But, there is another kind of evil which we must all fear most … and that is the indifference of good men!
This quote is what that reminds me of.
The passage I quoted said "fundamentally good" not "ostensibly good" and for a paladin to abhor a "fundamentally good being" is just wrong. It is not a good attitude. Perhaps not enough to change his alignment on its own, but certainly bringing it close to LN.
I could see an argument if you made an "at all costs" argument, i.e. all paladins should immediately rally up the loyal and run screaming at the nearest portal to hell, but I think that the situation you've described is not too outrageous. You could just as easily turn it on its head, and say that a "fundamentally good being" cannot be actually a good being if it acts in such a way, therefore it is the one with the alignment shift, rather than the paladin.
I think you're overthinking it. I believe they were just trying to paraphrase the old saying:
"All that is required for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing."
But putting their own fantasy, paladiny bent on it.
|
I think that the abhorring of good men doing nothing also draws from the fact that paladins are almost innately short term oriented. If they are faced with a situation in which letting an innocent die will serve the greater good and save millions more, the paladin will save the innocent and try to fix the situation. We've seen this situation many times in which the hero says frak it all to save the child or someone else. It is fundamentally hard for a paladin, which I would argue is a person of action, to sit by and let lesser evils occur for the greater good to happen. Those that wait aren't necessarily evil they just see the scope bigger than what the paladin sees. I think that very few paladins would have an easy time thinking in the scope of the long term and that fits with what most paladins do. They are beings of action.
"paladins know that the only thing more abhorrent than an evil creature is a fundamentally good creature too timid to strive against the forces of darkness."
I think the statement references the paladin himself, not his views on others. It is worded a little bit awkwardly, but that is how I originally understood it.
I think that the abhorring of good men doing nothing also draws from the fact that paladins are almost innately short term oriented. If they are faced with a situation in which letting an innocent die will serve the greater good and save millions more, the paladin will save the innocent and try to fix the situation. We've seen this situation many times in which the hero says frak it all to save the child or someone else. It is fundamentally hard for a paladin, which I would argue is a person of action, to sit by and let lesser evils occur for the greater good to happen. Those that wait aren't necessarily evil they just see the scope bigger than what the paladin sees. I think that very few paladins would have an easy time thinking in the scope of the long term and that fits with what most paladins do. They are beings of action.
Interesting point, and one I've never thought of in those terms before. I'm not sure I completely agree that they can't see long-term -- I think maybe they'd argue that ignoring the immediate evil while preparing for the long-term one lets a lot of preventable evil happen in the mean time, which plays back into the "good men doing nothing" thing. I think that for the paladin it's never an either/or thing, or more accurately a now or later thing, but rather a now and later thing. Yes you risk yourself to save the child, just as you risk yourself to prevent the deaths of millions. To ignore the death of the child is just as evil as ignoring the deaths of millions, and a core tenet of most paladin's belief codes (I daresay, though I'm sure there are exceptions) is that good cannot come from evil. An evil seed bears evil fruit.
As to how the SRD thing is worded, I think back to...gosh, I think it was a Dragon article by Gary Gygax back in the 1e days. He explained that the reason paladins needed high charisma (1e pallies needed a 17 CHA!) was that one of THE main tasks of a paladin was to inspire good in people and rally them toward good causes. A paladin wasn't primarily in the job of going out and killing orcs or dragons. He did those things, but only by way of providing an example to the frightened, the timid, and the powerless that a single person's good actions do matter, thereby giving them the spirit necessary to change their own lives -- and the whole world -- for the better. So I wouldn't agree that they'd abhor lack of action by the innately good so much as be galvanized by it, and to be driven by it to inspire, by word and deed, good creatures to do better for and by themselves.
|
I think that the abhorring of good men doing nothing also draws from the fact that paladins are almost innately short term oriented. If they are faced with a situation in which letting an innocent die will serve the greater good and save millions more, the paladin will save the innocent and try to fix the situation. We've seen this situation many times in which the hero says frak it all to save the child or someone else. It is fundamentally hard for a paladin, which I would argue is a person of action, to sit by and let lesser evils occur for the greater good to happen. Those that wait aren't necessarily evil they just see the scope bigger than what the paladin sees. I think that very few paladins would have an easy time thinking in the scope of the long term and that fits with what most paladins do. They are beings of action.I think the short sighted view of them is more from how many tend to play them and an unfortunate prevalence of sadistic choices just for the sake of potential fall buttons, though I do understand your point. I think it's harder to play a long sighted paladin because by the nature of the class the greatest good is one untainted by any evil and that is often a difficult course to take, let alone find.
I blame superheroes.
How dare they do the heroic thing, instead of coldly calculating the best possible way to create the most good for the most people over the longest time for the least cost.
Now, to create a giant alien squid monster and drop it on Manhattan, thus ensuring the end of the Cold War and peace all over the world for at least a hundred years. I am definitely not the supervillian of the story, because I'm doing the right thing for all the right reasons, even if it is in the wrong way.
***
See, this is the problem with trying to go the other way. It's like the other posters are saying: Paladins are creatures of action. Even - especially - when this gets them into trouble, because it makes for interesting stories.
Ultimately, isn't that what we're after here? Interesting stories, compelling characters, driven heroes tormented by their own choices, trying to prove themselves to the ones they've failed in the past, and so on?
|
|
I think that the abhorring of good men doing nothing also draws from the fact that paladins are almost innately short term oriented. If they are faced with a situation in which letting an innocent die will serve the greater good and save millions more, the paladin will save the innocent and try to fix the situation. We've seen this situation many times in which the hero says frak it all to save the child or someone else. It is fundamentally hard for a paladin, which I would argue is a person of action, to sit by and let lesser evils occur for the greater good to happen. Those that wait aren't necessarily evil they just see the scope bigger than what the paladin sees. I think that very few paladins would have an easy time thinking in the scope of the long term and that fits with what most paladins do. They are beings of action.I think the short sighted view of them is more from how many tend to play them and an unfortunate prevalence of sadistic choices just for the sake of potential fall buttons, though I do understand your point. I think it's harder to play a long sighted paladin because by the nature of the class the greatest good is one untainted by any evil and that is often a difficult course to take, let alone find.I blame superheroes.
How dare they do the heroic thing, instead of coldly calculating the best possible way to create the most good for the most people over the longest time for the least cost.
Now, to create a giant alien squid monster and drop it on Manhattan, thus ensuring the end of the Cold War and peace all over the world for at least a hundred years. I am definitely not the supervillian of the story, because I'm doing the right thing for all the right reasons, even if it is in the wrong way.
***
See, this is the problem with trying to go the other way. It's like the other posters are saying: Paladins are creatures of action. Even -...
Pretty much. If everything was easy and doing good was easy we'd see a lot more paladins. I think it really sucks that people give them the shaft because they have sticks up their butts. But that's the fun of it. The stick is a core class feature!
Yes, paladins can be a little overly righteous, but that's because they want the best from themselves and those around them. I kind of see this as that one teacher in high school or college that would push you hard because they knew you could be better. In my opinion that's how most paladins are, but they come off as being self-righteous and holier than thou.
Now, don't get me wrong here, but I think WoTC had it right in Complete Scoundrel when they had the greygard. I think that fit perfectly with the idea of a paladin thinking in the long scheem and will do what is necessary to accomplish goals for good. Like a certain world's smartest man did...
Good being do not despise the weak and timid for being weak and timid.
Weak, no. Timid, yes. Or mayby. The farmer with a quarterstaff facing a rampaging batezuu can not do anything about the fact that they are a farmer with a quarterstaff. The paladin is not going to blame him for running.... but he expects him to grab a kid under his arm on the way out.
What they will find abhorrent is the same farmer not helping his neighbor when times are hard or helping a stranger who's cart has broken an axel.
They might pity them and want to protect them and help them become stronger and braver.
They would not consider anyone abhorrent unless they were evil (and sometimes not even then).
They want to help everyone do better. The fact is that they find normal (non lawful good) behavior "unacceptable" and want to change it by example.
It is contradicted in the following sentence by the phrase about "asking only that they may protect the innocent", though that also contains an attitude that I would expect to only apply to a minority paladins - "with her last breath a paladin can take comfort in a life of absolute righteousness." That sounds like Miko from Order of the Stick, an example of how not to play a paladin, and who rightfully fell before she died.
Righteousness. Not self righteousness. She lost track of that.
I would expect most paladins to be praying for forgiveness with their last breath.
D%D isn't...certain real world religions, where you are damned from birth and can never be good enough to earn so much as the right to exist. The fact that they haven't fallen, even in the face of death, is ironclad proof from their god that they've lived a good life.
Due south is good for lawful good, but his skill set was more rangery.
As to how the SRD thing is worded, I think back to...gosh, I think it was a Dragon article by Gary Gygax back in the 1e days. He explained that the reason paladins needed high charisma (1e pallies needed a 17 CHA!) was that one of THE main tasks of a paladin was to inspire good in people and rally them toward good causes. A paladin wasn't primarily in the job of going out and killing orcs or dragons. He did those things, but only by way of providing an example to the frightened, the timid, and the powerless that a single person's good actions do matter, thereby giving them the spirit necessary to change their own lives -- and the whole world -- for the better. So I wouldn't agree that they'd abhor lack of action by the innately good so much as be galvanized by it, and to be driven by it to inspire, by word and deed, good creatures to do better for and by themselves.
Good point!
I don't know why paladins are such lightning rods for GM hate -- particularly when you then hear GMs complaining that they can't get their players to act like heroes!
A paladin player who has put forth a bona fides effort to uphold their code shouldn't be worried about having their class abilities stripped because they only got 999 of the 1000 villagers out of the burning castle; but neither should they go around lopping off the rogue's head for lightening the purse of a corrupt merchant. Compassion and mercy are virtues, too!
-The Gneech
Good point!
I don't know why paladins are such lightning rods for GM hate -- particularly when you then hear GMs complaining that they can't get their players to act like heroes!
A paladin player who has put forth a bona fides effort to uphold their code shouldn't be worried about having their class abilities stripped because they only got 999 of the 1000 villagers out of the burning castle; but neither should they go around lopping off the rogue's head for lightening the purse of a corrupt merchant. Compassion and mercy are virtues, too!
-The Gneech
I think a lot of GMs do make it functionally impossible to play paladins. I've seen it in action - GMs who take a sadistic glee in making every choice a Morton's Fork and who make sure that everything the paladin does has hideous consequences. And the thing is, many of those same GM's don't do that if there isn't a paladin in the party -- the presence of a paladin brings out the worst in a lot of GMs, basically. IME.
OP: A better quote would be "With great power comes great responsibility". I currently play a paladin, and I am vocal about my character's wish for people with power to do good. The weak and feeble have no home on the front-lines in the battle against evil, and only become liabilities and perish in vain.
We recently had to deal with a crazed creature that was not evil, but did some borderline evil, and very chaotic things, and had a village of savage warriors worship her as a goddess. I knew that if I slew her for the evil she sometimes does, I incite a war that would claim the lives of many.
The paladin is hard to play, as you need to consider the cost of doing good as well as the act of doing it. Dragging the weak into a fight they cannot win just because it is worthy, my paladin would construe as vanity bordering on evil.
OP: A better quote would be "With great power comes great responsibility". I currently play a paladin, and I am vocal about my character's wish for people with power to do good. The weak and feeble have no home on the front-lines in the battle against evil, and only become liabilities and perish in vain.
We recently had to deal with a crazed creature that was not evil, but did some borderline evil, and very chaotic things, and had a village of savage warriors worship her as a goddess. I knew that if I slew her for the evil she sometimes does, I incite a war that would claim the lives of many.
The paladin is hard to play, as you need to consider the cost of doing good as well as the act of doing it. Dragging the weak into a fight they cannot win just because it is worthy, my paladin would construe as vanity bordering on evil.
True. You don't clean out the orphanage and send them up against the horde of frost giants coming down from the north. But that's not really the point. Not everyone is capable of facing down the frost giants, but everyone IS capable of doing good in their own way and in their own capacities, and that's what the paladin is there to inspire people to do. By striving harder than others, holding himself to a higher code than he expects of others, and doing things others can't do, he serves as an example of what CAN be done to inspire others to be the best THEY can be.
I have never experienced anything of the sort myself but from stories I've heard it seems that if the stripping of a class is a big deal it draws a poor dm's eye. Paladin is one of the few where the loss of the class mechanics is also a significant event so it increases from there. Granted I don't think a lot of those Morton's fork scenarios should even apply because it's supposed to be a willful evil action that makes you fall.
A lot of it isn't even class-stripping, just, "Ha-ha! You tried to do good and made things worse!" sort of childishly sadistic nonsense that they don't do when there isn't a paladin around to rub his nose in it.
Due south is good for lawful good, but his skill set was more rangery.
I see Benton as a multiclassed Ranger/Paladin. He's an excellent tracker and he has an animal companion (or is it the other way around? ;) ) but he's incredibly charismatic and has too many social skills for me to see him as a pure Ranger.
I just noticed this in the Pathfinder SRD
"paladins know that the only thing more abhorrent than an evil creature is a fundamentally good creature too timid to strive against the forces of darkness."Maybe a few paladins close to falling could hold that attitude, but as a general statement it makes no sense to me. . .
Just you hold on a second there partner! Are you trying to tell me that strict, militant, war-like paladins are contradictory, or perhaps even hypocritical? Noooooooo!
[/sarcasm]Paladins wouldn't be interesting if there weren't contradictions and difficult to resolve elements in their behavior.
|
|
I just noticed this in the Pathfinder SRD
"paladins know that the only thing more abhorrent than an evil creature is a fundamentally good creature too timid to strive against the forces of darkness."
We might also stretch out the concept of strive. As many posters have already noted, the Paladin doesn't expect Farmer Bob to break out the pitchfork and take on the Pit Fiend; however, he might expect Farmer Bob to sit at home when it's time to play that old Chelaxian classic, stone the heretic.
Meekly accepting evil is a fear-based act, often because resistance involves risk. I don't see a problem with expecting good people to have the courage of their convictions, even if self-preservation restrains them to little more than passive resistance.
The question of the ends justify the means vs the ends are the means is the fundamental question of heroic morality. Punisher vs Spidey, Ozymandius vs Rorshack, King Arthur vs Merlin, hero vs antihero.
As far as the indifference of good men, abhorrence has degrees. I don't think a Paladin is expected to smite it, but it should be disturbing, exactly the sort of thing his existance example is supposed to help cure. A demon is wrong and must be destroyed, but it's just following its nature. A high priest ignoring his moral duties is a betrayal.
|
|
Save that one of the heroic principles is that the ends do not justify the means. The above act described is still a colossal act of Evil in the act of mass murder no matter what it's collateral consequences. He is SO much the supervillan of the piece.
Now, to create a giant alien squid monster and drop it on Manhattan, thus ensuring the end of the Cold War and peace all over the world for at least a hundred years. I am definitely not the supervillian of the story, because I'm doing the right thing for all the right reasons, even if it is in the wrong way.
***
Exactly.
This gets right to the core of the issue with Paladins.
They are Heroes AND they are Good. They are both.
You can be a Hero without being a good guy, that's been covered to death in all kinds of media.
But you can also be Good without being a Hero. That's one of the fundamental messages of Watchmen, which is why I linked it. He is definately, undeniably a supervillian, at least in the classic sense; I don't think anyone has ever tried to argue otherwise. But is he Good?
Personally, he's my go-to example of a Lawful Good Supervillain. His are motivated by a strong desire to do good. He's very much aware of the hypocracy of heroism - killing a bad guy is still killing. Rather than spend his life rwrestling with the the conflict, like so many heroes do, he set the mantle aside, and focused on doing what he beleived was right for everyone. Ultimately, despite the horror of his actions, the heroes support him because it works, or looks like it works.
The ending is very controversial, because it doesn't make it clear whether or not the plan actually holds up long term. Can a good person do something that horrible if it leads to so much good? Do the ends ever justify the means, not for heroes, but for good people? The comic/movie does not answer the question.
That's one of the big issues a lot of players have with paladins. They are Good, but they are also Heroes. Whether a good person can do something like Watchmen is debatable (and hasn't been answered for 20 years, so we aren't likely to solve it here in this thread).
But a Paladin cannot, because a Paladin isn't just good, he's a Hero. He needs both.
Since PF tends to a judeo-christian value system, the bible is a fitting place to look.
"Faith without actions is meaningless"
It is another way of saying, you can tell me what you believe all day long, but your actions show me what your really believe.
Someone who claims to believe in helping others, may some across as a good person. If they let a child die in front of them because they don't want to get their clothes dirty, they are showing you what they really believe.
Yes, but the quote was about a fundamentally good but timid being, and that is not the behaviour of such a being.
If you are not willing to act on your convictions, even out of fear, then they are not convictions. All evil needs to win is for good people to do nothing. If fear stops you from doing something, then evil wins. The paladin understands that people are afraid. The paladin does not abhor people for being afraid or being timid, he abhors people who let that stop them from doing the right thing.
The fact that they haven't fallen yet, isn't proof that they will never fall.
If they're taking their last breath it is. If miko had still been a paladin when she started her conversation with soon, its HIGHLY unlikely that she could have managed to fall.
Yes - but Benton's behaviour is not just Lawful Good, it is very paladin like.
True. I suppose there are worse examples.
Some of the better aspects of superman work well for a paladin. He's out in the open, and works just as hard to give people an image to inspire to be than to solve the problems
|
|
I believe the line about 'good creatures too timid to act' refers mostly to creatures powerful enough to make a difference in a given situation. A paladin wants to smite evil and keep it at bay, but even more than this they want to encourage others to do likewise, within their means.
Paladins hold good people and creatures to a high standard. This doesn't mean they're likely to attack those creatures for not living up to the high standard, it means that a paladin expects much out of his or her good allies, friends, and contacts. A good creature who sits on the sidelines when he or she could act and make a difference shouldn't get hit with a paladin's sword. Such a creature can definitely expect a chewing out from the paladin, however.
This is one of the paladin's key class features: summon conscience.
This doesn't mean helpless people it refers to apathetic good people
The quote refers to someone who is "too timid" which implies to me someone rendered unwilling to act due to fear.
It also says they are "fundamentally good" which implies to me they would help if they could. I would not consider someone who didn't help because they "didn't want to get involved" to be fundamentally good.It is the difference between someone who does not help the police because they can't be bothered, and someone who doesn't help the police because the villain has threatened to kill them and their families.
Hmm, what a fascinating discussion...
From dictionary.com:
Timid
[tim-id]
–adjective, -er, -est.
1. lacking in self-assurance, courage, or bravery; easily alarmed; timorous; shy.
2. characterized by or indicating fear: a timid approach to a problem.
I think that they're using the word for this quote using the first example, whereas you are reading it as being the second - perhaps this is where the confusion comes from?
Also from dictionary.com:
fun·da·men·tal   
[fuhn-duh-men-tl]
–adjective
1.serving as, or being an essential part of, a foundation or basis; basic; underlying: fundamental principles; the fundamental structure.
2.of, pertaining to, or affecting the foundation or basis: a fundamental revision.
3.being an original or primary source: a fundamental idea.
4.Music . (of a chord) having its root as its lowest note.
–noun
5.a basic principle, rule, law, or the like, that serves as the groundwork of a system; essential part: to master the fundamentals of a trade.
6.Also called fundamental note, fundamental tone . Music .
a.the root of a chord.
b.the generator of a series of harmonics.
7.Physics . the component of lowest frequency in a composite wave.
1400–50; late Middle English < Medieval Latin fundāmentālis of, belonging to a foundation. See fundament, -al1
—Related forms
fun·da·men·tal·i·ty, fun·da·men·tal·ness, noun
fun·da·men·tal·ly, adverb
non·fun·da·men·tal, adjective, noun
non·fun·da·men·tal·ly, adverb
un·fun·da·men·tal, adjective
un·fun·da·men·tal·ly, adverb
So again here, I believe they were saying someone who's principles are fundamentally good.
For instance: If an evil villain saves a burning orphanage (a clearly good act), does that make him good?
-No, he is still fundamentally evil, he just performed this one good act.
Just as someone who was fundamentally good might not stand up for a stranger who was wrongfully accused - he is not suddenly evil, he will still feel bad because of his fundamentally good principles.
just my 2 cents.
When I was a kid I was told about a women being stabbed to death on the streets of new york surrounded by people who simply walked by because they had places to be or didn't want to get involved. They didn't even alert the police. I don't mean this happened in a back ally it was on the side walk as people walked by. For me; yes the killer was terrible and evil, but the by standers who did nothing, they are worse.
Evil people do evil things, but when good people don't do anything to stop them then what good are they.
In your example, the passerbys are not worse than the killer, omfg. You have no idea of their situation, circumstances, etc. A coward is not necessarily a bad person. If some guy is knifing someone, you're risking your life to stop it. You're not only good, you're a hero. You can be good without being a hero.
A good person would never harm someone intentionally, doesn't mean they're a hero.
Not everyone is a hero, most people aren't. Look at 9/11, there wasn't a single person, on two planes, willing to stand up and fight against 1-2 guys with knives. Does it make everyone who died on the plane "not good"?
Regarding the Watchmen, I'm not even sure Ozymandias is good. Maybe he was once, but he's demented and imo, evil at that point. Dr Manhattan is also neutral imo at that point, after becoming further detached from his humanity.
I also agree with the OP's initial statements. Those statements don't belong in the paladin's description. Paladins care about both the means and the end. They don't spit on the weak, just because they're weak.
Some really good discussion here.
I tend to agree with the OP as well. My biggest question in the whole discussion is this: what is the paladin finding abhorrent? Is it the action, or the person?
If it's the action, then I would say it's ok to find it abhorrent. If it's the person, then no, that's not ok and the paladin is headed in the wrong direction. I would have part of the paladin's motto be "love the sinner, hate the sin".
When I was a kid I was told about a women being stabbed to death on the streets of new york surrounded by people who simply walked by because they had places to be or didn't want to get involved. They didn't even alert the police. I don't mean this happened in a back ally it was on the side walk as people walked by. For me; yes the killer was terrible and evil, but the by standers who did nothing, they are worse.
Evil people do evil things, but when good people don't do anything to stop them then what good are they.
In your example, the passerbys are not worse than the killer, omfg. You have no idea of their situation, circumstances, etc. A coward is not necessarily a bad person. If some guy is knifing someone, you're risking your life to stop it. You're not only good, you're a hero. You can be good without being a hero.
A good person would never harm someone intentionally, doesn't mean they're a hero.
Not everyone is a hero, most people aren't. Look at 9/11, there wasn't a single person, on two planes, willing to stand up and fight against 1-2 guys with knives. Does it make everyone who died on the plane "not good"?
I assume he's referring to this famous case, where the actions of the neighbors were pretty heinous (in spite of later attempts at exculpation, which fall pretty flat IMO). Worse than the murderer's? Maybe not. Evil? I'd say so. Turning a blind eye to evil is evil -- in my view and without doubt in a paladin's view, anyway.