trust you falsely earned?

Betrayal is evil. Period. In fact, it is generally Lawful Evil but can also at times be Chaotic Evil.

Using intelligent tactics, such as an ambush, is debatable and depends on the exact nature of your church's code and customs, but I would say is generally frowned upon. I wouldn't say you need to be Miko and call out all your opponents either, just simply attack.
Attack at dawn when your enemies are least prepared, attack from multiple angles. Fight a withdrawl into a more advantageous position, whether by terrain or allied ambush. Use flanking, use higher terrain, use mounted combat skills. There's more to combat then a courtly duel for sure, but treachery isn't in it for a Paladin.

Let me reiterate this for everyone who thinks being a Paladin has anything to do with deception on some level. Deception is lying, lying is expressly forbidden by the code as RAW. This is not my opinion or interpretation, it's how the class is written. Unless you precieve deception as somehow not lying, in which case... I don't think you 'get' Paladin and are indeed decieving yourself.

EDIT: On another note, regarding the OP's issue, I would reccomend the Paladin of Freedom. It's CG and I could see a PoF/Beguiler working quite effectively and keeping in both the RAW and spirit of the class.
Here's a nice SRD link for you:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#paladinVariantsFreedom SlaughterAndTyranny

Class != Job.

I can be a holy warrior of justice and have my class levels be barbarian, monk, paladin, knight, or dragon shaman. I can be a cat burglar and have my class levels be rogue, ninja, monk, ranger, scout, beguiler, or sorceror.

I can be a holy warrior who uses more subtle means--including spells that deal only nonlethal damage--in service of their deity, and have their class levels be paladin and beguiler.

PaladinBoy
2007-06-30, 03:57 PM
Is it really evil to betray evil? Can you betray their trust, do they have a sense of trust as a paladin does?

Yes. Betrayal is dishonorable at least, often evil. Gaining someone's trust in order to take advantage of that trust, or just taking advantage of trust you've gained, is something which most Good characters should probably shy away from.


And anyway, I think a normal paladin would have trouble pretending to be allies with an evil enemy just to get close enough to kill him. There would most likely be tests of loyalty that involve killing innocent people. As for military tactics, I don't think it really requires anything that would make a paladin fall. Have a portion of your army pull back, so the enemy presses forward and the rest of your army, presumably hidden, rushes in to suprise and destroy. In that case, did you lie to the enemy?

There is another side to the paladin code of conduct, "don't tell the enemy your plans" Not even a paladin would send a messenger up to the enemy with a rough outline of a battle plan so that everything stays honorable on the paladins side. Suprise attack ≠ lying, I also think in personal combat, that a feint isn't lying, its survival. Not that I know anything about combat...

I think that good tactics, in either a personal combat or military situation, is just a matter of skill, and a paladin isn't going to fall for being capable. There are certain things that would be dishonorable, though, like using a flag of truce to make the enemy think you aren't going to attack, or stabbing someone in the back from the cover of an invisibility spell.

Kizara: That paladin...... wow. Very interesting roleplaying; I think it fits the incerdible levels of good that a paladin should demonstrate.

Counterpower
2007-06-30, 04:00 PM
...some victories may not be worth the cost.

I'm thinking I need to put that one in my sig. It's most assuredly true. Sure, betrayal, lying, etc. may be easier ways to defeat evil. But there's the old military joke, "We had to destroy the villiage in order to save it, sir!" An act of betrayal may make the defeat of the bandits easier, but the consequences are going to be far too severe. As your story shows, sometimes these things happen, even by accident. For most people, they'd just say, "Wow, that was more effective than I thought!" and start looting the corpse. For anyone who actually desires the title of "Paladin", the actions that your paladin took are far, far more appropriate.

SurlySeraph
2007-06-30, 04:02 PM
Require him to take ranks in Profession: Lawyer before taking the Beguiler levels. It's the only way honor and tricking everyone you talk to are compatible.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-06-30, 04:04 PM
"Some victories aren't worth the price" doesn't mean that deception is never good and the right thing to do. Some, not all.

Kizara--that's a completely unreasonable and over-the-top reaction to the situation. The demon is a creature of pure evil, and is vastly more powerful; wishing to "fight it honorably" is futile and doesn't do anyone any good, nor is it particularly honorable--what's honorable about throwing your life away. Your paladin did the right thing, and while regretting it might be in her character, it's in no way the Right Thing to Do.

Tor the Fallen
2007-06-30, 04:11 PM
Y'all haven't seen an insane player until Corolinth is in your campaign playing Doctor François von Hösen, Gnomish swashbuckling performer and pirate. And ship's doctor.

(The bastard refuses to make a bardic knowledge roll. Instead, he makes up bull**** and rolls bluff.)

That's awesome!

PaladinBoy
2007-06-30, 04:12 PM
"Some victories aren't worth the price" doesn't mean that deception is never good and the right thing to do. Some, not all.

Kizara--that's a completely unreasonable and over-the-top reaction to the situation. The demon is a creature of pure evil, and is vastly more powerful; wishing to "fight it honorably" is futile and doesn't do anyone any good, nor is it particularly honorable--what's honorable about throwing your life away. Your paladin did the right thing, and while regretting it might be in her character, it's in no way the Right Thing to Do.

Actually, I would say that it demonstrates her honor quite clearly...... she wants to fight honorably even if it means certain death. It does do her and her values some good, and demonstrates to anyone who's watching that this is an honorable person, making her a good example for others. These values of honor are not something that you should compromise whenever the need comes up...... doing so opens the door to further violations and ruins others' trust in your ability to act honorably. Unless you demonstrate sincere regret as the paladin in the example did. And not only refusing to admit that you have betrayed your honor, but being willing to do it again if necessary, is not "sincere regret".

Rachel Lorelei
2007-06-30, 04:17 PM
Actually, I would say that it demonstrates her honor quite clearly...... she wants to fight honorably even if it means certain death. It does do her and her values some good, and demonstrates to anyone who's watching that this is an honorable person, making her a good example for others. These values of honor are not something that you should compromise whenever the need comes up...... doing so opens the door to further violations and ruins others' trust in your ability to act honorably. Unless you demonstrate sincere regret as the paladin in the example did. And not only refusing to admit that you have betrayed your honor, but being willing to do it again if necessary, is not "sincere regret".

But fighting honorably isn't always the lawful or the good thing to do. "Fighting honorably" can have devastating consequences, such as the death of many other people, and willfully letting them die so you can feel better about your "fair" fight is pretty foul--it's incredible selfishness, to the point of valuing your imagined purity over the suffering and lives of others.

Killing a demon that has captured and tortured you in its sleep isn't dishonorable, anyway. There's little to no difference between a weaker opponent and a disadvantaged stronger opponent, and letting that demon live means it would kill and torture others.

Not being completely rigid and unyielding doesn't "open the door to violations" because it isn't a violation; not regretting killing a powerful demon won't destroy anyone reasonable's trust.

Fax Celestis
2007-06-30, 04:17 PM
Hell, play off the Paladin/Beguiler sneaky-sneaky thing as that he uses his infiltrative abilities to get inside of dangerous areas and remove significant evil without necessary death. Make him a follower of an LN deity of life and death and you're set.

He uses the whelm chain of spells (which inflict nonlethal damage) and a merciful weapon whenever he fights a foe that isn't a "great evil" (define how you please), but switches to a more vicious weapon and more dangerous spells when confronted with powerful evil creatures.

Kizara
2007-06-30, 04:17 PM
Yes, it was the right thing for her to do.
Yes, it was 'wroth it'. She was hailed as a hero, and even more so after she donated the treasure.
She sacrificed some of her honor because it was abosolutely neccesary, and felt the pain of doing so.

She has a hard time even going into that town anymore.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-06-30, 04:21 PM
But... there's nothing dishonorable about what she did. No reasonable standard of honor requires letting demon lords live, or offering them a "fair fight" (which is a ridiculous concept--no fight is fair).

Fenix_of_Doom
2007-06-30, 04:21 PM
1) Illusionist makes statement: "Grab the apple on the table!" and thus gives testimony that he indeed believes there is a real apple on the table. This is untrue and a lie.

2) The children, being children, trust the man and go try to grab the apple. They are decieved and their trust is betrayed.

Personally, if I was that kid, I'd be fairly angry at the man for lying to me like that about the apple and not want to talk to him again. I certinally wouldn't trust him again.

Personally I think this makes you a pretty hateful and untrusty kid

On running from combat or dying in it read OoTS 467, it summed it up pretty good it my opinion.

Kizara
2007-06-30, 04:26 PM
But... there's nothing dishonorable about what she did. No reasonable standard of honor requires letting demon lords live, or offering them a "fair fight" (which is a ridiculous concept--no fight is fair).

You misunderstand.

She spent the last 3 hours honestly trying to get the thing to trust her so it would stop torturing her. Then, first chance she had, she betrayed that trust and killed it in its sleep. This, much more then not killing it in combat, is what she regretted. Merely just not killing it in a straight fight would only have cheaped the victory, not shamed her so deeply.

Would she, in another circumstance, coming upon a sleeping demon of great power wake it up in order to fight it fair? No, that's stupid. But you can bet she wouldn't try to talk it into going to sleep so she could CDG it (not that it would work, but you get the point).

Rachel Lorelei
2007-06-30, 04:29 PM
You misunderstand.

She spent the last 3 hours honestly trying to get the thing to trust her so it would stop torturing her. Then, first chance she had, she betrayed that trust and killed it in its sleep. This, much more then not killing it in combat, is what she regretted. Merely just not killing it in a straight fight would only have cheaped the victory, not shamed her so deeply.
Again: betrayal isn't always evil. Breaking trust is not automatically bad. It's bad when you do it to people who don't deserve it, or for selfish purposes, or et cetera, but it can be good. It can even be the best thing to do in a situation.


Would she, in another circumstance, coming upon a sleeping demon of great power wake it up in order to fight it fair? No, that's stupid. But you can bet she wouldn't try to talk it into going to sleep so she could CDG it (not that it would work, but you get the point).
If it would work--why not? For some reason being good with a sword and beating them with it means it's honorable to kill someone, but being good with words and beating them with them isn't? What makes sharp pointy things the default of honor, a magically better way to fight than with cunning or charisma? Fighting is fighting, and the creature's gonna be just as dead.

Fax Celestis
2007-06-30, 04:30 PM
You misunderstand.

She spent the last 3 hours honestly trying to get the thing to trust her so it would stop torturing her. Then, first chance she had, she betrayed that trust and killed it in its sleep. This, much more then not killing it in combat, is what she regretted. Merely just not killing it in a straight fight would only have cheaped the victory, not shamed her so deeply.

Would she, in another circumstance, coming upon a sleeping demon of great power wake it up in order to fight it fair? No, that's stupid. But you can bet she wouldn't try to talk it into going to sleep so she could CDG it (not that it would work, but you get the point).

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/FaxCelestis/deadhorse.gif

Kizara
2007-06-30, 04:37 PM
Again: betrayal isn't always evil. Breaking trust is not automatically bad. It's bad when you do it to people who don't deserve it, or for selfish purposes, or et cetera, but it can be good. It can even be the best thing to do in a situation.


If it would work--why not? For some reason being good with a sword and beating them with it means it's honorable to kill someone, but being good with words and beating them with them isn't? What makes sharp pointy things the default of honor, a magically better way to fight than with cunning or charisma? Fighting is fighting, and the creature's gonna be just as dead.

You and I have different standards. To me, breaking a trust is automatically bad. Sometimes, (such as my example) it is wroth it. Honor is about keeping your word (as well as other things).
Can doing so serve the cause of good? Sure, you can have a CG bard that NEVER keeps his word, but always acts in the best interest of others. I'm talking about honor here, not the good alignment.

Again, the difference here is breaking your word, which to me is sacred. I could see in some cultures that you would be hailed as a warrior of great cunning if you did such a thing. My point is not swords > words, its simply about keeping your word. Also, Alexandra (this character) is naturally a bit violent, so that comes into play too.

Fax_Celestis: I consider your 'post' to be not only unconstructive but outright flaming, if you truly believe my continued debate with others here is unproductive: I don't care. You don't have the right to post something like that any more then I have the right to say "your an idiot" or "your post is retarded". I take offense to it, and if you do something like it again I will report it.

Fax Celestis
2007-06-30, 04:38 PM
You and I have different standards. To me, breaking a trust is automatically bad. Sometimes, (such as my example) it is wroth it. Honor is about keeping your word (as well as other things).
Can doing so serve the cause of good? Sure, you can have a CG bard that NEVER keeps his word, but always acts in the best interest of others. I'm talking about honor here, not the good alignment.

Again, the difference here is breaking your word, which to me is sacred. I could see in some cultures that you would be hailed as a warrior of great cunning if you did such a thing. My point is not swords > words, its simply about keeping your word. Also, Alexandra (this character) is naturally a bit violent, so that comes into play too.

How does any of this have relevance to the original question?

Khantalas
2007-06-30, 04:39 PM
OK, this is seriously bugging me. How does one kill a demon in its sleep? It's an outsider. A creature type that doesn't need to sleep. Isn't discussing sleeping demons sort of... futile?

Was just wondering and had to ask it.

Kizara
2007-06-30, 04:41 PM
How does any of this have relevance to the original question?

Admittedly, where as I was originally trying to make a point about how honor and trickery don't mix, things have gotten somewhat... off track since then.

Perhaps I should create a new thread to continue this debate, as it only has passing relevance now to the OP's question. (but is not totally irrelivent)

PaladinBoy
2007-06-30, 04:43 PM
Again: betrayal isn't always evil. Breaking trust is not automatically bad. It's bad when you do it to people who don't deserve it, or for selfish purposes, or et cetera, but it can be good. It can even be the best thing to do in a situation.

Justifying possibly evil actions based on whether the enemy "deserves it" or not is rather dangerous. Because it's quite easy to decide that the enemy which has tortured you and your friends for a few hours deserves to have just as much pain inflicted on him as he inflicted on you. It's quite easy to begin justifying your actions based on what your enemies are doing, and if you start copying your enemies' evil deeds such as torture in the name of good, then you're really not much better than they are.

In betrayal's case, then I would admit that it can be used for good purposes. But it's still not honorable, and a paladin swears an oath to fight honorably.


If it would work--why not? For some reason being good with a sword and beating them with it means it's honorable to kill someone, but being good with words and beating them with them isn't? What makes sharp pointy things the default of honor, a magically better way to fight than with cunning or charisma? Fighting is fighting, and the creature's gonna be just as dead.

The thing is, words can't kill (unless it's like a power word kill or something). A sword can. If I fight someone with a sword, and kill them, then that's fine because killing the enemy is how you win with a sword. There really isn't any other reliable way unless you have a merciful weapon. Winning with words involves tricking the enemy into lowering his guard or convincing an enemy to defect. If I kill an enemy in his sleep after persuading him that I was no threat, then I have deliberately killed someone in cold blood who couldn't fight back. It would be just as easy to take him prisoner and avoid undue killing.

EDIT: I guess this is getting a little off topic. I vote for a new thread.

Kizara
2007-06-30, 04:43 PM
OK, this is seriously bugging me. How does one kill a demon in its sleep? It's an outsider. A creature type that doesn't need to sleep. Isn't discussing sleeping demons sort of... futile?

Was just wondering and had to ask it.

Who says outsiders don't sleep? That might be written somewhere, but its always been protrayed in my games that they do.

We also make outsiders somewhat more 'human', in the sense that they are able to make thier own moral decisions. (if with an incredibly huge bent towards their normal tendancies)
See: fallen angels and such. We basically just play that up a bit more.

Tor the Fallen
2007-06-30, 04:44 PM
You misunderstand.

She spent the last 3 hours honestly trying to get the thing to trust her so it would stop torturing her. Then, first chance she had, she betrayed that trust and killed it in its sleep. This, much more then not killing it in combat, is what she regretted. Merely just not killing it in a straight fight would only have cheaped the victory, not shamed her so deeply.

Would she, in another circumstance, coming upon a sleeping demon of great power wake it up in order to fight it fair? No, that's stupid. But you can bet she wouldn't try to talk it into going to sleep so she could CDG it (not that it would work, but you get the point).

A demon doesn't make the best of examples.
They are the physical incarnation of death & destruction:

Chaotic Evil, "Destroyer"
A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.

Chaotic evil is sometimes called "demonic" because demons are the epitome of chaotic evil.

Chaotic evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents the destruction not only of beauty and life but also of the order on which beauty and life depend.

What's honor?
-Honor, at it's most basic, is a respect for your opponent.
Do demons have honor?
-No, I'd say that something that is brtual, vicious, and arbitrarily violent by its very, most fundamental nature, cannot have honor.

Do you lose honor in killng demons?
-Only if you respect them, and only if they deserve respect. A paladin that believes demons deserve respect already made her fall a long time ago.

[edit]
I see that you, Kizara, play with a different set of rules governing outsiders. So under your game, Demons could be deserving of honor.

As to the OP-
There's nothing wrong about a Paladin that becomes a Beguiler, inherently. As always, it's how one uses his powers that determines his alignment, not what powers he has.

A paladin would be really good at killing unarmed villagers. He has a full BAB, all those weapon and armor proficiencies, a big HD. Does that mean paladins should have those taken away from him, because Devils also have a good BAB, and proficiency with all martial weapons?

Actually, a Paladin/Beguiler could be very Jedi like! Imagine if, when those stormtroopers stopped ol' Obi Wan, and asked about his droids, he bellowed "YES, THESE ARE THE DROIDS YOU ARE LOOKING FOR!! PREPARE TO ENGAGE IN HONORABLE COMBAT!!" and whipped out his lightsabre.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-06-30, 04:46 PM
You and I have different standards. To me, breaking a trust is automatically bad. Sometimes, (such as my example) it is wroth it. Honor is about keeping your word (as well as other things).
Can doing so serve the cause of good? Sure, you can have a CG bard that NEVER keeps his word, but always acts in the best interest of others. I'm talking about honor here, not the good alignment.
Okay, but "always keep your word" is your personal definition of honor, and kind of ridiculous unless you use a circular definition. There is nothing particularly noble about never breaking your word--hell, sometimes it happens due to something you can't control. Your standards don't reflect those a D&D paladin would reasonably have, nor do they reflect anything except, well, your (highly unreasonable, in my opinion) personal standards. Sure, it's good to be generally honest, for a variety of reasons, but "never break your word" takes it too far--past honor, nobility, and integrity, and into "unreasonable obsession" that can be very damaging to both you and the people that you as a paladin would be sworn to protect. Like I said before, it's placing your preferences over the suffering and lives of others.

Kizara
2007-06-30, 04:47 PM
A demon doesn't make the best of examples.
They are the physical incarnation of death & destruction:


What's honor?
-Honor, at it's most basic, is a respect for your opponent.
Do demons have honor?
-No, I'd say that something that is brtual, vicious, and arbitrarily violent by its very, most fundamental nature, cannot have honor.

Do you lose honor in killng demons?
-Only if you respect them, and only if they deserve respect. A paladin that believes demons deserve respect already made her fall a long time ago.

I guess I have to repeat myself (sorry celestis), but she, after a fashion broke her word. She neither respected it nor wanted it to live. What she did respect, was her own word of honor. That's what all that roleplaying was about.

Khantalas
2007-06-30, 04:48 PM
Who says outsiders don't sleep? That might be written somewhere, but its always been protrayed in my games that they do.

We also make outsiders somewhat more 'human', in the sense that they are able to make thier own moral decisions. (if with an incredibly huge bent towards their normal tendancies)
See: fallen angels and such. We basically just play that up a bit more.

Technically, outsiders can sleep. They just don't need to, and at any rate, it's a very bad tactical decision if you sleep while you have a devoted warrior of good that could, you know, kill you. It is devoted to good and law before anything else, the least of all a demon.

Oh, and here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#outsiderType)'s the outsider type and its traits and features for your convenience.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-06-30, 04:53 PM
Justifying possibly evil actions based on whether the enemy "deserves it" or not is rather dangerous. Because it's quite easy to decide that the enemy which has tortured you and your friends for a few hours deserves to have just as much pain inflicted on him as he inflicted on you. It's quite easy to begin justifying your actions based on what your enemies are doing, and if you start copying your enemies' evil deeds such as torture in the name of good, then you're really not much better than they are.

In betrayal's case, then I would admit that it can be used for good purposes. But it's still not honorable, and a paladin swears an oath to fight honorably.
"Possibly evil"? We're not talking about torturing people, we're talking about breaking your word and misleading someone into trusting you. A paladin would never torture someone for fun. I'm not suggesting copying evil deeds: I'm saying that betraying, say, a demon's trust isn't evil. In fact, ever heard of string operations? That's what they are.


The thing is, words can't kill (unless it's like a power word kill or something). A sword can. If I fight someone with a sword, and kill them, then that's fine because killing the enemy is how you win with a sword. There really isn't any other reliable way unless you have a merciful weapon. Winning with words involves tricking the enemy into lowering his guard or convincing an enemy to defect. If I kill an enemy in his sleep after persuading him that I was no threat, then I have deliberately killed someone in cold blood who couldn't fight back. It would be just as easy to take him prisoner and avoid undue killing.

EDIT: I guess this is getting a little off topic. I vote for a new thread.
So, presuming the enemy can be taken prisoner, that makes words a *better* tool than swords, and the Paladin/Beguiler could do more good than the swordy-guy Paladin.

Beyond that: doing subdual damage is, what, a -4 to hit? And why *don't* you have a merciful sword, if your weapon is +2 or better? You could knock them out with a sword. If you kill them with the sword, it's because you didn't want to go to the trouble of sparing them.
The point is, presuming you want to actually kill the enemy (and some enemies should darn well be killed), beating him with words and killing him in his sleep is one way of defeating him, and stabbing him to death while he stabs you is another. Since the latter can always turn into the former, if you're good at both, it's better to try it and save yourself some bodily harm (because if you're incapacitated, it's kinda hard to protect people and stuff). Fighting them with swords is in no way more fair or more honorable than fighting them with words--and once they're beating, kill them if you should kill them and take them prisoner if you shouldn't.

Edit: and the point for you, Kizara, is that that kind of unhealthy obsession with one's word of honor is as bad as as much a straying from the paladin's path as a complete carelessness with it.

Counterpower
2007-06-30, 04:53 PM
Would you want to live in a world where the most holy of warriors went around lying, cheating, murdering, etc., and justifying it by saying "they were evil"? I'm not saying they should never be used, I'm saying a Paladin is a beacon of justice and honor. Honor all, even your enemies. That's more than they would do for us, and it's why a paladin is better than a demon, or the lying street thief that the paladin is hunting. Honor, justice, courage, Good.......those are all the qualities that set paladins and indeed many people of Good alignment apart from the foul things they dedicate their lives to destroying. Without that difference, what is a Paladin?

Kizara
2007-06-30, 04:53 PM
Okay, but "always keep your word" is your personal definition of honor, and kind of ridiculous unless you use a circular definition. There is nothing particularly noble about never breaking your word--hell, sometimes it happens due to something you can't control. Your standards don't reflect those a D&D paladin would reasonably have, nor do they reflect anything except, well, your (highly unreasonable, in my opinion) personal standards. Sure, it's good to be generally honest, for a variety of reasons, but "never break your word" takes it too far--past honor, nobility, and integrity, and into "unreasonable obsession" that can be very damaging to both you and the people that you as a paladin would be sworn to protect. Like I said before, it's placing your preferences over the suffering and lives of others.

Sorry, but I take the wording of the code "act with honor (not lying, not cheating)" to mean "always keep your word". I'm sorry you think it's completely unreasonable, but to my eyes it's exactly what's intended by that fairly straight-forward wording.

Do recall my definition of your word and lying. You don't break your word if you:
-say something that turns out to be untrue, despite you thinking it was
-don't say things at really bad times (see: telling enemies your plans)
-fail to tell people everything possible about something, without a deliberate attempt to decieve (like, you didnt mention that the roof was tan, cause you thought it unimportant)
The point here is doing what you say, and meaning it. It's really not that hard of a credo to live by, and its how I was raised.

As for my RP example, she both broke her word (after a fashion) and cheated.

calebcom
2007-06-30, 04:54 PM
Uh, I don't know if you've ever fenced, but I don't think you understand how armed combat works. If your Paladins don't feint, they couldn't ever win a fight with a trained humanoid opponent: feinting, shifting your blade so it's not where they expect, et cetera is an integral part of combat. I spar hand-to-hand, and someone who just strikes exactly where it seems like they will goes down fast--eye-fakes, jabs to cover up shifts, feigning openings are vital parts of combat. Feinting is more than just the PHB use of the feat--D&D mechanics don't cover the minutiae of combat.
"Feinting is dishonorable" isn't a valid argument. It is absolutely senseless.

Also, Sneak Attack is simply precise strikes, much like critical hits. There's nothing dishonorable or evil about that, either.

This is Quoted for Truth.

If you blindly attack without any form of deception in your combat style, you'll lose easily to someone who uses feints and misdirection, because you'll never get through their guard as they'll always know that you will be attacking where you are looking to attack.

"Sneak Attack" Is merely targeting vital points on an opponents body. Example: cutting a hamstring tendon, or slicing into an artery, stabbing for the kidneys.

These are valid military tactics, and anyone who does not attempt to go for these vital points is setting themselves up to lose a fight that could determine whether they live or die.

Edit: Lying is a fine thing. If you ask me whether or not I have any weapons and I reply, "Do you see any on me?"
I"m not lying. I'm letting you come to your own conclusions.
A paladin can use bluff and the like easily, as long as they use it in such a way as they allow others to come to their own conclusions deceiving themselves.

If you bluff your way into the enemy's fortress, and wait for him to go to sleep and kill him, you are directly deceiving him and performing a dishonorable act.

However if you bluff your way into their fortress by saying "I want to talk to your leader"

then you kill him after exchanging a few words. You haven't lied, you did talk to him, you just did not reveal your ulterior motive, and they didn't bother to ask. Be upfront about coming to kill him to him, in his little "throne room".

Being a paladin and using deception is about letting others deceive themselves. You are under no obligation to inform your enemy of your every plan. You are also under no obligation to not use stealth or assassination. Assassinating someone under your lords command would be a lawful act, as the law of the land said to do so. and ridding the land of an evil that plagues it would be a good act.
not all paladins need be the fullplate wearing "me paladin me smash" stereotype.

I guarantee, as a DM I could find reason for ANY paladin to fall within 1-2 games. You have to relax as a DM, and realize that the paladin code is impossible to strictly follow without destroying the game for the other players who may not want to follow those restrictions.

this is why i've only seen a paladin in 2 games, and the party killed them shortly after they joined.

Fax Celestis
2007-06-30, 04:55 PM
Would you want to live in a world where the most holy of warriors went around lying, cheating, murdering, etc., and justifying it by saying "they were evil"?Yes, I would. Because it would mean they were human too.

Kizara
2007-06-30, 04:57 PM
Technically, outsiders can sleep. They just don't need to, and at any rate, it's a very bad tactical decision if you sleep while you have a devoted warrior of good that could, you know, kill you. It is devoted to good and law before anything else, the least of all a demon.

Oh, and here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#outsiderType)'s the outsider type and its traits and features for your convenience.

"Outsiders breathe, but do not need to eat or sleep (although they can do so if they wish). Native outsiders breathe, eat, and sleep"

You, of course, are right. As I said, my games are run very slightly different in that they DO sleep.
And as for the Wisdom of her (the marilith sleeping) you are right, and I said it was a very Deux Es Machina plot development. Nevertheless, it made for some powerful roleplaying.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-06-30, 04:59 PM
Sorry, but I take the wording of the code "act with honor (not lying, not cheating)" to mean "always keep your word". I'm sorry you think it's completely unreasonable, but to my eyes it's exactly what's intended by that fairly straight-forward wording.
It could just as easily apply to sworn oaths, not everything you say. It's also slightly flexible: the code *has* to be slightly flexible, otherwise it would break and all you'd have to do to beat a paladin would be to, say, give them a choice between breaking their word and saving some babies.


Do recall my definition of your word and lying. You don't break your word if you:
-say something that turns out to be untrue, despite you thinking it was
-don't say things at really bad times (see: telling enemies your plans)


Why is lying by omission better than intentionally misleading your enemies? It's intentional deception either way.

The paladin's code is a way to keep the paladin on the straight and narrow. It is NOT something that should take precedence over people's lives and people's suffering, because willfully ignoring those is an evil act.

Tor the Fallen
2007-06-30, 05:01 PM
Would you want to live in a world where the most holy of warriors went around lying, cheating, murdering, etc., and justifying it by saying "they were evil"? I'm not saying they should never be used, I'm saying a Paladin is a beacon of justice and honor. Honor all, even your enemies. That's more than they would do for us, and it's why a paladin is better than a demon, or the lying street thief that the paladin is hunting. Honor, justice, courage, Good.......those are all the qualities that set paladins and indeed many people of Good alignment apart from the foul things they dedicate their lives to destroying. Without that difference, what is a Paladin?

Would you rather live in a world where the champions of virtue and justice are unable to competently battle Evil due to their incompetence and adherence to their backwards sense of honor?

As to the OP-
There's nothing wrong about a Paladin that becomes a Beguiler, inherently. As always, it's how one uses his powers that determines his alignment, not what powers he has.

A paladin would be really good at killing unarmed villagers. He has a full BAB, all those weapon and armor proficiencies, a big HD. Does that mean paladins should have those taken away from him, because Devils also have a good BAB, and proficiency with all martial weapons?

Actually, a Paladin/Beguiler could be very Jedi like! Imagine if, when those stormtroopers stopped ol' Obi Wan, and asked about his droids, he bellowed "YES, THESE ARE THE DROIDS YOU ARE LOOKING FOR!! PREPARE TO ENGAGE IN HONORABLE COMBAT!!" and whipped out his lightsabre, followed by "OBIIIII WAN KENOOBBBIIIIIIIIIII!!!!"

Droodle
2007-06-30, 05:01 PM
In betrayal's case, then I would admit that it can be used for good purposes. But it's still not honorable, and a paladin swears an oath to fight honorably.Not true. If a close friend of a Paladin confides in him that he is betraying their order, turning his close friend in constitutes a betrayal of trust.....but is still lawful, honorable, and (probably) good. Were the Paladin to keep his friend's trust, he would be betraying his order. There are times when it would actually be more honorable to betray a trust than to keep it.

Fax Celestis
2007-06-30, 05:01 PM
The paladin's code is a way to keep the paladin on the straight and narrow. It is NOT something that should take precedence over people's lives and people's suffering, because willfully ignoring those is an evil act.

Thank you. Exactly.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-06-30, 05:05 PM
Would you want to live in a world where the most holy of warriors went around lying, cheating, murdering, etc., and justifying it by saying "they were evil"? I'm not saying they should never be used, I'm saying a Paladin is a beacon of justice and honor.
The Paladin is a beacon of righteousness and good. Honor is generally useful for that, but not inviolable--especially when you consider that most of what "honor" demands are simply cultural values that aren't necessarily good.
I think that the most holy of warriors should protect people and help them. I think that if this means that they need to lie their way into a bad guy's fortress and then kill him in his sleep, because that's the best way to do it, then they should go for it. I think they should be honorable, but that not doing exactly what you said you would isn't dishonorable, and I don't think that honor should take precedence over doing what's right--that would be Lawful Neutral behavior, not Lawful Good. Remember, paladins are Good first and Lawful second: they can do as many chaotic things as they like, just so long as they stay Lawful Good, but one evil act and they fall.


Honor all, even your enemies. That's more than they would do for us, and it's why a paladin is better than a demon, or the lying street thief that the paladin is hunting.
Are you serious, here? Because to me, the reason a paladin is better than a demon is because the paladin does not commit horrible atrocities for his own satisfaction, for example. Because the paladin helps people and does good. Not because the paladin does unreasonable things to bolster his self-image.
A paladin might keep his word less than a devil that prides itself on that--and still be more honorable.

Kizara
2007-06-30, 05:08 PM
It could just as easily apply to sworn oaths, not everything you say. It's also slightly flexible: the code *has* to be slightly flexible, otherwise it would break and all you'd have to do to beat a paladin would be to, say, give them a choice between breaking their word and saving some babies.



Why is lying by omission better than intentionally misleading your enemies? It's intentional deception either way.

The paladin's code is a way to keep the paladin on the straight and narrow. It is NOT something that should take precedence over people's lives and people's suffering, because willfully ignoring those is an evil act.

I'm sorry, I thought I addressed this.

Sometimes, you have to make hard choices. Sometimes, you have to break your code. Sometimes, you have to make a personal sacrifice of your own integrity to save the lives of others and to serve the greater good. Just like sometimes, you have to lay down your life for those same people. You put your honor and your code above what may be otherwise more expedient, efficent or satisfying at the time. "because the evil people do it and thus they deserve it" is well addressed by Paladin_boy's post.

That's difference between being Miko (what your trying to say IMO) and being a true paladin (like Hinjo). The atonement spell exists for a reason, and IMO a Paladin can atone without it for more minor breaches.

As for lying by omission, I was unclear. I did not intend to protray that I thought that was acceptable. Not running up to your enemy to tell him your plans isnt being deceptive in my opinion. Same as:
Enemy: What are your plans?
Paladin: Your death and likewise to that of your kind!
Note, he didn't say HOW he was going to do that, why would he? There's no deception here in my opinion: his intent is clear.

Fax Celestis
2007-06-30, 05:11 PM
So being a paladin means that you have no privacy?

PaladinBoy
2007-06-30, 05:15 PM
It could just as easily apply to sworn oaths, not everything you say. It's also slightly flexible: the code *has* to be slightly flexible, otherwise it would break and all you'd have to do to beat a paladin would be to, say, give them a choice between breaking their word and saving some babies.

Actually, attempting to tempt a paladin to do evil is something that a lot of demons like doing. They attempt to give the paladin a choice: follow your code and watch the people die, or break your code and save them. The best way for a paladin to go is find the unexpected answer and do both.


Why is lying by omission better than intentionally misleading your enemies? It's intentional deception either way.

I actually agree with you here. Lying by omission isn't much better, if it is at all.


The paladin's code is a way to keep the paladin on the straight and narrow. It is NOT something that should take precedence over people's lives and people's suffering, because willfully ignoring those is an evil act.

Where do people get this "paladin sits on his butt and does nothing because the most obvious solution is evil/dishonorable" bit? If the most obvious way to save lives is Evil, then the paladin doesn't just sit there crying "I don't know what to do!" as the enemy kills the innocents. If he does, he Falls. The trick is to find the non-Evil or honorable way to defeat the enemy. And yes, it does exist.


Not true. If a close friend of a Paladin confides in him that he is betraying their order, turning his close friend in constitutes a betrayal of trust.....but is still lawful, honorable, and (probably) good. Were the Paladin to keep his friend's trust, he would be betraying his order. There are times when it would actually be more honorable to betray a trust than to keep it.

In that case, I wouldn't bother keeping my friend's trust after he told me. I would tell him, flat out, that he is no longer my friend and what he just told me will reach the ears of my superiors as soon as I can reach them.


Are you serious, here? Because to me, the reason a paladin is better than a demon is because the paladin does not commit horrible atrocities for his own satisfaction, for example. Because the paladin helps people and does good. Not because the paladin does unreasonable things to bolster his self-image.
A paladin might keep his word less than a devil that prides itself on that--and still be more honorable.

That's one way that a paladin is better than a demon. However, I think a paladin should strive to be better than a demon in all respects, not just some. I like the way the BoED put it......."exalted paladin" is redundant.


Would you rather live in a world where the champions of virtue and justice are unable to competently battle Evil due to their incompetence and adherence to their backwards sense of honor?

I would rather live in a world where the champions of virtue and honor are able to fight evil while holding to their values. Ultimately, I think that's what makes them good and honorable people. And if you want to tell me that it's either fight evil OR keep values........ don't bother. I'm an idealist; I believe that it is possible. I also think that that belief is what will make it possible.

Kizara
2007-06-30, 05:15 PM
K, what people need to remember here is that a Paladin and his code have two parts:

Lawful

Good


These are not the same thing.

Most of Rachel's points are from someone looking at things from a CG alignment: doing the greatest good without resorting to evil. Not caring about the method, as long as no innocents are hurt etc.
Is this good and virtuous? Sure.

Obi-wan Kanobi was Neutral Good. As were most Jedi.
And btw, a beguiler paladin would make a good jedi-type character.

You may note, that most of my argument that I have made in the last couple pages here have been about the nature of honor-> a lawful concept. An EVIL character can be honorable, I've played quite a few. My LE half-fiend cleric of hextor didn't lie, he did what he said he would, and generally was extremely evil regardless.

So stop saying that goodness can justify dishonor, because it can, but it doesnt change the fact that it's dishonorable.

Jayabalard
2007-06-30, 05:18 PM
Is it really evil to betray<snip> yes; you don't really need the qualifier that you added, so I cut it.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-06-30, 05:18 PM
I'm sorry, I thought I addressed this.

Sometimes, you have to make hard choices. Sometimes, you have to break your code. Sometimes, you have to make a personal sacrifice of your own integrity to save the lives of others and to serve the greater good. Just like sometimes, you have to lay down your life for those same people. You put your honor and your code above what may be otherwise more expedient, efficent or satisfying at the time
No, you bloody well don't, because how efficient you are matters. Not being efficient means that you're less likely to stop the demon, save the people, help the puppy with the broken leg, whatever.
It's not a dilemma until you have to do something *evil* to help people. A paladin shouldn't even think twice about breaking her sworn word to save a life, nor should she feel guilty--because it is clearly the right thing to do.


That's difference between being Miko (what your trying to say IMO) and being a true paladin (like Hinjo). The atonement spell exists for a reason, and IMO a Paladin can atone without it for more minor breaches.
Please. Miko fell because she was doing evil things, rather than helping and saving people. She has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.


As for lying by omission, I was unclear. I did not intend to protray that I thought that was acceptable. Not running up to your enemy to tell him your plans isnt being deceptive in my opinion. Same as:
Enemy: What are your plans?
Paladin: Your death and likewise to that of your kind!
Note, he didn't say HOW he was going to do that, why would he? There's no deception here in my opinion: his intent is clear.
And if the enemy asks for details? "When are you going to attack?" or "Where are your forces located?" or "Where is your army vulnerable?"

In any case, you've yet to demonstrate why breaking your word or betraying someone is intrinsically bad--you've just continued to emphasize your preference.

Kizara
2007-06-30, 05:19 PM
So being a paladin means that you have no privacy?

I'm sorry, I don't understand where your point is comming from.

Please elaborate, or possibly quote the point that I or others made that caused you to say this to give it some context.

Counterpower
2007-06-30, 05:23 PM
I'm just going to dispense with quoting and attacking specific parts of others' arguments and go with a simple statement of my beliefs:

There are causes, ideals, and morals that are more important than lives.

Good is better defended by a Paladin like Kizara's than a Grey Guard.

Besides, if a paladin adheres to his code as best he can, not breaking it simply because it'd be easier to kill the BBEG some other way, the protection of lives will naturally extend from that. People will be better defended by a Paladin true to his code than a Paladin who ignores it for the sake of convenience.

Tor the Fallen
2007-06-30, 05:24 PM
K, what people need to remember here is that a Paladin and his code have two parts:

Lawful

Good


These are not the same thing.

Absolutely correct.
But a paladin, if ever faced with a decision between dishonor, and not doing good, should always take dishonor.

Law is simply a means to an end, the end being good. The inherent assumption is that Law leads to more good.


You may note, that most of my argument that I have made in the last couple pages here have been about the nature of honor-> a lawful concept. An EVIL character can be honorable, I've played quite a few. My LE half-fiend cleric of hextor didn't lie, he did what he said he would, and generally was extremely evil regardless.

In the Fiend Folio, they point out the paradox of Hell- that is, despite the Law, it's terribly corrupt. Fiends, the epitome of Lawful Evil, in the end, choose Evil (self gain) over Law.

Of course, this is just a silly splat book for a place that may or may not exist in your campaign world.

My point is, though, that it appears to be a general consensus amongst board members here on these boards, and in WotC books, that the moral side of alignment often trumps the Law side, especially in cases of being a Paladin and facing a fall.


So stop saying that goodness can justify dishonor, because it can, but it doesnt change the fact that it's dishonorable.

Contrawise, honor can never justify injustice. A paladin, who, through choosing to do the honorable thing, and ending Evil, is closer to a fall than a paladin who chooses to stay honorable and let the Evil flee.

Mind you, this is Evil with a capital E- the sort that cannot redeem itself because of its very nature. It's an entirely different thing when dealing with humanoid bandits.

Jayabalard
2007-06-30, 05:25 PM
No, you bloody well don't, because how efficient you are matters. Not being efficient means that you're less likely to stop the demon, save the people, help the puppy with the broken leg, whatever.
It's not a dilemma until you have to do something *evil* to help people. A paladin shouldn't even think twice about breaking her sworn word to save a life, nor should she feel guilty--because it is clearly the right thing to do.Evil is more efficient than good. If being a paladin had anything to do with efficiency, they'd be lawful evil instead of lawful good.

Being a paladin means doing the right thing, in the right way, even if the right way isn't the most efficient way.

The ends don't justify the means; doing evil or something dishonorable in the name of good doesn't make it any less evil or dishonorable.

Besides, saving a life is not always "clearly the right thing to do."

Kizara
2007-06-30, 05:26 PM
No, you bloody well don't, because how efficient you are matters. Not being efficient means that you're less likely to stop the demon, save the people, help the puppy with the broken leg, whatever.
It's not a dilemma until you have to do something *evil* to help people. A paladin shouldn't even think twice about breaking her sworn word to save a life, nor should she feel guilty--because it is clearly the right thing to do.


Please. Miko fell because she was doing evil things, rather than helping and saving people. She has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.


And if the enemy asks for details? "When are you going to attack?" or "Where are your forces located?" or "Where is your army vulnerable?"

In any case, you've yet to demonstrate why breaking your word or betraying someone is intrinsically bad--you've just continued to emphasize your preference.

I just flat-out disagree with the entirety of your first point as far as it relates to LG Paladins. It might be a good line for say... a CG group of Paladins of Freedom, who were speaking to some Paladins about why they disagreed with their "inhibiting sense of honor".

I drop the Miko example, its not relevent enough for me to argue over. But she's a great example of someone who is lawful, but not good enough. However, this doesn't really make my point: hence dropping it.

If the enemy asks for details I just don't tell him? Attack if possible, or just say something along the lines of "I'm not telling you"? Its not deception.

Because I'm not trying to prove its intrinsically bad or evil, I'm trying to prove its dishonorable or unlawful. And that's the other half of being a Paladin.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-06-30, 05:28 PM
Actually, attempting to tempt a paladin to do evil is something that a lot of demons like doing. They attempt to give the paladin a choice: follow your code and watch the people die, or break your code and save them. The best way for a paladin to go is find the unexpected answer and do both.
Presuming that there's always such an answer is a bad idea. It both sidesteps the question and ignores the fact that if there *isn't* such an answer, he just messed up big time.

Keep in mind we're not talking about evil, here, we're talking about honor. That takes absolute second, third, and even fourth place to doing the right thing. Furthermore, "always keep your word and never lie about anything", which goes above and beyond "keep sworn oaths", isn't honor, it's being rigid and unyielding.


I actually agree with you here. Lying by omission isn't much better, if it is at all.
And yet, if an enemy asks the paladin for a bit of vital information, the Paladin isn't doing anything dishonorable by not telling him.


Where do people get this "paladin sits on his butt and does nothing because the most obvious solution is evil/dishonorable" bit? If the most obvious way to save lives is Evil, then the paladin doesn't just sit there crying "I don't know what to do!" as the enemy kills the innocents. If he does, he Falls. The trick is to find the non-Evil or honorable way to defeat the enemy. And yes, it does exist.
"And yes, it does exist"--what makes you so sure? I'm not saying you shouldn't look, but if you keep looking when there isn't one, you just let those people die.


In that case, I wouldn't bother keeping my friend's trust after he told me. I would tell him, flat out, that he is no longer my friend and what he just told me will reach the ears of my superiors as soon as I can reach them.
...and you break his trust in doing so.
And what's more, he proceeds to run off, go to the bad guys, and get a bunch of paladins killed with the information he gives them.
Way to go, beacon of honor.


That's one way that a paladin is better than a demon. However, I think a paladin should strive to be better than a demon in all respects, not just some. I like the way the BoED put it......."exalted paladin" is redundant.
Except that honor isn't about "good". There's no reason a paladin should be more honorable than a devil who's, say, sworn never to break his word. Why? Because good is more important than honor, especially for paladins, who are, as you said, Exalted Good. Not Exalted Honorable. They fall if they commit an evil act; they can do as many dishonorable things as they like as long as they stay Lawful (and note that you can be lawful without being honorable in any of the usual ways).
There is nothing particularly good about never telling a lie. It can be a point of pride, but that borders on hubris.


I would rather live in a world where the champions of virtue and honor are able to fight evil while holding to their values. Ultimately, I think that's what makes them good and honorable people. And if you want to tell me that it's either fight evil OR keep values........ don't bother. I'm an idealist; I believe that it is possible. I also think that that belief is what will make it possible.
Paladins aren't champions of honor. You're thinking of Samurai, maybe.
Paladins are champions of good. And sometimes it's good to lie to the enemy. Sometimes breaking trust can even be the right, honorable thing to do (such as when it interferes with a more important duty or trust).

Fax Celestis
2007-06-30, 05:28 PM
As for lying by omission, I was unclear. I did not intend to protray that I thought that was acceptable. Not running up to your enemy to tell him your plans isnt being deceptive in my opinion. Same as:
Enemy: What are your plans?
Paladin: Your death and likewise to that of your kind!
Note, he didn't say HOW he was going to do that, why would he? There's no deception here in my opinion: his intent is clear.

I was referencing this bit.

Basically, what you're saying is that, if a paladin is surrounded by superior foes who have an advantageous position and overwhelming numerical superiority, he should spit in their face and say, "I'm here to kill you bastards."

That's a very bad tactical decision, probably spelling the doom of the paladin in a matter of seconds.

And it's very difficult to fight evil if you're dead.

Sometimes, discretion is the better part of valor.

Kizara
2007-06-30, 05:31 PM
Absolutely correct.
But a paladin, if ever faced with a decision between dishonor, and not doing good, should always take dishonor.

Law is simply a means to an end, the end being good. The inherent assumption is that Law leads to more good.


And I have said, directly in indirectly, in various posts, that I agree with this.

Thank you for helping to clarify my point and I'm glad we have come to a mutual understanding.

And, as a minor point of reference, my campaign world certinally does have Hell although I don't posses the Fiend Folio suppliment. I have never once claimed that honor or lawfulness takes precendent over good, and have said at least 3 times directly (twice with examples) that it does not.

Kizara
2007-06-30, 05:36 PM
I was referencing this bit.

Basically, what you're saying is that, if a paladin is surrounded by superior foes who have an advantageous position and overwhelming numerical superiority, he should spit in their face and say, "I'm here to kill you bastards."

That's a very bad tactical decision, probably spelling the doom of the paladin in a matter of seconds.

And it's very difficult to fight evil if you're dead.

Sometimes, discretion is the better part of valor.

Actually, I am not saying that. I am quite sorry my points are so unclear, as this is like the 3rd time I've had to clarify this bit.

I believe that the Paladin CANT say something like:
"I am actually a blackguard in disguise here to lead you to great wealth and power" (even if he doesnt do that, he cant mislead them to believe he was a blackguard)
But he can say:
"I surrender"
And be shamed, but not break his word or his code.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-06-30, 05:44 PM
Evil is more efficient than good. If being a paladin had anything to do with efficiency, they'd be lawful evil instead of lawful good.

Being a paladin means doing the right thing, in the right way, even if the right way isn't the most efficient way.

The ends don't justify the means; doing evil or something dishonorable in the name of good doesn't make it any less evil or dishonorable.

Besides, saving a life is not always "clearly the right thing to do."
I suspect that you're already aware that you're being specious--obviously I'm talking about efficiency when it comes to doing good.
"Being a paladin means doing the right thing in the right way"--except that the right way IS the most efficient way. We are not talking about lost money or time, here. When a paladin is inefficient, that often translates directly into missions failed, unnecessary risks (and thus potential failures) taken, lives lost, suffering not prevented, maybe even the end of the world.

"The ends don't justify the means" is one of those expressions that gets bandied about so often it loses all meaning. "Means" are just things that you do. There aren't ends and means so much as intentions and results. Obviously you shouldn't do fifty evil things in order to do one good one, but if you're telling a lie to save an innocent person's life--how is that anything less than Good and The Right Thing To Do?


There are causes, ideals, and morals that are more important than lives.

Sure, maybe. Not lying? Sorry, it's not one of those.


Good is better defended by a Paladin like Kizara's than a Grey Guard.
Who's talking about Grey Guards? Grey Guards receive dispensation to do occasionally *evil* acts, i.e. the ridiculous "kill a baby to save a thousand people" hypothetical. We're talking about paladins doing potentially dishonorable things (some of which aren't actually dishonorable).


Besides, if a paladin adheres to his code as best he can, not breaking it simply because it'd be easier to kill the BBEG some other way, the protection of lives will naturally extend from that. People will be better defended by a Paladin true to his code than a Paladin who ignores it for the sake of convenience.
Except it won't. People will be best defended by a paladin who puts defending them above "honor"--not above good, mind you, but above things irrelevant to the good/evil axis like "not lying".


I just flat-out disagree with the entirety of your first point as far as it relates to LG Paladins. It might be a good line for say... a CG group of Paladins of Freedom, who were speaking to some Paladins about why they disagreed with their "inhibiting sense of honor".
Sorry, no. CG paladins can be honorable and LG paladins can be not always honorable. Honor is a way of keeping yourself honest. It's secondary to your purpose, which is doing good.


I drop the Miko example, its not relevent enough for me to argue over. But she's a great example of someone who is lawful, but not good enough. However, this doesn't really make my point: hence dropping it.
Sure, and that's why she's not a paladin--she valued certain things over good. Honor can be one of those things. A paladin blinded by honor isn't any more a paladin than one who's too liberal.


If the enemy asks for details I just don't tell him? Attack if possible, or just say something along the lines of "I'm not telling you"? Its not deception.
It's splitting hairs. You don't want him to know something. Why is it okay to just not speak on the subject, but not okay to mislead him?


Because I'm not trying to prove its intrinsically bad or evil, I'm trying to prove its dishonorable or unlawful. And that's the other half of being a Paladin.
It's a vastly less important half.
Besides, you've yet to show how it's dishonorable.



Actually, I am not saying that. I am quite sorry my points are so unclear, as this is like the 3rd time I've had to clarify this bit.

I believe that the Paladin CANT say something like:
"I am actually a blackguard in disguise here to lead you to great wealth and power" (even if he doesnt do that, he cant mislead them to believe he was a blackguard)
But he can say:
"I surrender"
And be shamed, but not break his word or his code.
We KNOW what you're saying, no need to repeat it. You've yet to justify--why can't he say that? Him saying that (assuming he pulls it off) could mean that fewer lives are lost. If he could have said that and didn't, he's not doing as much good as he could.
A paladin can be honorable, but a paladin can be Lawful Good without rigidly adhering to your standards of honor--and he'll be a better paladin for it. You've said that good takes precedence over law and honor (note that law and honor are two separate things)... but you don't seem to realize the implications of this: that because the paladin has to be as good as he can all the time, that leaves no room for a rigid, unyielding honor. He can still be honorable, but he should be flexible about it, and have no qualms about lying to a demon--or killing it in its sleep. Honor is a cultural construct, and irrelevant to what's good and what's lawful.

If your paladin surrenders, he gets killed and does no good.
If your paladin says "I'm here to kill you!", he gets killed and does no good.
If your paladin pretends to be a blackguard and leads the evil army into a trap, he has not only done the strategically sound thing, but he has done the right thing. If you're suggesting otherwise, you ARE saying that not lying is more important than saving good people's lives.

Jayabalard
2007-06-30, 05:55 PM
I suspect that you're already aware that you're being specious--obviously I'm talking about efficiency when it comes to doing good.
"Being a paladin means doing the right thing in the right way"--except that the right way IS the most efficient way. We are not talking about lost money or time, here. When a paladin is inefficient, that often translates directly into missions failed, unnecessary risks (and thus potential failures) taken, lives lost, suffering not prevented, maybe even the end of the world. Winning is not as important as doing the right thing the right. Being efficient has to do with winning, and is less important that doing the right thing the right way.

Being a paladin means doing the right thing, and doing it the right way, even if it's not the most efficient thing that you can do.


"The ends don't justify the means" is one of those expressions that gets bandied about so often it loses all meaning. "Means" are just things that you do. There aren't ends and means so much as intentions and results. Obviously you shouldn't do fifty evil things in order to do one good one, but if you're telling a lie to save an innocent person's life--how is that anything less than Good and The Right Thing To Do?
means: Lying
ends: saving an innocent

The ends (saving an innocent) do not justify the means (lying). The fact that your outcome (ends) is a good thing doesn't make lying (your means) good. It's still a violation of your code.

would I lie to save an innocent? sure, but I'm not a paladin.

Kizara
2007-06-30, 06:04 PM
Your definition of honor is extremely different from mine, and everything I've read regarding it.

I am unsure what to say that's not repeating myself to convince you. In my mind, I have shown, in various ways what I mean and have proven my point.

Some of the minuta of my points you have successfully disproven (such as feinting in combat) but the core principal remains the same.

The difference between a surrender and a lie is that one is truthful, the other is not. There's other differences, but they do not matter. At all.

"It's a vastly less important half.
Besides, you've yet to show how it's dishonorable."

Says right in code that honor= not lying. You seem to believe that not keeping your word, and well lying, is somehow not dishonorable. Since, to my eyes, that's just completely ignoring obvious evidence, I don't know how to make more compelling evidence. And my point is not it's dishonorable because "the code says so", but that's the only good, material evidence I can think of.

Whether, in your opinion its less important, isn't actually the point.

"but you don't seem to realize the implications of this: that because the paladin has to be as good as he can all the time, that leaves no room for a rigid, unyielding honor"

I disagree that my sense of honor (which I believe to be entirely reasonable and have roleplayed extensively and deeply many many times) is unreasonable, undoable. Maybe, my sense of honor is unreasonable to you. Maybe, you believe that you can't do the most good while keeping your code and your honor and thus you interpret your code very freely cause its how you believe you can do the most good. Maybe your right, maybe a CG character with no real code beyond dont be evil can do more good. That's a whole 'nother argument.


"If your paladin surrenders, he gets killed and does no good.
If your paladin says "I'm here to kill you!", he gets killed and does no good.
If your paladin pretends to be a blackguard and leads the evil army into a trap, he has not only done the strategically sound thing, but he has done the right thing. If you're suggesting otherwise, you ARE saying that not lying is more important than saving good people's lives."

I said it's dishonorable, breaking his code and not lawful. I didn't say it wasn't the right thing to do. Point of fact, my character wouldn't do it. Maybe that means 4d6 for me, but that's how it goes. Maybe your character, likely a CG character (at least how your mindset seems to be), would disapprove of this vehemently.

This is close to my last shot at getting this across, since I'm repeating myself ALOT here.

Fax Celestis
2007-06-30, 06:06 PM
In essence, the problem is that "honor" is subjective, while "virtue" is not.

Counterpower
2007-06-30, 06:09 PM
I suspect that you're already aware that you're being specious--obviously I'm talking about efficiency when it comes to doing good.
"Being a paladin means doing the right thing in the right way"--except that the right way IS the most efficient way. We are not talking about lost money or time, here. When a paladin is inefficient, that often translates directly into missions failed, unnecessary risks (and thus potential failures) taken, lives lost, suffering not prevented, maybe even the end of the world.

What if the most efficent way is an act of genocide? Is that a better course of action just because it would save more lives than it would destroy? The right way will not always be the most efficent way. The right way is one that protects those lives while still protecting the ideals of a Paladin. And a Paladin that tries their absolute hardest to protect those people in an honorable fashion deserves respect for standing up for what (s)he believes in, and if I were one of the people that lost my life from the evil forces that the Paladin failed to defeat honorably, I would hold no grudge.


"The ends don't justify the means" is one of those expressions that gets bandied about so often it loses all meaning. "Means" are just things that you do. There aren't ends and means so much as intentions and results. Obviously you shouldn't do fifty evil things in order to do one good one, but if you're telling a lie to save an innocent person's life--how is that anything less than Good and The Right Thing To Do?

I'd like a situation where lying would mean saving an innocent person's life, because I'm having a hard time seeing that one.


Sure, maybe. Not lying? Sorry, it's not one of those.

If you can succeed without lying, why should I take the "most efficient" course?


Who's talking about Grey Guards? Grey Guards receive dispensation to do occasionally *evil* acts, i.e. the ridiculous "kill a baby to save a thousand people" hypothetical. We're talking about paladins doing potentially dishonorable things (some of which aren't actually dishonorable).

I was trying to make a point. I still firmly believe that an honorable paladin is a better defender than a dishonorable one. Go play a rogue if you want to be dishonorable.


Except it won't. People will be best defended by a paladin who puts defending them above "honor"--not above good, mind you, but above things irrelevant to the good/evil axis like "not lying".

No, not really. See, if a paladin doesn't have any problems with lying, how do I know he won't lie to me? LIke I said, I'm not saying that dishonorable actions should never be even considered. They are inappropriate for a Paladin.


Sorry, no. CG paladins can be honorable and LG paladins can be not always honorable. Honor is a way of keeping yourself honest. It's secondary to your purpose, which is doing good.

Of course. But you seem to believe that it's impossible to be honorable and Good at the same time. To be a paladin, you have to be good and honorable. There are always exalted rogues if you prefer to skip that second one.


Sure, and that's why she's not a paladin--she valued certain things over good. Honor can be one of those things. A paladin blinded by honor isn't any more a paladin than one who's too liberal.

Neither is someone who ignores honor a Paladin either.


It's splitting hairs. You don't want him to know something. Why is it okay to just not speak on the subject, but not okay to mislead him?

Why, again, are we talking to this enemy? Nowhere does it say that a Paladin has to be stupid. I agree with Kizara that lying requires the distinct intent to make someone believe you're being truthful when you're not. I don't believe that saying "Sorry, I can't tell you that" is a lie in any sense of the word.


It's a vastly less important half.
Besides, you've yet to show how it's dishonorable.

No, it's definitely an important part of a Paladin.


We KNOW what you're saying, no need to repeat it. You've yet to justify--why can't he say that? Him saying that (assuming he pulls it off) could mean that fewer lives are lost. If he could have said that and didn't, he's not doing as much good as he could.
A paladin can be honorable, but a paladin can be Lawful Good without rigidly adhering to your standards of honor--and he'll be a better paladin for it. You've said that good takes precedence over law and honor (note that law and honor are two separate things)... but you don't seem to realize the implications of this: that because the paladin has to be as good as he can all the time, that leaves no room for a rigid, unyielding honor. He can still be honorable, but he should be flexible about it, and have no qualms about lying to a demon--or killing it in its sleep. Honor is a cultural construct, and irrelevant to what's good and what's lawful.

No, actually, Paladins are holy warriors, bound by their oath to their god to act with honor. Doing good is more important, but you can be strictly honorable and act Good at the same time; they are not mutually exclusive.

Fax Celestis
2007-06-30, 06:12 PM
What if the most efficent way is an act of genocide? Is that a better course of action just because it would save more lives than it would destroy? The right way will not always be the most efficent way. The right way is one that protects those lives while still protecting the ideals of a Paladin. And a Paladin that tries their absolute hardest to protect those people in an honorable fashion deserves respect for standing up for what (s)he believes in, and if I were one of the people that lost my life from the evil forces that the Paladin failed to defeat honorably, I would hold no grudge.

...you're talking about a warrior. Warriors kill things--demons, people, dangerous mindless threats--and as such, genocide is in fact not only the most efficient method, but also the most common. Sure, its genocide of an evil creature, but it's genocide nonetheless.

Why is killing an evil creature not an evil act, if lying to an evil creature is?

Fenix_of_Doom
2007-06-30, 06:15 PM
Winning is not as important as doing the right thing the right. Being efficient has to do with winning, and is less important that doing the right thing the right way.

Being a paladin means doing the right thing, and doing it the right way, even if it's not the most efficient thing that you can do.


means: Lying
ends: saving an innocent

The ends (saving an innocent) do not justify the means (lying). The fact that your outcome (ends) is a good thing doesn't make lying (your means) good. It's still a violation of your code.

would I lie to save an innocent? sure, but I'm not a paladin.

you do realise that doing the right thing IS doing good as efficiently as possible?
I strongly believe lying isn't inherently evil, but assuming it is the outcome doesn't make the act itself just, it does however prevent you from becoming evil or falling as paladin because it was for a just cause.
Edit: why? because the code ought to be flexible in order to function.
a better definition code would be:
lying for your own benefit is bad, lying to help others isn't

Jayabalard
2007-06-30, 06:17 PM
Why is killing an evil creature not an evil act, if lying to an evil creature is?The obvious answer: lyin' ain't killin'.


you do realise that doing the right thing IS doing good as efficiently as possible?You do realize that I have asserted that this is a false statement?

Doing the right this is doing good the right way; efficiency is not the right way. The right way is obeying your code, acting in a virtuous manner (for example, acting with honesty, valor, compassion, justice, sacrifice, honor, humility and spirituality).

PaladinBoy
2007-06-30, 06:17 PM
Presuming that there's always such an answer is a bad idea. It both sidesteps the question and ignores the fact that if there *isn't* such an answer, he just messed up big time.

Keep in mind we're not talking about evil, here, we're talking about honor. That takes absolute second, third, and even fourth place to doing the right thing. Furthermore, "always keep your word and never lie about anything", which goes above and beyond "keep sworn oaths", isn't honor, it's being rigid and unyielding.

Honor, to me, is a matter of fair play and telling the truth. I believe it is a virtue, and a part that I think is integral to the paladin presented in the PHB. As for the "presuming there's always an answer" bit, I'll deal with that below.


And yet, if an enemy asks the paladin for a bit of vital information, the Paladin isn't doing anything dishonorable by not telling him.

I didn't say he was. "I won't tell you." is an open statement of intent. No deception there, no dishonor.


"And yes, it does exist"--what makes you so sure? I'm not saying you shouldn't look, but if you keep looking when there isn't one, you just let those people die.

Because if I admit that I might need to act dishonorably or commit an evil act, then that makes it all the more likely that I will, eventually. If I always believe that another option will be available, then I will hope for a better answer and do everything in my power to get one. If you believe that you will have to act dishonorably, then not only will you give up looking eventually, you could very well give up looking too early.


...and you break his trust in doing so.
And what's more, he proceeds to run off, go to the bad guys, and get a bunch of paladins killed with the information he gives them.
Way to go, beacon of honor.

Actually, I would prefer to beat him unconscious and get him to tell my superiors himself. If he tried to escape, I would attack without hesitation. That might be much more of a breach in his trust, though.


Except that honor isn't about "good". There's no reason a paladin should be more honorable than a devil who's, say, sworn never to break his word. Why? Because good is more important than honor, especially for paladins, who are, as you said, Exalted Good. Not Exalted Honorable. They fall if they commit an evil act; they can do as many dishonorable things as they like as long as they stay Lawful (and note that you can be lawful without being honorable in any of the usual ways).
There is nothing particularly good about never telling a lie. It can be a point of pride, but that borders on hubris.

Actually, strictly RAW, a paladin can't grossly violate his code, and his code has provisions for acting honorably. For a paladin, honor is a big part of his values, perhaps not as much as good, but still important. A paladin swears an oath to be honorable, and a good paladin, to me, does not break his word. A paladin shouldn't compromise his honor unless it is absolutely necessary...... and even then, he should be searching for a way to win honorably.



Paladins aren't champions of honor. You're thinking of Samurai, maybe.
Paladins are champions of good. And sometimes it's good to lie to the enemy. Sometimes breaking trust can even be the right, honorable thing to do (such as when it interferes with a more important duty or trust).

Again, the Paladin's Code in the PHB mentions honor. The class description mentions honor as well. I'll agree that Samurai are more champions of honor than paladins are, but I still think that fighting honorably is an important part of a paladin.

Kizara
2007-06-30, 06:17 PM
...you're talking about a warrior. Warriors kill things--demons, people, dangerous mindless threats--and as such, genocide is in fact not only the most efficient method, but also the most common. Sure, its genocide of an evil creature, but it's genocide nonetheless.

Why is killing an evil creature not an evil act, if lying to an evil creature is?

:)

Always found that point interesting, and Kizara (the character) actually was a cleric of Vecna that made a very similiar point once to a soon-to-become blackguard.

For one thing, I can dodge the point here because its two completely seperate things.
Lying= honor= law.
Killing=moral=good/evil.

Personally, I think an argument for honor-> goodness and dishonorableness -> evilness can be made, but I'm not making it here, I'm only trying to establish (as are many helpful others) that a Paladin (the normal LG type) have to be honorable, live by their code, and lawful (which relates to the two former).

Fax Celestis
2007-06-30, 06:20 PM
...you didn't answer my question.

Paladins as presented in the PHB have to be both lawful and good--and according to their code, are required to not perform evil acts.. Murder is not good: it is downright absolutely evil.

So why is murdering a creature--even an evil creature with no hope of redemption--acceptable in any sense?

Fenix_of_Doom
2007-06-30, 06:25 PM
The obvious answer: lyin' ain't killin'.

You do realize that I have asserted that this is a false statement?

You're probably joking about the first part, otherwise you have a kind of skewed vision of morals. about the second part, I realise you think you did, but I don't agree with it.

edit: on you edit, your code should allow you to act efficiently, what is the use of a code that's supposed to make you act good trough law, when in practice it makes you act less good?

Kizara
2007-06-30, 06:27 PM
...you didn't answer my question.

Paladins as presented in the PHB have to be both lawful and good--and according to their code, are required to not perform evil acts.. Murder is not good: it is downright absolutely evil.

So why is murdering a creature--even an evil creature with no hope of redemption--acceptable in any sense?

I know I didn't, in fact I explicitly said I dodged it because it was beside the point at hand.

As for the greater moral question, I think that's a debate for another time/thread.

As for the DnD RAW and keeping your class features and such. You can thank DnD for things like objective alignments and 'unredeemably evil creatures'. Not sure about exact referances, but "killing evil creatures is a good act", regardless of how hypocritical, is explicitly stated somewhere. As well as that creatures such as chromatic dragons and fiends are irredeemable, and thus killing them is literally just killing part of evil incarnated in physical form: not murder at all.
Now, in my campaign settings, fiends may be a wee bit less irredeemable and more human-like, but that's not RAW. :) DnD is a game about heros killing the bad guys, its not WoD. :)

Jayabalard
2007-06-30, 06:27 PM
Murder is not good: it is downright absolutely evil.There are lots of types of killing; murder is just one of them. The morality of each of them isn't identical.

Murder is evil; murder is killing but killing isn't necessarily murder. Killing isn't necessarily evil.

Murdering an evil creature is evil; killing an evil creature may or may not be evil.

PaladinBoy
2007-06-30, 06:29 PM
...you didn't answer my question.

Paladins as presented in the PHB have to be both lawful and good--and according to their code, are required to not perform evil acts.. Murder is not good: it is downright absolutely evil.

So why is murdering a creature--even an evil creature with no hope of redemption--acceptable in any sense?

Because murder is defined as "killing a creature for personal gain or pleasure". I personally don't like killing, because I think it's far easier to use for evil ends than good ones, but if it's necessary to help others........

Killing is one of the acts which I don't think can be described as good or evil without knowing why you're doing it.

Fishies
2007-06-30, 06:34 PM
Hm... why would the Legion of Evil even need to interrogate you? They can just cast detect thoughts.

Fenix_of_Doom
2007-06-30, 06:34 PM
There are lots of types of killing; murder is just one of them. The morality of each of them isn't identical.

Murder is evil; murder is killing but killing isn't necessarily murder. Killing isn't necessarily evil.

Murdering an evil creature is evil; killing an evil creature may or may not be evil.
There are lots of types of lying; lying for your own benefit is just one of them. The morality of each of them isn't identical.

lying for your own benefit is evil; lying for your own benefit is lying but lying isn't necessarily lying for your own benefit. lying isn't necessarily evil.

lying for your own benefit to an evil creature is evil; lying to an evil creature may or may not be

Counterpower
2007-06-30, 06:34 PM
...you didn't answer my question.

Paladins as presented in the PHB have to be both lawful and good--and according to their code, are required to not perform evil acts.. Murder is not good: it is downright absolutely evil.

So why is murdering a creature--even an evil creature with no hope of redemption--acceptable in any sense?

Actually, killing an evil creature IMO isn't always a non-Evil act. I admit that may not be what the book says, but we're well and truly away from RAW anyway. Fighting back when a demon attacks you and killing it in battle isn't Evil. Coming upon a marilith in its sleep and contacting a wizard friend who can cast teleport (to get to you) and imprisonment (to deal with said marilith) isn't Evil, especially if you look for a caster willing to cast sanctify the wicked. Coming upon a marilith in its sleep and killing it straight off........ probably not Evil, but closer to the line then either of the other two.

Kizara
2007-06-30, 06:50 PM
You know, its with a certain happiness that I consider how proud Alexandra would be that so many people have discovered the meaning of honor by her actions. :)

She would also be more then a little relieved that so many others support her ideals, since she doesn't have many friends in her world, that's often extremely unpleasant for her. (the Marilith is actually more representitive of the kind of crap (as far as unpleasantness) that she has to endure on a regular basis then it is a fluke occurance.)

So as to not be completely pointless, I shall claim that my post illustrates how a demonstration of honor and self-sacrifice (of that honor) can inspire others! :)

Droodle
2007-06-30, 07:08 PM
In that case, I wouldn't bother keeping my friend's trust after he told me. I would tell him, flat out, that he is no longer my friend and what he just told me will reach the ears of my superiors as soon as I can reach them.Even if you tell a person in advance that you are going to betray him, you are still betraying him.

Jayabalard
2007-06-30, 07:27 PM
There are lots of types of lying; lying for your own benefit is just one of them. The morality of each of them isn't identical.

lying for your own benefit is evil; lying for your own benefit is lying but lying isn't necessarily lying for your own benefit. lying isn't necessarily evil.

lying for your own benefit to an evil creature is evil; lying to an evil creature may or may not beAs was said above, lying isn't a moral issue; it's a breaking your code issue.

The code of a paladin does not say "don't kill" ... it says "don't do evil" ... certain types of killing are evil, so so they're against the code and are therefore off-limits for a paladin; other types of killing are not off-limits for paladins.

the code of a paladin DOES say "act with honor(not lie, etc)" ... it doesn't differentiate between lies told for a good reason, or lies told for a bad reason. All types of lies are a violation of the paladin code. All types of lying off-limits for a paladin.

psychoticbarber
2007-06-30, 07:38 PM
Okay, I'm going to start with a few definitions. These definitions were found using the "define:'x'" feature on google, and most are taken from Princeton University's Wordnet.

Honour (Or Honor, sorry, I'm Canadian): Respect: show respect towards; "honor your parents!"

Deception: Misrepresentation: a misleading falsehood

Lie (To lie): Tell an untruth; pretend with intent to deceive; "Don't lie to your parents"

Cheat (To cheat): Deprive somebody of something by deceit; OR swindle: the act of swindling by some fraudulent scheme OR a deception for profit to yourself OR engage in deceitful behavior; practice trickery or fraud

Gross (eg. A gross violation of the Paladin's Code): crying(a): conspicuously and outrageously bad or reprehensible; "a crying shame"; "an egregious lie"; "flagrant violation of human rights"; "a glaring error"; "gross ineptitude"; "gross injustice"; "rank treachery"

Okay, with that out of the way, lets look at the Paladin's Code. These quotes are taken from the SRD, under the "Paladin" section under "Classes"


"A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act."

I don't think we need to unpack that, we're pretty good on the non-evil part of Paladinhood.


"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 innocent"

Respect for Legitimate authority? Check. Legitimate authority, as I see it, to a Paladin, is an authority that is, for the most part, both lawful and good.

Acting with honour. Here we go. Sadly, the Wizards of the Coast have not told us what it is a Paladin is supposed to act with respect towards. Fortunately, they have given us some examples: Not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and "so forth."

What does it mean to not lie? It means one shouldn't "tell untruth[s]" or "pretend with intent to deceive".

What does it mean not to cheat? It means that one shouldn't do all that stuff that I mentioned up there (you can read it, you're big boys and girls).

HOWEVER.

That's right, there's a however.


"A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct..." It goes on to say essentially that said Paladin is in Fallsville.

What is a gross violation of the Paladin's code of honour? It is a violation that is "conspicuously and outrageously bad or reprehensible." Which for me means, in laymans terms, if nobody went "Whoa, that's horrible, I can't believe she did that," the Paladin is probably okay.

I would like to note that NOWHERE in the Paladin's code does it say "A Paladin must be efficient."

Never forget that the life of a Paladin is NOT easy. To cheesily quote JFK "We do not do these things because they are easy, but because they are hard." To be a Paladin is to be constantly vigilant against evil. To be a Paladin is to be a shining example of what an exemplary person SHOULD be. To be a Paladin sometimes requires making the ultimate sacrifice. Sometimes.

In my books, a Paladin who makes the most earnest of efforts to be good and honourable is one who will never need the atonement spell. Oh sometimes said Paladin will need to make peace with the Gods, but it will be a personal atonement, not a ritualistic one.

But a Paladin who uses the code, looks at it sideways, attempts to bend it, just for "efficiency" is a Paladin who must rethink her lifestyle. More than anything, Paladins should not cut corners.

That's how I see it, anyway.

Jayabalard
2007-06-30, 07:45 PM
Firstly, the word honor has many usages... the one that is meant in the paladin code is "A code of integrity, dignity, and pride, chiefly among men, that was maintained in some societies, as in feudal Europe, by force of arms." Not simply "respect other people."

Secondly Just because something isn't a gross violation doesn't mean that it's ok for a paladin to do... it just means that they don't instantly fall because of it. Paladins should still avoid doing it whenever possible.

Thirdly, consistent violations to the code can also be a gross violation of the code even if the individual coinsurance isn't a "gross violation".

tobian
2007-06-30, 07:48 PM
I've been skimming this thread, and this interested me.




the code of a paladin DOES say "act with honor(not lie, etc)" ... it doesn't differentiate between lies told for a good reason, or lies told for a bad reason. All types of lying off-limits for a paladin.


I looked it up in the SRD, and that is correct. If you read it as written, a Paladin cannot lie without breaking his/her code of conduct; thus losing powers. So, RAW, straight out lying in any form is bad.

Obviously, there are problems reading it this way for most people, because thats basically saying any lie, even a white lie, is breaking the code of conduct. I personally do not see how it is possible to never lie in any situation whatsoever.

So, we come to half-truths or omission. That's where the grey area is, and where the DM must decide on what is considered a lie or a half-truth. Obviously, this will vary from DM to DM, so it gets tricky. I could see it working out being a beguiler/paladin, however, you would need a very liberal DM if you ever planned on using you social skills like a "true" beguiler would. However, if one just wants access to say the spell list, then there is nothing preventing a paladin/beguiler combo. (IMO)

So, there is nothing to disallow it, just that the player would be walking a tight rope most (all) of the game. Definitely be interesting though! :smallbiggrin:

psychoticbarber
2007-06-30, 07:53 PM
Firstly, the word honor has many usages... the one that is meant in the paladin code is "A code of integrity, dignity, and pride, chiefly among men, that was maintained in some societies, as in feudal Europe, by force of arms." Not simply "respect other people."

I completely agree. I recall saying that the WotC didn't delineate what was to be respected, and I moved on. But yes, you are correct, and I apologize if I gave off the impression that I disagreed with that definition.


Secondly Just because something isn't a gross violation doesn't mean that it's ok for a paladin to do... it just means that they don't instantly fall because of it. Paladins should still avoid doing it whenever possible.

I agree with you again. I think the last two words are the critical ones.


Thirdly, consistent violations to the code can also be a gross violation of the code even if the individual coinsurance isn't a "gross violation".

Completely agree. Sorry if I gave off the impression that I wouldn't.

asqwasqw
2007-06-30, 08:09 PM
Why is killing an evil creature not an evil act, if lying to an evil creature is?

Because they get to fight back to prevent being killed. How do they prevent getting lied to? Paladins are the head on approach, most of the time.

Armads
2007-06-30, 08:40 PM
Because they get to fight back to prevent being killed. How do they prevent getting lied to? Paladins are the head on approach, most of the time.

Uhh? Sense Motive? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/senseMotive.htm) Directly disbelieving the guy? Sense Motive is actually quite easy to use, with those crazy bonuses you get if someone tells a poor lie.

Jannex
2007-06-30, 08:55 PM
I'd like a situation where lying would mean saving an innocent person's life, because I'm having a hard time seeing that one.

I hope this doesn't go against the forum's policy of not talking about real-world politics (or, for that matter, invoke Godwin's Law), but the first and most obvious example that crossed my mind was, "Are you hiding Anne Frank in your attic?"

That said, I could never really get on board with the idea that "lies of omission are the same as actually lying." Choosing to omit information is not a lie. Telling the truth in a misleading manner is not a lie. I simply cannot get on board with this premise.

I also have a hard time with the idea that "being deceptive is always dishonorable." When I was reading the example of the apple situation a couple of pages back, another example crossed my mind. I take it we've all seen The Princess Bride? If not, you may wish to skip the next bit, as it's a bit spoilery.

When Westley catches up with Vizzini and challenges him to a battle of wits, what follows can be accurately termed a deception. I do not think, however, that it could accurately be termed dishonorable. (For the purposes of this discussion, let's leave aside the fact that the Paladin Code prohibits poison use, as it's hard to construct "a battle of wits...to the death!" otherwise, and it was mutually agreed upon by both combatants.)

Point one: The contest was honorable because it was agreed upon by both contestants, and Westley's challenge was tailored to what Vizzini claimed to be his strongest point--his brain. That's a "fair contest" by my definition of the phrase.

Point two: Westley never actually lied. He said "Where is the poison?" not, "In which glass is the poison?" Had Vizzini been half as clever as he thought he was, he would have realized that the Man In Black wouldn't risk his life (and Buttercup's!) on a contest that essentially came down to a coin-flip; there must have been some other factor at work. Yes, Westley deliberately framed the situation in a deceptive manner, trusting on Vizzini's assumptions to lead him astray, but such was the nature of the contest.

Thus, while I would certainly classify Westley's actions as deceptive, I think one would be hard-pressed to characterize them as dishonorable.

terror_drone
2007-06-30, 09:10 PM
I think Psychoticbarber said it rather well, a Paladin is not supposed to be easy or efficient. The life of a Paladin is hard as they are supposed to uphold BOTH Law and Good.

However you have forgotten one thing, that is all by RAW and in all honesty I do not think a game has ever been about RAW, ever game has been designed to be fun and by being about fun that means RAW stuff gets changed for the players benefit.

Why do you think WoTC said anything relating to honor, last I checked we give meaning to words and everyone views honor differently. Hell I don't think two people can even agree on the same meaning of Law.

For example, in the games I DM (and to an extent the ones I play) most Paladin orders fall under similar rules of the Aes Sedai from the 'Wheel of Time Series', IE No killing unless in the defense of yourself, your allies, or the innocent, No Lying (but the omission of the truth, or bending of words is okay)

But as I said the Paladin code is based on the DM's decision.

psychoticbarber
2007-06-30, 09:19 PM
Unfortunately Westley was never a Paladin. For which most of are eternally grateful, but that's a story for another day.

My point is this: Westley engaged in deceit and trickery to win the day. While technically it would not break a Paladin's code, it is as has been said above "Not the kind of thing a Paladin should do."

The Paladin's code is a really tricky thing, as I think it was meant to be. It's very tricky for the Paladin to make those kinds of honourable decisions. Were I playing a Paladin in the situation of the Battle of Wits, I would probably decide that as long as her death was not imminent (and it wasn't, they had much further to go before that happened), that I would get another chance. So I would let this chance to dishonourably defeat my opponent slip through my fingers as I trusted in the Gods to deliver me a worthy chance to save the day.

Please, please, please don't take this as an assault on your opinions. We ALL struggle (as you can see) with what being a Paladin means.

Edit: Damn, ninjaed. Also, thanks to terror_drone for the support :smallsmile:

Artemician
2007-06-30, 09:38 PM
<snip>

However you have forgotten one thing, that is all by RAW and in all honesty I do not think a game has ever been about RAW, ever game has been designed to be fun and by being about fun that means RAW stuff gets changed for the players benefit.

Why do you think WoTC said anything relating to honor, last I checked we give meaning to words and everyone views honor differently. Hell I don't think two people can even agree on the same meaning of Law.

<snip>

But as I said the Paladin code is based on the DM's decision.

Well said. Rules that get in the way of fun should be modified and/or omitted as the DM sees fit.

Kizara
2007-06-30, 09:41 PM
I think Psychoticbarber said it rather well, a Paladin is not supposed to be easy or efficient. The life of a Paladin is hard as they are supposed to uphold BOTH Law and Good.

However you have forgotten one thing, that is all by RAW and in all honesty I do not think a game has ever been about RAW, ever game has been designed to be fun and by being about fun that means RAW stuff gets changed for the players benefit.

Why do you think WoTC said anything relating to honor, last I checked we give meaning to words and everyone views honor differently. Hell I don't think two people can even agree on the same meaning of Law.

For example, in the games I DM (and to an extent the ones I play) most Paladin orders fall under similar rules of the Aes Sedai from the 'Wheel of Time Series', IE No killing unless in the defense of yourself, your allies, or the innocent, No Lying (but the omission of the truth, or bending of words is okay)

But as I said the Paladin code is based on the DM's decision.

Sorry, I thought I had said my piece on this thread and moved on, but then somebody brought up WoT and Aes Sedi.

First off, I love Aes Sedi, such wonderfully strong and complex characters.

Some points:
The white tower is not a LG organization, it is very much a LN one.
:smile: Aes Sedi are INFAMOUS for not living the spirit of their code and are actually a great example of what NOT to do as a Paladin. The only real Paladin-like Aes Sedi in that whole series is probably Siuan, and not really. Moiranne is NG, Egwene is CG, Nynaeve is LN (leaning towards G), etc. I don't remember alot of the minor characters, but you get the point.

The point of having a code as a Paladin is not to constantly scheme and wriggle around it and try to find ways to do what you want without screwing up. It's about living it, with your heart and soul. Its about not even having to think about your actions because what is good and right is such an integral part of who you are that you have no question about your actions. If you have to ask yourself "how can I do this without breaking my code?" you probably should be playing another character type. What you want to do and what your code allows you to do should be the exact same thing.

Can you play a Paladin less absolute then this? Yes, and it's fun to do so, but that's what your striding for.

As for not killing except defensively, remember the Aes Sedi's "except against shadowspawn" clause? For a Paladin that's "anything that pings as evil". I'm serious.

psychoticbarber
2007-06-30, 09:45 PM
Well said. Rules that get in the way of fun should be modified and/or omitted as the DM sees fit.

I realize now that I haven't actually said this, but I completely agree.

Dervag
2007-06-30, 10:24 PM
And he'll probably be the face of the party, too. It will be interesting to watch him avoid outright lying in violation of the code. But I know him. And he will twist these facts into knots. Heck, he'll turn them quantum and make them non-existent while still existing!

Isn't this going to be so...fun?Should lying be an automatic violation of the paladin's code?

I would say no, because it isn't an evil act. Clearly, all evil acts must be violations of the paladin code. But a paladin does not lose their powers when they commit a chaotic act. So even if lying were an intrinsically chaotic act (which it may or may not be) paladins would still be allowed to do it as long as they didn't do it so consistently that it shifted their alignment to Neutral Good.

Paladins are supposed to be good first and lawful second; that's why their good/evil actions are more tightly restricted than their lawful/chaotic actions.


Sorry, I thought I had said my piece on this thread and moved on, but then somebody brought up WoT and Aes Sedi.

First off, I love Aes Sedi, such wonderfully strong and complex characters.

Some points:
The white tower is not a LG organization, it is very much a LN one.
:smile: Aes Sedi are INFAMOUS for not living the spirit of their code and are actually a great example of what NOT to do as a Paladin. The only real Paladin-like Aes Sedi in that whole series is probably Siuan, and not really. Moiranne is NG, Egwene is CG, Nynaeve is LN (leaning towards G), etc. I don't remember alot of the minor characters, but you get the point.

The point of having a code as a Paladin is not to constantly scheme and wriggle around it and try to find ways to do what you want without screwing up. It's about living it, with your heart and soul. Its about not even having to think about your actions because what is good and right is such an integral part of who you are that you have no question about your actions. If you have to ask yourself "how can I do this without breaking my code?" you probably should be playing another character type. What you want to do and what your code allows you to do should be the exact same thing.Well said, by gum!

Historically, every attempt to use oaths and honor codes to force people to behave has produced situations where people will go to ridiculous, if not obscene, lengths to follow the letter while violating the spirit. For example, the Mongols had a reason of tradition not to spill the blood of religious leaders. Sounds good, right? Very tolerant of them.

When they conquered Baghdad, they captured the Caliph, the most powerful and important person in the religion of Islam. And they couldn't spill his blood. So they tied him in a leather sack and stampeded a herd of horses over him until he had been trampled to a pulp. No blood spilled- it was still in the bag. But that's not a good way to honor a code, is it?

For an honor code to work it must be voluntary. People must want to do the right thing, or they will find a way to do the wrong thing.

Jannex
2007-06-30, 10:49 PM
Unfortunately Westley was never a Paladin. For which most of are eternally grateful, but that's a story for another day.

While admittedly this is true, I was more addressing the concept of what is "honorable" rather than the concept of what is "Paladin-ly." The former is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition of the latter.


My point is this: Westley engaged in deceit and trickery to win the day. While technically it would not break a Paladin's code, it is as has been said above "Not the kind of thing a Paladin should do."

This is exactly the point I'm trying to clarify, though--the question of, "is deception always dishonorable?" I'm not sure that it is, and I'm trying to get a better grasp on the opposing viewpoint.


The Paladin's code is a really tricky thing, as I think it was meant to be. It's very tricky for the Paladin to make those kinds of honourable decisions. Were I playing a Paladin in the situation of the Battle of Wits, I would probably decide that as long as her death was not imminent (and it wasn't, they had much further to go before that happened), that I would get another chance. So I would let this chance to dishonourably defeat my opponent slip through my fingers as I trusted in the Gods to deliver me a worthy chance to save the day.

Two points:

1. Vizzini planned to kill Buttercup as soon as he reached the borders of Guilder (the plan changed later, after Westley complicated things by rescuing her). We the viewer don't know how far it was to the Guilder frontier, and whether Westley would have had an opportunity to steal her away without confronting Vizzini (such as during the night). It may well have been only a few miles to Guilder, and the encounter might have gone the same whenever Westley tried to approach. Since we don't know, it's hard to say.

2. You seem to suggest that in the Battle of Wits, Westley "dishonorably defeated" Vizzini. I'm not clear on why you think it was dishonorable. He challenged Vizzini to a contest based in cleverness, which Vizzini claimed was his greatest strength. How was it any more dishonorable than beating Fezzik in the wrestling match, or Inigo in their duel?


Please, please, please don't take this as an assault on your opinions. We ALL struggle (as you can see) with what being a Paladin means.

No offense taken. :smallsmile: I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from, and make myself understood as well.

psychoticbarber
2007-06-30, 11:19 PM
You are right that the Battle of Wits is, in and of itself, not a dishonourable thing. The deception involved can be described easily as the use of the wit, which is not dishonourable in this context, and is perfectly fine for Westley who has not sworn an oath of honour and truthfulness anyway.

That being said, I still don't think that the same path to victory is proper for the Paladin, in most cases. The Paladin is sworn to a higher code of honour, one that discourages (at the very least) lying and dishonesty. The Paladin's victory in the above example would hinge on Vizzini believing a misrepresentation. As Haley from our beloved Order explained, the con is not in the battle itself, but in the fact that the premise for the battle itself was accepted. (That probably doesn't make much sense, but it's after midnight here and I'm exhausted :smalltongue: )

If a Paladin has to misrepresent the truth in his premise, when he reveals he misrepresented the truth, he was being deceptive, or lying. Which in extenuating circumstances is probably not a big deal, but it is the sort of shady dealings a Paladin should avoid.

I'll explain my views again if I'm being unclear, as I said, I'm not at my most coherent right now.:smallsmile:

Jayabalard
2007-06-30, 11:22 PM
The dread pirate Roberts beat Vizzini in true pirate fashion by being smarter and more deceptive. There was nothing honorable about his methods.


Should lying be an automatic violation of the paladin's code?

I would say no, because it isn't an evil act. it doesn't have to be an evil act... not lying is specifically in the code. Lying is a violation of the code. It's not really an opinion thing; it sounds like you're mixing up gross violations that are enough to cause a paladin to fall instantly (doing evil) with violations that only situationally are gross enough to cause a paladin to fall.

Insert Name Here
2007-06-30, 11:41 PM
Good lord. The thread's exploded. Wow. I go off to a party and the thread gains four pages. -Without- resorting to the gray guard.

"What is he? A lawyer without pointy teeth? A good politician?"

psychoticbarber
2007-06-30, 11:44 PM
Good lord. The thread's exploded. Wow. I go off to a party and the thread gains four pages. -Without- resorting to the gray guard.

"What is he? A lawyer without pointy teeth? A good politician?"

Heh, it also got a touch off-topic. As for your Paladin/Beguiler, it could be done, though I'm using Fax's As It Should Be Paladin, and I think it would fit better with a Chaotic Good Paladin (Forget Fax's name for it) than it would with a Lawful Good one.

Jannex
2007-06-30, 11:45 PM
You are right that the Battle of Wits is, in and of itself, not a dishonourable thing. The deception involved can be described easily as the use of the wit, which is not dishonourable in this context, and is perfectly fine for Westley who has not sworn an oath of honour and truthfulness anyway.

That being said, I still don't think that the same path to victory is proper for the Paladin, in most cases. The Paladin is sworn to a higher code of honour, one that discourages (at the very least) lying and dishonesty. The Paladin's victory in the above example would hinge on Vizzini believing a misrepresentation. As Haley from our beloved Order explained, the con is not in the battle itself, but in the fact that the premise for the battle itself was accepted. (That probably doesn't make much sense, but it's after midnight here and I'm exhausted :smalltongue: )

If a Paladin has to misrepresent the truth in his premise, when he reveals he misrepresented the truth, he was being deceptive, or lying. Which in extenuating circumstances is probably not a big deal, but it is the sort of shady dealings a Paladin should avoid.

I'll explain my views again if I'm being unclear, as I said, I'm not at my most coherent right now.:smallsmile:

I think I see what you're saying. While I might characterize the Battle of Wits as less "making Vizzini believe a misrepresentation" and more "allowing Vizzini to misinterpret the situation" (bearing in mind that Westley never actually said, or even directly implied, that the poison was in only one glass), I concede that this may be splitting hairs. Just, from my point of view, I don't see it as an active misrepresentation; he merely allowed his opponent to make a mistake.


The dread pirate Roberts beat Vizzini in true pirate fashion by being smarter and more deceptive. There was nothing honorable about his methods.

I genuinely don't see what was dishonorable about the contest: it was a legitimate test of intelligence and wits, and someone as smart as Vizzini claimed that he was, would've seen right through the ruse. Both participants agreed on the stakes and the subject before the contest began, and Westley never actually lied about the situation he was creating. That's how I see it, at least. If you disagree, can you explain to me how you see it?

(And, for the record, I'd say that the Dread Pirate Roberts--in the Westley incarnation, at any rate--was the least stereotypically "piratical" pirate I've ever seen.)

psychoticbarber
2007-06-30, 11:50 PM
Jannex, I will easily grant you that this is indeed a sticky wicket. :smallbiggrin:

You did correctly interpret what I intended to say. I think it's unfair to say that someone "as smart as Vizzini claimed to be" would see through such a ruse. There are a lot of huge jumps to go from "Battle of Wits" to "He's immune to Iocaine powder", afterall.

I think that most insanely intelligent people given the same circumstances would come up with "Something is wrong but I can't put my finger on what."

But I can't speak for anybody but me, so I will concede that it's not impossible for such a thing to occur. :smallsmile:

Dervag
2007-07-01, 12:00 AM
You did correctly interpret what I intended to say. I think it's unfair to say that someone "as smart as Vizzini claimed to be" would see through such a ruse. There are a lot of huge jumps to go from "Battle of Wits" to "He's immune to Iocaine powder", afterall.Vizzini claimed to be the smartest plan alive, and that Plato and Socrates were fools compared to him.

Such a man would presumably detect a problem. Vizzini did not; he completely failed to notice either that Westley did not promise that the poison was in only one glass or that Westley appeared utterly unconcerned about the outcome (indicating that he was not afraid of drinking the poison).

Within the boundaries of the battlefield, Westley won fair and square, because the battlefield included the use of deception. Deception is a permitted tactic in some areas of life; would a paladin be forbidden from bluffing in poker, or from concealing his troops behind a ridge so that they could leap up and ambush the enemy?

Jayabalard
2007-07-01, 12:38 AM
just because it was a battle of wits does not mean that out-cheating someone is an honorable tactic.

Dervag
2007-07-01, 12:47 AM
just because it was a battle of wits does not mean that out-cheating someone is an honorable tactic.What I'm trying to say is that if battles of wits are legitimate at all, then deception must be a legitimate tactic within a battle of wits. After all, the whole point of a battle of wits is to try to outguess or outthink your opponent, and it's very difficult to do that in a deception-free environment. It's the hidden information, the concealed factors, and the unspoken assumptions that make a battle of wits into a battle.

So if outcheating someone is automatically dishonorable, then battles of wits are pretty much automatically dishonorable. And while that might be true for certain honor codes, I don't like the implication of it, and I suspect a lot of other people don't either. The implication is that honorable people aren't supposed to be able to trick their enemies. In other words, they are foolish or naive.

I don't believe that honor must, by nature, make the honorable person into a fool by rendering them incapable of outwitting an enemy. Or that someone who does outwit an enemy is inherently dishonorable.

Fax Celestis
2007-07-01, 12:51 AM
What I'm trying to say is that if battles of wits are legitimate at all, then deception must be a legitimate tactic within a battle of wits. After all, the whole point of a battle of wits is to try to outguess or outthink your opponent, and it's very difficult to do that in a deception-free environment. It's the hidden information, the concealed factors, and the unspoken assumptions that make a battle of wits into a battle.

So if outcheating someone is automatically dishonorable, then battles of wits are pretty much automatically dishonorable. And while that might be true for certain honor codes, I don't like the implication of it, and I suspect a lot of other people don't either. The implication is that honorable people aren't supposed to be able to trick their enemies. In other words, they are foolish or naive.

I don't believe that honor must, by nature, make the honorable person into a fool by rendering them incapable of outwitting an enemy. Or that someone who does outwit an enemy is inherently dishonorable.

What he said.

Kizara
2007-07-01, 01:26 AM
SIGH.....

Ok fine, I'll post here again.

RE: Battle of wits.

Out-cheating someone is not honorable. Deception isn't honorable.
A battle of cheating (what you people call wits) is not an honorable context. Just as a battle of who can steal the most is not an honorable contest.

For that specific example, the winner honorably won a dishonorable contest. I can see how that can be confusing.

However, you could say, if you wanted to challange someone's intellect, do one of the following:

1) Have another person (not bound by a code of honor) tell a series of possible, but completely harmless lies. Have each individual guess which things he said were truth. To show that you are able to see through deciet shows Wisdom, and in some people's minds, intelligence.
Key skill: Sense Motive

2) Have a debate, similar to this one, about a difficult issue, such as this one. To do this takes a decent degree of intelligence. The person able to win such a debate (without just bluffing the other guy into thinking he's right) shows greater intellect.
Key skill: Diplomancy/knowledge.

3) Construct something you both have a good amount of skill in, such as weaponsmithing. Have your creation judged by a panel of experts at that art. Whoever has the best item (sword, painting, whatever) made at the end of [predetermined time] wins.
Key Skill: Craft/perform (demonstrating it)

4) Have both participants make skill A checks. The person able to make the best 2/3 checks wins.
Key Skill: Any Int or wis based.

5) Both go to a dungeon, both decide on different but acceptable criminals in there for the contest. Each participant takes the criminal chosen by his competitor and attempts to convert him to the ways of the light. After [predetermined time] of this, the person with the most genuinely repentant criminal wins.
Key Skill: Diplomancy

In conclusion, if you define [I]wit as tricking somebody, and have to have a contest using Bluff to do it, No a Paladin can't have a cheating contest.

As for hidding troops on a Bluff. You have to show me somewhere where Mr. Paladin claimed to not have any other troops/troops on that bluff or where in the established rules of war/engagement, it said that hiding forces wasn't allowed.

calebcom
2007-07-01, 01:48 AM
I'd like a situation where lying would mean saving an innocent person's life, because I'm having a hard time seeing that one.

You did not just say this.

Imagine you are an elf, your kind are hunted in the country you are in.. You are offered shelter by a paladin who is working within the law to change the ligitimate authority of the hobgoblins, because this is their country.

Remember, just because they're evil doesn't give you the right to kill them.

20 hobgoblins show up at the paladins place and demand to search the grounds. the paladin says "Yes sir mr.hobgoblin, They're right in the attic!"

Where is the good or honor in that? You just told the truth, and killed innocent people. If you had been silent, your house would have been searched, and they would have lied. Say "Sorry I can't tell you that" your family and you are drug into the street and shot, then your house is set on fire and again the innocent people die.
Instead you say "I hate those elves, I'd never house them."
Say
You just lied,
and saved lives.

You either defy the legitimate authority of the hobgoblin secret police.
OR
You just killed innocent people.

Prove me wrong.

Thousands if not hundreds of thousands of lives have been saved by lies.
I can provide real world examples if you'd like? I'll send them over PM to avoid forum rule breaking.



Don't EVER try to say that lying has never saved an innocent life. You are WRONG.

Edited to avoid politics and abide by forum rules.

Kizara
2007-07-01, 02:07 AM
You did not just say this.



Imagine if you were an elf hiding in someones attic, and the guy below you said "Yes sir hobgoblin, They're right in the attic!"

Where is the good or honor in that? You just told the truth, and killed 30 innocent people. If you had been silent, your house would have been searched, and they would have lied. Say "Sorry I can't tell you that" your family and you are drug into the street and shot, then your house is set on fire and again the innocent people die.
Instead you say "I hate those elves, I'd never house them."
Say
You just lied,
and saved 30 lives.

Prove me wrong.

Thousands if not hundreds of thousands of lives have been saved by lies.


Don't EVER try to say that lying has never saved an innocent life. You are WRONG.

Counterpower, this is what happens when you set up an otherwise solid point on an extremely bad generalization or point of evidence and the entire side of the argument, or in this case 3 pages of thread, get completely blown out of the water because of the gaping whole you left in your logic. This is meant as constructive debating advice.

Can you save innocents lives by murdering? OF COURSE YOU CAN. The fact that there is an enormous amount of RL examples is besides the point, its just inherently terrible logic. You can save innocent lives by raping, murdering and toturing people too.

Ends != means.

"Instead you say "I hate those elves, I'd never house them."
Say
You just lied,
and saved 30 lives.

Prove me wrong."

You just sacrificed your honor in order to save those 30 lives and did what is unquestionably a good act. A LN (leaning on evil or totally unmoral) person could have kept to their honor only, and you would have 30 deaths on your hands, and a very evil act.
Self-sacrifice, including that of your own virtue, in extreme circumstances in order to protect innocents is something that every Paladin should be willing to do.
Feel some shame at your dishonor, at the fact you could not simply fight off those that wished to harm those in your care. But take solace in the 30 grateful lives you just saved, and know that your god will too.

calebcom
2007-07-01, 02:12 AM
In conclusion, if you define wit as tricking somebody, and have to have a contest using Bluff to do it, No a Paladin can't have a cheating contest.


Paladins can't play poker. They'll lose their class abilities.

BRILLIANT!

Paladins can't lie to save someones life, such as hiding an innocent man who's been framed who will be summarily executed without trial.

AWESOME!

Paladins can't tell their wives that they don't look fat when they're pregnant!
No wonder so many paladins stay celebate?

I SOOO want to be a paladin right about now!

wait... Is this why paladins are the most hated class for partying with in every group i've ever been in?

This could be it.

Kizara
2007-07-01, 02:17 AM
Paladins can't play poker. They'll lose their class abilities.

BRILLIANT!

Paladins can't lie to save someones life, such as hiding an innocent man who's been framed who will be summarily executed without trial.

AWESOME!

Paladins can't tell their wives that they don't look fat when they're pregnant!
No wonder so many paladins stay celebate?

I SOOO want to be a paladin right about now!

wait... Is this why paladins are the most hated class for partying with in every group i've ever been in?

This could be it.

Can't play poker? Quite possibly, although that could fall under the "not telling you" clause. I would say that I paladin couldn't play power WELL anyways. (you can play poker, especially Texas Hold 'em without bluffing, but not very well)

As for lying to save innocents, see my above post.

They would tell their wives their exact honest feelings for them. This would almost certinally include a great deal of love, sincerity and affection. Any women who is so vain that she can't handle the truth of her appearance would likely not have married a paladin in the first place. But no, a paladin wouldn't shame himself or his wife by lying to her about her appearance.

calebcom
2007-07-01, 02:18 AM
Counterpower, this is what happens when you set up an otherwise solid point on an extremely bad generalization or point of evidence and the entire side of the argument, or in this case 3 pages of thread, get completely blown out of the water because of the gaping whole you left in your logic. This is meant as constructive debating advice.

Can you save innocents lives by murdering? OF COURSE YOU CAN. The fact that there is an enormous amount of RL examples is besides the point, its just inherently terrible logic. You can save innocent lives by raping, murdering and toturing people too.

Ends != means.

"Instead you say "I hate those elves, I'd never house them."
Say
You just lied,
and saved 30 lives.

Prove me wrong."

You just sacrificed your honor in order to save those 30 lives and did what is unquestionably a good act. A LN (leaning on evil or totally unmoral) person could have kept to their honor only, and you would have 30 deaths on your hands, and a very evil act.
Self-sacrifice, including that of your own virtue, in extreme circumstances in order to protect innocents is something that every Paladin should be willing to do.
Feel some shame at your dishonor, at the fact you could not simply fight off those that wished to harm those in your care. But take solace in the 30 grateful lives you just saved, and know that your god will too.


So your lawful good god of protecting good and smiting evil steals away your paladin powers because you... sacrificed your virtue to save 30 lives? YES this makes PERFECT SENSE!



Oh, and please let me know how well raping saves lives? as we've pointed out, this isn't about evil, it's about honor. Lying to save lives, is honorable according to everyone I've ever talked to.


Murdering... that would be killing the evil guy who has hurt people for selfish gains? Please make your definition of murder, and back it up with an example of how it would be greater good?

Lets say there is an evil man, surrounded by guards who were merely hired to do their duty.

This man secretly steals children and mutilates them.

Sneaking into his house and killing him in the night, while avoiding killing the innocent guards is less honorable then slaughtering men who know nothing about their masters duty how?

Wait... You're slaughtering innocent men. You're dishonorable.

Or is it that you look away whenever evil is being committed but there is no honorable way around it?

calebcom
2007-07-01, 02:20 AM
But no, a paladin wouldn't shame himself or his wife by lying to her about her appearance.



How many pregnant women have you met?

They're not interested in the truth. They're interested in you telling them they're beautiful. They're on an emotional roller coaster and have no want to be told. "Yes you're fat, but you still look good to me."

All they hear is "You're fat" that's it. Meanwhile the paladins wife is highly upset.

White lies spare feelings that need not be hurt in the first place.

Jannex
2007-07-01, 02:21 AM
Paladins can't play poker. They'll lose their class abilities.

BRILLIANT!

...Now I can't get the following scene out of my head:

The Adventuring Party sitting around a table in their room at the inn, playing strip poker. The Rogue is still fully clothed, and the other party members are in varying states of undress, except for the paladin, who is sitting there shivering, with only his upturned helm protecting his modesty.

Rogue: "I'm all in!" *grins*

Sorcerer: *eyeing the Rogue suspiciously* "I'll call."

Barbarian: *adjusts his loincloth* "Nuh-uh. I'm out."

Paladin: *meekly* "I don' wanna play anymore..."

Rogue: *shrugs* "All right, new game. Who's up for Truth or Dare?"

Paladin: *whimper*

Kizara
2007-07-01, 02:27 AM
Thanks for picking up my straw man and waving at me like a battlefield banner.


How to rape, murder and torture in order to save innocent lives by Kizara:
(Note: I said you could save innocents by it, not that it was, in any way a good act or a LG paladin-like one)
1) You're a LE Paladin of Tyranny in an LE-aligned kingdom. Go find some kind of people your church dislikes. Good-aligned people will do nicely. You have detect good, go use it.
Round up 5 of them. (their only crime is being good-aligned or that your organization otherwise dislikes them)

2) Take them somewhere very public, like a public square. Tell your populace that these bandits (the innocent, gaged/tongue-removed people) have been brought here to be punished as an example to the other's that have been attacking outlying villages.

3) Proceed to rape and torture them. Do it for a while, in front of everyone. Make sure they scream alot. Crying for mercy is great too.

4) Murder them, while defenseless and in cold blood, after torturing them for hours.

5) This sends such a strong example to the local bandits that they don't attack your villages anymore, and those innocent lives are saved.

Sup, I can play LE dang good too. :)

calebcom
2007-07-01, 02:30 AM
Thanks for picking up my straw man and waving at me like a battlefield banner.


How to rape, murder and torture in order to save innocent lives by Kizara:
2) Take them somewhere very public, like a public square. Tell your populace that these bandits (the innocent, gaged/tongue-removed people) have been brought here to be punished as an example to the other's that have been attacking outlying villages.

Wow, YOU FAIL.

Please read the bolded words and their positioning in your text...


You round up Innocent people... who have done nothing wrong...
Rape, torture and murder them...

This saved INNOCENT lives how?

YOU FAIL. Thank you.

Oh, bandits fail to care about random dudes not of their group. something to do with being chaotic evil.

Kizara
2007-07-01, 02:30 AM
How many pregnant women have you met?

They're not interested in the truth. They're interested in you telling them they're beautiful. They're on an emotional roller coaster and have no want to be told. "Yes you're fat, but you still look good to me."

All they hear is "You're fat" that's it. Meanwhile the paladins wife is highly upset.

White lies spare feelings that need not be hurt in the first place.

You don't do, say or act because its what other's want to see/hear. You do what you do because its right and honorable.

Whether your woman can handle this level of uncompromising sincerity is certinally very questionable, and completely and utterly beyond the point.

Kyace
2007-07-01, 02:34 AM
An example of honest trickery: Every see the show "To tell the truth"? Three players (one of which actually was really the person) would each pretend to be the same person, whoever tricked the most judges into voted for them as the real person won. Effectively, two players roll bluff checks while the third rolls a diplomacy check. The judges are aware of the contest and all agree to the same rules, yet two players are trying to trick the judges. Could a paladin play such a game?

Another example: acting in a play. Could a paladin, reading lines for a play, on a stage in front of people aware that it was a play, read the line "I am Spartacus"? His name isn't Spartacus, his character's name isn't Spartacus, so the words are a falsehood with the intent to convince the audience with his act, yet his trickery is within a bound set of approved rules that everyone attending is aware of.

Both times people are attempting to bluff within a set guideline of a game. What about riddles? The intent is the give a statement with a nonobvious truth that tricks listeners but the listener is aware of the guidelines of the game, even if the guidelines are more vague than the play.

A paladin needs to buy medicine in a town that doesn't take kindly to paladins, so he removes his shining white armor and leave the armor and his pale horse at a camp while he enters an unguarded township in normal traveling clothes not to cause undue trouble. No guards asks him who he is or why he is in town. He politely greets passersby and the shopkeeper, buys the medicine and leaves, with no obvious religious vestments or armor, just the simple wooden holy symbol the like a devout farmer might wear. Was he dishonest?

If a guard at the gate had stopped him and asked why he was in town, and he merely said to buy medicine, was he dishonest?

If the town actively disliked paladins and hunted them, was he now dishonest? Or dishonorable? If the town was populated with orcs or goblins? Or devils or demons?

The tricky thing is what is dishonest seems almost to be an observer effect. Items outside of the paladin's control might change something like honest trickery into something dishonest. If in the "I am Spartacus" example, what if a street urchin had hid under a bench in the theater. The urchin hadn't ever seen a play before so he actually thought the honest looking paladin was actually Spartacus. The paladin did nothing different and doesn't even know the urchin is there but not all of the observers are aware of the same rules, so the trickery might be dishonest now, at least to the urchin.

I submit to you that there might be room within the paladin's code for honorable dishonest acts. Acting in a play, IMHO, would be such a case: all observers are aware (or can be assumed to be aware) of the rules of the dishonesty, thus the paladin may attempt to bluff and lie without penalty. The urchin might not be aware of the rules, but the rules are there and the paladin is within them while acting. We each may draw the line where honorable dishonesty ends in different places but it is reasonable to allow honorable dishonesty to exist.

Kizara
2007-07-01, 02:34 AM
Wow, YOU FAIL.

Please read the bolded words and their positioning in your text...


You round up Innocent people... who have done nothing wrong...
Rape, torture and murder them...

This saved INNOCENT lives how?

YOU FAIL. THank you.

Heh, I said I would save innocents. And I have. I never said I would do it without hurting anyone. Btw, you could use actual bandits and have the same effect. You aren't saving those innocents, you are saving innocents. As a point in fact, the PoT in this example doesn't care particularly that the people he's saving are innocent, only that he's enforcing the law very effectively and efficiently.

Btw, I'm fairly sure this action will result in <5 people being killed by future bandit attacks, so if you want to talk about net accounting it works there too.

Jannex
2007-07-01, 02:34 AM
You don't do, say or act because its what other's want to see/hear. You do what you do because its right and honorable.

I believe the dispute was with the notion that it's "right" and "honorable" to make your pregnant, aching, nauseous, hormonally-imbalanced, emotionally-vulnerable wife, cry. But that's just how I was reading calebcom's point.

calebcom
2007-07-01, 02:34 AM
You don't do, say or act because its what other's want to see/hear. You do what you do because its right and honorable.

Whether your woman can handle this level of uncompromising sincerity is certinally very questionable, and completely and utterly beyond the point.


Again, choosing what is good, and what is dishonorable.

You've caused undue stress to a pregnant woman. with multiple instances such as this, you could even send her into a depression in her fragile emotional state, something very not good for the baby.

Do you go ahead and chance harming the baby instead of lying to her?

calebcom
2007-07-01, 02:40 AM
or, you galvanize the bandits to teach a lesson to those who dare strike back. equally as possible.

Don't try to use a situation without thinking of all the outcomes.

now you've killed innocents merely to lead to more innocent deaths.

Kizara
2007-07-01, 02:44 AM
An example of honest trickery: Every see the show "To tell the truth"? Three players (one of which actually was really the person) would each pretend to be the same person, whoever tricked the most judges into voted for them as the real person won. Effectively, two players roll bluff checks while the third rolls a diplomacy check. The judges are aware of the contest and all agree to the same rules, yet two players are trying to trick the judges. Could a paladin play such a game?

Another example: acting in a play. Could a paladin, reading lines for a play, on a stage in front of people aware that it was a play, read the line "I am Spartacus"? His name isn't Spartacus, his character's name isn't Spartacus, so the words are a falsehood with the intent to convince the audience with his act, yet his trickery is within a bound set of approved rules that everyone attending is aware of.

Both times people are attempting to bluff within a set guideline of a game. What about riddles? The intent is the give a statement with a nonobvious truth that tricks listeners but the listener is aware of the guidelines of the game, even if the guidelines are more vague than the play.

A paladin needs to buy medicine in a town that doesn't take kindly to paladins, so he removes his shining white armor and leave the armor and his pale horse at a camp while he enters an unguarded township in normal traveling clothes not to cause undue trouble. No guards asks him who he is or why he is in town. He politely greets passersby and the shopkeeper, buys the medicine and leaves, with no obvious religious vestments or armor, just the simple wooden holy symbol the like a devout farmer might wear. Was he dishonest?

If a guard at the gate had stopped him and asked why he was in town, and he merely said to buy medicine, was he dishonest?

If the town actively disliked paladins and hunted them, was he now dishonest? Or dishonorable? If the town was populated with orcs or goblins? Or devils or demons?

The tricky thing is what is dishonest seems almost to be an observer effect. Items outside of the paladin's control might change something like honest trickery into something dishonest. If in the "I am Spartacus" example, what if a street urchin had hid under a bench in the theater. The urchin hadn't ever seen a play before so he actually thought the honest looking paladin was actually Spartacus. The paladin did nothing different and doesn't even know the urchin is there but not all of the observers are aware of the same rules, so the trickery might be dishonest now, at least to the urchin.

I submit to you that there might be room within the paladin's code for honorable dishonest acts. Acting in a play, IMHO, would be such a case: all observers are aware (or can be assumed to be aware) of the rules of the dishonesty, thus the paladin may attempt to bluff and lie without penalty. The urchin might not be aware of the rules, but the rules are there and the paladin is within them while acting. We each may draw the line where honorable dishonesty ends in different places but it is reasonable to allow honorable dishonesty to exist.

You have a very good example, and I can disprove this too. You know, I don't actually get tired of doing this, it's odd. Maybe it's why I love playing the class so very, very much.

1) Bluffing game. Paladin could easily be the judge. Could he be a participant?
I'll grant you, I had to really think about that. By the most strictest defintion, no. He is geuinely attempting to decieve the judge about who he is even briefly and completely harmlessly. I don't think a paladin would have a problem with this game occuring though, at least not much of one.
Note: this game is chaotic by nature, although that's not the basis for my argument.

2) Medicine. This falls under the "sacrificing personal integrity to help other's" clause. Considering the nature of the action, I would say it would be a small personal dishonor, but nothing to lose the class over. Certinally something he wouldn't want to make a habit of.

3) Acting. Yes, a Paladin could be an actor in a play. Congrats, you found a way for the paladin to make believe. The reason is that the paladin is not trying to decieve people into believing he is Sparticus. He knows that they know he is just an actor, and is merely playing a role.
The urchin misunderstanding the actions is unfortunate, but no dishonor to the paladin. Although if the urchin runs up and addresses him as Sparticus afterwards for some reason, he of course has to explain he is not.
It's about intent to decieve. If the paladin knew ahead of time that the urchin would be watching the play and not know its premise, and couldn't simply inform him, he could not, with honor play Sparticus.

Kizara
2007-07-01, 02:51 AM
I believe the dispute was with the notion that it's "right" and "honorable" to make your pregnant, aching, nauseous, hormonally-imbalanced, emotionally-vulnerable wife, cry. But that's just how I was reading calebcom's point.

My entire point is that a paladin wouldn't marry and impregnate a woman who is that weak as to cry and have serious emoitional issues at his honesty. You both seem to forget that he loves her, and can express that with equal sincerity. He can express how he truly, honest does not find her unattactive because her belly is larger with his unborn child. In fact, he finds her devotion to him such that she would bear such a burden endearing and loves and values her even more for it.

For point of referance, I don't lie to my girfriends. Ever. About anything. There is something to be said about always knowing what someone says to you is the truth. Most people in our culture do NOT UNDERSTAND THIS and thus find it hard to believe that not lying to someone about their apperance shows them respect, honor and geuine feeling. Those who want placators date/marry other people.

And this point is so extremely subjective that I have no interest in further arguing it.

calebcom
2007-07-01, 02:53 AM
2) Medicine. This falls under the "sacrificing personal integrity to help other's" clause. Considering the nature of the action, I would say it would be a small personal dishonor, but nothing to lose the class over. Certinally something he wouldn't want to make a habit of.

Ahh, but far more honorable would be to tell the guard that you are a paladin, and that you are here to buy medicine.

Far more honorable is being detained while your friend is dying!

Far more honorable is sacrificing others so that you remain pure.

Truly this is the way of honor! Telling the truth no matter who it hurts or kills!
Never deceiving, though it may harm others.

This is false honor.
Cowards hide behind this honor.
Selfish is the paladin who hides behind this "honor"

Which is less honorable? Lying, or letting someone die because you felt the need to tell the truth?

Would any god of justice truly punish you for lying to save an innocent life?

Where is the justice in this?

If you break a framed man out of jail because he is being executed without trial, are you acting dishonorably by defying the laws of the land in a good kingdom?

Where is the true line of dishonor and honor?

calebcom
2007-07-01, 02:56 AM
My entire point is that a paladin wouldn't marry and impregnate a woman who is that weak as to cry and have serious emoitional issues at his honesty. You both seem to forget that he loves her, and can express that with equal sincerity. He can express how he truly, honest does not find her unattactive because her belly is larger with his unborn child. In fact, he finds her devotion to him such that she would bear such a burden endearing and loves and values her even more for it.

For point of referance, I don't lie to my girfriends. Ever. About anything. There is something to be said about always knowing what someone says to you is the truth. Most people in our culture do NOT UNDERSTAND THIS and thus find it hard to believe that not lying to someone about their apperance shows them respect, honor and geuine feeling. Those who want placators date/marry other people.

And this point is so extremely subjective that I have no interest in further arguing it.


Now I know you are lying.
Who is to say that the paladin knew she would react this way to pregnancy?
When he finds out, does he leave her?
Do you respect your girlfriend when you bluntly tell her she is ugly?
No matter how much you tell her you love her, you still called her ugly. I doubt anyone would find that to be respectful, in this era or any other.
Do you point out your girlfriends every flaw when they ask if they're pretty or not?
You're lying by omission if you don't tell them everything you think about their beauty.
"Honey do you find me attractive?"

"yes, however your nose is too big, your butt is flat, your left breast is smaller than the right, other than that you're great."


I highly doubt you have had many girlfriends if this is how you treat women.

Kizara
2007-07-01, 03:03 AM
Ahh, but far more honorable would be to tell the guard that you are a paladin, and that you are here to buy medicine.

Far more honorable is being detained while your friend is dying!

Far more honorable is sacrificing others so that you remain pure.

Truly this is the way of honor! Telling the truth no matter who it hurts or kills!
Never deceiving, though it may harm others.

This is false honor.
Cowards hide behind this honor.
Selfish is the paladin who hides behind this "honor"

Which is less honorable? Lying, or letting someone die because you felt the need to tell the truth?

Would any god of justice truly punish you for lying to save an innocent life?

Where is the justice in this?

If you break a framed man out of jail because he is being executed without trial, are you acting dishonorably by defying the laws of the land in a good kingdom?

Where is the true line of dishonor and honor?

Ok, since you are completely not listening to me, quoting me out of complete context and just simply are quite irritating, I will not be respond to future posts of yours. I will, however, respond to this one.
Do note: I don't actually care, at all, if you dislike the paladin class.

"Ahh, but far more honorable would be to tell the guard that you are a paladin, and that you are here to buy medicine."

I said "it would be a small personal dishonor". This doesn't somehow equate to "far more".

"Far more honorable is sacrificing others so that you remain pure."
See: lawful evil

"Truly this is the way of honor! Telling the truth no matter who it hurts or kills!
Never deceiving, though it may harm others."
See: Lawful Neutral

"This is false honor.
Cowards hide behind this honor.
Selfish is the paladin who hides behind this "honor"

If I actually made those claims or said that he would/should, I agree. In fact, I said the complete opposite and that he would/should sacrifice some of his honor and intergrity to help/portect others. I said this in part because he shouldn't be selfish.

"If you break a framed man out of jail because he is being executed without trial, are you acting dishonorably by defying the laws of the land in a good kingdom?"

Short answer: Yes.
Is it for the greater good? Maybe, doesn't matter. Read the rest of this thread, I've made this point like 10 times with different examples already with people at least as stubborn as you.

"Where is the true line of dishonor and honor?"
Complex question that I don't feel like writting 4 paragraphs to someone I don't feel is able to listen to me regarding about.
If someone else wants my entire, comprehensive definition of what honor is, what a paladin's honor is and what it means to uphold these virtures, PM me and I'll make it for them. Although it may happen tomarrow: it's late.

As for lying, its called deception= dishonorable. Really, you can cut this pie with as fine of a knife and with as many different flavours if you like, it doesn't change anything. And that is the nature of a code.

Jannex
2007-07-01, 03:22 AM
My entire point is that a paladin wouldn't marry and impregnate a woman who is that weak as to cry and have serious emoitional issues at his honesty. You both seem to forget that he loves her, and can express that with equal sincerity. He can express how he truly, honest does not find her unattactive because her belly is larger with his unborn child. In fact, he finds her devotion to him such that she would bear such a burden endearing and loves and values her even more for it.

What you seem to forget is that pregnancy plays merry havoc with a woman's emotions by screwing around with her hormones. There is a physiological, chemical reason why she would have this otherwise extreme reaction. It's not because she's "weak" or has "serious emotional issues." If your high-and-mighty paladin can't understand and respect that, he's less honorable than the one who would bend the truth for her sake.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-07-01, 03:26 AM
Kizara, your view of "honor" is arbitrary and rather circular. Why is lying bad? Because it's dishonorable. Why is it dishonorable? Because it's deception, and deception is bad.

There is absolutely nothing positive about the "honor" you describe. It's arbitrary adherence to an arbitrary code. It does nobody any good--not even the adherent.
"I will never tell a lie" isn't any more honorable than "I will never eat broccoli" or any other arbitrary restriction. If that's what you call "honor", your honor is empty and pointless... and a paladin should never let it win out over any amount of good.


As for efficiency--of course efficiency matters. The efficiently good paladin is doing more good. A paladin who lies--not as a matter of course, but when it is functional and useful: feints in battle, deceptive military tactics, infiltration--is going to do more good than a paladin who doesn't. Such a paladin has integrity and honor: he is a good, orderly man working for a good cause. A paladin's duty is to champion the weak, protect the innocent, right wrongs and battle injustice. Honor is in service to that duty; a paladin dishonors himself when, say, he is selfish. Not when he lies to a blackguard.

Of course lying is dishonorable if you define honor to mean never deceiving anyone--but that is a pointless and arbitrary definition. It's just an excuse to feel good about indulging your preferences. A paladin shouldn't casually lie--but neither should he feel bad about doing so if it's the right thing to do.

You yourself have said that honor isn't Right, and that a Paladin should choose Right over honor when they conflict.
That'll be a lot of times.
So the only difference between a paladin with your kind of honor and actual honor is... your kind feels crappy about himself and what he does a lot.
"Being emo" isn't exactly a prime quality of a holy warrior of goodness and justice.

thehothead
2007-07-01, 03:32 AM
I would contribute to this discussion, but I feel that honor is inherantly selfish anyways (see: japanese suicide), so my veiws are a bit biased.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-07-01, 03:37 AM
Honor is very selfish: it's prizing your personal preferences over (at least!) the feelings of others. That's part of why paladins shouldn't be clinging to the kind of honor Kizara describes.

Binary Stars
2007-07-01, 03:38 AM
You did not just say this.

Imagine you are an elf, your kind are hunted in the country you are in. You are offered shelter by a paladin who is working within the law to change the ligitimate authority of the hobgoblins, because this is their country.

Remember, just because they're evil doesn't give you the right to kill them.

20 hobgoblins show up at the paladin's place and demand to search the grounds. The paladin says "Yes sir, mr. hobgoblin, they're right in the attic!"

Where is the good or honor in that? You just told the truth, and killed innocent people. If you had been silent, your house would have been searched, and they would have lied. (Who would of lied about what?) Say "Sorry I can't tell you that" your family and you are drug into the street and shot (May I remind you, it is not dishonerable or evil to fight someone in self-defense if they are attempting to kill you.), then your house is set on fire and again the innocent people die.
Instead you say "I hate those elves, I'd never house them."
Say
You just lied,
and saved lives.


The paladin wouldn't tell him they were in the attic, unless he's a complete moron. If you made a promise not to give away the elf, it is not honorable to tell them he's there and give him away. Odds are, a paladin would just tell the hobgoblins to go away, and end up clobbered.
The way of the Paladin isn't easy. You have to be prepared to give everything up for it. Even your life for another's. Plus, your situation is flawed, there's probably a better place to hide the elf, a much better place. He could even help him run away when they showed up.
This isn't a debate over what's good in the general sense. Just because it's good doesn't mean it's honorable. So in this situation, said paladin would either: A) Fall short of the Paladin's Code for being dishonerable/deceitful and lying, B) Be harmed by the hobgoblins. The only choices here are be attacked or fall.
Of course, there is a reason for atonement. If it really comes to this, tell the hobgoblins he isn't there, and then go back and make amends with your diety.

thehothead
2007-07-01, 03:46 AM
I think there was a typo for the "they would have lied" and it was meant to be "they would have died"

Rachel Lorelei
2007-07-01, 03:47 AM
If the paladin tells them to go away, they clobber him and search the house, finding the elf.

You're onto something when you say that he made a promise to the elf that's more important than not lying to the hobgoblins, though. Similarly, Paladins have made a vow to defend the innocent, do good, et cetera. Pursuit of that is honorable, even if they bluff the bad guy to do it.
And on a similar note, endangering people for the sake of your honor? That's evil. And if your "honorable" plan has a significantly higher risk of failure than the dishonorable one? Yeah, that's endangering people.

thehothead
2007-07-01, 03:50 AM
On another note, isn't "insane player" redunant?

calebcom
2007-07-01, 04:02 AM
If the paladin tells them to go away, they clobber him and search the house, finding the elf.

You're onto something when you say that he made a promise to the elf that's more important than not lying to the hobgoblins, though. Similarly, Paladins have made a vow to defend the innocent, do good, et cetera. Pursuit of that is honorable, even if they bluff the bad guy to do it.
And on a similar note, endangering people for the sake of your honor? That's evil. And if your "honorable" plan has a significantly higher risk of failure than the dishonorable one? Yeah, that's endangering people.

Yes. Though I do not believe in the least that the paladin should have to atone for lying to the hobgoblins. He served honor by protecting the innocent.

The elf in the attic is a parallel to real life events, that can easily be found with some look into history.

If you want a real definition of honor, try this one for size.
Dr Samuel Johnson, in his A Dictionary of the English Language (1755), defined honour as having several senses, the first of which was "nobility of soul, magnanimity, and a scorn of meanness." This sort of honour derives from the perceived virtuous conduct and personal integrity of the person endowed with it. On the other hand, Johnson also defined honour in relationship to "reputation" and "fame"; to "privileges of rank or birth", and as "respect" of the kind which "places an individual socially and determines his right to precedence." This sort of honour is not so much a function of moral or ethical excellence, as it is a consequence of power. Finally, with respect to women, honour may be synonymous with "chastity" or "virginity".

I fail to see anything about lying in this definition of honor. Lets look at chivalry, that's pretty honorable right?


Thou shalt respect all weaknesses, and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them.
Thou shalt love the country in which thou wast born.
Thou shalt not recoil before thine enemy.
Thou shalt make war against the Infidel without cessation, and without mercy.
Thou shalt perform scrupulously thy feudal duties.
Thou shalt never lie, and shall remain faithful to thy pledged word.
Thou shalt be generous, and give largess to everyone.
Thou shalt be everywhere and always the champion of the Right and the Good against Injustice and Evil.

Ah it mentions not lying here! OH! But right after that it says that you should remain faithful to your pledged word... Wouldn't that be redundant?
Or could they be saying don't lie, unless it would break your pledged word?
If you give your pledged word to hide someone, and lying was the only way to do it? What would be the more honorable? Ahh it also says to defend the weak. So more honor is in defending the weak.

Honor cannot be defined as simply "Don't lie" that's honesty. There is FAR more to honor than that.

thehothead
2007-07-01, 04:05 AM
The fact is, no code ofcontact is always applicable. There are so many exceptions and counterexceptions that the end result would be as easy to follow as the sun is cold.

calebcom
2007-07-01, 04:15 AM
The fact is, no code ofcontact is always applicable. There are so many exceptions and counterexceptions that the end result would be as easy to follow as the sun is cold.

Exactly, to say the honorable thing is to NEVER lie is as bad as saying that the orc is ALWAYS the badguy.

Artemician
2007-07-01, 04:57 AM
The fact is, no code of conduct is always applicable. There are so many exceptions and counterexceptions that the end result would be as easy to follow as the sun is cold.

Indeed. Which is why there's always some leeway with any Code of Conduct. Of course, it all depends on how understanding the person who sets the code is.

In any case, its purely a matter between you and your DM.

Insert Name Here
2007-07-01, 10:31 AM
Me and my player. I'm the DM, if anyone actually remembers the start of this.

Jayabalard
2007-07-01, 11:03 AM
I believe the dispute was with the notion that it's "right" and "honorable" to make your pregnant, aching, nauseous, hormonally-imbalanced, emotionally-vulnerable wife, cry. But that's just how I was reading calebcom's point.Perhaps that would be true of your wife... not mine; I'm not going to damage my relationship by lying to my wife just because that's the easy answer.

Jayabalard
2007-07-01, 11:04 AM
Exactly, to say the honorable thing is to NEVER lie is as bad as saying that the orc is ALWAYS the badguy.
No, it's alot more like saying that the murderer is ALWAYS the badguy.

psychoticbarber
2007-07-01, 11:30 AM
Okay, the people in the previous debate about lying (pages 5-6) need to CALM DOWN.

Is lying something a Paladin should do, most of the time? Nope.
Is lying something a Paladin MAY NOT DO EVER? No. Vehemently no.

The Paladin's code is intended to guide Paladins to goodness and rightness, it is not a legal document signed in triplicate.

THERE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE RIGHT THING TO DO IS LIE. The Paladin wouldn't like it, I'm sure, but given the choice between the deaths of 50 Elves and saying "No sir, Mr. Hobgoblin, there are no elves in my attic" I'm sure the Paladin would make the GOOD choice.

THAT BEING SAID, there are times in which the easiest answer is to lie, but it is not the only viable solution. These are the times when a Paladin should STILL NOT LIE. It's not about being easy or efficient.

Does one lie told to the Paladin's Wife while she's pregnant make the Paladin fall? No. BUT if a Paladin makes it a habit to lie to protect the feelings of others, the Paladin still doesn't fall, but should prayerfully consider what it means to abandon one's true feelings in the face of another's, and should consider what it means to lie because it makes life easier.

It's not an "uphold the code perfectly or fall" question, at least as I see it. Paladins can't be truly perfect because people can't be truly perfect, but Paladins hold themselves up to a higher standard than the rest of us. A life of faith is a complex thing, ask my Mom, she's an Anglican Priest.

Paladins as I see them are to be shining beacons of Goodness, Lawfulness and Honour, the kind of person who comes to ask for forgiveness for a mistake, even if it would be easier to ignore it.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-07-01, 12:21 PM
No, it's alot more like saying that the murderer is ALWAYS the badguy.

No, it's not, because "murder" is a bad thing. Murder has connotations of killing innocent people, et cetera. Murder is Bad.
Lying? Not much wrong with it. Don't overdo it, but not lying to the point of inability to play poker is way, way over the top.

Counterpower
2007-07-01, 01:28 PM
Honestly, this will be my last post on this thread. I'm getting seriously tired of this one. That said, though, I'm going for a parting shot, not that it'll be any more effective than any of the other ones.

To address my request for an example: I asked for a freaking example, not an all-purpose shot of insults. Just because I am not a walking encyclopedia of events, and can't think of a good situation at any given time is not a good reason to insult me, calebcom. As for the actual example that you posted, if I was that paladin I'd do several things differently. First, I'd have an alternate escape route for the elves, preferably something magical that discourages pursuit. If I was in what you've basically called enemy territory, you can bet that I'd have some way to get out of there really fast. Probably something like refuge (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/refuge.htm), probably combined with a portable hole so that everyone can escape carried in it. Second, I might very well tell them to get out of there as soon as they arrive, back to friendly territory. Even if I didn't, I'd have a prearranged signal to alert them to get out of there. Third, I'd be constantly monitoring the door, and if the enemy's forces tried knocking on the door, I'd see how long they did that without getting any response. Assuming the worst happens next and they break their way in, I start complaining to them about how they just broke into my house. Now assuming that they ask about the elves anyway, I head of the question by asking them to prove that they have the right to search my house (no, "we're the secret police" will not satisfy me) and now finally assuming that they start trying to check my attic anyway, I give the aforementioned signal and prevent them from getting up there for as long as I can, likely with whatever weapons I have at hand.

Also, I find it interesting how many people seem to consider honor as an obstacle rather than a virtue. I personally believe that people are expanding the definition of "lying and/or deception" far farther than it needs to be taken. It's kind of amusing that people are saying "the code is too restrictive" when they're the ones extending the code too far.

I would rather be friends with an honorable good person than a dishonorable one. I'd probably prefer the company of a honorable netural character than a dishonorable good one. Heck, even with an honorable evil character, I know where I stand. I'll probably be trying to kill him, but still.....

And no, for the last time, "honor" and "good" are not irreconcilable concepts. One can be honorable and still capable of fulfilling their duties as a paladin. Actually, if one is consistently dishonorable (note the use of the word "consistently": one action does not make a Fallen paladin) I suggest playing an LG rogue, or an exalted rogue even if you like your paladin style of play but don't actually want to play a Paladin. They don't have restrictions on being honorable, but Paladins do. It is part of the class, and if you don't want to be honorable, don't play the freaking class.

Jayabalard
2007-07-01, 01:32 PM
No, it's not, because "murder" is a bad thing. Murder has connotations of killing innocent people, et cetera. Murder is Bad.
Lying? Not much wrong with it. Don't overdo it, but not lying to the point of inability to play poker is way, way over the top.You're mixing up honorable and good again. Lying is always dishonorable; and while lying may do more good than it does evil, doing good by lying does not make lying honorable.

Murder is to evil, as lying is to dishonorable.

PaladinBoy
2007-07-01, 01:52 PM
I think this was already mentioned, but the Paladin's Code is not a burden; to the people that follow it, it is something they have sworn to do. It is something they want to do. A paladin, if given the option, is not going to lie because lying is something he doesn't want to do. Likewise, he is going to act honorably because he wants to. Viewing the code as a burden makes it much harder to follow, and IMHO, the type of person who views the code that way has the wrong mindset if he wants to stay a paladin.

I'm also not sure about this "can't be both honorable and good" part. IMO, a number of the "absolutely must lie" situations say nothing about the freqency of these events, and ignore any possible solution that preserves honor. I mean, if the paladin doesn't want to play poker because he doesn't like bluffing, then he doesn't want to play poker.

A lot of the rest of them, such as the "buying medicine in an unfriendly town" example, can be dealt with by keeping in mind that if the paladin stays silent or just says "I'm here to buy medicine." then he isn't intending to decieve the guards - on that point at least. Whether or not that counts as a lie depends on your idea of honor, but I think it's marginally better than outright lying. Still would prefer to get out without any lies, though.

"Elf in the attic"......
Frankly, I congratulate you on coming up with that. How often does that actually happen? Yes, yes, there are historical examples. How frequent is this type of lie necessary? I admit that it might be necessary to lie here; not that I'd want to. I would search for alternate ways to get the secret police to leave, such as attempting to pull whatever rank I have or even fighting them off while the elf snuck out the back.

As for lying in general, it does seem dishonorable to me. It's very easy to use for evil ends. And I still believe that the situations in which you will have to lie are so few and far between that refusing to lie is not going to hurt your ability to do good.

Roupe
2007-07-01, 02:09 PM
A paladin that lies, can be compared to a priest that reveals a confession. In most campaign settings paladins are tied to the church , and many settings have active Gods. Not so healthy for religious Oath breakers.

Kizara
2007-07-01, 02:09 PM
Paladinboy:

Not everything is so convenient. There are no exceptions.
The likelyhood of a situation is completely irrelivant, a code is absolute.

Misleading guards to believe you are not a paladin is deception, whether it is for the greater good is irrelivant to it being deception.

"I would have a backup plan" doesnt hold weight here, even if all your ideas are perfectly sound and could possibly work, the problem is this:

There will come a time in your life as a servant of the light (read: paladin) that you will have to make a decision. There will be no other options, you can look for them, they won't be there. You are out of options and out of time and must make a personal choice between two things:

Your honor and your code and everything that you stand for.

The lives, integrity and honor of those you have sworn to protect (read: anyone good aligned).

You must always, absolutely and unequivically chose the ladder. There is no exceptions. To do this means breaking your code and depending on the serevity of it could also mean falling from grace. This is called a sacrifice, and if you are not willing to make it, then find another class to play, cause that is the level of commitment, duty and self-sacrifice demanded of a paladin.

Sometimes its not about finding another way, its about doing the right thing, even if it kills or shames you to do it. But that doesn't mean it doesn't shame you. Actions, even the most benevolent ones, have consequences.

I hope that helps your roleplaying.

PaladinBoy
2007-07-01, 02:42 PM
Paladinboy:

Not everything is so convenient. There are no exceptions.
The likelyhood of a situation is completely irrelivant, a code is absolute.

Misleading guards to believe you are not a paladin is deception, whether it is for the greater good is irrelivant to it being deception.

"I would have a backup plan" doesnt hold weight here, even if all your ideas are perfectly sound and could possibly work, the problem is this:

There will come a time in your life as a servant of the light (read: paladin) that you will have to make a decision. There will be no other options, you can look for them, they won't be there. You are out of options and out of time and must make a personal choice between two things:

Your honor and your code and everything that you stand for.

The lives, integrity and honor of those you have sworn to protect (read: anyone good aligned).

You must always, absolutely and unequivically chose the ladder. There is no exceptions. To do this means breaking your code and depending on the serevity of it could also mean falling from grace. This is called a sacrifice, and if you are not willing to make it, then find another class to play, cause that is the level of commitment, duty and self-sacrifice demanded of a paladin.

Sometimes its not about finding another way, its about doing the right thing, even if it kills or shames you to do it. But that doesn't mean it doesn't shame you. Actions, even the most benevolent ones, have consequences.

I hope that helps your roleplaying.

I understand what you're saying. I prefer to look at it as a matter of expecting perfection, but not being too unhappy if I can't have it. I understand that sometimes it might be necessary to ignore honor in order to do the right thing. However, I don't think it really is very common, and I think expecting and shooting for perfection in matters like this will prevent you from giving up your honor too soon in a situation where doing so isn't absolutely necessary. Then, when it happens, you make amends, reaffirm your oath to never do such things again, and move on.

I also believe that the decision you present is much less clear cut if the violation you would make is not just dishonorable but evil. I believe that it is not good to commit evil, no matter how many lives you save. Some people do regard that as sacrificing your virtue, and see it as noble, but it is also giving up hope and conceding that evil is necessary. Neither of those are good things.

calebcom
2007-07-01, 03:30 PM
If I was in what you've basically called enemy territory, you can bet that I'd have some way to get out of there really fast. Probably something like refuge (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/refuge.htm), probably combined with a portable hole so that everyone can escape carried in it. Second, I might very well tell them to get out of there as soon as they arrive, back to friendly territory. Even if I didn't, I'd have a prearranged signal to alert them to get out of there. Third, I'd be constantly monitoring the door, and if the enemy's forces tried knocking on the door, I'd see how long they did that without getting any response. Assuming the worst happens next and they break their way in, I start complaining to them about how they just broke into my house. Now assuming that they ask about the elves anyway, I head of the question by asking them to prove that they have the right to search my house (no, "we're the secret police" will not satisfy me) and now finally assuming that they start trying to check my attic anyway, I give the aforementioned signal and prevent them from getting up there for as long as I can, likely with whatever weapons I have at hand.

Also, I find it interesting how many people seem to consider honor as an obstacle rather than a virtue. I personally believe that people are expanding the definition of "lying and/or deception" far farther than it needs to be taken. It's kind of amusing that people are saying "the code is too restrictive" when they're the ones extending the code too far.

I would rather be friends with an honorable good person than a dishonorable one. I'd probably prefer the company of a honorable netural character than a dishonorable good one. Heck, even with an honorable evil character, I know where I stand. I'll probably be trying to kill him, but still.....

And no, for the last time, "honor" and "good" are not irreconcilable concepts. One can be honorable and still capable of fulfilling their duties as a paladin. Actually, if one is consistently dishonorable (note the use of the word "consistently": one action does not make a Fallen paladin) I suggest playing an LG rogue, or an exalted rogue even if you like your paladin style of play but don't actually want to play a Paladin. They don't have restrictions on being honorable, but Paladins do. It is part of the class, and if you don't want to be honorable, don't play the freaking class.

wait, so you a paladin are going to use high level wizard magic?
This isn't about magic, it's about the moral choice. is it more honorable to lie and preserve the lives of the elves, or uphold your own "code" over their lives.
answer that directly instead of side stepping.

I never said honor an obsticle, don't try to change what I said. I said Lying can be honorable, especially when you look at the definition of "Honor".
Honor as defined by the old codes that we think of, such as the old codes of chivalry put human life ahead of ones own honor.

Lying to save yourself? Not good, that's selfish.
Lying to save someone else? Good.

No code can accompany all circumstances. To say that it is absolute is foolish.

Killing another sentient being is murder.

Wait.. we have previsions for self defense. But the CODE, the LAW is absolute. Killing is MURDER. No exceptions. So if you're mugged and end up killing a man in self defense, you're going to be executed. For murder.

That's where taking anything as absolute leads you. I can provide more examples where absolution doesn't work.


Not accepting "We're the police, we're coming in." doesn't work. This isn't a free nation. Standard D&D is set in a world based on the mideval age or even the dark ages. You don't have the right to privacy. If the hobgoblins want to come into your house they can come in because they WANT to. This applies even to Lawful Good kingdoms, as the idea of the right to privacy didn't exist. If the watch needed to search your home, they did it.

You just killed the elves, your family and possibly your neighbors as well.
My example is a direct reference to the Nazi party hunting down jews.

Can you say that the people lying were not honorable? They risked themselves, their families, their neighbors, all for strangers.

The code of chivalry is where paladins get their basis. Note the FIRST part of this code of honor states, Thou shalt respect all weaknesses, and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them.

alas but this won't resolve arguements.

So we go back to where the idea of the paladin class is spawned from.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Hearts_and_Three_Lions

"I do not mean a saint, but a warrior whom God gave more than common gifts and then put under a more than common burden"

Quote from the book that paladins were inspired from by gary gygax's letter in the 1st edition DMG.

Not a saint... That would mean they are expected to have failings wouldn't it?

.I've given 2 examples of where lying would be honorable. As serving ones needs over others is not honorable according to the chivalric codes the paladin is based upon. Their codes of Honor.

Every historical code of Honor I can find is intrinsically intertwined with the concept of Good.

calebcom
2007-07-01, 03:42 PM
Paladinboy:

Not everything is so convenient. There are no exceptions.
The likelyhood of a situation is completely irrelivant, a code is absolute.

Misleading guards to believe you are not a paladin is deception, whether it is for the greater good is irrelivant to it being deception.

"I would have a backup plan" doesnt hold weight here, even if all your ideas are perfectly sound and could possibly work, the problem is this:

There will come a time in your life as a servant of the light (read: paladin) that you will have to make a decision. There will be no other options, you can look for them, they won't be there. You are out of options and out of time and must make a personal choice between two things:

Your honor and your code and everything that you stand for.

The lives, integrity and honor of those you have sworn to protect (read: anyone good aligned).

You must always, absolutely and unequivically chose the latter. There is no exceptions. To do this means breaking your code and depending on the serevity of it could also mean falling from grace. This is called a sacrifice, and if you are not willing to make it, then find another class to play, cause that is the level of commitment, duty and self-sacrifice demanded of a paladin.

Sometimes its not about finding another way, its about doing the right thing, even if it kills or shames you to do it. But that doesn't mean it doesn't shame you. Actions, even the most benevolent ones, have consequences.

I hope that helps your roleplaying.

This is almost right. However, according to the basis of the paladin, there is NO breach of code, nor any shame to be had in breaking ones code to save others lives, because lives are set higher up on the scale of honor.

As I've pointed out, the honor codes the paladin is based on do not seperate Honor from Good, they believe they are entwined.

Again I have to ask what your god of Lawful Goodness is thinking for taking a paladins powers for doing what he has been charged to do? especially when by your own admission, the lives of innocents are far more important than even your version of honor.

calebcom
2007-07-01, 03:52 PM
I believe that it is not good to commit evil, no matter how many lives you save.


A small child is going to be posessed by an evil deity and nothing can stop it save his death. You have the choice of letting the deity wreak havok upon the world, slaughtering thousands or, you can kill him before the god posesses him.

you are killing an innocent, yet saving the lives of thousands if not millions.


But then, would it truly be evil? The child would be dead anyways as the god posesses him/her.

The biggest problem with honor/dishonor good/evil is that everyones perception is different.

We can argue for years about this, and never change eachothers minds.

To the OP: You have to decide for yourself what the paladins deity would accept. The teachings of the god should inform the paladin as to how far they can go with that kind of abuse of trust.

Matthew
2007-07-01, 04:03 PM
This is never going to get anywhere, and with good reason. The acceptability of deception on the part of those who consider themselves good and righteous individuals has been long debated in philosophical and theological circles. The justification of such action against those deemed 'evil' by those deemed 'good' has never been shown to be absolutely wrong or right. It all depends on your point of view. In D&D, that point of view is absolute and determined by the individual DM. No one way of looking at it is definitively more valid than another. All that is required is consistancy within a given campaign setting.

Oh yeah, and Paladins, by default, don't need to have any ties to any church or religion. The exception is The Forgotten Realms, otherwise they may or may not be supporters of a particular Deity, but more commonly (to judge from the PHB fluff) they support the Cause of Lawful Good without reference to a Deity.

SadisticFishing
2007-07-01, 05:19 PM
Heh, Grey Guard is really good.

Oh, and there are no Paladins of Olidamra.

Droodle
2007-07-01, 05:45 PM
Something I think a lot of people are forgetting is that there are times when following the letter of the Paladin code would be dishonorable. Sometimes, the best way for a Paladin to follow his code will be to break it. For example, a Paladin who lies to a group of corrupt lawmen hell-bent on killing an innocent family that the Paladin is sheltering is less dishonorable than telling them the truth (especially since the Paladin has already promised the family his protection and upholding his code by being honest with the lawmen will constitute breaking his code by failing to protect his charge as promised).....and doing battle with them will just get him and the family he's protecting killed. In such a situation, lying would be the most honorable choice the Paladin can make. There is nothing in the Paladin's code which prevents him from choosing his battlefield.

Remember, a Paladin doesn't seek just to uphold the letter of his code. He also seeks to uphold it's spirit.

thehothead
2007-07-01, 05:47 PM
I think being honorable should be replaced with being chivalrous, which was MUCH more open. Oh well.

calebcom
2007-07-01, 06:28 PM
I think being honorable should be replaced with being chivalrous, which was MUCH more open. Oh well.

considering paladins are based off the chivalric code, that would be a very good idea for a homebrew.

Droodle
2007-07-01, 06:54 PM
I don't think the underlying system for the Paladin's ethos is broken. The problem, as I see it, is that younger folks who haven't reached the point where they view the world in shades of grey instead of black in white tend to see the code as an inflexible straight jacket rather than a set of strong guidelines that the Paladin follows whenever possible and sane. Sometimes, following the letter of the code will actually break it.

psychoticbarber
2007-07-01, 07:19 PM
I don't think the underlying system for the Paladin's ethos is broken. The problem, as I see it, is that younger folks who haven't reached the point where they view the world in shades of grey instead of black in white tend to see the code as an inflexible straight jacket rather than a set of strong guidelines that the Paladin follows whenever possible and sane. Sometimes, following the letter of the code will actually break it.

Hey now, don't hit us "younger folks" with such a wide brush :smalltongue:
I'm 19 and I completely agree.

Matthew
2007-07-01, 07:20 PM
I would tend to agree. The only thing that may become broken is the line of communication between DM and PC. The fact is, though, that sometimes even Paladins may not know what the 'right thing to do' actually is. It is even possible that in some situations there is no right thing to do.

horseboy
2007-07-01, 07:24 PM
To the OP:
A paladin who becomes lamed or disenfranchised and desides that Justice could be better served through words could easily become a paladin and retain his abilites.

A player who wants to pick up a few levels of paladin for a mod for bluff checks is not long for keeping his paladin abilities.

To the main arguement of this thread:

I, too, am a member of the paladins must choose death before dishonour crowd. I disagree, however, on what constitiues dishonour.

On those few times where I get to play a paladin, I prefer to play the "historical" versions of paladins. If you look at the architypes that form the basis of the paladin class you will see a lot of things you guys might not like.

Bradamante leaves the field of honour. Abandoning her Uncle (and Leige) to go find her boyfriend. She is considered the most noble and virtuious of all of France's Paladins.

Orlando: Leaves his post, disguises himself as a Moore, sneaks out of Paris. He then infiltrates into the enemy army. Speaking with a perfect accent, gets them to believe that he is one of them. He does it to find out what has become of his love, Angelica. Later on he commits genocide against an entire city. Leading an army that slaughters every man, woman and child as punishment for sacrificing maidens to a pagan God. During none of these things did Durindana break.

A DM and a player should sit down and write out not only the honour of the paladin, but how it interacts with society. Likewise, write out those things that WOULD break the honour. That's not to say only those things on a list are what will cause him to loose his honour, but it avoids a lot of "Why did that happen?"

Matthew
2007-07-01, 07:28 PM
I think Orlando is considered to be satirical, isn't it? I cannot remember offhand, but yeah, Medieval Romance Heroes do a lot of stuff that appears to be questionable by modern standards.

horseboy
2007-07-01, 07:39 PM
There were three novels (Ronald in Love, Ronald Enraged and I can't remember the trans or the real name of the third.) The third one was satire. I was referencing Orlando Furioso (Ronald Enraged).

That's why it's important for the DM and player to decide on the cultural aspects of honour in their campaign. Are you playing post modern culture, mid-evil culture or just making it up as you go along.

Gralamin
2007-07-01, 07:42 PM
To the OP:
A paladin who becomes lamed or disenfranchised and desides that Justice could be better served through words could easily become a paladin and retain his abilites.

A player who wants to pick up a few levels of paladin for a mod for bluff checks is not long for keeping his paladin abilities.

To the main arguement of this thread:

I, too, am a member of the paladins must choose death before dishonour crowd. I disagree, however, on what constitiues dishonour.

On those few times where I get to play a paladin, I prefer to play the "historical" versions of paladins. If you look at the architypes that form the basis of the paladin class you will see a lot of things you guys might not like.

Bradamante leaves the field of honour. Abandoning her Uncle (and Leige) to go find her boyfriend. She is considered the most noble and virtuious of all of France's Paladins.

Orlando: Leaves his post, disguises himself as a Moore, sneaks out of Paris. He then infiltrates into the enemy army. Speaking with a perfect accent, gets them to believe that he is one of them. He does it to find out what has become of his love, Angelica. Later on he commits genocide against an entire city. Leading an army that slaughters every man, woman and child as punishment for sacrificing maidens to a pagan God. During none of these things did Durindana break.

A DM and a player should sit down and write out not only the honour of the paladin, but how it interacts with society. Likewise, write out those things that WOULD break the honour. That's not to say only those things on a list are what will cause him to loose his honour, but it avoids a lot of "Why did that happen?"

The D&D Paladin in based more on Charlemagne's paladin, then frances.

Matthew
2007-07-01, 07:44 PM
Ronald? I hope we're talking about Roland and not the McDonald's Clown :smallbiggrin:

Okay, I thought the whole series was supposed to be satirical, but I'm not particularly familiar with it. In any case, we're prone to invest medieval texts that we don't sympathise with or understand with the quality of satire.

[Edit]
Actually, the Paladin Class is based on a very specific book -Three Hearts and Three Lions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Hearts_and_Three_Lions)

horseboy
2007-07-01, 08:01 PM
Ronald? I hope we're talking about Roland and not the McDonald's Clown :smallbiggrin:

Okay, I thought the whole series was supposed to be satirical, but I'm not particularly familiar with it. In any case, we're prone to invest medieval texts that we don't sympathise with or understand with the quality of satire.

[Edit]
Actually, the Paladin Class is based on a very specific book -Three Hearts and Three Lions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Hearts_and_Three_Lions)

Doh, pardon my bad Italian.
If you go back to the 2nd edition Complete Handbook of Paladins you'll see Orlando listed there along with Three Hearts and Three Lions.

Oh, and Gralamin, Bradamante was the (fictitious) niece of Charlemagne.:smallwink:

calebcom
2007-07-01, 08:02 PM
Ronald? I hope we're talking about Roland and not the McDonald's Clown :smallbiggrin:

Okay, I thought the whole series was supposed to be satirical, but I'm not particularly familiar with it. In any case, we're prone to invest medieval texts that we don't sympathise with or understand with the quality of satire.

[Edit]
Actually, the Paladin Class is based on a very specific book -Three Hearts and Three Lions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Hearts_and_Three_Lions)

I believe I pointed that out just a few posts up.

However I guarantee the book is inspired by the codes of chivalry.

here is a site that lists from the 1st edition D&D the references that influenced D&D. http://www.geocities.com/rgfdfaq/sources.html

Note that paladin lists Three Hearts and Three Lions as ONE reference for paladins.

Based largely on the character of Holger Carlson from Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions, as well as Anderson's original sources, Charlemagne's paladins in the medieval French chansons de geste ("songs of deeds"), particularly The Song of Roland and Ariosto's Orlando Furioso. The paladin's tie to a special war-horse is also from Three Hearts and Three Lions. ("I do not mean a saint, but a warrior whom God gave more than common gifts and then put under a more than common burden." -- Martinus, in Three Hearts and Three Lions, by Poul Anderson.)

horseboy
2007-07-01, 08:04 PM
I don't think the underlying system for the Paladin's ethos is broken. The problem, as I see it, is that younger folks who haven't reached the point where they view the world in shades of grey instead of black in white tend to see the code as an inflexible straight jacket rather than a set of strong guidelines that the Paladin follows whenever possible and sane. Sometimes, following the letter of the code will actually break it.

Oh, oh oh! Like Murilanthianithes the Bronze's(sp) lesson to Priam? I think that was my favorite arch in that series. Tarrasque ftw.

Matthew
2007-07-01, 08:41 PM
I believe I pointed that out just a few posts up.
Maybe you did, but I skipped over it when I noticed the treble post (Note: the Forum Rules forbid that sort of thing)


However I guarantee the book is inspired by the codes of chivalry.

here is a site that lists from the 1st edition D&D the references that influenced D&D. http://www.geocities.com/rgfdfaq/sources.html

Yes, it is inspired by Codes of Chivalry, as understood by one writer around the middle of the last century.


Note that paladin lists Three Hearts and Three Lions as ONE reference for paladins.

Based largely on the character of Holger Carlson from Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions, as well as Anderson's original sources, Charlemagne's paladins in the medieval French chansons de geste ("songs of deeds"), particularly The Song of Roland and Ariosto's Orlando Furioso. The paladin's tie to a special war-horse is also from Three Hearts and Three Lions. ("I do not mean a saint, but a warrior whom God gave more than common gifts and then put under a more than common burden." -- Martinus, in Three Hearts and Three Lions, by Poul Anderson.)

Yes, I know. However, I was responding to the seperation of Epic from Romance that Gralamin was suggesting.


Doh, pardon my bad Italian.
If you go back to the 2nd edition Complete Handbook of Paladins you'll see Orlando listed there along with Three Hearts and Three Lions.

Oh, and Gralamin, Bradamante was the (fictitious) niece of Charlemagne.

No problem. Yeah, the Paladin is a very morphus Class in D&D. The Complete Paladin's Handbook is particularly big on offering endless options and interpretations.
The (A)D&D PHB/DMG, though, is usually where people look for Gygax's original inspiration. I'm not saying it's the only possibility, of course, what I am saying is that there is no 'right way' of looking at the Paladin, except what your DM tells you is appropriate.

calebcom
2007-07-01, 08:52 PM
I'm not saying it's the only possibility, of course, what I am saying is that there is no 'right way' of looking at the Paladin, except what your DM tells you is appropriate.


In that we agree :D

Jayabalard
2007-07-02, 12:05 AM
A small child is going to be posessed by an evil deity and nothing can stop it save his death. You have the choice of letting the deity wreak havok upon the world, slaughtering thousands or, you can kill him before the god posesses him.Killing the child is an act of evil. An evil act done for the greater good is still an act of evil. No offense meant, it's simply not reasonable to assume that people are going to agree with this. There were several threads based on this idea including this specific example not that long ago, right around the time that Miko had her big fall... probably 40+ pages combined between 4 or 5 threads, and no consensus was reached there either.


This is almost right. However, according to the basis of the paladin, there is NO breach of code, nor any shame to be had in breaking ones code to save others lives, because lives are set higher up on the scale of honor.Not so... you're just choosing the lesser transgression. You've still violated your code, it's just not as bad of a violation as it could have been. If you wind up in a situation where anything you do is a violation of your code, that doesn't mean that you get a "violate your code free" card.

Jannex
2007-07-02, 12:37 AM
Not so... you're just choosing the lesser transgression. You've still violated your code, it's just not as bad of a violation as it could have been. If you wind up in a situation where anything you do is a violation of your code, that doesn't mean that you get a "violate your code free" card.

What kind of Lawful Good deity puts his most virtuous and faithful followers into no-win situations, though? That's the bit that isn't making sense to me.

Jayabalard
2007-07-02, 12:57 AM
Perhaps they're put in that situation by someone other than their deity, since the D&D world is generally polytheistic and the evil deities have just as much influence over the world as the good ones. Unless you're claiming that the lawful good deities control the world completely, and that the evil ones have no control over the world?

Perhaps the LG deity is allowing an evil entity to test their follower; even in a monotheistic scenario I can see this happening (ie Job). This is part of the big question of why there is evil in the world when there is a good diety who seems like they could fix the situation.

Perhaps the LG diety doesn't exert any control on the situation at all; the no-win situation is strictly the result of the actions of mortals.

Pestlepup
2007-07-02, 01:12 AM
Killing the child is an act of evil. An evil act done for the greater good is still an act of evil. No offense meant, it's simply not reasonable to assume that people are going to agree with this. There were several threads based on this idea including this specific example not that long ago, right around the time that Miko had her big fall... probably 40+ pages combined between 4 or 5 threads, and no consensus was reached there either.

Not so... you're just choosing the lesser transgression. You've still violated your code, it's just not as bad of a violation as it could have been. If you wind up in a situation where anything you do is a violation of your code, that doesn't mean that you get a "violate your code free" card.

Ahh... The words I've been waiting to hear.

While the Book of Exalted Deeds claims that it's not acceptable for a paladin to sacrifice his/her own purity to save the world, or prevent another great evil, I'd be inclined to disagree. If (and only if) killing the god-possessed child was the only way to prevent an apocalypse or similar ruin, he/she'd go for it. Not for him/herself, but for the rest of the world. And yes, that would mean one fallen paladin. Maybe it would be possible to atone, probably not. Killing an innocent with full awareness and intent is evil, no question. Whether or not the circumstances make it an irredeemably evil act or not, is up to the GM. Well, irredeemable enough to make returning to paladin status impossible, at least. Likely, though, since the paladin was in full awareness and only regretted the means and not the end, there'd likely be no returning to the fold.

And whether some like it or not, killing evil creatures is not a good act. Killing, by default, should be avoided at all costs. Even in D&D, where death isn't as career ending injury as it is in real life, taking a life is a very final act. True, it might prevent further evil from being done, but will also end any chance for redemption. Some might be considered beyond redemption, but that leads to another important point.

Consider this: paladins are rather expected to combat evil, which in more cases than not, leads directly to the killing of evil creatures and persons. While this may not seem like a problem, of a moral sort at the least, a moment should be taken to think about it. First of all, you're making the assumption that killing someone due to the fact that they are possessed of some abstract quality is acceptable, if not preferable. Next, a paladin him/herself is assumed to make the judgement if a creature is deemed evil or not. This translates directly to the paladin arbitrarily deciding who are fit to live. If that doesn't smakc of evil, I don't know what does. And Detect Evil is not the answer. Evil can be used for good ends, but it still doesn't make the act any less evil. Paladins murdering sleeping bandit lords? Evil. Would it make the paladins goals any more evil? Likely not, but that's the point. Evil characters are not reduced to being the villains. People can do the worst things for the best of reasons, and still not be good. That is a very important distinction to make. A paladin can only sense the willingness to go beyond moral restraints for a personal cause, but not the cause itself. Thus, a paladin should refrain from killing whenever possible and not so willingly become the judge, jury and the executioner.

Killing in self defense or the defense of the innocent, though, when lives are actively at stake, is about as close to neutral as killing can be. Still not good though. Having to draw blood means always that all better options have failed or been disregarded.

horseboy
2007-07-02, 01:22 AM
Consider this: paladins are rather expected to combat evil, which in more cases than not, leads directly to the killing of evil creatures and persons. While this may not seem like a problem, of a moral sort at the least, a moment should be taken to think about it. First of all, you're making the assumption that killing someone due to the fact that they are possessed of some abstract quality is acceptable, if not preferable. Next, a paladin him/herself is assumed to make the judgement if a creature is deemed evil or not. This translates directly to the paladin arbitrarily deciding who are fit to live. If that doesn't smakc of evil, I don't know what does. And Detect Evil is not the answer. Evil can be used for good ends, but it still doesn't make the act any less evil. Paladins murdering sleeping bandit lords? Evil. Would it make the paladins goals any more evil? Likely not, but that's the point. Evil characters are not reduced to being the villains. People can do the worst things for the best of reasons, and still not be good. That is a very important distinction to make. A paladin can only sense the willingness to go beyond moral restraints for a personal cause, but not the cause itself. Thus, a paladin should refrain from killing whenever possible and not so willingly become the judge, jury and the executioner.

Killing in self defense or the defense of the innocent, though, when lives are actively at stake, is about as close to neutral as killing can be. Still not good though. Having to draw blood means always that all better options have failed or been disregarded.

Wow, this is so incredibly wrong I don't know how to express it yet. I'll try tomorrow after some sleep.

Jannex
2007-07-02, 01:23 AM
Perhaps they're put in that situation by someone other than their deity, since the D&D world is generally polytheistic and the evil deities have just as much influence over the world as the good ones. Unless you're claiming that the lawful good deities control the world completely, and that the evil ones have no control over the world?

Perhaps the LG deity is allowing an evil entity to test their follower; even in a monotheistic scenario I can see this happening (ie Job). This is part of the big question of why there is evil in the world when there is a good diety who seems like they could fix the situation.

Perhaps the LG diety doesn't exert any control on the situation at all; the no-win situation is strictly the result of the actions of mortals.

However, the LG deity, with deific Intelligence and Wisdom, would understand (and perhaps even foresee) that his Paladins can and will end up in such no-win situations, through no fault of the Paladin's own. Regardless of who DID create that situation, is it either compassionate or just (two qualities that a Lawful Good deity would, supposedly, embody) to punish his most virtuous and faithful servants simply for being put into a no-win situation, which those followers themselves did not create or cause? That's the disconnect I'm seeing here.

Jayabalard
2007-07-02, 01:35 AM
However, the LG deity, with deific Intelligence and Wisdom, would understand (and perhaps even foresee) that his Paladins can and will end up in such no-win situations, through no fault of the Paladin's own.That's called a successful atonement, which I expect out of any true paladin for violations of their code even if it isn't a gross enough violation to cause them to fall; the paladin does their best in the situation that they're put in, sincerely regrets that they had to do something against their code, works to make up for their transgression, and is hopefully forgiven.


Regardless of who DID create that situation, is it either compassionate or just (two qualities that a Lawful Good deity would, supposedly, embody) to punish his most virtuous and faithful servants simply for being put into a no-win situation, which those followers themselves did not create or cause?Those situations exist; it's possible, even likely, that at some point you're going to be put in a situation where one way or another you're going to have to violate your code.

by the way, what punishment are you talking about? Keep in mind that violation of the paladin code != fallen paladin.

Kizara
2007-07-02, 01:36 AM
However, the LG deity, with deific Intelligence and Wisdom, would understand (and perhaps even foresee) that his Paladins can and will end up in such no-win situations, through no fault of the Paladin's own. Regardless of who DID create that situation, is it either compassionate or just (two qualities that a Lawful Good deity would, supposedly, embody) to punish his most virtuous and faithful servants simply for being put into a no-win situation, which those followers themselves did not create or cause? That's the disconnect I'm seeing here.

You are assuming that Heironious personally designed the paladin's code.
Maybe in your world he did, it's hardly far-fetched, but that assumption isn't supported in RAW at all.

Dervag
2007-07-02, 02:17 AM
So we go back to where the idea of the paladin class is spawned from.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Hearts_and_Three_Lions

"I do not mean a saint, but a warrior whom God gave more than common gifts and then put under a more than common burden"

Quote from the book that paladins were inspired from by gary gygax's letter in the 1st edition DMG.Wow. I need to remember that one.


I would contribute to this discussion, but I feel that honor is inherantly selfish anyways (see: japanese suicide), so my veiws are a bit biased.Honor may or may not be selfish. One of the problems with the word 'honor' is that it human beings, having limited imaginations, have trouble making sense of it unless it's placed in a cultural context.

In general, 'honor' is a word describing an ethical code that one follows not because it is enforced from outside, but because one will not be able to bear to look at oneself in the mirror otherwise. Unfortunately, that means that irrelevant cultural fetishes can get rolled into the concept of honor and prove damnably hard to extract from it. For instance, some cultural concepts of 'honor' include the concept of 'machismo', which forces men to engage in various idiotic and/or misogynistic behaviors for the sake of establishing how 'honorable' they are.


What kind of Lawful Good deity puts his most virtuous and faithful followers into no-win situations, though? That's the bit that isn't making sense to me.One who is just as short on options as their followers are.


SIGH.....

Ok fine, I'll post here again.

RE: Battle of wits.

Out-cheating someone is not honorable. Deception isn't honorable.
A battle of cheating (what you people call wits) is not an honorable context. Just as a battle of who can steal the most is not an honorable contest.

For that specific example, the winner honorably won a dishonorable contest. I can see how that can be confusing.

However, you could say, if you wanted to challange someone's intellect, do one of the following:

1) Have another person (not bound by a code of honor) tell a series of possible, but completely harmless lies. Have each individual guess which things he said were truth. To show that you are able to see through deciet shows Wisdom, and in some people's minds, intelligence.
Key skill: Sense Motive

2) Have a debate, similar to this one, about a difficult issue, such as this one. To do this takes a decent degree of intelligence. The person able to win such a debate (without just bluffing the other guy into thinking he's right) shows greater intellect.
Key skill: Diplomancy/knowledge.

3) Construct something you both have a good amount of skill in, such as weaponsmithing. Have your creation judged by a panel of experts at that art. Whoever has the best item (sword, painting, whatever) made at the end of [predetermined time] wins.
Key Skill: Craft/perform (demonstrating it)

4) Have both participants make skill A checks. The person able to make the best 2/3 checks wins.
Key Skill: Any Int or wis based.

5) Both go to a dungeon, both decide on different but acceptable criminals in there for the contest. Each participant takes the criminal chosen by his competitor and attempts to convert him to the ways of the light. After [predetermined time] of this, the person with the most genuinely repentant criminal wins.
Key Skill: Diplomancy

In conclusion, if you define [I]wit as tricking somebody, and have to have a contest using Bluff to do it, No a Paladin can't have a cheating contest.Because, of course, lying is dishonorable.

This is the underlying assumption behind your line of reasoning. It is true of many different cultures, but it is not a universal statement. It is not something that naturally must be true. There are individuals and groups who consider it perfectly legitimate (honorable) to lie to an enemy, even if lying to a friend is wrong.


As for hidding troops on a Bluff. You have to show me somewhere where Mr. Paladin claimed to not have any other troops/troops on that bluff or where in the established rules of war/engagement, it said that hiding forces wasn't allowed.If hiding troops is permissible, hiding facts is permissible. If hiding facts is permissible, then you've allowed paladins to lie by omission, which means that any attempt to make paladins honest is torpedoed at the waterline. Groups that cannot lie by contradicting facts but can lie by omission will tend to do so at the slightest provocation; see the Aes Sedai of Robert Jordan's "Wheel of Time" series for reference.


Counterpower, this is what happens when you set up an otherwise solid point on an extremely bad generalization or point of evidence and the entire side of the argument, or in this case 3 pages of thread, get completely blown out of the water because of the gaping whole you left in your logic. This is meant as constructive debating advice.


Can you save innocents lives by murdering? OF COURSE YOU CAN. The fact that there is an enormous amount of RL examples is besides the point, its just inherently terrible logic. You can save innocent lives by raping, murdering and toturing people too.You made that up.

The only category of cases where innocent lives can honestly be said to be saved by torturing people are the variants on the "ticking bomb" scenario. And the ticking bomb scenario is a fictional trope, not a real phenomenon; it doesn't happen in real life. In real life torture happens to be both wrong and just about totally useless as a tool for extracting information.

Moreover, your objection is neither here nor there, because it is possible to have a viable and just code of honor that permits lying but does not permit the willful infliction of suffering (such as rape, torture, or murder).


Feel some shame at your dishonor, at the fact you could not simply fight off those that wished to harm those in your care. But take solace in the 30 grateful lives you just saved, and know that your god will too.That's only dishonor in certain cultural contexts, and not in others. If I have a code that permits lying to a foul and dishonorable enemy such as the hobgoblin secret police, I see no reason why I should feel any shame whatsoever. It is not inhuman or evil or wrong to feel no shame at lying to a malevolent enemy.


You don't do, say or act because its what other's want to see/hear. You do what you do because its right and honorable.

Whether your woman can handle this level of uncompromising sincerity is certinally very questionable, and completely and utterly beyond the point.Someone who applies this line of reasoning isn't being right or honorable at all; they're being a self-righteous jerk whose sense of right and wrong is about as reliable as a glass hammer. There's a very real danger that they'll choose to do something horribly wrong in a morally ambiguous situation, precisely because their ethical code gives them rules that they follow without reference to reality or common sense.

I wouldn't want paladins like that anywhere near me; they'd be a menace, and a Lawful Neutral menace at that.


Heh, I said I would save innocents. And I have. I never said I would do it without hurting anyone. Btw, you could use actual bandits and have the same effect. You aren't saving those innocents, you are saving innocents. As a point in fact, the PoT in this example doesn't care particularly that the people he's saving are innocent, only that he's enforcing the law very effectively and efficiently.

Btw, I'm fairly sure this action will result in <5 people being killed by future bandit attacks, so if you want to talk about net accounting it works there too.The logic of net accounting makes a profound mistake. It treats people as if they were things that can be counted like so many potatoes.

That is a mistake because it leads to a reductio ad absurdum. Because if that's true, then morality is a meaningless farce because 'good' and 'evil', 'right' and 'wrong' are just arbitrary tokens and there's no reason to favor one set of tokens over another. And if so, there is no way to justify a repellent act by reference to "morality." While you can now claim to be saving innocent lives by a repellent act, you can no longer maintain a consistent claim that saving innocent lives is worth committing a repellent act, or that anyone in the world has any reason not to stop you from committing that repellent act.

Psychopathy is a disease state, not a philosophy.


My entire point is that a paladin wouldn't marry and impregnate a woman who is that weak as to cry and have serious emoitional issues at his honestySuch reasoning tends to lead to actions typical of a self-righteous jerk, which is not what paladins should aspire to be.


Kizara, your view of "honor" is arbitrary and rather circular. Why is lying bad? Because it's dishonorable. Why is it dishonorable? Because it's deception, and deception is bad.

There is absolutely nothing positive about the "honor" you describe. It's arbitrary adherence to an arbitrary code. It does nobody any good--not even the adherent.
"I will never tell a lie" isn't any more honorable than "I will never eat broccoli" or any other arbitrary restriction. If that's what you call "honor", your honor is empty and pointless... and a paladin should never let it win out over any amount of good.What she said.


As for efficiency--of course efficiency matters. The efficiently good paladin is doing more good. A paladin who lies--not as a matter of course, but when it is functional and useful: feints in battle, deceptive military tactics, infiltration--is going to do more good than a paladin who doesn't. Such a paladin has integrity and honor: he is a good, orderly man working for a good cause. A paladin's duty is to champion the weak, protect the innocent, right wrongs and battle injustice. Honor is in service to that duty; a paladin dishonors himself when, say, he is selfish. Not when he lies to a blackguard.To a point. At some point the means really are categorically wrong, but this is not overwhelmingly common.


No, it's not, because "murder" is a bad thing. Murder has connotations of killing innocent people, et cetera. Murder is Bad.I would argue that this is a denotation of murder, not a connotation.


Sometimes its not about finding another way, its about doing the right thing, even if it kills or shames you to do it. But that doesn't mean it doesn't shame you. Actions, even the most benevolent ones, have consequences.

I hope that helps your roleplaying.Should it be a breaking or a shaming thing to do the right thing?

I contend that it should not.


I don't think the underlying system for the Paladin's ethos is broken. The problem, as I see it, is that younger folks who haven't reached the point where they view the world in shades of grey instead of black in white tend to see the code as an inflexible straight jacket rather than a set of strong guidelines that the Paladin follows whenever possible and sane. Sometimes, following the letter of the code will actually break it.Out of sheer morbid curiousity, would you consider me 'younger' or 'older'?


That's called a successful atonement, which I expect out of any true paladin for violations of their code even if it isn't a gross enough violation to cause them to fall; the paladin does their best in the situation that they're put in, sincerely regrets that they had to do something against their code, works to make up for their transgression, and is hopefully forgiven.I would argue that this should be practically automatic if the above conditions are met. A paladin who would really rather not lie but had to protect the elf family upstairs from a squad of jackbooted hobgoblins should be forgiven automatically.

Pestlepup
2007-07-02, 02:18 AM
Wow, this is so incredibly wrong I don't know how to express it yet. I'll try tomorrow after some sleep.

You do that. I'll be around. I'm glad that someone is willing to debate the fundamental dichotomy of a paladin's role as both a warrior and a paragon of virtue. They don't rule each other out, but force the paladin to walk a very precarious path.

EDIT:

The logic of net accounting makes a profound mistake. It treats people as if they were things that can be counted like so many potatoes.

That is a mistake because it leads to a reductio ad absurdum. Because if that's true, then morality is a meaningless farce because 'good' and 'evil', 'right' and 'wrong' are just arbitrary tokens and there's no reason to favor one set of tokens over another. And if so, there is no way to justify a repellent act by reference to "morality." While you can now claim to be saving innocent lives by a repellent act, you can no longer maintain a consistent claim that saving innocent lives is worth committing a repellent act, or that anyone in the world has any reason not to stop you from committing that repellent act.

Psychopathy is a disease state, not a philosophy.

I'd hug you, but it would not likely be appropriate. This is pretty much the essence of my point in bringing up the whole "paladins and killing" problem. Evil can be used to what we perceive as good ends, but it cannot justify the actions, id est, make them any less evil. If it could, morality would become so ambiguous as to be pointless.

calebcom
2007-07-02, 02:33 AM
so I wonder how often the RAW deities with paladin levels lose their powers? must be all the time, they should be glad it's just a simple spell to atone, you know, cast a spell, break it again, cast a spell break it again...

I can see it now

Paladin level deity chooses to save lives instead of being honorable

Deity: "Aww heck, now I have to cast atonement... AGAIN!"

Random Celestial: "That's the 5th time today sir"

Deity: "I KNOW! It's just too bad the code makes me lose those abilities for the tiniest breach, even when I'm serving greater honor by committing lesser dishonor by protecting these guys over here"

Random Celestial: "Someone really should rewrite that code with the understanding that not everything is totally black and white"

Deity: "That would be AWESOME!"

Jannex
2007-07-02, 02:39 AM
That's only dishonor in certain cultural contexts, and not in others. If I have a code that permits lying to a foul and dishonorable enemy such as the hobgoblin secret police, I see no reason why I should feel any shame whatsoever. It is not inhuman or evil or wrong to feel no shame at lying to a malevolent enemy.

Precisely. In the same vein, it is widely held in many cultures and under many legal systems that oaths taken under duress are not binding; the natural extension of this premise would seem to be that, in a situation where innocent lives that a paladin is obligated to protect are at stake (i.e. "under duress"), he is not bound to be truthful to those threatening those lives. If an oath--a stronger and more sacred form of truth, with more implications of honor attached to it--holds no power in such a situation, a simple lie would seem even more permissible without a loss of honor.

horseboy
2007-07-02, 04:45 AM
You do that. I'll be around. I'm glad that someone is willing to debate the fundamental dichotomy of a paladin's role as both a warrior and a paragon of virtue. They don't rule each other out, but force the paladin to walk a very precarious path.



Well, insomnia isn't going to let me sleep tonight, so I'll try it anyway. There is no dichotomy. A paladin gets to become judge, jury and executioner because that's their job. Paladins existed before long, convoluted legal systems like ours were developed. Concepts like "Innocent until proven guilty" and "trial by peers" (as we know it today) didn't exist at that point in time.

The people of that society want order. They want to know they (at least) can go to sleep at night (lucky wankers) knowing that they can wake up in the morning without someone slitting their throats in the middle of the night. So they turn to leaders. These leaders became the nobility. The nobility need champions. These champions have to be as far beyond reproach as mortally possible. These champions are paladins. Paladins are the champions of their society. They represent everything that is "noble" in their culture. They server as leaders to the people, without having dominion over the people. Society has choose to entrust in those few individuals with great power and authority. Their code is to prevent them from abusing their power and authority.

When societies come into contact one of several things can happen. They can be of like mind. Having similar ideals and values. Even if they don't agree personally, they have "respect" for one another. They can be neutral twards one another. Realistically this only happens if they are far a way or it's not feasible to conquer them. Or they come into direct conflict with one another.

When the society of "good' humanoids come in contact with societies of "evil" humanoids they fight. They do this because they are anethima anethama diametrically opposed to one another. Each represents that which the other sees as the most wrong in name givers. Orks will see them as weak and easy prey and the paladin will see them as brutish and base. And so they fight. Because if the paladin (the champion of their culture) does not fight, then all that he holds dear is destroyed. All that he cherishes is ground to ash. All those he loves die.

So he takes up the sword and he defends all that he holds dear. It is a battle that, simply put, can not be won until one side or the other is completely wiped out. The forces of chaos can not except laws to govern them. Those with evil in their hearts will always seek the easiest means to procure that which they want. The paladin can not stop until all accept his society. It's not so much a dichotomy as it is just a vicious, nasty, self perpetuating spiral of violence.

Or so I write at 5:00am with no sleep.

Dervag
2007-07-02, 06:40 AM
I'd hug you, but it would not likely be appropriate.Also, I am very probably hundreds of miles away, and I sincerely hope that your arms aren't that long.


This is pretty much the essence of my point in bringing up the whole "paladins and killing" problem. Evil can be used to what we perceive as good ends, but it cannot justify the actions, id est, make them any less evil. If it could, morality would become so ambiguous as to be pointless.The catch is that the least wrong answer to a question is the right one, and sometimes there is no answer that doesn't involve something wrong happening to someone.

When you have to choose between violating two fundamental principles of morality and violating one, you choose to violate one and no one should blame you for it, because the alternative is worse and more repellent.

Jayabalard
2007-07-02, 06:56 AM
The catch is that the least wrong answer to a question is the right one, and sometimes there is no answer that doesn't involve something wrong happening to someone.

When you have to choose between violating two fundamental principles of morality and violating one, you choose to violate one and no one should blame you for it, because the alternative is worse and more repellent.The least wrong answer to a question is the least wrong one. It isn't a right answer; it isn't a good answer; it's just the best that there is.


Well, insomnia isn't going to let me sleep tonight, so I'll try it anyway. There is no dichotomy. A paladin gets to become judge, jury and executioner because that's their job. Paladins existed before long, convoluted legal systems like ours were developed. Concepts like "Innocent until proven guilty" and "trial by peers" (as we know it today) didn't exist at that point in time.Those aren't paladins.

Dant
2007-07-02, 07:03 AM
I'm going to go ahead and say, that though I find this discussion fascinating (Arguments about morality are pretty much always interesting.), I also find it somewhat pointless. Why? Obviously, this is just my opinion here, but I find it interesting you are trying to argue your way through the paladin's code by using logic. Logic is a fine and wonderful thing, yet I would say it has absolutely nothing to do with the paladin code.

The code is based around a bunch of concepts like honour, justice, valour, so on and so on. None of these, at least that I'm aware of, have actual, definable parameters. Getting back to the whole logic thing, I would says that a paladin does not use logic to determine how he defines those concepts. He uses faith, it's like, pretty much the point of the class. He's a holy warrior of all that is good and light, at least the LG variety is. He takes it on faith that his deity will guide him straight and narrow.

Uh, I think what I'm getting at here, is that circumstances change. You can't use blanket statements to judge any actions versus the code. Any given individual action would be judged by the deity. After all, I've always thought the whole point was that there was this whole thin line thing and that paladins could toe the line, but have to be careful about crossing it.

Fer instance. Take the case of a paladin bluffing his way in to the enemy stronghold, deceiving some evil warlord to think he's an ally and then slaying him in his sleep. That's pretty dishonourable. That's what assassins do. Paladins are not assassins.

However, bluffing his way into the stronghold and convincing said evil warlord he's an ally, then forcing the bad guy into a situation where you can challenge him to single combat, then killing him, I would define as honourable.

In both situations the paladin has lied, falsely portrayed himself to the badguy. In both situations, the bad guy dies, serving the side of good. The method of death is important though. Would Heronious (sp?) sneak in to some dudes fort and kill him in his sleep? I shouldn't think so. And a paladin is supposed to be a holy warrior with all the virtues of his chosen deity.

Of course, part of the issue is that there is only one type of paladin. Really, if you think of the paladin as just a holy warrior for a deity, there should be a somewhat different version for each god. For instance, a paladin of Olidimarra should have no qualms about the whole sneaking in and stabbing some dude in his sleep.

...That was much more than I intended to write. Also, I'm fairly certain I missed at least one major point somewhere in there...

-Edit

Sorry, knew I forgot something. In reference to view morality in shades of gray. I've always viewed the paladin as understanding that morality frequently travels into gray zones. However, the paladin purposefully chooses to ignore that and travel a path of black and white in so far as they are able to. A paladin is supposed to be a shining beacon of light, not a dim beacon of quasi-light. In many ways, I suppose the paladin is supposed to idealize all those things generally associated with the young. Except the paladin isn't supposed to end up getting old and jaded. Well, as so far as a paladin gets old. I generally wouldn't expect to see many of those. I mean, it's not exactly supposed to be an easy, peaceful path.

Matthew
2007-07-02, 07:48 AM
Of course, part of the issue is that there is only one type of paladin. Really, if you think of the paladin as just a holy warrior for a deity, there should be a somewhat different version for each god. For instance, a paladin of Olidimarra should have no qualms about the whole sneaking in and stabbing some dude in his sleep.

Only in The Forgotten Realms is this really a problem, as Paladins by Default D&D RAW are unrelated to Deities unless they choose to be associated with them. Even then, they serve the Cause of Lawful Good before any Deity, being granted Divine Power from that source. So, 'Paladins of X Deity' is a bit of a misnomer, as they are really 'Paladins of Lawful Good'.

However, there are Paladin variants available in Unearthed Arcana that produce a 'Paladin of every Alignment'. Not my cup of tea, but the option is there.

Stephen_E
2007-07-02, 09:04 AM
Sorry, knew I forgot something. In reference to view morality in shades of gray. I've always viewed the paladin as understanding that morality frequently travels into gray zones. However, the paladin purposefully chooses to ignore that and travel a path of black and white in so far as they are able to. A paladin is supposed to be a shining beacon of light, not a dim beacon of quasi-light. In many ways, I suppose the paladin is supposed to idealize all those things generally associated with the young. Except the paladin isn't supposed to end up getting old and jaded. Well, as so far as a paladin gets old. I generally wouldn't expect to see many of those. I mean, it's not exactly supposed to be an easy, peaceful path.

I think it would be better to say that the Paladin knows he lives in a world of mostly grey but chooses to travel the path of white, acting as the beacon. One could think of Paladins as a bit like lighthouses. They don't expect everyone to follow their code or to live by their standards, but their existance they guide others away from evil.

As for the lesser of 2 evils hypothetical situations that always arise in Paladin debates, I'd note that they pretty much always involve "evil happens through your inaction, therefore you've done evil" scthick and/or "if you don't do this small evil a much greater evil will occur in the future which you'll therefore be responsible for" perfect forknowledge scthick. As far as I've ever been able to tell from the arguments put forward by people posting in this vein, they're playing ethical shell games to try and justify doing evil while wearing a fake halo of good.

Re: Paladins and deception.
There is a fair scope for wiggle room here, depending on culture/situation and how the DM specifically lays out their view of the Paladin Code.
Paladins obviously can use some deception (they're fully fuctional humans/humanoids therefore they practice deception at some level). Bluffing your way into the bandits lair could be ok depending on how you do it. If you do it by allowing others to make incorrect assumptions that result in deceiving themselves it should be fine. If you tell lies then you're in dodgy territory which heavily depends on culture and DM's version of the code. If you give and break your sworn word you should be over the edge in any Standard PHB Paladin regardless of culture of DM (and DMs who OK this aren't using the Paladin class, they're using the Grey Guard class). What you do once you're in the lair is again another situation. People who say Paladins can't do ambushs are just been stupid IMHO. I'm not aware of any culture that considered ambushes dishonourable by default.

Stephen

Matthew
2007-07-02, 09:18 AM
By default, perhaps not, though the legality and honourable quality of ambushes was certainly debated in Medieval Europe. There was quite a vocal quarter that considered any sort of trickery or deception, including ambushes, to be dishonourable, even in war. However, practice and theory wildly diverged.

Dant
2007-07-02, 09:43 AM
Yah, you said it better than I did. That was pretty much I was getting at. Actually, you pretty much nailed what I was trying to say. Thank you.

As for ambushes, there's nothing wrong with an ambush. That's just combat and I think the rules change for combat. Besides, it's not like you're stabbing them in their sleep, they get a chance to fight back, however slim and hopeless. Like I said, it's kinda a thin line, tactics in combat versus deceptions with words and so forth.

Actually, that'd be an interesting idea. Paladin who fights with words. Deity of knowledge maybe? Truespeech of some sort possibly?

horseboy
2007-07-02, 12:50 PM
The least wrong answer to a question is the least wrong one. It isn't a right answer; it isn't a good answer; it's just the best that there is.

Those aren't paladins.

Yes. Yes they were. Those are the people that the word paladin was created to describe.
From the American Heritage Dictionary off Dictionary.com

pal·a·din (pāl'ə-dĭn) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. A paragon of chivalry; a heroic champion.
2. A strong supporter or defender of a cause: "the paladin of plain speaking" (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.)
3. Any of the 12 peers of Charlemagne's court.

[French, from Italian paladino, from Late Latin palātīnus, palatine; see palatine1.]

These are the people from whom the heroic ideals are spun.

horseboy
2007-07-02, 01:04 PM
By default, perhaps not, though the legality and honourable quality of ambushes was certainly debated in Medieval Europe. There was quite a vocal quarter that considered any sort of trickery or deception, including ambushes, to be dishonourable, even in war. However, practice and theory wildly diverged.

This was legalesed even back then. No paladin was allowed to ambush, as it was considered dishonourable. However, peasants under his command would be allowed to ambush, as peasants were inherently without honour. (Even though they could be honourable. You know this might be where a lot of this confusion is coming from)

Matthew
2007-07-02, 01:15 PM
Hmmn. Not so sure about that Horseboy. You would have to direct me to the appropriate legal code. I know Thomas Acquinas had a lot to say on the subject and that wars with Non Christians also created question marks. I know it was frowned upon, but I don't think it was explicitly legislated against (except perhaps in the same way that Bows and Cross Bows were forbidden for use between Christians).

Jayabalard
2007-07-02, 01:18 PM
Yes. Yes they were. Those are the people that the word paladin was created to describe.
From the American Heritage Dictionary off Dictionary.com

pal·a·din (pāl'ə-dĭn) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. A paragon of chivalry; a heroic champion.
2. A strong supporter or defender of a cause: "the paladin of plain speaking" (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.)
3. Any of the 12 peers of Charlemagne's court.

[French, from Italian paladino, from Late Latin palātīnus, palatine; see palatine1.]

These are the people from whom the heroic ideals are spun.Nope.
paladin: A class in D&D that is loosely based on the ideals of chivalry.

Those people were not paladins.

sure there are real people that are referenced with the same word, but don't let that fool you... they have nothing to do with each other, any more than a D&D fighter has anything to do with this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighter_aircraft)

Pestlepup
2007-07-02, 01:39 PM
Quite a bit of relevant text here...

Ahh, you're correct of course, but it seems our views on paladins diverge slightly, which would go a long way to explain the discrepancies in our interpretations. You obviously take a more social, judicial, and ethically utilitarian perspective, while I prefer a more... how should I put it... strictly moral approach. It's true, that even paladins are products of their own society, and as such their views on the principles of good, honesty, justice and duty vary accordingly. However, I have apparently been so enamored with the concept of exalted characters, that I have embraced the concept of universal (read: independent of cultural or social environment) good and incorporated it into the paladin code. This is unfortunately quite embarrassing from a debate point of view, as the paladin code does not in this case support my views, but rather agrees more with your societal perspective. Yes, according to my adaptation paladins would be even more strictly bound by their code of conduct, which, I admit, is not necessarily a good thing from a roleplaying perspective. A little bit more freedom gives more room for variety.

However, I would still consider my views on the overall morality of the paladin set-up still valid, even if they are not applicable to gaming as such. Truthfully, I'd say my reasoning goes a bit further into moral philosophy than is perhaps strictly necessary for the purposes of this debate. It happens. *shrug*

EDIT: In short, you'd say that paladins have to be as far beyond reproach as mortally possible, while I like to emphasize that they have to be as far beyond reproach as morally possible. Not that much a better deal for the paladin, I admit.

Dervag
2007-07-02, 05:07 PM
The least wrong answer to a question is the least wrong one. It isn't a right answer; it isn't a good answer; it's just the best that there is. I believe that the difference between 'right' and 'good,' between 'wrong' and 'evil,' is best illustrated by saying is that it is right to do that which is least bad, and wrong to do that which is least good.

For example, imagine a person who finds themselves in a mirror image of the classic moral dilemna. They can do nothing but good; any action they take will have good results for others.

Now imagine that they carefully calculate the course of action that will produce the least good for others.

Such a person is clearly being perverse and wrong.

I argue that the mirror image is works the same way. A person who, because of their circumstances, can do nothing but evil, and who carefully calculates the course that produces the least evil, is doing the right thing.

However, this does not justify commiting 'just any' evil or repellent act on the half-baked grounds that it will avert a greater evil in the future. Willful evil is still evil; the only evils that can be justified are the ones you didn't really have the choice of avoiding.

PaladinBoy
2007-07-02, 08:34 PM
I believe that the difference between 'right' and 'good,' between 'wrong' and 'evil,' is best illustrated by saying is that it is right to do that which is least bad, and wrong to do that which is least good.

Not sure about that. In a world with relative morality, it makes more sense, but most D+D worlds have objective morality. There are certain things which are good and evil.


For example, imagine a person who finds themselves in a mirror image of the classic moral dilemna. They can do nothing but good; any action they take will have good results for others.

Now imagine that they carefully calculate the course of action that will produce the least good for others.

Such a person is clearly being perverse and wrong.

I would agree here. Since his actions are doing some good, I might not mind as much as I would otherwise, but since he's purposefully trying to do the least good, he's probably evil.


I argue that the mirror image is works the same way. A person who, because of their circumstances, can do nothing but evil, and who carefully calculates the course that produces the least evil, is doing the right thing.

However, this does not justify commiting 'just any' evil or repellent act on the half-baked grounds that it will avert a greater evil in the future. Willful evil is still evil; the only evils that can be justified are the ones you didn't really have the choice of avoiding.

Again, it's not as bad as it could be, but there are still evil consequences. Also, you really are willingly choosing to do evil. If there's so much as a single good option with any chance of success, then you are willingly picking an evil act over a good one. For most characters, it's not a problem, for paladins........

It's not enough to provoke alignment shift. But it is a violation of the paladin code. Also, demonstrating no remose whatsoever to the evil that you just willingly committed......... The character that did that would still be good, but less so than the person that demonstrates remorse for what he just did and swears that he is never going to let that happen to him again.

Also, these situations assume that the person put in these "no win" situations knows all possible choices and the consequences of each. In hindsight or from the 3rd person omniscient view of a D+D world, it's easy to see all of the options and consequences. When you're actually making the choice, you'll most likely be far more limited in your view of the situation.


I think it would be better to say that the Paladin knows he lives in a world of mostly grey but chooses to travel the path of white, acting as the beacon. One could think of Paladins as a bit like lighthouses. They don't expect everyone to follow their code or to live by their standards, but their existance they guide others away from evil.

QFT. Paladins choose to be as absolutely Good as a mortal can manage....... and I personally think that as long as the paladin believes in his ability to stay on the straight and narrow then he can do nearly as well as a celestial. So long as he's not arrogant or overconfident about it, of course.

As for paladins and deception/dishonor:
I think that between the fact that paladins, absent an evil act, only fall for gross violations in their code and my belief that these situations which require dishonor are much less common then you might think reduces problems to near nonexistance. Keeping in mind that hiding what you're doing doesn't automatically constitute lying, though it can be taken too far.

Jayabalard
2007-07-02, 08:38 PM
Such a person is clearly being perverse and wrong.
I don't see anything perverse or wrong about doing something good, least good or not.


However, this does not justify commiting 'just any' evil or repellent act on the half-baked grounds that it will avert a greater evil in the future. Correct, because you cannot justify doing evil for the greater good.... ever; evil done for the greater good is still evil.

horseboy
2007-07-02, 10:22 PM
Nope.
paladin: A class in D&D that is loosely based on the ideals of chivalry.

Those people were not paladins.

sure there are real people that are referenced with the same word, but don't let that fool you... they have nothing to do with each other, any more than a D&D fighter has anything to do with this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighter_aircraft)

Wow, that's the worst argument I've seen in some time. Instead of maybe trying an analogy somewhat close to what we're discussing (like maybe the federalist papers have nothing to do with the American Constitution, still not true) you're argument is more akin to a 6mm hex nut has nothing to do with an acorn?

horseboy
2007-07-02, 10:26 PM
However, I would still consider my views on the overall morality of the paladin set-up still valid, even if they are not applicable to gaming as such. Truthfully, I'd say my reasoning goes a bit further into moral philosophy than is perhaps strictly necessary for the purposes of this debate. It happens. *shrug*

EDIT: In short, you'd say that paladins have to be as far beyond reproach as mortally possible, while I like to emphasize that they have to be as far beyond reproach as morally possible. Not that much a better deal for the paladin, I admit.

Pfft! I'm just glad it made sense to somebody.

Oh, and Matt, after four hours sleep, I really can't remember where I heard that. Crap. It might even have been something out of Harn or Britonnia.

Dhavaer
2007-07-02, 10:38 PM
I don't see anything perverse or wrong about doing something good, least good or not.

Really? You don't see anything wrong with someone doing their damnedest to do as little good as possible?

Dervag
2007-07-03, 12:19 AM
Not sure about that. In a world with relative morality, it makes more sense, but most D+D worlds have objective morality. There are certain things which are good and evil.I contend that this is objective. A person who strives to do the least possible good in every possible condition of things will end up with an Evil alignment, even if they never do anything but good. A person who strives to do the least possible evil in every possible condition of things will likewise end up with a Good alignment.


Again, it's not as bad as it could be, but there are still evil consequences. Also, you really are willingly choosing to do evil.You can only do something willingly if you have a choice. If you're screwed no matter what, there is no question of willingness.

For instance, a man falling from a great height may angle his body and drift slightly to the left or right, but he cannot avoid hitting the ground sooner or later. To contend that, simply because he had the option of drifting left or right, he must have "willingly" hit the ground is absurd. He never had any non-ground options in the first place. Likewise, a man with no non-evil options does not "willingly" do evil unless they seek ways to cause more evil than the minimum possible.


If there's so much as a single good option with any chance of success, then you are willingly picking an evil act over a good one. For most characters, it's not a problem, for paladins........ (emphasis added)Yes, but that's an extremely important and consequential "if" for purposes of resolving moral dilemnas.


I don't see anything perverse or wrong about doing something good, least good or not.Because, having no choice but to do good, they seek to minimize the good. At the very least this is perverse, and it strongly indicates someone who would really rather be doing harm.


Correct, because you cannot justify doing evil for the greater good.... ever; evil done for the greater good is still evil.However, the question remains: is an unavoidable (literally unavoidable) evil wrong? Is it wrong to do something evil when every other option is more evil? If so, then there can be cases where right/wrong duality is broken. In such cases, there is either no possible right answer and a set of wrong answers, or no possible wrong answer and a set of right answers. Since the duality of right and wrong is fundamental to most moral codes, this strikes me as an unreasonable conclusion.

Stephen_E
2007-07-03, 06:36 AM
Because, having no choice but to do good, they seek to minimize the good. At the very least this is perverse, and it strongly indicates someone who would really rather be doing harm.



While I broadly agree with theme of your point, you forget about Neutral. The person you postulate can fairly be described as "non-good" but there is insufficient evidence to make the accusation of "evil".

Stephen

Jayabalard
2007-07-03, 07:01 AM
Wow, that's the worst argument I've seen in some time. Instead of maybe trying an analogy somewhat close to what we're discussing (like maybe the federalist papers have nothing to do with the American Constitution, still not true) you're argument is more akin to a 6mm hex nut has nothing to do with an acorn?The phrase "any more than" means that I'm claiming that your argument is just as absurd as as the analogy that follows.

Sure the analogy is absurd; almost as absurd as trying to equate the morality of historical people with the morality of fictional idealized paragons of virtue.


Really? You don't see anything wrong with someone doing their damnedest to do as little good as possible?"Which word did you not understand?" - Chris Knight

I thought I was pretty clear: Yes really: I see nothing perverse, wrong, or evil about it.

I don't even agree with Stephen that this person is necessarily non-good (ie neutral)... They're just not "as good" as they could be.

The lesser of two good deeds is still a good deed; the lesser of two evils is still evil.

If a person does only the lesser of of two good deeds, and never does any evil (and there are always opportunities to do evil), they're non-evil; they're either good, or neutral at the worst.


However, the question remains: is an unavoidable (literally unavoidable) evil wrong? Is it wrong to do something evil when every other option is more evil? If so, then there can be cases where right/wrong duality is broken. In such cases, there is either no possible right answer and a set of wrong answers, or no possible wrong answer and a set of right answers. Since the duality of right and wrong is fundamental to most moral codes, this strikes me as an unreasonable conclusion.This is kind of circular; it only seems broken because you set up a situation where it is broken. the fundamental duality of right/wrong isn't broken... you've just supplied a question without a right answer.

Yes, if all you have is wrong choices then whatever you choose is wrong. If there isn't a right choice, you can't choose the right one.

If all you have is chocolate cake with varying degrees of chocolatness, and you have to choose one of them, you still get chocolate cake even if you pick the least chocolaty. That doesn't break the chocolaty/non-chocolaty duality. (mmm... chocolate cake)

Jannex
2007-07-03, 05:23 PM
I think the defining factor here is motivation. If you put a Good person into a situation where the only possible courses of action (including inaction) result in Evil, that person will try to find the least-Evil alternative, because he wants to do Good, and if a Good option were available in the situation (which it isn't), he would choose that instead. He is trying to do Good, even though the situation is not allowing him that option.

Conversely, if you put an Evil person into a situation where the only possible courses of action (including inaction) result in Good, and the person tries to find the least-Good alternative, because he wants to do Evil, such that if an Evil option were available in the situation (which it isn't) he would choose that instead, he is still actively trying to commit evil, even though the situation is not allowing him that option. Evil is as much intent as it is action. Doing good "by accident" does not make you any more Good. Just as I would say, doing evil only because there are NO good options does not make you any more Evil.

Dervag
2007-07-03, 06:45 PM
The lesser of two good deeds is still a good deed; the lesser of two evils is still evil.

If a person does only the lesser of of two good deeds, and never does any evil (and there are always opportunities to do evil), they're non-evil; they're either good, or neutral at the worst.I'm using the example of "can't do anything but good" as a mirror to "can't do anything but evil." It's almost impossible to imagine a scenario where that holds, with the possible exception of the Kenobi defense ("If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.").

I guess what I'm getting at is that there's a question of will involved here. If you will evil but, due to circumstances, can only do good, does that make you more good? Does your alignment shift towards Good if you are forced into a situation where all your options are Good acts, despite your own wishes, and if you do the most you can to minimize the good effects of your actions?

In other words, can you become good against your will, without the use of some kind of brainwashing or mind control?

I contend that you cannot. And that, because of good/evil dualism, it is equally true that you cannot become evil against your will. If you are evil, it is because you will evil; if you are good, it is because you will good. If you find yourself in a situation where all your choices result in something bad happening to someone, you may very well still be willing good and endeavor to minimize the evil. It is absurd to claim that a person may be evil without their own consent. While a person might be evil and not consider themselves evil, they cannot be evil while simultanously intending and willing only good. Nor can they be good while simultaneously intending and willing only evil. It doesn't make sense, unless you remove the moral weight from the labels "good" and "evil" and make them neutral descriptors along the lines of "red" and "blue." I might become red or blue without my consent, but I cannot become good or evil without my consent (again, barring some kind of mind control).


This is kind of circular; it only seems broken because you set up a situation where it is broken. the fundamental duality of right/wrong isn't broken... you've just supplied a question without a right answer.But there are plenty of situations described in fiction where all possible courses of action lead to at least one moral wrong. If it is evil to do things that are wrong, then such a situation involves a group of evil choices and no good choices. A person who finds themselves in this situation has no alternative but to become more evil against his will.

And I don't think that's consistent with the idea of moral agency. A moral agent must, by definition, be choosing right or wrong; a thing without the power to choose between right and wrong cannot be good or evil, any more than a cloud or a pile of rocks can.

If PCs are not moral agents then they have the nonalignment of animals or inanimate objects. If they are moral agents, then they must retain an 'intrinsic' alignment that accurately reflects their own intentions and goals. And you can't alter that alignment by presenting them with a succession of sick choices such as "I have built a machine that works so that you can save the hostage A in a way that kills hostage B, or save B in a way that kills A, or not affect the machine and let them both die."

There has to be at least one right answer to that situation. Perhaps the answer is to choose one of the hostages to save at random. Perhaps it is to attack the foul person presenting the choice. Perhaps it is to spend your time until the clock runs out working on an elaborate scheme to save both. But there has to be a right choice, and you don't become more evil by taking that right choice. Even if that right choice involves something bad happening to someone.


If all you have is chocolate cake with varying degrees of chocolatness, and you have to choose one of them, you still get chocolate cake even if you pick the least chocolaty. That doesn't break the chocolaty/non-chocolaty duality. (mmm... chocolate cake)But there is no duality of chocolate and non-chocolate; the existence of chocolate does not imply non-chocolate or vice versa. While the existence of a wrong answer implies a right answer, and vice versa. There can, of course, be situations that have no right or wrong answers. But there cannot be situations with only wrong answers. If an answer is wrong, it is because something about it wasn't right, which requires a right answer to exist as a standard of comparison.