Paladins at dinner parties: Polite or Truthful?
- Thread starter Jeph
- Start date
Celebrim said:
No, he is saying that he himself is a worthy and honourable opponent who deserves fair combat. To a person of real integrity, there is no such thing as a person not deserving honourable treatment. One treats people honourably because one is honourable, not because they are deserving. Similarly, a truly honest man does not defraud even the dishonest.
Don't think of a fair fight as a bad thing that the paladin concedes to those who 'deserve' it. Think of it as a good thing, less than which the paladin will not accept.
Regards,
Agback
Sir Edgar said:
I doubt that even Joan of Arc was a paladin. Could she lay on hands? Could she detect evil at will? (Look up 'Gilles du Rais' in an encyclopaedia before you answer that). Did she have a telepathic link to her horse? How many times per week could she cure disease?
Paladins are D&D characters, living unlike real people in a world where Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are palpable forces. In a D&D world there need be no moral philosophy, no argument about what is good and what evil, because moral truths are objectively determinable by spells etc. D&D characters are therefore very different both from real people and from characters in non-D&D sources.
Regards,
Agback
Squire James
Explorer
Paladins should be allowed to be somewhat different from other paladins. Lawful Good does not mean Exact Duplicate of Person Considered the Epitome of Lawful Good! Some paladins will be brutally honest, and others will tell the white lie. Neither should be feeling the slightest twinge to their paladinhood when they do so.
If the brutally honest Paladin has a high Diplomacy skill, then people will tend to forgive (or even expect) his bluntness and not take offense. If the "white liar" has poor Diplomacy skill, people will be suspicious of his lie even though he made it in the interests of avoiding trouble.
I reiterate, there are not too many "dinner party" situations that should result in a Paladin walking/running/riding out as anything but a Paladin. The King might want his head for something he said, but he'll at least still be a Paladin!
If the brutally honest Paladin has a high Diplomacy skill, then people will tend to forgive (or even expect) his bluntness and not take offense. If the "white liar" has poor Diplomacy skill, people will be suspicious of his lie even though he made it in the interests of avoiding trouble.
I reiterate, there are not too many "dinner party" situations that should result in a Paladin walking/running/riding out as anything but a Paladin. The King might want his head for something he said, but he'll at least still be a Paladin!
Storminator
First Post
This thread has given me a great idea! The paladin debating society!
Can't you just see all the paladins (and fighter wannabe paladins) sitting around making all these same points back and forth at each other? Trying to figure out the exact meaning of lawful goodness, proper behaviour, and acceptable attitudes? Instead of our real life examples they would be quoting scriptures and great works, telling stories of past heroes both successful and fallen. Little kids sitting back drinking up the tales and arguments, dreaming of fighting evil themselves...
Don't know how it would come off in a game, but it'll definitely be in the background in my campaign.
PS
Can't you just see all the paladins (and fighter wannabe paladins) sitting around making all these same points back and forth at each other? Trying to figure out the exact meaning of lawful goodness, proper behaviour, and acceptable attitudes? Instead of our real life examples they would be quoting scriptures and great works, telling stories of past heroes both successful and fallen. Little kids sitting back drinking up the tales and arguments, dreaming of fighting evil themselves...
Don't know how it would come off in a game, but it'll definitely be in the background in my campaign.
PS
Jeremy Ackerman-Yost
Explorer
Well, I've always thought that might very well be the case. Genial arguments between peers on the finer points, anyway. Though I doubt these arguments would take place publicly in such a way that children would be in attendance. At least not between members of the same order. They would probably present a unified face to the world, even if they privately had disagreements with each other on minor points. If they had disagreements on major points, they wouldn't all be paladins, IMO. And they certainly wouldn't be paladins of the same god.Storminator said:
A paladin of god A and one of god B might publicly disagree with each other, but it would still be genial and respectful. After all, even if there's disagreement on several points, they would still have more in common than not and respect each other's morals and character.
Celebrim,
You were there for my discussion about law and chaos. I've got the hang of good and evil, in my own head, but I'm fully willing to concede that the law/chaos axis on alignment isn't something I've got the hang of -- so it's possible that I'm heavy on the "good" 'cause what the "lawful" is gives me fits, sometimes.
<B>Suppose you are beaten and raped. Do you believe that person who did this should be arrested and if so why?</B>
My favorite philosopher is . . . Nietzsche! No joke. I find Nietzsche an endless marvel of good stuff, tho' lots of "hard" Nietzscheans think I delude myself to his meaning. Which I can live with; Nietzsche himself said there is no meaning, only interpretation.
Anyway, one of the things Nietzsche said is that the strongest people can forgive anything done against them as a function of their overflowing strength. The strongest society has no prisons or laws, no need for retribution, because it can take whatever people throw against it. I like the sound of that. Of mercy as evidence of strength. I find this a reassuring thought. I would like to be that strong, for society to be that strong.
Individually, I'm a Taoist and I know action breeds reaction in strange loops.
I think criminal incarceration is worthless. I mostly feel very sad for criminals that their lives have been so screwed up and horror-ridden that they need to commit crimes -- particular violent crimes. If the criminal system in the United States gave more than the most token lip service to rehabilitation, perhaps I could support it. It doesn't; I don't. I have some modest involvement in prison reform efforts (one of my proudest moments was when I was able to help a Florida prison reform movement retrieve a bunch of files lost when their ISP unexpectedly deleted their website -- I also tried to school them about the importance of <i>back-ups</i> but, well, we'll see. ). The odds are if I was beaten and raped that I would want to see the attacker helped -- or, at least, I hope that I would. It's one thing to say that you want it and another to feel it after being profoundly humiliated and injured. But I would feel no urge to see what would essentially be state supported revenge for an injury done to me.
Though, this decision is perhaps easier to make because I'm not the person who actually decides whether a criminal will be prosecuted for a crime; the state does that. So, y'know, I could sit back with the outward appearance of benevolence and know that revenge will be gotten in my name whether I will it or not. This might influence my thoughts, making me be more benevolent than I would otherwise be if I wasn't certain about getting my state-sanctioned revenge. I don't <i>think</i> so, but perhaps it is the case.
<b>Suppose you discover that a child is being abused by its parents. To what lengths is it right to go to protect the child?</b>
Well, child abuse is a form of torture, so the parents should be stopped for pretty much all the same reasons we'd stop any other torturer from inflicting pain on their victims. Then I fully support taking the child away from the family. Why?
It's Nietzschian, again, I suppose. A child raised in a situation of bondage and torment will never be a strong person; they will be warped (most likely) into monsters of <i>ressentiment</i>, and will be quite likely to inflict their pain on other defenseless people (their own children in particular) recreating the cycle of violence.
I also do believe in community efforts to improve the community. As I am, by nature, something of a social libertarian, I am extremely hesitant to interfer with a person's private life. Two consenting adults can do to each other, with each other, whatever they want. A child is not considered able to give consent, nor is an adult; to perpetrate abuse on a child is to forgo the rights to privacy in this regard and certainly parenthood (which I do not consider to be an inviolable right by any means).
I would also support getting the family whatever rehabilitation they needed. I am aware that taking their children from them traumatizes them, too, as well as the child who has been taken away from them. I am a supporter of community service; in that sort of situation, I think everyone should work together, work with the parents and child as well as each other, to get the family back together on a healthy, non-abusive foundation.
<I>As an aside</i>: I think I'm going to abandon the concepts of law and chaos from my D&D games. I was thinking about your letter, Celebrim, and in other threads people have told me that a rigidly defined system of honor and ethics (even if it was not one supported by society) was lawful. I was reading your post and was, on one hand, almost <i>touched</i> by being called benevolent. I do try (and fail mightily, alas, all too often). <I>But</i>, on the other hand, I was struck by what you said. An uncompromising attitude and all that. Those, I've been told in other places, are the hallmarks of a lawful person. It seemed consistent to me, too, that a paladin -- a lawful person -- would have an uncompromising standard of benevolence and mercy, and that would be the whole of their law, and this would be at least as consistent with "lawful" behavior as that of a monk (who frequently ignore society's laws for their own personal calling).
So, after due consideration, I think . . . I have no idea what law and chaos are in D&D terms, so I'm gonna abandon them entirely. Which is actually a liberating experience for me! I can focus, now, on what I think I <i>do</i> know, which is the struggle between good and evil, and shades of gray.
You were there for my discussion about law and chaos. I've got the hang of good and evil, in my own head, but I'm fully willing to concede that the law/chaos axis on alignment isn't something I've got the hang of -- so it's possible that I'm heavy on the "good" 'cause what the "lawful" is gives me fits, sometimes.
<B>Suppose you are beaten and raped. Do you believe that person who did this should be arrested and if so why?</B>
My favorite philosopher is . . . Nietzsche! No joke. I find Nietzsche an endless marvel of good stuff, tho' lots of "hard" Nietzscheans think I delude myself to his meaning. Which I can live with; Nietzsche himself said there is no meaning, only interpretation.
Anyway, one of the things Nietzsche said is that the strongest people can forgive anything done against them as a function of their overflowing strength. The strongest society has no prisons or laws, no need for retribution, because it can take whatever people throw against it. I like the sound of that. Of mercy as evidence of strength. I find this a reassuring thought. I would like to be that strong, for society to be that strong.
Individually, I'm a Taoist and I know action breeds reaction in strange loops.
I think criminal incarceration is worthless. I mostly feel very sad for criminals that their lives have been so screwed up and horror-ridden that they need to commit crimes -- particular violent crimes. If the criminal system in the United States gave more than the most token lip service to rehabilitation, perhaps I could support it. It doesn't; I don't. I have some modest involvement in prison reform efforts (one of my proudest moments was when I was able to help a Florida prison reform movement retrieve a bunch of files lost when their ISP unexpectedly deleted their website -- I also tried to school them about the importance of <i>back-ups</i> but, well, we'll see.
). The odds are if I was beaten and raped that I would want to see the attacker helped -- or, at least, I hope that I would. It's one thing to say that you want it and another to feel it after being profoundly humiliated and injured. But I would feel no urge to see what would essentially be state supported revenge for an injury done to me.Though, this decision is perhaps easier to make because I'm not the person who actually decides whether a criminal will be prosecuted for a crime; the state does that. So, y'know, I could sit back with the outward appearance of benevolence and know that revenge will be gotten in my name whether I will it or not. This might influence my thoughts, making me be more benevolent than I would otherwise be if I wasn't certain about getting my state-sanctioned revenge. I don't <i>think</i> so, but perhaps it is the case.
<b>Suppose you discover that a child is being abused by its parents. To what lengths is it right to go to protect the child?</b>
Well, child abuse is a form of torture, so the parents should be stopped for pretty much all the same reasons we'd stop any other torturer from inflicting pain on their victims. Then I fully support taking the child away from the family. Why?
It's Nietzschian, again, I suppose. A child raised in a situation of bondage and torment will never be a strong person; they will be warped (most likely) into monsters of <i>ressentiment</i>, and will be quite likely to inflict their pain on other defenseless people (their own children in particular) recreating the cycle of violence.
I also do believe in community efforts to improve the community. As I am, by nature, something of a social libertarian, I am extremely hesitant to interfer with a person's private life. Two consenting adults can do to each other, with each other, whatever they want. A child is not considered able to give consent, nor is an adult; to perpetrate abuse on a child is to forgo the rights to privacy in this regard and certainly parenthood (which I do not consider to be an inviolable right by any means).
I would also support getting the family whatever rehabilitation they needed. I am aware that taking their children from them traumatizes them, too, as well as the child who has been taken away from them. I am a supporter of community service; in that sort of situation, I think everyone should work together, work with the parents and child as well as each other, to get the family back together on a healthy, non-abusive foundation.
<I>As an aside</i>: I think I'm going to abandon the concepts of law and chaos from my D&D games. I was thinking about your letter, Celebrim, and in other threads people have told me that a rigidly defined system of honor and ethics (even if it was not one supported by society) was lawful. I was reading your post and was, on one hand, almost <i>touched</i> by being called benevolent. I do try (and fail mightily, alas, all too often). <I>But</i>, on the other hand, I was struck by what you said. An uncompromising attitude and all that. Those, I've been told in other places, are the hallmarks of a lawful person. It seemed consistent to me, too, that a paladin -- a lawful person -- would have an uncompromising standard of benevolence and mercy, and that would be the whole of their law, and this would be at least as consistent with "lawful" behavior as that of a monk (who frequently ignore society's laws for their own personal calling).
So, after due consideration, I think . . . I have no idea what law and chaos are in D&D terms, so I'm gonna abandon them entirely. Which is actually a liberating experience for me! I can focus, now, on what I think I <i>do</i> know, which is the struggle between good and evil, and shades of gray.
Last edited:
Ralts Bloodthorne
First Post
This thread is really a good one. No flaming, and actually staying on topic.
Now, onto the points.
A lot of this can be handled if your DM or yourself writes out a Paladin code.
Now, as to the dinner party, the horribly grotesquely deformed queen, and the kobolds, I suggest this....
Dinner Party: A diplomatic response can be made without insulting anyone.
The Queen: Don't make comments on her watermelon head and skiboat feet, comment on her good features, or good points.
The Kobolds: Sadly enough, by having them come to the party, so you won't have to chase them down, makes sense.
Now, as to another point made: Hacking down the villagers dominated by the vampire is LAZY! It reeks of sloth, and casual blood-letting.
The easy road is often the one that leads to hell.
Now, everyone seems to forget, a Paladin is not the church unto him/herself. You guys seem to be forgetting about such things as confession (12 Hail Mary's and I will no longer go to jail over the 23 school-kids I murdered? Huzaah!) Indulgences (I grant to the right to go forth and strangle Lord Fuzzypot, in his sleep if need be, and let no-one know) Vows of chastity, silence, poverty, ugliness, ect (MiLord, I cannot accept the jewel of the seven desert winds as a reward for my services, for I have taken a vow of poverty) and wonderful church politics.
I have also noticed a tendency for a lot of DM's to punish the Paladin for being a Paladin. People throw rocks at him, they hunt him down to kill him, and in general, disrespect. Continued action of this sort would quickly lead to a powerful group of Blackguards outside of town.
DM's also forget that villagers would come to Paladins with thier problems, merchants would respect them, and petty criminals would hide from them.
Paladins should, and would recieve training in diplomacy, innuendo, bluff, intimidate, Knowledge (Religion, Nobility, Heraldry, Laws) so as to not embarrass themselves and thier god.
Plus, I extremely doubt that the Gods (however they act, aloof as the stars, or wenching and wining with mortals) would just suddenly snatch away a Paladin's paladinhood over minor transgressions without a few warnings first.
It would be understandable, if when faced with a foe that the Paladin could possibly defeat, or may die facing it, denies thier god and thier service the god relegates them back to LG fighter status.
I sincerly doubt that a Paladin stating that the food was more than adequate for a man of his simple tastes would be immollated in a lighting bolt.
On one other thing nobody has really touched on: The food.
I personally could not care less what food tastes like. It's fuel for the machine. As long as I'm pretty sure that I won't get salmonella or botulism, I just grind it up and go my merry way. I got really used to worrying more about getting the fuel I needed than worrying about taste and texture.
Perhaps the Paladin is like that, and suddenly realizes, he has no idea how the meal tasted, he was just mechanically grinding it up.
Now, onto the points.
A lot of this can be handled if your DM or yourself writes out a Paladin code.
Now, as to the dinner party, the horribly grotesquely deformed queen, and the kobolds, I suggest this....
Dinner Party: A diplomatic response can be made without insulting anyone.
The Queen: Don't make comments on her watermelon head and skiboat feet, comment on her good features, or good points.
The Kobolds: Sadly enough, by having them come to the party, so you won't have to chase them down, makes sense.
Now, as to another point made: Hacking down the villagers dominated by the vampire is LAZY! It reeks of sloth, and casual blood-letting.
The easy road is often the one that leads to hell.
Now, everyone seems to forget, a Paladin is not the church unto him/herself. You guys seem to be forgetting about such things as confession (12 Hail Mary's and I will no longer go to jail over the 23 school-kids I murdered? Huzaah!) Indulgences (I grant to the right to go forth and strangle Lord Fuzzypot, in his sleep if need be, and let no-one know) Vows of chastity, silence, poverty, ugliness, ect (MiLord, I cannot accept the jewel of the seven desert winds as a reward for my services, for I have taken a vow of poverty) and wonderful church politics.
I have also noticed a tendency for a lot of DM's to punish the Paladin for being a Paladin. People throw rocks at him, they hunt him down to kill him, and in general, disrespect. Continued action of this sort would quickly lead to a powerful group of Blackguards outside of town.
DM's also forget that villagers would come to Paladins with thier problems, merchants would respect them, and petty criminals would hide from them.
Paladins should, and would recieve training in diplomacy, innuendo, bluff, intimidate, Knowledge (Religion, Nobility, Heraldry, Laws) so as to not embarrass themselves and thier god.
Plus, I extremely doubt that the Gods (however they act, aloof as the stars, or wenching and wining with mortals) would just suddenly snatch away a Paladin's paladinhood over minor transgressions without a few warnings first.
It would be understandable, if when faced with a foe that the Paladin could possibly defeat, or may die facing it, denies thier god and thier service the god relegates them back to LG fighter status.
I sincerly doubt that a Paladin stating that the food was more than adequate for a man of his simple tastes would be immollated in a lighting bolt.
On one other thing nobody has really touched on: The food.
I personally could not care less what food tastes like. It's fuel for the machine. As long as I'm pretty sure that I won't get salmonella or botulism, I just grind it up and go my merry way. I got really used to worrying more about getting the fuel I needed than worrying about taste and texture.
Perhaps the Paladin is like that, and suddenly realizes, he has no idea how the meal tasted, he was just mechanically grinding it up.
SHARK
First Post
Greetings!
Well, more of my thoughts on paladins can be found in the threads, "Executing Judgment On Paladins" and "The Templars Ride Forth". However, I offer some additional commentary here that is reprinted from my e-mail to my friend Dragonblade!
__________________________________________________
Quote:
The SHARK-school of paladins indeed! See, if paladins must always fight their enemies according to some elaborate tournament rules--well, that's nice, if the enemy agrees.
What happens when they don't fight fair? What happens when they betray you and stack the deck at every turn. This isn't comic-books, or Barney World. In my campaign, yeah, paladins are the greatness and righteousness and all that, but if they *insist* on fighting in the brutal, grim world that doesn't follow the nice, neat tournament rules, then the paladin will end up defeated and crushed. He will be crucified on the hill, and lashed with the scourge until he dies in screaming agony. The crows will eat what is left of him. Meanwhile, because of the paladin's stupidity, and refusal to realise that touranament rules have no place on the battlefield of a grim and brutal world, the civilians that he was supposed to save from the forces of Darkness will now be broken to the yoke of tyranny, and enslaved to the oppression of rape, torture, and misery, as the forces of Darkness reign triumphant!
Real good, paladin. The people are raped, eaten, slaughtered, or enslaved, because you and your friends were stupid. Because you could'nt tell the difference between a chivalrous knight that opposes you across the tournament field, and an evil, wicked vampire lord that leads the legions of darkness against all that is holy and good!
See the difference? Of course you do--you know how long such stupid paladins would last in a grim, brutal world!
These other people make the huge, weak assumptions that the rest of the world will "play nice"--and even if they don't, they then go on to assume that the paladin character has some sort of "plot immunity" because he insists on being nice. Nice is for fairytales, and nice can be for an opponent who agrees to fight by the same rules of the "game" that you do. The real truth is though, certainly in a grim, brutal world, the enemies that oppose the paladins don't see it as a "game." It is deadly serious business, and they "play" to win, by any and all means necessary. After all, "To the Victor go the spoils!" In the end, when the armies of Darkness rule in the throne of might, and they have subjugated all the people, will it really matter that somewhere, someone, believes that the ruling evil empire didn't gain it's victory because it didn't play "fair"? I mean, that just isn't reality, you know? Either evil is defeated, or Evil triumphs. The question for the paladin to me is--are you going to defeat evil, or is evil going to defeat you? Are you going to crush the forces of evil, or are you going to be left staring skyward in death as you lay in the mud as the evil knights ride over you on their way to conquest?
__________________________________________________
End Quote.
Posted by me, at an e-mail to Dragonblade.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Well, more of my thoughts on paladins can be found in the threads, "Executing Judgment On Paladins" and "The Templars Ride Forth". However, I offer some additional commentary here that is reprinted from my e-mail to my friend Dragonblade!
__________________________________________________
Quote:
The SHARK-school of paladins indeed! See, if paladins must always fight their enemies according to some elaborate tournament rules--well, that's nice, if the enemy agrees.
What happens when they don't fight fair? What happens when they betray you and stack the deck at every turn. This isn't comic-books, or Barney World. In my campaign, yeah, paladins are the greatness and righteousness and all that, but if they *insist* on fighting in the brutal, grim world that doesn't follow the nice, neat tournament rules, then the paladin will end up defeated and crushed. He will be crucified on the hill, and lashed with the scourge until he dies in screaming agony. The crows will eat what is left of him. Meanwhile, because of the paladin's stupidity, and refusal to realise that touranament rules have no place on the battlefield of a grim and brutal world, the civilians that he was supposed to save from the forces of Darkness will now be broken to the yoke of tyranny, and enslaved to the oppression of rape, torture, and misery, as the forces of Darkness reign triumphant!
Real good, paladin. The people are raped, eaten, slaughtered, or enslaved, because you and your friends were stupid. Because you could'nt tell the difference between a chivalrous knight that opposes you across the tournament field, and an evil, wicked vampire lord that leads the legions of darkness against all that is holy and good!
See the difference? Of course you do--you know how long such stupid paladins would last in a grim, brutal world!
These other people make the huge, weak assumptions that the rest of the world will "play nice"--and even if they don't, they then go on to assume that the paladin character has some sort of "plot immunity" because he insists on being nice. Nice is for fairytales, and nice can be for an opponent who agrees to fight by the same rules of the "game" that you do. The real truth is though, certainly in a grim, brutal world, the enemies that oppose the paladins don't see it as a "game." It is deadly serious business, and they "play" to win, by any and all means necessary. After all, "To the Victor go the spoils!" In the end, when the armies of Darkness rule in the throne of might, and they have subjugated all the people, will it really matter that somewhere, someone, believes that the ruling evil empire didn't gain it's victory because it didn't play "fair"? I mean, that just isn't reality, you know? Either evil is defeated, or Evil triumphs. The question for the paladin to me is--are you going to defeat evil, or is evil going to defeat you? Are you going to crush the forces of evil, or are you going to be left staring skyward in death as you lay in the mud as the evil knights ride over you on their way to conquest?__________________________________________________
End Quote.
Posted by me, at an e-mail to Dragonblade.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Similar Threads
