The Problem with Paladin Villains (spoilers for SoD/GDGU)

[Jason]

Yes, the action is evil. That's the point. That's what makes the paladin a villain, that they are committing evil actions. The point is that the paladin is not aware that their actions are evil, and therefore does not Fall or change alignment. That's spelled out in the class rules.

The class rules for the 3.0 and 3.5 paladin do not say "knowingly and willingly commits an evil act". They only say "willingly".
See my quote of the relevent rules in the first post of this thread. Incidentally, the wording in the 3.0 and 3.5 PHBs on these rules are identical.

"Knowingly" does come into the rules for associates of the paladin:

Associates: While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters. A paladin will not continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may only hire henchmen or accept followers who are lawful good.

Will ignorance allow you to retain paladin status? The answer seems to be "only ignorance of the true alignments of those you associate with, not ignorance of how evil your actions are."

[Empiar93]

Yes, the action is evil. That's the point. That's what makes the paladin a villain, that they are committing evil actions. The point is that the paladin is not aware that their actions are evil, and therefore does not Fall or change alignment. That's spelled out in the class rules.

You only become Evil (or shift towards evil) if you knowingly and willingly perform Evil acts. That's why animals and other low-Intelligence creatures are Neutral in 3e and cannot be any other alignment: they lack the capacity to understand the morality of their actions. You cannot call a serpent Evil even if it does something that would be considered Evil if a human did it (like treacherously poisoning an innocent to death), because the serpent does not know the morality of its actions.



You mean the words in the class description that qualify that the paladin must knowingly commit an evil act to fall, and that a lot of people in this thread seem to omit from their reasoning and assume that any act of evil a paladin commits, knowingly or not, can cause them to fall?

I’m reading from the SRD here, not the book, but there is this:

A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies).

a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

So here we see ways that a paladin can fall without willingly and knowingly committing an evil act or even becoming evil. If the paladin harms innocents and does not punish his or herself, then they can fall. Not respecting a legitimate authority is not necessarily evil, and you may do it with the best of intentions, but by RAW it appears that even such a screw-up can result in a loss of powers. Not helping those in need or in fact attacking or otherwise harming those in need (without repentance) would qualify, even if it’s done with good intention.

I think that by this code, the idea of a well-intentioned-yet-evil paladin is still an absurdity.

Spoiler

Show

Also by these rules I think that the SoD genocide should have resulted in at least a wee bit of divine lightning, narrative importance or not. But that’s a matter of opinion.

[elros]

Non exacta. In this page Vaarsuvius makes it clear that they've finally realized that they had no way of knowing whether all the dragons they killed were Evil, and therefore bears guilt not only for the Draketooth family but also every dragon who they didn't give a chance to prove their innocence before killing them.

As such, Vaarsuvius has addressed the dragon slaughter issue, has acknowledged it as wrong, and has incorporated it into their attempts at doing better.

Meanwhile, Miko still self-righteous hypocrite, no redemption in sight. Also, you know, because she's dead.

I read that strip as V's fear of damned, which is why V had the reaction in the last panel.
That is why I am annoyed at many of these threads: everyone is demanding that unnamed paladins in a supplemental book are punished, but they think V is somehow absolved. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that doesn't sit right with me.

[Shadowknight12]

The class rules for the 3.0 and 3.5 paladin do not say "knowingly and willingly commits an evil act". They only say "willingly".

It says that you need to willingly commit an Evil act. If the paladin doesn't know the morality of the act they're committing, they're not willingly committing an Evil act, they're willingly committing an act of unknown morality (to them). If they think the act they're committing is Good when in reality it's Evil, they aren't willingly committing an Evil act, their will was to commit a Good act, but it turned out to be Evil.

If a Paladin thrusts a sword towards a demon and the demon has, as a reaction, the ability to redirect the sword to another target, and causes the paladin to kill an innocent, has the paladin willingly committed an Evil act? It wasn't the paladin's will to kill the innocent, but it was the result of their action. Their will was to commit an act of Good (to slay a demon), but they ended up committing an act of Evil (slaying an innocent).

To willingly commit an evil act requires an understanding of the evilness of the act and a will to commit it regardless.

So here we see ways that a paladin can fall without willingly and knowingly committing an evil act or even becoming evil.

I'm well aware. This discussion wasn't about the overall paladin code, but about specifically whether paladins can commit evil acts without falling (which they can).

[Keltest]

It says that you need to willingly commit an Evil act. If the paladin doesn't know the morality of the act they're committing, they're not willingly committing an Evil act, they're willingly committing an act of unknown morality (to them). If they think the act they're committing is Good when in reality it's Evil, they aren't willingly committing an Evil act, their will was to commit a Good act, but it turned out to be Evil.

If a Paladin thrusts a sword towards a demon and the demon has, as a reaction, the ability to redirect the sword to another target, and causes the paladin to kill an innocent, has the paladin willingly committed an Evil act? It wasn't the paladin's will to kill the innocent, but it was the result of their action. Their will was to commit an act of Good (to slay a demon), but they ended up committing an act of Evil (slaying an innocent).

To willingly commit an evil act requires an understanding of the evilness of the act and a will to commit it regardless.



I'm well aware. This discussion wasn't about the overall paladin code, but about specifically whether paladins can commit evil acts without falling (which they can).

Thats not really how it works. If you arent certain of the morality and do it anyway, youre still responsible for the results. You take the risks, you have to live with the consequences, etc... The only way they can be unwilling is if they are A: under some form of mind control or B: deceived or otherwise ignorant of the outcome of their actions (ie burning a building they were told was empty when it was actually still occupied).

[Shadowknight12]

Thats not really how it works. If you arent certain of the morality and do it anyway, youre still responsible for the results. You take the risks, you have to live with the consequences, etc... The only way they can be unwilling is if they are A: under some form of mind control or B: deceived or otherwise ignorant of the outcome of their actions (ie burning a building they were told was empty when it was actually still occupied).

I can agree that being uncertain about the morality of your actions could qualify as Evil, because it can imply a disregard for the negative consequences. However, my original position was that paladins could be deceived into committing evil acts and remain Good without Falling, which people disagreed with.

If that was the case, the rules wouldn't bother to specify "willingly", they would simply state that any Evil act would cause you to Fall, and then explain in the Alignment section that the objective forces of Good, Evil, Law and Chaos judge your actions and alter your alignment/class features regardless of your knowledge/intent.

[Jason]

I would say that "knowingly" is implied with "willfully", at least to some extent.
However, I also think it's perfectly plausible to have a paladin suddenly lose her powers, and then have to discover what action she took that was evil without her knowing it when she took it, possibly with some introspection on what her motivation was at the time and whether it was in keeping with the paladin code.

I don't think it's possible for a paladin to exterminate goblins for years out of hatred and remain a paladin, just because he's convinced himself that he's saving the world by exterminating goblins.

[Shadowknight12]

I don't think it's possible for a paladin to exterminate goblins for years out of hatred and remain a paladin, just because he's convinced himself that he's saving the world by exterminating goblins.

Well, that again just creates a definition of paladin that automatically excludes them from being villains. "I don't like paladins doing evil, even unknowingly, so I want to make sure all my definitions neatly exclude the possibility of that being the case. If a paladin does evil, they fall. Clean, easy and simple."

[Keltest]

Well, that again just creates a definition of paladin that automatically excludes them from being villains. "I don't like paladins doing evil, even unknowingly, so I want to make sure all my definitions neatly exclude the possibility of that being the case. If a paladin does evil, they fall. Clean, easy and simple."

I mean, yes. That's the fundamental concept behind a Paladin. Genuine knights in shining armor coming to be full on heroes. That's part of why I dislike Mike and the other corrupt paladins so much, and consider villanizing paladins in general to be lazy writing, personally. You just aren't working with a Paladin at that point.

[Shadowknight12]

I mean, yes. That's the fundamental concept behind a Paladin. Genuine knights in shining armor coming to be full on heroes. That's part of why I dislike Mike and the other corrupt paladins so much, and consider villanizing paladins in general to be lazy writing, personally. You just aren't working with a Paladin at that point.

That's a fine personal opinion to have, but it's important to respect others' opinions as well, and to consider that others may have other priorities and preferences. I think it's incredibly important to show no being is above causing harm or evil, no matter how saintly, and that we must always remain vigilant to not harm others and to question and examine what we're told in case we are being deceived for the benefit of others. In that regard, I think paladins as villains are absolutely excellent material and incredibly good and important writing.

[Jason]

Well, that again just creates a definition of paladin that automatically excludes them from being villains. "I don't like paladins doing evil, even unknowingly, so I want to make sure all my definitions neatly exclude the possibility of that being the case. If a paladin does evil, they fall. Clean, easy and simple."

I would maintain that it's the rules of the game that prevent paladins from becomng villains. Mostly the part where it says "cannot willingly commit an evil action and remain a paladin."

You appear to be trying to add an "unless they've convinced themselves it's not evil, or they're too stupid to recognize it's evil," rule. The original rules are a simple "willing evil act=fallsville" with no consideration of whether the paladin knows it's an evil act or not.

2nd edition was different, by the way:

Lawfulness and good deeds are the meat and drink of a paladin. If a paladin ever knowingly performs a chaotic act, he must seek a high-level (7th or more) cleric of lawful good alignment. confess his sin, and do
penance as prescribed by the cleric.
If a paladin should ever knowingly and willingly perform an evil act, he looses the status of paladinhood immediately and irrevocably.
All benefits are then lost and no deed or magic can restore the character to paladinhood: He is ever after a fighter...[rules about adjusting to fighter class]...If the paladin commits an evil act while enchanted or controlled by magic, he loses his paladin status until he can atone for the deed. This loss of status means the character loses all his special abilities and essentially functions as a fighter (without weapon specialization) of the same level. Regaining his status undoubtedly requires completion of some dangerous quest or important mission to once again prove his worth and assuage his own guilt. He gains no experience prior to or during the course of this mission, and regains his standing as a paladin only upon completing the quest.

So 2nd edition did include "knowingly" but also made one knowingly and willing evil act an irrevocable fall, and even evil actions while charmed mean you temporarily loose paladinhood until you complete a 0 XP quest to regain it.

[Shadowknight12]

I would maintain that it's the rules of the game that prevent paladins from becomng villains. Mostly the part where it says "cannot willingly commit an evil action and remain a paladin."

You appear to be trying to add an "unless they've convinced themselves it's not evil, or they're too stupid to recognize it's evil," rule. The original rules are a simple "willing evil act=fallsville" with no consideration of whether the paladin knows it's an evil act or not.

I find it fascinating that you paint this disagreement as "this is what the rules say and dissenters are trying to modify them!" and not as simply people having different interpretations and priorities.

[Jason]

I find it fascinating that you paint this disagreement as "this is what the rules say and dissenters are trying to modify them!" and not as simply people having different interpretations and priorities.

Well, one reason I started the thread was to try to detrermine if Stickworld paladins were following the rules or not.

My conclusion is that no, they are not.

The Giant apparently has different priorities in his storytelling than being accurate to the rules where paladins are concerned. He's free to do that, of course. You can say he's operating "according to a different interpretation of the rules."
I say "that particular interpretation violates the letter and intent of the paladin rules and therefore these aren't 3rd edition D&D paladins. They're operating under some form of variant house rules specific to Stickworld."

Now, a case can be made that he's parodying and criticizing players and DMs that do the same thing in their games: that is, players and DMs who allow paladins to commit evil actions without falling, and that's why his paladins don't follow the rules. That still means they're not 3rd edition rules-compliant paladins, though.

[Shadowknight12]

Well, one reason I started the thread was to try to detrermine if Stickworld paladins were following the rules or not.

My conclusion is that no, they are not.

From the way you have been adamantly opposing any attempt to explain to you that your interpretation of the rules isn't the One And Only, and that there are some uses of language that are open to interpretation (such as the definition of "willingly") and parts left unexplained (such as the minutiae of how exactly the forces that judge a paladin's actions operate), I personally find it dubious that your intent was truly to "determine" if OOTS paladins were following the rules, since you titled the thread "The Problem with Paladin Villains" and then proceeded to expound on your own disagreements and have yet to concede any of the points anybody has made.

I think this is less a quest for enlightenment and more an expression of distaste or frustration towards the story.

[Keltest]

From the way you have been adamantly opposing any attempt to explain to you that your interpretation of the rules isn't the One And Only, and that there are some uses of language that are open to interpretation (such as the definition of "willingly") and parts left unexplained (such as the minutiae of how exactly the forces that judge a paladin's actions operate), I personally find it dubious that your intent was truly to "determine" if OOTS paladins were following the rules, since you titled the thread "The Problem with Paladin Villains" and then proceeded to expound on your own disagreements and have yet to concede any of the points anybody has made.

I think this is less a quest for enlightenment and more an expression of distaste or frustration towards the story.

Your argument seems to boil down to the idea that evil done through apathy or negligence isn't evil, and that just isn't true though. If you hurt somebody because you didn't care enough to make sure they were protected, you are still entirely responsible for the harm you did to them.

From where I sit, you're just using words wrong and getting upset when people correct you.

[Shadowknight12]

Your argument seems to boil down to the idea that evil done through apathy or negligence isn't evil, and that just isn't true though. If you hurt somebody because you didn't care enough to make sure they were protected, you are still entirely responsible for the harm you did to them.

Evil done through apathy or negligence is still evil. It's just not willing evil. Good people can do evil unwillingly and it's still evil.

My point is that paladins can do evil unwillingly (as per the rules) and that being unaware that what you're doing is evil means you are not doing evil willingly.

[Keltest]

Evil down through apathy or negligence is still evil. It's just not willing evil. Good people can do evil unwillingly and it's still evil.

In what way isn't it willing? You made a choice that resulted in unnecessary and/or preventable harm. That sounds pretty willing to me.

[Shadowknight12]

In what way isn't it willing? You made a choice that resulted in unnecessary and/or preventable harm. That sounds pretty willing to me.

You willingly swung a sword at a demon, but you did not will the sword towards a nearby innocent. If the demon redirects the sword to the innocent, that was not a willing act of you swinging the sword towards the innocent. That's what I mean.

Your will is to do what you think is in your head, and if the reality turns out different, it doesn't retroactively change the past. You still ended up doing evil, but did not will evil to happen.

[Keltest]

You willingly swung a sword at a demon, but you did not will the sword towards a nearby innocent. If the demon redirects the sword to the innocent, that was not a willing act of you swinging the sword towards the innocent. That's what I mean.

Your will is to do what you think is in your head, and if the reality turns out different, it doesn't retroactively change the past. You still ended up doing evil, but did not will evil to happen.

So your counterargument is to present a scenario where the Paladin is neither negligent nor apathetic, but is simply a witness to evil comiited by a 3rd party that you are simply blaming on the Paladin for... some reason?

Color me unimpressed with this line of reasoning.

[Shadowknight12]

So your counterargument is to present a scenario where the Paladin is neither negligent nor apathetic, but is simply a witness to evil comiited by a 3rd party that you are simply blaming on the Paladin for... some reason?

Color me unimpressed with this line of reasoning.

I thought it was an easy to visualize example of my argument, my apologies if it wasn't to your liking.

The overall theme behind paladins as villains is that "I am a Good person that does Good things" is a powerful shield of self-delusion that allows people to do terribly evil things to others without realizing the evil they're doing, and saying "actually, you should not be exploring those themes in this game because I don't believe that the rules support them" is refusing to share the game with people who think differently from you.

[Jason]

From the way you have been adamantly opposing any attempt to explain to you that your interpretation of the rules isn't the One And Only, and that there are some uses of language that are open to interpretation (such as the definition of "willingly") and parts left unexplained (such as the minutiae of how exactly the forces that judge a paladin's actions operate), I personally find it dubious that your intent was truly to "determine" if OOTS paladins were following the rules, since you titled the thread "The Problem with Paladin Villains" and then proceeded to expound on your own disagreements and have yet to concede any of the points anybody has made.

I think this is less a quest for enlightenment and more an expression of distaste or frustration towards the story.

I did have a conclusion in mind when I began the thread, but I was willing to be convinced otherwise if a sufficiently convincing counter-argument appeared.
I have conceded that the definition of "villain" I intended in the thread title is not the only possible reading of the word.
Your interpretation of "willing" including "knowing" is an interesting one, and one I will give more thought to, certainly. I have conceded that it may be interpreted in that way to some extent.
You are correct that I haven't yet been convinced that paladins can be actively evil villains and still be paladins.

I like paladins, and I don't like how the alignment restrictions have been removed from 5th edition paladins. To me that misses the point of having the class in the first place.
So perhaps I do get a bit frustrated when I see a story claiming "these are D&D paladins" and then showing them acting in ways that D&D paladins can't possibly act and remain paladins. It would be like watching Elan suddenly start casting druid spells (without multi-classing into druid first) or Varsuvius deciding to start wearing plate mail with no spellcasting problems. By the regular 3rd edition rules they just can't do that.

The Giant is a good enough storyteller that I still enjoy the comic, and I liked Miko and Gin-Jun as villains. But it's something of a "Fridge Logic" situation for me. I enjoy the story and then in the middle of the night while getting a snack out of the fridge I say "wait a minute..."
I'll just accept that paladins obey different rules on Stickworld, and no longer expect them to act like rules-abiding paladins.

[Keltest]

I thought it was an easy to visualize example of my argument, my apologies if it wasn't to your liking.

The overall theme behind paladins as villains is that "I am a Good person that does Good things" is a powerful shield of self-delusion that allows people to do terribly evil things to others without realizing the evil they're doing, and saying "actually, you should not be exploring those themes in this game because I don't believe that the rules support them" is refusing to share the game with people who think differently from you.

I mean, ok, but "I don't think this is evil" or "I refuse to recognize this as evil" are both you still willingly committing evil acts, you just won't admit to it. (I do mean an abstract you here, I'm not trying to disparage your personal character.)


And there is plenty of room to play a self deluded "hero" who is actually evil even though they don't realize it. They just can't be a Paladin, because being evil, even if you don't admit to it, immediately drops you from Paladin status until you repent.

[Shadowknight12]

*snip for length*

Ah, sorry, I did not realize you had conceded those points. My bad.

I can empathize with the frustration at the Giant's disregard for the rules, but I feel like dismissing something that is more open to interpretation rather than a strict mechanical effect, is passing a certain kind of judgment on the people that choose to pursue these themes. It feels like "these paladins are not following the rules" is a way to dismiss or undermine the themes being explored or the points being raised, and I can't support that.

I mean, ok, but "I don't think this is evil" or "I refuse to recognize this as evil" are both you still willingly committing evil acts, you just won't admit to it. (I do mean an abstract you here, I'm not trying to disparage your personal character.)

As I said before, I do not think that the consequences of an action retroactively overwrite the person's intent. If a person is truly, genuinely self-deluded into not realizing that what they're doing is evil (that is, they could pass a polygraph test/Zone of Truth spell and genuinely believe that what they're doing is good even though it's evil), I do not think it fair to say "well, you will Fall anyway due to reasons you had no way of knowing, and also, your intent doesn't actually matter unless the intent is to do evil, in which case it sours the outcome of the action even if it might be good, but intent to do good is irrelevant". I think that reasoning is unjust and inconsistent (and favors evil over good, which I do not agree with, when they are supposed to be cosmologically balanced).

And there is plenty of room to play a self deluded "hero" who is actually evil even though they don't realize it. They just can't be a Paladin, because being evil, even if you don't admit to it, immediately drops you from Paladin status until you repent.

Paladins specifically are the type of self-righteous pursuers of "justice" and "punishment" through violence, where these themes are best explored, and I find it wasteful to exclude the best class to explore this with due to a highly specific interpretation of the rules.

[Keltest]

Ah, sorry, I did not realize you had conceded those points. My bad.

I can empathize with the frustration at the Giant's disregard for the rules, but I feel like dismissing something that is more open to interpretation rather than a strict mechanical effect, is passing a certain kind of judgment on the people that choose to pursue these themes. It feels like "these paladins are not following the rules" is a way to dismiss or undermine the themes being explored or the points being raised, and I can't support that.



As I said before, I do not think that the consequences of an action retroactively overwrite the person's intent. If a person is truly, genuinely self-deluded into not realizing that what they're doing is evil (that is, they could pass a polygraph test/Zone of Truth spell and genuinely believe that what they're doing is good even though it's evil), I do not think it fair to say "well, you will Fall anyway due to reasons you had no way of knowing, and also, your intent doesn't actually matter unless the intent is to do evil, in which case it sours the outcome of the action even if it might be good, but intent to do good is irrelevant". I think that reasoning is unjust and inconsistent (and favors evil over good, which I do not agree with, when they are supposed to be cosmologically balanced).



Paladins specifically are the type of self-righteous pursuers of "justice" and "punishment" through violence, where these themes are best explored, and I find it wasteful to exclude the best class to explore this with due to a highly specific interpretation of the rules.

Intent only matters so far as the consequences of an action can't be foreseen. No amount of "I didn't think they would be hurt!" will cover you when you set fire to an orphanage without checking if they're inside first.

Paladins aren't just Lawful Good fighters. They're deliberately held to higher standards.

[Shadowknight12]

Intent only matters so far as the consequences of an action can't be foreseen. No amount of "I didn't think they would be hurt!" will cover you when you set fire to an orphanage without checking if they're inside first.

Paladins aren't just Lawful Good fighters. They're deliberately held to higher standards.

Sure, and that may be a clear-cut example, but when exploring situations such as "this paladin grew up being taught that goblins are irredeemably evil, literally just like fiends, and therefore slays unarmed goblin civilians, including children, because they are convinced that they are simply evil fiends trying to exploit emotional weaknesses in order to deceive, corrupt and destroy" it actually becomes a lot harder to say "yeah they should have instantly Fallen even though they had no way of knowing that they had been lied to their entire lives and that they genuinely thought they were doing good".

[Keltest]

Sure, and that may be a clear-cut example, but when exploring situations such as "this paladin grew up being taught that goblins are irredeemably evil, literally just like fiends, and therefore slays unarmed goblin civilians, including children, because they are convinced that they are simply evil fiends trying to exploit emotional weaknesses in order to deceive, corrupt and destroy" it actually becomes a lot harder to say "yeah they should have instantly Fallen even though they had no way of knowing that they had been lied to their entire lives and that they genuinely thought they were doing good".

I would say that such a person wouldn't have been able to become a Paladin in the first place, at least not without having that information challenged. There is actual training and education involved in getting your first level, bard camp jokes aside, and such a society could no more produce paladins (absent some form of divine tutelage on a Chosen One) than a society that thinks books are for eating could produce a wizard. Not everybody can be a Paladin after all, even just among Lawful Good people.

[BaronOfHell]

If there still is being made a point about raiding the country side and destroying goblin settlements as an act of evil, I'd like to point out that a group of goblins lived in a castle within which at the lowest level were an evil lich sorcerer. A party of adventures went for the lich and in the process eliminated most of the opposition without considering if they themselves were trespassing upon someones living space.

I know it is not a perfect analogy, but I think as long as those you eliminate are not defenseless and defends themselves, then I am not certain the act is necessarily evil, because I have a feeling intent actually matters very little in this world.

Heck once the Order (or was it only Belkar?) wanted to sneakily take out as many ogres they could on the belief these were threatening (evil?) creatures, and I don't think that either would have been an evil act, even if they later found out there was no hostage, or these were the wrong ogres somehow at the wrong place at the wrong time, no matter how extremely unlikely that may be.

[Shadowknight12]

I would say that such a person wouldn't have been able to become a Paladin in the first place, at least not without having that information challenged. There is actual training and education involved in getting your first level, bard camp jokes aside, and such a society could no more produce paladins (absent some form of divine tutelage on a Chosen One) than a society that thinks books are for eating could produce a wizard. Not everybody can be a Paladin after all, even just among Lawful Good people.

I mean, the culture could make truthful statements about fiends (including the fact that some, like succubi, can take on deceitful forms to exploit emotional weaknesses) and produce paladins just fine, but adding a simple misinformation ("oh and goblins are the same way too") means they can no longer produce paladins?

It sounds like you assume that the forces of objective Good/Evil/Law/Chaos are so efficient and flawless that they can preemptively stop mistakes and misinformation from taking root in a society. I don't think the books ever state such a degree of nigh-omnipotence on their part.

[Jason]

I mean, the culture could make truthful statements about fiends (including the fact that some, like succubi, can take on deceitful forms to exploit emotional weaknesses) and produce paladins just fine, but adding a simple misinformation ("oh and goblins are the same way too") means they can no longer produce paladins?

We're dealing with a world where you can objectively determine if an act or being is good or evil.
Producing paladins requires producing people who are authentically lawful good, not who just think they are lawful good.

[Keltest]

I mean, the culture could make truthful statements about fiends (including the fact that some, like succubi, can take on deceitful forms to exploit emotional weaknesses) and produce paladins just fine, but adding a simple misinformation ("oh and goblins are the same way too") means they can no longer produce paladins?

It sounds like you assume that the forces of objective Good/Evil/Law/Chaos are so efficient and flawless that they can preemptively stop mistakes and misinformation from taking root in a society. I don't think the books ever state such a degree of nigh-omnipotence on their part.

No, I just think that being wrong about how to produce a Paladin leaves you unable to produce one. They could certainly produce a knight, and maybe even a Lawful Good knight. But he wouldn't be a Paladin because part of his quest is a genocide on creatures with free will.

I return to the wizard analogy. If you can't write and won't ever learn, you can't become a wizard. A sorcerer? Sure. A bard? Go for it. But not a wizard, because you fail to meet the requirements to be a wizard.