Paladins at dinner parties: Polite or Truthful?
- Thread starter Jeph
- Start date
Storminator
First Post
It is possible for a paladin to misinterpret his own code, and to think that the kobolds indeed are worthy of fair combat. Just because a more nuanced approach is available doesn't mean it has to be taken.
I think this is especially true at low levels. A 1st level paladin hasn't seen many situations, and hasn't experienced many dilemmas first hand. Their understanding of the code would then be based on the stories of others, and I can see a young paladin having the same literature based confusion you attribute to players.
In my game the players had to sneak into a castle and open the gates for the cavalry. The paladin (1st level) was dead set against it. In fact she only went along because (long background omitted), a young NPC was going in too, and she would protect him during the raid.
After some of the things they experienced in the castle she probably won't have a hard killing those people without notice. Now her responses will be based on what she's experienced, not on some sort of generic paladin vision.
PS
I think this is especially true at low levels. A 1st level paladin hasn't seen many situations, and hasn't experienced many dilemmas first hand. Their understanding of the code would then be based on the stories of others, and I can see a young paladin having the same literature based confusion you attribute to players.
In my game the players had to sneak into a castle and open the gates for the cavalry. The paladin (1st level) was dead set against it. In fact she only went along because (long background omitted), a young NPC was going in too, and she would protect him during the raid.
After some of the things they experienced in the castle she probably won't have a hard killing those people without notice. Now her responses will be based on what she's experienced, not on some sort of generic paladin vision.
PS
Fast Learner
First Post
Perhaps reconsidering the definition of "holy" would help:
The holy master's 70th birthday had arrived, and his friends and followers threw a wonderful party to celebrate the event. A beautifully formal event, the men all wore tuxedos and the women their most lovely ball gowns. Mid-way through the party a man arrived, dressed in rags, dirty and unkempt. What did the master say about his appearance?
The master said nothing, for he never even noticed the rags. He was far beyond judging people based on appearance, and in fact was beyond judging at all.
The holy master's 70th birthday had arrived, and his friends and followers threw a wonderful party to celebrate the event. A beautifully formal event, the men all wore tuxedos and the women their most lovely ball gowns. Mid-way through the party a man arrived, dressed in rags, dirty and unkempt. What did the master say about his appearance?
The master said nothing, for he never even noticed the rags. He was far beyond judging people based on appearance, and in fact was beyond judging at all.
Celebrim
Legend
Storminator: *nods in understanding*
I'm not saying that it is bad RP to have a Paladin do that, or that there might not even be orders of Paladins where they had (by virtue of not being seriously challenged by evil for some time) adopted such (niave) practices and looked askance at anyone who failed to live up to their standards of 'honorable combat' no matter what the situation. And I totally agree with you that it is fitting for a low level Paladin to misenterpret the code and try to live out some literary idea.
I'm merely trying to point at that that is not a necessity of living up to the Paladin code. You don't have to be lawful stupid to be a paladin. Conversely, just because you don't have to be stupid doesn't mean that there aren't going to be times when you have to walk knowingly into a trap set by your enemy because honor really does demand it.
Really, the same situation exists for Chaotics in my mind. You don't have to be chaotic stupid, but that doesn't mean that there aren't times where your Chaotic nature is going to have you doing what isn't in your best interest just because you couldn't help yourself - the tempatation for self-indulgence being too great.
Wise and intelligent chaotics and lawfuls will compensate in different ways, but they won't give up being who they are.
I'm not saying that it is bad RP to have a Paladin do that, or that there might not even be orders of Paladins where they had (by virtue of not being seriously challenged by evil for some time) adopted such (niave) practices and looked askance at anyone who failed to live up to their standards of 'honorable combat' no matter what the situation. And I totally agree with you that it is fitting for a low level Paladin to misenterpret the code and try to live out some literary idea.
I'm merely trying to point at that that is not a necessity of living up to the Paladin code. You don't have to be lawful stupid to be a paladin. Conversely, just because you don't have to be stupid doesn't mean that there aren't going to be times when you have to walk knowingly into a trap set by your enemy because honor really does demand it.
Really, the same situation exists for Chaotics in my mind. You don't have to be chaotic stupid, but that doesn't mean that there aren't times where your Chaotic nature is going to have you doing what isn't in your best interest just because you couldn't help yourself - the tempatation for self-indulgence being too great.
Wise and intelligent chaotics and lawfuls will compensate in different ways, but they won't give up being who they are.
Alright, I'll accept that the paladin is some holy and good class of beings that is rare and exceptional. But that means the only real life paladin ever was Joan of Arc and in myths Sir Galahad and maybe a few others.
So, I would assume then that you think most knights were fighters or cavaliers rather than paladins. Now, in the case of cavaliers they generally follow a code of honor (no ranged attacks) and many people consider this class as generally lawful in alignment. However, the "cavalier" attitude is known as reckless and uncaring (Battle of Agincourt: the knights trampled over archers to get quicker to battle only to be shot down by the other sides longbowmen). Also, cavaliers have a superiority complex towards other fighters and an inferiority complex with paladins. Many do not take religious seriously. Clearly, many are evil, too.
Therefore, my question is: "Do you think there should be alignment restrictions for the cavalier, especially if this class could serve as a 'fallen paladin' class?"
So, I would assume then that you think most knights were fighters or cavaliers rather than paladins. Now, in the case of cavaliers they generally follow a code of honor (no ranged attacks) and many people consider this class as generally lawful in alignment. However, the "cavalier" attitude is known as reckless and uncaring (Battle of Agincourt: the knights trampled over archers to get quicker to battle only to be shot down by the other sides longbowmen). Also, cavaliers have a superiority complex towards other fighters and an inferiority complex with paladins. Many do not take religious seriously. Clearly, many are evil, too.
Therefore, my question is: "Do you think there should be alignment restrictions for the cavalier, especially if this class could serve as a 'fallen paladin' class?"
Celebrim
Legend
"But that means the only real life paladin ever was Joan of Arc..."
I don't know if I really want to say that there ever was a real life Paladin since 'Paladin' in a D&D sense is a very specialized term. Certainly I believe that there were many lawful and good warriors - George Washinton makes a fine Chavalier if not a Paladin if you want to think in those terms. But, that doesn't mean that I think he could 'Lay on Hands' necessarily, even if I do believe that there are people who can lay on hands.
As for Joan of Arc, she is herself a literary figure (for that matter so is GW). So, whether or not you want to have her a Paladin in some fantasy version of real life depends entirely on what version of her story you want to believe. It is possible that she really was a Servant of God, a Divinely Inspired Holy Warrior, for whom God had charged (for reasons known only to him) with the task of liberating France from the English. It is also possible that she is a delusional person who in her own mind was a Holy Warrior charged by God and was living in a world of her own imagining (quite unconsciously I'm sure). In that case, she is more likely to be CN than LG - albeit a CN whose delusion is that she is LG and perforce would act within certain constraints required by her delusion (such as protecting her virginity).
I don't know what to believe. Perhaps something in between the two extremes is possible.
For all thier pretensions to 'honor', the vast majority of both Knights and Samurri's frequently acted in a way that can only be described as Chaotic Evil. I suspect that only a few of them actually aspired to higher ideas, or even really understood what those higher ideas were. Mostly you have greedy, self-serving, spoiled aristocrats.
There is almost no reason for a 'Chavelier' class per se in 3rd. edition now that fighter has access to so many flavorful mounted combat feats. In my own campaign, I tend to adopt more feats rather than making a prestige class. The results seem to me to be pretty much the same.
The literary chavelier that inspired the 1st edition class is certainly lawful and honorable to various degrees. If you wanted to include it as a prestige class, certainly 'lawful only' would be useful flavor.
I don't know if I really want to say that there ever was a real life Paladin since 'Paladin' in a D&D sense is a very specialized term. Certainly I believe that there were many lawful and good warriors - George Washinton makes a fine Chavalier if not a Paladin if you want to think in those terms. But, that doesn't mean that I think he could 'Lay on Hands' necessarily, even if I do believe that there are people who can lay on hands.
As for Joan of Arc, she is herself a literary figure (for that matter so is GW). So, whether or not you want to have her a Paladin in some fantasy version of real life depends entirely on what version of her story you want to believe. It is possible that she really was a Servant of God, a Divinely Inspired Holy Warrior, for whom God had charged (for reasons known only to him) with the task of liberating France from the English. It is also possible that she is a delusional person who in her own mind was a Holy Warrior charged by God and was living in a world of her own imagining (quite unconsciously I'm sure). In that case, she is more likely to be CN than LG - albeit a CN whose delusion is that she is LG and perforce would act within certain constraints required by her delusion (such as protecting her virginity).
I don't know what to believe. Perhaps something in between the two extremes is possible.
For all thier pretensions to 'honor', the vast majority of both Knights and Samurri's frequently acted in a way that can only be described as Chaotic Evil. I suspect that only a few of them actually aspired to higher ideas, or even really understood what those higher ideas were. Mostly you have greedy, self-serving, spoiled aristocrats.
There is almost no reason for a 'Chavelier' class per se in 3rd. edition now that fighter has access to so many flavorful mounted combat feats. In my own campaign, I tend to adopt more feats rather than making a prestige class. The results seem to me to be pretty much the same.
The literary chavelier that inspired the 1st edition class is certainly lawful and honorable to various degrees. If you wanted to include it as a prestige class, certainly 'lawful only' would be useful flavor.
Kilmore
First Post
There are, of course, differences between paladins who spend all their time out in the field battling evil with the point of the sword, and paladins back at the chapel who train other paladins and counsel nobles and peasants on good living.
One would have no call for diplomacy, while the other would have to live by it.
But here's a few life savers, just in case. Okay, maybe they stretch the truth too much for a paladin, but a courtier may find them useful.
"The curry and garlic soup was quite breathtaking."
"My lady, there is no other in the kingdom with a face like yours."
"Your chef is simply astounding."
"You look stunning in those leather breeches, lady Plumpuss."
"The chef back home is definitely going to learn about tonight's fare."
One would have no call for diplomacy, while the other would have to live by it.
But here's a few life savers, just in case. Okay, maybe they stretch the truth too much for a paladin, but a courtier may find them useful.
"The curry and garlic soup was quite breathtaking."
"My lady, there is no other in the kingdom with a face like yours."
"Your chef is simply astounding."
"You look stunning in those leather breeches, lady Plumpuss."
"The chef back home is definitely going to learn about tonight's fare."
RangerWickett
Legend
In a modern fantasy game I played in, I was a paladin, and we had to go into hiding in New Orleans for a while because we were being hunted. Our accounts had been frozen, and so to even get by we had to have the party's computer expert get us some illicit funds into a dummy bank account. I just told him that if he's stealing money, to take it from someone who can afford to give it up.
Now sure, I could've suggested we all hang out at a homeless shelter and eat there, or just asked for charity from someone, but we needed a place with access to the internet so we could research our opponents. My character was more lawful GOOD than LAWFUL good, so I grudgingly put up with breaking a few laws if it meant we'd be able to stop the bad guys faster.
I suppose maybe I was more of a Neutral Good with lawful tendencies. I always made sure to let the authorities know if something was going down, even if I had to hide certain bits of information from them (the whole point was that we were trying to stop a magical bad guy while keeping magic secret from the rest of the world). It was basically the Tommy Lee Jones from Men in Black mentality. We had to work a little outside the law for the common good, because if everyone knew what we were really up to, it would cause chaos and harm to everyone. In fact, my idea of being lawful was to cause as little disruption as possible to the order of the rest of society, which required us to keep a low profile.
Oh, and if someone had made bad stew, I probably would've just not eaten much, and would've made up an excuse about not being hungry. The paladin's code wouldn't force me to be honest; rather, common courtesy would make me be nice.
Lying to keep from harming someone else is okay. ("Yeah, the soup's fine. I'm just not hungry. Can I cook next time?") Lying to keep yourself from getting harmed frivolously is okay as well. ("You're looking for a group of renegade agents? Don't know what you're talking about.") Lying to protect yourself when you have done wrong is bad, however. ("Yes, officer, I was speeding.")
Breaking the law is okay if it is for the greater good, but you should try not to break the law if possible. If you're in a car chase with the main bad guys, it's cool to speed. But don't run over a pedestrian who jay-walked.
Now sure, I could've suggested we all hang out at a homeless shelter and eat there, or just asked for charity from someone, but we needed a place with access to the internet so we could research our opponents. My character was more lawful GOOD than LAWFUL good, so I grudgingly put up with breaking a few laws if it meant we'd be able to stop the bad guys faster.
I suppose maybe I was more of a Neutral Good with lawful tendencies. I always made sure to let the authorities know if something was going down, even if I had to hide certain bits of information from them (the whole point was that we were trying to stop a magical bad guy while keeping magic secret from the rest of the world). It was basically the Tommy Lee Jones from Men in Black mentality. We had to work a little outside the law for the common good, because if everyone knew what we were really up to, it would cause chaos and harm to everyone. In fact, my idea of being lawful was to cause as little disruption as possible to the order of the rest of society, which required us to keep a low profile.
Oh, and if someone had made bad stew, I probably would've just not eaten much, and would've made up an excuse about not being hungry. The paladin's code wouldn't force me to be honest; rather, common courtesy would make me be nice.
Lying to keep from harming someone else is okay. ("Yeah, the soup's fine. I'm just not hungry. Can I cook next time?") Lying to keep yourself from getting harmed frivolously is okay as well. ("You're looking for a group of renegade agents? Don't know what you're talking about.") Lying to protect yourself when you have done wrong is bad, however. ("Yes, officer, I was speeding.")
Breaking the law is okay if it is for the greater good, but you should try not to break the law if possible. If you're in a car chase with the main bad guys, it's cool to speed. But don't run over a pedestrian who jay-walked.
Celebrim
Legend
RW: Your interpretation sounds a little more liberal than mine.
I myself IRL would object to the statement, "that if he's stealing money, to take it from someone who can afford to give it up" and I consider myself more NG than LG. Who are you to judge who can afford to give it up? Who are you to decide that you are entitled to the labors of someone else, no matter how good you deem the cause? Since there are alternatives to theft, it strikes me that the statement "I grudgingly put up with breaking a few laws if it meant we'd be able to stop the bad guys faster.", is very much not putting enough faith in the code which prevents you from stealing things. Clearly, if you believe you can abolish certain aspects of the code when they become inconveinent, you don't have a lot of faith in the validity of your own beliefs. If you steal, how are you sure that 'they' are the bad guys? What makes you so different?
I think the behavior you describe is much closer to CG.
I myself IRL could not take part in it, percieving that your desire for 'Justice' had led you to do unjust things. The only person that I would agree to steal from would be the bad guy himself. Otherwise, we look for alternatives. Stealing it and then putting it back when you are done with it is less problematic, but you have still missed the mark. I'm not even sure a true LG could steal from the bad guy. Theft is theft, he would reason. The code forbids theft and provides no exceptions. Therefore, no theft.
And, IRL, I reason similarly for lying. I IRL believe that there is never a good reason to lie, and so I don't. I behave (or strive to behave) exactly as the Paladin I've described. The code I follow claims that all lies are 'evil', and that there is no exception when evil is good, therefore one should never lie. Therefore I try very hard not to, and when I do, even if it was only a 'white lie' I feel like I have failed. It is my sincere belief that every lie does more harm than good. I don't lie to my wife ("Honey, does this dress make me look fat?"), because I reason, if I did she will surely come to believe that I _am_ lying when I say that the dress doesn't make her look fat. And then, when the dress _does not_ make her look fat she will have a much harder time believing me (and much less faith in me overall). The few times that I must crush her in some small way, ("I don't think that's the most flattering cut for you, etc.") are more than made up for by the times when I sincerely flatter here and she _KNOWS_ I mean it because she also _KNOWS_ I don't believe that there is such a thing as a 'white lie' and won't lie to protect myself from unpleasantness (which is usually what is going on when people claim that they are protecting someone elses feelings).
A besides, lying is usually a form of cowardice and I don't believe in practicing cowardice.
Breaking the law is ok for the greater good, but only if the law itself is not a codification of 'good'. Laws against theft and deciet are codifications of 'good' and are absolute. Traffic laws are not. They are codifications of societies standards for interaction among individuals and are relative.
I myself IRL would object to the statement, "that if he's stealing money, to take it from someone who can afford to give it up" and I consider myself more NG than LG. Who are you to judge who can afford to give it up? Who are you to decide that you are entitled to the labors of someone else, no matter how good you deem the cause? Since there are alternatives to theft, it strikes me that the statement "I grudgingly put up with breaking a few laws if it meant we'd be able to stop the bad guys faster.", is very much not putting enough faith in the code which prevents you from stealing things. Clearly, if you believe you can abolish certain aspects of the code when they become inconveinent, you don't have a lot of faith in the validity of your own beliefs. If you steal, how are you sure that 'they' are the bad guys? What makes you so different?
I think the behavior you describe is much closer to CG.
I myself IRL could not take part in it, percieving that your desire for 'Justice' had led you to do unjust things. The only person that I would agree to steal from would be the bad guy himself. Otherwise, we look for alternatives. Stealing it and then putting it back when you are done with it is less problematic, but you have still missed the mark. I'm not even sure a true LG could steal from the bad guy. Theft is theft, he would reason. The code forbids theft and provides no exceptions. Therefore, no theft.
And, IRL, I reason similarly for lying. I IRL believe that there is never a good reason to lie, and so I don't. I behave (or strive to behave) exactly as the Paladin I've described. The code I follow claims that all lies are 'evil', and that there is no exception when evil is good, therefore one should never lie. Therefore I try very hard not to, and when I do, even if it was only a 'white lie' I feel like I have failed. It is my sincere belief that every lie does more harm than good. I don't lie to my wife ("Honey, does this dress make me look fat?"), because I reason, if I did she will surely come to believe that I _am_ lying when I say that the dress doesn't make her look fat. And then, when the dress _does not_ make her look fat she will have a much harder time believing me (and much less faith in me overall). The few times that I must crush her in some small way, ("I don't think that's the most flattering cut for you, etc.") are more than made up for by the times when I sincerely flatter here and she _KNOWS_ I mean it because she also _KNOWS_ I don't believe that there is such a thing as a 'white lie' and won't lie to protect myself from unpleasantness (which is usually what is going on when people claim that they are protecting someone elses feelings).
A besides, lying is usually a form of cowardice and I don't believe in practicing cowardice.
Breaking the law is ok for the greater good, but only if the law itself is not a codification of 'good'. Laws against theft and deciet are codifications of 'good' and are absolute. Traffic laws are not. They are codifications of societies standards for interaction among individuals and are relative.
Last edited:
Dragonblade
Adventurer
I play Paladins all the time and I too think that the character of Sparhawk is a good model for a paladin.
You could also look at Galad in the Wheel of Time. He can be a ruthless SOB but is definitely LG.
I come from the SHARK school of paladin thought.
Paladin's are charged with bringing war and death to the forces of darkness wherever they may be found! Including the use of ambushes, night attacks, misdirection etc. A paladin will do what is necessary to maximize enemy casualties and minimize his own.
Any paladin who rode up with his troops and allowed the evil necromancer's army time to prepare so that it would be a "fair" fight, would be arrested and executed for dereliction of duty by the church after being stripped of their powers by their deity for gross negligence and stupidity.
The paladin and his men would sneak into the necromancer's camp and knife as many dark cultists as they could before the alarm was raised. Even cutting the throats of sleeping men.
Paladins avoid lies but always keep the big picture in mind. Telling the truth in a situation where it would result in evil is ridiculous and a paladin would think nothing of lying to the forces of evil.
Paladin's are kind and helpful to any people they meet. Freely giving of their time, energy and knowledge to all who ask it of them. Paladin would gladly strip off his armor and help a farmer put up a fence post. A paladin would gladly part with his last coin to help feed a hungry child.
A paladin always keeps his word of honor unto death. But never gives his word of honor lightly or allows it to be twisted to evil ends. A paladin who gives his word under duress or deception is not bound to keep it.
If a paladin accepted the surrender of an enemy, the paladin would never turn around and then strike that enemy down. But the paladin doesn't have to accept their surrender in the first place and is not obligated to hold back just because their enemy drops their weapons and cries for mercy.
A paladin has no fear of death and would gladly lead a suicide charge against the forces of darkness if doing so would help his allies or further the cause of good. A paladin will not necessarily throw their life away in a futile situation because of some ridiculous belief that the paladin must always charge the biggest monster and never retreat.
The gods know that being a paladin is a difficult task and as such can be quite forgiving. A paladin presented with a lose-lose situation will not be judged harshly for trying to make the best of a bad situation. Instead they will be commended for doing the best they could.
If villagers are dominated by a vampire lord into attacking the paladin, the paladin will not be stripped of his powers for killing them. For the responsibility for their deaths lies on the head of the vampire that dominated them and not on the paladin who was just trying to survive so that he could put and end to the evil vampire. Their deaths will be added to the tally of crimes the vampire will answer for and when finally caught the paladin will exact a terrible vengeance on the vampire.
The gods or other paladins will not second guess the actions of their comrade and strip his powers because he didn't use subdual damage or some such nonsense. It is assumed that paladin felt that he didn't have time to subdue them and his judgement will be trusted.
The paladin's crusade against evil is never-ending. Always they tirelessly and doggedly hunt down and destroy evil whereever it is found. The paladin cares nothing for worldly goods beyond what is necessary to perform his divinely-mandated mission. They keep enough money to pay for their own food and the upkeep of their arms and armor, donating the rest to the church or the poor.
The difference between a LG fighter and a paladin is that the paladin is on a divine mission to destroy evil whereas the Fighter is under no such mandate and may freely engage in any number of activities. For the paladin there is only the un-ending war against evil. A lonely dangerous road that only the most dedicated, the most holy of men can traverse.
You could also look at Galad in the Wheel of Time. He can be a ruthless SOB but is definitely LG.
I come from the SHARK school of paladin thought.
Paladin's are charged with bringing war and death to the forces of darkness wherever they may be found! Including the use of ambushes, night attacks, misdirection etc. A paladin will do what is necessary to maximize enemy casualties and minimize his own.
Any paladin who rode up with his troops and allowed the evil necromancer's army time to prepare so that it would be a "fair" fight, would be arrested and executed for dereliction of duty by the church after being stripped of their powers by their deity for gross negligence and stupidity.
The paladin and his men would sneak into the necromancer's camp and knife as many dark cultists as they could before the alarm was raised. Even cutting the throats of sleeping men.
Paladins avoid lies but always keep the big picture in mind. Telling the truth in a situation where it would result in evil is ridiculous and a paladin would think nothing of lying to the forces of evil.
Paladin's are kind and helpful to any people they meet. Freely giving of their time, energy and knowledge to all who ask it of them. Paladin would gladly strip off his armor and help a farmer put up a fence post. A paladin would gladly part with his last coin to help feed a hungry child.
A paladin always keeps his word of honor unto death. But never gives his word of honor lightly or allows it to be twisted to evil ends. A paladin who gives his word under duress or deception is not bound to keep it.
If a paladin accepted the surrender of an enemy, the paladin would never turn around and then strike that enemy down. But the paladin doesn't have to accept their surrender in the first place and is not obligated to hold back just because their enemy drops their weapons and cries for mercy.
A paladin has no fear of death and would gladly lead a suicide charge against the forces of darkness if doing so would help his allies or further the cause of good. A paladin will not necessarily throw their life away in a futile situation because of some ridiculous belief that the paladin must always charge the biggest monster and never retreat.
The gods know that being a paladin is a difficult task and as such can be quite forgiving. A paladin presented with a lose-lose situation will not be judged harshly for trying to make the best of a bad situation. Instead they will be commended for doing the best they could.
If villagers are dominated by a vampire lord into attacking the paladin, the paladin will not be stripped of his powers for killing them. For the responsibility for their deaths lies on the head of the vampire that dominated them and not on the paladin who was just trying to survive so that he could put and end to the evil vampire. Their deaths will be added to the tally of crimes the vampire will answer for and when finally caught the paladin will exact a terrible vengeance on the vampire.
The gods or other paladins will not second guess the actions of their comrade and strip his powers because he didn't use subdual damage or some such nonsense. It is assumed that paladin felt that he didn't have time to subdue them and his judgement will be trusted.
The paladin's crusade against evil is never-ending. Always they tirelessly and doggedly hunt down and destroy evil whereever it is found. The paladin cares nothing for worldly goods beyond what is necessary to perform his divinely-mandated mission. They keep enough money to pay for their own food and the upkeep of their arms and armor, donating the rest to the church or the poor.
The difference between a LG fighter and a paladin is that the paladin is on a divine mission to destroy evil whereas the Fighter is under no such mandate and may freely engage in any number of activities. For the paladin there is only the un-ending war against evil. A lonely dangerous road that only the most dedicated, the most holy of men can traverse.
Similar Threads
