[Intellectual challenge] Justify a paladin being a member of a thieves' guild

[Kurotowa]

I agree that it's the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate authority that's the key point. Robin Hood is one good example. Another is the Dukes of Hazzard, which is what I loosely based a current PC on. (More the early seasons when they're dealing with real crimes like car thieves and record bootleggers, less the later slapstick episodes like the great Christmas tree heist.) The Duke boys are honorable, help those in need, see that criminals get punished, and respect legitimate authority by helping out the FBI or honest cops. It's the illegitimate authority of Boss Hog and Roscoe that they ignore.

Under similar circumstances I could easily see a Paladin working with an honorable thieves' guild. Part of the Code is to punish those who harm and threaten innocents. If the guild's activities can be fit under that heading, and the local authorities are illegitimate in the Paladin's eyes, then it shouldn't be a problem. Especially if the guild then turns around and uses their gains to help those in need. Honorable might just mean that they make sure no bystanders are injured or robbed.

 

[Rawhide]

Since we can posit any details,
and a paladin can't really act differently without losing plaladinhood,

the easy thing to do is alter the thieves guild with our posited details.

For example, you could easily have a lawful good mercenary company that grew out of an guild of brigands and murderers. Despite being a force for good for generations, it is still clled the theives guld. A paladin is a fine fit.

Or the theives guild could be in charge of all vice in a city, including gambling, prostitution, and drugs, even thogh most vice is legal and regualted. A werwolf starts jack the rippering the protsitutes, and a paladin finds and stops that guy, in thanks, the guild makes him a member in good standing, which makes it against guild rules for anyone to steal from him. They know the paladin will still try to stop their crimes and wont associate with them, but as long as he seeks out and gets rid of supernatural threats praying on their members, the guild considers him a member, even if he doesn't.

The guild long ago learned it needed to have at least one person of each major profession, but keeping a paladin is difficult. They recruit those who are dumb, but still honorable. Then they have a cut-out bring that apaldin information about nonguild theives in the ctiy. The paladin hutns down and captures those cirminals, without realizing he's helping a guild of other cirminals. Only neutral cut outs are use, to ensure a detect evil never gives up the game.

 

[bodhi]

the guild considers him a member, even if he doesn't.

I like this. "I hear you're a thief." "No, I'm not!" "Yeah, you are. Frank the Finger said so." "No, I'm not! Wait, who said that?"

They recruit those who are dumb, but still honorable.

Even better. The Tick vs. the Unaffiliated. Ah, The Hamlet. My The Hamlet.

 

[jdrakeh]

My major quibble with taking what is deemed "fair" is that it is both deceptive (I will threaten violence so that he gives me money, not because I intend or desire to do him violence) and vengeful (he has screwed others, so he can get screwed!).

While neither thing would exclude you from a Good alignment, IMO, they're both solidly dishonorable.

How is threatening violence deceptive? That seems pretty straightforward to me. Also, I'm not entirely sure that it is dishonorable, given that a large part of historic chivalry is largely based upon such threats (or 'challnges' as polite society would call them) and their resolution on the field of battle. As for what you refer to as vengeance in the above example, it's worth noting that a great many religions (fictional and otherwise) refer to this turning of tables as justice.

 

[I'm A Banana]

How is threatening violence deceptive? That seems pretty straightforward to me.

Also, I'm not entirely sure that it is dishonorable, given that a large part of historic chivalry is largely based upon such threats (or 'challnges' as polite society would call them) and their resolution on the field of battle. As for what you refer to as vengeance in the above example, it's worth noting that a great many religions (fictional and otherwise) refer to this turning of tables as justice.

"Deceptive" might not have been the best choice of words, honestly. I was thinking it was deceptive because you wouldn't intend violence, though you'd use it as a means to extort your victim, but depending on how you phrase it, you might be pretty honest about it.

Though I'd still see it as dishonorable. Because it's a way of strong-arming those weaker than you into having no choice but to obey you. That's cool if those weaker than you are fiends or undead or other inhuman monstrosities, but it gets very problematic, IMO, when these are just people who may have benefited from a corrupt regime. Bystanders, even if not-so-innocent ones. If they're weaker than you, you're supposed to protect them, not assault them, even if they ARE evil (though you are to thwart their evil plans and work against them in other ways).

Chivalric challenges, if I'm not mistaken, still respected the loser's legal rights and property (though they'd often be dead). You can't just take the loser's material wealth and do as you please with it. And such divine justice is often hardly honorable, though it may be entirely just.

Good is one thing, but IMO, this honorable behavior is a higher standard of "respect for life," and forbids certain tactics, even for just causes (violent extortion being one of them). For a paladin, the means are just as key as the end.

If poison is dishonorable because it is giving you an unfair advantage that may kill a man long after you've battled them, certainly forcing people to submit to having their worldly goods taken is dishonorable because it's not about challenging the evil directly, but about preying on people who aren't necessarily directly involved (though they may benefit).

 

[Storminator]

Can we all simply agree that a Paladin's code has NOTHING ...

No.

PS

 

[delericho]

Umm, only possible way I can see it (without violating the paladin's code and all) is for the paladin to be a protector of the guild's members, not a thief himself, and for the thieves' guild to actually be the legitimate authority in the region..... The paladin wants to protect the goodly thieves that are struggling to stay alive and fight the local overlord in whatever way they can.

That's pretty much my feeling as well. And even then, the Paladin is walking a very fine line, because if the guild slip from "oppressed and disinherited rightful heirs" into "band of brigands doing whatever it takes to reclaim their birthright", he has to stop associating with them.

 

[Drowbane]

Deep cover.

The head of the Thieves' Guild is the most powerful criminal in the city--but his identity is shrouded in mystery and proof vs. divinations.

That whole "can't tell a lie" thing makes this really difficult to pull off.

 

[Drowbane]

Very, very few crusaders acted in ways that would be justifiable to a paladin, for the record.

Very few people in recorded history could be considered "Paladin-like". I've always thought that was the point.

For my Homebrew, the only "Paladins" so far are near-legendary NPCs of various classes. Its a title, extremely rare at that, bestowed upon a hero by the church (or in at least one case, by the people and eventually backed by the church).

Spoiler

Christ, perhaps?

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

In my DM's version of Birthright, the goddess of night and thieves (Eloele) had a paladin. One. Singular.

He hunted down the thieves' guilds who worshipped her, because they besmirched her good name.

From her point of view, he was ensuring the security of the faith, as any of the guilds that he could find, obviously were too public.

Brad