|
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.
Humourous in it's total ineffectiveness.
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...
Then the children die while the paladin could have saved them. Fall.
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.
See, I think that 'saving the children by lying to the Nazis' is objectively 'better' than my poorly-judged 'silence' effectively allowing those kids to be murdered!
The idea that it is 'better' for the paladin to have salved his own conscience by 'not lying' and sacrificing those kids in order to keep his own soul 'clean' is a horrible idea of 'good'!
'Better than we are'? Not a chance!
|
|
Name one.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!
The princess has been kidnapped by slavers and taken to a nation where slavery is legal, and seen as neutral rather than evil. It's seems an impossible idea for our modern ideas of slavery, but ancient societies like Greece and Rome did this the whole time.
In this nation, the institution of slavery is protected by law, and 'freeing a slave' amounts to theft; illegal.
Freeing the princess would be a chaotic act. You also know what her new 'owner' intends to do to her after all these years of fantasising about her. If you have the opportunity to free her, and refuse on the grounds that it's illegal, then you have chosen law over good. Fall.
If you choose to free her then you have chosen good over law. Well done, Sir Knight! That's what you are for!
|
Name one.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!
The princess has been kidnapped by slavers and taken to a nation where slavery is legal, and seen as neutral rather than evil. It's seems an impossible idea for our modern ideas of slavery, but ancient societies like Greece and Rome did this the whole time.
In this nation, the institution of slavery is protected by law, and 'freeing a slave' amounts to theft; illegal.
Freeing the princess would be a chaotic act. You also know what her new 'owner' intends to do to her after all these years of fantasising about her. If you have the opportunity to free her, and refuse on the grounds that it's illegal, then you have chosen law over good. Fall.
If you choose to free her then you have chosen good over law. Well done, Sir Knight! That's what you are for!
"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."
Seriously? Kidnapping is an evil act even if the slavery was kosher in the land they were in.
That is the best you can come up with? No wonder you have trouble with Paladins if you think that would create any type of dilemma...
|
|
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!
Again, Lawful and Good is not the same as Lawful or Good. You can't choose Law or Good, you do both to the best of your abilities even if this would cause you to 'fail' whatever you were doing.
Note that there is no clause in the Paladin code for failing to protect other people, only one to 'help those in need'; and it does not say he needs to successfully do so, only that he tries.
Name one.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!
I'll give you two: Chelliax and Nidal. (Believe it or not, this is actually mostly aimed at an earlier poster more than you ciretose, with the point being as follows...)
But that's not the point.
The point is that sometimes "the law of the land" isn't always what a paladin is bound to. The law of righteousness is.
There are cases in which a paladin, if held to hard line RAW will literally have no choice but to fall, and their only choice is how.
Children in e attic (or adults, really), gypsies in the basement, it doesn't matter. There will be times when a paladin in hard line RAW will fall (though really in those situations the paladin should be leading the rebellion/revolution against the EVIL that rules, and keep themselves out of civilian life, but that's not always possible). Because if they lie, they fall, if they remain silent and permit the EVIL to search, they fall, and if they resist the EVIL will defeat them by weight of numbers (possibly arresting them), take the children, and the paladin will be unable to complete their code of protecting the innocent OR punishing those who threaten and harm them, and fall. Core RAW is a harsh thing.
And there is nothing wrong with this kind of game. But for those who prefer a more rational game, there are options that make sense too. Moradin's code is one such. "Why no sir, I can't say where they are, but I can personally swear that, while I did see some children, and gave them food (for you know my code requires this), I told them to go away. I have not seen them since.
(Secretly, of course, he told them to "go away" after he told them that he was going to tell them to go away, but that even if he told them, that, they needed to stay in his attic... he just doesn't mention this to the EVIL.)
|
|
In Cheliax or Nidal, unless they are following a strict lawful god like Abadar, they are going to be fighting against the evil in the same way they charge into the Worldwound to take back the land from evil.
The attic/basement analogy demonstrates the falsehood more than refutes it. The Paladin says nothing, they check. He says they aren't there, they check. He says they are there. They check.
There is no scenario where they believe the Paladin EXCEPT the one where the Paladin can't lie. And if the Paladin can lie...they would be stupid not to check.
|
|
Someone dies either way.
Why does someone die either way? What are you talking about?
It is a false choice. The bad guys aren't going to check because the Paladin lied only works if the Paladin can't ever lie...which leads us to the two doors Paradox.
This idea of yours that beacause paladins are lawful and because they cannot lie, then their word is trusted, even by demons, is simply a fantasy. (Oops. Nearly typed an exclamation mark there! Damn! I did it again!)
In real life, two professions who cannot lie without losing their careers if caught are lawyers and politicians. So, the public perception must be that lawyers and politicians are the two professions most likely to be telling the truth, right? (Can I use question marks?)
But IRL lawyers and politicians are the two most distrusted professions we have.
How can you tell when a politician is lying? His lips move.
Lawyers are paid to be advocates for criminals and liars. Although there are strict rules about not lying, in fact because of it (are italics acceptable?), they have well-developed techniques of deception, and everybody knows it.
Paladins might imagine themselves to be universally trusted, but that is not a realistic idea of the general perception of them in-game.
|
|
Paladins are universally trusted specifically because they are Paladins and they can not lie and still be Paladins.
That is why Paladins aren't like other classes, and this is the part that would be lost for everyone if you allow them to lie. They stop being seen paragons of virtue if that isn't a pre-requisite for the class.
And the game isn't real life, Paladins aren't Lawyers and Politicians, they actually do follow the code.
@Tacticslion - This is also carrying over from the other Paladin thread.
Ah. I don't think I'm part of that one.
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.
Lying to the nazis is the stupid choice. What a good paladin would do is have smuggled those children to England right after they got to his home, killing any nazis who get in the way. If the children have just got to his house and he has put them in the attic while he starts the car, and the nazis show up asking about the children he would kill the nazis, load the children on the car and start racing for the closest allied border.
Better yet, he should load the children with the party Rogue, he can lie his ass off and has a better bluff skill. If he doesn't have a party, he should give the children to the resistance movement that he either made friends with or probably started himself.Also, the idea of a paladin being alive and at home in nazi Germany is beyond retarded. As soon as the first rumor of concentration camps is whispered all paladins in Europe are obligated to join an allied battalion, start trekking to the nearest camp murderizing any nazi they find on the way, freeing as many prisoners as they can and leading them to the nearest allied outpost. Or die trying. Paladins outside Europe are obligated to travel to Germany by any means possible and join the war. Okay, generalization. Some paladins would be aiming for Berlin to kill Hitler and the nazi command, but the majority would be gunning for the camps.
Attempted genocide is not something paladins are allowed to resist pacifically or covertly. Holy WARriors should be taken very active parts in an outright WAR against that kind of enemy. Evil kingdons in fantasy settings can only go to war if there aren't paladin orders or if they're confident they can take the other country and every single paladin who isn't in an active quest, all at the same time.
|
|
I think it is at 1600 posts, and we have gotten to the point where Mal is admitting he hates the concept, rather than trying to argue that the concept should allow what he wants.@Tacticslion - This is also carrying over from the other Paladin thread.Ah. I don't think I'm part of that one.
I would appreciate you not twisting my words into the very opposite of my actual opinion!
I love the concept of the paladin being the ultimate warrior for the forces of good, and allowing them to be of any good alignment would not change that.
Allowing paladins to make the perfect 'good' choice and still fall for it is a distortion of the paladin, arrived at by putting an over literal interpretation of the code ahead of the concept of doing good.
|
|
Not to mention that the Nazi's aren't going door to do asking and then going "No jews? Cool. Just checking".
Who is going to say "Yeah, I have like 15 jews in the Attic. You caught me with your fiendish 'asking' plan."
If the Nazi's show up at your door looking for Jews, they aren't going to not look because you said "No jews"
|
|
Lying to the nazis is the stupid choice. What a good paladin would do is have smuggled those children to England right after they got to his home, killing any nazis who get in the way. If the children have just got to his house and he has put them in the attic while he starts the car, and the nazis show up asking about the children he...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.
You haven't really got the hang of 'hypothetical questions' yet, have you? : )
|
|
You haven't really got the hang of 'hypothetical questions' yet, have you? : )
If we are literally discussing a fantasy made up world and you can't come up with a premise that is viable in that made up setting, you fail at 'hypothetical question' and shouldn't be judging.
So far you have Nazi's who believe people without checking and kidnappers who are cool once they cross borders.
I wouldn't be tossing rocks about your home...
In Cheliax or Nidal, unless they are following a strict lawful god like Abadar, they are going to be fighting against the evil in the same way they charge into the Worldwound to take back the land from evil.
The attic/basement analogy demonstrates the falsehood more than refutes it. The Paladin says nothing, they check. He says they aren't there, they check. He says they are there. They check.
There is no scenario where they believe the Paladin EXCEPT the one where the Paladin can't lie. And if the Paladin can lie...they would be stupid not to check.
This depends entirely on the nature of the evil whether or not they check (and presumes said evils are, in fact, mortals). This has historically and demonstrably proven to not always be the case. Therefore, with just a hint of realism at all (which fantasy certainly doesn't have to have), it can be presumed that similar conversations will happen and will work, especially with a reasonably charismatic entity (such as a paladin) v. Your typical nook (such as said checkers). It certainly will not always be successful, and that's not the point. In that case, Core RAW, the paladin could still be read to fall, as outlined above.
It also depends on the basic presumptions said evil makes/what said evil knows about said paladin. They may or may not know the paladin's code (and it might be a mistake purposeful or intentional, on the paladin's part to presume they do), they may respect said code or not, they may be a legitimate authority or not (what powerful weasel words those are!), and they may or may not outnumber/overpower a paladin.
Since there are individuals who vary, even amongst the same alignment/class/race combination (heck even if they have the same stats) but creatures tend to accept their experience as evidence of a greater truth and tendency, the ultimate effectiveness of such tactics likely varies radically based on the EVIL interacted with.
If a mortal or demon truly believes that all paladins are honest to a fault and couldn't conceive of one lying, for example, (probably due to previous interactions) the only thing that determines its behavior is if it specifically wants to give the paladin a hard time. Other scenarios could apply equally as validly going the other way.
When dealing with creatures of pure evil, however, a paladin may or may not be able to trust them to keep to their word... but then again, they might.
One notable thing about this argument is that (like many of a a similar character) it presumes a lot about the nature of evil, law, and chaos, which, naturally differs from person to person, and even more so from game to game.
Devils: can they be taken at their verbal word? Maybe. Depends on the game.
Demons: can they ever be trusted? MAYBE. Depends on the game.
Repeat ad infinitude.
The point is that this is a debate that is literally impossible to resolve in a generic context.
The only case we can have for sure in the case of a 'tell me or I eat babies' type scenario is that going by Core RAW, the only option a paladin has is to fall by virtue of failing his code: either not lying and/of failing to punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
A given tables hard lining of that enforcement may vary, and that's a good thing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In Cheliax or Nidal, unless they are following a strict lawful god like Abadar, they are going to be fighting against the evil in the same way they charge into the Worldwound to take back the land from evil.
The attic/basement analogy demonstrates the falsehood more than refutes it. The Paladin says nothing, they check. He says they aren't there, they check. He says they are there. They check.
There is no scenario where they believe the Paladin EXCEPT the one where the Paladin can't lie. And if the Paladin can lie...they would be stupid not to check.
Other options:
Paladin doesn't answer the door.
Paladin has someone else answer the door.
Paladin stays with the children in the attic in case they need direct protection, knowing nazis are coming for them.
End of the line is, the Paladin will give his life up for those children. How many nazis will he have to kill would be the only remaining question.
Or he does answer the question:
"Yes they are here, but I will not let you take them. You can try to come in after them, and most likely die. Or you can leave and get help, and I will move them. Either way, your efforts will be for naught here.
Or you can decide these children aren't worth it, and do the right thing. Your choices are before you; I have made mine."
@Tacticslion - This is also carrying over from the other Paladin thread.
Not intentionally.
Not to mention that the Nazi's aren't going door to do asking and then going "No jews? Cool. Just checking".
Who is going to say "Yeah, I have like 15 jews in the Attic. You caught me with your fiendish 'asking' plan."
If the Nazi's show up at your door looking for Jews, they aren't going to not look because you said "No jews"
Although (except for the paraphrasing on your part and the fact that iTunes modern idioms and is in English instead of German) this is literally a thing that actually happened.
There were plenty of people who took Jews in but gave them over when the govt. came calling. The govt also worked to take people at their word, when reasonable, to appear reasonable and friendly to the citizens at large. And sometimes they were just tired and couldn't be assed to looked through ANOTHER empty attic.
Stuff happens, and happened for real.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It depends entirely on common sense if they check or not.
What kind of idiot scenario sends people checking door to door for prisoners and going exclusively based on if the person they are asking says "Yes, I am hiding prisoners" or not.
How stupid would you have to be to say yes I am, they are upstairs.
So the only time they would reasonable ask, and then leave based on that answer without looking, is if they believed the person would not or could not lie, the later as in the case of a Paladin.
But if you are evil and looking for escaped good people, of course you are searching the Paladins house. That would be the first place I would look.
And on top of that, why the hell is the Paladin not fighting the evil, but instead just sitting around his house.
And again, if this is the worst "problem" you can come up with, there is no problem. If this happened in a game, your GM is an idiot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In Cheliax or Nidal, unless they are following a strict lawful god like Abadar, they are going to be fighting against the evil in the same way they charge into the Worldwound to take back the land from evil.
The attic/basement analogy demonstrates the falsehood more than refutes it. The Paladin says nothing, they check. He says they aren't there, they check. He says they are there. They check.
There is no scenario where they believe the Paladin EXCEPT the one where the Paladin can't lie. And if the Paladin can lie...they would be stupid not to check.
Other options:
Paladin doesn't answer the door.
Paladin has someone else answer the door.
Paladin stays with the children in the attic in case they need direct protection, knowing nazis are coming for them.End of the line is, the Paladin will give his life up for those children. How many nazis will he have to kill would be the only remaining question.
Or he does answer the question:
"Yes they are here, but I will not let you take them. You can try to come in after them, and most likely die. Or you can leave and get help, and I will move them. Either way, your efforts will be for naught here.
Or you can decide these children aren't worth it, and do the right thing. Your choices are before you; I have made mine."
All incredibly awesome ideas.
|
|
Not to mention that the Nazi's aren't going door to do asking and then going "No jews? Cool. Just checking".
Who is going to say "Yeah, I have like 15 jews in the Attic. You caught me with your fiendish 'asking' plan."
If the Nazi's show up at your door looking for Jews, they aren't going to not look because you said "No jews"
Although (except for the paraphrasing on your part and the fact that iTunes modern idioms and is in English instead of German) this is literally a thing that actually happened.
There were plenty of people who took Jews in but gave them over when the govt. came calling. The govt also worked to take people at their word, when reasonable, to appear reasonable and friendly to the citizens at large. And sometimes they were just tired and couldn't be assed to looked through ANOTHER empty attic.
Stuff happens, and happened for real.
They gave them over because they believed they were going to searched regardless, or they believed (and were likely told) if they did the consequences would be less for them.
They didn't just say "Yes" for no reason, and the Nazi's didn't just ask at every door for no reason.
And again, why is the Paladin not fighting this government?
|
|
All incredibly awesome ideas.In Cheliax or Nidal, unless they are following a strict lawful god like Abadar, they are going to be fighting against the evil in the same way they charge into the Worldwound to take back the land from evil.
The attic/basement analogy demonstrates the falsehood more than refutes it. The Paladin says nothing, they check. He says they aren't there, they check. He says they are there. They check.
There is no scenario where they believe the Paladin EXCEPT the one where the Paladin can't lie. And if the Paladin can lie...they would be stupid not to check.
Other options:
Paladin doesn't answer the door.
Paladin has someone else answer the door.
Paladin stays with the children in the attic in case they need direct protection, knowing nazis are coming for them.End of the line is, the Paladin will give his life up for those children. How many nazis will he have to kill would be the only remaining question.
Or he does answer the question:
"Yes they are here, but I will not let you take them. You can try to come in after them, and most likely die. Or you can leave and get help, and I will move them. Either way, your efforts will be for naught here.
Or you can decide these children aren't worth it, and do the right thing. Your choices are before you; I have made mine."
And a great example of why playing a Paladin can be so rewarding. You get to be the unbreakable badass.
...Lying to the nazis is the stupid choice. What a good paladin would do is have smuggled those children to England right after they got to his home, killing any nazis who get in the way. If the children have just got to his house and he has put them in the attic while he starts the car, and the nazis show upThe '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.
Hypothetical question, does the Sun revolve around the Earth or around the Moon? Which one is right?
Answer: Neither of the options you give is right, because your entire premise is built on flawed conceptions.
Gaaaaaaaaaah! iPad typos overwhelming! Autocorrect, you suck sometimes!
Ugh my posts are all embarrassing. Sorry, guys.
Anyway, this thread is currently to hot for me on an iPad to keep up.
I suppose one bright spot is that ipad now corrects itself to the correct thin and I don't need to continue slower formatting things.
edit never it'd it immediately proved ,e wrong! Argh!
I like to play Paladins.
Not to mention that the Nazi's aren't going door to do asking and then going "No jews? Cool. Just checking".
Who is going to say "Yeah, I have like 15 jews in the Attic. You caught me with your fiendish 'asking' plan."
If the Nazi's show up at your door looking for Jews, they aren't going to not look because you said "No jews"
Although (except for the paraphrasing on your part and the fact that iTunes modern idioms and is in English instead of German) this is literally a thing that actually happened.
There were plenty of people who took Jews in but gave them over when the govt. came calling. The govt also worked to take people at their word, when reasonable, to appear reasonable and friendly to the citizens at large. And sometimes they were just tired and couldn't be assed to looked through ANOTHER empty attic.
Stuff happens, and happened for real.
They gave them over because they believed they were going to searched regardless, or they believed (and were likely told) if they did the consequences would be less for them.
They didn't just say "Yes" for no reason, and the Nazi's didn't just ask at every door for no reason.
And again, why is the Paladin not fighting this government?
True: they had reasons to fold. That doesn't negate my point: people folded. (Thus they have reason to suspect that people will, on occasion fold).
And have you ever searched an tricks, by the way? An uncomfortable, tiring experience every time I've done it. Once or twice and I imagine that most would be over searching empty ones.
And the paladin might have other duties that prohibit them from actively engaging in a full-war scenario. Having established they have a home... do they have a family? If they do, do they have the ability to survive in the wilderness long enough to leave? Can the paladin do more good smuggling than in armed conflict? Did they receive a vision that told them to stay? Are they crippled physically?
There are any number of possible reasons. Not all of them are equally valid. Not all of them have to be. It could be a plethora of lesser reasons that add up to greater ones.
The fact is, we don't know why they are in the situation they are in. There are ways of getting there.
ANYWAY. Sorry. I forgot I was leaving!
|
|
But this scenario depends on a number of things happening that aren't realistically going to happen, and then for the Paladin to have a false choice of lying and saving the day or not lying and not saving the day.
Kryzbyn already broke down what would actually be a realistic outcome should the absolutely absurd scenario occur.
And again, if that is the best someone can come up with as a "problem" scenario, there is no problem.
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.
Nope, doesn't fall. He only falls for breaking the code. Allowing someone to die isn't evil. It is neutral.
The paladin knows that if he says yes, and does nothing to stop the Nazis then he allowed these children to die when he could have saved them. He falls.
FTFY
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.
No creature is immune to fear or pain, the point is that those are fundamental aspects of being alive and intelligent. You can't disassociate fear and pain from an alive, intelligent creature. Not possible. And right now, the theory is that when the first true AI is created, it will have emotions, because there is literally no other way to be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Was anyone in Corrie Ten Boom's house a Paladin?
I think this works out in game terms to a Bluff vs. Sense Motive opposed challenge.
If the bad guys believe your lie, they would move on and search elsewhere. If they already had you pegged as an enemy, they would take you down and then tear your house apart looking for whoever or whatever you were hiding. The key to a successful lie in this case is to convince them that you are not in fact their enemy -- then they actually have reason to try to retain your good will by not subjecting you to a pointless search of your home.
|
|
No creature is immune to fear or pain, the point is that those are fundamental aspects of being alive and intelligent. You can't disassociate fear and pain from an alive,...It's not like this is debatable unless this is some home grown campaign you are running and changing core things about the Paladin class. According to RAW paladins are immune to fear at 3rd level.
Immune to pain? no - but again as stated above, with the fear of death completely out of the equation, torture and intimidation have much less bearing.
And, of course, this is a game and not real life. In real life we aren't granted supernatural powers for adherence to a code.
No creature is immune to fear or pain, the point is that those are fundamental aspects of being alive and intelligent. You can't disassociate fear and pain from an alive,...It's not like this is debatable unless this is some home grown campaign you are running and changing core things about the Paladin class. According to RAW paladins are immune to fear at 3rd level.
Immune to pain? no - but again as stated above, with the fear of death completely out of the equation, torture and intimidation have much less bearing.
Immune to magic fear effects, but nothing in the book about what the player might feel if they got spooked. That simulates mundane fear. If you note, almost all sources of fear in the game are magically induced. Paladins are immune to that, but NOT regular fear.
For example, back in 2nd ed, I was playing a Paladin. The dwarven rogue had gone into a sandy ravine to check it out, and since I was sucky at climbing, I just waited for him with the mage. Minutes later, a gigantic djinn appeared. Took one look at it, said "Right!" Spun around, threw the female mage (player wasn't there to run it) and ran for it. When one guy complained that Paladins couldn't run, I said that I might be a Paladin, but I wasn't suicidal.
|
|
They were granted supernatural powers by a deity that would be recinded for failure to comply?
No?
Than it isn't the same, is it.
...the point was that the proposed situation is not (as you had been trying to make it seem) in any way an "absurd" one.
It is an absurd one for the various reasons listed throughout, which include
1. What will stop them from searching regardless, or keeping there word, or in any way making being honest with them "the" solution.
2. You are a paladin, you are doing what Kryzbyn described.
3. What happens in the game is decided by someone who hopefully isn't an idiot who would apply such a scenario to his player, and even if they did, the Paladin would still not realistically benefit from lying since, hello, evil!
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which is not the case in that quote.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.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.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."
In that quote, he was in the middle of a murder investigation, the murderer was expected to kill again in the near future, and the suspect he was talking to was politically above the law. Lives were at stake and he had few if any alternatives. And the above was unusual for Carrot - he is generally portrayed as very naive and will usually nicely ask criminals (or an angry mob) to behave themselves, because their mothers would be ashamed of them (and this usually works). Which is why some fans speculate that Carrot actually didn't intend the above as a bluff or a threat. The theory is that he intended to nicely ask the man not to impede the investigation (which would make things hard on Carrot) but it came out wrong and Carrot, being naive, sincere, and honest, didn't notice.
And again, why is the Paladin not fighting this government?
Maybe his is, but got trapped behind enemy lines and happened to run into some fugitives who he decided to protect on his way back into allied territory because protecting the innocent is something paladins do. You don't have to be sitting the fight out to get into this sort of situation. It works equally well with “Got any Jews in your truck?” as “Got any Jews in the attic?”
End of the line is, the Paladin will give his life up for those children. How many nazis will he have to kill would be the only remaining question.
Or he does answer the question:
"Yes they are here, but I will not let you take them. You can try to come in after them, and most likely die. Or you can leave and get help, and I will move them. Either way, your efforts will be for naught here.
Or you can decide these children aren't worth it, and do the right thing. Your choices are before you; I have made mine."
Awesome if it works, but what if you botch your Diplomacy check? You're also assuming that the paladin can win the fight, and that if he wins he won't have his face plastered all over the country for killing a bunch of soldiers (making it difficult for him so smuggle said children out of the country).
The paladin is willing to lay down his life, but what if that's not actually what the children in question need?
A paladin has lots of options in this general situation, but if the paladin happens to be hiding fugitive children (in his house or anywhere), does get asked this question by military people, and doesn't think he can win the fight, he needs to have the option to at least misdirect if not outright lie.
This is more or less my exact position.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.
Pretty much. Misdirection is marginally better than outright falsehood, but it's still deceptive and thus something a paladin should only use as a last resort (ie when innocent lives are on the line). But he should be permitted that option when it gets to that point.
1. What will stop them from searching regardless, or keeping there word, or in any way making being honest with them "the" solution.
2. You are a paladin, you are doing what Kryzbyn described.
3. What happens in the game is decided by someone who hopefully isn't an idiot who would apply such a scenario to his player, and even if they did, the Paladin would still not realistically benefit from lying since, hello, evil!
Here's a fun and scary thought: evil people are people, too. It takes surprisingly little to convince normal, non-sociopathic people to do evil things. Sometimes as little as a uniform, or a lab coat with “Yale” written on it.
Military folks who are “just following orders” are not necessarily going to be putting their whole effort into doing their job. They might well skip over the paladin or give them a shoddy once-over if the the paladin appears friendly and not suspicious (“Hello there officers, you must be tired after a long day of looking for Jews, gypsies, and homosexuals. Can't say I've seen any around, you must be doing a good job.”) Some of these people might also be bribeable. However if the paladin is confrontational or appears reluctant to talk to police, they are much more likely to follow through with a thorough investigation. Claymade has pointed out that deception and misdirection actually did work historically in deflecting Nazis on patrol, and that outright lies generally worked better than misdirecting around the truth, so it's simply false to say that lying isn't going to get the paladin anywhere.
Dealt with '2' above – even if you're not sitting in your house hiding fugitives you might be concealing them in transit and you could always be cornered by an enemy authority asking questions.
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.
Which works if the person the government/paladin is talking with understands what “I cannot confirm or deny” means and if the government/paladin makes a habit of refusing to confirm or deny things even when the information is actually harmless, and I actually have a homebrew order of paladins that requires this approach.
If a paladin who is not hiding children in the attic will tell Nazis “I can't tell you whether there are children in the attic” and this is well-known then the Nazis have no reason to believe that “I can't tell you” means “there are children in the attic.” If however the paladin does not make a habit of refusing to confirm or deny, then his failure to deny an accusation will be seen as confirmation.
"Well," Harry said, as their shoes pattered across the tiles, "I can't just go around saying 'no' every time someone asks me about something I haven't done. I mean, suppose someone asks me, 'Harry, did you pull the prank with the invisible paint?' and I say 'No' and then they say 'Harry, do you know who messed with the Gryffindor Seeker's broomstick?' and I say 'I refuse to answer that question.' It's sort of a giveaway."