Hijacked Thread in need of closure.

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Sure they can. But so can a CG person, and in fact a CG person is more likely to do so.

I can't imagine why you would think so.

Er...I don't know what that's supposed to mean, but I rather prefer not having to fight for my freedom, thank you very much.

But, were it taken away, you would probably fight for it.

Oh, wait. It's being taken away as we speak, and most of us are sitting on our hands. That's my point. As a species, we have a history of fighting those that would oppress us. Apparently, some time since the '60s we decided it wasn't worth the effort anymore (at least in this country).

The only episode I've ever seen of that show involved a chicken fighting for his life in arena battles. I have no clue what that has to do with the discussion.

That episode doesn't. How about the one where he destroyed the artifact that could have sent him home because it had a habit of trapping people to serve its will?

I'm presupposing that someone who swears himself to a lawful cause isn't free to follow his emotions, yes. Sure, he could have a lawful heart, but then he wouldn't be free to follow his passions. If there's one thing Sune stands for, it's passions.

Putting Sune aside, what if your passions are Justice, Truth, and Equality?

I never advocated doing anything else! You'll notice I used "paladin" in quotes. You'll notice from my very first post that I wanted a holy warrior class.

Sorry. Didn't mean to put words in your mouth.

And judging by the increasing numbers of lawyers running around, I'd say our society is far from Chaotic Inane.

Classic example of surface Lawfulness over top of rampant Chaos

All heil the paladin, noble defender of the ubermenschen!

Actually, I was eluding to the fact that our society as a whole (at least in America) is largely indistinguishable from his "Slave morality" (from On the Genealogy of Morals, I think)

 

[jgbrowning]

I'd like to comment on this:



Who ever said that Pelor or Wee Jas take away a Paladin's power if he falls from grace? It doesn't say that anywhere in the PHB.

Paladins devote themselves to LG and their code. If they break the code, they fall. End of story. Anything else is a house rule.



Gods do not have paladins. Certain paladins may align themselves with gods, however, gods play zero part in whether a paladin has his abilties or not. Nowhere in the PHB does it say that Paladins must devote themselves to a single diety to gain their powers. That is your assumption.
.
..
Obviously, the campaign setting of FR is an exception, but that's it. FR is a house rule of DnD.

Good post! but i have to disagree... all i ever do apparantly.

Your right in that Paladins dont HAVE to have a diety, just like clerics dont, but if they do they have the same diety relationship as clerics do. ie. they get their spells from the diety.

It is an assumption, but i dont think its too unreasonable..
"Paladins devoted to a god are scrupulous in observing religious duties and are welcome in every associated temple." Even both classes are described as "feeling a call" or "answering a call". I think its a reasonable assumption that under similair circumstances things work about the same.

So, yep paladins dont have to worship gods, nor recieve their powers from them, but, IMHO they do have that option.

joe b.

 

[reapersaurus]

OK, im going to say it one more time.

If you let evil happen infront of your eyes and you dont try to stop it, regardless of the personal consequences, regardless of whether or not you can prevent it, you are PARTICIPATING in an evil act.

to phrase it another way....

Paladins dont have the luxury of picking and chosing their battles, because if evil comes there way they cannot just turn and run. they must fight evil that is greater than themselves if need be, and sacrifice themselves in trying to stop evil.

and a third way...

the only reason why your 1st level paladin stays alive or remains LG is because your DM creates simple moral questions and presents you with Evil that has CR's appropriate to your level.
The DM creates an environment where your paladin can exist, because if he created an environment that is as multiplicitious as a real world, you couldn't.

You are so insanely caught up in your own little morally relatavistic world and applying your own House Rules and interpretations to Paladins, I'm really having to stifle my desire to personally insult you.

You are OBVIOUSLY (as shown by your own words, and pointed out by mutiple people here) ignorant of a Paladin's mindset.
You are unable to wrap your head around a LG approach.
That's fine, that's cool - there are MANY people in the world today that can't.

But how dare you project your inabilities onto the paladin class, and effectively hamstring any Paladin player you come across.

Joe - are you a DM, or a player?

God help you if SHARK or some more hard-core Paladin players catch your words in this thread. We have had so many paladin discussions on these boards over the years, and every now and again there's a guy like you that thinks they understand things, when in reality they just confuse themselves.

What you said about a paladin performing an evil act by not sacrificing himself is flat out a WRONG interpretation of a Paladin's code.
That post alone invalidates all of the posts you've wasted people's times with in this thread.

 

[jgbrowning]

Whoa!!! we may be talking about different things here.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And judging by the increasing numbers of lawyers running around, I'd say our society is far from Chaotic Inane.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Classic example of surface Lawfulness over top of rampant Chaos.



I have no idea how more lawyers is indicitive of more chaos.
Explain?


joe b.

 

[reapersaurus]

So, yep paladins dont have to worship gods, nor recieve their powers from them, but, IMHO they do have that option.

So you're trying to blanket-statement that "Paladins are silly" because you are tying in a House Rule that says that paladins that devote themselves to a diety get their powers from said diety?

The archetype of a paladin, whether you want to accept this or not (it doesn't seem anybody in this whole thread has problems with this archetype but yOU, BTW) is an individual who was born different - a champion of Good, a protector of innocent, and a slayer of Evil.

Wandering closer to my impression of paladins would be: They follow their own Code, and MAY be affiliated with a diety, but their powers derive from within, and from a generic "Good", not granted by one diety.

Firmly within my impressions: A Paladin's powers are generated from his own discipline and Code.
They are removed for a time because he believes himself undeseerving of weilding them. A true Paladin is his own check and balance - he doesn't need to be punished by his 'diety' like an ignorant puppy would.

you are ascribing the characteristics of BAD paladin players to the entire Paladin class, I'd wager.
That is bad form.

 

[reapersaurus]

I also understand that almost no one here is looking at the flip of what i said. I said that the definition of paladin was not exclusively "Lawful Good and only lawful good" and i have provided definitions to support my arguement.

I'm looking for the person who can find an example that does not support my arguement.

I'll give you an example that not only doesn't support your argument, it completely invalidates your argument:

PHB, page 41, class definition for Paladin:
Alignment: Paladins must be lawful good...Additionally, paladins swear to follow a code of conduct that is in line with lawfulness and goodness.

That pretty much sums it up, I'd think.
Congrats on bringing in "definintions that supoort your argument", while completely ignoring the only one that matters in this case: we are not talking about the Paladins of History, we are not talking about Moral Absolutism or World Religions:

The thread is about 3E D&D Paladins.

Stop bringing everything under the sun into it (including your own biases and incorrect interpretations), stick with the rulebooks as printed, and maybe you'll uinderstand where everyone else is coming from.

 

[reapersaurus]

And for the fourth time i pose my two questions that i really want answered.

1. Why does Pelor care if his paladins lie, if by doing so they promote good? Why would he take away their power?

2. Why would a Paladin of Wee Jas lose his abilities if he passed by a peasant being attacked by a demon, because the paladin was ordered by his king to go with all haste and report to someone?

I want good ingame logic how these two gods can have paladins, but those paladins will lose thier powers if they behave in a manner that MATCHES their gods belief system.

I'll answer that one :
Paladin's powers most obviously must not come fromn the diety they have allegiance with.

You keep thinking that Paladins are "beholden" to some diety (or from your scenario, perhaps by extension a "King" of some sort).

Little clue for you: they aren't.

They are required to uphold the tents of Lawfulness and Goodness.
Not slavishly - not automoton-like - not because if they don't, they'll have their powers taken away....

..they do it because that is the way they are built!
For themselves, for their own sense of well-being, they act this way.

You, and a few other people who don't understand paladins - miss this crucial aspect of paladins (probably partially because you've seen paladins played badly by some players).
They are individual moral judges who must make the hard decisions time and again that many people would shirk.

Yes, it's a hard role - yes, in RPG'ing, there must be a "judge" in the form of a DM to adjudicate how well the Paladin-plkayer satisfied those ideals.

However, that is because role-playing IS silly.
Hate to break it to you.
It's an imperfect EMULATION of heroic fantasy.

I think there's enough support on page 41 of the PHB to come to the conclusion that a Paladin's powers come from within - so by extension, if he or she has erred, his/her own conscience will cause their powers to stop until they belive they have completed penance.

Some paladins KNOW internally that they have transgressed so heinously that they never again are able to channel the powers again.

 

[jgbrowning]

I'll give you an example that not only doesn't support your argument, it completely invalidates your argument:
That pretty much sums it up, I'd think.
Congrats on bringing in "definintions that supoort your argument", while completely ignoring the only one that matters in this case: we are not talking about the Paladins of History, we are not talking about Moral Absolutism or World Religions:

The thread is about 3E D&D Paladins.

Stop bringing everything under the sun into it (including your own biases and incorrect interpretations), stick with the rulebooks as printed, and maybe you'll uinderstand where everyone else is coming from.

Well i would stop bringing in sources outside of the PBH but i cant seem to find the definition of "I'll" "give" "you" "an" "example" in the PHB.

Although i appreciate your attempt to belittle me, you might want to try again in a manner thats not so embarrising to you.

the original post was "I have always had a problem with Paladins, mostly due to the their alignment restriction. In 3rd Edition we have seen the rules on Druid alignment relaxed, is it time for Paladins? I think a more general Holy Warrior core class would be better. One designed to be flexible enough to serve a god of any religion. What do you all think?"

so i think i have not behaved inappropriately.

joe b.

 

[jgbrowning]

You are so insanely caught up in your own little morally relatavistic world and applying your own House Rules and interpretations to Paladins, I'm really having to stifle my desire to personally insult you.

You are OBVIOUSLY (as shown by your own words, and pointed out by mutiple people here) ignorant of a Paladin's mindset.
You are unable to wrap your head around a LG approach.
That's fine, that's cool - there are MANY people in the world today that can't.

But how dare you project your inabilities onto the paladin class, and effectively hamstring any Paladin player you come across.

Joe - are you a DM, or a player?

God help you if SHARK or some more hard-core Paladin players catch your words in this thread. We have had so many paladin discussions on these boards over the years, and every now and again there's a guy like you that thinks they understand things, when in reality they just confuse themselves.

What you said about a paladin performing an evil act by not sacrificing himself is flat out a WRONG interpretation of a Paladin's code.
That post alone invalidates all of the posts you've wasted people's times with in this thread.

ok this will be a long post... First lemme quote SHARK since you value his opinions.

"Greetings!

JBrowning, sir, that is an excellent post! Very articulate, and incisive to the nature of the problems and quandaries faced! I might also add that in such a circumstance, if the paladin fails to requisition the wheat from the peasants in the countryside, that his companions, his soldiers--who are trusting him to come up with food for them as they struggle to survive in hostile territory, may also die if the paladin does not requistion such food for them. Thus, they die because the paladin failed to requisition the wheat from the peasants. In addition, a paladin not obeying the orders of the King--the man rightfully appointed to be his sovereign by Divine Right--geez, that can't score high marks for a paladin that is *Lawful Good* no matter what, heh?

The King is either obeyed, or he is not. That might have religious implications as well. Either the soldiers fighting evil die, or the peasants, living in the evil land, die. The paladin must choose, and there isn't a lot of time to think about it. Lets say that the paladin has three days or a week. That's it. And many of the troops are suffering from disease, as well, and are weakening as they march through the forbidding land of the evil kingdom...

Not very many points of comfort here, that's for sure. Oh, and the paladin must also answer the wives, children, and parents of the soldiers back home, if he chooses the peasants over them..."You let my husband die WHY? My father died in that foreign land, and he trusted you, and you did what?" and so on. Not pretty at all. Still, those people are looking for the paladin to bring their men home alive if possible, and not so much worried about morally comfortable he is with himself. That's a conflict of the *ideal* over the *real* Obeying some sense of morality in that sense, exists in the ideal, as an ideal, whereas a person living or dying, is real, in the right now, and it effects other people. If that makes any sense?

Good stuff!"


it appears that, at least a little bit, that SHARK does value my "little morally relativistic world" concerning my opinions about paladins. Btw thats on the other thread here about paladins.

QUOTE]Originally posted by reapersaurus
You are so insanely caught up in your own little morally relatavistic world and applying your own House Rules and interpretations to Paladins, I'm really having to stifle my desire to personally insult you.

You are OBVIOUSLY (as shown by your own words, and pointed out by mutiple people here) ignorant of a Paladin's mindset.
You are unable to wrap your head around a LG approach.
That's fine, that's cool - there are MANY people in the world today that can't.

But how dare you project your inabilities onto the paladin class, and effectively hamstring any Paladin player you come across.[/B][/QUOTE]

Hrm... first... thanks for not personally insulting me. i would find it difficult to take you seriously.

Secondly let me explain to you what I think a paladin's mindset is all you need to do is read the section in the PHB under PALADIN.. i think.

QUOTE]Originally posted by reapersaurus
What you said about a paladin performing an evil act by not sacrificing himself is flat out a WRONG interpretation of a Paladin's code. That post alone invalidates all of the posts you've wasted people's times with in this thread.
[/B][/QUOTE]

OK lemme see.. since i dont understand what a Paladin's code is (never mind that its in the PHB on page 43. lemme quote.. "A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all special class abilites if she ever willing commints an act of evil. Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, etc.), help those who need help (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those that harm or threaten innocents. *empasis mine*

ok, you think (correct me if im wrong here please) paladins can run away from powerful evil to fight another evil that they can defeat, or run away from evil because they would only get killed if they fought it and that would be stupid and non-productive, so instead of fighting the very powerful evil they limit themselves to fighting an evil they can combat with at least a hope of success. i understand that and think is perfectly rational. unfortunatly, its also counter to her code.

Her code ONLY says " help those who need help (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends)."

Please explain to me how, using your logic about how paladins can behave, how i can create and play a paladin that will bypass vilages being slaughtered by an evil dragon because 1. "He'll only die if he tries to fight the dragons" or 2. "He's going to leave the village and try to find some help to kill the dragons."

Now how does either of those options help the villiagers who are RIGHT NOW getting attacked by an evil dragon? Isn't the very act of leaving them at the mercies of the dragon not obeying the paladins code of " help those who need help (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends)."

Isn't the peanalty for not obeying that code falling form paladinship?


The problem here is YOUR interpretation that undersome circumstances that what appears to the poor villiagers that the paladin has just left them to die doesn't equal an evil act because the paladin is really on his way to get someone to help him fight the dragon.

Sorry, but my mind boggles....

I'd love to talk to SHARK about this. We both agree that being a paladin will often lead you to DIE for your code. The world will give you situations where the only thing you can do to maintain your paladinship is die fighting evil, regardless of whether or not you can succeed. A paladin cannot willing chose the lesser of two evils because if he does, he's still FRIGGEN chosing evil.

joe b.

 

[Teflon Billy]

Man, it's been literally months since the standard "Paladins/Moral Relativism/What is lawful good?" thread has made an appearance.

This is a big one too

Anyone care to explore whether women should have a STR penatly in D&D?

And for the record (and the humourless); I'm joking.