|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And post #2 because that one was getting long:
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.
If you find the classic Nazi example too unbelievable, here's a situation that came up in an actual game.
Half the party was captured and enslaved by drow. It was determined with the help of divination that the rescue plan most likely to succeed was for the other half of the party (a sorcerer, a druid, and a paladin) to disguise themselves as drow in order to gain access to the city and its slave markets. While the sorcerer did most of the talking and carried the big lies, the paladin was required to (1) physically disguise herself as a drow (2) use false names for herself and her companions (3) when questioned, stick to the technically true but deceptive story “I am a bodyguard. My mistress is looking for slaves.”
She didn't make any technically false statements but was about as honest as someone saying “I saw some Jewish children, but I sent them away” when they directed the kids to a trusted ally who would smuggle them out of the country, or "No Jews in my house" when they are hiding in the barn or external cellar.
Was the paladin's conduct incorrect? Would you have taken away her paladin status?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Half the party was captured and enslaved by drow.
How? Why?
Half the party was captured and enslaved by drow.How? Why?
Because you are responding by attacking (purposefully or not) the validity of something that happened in someone else's game, allow me to respond in a broad manner to the question you actually seem to be asking (for which your post was likely favorited: there are too many ways for this to happen.
If the party is split. Pick them off. (In game: the players might not be there or might be going through their own subplots).
If the party is together, excellent stealth checks and/or drow poison during sleepy time, and only the scouts/those resistant too icon escaped.
If the party is on the verge of defeat, but has claimed something vital that the paladin has, and must get back to civilization (said drow do not need to even be part of said subplot). If it is vital enough, a paladin will complete his mission first, then go back for the POWs later.
Heck, the party could have been in the midst of dying, but the GM gave some grace and had them taken prisoner instead, figuring, "hey, free hooks."
There are others.
And yes, such stories can be faked, but that shouldn't be the default presumption for those you don't know. If Wierdo has a history of faking in-game stories I don't know about... Okay. But really, though it may not be intentional, this comes off as "I don't believe you and demand you tangent so I don't need to listen to you." From my experience with these sorts of things, they usually turn into pot-shots at the story... which is stupid and unproductive.
While Wierdo is more than free to tell his own story, if he gives it, don't derail this further by nitpicking details to death. Geez, I've a number of strange stories that I recall the highlights of far more than the details of "how we got there" myself. It comes with "lots of gaming" and "little sleep". (Heck, I can barely remember some of my college courses, too, but I can tell you what I learned in 'em.)
Edit: changed "Lilly" to "likely". Thanks iPad autocorrect for making me look even stupidererererer! Also, since when can we edit posts after an hour? It's like 1:30 after I made this and it still let me.
Where in the blue f**k did that come from?
Where in the blue f**k did that come from?
Generally questioning others' stories is prelude to complete derailment and 'no, your story sucks' (which is what happened to the OP, in fact).
If this is not the case, and you feel insulted, than feel free to flag my post.
Also, while some blankets in my bed are blue, generally I avoid having sex with them, or anything else that isn't both human-colored and married to me, so I don't know that you used the best word choice, there.
Well you don't need to love up your blankets, you're dry humping the hell out of some assumption there. Bravo.
I did not suppose the story was faked, but I suppose it's possible. I wanted to know what actions/decisions took place to land them in that situation.
Well you don't need to love up your blankets, you're dry humping the hell out of some assumption there. Bravo.
I did not suppose the story was faked, but I suppose it's possible. I wanted to know what actions/decisions took place to land them in that situation.
Then please feel free to flag my post! :)
And dry humping assumptions sounds like a lonely, unproductive activity, especially since assumptions, which aren't really there in the first place. I try and avoid doing that.
EDIT: also, please post further insults and humorous word usage to PMs, to stop derailing this thread.
Edit 2: no seriously, flag all these posts, because I made a post, "hey, guys, let's not derail this thing with pot shots" and lo and behold a derailment with "your post saying don't derail sucks".
Oh I did. Feel free to flag mine.
I'd still like an answer to the question though, if you'll permit it, O protector of thread integrity.
|
|
Okay, flagging all, but to answer the question:
Half the party was captured and enslaved by drow.How? Why?
(In game: the players might not be there or might be going through their own subplots).
...
Heck, the party could have been in the midst of dying, but the GM gave some grace and had them taken prisoner instead, figuring, "hey, free hooks."
A combination of these. Half the party walked into the evil shrine dedicated to the BBEG demigod and guarded by his lich servants. It was a calculated risk they took in order to try and get information about the cult. The risk did not pay off. The GM decided to have them captured and sold to the drow rather than have them killed, turned into undead, souls captured, etc. The reason only half the party was captured was that we had a large group (~8 players) and only about half the group would play at any given session. So three PCs didn't visit the evil shrine and weren't captured. We knew where they were going, so when they were late coming back we investigated.
I mentioned this to demonstrate that a paladin may easily encounter in-game situations in which some kind of deception is necessary to save lives.
So would you have taken our paladin's powers? Would you like to suggest an alternative course of action for the paladin?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for answering.
I wasn't there for the session so I won't judge.
Depending on the roleplay I might have, if it was a frequent thing.
Based on what was noted, though, no not for that one thing.
I don't think any DMs wait for one single instance of a slip on the paladin's part to scream "Gotcha!!" and take his paladin powers.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No problem, I was trying to keep the first post brief. Your response sounds reasonable. It was not a frequent thing - the paladin as a rule preferred to give a speech like your "You can fight me for the children, or you can do the right thing and let us go peacefully" example, which usually worked and was paladin-appropriate.
I don't think there's a whole lot of GMs who will drop a fall anvil on a PC at the slightest provocation. Nor do I think there are a lot of players who intentionally set out to abuse the paladin code. I think it's good to remember that because these discussions can get polarized sometimes.
I do however like debate and philosophy and these discussions have penty of that, including this post which I needed a bit more time to form a response to:
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.
Unless your enemy is likely to infer the truth from your silence. Which they will if they have reason to believe you would tell them the truth if the truth were harmless. Which they will if a paladin always tells the truth when lives aren't at stake and always remains silent if lives are at stake.
In conversation, people make inferences all the time, even from silence. If you ask a child “did you break that vase” and the child is silent, don't you assume that the child is guilty? If you tell your spouse “I love you” and they are silent, do you continue on blissfully, or do you start worrying about your relationship? What if they don't respond to “Are you having an affair?” What if you're a police officer and a suspect immediately invokes the fifth? What if a previously talkative suspect all of a sudden clams up when asked where they were at the time of the murder, or whether they own a gun? You might not be sure that the person you're talking to is guilty in any of these circumstances, but the silence is suspicious, and suspicion can be dangerous if the interrogator investigates further.
This is a blatant victim blaming fallacy....
The paladin is not the victim in this situation. The allies or innocents that the paladin is protecting are the victims, since they are the ones in danger. The paladin is actually a bystander, who can actively harm the victim (by telling the truth), fail to help (remain silent), or help (use misdirection).
Is a bystander morally obligated to help? Let's say you're walking down the street when you see a person lying on the sidewalk bleeding from an obvious knife wound. You are the only person around. You can help, or you can fail to help by continuing on your way.
If you decide to pass by and the person dies, is it your fault? It's less your fault than it is the fault of the person who stabbed them. But you have certainly done something morally wrong by failing to at least attempt to assist this person in need. You may be legally liable depending on whether Good Samaritan laws in your country place an obligation to help on bystanders. And if you happen to be a paladin, you have fallen, because the paladin's code requires that you help those in need.
What if your religion prohibits you from touching another person's blood? Is it OK for you to pass by now? The parable of the Good Samaritan says no. Jesus makes it very clear that the priest and Levite who prioritized their ritual cleanliness are less virtuous than the Samaritan who prioritized the stranger's need.
There are some limitations in applying christian ethics to the paladin since paladins are not christian. But chivalry, on which the paladin's sense of honour is based, is itself based on christianity. So I think it's pretty safe to say that if the bible says “putting compassion against religious law will enhance rather than diminish your virtue” then the paladin is allowed and encouraged to use misdirection or other dishonourable tactics as a last resort when lives are on the line and there is no apparent alternative.
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.
Agreed. And honor and good intent can include prioritizing certain elements of the code.
Ciretose and maybe some others want a game in which everyone always trusts the paladin's word because paladins can never under any circumstances lie (or even mislead?) without falling.
I want a game in which an innocent person can trust the paladin with their life, and know that the paladin won't put their life at risk for the sake of the paladin's honour.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ciretose and maybe some others want a game in which everyone always trusts the paladin's word because paladins can never under any circumstances lie (or even mislead?) without falling.
I want a game in which an innocent person can trust the paladin with their life, and know that the paladin won't put their life at risk for the sake of the paladin's honour.
I want a game where these two aren't mutually exclusive.
I'd imagine that lying to a demon that is threatening innocents would end about as well as it did for Alderaan, when Princess Leia had to lie about the rebel base when Tarkin threatened to blow it up.
As I recall, Alderann isn't around anymore...
No, the rules clearly state under Aura of Courage:
At 3rd level, a paladin is immune to fear (magical or otherwise).This isn't 2nd edition, this is Pathfinder. Not sure if the rules were different for Paladins back in 2nd Edition, but the above is what is relevant today.
Edit: Your example just means your Paladin was not lawful stupid. A good tactician knows when to pick their fights and when to live to fight another day. That's nothing to do with fear, its everything to do with wisdom and good tactical/strategic sense.
If a Paladin is afraid of nothing, how does a DM create tension or fear during the game? What's the point of playing if there's nothing to worry about? Where's the drama of playing a robot?
Is a bystander morally obligated to help? Let's say you're walking down the street when you see a person lying on the sidewalk bleeding from an obvious knife wound. You are the only person around. You can help, or you can fail to help by continuing on your way.
No, they are not. They are not legally either
If you decide to pass by and the person dies, is it your fault? It's less your fault than it is the fault of the person who stabbed them. But you have certainly done something morally wrong by failing to at least attempt to assist this person in need. You may be legally liable depending on whether Good Samaritan laws in your country place an obligation to help on bystanders. And if you happen to be a paladin, you have fallen, because the paladin's code requires that you help those in need.
Nope, not your fault.
Nope, Good Samaritan laws only mean you can help and won't be sued if you do. If you don't help, you are never liable.Heck, you can get in trouble if they aren't friends or family: laws haven't caught up to culture. This is because the laws usually ask would the jury do the same in the same situation: if it was friends or family they would, but many wouldn't a stranger.
http://firstaid.about.com/od/medicallegal/qt/goodsam.htm
|
If a Paladin is afraid of nothing, how does a DM create tension or fear during the game? What's the point of playing if there's nothing to worry about? Where's the drama of playing a robot?
The Paladin not being afraid doesn't mean he isn't in danger.
He isn't a Robot, he is a fearless hero who puts the lives and happiness of others before his own.
|
|
* The notion that paladins are immune to fear has always seemed wrong to me .
Someone who can not feel fear is inhumane . If a paladin can not feel fear , how can he understand or even forgive the commoner who acts under pressure.
I prefer to interpret it as 'fell fear but the player can choose whether or not to act upon it and no rules effect apply
It is after all more heroic to feel fear and resist it* Also society is based on little lies. When a woman asks the paladin 'do you think me pretty?' is the paladin supposed to reply 'No miss, you are in fact ugly as mud'. In such a stupid example , the paladin does nothing dishonoreable with a little white lie like 'you have your charms'. the main point is not that a paladin can not lie , it's that he can not lie dishonouredly .
And again, we go back to the point earlier that a lie of omission is not a lie. It isn't a "gotcha" game.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd imagine that lying to a demon that is threatening innocents would end about as well as it did for Alderaan, when Princess Leia had to lie about the rebel base when Tarkin threatened to blow it up.
As I recall, Alderann isn't around anymore...
Didn't you hear?
That was an illusion by the Empire to make Princess Leia talk.
Wasn't it?
*eyes well up with tears*
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A paladin who does not feel fear can still feel grief at loss and thus be motivated to avoid loss. They can (and should) feel compassion and be motivated to reduce or prevent suffering. And they can remember what it was like to feel fear before they received that particular blessing, and thus empathize with others who do feel fear.
Is a bystander morally obligated to help? Let's say you're walking down the street when you see a person lying on the sidewalk bleeding from an obvious knife wound. You are the only person around. You can help, or you can fail to help by continuing on your way.
If you decide to pass by and the person dies, is it your fault? It's less your fault than it is the fault of the person who stabbed them. But you have certainly done something morally wrong by failing to at least attempt to assist this person in need. You may be legally liable depending on whether Good Samaritan laws in your country place an obligation to help on bystanders. And if you happen to be a paladin, you have fallen, because the paladin's code requires that you help those in need.
No, they are not. They are not legally either
Nope, not your fault.
Nope, Good Samaritan laws only mean you can help and won't be sued if you do. If you don't help, you are never liable.Heck, you can get in trouble if they aren't friends or family: laws haven't caught up to culture. This is because the laws usually ask would the jury do the same in the same situation: if it was friends or family they would, but many wouldn't a stranger.
http://firstaid.about.com/od/medicallegal/qt/goodsam.htm
True in most parts of the USA, but not in Argentina, where you can be fined for: "finding a lost child, or a person wounded, crippled, or otherwise threatened by a risk of any kind, fail to give the needed help, if it could be given without personal risk, or to immediately warn the authority." (Source). Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Massachusetts, according to this source, allow small fines to bystanders for failing to help or alert authorities. France has apparently got a similar law. In tracking down my sources I see this is called a Bad Samaritan law to distinguish it from Good Samaritan laws which function as you say, so that might have caused some confusion - but the intent is the same.
You can be legally liable for failing to help depending on exactly where you are, and if you're a christian you've committed a sin, and if you're a paladin you've violated the line in your code that requires you help those in need:
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)
Note it doesn't say help those in need (unless doing so would require a chaotic act on the part of the paladin) it says help those in need (unless the people requiring help would use your help for evil or chaotic ends).
I want a game where these two aren't mutually exclusive.Ciretose and maybe some others want a game in which everyone always trusts the paladin's word because paladins can never under any circumstances lie (or even mislead?) without falling.
I want a game in which an innocent person can trust the paladin with their life, and know that the paladin won't put their life at risk for the sake of the paladin's honour.
That's the ideal, and it's possible within the scope of a campaign where a GM can generally avoid these situations or rig them in favour of the paladin - no police happen to question the paladin as he's transporting fugitives, or they question him but are inept and don't find the fugitives, or they are swayed by his heartfelt speech on behalf of the fugivites, or the paladin can easily defeat them in battle without risking the fugitives. I'm not sure what my GM would have done in the aforementioned slave rescue situation, but let's assume that if really motivated to avoid that situation he could have given us an alternative.
I don't think it's possible to have both within the scale of an actual campaign world. It strains my suspension of disbelief to think that no paladin in history has ever or could ever find themselves in a situation in which they had a choice between dishonourable actions and risking the life of an innocent or innocents. Since some paladin somewhere, if not the PC, must encounter this situation, it is likely that churches or paladin orders would provide guidance to the paladins on how to act in these situations, whether that guidance is "you must sacrifice your honour for innocent life" in the style of the parable of the Good Samaritan or "hold to your honour at all costs and trust that in the long run good will prevail" (which may mean risking innocent lives). This means that whether or not the PC paladin has to prioritize, it is a fact in the world that paladins as a whole will prioritize, and this would make it impossible for the people at large to trust a paladin as if they could always fulfill all parts of the code in all situations.
The only scenario in which I find it plausible to assume that it is always possible for a virtuous paladin to follow all of the code all of the time is if the gods of good are actively and explicitly stacking things in the paladin's favor (rather than the GM doing so unofficially). If paladins actually can count on their god always making sure that their brave challenge to the forces of evil is successful - that they will not risk innocent life by utterly forsaking any and all deception - then it will be possible for honour and compassion to never be mutually exclusive. But that requires that the forces of good be significantly stronger than the forces of evil - it requires that Iomedae always have the upper hand over Asmodeus and that the only sacrifice that the paladin ever need make is his/her own wellbeing.
Which works if that is your cosmology. But if you want a world in which good and evil are equally matched, in which it's possible for someone who is truly good to lose, then good needs to pick its battles and needs to do so intelligently.
Moral quandries should be presented to Paladins throughout a campaign, or what's the point?
I think I've only heard of someone trying to make a barbarian fall once...
Dohoho!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think a GM should often deliberately design a moral quandry for a paladin. Why not, you ask? Because they're going to come up all by themselves all too often just in the couse of playing the game. Especially if the party has anything other than strict LG characters.
Having played a paladin that was captured by devils, I can tell you that lying didn't do much.
My paladin was captured after staying behind to close a hell mouth with bearded devils pouring it. They captured me and kept me alive because they wanted to know where my friends were, since they had some artifact they wanted. They also threatened to kill some innocents that were captured from the town. I decided to lie and told them there were in some empty ghost town. After searching the area, they realized that hey, I lied. So they did what any devil would do if a deal was broken. They killed half of the villagers in front of my paladin.
This time, they brought over an osyluth cleric that had prepared discern lies, telling me that if they detected any lies, they kill another villager. So this time I told them where their camp was, knowing that my friends had left it by now. The osyluth thanked me for telling the truth and spared the villagers from being killed because of my lying. However, since that deal was done, the osyluth ordered the villagers to be sent to the dungeons for torture and prepared for sacrifice, pulling a General Moff Tarkin on me. See, they had always been intended to be sacrifice victims and were just used to "pull my heart-strings". So no matter how I answered, they were still marked for death for something completely unrelated to me. And that's what made it so much more insidious and believable, with these devils twisting their law system to inflict this.
Of course, when the devils realized no one was their anymore, they came back to me with those villagers again. Only this time, I said nothing except, "All in Hell are marked for death." Luckily, my friends came in and saved me and I went on a smiting spree, freeing the remaining villagers and obliterating the osyluth, saying, "All in Hell are marked for death!!"
Moral of the story: lying really won't do much, especially with zone of truths/discern lies. Devils will twist their promises and demons/daemons will just flat out lie. And personally, I'm okay with that, since they are evil, I'd expect some kind of treason.
Moral quandries should be presented to Paladins throughout a campaign, or what's the point?The point is that paladins are the target for this a little too much
Many DMs do not trouble to tempt monks , druids , clerics or barbarians but show them a paladin and nearly each adventure present a chance for the paladin to fall.
I am not saying there should not moral quandaries from time to time but moderation in all is a virtue
To tie in with Kthulu's comment, I use them as GM when they present themselves, I don't fabricate them.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Impossible Dream by Musical "Man of La Mancha"
Lyrics by Joe Darion
In this song, Quixote explains his quest and the reasons behind it ... in doing so,
he captures the essence of the play and its philosophical underpinnings.
(For me, it is absolutely magical.)
To dream ... the impossible dream ...
To fight ... the unbeatable foe ...
To bear ... with unbearable sorrow ...
To run ... where the brave dare not go ...
To right ... the unrightable wrong ...
To love ... pure and chaste from afar ...
To try ... when your arms are too weary ...
To reach ... the unreachable star ...
This is my quest, to follow that star ...
No matter how hopeless, no matter how far ...
To fight for the right, without question or pause ...
To be willing to march into Hell, for a Heavenly cause ...
And I know if I'll only be true, to this glorious quest,
That my heart will lie will lie peaceful and calm,
when I'm laid to my rest ...
And the world will be better for this:
That one man, scorned and covered with scars,
Still strove, with his last ounce of courage,
To reach ... the unreachable star ...
|
|
One problem with the code, as written in the CRB, is that it doesn't resemble how a lawful aligned law would actually be written. I understand why. A code like that would take tens of pages and be arranged by priorities, so that when conflicts between different parts of the code occurred the paladin could use the code as a useful resource to resolve the conundrum, thus all but eliminating the frankly unrealistic fall or fall scenario.
It would be along the lines of 'A paladin may not lie, unless telling the truth would endanger innocents'.
As an example, here are Asimov's three laws of robotics:-
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
See how the laws relate to each other with priority given to the most crucial laws. A paladins code would realistically be written in a similar way. But, y'know, probably keep it down to around 100 pages or so.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like moral dilemmas in a game as long as they arise naturally, when they don't serve as a tool for a GM to control or punish PCs but rather as a tool for the development of character.
I do think that moral dilemmas make it difficult or impossible for a paladin or any character to stick to a moral code that encompasses multiple values and is absolutely strict. Moral dilemmas by nature require making difficult decisions and moral compromises between two values. Sometimes there's a creative solution. Sometimes there isn't.
While a more detailed code might prevent forum arguments I don't think it's a good idea. Why? Because I want moral dilemmas to develop your paladin, not the Ideal Paladin According to James Jacobs, or even the ideal paladin according to me.
@Malachi - now I want to make an android paladin and call him Daneel Olivaw. Sarenrae, I think. "The destruction of what you people call evil, is less just and desirable than the conversion of this evil into what you call good... Go, and sin no more!"
And again, we go back to the point earlier that a lie of omission is not a lie. It isn't a "gotcha" game.
The intent is the same. Deception is still deception, whether or not individual statements are outright lies.
|
|
I like moral dilemmas in a game as long as they arise naturally, when they don't serve as a tool for a GM to control or punish PCs but rather as a tool for the development of character.
I do think that moral dilemmas make it difficult or impossible for a paladin or any character to stick to a moral code that encompasses multiple values and is absolutely strict. Moral dilemmas by nature require making difficult decisions and moral compromises between two values. Sometimes there's a creative solution. Sometimes there isn't.
While a more detailed code might prevent forum arguments I don't think it's a good idea. Why? Because I want moral dilemmas to develop your paladin, not the Ideal Paladin According to James Jacobs, or even the ideal paladin according to me.
@Malachi - now I want to make an android paladin and call him Daneel Olivaw. Sarenrae, I think. "The destruction of what you people call evil, is less just and desirable than the conversion of this evil into what you call good... Go, and sin no more!"
Androids are incaple of choosing to disregard their programming, but a paladin has Free Will, and can take actions against his code.
If an android were to be programmed with the paladin's code, as written in the CRB, its head would explode at the first dilemma. Although Captain Kirk might enjoy this, it shows how an over literal interpretation of the code is unworkable. It must be intended to be a guide to help players and DMs to play paladins, because if it really were intended to be as restrictive as an android's programming then it would not be fit for purpose.
It is possible to construct a code that would work that way, but it would be arranged similarly to the Three Laws of Robotics, with clear priorities in cases of conflict. Trying to use what's written in the CRB as if it were like an 'unbreakable' code results in unrealistic 'fall or fall' scenarios, where doing good results in a fall while allowing innocents to die doesn't.
Hey, Mal, I think he meant the android race rather than a purely Asimov android. Neat ideas either way.
EDIT: sigh, that's what I get for trying to cute with tags on an iPad.
You create Tension the way you would in any game - good story telling.
Fear is a single condition Paladins are immune to.
It's like asking - how does a DM poison a 9th level druid - they don't, they are immune.
Paladins are not robots - they can laugh, be sad, love and feel loss. Fear is not a pre requisit to playing a character or running a game.
Not good enough by far. Like it or not, a Paladin MUST feel fear, if not for themselves than for the other people around them. Their lives and wellbeing are paramount, so sitting here and telling me that simply good storytelling is going to create tension in a Paladin's life is bull.
Not good enough by far. Like it or not, a Paladin MUST feel fear, if not for themselves than for the other people around them. Their lives and wellbeing are paramount, so sitting here and telling me that simply good storytelling is going to create tension in a Paladin's life is bull.
You create Tension the way you would in any game - good story telling.
Fear is a single condition Paladins are immune to.
It's like asking - how does a DM poison a 9th level druid - they don't, they are immune.
Paladins are not robots - they can laugh, be sad, love and feel loss. Fear is not a pre requisit to playing a character or running a game.
Not fear, compassion. You feel compassion for the people and their causes. You don't fear for them because you know they are under you protection and, more imortantly, the protection from your god.
Look, paladins may be a little distanced from the rest of humanity by their lack of fear, a comic lich has made that point before you and in a better way, but that is what happens when they get to third level. God just reaches down into their soul and rips out the part that experiences fear, replacing it with extra faith and bravery. The paladin can still understand the concept of fear, he can understand other peple getting scared. He doesn't flee because he is scared, he can still think tactically and understand that against a more powerful or better prepared enemy, retreat to fight another day can be the best course of action. He never fears falling, he doesn't lie because that would be a disgusting horremdous soulstaining thing to do. Even misleading is a hevy toll on his soul that he would only use in last case and already thinking on how to atone for it.Also if you think fear is necessary for creating tension, you cannot be a good storiteller. Pain is much better, especially emotional pain. Loss, grief, sadness. Just because the paladin isn't afraid his wife will be hurt, doesn't mean he can't empathize with her and want her safe. He knows she can be afraid and that brings him pain, he knows that if she dies he will be sad and in pain, but he is not afraid, because his god is watching and he has faith that his wife will be alright. A paladin doesn't have fear because he is a religious fanatic with concrete proof (himself) that his god activelly helps and saves people, and in that state it's really hard to be afraid.
|
|
Not good enough by far. Like it or not, a Paladin MUST feel fear, if not for themselves than for the other people around them. Their lives and wellbeing are paramount, so sitting here and telling me that simply good storytelling is going to create tension in a Paladin's life is bull.
You create Tension the way you would in any game - good story telling.
Fear is a single condition Paladins are immune to.
It's like asking - how does a DM poison a 9th level druid - they don't, they are immune.
Paladins are not robots - they can laugh, be sad, love and feel loss. Fear is not a pre requisit to playing a character or running a game.
Or it is how things work in a made up world. Not having fear is not the same as not having concern.
If someone is not afraid of death that doesn't mean death isn't something the are looking forward to or want to happen.
That's why I always use torture with actual mechanical effects, like chopping off limbs, gouging out eyes, etc.
*After having his eye removed and making the necessary saves to not enter b&@** mode*
Fiend: So how do you feel now, human?
Mavis: Jokes on you. You've just given me more table conversation. Women are going to love this eye patch.
*Spoken from the perspective of a neutral evil fighter that happened to be a masochist*
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Androids are incaple of choosing to disregard their programming, but a paladin has Free Will, and can take actions against his code.
If an android were to be programmed with the paladin's code, as written in the CRB, its head would explode at the first dilemma....
It is possible to construct a code that would work that way, but it would be arranged similarly to the Three Laws of Robotics, with clear priorities in cases of conflict. Trying to use what's written in the CRB as if it were like an 'unbreakable' code results in unrealistic 'fall or fall' scenarios, where doing good results in a fall while allowing innocents to die doesn't.
Yes, I was in fact planning on making the android in question Three Laws Compatible: having a more detailed code than the generic, and one that is clearly prioritized. Asimov's work actually anticipates the programming equivalent of a "fall or fall" issue for his robots (see "Runaround" for an example) and his "more advanced" robots of Daneel Olivaw's time are well-equipped to avoid these situations due to an implied complex internal programming that outwardly appears very similar to human moral judgment. Tacticslion is correct that I'd use the android race, but that's just mechanics and is incidental to the Asimovian nature of the paladin in question. It's also a pretty poor mechanical choice for a paladin given the Cha penalty and the fear immunity overlap, but sometimes you have to make sacrifices for a concept.
No they are not..The intent is the same. Deception is still deception, whether or not individual statements are outright lies.
And again, we go back to the point earlier that a lie of omission is not a lie. It isn't a "gotcha" game.
I haven't read the book you linked (and I think I will, looks interesting) but this review makes it sound as if the book considers a lie of omission to be a lie:
In many cases, we might not think of it as a true “lie”: perhaps a “white lie” once in a blue moon, the omission of a sensitive detail here and there, false encouragement of others when we see no benefit in dashing someone’s hopes, and the list goes on.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, if you think a paladin has to always tell the 100% truth no matter what, answer me this.
What if a paladin's 5-year-old asks him where babies come from? Does the paladin then go into detail about sex and reproduction??? O.o Does he just put it off and say nothing??? O.o Does he go with the whole "stork" story perhaps? Then there are things like sensitive family information. What if the paladin and another family member know something a third doesn't, and it needs to stay that way? Does the paladin just blab? What about the kid? If the paladin tells the kid the truth, said kid might blab it everywhere.
It's ridiculous.
There must be discretion somewhere in the paladin code. Being forbidden from telling even the smallest white lie is just crazy.
This is ridiculous. If you play RAW, Paladins don't lie. If you play RAI, your Paladin should want to always tell the truth. Telling the Truth is not difficult (this is a game by the way). Telling the Truth does not mean you have to answer every question. I would think the Paladin would say, "You're not old enough." if he thought the child wasn't old enough. Of course he could say, "Go ask your mother." and still would not have lied in any way. If the Paladin knew something others weren't supposed to know he wouldn't talk about it in front of others.
It baffles me the idea of "not lying" seems so impossible to so many people.
Okay, if you think a paladin has to always tell the 100% truth no matter what, answer me this.
What if a paladin's 5-year-old asks him where babies come from? Does the paladin then go into detail about sex and reproduction??? O.o Does he just put it off and say nothing??? O.o Does he go with the whole "stork" story perhaps? Then there are things like sensitive family information. What if the paladin and another family member know something a third doesn't, and it needs to stay that way? Does the paladin just blab? What about the kid? If the paladin tells the kid the truth, said kid might blab it everywhere.
It's ridiculous.
Up to the paladin:
He can tell the whole explaination, give a parable like the stork (which is what the Stok story is a parable, Jesus gave them all the time), he can be silent or say ask your parents, etc.He can even lie if he wants to fall.
There must be discretion somewhere in the paladin code. Being forbidden from telling even the smallest white lie is just crazy.
Play 3.5 Paladin. You only fall for gross actions not any action like in PF.
In PF, you fall easier. But you are stronger. Trade-off.
Play 3.5 Paladin. You only fall for gross actions not any action like in PF.
In PF, you fall easier. But you are stronger. Trade-off.Stronger? LOL, Paladin is Tier 4 at best. Much more powerful classes don't have any of the restrictions. The code is flavor, nothing more. Making it a strict rule just doesn't make sense if you're playing a fully fledged world.
.
I believe he was saying the Pathfinder Paladin is more powerful than 3.5 Paladin.
As far as your game, RAW Paladins cannot lie. Now I don't believe anyone plays RAW fully. If it is ok for Paladins to lie for the "greater good" in your game then that's fine. The argument against this would be the "slippery slope" argument. How much can you lie? What qualifies as the "greater good." Your classic Paladin would not want to dishonor himself as a matter of convenience.
But again, the Paladin cannot lie. This does not mean he has to answer every question put to him. This seems to be the best answer in your case. If I was playing the Paladin I would refuse to answer any questions on the matter as it is personal. Paladins can keep secrets, he just cannot lie about them.
(Also, did you say they were the children of a goddess but have different mothers? I didn't understand that part.)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm game, I'll add my two cents to this thing.
The issue here is that many assume that being able to lie (cheat, steal, poison, etc.) is an an advantage. The assumption (and it's an assumption that is the foundation of evil characters and deities) is that following the rules is a disadvantage. Thing is... that's not true.
Remember when Luke asked Yoda about the Dark Side?
"Tell me Master... is the Dark Side stronger?"
"No, not stronger. Quicker, easier... more seductive."
Being evil/dishonorable isn't an advantage, it's a shortcut. More specifically, it's a shortcut that costs you in the long run.
Don't believe me? Consider this: there are a number of nations out there in the world who possess biological and chemical weapons - Syria, for example. Right now, Bashar al-Assad could brutally wipe out the rebel forces causing him so much trouble... but he hasn't. Why not? Because doing so would condemn him to complete and utter diplomatic and economic isolation. In short, when you cross certain lines, no one will be your friend anymore... more than that, no one will TRUST you anymore.
Any Game of Thrones fans out there?
And the Starks... well, Ned's (and Rob's) honor cost them their heads. And yet... Wyman Manderly is still seeking vengeance on their behalf, and trying to find their lost heirs. Jon Snow, even though he was denied any inheritance, is trying to raise men to save (who he believes to be) his half-sister. Indeed, if a Stark heir is found, the entire North will rally to them, despite their losses, because "The North remembers." The treacherous, duplicitous characters won the short game, but the honorable and just characters will win the long war... because honor and compassion inspire love and loyalty.
A Paladin's greatest power is not his ability to smite evil. It's not his ability to sense the presence of dark forces, or his immunity to diseases. His greatest power is the CODE ITSELF. Paladins, above all characters, should be able to command the loyalty and resources of everyone they encounter... because if a Paladin says that your town is in danger, you know with absolute certainty that he believes that to be true. If a Paladin says that he will do everything in his power to protect your king, you know that he will die before letting the crown come to harm. If a Paladin says that the local Baron is evil and is trying to seize the throne for himself, you know that he's isn't making idle accusations.
Most people don't realize what a big deal that is. Paladins are the ultimate arbiters of conflict. Got a property dispute with your neighbor? Call in a Paladin - you can trust him to render a fair verdict. Need someone to represent a defendant in a trial even though everyone in town hates him? Call in a Paladin - you can rely on him to do his best to give him a good defense. Need someone to fairly divide an unexpected windfall amongst various parties? Call in a Paladin... etc. People don't HAVE to question Paladins, because they can implicitly trust that they... unlike any other adventurer... will always do the Right Thing, with capital letters.
Evil can't compete with that. If an evil warlord and a Paladin both approach a local lord in the hopes of winning him over to their side, all other things being equal, he's going to stick with the Paladin. Why? Because even if the Paladin's offer of reward is small (or nonexistent) he can trust that the Paladin isn't going to betray/sacrifice/neglect him for his own gain. Skullsmasher the Ferocious, on the other hand, has a reputation for doing whatever pleases him, regardless of who gets hurt.
So let's return to this question of a Paladin being held captive and tortured for information. What are the ways this can play out?
1) Paladin says nothing = Demons are hindered and Paladin upholds the code. (2 wins for the Paladin)
2) Paladin tells the truth = Demons are aided and Paladin upholds the code. (1 win for the Paladin, 1 win for the Demons)
3) Paladin lies = Demons are hindered but the Paladin violates his code. (1 win for the Paladin, 1 win for the Demons)
What we might realize here is that a) The Paladin saying nothing is ALWAYS the best choice, since it gives the bad guys NOTHING that they want (neither the corruption of the Paladin nor the info they seek) and b) Lying is, generally speaking, no better than telling the truth (since the forces of evil still "win" by corrupting the Paladin).
"But what about his companions?" you might ask. Well, Paladins don't have to be condescending jerks - in fact, I'd assume that REAL Paladins trust their team-mates as being competent professionals - every bit the equal of Paladins. I think that Paladins would trust that their party could successfully escape from demons without the extra little boost from his lies (especially since it's not likely to delay the bad guys that long anyway - how long does it take to teleport to and from locations?) And in fact, the Paladin probably assumes that his friends are going to come spring him anyway (after all, he would do the same for THEM). If he believes that they can successfully storm the prison where he's being held, he should also believe that they can escape on their own. He has every reason to trust in their ability to take care of themselves.
"But what about innocent lives that might be threatened?" Good question. Let's do the math for a scenario where the bad guys say, "Talk, or we start killing people!"
a) Paladin says nothing and people die.
b) Paladin talks, and the bad guys let people go.
c) Paladin talks, and the bad guys kill people anyway.
d) Paladin says nothing and the bad guys let people go (there is precedent for this).
What are the results?
a) Good guys 1 (Paladin doesn't break) Bad Guys 0 (their goal isn't killing people, their goal is getting information. The Paladin thwarted them). A clear win for the Paladin, even if some people got hurt.
b) Good guys 1 (people kept safe) Bad Guys 1-2 (they got their info, and possibly compromised a powerful adversary). A tie at best, and not a particularly likely outcome, since the bad guys are not trustworthy in the first place. The Paladin has no reason to believe that they will keep their word (just as the US govt doesn't negotiate with terrorist, Paladins probably shouldn't negotiate with beings who are evil incarnate).
c) Total loss for the good guys, and a fairly likely scenario, since the bad guys would probably love for an opportunity to rub it in the Paladin's face.
d) Flawless victory for the good guys, though this is admittedly an exceedingly unlikely scenario.
Once again, when you look at all of the possible outcomes, violating his code is not actually a better choice for the Paladin, because even in the "ideal" outcome where he capitulates, the bad guys still get what they wanted, which might actually be far more consequential than the lives of some random hostages (i.e. an artifact that will allow them to wipe out hundreds of villages instead of a handful of villagers).
One other thing that's worth mentioning: we need to stop treating the fall of the Paladin as some kind of world-shattering consequence. Paladins are going to fall every now and then... otherwise, there wouldn't be an atonement spell. And in fact, when we compare Atonement to Raise Dead, we find... well look at that! They are both the same caster level, but an atonement spell can cost anywhere from 1/2 as much as Raise Dead to a whopping 0 gp (depending on how your Gm rules the whole "committed the evil act unwittingly or under some form of compulsion," thing). So Gms who throw the occasional moral quandary at Paladins are no worse (indeed, probably EASIER than) Gms who threaten their PCs with death... the consequences are generally equivalent or lesser.