+ Log in or register to post
Results 241 to 250 of 585
Thursday, 27th May, 2004, 05:16 PM #241
Minor Trickster (Lvl 4)
As with every other Paladin discussion, the ONLY things that matter are 1) The Paladin description in the PHB, 2) The aspects of the god that you follow, and 3) The aspects of the code that you follow. That's it. Nothing else. If your actions didn't violate any of the above, you're fine. And I can easily imagine a Paladin who did what yours did and who didn't violate any of the three points above.
Thursday, 27th May, 2004, 05:18 PM #242
Acolyte (Lvl 2)
Originally Posted by mroberon1972
But if someone has to lie, cheat and trick for the greater good... that is not lawful good to me in no manner appropriate to the rules system or any glorified fantasy literature or fantasy game.
Thursday, 27th May, 2004, 05:18 PM #243
Novice (Lvl 1)
Originally Posted by Wulf Ratbane
The main issue here is that of the paladin as a concerned citizen/lawman and the paladin as executioner. I wouldn't even say judge and jury in most of your interpretations so that's a bit of a problem. Anyway, Paladin posts will go round for round for round with little or no resolution so I'm signing off of this one. At some point maybe you all will just agree to disagree. Although I think a poll would have been a much better idea so each person could get one vote and that would be the standard instead of whoever took it upon himself to flood the board with posts...
Thursday, 27th May, 2004, 05:25 PM #244Originally Posted by Vae Victus
What's the differance? The 1st edition paladin was a nightmare for a GM due to it's near invulnerability to supernatural evil. The protection from evil aura allowed him so much protection, combined with his other abilities, so as to make him unusable by some gamemasters.
The 3rd edition is balanced (more or less) against the other classes. He has no advantage. The idea of placing strict moral handcuffs on the character can ONLY be balanced by his social power in the setting.
What did I just say? If he has to play by strict rules of conduct, then the GM better be giving the character power and leeway to match.
Otherwise, he's saying fighters loose all thier class abilities if they ever touch an axe. That ain't right.
Thursday, 27th May, 2004, 05:29 PM #245
Waghalter (Lvl 7)
Please You dm wants the sick gritty parts but not the gritty justice. And just because it looks like a commoner does not mean he could be. UNLESS you paladin paged you at that moment and told you to go softly on criminal. No way you should lose you status. Now I would be up for your paladin being arrested by the cops and doing the trial thing.
What next if Demigorgon is chowing down on the orphaniage. You Paladin must stand in the middle of street and call him out like Matt Dillion
My suggestion get new dm.
Thursday, 27th May, 2004, 05:31 PM #246Originally Posted by Zimri
Thursday, 27th May, 2004, 05:32 PM #247
I find it almost inconceivable that the paladin should suffer a permanent penalty.
This shouldn't be an alignment issue, its a DM issue. If in the campaign the action would have warranted an alignment violation the DM should have told the player so rather than simply warning him he might kill the target with one blow. If the DM has previously covered this ground with the player, then perhaps a penalty is warranted, but if not the DM should have intervened prior to with a stronger warning or explanation of the moral situation as he saw it.
The mere fact there have been so many posts to this thread with so much dissension in such a short time is sufficient evidence to point to alignment being open to wide interpretations and adjudications. The player definetly deserves a break here.
Last edited by adwyn; Thursday, 27th May, 2004 at 05:36 PM. Reason: spelling
Thursday, 27th May, 2004, 05:47 PM #248
Novice (Lvl 1)
Originally Posted by Vindicator
As for the scenario
Ok things to consider
Did the Paladin know that sicko was responsiable for the girls state?
Yes the Child molester practically confessed "Now let's teach you another lesson, missy." Therefore the paladin knew he would be slaying a evil and guilty person
Was the girl potentially in danger if the Paladin issued a challenge? Ie could the sicko have taken the girl hostage if a warning had been issued? Possably, I think its quite likely that the Sicko would have threatened the girls life in order to escape justice
So what was the result of the Paladins actions.
He stopped a crime from taking place
He prevented the Sicko from harming the girl furthur
As for stripping the Paladins powers.
Alignments a bad arguement in this case as the Paladins powers are ultimatly granted by a god not an alignment.
So the question is in the eyes of the paladins god did he comit a cardinal sin by attacking the sicko from behind
Depending on your gods alignment
Only gods with 3 alignments can have Paladins (and Sune)
NG: A NG god would have had nothing bad to say about your Paladins act as they are only concerned about good (they would ignore the unlawfulness)
LG: A LG would be offended by the attack from behind but they are also concerned about good in effect the 2 things even out, a LG god would not reward your paladin nor would he punish him.
LN: If your Paladin follows a LN god then you might b in trouble, as a LN god is most concerned with the the Law and they would be unswayed by Good act of saving the girl, morality Good & evil isnt important only the LAw matters and in the eyes of a LN deity your Paladins actions where Unlawful so it might be justified in stripping the Paladins powers.
As you can see varied answers
Hopefully it will help
PS Ill just add that I didnt like what your DM did during the game
"My DM cautioned me, saying, "Attacking him from behind, with your BAB and STR bonus, you realize that you will probably kill him with one blow. The dude's a lowly commoner"
He should have never brought BAB and STR into the debate there game mechanics not tangiable things that your PC thinks about nor should he have told you that the Child Molestors a lowly commoner its infomation your Character doesnt have, for all he knows the sicko could be a Polymorphed Great Wyrm Red Dragon
Thursday, 27th May, 2004, 05:53 PM #249Originally Posted by Trickstergod
Being a paladin no more gives you the lawful right to kill evil than being the priest of a god of thieves would give you the lawful right to steal willy-nilly.
They are no more exempt from the law than the aforementioned thief-god priest, and acting against it makes them not lawful, bit by bit.
As far as the paladin is concerned, he probably does realize that if he kills the molester on the spot he MIGHT be convicted of a crime by secular authority. Maybe that's alright with him - just something that goes with the territory of being guided by a HIGHER code. But he gets to decide which authority to give precedence to. His own does not necessarily demand the instant death of the molester - but it's not a violation of his code. He could well decide to turn the molester over to secular authority, but he can also decide that a delay of justice even a moment longer is unwarranted and kill the slime.
Thursday, 27th May, 2004, 05:53 PM #250
The Grand Druid (Lvl 20)
Originally Posted by Zimri
To become an ex-paladin, the character has to grossly violate the code of conduct or commit evil. Considering that the paladin upheld 2 of the 4 listed points of the code (helping someone in need and pnushing someone harming an innocent) while only clearly violating one (acting with honor), I don't see that as a gross violation of the code. Minor infraction only. Say a bunch of Hail, Marys and get back to your job.
By Ragmon in forum Older D&D Editions (4E, 3.x, 2E, 1E, OD&D), D&D Variants, and OSR GamingReplies: 28Last Post: Tuesday, 17th January, 2012, 07:51 PM
By Galfridus in forum Roleplaying Games General DiscussionReplies: 592Last Post: Wednesday, 16th November, 2005, 07:02 PM
By Vindicator in forum Roleplaying Games General DiscussionReplies: 584Last Post: Sunday, 6th June, 2004, 01:05 AM
By Torm in forum Archive-threadsReplies: 120Last Post: Monday, 31st May, 2004, 08:56 PM