OOTS 487: Their Concierge Service is Heavenly

Herobizkit said:

... which, IMO, doesn't make sense to me. How is the Paladin supposed to sway evil-kind to goodness if they are not allowed to associate with them? I guess Paladins really ARE allowed to kill anyone with an Evil alignment, regardless of circumstances.

... Good ol' Paladins. They're the reason why I threw out alignment IMC.

Click to expand...

I think that you are right, they aren't allowed to convert them. Never, ever. Weird.

Herobizkit said:

... which, IMO, doesn't make sense to me. How is the Paladin supposed to sway evil-kind to goodness if they are not allowed to associate with them?

Click to expand...

I think that there is a very big difference in association as you are using the word and the alliance of convienance applied by the use of the word association in the context. It's that alliance of convienance that Roy is potentially guilty of - of looking the other way when evil is performed because it would be convienent to overlook it. Paladin's aren't 'ends justify the means' sort of people. They aren't allowed, as Saruman put it, to, "deplore evils done by the way, but approve the high and ultimate purpose."

Obviously, if the lawful good party in question isn't looking the other way at his companions behavior and treating it differently than he would treat it if it didn't seem so much easier to achieve the 'high and ultimate purpose' by doing so, then the association isn't tainting them in any way.

But thanks for the straw man. I should start collecting them.

Incidently, it was never my intention to start a fight over what constituted good behavior. I was merely attempting to foresee the future direction of the script.

Celebrim said:

I think that there is a very big difference in association as you are using the word and the alliance of convienance applied by the use of the word association in the context. It's that alliance of convienance that Roy is potentially guilty of - of looking the other way when evil is performed because it would be convienent to overlook it. Paladin's aren't 'ends justify the means' sort of people. They aren't allowed, as Saruman put it, to, "deplore evils done by the way, but approve the high and ultimate purpose."

Obviously, if the lawful good party in question isn't looking the other way at his companions behavior and treating it differently than he would treat it if it didn't seem so much easier to achieve the 'high and ultimate purpose' by doing so, then the association isn't tainting them in any way.

But thanks for the straw man. I should start collecting them.

Click to expand...

Go for it.

Celebrim said:

Incidently, it was never my intention to start a fight over what constituted good behavior. I was merely attempting to foresee the future direction of the script.

Click to expand...

Eh, Roy's not a paladin so it's not a problem.

Warren Okuma said:

Eh, Roy's not a paladin so it's not a problem.

Click to expand...

So you think that a Paladin's code is something arbitrarily chosen for them that has no real bearing on the expected behavior of everyone else who is lawful good? Once again, just because Paladin's are more strictly held to that standard as a condition of thier continued exalted status as Paladins, doesn't mean that LG's in general aren't expected to strive to live up to the same standard.

Celebrim said:

So you think that a Paladin's code is something arbitrarily chosen for them that has no real bearing on the expected behavior of everyone else who is lawful good? Once again, just because Paladin's are more strictly held to that standard as a condition of thier continued exalted status as Paladins, doesn't mean that LG's in general aren't expected to strive to live up to the same standard.

Click to expand...

In OOTS, yes.

Paladins, clerics and monks are more often than not, members of organizations that are defined by imposing their restrictive code of conduct upon their members.

This is rather different from individuals who may or may not be affiliated with any organization whatsoever. If a freelance fighter or rogue or sorcerer has any alignment they want, it is their own behavior that defines their alignment, not some organization dictating to them what they should and should not do.

Paladins - Fighters

Apples - Oranges

cattoy said:

Paladins, clerics and monks are more often than not, members of organizations that are defined by imposing their restrictive code of conduct upon their members.

This is rather different from individuals who may or may not be affiliated with any organization whatsoever. If a freelance fighter or rogue or sorcerer has any alignment they want, it is their own behavior that defines their alignment, not some organization dictating to them what they should and should not do.

Paladins - Fighters

Apples - Oranges

Click to expand...

Oots - DnD

Besides, Paladins are who you go to when you need Evil to get its butt kicked, or when you have someone decent in distress. They're not the redeemers, missionaries, or proselytizers. Paladins are the strong right hand of Good. Not the soft and comforting pillow of Good. Clerics are the ones who do Atonements and seek to convert or redeem people.

Celebrim said:

I think that there is a very big difference in association as you are using the word and the alliance of convienance applied by the use of the word association in the context. It's that alliance of convienance that Roy is potentially guilty of - of looking the other way when evil is performed because it would be convienent to overlook it. Paladin's aren't 'ends justify the means' sort of people. They aren't allowed, as Saruman put it, to, "deplore evils done by the way, but approve the high and ultimate purpose."

Obviously, if the lawful good party in question isn't looking the other way at his companions behavior and treating it differently than he would treat it if it didn't seem so much easier to achieve the 'high and ultimate purpose' by doing so, then the association isn't tainting them in any way.

But thanks for the straw man. I should start collecting them.

Click to expand...

Q+D.

Celebrim said:

So you think that a Paladin's code is something arbitrarily chosen for them that has no real bearing on the expected behavior of everyone else who is lawful good?

Click to expand...

I do. Paladins are their own archetype, not the template for all LG. I don't believe all LG are expected to personally step in to exact punishments of others who harm or threaten innocents. It does match up thematically for a divinely powered heroic LG smiter of evil though.

For another example, is a LG character doing something inconsistent with LG if they have a follower or henchman who is NG?

Once again, just because Paladin's are more strictly held to that standard as a condition of thier continued exalted status as Paladins, doesn't mean that LG's in general aren't expected to strive to live up to the same standard.

Click to expand...

True, it is not a logical necessity that the paladin code does not match up with LG ideals. Similarly, however, it is not a logical necessity that the paladin code match LG at all.