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

[I'm A Banana]

I agree regarding the Prince John/Nottingham bits. They're definitely NOT the legitimate authority.

Absolutely right. However, a paladin is required to fight even illegitimate authority with honor. Hiding out in the forest and taking people's worldly possessions are not honorable, however noble they may be. Such behavior is dark and seedy and malicious, even if it is entirely just, and a paladin cannot do such actions, nor can he tolerate the company of those who do them.

So, they steal from the oppressive government officials, including liberating food stores and redistributing the wealth and food to penniless, starving peasants.

They are acting with honor, as they are seeking to restore the proper order of things. And they do respect legitimate authority. It is the usurpers who do not. And in this case, it's the mandate of Heaven, and the celestial order, not just the temporal order of humanity.

While definitely Good, I really don't think it's honorable. Let's do a little dictionary-digging...

Honor implies a good public esteem, a high social standing, a purity, an integrity, an honesty.

Honor doesn't tell you what to do, it tells you how to do it: with a proud face, and an unwillingness to compromise.

An honorable person can fight, but only as a last resort, and then only to protect, as a preventative measure. To attack willfully is rather dishonorable, because it's not operating with purity and integrity, but rather with hostility. This is especially true if a threat of violence is not an honest threat, but an attempt to get something else out of them, or if the threat of violence is motivated by gain.

Robin Hood had a Good agenda, but it wasn't honorable -- they used terrorism and guerrilla tactics to force evil to come to terms with them. They stole for vengeance, for retribution, and their violent threats were often simply to get such vengeance.

While entirely Good, none of this seems honorable. It's below the belt, below the board, it doesn't display integrity, it makes you an outcast, and it means your words are not always worth what you say they are (a serious blow to any bastion of honesty and forthrightness like a paladin).

Admittedly, "honor" is probably open to individual DM interpretation. But it seems to me that the implication is that a paladin is NOT a good fit for a Robin Hood or Batman type figure, because the methods that these guys use to restore order, while Lawful Good, aren't honorable and forthright. Vigilantism, terrorism, and exploitive tactics are, I think, very much against the paladin's code.

1) Find someone who is both wealthy and despicable. (ei who detects as evil and who the Paladin knows by reputation to be dishonorable)
2) Approach said person, and ask them to voluntarily make restitution. Preferably, do this in as confrontational of manner as possible. What is a high charisma for if not goading villians into making a mistake?
3) If you haven't already wheedled them into attacking you, find pretext to challenge them to a duel. This shouldn't be too hard. Turn the conversation to some matter where they are sure to say something you'll find insulting.
4) If they refuse an honorable duel, and you can't wheedle them, try to detain them in the name of your deity because of thier wicked ways.
5) After defeating them, take thier stuff as legimate plunder of war. Most legal codes based on pre-modern law will allow this. Tithe and set aside the portion for the legitimate government (either the current one or the one 'in waiting' if the current one isn't legitimate). Keep the rest to do good works with, like for example, easing the suffering of the poor.

In my reading, a Paladin is forbidden to "wheedle" anyone into attacking them, or of challenging them on false pretexts, or of pretending to take insult where no insult was really taken. This is the core of honorable behavior: dealing with honesty and integrity in everything. You have no ulterior motives. You state your intent plainly and clearly. That is your courage: you don't fear the reactions of others.

A Paladin would have a lot of trouble maintaining their status, IMC, convincing someone to get in a fight for the intent of defeating them and making off with their loot. This is greed of the highest caliber, and abuse of power to boot. The forces of Good don't need you to steal for them. The forces of Good need you to directly STOP EVIL, not just create mischief for it. In fact, you are forbidden from simple mischief-making: you are allowed only the direct approach, and you are beholden to it.

1) Obtain the right to assess taxes, conferred on you by some legitimate authority, including 'the rightful king in exile'.
2) Find someone discable that owes back taxes (if this is on behalf of the 'king in exile' then its probably everyone). Appropriate thier stuff as is allowed by the law. If they resist, apply appropriate penalties for resisting an officer of the law.

Possibly, but then it's not really a Thieves' Guild, it's now a tax collection agency, and it operates entirely above the board, so it's not really relevant to the OP's request.

 

[frankthedm]

Sure. Not common, but in a land of unjust laws and corrupt rulership i can see a thieves guild having more claim to "legitimate authority" than those in power.

Paladin still has to watch the willful association with evil issue though.

 

[Huw]

I can think of two cases:

1 - The thieves guild is an official body with the express purpose of disrupting a nation's enemies' economic resources. In other words they're spies. The paladins in the guild act as chaplains, making sure the active members (i.e. the thieves) don't overstep their boundaries.

2 - For whatever reason, the forces of good need to protect the head of the thieves guild, so they "make him an offer he cannot refuse" - a pair of loyal and powerful paladin bodyguard/enforcers. These bodyguards are there to ensure that no-one worse becomes guildmaster.

 

[bodhi]

Admittedly, "honor" is probably open to individual DM interpretation. But it seems to me that the implication is that a paladin is NOT a good fit for a Robin Hood or Batman type figure, because the methods that these guys use to restore order, while Lawful Good, aren't honorable and forthright. Vigilantism, terrorism, and exploitive tactics are, I think, very much against the paladin's code.

I would agree that the Paladin isn't really an optimal fit. But the thread's about how to make it fit, so...

I'm thinking of the movie Iron Monkey. The Iron Monkey is the Robin Hood (surprise!) figure. He calls out the corrupt governor, avoids killing the guards who are out to kill him, and steals to give back to the poor peasants, rather than for personal gain. While he clearly is a vigilante, he's not a terrorist. And the only one he exploits is the corrupt official who has unfairly exploited the populace. I don't find anything inherently dishonorable in his actions.

On the other hand, for most thieves' guilds, I think I would find dishonorable: A) their particular activities, and B) their choice of targets. Your standard thieves' guild would, after all, be somewhat focused on profitability, rather than a righteous cause. For that matter, you could argue that a thieves' guild would, by definition, revolved around thievery, and that an organization with some righteous goal that happened to use theft as a method would tend to call themselves something else.

 

[Quartz]

Can I cite The Deed of Paksennarrion?

 

[green slime]

Did Lord Robin's Merry Men qualify as a guild? In the face of tyranny, what is good may not necessary be in accordance with the law of the land but rather, a higher law of the sort handed down by God, not man. When the Church serves the interests of wealthy men rather than the Lord, with whom does the true paladin's allegiance lie?

My thoughts exactly when I read the OP.

 

[Klaus]

The "honor" thing is very open to interpretation. Instead of threats of violence against a feeble old (despicable) noble and his (professional, just-doing-their-jobs) guards, wouldn't it be more honorable to sneak in, take whatever is deemed just, and then sneak out?

If the noble has (unknowingly) acquired a relic like the Wisdom Tooth of Demogorgon, wouldn't the Paladin be performing a honorable deed by relieving the noble of it so it can be destroyed?

Mind you, I'm not saying a Paladin in a Robin Hoodesque setting could rob nobles of all their wordly possession. A Paladin in this position would take what is deemed fair (and probably keeps a ledger to guide his actions.

 

[rgard]

Also:
Yoink! Was this inspired by Fineous Fingers or Bored of the Rings?

Never read Bored of the Rings, but was a fan of Fineous Fingers back in the day. Also, in one of the early campaigns I played in, we fought alot of evil hobbits. That and my MU managed to get an in-game phobia of hobbits and gnomes and had to blast them whenever he saw them. Lasted for a couple of game sessions.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[I'm A Banana]

Mind you, I'm not saying a Paladin in a Robin Hoodesque setting could rob nobles of all their wordly possession. A Paladin in this position would take what is deemed fair (and probably keeps a ledger to guide his actions.

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. An upright member of society, with integrity and honesty doesn't regularly deceive, nor does she pursue vengeance, but rather justice. It's the difference between "taking it back" for the poor and fighting the evil itself...and if they were to fight the evil itself, I don't think it would make much sense to attack the rich to give to the poor, rather it would make sense to directly attack the corrupt authority that allows them to do this, and then change the laws so that justice was done.

The "honor" thing is very open to interpretation. Instead of threats of violence against a feeble old (despicable) noble and his (professional, just-doing-their-jobs) guards, wouldn't it be more honorable to sneak in, take whatever is deemed just, and then sneak out?

IMO, no. Skulking around dark corners and taking the petty vengeance aren't traits of honesty and upright behavior. It's impossible to be honorable and to make a habit of being obscure and stealthy. Honor makes you approach everything directly, which means that the problem of the rich preying on the poor would be handled not by random acts of banditry on the rich, but rather by directly undoing the system that props them up and instituting one that is more just.

If the noble has (unknowingly) acquired a relic like the Wisdom Tooth of Demogorgon, wouldn't the Paladin be performing a honorable deed by relieving the noble of it so it can be destroyed?

Oh! That might be a situation in which a Paladin could be a member in good standing of a theives' guild. If he only relieves people of items of a cursed or evil nature, things that are incapable of doing good in anyone's hands, he could honorably demand that they relinquish it, and, if they don't, he could honorably *take* it by force, for their own good.

Such a guild might operate out of a church, and specialize in acquiring and destroying evil artifacts and the instruments of evil.

Yeah, that actually sounds pretty nifty, good idea, Klaus.

 

[comrade raoul]

Wasnt he supposed to be back from the Crusades?

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