There is a need to understand the psychology and drive behind a person's motivations for doing things.
A "Lawful/Heroic Stupid", from outsider perspectives, is being just that: stupid. However, to the individual themselves or the society they serve, they are not only performing to the best interest of themselves but the world around them. The law, order, provides a pillar of stability to a community. In a "good vs. law" scenario, while abandoning these tenets may result in a temporary victory for the good fight, to a lawful character it might mean a shallow victory. There is a spiritual war fought on top of a physical one, and ultimately it always boils down to one question: my integrity or my sanctity? Often, both are one and the same and the loss of even one is too much for someone, yet losing both is unfathomable.
The "Lawful Stupid" paladin who tells the truth because he doesn't lie is not apt because it is forcing the need for him to answer. He could refuse to negotiate with an evil creature, which is within his right and vow as well as the just thing to say. Answering truthfully isn't lawful stupid. It's simply stupid regardless of what alignment does it.
The "Heroic Stupid" paladin who fights a demon lord isn't an apt scenario either. Of course the paladin will sacrifice him or herself. That's the lawful AND good thing to do, not to mention that it actually makes sense. The alternative is to lay down and die or run away while the people are massacred (which in my opinion is not only stupid but pitiful and disgusting), likely only buying enough time for the paladin to lose his powers, hate himself, and be condemned to become something just as vile as the demon lord (if he's not summarily killed by said demon lord after it's done with the people). If there WAS another way, then regardless of alignment, a sufficiently intelligent being will seek to implement it.
Neither of these are suitable because there's no conflict between creed and virtue. They're just poorly perceived. On the other hand, a paladin who must fight his own king, whom he has sworn to serve,to free a citizenry that feels oppressed by him OR help that king (who isn't necessarily a bad guy) keep his unpopular but legal rule faces a very serious issue.
Your morals or your ethics? Which would you choose.
On the other hand, Heroic Stupid, within the context of a roleplaying game, can be stupid, but it is often worthy of praise. Classic example, I think, is a paladin who engages a strong demon lord, knowing that demon lord will defeat him, because that demon lord threatens innocents, and the paladin sees no other way to give the innocents time to escape.
Thoughts?
That isn't stupid. It is self-sacrificing, sure. An Evil being (and frankly most Neutral beings) see it as stupid because after all, he dies. In his place they'd run like hell and let the innocents fend for themselves.
Another Good being would call him a hero. Giving of yourself to help others is what Good does.
Yeah, I see what you're getting at, but Heroic Stupid really ain't Stupid at all.
More along the lines of Heroic Stupid (versus Lawful Stupid) would be to attack an evil being obviously stronger. It's heroic, sure, but also moronic--just like refusing to compromise to allow, say, a pickpocket to live.
The big difference?
One results in an ex-paladin.
The other results in an ex-paladin.
Good call, Kobold!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The whole "paladins never lie" thing rankles me. I think that there are circumstances where lying is not only acceptable, but necessary-- even to a lawful good person.
Deception can be a valid military tactic. In my opinion, the battlefield ruse is a perfectly acceptable tactic for a paladin to use. Examples would be tricking an enemy into thinking your forces are larger or smaller in number than they are.
If captured by the enemy, I don't understand why it would be improper to provide disinformation. Giving the enemy false intelligence should be fine for a lawful god character.
Likewise, I think a lawful good character hiding refugees from a corrupt regime should have no qualms telling the guards, "Nope. No runaway slaves here." I think there is a big difference between lying to cover for yourself and lying to protect others.
Of course, lying under oath is again a different thing, and a lawful good person would not do that. And there is value in avoiding the question in some circumstances.
Since we're all geeks here, I'll use an example from Star Trek. In Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, there's a scene where Spock gives Kirk a status report that the Enterprise will be out of commission for three or four days, when the actual repair time is in hours. When Kirk expresses surprise that a Vulcan lied, Spock replied, "No, I was exaggerating." I always thought his line should have been, "No, I was speaking in code," but the effect was the same. And that act was perfectly in line with Spock's alignment (which I've always considered to be lawful good.)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lawful Stupid, IMO, is something that is unreasonable and should be mocked. Classic example (outside of mythic heroes with strange magical oaths) is a paladin who, asked if he is hiding people from Evil Lord McNastypants, answers truthfully that he is hiding these people because he's Lawful Good and Lawful Good people never lie.On the other hand, Heroic Stupid, within the context of a roleplaying game, can be stupid, but it is often worthy of praise. Classic example, I think, is a paladin who engages a strong demon lord, knowing that demon lord will defeat him, because that demon lord threatens innocents, and the paladin sees no other way to give the innocents time to escape.
Depends on the Paladin...
The "Lawful Stupid" situation:
A smart Paladin can easily justify lying to an evil person, as has been brought up.
The "Heroic Stupid" situation:
Some Paladins are allowed to escape this situation via the Faiths of Purity book, useful if you want to pull RAW on a GM who's threatening to whack the spells off of you. If the Paladin can knowingly save allies while running away he'd be allowed to do so. Or if he was under orders to let a friend sacrifice themselves, he must honor his sacrifice, but he can still stay behind and die for no reason as well (Paladin of Iomedae). Other than that, unless he is privy to knowledge that saving these people is impossible or that a much greater good will be accomplished by living to do good in the future, his choice has been made for him.
I tend to play NG and CG in a similar fashion anyway. That lawful sticker just means you sometimes have to feign cooperation or niceties with stupid decisions because you're expected to do so, or if the GM has it out for you make you do so.
A decent plot hook is a villain recruiting a Paladin basically against his will. IE, BBEG ruler/king has some innocents under his rule that need saving, he let's the Paladin learn of their plight and offers him the job to do the dirty work for him. The Paladin is now torn between helping a clearly evil being and having to help innocents, ultimately he's still furthering the position of the evil guy. (Totally lifting this situation from Counter Monkey).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that believing lying is unacceptable under any circumstances is a wholly stupid concept.
That said, as there has actually been a decent amount of philosophical debate on that issue throughout actual history I think it's still a fair point to raise.
Plenty of real zealous people have come to the conclusion that it would be and was wrong to lie about Anne Frank hiding in the attic. It's not entirely unfair to think that a Paladin might come to the same conclusion.
I really don't think that a god, any god should punish one for taking the opposite stance though. That's just not fun in my opinion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Plenty of real zealous people have come to the conclusion that it would be and was wrong to lie about Anne Frank hiding in the attic. It's not entirely unfair to think that a Paladin might come to the same conclusion.
"Zealous religious folk" doesn't equal "paladin". As has been said on the silly pastry thread, nobody believes that they are evil. I could name plenty of zealous religious folk who believe that the acts they are committing are perfectly Lawful Good who would not only not be paladins, they would be killed by paladins.
|
|
Plenty of real zealous people have come to the conclusion that it would be and was wrong to lie about Anne Frank hiding in the attic. It's not entirely unfair to think that a Paladin might come to the same conclusion."Zealous religious folk" doesn't equal "paladin". As has been said on the silly pastry thread, nobody believes that they are evil. I could name plenty of zealous religious folk who believe that the acts they are committing are perfectly Lawful Good who would not only not be paladins, they would be killed by paladins.
The zealous LG is the easiest to make into a BBEG.
Of course, lying under oath is again a different thing, and a lawful good person would not do that. And there is value in avoiding the question in some circumstances.
Paladins do take an oath to not lie.
There is also a world of difference between I will not lie and I will answer every question put to me to the fullest of my knowledge.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my personal opinion, paladins are not lawful good, they are good lawfully. A paladin's code is about the Good, their strict adherence to that code makes them lawful. I see so much hate towards paladins because they "attract jerk players." Well, why play with jerks?
A Paladin can lie. They may just feel bad about it. Perhaps they will later seek atonement or confession with their church.
They certainly won't fall because of it.
The only thing that can make a Paladin fall is to either loose her alignment or willingly commit an evil act (such as revealing hiding innocents).
"Zealous religious folk" doesn't equal "paladin". As has been said on the silly pastry thread, nobody believes that they are evil. I could name plenty of zealous religious folk who believe that the acts they are committing are perfectly Lawful Good who would not only not be paladins, they would be killed by paladins.
Yes but that is just the point, how are you certain that your definition of Lawful Good in unquestionably correct?
The core rules give us a few guidelines on alignment but there are millions of circumstances left that could be argued either way by people of differing beliefs.
Yes but that is just the point, how are you certain that your definition of Lawful Good in unquestionably correct?The core rules give us a few guidelines on alignment but there are millions of circumstances left that could be argued either way by people of differing beliefs.
You can always cast Detect Law and Detect Good. Two pings means that you are lawful good (so long as you have passed 5th level).
Paladins and the LG plus code requirements are a big mess in general.
In my personal opinion, paladins are not lawful good, they are good lawfully. A paladin's code is about the Good, their strict adherence to that code makes them lawful.
This is true: Paladins do not detect chaos or smite chaos.