Hijacked Thread in need of closure.

[jgbrowning]

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)?

Because the code, as lined out in the PHB, does say they have to help and punish. Both of those things usually end in fighting evil. It doesn't mean they have to end in fighting evil but thats usually what happens.

I'll quote the same thing you did 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.[/B]

Of course the paladin doen't run around with a little book and look everything up. I'm sure the code is even "open" to interpreation and there will be heated discussions among paladins about minutae... just like us huh?

I dont make any of my PC's or NPC be machine-like. But i do require them to follow their ethos or they cannot consider themselves to have that ethos.

Making tough decisions is one thing... making a choice between two evils is a completly different things for a paladin.


QUOTE]Originally posted by reapersaurus
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.[/B][/QUOTE]

Yes. Those are the tough decisions im talking about. However, chosing to sacrifice yourself in a noble, but hopeless cause, when you have other options is foolish, unless the only other option you have would result in your survival without your code intact. If the only way for you to maintain your moral code intact is for you to perish in a foolish, hopeless manner, then that is what a "real" paladin would do. Or else he would turn craven and claim he had no choice, as if having no choice alleviates responsibilty.

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. [/B]

Here of course we have room for discussion. Punish is important but the idea that a paladin cannot punish a being of higher level than he is not always true. Punish means so many different things that dont necessisarly require an equal measure of power.

The paladin could always go to the dragons lair and poison its newly hatched babies.

hehe... what im trying to say is this. the paladin can only punish WITHIN his code. The paladins code actually prohibits him from doing as much good as he could (think poisoning wells of a NE enemies castle). I think that shows that a Paladin must operate within his code even when it is blatently not the smart thing to do.

Which comes back to the punish concept. Its not the smart thing to try and "punish" the dragon, but it is in the code.

"punish those that harm or threaten innocents" doesn't mean "only punish those you are capable of punishing". The attidute that a paladin should only try to punish those he thinks he can succesfully punish, is somewhat reprehensible. This trying to punish things would result in a lot of dead paladins.

But besides the punish angle in our scenario (dragon and a villiage) there's also the protect the innocent aspect. In almost any situation there's going to be several of the code's ideas working simultaniously.

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. [/B]

Hehe... well sounds more and more like me and shark could have a good arguement.

joe b.

 

[jgbrowning]

Until they atone.

yep. complete and utter agreement. completely.


joe b.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

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?

This is completely OT, but you asked .

The proliferation of Lawyers in the U.S. is driven by a litigiousness that values money and attention over what is best for society. Lawyers, as they are increasingly used in the U.S., are not a function of an orderly, Lawful society. They are a response to a legal system that is bogged down in selfish, petty detail and a public that increasingly cares only about what profit a situation can provide them. I think I'm being kind in not labeling that as CE.

Besides, the way the legal system is set up, lawyers are often required to do morally reprehensible things or get disbarred. If the function of law is to benefit society, what sense does that make?

 

[jgbrowning]

This is completely OT, but you asked .

The proliferation of Lawyers in the U.S. is driven by a litigiousness that values money and attention over what is best for society. Lawyers, as they are increasingly used in the U.S., are not a function of an orderly, Lawful society. They are a response to a legal system that is bogged down in selfish, petty detail and a public that increasingly cares only about what profit a situation can provide them. I think I'm being kind in not labeling that as CE.

Besides, the way the legal system is set up, lawyers are often required to do morally reprehensible things or get disbarred. If the function of law is to benefit society, what sense does that make?

yeah.. but i dont think you should consider Lawful to have any such silly concerns about what is "best" for a society. that really sounds like good/evil to me.

and again, the profit taking and selfishness, IMHO, has nothing to do with Law/chaos.. its good/evil.

about the morally reprehensible things i completely agree.. unfortunatly many of those things are not morally reprehensible when defending an innocent person. they're only reprehensible when used to defend someone who is guilty.

joe b.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

yeah.. but i dont think you should consider Lawful to have any such silly concerns about what is "best" for a society. that really sounds like good/evil to me.

If you're lumping society in with Good, then what do you attribute to Law & Chaos?
IMO, Lawfulness promotes society (i.e. the gathering of people to a common purpose). Chaos promotes Individualism (whereby each individual works to his/her own purposes).

When you cross selfish behaviors and attitudes w/ individualism, you get Chaotic Evil. When you cross selfish behaviors and attitudes w/ a pro-society agenda (a la Darth Vader for example), you get Lawful Evil.

and again, the profit taking and selfishness, IMHO, has nothing to do with Law/chaos.. its good/evil.

They're using the tools of Law to foster a Selfishly Individualistic (read: Chaotic Evil) end.

about the morally reprehensible things i completely agree.. unfortunatly many of those things are not morally reprehensible when defending an innocent person. they're only reprehensible when used to defend someone who is guilty.

I'm in particular concerned with the situation of defending the guilty. For example, even if a lawyer has proof that his client is guilty. Even if the client admitted it to him, he would not be allowed to step down from the case, or he'd be disbarred in most cases. So, to keep his livelihood, he has to forego anything resembling a conscience. To further compound the problem, prosecutors make a fraction of what defense attorneys make, so people of conscience know going into the field that they will make MUCH more money if they get rid of that pesky conscience. The whole system is set up to reward a mish-mash of Chaotic and Evil behaviors (were we to continue employing the D&D alignment system )

 

[MeepoTheMighty]

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).

I'm going to respectfully duck out of this thread because it's obvious that it's strayed far away from its original intentions. [.Offensive personal attack deleted.]

 

[Vaxalon]

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

(T)he 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.

The DM does that for everyone... the DM creates situations that are appropriate to the party. Happens all the time.

As for picking his battles, yes, a Paladin does occasionally have encounters thrust upon him, and sometimes they fail, and are slain. That doesn't need to happen to all of them, though, and by no means should the DM feel the need to do that to every paladin, any more than he should do so to any other class.

Try this:

(T)he only reason why your 1st level character stays alive or retains his good alignment is because your DM creates simple moral questions and presents you with Evil that has CR's appropriate to your level.

That's true of most games, I would wager.

 

[Vaxalon]

"punish those that harm or threaten innocents" doesn't mean "only punish those you are capable of punishing".

Why not?

As long as you're punishing evil to the greatest extent that you are capable (never taking a vacation, just pausing to recover hit points and otherwise gather resources) then you are punishing evil. If you choose to punish evils A, B, C, D, and E, leaving X, Y, and Z for later, then you are punishing evil.

 

[jgbrowning]

The DM does that for everyone... the DM creates situations that are appropriate to the party. Happens all the time.

As for picking his battles, yes, a Paladin does occasionally have encounters thrust upon him, and sometimes they fail, and are slain. That doesn't need to happen to all of them, though, and by no means should the DM feel the need to do that to every paladin, any more than he should do so to any other class.

Try this:

(T)he only reason why your 1st level character stays alive or retains his good alignment is because your DM creates simple moral questions and presents you with Evil that has CR's appropriate to your level.

That's true of most games, I would wager.

yep, yep and double yep. hehe.. that was the DM in me coming out and not explaining myself enough...

What i was trying to say was that, unlike every other class, paladins would continually die or fall in a "Real" fantasy world. Moreso than other classes, who have more.... options.... open to them for dealing with various circumstances.

As if there really was this other world and there was no DM looking over his group to make sure everyone has fun by usually giving them only challanges they should be able to deal with.

In a "real" fantasy world, situations where a paladin would be forced to make decisions between the lesser of two evils would occur more often than in that of a "fantasy world" run by a DM whose sole goal is to provide fun for all.



joe b.

 

[jgbrowning]

Why not?

As long as you're punishing evil to the greatest extent that you are capable (never taking a vacation, just pausing to recover hit points and otherwise gather resources) then you are punishing evil. If you choose to punish evils A, B, C, D, and E, leaving X, Y, and Z for later, then you are punishing evil.

I guess we have a very different concept of how one can keep the paladin code while still picking and chosing what evil to fight.

Imagine a situation where a paladin (3rd level) is completely surrounded by evil. Somehow he gets teleported into a giant city full of evil humans. All these evil humans keep a small group of good humans they like to torture to death and put in arena combat.

There's three guys that do all the torturing for the bad guys and they do it infront of the paladin, taunting him.

guy 1 is a 3rd level fighter, guy 2 is an 8th level fighter, and guy three is a 15th level fighter.

by your definition the paladin would be justified in never doing anything because he would never be able to defeat them. But honestly, would you rule the paladin maintains his paladin ship after he's watched and done nothing while hundreds of innocent people are killed?

I normally dont like to use extreme examples, because people tend to rebutt by only pointing out how the example is silly or biased. But here i think it serves it point pretty well.

Now, after you decided the guy loses his paladinship, when, what NUMBER, of innocent people had to be tortured and killed infront of him before he lost it?

Now, why does it matter if it was one, or one hundred?

and finally why can the paladin run away from a villiage that needs his help just because its a dragon, and not an orc, when the results of his running away result in the death of the villigers, and his attacking of the dragon wouldn't change that. How is that essentially different than the torture scenario?

In either situation the paladin has NO CHOICE. if he fights nothing changes, if he dies, nothing changes, if he does nothing nothing changes... but especially considering that "Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and who protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good... i have to wonder.

this is the track of thought i go down... Just because you can't win, doesn't mean you're morally off the hook. If it was an orc attacking and it was a 10th level paladin you take his paladinship away in a heartbeat.

In an morally absolute system, like DnD, situation does not determine morality. If situation determined morality, it would be a relative morality system, which i much prefer.

joe b.