Would you allow this paladin in your game? (new fiction added 11/11/08)

[Aurondarklord]

heh...I joined this board because I saw this thread and it looked really interesting. I've been glad I did so far, the posters seem extremely erudite and civil.

A bit on the Jedi...I'm very much looking at old republic days here. post empire Jedi Order I consider neutral good, because Luke Skywalker was neutral good, and his beliefs and principles largely defined his incarnation of the order. But old republic Jedi Order was VERY LG, and that was actually one of the things Luke perceived as wrong with it and that contributed to its fall, it was TOO rigid, and imposed unrealistic and unfair behavioral standards on its members, but even back in those days, tactics like mind tricks were generally accepted.

I think our biggest area of disagreement is this concept of "bypassing the fight", using a tactic or weapon that the enemy has no counter-move to, as being dishonorable, while I just see it as common sense, not to mention inevitable. At some point, a paladin is gonna level up to the point he can just one-shot orcs and kobolds, what's he to do then if he encounters monsters too low level for him? Refuse to save the town from the orc horde because it wouldn't be fair for him to fight them? that sounds absurd to me. Nothing in the RAW says, implies, or suggests that a paladin is not allowed to "bypass combat" or attempt to end a fight in one hit. That would be akin to saying a paladin is forbidden from using weapons with x3 or x4 crit bonus, because a crit with those weapons (which I see as generally a gameplay method of saying you've hit a vital spot) is likely to kill in one hit. I have never heard such an interpretation of the code used or considered before.

In the real world, most systems of "honor" ultimately stem from one of three things: an effort to prevent needless cruelty and suffering in war, an effort to enforce a power gap between social classes, or a desire to make war and victory more glorious. The former I see as the legitimate form of honor that a paladin is bound to, and the latter two I see simply as a form of oppression that a paladin should rail AGAINST, and an indulgence of ego and thus the sin of pride, respectively

Honor model 1 is the kind of honor evident in rules like the geneva conventions, or the paladin's prohibition against poison. Real world rules of warfare are not arbitrary sports rules, they all exist for very good reasons. Why can't you impersonate neutral parties like the red cross or united nations? Because if you do, people are less likely to trust anyone ELSE who claims to be the red cross or the united nations, doctors and peacekeepers will get shot at, wounded soldiers will die because the doctors coming to help them got killed, net result, more needless suffering and death. Why can't you fake a distress call or a surrender? Because it makes people paranoid, and less likely to accept the real thing. Net result, needless suffering and death. Why can't you use poison gas? because it drifts across the battlefield and potentially into civilian populations indiscriminately. Why can't you use poisoned or explosive bullets? Because in the real world, where a medic can't just cast cure critical wounds and heal you in an instant, if a soldier gets shot, he's probably out of the war for the foreseeable future, there's no need to make the injury even worse and reduce his chances of surviving or eventually recovering, it makes war that much crueler than it has to be. Similarly, a paladin's prohibition against poison exists because poison often kills in slow, cruel ways or lingers long after the battle is over to "finish off" an enemy who was defeated anyway. Ravages and Afflictions, which you may not like but are part of the RAW, are intended to avoid these problems, and thus bypass the practical reasons why the use of poison was considered dishonorable for a paladin, and are thus allowed under the code.

Honor model 2 is the kind of "honor" that was propagated in ancient societies to keep the lower classes in their place. Banning cheap, relatively easy to use weapons that defeat armor, like the crossbow, would mean that for all practical purposes, a mounted knight in full plate was invincible against poorly equipped, barely trained peasant footmen and hand-drawn bowmen, enforcing the superiority of the highborn, wealthy knight who can afford all that plate and his warhorse. Dueling was a similar concept, if you were highborn, you could afford good steel and the master at arms at the castle you grew up in probably taught you swordsmanship since you were a kid. Should any uppity peasant ever cross you, you can just challenge him to a duel, and since he likely has no training, cut him to pieces, or if he declines the duel, then he's branded a coward and loses all social credibility anyway. This is not real honor, this is a form of social control.

Honor model 3 is probably closest to what you're talking about, the kind of knight who knocks an opponent off his horse, then jumps off HIS horse as well to finish the duel on the ground instead of using the advantage that he's still on his horse, or disarms an enemy, then allows him time to pick up his weapon. Really, this only serves to humiliate the enemy, to show your utter superiority by giving him charity and STILL kicking his butt. It is a form of showing dominance and superiority, a massive indulgence of ego, and an attempt to make your deeds in war bring you more fame and glory, often glorifying the bloody and horrific business of warfare in the process. I don't see this as real honor either, I see it as turning an awful necessity, one of life and death, often with the lives of many innocents hanging in the balance, especially for a paladin, into a game.

In any system of honor I would consider reasonable, the rules exist for logical reasons and are there to prevent needless misery, death, and treachery, not to be "sporting" or artificially level the playing field, especially not in a way that actually stacks it AGAINST the good guys.

As for your example of having to choose between falling to save innocents and allowing innocents to die to keep honor...considering that allowing innocents to die is ALSO a violation of the paladin's code, this becomes a moral catch 22, no matter what a paladin does in this situation, he falls. I do not believe a valid system of morality can exist in which a person can be in a catch 22 where ALL of the available choices reflect badly on their moral character.

 

[Greenfield]

wow, Mallus, I consider myself informed. Clearly, later iterations of the rules realized what a BAD IDEA a system like that was, since nothing like that made it into modern versions of the game.

As a matter of fact, if a player in my game had a paladin behave like that, they would probably lose their powers very quickly, because uncontrollable bloodlust would cost you your lawful alignment, and refusing to show mercy and incurring avoidable friendly fire would be considered evil acts.

The Cavalier was even forbidden from using a long reach weapon. The two handed sword was the example given. The only exception was the lance, for mounted combat against a similarly armed opponent.

Yeah, they were Lawful Stupid and a bad idea all around.

As for Barbarians: I recall a young man wanting to join our game, but explaining that the Magic Users and Clerics would have to leave, since his character couldn't travel with them.

I, in turn, explained that the tail didn't wag the dog. The fact that he wanted to play an overpowered, poorly designed class didn't mean that the rest of the game group had to accommodate.

The Barbarian, when it first came out, was an attempt to place Conan in the game: The magic-hating, muscle bound clod who couldn't lose a fight no matter how stupid he was.

An 8th level Barbarian was, functionally, a 10th level character, if not higher.

On more of the original topic: It's not dishonorable to fight smart, to look for and exploit weaknesses in the opponent's defense. And as long as both sides know that the "rules" include cheap shots like kicking someone in the groin, that's not dishonorable either.

It's the element of "breaking the rules" that's dishonorable, and that is 100% dependent on what the accepted rules of behavior are.

The video game reference is a good one. So is the comic book one: If the only way to beat the bad guy is to hit that sweet spot, then it isn't dishonorable, it's necessary. Failure to do what's necessary is certain failure.

If the only way to defeat that ultra-powerful alien is with a rare radioactive element, then there's nothing dishonorable in using it. Getting into such a fight without it is a guaranteed loss, so such tactics would count as Lawful Stupid. And no system should ever require you to be suicidally stupid.

 

[Aurondarklord]

well, THEORETICALLY Superman can be defeated without kryptonite. I've HEARD "Batman can beat Superman without kryptonite" arguments before that theoretically work, but most revolve around laughable extremes of the whole "Batman is prepared FOR EVERYTHING" argument and involve Batman being able to do things like blot out the sun with bat-shaped satellites, build his own green lantern ring, or strip Superman of his powers by using some deus ex machina that appeared in an issue in the 60s and of course Batman must have stored in a secret room in his cave somewhere.

So the scope of my argument is not only covering situations where it's PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to win without exploiting a weak point, but also those where it's just good sense.

 

[JamesonCourage]

heh...I joined this board because I saw this thread and it looked really interesting. I've been glad I did so far, the posters seem extremely erudite and civil.

That's why it's the only RPG board I frequent.

A bit on the Jedi...I'm very much looking at old republic days here. post empire Jedi Order I consider neutral good, because Luke Skywalker was neutral good, and his beliefs and principles largely defined his incarnation of the order. But old republic Jedi Order was VERY LG, and that was actually one of the things Luke perceived as wrong with it and that contributed to its fall, it was TOO rigid, and imposed unrealistic and unfair behavioral standards on its members, but even back in those days, tactics like mind tricks were generally accepted.

Interesting. I haven't read books in years (I stopped mid Yuuzhan Vong war), and I haven't read any books from the older in-universe years (though I might browse a wiki now and again). I do know that Luke thought them too rigid, though, so your viewpoint all makes sense with what I've heard.

I think our biggest area of disagreement is this concept of "bypassing the fight", using a tactic or weapon that the enemy has no counter-move to, as being dishonorable, while I just see it as common sense, not to mention inevitable. At some point, a paladin is gonna level up to the point he can just one-shot orcs and kobolds, what's he to do then if he encounters monsters too low level for him?

Yeah, I didn't mean to imply he couldn't take out people in one hit. I meant that it's not generally deemed honorable to exploit a weakness to do so. If a guy attacks me with a sword, hitting him in the head with a sword is seen as fine; if I kick him in the groin, I think many people (most of the ones I know) would call that dirty fighting or dishonorable, even though it leads to the same result. That's basically what I'm commenting on.

In the real world, most systems of "honor" ultimately stem from one of three things: an effort to prevent needless cruelty and suffering in war, an effort to enforce a power gap between social classes, or a desire to make war and victory more glorious. The former I see as the legitimate form of honor that a paladin is bound to, and the latter two I see simply as a form of oppression that a paladin should rail AGAINST, and an indulgence of ego and thus the sin of pride, respectively

This is interesting. I'd see the Paladin as closer to the third, honestly. The code is to help a Paladin stay true, and to help be a shining beacon of Good to the world. To that end, making fighting Evil and victory over it be more glorious makes sense to me.

However, I say it's interesting because I see where you're coming from more clearly, and it makes sense. However, if he can't "cheat" or use poison, even when it would prevent suffering, does it make sense to ban it? That's why I lean closer to your third definition, but I'm curious what your thoughts are on it. (I did read the following three paragraphs, by the way, including your reasoning on poison. But, say a poison or cheating was the way to stop an Evil Thing; it makes sense to cheat or use poison, right? But Paladins refuse, even if that's the only way. What's your take on that?)

Honor model 1

Very insightful description, thank you; I wanted to make it doubly clear that I did read these, and that they helped me in this discussion.

Honor model 3 is probably closest to what you're talking about

Closest, yep, for the reasons I mentioned above (glorifying Good in its victory over Evil, shining beacon of hope, etc.).

In any system of honor I would consider reasonable, the rules exist for logical reasons and are there to prevent needless misery, death, and treachery, not to be "sporting" or artificially level the playing field, especially not in a way that actually stacks it AGAINST the good guys.

Well, hopefully you see how this works in my head. The Paladin is hamstrung by not being able to cheat (even against the biggest cheaters), use poison (even against people that use it), lie (even against the biggest liars), and the like, and I attribute it closer to Honor 3 than Honor 1. It's to prove that Good is above it all, and can defeat Evil without being dirty, without losing honor, etc. It's essentially for inspiration. But again, that's my take on it.

As for your example of having to choose between falling to save innocents and allowing innocents to die to keep honor...considering that allowing innocents to die is ALSO a violation of the paladin's code, this becomes a moral catch 22, no matter what a paladin does in this situation, he falls. I do not believe a valid system of morality can exist in which a person can be in a catch 22 where ALL of the available choices reflect badly on their moral character.

Well, he could potentially keep his morals if he died while trying to protect them. He'll just have failed, and he'll be dead. But his morals will be intact. So, it might be "die" or "fall" in that situation, but as I said, I'm sure Paladins in-game debate which choice is better ("I'd fall to save them", "but that defeats the point of the code", "the code says to protect innocents", and so on). The person who would die trying to protect them still attempted it, and thus wouldn't fall, in my eyes.

Again, though, it's just my take on it. Again, thanks for the good conversation. As always, play what you like

 

[Jackinthegreen]

I think part of the issue here is not that a setting-appropriate paladin couldn't be considered bound by the third model of honor there: It's that such a character can quickly become so difficult to play that any sense of enjoyment is lost, which often contradicts the entire point of playing the game. Not only can the driving player have issues with it, but playing that character can create issues with other players too such as the party being required to follow the paladin's orders and then die because the paladin couldn't do something that was necessary in order to triumph.

Something I thought of regarding that third honor code: Isn't pride considered the deadliest sin of all? I realize that not all settings will have philosophies akin to the Seven Deadly Sins, but in any place where there's something like that a paladin could very well have an impossible task of being viewed as prideful where pride itself is viewed as evil and corrupting.

I find myself asking where this image of paladins and other holy knights comes from, and all I can really think of is those times hundreds and thousands of years ago where war was considered glorious and tales were told of mighty warriors who were able to flout their enemies' efforts despite whatever impediments. I'd argue that we as a people still tend to overly embellish those perceived as heroes, role models, or otherwise very influential people. Some recognition is due of course, but too much of it can lead to delusions of grandeur.

I wonder if, over the years, we've made the stereotypical paladin out to be more than it's capable of being.

 

[pemerton]

Something I thought of regarding that third honor code: Isn't pride considered the deadliest sin of all? I realize that not all settings will have philosophies akin to the Seven Deadly Sins, but in any place where there's something like that a paladin could very well have an impossible task of being viewed as prideful where pride itself is viewed as evil and corrupting.

I find myself asking where this image of paladins and other holy knights comes from

I think it comes from various tellings and retellings of the mediaeval romances.

And in at least some of those retellings, the paladin who unhorses an opponent dismounts to fight him/her not out of pride, but out of courtesy. If the opponent is also honourable, s/he may acknowledge the superiority of the knight who won the joust, and admit defeat. If s/he fights on, the default assumption is that the knight who was good enough to unhorse him/her will also be able to win the fight on foot.

I wonder if, over the years, we've made the stereotypical paladin out to be more than it's capable of being.

I think you are right in your post to have framed this not as an absolute question, but as a question about the viability of a certain archetype within the usual parameters of the game.

I think this sort of honourable knight is tricky in a game where the only way of taking someone out of a fight is by killing him/her. But is probably quite viable in a game which allows framing the stakes of winning and losing in other ways.

I do not believe a valid system of morality can exist in which a person can be in a catch 22 where ALL of the available choices reflect badly on their moral character.

I dont want to get into territory that violates the board rules, so will refrain from stating my own view.

But Weber's famous essay "Politics as a Vocation", and also Michael Walzer's well-known work on "Dirty Hands", argues that the sorts of impossible situations you describe can arise.

Similar situations can also arise if you deny that "ought implies can" - that is, such a denial opens up the possibility of someone being obliged to do something that is impossible for him/her.

no matter what a paladin does in this situation, he falls.

Within the context of the game, my preferred way of resolving this issue is to give the player primary responsible for resolving the moral question and playing out the consequences for his/her paladin PC. (Which need not be mechanical to be meaningful within the context of the game.)

 

[Aurondarklord]

JamesonCourage, I'm definitely starting to see the paladin you envision taking shape in my mind now. One who fights in a showy fashion not because he's a vain glory hound, but to inspire the people who see him in action, to display not his own glory, but the glory of goodness and the glory of his God. And this is a very cool type of paladin....I just don't think it's the ONLY type of paladin, and I think it has certain considerations of its own.

First of all, I think this kind of paladin, which I will hereafter call the "glorious paladin", has to be practical and realistic. He also walks a fine moral line, because if he overinflates the notion of "his legend" in his mind and bases his actions off that, then he's guilty of hubris, and pride goeth, as we all know, before a fall. I think the glorious paladin sometimes has to do moral math and wrestle with questions like "if I die gloriously here, will the legend that survives me, and the people inspired by it ultimately do more good than if I lived to help and inspire others in the future?" and consider the fact that nobody is going to be inspired by watching some moron throw his life away and get the people he's trying to protect killed in the process, and that stupid but "noble" behavior which presents "good" as an unrealistic and unattainable standard can actually HURT his cause and present honor and righteous behavior in a BAD LIGHT. I think the glorious paladin who can walk that line, do the practical thing when he has to and the glorious thing when he can morally afford to, is Sir Galahad, while the one who always does only the glorious thing regardless of the situation ends up Don Quixote, a stupid good character tilting at windmills because he's divorced from reality.

Watch Game of Thrones sometime, or read the Song of Ice and Fire books from which it was drawn, and you'll see my point played out, on the one hand, you'll see characters like Daenerys Targaryen, a noble, benevolent queen who tries to act righteously in pursuit of her goals but acknowledges the realities of the world around her, and generally succeeds, but you'll also see characters like Ned Stark and Stannis Baratheon who are so hidebound by their rules and their concept of honorable behavior that they just prove incapable of dealing with the real world, and not only do they lose for having done so, they inspire no one, Westeros ends up a worse place for their efforts, and they let the perfect get in the way of the good to the detriment of everyone around them.

I see the paladin's code as a balancing act, and a fine line that a paladin has to walk, because sometimes articles of the code conflict with each other, and the paladin has to decide which side to err on. If you have to act with honor and respect legitimate authority, what if a legitimate authority figure commands you to do something you consider dishonorable? If you have to help those in need and punish those who threaten innocents, what if you encounter someone who mugged an innocent for money to buy bread because he was starving? Paladins have to have some room to make up their own minds in these situations which side of the code they go with and what kind of paladin they are, without the DM saying absolutely that one side is the right side and the other will cause them to fall. And yes, I imagine paladins have in-universe arguments about this sort of thing, but they can't really do that if one side of the argument involves falling, because then clearly the Gods have made up their minds which side is right already. In a polytheistic setting, who's to say THE GODS agree on the subject? I imagine if you asked St. Cuthbert and Pelor these questions, you'd get very different answers, yet both sponsor paladins in the default 3E setting. Perhaps behavior that will cause a paladin of one deity to fall won't cause a paladin of another deity to fall, even if both Gods are LG.

As for what you said that "most people" would view kicking in the groin as a dishonorable cheap shot, I think it depends on the circumstances. I think if you're talking about two knights having a sword duel, then yes, but it also wouldn't be very effective because they're both wearing armored codpieces. If you're talking about hitting below the belt in boxing, then of course, but that's a sport. But if you're hearing about someone who fended off a would-be rapist that way, well, I don't think I've ever heard someone say "that was so dishonorable, she should have fought fair and gotten raped" and it's a standard move taught in close quarters combat classes in most modern law enforcement and militaries, which generally strive to be honorable, fighting by the laws and customs of war in the case of modern first world armies, and protecting and serving while respecting civil rights in the case of police. Not to mention, saying that "most people" think it isn't by itself an argument. There are a lot of things "most people" think that they can't quite explain if you pressure them for a detailed breakdown of why they think it.

Now, to the question you asked me about why a paladin can't lie, cheat, or use poison even if doing so gets results, the RAW presents the theory that some tactics, including torture and poison, are inherently "tools of evil" and thus tainted. as I've said before, I don't want to get into whether that's true in the real world, and moral absolutism vs moral relativism, but according to the RAW, it's true in D&D and for the purposes of Sir Cedric that's good enough. But among the "moral hard lines" the RAW lists, and books like the book of exalted deeds cover the subject in considerable detail, "kicking in the groin" or "using weak points to bypass combat" are never mentioned, and while that may sound like a cop-out on my part, please also consider that for the things that are specifically mentioned, the handicap they put on the paladin is mechanically addressed. The paladin can't lie or cheat, but he has detect evil, and while of course not all people who ever lie or cheat are evil, the game gives him a great tool to help him see who he should be wary of and avoid falling for deceptions. Similarly, ravages and afflictions, which are designed not to cause needless suffering to their targets, exist to present him a moral alternative to poison, so he'll have the options in his tool kit should a situation arise where poison is the one thing he needs to succeed in a given situation without violating his code. So where the game limits the paladin, it addresses those limits mechanically by providing options that compensate for them so that good is NOT inherently hamstrung against evil, but rather has a different, but equally effective toolkit.

It is also worth mentioning that, as some people have pointed out, perhaps our expectations of what a paladin should be have become inflated beyond what's realistically playable, and we've confused the code for "a paladin must be morally perfect". Paladins are mortals, not celestials. It's feasible to be as perfect as a celestial when you live in the Heavens and are like CR14 just by existing...doing it on Earth as a mortal man? a lot harder. Nowhere does the code say, imply, or suggest that a paladin is held to a higher standard than other LG characters, despite that many people on this board seem to not only consider them to be, but take the idea that they are for granted ("well, you can just play an LG fighter or cleric, a paladin is something special"), and in fact the code specifically says that a paladin will fall for a "GROSS" violation, not that they will fall for ANY violation, which seems to suggest they have a bit of room to interpret it and skirt the limits as situations they deal with in practice demand, and will only fall if they are serious offenders, the occasional "cheap shot" in combat, if you want to view it as a cheap shot, would probably not qualify.

If you want to play a perfect character, paladin or otherwise, a shining beacon of glorious moral wonderfulness...D&D offers you the tools to do so, the book of exalted deeds offers feats like vow of chastity (which pretty much proves paladins are not by default required to be celibate, because its bonuses are not baked into the paladin class and it would be fairly redundant otherwise), and of course the saint template, which basically amounts to "you are an absolute moral paragon and get ridiculously overpowered bonuses for it", but once again, those bonuses are not baked into the paladin class, suggesting that the saint, a morally perfect character (or at least close to it) is virtue considerably above and beyond the basic requirements of a paladin.

If you consider that, Cedric is fine as a paladin, cheap shots or not, he meets the requirements as written...he just doesn't enormously exceed them. he maybe occasionally commits a small violation of the code in service to the greater good, depending on your interpretation of the code, but he never commits a GROSS violation, nor violates needlessly. I will say that I found it grating that the fiction presented by Shilsen makes Cedric pretty much infallible in the eyes of his God and the superiors within his church, a paladin like that probably would not realistically be treated by everyone in-universe as THE GREATEST PALADIN EVAR IN THE HISTORY OF EVARZZZ, but he is an acceptable, and very interesting, paladin.

Pemerton, I am very well aware that moral theories have been proposed where such catch 22s exist, I just see the logic behind them as inherently flawed and invalid, they often boil down to questions of people in leadership positions having to make hard decisions between "bad" and "worse" outcomes, and saying they're evil either way, or presenting self-contradictory logic like "the greatest good is to become evil so that others don't have to, sacrificing your soul for theirs...but you're still evil...but it's good", and I just don't see the world that way, and think that kind of logic exists solely so that people can have their cake and eat it too, keep their hands clean by hating their leaders for making moral compromises while reaping the benefits thereof.

On another note...I may just be an idiot, but I can't find the site rules for this forum anywhere, and I don't want my discussion to run afoul of them, could somebody provide a link to the rules or tell me where they are?

 

[JamesonCourage]

JamesonCourage, I'm definitely starting to see the paladin you envision taking shape in my mind now.

I'm glad some of what I say makes sense

I think the glorious paladin sometimes has to do moral math and wrestle with questions like "if I die gloriously here, will the legend that survives me, and the people inspired by it ultimately do more good than if I lived to help and inspire others in the future?"

I agree, which is why I think it's fine for a Paladin to leave sometimes, if there's no hope of winning. Try to evacuate as many people as possible, or go help a fortress that has a chance of winning instead of one that will assuredly be lost. There's Moral Math (like the sound of that) to be done!

Watch Game of Thrones sometime, or read the Song of Ice and Fire books from which it was drawn, and you'll see my point played out

I've seen the show, and discussed the books. I'm not necessarily discussing realistic effectiveness, I'm discussing the Paladin's Code. Do Good or die trying, really. Inspire those around you to do Good by your honor, your purity, your strength. And if your strength fails you, your bravery to stand up for what is right, even in the face of impossible odds.

Sometimes, it might be Fall or Die. It's just the unfortunate reality of the Paladin code as it stands by the Rules as Written, since you may need to lie, cheat, or use poison to win a fight at some point. And, when you tack on more restrictions (based on the "and so forth" wording), of course they might get more caught up in rules than in effectiveness.

Your argument makes sense, and I can see a very Lawful Good person making it. It's just not good enough for a Paladin, from my view.

If you have to act with honor and respect legitimate authority, what if a legitimate authority figure commands you to do something you consider dishonorable?

Resign from service, in my opinion.

If you have to help those in need and punish those who threaten innocents, what if you encounter someone who mugged an innocent for money to buy bread because he was starving?

Take the money back, and give it back to the mugged family. See if you can arrange for the mugger to get an honest job, or arrange for him to accompany you to the next town and get work there, if possible.

Of course, a lot of this will change based on circumstances, and I do get your point, which I'll reply to in a moment.

Paladins have to have some room to make up their own minds in these situations which side of the code they go with and what kind of paladin they are, without the DM saying absolutely that one side is the right side and the other will cause them to fall.

This is a social contract issue. I'd rather my GM decide for me; I can focus on my character, and react to the setting. But that's because it's not as open in my view, and I'll talk about right now.

because then clearly the Gods have made up their minds which side is right already. In a polytheistic setting, who's to say THE GODS agree on the subject?

This is where it's more set to me, as I've always seen Paladins as drawing their power from Good as reward for following their calling and the Code, and not as given by any god. Paladins, in my view, are set to such a strict view because of the restrictions Good has set, not because of what individual gods have set.

As for what you said that "most people" would view kicking in the groin as a dishonorable cheap shot, I think it depends on the circumstances.

I don't. But I see "justified dirty fighting" as completely different from "fighting honorably." I don't think people would condemn her for hitting someone in the groin, but I don't think most of my friends would say it's "honorable" either. They'd probably stop to think longer about it since they'd obviously sympathize with the victim, but I think they'd frame it as I have.

Not to mention, saying that "most people" think it isn't by itself an argument. There are a lot of things "most people" think that they can't quite explain if you pressure them for a detailed breakdown of why they think it.

I brought up "most people" because honor in combat is basically defined by society, which means that, in my mind, "most people" is very important in deciding that.

Now, to the question you asked me about why a paladin can't lie, cheat, or use poison even if doing so gets results, the RAW presents the theory that some tactics, including torture and poison, are inherently "tools of evil" and thus tainted.

Well, yes, in the Core 3e book, lying seems Evil, but poison doesn't seem to be. And I bring up the Core book for a couple or reasons. One, the Paladin was written in that context, and that's important to me. And two, that's how I played the game; I didn't include the Book of Exalted Deeds, Vile Darkness, and the like. I just used the Core 3.

So, while I agree that I don't want to go into the real world moral philosophy on such issues, I'd like to go into the D&D concept of why the Paladin can't. It's listed as a matter of honor: "act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)". In the context of a Paladin seeing it as a manner of honor, and the core 3 not saying that poison is Evil, I feel perfectly fine making my judgment on the matter as "honor" and not "Good or Evil."

and while that may sound like a cop-out on my part, please also consider that for the things that are specifically mentioned, the handicap they put on the paladin is mechanically addressed. The paladin can't lie or cheat, but he has detect evil, and while of course not all people who ever lie or cheat are evil, the game gives him a great tool to help him see who he should be wary of and avoid falling for deceptions.

Well, nothing bars a Lawful Good Cleric from occasionally lying, cheating, or using poison, and he gets the Detect spells. I don't think that the Paladin getting the Detect Evil spell-like is because he can't lie, cheat, and use poison; he gets it because he needs to find Evil and do Good. But, that's my view, and I accept yours.

So where the game limits the paladin, it addresses those limits mechanically by providing options that compensate for them so that good is NOT inherently hamstrung against evil, but rather has a different, but equally effective toolkit.

I think that the Paladin would be fine, mechanically, without such restrictions. He probably won't pass up a Lawful Good Fighter in combat, even if he was allowed to lie, cheat, and use poison like the Fighter can. I personally don't see the abilities as making up for it, but as a mechanical limitation placed to make the Paladin act as the designers thought a Paladin ought to act. Which leans towards the Glory Paladin, from my point of view.

Nowhere does the code say, imply, or suggest that a paladin is held to a higher standard than other LG characters

I think the actual inherent mechanical limitations of the class definitely implies that they're held to a higher standard than others. For instance, they lose all Paladin powers if they willingly commit any Evil act. That's a lot harsher standard than other Lawful Good characters, in my book.

My 3.5 books (and all other books) are in storage at the moment (while I'm homeless), but I think the Paladin class description implies a higher standard, doesn't it?

in fact the code specifically says that a paladin will fall for a "GROSS" violation, not that they will fall for ANY violation, which seems to suggest they have a bit of room to interpret it and skirt the limits as situations they deal with in practice demand, and will only fall if they are serious offenders, the occasional "cheap shot" in combat, if you want to view it as a cheap shot, would probably not qualify.

This is an interesting point, and a good catch. I'd probably think of "gross" as something along the lines of "conscious and voluntary disregard" of the code. But I can easily see looser interpretations of it, and might even use those depending on the setting.

If you consider that, Cedric is fine as a paladin, cheap shots or not, he meets the requirements as written...he just doesn't enormously exceed them.

Well, as I said in my original comment, I wouldn't even peg him as Lawful. I'm place him at Neutral. He acts Lawfully some of the time, but I also see a lot of Chaotic tendencies or actions in him. Have you read most of the thread (including all of the arguments, and not just fiction)? A lot of good arguments get made on why I think this is the case.

I will say that I found it grating that the fiction presented by Shilsen makes Cedric pretty much infallible in the eyes of his God and the superiors within his church, a paladin like that probably would not realistically be treated by everyone in-universe as THE GREATEST PALADIN EVAR IN THE HISTORY OF EVARZZZ, but he is an acceptable, and very interesting, paladin.

The grating part I definitely get. It got old, right around the time that the Cleric was recounting tells to the younger Paladin, though even the "Bob" incident before that grated on me in a different way.

The concept, though, is an interesting character, in my view. It's just not an interesting Paladin. As always, play what you like

On another note...I may just be an idiot, but I can't find the site rules for this forum anywhere, and I don't want my discussion to run afoul of them, could somebody provide a link to the rules or tell me where they are?

They're hidden, but here you go: http://www.enworld.org/forum/faq.php?faq=faq_rules#faq_new_faq_irule1

 

[pemerton]

they often boil down to questions of people in leadership positions having to make hard decisions between "bad" and "worse" outcomes, and saying they're evil either way, or presenting self-contradictory logic like "the greatest good is to become evil so that others don't have to, sacrificing your soul for theirs...but you're still evil...but it's good"

I think that that's a little harsh as a reading of "Politics as a Vocation", or even as a reading of "The Prince"!

I think at the heart of "Politics as a Vocation" is a pessimistic atheism. (And Weber expresses the same outlook in "Science as a Vocation" also.) That is, Weber denies that there are any workings of providence that will ensure that, if only everyone (including leaders) does good, everything will turn out for the best. Hence the importance of the "ethic of responsibility".

My own view is that a traditional D&D paladin is not really playable against that sort of background assumption. At the heart of the traditional D&D paladin is optimism - that a person who acts with honour, courtesy, charity etc will prevail, and bring the world along with him/her.

I just don't see the world that way

Fair enough, but the question then becomes how is virtue to be preserved? And how is that to be reconciled with the demands of the game?

In Plato we get the idea (from Socrates) that the good person cannot suffer harm, but that isn't viable for an RPG - Socrates may be correct that death is not harm, but it is pretty much the end of a PC as a vehicle for a player to engage the gameworld. In Kant an optimistic, providential view is maintained via the argument for the afterlife etc. Again, whether or not this is true, it doesn't seem a workable basis for an RPG.

In the Socratic or Kantian framework, the solution to the "Catch-22" you describe above - "having to choose between falling to save innocents and allowing innocents to die to keep honor" - is to do what honour permits or requires, and if the paladin, or other innocents, die as a result, then that is not the paladin's fault, and providence will ensure that it all balances out (the innocent will go to heaven, the wrongdoers be punished in the afterlife, etc).

"Lawful Stupid" isn't stupid, within that framework, because to die is not to suffer harm. In one version of the Arthurian romances (Chretien de Troyes, I think) Lancelot kills six (or so) of his fellow knights in escaping with Guinevere. There is no suggestion that he made a mistake in killing them, or that they made a mistake in fighting and dying - each has done the right thing, and that this happened to through them into conflict and lead to these killings is just part of the mysterious workings of the world.

Given the importance of character survival to the viability of standard D&D play, I think there are two ways to handle these "Catch 22s" for a paladin PC: if everyone wants a reasonably straightforward game then the GM has to make sure not to force the paladin into situations in which death is the only honourable and proper optio; or if those at the table are happier for something a bit more modern and "gritty" in its moral flavour, the GM has to let the player of the paladin make decisions about what is permitted, and what not, and what counts as "falling".

But if the GM, or the game system, just affirms that the paladin is doing what is permitted because it would be "Lawful Stupid" to do otherwise, then I don't think we're talking about a paladin at all. Because we're imposing a funadmentally modern moral perspective (particularly conceiving of death as a harm - and, more generally, your consequentialist reasoning about the good that will follow from a paladin's legend) that doesn't fit with the paladin, which is a fundamentally pre-modern, romantic archetype.

I think, therefore, that to at least some extent I'm in agreement with [MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION].

 

[pemerton]

I also want to conjure up [MENTION=3887]Mallus[/MENTION]! As a Cedric-sympathiser, presumably Mallus thinks that the paladin archetype can have cogency outside the romantic, providential framework that I describe.

Mallus, tell us more!