Paladins at dinner parties: Polite or Truthful?

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

re: Historical Palidinny Goodness

I came online tonight thinking that I had posted two posts in the same paladin thread only to find that not only was I wrong, but that both threads had become impossibly large.

Good golly.

Interesting that the paladin is not seen as something that should or can be modeled after characters in history or literature. It's a mad crazy bit o' Platonism in a supposedly post-modern world. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

Sword-dancer, I included Carlomagnus in the problematic category for precisely that reason. The wife was his second wife, I believe, who the chroniclers didn't generally approve of.

Belisarius I base as much off the legend as the known facts. Anyone who went through his odd periods of atonement and persecution probably can't be anything other than Palidin.

 

[jgbrowning]

From this thread, I see now why Hackmaster is needed as a second D&D game.

Truth is a complicated subject.
Paladins are a complicated subject.
And whether or not to tell your host the truth about his food, when asked concerning it, is also a complicated subject, as this thread proves.

To each his or her own interpretation of what makes the right Paladin.
Assuming the DM and players care.

I think you all have proven definitely that a paladin cannot be looked upon as an assumed identity, that is going to behave in x way, and do y things.
I think you have shown that paladins are as varied and diverse in thought and deed as the other classes are.

now if we could only limit the other classes to ONE alignment, we would have TRUE diversity.. heheh

joe b.

 

[Endur]

Three Choices, not two in Lesser of Two Evils

Paladins have three choices, not two in a Lesser of Two Evils situation. The third choice may be the hardest, but it is always there, somewhere.

Paladins have to remember that.

My favorite Paladin book, "The Hawk of May" actually deals with this situation, of the Paladin conscripting supplies for King Arthur's army. The solution in that case was to make sure that the Peasants are fairly paid for their grain.

If the Peasants refuse to sell, well, Paladins have the Diplomacy skill for a reason.

If the Peasants flat out refuse to listen to reason, then perhaps the Paladin needs to find the food for his soldiers somewhere else. A quest, as it were. The enemy's troops must be getting their food from somewhere.

Or perhaps the Paladin needs to persuade the Army Commander that we don't have sufficient supplies and it is time to go home.

Many options are open. Lawful does not equal obedient without question.

And never does a Paladin have to choose the "Lesser of Two Evils." There is always a third choice. Part of being a Paladin is having sufficient faith to recognize that third choice exists even when the NPCs, the other PCs, (and the GM) fail to acknowledge that a third choice exists.

For example, we played a game recently where a Demon Lord promised to kill everyone in the town unless we (the party) killed an innocent NPC that the Demon Lord wanted dead. We declined his offer, and he started killing townspeople. We weren't high enough level to affect the Demon Lord directly with spells or weapons (SR very high, DR +5/50, etc.).

The situation was presented to us as a "Lesser of Two Evils" i.e. kill one NPC to save a town, or watch the entire town die.

The Paladin, my character, flat out refused to consider the Demon Lord's "offer." Instead, we searched and eventually found a way to stop the Demon Lord's killing spree.

We found the third choice. Now sometimes, the third choice may be expensive. In our case, we found an alternative reasonably quickly. In other cases, it could be much worse.

But, the alternative? Are you going to follow the orders of a Demon Lord? What if the Demon lied and killed everyone in the town after you killed the NPC, just because he felt like it.

Tom

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?

 

[Endur]

Stealthy characters vs. Paladins

I play a dwarven Paladin in full plate, and most of the rest of the party is lightly armored sneaky types. We get these situations all the time.

I wish I could have seen the below action. I'm going to have to remember this the next time I see a gong.

They narrowly managed to take out the four sentries before any of them could ring the alarm gong.

They summoned the rest of the party.

"Ah," said the paladin, stepping into the cave and noticing the gong. "Convenient!" And proceeded to pick up the hammer and strike the gong several times.

You see, attacking unannounced would be unchivalrous... and this way, all the kobolds would run out to defend their lair, and save the time needed to hunt them down individually...

I think the ranger could have killed him

-Hyp.

 

[Endur]

The Paladin and the Gnoll Camp

This question can be a lot more complex than it appears.

Are the Gnolls invaders? Are the Gnolls living on their home ground?

How close in size are the two forces? Will the forces of good win either way, or can they only win if the Gnolls are defeated by ambush?

Is the war over after the Gnolls are defeated, or is this one minor skirmish in a major war.

All of these might be considerations that go through the Paladin Commander's mind.

Personally, I would attack by night, but I would try to take as many Gnolls as possible as prisoners, if the Paladin's force is large enough to defeat the entire Gnoll encampment. If the force isn't large enough to defeat the entire Gnoll encampment, I wouldn't concern myself with cutting throats-- instead I would focus on capturing their mounts, their supplies, and any other essentials (magic, etc.) that eliminate their ability to wage war.

After all, Gnollish prisoners can be exchanged for human prisoners. And the Gnoll tribes might even become allies in the war against the Undead.

Chivalry is a concept, not a set of hard-bound rules.

I agree that Paladins don't have to offer the forces of evil "a fair fight." And though they shouldn't lie, if the situation changes, they can certainly change their mind. A Paladin should strive to keep a promise, but they are not eternally damned if they fail to keep a promise.

Of course, as a person who plays Paladins, my characters tend to believe in Divine Predestination. That is, my Paladins BELIEVE that Good will triumph over Evil. They don't know when or how, they might not be alive to see it, but they have no doubts whatsoever.

Tom

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.


SHARK

 

[Chrisling]

Could you tell me when the US signed and when it ratified the Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners of War?

I read a book about prisoners in German PoW camps in WWII. This book claimed that at that time neither Germany nor the USA was a signatory, though they both observed the Convention. But I found that a little hard to believe. I would certainly be glad of a cite I could write to the author of the book.

The Fourth Geneva Convention was ratified and signed by the USA in 1955, hehe. The US is signatory to all four conventions; a Google search for convention signatories is likely to give you all the information you need on that.

Tho', since the Fourth Geneva Convention was started in 1949, I don't think we can fault either Germany or America for not having signed it as of 1945, not to mention it would be a trick for them to follow something that hadn't been written, yet.

Both countries were signatories to conventions 1 through 3, though. Like I said, a Google search about the history of the Geneva Conventions is likely to give you all the proof you need.

 

[Chrisling]

I'm with Endur. When people say, "Paladins need to engage in vile acts or they're idiots and doing a disservice to the people under them" I think that the people saying that are being insufficiently imaginative. There is always a third option -- it might be hard, but no one said being good was easy.

 

[Chrisling]

*exercises my ninja willpower not to respond to Celebrim's post about militarization in America*

*wins!*

 

[Dragonblade]

I must say, excellent post Celebrim!!

Now to get back on topic, I think that the two main camps on paladin thought are going to always disagree because of our view on one main point:

Some of you view violence and war as inherently evil. I, SHARK, and others do not.

To me, using violence to stop evil is in fact a good act. To not use violence when it could save the lives of many people and put an end to the reign of a dark lord is selfish and evil.

To not fight for the oppressed, to turn your back on them or to engage in negotiations with tyrants while the people they oppress continue every single day to be tortured and enslaved is disgustingly evil.

It is true that no pacifist ever started a war. But no pacifist ever liberated a Jew in WW2 either. Or anyone else in the history of mankind...

For me, the sanctity of human life is not validated by avoiding violence in the face of oppression, rape, and enslavement. Rather, the sanctity of human life is validated by how strongly we defend it and fight for it.

If even one man is shackled and tortured in the dungeon of a dark lord, crying out in anguish, then my paladins will crusade unceasingly to free him! Throwing themselves against the walls of the dark fortress in a ferocious seige!

And if in the end, TEN MILLION people die so that one man can walk free, then so be it. Thats what you do because that is the true value of human life.

To the paladins in some of your worlds, they may view ten million deaths as too high a price to pay. The price in blood and violence is not worth the life of one. But that is wrong. It is wrong to turn your back on the oppressed in the name of pacifism or because the loss of life isn't worth it. It is wrong because the value of human life is not a commodity that can be discretely determined to have some specific value. Lives and people are not expendable and there is nothing inherently noble about allowing oneself or others to be raped or enslaved.

Now you may think this hypocritical because ten million people just died. Well, those ten million lives weren't expendable either. Nor were they wasted. Remember life doesn't have some numeric one to one value. Men are not potatoes.

The Three Musketeers motto sums it up best: "All for One and One for All."

By giving their lives to free and to save one of their own they have validated the value of that life and their own lives in a profound act of heroism!

But since some of you operate from the premise that it is violence itself that is evil, well...we shall have to agree to disagree since our two views are irreconcilable.

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

O, Behold the Dragon's roar! Behold the dragon's eloquent speech!

I agree with you entirely my friend! Great post!

It's this squishy nonsense that somehow, pacifism is supposed to "win the day" when that is patently nonsense. Vampire Lords and Demon kings will just grind your silly pathetic corpses up, and laugh as they proceed to conquer and rape all that fall before their armies!

There is nothing to be gained from weeping, from begging, from "negotiating" or attempting some pathetic display of "moral superiority" by refusing to fight. All that displays is that one is fodder for the black cavalry as they ride over your prostrate form, laughing.

Such a pathetic display has proven nothing.

Such a display has defeated noone.

Such a display has freed none from the shackles of tyranny.

Such a display doesn't even provide hope to the forces of good, for as they are being trampled, as they are being raped, as they are being shackled in slavery, they can but recall the forces that were supposed to fight and kill the forces of Darkness, instead just held up their hands and whined about "love and peace" while forgetting that peace is only achieved by those ready and willing to fight for it. If something is not worth fighting for, then it is not worth living for. Real world history--analogous to fantasy history--is flush with examples of smaller, weaker peoples being crushed and exterminated by those who are more ferocious and stronger than they. They were crushed by those who had more, and were willing to do more. The defeated nations and tribes, many of which are not remembered by anyone. They have been defeated, and they are dust and ashes in the wind. Even history has forgotten most of the names of the weaker, smaller tribes and nations that failed to fight effectively in defending themselves.

How can pacifistic paladins even survive in such a grim and brutal world? Surely the vampire lords and demon legions would seek to stack the deck so that the paladin's pathetic little philosophy can be bent and twisted at just the right point in time of battle to cause the paladin to either be annihilated, or cause to fall from their paladinhood, because somewhere in the heavens there are Game Masters that are clapping their hands with joy at the slightest pretext to strip the paladin down. It seems that only with plot protection can such a philosophy work for a paladin, for otherwise, it would be ruthlessly exploited to the fullest by the forces of Darkness. That's the thing though--paladins aren't fighting in a world full of people that wait until after teatime at noon to fight the paladin in a gentlemanly game of golf.

No, paladins exist in a world where their enemies should exploit the paladin at every opportunity if they subscribe to such a crippling, illogical philosophy. In some ways, such a philosophy would lead to the extermination of everyone who embraces it, because the only way that some people could embrace such a philosophy is if they are afforded such a nice luxury by millions of people who are willing to do what they are not--that is getting down into the dark, into the terror, into the blood and fire of war, and fighting against the forces of Darkness, sometimes making the hard, ugly, savage choices that must be made to win, because war is not waged by nice neat rules. The enemy is using all of their resources, in whatever way that they can, to win, and to win every time they can. The forces of good must be strong, and they must hold fast to the determination to win and conquer the forces of Darkness, no matter the cost, no matter the terror, and no matter the price in blood.

Paladins should always lead the charge! Paladins should be the ones sounding the horn to war, they should be the ones that are willing to lead the columns of knights in a march to Hell if need be! Paladins should be using their intelligence, their skills, their troops, and their resources to win the battle, whether by night, by day, by fire, or by sword, battleaxe, or teeth. When the dawn arrives, and the sun shines upon the bloody battlefield, littered with the dead and the moaning of the dying, the paladins should be standing upright, astride the knights of darkness, who lay cast down in defeat!

The horn calls the paladin ever to the righteous war!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK