What *is* it about paladins that makes people nutty, anyway?

[Demmero]

Re: Exageration/point-of-view.



No it's not. A lie, anyway. Can't say on the Aes Sedai bit, as I never got past book two.

Guy A: *points to a car* What is that I'm pointing to?

Guy B: A car (truth) // a way to get around (exageration) // freedom (point-of-view) // I couldn't tell you (evasion or opting not to answer).

All of the above are true statements.


Guy A: *points to a car* What is that I'm pointing to?

Guy B: A trombone.

Is, obviously, not true.


The question boils down to: do you require paladins to tell the absolute, unswerving, unpainted, unaspected truth regardless of the consequences or whom those consequences might fall upon?

If the goons of Evil King von Nastybad bang on the safehouse door and ask the paladin "Are you hiding any rebels in there?" is the paladin required to tell them a flat out 'yes'?

The fact that Undetectable Alignment is on the paladin spell list proves that a certain amount of evasion/misdirection is not against the paladin code of conduct.

 

[shilsen]

The fact that Undetectable Alignment is on the paladin spell list proves that a certain amount of evasion/misdirection is not against the paladin code of conduct.

Thank you. I've always considered that the single most concrete response to such arguments.

 

[genshou]

And, lest we forget, the nearly-endless thread a few months ago about whether paladins need to be chaste and / or celibate (and whether those two were different, anyway).

Seriously, I want to read this thread! Is there not a man here who can find it in their list of subscribed threads and provide me with a link?

 

[Thotas]

I wanna quote William Ronald here:

"It is also possible to have values that trump the truth on occassion. For example, paladins of some deities may be able to lie in the defense of life. According to the Talmud, life is so important that with only three exceptions, every single Jewish law may be disopeyed if it can be demonstrated that keeping it would be life-threatening. (As an example, a person can pretend to convert under duress to a faith.) The exceptions are idolatry, murder and sexual immorality. So, if a player was running a character according to a similar code, then lying would be permissible in some circumstances. (For example, lying to people bent on murder about where some refugees are hidden on a boat would be an example of an allowable lie.)"

Exactly. Some values trump others, some situationally and some absolutely. A paladin would be supplied with rules from his church as to what trumps what, and any special circumstances that make an exception. A DM who puts a paladin in a "choose between the lesser of two evils" situation, and then punishes the choice regardless, is an ass. Diffferent orders might have different priority of values, too. One LG god of justice may be also a god of war, another LG god of justice may also be a god of peace ... so you can have two paladins on the same quest for justice with very different ideas on how to get there, and both of them are right by their own holy book. DMs should spell it out they way they spell out the rest of their campaign world. At the very least, a player should be allowed a Knowledge (religion) check to know what their character's deity's doctrine expects.

 

[frankthedm]

Why is it always paladins that we get these threads about? Why, out of all the classes, is it the paladin that seems to drive a significant percentage of the playing population nutty? I imagine it's because, unlike any of the other base classes, they've got the most explicit code of behavior presented in the PHB, but that's just my guess.

Paladins are the class charged with being as good as mortaly possible in game. If that "good" to one person is different from another person's own real life moral compass, It is tantamount to saying You are morally wrong in real life to the disagreeing person.

Please note i find most people, in the real world, too weak willed and/or squeemish to do what is morally right in many situations so I might just be jaded.

At the very least, a player should be allowed a Knowledge (religion) check to know what their character's deity's doctrine expects.

Damn straight!

 

[Hypersmurf]

The fact that Undetectable Alignment is on the paladin spell list proves that a certain amount of evasion/misdirection is not against the paladin code of conduct.

People seem to agree that someone can decline to answer a question, and it is not considered a lie.

If a Paladin casts Undetectable Alignment, is that not just another form of declining to answer a question, and therefore not a lie?

-Hyp.

 

[Demmero]

If a Paladin casts Undetectable Alignment, is that not just another form of declining to answer a question, and therefore not a lie?

-Hyp.

Not exactly. Casting the spell means that the paladin has chosen before-the-fact to do something deceptive (mask his true alignment). If someone casts Detect Good on him suspecting a paladin, he doesn't register as Good. That's different from someone asking him, "Are you a paladin?" and him declining to answer.

So I'd say it's not quite the same as declining to answer a question, but definitely not a lie.

It does have an element of deception to it that simply declining to answer a question doesn't have.

 

[Thotas]

Paladins are military men. Military tactics have a lot to do with fooling the other side with misdirection, false intelligence, etc.. Of course, killing a citizen on the peaceful street is quite a bit different from killing enemies on the battlefield. The slope is slippery, and a player's DM/character's deity has an obligation to provide some handholds. A simple list of value priorities is a good start. The player/character needs these rules, and has a right to expect them. How can you play Lawful Good if you don't know what Laws define Good in that world? How can you be held to the Laws if they don't exist?

 

[FireLance]

People seem to agree that someone can decline to answer a question, and it is not considered a lie.

If a Paladin casts Undetectable Alignment, is that not just another form of declining to answer a question, and therefore not a lie?

That's an interesting philosophical question. Is casting undetectable alignment closer in nature to using invisibility, silence and the Hide and Move Silently skills (masking something that would give him away) or using disguise self and the Disguise skill (appearing to be something else)?

 

[Brimshack]

2 Cents

I always thought it was important to keep in mind that some of the restrictions of a Paladin's code where due to his alignment, some were due to his religion, and some were actually due to his (economic) class. A Paladin is essentially a noble (or a wannabe noble) who believes he is better than the commoners around him. Now that sounds like arrogance, but it also involves a commitment of sorts, and a Paladin is someone who takes seriously the prospect that his behavior should reflect his superiority. This is one reason why (at least in first edition with facing) I always maintained that he wouldn't strike from behind (unless an opponent was too cowardly to face him while beating on someone else). This is why he won't lie, etc. It's not just to be good and serve the deity, but to establish his honor, and to provide a basis for distinguishing himself from those around him. It's his way of explaining the difference between himself and his servants. He had a code of honor, and in following it, he distinguished himself as a character of truly noble character. It is an attempt to make his status as a noble mean just that, that he really is noble.

I also think some of the penalties that accrue from these behavioral restrictions can be compensated by rewards for loyal and honorable behavior. In my campaigns, Paladins who skirt the rules may keep their abilities, but that's it. Those that stick to their codes on conduct are rewarded (with information, magical aid, and even of course, the prospect of a Holy Avenger) by their gods. Of course the gods don't show up personally, at least not until very high levels, but they have their minions and messengers.

Some players honestly can't seem to grasp the significance of a Paladin's code. They look at it as a hindrance, and they sek to minimize its importance to their play. The better players recognize that it is the source of their abilities, and the price of those abilities.

On a side note, I never did like the rule that a Paladin could not associate with Neutral or Evil characters. I could see that if there were no other values at stake, but I never ran the meet-in-a-bar-go-for-a-random-adventure campaign anyway. If a Paladin and a character of low honor had common cause, I saw no reason the Paladin could not work with him. The Paladin must not, however, use overtly dishonorable tactics such as planning a sneak attack, etc.

I've also never bought into the kill-evil-on-site motif. Social Manicheanism is close to what defines evil in the real world as it is often enough the source of suffering. If good slays evil on site, then it is no different really, and all we have are 2 different camps, each of which can be called upon to treat each other exactly the same way. That's an amoral universe, not one in which any moral outlook has any real meaning.