Paladins with powers being deluded/deceived?

[Dannyalcatraz]

Being tricked into gross misconduct - burning down an orphanage because someone told you the kids were really monsters in disguise or even simply because you were more willing to sacrifice innocents than risk your own skin - in my opinion would be (more than) sufficiant to count as a violation.

Problem here, though, is the Paladin is a walking, talking Evil detector. If he just accepts the improbability of the assertion that everyone in the orphanage he's going commit arson on is evil without using his (literally) god-given gift to Detect Evil at will? Well...that's...not mere trickery.

That's Sloth, one of the 7 Deadly Sins. IOW, that's an evil act, in and of itself.

Sloth is defined as spiritual or emotional apathy, neglecting what God has spoken, and being physically and emotionally inactive. It can also be either an outright refusal or merely a carelessness in the performance of one's obligations, especially spiritual, moral or legal obligations. Sloth can also indicate a wasting due to lack of use, concerning a person, place, thing, skill, or intangible ideal that would require maintenance, refinement, or support to continue to exist.

(Emphasis mine.)

Sure, Sloth is nominally a Christian concept, but, unless we're talking about the god of laxity & laziness, I can't imagine any LG divinity thinking highly of a hand-picked servitor who doesn't use the ability he/she/it granted to identify Evil beings and thus commits an atrocity.

 

[Imaro]

In 3.5, looking at the rules I see that they've changed the wording somewhat from what I expected, but even so I think that focusing on the 'willful' part over simplifies even 3.5's version. Gross violation of the code of conduct, even if not willful, still counts as a violation. So for example, killing an innocent person in error particularly as a result of deception or negligence would I think count as a 'gross violation'.

No one said it didn't count as a violation of the code... the question was, does the paladin loose his powers. If he is deceived (and thus he doesn't willfilly commit the evil act) it is not a gross violation. If he's deceived and doesn't realize an action is evil... how can it be obvious or noticeable?? The premise we are discussing is hat the paladin was duped...

[h=2]¹gross[/h]adjective\ˈgrōs\: very obvious or noticeable

 

[Celebrim]

No one said it didn't count as a violation of the code... the question was, does the paladin loose his powers. If he is deceived (and thus he doesn't willfilly commit the evil act) it is not a gross violation. If he's deceived and doesn't realize an action is evil... how can it be obvious or noticeable?? The premise we are discussing is hat the paladin was duped...

And again, a lawful good paladin cannot possible be considered his own judge. It doesn't matter whether the action is obvious and noticable to the Paladin. If the action is obvious and noticable to the Paladin's reviewer, his observer, the one to which he is answerable, then it is a gross violation.

If the Paladin is the reviewer of his own actions, and only loses his powers when he judges that he is in gross violation of the code, then the Paladin is - by definition - not Lawful.

 

[Celebrim]

Problem here, though, is the Paladin is a walking, talking Evil detector. If he just accepts the improbability of the assertion that everyone in the orphanage he's going commit arson on is evil without using his (literally) god-given gift to Detect Evil at will? Well...that's...not mere trickery.

That's Sloth, one of the 7 Deadly Sins. IOW, that's an evil act, in and of itself.

I don't disagree. The purpose of my example was to show just how ridiculous the results would be if we accepted the idea that the Paladin's own judgment and knowledge of his conduct was the sole standard of whether he'd violated a code of conduct. A significant if not defining aspect of lawful is that you are adhering to a knowable and externally reviewable code so that others may judge you on the basis of that code. Being lawful means you are subject to higher authority. It's not reasonable for the Paladin to say to his superior, "Well, gee, I was decieved so I couldn't have been derilict in my duty to you and of course I have no need to apologize to you. You wrong me by suggesting so."

 

[Umbran]

If he is deceived (and thus he doesn't willfilly commit the evil act) it is not a gross violation.

See above, about sloth and lack of due diligence. While we cannot expect the paladin to be omniscient, he or she must take reasonable steps to avoid being deceived, or there is a gross violation involved.

 

[Cadence]

And again, a lawful good paladin cannot possible be considered his own judge. It doesn't matter whether the action is obvious and noticable to the Paladin. If the action is obvious and noticable to the Paladin's reviewer, his observer, the one to which he is answerable, then it is a gross violation.

Do you mean obvious and noticeable to the reviewer, or (echoing @Umbran ) that the reviewer thinks it should have been noticeable to the paladin? The former seems to fall into the "lawful stupid" category - so what if it was an arch-lich pulling your strings and hiding behind a bunch of magic above your level that stopped you from telling, I'm your omniscient deity and it was obvious to me so kiss your powers good-bye.

If the Paladin is the reviewer of his own actions, and only loses his powers when he judges that he is in gross violation of the code, then the Paladin is - by definition - not Lawful.

A significant if not defining aspect of lawful is that you are adhering to a knowable and externally reviewable code so that others may judge you on the basis of that code.

By RAW, Lawful Neutral in 3.5 expressly allows one to be guided by a personal code and has no requirement of an external judge. Lawful and Lawful Good also add no such requirement. (If a being is lawful only if they have a judge, then are the greater gods incapable of being lawful?)

Is there anything in the 3.5 Paladin description that requires them to have a god or order or, like the cleric, can they just serve righteousness in general? If so, how does the concept of righteousness review or observe them?

 

[Imaro]

And again, a lawful good paladin cannot possible be considered his own judge.

I never made this claim....

It doesn't matter whether the action is obvious and noticable to the Paladin. If the action is obvious and noticable to the Paladin's reviewer, his observer, the one to which he is answerable, then it is a gross violation.

I disagree. The judge/reviewer/whatever is judging whether the violation was noticeable or obvious to the paladin. Or are you saying, that something like a deity or cosmological power would judge the paladin based on it's own (vastly more ancient and superior) knowledge/power/etc??

If the Paladin is the reviewer of his own actions, and only loses his powers when he judges that he is in gross violation of the code, then the Paladin is - by definition - not Lawful.

I never said the paladin was the reviewer of his own actions... but he is judged based on his abilities not those of his patron. So like I said, if the paladin was truly deceived, then he did not commit a gross violation.

 

[Celebrim]

It seems the question is more about how omniscient the entity/philosophy empowering the Paladin is, and how much or little action they take.

The Paladin has been deceived and is about to strike down an innocent person. Would it not be more in keeping with the tenets of LG for the Power in question to intercede to prevent that innocent's death than to punish the Paladin immediately afterwards?

This is a really good question IMO.

In brief, my answer would be, "Whether or not it fits with your conception, it doesn't seem to fit with how narratives about transgressions usually work."

In narratives about transgressions, the 'power' almost never acts to stop someone from committing the transgression. There could be a variaty of explanations for this:

1) If you intervene to prevent the transgression, you are basically violating the free will of the person's involved. It could be argued that this would be a worse crime for a diety to commit than transgression being commited.
2) It could be that the LG diety sees the chastisement, atonement, and redemption process as being the lesser of several evils it is forced to choose between when his servants are misbehaving. An example would be Arthur's mortal combat with Lancelot in the movie Excalibur, where Arthur's transgression is ultimately made to serve good - humbling both Arthur and Lancelot and bringing them into friendship.
3) In the case of dieties which are explicitly not omniscient (like most D&D dieties) it could very well be that the diety easily misses an act of impending evil amongst all it must keep track of, but quickly becomes aware of actually committed evil - the blood of an innocent crying out from the ground, for example.

From a practical standpoint, direct divine intervention used all the time is going to be unbalancing and railroading in a game.

That isn't to say it shouldn't occasionally happen. As a DM I'd be evaluating which made for the more interesting story, and which course of action was in keeping with the deities personality. I'd count it against the player's divine interventions though (I have formalized rules), meaning additional aid might not be as forthcoming for some time.

The difficult question, to me, is whether the Paladin's powers can be used as a deception detector "Whoa, guys, something is wrong - my Lay on Hands isn't working! Something we are doing must not be as righteous and benevolent as we have been lead to believe!" As I don't want to eliminate the potential that a Paladin could be deceived, I think that forces acceptance that he does not lose his abilities if he commits an evil act accidentally or unknowingly, outside of gross negligence or wilful blindness.

I generally agree, but only because you added the 'gross conduct' clause. When my players running a Champion (homebrew 'Paladin' class) commit minor transgressions knowingly or especially unknowingly, I typically don't deal with this by way of loss of status immediately. Rather, the Champion recieves warnings via dreams or other omens that something is wrong with his conduct. These become progressively worse if he doesn't correct the situation, and might ultimately lead to loss of status if ignored.

But gross transgresssion of the code, so that the player IMO ought to have thought twice about doing something so rash, would draw loss of status - albiet with a chance of 'simple' atonement. If for example my player's current Champion of Aravar (the God who protects traveller's on their way the after life), was tricked into doing something rash like waylaying and killing an innocent traveller or participating in an act of piracy on an innocent merchant or defiling the bodies of the dead, that would draw immediate censure even if the character thought he was doing the right thing or didn't realize what he was doing. In fact, it would draw immediate censure even if he'd been dominated or charmed into doing those things.

In situations of doubt, I'm inclined to rule he keeps his powers, but that doesn't mean his superiors in his order, his religious leaders or the general populace has to extend the same benefit of the doubt. Maybe a month of scrubbing outhouses, or hearing the village priest admonish his parish to "Heed the example of CharacterName the Foolish - do not walk in his footsteps" might cause a bit more attention to be paid in the future.

Heh. Not all atonement need be some vain glorious deed like killing a dragon.

 

[TwoSix]

The purpose of my example was to show just how ridiculous the results would be if we accepted the idea that the Paladin's own judgment and knowledge of his conduct was the sole standard of whether he'd violated a code of conduct.

I agree with this.

A paladin's power is not a cookie, given to the paladin because she has behaved, and taken away when she doesn't listen. A paladin's power is about being in a state of grace, about possessing a purity and sanctity above and beyond a normal man. The power is not earned. It's a byproduct of the state of the soul.

Just as importantly, one of the most important virtues of a paladin is humility. She doesn't follow the code to deserve the paladin's power, she follows the code because it was granted by her deity, and is thus more perfect than her own mortal judgment. A paladin doesn't exist to serve the greater good. When a paladin tortures a prisoner (a code violation) to gain information to save the village, she falls because in her pride, she has put her own judgment before her god's own commands. She lacked faith in the vision of her god.

 

[Celebrim]

Do you mean obvious and noticeable to the reviewer, or (echoing [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] ) that the reviewer thinks it should have been noticeable to the paladin?

Probably depends on the alignment of the deity. I'd typically play a LG deity from the merciful perspective of considering whether or not the reviewer thinks it should be noticable to the paladin. I wouldn't expect LE deities to be so understanding with their champions.

One area you don't seem to be considering is whether or not the deity requires (or perhaps even needs) his champions to maintain a certain level of purity. For example, suppose the code requires a vow of chastity in order to be in the deities service - maybe you are a Paladin in service of a Virgin Goddess. If the vow of chastity is broken by any means, knowingly or unknowingly, willingly or not, it may well be that though your deity is merciful and forgives you, you aren't getting back into her sacred order. For a lawful diety, the fact that this isn't 'fair' to the particular transgressor is far less important than the standard and example being upheld for the group.

By RAW, Lawful Neutral in 3.5 expressly allows one to be guided by a personal code and has no requirement of an external judge. Lawful and Lawful Good also add no such requirement. (If a being is lawful only if they have a judge, then are the greater gods incapable of being lawful?)

Is there anything in the 3.5 Paladin description that requires them to have a god or order or, like the cleric, can they just serve righteousness in general? If so, how does the concept of righteousness review or observe them?

My short answer to this is that the 3.5 alignment descriptions are generally incoherent to the point of being meaningless if not clarified in some fashion. They are also generally in contridiction to the alignment descriptions from earlier editions. It should be obvious that being guided by a personal code (ei, one you set for yourself) is in immediate conflict with the notion of respect for authority (ei, someone with the right to set rules for you).

As far as how you can have high authority and also have a judge, the idea behind lawfulness is that all are subject to the law. The highest authorities publish a code that they also are subject to, one persumably based on their rightful understanding of the universe, and presumably pass judgment upon themselves or else would lose their authority. Since however they are paragons of lawfulness, in practice this doesn't happen. A paragon of lawfulness acting in a chaotic manner would basically mean Chaos had won.

I'm a bit uncomfortable with the notion that you are in service to a Principle - ei Law or Good. However, it an anthromorphic universe its entirely possible that Good or Law is itself a sentient Elder God. Certainly 'Chaos' is often portrayed in this way in real mythologies. If not, I imagine that the Principle is far less forgiving even than a diety would be, as the again, the precondition on recieving power might well be ABSOLUTE purity of conduct.