There is one other truly evil outcome in the "Joker Dilemma": the switch actually blows up your own boat, not the other. Under that circumstance, outside observers, who are only aware of the supposed means to blow up a single boat, have a fair chance of believing that the people on the surviving boat pulled the trigger and lie about it afterwards. This has the added advantage (to the madman putting the scheme in place) of vilifying the ultimately innocent people on the surviving boat in the eyes of the general public.
Love that dilemma.
Anyway, the upshot my beliefs in this discussion are that a Paladin should never have to justify his actions (assuming he wants to remain a Paladin), because his decisions always account for whether his actions are just before he makes them. There should be no doubt in his mind that his actions are objectively good at the time he takes them. He is not personally responsible for the consequences of those actions if those consequences are something over which he had no control.
Lying would more be a choatic action not a neutral action. Also lying is specifically outlawed for paladins in there code as it is "unhonorable." In the case of the jews hiding in the attic the paladin would not lie but would fight them and kill them in defense of the weak.
I'm not sure what the terminology is, then--but with holding truth from those who do not deserve it is not dishonorable.
I will contest your killing in a "Just War" scenario(one very relevant to a Paladin). Sure, if the enemy is a legion of demons it might work, but most wars(historically) relied on conscripted soldiers. People who didn't choose to fight and would have been killed for saying no. Killing an innocent person who doesn't want to fight is wrong.
No, during a Just War it's not wrong. That's the point I was making. There's a pretty serious and rigorous set of criteria for declaring a war to be a Just War, so it's not like I mean, "oh yeah, it's cool to kill these dudes because I decided it was a just war." I mean "Just War" with capital letters.
And if you want a Nazi specific example, the allied soldiers used weapons they knew would kill innocent people(bombs in areas populated with civilians). They would have had a very hard time winning the war otherwise(and the Japanese front heavily relied on this tactic).
Nobody ever said the Allied forces were morally justified or did the right thing (especially in Japan). WWII was a Just War, but the Allies did not follow the rules and so still acted immorally.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. If the Paladin had to kill an infant to save the world, the Paladin would do it.
I would say "If the Paladin had to kill an infant to save the world, he will look for other ways of saving the world, even if this means his own death." (or with other words "Death before dishonor!")
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lying would more be a choatic action not a neutral action. Also lying is specifically outlawed for paladins in there code as it is "unhonorable." In the case of the jews hiding in the attic the paladin would not lie but would fight them and kill them in defense of the weak.I'm not sure what the terminology is, then--but with holding truth from those who do not deserve it is not dishonorable.
Lying is telling, suggesting, or willingly allowing someone to believe a falsehood. In this case, a paladin just saying "I'm not going to answer your question" wouldn't be lying because he isn't saying "yes" or "no", he's simply not answering the question. Refraining or withholding information would be a better term than lying, since no falsehoods are being presented - just a lack of information.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The just war ideal exists for a reason, primarilly so moral people can fulfill their duties and obligations (which strictly speaking are also moral actions). This is one of the things I think 4e got right. Lawful Good is in a way superior to plain ordinary good, and this is an ethic hidden withing the paladin. But thats a kettle of highly explosive fish I don't want to get into here.
Also, war is a tragedy, but those who perpetrate it are not inherently vile human beings. You soul is not tainted by having to go to war, or kill another human being. A paladin is similar. This is the ethic of that movie involving kung fu fighting kangaroos, this is not a philosophy for adults.
Killing is not a good thing, don't get me wrong, but two soldiers who are serving their countries who have valid purpose for warring should do their utmost to interfere with their enemy, even to the point of killing one another. The old knightly stories where warriors would attempt to energetically dismember one another on the battlefield and then turn around and have a cup of tea were not representations of some sort of crazy topsy-turvy ideal, but rather this ideal.
Again, I call on Christianity as its the faith I have the most experience with. Jesus did not inform the Centurions who came to him for help to abandon their military service, he rather informed them to not abuse their authority.
As for the serfs forced to war, remember that a medieval serf was not a 1960 military conscript. Serfs were essentially like their weapons, agricultural equipment inexpertly forced to a new purpose. Lords who wasted them, wasted their own resources and left their realms to fallow and uselessness. Also, medieval soldiers tended to benefit from warring if they survived. Mostly due to the loot and their pay.
You went from being a subsistance farmer, to a guy kings and lords talked to, who ate three square meals a day, saw things the guys on the farms never saw, and who got armor, colorful clothes, and the /lawful/ chance to make off with whatever wasn't nailed down. Assuming you survived of course, so not all wine and roses.
As for the paladin, he has to represent a moral and ethical actor. As has been stated numerous times above, the paladin's duty is to represent both the ethical and moral side of things (law and good in pathfinder terms).
If his King tells him to go and perpetrate an act which isn't right, say declaring that a woman who is his wife isn't his wife anymore because she can't give him an heir, the paladin will first attempt to reason with his leader, then attempt again, then indicate his refusal, and this is the point where things get sticky for a PC...
HE WILL ABIDE BY THE CONSEQUENCES.
He doesn't run away. He doesn't clear his name. He certainly doesn't turn renegade unless his King has undertaken a seriously horrible evil act. If the King's decree is he is declared forever a traitor and beheaded, he lays his own head down on the block.
And he doesn't listen a whit to the crap about 'he could do so much more good if he lives.'
A good watchword for the paladin is St. Thomas More. "I am ever the king's man, but God's first."
More 'could have' done so much good if he'd only signed something agreeing to a minor evil, condoning his King's divorce against the Church. He didn't. He was executed over his firm, respectful refusal to comply.
God, or here the more generic 'good' takes priority over the world for a paladin.
EDIT: Regarding the post above me. Captain Jack Harkness is /hardly/ the person a paladin should look to for moral guidance.
|
|
How would you justify a war without using "ends justify the means"? The specific acts in war(killing people(often innocent people)) are bad. They are justified through the ends(stopping a greater evil).
My study on the just war doctrine is a bit sketchy, but I think its less an end justifying a mean then choosing the least of several morally questionable alternatives.
As in 'I don't want to cut my foot off to get out of the bear trap, but its the only available alternative.'
or
"I don't want to start a new world war, but the only alternative is to surrender all people to dehumanizing tyranny and death."
'ends justify the means' here, at least for me (define your terms!) is a common parlance for taking morally questionable actions in order to assure some distant good.
Ultimately the 'ends' however can be negated by ill means. I really don't want to get into a teleogical argument about goals or purpose of entities or the like, since 1.) I don't want to write it and 2.) This is a Pathfinder message board, not Philosophy 101.
|
|
Thank you to all for helping enlighten me. As a consequence of Spook's post I have read the Wikipedia entry on, 'the Broken Window Fallacy', which obviously means that I am now an expert on the subject. : )
I think I'm closer to understanding my dissatisfaction with the 'never' in the phrase, 'the ends never justify the means'. I think it stems from the form of the original question, 'Do the ends ever justify the means?'
The original question is put as a simple question that would require a simple answer. But it raises far too many comex and nuanced possibilities to let an equally simple answer satisfy. 'The ends never justify the means' is a simple answer, and that is why it didn't satisfy, while a longer explanation might.
mplindustries posted the 'never' phrase. When I asked if she had meant 'the means must justify themselves' she said no. But her recent post has a paladin lying and saying that it's okay in that circumstance. I agree, BTW, but this seems more like 'the means must justify themselves' than 'the ends never justify the means'.
Addressing another point, I totally get that a paladin (or anyone) is only responsible for her own decisions, not the decision of the psycho de jour, but when the paladin didn't kill the baby, and the entire world did end á la Captain Jack Harkness, when the paladin is explaining what happened to his god, and he says, 'Well, my conscience is clear!', that seems a very selfish reason to allow the world to end, especially when said baby dies when the world ends anyway!
A good watchword for the paladin is St. Thomas More. "I am ever the king's man, but God's first."
I'm sorry, but I don't believe that burning people at the stake for disagreeing with you is the hallmark of LG.
|
|
Really comes down to belief systems.
...hell, I'll use the non weasel word. It comes down to your faith.
If the world is a transient place according to your faith, as transient as a play where actors play parts, then the destruction of the world and everyone's death might result in the paladin's god saying 'Why did you kill the baby in the third act, that wasn't the right thing to do.'
If the world is something more vital, things become more important.
As the former, I tend to not really worry about 'the world,' as much as I think its going to end one day anyway and the only infinite things in it are the people.
If you believe otherwise it might result in different things.
Pathfinder lets us observe a wide variety of this stuff, and like in all paladin arguments my primary concern is 'Figure out your DM's philosophy or play a paladin at your own peril.'
For questions of actual morality and discussion, I'd suggest you take a course in philosophy and/or make sure to read such folks as Plato, St. ignatius of Loyola Aristotle, Thales, Nietsche, C.S. Lewis, G. K. Chesterton, the Nicomacean ethics, St. Thomas Acquinas, Kant, Heidegger, the hebrew midrash, and so on.
Just be warned that even a dim amount of actual moral philosophy will make you want to grind your teeth at some stuff you see in video games and RPGs.
Or you could read wikipedia and become an expert. ;)
|
|
Yeah, the trick is people apply real world moral factors to a universe where deities tend to operate like over-glorified ponzi schemes.
In world, its something you should ask your DM about in terms of how it works. In the real world, we don't usually have a similar opportunity.
Personally, I've never liked the 'feeds on belief' rigamorole and don't use it in my campaign setting (and my only forays into goralian are at conventions.)
I've also got issues with the apparently mortal souls of the poor people of golarian that can be stolen like cans of peas from a 7-11, but, hey, thats why we can make our own campaign worlds.
|
|
Wikipedia is my friend. : )
Finally getting round to answering the OP as it pertains to PF paladins (now that I have a handle on what's going on, however sleight), I honestly believe that all paladins are not the same, and different paladins will follow different gods, philosophies and codes, and will have different answers to the OP's question. Some would kill the baby and save the world believing it was the right thing and be supported by his religion. Other paladins will allow the world to end knowing that even though the baby died along with the rest of the world, at least it wasn't his hand that killed the baby, and he would be supported by his religion!
mplindustries posted the 'never' phrase. When I asked if she had meant 'the means must justify themselves' she said no. But her recent post has a paladin lying and saying that it's okay in that circumstance. I agree, BTW, but this seems more like 'the means must justify themselves' than 'the ends never justify the means'.
I wouldn't argue if you put it that way. The point is that you are not morally justified in doing something evil just because doing so will generate some good. You can phrase it however you like--I'm sorry the word "never" bothered you so much, but that is probably a consequence of living in a morally relativistic society.
A good watchword for the paladin is St. Thomas More. "I am ever the king's man, but God's first."I'm sorry, but I don't believe that burning people at the stake for disagreeing with you is the hallmark of LG.
If it was for disagreement, I'd agree with you... <_<
You can burn an objectively evil entity at the stake as a Paladin--especially because you can detect their evilness with 100% accuracy. It has to be done as a "defense of others" kind of thing, though--if you can't adequately jail or redeem an evil being, and they pose a clear and present threat to the innocent, they have to be killed to protect others.
You could argue about the specific method (burning), but the killing itself is ok.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The long and the short of this is that a paladin and lets be fair here, anyone who strictly follows good alignment and a strictly lawful dogma, lives a life according to a set of hard rules. The choices they face will not be easy ones but there is an old saying about walking the high road that pertains to that.
Clearly the vast majority believe the ends do not justify the means for the paladin and others who set themselves to that sort of ethical and moral standard.
Maybe its just my point of view but it should be less about falling as punishment and more about doing whats right by the code you choose to live your life by, regardless of class and game mechanics of falling.
So I have to wonder for Good alignment as a whole, regardless of class or race does the ends ever justify the means? Or does this phrase and line of thought belong more with Neutral and Evil persons?
|
|
mplindustries posted the 'never' phrase. When I asked if she had meant 'the means must justify themselves' she said no. But her recent post has a paladin lying and saying that it's okay in that circumstance. I agree, BTW, but this seems more like 'the means must justify themselves' than 'the ends never justify the means'.I wouldn't argue if you put it that way. The point is that you are not morally justified in doing something evil just because doing so will generate some good. You can phrase it however you like--I'm sorry the word "never" bothered you so much, but that is probably a consequence of living in a morally relativistic society.
Fair enough. : )
My opinion is that each case is a seperate judgement call, even for a paladin. It's not that his code gives him no choice, but that the paladin is judged by his actions and the motivations for those actions; his 'choice'. The different religions will result in varying judgements when faced by identical theoretical situations, so no six word phrase is going to satisfy everyone.
So I have to wonder for Good alignment as a whole, regardless of class or race does the ends ever justify the means? Or does this phrase and line of thought belong more with Neutral and Evil persons?
Yes, Neutrals and Evil are the ones that believe ends justify the means.
They believe what they are tryin to accomplish is more important than what they have to do (somewhat selfish to think they can choose what is more important).
WWII was a Just War, but the Allies did not follow the rules and so still acted immorally.
If I remember international ethics correctly, a Just War must be conducted justly to still retain that moral description.
The firebombing of Dresden and the nuclear attacks on Japan did not meet the condition of proportionality set out in Just War doctrine.
This is not to say that either of those were not morally correct actions, it all depends on what moral system you ascribe to (this is something that seems to be missing in this argument; people seem to be talking about interpreting the same moral phenomenon in different ways rather than discussing the different ways in which moral phenomenon might present themselves).
So I have to wonder for Good alignment as a whole, regardless of class or race does the ends ever justify the means? Or does this phrase and line of thought belong more with Neutral and Evil persons?Yes, Neutrals and Evil are the ones that believe ends justify the means.
They believe what they are tryin to accomplish is more important than what they have to do (somewhat selfish to think they can choose what is more important).
As someone who accepts utilitarianism as a guiding principle, I take quite a bit of offense to that. There is nothing inherently wrong with the maximization of utility.
I would direct you to read Jeremy Benthame, John Stuart Mill, and Peter Singer.
Also, in a universe in which we can have 100% confidence in the existence of gods and even measure 'goodness' (view strength of aura), utilitarianism is the only moral system that logically computes if your goal is to increase the good.
Also this.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do the ends justify the means?
Tell me... how do you know the ends? The old 'saving one could kill 100' argument can just as easily be extended to 'one of those 100 could then kill 1000'.
When I've played a paladin I've always gone with the good immediately in front of me because relying on 'the ends' to make up for a bad 'means' is just wishful thinking for anyone who isn't omniscient.
WWII was a Just War, but the Allies did not follow the rules and so still acted immorally.If I remember international ethics correctly, a Just War must be conducted justly to still retain that moral description.
The firebombing of Dresden and the nuclear attacks on Japan did not meet the condition of proportionality set out in Just War doctrine.
This is not to say that either of those were not morally correct actions, it all depends on what moral system you ascribe to (this is something that seems to be missing in this argument; people seem to be talking about interpreting the same moral phenomenon in different ways rather than discussing the different ways in which moral phenomenon might present themselves).
To be fair, according to military strategists at the time the atomic bombs were one of the options (if not the option) that would cause the least collateral damage and end the war the most quickly. The other options that they were considering would have entailed far greater numbers of civilian and military casualties; especially given that the USSR was prepared to invade Japan around the same time, which would have caused numerous issues short and long term. Other options included a slog from island to island with estimates of ridiculously high casualties, and fire bombing Japan, which would have been more devastating than Dresden due to the higher amount of wood being used in Japanese construction. Granted, there are all kind of arguments on whether the second bomb was necessary (was it dropped for the sake of defeating Japan, or intimidating the USSR?). But this is a complete digression, and the forum is not a history class. :)
I think it is an interesting quandry, one that bears consideration on a case-by-case basis, of the whole idea of a Paladin having to choose the lesser of many evils, and abide by the consequences (roleplaying-wise regardless of whether the GM considers such an act fall-worthy).
Should add, that in my mind the point of the paladin code is that it shapes how the paladin should approach life and various challenges. In my mind it is the means by which the paladin should be judged, not the end result. Not to say the end result that the paladin should be shooting for should not be appropriately good, but acquiring good through questionable/evil means seems to be more the realm if inquisitors than paladins.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
no.
The entire point of a paladin is to deny this philosophy. To a paladin, the ends justify the means is simply a self serving shortcut used by those really out for their own interests.
How right they are varies wildly from world to world and from dm to dm.
Why would the child destroy the world? Is there a bomb attached to him, or is he pure Evil incarnate? Circumstances should affect the situation instead of being a "lose and lose situation because you are a Paladin" type of thing.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's a passage from a NSFW website (1d4chan) about why I respect paladins.
It was our 11th hour, we'd hounded the streets for days trying to round up cult agents and get information out of them.
We found out the plague was already in most of the food and water, as they had been at it for months, but a ritual needed to be completed for it to become active.
The cultists were hard to break, and our group (generally not the nicest folks) wanted to torture it out of them. Naturally, Sir Peter was opposed.
"We can't preserve freedom while denying it to others. It's not right, we can't do it, and I won't allow it"
Chris wasn't being a dick, he was just playing the character. As much as our characters might not have liked it, we as players were having lots of fun. The added drama really worked.
We managed to capture a high priest of the cult, someone responsible for conducting the ritual in this part of the land. It turns out the ritual needed to be conducted at the same time in several parts of the kingdom at once, in order to deliver the maximum effect.
We need to know the other locations, or else all our efforts would have just saved one northern barony and not the whole land. He gave us no choice but to beat it out of him.
Sir Peter wanted no part of this: "If you're going to treat a man like some animal for the slaughter, then don't expect me to sit by and watch". He then stormed out, and let us carry on in our work.
We'd been at it hours, and we couldn't get the guy to crack. He just wouldn't tell us anything. He was covered in cuts, had lost a toe at our hands, was dripping in his own blood, but still won't give us want we needed. We were going to give up and try another method, when all of a sudden, our doorway darkens and in walks Sir Peter. He's wearing nothing but his tunic and pants, unarmed, bar for a half drank jug of some form of strong booze in hand.
In steps into the room and announces:
"If you're going to do this, do it right..."
He walks over to the bound cultist, tosses aside his bottle, lifts and chair and sits in front of the beaten man.
Sir Peter:
"I don't want to hurt you, I just need to know the locations of your brethren, then this can be all over for you, I will make sure you are safe and cared for."
Cultist:
"Ha! I know who you are, Sir Peter Fairgrave; kingdom breaker, runaway child, father slayer. You can't threaten me: I know what you are. Your order, your God won't allow you to lay your hands on me, otherwise you'll fall, and you won't be able to help a soul"
Sir Peter:
*sighs* "You seem to be under misconception about what I am, what I do. I am a paladin, that is true; but as a paladin I don't fear falling... I look forward to it"
The cultist shot a nervous look at the rest of the party, we were all looking at each other, not sure what was about to happen. The cultist opened his mouth to speak, but Sir Peter cut him off.
Sir Peter:
"As a paladin, I walk on a razor's edge. Not between good and evil, I could never be something like you, but between "law" and "justice". The "law" I follow doesn't permit me to harm you, but I could be "justified" in anything I did to you in order to save innocent lives. ANYTHING!"
"You don't know what it is like to be me. You don't know the pain of having to store all your anger, all your fury, all your sense of justice, and hold it inside you, all day every day for the rest of your life. Doing the right thing doesn't mean I get to stop all evil, I just get to trim it when it becomes overgrown. The path I walk is not about vengeance, or what's right; it's about moderation in the face of power, restraint and compassion for scum like you.
"This is why paladins don't fear falling. We don't spend all day looking for ways to prevent ourselves from doing evil and giving in to the darkness -- we actively seek it out. Every time we face evil, we ask ourselves, "is this the threat that I'm going to give it all up for? is this what I am going to give up my ability to help others in the future, in order to bring down now, is this the evil that I am willing to forsake my God and my power to stop?!".
At this point, he stands up suddenly and swings his arm against the chair he was sitting on. Sending it flying and shattered against a wall, he then kicks over the chair the cultist was sitting on, he leaps and straddles his chest, flinging him about for a few seconds in pure rage, before calming once more.
He looks the cultist straight in the face, both their noses just inches from each other.
"What you should be asking yourself now, what you really need to be thinking about, is: 'Is what I'm doing something that will make this guy want to fall?' Because you should know that once I fall, all those rules which protect you from me are gone. No longer will I be able to be stopped by you, or by my order, or by my God. If I give everything, and I mean give everything, I will never stop. If you escape me today, I will hunt you down and grab you into the pits of hell myself. Even if that means that I have to invoke the wrath of every demon in creation, just so they throw open a pit and drag me down where I stand, because when they do drag me down, I will make sure that my fists are wrapped firmly around your ankles and you go down with me. I want you to listen to me now, and I mean really listen, because Hell truly hath no fury like a paladin scorned."
"So I ask you, one last time: tell me where the other rituals are being held, or I swear to all on high that I will fall, and fall hard, just so I can show you what it is that paladin truly keeps his code in order to hold back..."
TL;DR An awesome Paladin story where the paladin threatens a cultist with his own falling to get information.
If a character is willing to break his sworn moral code(and contemplates doing so every time he faces evil), he is neutral good. A lawful good character chooses his code because he believes the code itself is the most moral way to act. A neutral good character views laws as useful and generally follows them, but recognizes that sometimes these laws need to be broken for the greater good.
A Paladin views the code the same way a devote Muslim would view the Koran. A devote Muslim isn't going to ask himself "Is today the day I find a good enough reason to violate Allah's teachings?"
I'm pretty sure the whole thing is an elaborate bluff...
Violating the code once does not lead to falling, unless your DM is a pathetic loser with nothing better to do.
Also, a Paladin must choose Good over Law in situations where he/she can only pick one or the other. It's in the rules.
I always just saw it as a "How far is a paladin willing to go to stop the threat?" thing...
If there was a greater point and I missed it... Well, I like my interpretation anyway.
Each Paladin, like each person, would see it differently. I see it as a "How much are you willing to give up to win" scenario, are you willing to put your sword, your life or even your very code on the line to see the evil stopped.
That to me speaks true devotion to a cause, I don't know if it does for the rest of you Pathfinders, but I hope I made my point.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All I can say on this is... watch the Torchwood series "Children of Earth".I would say "If the Paladin had to kill an infant to save the world, he will look for other ways of saving the world, even if this means his own death." (or with other words "Death before dishonor!")Yes. If the Paladin had to kill an infant to save the world, the Paladin would do it.
I'm not sure that "Jack Harkness" would be considered a paladin by any definition of the term.
Violating the code once does not lead to falling, unless your DM is a pathetic loser with nothing better to do.
Also, a Paladin must choose Good over Law in situations where he/she can only pick one or the other. It's in the rules.
You are stuck in 3.5. There was a happy land where only gross biolations led to a fall.
But in Pathfinder, it is a sad place whre one violation means fall.
Have you even read the code of conduct?
a. A paladin who ceases to be lawful good,
b. who willfully commits an evil act,
c. or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features.
Part three is the issue: " who violates the code of conduct"
Not cease to be LG, willingly commit evil, and violate code. But Or.
Not compare to 3.5:
a. A paladin who ceases to be lawful good,
b. who willfully commits an evil act,
c. or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features.
Part three isn't the issue: " who grossly violates the code of conduct"
According to you, it wasn't grossly so 3.5 Paladin doesn't fall.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since I enjoy playing paladins, I am going to throw in my two cents against my better judgement. For paladins who are put in cases that haven't left key pieces out, the end never justify the means.
I'll start with the "Baby or the World" case. Considering that all existence on the Material Plane is going to be destroyed, and multiple extraplanar beings depend upon the Material Plane for various reasons including the paladin's chosen deity like Spook said, the situation would in all likelihood not be up to the paladin's choice. All of existence would be against this BBEG. So, unless the paladin is somehow more powerful and/or smarter than most deities -not to mention braver since those deities are making the paladin choose instead of doing it themselves- someone else would be in charge when it came down to this choice. This reminds me of the old Rovagug war. Was that fought by paladins or deities and extraplanars? Why would the baby case be any different?
This case, IMO, shows the problem with most of these philosophical questions. They are purposefully handicapping the character in ways that aren't realistic relative to the world in question, and in such situations, a realistic answer can't be expected. It's pretty similar to asking the following math question: (If 14 + cheese, then what is blue?) How does one answer that? However, if I was stuck in this situation and there was no possible alternative after I tried and tried to find one, I would have to sacrifice the child; knowing that the child died as an innocent and would be okay, knowing that all of existence including my deity would still be around afterward and knowing full-well that my soul was doomed. But is my soul worth more than that of my deity's existence? The answer to that is obvious. A paladin would condemn himself to a thousand lifetimes in Hell before betraying his god. I would then kick my GM in the shin and go home. (Joking)
I also want to respond to the Anne Frank situation. First of all, I'll start by saying that I don't believe a paladin would lie even in this situation. He would tell the Nazis they would have to go through him to get to the Jews. However, paladins not being complete idiots as such, a paladin would not hide the fugitives for long at his house since he knows that he can't lie. He would say "I can't deny you help, but you are not safe here because I am sworn to honesty. I will tell the Nazi's that you are here if you are still here, but that they will have to go through me to get to you. I will then proceed to kick the dogcrap out of them, which will make you even more unsafe. Therefore, we need to find somewhere else where you can live safely out of the reach of those trying to hurt you, and I will make sure that happens even at the cost of my life." Why a paladin continues to live in Nazi-occupied Europe is beyond me, though. His life will end quickly and could have been used better elsewhere. Paladins aren't good fits for underground resistance movements. That's a 2e ranger's job.
TL;DR The ends do not justify the means for paladins.
|
|
Oh man, I was wondering how long until the train thing showed up. Its an interesting study.
I found the fact that everyone seemed to agree it was alright to 'sacrifice' the villain responsible for endangering everyone in the first place to be interesting.
Something I've been cogitating on though is the earlier statement about how in Pathfinder the cosmology is "defined.". Souls are mortal and everything apparently is contingent on the world's continued physical existance.
Frankly, when you dig into them, most fantasy worlds have cosmologies that make Warhammer 40,000's view of the afterlife look uplifting and hale.
The sort of despair that comes from amoral cosmologies is what results in stuff like Manicheaism (I almost certainly mis-spelled that), Epicurianism and Gnosticism. Representing rejection of the physical, attempting to live by seizing the moment before a crashing oblivion and/or attempting to ascend to a better universe through determination of arcane secrets.
The norse thought they were essentially screwed ultimately and were resigned to go out fighting for example. A common belief from ye olden days of the classical period was that the world would dissolve into chaos, disorder and horror, this is a common sight amongst the pre-christian religions of Europe. I'd wager its why classical europe put such a focus on soldiering on and personal honor and obligation tended to be big deals, they were all you had.
The problem a paladin ultimately faces in the pathfinder universe is he's built essentially on the western knightly ideal, which has trouble functioning without the core guidepoint of the western knightly ideal, namely Christianity and its associated cosmology. The paladin we should remember is essentially the Knight of the Round Table ideal, even named after the Knights of Charlemagne. They serve a single, omnipotent deity and their true enemy's defeat was essentially assured. Without that deity, someone acting like a knight has the entire universe laughing into its sleeve at him. He's still as much of a hero, but the universe just doesn't care.
Their challenge from a philosophical standpoint was based more around attempting to prove themselves worthy servants and do the right thing per king and God.
The Pathfinder paladin is trapped more in a situation where the good aligned deities, who are essentially just higher rankling officers in an undecided and never-ending war, which sort of raises the issue of why they deserve worship in the first place as opposed to something like fealty. The wizards and sorcerers raise a good point insofar as 'I have power too, why can't I be a god,' when the only real job determinate for godhood in most campaign settings is being awesome enough.
Truthfully, I don't think this argument can be decided one way or the other for a Pathfinder paladin, through having a rational argument. Heck, I doubt we can even reach consensus.
It really does come down to the DM.