Paladins at dinner parties: Polite or Truthful?

[Celebrim]

Well, that was certainly Gung Ho enough.

However, I'm beginning to get the feeling that I'm sort of a stand in for someone else who you are arguing against who has some ridiculous philosophy that someone has tried to shovel down your throat, because the more you talk the more it sounds like we aren't having the same conversation.

With such speaches did Hitler moblize the Germans for war. I'm anything but a pacifist, and I don't think anyone that knows me has ever called me a hand wringing pansy, but neither am I clamoring for the blood of anyone.

There is a great difference between feeling a duty to fight, and relishing the concept. You and your Paladins, SHARK, seem to have just a bit too much relish for my taste and you frequently seem to say that the ends justify the means, and that the good guys are 'us'. I see no reason from your post not to conclude that there are not paladins of the Kingdom of Yon, and paladins of the Empire of Hither not slaughtering one another in the name of thier god and country, and giving speaches just like the one you just gave to the populace crying out for greater and greater ferocity to defeat the evil of 'them'.

Not that I don't think that such an image is instructive, but I don't associate it with goodness.

As for 'The Devil' using ones philosophy against you to defeat you, I'm prone to think your paladins are more succeptible to trickery and exploitation by evil than the sort I describe.

Anyway, I think this thread is running its course. I hope you get a rebuttle in, but I'm starting to think its time to shut this down.

 

[Agback]

no pacifist ever liberated a Jew in WW2 either

While I agree that Gandhi's victory depended on the fact that the British were, at bottom and unlike the NAZIs, decent, and although I agree that pacifists alone could not have overthrown Hitler and rescued those Jews who did get in to camps, I happen to know a Righteous Gentile whose family, Dutch pacifists, did in fact rescue nearly forty Jews from NAZI Europe.

For a dissenting opinion, see 5 Matthew 38-44.

Regards,


Agback

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Hey there Celebrim!

Ummm...not really "arguing" with you at all, Celebrim! I was mainly talking specifically with Dragonblade, as he made similar comments.

I liked your post by the way.

As far as a rebuttal of your recent post, well, I used some hyperbole, for dramatic effect, but I just don't see paladins being "pacifists". It seems like an oxymoron to me, really. Paladins exist to fight against the forces of Darkness, both physically and spiritually.

As for paladins in general, or *mine* in specific, well, relishing bloodshed? I don't think that would be accurate. Do they relish crushing evil from the world? Well, yes. It is a world that is swallowed by demons, vampires, beastmen, and monsters after all. Why would righteous holy warriors, annointed and charged with defending the empire and defending their righteous faith not relish such a glorious crusade? They are raised from youth to believe in and trust the glorious empire, and when they enter the walls of the monastery to train as paladins, and as they are annointed in their holy calling as paladins, they armour themselves in the faith, and in the righteous zeal needed to carry on the great war against the forces of Darkness. Those who do not have the strength, the zeal, the courage, and the faith, shall fall on the battlefield, or they shall fall to the temptation of the enemy by use of magic, guile, or seduced by some heretical philosophy that poisons the mind of clarity and robs the spirit of faith. Naturally, paladins in other campaigns may not have such attitudes, but they do so in mine, as that seems consistent with their calling as holy warriors.

Is not that what paladins are to do, is be *Holy Champions* fighting against the forces of Darkness? For example, in the Player's Handbook, it says that "Alhandra the Paladin, fights against the forces of evil without mercy!" I would think that type of instruction is inspirational in how paladins may think in terms of the game and their opponents, wouldn't you agree?

As for the various arguments, no, I don't believe you have argued such, but Dragonblade and I have certainly seen where others have done so. It seems to be a popular philosophy to saddle paladins with, and I don't personally see how such can fit. I suppose that gets to the fundamantal philosophical assumption, though.

My paladins are committed to lawful good philosophy, to their righteous and holy gods, to preserving and protecting their glorious empire, and to defeating the forces of Darkness.

As for the "ends justifies the means"--well, no, not all or any means, but I would disagree that some means are not otherwise acceptable, as I noted earlier in some of my examples, like attacking enemies that are sleeping, or attacking enemies that are ambushed. I don't find those in the larger context of the necessities of fighting a war being inappropriate for paladins. Does that mean I think that *any* means is acceptable? Again, my friend, no. I just don't see the neat little rules of tournaments--which largely inform the codes of chivalry that many paladins embrace--as being effective or even worthy of a paladin involved in fighting a war against not another chivalrous knight at the end of the lists, but the forces of Darkness, which require a very different mind set, tactics, and philosophy.

Does that make sense?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[Agback]

5 Matthew 38-44

Apologies. That should of course be Matthew 5:38-44.

Regards,


Agback

 

[sword-dancer]

Celebrim

I´m in awe from your post, even if i disagree strongly with a few of your points, from a german and hopefully european view.

Moreover, don't take this the wrong way Europeans, but it seems like a bad idea to have the arbitration court which one Superpower is subject to, being in the heartland of the Other Superpower on the ball at this time - the EU

The UN is quartered in New York, and at least one german judge who is chosen to be member of the court is
AFAIk a Judge and Jurist(educated and studied in law) of staure and reputation.
In after WWII Germany the independence from of court especially this kind of court is taboo.

The point of this being that at the present time, the US does not trust a foreign court to be Impartial, Fair, and Just, nor to take into account the fact that our soldiers were ASKED to be there.

That is the problem here we don`t see this court as foreign, we see it as international, this to foreign is for me not really understandable.

Basically, we don't want our military exposed to the same sort of merchantile lawyer adventurism that so plagues US civil courts. After all, its only the wealthy nations that have something to lose when complaints are raised. Few people think that the courts are actually going to send US soldiers to foriegn jails (Though that thought is horrid enough to most Americans. If crimes of suffient magnitude are committed we'll hang our own, thank you.),

The american merchantile lawyer game is in germany seen as a sad joke, not something of justice but of a jest.
The handling of the ski lift cabin in italy with an american fighter, had left the impression not of judging our own, but of protecting our own.

I agree with you here. I also think that a paladin falls when such a thing happens. Their code is rigid.. "is she ever willingly commits an act of evil." IMHO, that includes ALL acts of evil, whether "justified," "without any other choice," or "not egotistical."

joe b.

Is choosing between two kinds of "evil" commiting an act of evil?

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

This i didn`t meant, this not choosing the lesser of two evils, it is surrendering to evil.

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.

I never thought it was necessary to clarify that if a paladin requires something it should be reasonable recompensated.

As for the "ends justifies the means"--well, no, not all or any means, but I would disagree that some means are not otherwise acceptable, as I noted earlier in some of my examples, like attacking enemies that are sleeping, or attacking enemies that are ambushed. I don't find those in the larger context of the necessities of fighting a war being inappropriate for paladins. Does that mean I think that *any* means is acceptable? Again, my friend, no. I just don't see the neat little rules of tournaments--which largely inform the codes of chivalry that many paladins embrace--as being effective or even worthy of a paladin involved in fighting a war against not another chivalrous knight at the end of the lists, but the forces of Darkness, which require a very different mind set, tactics, and philosophy.

Does that make sense?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

OK I think i see a point of the problem here.
I´ve no problem with a paladin who fights the forces of evil with ruthless efficiency and dedication on the battlefield, if this include ambush, "unfair" cough advantages.
The "rules of chivarlry" are precise that rules of fighting between nobility not the common peasants or soldiers or mercs.
I´ve a great problem with paladins who slaughter the helpless, wounded children or non combatants, the problem is solved normally as their are no paladins who had done that, only ex paladins or persons who had done that maybe before seeing the light.

They are raised from youth to believe in and trust the glorious empire, and when they enter the walls of the monastery to train as paladins, and as they are annointed in their holy calling as paladins, they armour themselves in the faith, and in the righteous zeal needed to carry on the great war against the forces of Darkness.

The glorious empire it seems had begun to fall to greed and hunger for power.
A pally should not serve a empire, realm or such thing for itself, but only because he sees it as the best way to serve his ideals, god or faith.

Those who do not have the strength, the zeal, the courage,

Maybe i would see many of those "lacking", as persons who had the inner strength to differentiate between the propaganda of the empire and the truth.
And if a paladin sees there is a reasonable chance to made a war unnecessary, the he should do it.
It may not be so glorious but it is a beetter solution than war, and if he errs and get murdered, he is no leess a hero than the one who rides gloriously in battle, maybe even more

 

[Storminator]

Greetings!

<SNIP>

As for the "ends justifies the means"--well, no, not all or any means, but I would disagree that some means are not otherwise acceptable, as I noted earlier in some of my examples, like attacking enemies that are sleeping, or attacking enemies that are ambushed. I don't find those in the larger context of the necessities of fighting a war being inappropriate for paladins. Does that mean I think that *any* means is acceptable? Again, my friend, no. I just don't see the neat little rules of tournaments--which largely inform the codes of chivalry that many paladins embrace--as being effective or even worthy of a paladin involved in fighting a war against not another chivalrous knight at the end of the lists, but the forces of Darkness, which require a very different mind set, tactics, and philosophy.

Does that make sense?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

From a perusal of your posts it is easy to get the "end justifies the means," idea, as well as the extrapolation that ANY means are justified.

You say the codes of tournament rules are wholy inadequate, but then you never give a single example of what a code of conduct should forbid. Surely there are some acts that a paladin should never commit. Ever. Without question or consideration of circumstance. Yet you never give an example.

You keep detailing the invading horde of evil warriors. What about when the paladin takes the fight to the enemy, and he's operating in the enemies lands? How should he treat civilians? They support his foes, and likely pass information about his troops. Should he then slay every single person in the land? I see nothing in your posts that indicate that would be unacceptable. Should he poison the wells? And if not, why not?

Give us some more ambiguous examples of choices a paladin is forced to make in your games.

PS

 

[jgbrowning]

"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by jgbrowning


I agree with you here. I also think that a paladin falls when such a thing happens. Their code is rigid.. "is she ever willingly commits an act of evil." IMHO, that includes ALL acts of evil, whether "justified," "without any other choice," or "not egotistical."

joe b.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Is choosing between two kinds of "evil" commiting an act of evil?"


Unfortunatly i this it is. But i define evil from a single perspective really. I just think, "Well if i was a guy on the recieving end of this stick, would i feel as peachy as the guy on the giving end?" Its not objective of course...

I just always put myself in the bad part of the picture and then use that to help determine if i think it was good or evil or just or unjust.

joe b.

 

[Celebrim]

SHARK: Well, that makes alot more sence anway.

Sword-Dancer: What, that old thing? I didn't even proofread it before posting it.

The truth is a complex thing (except when its not), so I'm not surprised that a simple post like that one causes alot of misgivings. I couldn't address the whole depth of the issue even in that spam, and even if I had an infinite ammount of time I'm not sure I have sufficient understanding to really get all the bases covered.

I'd say a German viewpoint reflects the European about as well as mine reflects the American.

As for the UN headquartered in New York, I'm also not entirely sure that is a good idea either, and to be frank the UN is not a good model for a working world government. The problem is, until the world achieves something like the sort of parity that exists between the EU states and the US states and eachother, there isn't a good model for a working world government. Unfortunately, contrary to some popular opinions, that acheivement is going to require cultural change on the part of the rest of the world that the US (or anyone else) is not going to be able to bring about by simply throwing money at the problem.

The UN is at its heart a Cold War institution which developed alot of esoteric addons kinda like 1st edition D&D. It's pretty unworkable right now. When created, it was less about a world government and more about the victors of the last great war consolodating thier power. At some point, I'd love to see the whole thing scraped and a new edition of the UN produced, but we won't be in a situation were that is practical for the foreseeable future.

And, while I'm no fan of the UN by a long shot, I think it is reprehinsible that the US isn't paying its bill - even if only as a show of washing its hands of the institution. That is not to say that I'm not sympathetic to the conservative Senators in our government that ask why we are sending perfectly good money to a corrupt institution that doesn't do much of anything. One of the better stories reguarding the UN involves the Director (I forget which one) being asked, "How many people work in this facilty (whereever it was)", and the Director responded 'about half of them'.

At its worst, the UN reminds me of a band of sophisticated beggers in Calcutta or some place.

But, enough of that.

You see the court as International because you live in a region which is truly International. You are developing a since of 'trust' in the other states around you that allows you to not really see a divide between 'you and them'. You trust that the court will be filled with judges whose philosophies are not incongrous with your own. I don't, and I'm sure most of my fellow Americans are even more unsure of the whole affair. The US sees anything that is not native to the USA as 'foreign'. We are still very much isolationist. Not that I'm entirely against that, except where it promotes ignorance. I much preferred this Bush when he was being as the Europeans say 'unilateralist'.

The merchantile American lawyer game is seen in America as a sad joke having nothing to do with Justice. The problem is convincing people that they can scrap the system. Everyone thinks it is silly when thier neighbor sues someone, but everyone is hesitant to give up thier own right to sue someone for everything they own. Part greed; part American individualism.

I'm working on the problem.

I wasn't entirely comfortable with how the ski lift affair was handled either, but then again, I'm not entirely comfortable with having troops in Europe either.

I can only assume that the US is trying to forestall the enevitable falling out with the EU, but I'm frankly tired of paying for your military. (I'm frankly tired of paying for Israel's too, but that's a whole other story.) And, in the long run, I think it would be better if we took all that money that we are spending having a joint military, and developed that since of close cooperation working on something which we can only achieve together and which is hopefully more inspiring to the human spirit - say going to Mars and staying there. Or finishing that fusion reactor in France. Or something.

 

[Dragonblade]

Well, first to commend everyone on the fine debate!

Basically to reiterate my point it is that there seems to be two main camps of paladin thought. One camp is operating from the assumption that violence and war are evil in and of themselves and the end never justifies the means.

This is foundation upon which the belief that pacifism is "good" is based.

But my paladins and SHARK's are based on the premise that violence and war are not evil in and of themselves. And that the ends do justify some means. (Although some in the other camp construe this to mean we believe the end always justifies the means; we do not.)

Because our difference on this one point, our entire perspective on paladins and pacifism is totally different. Based on my premise, pacifism takes on a much more neutral cast, if not becoming a downright evil and insidious philosophy. Since we don't operate on the basis that violence is wrong, then we see no merit or moral strength in those who refuse to act in the face of evil. From our perspective, failing to act then becomes a somewhat selfish or even evil act.

There is also another premise which shapes our paladin view, that evil and good can be objectively determined regardless of the feelings or opinions of the actors in a given situation via rational and philosophical judgement of that situation. It is operating from this premise that allows us to field zealous paladins dedicated to rooting out evil and bringing war and death to the forces of darkness!!

There are some of you who undoubtedly take the opposite premise. That good and evil are simply two different teams. That morality is relative and good and evil are interchangeable concepts that can differ based on the perspective of the viewer or actor in a given situation.

Operating from this premise undoubtedly makes you feel uncomfortable with our righteous crusading paladins. To you the paladin has no special claim to goodness or righteous. Because all morality is neutral, there can be no moral high ground. Thus you are uncomfortable with those who claim one. This sentiment is fueled by tyrants who also claim their actions are also good and just (though obviously not).

But the difference is we do recognize that there is a moral high ground thus we are comfortable with the concept of the crusading paladin. To us the dark lord who commits evil in the name of righteousness is not proof of moral relativity but rather proof that such a dark lord is not only evil but deluded too.

Because of these profound differences in the very foundations of our arguments, the two camps of thought on paladin behavior are irreconcilable as I posted before.

 

[Dragonblade]

Agback, you are right! Many pacifists have done many good things and some undoubtedly saved the lives of many Jews in WW2. I commend them for that.

But again, the premise I operate from leads me to the conclusion that more good would have been done if they had participated in fighting to liberate the oppressed than by not fighting.