I am pretty sure that torture is a fear effect. Paladins are immune to fear. Ergo: you can not break a paladin under torture. You can tempt them, but you can't break them. Barring certain powerful magics.That's .... Something that I never considered but a pretty cool interpretation. Remove the fear element and the only reason for breaking would be from a selfish sense of self-preservation vs. devotion to the faith. This is a much cleaner scenario where falling could result.
I have to chew on this some, but I like it on 1st glance.
Yep, fearless cannot be broken. You could work off other emotions, but you can't crack them with fear, they aren't actually human in that sense.
Slightly off topic but the comic Order of the Stick had an excellent Paladin antagonist based around this (immune to fear not lying to demons).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sam Harris wrote a short book called simply "Lying" which is a valuable read. In it, he stresses that outright falsehoods are a losing scenario (i.e., morally untenable), but that "sinning by omission" not only isn't lying, but is actually totally unavoidable in any realistic sense.
Example: I'm wearing a shirt my wife hasn't seen me in before. She asks, "Where did that come from? -- it looks nice!"
The answer she wants is "From your mother last Christmas! Tell her I love it!"
But that's a constellation of omissions, because the complete and true answer is, "I don't know. I'd guess it was retailed at Belk's in Columbia, South Carolina maybe, but that's really irrelevant because the shirt itself was assembled in Indonesia and then shipped to a port in the U.S., for whence it was trucked to the store... although, honestly, the threads for the fabric were doubtless manufactured somewhere else, and I'll have to do some research and get back to you on that. I don't know what other materials were used and what their provenances are, either... how important is it for you to know all this?"
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In no game session I've ever played was torture something of any lasting nature - your character does not carry mechanical scars for being tortured. Why even worry about it? It's just story at the time. Besides the player isn't being tortured.I'd guess that I'm not the only one who finds this a little too meta-gamey for their tastes.
"Just story" not only derides what's going on, but if I'm going to take part in such a flimsy exercise, I have to ask myself, why am I even playing?
The lack of "torture mechanics" seems a rather gaping hole in a system that even feels the need to have mechanics for social skills.
|
|
Oh I agree your screwed either way I just want it understood your probably not going to paradise for your heavenly rewards. Nope your staying in hell until old age kills you off.(To be clear, if you're actually in Hell or the Abyss, it wouldn't surprise me that they'd have some sort of immortal witch somewhere with the ability to use Forced Reincarnation on you after you aged for a while, thus rebooting you to young adult state. Forever, in all likelihood, until you get bored.)
Alternatively, there's turning you into an undead, too.
Alternately there's direct deific intervention. Shouldn't happen very often, of course.
If they are actually in Hell or the Abyss, direct deification intervention is extremely unlikely. Since both those planes are populated by Evil gods every bit as powerful (if not more so) than the paladin's god. Ones that wouldn't take any more kindly to a Good god barging into their backyard than Good gods would to an Evil god cruising into heaven and doing one thing evil there.
I once misled some people and I did not have to utter a single lie/false information. I just gave true information worded very specifically to help a misunderstanding on their part and did not say anything to correct said misunderstanding when it occurred.
It was frighteningly easy and something I definitely do not relish, but it is not something I feel really guilty about (because they were not hurt by it in any way).
How would you, then, respond to a young, land-bound paladin singing that popular, non-raunchy, but catchy song about how he's an old salt that sailed the seven seas that he recently heard in the tavern back there?
How would you, then, respond to a paladin who told a joke or fable that had talking animals that weren't first awakened by a druid?
How would you, then, respond to a married paladin who told his wife (as Kirth's example above) "it's from your mother last Christmas"?
What about a paladin using a metaphor?
All of the above is at least partially false information. The last is actually normal communicating by using language as it's intended and generally understood.
Also guys, I pointed out above: misleading and lying are synonyms - that means they're synonymous; in other words, they're the same thing. Let me reiterate: this is not honorable.
Another point to ponder on the code:
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.
Does the "help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil and chaotic ends)" have a limit in its duration of "use that help" - a statute of limitations, per se? For example, if you save someone's life, and they're chaotic, they're innately going to (eventually) use that life for chaotic means. That's their alignment.
On the same topic, how does "help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil and chaotic ends)" interact with "punish those who harm or threaten innocents" in a situation in which a paladin is told either to tell, say, a demon sensitive information that will be used for evil and chaotic ends or watch innocents die each day? Or a devil?
The most direct way to read it is that the Paladin cannot aid those people.
Here's the thing to remember about paladins, their gods (if any), and the like. Paladins are called to a "higher standard", yes. But if a Paladin makes a mistake or chooses the wrong thing with the absolute intent to do the right thing, I'm pretty sure than absolutely any reasonable deity would - depending on the severity of the failure, granted - give leeway.
There's a difference between hard-line RAW and a good gaming experience. There's always a little bit of interpretation.
Core RAW the paladin cannot lie, or else they fall. They cannot purposefully mislead (a dishonorable act, and a form of lying) or else they fall. They can give honest information, allow the foe to come to their own conclusion, and then not correct said foe, but that's different than purposefully setting out to deceive them.
Reasonably speaking and in any sort of functional reality, there are probably times when this is not absolute, and we are given a code in which this is changed under certain circumstances. Paladins are given leeway for being fallible, mortal, and unable to always comprehend the full situation.
To go Biblically, and paraphrase Paul - knowledge of the law brings understanding and reveals sin... but before that sin is revealed it's usually not imparted as sin (even though it is sin) because, they literally didn't know any better.
It's like punishing a one-year-old for accidentally spilling his milk everywhere (which is different than purposefully doing so). You may be super frustrated, but he didn't know any better... reprimand, sure, but don't unduly punish.
There are times that a mortal paladin will, in good faith, make the wrong decision, thinking they're making the right one, and thus violate they're code. They don't know any better or are deceived (either by their own mind or the other's). Once they do, of course, they'll need to go atone... but that shouldn't really cause them to fall most of the time, only for the most egregious actions.
|
|
IMO theologians are very far from the best persons to disambiguate things. After all, they are trained (as are some other professions too, including mine) to be able to explain ANYTHING in a logical and, even more important, acceptable way.
As a reminder, Jesuits did justify telling lies (or more exactly incomplete truths), even after swearing on the Holy Bible, by reasoning that God heard the thoughts as well as the words and that if the whole sentence (words said and words unsaid) was true, then they were not lying in the eyes of God.
Lot of cleverness there. Lot of hypocrisy too IMO. A Paladin who would try this at my table would soon find that his god (me) is NOT amused.
There is a huge difference between using legal/theological loopholes to your benefit and pointing out that the fact that lying is wrong does not mean you should give information to someone who is going to use that information for evil/immoral ends.
And silence can be giving someone information if they assume that silence implies guilt - an unfortunate assumption but one that does come up even with a legal system that supposedly protects your right to remain silent.
While I think that paladins who use misleading truths in these situations are awesome, I also believe that intent to deceive is the key element here, which is one reason I look down on the Jesuit logic. I would not accept a paladin using misleading truths in a situation in which I would consider it wrong for them to outright lie - that may keep to the letter of the code but disrespects the spirit.
I feel that moral dilemmas by definition do not have a simple right answer. Rather than turn situations in which parts of the code are in conflict (protecting innocents vs behaving honourably) into a fall-or-fall, or a test to see whether the paladin agrees with me, I prefer to let individual paladins or paladin orders decide what takes priority. As long as they make an honest attempt to do the right thing they should be fine.
To go Biblically, and paraphrase Paul - knowledge of the law brings understanding and reveals sin... but before that sin is revealed it's usually not imparted as sin (even though it is sin) because, they literally didn't know any better.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
The reason why human law makes excuses because it assumes many many things.1) reasonable guilt
2) culpablity (not same guilt): mental state of one doing crime in essence, aka Mens rea
3) responsibility (aka reason we don't punish toddlers for spilling milk)
4)Depravity of the person committing a crime (we punish the more saddistic killers despite same crime of less sadistic killers due to fear of how bad they are)
Almost all of this is based on gust instinct.
And silence can be giving someone information if they assume that silence implies guilt - an unfortunate assumption but one that does come up even with a legal system that supposedly protects your right to remain silent.
I counter with Bill of Rights.
IMO theologians are very far from the best persons to disambiguate things. After all, they are trained (as are some other professions too, including mine) to be able to explain ANYTHING in a logical and, even more important, acceptable way.
As a reminder, Jesuits did justify telling lies (or more exactly incomplete truths), even after swearing on the Holy Bible, by reasoning that God heard the thoughts as well as the words and that if the whole sentence (words said and words unsaid) was true, then they were not lying in the eyes of God.
Lot of cleverness there. Lot of hypocrisy too IMO. A Paladin who would try this at my table would soon find that his god (me) is NOT amused.
There is a huge difference between using legal/theological loopholes to your benefit and pointing out that the fact that lying is wrong does not mean you should give information to someone who is going to use that information for evil/immoral ends.
And silence can be giving someone information if they assume that silence implies guilt - an unfortunate assumption but one that does come up even with a legal system that supposedly protects your right to remain silent.
While I think that paladins who use misleading truths in these situations are awesome, I also believe that intent to deceive is the key element here, which is one reason I look down on the Jesuit logic. I would not accept a paladin using misleading truths in a situation in which I would consider it wrong for them to outright lie - that may keep to the letter of the code but disrespects the spirit.
I feel that moral dilemmas by definition do not have a simple right answer. Rather than turn situations in which parts of the code are in conflict (protecting innocents vs behaving honourably) into a fall-or-fall, or a test to see whether the paladin agrees with me, I prefer...
I did not agree with your initial post. This one is better and clarifies your position more. I can't say I fully embrace it, but it does make much more sense.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
To go Biblically, and paraphrase Paul - knowledge of the law brings understanding and reveals sin... but before that sin is revealed it's usually not imparted as sin (even though it is sin) because, they literally didn't know any better.
Yes. It is. It literally is a point of excuse. Those who don't know can't do. Ignorance doesn't excuse everything, but it does reduce the amount of things that are held against those that violate.
Look: if I'm from a foreign country and accidentally break one of the local laws, say, Jay Walking, I'm going to receive greater leniency than otherwise because of a lack of knowledge. If that doesn't happen, than whoever is prosecuting is a jerk.
I agree that there are somethings that ignorance doesn't excuse, but there is wiggle room for finite sentience and confusion. RAW? Absolutely not. RAW indicates there can be no wiggle room. But even if there is wiggle room, the Paladin is held to a far, far higher standard than any mortal. An impossible one, as I pointed out.
The reason why human law makes excuses because it assumes many many things.
Let's look at these.
1) reasonable guilt
Define "reasonable". At what point does this apply across the board?
2) culpablity (not same guilt): mental state of one doing crime in essence, aka Mens rea
Which I address above.
3) responsibility (aka reason we don't punish toddlers for spilling milk)
Which I address above (hint: this is partially based in ignorance).
4)Depravity of the person committing a crime (we punish the more saddistic killers despite same crime of less sadistic killers due to fear of how bad they are)
Which I address above.
Almost all of this is based on gust instinct.
And all but one ("reasonable guilt") I address in my above post - the question is what is "reasonable guilt" to you? If a paladin literally doesn't know what the right choice is, and makes one based off of false information (even if that false information is his own imagination) it doesn't automatically cause him to fall. Otherwise whenever he complimented the sweater that came from his mother in law, he'd fall. That makes no sense and is unreasonable and impossible for a mortal to accomplish.
I counter with Bill of Rights.And silence can be giving someone information if they assume that silence implies guilt - an unfortunate assumption but one that does come up even with a legal system that supposedly protects your right to remain silent.
I agree with both of you.
The Bill of Rights is meant to protect a right, but there are times in which it doesn't. There are times in which it fails. But sometimes (though extremely rarely) it fails for the better - in this case it's either the spirit of the law that's followed instead of the letter (which is a good thing) or there is enough evidence that leads to the implication of guilt regardless (which is a slippery slope because "enough" is a very vague term - this is extremely dangerous, and mostly a "happenstance" of good).
The vast, vast majority of the time, however, when it fails, it fails due to simply ignoring the law, following neither the spirit nor the letter, and this leads to bad outcomes.
It's worth noting, thought, Starbuck_II, that he already included the possibility of the "inherent" rights of a citizen, but noted that they are occasionally ignored.
I once misled some people and I did not have to utter a single lie/false information. I just gave true information worded very specifically to help a misunderstanding on their part and did not say anything to correct said misunderstanding when it occurred.
It was frighteningly easy and something I definitely do not relish, but it is not something I feel really guilty about (because they were not hurt by it in any way).
How would you, then, respond to a young, land-bound paladin singing that popular, non-raunchy, but catchy song about how he's an old salt that sailed the seven seas that he recently heard in the tavern back there?
How would you, then, respond to a paladin who told a joke or fable that had talking animals that weren't first awakened by a druid?
How would you, then, respond to a married paladin who told his wife (as Kirth's example above) "it's from your mother last Christmas"?
What about a paladin using a metaphor?
All of the above is at least partially false information. The last is actually normal communicating by using language as it's intended and generally understood.
Also guys, I pointed out above: misleading and lying are synonyms - that means they're synonymous; in other words, they're the same thing. Let me reiterate: this is not honorable.
There is so much wrong in this post, I barely know where to start.
All of your examples of "lying" are only lying if you stretch the deinition of lying to the breaking point. You're being insidious.Synonynms are words with similar meanings, but not necessarily the same. Big, large, enormous, gigantic and huge are all synonyms, so that means Large swords are the same as Huge sowrds? That argument is just nonsensical.
On the same topic, how does "help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil and chaotic ends)" interact with "punish those who harm or threaten innocents" in a situation in which a paladin is told either to tell, say, a demon sensitive information that will be used for evil and chaotic ends or watch innocents die each day? Or a devil?
I repeat. If the paladin thinks for a single moment that you saying or doing anything except smiting the demon, would stop him from harming or threatening innocents, he is beyond retarded. The demon would get the answer, and then torture some more people while laughing and going 'Oh, my beelzebub, I can't believe you would trust me.'
I'm not sure why any god is giving paladinhood to creatures with int2 but they should stop it. 'Oh, but the devil totally promised me he would stop torturing people' 'Did you sign a contract?' 'No, I was bound to a torture table' 'Yeah, verbal contracts with devils are worth only the paper they're written on, in an exact economic scale, and that ain't much.'|
|
I counter with Bill of Rights.And silence can be giving someone information if they assume that silence implies guilt - an unfortunate assumption but one that does come up even with a legal system that supposedly protects your right to remain silent.
Does not work if the country you're in doesn't have something equivalent to the Bill of Rights (more than plausible in a middle-ages style setting) or if there is a Bill of Rights but your accuser/interrogator is ignoring it.
And even with it formally protected the right to remain silent is not always safe. Here we see a man told that because his wife won't deny having an affair she's clearly up to something. Here we have local courts ignoring proper protections against self-incrimination (to later be corrected by higher legal authority). And it's not even a clear issue when you reach higher legal authorities. If you're a non-criminal case your silence might be able to be held against you: "[The Court of Appeals] acknowledged there was an evidentiary rule that allowed silence to be used against a speaker, but that rule applied primarily to non-criminal defendants." And the Supreme Court is up to decide exactly when and how strongly your right to silence kicks in, with the question being whether it's incriminating for a person to remain silent before being arrested or given their Miranda rights and whether being silent on particular issues is incriminating if you've allowed yourself to be questioned on other issues.
Courts upholding the use of silence as evidence at trial including federal appeals courts based in New Orleans, Atlanta, Richmond, and St. Louis, and state supreme courts in Texas, Minnesota, Missouri, Maryland, and North Dakota.
The Bill of Rights is supposed to protect your right to remain silent but sometimes it does so imperfectly even in our legal system which is supposed to protect those rights.
If there exists a jury in the USA that is willing to convict a person on the grounds of incriminating silence (even if that conviction is overturned) you are not going to convince me that a random bounty hunter in a country without similar legal protections (like most countries in the time of knights) is going to respect the paladin's right to remain silent when he refuses to deny that his travelling companion has a bounty on her head.
The Bill of Rights doesn't matter on the topic of paladins.
|
|
The Bill of Rights doesn't matter on the topic of paladins.
Which was actually my point. There is nothing protecting the paladin's right to remain silent in a situation in which the truth is dangerous to others, and if the paladin chooses to remain silent there might be negative consequences for them or those under their protection.
As has been amply demonstrated in other paladin threads, people of one alignment find it really difficult to get their heads around the opposite alignment, often misunderstanding it and reaching the wrong conclusions.
I beg to differ. It's my career.
Actually, no. Darkflame said why in the post just above. You can fall for acting without honor, even if the act is not evil.
Remember : Chaotic does not mean Evil.
So, anyone with a Chaotic alignment is necessarily dishonorable?
Knowing what I do about psychology, there's a bit of a problem with one of the premises of this thread.
Any creature who can experience pain, or who understands the concept of mortality, experiences fear. It's a survival mechanism. There are, in fact, human children born without the ability to experience pain. Children like these do things no normal human ever would, like say jumping out of a 3rd story window over and over, because it's fun. Those same kids end up in full body casts, because their bodies are broken. It's actually a detriment to continued survival to be immune to pain.
These same children also eventually learn of mortality, once they get old enough, just like regular kids. And they are absolutely terrified of the concept. They become acutely aware of any sort of bodily damage, even though they don't feel pain. Often, their lifespans are shortened.
Therefore, I argue that Paladins DO experience fear in character, just not magically induced fear. They may go to Heaven when they die, but that doesn't mean there isn't loss. They can't protect their loved ones, or experience life if they die.
Oddly enough, most PC's don't experience fear in the mundane sense, if only because it's a game and thus no lasting consequences. They do, however, experience magically induced fear. This produces game mechanic penalties. Paladins however are immune to these mechanics. That's their advantage.
The preceding was merely a series of conjectures, but I think them reasonable.
Knowing what I do about psychology, there's a bit of a problem with one of the premises of this thread.
Any creature who can experience pain, or who understands the concept of mortality, experiences fear. It's a survival mechanism. There are, in fact, human children born without the ability to experience pain. Children like these do things no normal human ever would, like say jumping out of a 3rd story window over and over, because it's fun. Those same kids end up in full body casts, because their bodies are broken. It's actually a detriment to continued survival to be immune to pain.
These same children also eventually learn of mortality, once they get old enough, just like regular kids. And they are absolutely terrified of the concept. They become acutely aware of any sort of bodily damage, even though they don't feel pain. Often, their lifespans are shortened.
Therefore, I argue that Paladins DO experience fear in character, just not magically induced fear. They may go to Heaven when they die, but that doesn't mean there isn't loss. They can't protect their loved ones, or experience life if they die.
Oddly enough, most PC's don't experience fear in the mundane sense, if only because it's a game and thus no lasting consequences. They do, however, experience magically induced fear. This produces game mechanic penalties. Paladins however are immune to these mechanics. That's their advantage.
The preceding was merely a series of conjectures, but I think them reasonable.
Reasonable but wrong. Paladins are immune to fear, magical and otherwise. So they're immune to normal fears too. Without the fear of pain and the fear of death I imagine torture would be much less effective.
Paladins are not immune to pain and I have no idea what that has to do with anything.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lord Moran, a physician during WWI, had this to say: "A man's courage is his capital and he is always spending... I affirm that men wear out in war like clothes." Evidently paladins somehow have an inexhaustable supply.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins are immune to SU fear, and spells. I'm sure they can still suffer from the kind of fears such as self doubt or insecurity. They are still mortal and failable.
As to the lying, I think they will always be honest.
Otherwise you end up witha reputation like the Aes Sedai in the WoT series, where everyone knows that they take magicly bound oaths to not tell lies, but everybody also knows not to take anythign they say at face value. This is not honesty.
I can't buy a paladin where people who know him can't trust his word, where they're forced to parse his statements like they would a devil's. I can accept lying under coercion much easier then technically not lying on a day-to-day, uncoerced basis.Carrot is one of the best knight-in-shining-armour paladins I've seen. That bit's from Men at Arms. After a bit of searching, found a closer paraphrase if not a perfect transcription:
Sam Vimes had just told Carrot that if the Assassins refused to freely allow him into their compound, he was to go away.
Thus Carrot, after politely knocking on the door, informs Dr. Cruces that if he did not let him in, he would be forced to obey his instructions, to the letter.
"What if we resist?"
"That would only make it easier. If it makes you feel better, I would deeply regret it."
Day to day a paldin would say the truth, nothing but the truth so help him god. Either that or be quiet. The misdirection is saved for when he is desperate, under coercion, has no other option or when the whole truth would endanger or hurt innocents.
It's not hard:1: Always say the truth. Even when it's a harsh truth. ESPECIALLY when it is a harsh truth.
2: If you can't say the truth, be quiet. Silence is gold, words are silver and false words are wothless.
3: If you are forced to answer but the truth would endanger innocents, don't tell the whole truth. Say just enough of it with the right emphasis and in the right order, that those crafty liars will just craft their own lies. Let them lie to themseves, you have no obligation to correct them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Looking for a loophole in the ability of the Paladin to lie without being hit by the double-edged sword of his convictions is more of a game mechanic. Paladins take theses codes upon themselves because they believe in them, and being a paladin wouldn't search for ways to circumvent their own convictions. More than breaking down what is lying or even worse "what is truth?" is irrelevant if you are in the characters' head. Put yourself in the mindset that lying is abhorrent, a damnable act, and you can play out the reaction of your character from his perspective. Whom the paladin is interacting with is not as important as to his view of what he is doing. If lying would save his friends but cost him a part of his soul, then ask yourself is he willing to pay either price. The lawful goodness of the paladin is supposed to be a burden he has chosen, not one he constantly seeks to escape.
Metagaming is still a jerkass move, whether it's from a player or a GM. The setup isn't a demon planning in a context appropriate way, it's a Demon who's been reading the Core Rulebook and "gaming" the system. What these messageboards have succeeded in doing is souring me on the entire class in a fairly irreversible way. It seems to have planted a poisonous meme that alignment questions are only relevant if they are a test to activate a Paladin's self-destruct. Because quite frankly if a GM puts forward a scenario where the ONLY solution is to fall as a class, that's jerkass secenario being constructed by a sadistic GM, or a cynic who's looking to spread his disillusionment further, or someone who's watched four seasons of Torchwood.And what happens when the Bad Evil Demon, at the words "do your worst" answers "then i'm gonna kill an innocent in front of you on the first day you are not going to answer me, then two on the second day, then three on the third... It's not my worst, but i can get some fun from it."?
It's not being a jerky GM, it is playing a demon how it should be played (and that would still be being fair, because a real demon would go with 100 on the first day, 200 on the second and so on... if not even worst).
That's not metagaming at all. I think a demon would and should play this trick on any character whom he knows is good and altruistic enough to suffer from this kind of torture... That's what demons do: delight in other people suffering. The fact that it happens to a paladin is purely theoretical as is all this specific scheme.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I beg to differ. It's my career.As has been amply demonstrated in other paladin threads, people of one alignment find it really difficult to get their heads around the opposite alignment, often misunderstanding it and reaching the wrong conclusions.
Think about that for a moment, 'Doctor'!
How many years of study did you have before being allowed to practice?
What study and qualities and qualifications did you need before even being eligible to train for that career in the first place?
When I said it was difficult, the mere fact that a person needs so much training to be thought of as competent in this field, just illustrates that it is, in fact, difficult.
On topic, the real world has seen tens of thousands of scholarly publications on the nature of good and evil, what actions are good or evil (like lying, saving innocents), and the relative importance of these different things.
The gods who have paladins want paladins! They are not motivated into tricking them into falling by fall or fall scenarios. Just like in real life, when all else is equal, telling the truth is good while lying is not. However, just like real life, there may come a situation where a good person is forced by circumstances beyond his control to choose between lying to the men who threaten innocents, or to either tell them that, yes, there are Jews hiding in the attic, or stay silent when silence would have the same result as admitting that there are innocents in the attic.
Just like real life, these two 'wrongs' must be weighed against one another. Just like real life, the 'right' response in such a circumstance is to lie, or if you are clever enough, say something which, while not untrue, you believe will be taken to mean something which is not true.
If a paladin uses his judgement in this way, then his god will judge him, and in this case realise that the paladin chose the best choice available, and did the maximum good possible. How would the god reach the conclusion that the paladin should fall? The god wants paladins to be smart and do the right thing in any particular circumstance, not wait until the paladin makes the very same choice that the god would have made in his place, and then think that this was not good enough!
The Paladin falls Because he used his judgement. In the case of grey areas, the Paladin has the code. Should the Paladin lie? No. To what, and for what reason is irrelevant. If you are looking for loopholes in the code, then you have already failed.
|
|
The Paladin falls Because he used his judgement. In the case of grey areas, the Paladin has the code. Should the Paladin lie? No. To what, and for what reason is irrelevant. If you are looking for loopholes in the code, then you have already failed.
You postulate a situation where even the god (of good) would fall. Such a situation, where even the god of good could not be a paladin, would mean that no mortal paladin could exist. Since paladins do exist in our game worlds, then the situation cannot be as you postulate.
The Paladin falls Because he used his judgement. In the case of grey areas, the Paladin has the code. Should the Paladin lie? No. To what, and for what reason is irrelevant. If you are looking for loopholes in the code, then you have already failed.You postulate a situation where even the god (of good) would fall. Such a situation, where even the god of good could not be a paladin, would mean that no mortal paladin could exist. Since paladins do exist in our game worlds, then the situation cannot be as you postulate.
Well, first off I don't see how a God falls in this situation. (I think a God could easily just kill the demon, walk out of hell, and go have some tea.) Second, why would a God want to be a Paladin? That would seem to be a step down from Godhood.
|
|
Well, first off I don't see how a God falls in this situation. (I think a God could easily just kill the demon, walk out of hell, and go have some tea.) Second, why would a God want to be a Paladin? That would seem to be a step down from Godhood.The Paladin falls Because he used his judgement. In the case of grey areas, the Paladin has the code. Should the Paladin lie? No. To what, and for what reason is irrelevant. If you are looking for loopholes in the code, then you have already failed.You postulate a situation where even the god (of good) would fall. Such a situation, where even the god of good could not be a paladin, would mean that no mortal paladin could exist. Since paladins do exist in our game worlds, then the situation cannot be as you postulate.
I'll be more clear. If the god of good, with all his divine intelligence and wisdom, were in the paladin's situation (including only having the powers of the mortal paladin), and even he with all that wisdom couldn't come up with any solution available to a mortal paladin without falling, then it would be impossible for a mortal with the divine wisdom of the god of good to be a paladin.
Since even those with divine wisdom couldn't 'follow that code', then it's not possible for a mortal paladin with mortal wisdom to be a paladin either.
Since paladins do exist, then it must be possible to be a paladin, even with mortal wisdom. Therefore, these conundrums must have a solution available to a mortal paladin; it must be possible to get a 'right' answer! Therefore, it cannot be that all possible answers result in a fall. It must be that choosing the 'best' solution is good enough!
Well, first off I don't see how a God falls in this situation. (I think a God could easily just kill the demon, walk out of hell, and go have some tea.) Second, why would a God want to be a Paladin? That would seem to be a step down from Godhood.The Paladin falls Because he used his judgement. In the case of grey areas, the Paladin has the code. Should the Paladin lie? No. To what, and for what reason is irrelevant. If you are looking for loopholes in the code, then you have already failed.You postulate a situation where even the god (of good) would fall. Such a situation, where even the god of good could not be a paladin, would mean that no mortal paladin could exist. Since paladins do exist in our game worlds, then the situation cannot be as you postulate.I'll be more clear. If the god of good, with all his divine intelligence and wisdom, were in the paladin's situation (including only having the powers of the mortal paladin), and even he with all that wisdom couldn't come up with any solution available to a mortal paladin without falling, then it would be impossible for a mortal with the divine wisdom of the god of good to be a paladin.
Since even those with divine wisdom couldn't 'follow that code', then it's not possible for a mortal paladin with mortal wisdom to be a paladin either.
Since paladins do exist, then it must be possible to be a paladin, even with mortal wisdom. Therefore, these conundrums must have a solution available to a mortal paladin; it must be possible to get a 'right' answer! Therefore, it cannot be that all possible answers result in a fall. It must be that choosing the 'best' solution is good enough!
The right answer has been given several times in this thread. If your choices are liyng or giving info that will hurt people, you say nothing. Mime a ziper in your mouth, lock it and throw away the key. Make a vow of silence. Bite your tongue off. Keep your stinking trap shut!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since paladins do exist, then it must be possible to be a paladin, even with mortal wisdom. Therefore, these conundrums must have a solution available to a mortal paladin; it must be possible to get a 'right' answer! Therefore, it cannot be that all possible answers result in a fall. It must be that choosing the 'best' solution is good enough!
The solution is: Don't lie! That's the right answer. Why is this difficult? The Paladin's morality is fairly simple. If the code says you do something; then you do that thing. If the code says you don't do something; then you cannot do that thing. Pretty much everything else is up to the Paladin's discretion. In this particular situation, if I was playing the Paladin and wanted to keep the demon from chasing my companions, then I would taunt the demon. Play on his anger and hatred until it focuses solely on myself while the rest flee. If the demon tortures you, respond with anger or curses, recite your daily prayers, hell try to convert the demon (not gonna happen, not the point). You do not aid the demon for any reason. If he slaughters hundreds of innocents it would be a horrible burden for the Paladin to carry but his morality is not held to the demon's actions.
Now, to the OP, that's how I would play it but to each their own. If your character is trapped in hell for 7 years (I think that's what I read) then that character is probably done regardless. I would prefer my Paladin stays true to his faith and dies with honor. Having said that, having the Paladin break and become an anti-Paladin and returning as the villain sounds awesome. Well played.
|
|
The right answer has been given several times in this thread. If your choices are lyng or giing ino that will hurt people, you say nothing. Mime a ziper in your mouth, lock it and throw away the...Well, first off I don't see how a God falls in this situation. (I think a God could easily just kill the demon, walk out of hell, and go have some tea.) Second, why would a God want to be a Paladin? That would seem to be a step down from Godhood.The Paladin falls Because he used his judgement. In the case of grey areas, the Paladin has the code. Should the Paladin lie? No. To what, and for what reason is irrelevant. If you are looking for loopholes in the code, then you have already failed.You postulate a situation where even the god (of good) would fall. Such a situation, where even the god of good could not be a paladin, would mean that no mortal paladin could exist. Since paladins do exist in our game worlds, then the situation cannot be as you postulate.I'll be more clear. If the god of good, with all his divine intelligence and wisdom, were in the paladin's situation (including only having the powers of the mortal paladin), and even he with all that wisdom couldn't come up with any solution available to a mortal paladin without falling, then it would be impossible for a mortal with the divine wisdom of the god of good to be a paladin.
Since even those with divine wisdom couldn't 'follow that code', then it's not possible for a mortal paladin with mortal wisdom to be a paladin either.
Since paladins do exist, then it must be possible to be a paladin, even with mortal wisdom. Therefore, these conundrums must have a solution available to a mortal paladin; it must be possible to get a 'right' answer! Therefore, it cannot be that all possible answers result in a fall. It must be that choosing the 'best' solution is good enough!
Sometimes silence is eloquent. If a paladin knows that his silence will be understood as 'Yes, the children are hiding in the attic!' then silence ceases to be an evasion, it becomes an answer!
Humm,
In all honesty I do not really understand why this is even an issue.
The way I understand paladins, I would see the conversation going something like this:
Demon: *sits quitely in chair* "You seem a reasonable man. Tell me where the others that dared to trespass upon my domain have fled. If you do this I will grant you a swift death and have your body accorded the proper burial rites after ensuring you may not return to this life."
Paladin: *Pulls against thick chains binding his naked form to the table* "Creature of foulness, I will never betray my comrades, however I have for you a gift."
Demon: *Raised Eyebrow* "What could you have for me? What could a mayfly have for a creature of the eons like myself?"
Paladin: *Uttering with a sad smile* "I bring to you redemption, the light has obviously set me here to offer you a chance to cast aside darkness and bath once more in the purity that is the rightful place of all who seek it."
Demon: *shaking head* "You are as blind as all of your kind. I am sorry that it had to come to this, it is quite the waste of time." *snaps fingers and lashes the paladin with pure agony*
Paladin: *Screaming*
Demon: *Snaps fingers again* "Now you understand. This is the least of what you will suffer. All men break in my hands, simply hurry your ending and free yourself from this torment, my offer remains."
Paladin: *Harsh gasping breathing* "I offer again creature, can you not see that this harms you far more than it does me? Come and be redeemed. What you do to my flesh will never break the strength of my soul. I will not betray the light."
Demon: *Tortures for several hours, then sighs as she begins to strip off blood soaked leather gauntlets* "Speak creature, I know you can for I am a master of the craft of pain. Speak and tell me what I wish to know."
Paladin: *Through cracked swollen lips, in a whispered voice barely made through a ruined throat* "I believe... Come and be redeemed."
Demon: *tortures*
Paladin: *offers more redemption/dies*
Demon: *walks out of room holding paladin's corpse sighing* "Well he was just like the other from his order. These mortals are tiresome. We must find a way to break them free from the great enemy."
Demon 2-*.*: *nodding* "Yes master!"
Paladin: *Basking in the glow of a pure afterlife. Thinking of the demon.* *weeps* "I am sorry... I failed, I should have found a way to let you see, to free you from your pain."
It is my opinion that Paladins are exemplars. That they know that they will be assailed by the forces of darkness physically, spiritually, and mentally. They believe and it is the strength of their belief in what is good and just that grants them power. Torture may break lesser men but not a paladin.
Now if it was the intention of the player to create an anti-paladin from the start that is a totally different story. Then it is not the pain or the torture that breaks the paladin, but the flaws within his own soul. The excellence that made him a paladin makes him driven and unable to believe in his own weakness, so he turns to the darkness, blaming the light for his own failure.
I could see this as excellent plot however it would never be something I would force on a player as I would assume that unless we had discussed otherwise, a paladin PC was a Paladin, not an anti-paladin in the making.
All of the above is my opinion.
|
|
Sometimes silence is eloquent. If a paladin knows that his silence will be understood as 'Yes, the foals are hiding in the attic!' then silence ceases to be an evasion, it becomes an answer!
This is a blatant victim blaming fallacy. If a paladin honestly said "I will not say anything" and the interrogator took it to mean "I don't want you to look there" then that is not because the paladin betrayed his comrades but because the interrogator either took his information to mean something it did not or already knew the answer and was only trying to break him.
In either case honestly remaining silent to avoid giving an answer is not 'giving allies away', it is silence. There should be no point in which a Paladin should be forced to loose his Paladin-hood as even the most grey, loose-loose situation can be dealt with honor and good intent.
|
|
The 'foals' are hiding in the attic?
My example is taken from an earlier thread. My example is meant to show that silence is sometimes an answer, even if the paladin doesn't want it to be.
Situation: Jewish children hiding in the paladin's attic. Nazis, who are looking for these very children so that they can be tortured and murdered, knock on the paladin's door and ask him, 'Are there any children in your attic?'
The paladin knows that if he says yes, then he allowed these children to die when he could have saved them. He falls.
He knows that if he says no, then he saves their lives, but he has told a lie. Some believe he would fall on the grounds that lying is dishonourable, and the code requires him to be honourable. This creates a 'fall or fall' scenario. Others (like me) believe that the paladin is required to do the most good that it is possible for him to do in any situation. In this case, lying leads to the most good, as when weighing 'lying to murderers to save the lives of innocents' against 'allowing innocents to die when it would be easy to save them', he made the clearly best choice! It is against reason to fall for that!
Of course, if there is a way to save them without lying, that would be better. If that way were reasonably certain to succeed but the paladin chose to lie anyway, that might cause a fall. But is 'silence' that third way?
If the Nazis ask if there are children in the attic and the paladin says 'I'm not telling you!', then the next thing the Nazis will do is search the attic and find the kids! What kind of moron would fail to realise that?
Sometimes silence is enough. Sometimes it's not.
|
|
Isn't 'doing good no matter the cost' the description of Neutral Good? Isn't the main distinction between Lawful Good and Neutral Good that Lawful Good attempts to do the most good while still following laws and restrictions placed on them?
In the same manner that doing the wrong thing for the right reason is an aspect of Chaotic Good, doing the right thing no matter the cost is the essence behind Lawful Good behavior.
Slightly off topic, this is also why I think Paladins or other such specialized classes for other extreme alignments should exist.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The paladin knows that if he says yes, then he allowed these children to die when he could have saved them. He falls.He knows that if he says no, then he saves their lives, but he has told a lie. Some believe he would fall on the grounds that lying is dishonourable, and the code requires him to be honourable. This creates a 'fall or fall' scenario.
That you only see two answers is your failure, not the code's.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A paladin shouldn't be allowed to lie without breaching the code in that situation.
The reason why is this: The fiend would take the paladin at his word only if a paladin could not lie to fiends without falling. If the paladin was allowed to lie, then there would be no point to telling a lie about his friends' location in the first place. The demon has no incentive to believe him.
More broadly: Fiends need to be able to believe that a paladin cannot tell a lie to them without falling. This means that a paladin can broker deals with fiends that they would trust no other mortal to broker. This allows paladins to create temporary alliances with fiends purely based on the fiends taking it on good faith that the paladin will need to seek atonement if he does not intend to keep up the deal as the verbal contract was agreed upon in spirit as well as in letter in the case of amoral portions of the deal. This allows paladins to be in a unique position to ally the forces of good and evil in order to oppose mutual foes like Rovagug who threaten all of existence and/or a thing that all sentient being hold to be important.
And here is the kicker: A paladin may as an individual then choose when and where to fall from grace for breaking his word, and unless the evil he lies to is willing to test the paladin further, it may act under the erroneous information provided by the paladin, which may prove critical to the fiend's enemies. A paladin may fall willingly if it is tactically advantageous to the cause of righteousness to do so. It still leaves them without divine aid, but they are betraying a sacred and universal trust, and breach of the contract for authority and power that the paladin brokers with the powers of righteousness is not without cost. However, each paladin is at their core a person, and is fallible, and may choose to spend the currency they are given as a paladin at their discretion. Sometimes that just means losing everything at once until you prove yourself to worthy of a mantle of immaculate integrity.
------------------------------------------------
Or at least that is my interpretation. It all depends on rule 0: what is deemed best in your group for the health of your friendships and your game.
I once misled some people and I did not have to utter a single lie/false information. I just gave true information worded very specifically to help a misunderstanding on their part and did not say anything to correct said misunderstanding when it occurred.
It was frighteningly easy and something I definitely do not relish, but it is not something I feel really guilty about (because they were not hurt by it in any way).
How would you, then, respond to a young, land-bound paladin singing that popular, non-raunchy, but catchy song about how he's an old salt that sailed the seven seas that he recently heard in the tavern back there?
How would you, then, respond to a paladin who told a joke or fable that had talking animals that weren't first awakened by a druid?
How would you, then, respond to a married paladin who told his wife (as Kirth's example above) "it's from your mother last Christmas"?
What about a paladin using a metaphor?
All of the above is at least partially false information. The last is actually normal communicating by using language as it's intended and generally understood.
Also guys, I pointed out above: misleading and lying are synonyms - that means they're synonymous; in other words, they're the same thing. Let me reiterate: this is not honorable.
There is so much wrong in this post, I barely know where to start.
All of your examples of "lying" are only lying if you stretch the deinition of lying to the breaking point. You're being insidious.
Synonynms are words with similar meanings, but not necessarily the same. Big, large, enormous, gigantic and huge are all synonyms, so that means Large swords are the same as Huge sowrds? That argument is just nonsensical.On the same topic, how does "help those in need (provided they do not use...
Given the tone-dissonance of the Internet, I'm pretty sure you didn't know that you're actually agreeing with me - my examples were all cases in which someone would be telling something untrue, but not misleading anyone. My point was: something that is true can be a lie, and something that isn't true can be honest (such as a song or saying 'from your mother' or the like). Paladins go for honesty, but certain codes allow for deceptiveness in certain cases.
I'll be double posting because I'm on an iPad, and can't do awesome editing tricks.
EDIT: even more so because...
I can't buy a paladin where people who know him can't trust his word, where they're forced to parse his statements like they would a devil's. I can accept lying under coercion much easier then technically not lying on a day-to-day, uncoerced basis.Carrot is one of the best knight-in-shining-armour paladins I've seen. That bit's from Men at Arms. After a bit of searching, found a closer paraphrase if not a perfect transcription:
Sam Vimes had just told Carrot that if the Assassins refused to freely allow him into their compound, he was to go away.
Thus Carrot, after politely knocking on the door, informs Dr. Cruces that if he did not let him in, he would be forced to obey his instructions, to the letter.
"What if we resist?"
"That would only make it easier. If it makes you feel better, I would deeply regret it."Day to day a paldin would say the truth, nothing but the truth so help him god. Either that or be quiet. The misdirection is saved for when he is desperate, under coercion, has no other option or when the whole truth would endanger or hurt innocents.
It's not hard:
1: Always say the truth. Even when it's a harsh truth. ESPECIALLY when it is a harsh truth.
2: If you can't say the truth, be quiet. Silence is gold, words are silver and false words are wothless.
3: If you are forced to answer but the truth would endanger innocents, don't tell the whole truth. Say just enough of it with the right emphasis and in the right order, that those crafty liars will just craft their own lies. Let them lie to themseves, you have no obligation to correct them.
This is more or less my exact position.
|
|
Isn't 'doing good no matter the cost' the description of Neutral Good? Isn't the main distinction between Lawful Good and Neutral Good that Lawful Good attempts to do the most good while still following laws and restrictions placed on them?
With the 'moral' alignment being good, then the question becomes how the 'philosophical' alignments interact with it.
So, what is the difference between LG and CG in this respect? Both believe in the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Where they differ is in the best way to achieve the greatest good. LG believes that the good of the society as a whole outweighs the good of any individual in it. 'Take one for the team!'
CG believes that the good of any individual is sacrosanct, and cannot be thrown away for expedience. The Bill of Rights.
If a paladin can take actions which are both good and lawful at the same time, then he will be a happy teddy bear. However, there may come times when a paladin must choose between good and law. In that situation, a paladin must choose good! If he does, he won't fall for that! If he chooses law over good, then he may very well fall for that!
Well, first off I don't see how a God falls in this situation. (I think a God could easily just kill the demon, walk out of hell, and go have some tea.) Second, why would a God want to be a Paladin? That would seem to be a step down from Godhood.The Paladin falls Because he used his judgement. In the case of grey areas, the Paladin has the code. Should the Paladin lie? No. To what, and for what reason is irrelevant. If you are looking for loopholes in the code, then you have already failed.You postulate a situation where even the god (of good) would fall. Such a situation, where even the god of good could not be a paladin, would mean that no mortal paladin could exist. Since paladins do exist in our game worlds, then the situation cannot be as you postulate.I'll be more clear. If the god of good, with all his divine intelligence and wisdom, were in the paladin's situation (including only having the powers of the mortal paladin), and even he with all that wisdom couldn't come up with any solution available to a mortal paladin without falling, then it would be impossible for a mortal with the divine wisdom of the god of good to be a paladin.
Since even those with divine wisdom couldn't 'follow that code', then it's not possible for a mortal paladin with mortal wisdom to be a paladin either.
Since paladins do exist, then it must be possible to be a paladin, even with mortal wisdom. Therefore, these conundrums must have a solution available to a mortal paladin; it must be possible to get a 'right' answer! Therefore, it cannot be that all possible answers result in a fall. It must be that choosing the 'best' solution is good enough!
This is also correct.
|
When discussing classified information, the government neither confirms or denies. This can lead to some humorous statements that neither confirm or deny absurd things, but it makes the line clear.
A Paladin can not lie, but a Paladin doesn't need to lie. They can simply say nothing, or choose to neither confirm or deny that the children are in the attic, etc, etc...
The people in here who hate the concept of the Paladin and want to argue it out of game are instead demonstrating what make the entire concept of the Paladin so attractive to players who love it.
It is a concept that is better than we are. It is what we would like to think we would be, in that circumstance.
Since paladins do exist, then it must be possible to be a paladin, even with mortal wisdom. Therefore, these conundrums must have a solution available to a mortal paladin; it must be possible to get a 'right' answer! Therefore, it cannot be that all possible answers result in a fall. It must be that choosing the 'best' solution is good enough!The solution is: Don't lie! That's the right answer. Why is this difficult? The Paladin's morality is fairly simple. If the code says you do something; then you do that thing. If the code says you don't do something; then you cannot do that thing. Pretty much everything else is up to the Paladin's discretion. In this particular situation, if I was playing the Paladin and wanted to keep the demon from chasing my companions, then I would taunt the demon. Play on his anger and hatred until it focuses solely on myself while the rest flee. If the demon tortures you, respond with anger or curses, recite your daily prayers, hell try to convert the demon (not gonna happen, not the point). You do not aid the demon for any reason. If he slaughters hundreds of innocents it would be a horrible burden for the Paladin to carry but his morality is not held to the demon's actions.
Now, to the OP, that's how I would play it but to each their own. If your character is trapped in hell for 7 years (I think that's what I read) then that character is probably done regardless. I would prefer my Paladin stays true to his faith and dies with honor. Having said that, having the Paladin break and become an anti-Paladin and returning as the villain sounds awesome. Well played.
I think by this point there are people on the same side and more or less of the same conclusion that are looking at very slight differences of opinion to mean much larger differences than those differences mean.
This is partially tone-deafness of the Internet. This is partially talking past one another. This is a perfect example of how two lawful good nations in a game-world might end up n conflict and war.