Hijacked Thread in need of closure.

[Teflon Billy]

...God help you if SHARK or some more hard-core Paladin players catch your words in this thread...

Well, I think SHARK is a DM through and through, but as far as dismantling these "Paladins are stupid" arguments, yes; he can do it with very little effort.

Hell, he did it to me when I was on the "Paladins are stupid" side

 

[jgbrowning]

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.

Thanks for the humor Teflon Billy.

To many people seem to have part of their "self" tied up in the idea of a "Paladin."

Personally i think people dont like what i say because what it eventually leads to it THEIR Paladin character having to DIE alot to maintain his code. Thats not fun. Couse it would be cool role-playing though, wouldn't it?

Honestly i think what these guys are saying about Paladins is completely LG. Im just saying that normally LG characters can ocassionally make the choice between the lesser of two evils because their class abilites aren't dependant upon their NEVER doing evil.

Funny thing is that they seem to think im a rigid thinker about alignment. hehe



joe b.

 

[jgbrowning]

Well, I think SHARK is a DM through and through, but as far as dismantling these "Paladins are stupid" arguments, yes; he can do it with very little effort.

Hell, he did it to me when I was on the "Paladins are stupid" side

We'll id like to hear from him then..

I'm not calling Paladins stupid.. im calling them RARE.


joe b.

Edit: i'll wait a while and see if he shows up here. i doubt it cause he's probably tired of it all by now. hehe.. if he doesn't i'll make a new post and that should get his attention.

 

[reapersaurus]

1) Personally i think people dont like what i say because what it eventually leads to it THEIR Paladin character having to DIE alot to maintain his code. Thats not fun. Couse it would be cool role-playing though, wouldn't it?

2) Honestly i think what these guys are saying about Paladins is completely LG. Im just saying that normally LG characters can ocassionally make the choice between the lesser of two evils because their class abilites aren't dependant upon their NEVER doing evil.

1) Wow. You are totally correct in that conclusion.
How insightful of you.

Your railroading, narrow-minded, paladin-as-automoton interpretation that is not supported by any 3E rulebook DOES decrease the amount of fun a paladin player could have,
And no, after the first time, role-playing that would NOT be fun.
I speak from experience.

Mainly it's immature paladin players think it's kewl to sacrifice their character to be able to "say" they did it with a character of theirs (presumably to get some "Role-Player's" badge or member ship in some secret club, or something )

2) I am confused about what you're saying in that paragraph.

Are you saying that it's Your belief that paladin players CAN choose between two evils, or that they CAN'T?

 

[Darkness]

Re: Re: Re: In the 4th Edition, or Edition 3.1 whatever, should the Paladin be scrapped?

Without a Lawful AND a Good component, the Code of Conduct is hardly a binding thing.

Wasn't my point; I was talking about LG vs. CG & NG, not about paladins in specific. *shrug* Still, the Holy Liberator has a CoC, too, you know.

Chew on that, Chaotic-Supplement-Boy! *yelling to that flighty pointy-eared Holy Liberator from DotF*

Yeah, the poor class doesn't even have an iconic... (Not to mention that the book it is in doesn't even have a real errata list, but that's beside the point. )

 

[Darkness]

Re: Re: Re: In the 4th Edition, or Edition 3.1 whatever, should the Paladin be scrapped?

But in practice, [chaotic alignments] all end up looking the same.
...

Not in my games. Besides, don't forget that NPCs can be chaotic, too. (Also, this all is a meaningless tangent from the main point anyway. )

Can you tell I'm biased a touch?

 

[jgbrowning]

2) I am confused about what you're saying in that paragraph.

Are you saying that it's Your belief that paladin players CAN choose between two evils, or that they CAN'T?

What i mean is that eventually a Paladin is going to have to make a decision between evils. I honestly think that is what RL is and that is also a very important part of good conflict. Having to make a distasteful choice because that's the ONLY way to get to an end result that is good is in almost every type of literature. It helps to show how charactes grow through conflict and personal choices.

And i know that a lot of people think that when this happens to a paladin, that somehow the paladin isnt' making an evil choice because the end result is good. Ends and means arguements are old and boring and not really approraite here because.

1. most Good people can do Evil things without consequence to themselves beyond internal and personal/god relationship type things if you beleive it than

2. most PC can do the same, with pretty much the same effects.

3. but paladins, if they ever willingly chose to do an evil act, fall from paladinship.


Im not sure how my saying this means that i dont "understand" how a paladin's code works or how LG works... gods i hope after 22 years of the crazy game id be over that hurdle.

Im saying that were the DM to not deliberatly exert himself to prevent certain situations from occuring, a Paladin character would have to DIE quite a bit, which is very not fun in order to maintain paladinship.

joe b.

 

[reapersaurus]

joe, you are so happily simplistic in your viewing of paladins, HOW can you be versed in other moral or religious viewpoints?

I thought what most people learn from those kinds of studies is that there are many ways to deal with life?

Then why do you simplistically intertwine a Paladin's requirement to fight evil with their personal Code (in other words, a personal ideal with which they try to uphold)?

I'll quote the same thing you did

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.

You can go 2 ways with these words:
1) Reasonable: The Code is something the paladin strives for - it is his responsibility to always keep it in mind, but not use it as the only factor that tells him what to do in every situation.
If you don't take this approach, you risk making the Paladin a machine, who I believe ihe traditionally is not - he's a human being who must always make tough decisions, balancing all factors.
2) By the exact words:
The words say that he is required to help only those that will use the help for evil or chaotic ends. It doesn't take too far of leap to conclude that If a paladin threw his life away to satisfy this absolute of Code, than he would be advancing the cause or Evil and making the world a less ordered place.

The last part of the Code says he's required to punish those harming innocents.
Well, if the Evil thing that is harming innocents is WAY over the power level of the paladin (say an adult dragon vs. a 1st level Pally), than HOW, pray tell, is the Paladin going to "punish" said dragon?

Answer: he can't "punish" them.
Therefore,m the Code doesn't apply in any case where the Evil thing is of a distinctly higher level than the paladin.

The word "punish" insinuates the paladin being of higher level than the Evil, actually.

And before you go too far, I mentioned SHARK because he is on record as believing that a Paladin should almost NEVER have their powers revoked, as long as he satisifes his personal Code.

I doubt if you'd get him to agree that a paladin is hamstrung by a DM's overly-limiting personal imterpretations. LOL

And for the record: SHARK's beliefs on Paladins fairly sicken me.
He knows that - we've gone MANY rounds over his overly-righteous and dangerously-LN approach to paladins before over the years.
Anyone who has read enough about his Vallorean Empire and King Haldainathor knows that he doesn't follow 3E strictly.
They pre-emptively slaughter thousands of people, secretly and without remorse.
It's a fascist society, don't you know?

And please don;t post anohter thread invoking SHARK.
He NEVER "Has had enough" of paladin discussion. LOL
He'd love nothing better (given time) than to sit back with a snifter of alchohol and a cigar and type till the cows come home.
If he wants to join this one (and if he's aware of it), I'm quite certain he will.

 

[Darkness]

paladins, if they ever willingly chose to do an evil act, fall from paladinship.

Until they atone.

 

[Teflon Billy]

...And before you go too far, I mentioned SHARK because he is on record as believing that a Paladin should almost NEVER have their powers revoked, as long as he satisifes his personal Code.

I doubt if you'd get him to agree that a paladin is hamstrung by a DM's overly-limiting personal imterpretations. LOL

And for the record: SHARK's beliefs on Paladins fairly sicken me.
He knows that - we've gone MANY rounds over his overly-righteous and dangerously-LN approach to paladins before over the years.
Anyone who has read enough about his Vallorean Empire and King Haldainathor knows that he doesn't follow 3E strictly.
They pre-emptively slaughter thousands of people, secretly and without remorse.
It's a fascist society, don't you know?

Well, the term fascist carries so much baggage...let's call the Vallorean Empire a Bening Dictatorship, witht he Paladin's as secret police.

That doesn't sound much better does it?

I think the reason that SHARK and I see as "eye to eye" as we do on Paladins is because (thoughit's not stated) it seems as if "textbook" Paladins cleave more toward the "good" element of their alignment rather than the lawful, while in my game (and, I think, his) they lean more on their Lawful side than good.

Both, I think, meet the necessary criteri from the PHB of "Lawful", "Good", and "Follows a code of conduct", but our guys seem a lot more stern and icy than freindly and well-loved.

...And please don;t post anohter thread invoking SHARK.
He NEVER "Has had enough" of paladin discussion. LOL
He'd love nothing better (given time) than to sit back with a snifter of alchohol and a cigar and type till the cows come home.
If he wants to join this one (and if he's aware of it), I'm quite certain he will.

His love of Cigars and Booze is approaching the level of a truism I see