Paladins at dinner parties: Polite or Truthful?

[Chrisling]

Chrisling….(for all the same reasons that it is illegal to destroy civilian infrastructures in our own world)…..

WHAT!??? You mean we can’t destroy bridges, blow up dams, bomb factories, bomb airports when we at war or conflict or just a slight rumble.


Where are you getting this?

Note I said "civilian infrastructure." With that caveat aside . . . .

The Law of Land Warfare of the United States says, by my reading, that in war it is permissable to kill civilians when attacking a military target, provided the harm to civilians is not disproportionate to the value of the military target. So, if attacking a wholly military target a large number of civilians are killed it's illegal to attack. So, poisoning wells, burning farms, blowing up houses where civilians live are illegal to attack unless, somehow, the harm to the military we're fighting would be greater than the civilian harm done.

I use the The Law of Land Warfare of the United States as a purely internal example. Far more strident is the 1977 addition to the Geneva Convention which states, pretty unambiguously, "It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove, or render useless objects indispensable to the agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies, and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive."

In the Geneva Convention, itself, of course, are the provisions against attacking medical personel and buildings -- basically anything with the red cross in the white circle, or a few other internationally recognized medical symbols like the red cresent.

There are also almost innumerable UN resolutions that affirm that civilian infrastructures are off limits.

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Indeed, Chrisling, the Geneva Convention is important, but they also represent *ideals*--which, in many cases, when the rubber meets the road, and people really start to get dirty, bloody, and the fighting gets really down to the wire, societies are fighting for their survival and ultimate victory. When such Total War is engaged, many such niceties of the Geneva Convention go out the window, by everybody.

For example:

At the beginning of World War II, in both Europe and in the Pacific, the Axis powers were fully disregarding the Geneva Convention, while the Allied Powers were fully committed to embracing the Geneva Convention.

However, though the allies never threw the conventions out the window to the extent that the axis powers did, by 1943, 1944, and 1945, after all of the U-boat attacks to thousands of ships, after the waters of Tarawa and Kwanjalein and Normandy turning red with American blood, and with the British literally being slaughtered like wheat at Caen by the 12th SS "Hitler Jugend" Panzer Division, the allies, were contnually being bled and savaged by the Germans and the Japanese. Of course, the Russians, too, were locked into a life and death struggle of their own on the Eastern Front.

In light of such blood and savagery, the Allies began to bomb literally everything that lived or was even of remote value to the enemy. Allied ships shelled anything that moved. Land armies continued to engage in increasingly bloody and ferocious fighting. In the Pacific, American submarines adopted the very same U-boat tactics that the Germans were using in the Atlantic, in order to bring maximum death, suffering, and pain to the Japanese, which they did. The American submarine campaign in the Pacific was entirely successful. American submarines sank any ship from or going to Japan. By war's end, American submarines were responsible for sinking 60% of all Japanese shipping lost in the entire war.

Of course, the Strategic Bombing of both Germany and Japan, turning both nations into broken wastelands of ash and fire, day and night, night and day, with no respite, with no escape, also ratchetted up the ferocity scale of the war.

Point Being: When a nation, just like an individual, is literally struggling for their life, and at the same time they are being hammered with blood, pain, and terror, both the individual and the nation in question will use virtually any and all methods and resources available to survive and win.

That is the trend in Total War, but the concepts and the realities of such can be seen all throughout the Ancient World as well, it is just a difference of scale.

Humanitarian luxuries are concepts that one can adopt when one is sure of victory, or not in too much blood and pain. As those things increase, however, even moral nations and individuals, normally committed to such concepts, begin to discard them as they become increasingly desperate for victory in the face of suffering more blood and pain.

Likewise, in a fantasy situation, such realities could easily be extrapolated. Fantasy societies seem indeed to be well-equipped for total war, and for wars of absolute genocide and conquest. The blood, terror, and madness that flows from demonic legions pouring across the battlefield, or marching into a city packed with civilians as they lead beastmen or hordes of orcs in their wake, raping and slaughtering as they go, will bring the desperation of paladins, or any other lawful good or even other moral characters, to the brink of savage determination in the struggle for survival and victory over such forces.

Of course, such is the savagery and terror of war. Such is reality of war unfortunately.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[AngelTears]

Just to get in,

I think a paladin has a moral code that he or she has to upkeep, and that moral code is something that is set in stone. A paladin who strays from that path is no longer a paladin.

This means that the paladin is banner bearer of his or her God, and is responsible to constantly try to strive towards the teachings of his or her God. Whatever that may be.

But if it understood as such, then sword waving fanatic as is the common image of the knight-errand, disappears.

-Angel Tears

 

[jgbrowning]

Of course, almost ALL actions have both good and evil components somewhere down the road. I'm a moral absolutist in so far as I believe people and actions are definitively good or evil, but there are always consequences that cannot be forseen. By your rationale, if a paladin saves a young man from a tribe of evil orcs, and that young man grows up to become an evil necromancer, the paladin should lose his powers.

That's absurd. If there are a limited number of paths available, and all lead to at least a modicum of evil, the paladin is the last person who can afford to sit there wringing his hands about it. He must take the best action he can from the perspective of his faith and his code. His god would be more likely, IMO, to strip his powers for inaction than for choosing a course of action to the best of his ability, even if all the options are in some way unfortunate. Which is a contrived situation anyway, IMO.

Well i actually wasn't that concerned with second itineration actions, just first.

Eventually war will force a choice upon a paladin to chose between the lesser of two evils. I think that shark and others here have shown that, especially during a prolonged war, moral codes are often ignored and for most people (classes) there's not that much consequence.

but the paladin is different. he cant ever willingly chose an evil action without dramatic consequences.

simple things such as the right of purveyance that kings had for materials.. kings could just come by and say "i need that for the war" and then take it.

for a paladin that would be alignment downfall. sure they need the supplies badly to fight against the undead army, but the act of theft (purveyance) is evil as it harms an innocent. so the pally's left either not following his kings order or hurting others.

of course there are alternative ways of dealing with the above situation, im just trying off the top of my head to show that eventually, there will arise a situation where there won't be any other alternatives, due time/location restraints.

what if he was sent out to get supplies when the king was into enemy territory and the only grain left in the country was the seed grain that the peasant keep to plant the next crop with? and there literally isnt anyother food and the peasant WONT sell their seed grain. if the paladin takes the seed grain, the peasants will die of starvation. if he doesn't his king and army will not have enough food to fight the undead king.

such example of war, mearly from the logistic side are capable of causing a paladins downfall.

and say the paladin isn't the one sent out to get the peasants seed grain... can he knowling support such an action when it harms innocents?

lottsa problems for the paladin in war. thats why i think war is evil. it forces people to make evil decisions in order to get a perceived "greater good" in the end.

joe b.
Who doesn't like RL examples. RL is morally relativistic...

 

[Chrisling]

SHARK,

The Geneva Conventions aren't ideals. They are laws -- we are signatories to it and it has been ratified by Congress; it is as binding as any other treaty we've signed and I would hope moreso than many. Because there is, effectively, no enforcement mechanism for them they are laws that are easily ignored and discarded, but they are nevertheless laws.

That aside, you brought up World War II. There are definitely some interesting points there -- one of them being that the savagery of the Allies increased as the Axis weakened. So, in February of 1944 -- when it was clear Germany was defeated -- you had the firebombing of Dresden. Likewise, the firebombings in Tokyo not to mention the atomic bombs used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened when Japan was whipped. As I've said elsewhere, war is evil.

My memory of many of the details of WWII is sketchy because I haven't read anything on it in about a decade, but I furthermore get the impression that there is considerable argument over whether bombing essentially civilian targets helped or hindered the war effort -- because it gave Hitler additional gist for his propaganda mills. When bombs fall on civilian heads, it became easier to convince the German people that they were fighting for survival against a foe that would use any tactic, no matter how vile. I wonder how much easier it would have been to persuade the Germany people to end the war sooner if we hadn't provided Hilter with that ammunition. Furthermore, as I said elsewhere, it is Germany's refusal to follow common decency in their conquest of Russia that gave the Russian people back into the hands of Stalin -- the idea that fighting a war using dirty tactics works isn't something I'm sold on. Evil backfires in a big way and Hitler's refusal to follow "the laws of war" cost him very, very dearly in Russia. Every time someone says they've got to "get dirty" to fight a war I get the distinct impression that they loose as much as they gain, at the very minimum, in many ways.

However, I brought up the Laws of Land War and the Geneva Convention to answer a question about where I got the idea that it's illegal to destroy civilian infrastructures.

However, these sorts of extrapolations aren't useful in fantasy settings. As you've noted, plot protection doesn't apply to people of high moral standards. While I do not think this is sufficient reason to abandon high moral standards (it leads to complete moral relativism, which I don't think is real useful to anyone, much less coherent intellectually), I can see how it can be used as a justification. "Well," one might say, "you can't be good if you're dead." However, in a fantasy setting, as I've also said, the heroes <i>do</i> get compensation for exemplary moral behavior. People in a D&Desque fantasy game have more, not less, reasons to maintain high moral standards in the face of atrocity -- because they <i>get something for it</i>. I mean, what would you rather have as a military commander? A few dead gnolls or being abandoned by your paladins and clerics because continued association with you as a commander compromises their morals and religion and would deprive them and you of their power? I couldn't imagine driving away guys that heal wounds and cure diseases would be real popular amongst the troops, either . . . .

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

JBrowning, sir, that is an excellent post! Very articulate, and incisive to the nature of the problems and quandaries faced! I might also add that in such a circumstance, if the paladin fails to requisition the wheat from the peasants in the countryside, that his companions, his soldiers--who are trusting him to come up with food for them as they struggle to survive in hostile territory, may also die if the paladin does not requistion such food for them. Thus, they die because the paladin failed to requisition the wheat from the peasants. In addition, a paladin not obeying the orders of the King--the man rightfully appointed to be his sovereign by Divine Right--geez, that can't score high marks for a paladin that is *Lawful Good* no matter what, heh?

The King is either obeyed, or he is not. That might have religious implications as well. Either the soldiers fighting evil die, or the peasants, living in the evil land, die. The paladin must choose, and there isn't a lot of time to think about it. Lets say that the paladin has three days or a week. That's it. And many of the troops are suffering from disease, as well, and are weakening as they march through the forbidding land of the evil kingdom...

Not very many points of comfort here, that's for sure. Oh, and the paladin must also answer the wives, children, and parents of the soldiers back home, if he chooses the peasants over them..."You let my husband die WHY? My father died in that foreign land, and he trusted you, and you did what?" and so on. Not pretty at all. Still, those people are looking for the paladin to bring their men home alive if possible, and not so much worried about morally comfortable he is with himself. That's a conflict of the *ideal* over the *real* Obeying some sense of morality in that sense, exists in the ideal, as an ideal, whereas a person living or dying, is real, in the right now, and it effects other people. If that makes any sense?

Good stuff!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[Chrisling]

Example from a game.

To get back to gaming, something interesting happened in my last D&D game that might illustrate my point of on why being a good guy is a good thing!

There was an NPC paladin in my game who has a crush on one of the PCs. The character in question, while currently neutral, has recently shown some signs of becoming good because things have gotten so bad in Sigil that she'd feel lousy if she didn't do things to help the people in their hour of need. The tragedies in my game are bringing out the best in the character. Well, clearly, this is the sort of thing a paladin (particularly one with a crush on the character) would be interested in encouraging. Since the PCs are going to go do things that the paladin is interested in doing, too, he suggested he come along. Help them out.

Well, one of the other PCs, during all of the horror that drove the first PC to become a better person, has found excuses for becoming a <i>worse</i> one. This PC was all for murdering her brother-in-law because, y'know, he was sort of stupid and dragging her family down. After sort of revelling in this behavior for a while, it became obvious that the character was evil.

While the paladin has a crush on the first character, he was still a paladin. Evil people aren't his chosen associates, not when there's a quest of the nature before him -- he wants people around him he can trust, not ones that he feels might switch sides to the enemy if they feel its in their best interests, or who will murder others because she arbitrarily feels they're not "useful" to her.

So, exit the paladin. Exit 135 points of healing a day. Exit a several cure diseases per week. Exit his ability to turn the undead and evil outsiders. Exit his formidable fighting abilities. Exit his wonderful diplomacy skills. Exit his willingness to die so that others, perhaps the PCs, might live. Good-bye, paladin.

What did they get in return? Oh, sure, one of the PCs has no moral problem with slitting throats or whatever, but was what was gained worth what was lost on any level? The <i>players</i> don't think so, though we all understand that good role-play is more important than "effective" role-play.

 

[jgbrowning]

Greetings!

JBrowning, sir, that is an excellent post! Very articulate, and incisive to the nature of the problems and quandaries faced! I might also add that in such a circumstance, if the paladin fails to requisition the wheat from the peasants in the countryside, that his companions, his soldiers--who are trusting him to come up with food for them as they struggle to survive in hostile territory, may also die if the paladin does not requistion such food for them. Thus, they die because the paladin failed to requisition the wheat from the peasants. In addition, a paladin not obeying the orders of the King--the man rightfully appointed to be his sovereign by Divine Right--geez, that can't score high marks for a paladin that is *Lawful Good* no matter what, heh?

The King is either obeyed, or he is not. That might have religious implications as well. Either the soldiers fighting evil die, or the peasants, living in the evil land, die. The paladin must choose, and there isn't a lot of time to think about it. Lets say that the paladin has three days or a week. That's it. And many of the troops are suffering from disease, as well, and are weakening as they march through the forbidding land of the evil kingdom...

Not very many points of comfort here, that's for sure. Oh, and the paladin must also answer the wives, children, and parents of the soldiers back home, if he chooses the peasants over them..."You let my husband die WHY? My father died in that foreign land, and he trusted you, and you did what?" and so on. Not pretty at all. Still, those people are looking for the paladin to bring their men home alive if possible, and not so much worried about morally comfortable he is with himself. That's a conflict of the *ideal* over the *real* Obeying some sense of morality in that sense, exists in the ideal, as an ideal, whereas a person living or dying, is real, in the right now, and it effects other people. If that makes any sense?

Good stuff!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Thanks for the compliments! Its something ive been doing a lot of thinking about for quite some time now and i've come up with a few ways that paladins could be involved in a "war effort."

I think that paladins would band together and recieve the right from kings to do so. they would be responsible to the kings wishes, but they would have tremendous autonomy in their actions. this way they can really pick and choose where to fight in order to avoid the difficulties i talked about.

certainly there is a level of distance that must be applied to a paladins support of a king and the actions of that king. going back to the post about second itinerations of moral responsibilty. ie. the paladin is not directly responsible for the acts of the king he supports, but they still can effect his alignment, but if he puts more layers between his support that responsibilty decreases. i think a "templaresque" order would arise that would provide that successful level of distance.

they can support the king is his war agianst the undead king, but they are removed enough from the day-to-day effects of the kings actions (since they are doing thier own concurrant agenda) that they DON'T suffer the effects of alignment when the king is forced to take the seed grain away. Given enough distance issues of alignment, IMHO, are taken care of.

I have a few other ideas, but im not telling til my book comes out! then you'll have to pay for them... (well, i hope you'll pay for them... )

joe b.

 

[Celebrim]

I wish I had more time to fully participate in this thread.

On the concept of total war. No I don't agree that the laws of war just go completely out the window. Most people will agree that WWII is the closest the great powers ever came to total war upon each other, but even then (although it is sometimes quite hard to see), you can see reluctance on both sides to engage in complete and total savagery. Certainly neither side ever did anything like 'poison the wells'.

I'd hate to think that our Paladin had less moral compunction than the Nazi high command.

Despite its availability, neither side used poison gas attacks on the population of its foe. Imagine how more terrible the blizt would have been if the Nazi's had decided one day to start dropping clorine or worse, some skin absorable toxin. Certainly the ability to develop nerve gas was there. But both sides were understandably reluctant to cross over into that territory. The Germans and British in particular had the experience of WWII to draw from.

SHARK: There are far more than two possible approaches for the scenario you propose. I think you are trying to hard to generalize specific modern military tactical doctrine into a broad moral principal.

Let me leave aside the problem of enherent racial evil for the momment, because that complicates issues in ways I'm not prepared to answer. Let's assume that the combatants are some generic combatants having attributes similar to the only sentient beings we are familiar with - ourselves.

The Paladin comes by night upon the encampment of an enemy army? What does he do, you ask? A or B?

Well, possibly A or B, but being good he is not so restricted in his understanding. Evil certainly does B, but then Evil always loses because Evil is stupid.

'B' is not the optimal military solution, and is certainly not the optimal military solution in all cases. What if the sleeping force is of unknown size? What if the sleeping force has some enherent night time advantage? More specifically to the problem at hand, night time is an enherently dangerous time to initiate combat for an army with only primitive technology. The night belongs to the US military, but it doesn't belong to the Paladin. As soon as combat begins he will lose complete control of the battle. He won't be able to see what is happening, he won't be able to give orders, he won't be able to tell what the enemy is doing. He will just be another soldier in the middle of chaos. In that chaos, no matter how suprised his foe is, dangerous things can happen, and his soldiers will be exposed both by the chaos and by the unpredictable nature of the enemies actions. Combat will resolve eventually down to soldiers rolling on the ground in the darkness. What is to happen if the Paladin's clanking armored forces awaken the foes before they can sneak into camp? What will happen if there are hidden sentry's (as is likely) who will alert the camp to the armies approach. If it is well lit (a full moon), the cover of darkness does not protect his approach, and if it is not well lit it is pitch black (no street lights, go out in the country some time), and soldiers will either have to carry torches (thus reveal themselves) or else trip and stumble over themselves in the darkness. In the darkness, it will be impossible to tell friend from foe until too late.

No, slitting throats and overrunning the camp is not an attractive option to me. Too much can go wrong. I'm leaving too much up to the chaos of war. And there are other consideration of a strategic nature which I must adress latter.

Nonetheless, the Paladin has a military advantage that is worthwhile to exploit. One classic plan here is to exploit the enemies confusion. Reveal yourselves to the enemy as loudly as possible. Have every soldier carry a torch. Blow as many trumpets as you can. Stampede his horses. Have everyone shout and beat their shields with thier swords.

The suprised foe doesn't know how big your army is either. The assumption is that no one would act as you would act unless they were supremely confident. Otherwise, they would be doing plan 'B' as you suggested. Therefore, they must have overwhelming force. Each soldier then says to himself, "I'm naked. I'm not quiet sure where my sword is, and anyway, having a sword in my hand is a sure way to get killed. My best bet is to throw myself on the ground and beg for mercy, or else throw my shield away and run as fast as I can for home. I didn't want to be here anyway. Let the generals take it on the throat. I'm out of here." Confusion reigns and the rout is on before you have even laid a stroke. As a result, none of your soldiery are actually exposed to danger.

Another option has already been mentioned. Take out the leadership. Behead the average evil army, and the rest decide to save thier skins.

Other options will occur to a creative commander.

The point is, failure to see the worlds moral component results in failure on the battlefield. Every war the US has been in since Veitnam (and arguably many before that) has been a fight not just over territory, but over the hearts and minds of the public. We kicked can militarily in Veitnam, but because we paid little or no attention to the moral war, we ultimately didn't stand a chance. We would have actually won that war with less force applied to the military problem.

Finally, every time you win a battle in the way you describe, you are increasing the difficulty of every future battle you must fight. If you are utterly ruthless, you gaurantee that your foe will fight to the last man giving and offering you no quarter as well. (If you already have this problem, or you don't actually think it is a problem
that might effect your decision making.) If you take no prisoners, no surrender will be offered and you automatically raise the morale of your foe when what you ought to be is destroying it. You give them something to hate and fear, and they and thier commanders will use that hate and fear against you.

The Marines are the worlds most effective heavy infantry unit, not because they are the best trained or best equiped (though they are well trained and equiped), but because no other first world unit of such size is entirely composed of 'True Believers'. The Marines win because they are fanatics. And no, I don't care if you think otherwise. You believe as you have been taught. That is the sign of a 'True Believer'. Studies have been shown that in a battalion level engagement, on average only 10% of the forces are actively attacking the other force. The remaining forces on both sides are huddled down watching the 10% to see how it comes out. If the 10% does well, then the remaining 90% is encouraged and begins to attack, resulting in the 90% on the other side believing that things have gone poorly. Conversely, if the 10% does poorly, the 90% decides 'I don't want to die' and the unit disentigrates into individuals.

The Marines succeed because every man in the unit is in that 10% that attacks without question. This so surprises and overwhelms the foe that even when the advantage is with the foe, the foes morale disentigrates.

When you are ruthless and brutal, you make true believers ought of your foes, and that reputation can result in battles like the night battle you propose going against you, because THIER 100% decides they have no choice but to attack.

 

[jgbrowning]

"Despite its availability, neither side used poison gas attacks on the population of its foe. Imagine how more terrible the blizt would have been if the Nazi's had decided one day to start dropping clorine or worse, some skin absorable toxin. Certainly the ability to develop nerve gas was there. But both sides were understandably reluctant to cross over into that territory. The Germans and British in particular had the experience of WWII to draw from."

I'm not certain here but i thought the Japanese did use chemical as well as biological weapons on the Chinese? Anyone with more WWII knowledge have any info?

thanks,

joe b.