Shark: “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.”
Shark, I must say that I like the general form of your philosophy, and this post is not meant as a slam on you at all. These are just some philosophical observations of my own.
The true virtue that should be talked about here is Honesty, comparing to its antithesis Deceit, not necessarily “truth vs. lies.” The reason for this is the intent or meaning behind each of the words. It is quite obvious that “saying things that shouldn’t be said” can work greatly toward evil. However, that is not just “telling the whole truth”, that is tactlessness, and as was said, selfishness. Only a fool knows not when to hold his tongue. There is no need to, even, there can be a need not to “always tell the whole truth”, again, as was said. But remember, the sin of omission. This centers around the concepts of Honestly vs. Deceit. To omit part of the truth while intending to mislead a person to think something is what it is not, or that things happened in a manner other than what they actually did, is Dishonest, deceitfulness, and is not good. The most “good” and non-selfish thing for a Paladin to do in a situation where he must speak or die (where truth will result in evil succeeding, a lie will result in the preservation of his friends) is actually to not speak. He is not giving information that will mislead, and not giving information that will result in evil triumphing over good. If he does speak, than he has lied, committed an evil act, and thus evil has seeded, and succeeded, if to a lesser degree. He has compromised, the first and most dangerous (because of its clever guise) step toward evil. Also consider, if these enemies where skillful or intelligent enough to capture the Paladin, are they really going to let him go before the find out if that is the actual location of the Centaurs? All consequences, options, possibilities must be looked at before stating a course of action will be best, and as Wise Paladin will/should know this.
The actual options end up looking like this:
a. Tell them the truth and be cause to the Centaur’s demise (evil triumphs)
b. Speak not, and you have done no wrong, and the Centaurs live (good triumphs… it could be argued that evil gains triumph in your death, but see below)
c1. Tell them a lie, they are stupid enough to release you, and the Centaurs live (this option is Most unlikely, but still, good triumphs overall, while the path of compromise is now open, thus still granting evil small victory)
c2. Tell them a lie, they learn that you have lied, and give you the choice again, or just kill you. (evil has gained its first triumph in your lie, and it either triumphs ultimately, or you then die, having given in to evil, evil is ultimately victorious)
The concept that you must live through this ordeal is a selfish, and thus evil one. Second, it is most unlikely that you will live through this regardless. What incentive do the capturers have of releasing you even IF you tell the truth? Being later hunted down and dealt justice?
I must also point out, that this is one of the best possible arguments for “lying isn’t necessarily evil”, but we can see how it stands in the light of critical examination. I therefore can not concede the (quoted) above, but must necessarily agree that it is not good to always have ones mouth open and “tell the whole and unnecessary truth”… many truths need not be spoken (“yuck, I think you are ugly”; etc.)
I am not arguing against considering “greater good” when considering actions in anyway. I indeed embrace that concept, but we must consider all things before we can state what will indeed lead to that greater good.
Shark: “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.”
Who says that many of the evil creature can Not be redeemed or converted? The fact that even some of these evil creatures can be redeemed would indicate that they may indeed deserve that chance. (notice the conditions, I do agree that in D&D, some evil creatures may also be beyond redemption, or in fact, that redemption my come at too high a sacrifice to what is Good, and/or with too much risk)
Shark: “Next, the Players Handbook describes the "Paladin Alhandra as fighting evil, and showing NO MERCY".
Here, I really have to question some people’s ideas of “good”. To lack a good virtue, is in no way good. I understand, and totally agree, that in the D&D philosophical system, and how Paladins fits into that (especially given their granted powers) suggests that they are best suited for distribution of justice
, but we should be careful when considering the methods that are taken. Acts of evil, or using evil methods, with the purpose of good, is a perverted concept. Everyone can understand and agree with that. “The end does not justify the means.” Hitler “thought” he was doing the right thing… perverted good = evil. Now, we must remember that we are talking within the philosophical system of D&D, which vaguely attempts to redraw certain lines, to make the system work as it does (but the flaws in that “system” are another topic), so we must consider what is good or evil from within that system (for this argument). It quite simply becomes impossible considering the very short and inadequate descriptions given in the short “religion” section in the PHB. I suppose, at best, we could assume that it attempts to draw on our ideas (in reality) as an outline for what is good (while not defining why what good is, is actually good). And, as above, abandoning good in anyway, is not good, and abandoning mercy, or compassion, would be evil. I understand the intent of this statement, and I agree, somewhat. I believe it would be better written as “Paladin Alhandra combats evil (undead maybe?) with fervor and zeal”, thus indicating a passion for the elimination of evil, without succumbing to the evil itself by forgetting its tenants
Shark: “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?”
Remember, the concept of redemption is in no way parallel to the acceptance of evil. Redemption, by definition, eliminates evil while leaving the creature, with its potential and free will to do good, alive. The purpose of redemption is to cleanse the world of evil, similar to eradicating those creatures who do evil. The difference would be that killing them leaves behind a bloody mess, and redeeming them leaves potential for more good.
The question then would be, are these creatures evil by decree of the cosmos, and not redeemable, or does choice and free will play a part in this. Would not all sentient creatures have fee will (this is probably a question left for a DM for his campaign and/or for characters to struggle to find the answer to, it may even be different for each race.. as with my character’s struggle in the current tabletop D&D campaign I play in) Another question to add: Does the decree of cosmos allow for redemption? Is it part of that predestination that a creature be redeemed (does anyone recognize a parallel to real world philosophy here? Seems as though it just can not logically be avoided J)
Still, as above, is the price of redemption promoting the greater good, or is too much sacrificed (when considering each individual case) by trying to bring this creature to good, rather than just eliminating it.
It is also worth noting, that while evil is a tangible force in D&D, it is not exactly clearly defined… leaving more decisions up to the DM. But, yes, it is knowable if Detect Evil exist J
RigaMortus: “Let's say the Paladin has in his possession a powerful artifact that could either save the world (if in the right hands, like yours) or destroy the world, if in the wrong hands. If he is brought before a corrupt king who is (oh my gosh) EVIL (not that he has done anything deserving of death, he just has a lust for more power which has corrupted his morality) and he asks if you have this artifact on you, what do you tell him? If you remain silent, you will die, and your mission will be a failure. A Paladin can not serve his god or good if he is dead now, can he? If you tell the truth, you are either (a) dead, (b) lose the artifact due to the overwhelming odds or (c) both. If you lie, you MAY be able to get out of the situation. But as you stated, you may also lose your powers.”
Do we need then to ask the question, what evil is deserving of death? Certainly not an evil king that will let an entire nation, or surrounding nations suffer for his own gain? Or one that wrongfully executes or imprisons persons?… or perhaps one that would use a powerful artifact to destroy the world?
It is funny that each of the situations presented in which we try to excuse the Paladin from lying happen to be “Paladin is captured, then he must lie or he will die” situations…
Still, although I like your some of your reasoning RigaMortus, and this is an interesting situation, there is much assumed, and much that should be known about the situation that is not (before we consider what IS the greater good)
Why is a Paladin who to weak to be able to fight against this evil king charged with this sacred quest?
Why does this evil king know about the artifact, and why does he know the Paladin might have it?
Does the Paladin’s informer god who charged him with this quest not see this possibility and for some reason not warn the Paladin? Why did he make no provisions against such a possibility if this was such an important quest?
Why can he not fight or escape? Why can he not use a diplomatic solution rather than lying?
“Great king, there are things to be known about the artifact before it is handled… (tells the truth of the artifact, it purpose, and likely result of corrupt ambition trying to further its goals through it).
I do know where the artifact is, and it can be yours, but other conditions must be met.” maybe “I must consult…”
If this king is actually only “lusting for more power which has corrupted his morality”, then is it unlikely that he (being a king, should be of excellent mental prowess) will not be able to see the truth of what negative consequences may come from his potential actions?
If he is totally consumed by his lust, then will he not try to bargain with the Paladin to learn it’s location?
Hypersmurf: “Someone can have an evil alignment without being EVIL.”
I am sorry, but this is quite possible the worst case of logical contradiction I have seen on these boards. I don’t even know how you could come to a conclusion that a person with an evil alignment is not evil… THAT IS (being evil) WHAT IT (evil alignment) MEANS!
Looking at the rest of the post, I agree with what you are trying to say, but I do not see how this statement or way of thinking fits in with the post. Perhaps you were (more accurately) trying to say that a person can commit evil acts without being evil?
Corinth: “Yes, they are. Evil is evil, and paladins exist to destroy evil. There is no compromise, no retreat, no surrender and no mercy when doing battle against evil. The best that the poor sod can do is sincerely repent of his evil and change his alignment away from evil. This is why paladins--and other such warrior-servants of good--are so terrifying.
Mercy is something that one must ask for, not to assume shall be granted. Paladins are warriors charged by God (etc.) to go forth and slay all that is evil; they are his Righteous Wrath personified in mortal flesh, so mercy is a secondary concern to purifying the world of evil. If a paladin's foe asks for mercy, then the paladin may grant it; this isn't likely, so it's not a major concern. Let the clerics worry about it.
… There is no divine punishment for a paladin that faithfully executes his holy mandate. There may be temporal retribution, but that's the misguided actions of mortals and their law is inferior to that of a paladin's god.
Paladins, when played properly, are as angels made flesh. They are terrifying incarnations of the glory of their patron gods, much like angels, and it is to those gods--and no other authority--that they must answer. Damned be those that stand in their way, for they stand between a servant of the Lords of Good and their holy duty to purify the world of all evil. That's more horrific than any evil being that ever existed, because not only are they that great in power but they're also always right about it as well.”
Corinth, while the terrifying zealotry of this description is probably overdoing it, this is still probably very close to what the idea of Paladin is supposed to be, and I very much like the some of the description. I must insert here that I do Absolutely love Paladins, they are my favorite class above the Wizard (who doesn’t want to be a potential Raistlin?), and I would absolutely hate to see them change. As others have stated, it would be devastating to the ideas and archetypes that should be present in the Core book. (however, I don’t see a problem with presenting an additional possible option in the DMG if people want to make it a PrC, I just don’t see it as needed).
(insert) I also feel that “The Sigil’s” reasoning on why certain deities would grant power to their champion at what time in there life is well conveyed
Back to the original point of my reply to this, I must disagree with the description, again in the “lacking in mercy” part, as you have read above. Not that all evil should be shown mercy, indeed, evil in itself should be shown none. But there may be a difference between the evil itself, and the hapless tool or creature evil who may come to redemption.
I must concede, that in most situations, and in most campaigns, the decision for if a creature can be redeemed is clear cut, and most of these questionable situations and creatures do not necessarily appear, and for that, Corinth, everything quoted above is right on. However, what of those creatures that can or should be redeemed? Evil itself, again, is not being given quarter, it is still being eliminated.
I suppose these questions come from my actual world view, and in that the campaign I am currently in, there have been many obviously Evil intelligent NPCs that my party has had to work along side, and through our positive influence (awesome role-play, and story decisions made by the DM), more than one of these NPCs has redeemed himself. No, I am not playing a Paladin,…although circumstances being what they were, I question if the greater good would have been to just slay these creatures outright, especially considering their eventual redemption. Would it be good to deny this to a creature who clearly has this path open to him?
Consider all things when all things when deciding what path is best, “for the greatest good”
Remember also when saying “no mortal authority can stand in their way”, that the divine authority that has empowered the Paladin has also mandated that she DOES follow those legitimate mortal authorities. Therefore, those legitimate mortal authorities, being ordained by such a mandate, is given that divine authority.
Otherwise said, to disobey mortal authority, is to disobey the divine authority.
Wow, Sigil, as I began to type replies to posts on this thread, I came to yours and see that you have constructed two very good and well reasoned posts, akin to what I had said in so many more cumbersome words.
Good job.
I also love the role-play ideas that just__al and Agback presented. It is unfortunate that I am likely to run the next D&D campaign that our group will play, which will span over the next year or so… I want to play a Paladin again.
edit: of course
