Paladins at dinner parties: Polite or Truthful?

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

And, in my arrogant opinion, Galahad is a better example of paladin than Lancelot. (Who was added to the whole mess by a Frenchman a goodly time after the bulk of the cycle was complete.)

The Auld Grump, sticking his spoon in...

I agree, Galahad is probably the definitive paladin. Lancelot is the guy who really wanted to be one but never really cut the mustard. Probably did most of his advancement as a cavalier or fighter. Though I would say that he did have some paladin levels. He performed one miracle, and whenever he managed to get himself into a state of Grace, he had a definite aura of invincibility. Forgiving god (and DM) to keep taking him back, though.

 

[Celebrim]

Oni: I'm aware of the code of Bushido.

In practice, the Bushido code left room for all sorts of 'honorable' treachery. At times, it is almost laughable.

A similar situation exists in the Kama Sutra. At its heart, the Kama Sutra is a religious text enumerating the ways in which human sexuality can be practiced 'honorably' (as it were). Aside from enumerating the many positions and techniques in an Aristotalian fashion, the writer enumerates all situations in which a person can 'honorably' engage in sex. The list eventually becomes so long, and so filled with loopholes and excuses, that any creative person can justify to himself any sort of illicit and treacherous sexual behavior (indeed, performing sex in order to be treacherous is explicitly listed as an honorable case!).

So, what are we left with? Certainly some sort of standard or code, but not one which at its heart promotes activity which encourages 'lawfulness' in the society as a whole, nor one which really encourages benevolence on the part of its practisioners. I'd be hard pressed to find any interpretation of the Bushido code or Kama Sutra (or writings of Confuscious for that matter) which I would defend as 'Lawful Good'. 'Good' is just not a concept that is considered except to mean 'What is profitable for you and your allies at the moment', which is more of a definition of 'Chaotic (Evil?)' to my mind.

At best we must call these 'Lawful Neutral' philosophies that have arisen out of a codification of the customs of highly chaotic (nuetral? evil?) society. Certainly a history of the battles of Japan reveals that the most critical factor determining the outcome was who could keep his subcommands loyal for the longest portion of the battle - something we _do not_ generally associate with lawfulness.

Nonetheless, it is reasonable or at least interesting to assume that certain practicioners of the Code of Bushido (or the Veda's or the writings of Confuscious or whatever) had in addition to there knowledge of these writings and desire to act honorably, a deep felt native understanding of 'Good', and attempted to practice both benevolence and thier societies social code to the best of thier ability. To that extent, these practicioners probably thought deeply about the 'spirit of the law' as well as the letter of it, and the spirit of most laws (even the ones most poorly written) is to encourage weal in the society as a whole or at least in that element of society that the law is concerned with (in the case of feudal law whether in Europe or Japan, most particularly the aristocracy).

So, I won't say that it is impossible that there could be a Paladin who practiced the Code of Bushido, and in fact, such would make for a very very interesting character. The player of such a character would have to think deeply about and study the Code of Bushido to find a balance between the law of the Code and truly benevolent and honorable action.

As, to the specific element of Truth vs. Politeness vs. Honor of Ones leige, this is precisely the sort of hard choice that makes Paladin such a interesting class to play. Somehow the Paladin must balance the needs of each. If he believes truth to be good and honorable (and to a certain extent I would insist he did), he _cannot_ _cannot_ _cannot_ simply just say, "I can lie in this situation, because otherwise some great evil will befall.", because to do so is the same as saying 'The Code I follow is wrong'.

Instead, if he say lies to protect himself or his leige, he has to feel and act as if this was his failing. He has to believe that the code provided a means of escape if he had been wise enough, had studied it closely enough, or had he been brave enough to accept it. He has to have FAITH in the code, and in his deity to protect him when he follows that code. And he cannot take the easy way out and look for loopholes in the code that let him violate the spirit of the code (this is a Lawful Neutral path). A good Paladin player forced to be rude when being honest will _want_ to atone for that action (even if only something simple like a Confessional or an Atonement Sacrifice or the equivalent), even if everyone else witnessing the event either thinks he should have lied or else thinks he acted reasonably. The Paladin knows better.

If a Paladin is rude, or lies, or tells the truth and it leads to disaster, I'm not going to take away that Paladin's paladin status so long as the Paladin's player was sincerely trying to follow the code and not weasel out of it and look for loopholes. Noone is perfect all the time. And, I agree with those that say Truth should win out over Ettiquette in a conflict of the two. Part of the challenge of playing a Paladin is figuring out which thing you believe in should win when they are or seem to be in conflict.

A Paladin is a terribly interesting class to play. I'm not going to say that Paladin's are as diverse as say Rogues, because no two Rogues need have anything in common, where as all Paladins will certainly have alot in common. But, the sort of people who become Paladins are in many ways as diverse as the whole population. They have weakness (which they do thier best to overcome or compensate for) and they have failings (which they do thier best to atone for). They have roles in society, and opinions about it and the people in it. They have tensions between what they want to do, and what they feel they must do. They have things they are repressing, whether rightly and wrongly. They can have angst or doubt. They can be torn between loyalties and beliefs and loves and codes of honor. BUT, they are not gauranteed to lose. Unlike the average person, they are not an unending series of defeats. Quite often they can be truly heroic. They are in fact embodiements of that idea of heroism. They can exceed and transcend themselves. They can have moments of complete victory as well as moments of crushing defeat, and moreso than any other class they are aware of the difference when it occurs.

I'm not surprised that Paladins get a bad rap, and when it is suggested that they are in fact truly lawful (and not some weakened version of it) that the first responce from alot of people is to suggest - 'I don't want them to be that way because lawful is boring/bad/evil/stupid/etc.', because we live in a society that teaches consciously and unconsciously that lawful people are 'bad/evil/stupid/etc.'

 

[Celebrim]

Dang double post.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

I thought I had paladins largely figured out, but now I am officially enrolling in Celebrim's School of Being a Paladin.

That was a really thoughtful post. So much so that I don't even mind reading it twice.

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

A Paladin Player Speaks

OK, my campaign has been called a "soap opera" in here. I take no offense, since many of my players consider diplomacy and/or innuendo just as important as spot.

"My Lord Paladin, what is your opinion of my food." - The Baron
"Lord Baron, I must admit truthfully, I am but a Soldier of God, and this fare is far better than I used to, so I make not a good judge of whether or not this repast is fit for nobility and gentlemen, for it is far better than I may see in the future, or have subsisted on in the past." - Paladin. Truthful, eloquent, but still requiring a diplomacy check to say with a straight face.

"Is not my wife the most lovely creature in the Kingdom, Sir Knight?" - pointing at a cross between Baba-Yaga and a hung over Otyugh
"In Tyr's name! Is that not Demogorgon at the gate!" Exit stage left.
or
My Lord, her outer beauty does not do justice to the genteel nature of the soul that the gods placed in such an unworthy mortal vessel." OK, the king knows that he doesn't think she is all that attractive, but has complimented her.

The best way around all of this trouble, if you are going to play a paladin? Insist that the Paladin Code is written up BEFORE hand. Causing harm where harm could be averted is cruel, and if horribly pressed, he would lie rather than cause injury, or put himself in danger.
That is what atonement, confession, prayer, fasting, penance is all for, not to mention the old church concept of indulgences which grant the person permission from the church that would otherwise be considered a sin.
Here's an example of a paladin code from my campaign. I'll only list 10 of the 25. This is a generic paladin code, not a god specific.
Uphold the Laws of the Gods
Uphold the Basic Rights of Living Beings
Uphold the Laws of the Land, providing they do not conflict with the laws of the gods or the rights of living creatures.
Respect the customs and taboo's of a land, for they are the unwritten laws.
Resist evil in both speech and deed, and guard well thine heart, for evil, like a serpent, doth creep even unto the most pious heart.
Aviod chaotic actions, for justice is not served by anarchy and chaos.
Aviod causing harm where harm need not be caused.
Give mercy where mercy will cause no greater harm than justice, and where justice is served by mercy.
Respect other Religions, as you would wish our Mother Church repected by others.
Be respectful and courteous in your actions, for you are the living embodiment of the church to the commons and noble alike.

While the paladin would aviod lying, if pressed, he would be truthful, if no harm would come of it.
"My good Sir Knight, is not this repast most excellent." -Baron.
"Guard well thy purse strings, miLord, for the sin of pride may have enabled thy cook to rob thee. This repast does not do justice to your table, your house, or your reputation." - Paladin, warning against the sin of pride and letting the Baron know that the repast is not of good quality.

Would a paladin sneak up behind someone and strangle them with a wire?
Yes.
The arch mage Eymaeevilguy is standing in behind his dread legions, and the Paladin has managed to sneak up on him. Should the paladin allow the arch-necromancer to speak, the necromancer could order his creatures to crush the city, or destroy the refugees that the paladin has swore to protect. Taking a piece of rusty iron wire off the ground, the strangles the life out of the necromancer.
Lose his paladinhood? Unlikely. Have to go to confession and atone for his action? Definately. If he was unrepentant and felt no need to admit to his superiors the methods he took, THEN he is in danger of losing his paladinhood.

I better quit before I go into a lecture on church politics... LOL

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I like to think of Sparhawk from Eddings' Elenium/Tamuli when I think of paladins.

He lies, he deceives, he kill, he consorts with thieves, he conspires to regicide ... no goody-two-shoes here.

But definitely LG.

 

[Agback]

G'day

First, you discourage furtehr conversation by saying grace in Latin.

Then, you say something like this to the host "Thank you, mein host. I always look forward to those occasions when I get a really good meal. We get nothing like this in the Commandery, that's for sure."

Actually, a truly good person probably doesn't mind that the meal is bad. Despite the unappetising food, he appreciates the host's generosity and trouble. For example, last night my GM roasted a chicken and served some salads. The chicken was stuffed with over-seasoned glug (but was cooked to a turn), and the salads were neither very tasty nor dressed with anything. I am a much better cook, but I still appreciated very much (a) that someone else made me a meal, and (b) the Tony had been to the trouble and expense of feeding five people, especially as the kitchen was neither spacious nor convenient.

Regards,


Agback

 

[Fade]

Everyone needs to go read Lady Despina's Virtue (then the later threads)

 

[Hypersmurf]

As to Paladins vs. stealth characters, I would think that would make for interesting in party interactions.

Heh. It happened at about level 1 or 2 in the game I DM.

The ranger and monk managed to sneak up unseen on the little guardpost at the entrance to the kobold lair.

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

Neither paladins nor anyone of lawful good alignment are necessarily always truthful or "goody-two shoes". Everybody lies. As far as I know, paladins are not under a truth compulsion spell and white lies for the sake of good manners are perfectly acceptable

I do note that under the Paladin class description in the PHB, the very first example given of "A paladin's code requires that she act with honor" is "not lying".

-Hyp.

 

[Celebrim]

"You see, attacking unannounced would be unchivalrous..."

This is one of those things that always makes me wonder. Is your Paladin saying that the Kobolds are worthy and honorable opponents and therefore deserving of a fair combat? Why?

Does he assume that every Villain is a worthy and honorable foe?

I might perhaps understand if the Paladin pitied the Kobolds and devised a cunning plan for minimizing the number of 'poor villains' that he had to kill depending on how Kobolds and other sentient species had been introduced in your world. If the Paladin doesn't believe that they are unremmittingly evil, then sure, show mercy. But to show chivalry to a Kobold is just.... strange. Are there Kobold knights running around with some sort of honorable chivilric code of thier own?

I think alot of the confusion occurs because in literature and the movies and stuff, the 'Paladin' (be he a gun fighter or a swordsman or whatever) agrees to an honorable combat with the arch villian. Invariably the arch villian cheats but the 'Paladin' wins anyway. The point is that the fair and honorable combat occurs by _agreement_ with someone who is usually the 'Paladins' social peer (another knight, another gun fighter, etc.) Once the agreement is asked for, and once it is accepted (which in some cases the Paladin is honor bound to do), the Paladin can't cheat while the agreement lasts - nor can he enter the agreement in bad faith. But, if no terms are asked for, or if the Paladin is in a situation where he has no reason to believe that the foe is honorable enough to even consider an honorable duel, then the Paladin is under no compulsion to be chivalrous.

Paladins can 'shoot' first.

If the Paladin rings the bell, and the First Kobold comes out and says, "Who has challenged me! Come forth and state your greivance, and if it is mortal, engage me in honorable single combat!", then well, the Paladin has to be chivalrous. But since the Paladin hasn't even the slightest reason to suspect such will happen, he doesn't even have to ring the bell.