SHARK
First Post
Greetings!
Canis and Chisling:
Interesting replies to the both of you!
However, I never said that "torture" is good. In such a mythical world, magic coercion will usually suffice. In the absence of such resources, there may be situations with certain prisoners where in order to get vital information, or to save lives, it may be necessary to employ various measures of persuasion on the prisoner. Is such common? No, not at all. Is such preferred or desireable? Not at all. But to suppose there would never be such a circumstance where such persuasion may be necessary, is merely acknowledging reality.
As for poisoning wells and *murdering* indiscriminately, well, I never said that, either. I thought my example of the sleeping Gnolls was pretty good of the tension between Law and Good, and challenging the Paladin's typical code of chivalrous ethics, which neither of you seemed interested in responding to.
In real war, people die. Lots of people die, and not just the people that wear the black hats, either. In a fantasy war, it isn't unreasonable to assume that similar circumstances would occur. That doesn't mean that the paladin, unlike an evil character, goes out of his way to kill non-combatants, or that he doesn't take efforts to minimise such casualties, but such casualties, even for forces commanded by a paladin, are sometimes unavoidable, and even a necessity if one is to gain victory over the forces of Darkness.
Remorse? Well, Canis, now your getting into examining the feelings of a warrior after the fact, or after the action, so to speak. I never said that paladins in general, or paladins in my campaigns, *don't* experience remorse or regret. I would say that they do.
As for "compassion"?--well, compassion for whom? Certainly, there are some fundamental differences in interpretation and application of the alignment rules, as stated in the core rule books. Some may believe that *all* creatures deserve compassion. Others, like myself, don't hold that evil creatures are entitled to any such rights. Evil is Evil. There isn't anything to be compassionate about. Evil is to be destroyed. Orcs, Gnolls, Vampire Lords, Demons, Dragons, all of these creatures, are evil monsters, with virtually no reasonable capacity to be other than evil. Indeed, this gets into who is believed to be Free Moral Agents. In my view, human beings, and other humanoids in the books that indicate such, like elves, dwarves, halflings, sprites, centaurs, some giants, and so on, are capable of being Free Moral Agents, and are thus entirely deserving of compassion and the benefit of the doubt. Such creatures are extended the standard notions of compassion and general moral equality that human beings enjoy, for alignment to them, as the case may be, is generally more of a philosophy than a *state of being* As such, with such compassion, they might be converted to good alignments, and thus contribute to a better world. Such, generally speaking, cannot be said of the evil, wicked races of monsters and creatures that strive to bring Darkness to victory.
As for social situations, well, in both those, as well as military situations, paladins can be in situations where lying may not only be necessary, but entirely the best and most moral response to a particular situation. There can be many such examples. Is it more important to save a life or tell the truth? I tend to subscribe to a heirarchy of morality, which sees some things as being weighted, as it were, as more important on the scale of goodness and morality than others, for not all such concepts and moral actions are equally important, because the outworking of them has, or can have, vastly different effects and consequences, which then changes entirely their moral composition.
In a similar vein of dealing with paladins and chivalrous behavior, do your paladins ever employ disguise? Such can be seen an unchivalrous, and deception, a form of deceit or lying, because it misrepresents the paladin to the world, and that isn't chivalrous, or good. In many situations, the use of disguise can mean the difference between the paladin and his companions being victorious, or being discovered, and defeated.
Likewise, attacking unarmed enemies can be seen to be unchivalrous, as can attacking from ambush. However, there can be such situations, and with certain opponents, that to do otherwise, is to invite certain defeat. Is such forbidden to paladins in all circumstances, regardless of anything?
My main point, I suppose, is that there are elements to a chivalrous, idealistic code that many people believe that paladins should follow that don't make sense, and would ultimately in a realistic world where the paladin character isn't somehow plot protected, result in crushing defeat. In addition, if all such paladins insisted on some of these elements of chivalry, then there would be no paladins, because they would all be easily manipulated and killed by more numerous, more resourceful enemies that use such idealistic philosophy against the paladins, and therefore exterminate them. The larger world doesn't play fair, and they don't give the paladin any breaks merely because he is a paladin.
Just some thoughts, though, meant in the good spirit of debating paladin ethics and codes.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Canis and Chisling:
Interesting replies to the both of you!
However, I never said that "torture" is good. In such a mythical world, magic coercion will usually suffice. In the absence of such resources, there may be situations with certain prisoners where in order to get vital information, or to save lives, it may be necessary to employ various measures of persuasion on the prisoner. Is such common? No, not at all. Is such preferred or desireable? Not at all. But to suppose there would never be such a circumstance where such persuasion may be necessary, is merely acknowledging reality.
As for poisoning wells and *murdering* indiscriminately, well, I never said that, either. I thought my example of the sleeping Gnolls was pretty good of the tension between Law and Good, and challenging the Paladin's typical code of chivalrous ethics, which neither of you seemed interested in responding to.
In real war, people die. Lots of people die, and not just the people that wear the black hats, either. In a fantasy war, it isn't unreasonable to assume that similar circumstances would occur. That doesn't mean that the paladin, unlike an evil character, goes out of his way to kill non-combatants, or that he doesn't take efforts to minimise such casualties, but such casualties, even for forces commanded by a paladin, are sometimes unavoidable, and even a necessity if one is to gain victory over the forces of Darkness.
Remorse? Well, Canis, now your getting into examining the feelings of a warrior after the fact, or after the action, so to speak. I never said that paladins in general, or paladins in my campaigns, *don't* experience remorse or regret. I would say that they do.
As for "compassion"?--well, compassion for whom? Certainly, there are some fundamental differences in interpretation and application of the alignment rules, as stated in the core rule books. Some may believe that *all* creatures deserve compassion. Others, like myself, don't hold that evil creatures are entitled to any such rights. Evil is Evil. There isn't anything to be compassionate about. Evil is to be destroyed. Orcs, Gnolls, Vampire Lords, Demons, Dragons, all of these creatures, are evil monsters, with virtually no reasonable capacity to be other than evil. Indeed, this gets into who is believed to be Free Moral Agents. In my view, human beings, and other humanoids in the books that indicate such, like elves, dwarves, halflings, sprites, centaurs, some giants, and so on, are capable of being Free Moral Agents, and are thus entirely deserving of compassion and the benefit of the doubt. Such creatures are extended the standard notions of compassion and general moral equality that human beings enjoy, for alignment to them, as the case may be, is generally more of a philosophy than a *state of being* As such, with such compassion, they might be converted to good alignments, and thus contribute to a better world. Such, generally speaking, cannot be said of the evil, wicked races of monsters and creatures that strive to bring Darkness to victory.
As for social situations, well, in both those, as well as military situations, paladins can be in situations where lying may not only be necessary, but entirely the best and most moral response to a particular situation. There can be many such examples. Is it more important to save a life or tell the truth? I tend to subscribe to a heirarchy of morality, which sees some things as being weighted, as it were, as more important on the scale of goodness and morality than others, for not all such concepts and moral actions are equally important, because the outworking of them has, or can have, vastly different effects and consequences, which then changes entirely their moral composition.
In a similar vein of dealing with paladins and chivalrous behavior, do your paladins ever employ disguise? Such can be seen an unchivalrous, and deception, a form of deceit or lying, because it misrepresents the paladin to the world, and that isn't chivalrous, or good. In many situations, the use of disguise can mean the difference between the paladin and his companions being victorious, or being discovered, and defeated.
Likewise, attacking unarmed enemies can be seen to be unchivalrous, as can attacking from ambush. However, there can be such situations, and with certain opponents, that to do otherwise, is to invite certain defeat. Is such forbidden to paladins in all circumstances, regardless of anything?
My main point, I suppose, is that there are elements to a chivalrous, idealistic code that many people believe that paladins should follow that don't make sense, and would ultimately in a realistic world where the paladin character isn't somehow plot protected, result in crushing defeat. In addition, if all such paladins insisted on some of these elements of chivalry, then there would be no paladins, because they would all be easily manipulated and killed by more numerous, more resourceful enemies that use such idealistic philosophy against the paladins, and therefore exterminate them. The larger world doesn't play fair, and they don't give the paladin any breaks merely because he is a paladin.
Just some thoughts, though, meant in the good spirit of debating paladin ethics and codes.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
