Paladins at dinner parties: Polite or Truthful?

Dragonblade said:
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.
I believe this is a misreading of the debate. Only one poster advocated pacifism. The primary camp that debates your views does think that the end never justifies the means, but that does not limit that view of paladins to peaceful pursuits only. It limits them in the means they will employ to battle evil.


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.)

Emphasis mine. This is the real bone of contention. Neither you nor SHARK has defined a single act which would be out of bounds for a paladin. In fact, SHARK (and the occasional other poster) has advocated acts which I for one consider heinous.

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.

Here is the rub. None of the opposing viewpoints are advocating relative morality. That seems to be SHARK's province, and by extension, your position (as you seem to have thrown in with SHARK). SHARK expressly states that paladins can employ the means of their enemies (even if their enemies are rampaging demon hordes!), simply because 1) their enemies are evil, and 2) it works. That makes no allowances for an objective measure of good.

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).

What is uncomfortable is that you seem to believe that the paladin has a special claim to goodness and righteousness, not because he is either good or righteous, but because he kills evil things. Evil kills evil all the time. Standing against evil is not proof positive of goodness.

The traits that define good must be established independently of the opposition. Good guys must behave good, and paladins, as the extreme of good guys, must behave good (sounds like miserable grammar to write that :)) at all times. Failure to do so leads to fallen paladins, even if they are successful on the battlefield.

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.
Whereas to us, that dark lord sounds like a SHARK paladin!

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.

That may be. Debates of alignment and paladin codes rarely resolve anything. Fun tho! :)

PS
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Greetings!

Excellent post Dragonblade!:)

Well, Storminator, here are a few comments that I have made in an earlier thread about paladins in my campaigns. It discusses some things that are "out of bounds" for paladins.:)

____________________________________________________

Executing Judgment On Paladins, Who, When Weighed In The Balance, Are Found Wanting!

Paladins are generally held to a high standard of conduct, and behaviour. In thinking about designing different knight orders for Paladins, I put some thought into detailing a simple, workable code that any of my players seeking to play paladins in the campaign could understand. I think it is important to detail these kinds of concepts before the start of a campaign, and to have such details on hand, for every important order of knights, and especially Paladins, in the campaign world. Having such on hand for players and even for designing npc’s can be of great help in not only remaining consistent, but most importantly, avoiding and or adjudicating different courses of action taken by various Paladins. Of course, in my own campaign, I have different codes for different orders of knights and templars, as different religions and such are going to have to some degree, differences in what they expect and so on from Paladins that serve that particular religion. Here is one example from my own campaigns:

An Ecclesiastic Tribunal is held for any Paladins that are accused of violating Church Law, the King’s Law, or somehow have violated their code of Honor. To wit, it is the following breaches of code that a Paladin may be punished for, as follows:

(1) If the Paladin commits rape.
(2) If the Paladin refuses a Lawful Order given by proper authority. (Higher templar officers, priests, the King, and various appointed authorities.) If the Paladin and his defense proves that such an order was unlawful, or despite being lawful, the disregarding of said orders was appropriate because of information that the Paladin possesses, but the authority in question does not, then no punishment is warranted.
(3) If the Paladin purposely, and with malicious intent, murders someone who—
(A) Isn’t attacking him, or anyone, with deadly force, or threatening to do so.
(B) The Paladin does not have warrant to attack; i.e. (No fore-knowledge of said villain, dangerous criminal, rebel, cultist, and so on.)
(C) A creature or class of beings that are not generally assumed to be evil. For example, within the Vallorean Empire, the King has declared with Church sanction, that:
“Demons, and any, and all supernatural creatures which are evil are to be exterminated by anyone, by everyone, at all times, and whenever practical.

Great and Terrible Monsters, like Dragons, Bulettes, Purple Worms, and so on, are to be swiftly attacked and destroyed.

Races of humanoids that have been officially judged Anathema, vile, wicked, and Evil are to be attacked and slain at every opportunity. They are the Spawn of Darkness! These races, enslaved to Darkness, must be rooted out wherever they are found. Death and Fire shall be their portion!”

Races that are usually considered Good are generally Elves, (Standard) Halflings, Dwarves, and in most areas, Urrgan, (Wolf-people), and Ogres. In my campaign, Ogres are somewhat more intelligent, and can be a variety of alignments. Mutated humans, or any race for that matter, with strange colours, extra limbs, bizarre blends of humanoid or animal parts, etc, along with other races not mentioned, can pretty much be attacked on sight.

However, for example, in some areas of the empire, things are applied differently. The above is “In General.” In a specific city, for example, that has friendly relationships with a nearby settlement of friendly Giants or Minotaurs; the ordinary person IN THAT AREA would not attack such creatures on sight. Further into the backwoods of the Vallorean Empire, however, where no such relationship has been established, the local authorities could be certainly expected to attack a wandering Giant or Minotaur on sight.

(4) If the Paladin is found to have purposely, maliciously been deceitful for purposes beyond serving the “Ultimate Good.” Being deceitful to save a comrade’s life is forgivable, while being deceitful for personal, worldly gain is not acceptable. In any event, being deceitful is a sure way to be tried and interrogated vigorously. If one doesn’t have a very good reason for an instance in deception, then severe punishment is assured.
(5) If the Paladin commits theft of whatever amount or value. Stealing an apple is, in the larger context, dishonorable in the same way that stealing a masterwork great-sword, money, jewels, and so on. The punishment meted out is different of course, but the philosophical conviction against it is the same.
(6) If the paladin becomes involved within a lifestyle of sexual immorality, the Paladin can be certain that censure will some from any in the faith that discover such licentious or lascivious behavior. Depending on the particulars, the Paladin can expect various forms of punishment. Paladins of most orders are expected to be married; live a chaste life; or at a minimum, conduct their private affairs with the utmost in dignity and discretion.
(7) If the Paladin should act in any way that is dishonorable, punishment can be expected. Naturally, the deity in question is aware of such, but also the various Church hierarchy may be made aware of such through prophesy or dreams, and expect the Paladin to confess, and repent from the ways of error. Penance and punishment alike are certain to be handed down. If the breach is grievous enough, expulsion from the order, or even execution is distinctly possible.
(8) If the Paladin should offer sacrifices and offerings to false gods, evil gods, and so on, then punishment can be expected. The Paladin’s patron deity expects faithfulness from such a worshipper who has been so blessed as paladins have been.
(9) If the Paladin should begin to embrace attitudes or adopt philosophies that are anathema or heretical to the “True Faith”, then censure and punishment can be expected. This type of violation, while not damnable in one instance, over time represents a form of “spiritual adultery” that will, eventually, bring wrath and judgment down upon the compromising Paladin.
(10) If the Paladin should take direct actions, or refuse noble duties and requests, out of a sense of greed. The attitude of constantly wanting more and more wealth, and being willing to sacrifice a friend, or the mission, or the Paladin’s principles so that the Paladin may gain wealth—gold, gems, magic, whatever. Even the prospect of acquiring a “Vorpal Holy Avenger,” while honorable in itself, acquiring it at the expense of one’s comrades, or one’s honor, is thus guilty of getting a “right thing” by the wrong methods or attitudes.

For example, a deceptive villain, seeking to cause the Paladin to stumble and fall from the road of righteousness, may tempt the Paladin by promising there is a “Vorpal Holy Avenger” that the Paladin can have, IF the Paladin will only take his time to go and get it, while the vampire feeds on the young peasant girl. The vampire may in fact be honest, and honorable in actually giving the Paladin such a powerful sword. By agreeing to such a proposition, however, by the time the Paladin returns with the powerful sword in hand, the vampire will be gone, and the young girl will remain cursed as a vampire herself. The Paladin will indeed have the mighty sword that he, in his pride and greed, so desired.

Paladins that violate these commandments can expect to be severely punished. Though different orders have different codes and punishments, and they sometimes argue with each other, Royal Proclamation forbids open conflict between the different knight orders serving the Vallorean Empire. There are strong rivalries between the various knight orders, and competitions in great jousting tournaments are popular. Competition for glory on the battlefield is also common, and pursued with passion. There are individuals who may have a fistfight, or maybe a duel on occasion. However, as a whole, deadly combat is unusual. Tournaments are established by season, and travel an ordered circuit. Thus, a non-lethal method is established to vent personal rivalries.

In the case of a Paladin found guilty of some severe violation of the code of honor, an Ecclesiastic Tribunal tries the guilty Paladin. When judged, depending on the severity of the offense, the Paladin may be sentenced from serving an offended Paladin as a “squire” for a year and a day, to a demanding challenge, a quest, or a humiliating expulsion from the Paladin order. If the transgression is very serious, an absolute and unforgivable transgression, then the Paladin will endure the following:

(1) The Paladin is first officially denounced, and condemned. Then, the Paladin is ceremoniously stripped of status in front of a vast gathering of assembled Paladins, Knight-Templars, and Priests.
(2) The Paladin’s insignia brooch is taken, and the Paladin’s personal Holy Symbol is stripped from him as well. The Paladin’s distinctive tunic and tabard are torn from him, and the damned Paladin is again denounced, thrice, according to the holy rituals established in the order from beyond ten generations. With that, a corps of drummer’s plays a long, low beat in rhythm, abruptly halted by a solo trumpet sounded three times.
(3) A Lord-Priest leads a solemn prayer, and a responsorial, in unison by all who are present. Once completed, the Paladin is publicly flogged with the scourge, and dragged to the stake. Once bound, each of the Paladins in the condemned Paladin’s platoon, (usually about sixty Paladins) approach, and embrace the bound Paladin, and perhaps offer a kiss upon the cheek, or a word of love or sorrow. As the knights embrace their condemned comrade, gazing at the bleeding Paladin, they are reminded, graphically, and personally, of the cost of being a Paladin. The cost of being honorable, loyal, noble, and courageous. They remember that they are all brothers, in honor, and in shame. Here, in judgment, they honor their gods, and their order, but they also weep in shame and loss of a Brother. Then, all of the Paladins who served with the condemned knight walk solemnly past his bound form, and add an armful branches. Each then ceremoniously takes a turn at spilling an ornate urn of oil over the wood, praying, and expressing their grief. Then, at the Lord-Priest’s solemn command, they each then extend a flaming torch to the pyre.

As the flames reach higher, and the moaning rises, slowly breaking into screams, the Paladins all stand at crisp attention in their full ceremonial dress, draw their swords, and offer a sharp salute in final honor. Sheathing their swords, the Paladins stand vigil as their brother burns, and offers up his spirit to eternity. Once the spirit has departed, the Paladins turn, and march to stand in rigid formation. An ancient prayer is offered to the gods in unison, and the ceremony, and the judgment, is over. With a sharp command that echoes across the formation, the Paladins are dismissed.

Thus, there are my “Ten Commandments” that I use for Paladins and knight orders within my campaign. There are some that differ by religion, culture, and region, but this provides a good framework to go by. Paladins who violate these will bring judgment and wrath upon themselves, as they are “weighed in the scales, and found wanting!”

What do you think? What kinds of honor codes have you developed for Paladins and knights in your own campaigns?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
___________________________________________________
 

I find this discussion fascinating. . .


but

Just a gentle reminder that political discussions should be avoided to avoid any flaring of tempers. . .
 

Storminator: Excellent post! I've been trying to assemble my thoughts, and you beat me to it. That was exactly what I wanted to say, and probably better than I would have ended up saying it.

SHARK: I've said it before, I'll say it again. I think you are enherently a lawful person. I don't think that is bad. I'm not passing judgement. But I think that because of that, you are putting a little too much emphasis on the lawful nature of paladins (which is fine, because some people put too much emphasis on thier good nature). I don't deny that Paladins could be organized the way you suggest (provided the universe exists as you describe it). I think you are probably describing paladins on the lawful edge of lawful good.

But I do think that the situation you describe although it strongly encourages lawfulness, does little to encourage goodness. Just as a Paladin with a poor understanding of pacifism could be tricked into foolish self-sacrificing behavior (not that it is always foolish to employ self-sacrificing behavior), so I think that your Paladins could be tricked into making too quick of judgements, and into rash and untoward violance (not that thier aren't times that call for immediate and unhesitating violence).

So I think it likely that orders of Paladins will be made up of diverse individuals with personal beliefs lying somewhere between what you describe and the opposite extreme.

Pacifism: On the subject of Pacifism, I personally think that not all good people are pacifists, and not all pacifists are good people. BUT, I do think that pacifism is strongly associated with goodness, and is a marker of a certain level of discernment.

However, there are alot of false pacifists in the world. A false pacifist is a coward. There is no other way around it but to be blunt about it. 99% of all people I've ever met who were pacifists were simpering self-centered, self-righteous cowards. The other 1% were IMPRESSIVE.

A real pacifist is courageous. A real pacifist is the sort of person who walks calmly out onto a battlefield and picks up a fallen soldier and by force of his personality stares a machine gunner into taking his hand off the trigger. A real pacifist walks right into situations of danger and does something incredible, like stopping to drunks from fighting. A real pacifist I've known was attacked by a rapist, and ended up by force of personality stopping the attack and leading the guy to Christ. They don't scream. They don't whine. They don't lead protests where people shout (an act of violence) and carry around signs (the visual equivalent of shouting).

They are very impressive people. The only people who can be pacifists are people who are strong. It is pointless for anyone who isn't strong to be a pacifist. People who are weak and who are pacifists are called victims.

And 99% of the people who think they are pacifists aren't. They are just people afraid of violence, and afraid of having thier little secure world threatened and who like pampering thier egos by thinking they are 'activists' when really they are 'apathists'.

There are some very very good movies Gary Cooper movies on the subject of pacifism that I highly recommend anyone who wants to be a pacifist watch. Those movies are: "High Noon", "Sergeant York", and "Friendly Persuasion".
 

SHARK,

I think your paladins are lawful neutral, not lawful good. For instance, they are allowed to disobey an order for being insufficiently <i>lawful</i> but not insufficiently <i>good</i>. Furthermore, I found it definitely creepy that the preferred way of executing fallen paladins is immolation. :D
 

Don't worry, nemmerle! We're all friends here! :D

I respect all my fellow board members, even if I disagree with and/or criticize some of their positions on paladin thought. :D

Again Celebrim, very good post! :)
 

Chrisling said:
I found it definitely creepy that the preferred way of executing fallen paladins is immolation.

Immolation? I didn't get the sense that the fallen paladins were sacrifice victims. If that's immolation, how could you execute someone and it not be an immolation?

Or are you one of these people who thinks 'immolate' means 'burn'? It doesn't, Gygax notwithstanding.

Regards,


Agback
 

Oh, jeez.

Immolate also means to sacrifice onceself through fire, which I think is a fair description of what SHARK described.

Sometimes it's just not worth it to chew through the leather cuffs in the morning.
 

From www.m-w.com

Main Entry: im·mo·late
Pronunciation: 'i-m&-"lAt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -lat·ed; -lat·ing
Etymology: Latin immolatus, past participle of immolare, from in- + mola spelt grits; from the custom of sprinkling victims with sacrificial meal; akin to Latin molere to grind -- more at MEAL
Date: 1548
1 : to offer in sacrifice; especially : to kill as a sacrificial victim
2 : to kill or destroy often by fire
- im·mo·la·tor /-"lA-t&r/ noun
 

Remove ads

Top