Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="moritheil" data-source="post: 2593904" data-attributes="member: 30610">Let me point out that the issue is not so simple that there are only two different stances on it, one being &quot;totally responsible&quot; and the other being &quot;totally not responsible.&quot;For example, I can use the very practical viewpoint that the paladin did not advance the cause of righteousness and good, and set a bad example, whether or not he was in control of his actions.&nbsp; His actions caused hundreds, or thousands, to lose faith in the morals and ideals that he supposedly stands for and represents.&nbsp; While he was not, in a sense, totally culpable since he never desired to do these actions, the fact that he did them still cannot be ignored.&nbsp; As such, according to this viewpoint, he might be censured because he caused a lot of trouble for paladins in general, and for his patron.There is an entire spectrum of possibilities.&nbsp; At one end, we have &quot;only intent matters, and not action,&quot; in which case it doesn't matter if a paladin fails to vanquish evil, cowardice overtakes him, and he flees the field, because he originally intended to go in and fight to the death.&nbsp; At the other end, we have &quot;only actions matter, and not intent,&quot; in which case domination and the like are irrelevant and the only question is whether or not he did in fact do something against his code.What I am interested in asking is where exactly everyone falls on this spectrum.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="moritheil, post: 2593904, member: 30610"] Let me point out that the issue is not so simple that there are only two different stances on it, one being "totally responsible" and the other being "totally not responsible." For example, I can use the very practical viewpoint that the paladin did not advance the cause of righteousness and good, and set a bad example, whether or not he was in control of his actions. His actions caused hundreds, or thousands, to lose faith in the morals and ideals that he supposedly stands for and represents. While he was not, in a sense, totally culpable since he never desired to do these actions, the fact that he did them still cannot be ignored. As such, according to this viewpoint, he might be censured because he caused a lot of trouble for paladins in general, and for his patron. There is an entire spectrum of possibilities. At one end, we have "only intent matters, and not action," in which case it doesn't matter if a paladin fails to vanquish evil, cowardice overtakes him, and he flees the field, because he originally intended to go in and fight to the death. At the other end, we have "only actions matter, and not intent," in which case domination and the like are irrelevant and the only question is whether or not he did in fact do something against his code. What I am interested in asking is where exactly everyone falls on this spectrum. [/QUOTE]

Verification