The Misunderstood Paladin

[S'mon]

David is a perfect example of what I was discussing above. You make the assumption that David has to be a paladin, and I don't really see any reason why he has to be. In fact, given the fact that he was famous for playing a harp, using a missle weapon and then using his social abilities to become a king, one could easily argue that he was a bard

Given that David clearly had high Bluff skill and Sneak Attack I'd say a high-level Rogue - or possibly assassin.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

Sorry for the off topic question. Calico_Jack73, by chance did you ever live in Spokane Washington?

Nope... Moved from Texas to Mississipi to Oklahoma to South Korea to Delaware to Saudi Arabia back to Delaware and then finally to Virginia. Former Air Force, ya' see?

 

[Calico_Jack73]

If someone comes to my table wanting to play a paladin who graduated from the Ben Kenobi School of Honesty, I wouldn't have a problem with it. As long as what the paladin says is true, false conclusions drawn by the listeners is not a code violation.

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. As an example, I was always taught that if you lust for another man's wife just the thought of it was adultery even if you never act on it. Some may think I'm playing the Devil's Advocate since I started the discussion and now I am bringing this up but I'm only bringing this side up to hopefully get some peopel to realise that Paladins need not always tell the truth. In particular I like Brother Maclaren's explanation.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

Interesting that not all of the definitions of "Paladin" specify Knighthood as a prerequisite.

If you want to be really picky then by definition a Paladin would be a member of a royal court, but I don't see anyone arguing the necessity of that point.

Then again the dictionaries you specified are also written in a world without magic, dragons, and other monsters. Charlemagne doesn't exist in any of the D&D campaign settings. Wouldn't the definition of "Paladin" depend on the setting since it would be the people in that setting who attach meaning to the word?

 

[BryonD]

Then again the dictionaries you specified are also written in a world without magic, dragons, and other monsters. Charlemagne doesn't exist in any of the D&D campaign settings. Wouldn't the definition of "Paladin" depend on the setting since it would be the people in that setting who attach meaning to the word?

I think this is pretty badly warped logic.

The rules for D&D are written in a "world without magic, dragons, and other monsters." The D&D mechanics of the "paladin", including the code, are based on real earth archetype.

If you want to say that YOUR setting has a holy warrior hero class not based on the real world, that is obviously fine. And if this holy warrior is exactly the paladin, except the code is gone or otherwise significantly re-worked, then this is also fine.

But your new class is not the PH Paladin. Close maybe, but still not.

Nothing in the specifics of ANY setting changes the mechanical defintion of the PH paladin and code.

So the answer to your question is 100% NO. The definition of paladin would not at all depend on setting. It is purely a label for a fixed set of mechanics.

Things that do depend on setting:
The existence of paladins or complete lack thereof.
The common perception of paladins.
The existence of different, slightly tweaked classes (such as holy warriors that may freely lie based on their personal judgment, but are otherwise mechanically identical to paladins.)

 

[billd91]

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. As an example, I was always taught that if you lust for another man's wife just the thought of it was adultery even if you never act on it. Some may think I'm playing the Devil's Advocate since I started the discussion and now I am bringing this up but I'm only bringing this side up to hopefully get some peopel to realise that Paladins need not always tell the truth. In particular I like Brother Maclaren's explanation.

While being strict with a paladin makes it a challenge to play that some people embrace, being too extreme with it, just about anything else, can't be particularly healthy to the game, just like extremism is generally unhealthy in real life.
I think paladins as written in the rules should generally refrain from lying. They are supposed to be forthright, their methods matter, and so on. They should certainly not lie to take advantage of someone or for personal aggrandizement. But if they have to get a task done important to the church/order/forces of good/whatever, requiring them to not lie in the face of opposition that will obviously get them killed, is just mean to the player.
Just have the paladin say do a little extra penance in a hair shirt once the mission is over. At the risk of sounding like I'm espousing Catholicism, there should be mortal sins and venal sins. And the venal sins should only risk the paladin's status if he refuses to do anything to properly atone for them. Lying should generally be counted among these.

 

[Silveras]

True 'dat. Heck, the Aes Sedai of Jordan's "Wheel of Time" series are the perfect illustration of how to deceive, misdirect and avoid without actually lying. However, I personally think that a paladin can tell a lie under the right cirucmstances. This has been debated quite extensively here and other places. My personal view is that a paladin has some degree of lee-way. Being diplomatic at a dinner party about his lord's new surcoat is different from court intrigue. Lying to the city guard is far different from propping up straw men in armor on the castle walls, to scare the enemy away.

Personally, if I were to put a PC in a situation where he had to intentionally put himself in a bad position with no way out, there'd better be a way out or solution a little later. Is sneaking into town more honest than lying by omission at the gate? Personally, I don't think so, but YMMV.

The Aes Sedai are a very good example of why a Paladin should not compromise principles. The Aes Sedai suffer a near-universal mistrust because they have so twisted the truth in their dealings with others. Even within their own order, they cannot trust each other, and are weighed down with plot and counter-plot masked by half-truths and evasions.

Of course a Paladin can lie; s/he is a mortal, not an infallible outsider. However, in lying, s/he forfeits the special abilities of his/her class until atonement is made.

The Paladin mentality is not focused on "success". It is focused on the state of the Paladin's soul/spirit at all times. The Paladin strives to serve his/her patron/ethos to the best of his/her ability while setting an example of absolute adherence to tough moral standards. The Paladin is more about martyrdom than success. Dying in the service of his/her patron is the ultimate act of faithful devotion.

It is a tough standard to maintain.

 

[Silveras]

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. Both absolutely necessary for the success of Good. There is no way that any sane god who cares about Good would prohibit a paladin from using deception against the forces of Evil. This isn't saying "the ends always justify the means" - lying, like killing, is so often necessary to defeat demons, devils, tyrants, and the worst forces of evil that to forswear this particular means is to guarantee that you will fail when it counts. And a paladin's goal is not to serve his personal honor but to serve the cause of Good - that requires succeeding where possible.
A DM who imposed those restrictions on paladins and didn't have foes exploit those restrictions would be failing to play his NPCs plausibly.
Anybody read Wolves of the Calla (Dark Tower Book V)? Roland of Gilead is a paladin. Not perfect, not a saint, priority is L rather than G, but he's a servant of Order and the Light and the last best hope of Mid-World. And he lies his ass off to defeat a great evil. Good for him.

Majere - the way I look at it is that *clerics* are the crusading champions of a god or a cause - hence the good BAB, armor skills, HP, and saves - and paladins are exlcusively champions of Good. Good gets a little extra boost because evil is tricksy. Priests need their own class variant, perhaps Experts with the ability to ask favors on a case-by-case basis. Clerics are tough and have the skills for war. They aren't parish priests.

That's a very modern viewpoint. In the medieval period, on which the Paladin is based, it was all about the soul. The situation in the mortal world was far secondary to the ability of each person to reach the afterlife properly. The condition of the soul was the over-riding concern for the devout. Modern situational ethics like "choosing the lesser of two evils" would be rejected as a trap -- it was accepted that any "lesser evil" done "for a good reason" invariably corrupted the "good end".

Incidentally, you are correct about the Cleric being the holy warrior. The origin of the Cleric class (see the 1st edition Players' Handbook) is in the militant religious monastic orders of europe.

 

[Silveras]

Oohhh... so you can be a holy knight that hides your commitment to your god, but cant say "no", or try to confuse a foe...


Honestly, unless he paladin Pc is in a holy order´s party, he cant be played, if you use the rules with no changes.

Of course I use the rukes with changes, so the paladin´s player will not have a terrible time witna DM who only wants to show to the paladin how Real Life is.

If someone thinks a paladin should act as a proxy of his/her god, he should give him the power of one.

I was disputing the idea that the presence of the spell on the Paladin's spell list was a license to deceive with it.

Actually, a Paladin who denies his/her calling is unworthy of it (IMHO). The Paladin is a champion of that deity/philosophy/ethos. When asked, the proper answer is always "Yes, and proud of it." Any evasion is a deception, and a disavowal of the cause.

It is quite true that Paladins do not fit well into all campaigns. Paladins are modeled on a mind-set that is also reflected in the D&D alignment system. Morality is absolute, much more black-and-white than in the real world. DMs who wish to explore more morally ambiguous scenarios need to really think hard before letting a Paladin into the campaign. Most should not, as it will result in "watering down" the Paladin more often than not. With a player who can accept that s/he is likely to be continually losing and regaining the abilities, it can make for a rewarding campaign -- but those players are few and far between.

 

[Silveras]

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. As an example, I was always taught that if you lust for another man's wife just the thought of it was adultery even if you never act on it. Some may think I'm playing the Devil's Advocate since I started the discussion and now I am bringing this up but I'm only bringing this side up to hopefully get some peopel to realise that Paladins need not always tell the truth. In particular I like Brother Maclaren's explanation.

Well, no, not everyone. 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".