Paladins at dinner parties: Polite or Truthful?

[jasper]

Chrisling…
Someone mentioned Gilles de Rais -- who is an interesting case to look at. It wasn't until after the war was ended that he became the monster we remember him as -- during the Hundred Years' War, he was the very model of French chivalry. It is pretty widely held the reason this is so is because de Rais, during the war, had an easily available outlet for his vile impulses: the war itself. If he felt in whatever sick mood he was in that caused him to defile children, well, during the war he could go out and slaughter some Englishmen and that was good! If the war had not ended during his lifetime, we'd probably think he was a swell guy, a skilled general and tremendous fighter. But the war did end and those horrific tastes he had nutured during his years of war didn't just vanish…

Please send me your sources. I have never heard this viewpoint of Gilles. The 100’s Year War was still active when he was executed. His big battles took place between 1426 and 1429 with some minor battles in 1432. He started killing kids in 1433. He was killed in Oct 1440. The first written fable of him was.. Charles Perrault (forerunner of the Brothers Grimm) wrote "La Barbe Bleue" in 1697. (Zarucchi 18.)… But no evidence exists that he started his murders before 1433. Most of the charges involve basic banditry and property crimes.

For those interested
Benedetti, Jean. The Real Bluebeard The Life of Gilles de Rais. Dorset Press. 1988.

De La Mare, Walter. Tales Told Again. Alfred A. Knopf: New York 1927.

Gabory, Emile.Alias Bluebeard The Life and Death of Gilles de Raiz. C. Brewer and Warren Inc. New York 1930.

Rackham, Arthur. The Arthur Rackham Fairy Book. J., B. Lippincott Company.

Reginald, Reynolds. Beards. London George Allen & Unwin LTD. 1950.

Winwar, Francis. The Saint and the Devil Joan of Arc and Gilles de Rais. Harper & Brothers. New York 1948.

Wilson, Thomas. Bluebeard Contribution to History and Folklore. G.P. Putman's Sons. New York: 1899.

Zarucchi, Jeanne Morgan. Charles Perrault Memories of My Life. University of Missouri Press: Columbia 1989.

Zipes, Jack. Beauties, Beasts, and Enchantment Classic French Fairy Tales. New American Library: Canada

 

[S'mon]

Paladins are mythical characters, that there are almost no real world examples is hardly surprising. Maybe some Knights Hospitaller might have counted? Wizards are if anything more common - John Dee is the one that occurs to me.

 

[Celebrim]

SHARK: I have always thought it would be an interesting excercise to write an alignment sourcebook for each of the nine D&D alignments. I'd nominate you to write the Lawful Evil one. Seriously though, I think there is a vast continuity between utter ruthlessness and being a fastidious wimp, so that people could perhaps choose to face reality AND maintain thier moral stance. It isn't a all or nothing affair, and I can be tactically ruthless and devious without breaking any moral code. While we both agree that idealistic chivalrous combat is silly in the face of real war, I think you can separate needful violence from unnessary cruelty. The necessities of war simply can't excuse every action, and history is filled with losers who failed to consider that the moral component of war was as important (or more so) than material considerations.

You seem to come off with the opinion that not only do you need to 'break a few eggs' to save the people, but that anyone who doesn't will be overrun by those that do. That was Machiavelli's opinion, and I believe he was wrong.

I think if you will consider what you are saying that you will realize that there are resources at the disposal of the soldier which are counterproductive in the long run, however, expedient they may seem in the short term. And I think a close examination of US doctrine indicates an awareness of that. I am in a since thankful when my opponent does stupid things like Kamikazi attacks, terrorize civilians, bully and swagger, and act with total ruthlessness towards those he has defeated. He is assisting me in his fight against him.

Chrisling: Well answered and well spoken, though I don't think you have entirely avoided all the traps I laid for you.

First, the point of the first question was not in the punishment of the crime, which you focused on. I too find little point in mere incarceration, though I'm hardly a pacifist (in fact I support the death penalty). Incarceration helps noone and seemingly provides little protection for society as a whole. A sentence of 'life in prison' if carried out, seems little different to me than a death sentence, save that it takes longer and costs more. But, I'm getting distracted.

The point is, if violence has occured, then it is at least possible if not probable that the perpetrator will resist being 'helped' violently. In this case, what do you do? I think highly of your decision to be strong in the face of violence, but do you have the right to make that decision for everyone? And while the decision you make may be fine for the strong to make, because they are strong indeed and cannot be so easily harmed, what about the weak? Is everyone so strong? What of those that are not and are truly harmed?

Which leads to the second question, what if you aren't the victem, and one of 'the weak' is? In this one, I don't think you answered as satisfactorily, or rather, though I found your answer satisfactory, it contridicted your previous statements.

The answer you gave was basically, 'Yes, I believe the weak should be protected.' By that I assume you mean, even if violence is necessary to stop the abuse(?). By that I assume you mean, even if trespass into the private property of the home is necessary and violation of the normal rights of the inhabitants(?).

But, how can you hold that opinion and hold that war is always wrong, and that no nation should ever invade the other? Aren't these equivalent cases?

Sure, we have moved from 'the few', to 'the many', but are the laws governing the few not governed by the same laws that govern the many? Is not a abuse abuse whether it occurs to one or to many, and is not violence violence whether it occurs to one or to many? If I see my neighbor in danger and distress and a crime be prepuatrated, am I excused from acting because my neighbors are numerous? Can I say to the judge, if it had only been one suffering and not thousands, then I would have been brave and merciful, but because the suffering was great I thought it wrong for me to intervene?

I think it is reasonable to draw a parallel between nation states, and families, and between families and individuals. It is right for a nation state to intervene to protect the weak, just as it is right for an individual to protect the weak with the strength that the individual has.

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Well, Celebrim, I don't really disagree with you that there isn't a spectrum from being utterly ruthless and immoral to being a fastidious fop incapable of doing anything effective.

My main point, --and maybe I should give some more concrete examples than I have to illustrate the point better--is that many actions and tactics that many seem to assume that a paladin could not, or should not, ever do, while nice in a tournament setting, would lead to utter defeat upon a grim and brutal battlefield.

For example:

The paladin and his companions, with some troops perhaps, come upon an enemy encampment of sleeping gnolls. Lets say several hundred of them, in the middle of the night, all crashed out from a debauched feast from earlier in the evening.

Scenario (1): The "Chivalrous Good" position would demand that the paladin blow his own, and alert the enemy to their presence before attacking; and or, await until the Gnolls have further chance to arm and equip themselves before carrying out the attack, or--waiting until sunrise, when the Gnoll host would awake naturally, and proceed to arm and equip themselves for battle, and then proceeding to make an attack.

Scenario (2):The "Realist" position would have the paladin and his forces sweep into the enemy encampment, slitting the Gnoll's throats while they sleep as many as possible, before wasting the rest that do manage to awake with as much fire and ferocity that the paladin and his forces can bring to bear.

The Object: The Gnoll forces are evil, and must be defeated.

For the paladin to impose his chivalrous, idealistic notions--inspired from the tournament and designed for other knights as well, in regulating combat between noble equals--into the situation when a superior tactic has better merits for victory is just stupid. Furthermore, it puts the men under the paladin's command needlessly at risk, so that the paladin can feel better about himself. In addition, it risks the entire force being defeated by the greater numbers of the Gnoll forces, when a surprise attack while they were weak and asleep would increase the chances of victory would be far superior. To fail to do so would be the height of immorality and dereliction of the paladin's duty.

The realities of war demand victory or defeat. Saying that well, we lost, and all my men are dead, and the people that are depending on me are raped and enslaved, because it was more important to me that the enemy Gnolls be allowed a "fair" chance to arm and equip themselves, and fight us in a "fair" manner, where they then proceed to use their superior numbers to slaughter us to the last man, than to achieve victory, with a minimum of casualties to the men that are putting their trust and their lives in my hands.

Attacking the Gnolls when they are asleep is unchivalrous; so is attacking by cover of darkness, for the enemy can't see as well; attacking them when they are unarmored and unarmed is unchivalrous, because they are less able to defend themselves from us, and so on.

This is nonsense, and to insist that paladins be forced to abide by such notions of idealistic chivalry on a strange battlefield, where noone fights "fair" and the cost of being wrong is death, and the enemy may in fact outnumber you significantly, is just crazy. There is no "glory" in this, and there isn't anything especially noble about it. The men under your command have entrusted their lives to you, as a paladin commander, and your primary responsibility is winning, and making sure as many of them get to come home alive as possible. All other considerations, while important in their own way, must ultimately be subordinated to these primary considerations. If the paladin commander cannot do such in good conscience, then he has no business being in a war, or commanding anyone.

Does that mean that torturing captured enemies needlessly is appropriate? Nope. Does that mean that mercy should never be shown to a defeated enemy? Not at all. And with many other moral considerations, they are all important, and they have their place in guiding the commander and troops alike in their conduct, even while in the crucible and hell of war. But to make the ideals themselves, paramount over the greater need of winning, and preserving the lives of the troops under your command, and defending the people that you are charged to defend, is just a prescription for absolute disaster.

Does that make sense? I have read far too many people who interpret paladins as being stupid, and beholden to outmoded, stupid ideals that have no place on a battlefield, and in fact, the insistence of them, will only spell defeat of the first order. It is no wonder that many people think paladins are stupid, because so many people play them as stupid, and so many Game Masters insist that paladins act in stupid ways, and if the paladin chooses not to run down into the fiery trap set to kill him, well, the Game master can cackle with glee as they proceed to strip the paladin of his powers. It is this kind of philosophy that I find entirely incongreous, and unrealistic, as well as ultimately unfair to players that seek to play paladains in something more than simple caricatures.

What do you think?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[Bonedagger]

PALADIN: "No, that robe does not make you look fat" your body makes you look fat

No.. Not right. Being a gentleman is often the closest way to... uhm... sex. Anyway.


The safest way through that one is to answer a question with a question. Observe:

SORCORESS: Does this Robe of the Arch-Magi make me look fat?

PALADIN: Why would you think that?



As for the topic of the thread. You can be polite AND truthful at the same time. It's called diplomacy.

Have a nice day.

 

[Chrisling]

<b>Jasper,</b>

Actually, some of my sources are the same as your sources. When I get to someplace I can look at my books I'll tell you my sources, tho'.

You did catch me in a factual error. I <i>should</i> have said that de Rais didn't start killing kids until after he'd left the war. What I learned is that most people who study the life of de Rais believe that when he was fighting battles he used the atrocity of war to sate whatever it was inside of him that demanded blood sacrifices, tho'. I'll get the stuff for ya.

<b>Celebrim,</b>

I know the answer to this!

You treat criminals like criminals. In the real world, I support the formation of criminal courts with global reach and sufficient police powers to deal with genocidal thugs.

The scenario you're talking about, with one country invading another to stop atrocities in the first country, isn't akin to the situation of, in my eyes, of the police stopping a criminal. One country invading another country to stop a criminal is like <i>me</i> breaking into my neighbors house to stop a crime. Which is vigilantism and a lousy way to solve things, as we know from our own national experience, provoking as it does feuds and recriminations.

One country unilaterally deciding that the situation in another country is illegal and invading it is simply vigilantism on a vast scale. A police action designed to bring the perpetrators of crimes to justice is something I support -- tho' I admit the difference between a police action to arrest a criminal and a war might seem sketchy but the difference is the same between a vigilante movement and real law enforcement.

Shark's gonna get his own letter.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

SHARK,

I'm not sure where you're getting the notion that anyone here was espousing idiotic battlefield tactics. There's a big difference between the kind of social situations that this started out about and single combat. And there's an even bigger difference between that and full-scale war. Why, for example, would any reasoning being want to go into battle without ranged support and get mowed down like wheat? You're absolutely right, that's idiotic, not honorable. But you go much further than that to a realm where the ends justify the means. Which is a philosophy I cannot accept. That's not to say I think there's a single yardstick by which every situation can be measured. There are exceptions, certainly, cases where the end is important enough to justify a great many things that would otherwise be avoided.

For example, if the necromancer who is about to raise the King of Hell (or somesuch) has 500 brainwashed peasants protecting him with their lives and you're running out of time, that's one thing. He has to be stopped, and, ultimately, those souls will be on his head. But the paladin who doesn't feel remorse over it isn't much of a paladin. He hasn't done anything to break his code, but he shouldn't be toasting his great victory, either. THAT is what makes being a paladin difficult, those situations where the real world gets in the way of the life the paladin knows he should live. It should be a paladin's ultimate goal to live in a world where he won't ever have to compromise his principles to accomplish the greater good. Your paladins sound like their principles don't enter into the equation. You're probably thinking that is an unrealistically idealistic interpretation. But what is a LG paladin in a war-torn world but an idealist?

IMO, a person of conscience will regret any death brought about by his actions, even those that are needful. And a person of strength will be able to live with this regret, because the greater good was served. And a wise man will know in what situations he needs to be flexible, and in what situations it is best to live as an example.

Compassion is the primary requisite of a Good being. Your paladins don't strike me as being very compassionate. They sound like they live in a very black & white world where anyone who opposes their King & Country is deserving of the death that shall be laid upon them. Zero doubt. Zero remorse. That man is evil, kill him and everyone who looks like him.

HUH?!

How does that make them the good guys? There IS a difference, after all.

 

[Chrisling]

SHARK,

I had a pretty long letter written to you but I realized what it came down to: a difference in what constitutes "good" behavior. You think that a person can torture another person and be good, if the situation "requires" it; I can't accept that. You think that if it is a strategically clever manuever and one's enemy is sufficiently vile that it's okay to murder indiscriminately by poisoning a well, that a paladin is <i>required</i> to kill indiscriminately in that scenario because it's the best strategy; I can't accept that.

IMO, if a person has to make the sort of decisions that are necessary to win a war according to your ideas then it is simply impossible for a person to be a successful military commander against a ruthless foe and belong to a good alignment. Which, by the way, is something I accept as being true.

 

[Bob Aberton]

Interesting debate you have here.

SHARK says that a palading should be interested in winning at all costs, i.e. "...slitting their throats while they are asleep...wasting the rest with as much fire and ferocity as possible...etc."

Celebrim says that a paladin should be honorable and chivalrous, even if it means his life.

I think that a paladin must be balanced. To be a paladin is to be alone. He must always walk a delicate knife-edge; he must on one hand be a warrior to strike fear into the hearts of his enemies. On the other hand, he must be chivalrous, honorable, benevolent, self-sacrificing.

It *is* tough to be a paladin. Do you know what blackguards are? The paladins that failed. The paladins that couldn't walk that knife-edge between lawful and good. The paladins who weren't strong enough.

And, on top of that, paladins are judged more harshly than others. They must toe the line, and if they make one misstep, even and unintentional one, then they are punished harshly and severely. A paladin must be the one at the forefront of the battle, who charges into the ambush even though he knows it is there, and who smites his foe ruthlessly, yet forgives them immediately upon accepting their surrender. A paladin must be kind and merciful and at the same time ferocious. You see what I'm getting at? A paladin is a bundle of contradictions and those that can't take it...there's a name for them - ex-paladin.

Yes, it *is* tough being a paladin. And yes it *is* tough to RP a paladin. And, yes, DM's are often found to be paladin-haters. But that is life.

...And I do think Joan of Arc is a good example of a real-life Paladin. She was called by God to take up the sword for her people. Isn't that what a paladin is all about? Just because she didn't specifically Detect Evil or Lay on Hands whenever she was wounded, doesn't mean she wasn't a paladin. It just means she wasn't a DnD paladin. There is a difference.

Sorry if I'm not making much sense, but my body is demanding sleep and yet I just can't resist getting in on this argument.

 

[FireLance]

Great thread, everyone! Many excellent points.

I would just like to bring up one thing, though. I feel that when discussing paladins, you have to bring in one very important factor: faith.

Faith is what distinguishes a paladin from any other LG fighter. Faith that the teachings of his God or philosophy and the code of conduct that he has sworn to live by are correct.

So, to use SHARK's example, does it make sense for a paladin to alert an encampment of gnolls before attacking? Of course it doesn't. In order to secure the maximum tactical advantage, the paladin should sweep down like the wrath of God to smite the infidel. However, if the paladin's God teaches that it is wrong to attack in this manner, by faith, the paladin will alert the gnolls before attacking and trust that it will turn out right.

Being a paladin, a cleric or a similar servant of a God means living by faith that all will be well if the God's teachings and instructions are followed. Even if it means doing apparently illogical things like (my religious leanings are showing here) petitioning the ruler of the biggest empire of the time to free slaves that were a major contributing factor to the country's economy and leading said slaves on a journey through a barren wilderness with little food or water, leading a force of 300 men to battle thousands of enemies, and dousing an altar with water before asking your God to bring fire down from Heaven to consume your offering.

So, who can know the consequences of his actions? Who can tell whether a decision to subdue, rather than kill villagers dominated by a vampire will lead to good, or result in even greater evil? A paladin does not know. A paladin can only act according to the dictates of his God and have faith that it will turn out for the best.

So what does this mean in the context of D&D? Fundamentally, it boils down to the type of game that the DM is running. A paladin of a pragmatic God would act very differently from one that follows a God who demands a strict moral code. However, to be fair to the paladin, unless the DM is planning some story arc that deals with the reformation of that code (see Sepulchrave's story hours "Lady Despina's Virtue", "The Heretic of Wyre" and "The Rape of Morne"), there has to be an implied contract between the DM and the player of a paladin that the paladin should not be penalised for following that code, no matter how "illogical" his actions may be.

Conversely, a paladin should be penalised for violations of his faith. If a paladin "knows" he should do A, but does B for reasons of practicality, and it turns out badly, it should definitely be cause for atonement. In the mind of the paladin he is being "punished" for his lack of faith. Even if it turns out well, the paladin would view it as a dispensation of grace, and would resolve to "do better" next time round.

Of course, all of the above has nothing to do with the question of "good" and "evil". In a sense, without knowledge of ultimate consequences, it is not possible for anyone, even a paladin, to know for sure whether what he does will be "good" or "evil" in the end. In the end, a paladin should do whatever his God or philosophy says will result in the most "good" in the long run. I guess that is true for most of us; only the philosophies differ.