Paladins with powers being deluded/deceived?

[Celebrim]

Stuck on personal codes that don't have outside enforcement...

If you have no relationship to anything outside yourself, how can you possible claim law/order as your highest precept?

A contemplative sword master comes up with his own elaborate code of conduct and has written it down. It takes into account his philosophy of what rules are required for a sustainable or improvable society. He does not believe in making personal sacrifices to help other individuals (it encourages the thriving of those who make bad choices) or in harming others for the sake of convenience (it stops the less millitant from thriving and contributing intellectually) . All 118 of the exhortations and prohibitions make sense in plain English/common. He will teach it to those who ask, but most find it too demanding and he doesn't seek out opportunities to spread it. He follows other laws and traditions that don't contradict this fixed code because he is innately in favor of order. No one external makes him stick to his code and he has no personal authority to force it on others. He is honest in all his dealings. He expects others to have and use a well thought out code of actions, whether divine, legal, or personal, and judges them based on how they follow it -- and he expects it to be an actual code and not just an excuse to do what they find easiest, most enjoyable, or most expedient.

Without seeing the code it's very hard to say. There are some clues that he's Chaotic Neutral.

1) He places his own dictates above all other law and tradition.
2) He places himself under no higher authority nor claims any duty or obligation to any such.
3) He is his own judge of whether he is following his own code. And with 118 such laws, I'd be really surprised if it didn't turn out that some were subject to interpretation.
4) He doesn't believe his code should be assimilated by others, and he seems to believe that the law is relative to the person or situation rather than universal in any way.
5) He judges people on the basis of how well they follow their own code. In other words, the highest sin possible in his code is 'betrayal of self' or to put it another way 'hypocrisy'. Note that he even neatly avoids this charge of not 'practicing what he preaches' because he doesn't preach it. The code applies only to him.
6) He doesn't practice altruism, claiming that this encourages the thriving of others who make bad choices. This strongly reminds me of Objectivism, which is certainly CN.
7) He doesn't claim that his rights trumps the rights of others. Combined with #6, this strongly reminds me of the Silver Rede - "Harm no one; do as you will". Again, this is an axiomatic expression of CN.

However, without actually looking at the demands the 118 rules places on him or the philosophy they seem to express, it's really hard to give a definitive answer. Rules that seemed arbitrary, capricious, random, left much room for personal interpretation, and focused on individual self-expression and freedom would more strongly reinforce my gut instinct. Those that weren't like that would tend to move me in other directions. Come up with the 118 rules and I'll tell you. Note also, it's possible that the net answer is just 'neutral'.

If 3e is incoherent (and it would seemingly be LN there)... where does it go in the 1e/2e alignment system. It seems to contradict both good and evil

The fact that he isn't proactive strongly places it on the neutral spectrum with respect to good and evil.

... and it certainly doesn't "place randomness and disorder" above everything else.

I suppose - 118 precepts that only apply to me seems like a pretty random and arbitrary set of rules to me.

 

[Cadence]

However, without actually looking at the demands the 118 rules places on him or the philosophy they seem to express, it's really hard to give a definitive answer. Rules that seemed arbitrary, capricious, random, left much room for personal interpretation, and focused on individual self-expression and freedom would more strongly reinforce my gut instinct. Those that weren't like that would tend to move me in other directions. Come up with the 118 rules and I'll tell you. Note also, it's possible that the net answer is just 'neutral'.

Thanks for the detailed response! The not-L answer makes a LOT more sense to me now (even if I don't yet find keeping it LN any worse than moving it to the others as described in the books).

I'm pretty sure I could come up with 100+ you would find non-chaotic by the 1e/2e/3e descriptions and not 'true neutral' in the 1e sense. It just might take me a decade of spare time mulling over the major sets of laws and works of moral philosophy from the past few millenia and mentally working through the weaknesses and strengths of each to come up with a coherent whole like the character might have... but doing so would probably cause chaos with my real life time commitments!

Even if I did, I'm guessing there are a lot easier cases to show that the standard 9-alignments fit some types of people really badly.

 

[Celebrim]

I don't disagree, however it does point to the hypocrisy of expecting perfection on the part of the Paladin himself.

I disagree. None of the above presents the deity as being in error. And when I invoke 'gross conduct', we aren't talking about minor transgressions.

This, to me, would make for a much more compelling narrative for the deceived Paladin. Something is not right. He knows it. How does he determine what it is?

Narrative aside, this is a better gamist solution as well, as it avoid table arguments over highly debatably points of understanding prompted by the feeling that the player has been wronged by a snap judgment (a possibility fairness would force me to admit).

As for how he determines what it is, I try to put clues to that in the dream or omen, but ideally a player that is really in touch with his character knows when he's making it up as he goes and might be making the wrong choices. Ideally, you've been in communication with your player so that he knows what constitutes an sign or omen.

That said, I believe there are things a player can easily overlook which his character would not. In such instances, pointing out the inconsistency of the proposed course of action with the code of the deity seems perfectly reasonable. I don't expect the Paladin to use his player's knowledge of ballistics to build a handgun. Similarly, I will not restrict the Paladin's knowledge of his religion to the knowledge of the player.

Oh absolutely. Full agreement there. The DM should never be playing 'Gotcha'. Anything that the PC should know that the player doesn't seem to know you are under an obligation to communicate. I'm not Nitro Ferguson or advocating anything like Kraag World and quite the contrary. In fact, I'm not going to approve a Champion or Cleric or Shaman without spending some time getting really concrete with the player about the taboos and precepts that they intend to uphold and/or are expected to keep.

 

[N'raac]

I disagree. None of the above presents the deity as being in error. And when I invoke 'gross conduct', we aren't talking about minor transgressions.

On gross conduct, I agree. A rephrase, to me, could be an act the Paladin knew, or should have known, to be evil. Burying his head in the sand does not absolve him of responsibility (the old chestnut of the Paladin conveniently leaving the room while his colleagues torture the prisoners comes to mind).

Narrative aside, this is a better gamist solution as well, as it avoid table arguments over highly debatably points of understanding prompted by the feeling that the player has been wronged by a snap judgment (a possibility fairness would force me to admit).

As for how he determines what it is, I try to put clues to that in the dream or omen, but ideally a player that is really in touch with his character knows when he's making it up as he goes and might be making the wrong choices. Ideally, you've been in communication with your player so that he knows what constitutes an sign or omen.

I think knowing something is wrong and having to determine what it is could make for a great game. Much more dramatic and interesting than being told where or what the issue is, really.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Concurrence is not required in a question of guilt for all crimes. The lack of a guilty mind doesn't excuse actions, and in any event, in the United States we no longer consider crimes from the perspective of mens rea anyway but from a question of culpability.

I don't know where you're getting your info from, but I can assure you as a practicing attorney that men's rea is absolutely still a factor in criminal law. Civil law is different. Mens rea is the difference between the various offenses under criminal homicide laws- 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, manslaughter- and the civil law offense of wrongful death.

Perhaps he is forgivable, but he is certainly not 'in the clear'.

And again, modern law generally isn't interested in concepts like 'Purity'. A LG deity may well very much be interested in such matters.

"Purity" wasn't part of he hypothetical.

If the Paladin was deceived, so long as he exercised due dilligence, he has not acted contrary to his vow. Neither the ethos of Law nor Good demand perfection though both hold it as an ideal.

Do you honestly think an Lawful or Good divinity would hold a being responsible for an act he comitted in good faith with the best info he had?

 

[Celebrim]

I don't know where you're getting your info from, but I can assure you as a practicing attorney that men's rea is absolutely still a factor in criminal law. Civil law is different. Mens rea is the difference between the various offenses under criminal homicide laws- 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, manslaughter- and the civil law offense of wrongful death.

Sure, but my understanding was that mens rea per se was no longer the standard, and that had been deprecated in favor of strictly defined terms of culpability - such as 'knowingly', 'negligently' and the like. So that you might say that first degree is 'purposefully', second degree is 'knowingly', manslaughter is 'recklessly', and beyond that (whatever it is) is 'negligently'. The actual consideration of whether the person had a 'guilty mind' wasn't a part of the law any more.

And in any event, I'm holding that the Lawful Good legal code includes space for items of Strict Liability - especially as it pertains to positions of authority and privilege like Paladins. For example, if Galahad violates his oath of Chastity, it doesn't matter why he violated it, it doesn't matter if he was enchanted, or sleep walking, or deceived - he is guilty.

Just because modern American legal codes highly disfavor strict liability, doesn't mean that there won't be cases in other codes involving for example, religious orders. And, not knowing the law much, I wonder how much defense a lack of guilty mind however it is defined actually is in a case like 'statutory rape'. It seems like at least in the prevailing understanding of the law by non-experts, legitimately not knowing the age of the person even if they were deceptive and misrepresented themselves isn't in fact a defense.

"Purity" wasn't part of he hypothetical.

If the Paladin was deceived, so long as he exercised due dilligence, he has not acted contrary to his vow.

No, again, as the Vow of Chastity indicates, he has in fact acted contrary to his value. Intentionality doesn't matter. If he's not a virgin anymore, he's strictly culpable. Arguably, even if it is within the power of the party to forgive, and even if they are willing to do so, it's not in the power of the party to restore the lost status. I'm arguing that Paladinhood could conceivably be that sort of status.

Neither the ethos of Law nor Good demand perfection though both hold it as an ideal.

But you discount that Law or Good could demand perfection (or near enough for mortal purposes) as a condition of holding special authority and privilege? What makes this a necessity? Isn't there at least the possibility that a legal code could contain items of strict culpability, or where even complete lack of a guilty mind only meant you were guilty of lesser - but still serious - offence?

Do you honestly think an Lawful or Good divinity would hold a being responsible for an act he comitted in good faith with the best info he had?

I'm sure that a Lawful one would. I'm reasonably convinced that a Lawful Good one would. I'd be less convinced that a Chaotic Good one would, but I've never thought about this question enough to be convinced on that.

 

[pemerton]

This gets us to a messy semantic point: If a Paladin knowingly performs an act which happens to be evil, even if the Paladin didn't know the act was evil, did the paladin knowingly perform an evil act?

Leaving aside questions of deliberately avoided knowledge, and of gross negligence, there is room to argue that commission of the act is sufficient. That doesn't fit modern legal thinking as to guilt (so far as I am aware), but modern thinking may not be an entirely suitable guide.

Actually, the question that you raise is a fairly standard problem in the construction of criminal law statutes. For instance, it comes up in relation to the offence defined in s 102.7 of the Australian Commonwealth Criminal Code.

It's clear that the action must be wilful (ie committed intentionally and knowingly). But the wording of the requirement leaves it open whether the action's evil must be known to the paladin. In contemporary Anglo-Australian criminal law, the default threshold for guilt in relation to this sort of property of an action is recklessness, not knowledge. I suspect it is probably the same in the US and Canada, though I'm not certain.

Recklessness can be a rubbery concept, but the basic idea is knowledge of a real chance that the action has the property in question - in this case, that would suggest that at a minimum the paladin must be aware that there is a real chance that the action is an evil one.

[MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] has argued for strict liability as to the act's evil. That is certainly a construction that the words leave open, although it would depart from contemporary common law standards of criminal liability. But as tomBitonti has said, modern standards may not be the applicable one.

(On a side note: in the criminal law "mens rea", "culpability" and "fault element" are just different ways of talking about the same thing, at least until you get into technicalities (eg the notion "mens rea" is not used in the technical language of Australian federal criminal law, which prefers the phrase "fault element"). But until we are talking in technicalities, they are all just ways of referring to the mental element of an offence. Of course some offences have no mens rea or fault requirement: namely, offences of strict or absolute liability.)

On the substantive question of how this should be handled in 3E play I express no view. It's not my game and I don't use mechanical alignment in any event.

EDIT: There are also questions raised about the individuation of actions. For instance, manslaughter (homicide by way of gross negligence) is committed, roughly speaking, when a person knowingly and deliberately takes an action with a culpable disregard towards its possible consequences for the physical wellbeing of another. For this statement of the offence to even make sense, we have to be prepared to distinguish between the action (say, throwing a brick out of a 10th storey window) and the consequence of the action (having the brick lend on a pedestrian below). If your preferred ontology of actions includes the consequence as an inherent element of the action, then you are going to conclude that the action (ie the throwing-of-a-brick-such-that-it-lands-on-a-pedestrian-below) was not committed intentionally.

The criminal law, and the law more generally, has its own techniques for carving up actions into their constituent elements, and their consequences. But there is no reason why the paladin's obligations should be interpreted in accordance with the ontological framework adopted by the criminal law. This is a further aspect of the question which can lead to debate around the proper construction of the code's requirements.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Sure, but my understanding was that mens rea per se was no longer the standard, and that had been deprecated in favor of strictly defined terms of culpability - such as 'knowingly', 'negligently' and the like. So that you might say that first degree is 'purposefully', second degree is 'knowingly', manslaughter is 'recklessly', and beyond that (whatever it is) is 'negligently'. The actual consideration of whether the person had a 'guilty mind' wasn't a part of the law any more.

Ah, I see the source of confusion! Those terms- "knowingly", "negligently", etc.- are just descriptions of mental states, each one a subset of "mens rea".

And in any event, I'm holding that the Lawful Good legal code includes space for items of Strict Liability - especially as it pertains to positions of authority and privilege like Paladins. For example, if Galahad violates his oath of Chastity, it doesn't matter why he violated it, it doesn't matter if he was enchanted, or sleep walking, or deceived - he is guilty.

Strict Liability is a tort standard, not a criminal law standard. I'm thinking that a Paladin's responsibility is high, yes, but he must still fail at a criminally responsible level to be stripped of his status.

No, again, as the Vow of Chastity indicates, he has in fact acted contrary to his value. Intentionality doesn't matter. If he's not a virgin anymore, he's strictly culpable. Arguably, even if it is within the power of the party to forgive, and even if they are willing to do so, it's not in the power of the party to restore the lost status. I'm arguing that Paladinhood could conceivably be that sort of status.

The Vow of Chastity is not the same as the Paladin's Oath. The first may be absolute, but the latter, more serious has clear qualifiers:

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

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 innocents.

But you discount that Law or Good could demand perfection (or near enough for mortal purposes) as a condition of holding special authority and privilege? What makes this a necessity? Isn't there at least the possibility that a legal code could contain items of strict culpability, or where even complete lack of a guilty mind only meant you were guilty of lesser - but still serious - offence?

A paladin blinded in combat, still fighting for his life, accidentally beheads an innocent bystander or ally. The paladin has caused the death, no question, but had no recourse other than to stop fighting and let himself be killed. Will the divine patron strip him of his powers?

A deity demanding strict liability would. Most, I think, would not.

Uniformly strict liability legal codes have existed in the past- such as the Athenian laws of Draco. They tend to last only so long as someone is willing to back them up with extreme force. In Draco's case, nearly everything was punishable by death, except unintentional homicides (which got you exiled). They exception was one that resulted from a lot of debate. And after Draco, Solon repealed the Draconian Code (except his laws on homicide).

I'm sure that a Lawful one would. I'm reasonably convinced that a Lawful Good one would. I'd be less convinced that a Chaotic Good one would, but I've never thought about this question enough to be convinced on that.

Does it make sense that a deity would invest power in an individual that is supposed to be his Sword & living symbol of his divine favor amongst the mortals, only to strip him of that power every time he made a mistake he could not possibly have avoided making? At best, it makes more work for the deity!

"Damn, another Paladin reinstatement form to fill out! WHY CAN'T THEY JUST FOLLOW MY RULES FLAWLESSLY?!?!?!?"

 

[pemerton]

Strict Liability is a tort standard, not a criminal law standard.

There are plenty of offences in Australian criminal law that have elements to which liability attaches on a strict basis. I'd be surprised if that were not the case in aspects of US law also. (Just to give one example, I'd be surprised if liability for parking fines in most US cities depended upon proving that the offender had any particular mental state with respect to the duration for which their car was parked.)

 

[Umbran]

(Just to give one example, I'd be surprised if liability for parking fines in most US cities depended upon proving that the offender had any particular mental state with respect to the duration for which their car was parked.)

Well, he certainly had the intent to park...

But, then we are talking about a mere infraction (fine only, no probation or jail time is possible, and the defendant doesn't get a jury trial) - technically, it isn't "criminal law" per se.