Philosophy, The Gods, and Divine Authority
Greetings!
Hmmm...well, for a Paladin ti *lie*, ever, is cause for stripping of his paladin status?
I think not.
In philosophy, you learn that there is a heirarchy to moral imperatives. Take lying for example;
Torture has been proved to be quite effective at getting people to talk--they may lie, or they may tell the truth, but torture will, statistically, compel the vast majority of people suffering it to speak.
Say the paladin is captured by evil humans, who want to know where the Centaur-rangers have their base in the forest. The Centaur rangers are the paladin's friends.
Now, the paladin can be compelled by torture and interrogation to speak. The paladin has the opportunity to either tell the truth, or lie.
If the paladin tells the truth, and thereby reveals the location of the Centaur-rangers, then such information will lead to the evil humans being successful in a raid--due to the knowledge gained from the paladin--and all of the Centaur-rangers will be slaughtered. However, the paladin told the *TRUTH*. However, because of it, his friends were killed.
The other option is for the paladin to lie, and thus save his friends from being killed.
The moral?
It is this: The need to save lives, is a far higher ranking *Good* than the *lesser* good of *Never lying*.
One has to ask the more salient questions, as of what is the importance of not lying? Generally speaking, however, being honest is, of course, a virtue. However, insisting on ALWAYS SPEAKING THE TRUTH can be demonstrated to be shallow, stupid, and quite selfish. The damage caused from some lackwit who doesn't have the social graces and finesse to know when and with whom he should not speak the "whole truth, and nothing but the truth" to is potentially enormous.
Why should someone's shallow and selfish insistence on "always telling the truth" be a more important, and higher good over respecting and preserving someone's feelings about some delicate subject or another? Think about it--the "No, dammit! I'm gonna speak the truth, no matter how much pain, embarassment, humiliation, or fragmented relationships it causes!" kind of philosophy--closely aligned with what is suggested for paladins--is generally speaking, impossible, as in unworkable, or it serves for the few who make the effort to embrace it, a way of behavior and thinking that dooms such a person to being a social pariah.
The idea has to be thought about though. Is ALWAYS telling the truth GOOD? Is always telling the truth the highest good? Another way of looking at it is what if telling the truth brings pain, suffering, and humiliation? Telling the truth, to my mind, while in general is an excellent virtue and practice, there must be some exceptions, because there are in many circumstances, things, ideas, feelings, and people that are more important than merely insisting to tell the truth about whatever. It is a higher good to save lives, for example. On a smaller scale, what do you say when your wife stands in front of you, and has just slipped on a crazy lemon-yellow dress that is far too tight for her, and she asks you, "Does this make me look fat?"
Of course, just thinking about all the myriad little episodes we go through in real life proves the point. Your in bed, making love with your wife, and the phone rings and rings and rings. You answer it, and its your mom. She asks "What are you doing?"
Now, it is possible to tell her "the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"
, but I suspect most people would say something else entirely. Which also leads to other questions as in:
(1) Does she need to know the truth?
(2) Does she really want to know the truth?
(3) Is telling the truth, potentially revealing inappropriate information?
(4) Might telling the truth infringe on others rights to privacy?
The point being, telling the truth can sometimes be inappropriate, harmful, inconsiderate, insensitive, selfish, wrong, and evil.
Someone's right to live is more important than your right to feel self-satisfied that you never lie, for example. Simply "telling the truth" often doesn't mean anything. It can, but it does not always have, a "Good" moral dimension to it. It is merely one way in which to express and convey information, in and of itself.
Another question is "Does telling the truth to this person in this situation cause good, or does it cause harm?"
What is the point in telling the truth? It seems it should always be to do good. If it doesn't do good--in certain circumstances--then telling the truth isn't good, and it isn't good to tell the truth. Lying, in some circumstances, is more good, or a higher good, if you will.
Some thoughts!
In regards to the paladin "redeeming" people or creatures, well, who says that many of the evil creatures can be "redeemed" or "converted"? Many races and creatures may not necessarily be considered, or in fact are, "free moral agents". Thus, there isn't some imperative that paladins seek to "redeem" them.
Next, the Players Handbook describes the "Paladin Alhandra as fighting evil, and showing NO MERCY".
Next, who says that a paladin has to take evil creatures in for a trial? Paladins are not defense attorneys, and they aren't social workers. Paladins are Holy Warriors who have been charged by their gods to make war upon evil. That seems quite obvious to me. Why can't paladins be given a mandate to crush evil wherever they find it? Who says that Paladins can't be judge, jury, and executioner? To think otherwise is to somehow assume that someone else, is somehow more and better qualified to determine justice than the paladin. Such an assumption is not necessarily correct, however.
In medieval times, knights were in fact charged with the power of life and death over their own lands, or in acting as the agent of their noble lord. Determining justice and punishment for brigands, criminals, or others that were violating either the laws of their lord, or the laws of the church, were often invested with the wandering knight himself. Ergo, the paladin fits in here quite well. There doesn't have to be, and there may not be, an organized "court system" even existing.
I think that many people bring too much of the modernist ideals and world views into the game setting which is nominally set in a medieval environment. In the real medieval times, for a long time, justice was simply carried out by whover was the highest ranking noble on the scene, or in absence of that, those agents charged with the church's or the noble lord's authority to do so. Trials, and courts, in any event, were often rarely held, or employed only for those of wealth and status, where someone else could not adequately determine the matter by quick and summary judgment.
Thus, in light of this, it isn't unreasonable to assume that some paladins indeed, go forth and execute judgment as they see fit on criminals, brigands, and evil creatures whenever the opportunity or occasion demands.
Furthermore, in the game, evil is a tangible, knowable and identifiable force. Either a creature is evil, or they are not. You may choose to gradient evil, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it should, must, or needs to be. Evil is evil, and should be crushed. Period. Why does evil need to be tolerated, coddled, and accepted? Some people make making allowances for evil sound like some kind of virtue. It isn't. Look at the paradigms in the game again. What is evil? What do evil people and evil creatures do? Why would anyone want such evil creatures to live?
It should also be noted that for much of history, many societies meted out the death penalty for many forms of crime. Certainly in America, "Imprisonment" as a preferred method became popular from the "Penitentiary" movement--that is, social and religious reformers in the late 1800's who, as Christians, felt that criminals could "repent" and that "Penitentiaries" where criminals could be imprisoned, where they could do *penance* and be "rehabilitated" was seen as a better approach to the severe and harsh prisons before hand where the conditions were geared to promote maximum suffering and misery--as punishment. This social and religious approach to handling criminals gradually caught on and spread throughout the country, and is still largely intact and strong in this country to this day.
However, such philosophy is a relatively recent development, in the long view and experience of history. Thus, it isn't a necessary requirement in the D&D game, or in imposing such values upon paladins is not necessarily the only philosophy, or even the best philosophy.
Well, ok. There are some of my thoughts then.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
This makes me sad
