Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Nolwelen 09-07-07, 05:56 AM	May be others have brought up this topic before, if thats the case I apologies, but I realy find this disturbing. I have read more about the events in the last war and with ever bit of information I gathered I was asking myself more concerned the question:" How could Thrane conduct a war with an "army" of Paladins? Perhaps some of you dont understand what troubles me about this notion. Well its just the way I have come to understand the Paladin, his code of conduct and the virtues he believes in. How does he manage to make them giving approval to the "the end justies the means" point of view, which is necessary to be even willing to contribute to the conduction of a war. Well more concretely, I found out how Thaliost was annexed by Thrane, well Aundair's willingness to strike first against Thrane played into this as I know, but thats not my issue here. See from my point of view, if Im a Paladin and participate in the conquer of Thaliost and then force unarmed, defenseless citizens to swear allegiance to Thrane by threatening them with their death, and do kill them if they refuse it, I do commit an evil act and in any case fall. Well conquering the city and standing by and watching while someone else is doing this, I make myself to an accomplice in an evil act, which is an evil act as well and I do fall as well in any case. If I participate in the conquer of the city and then choose not to stay to avoid participating in an evil act I consciously abandon helpless people knowing what is to come, in that case I commited an evil act just by participating in the conquer of the city, since I had to suspect some consequences from the beginning and still contributed to the event, and I in any case fall. If I want to participate in the conquer of the city wihtout causing my own fall from grace I have to secure that no citizen of the city will become the victim of unprovoked violance. I cant say:" I couldnt prevent it, It wasnt my fault." Since I had to suspect that my participation could trigger such an event. That would be the deliberate acceptance of casualties of innocent life, what would make me to an accomplice, what in turn would cause my fall. Actually I cant even engage the troops who defend the city, not even if commanded. For three simple reasons. First, they do not pose a threat to me or anyone around me, if we do not attack them first. To do that they would have to attack me or anybody around me. Second, they are on the territory of their own country and for that cant be the attackers by definition in a battle against foreign troops, to which I would belong. Third, they do not consciously commit or contribute to an evil act. They act in best intent to protect innocents and therefore are "innocent" themselfs, at least in this situation. Attacking them would be an evil act which would cause my fall. Well I agree this might be a very extreme interpretation of a Paladin's Code of Conduct. I understand that the view upon this issue can vary greatly. I just wanted to show an example how a Paladin could feel about certain commands and refuse to carry them out. How does such an army work? In which your elite units would often tell their commanding officers:"No we cant do that, its not in harmony with our believes." :) What do you do if your elite soldiers are unwilling to attack any sentient humanoid before being attacked themself?
Shady314 09-07-07, 07:16 AM	1) Most importantly Wolfgang Bauer wrote the Thrane section of Forge of War and is a terrible, terrible author. At least for Eberron but that's all I have to go on. Others more familiar with his work say it seems he copied an extremist religious faction he's written for another setting before. So it's necessary to do heavy editing of anything he writes. 2) When you hear the term paladin it's possible they meant religious warrior or zealot. They shouldn't have used Paladin like that but refer to #1. 3) Eberron is all about the shades of grey. Paladins can get away with a little more in pursuit of the greater good without getting *****slapped for it. Unlike FR they can't have a direct conversation with their god to see what they want so they sometimes must rely on their own flawed judgement or of others in the Church. Granted this doesn't apply to the clear cut example you gave. Forced conversions (which the SF actually doesn't believe in [refer to #1]) are obviously a bad act that will lead to a fall... but does FoW say that they didn't? :) Second, they are on the territory of their own country and for that cant be the attackers by definition in a battle against foreign troops, to which I would belong. If we followed this line of thinking a Paladin could never enter a villains lair if he legally owned it. If the country is at war with you and has attacked your territory it IS acceptable to attack theirs. To just sit back and let them attack you at leisure never attacking back would mean eventually your side will lose and yes paladins can pick sides. Plus what if you are attacking a city they took. If they took it does this make the territory theirs so now you can't take it back? This is just paladin stupidity which I don't believe in.
Nolwelen 09-07-07, 03:11 PM	If we followed this line of thinking a Paladin could never enter a villains lair if he legally owned it. If the country is at war with you and has attacked your territory it IS acceptable to attack theirs. To just sit back and let them attack you at leisure never attacking back would mean eventually your side will lose and yes paladins can pick sides. Plus what if you are attacking a city they took. If they took it does this make the territory theirs so now you can't take it back? This is just paladin stupidity which I don't believe in. Well, I guess my whole point was paladins arent soldiers, they are keepers of the peace. What means they cant fight in a political conflict and they do not serve a nation or institution, like the church of the Silver Flame. And even though they do serve the Silver Flame they cant act against their moral code even if its in the pursuit of the greatest good. For them, the end never justifies the means. Truth is I do believe a Paladin actually can in fact not enter the "lair" of a villain until he holds evidence of the criminal's crimes or is able to realize that not entering this lair now would lead to repercussions he has to prevent in order to not become partitially responsible for them himself. That leads to certain consequences. He cant act in advance by judging someone could do something that is harmful or evil in the future. That would be a prejudice and against the code, since it would deal damage to someone who didnt commit a harmful or evil act yet, to prevent an event that possibly had never taken place, even wihtout the interference of the paladin. You cant punish a person for a crime he hasnt commited yet. In addition a paladin cant punish people who were not directly involed in an evil or harmful act. which means he cant just go and attack troops of another nation just because Thrane was once attacked my soldiers of that nation. Accordingly a paladin must free a city of forces which commit harmful or evil acts within it. In the case of Shadukar the Paladins in fact had to retake the city to secure innocent lifes, but in the case of Thaliost they had actually as well to join the battle, but on the defenders' side and fight against the troops of Thrane, which were the aggressors. This war isnt about "bringing justice" and they do not fight for a moral cause, like the elimination of slavery. And thus no side is fighting for "good". This war is a conflict of five persons who seek to further their selfish ambitions. Even participating in the war in general could be seen as an act against the paladin's code, since lifes are deliberatly sacrificed in a selfish pursuit. That could be seen as an evil act. Paladins have taken a side in the moment they became paladins, they took the side of moral values and the highest moral standards thinkable for mortal beings. They dont care for where borderlines are drawn on the map or if borders even exist at all. What means if Thrane makes itself guilty by commiting warcrimes Paladins cant ally themselfs any longer with this political entity.
Shady314 09-07-07, 05:12 PM	Well, I guess my whole point was paladins arent soldiers, they are keepers of the peace. Ouch. What are all soldiers then? Warmongers? I guess just F you to every soldier in the world. What means they cant fight in a political conflict and they do not serve a nation or institution, like the church of the Silver Flame. And even though they do serve the Silver Flame they cant act against their moral code even if its in the pursuit of the greatest good. For them, the end never justifies the means. I never said otherwise but in Eberron the will of your god is not laid out in a yellow brick road fashion for you. This means you have to cut the paladin a teensy bit of slack. They can't ask Tyr for a face to face and find out exactly what he wants like the FR. Yes this means they'll screw up from time to time. That's what atonement is for. Anyways this was the least of my points. Did you see point #1. That's the important part. I'm not really interested in the millionth Paladin morality argument. Truth is I do believe a Paladin actually can in fact not enter the "lair" of a villain until he holds evidence of the criminal's crimes or is able to realize that not entering this lair now would lead to repercussions he has to prevent in order to not become partitially responsible for them himself. Ok fine you're one of those adventurers can't adventure without being evil. Tomb robbing and such isn't exactly a good thing. That leads to certain consequences. He cant act in advance by judging someone could do something that is harmful or evil in the future. That would be a prejudice and against the code, since it would deal damage to someone who didnt commit a harmful or evil act yet, to prevent an event that possibly had never taken place, even wihtout the interference of the paladin. You cant punish a person for a crime he hasnt commited yet. Excuse me????? We already do this you understand. What someone has to actually kill me or try to before he can be arrested. Even if yoo prove he's plotting something? In addition a paladin cant punish people who were not directly involed in an evil or harmful act. which means he cant just go and attack troops of another nation just because Thrane was once attacked my soldiers of that nation. There's nothing that says a paladin can't fight in a war. They'll have to stick to a careful code of engagement. Prisoners when possible etc. but it's not impossible. You can go ahead and make it impossible in YOUR world but the books aren't going to be following that. Accordingly a paladin must free a city of forces which commit harmful or evil acts within it. In the case of Shadukar the Paladins in fact had to retake the city to secure innocent lifes, but in the case of Thaliost they had actually as well to join the battle, but on the defenders' side and fight against the troops of Thrane, which were the aggressors. Paladin stupidity I see. So boring. Paladins aren't meant to be Saints. There are Saint templates for that. This war isnt about "bringing justice" and they do not fight for a moral cause, like the elimination of slavery. Says you. And then we get into what if the slavery is legal. Can a Paladin walk into Darguun and mercilessly slaughter slavers? What do you think a Paladin CAN do exactly? And thus no side is fighting for "good". Then both side is. Pick a side you prefer to see triumph and keep lives from being lost on that side. And do everything in your power to keep that side in line. This war is a conflict of five persons who seek to further their selfish ambitions. Even participating in the war in general could be seen as an act against the paladin's code, :rolleyes: I see a lot of what Paladins can't do. What do you let them get away with? It sounds like they can only be completely ineffectual policemen. They are Holy Warriors. since lifes are deliberatly sacrificed in a selfish pursuit. When are they NOT sacrificed selfishly? That could be seen as an evil act. COULD be. If you believe in paladin stupidity. Paladins have taken a side in the moment they became paladins, they took the side of moral values and the highest moral standards thinkable for mortal beings. No that's a saint. A Paladin took up arms for their god to spread the tenets of their faith. You see the important thing there is their god called them to PICK UP A SWORD and use it. Not sit around thinking how much they'd like to do something about all the evil in the world but can't because fighting is bad and doing bad stuff means you lose all your powers. They dont care for where borderlines are drawn on the map or if borders even exist at all. Sure they do. They aren't idiots and they are still human. They have a concern for mortal law. What means if Thrane makes itself guilty by commiting warcrimes Paladins cant ally themselfs any longer with this political entity. If a commander on the ground commits an atrocity ALL of Thrane is tainted? Interesting concept. By that logic paladins should throw themselves in exile. Every governemt on Khorvaire is dirty in some way. No one is perfect. Paladins know this and they can't make everyone perfect. So you either accept that and work in an imperfect world or go live an ascetic life in a cave. Look FoW poorly wrote Thranes. See point #1. There was never an army solely composed of paladins. But Paladins did participate in the war ON ALL sides. To some extent. It's for the reasons you mentioned that they would have sought out the less morally ambiguous duties. Protecting refugees for example.
Nolwelen 09-07-07, 08:04 PM	Ouch. What are all soldiers then? Warmongers? I guess just F you to every soldier in the world. Honestly, the answer is yes. Fighting for peace is like ****ing for virginity. They may have reasons, but surely not "peace". Ok fine you're one of those adventurers can't adventure without being evil. Tomb robbing and such isn't exactly a good thing. This isnt about being good or not, its not even about being lawful good or not. Its about being lawful good and a paladin. Excuse me????? We already do this you understand. What someone has to actually kill me or try to before he can be arrested. Even if yoo prove he's plotting something? This is boring, if you can prove, not assume, PROVE that he WILL do and not COULD do and we are on one side with arresting, but killing him is just something else. That would not even be LN for that matter. There's nothing that says a paladin can't fight in a war. They'll have to stick to a careful code of engagement. Prisoners when possible etc. but it's not impossible. You can go ahead and make it impossible in YOUR world but the books aren't going to be following that. lol, yes I guess everyone on battlefield first introduces himself and asks for which rules shall apply. This is ridicules if it were that easy, war wouldnt take place at all. Paladins could indeed fight in a war, but only for a cause. Which implies that their enemies are fighting against this cause which would force them to be "villains". Just because the causes a paladin could fight for would have the quality to be an ethical pursuit. For instance if the cause is to prevent genocide. Paladin stupidity I see. So boring. Paladins aren't meant to be Saints. There are Saint templates for that. Thats just a differing point of view. I believe paladins are meant to become saints through their pursuits. Says you. And then we get into what if the slavery is legal. Can a Paladin walk into Darguun and mercilessly slaughter slavers? What do you think a Paladin CAN do exactly? Legal means LN, but not LG. The paladin would acknowledge that fact, but would work against it as much as possible. Killing someone wouldnt solve the problem anyways in that case. In this case its a social, a cultural issue and thus he would try to promote a change in the value system prevalent in this society. Then both side is. Pick a side you prefer to see triumph and keep lives from being lost on that side. And do everything in your power to keep that side in line. Again the paladin would evaluate both sides with the aid of his ethical believes and in the "average", the common warfare he would not be able to choose a side, since both sides were acting in an amoral way by conducting a war for the given purpose. :rolleyes: I see a lot of what Paladins can't do. What do you let them get away with? It sounds like they can only be completely ineffectual policemen. They are Holy Warriors. Paladins lead by example, fighting only to defend and protect never to attack. Furthering peace and freedom. Aid those in need and not those in power. A paladin's life pursuit is not to make a career, gaining power and wealth. A paladin lives to make the world a better place and not be lost in its powerstruggle. When are they NOT sacrificed selfishly? Go and read in the PHB the definitions of the evil alignments. ;) COULD be. If you believe in paladin stupidity. Well its his wisdom that keeps him from falling into this trap. No that's a saint. A Paladin took up arms for their god to spread the tenets of their faith. Well thats not a saint or a paladin, thats a zealous cleric. :P Sure they do. They aren't idiots and they are still human. They have a concern for mortal law. The major concern of a paladin is always morality, if law fails to live up to very basic ethical principles a paladin does his best to change that. The color of the banner doesnt matter that much. If a commander on the ground commits an atrocity ALL of Thrane is tainted? Interesting concept. By that logic paladins should throw themselves in exile. Every governemt on Khorvaire is dirty in some way. No one is perfect. Paladins know this and they can't make everyone perfect. So you either accept that and work in an imperfect world or go live an ascetic life in a cave. hehe, well see, if the government does back atrocities the whole country is in fact tainted and yes paladins would leave or change the ways things are done. No matter which way they would stop to support this government and contribute to this course of action any longer. The fact that no government is perfect is the reason why paladins arent politicians. Politicians work to have an office, thats a career goal which corrupts your efforts. In any case, the fact that the world is far from being perfect motivates the paladin to change it for the better. It's for the reasons you mentioned that they would have sought out the less morally ambiguous duties. Protecting refugees for example. Yes that is what I expect a paladin would do in a war.
Shady314 09-07-07, 08:09 PM	Thanks for wasting my time. I thought you had a question about FoW. I'm not participating in a morality debate. That'd be like the zillionth time. All we need to know is this... I believe paladins are meant to become saints through their pursuits. That's your own personal belief. It's not the way Paladins are portrayed or ever will be portrayed in DnD. And that's why you're seeing an issue. Your view of paladins is not the view of a majority of people. So get used to the confusion. You've decided exactly what morality is and every paladin has to follow the morality you've laid out whether he fights for the SF, or Dol Dorn. Doesn't make much sense to me but there's no point arguing houserules.
JulesCARV 09-07-07, 09:04 PM	You do everything you can to stop injustices and atrocities while you're serving in the Thranish royal army. Sometimes you'll succeed. Sometimes you won't. If you can stop atrocities like the killing of unarmed civilians with a few orders, threats, or strong words then do so. If you can't, then do what you can to ensure that the perpetrators throughout the chain of command are brought to justice and tried for their war crimes: maybe try to keep records of who did what when in a journal, so that you won't forget if any cases go to trail. I think of Colonel Dax in Paths of Glory -- a noble failure who does what he can to stop the execution of the three innocent men and fails, but still manages to keep some of his honor and concern for justice intact. It would have been better if he'd actually succeeded, but you can't always succeed at everything. I don't think Colonel Dax as a paladin would have lost his powers due to insufficient goodness (although he might have lost them due to disillusionment and loss of faith, if you think that paladins can lose their powers due to that). One thing to remember -- high intelligence should not be demanded of a paladin merely to keep her paladin status. Paladins are rarely above average in intelligence, and not uncommonly a bit below average. Don't demand a brilliant, innovative solution to moral dilemmas -- just decency, honesty, and concern for justice.
Nolwelen 09-07-07, 09:05 PM	Thanks for wasting my time. I thought you had a question about FoW. I'm not participating in a morality debate. That'd be like the zillionth time. All we need to know is this... That's your own personal belief. It's not the way Paladins are portrayed or ever will be portrayed in DnD. And that's why you're seeing an issue. Your view of paladins is not the view of a majority of people. So get used to the confusion. You've decided exactly what morality is and every paladin has to follow the morality you've laid out whether he fights for the SF, or Dol Dorn. Doesn't make much sense to me but there's no point arguing houserules. Yes, I guess my own opinion is the only one I have to offer and you on the other side do only speak for yourself as well. ;)
Nolwelen 09-07-07, 09:08 PM	Wow, thats the kind of answer I was looking for. Thank you.
Alex_ 09-08-07, 07:49 PM	Thanks for wasting my time. I thought you had a question about FoW. I'm not participating in a morality debate. That'd be like the zillionth time. All we need to know is this... That's your own personal belief. It's not the way Paladins are portrayed or ever will be portrayed in DnD. And that's why you're seeing an issue. Your view of paladins is not the view of a majority of people. So get used to the confusion. You've decided exactly what morality is and every paladin has to follow the morality you've laid out whether he fights for the SF, or Dol Dorn. Doesn't make much sense to me but there's no point arguing houserules. Actually, in the core and Eberron books, Paladins are pretty much the closest one gets to saints. They serve the forces of elemental Good above all other things, even churches and deities. A Paladin of any faith, even if they're commanded to by their church or deity, will fall if they willingly perform an Evil act or violate the Paladin's code. They're different from Eberron's Clerics and other divine classes, who can violate their alignment and even principles of their church and deity in pursuit of their goals. So yes, the Paladin of Dol Dorn and the Silver Flame do follow the same general morality and limitations of the Paladin's code and LG alignment. A Thrane Paladin couldn't do the "convert or die" or "smite on sight" thing any more (or less) than one of Dol Dorn could. The differences between Paladins of different churches would be in the details of their theology/cosmology, personality, associates, etc. So what did Paladins (who didn't fall) of the Silver Flame do during the purge and instances like Thaolist? They did what was right. When people went out of control they were the guys that stepped in and said, "You're out of line." If the higher ups asked them to do something they knew was wrong, they would try to find some way around it. Like if order to execute someone they knew was innocent, they might help the person escape and just say they killed them. They would, when possible, confront Evil ideas, and challenge authorities they felt were wrong (walking up and killing Krozen is not going to solve all the Silver Flame's problems). Paladins are the goody goodies in a world of gray and sometimes darkness. They're the Hartigans from Sin City, the Captain Americas from Marvel Civil War, the Obi Wan Kenobis, Mace Windus, and Yodas of the waning days of the Old Republic. In a world where everything else is corrupt and "right and wrong" are dictated by the highest bidder, Paladins are supposed to be the shining beacon of hope, the good cop, the last true chivalrous knight, etc.
Shady314 09-09-07, 04:49 AM	Actually, in the core and Eberron books, Paladins are pretty much the closest one gets to saints. Hmmm let's see the words pretty much and close are used there. Which makes me ask what is your point? They're NOT saints. There IS a saint in Sharn though. She's in an Eberron book (S:CoT) She sits on a pedestal being good. Is THAT what paladins do? So yes, the Paladin of Dol Dorn and the Silver Flame do follow the same general morality and limitations of the Paladin's code and LG alignment. Bold is important! But the Dol Dorn one will seek out combat more and prefer combative solutions and favor martial strength and honor more than protection from supernatural threats like a SF one. It's what his god is all about. The differences between Paladins of different churches would be in the details of their theology/cosmology, personality, associates, etc. No really? That's only exactly what I said. And completely off-topic. Start a new one if you must. So what did Paladins (who didn't fall) of the Silver Flame do during the purge and instances like Thaolist? They did what was right. When people went out of control they were the guys that stepped in and said, "You're out of line." If the higher ups asked them to do something they knew was wrong, they would try to find some way around it. Like if order to execute someone they knew was innocent, they might help the person escape and just say they killed them. They would, when possible, confront Evil ideas, and challenge authorities they felt were wrong (walking up and killing Krozen is not going to solve all the Silver Flame's problems). Paladins are the goody goodies in a world of gray and sometimes darkness. They're the Hartigans from Sin City, the Captain Americas from Marvel Civil War, the Obi Wan Kenobis, Mace Windus, and Yodas of the waning days of the Old Republic. In a world where everything else is corrupt and "right and wrong" are dictated by the highest bidder, Paladins are supposed to be the shining beacon of hope, the good cop, the last true chivalrous knight, etc. Yeah that's what I said. I'm glad I'm a fast reader and typist or this would really waste my time. PS. It may be FR but a priest of Ilmater (that truly follows the tenets of their god) puts any paladin to shame in the sainthood area. They act like saints do. So I'd prefer it if you'd stop with this annoying insistence that because Paladins act really good they're JUST like saints.
JulesCARV 09-09-07, 05:51 AM	Like if order to execute someone they knew was innocent, they might help the person escape and just say they killed them. That would be a lie, and as such contrary to the paladin's Code of Conduct as outlined in the PHB. Even it's sometimes okay for paladins to lie (say, to infiltrate a crime syndicate or something), I don't think that lying to a superior officer who gives wrong orders is one of those circumstances. (A paladin would be better off openly resigning or even deserting, IMHO.)
Drag0nUL 09-09-07, 06:17 AM	That would be a lie, and as such contrary to the paladin's Code of Conduct as outlined in the PHB. Even it's sometimes okay for paladins to lie (say, to infiltrate a crime syndicate or something), I don't think that lying to a superior officer who gives wrong orders is one of those circumstances. (A paladin would be better off openly resigning or even deserting, IMHO.) Actually, such a situation would be very tricky for a paladin to get out of. According to his code (bolded words are exact quotes from the PHB): he should act with honor (not lying) therefore he can't say he executed the prisoner when he let him get away; help those in need therefore he must help the innocent prisoner get away (resigning and simply turning his back on the situation violates this I think). The only solution to such a problem that is in full accord with the paladin code is: accept the task, help the prisoner escape and then report to your superior officer taking full responsibility for your actions. Still, that would lead to the execution of the paladin in almost any army. On the issue of paladins in Eberron. I for one have problems seeing paladins involved en masse in the war. Fighting such a 'mundane' war for power would detour the paladins from their holy mission to uphold the values of Good and fight Evil. The only valid reasons I see paladins involving themselves in the fighting is a desire to limit the suffering of the civilian population, hoping their presence and example would prevent other troops from 'taking it out' on the civilians and prisoners in the aftermath of a battle.
Alex_ 09-09-07, 11:22 AM	That would be a lie, and as such contrary to the paladin's Code of Conduct as outlined in the PHB. Even it's sometimes okay for paladins to lie (say, to infiltrate a crime syndicate or something), I don't think that lying to a superior officer who gives wrong orders is one of those circumstances. (A paladin would be better off openly resigning or even deserting, IMHO.) They should respect authority, but not follow it blindly. Also, while telling the truth is a part of the Paladin code, the criteria for a fall dictate either a gross violation of the Paladin code, change of alignment, or willingly performing an Evil act. I don't know if a single lie told to save the lives of innocents and avoid performing an Evil act qualifies as a gross violation of the Paladin code of conduct. It's certainly not something a Paladin would want to have to do constantly. It also wouldn't be the first response. They would probably questin the orders, ask if there is another way, or ask the one issuing the orders to reconsider. Also, I'm sure that after receiving a number of such orders, they would finally decide to just desert or resigning due to more obvious rampant corruption. Or maybe instead of just outright saying, "I killed them", they would deliver a bit of misinformation that's technically true like, "They'll trouble you no further," or "You don't need to worry about them anymore sir/ma'am." You know how the heroes/goody goodies are in those situations. Dragon's options work as well.
ornitholestes 09-09-07, 09:00 PM	I haven't read the Forge of War so I can't comment on it specifically (though I'll admit what of heard about the Thrane section doesn't match my view of the nation). However, I imagine that most leaders avoid giving their paladin soldiers these kinds of missions. Paladins have a diagnosable set of abilities. When you have a soldier who can heal with a touch, see evil in the hearts of men and women, and feels no fear you can be pretty sure he is a paladin and devoted to a lawful good code of action. As a commander, you have nothing to gain by putting said paladin in deep moral quandaries - it is a lose lose situation for you. If he does perform the evil action and loses his powers, you have weakened the powers of an elite soldier (in a world with mostly NPC classes, even a level 1 paladin has a considerable talent). If he refuse to perform the action, his great charisma might cause other soldiers who look up to him to rebel as well. Just like a commander would probably not assign a low-level bard to hand to hand combat with a enemy champion, you wouldn't want to send paladins on morally questionable missions. Paladins are better used to guard supply lines, lead desperate defenses of helpless villages against advancing forces (where their aura of courage is very effective), and to hunt cruel and dangerous enemy leaders who have committed war-crimes against your forces (this is always a boost to morale). I imagine few paladins made it to extremely high ranks in the last war. Too many evil deeds were done and a leader needs to have someone they know are willing to make the tough decisions. However, I imagine they were very effective in defensive and morale boosting missions.
ZeroSD 09-11-07, 01:53 AM	Just like a commander would probably not assign a low-level bard to hand to hand combat with a enemy champion, you wouldn't want to send paladins on morally questionable missions. Paladins are better used to guard supply lines, lead desperate defenses of helpless villages against advancing forces (where their aura of courage is very effective), and to hunt cruel and dangerous enemy leaders who have committed war-crimes against your forces (this is always a boost to morale). Or simply to be at the front of things fighting opposing armies. While it's not as high a calling as hunting down those who prey on the innocent, I don't think most Thranian paladins would have too much of a problem fighting opponents who are trying to kill Thranian soldiers.
ZeroSD 09-11-07, 02:10 AM	Just like a commander would probably not assign a low-level bard to hand to hand combat with a enemy champion, you wouldn't want to send paladins on morally questionable missions. Paladins are better used to guard supply lines, lead desperate defenses of helpless villages against advancing forces (where their aura of courage is very effective), and to hunt cruel and dangerous enemy leaders who have committed war-crimes against your forces (this is always a boost to morale). Or simply to be at the front of things fighting opposing armies. While it's not as high a calling as hunting down those who prey on the innocent, I don't think most Thranian paladins would have too much of a problem fighting opponents who are trying to kill Thranian soldiers.
Nolwelen 09-14-07, 06:13 AM	They should respect authority, but not follow it blindly. Also, while telling the truth is a part of the Paladin code, the criteria for a fall dictate either a gross violation of the Paladin code, change of alignment, or willingly performing an Evil act. I don't know if a single lie told to save the lives of innocents and avoid performing an Evil act qualifies as a gross violation of the Paladin code of conduct. It's certainly not something a Paladin would want to have to do constantly. It also wouldn't be the first response. They would probably questin the orders, ask if there is another way, or ask the one issuing the orders to reconsider. Also, I'm sure that after receiving a number of such orders, they would finally decide to just desert or resigning due to more obvious rampant corruption. Or maybe instead of just outright saying, "I killed them", they would deliver a bit of misinformation that's technically true like, "They'll trouble you no further," or "You don't need to worry about them anymore sir/ma'am." You know how the heroes/goody goodies are in those situations. Dragon's options work as well. Well I guess we all struggle to estimate the amoral/moral quality of deception, for instance a lie. Im aware that not everyone will see eye to eye on this issue, but I would like to show you my view. I estimate a lie an ambivalent act which does not have a moral quality onto itself. Its moral quality depends on to what kind of cause it contributes. If it contributes to a harmful, evil, selfish act its an evil act itself. If its contributes to an altruistic cause it ascends to be a good act. For instance if you lie in favor of your own ends, it is a more or less amorally or outright evil act. If you lie in the pursuit of an act that contributes to the better of others, endangers you yourself and cant be accomplished without lying its a more or less good or even a heroic, may be a dramatically heroic act. For instance, I heard that Max Schmeling saved the lifes of 3 jewish boys by sheltering them in his hotel room. After he ordered a lot food to his room he was asked for whom all this food is. He said that it was all for himself, since he had to eat a lot as a boxer to retain his weight. The food was for the kids, he deliberatly lied to save lives and by lying for this purpose he commited a capital crime in fascistic Germany. I dont know how you rate this, but to me its hard to imagine a more heroic act given these circumstances and the place. In a sociaty in which the government or the law system consistantly violates a Paladin's virtues, he would have to work against it and if that included lying he would lie all day long, 24/7, 365 days every year. That would be a lie, and as such contrary to the paladin's Code of Conduct as outlined in the PHB. Even it's sometimes okay for paladins to lie (say, to infiltrate a crime syndicate or something), I don't think that lying to a superior officer who gives wrong orders is one of those circumstances. (A paladin would be better off openly resigning or even deserting, IMHO.) Well I believe he would certainly leave the army or refuse to join in the first place. But if he knows whats happening he cant leave the place and if he isnt there he has to get there as fast as possible and he would have to do anything to prevent it, regardless if covertly or overtly. If he didnt he would consciously abandon helpless people knowing what is to come and that would be against the Paladin's code. If necessary Paladins would have to fight all soldiers if the situation demands it to prevent evil acts. Even though doing that would inevitably cause their own death they had to stay and do what is their calling.
JulesCARV 09-14-07, 03:10 PM	I generally agree that lying isn't evil per se, and can be good, but IMHO a paladin's code is more than just an LG alignment restriction. It forbids the paladin from doing anything evil, but it doesn't permit a paladin to do everything that is good. If an evil telepath dominates a bunch of otherwise innocent folks into attacking a paladin and his LG fighter buddy, the LG fighter might use drow sleep poison to knock the dominated attackers out without killing them. This is perfectly acceptable and consistent with his LG alignment, but the paladin doesn't have that option. He has other options -- perhaps taking -4 to attacks and inflicting non-lethal damage, or perhaps using a sap, or perhaps escaping to a safe place where the dominated attackers can't follow, or perhaps using lethal damage if circumstances are sufficiently dire, in spite of the moral qualms, or perhaps trying to dispel the enchantment somehow -- but using drow sleep poison isn't one of them. Lying is similar. Sometimes it isn't morally wrong, but it's still not allowed to paladins. Sorta like how druids can't wear metal armor, even if they're going to use it to defend nature. Now, nothing says that paladins have to precisely follow the code of conduct all the time or become ex-paladins -- they only fall if they "grossly" violates it -- but violations have to be small. Sometimes a lie may be necessary, but in such a case, the paladin is doing what he needs to as a person, but failing his code as a paladin, even if not failing it sufficiently to become an ex-paladin. As such, I don't think that, when the question is "what should a paladin do as a paladin?" (as opposed to the different question of "what might a paladin without losing his paladinhood?") I don't think that "lie" is really the right answer.
Hopeless 09-14-07, 03:52 PM	May be others have brought up this topic before, if thats the case I apologies, but I realy find this disturbing. I have read more about the events in the last war and with ever bit of information I gathered I was asking myself more concerned the question:" How could Thrane conduct a war with an "army" of Paladins? How does such an army work? In which your elite units would often tell their commanding officers:"No we cant do that, its not in harmony with our believes." :) What do you do if your elite soldiers are unwilling to attack any sentient humanoid before being attacked themself? What you have to remember that this setting exemplifies the problem all dm's face with Paladins. I have always seen paladins as living breathing symbols of their faith, one player i know of believes his character exemplified an ethic basing it on the knights of solamnia, however another ran his paladin as a nobleman and seemed to be of the view that he was a kind of politician and turned to the other players and said if he could was going to secure the goods and property belonging to a villainous vampire for their own after belittling a pair of thieves who were looking through the house in question picking up loose goods they could carry off! Yet another started off well trying to show his faith as benevolent but then turned into a fanatic who willingly used torture and killed in cold blood ignoring the rest of the party such that in my case I ran my charcter as being horrified by his apparent corruption and trying to get him to understand and redeem himself unfortunately the player tends to be prefer to be the alpha male of the group especially as he normally runs the faerun campaign. My point is that this conflict was actually waged on numerious fronts, Thrane had an extremist sect for their church and the war allowed them to bring their ethos upon their enemies forcing many to convert by the sword and continues to the current day of the campaign as the "truth" has yet to filter down amoung the ranks and it doesn't help that much of their political power is in the hands of someone who thinks might makes right and he is the only one who can lead them through this crisis and not some child who he sees as being used to keep the people happy. War brings out the darkness in everyone, its this confrontation that has been repeated throughout the Last War and not just for Thrane as the Karrns turned to necromancy, the Brelish have been repeatedly been tricked and betrayed by those that recognise the sleeping giant for the threat it still poses to their plans, Aundaire's ignorance and petty pride has caused much of the problems they still blundering with and Cyre... well I find it telling the surviving nations chose to treat Cyre as if it no longer exists, had this treaty been for real their presence would have been proof that it was to show their recognition of the horror Cyre's destruction had made them recognise the possibility they might bring this fate upon themselves. And by real I mean this peace was anything other than a ruse... Remarkably noone has addressed this issue except for a trilogy that turns them into the villain of the piece and even the hero of the first trilogy wasn't Cyran merely a member of House Deneith who chose a side having realised the pointlessness of Deneith's stance. Me? If I ever get it off the ground I intend to make it very clear that the old issue of Paladins doesn't stand, they can be of any alignment for its their faith that grants them their abilities, this addresses all problems nd the fact that its losing your faith that strips you of your abilities and I see a few practical lessons need to be devised to get this point across as this would explain how a Paladin of Karrnath could lead raids on Aundaire caravans and slaughter innocents and still not fall from grace. If you read that particular short story and the recent sequel you'll understand what i mean. Take care and all the best!
Alex_ 09-14-07, 07:45 PM	I generally agree that lying isn't evil per se, and can be good, but IMHO a paladin's code is more than just an LG alignment restriction. It forbids the paladin from doing anything evil, but it doesn't permit a paladin to do everything that is good. The Paldin's code is described in the PHB, and does indeed include things you usually wouldn't consider "Evil" and would see how they were good. In addition to the never do anything Evil rules, they're not allowed to "grossly violate" the code. So it's not that a Paladin can't violate the code in any way shape or form. They just can't "grossly violate" it. What constitutes a gross violation is probably best left up to the DM and PC.
JulesCARV 09-16-07, 07:01 PM	Well, they lose their (su) paladin abilities and spellcasting only if they "grossly" violate their code. I don't interpret that as a license to go ahead and ignore the code for "little stuff" though. Again, I think it depends on whether your asking "what should a paladin qua paladin do in this situation?" or "what's the best thing for a decent, good person to do in this situation that is compatible with retaining paladinhood?" I think that sometimes the answer to the second question involves violating the paladin's code (so long as they aren't "gross"), such as by lying, but the answer to the first question never involves violating the paladin's code. At least, that's my take. Then again, it's perfectly possible that most paladins would be more interested in answering the second question than the first one -- they're good, decent people first, and paladins second.
Hellcow 09-16-07, 08:27 PM	I don't have time to address every point here, but to quickly throw in my two crowns: How could Thrane conduct a war with an "army" of Paladins? Thrane doesn't HAVE an army of paladins. If you've seen that written, it's an error or simply using the term to mean "religious soldier". Any PC class character is rare in Eberron, and in my personal opinion paladins are the rarest of all classes, as (again IMO) you can't choose to become a paladin, you are chosen to become a paladin. I don't personally agree with everything in Forge of War; among other things, Thrane ought to have excellent archers, and has elsewhere been called out as having strong heavy cavalry. However, per FoW, the typical Thrane soldier remains a warrior or commoner, with adepts for magical support, and the possibility of clerics, fighters, knights, paladins, or silver pyromancers as officers. So there's no "army of paladins". Like Joan of Arc, the paladin is the rare, heroic leader who inspires the common troops. Thrane does have MORE paladins than any other nation, but it can't field an army of them. Now, in terms of paladins fighting wars, here's my thoughts: A paladin is obliged to defend the innocent. Aside from anything else, this makes paladins ideal for leading defensive forces. Whatever you think about war, if Flamekeep is under attack by Karrnathi forces, it's not like the paladin should sit on his hands and let the invaders kill his own people; his people need his sword. The idea that a paladin would literally have to wait for a soldier to attack him before he can strike back is, IMO, way overdoing things. If I'm a Thranish paladin defending Flamekeep against Karrnathi forces that have crossed into Thrane, I can take as given that they are hostile people who intend to harm the innocent civilians of my country. They have declared their intentions by serving in the army of my enemy, an army which has performed atrocities. I will accept their surrender if it is offered. I will treat prisoners fairly, providing them with food and medical treatment. I will do whatever I can to enforce such behavior on troops under my command, not stand by and allow them to commit atrocities. But I'm not going to wait for the Karrnathi soldier in front of me to personally attack me before I fight him. If he doesn't intend to harm my people, he shouldn't have crossed Scion's Sound. When it comes to paladins on the offense, I feel it's really up to you as the DM to decide if the cause is just. You can CHOOSE to say "No war is just"; that's your right. But again, I consider Joan of Arc to be a good example of a paladin, and she was called by her voices to lead her soldiers in battle. I DO play up the fact that a paladin is "called", and even if you decide that the force that empowers him isn't a god, but rather his imagination, the collective unconscious, or something else, he should still have SOME sense of whether he is acting in the service of his faith. SHOULD the cause be just, then I feel that a paladin CAN take the offensive, but should hold her troops to a far higher standard of conduct than we're used to seeing in war. No massacring of civilians, no rapine, accept surrender if offered, treat prisoners well, and all that. For these reasons, I think many commanders would choose NOT to include a paladin in an offensive force, because they know a paladin WON'T go along with the massacre if it's deemed to be necessary; it's simpler to keep the paladin as commander of the Flamekeep defense force. With all of this said, it's simply the case that Eberron is supposed to be a morally gray setting, and things aren't always easy. I can see a Brelish paladin of Dol Arrah fighting a Thranish paladin of the Silver Flame, both convinced that they are doing what must be done. Yes, they are both fighting "good" opponents, but the need to defend innocent civilians may outweigh the "don't hurt a good entity" rule. I'll also note that I can see an Aundairian paladin of the Silver Flame fighting a Thranish paladin. The Silver Flame has supporters across Khorvaire - with Aundair actually being the seat of the Pure Flame, the most zealous of the purified - and they didn't all support Thrane in the Last War, because despite being a theocracy, Thrane does not equal the Silver Flame. So, your mileage may vary, and it's your right as DM to set the restrictions. But to me, paladins are rare to begin with, and can serve as warriors if the cause is just. The two examples I would hold up would be Joan of Arc, who was called by the divine TO lead her people in battle, and the Jedi Knights, who while guardians of peace certainly fought in the Clone Wars. They will hold to a far different conduct in battle - but I believe they can still do battle. As a side note, I do feel that the manner in which Thrane is depicted in FoW is a little too bloody-handed; many of the things laid at their feet would be more appropriate behavior coming from followers of the Pure Flame, which is primarily Aundairian. The paladin couldn't just turn a blind eye to torture and rape; I'd expect him to put a stop to it and discipline the troops responsible. Which likely means that you didn't have paladins present at battles where Thranish forces DID behave in a truly atrocious manner... which is quite possible, because even in Thrane, paladins aren't that common, and because if the cardinals expected such conduct, they might intentionally keep paladins off the field.
Revvecor 09-16-07, 08:40 PM	Despite the valid complaints people have about the FoW, the common reference about an "army of Paladins" being mentioned in that chapter is not the case. What is actually said is that their is a "company of Paladins" in the army. A company is only 75-200, this is only 1% or less of the total army. In other words their were never thousands of Paladins roaming around any battle field.
JohnBiles 09-17-07, 03:05 PM	A few thoughts: 1) As noted above, you can't have an entire army of paladins; they're just not that common. People with PC classes are supposed to be rare in Eberron. 2) I would expect Thrane to use Paladins for commando missions against clearly evil targets. Most Paladin abilities are optimized against evil. Turning undead, smiting evil, etc, would be of little use against, say, Breland, so why waste your Paladins fighting against people who Paladins are least optimized for? I would expect that a lot of Thrane's Paladins spent the war slaughtering the undead armies of Karrnath. 3) Remember, the Last War is _not_ a war between nations who recognize each other's validity to exist. It is a century long civil war in which the five major nations view the other four as traitors to the throne of Galifar which just happens to be their ruler. A Thrane Paladin is not facing citizens of another nation which his nation has aggressively invaded. He faces traitors, who have betrayed the rightful ruler of Galifar. And the price of treason is death. Thrane is not engaged in a war of conquest; it's putting down unlawful rebels who defy both divine and secular law. Every nations' paladins can feel justified to fight against rebels and usurpers. Only once the war ending treaty is signed do Paladins now have to view other nations as legitimate.
Hellcow 09-17-07, 04:47 PM	I would expect that a lot of Thrane's Paladins spent the war slaughtering the undead armies of Karrnath. Good point. Per Faiths of Eberron, undead rank number two on the litany of evil, and corrupt the world with their mere presence. It's not a question of "Did the Karrnathi skeleton do something bad"; the Karrnathi undead defile the world simply by existing, and destroying them is a sacred duty. I maintain that defending the homeland is an excellent use of paladins that keeps them away from some of the moral concerns; however, I agree that when it comes to Silver Flame paladins on offense, striking down the Karrnathi undead is a no-brainer. The same holds for Silver Flame paladins who were part of Cyre; again, not all followers of the Silver Flame aligned themselves with Thrane. As JohnBiles says, the war was fought over who held the right to the throne of Galifar, and there were (and still are) many followers of the Flame who respected the Keeper of the Flame but who did NOT support the idea of a theocratic government; in the eyes of such people the role of the Keeper is that of spiritual advisor, not secular ruler. Thus, a Cyran follower of the Flame could believe that Mishann is the rightful heir of Galifar, and that the theocracy and uprising of Thrane actually sullies the ideals of the Flame, misdirecting the pure purpose of the Flame for political purposes.
Alex_ 09-19-07, 12:13 PM	Well, they lose their (su) paladin abilities and spellcasting only if they "grossly" violate their code. I don't interpret that as a license to go ahead and ignore the code for "little stuff" though. Again, I think it depends on whether your asking "what should a paladin qua paladin do in this situation?" or "what's the best thing for a decent, good person to do in this situation that is compatible with retaining paladinhood?" I agree that the vast majority of Paladins and those in ideal situations would gowth the first line of reasoning. However, there are times when the ideal won't work and results in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. There's also the potential of "maverick" Paladins that aren't exactly Graygaurds, but are still "unconventional"- likeQui Gon Jin or Jolee Bindo from StarWars. Or even newer Paladins who are still becoming accustomed to being a Paladin. I would understand if those kinds of guys (or gals) sometimes go with the second line of thinking. Not something that an upright Paladin would want to have todo. Not something that would be largely smiled upon in regular practice, but when you're in a situation as bad as the Last War is implied to have been, and many people were implied to have outright abandoned their principles, I can see people slightly bending the rules while still remaining "kosher" and getting away with it.
ZeroSD 09-25-07, 10:09 PM	Good point. Per Faiths of Eberron, undead rank number two on the litany of evil, and corrupt the world with their mere presence. It's not a question of "Did the Karrnathi skeleton do something bad"; the Karrnathi undead defile the world simply by existing, and destroying them is a sacred duty. Plus with their powers, they are simply better at fighting undead than other people, so they'll more often be deployed there by commanders as well. - On war-excesses, the individual unit of a paladin is unlikely to commit much in the way of 'war excesses', since they'll hang around the Pally (and possibly be under his command) and temper themselves to match. Other units may or units when the Paladin isn't around, but some groups are going to be better than others and most Paladins and LG units will naturally gravitate towards each other.