The Misunderstood Paladin

[S'mon]

Took the words right out of my mouth. I see you are in Arlington, VA. We need to hook up and game sometime.

I agree - the medieval heroic ideal is much more LN than LG. PHB 'Good' morality is essentially modernist, not medieval. Paladins, being LG, don't lie when they can help it, but if telling the truth will further the cause of Evil then telling the truth is not a Good act under PHB morality - and the PHB Paladin is clearly more Good than Lawful IMO. Putting the state of the paladin's honour, reputation or even his soul over the welfare of the villagers seems un-paladinlike under default PHB morality. Of course you could run a more medievalist campaign - eg emphasising that mortal suffering is transitory while the immortal soul risks eternal damnation if you tell a lie so it is more 'good' to tell the truth even though innocents suffer - but it's a departure from the PHB standard.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

I agree - the medieval heroic ideal is much more LN than LG. PHB 'Good' morality is essentially modernist, not medieval. Paladins, being LG, don't lie when they can help it, but if telling the truth will further the cause of Evil then telling the truth is not a Good act under PHB morality - and the PHB Paladin is clearly more Good than Lawful IMO. Putting the state of the paladin's honour, reputation or even his soul over the welfare of the villagers seems un-paladinlike under default PHB morality.

I totally agree. I believe it is the persuit of good that is a Paladin's primary motivation. If he has to bend a bit on the lawful side then so be it.

 

[Silverglass]

Well, before we start talking about what the Paladin is or is not, we should see what the original text says.

Let's see... 3.5e PHB, pg 44:
"Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents"

So, now to address your points.

<snip>

2 - You can house rule it out if you want, but as written lying is forbidden.

3 - Lawful may not imply law abiding, but the Code is more stringent than simple lawfulness. The Paladin must "respect legitimate authority". The DM has to figure out what "legitimate" means. Typically, in such context, it means "legal" rather than "Good". While Richard Lionheart is away in prison, it's okay to oppose Prince John, as he's not the legitimate ruler. If Richard dies, though, and Prince John becomes the legal king, the Paladin's paths of resistance become seriously narrowed. In general, it seem that the Paladin is supposed to play within the rules.

<snip>QUOTE]

2. This is the point that people hang up on, the Paladin must obey their code of conduct, however is it a Code not a list of independent rules. So Paladin can (and it can be argued MUST) lie if he is, for instance, helping those in need by decieving evildoers about their whereabouts. Simple lying (for fun or profit) is forbidden as a paladin must be truthful but they can lie when telling the truth would be the less "Lawful Good" thing to do.

3. Legitimate authority is up to the Paladin to define. It should probably include "My Deity, my deities representatives as long as their orders are not evil/chaotic, fair and just laws of the land".

All in all as the Code of Conduct is couched in vague generalities it behooves and player or DM to establish an acceptable code for every single paladin in the game.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Most people will allow that there is a difference between directly lying and giving statements that can be misinterpreted.

If the paladin gives such a statement deliberately, then it's lying.

I have maintained that any wilful false impression is a lie, and is forbidden. Intentions do matter; the intention to deceive is what makes half-truths and evasions into "lies by omission".

Exactly.

Strategems depend on deception. With proper use of misinformation, you can either defeat enemies who would otherwise overwhelm you, or you can win without fighting.

Exactly. The Knights of Solamnia used to do things like this all the time, like putting camps all over the place so their enemies didn't know how many knights were coming to attack them. They may have been lawful, but they weren't lawful stupid.

See here is what I don't understand. Everyone seems to have a problem with lying but not with stretching the truth. Both have the same intent, to deceive someone. Isn't it the intent which is the sin just as much as the actual act.

Exactly. It's a good thing the paladin code doesn't say "thou shalt not lust" or paladins would be unplayable.

2. This is the point that people hang up on, the Paladin must obey their code of conduct, however is it a Code not a list of independent rules. So Paladin can (and it can be argued MUST) lie if he is, for instance, helping those in need by decieving evildoers about their whereabouts. Simple lying (for fun or profit) is forbidden as a paladin must be truthful but they can lie when telling the truth would be the less "Lawful Good" thing to do.

The code is very clear about lying, however. It says you cannot lie, period.

 

[Gnimish88]

So, how about the perenial question of the noncombatants of evil humaniods that are noncombatants? Take goblins for example. Would the paladin be obliged to protect them since they are not entirely responsible for the raiding or to kill since they will undoubtably return to raiding practices once enough of the children grow up, provided they live so long. Granted, this takes the over simplified extremes, but I would like to see peoples thoughts on the matter, since I have never really gotten a satisfactory answer to this question.

As far as paladins lying, can they allow others to lie for them? If the paladin at the gate was traveling with a bard, for example, who bluffed the guard that they were simple travelers (assuming they are dressed appropriately), would the paladin be obliged to correct his friend?

 

[Calico_Jack73]

So, how about the perenial question of the noncombatants of evil humaniods that are noncombatants? Take goblins for example. Would the paladin be obliged to protect them since they are not entirely responsible for the raiding or to kill since they will undoubtably return to raiding practices once enough of the children grow up, provided they live so long. Granted, this takes the over simplified extremes, but I would like to see peoples thoughts on the matter, since I have never really gotten a satisfactory answer to this question.

As far as paladins lying, can they allow others to lie for them? If the paladin at the gate was traveling with a bard, for example, who bluffed the guard that they were simple travelers (assuming they are dressed appropriately), would the paladin be obliged to correct his friend?

Interesting points. Kinda like attacking Iraq because they might eventually produce a WMD and sell it to a terrorist group. There isn't a black and white answer. Both sides have valid points. Do you let the goblins live and possibly become a threat in the future or do you kill the noncombatants? In that light, I'd almost have to say that the Paladin is best played as an holy avenger. Being an avenger he'd probably opt to wait and see if the goblins become a problem again and then react (kinda like the US position before Sept 11th). Slaying innocents who haven't committed a crime yet is definitely wrong. Just watch Minority Report. None of the criminals had done anything YET but were being locked away for a crime that they still had the choice to commit.

Once again, not to play the devil's advocate, but if people are going to say that lying is a sin for a paladin then it is the intent that is the sin as much as the act. I'd believe that in that mindset a paladin wouldn't allow the bard to lie for him.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

I saw that Gary Gygax had a discussion going so I thought I'd get his opinion on the Paladin so that at least we can know what was originally intended for the class. I'll paste his reply below.

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by Calico_Jack73

... I'd like your view on the Paladin class and the features that make is supposedly "Unplayable".

Thank you so much for your input Gary.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


First, many a Paladin PC has been played, and that done successfully generally following the rules for the class as written.

Lawful Good does not equate to stupid or foolish, It means the PC must follow the Law as determined by the deity the Paladin acknowledges, and thus promote Good according to that Law.

As I have pointed out at times, a Paladin might well execute a group of captives after they have converted from their former (Evil) alignment to Lawful Good, for that act saves their sould, prevents them from slipping back into error.

A Paladin will not normally sacrifice himself, fight needlessly, unless it is a situation where honor and duty demand that. Such sacrifice would have to be demonstrably for the betterment of his deity, or else based on anoath the character made prior to the dire situation.

While in general a Paladin can not lie, that does not mean he must say anything, or can not answer evasively or mislead--if that is according to the tenents of his avowed LG deity.

A Paladin played by someone that doen not understand the basis of the Code of Chivalry taken to the extreme and attached to religion is likely unplayable, but that's the fault of the player, not the class.

Yes, I have played a Paladin character, but not for long, as I don't enjoy Lwaful Good characters much--too restrictive for a Chaotic sort of person such as I am

Cheers,
Gary

 

[Dogbrain]

As I have pointed out at times, a Paladin might well execute a group of captives after they have converted from their former (Evil) alignment to Lawful Good, for that act saves their sould, prevents them from slipping back into error.

I'd say that this, more than anything else, proves, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that Paladins are ultimately a force for evil, designed by evil beings, secretly empowered by evil beings.


Of course, that whole obsessive "law" thing taints their alleged "good" to begin with. A bit of law may be a necessary evil, but it is never better than a necessary evil.

 

[MulhorandSage]

An interesting assertion--I'd probably guess fighter/bard myself. Anyone want to post how Testament statted him up?

.

In Testament, David is listed as a Fighter7/Psalmist9/Aristocrat2/Rogue2:

Scott Bennie
(Designer of Testament)

 

[FireLance]

(Originally stated by Gary Gygax)As I have pointed out at times, a Paladin might well execute a group of captives after they have converted from their former (Evil) alignment to Lawful Good, for that act saves their sould, prevents them from slipping back into error.

I'd say that this, more than anything else, proves, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that Paladins are ultimately a force for evil, designed by evil beings, secretly empowered by evil beings.

Of course, that whole obsessive "law" thing taints their alleged "good" to begin with. A bit of law may be a necessary evil, but it is never better than a necessary evil.

It really depends on what you deem to be important from the point of view of eternity, doesn't it? If, by dying when he is "good", a person can leave this world (which, let's face it, is pretty much a terrible mess) for a better one, wouldn't any "good" character want to bestow this "mercy" on others?

Of course, this perspective runs contrary to a number of popular beliefs, namely: 1. This life is all there is, and is all that matters. 2. A creature's ability to enter "paradise" does not simply depend on his state of mind at the point of death. 3. A creature should have the right to choose an eternity of torment and damnation, if he wants to.

However, if this was indeed the way the world worked, wouldn't this be a "good" act? And if not, then the character is simply "mistaken" not "evil".

As for law being a necessary evil, it is no more necessary or evil than chaos. Lawful evil expresses itself as oppression; chaotic evil is so intent on preserving its "freedom" and "rights" that it fails to recognize the same in others. Lawful good expresses itself in harmony; chaotic good preserves the "freedom" and "rights" of all creatures.