Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nonlethal Force" data-source="post: 3669410" data-attributes="member: 35788">Thirded.  Good post.Personally, I don't buy into the whole "paladins get carte blanche" when dealing with an outsider.  Paladins of certain deities, perhaps.  But paladins of all deities?  No way.  I don't buy into generalizations that broad!  To me, being a paladin is so much more than just smite the evil foe.  I mean, look at the abilities a typical paladin receives.  The only outright offensive ones are smite (and I admit that's a biggie) and turn undead (which since it is at a reduced level may be more important for activating certain feats ... some of which are offensive and many are not).  But on the other hand you've got special mount - which could be used offensively in a charge, but it certainly could also be used as simple transportation, too.  You've got lay on hands - which could be used offensively, but most often is used for healing.  You've got remove disease, which is obviously intended for something other than making a blow to the enemy.  You've got detect evil - which should be used to avoid evil and identify it, but itself is not outright offensive in nature.  You've got divine grace which is clearly defensive in its abilities.  You've got aura of courage - which is also clearly defensive.  And there's divine health - which is also clearly defensive.Now, a case can easily be made that a good offense comes from an excellent defense.  But looking at the class abilities, I personally do not accept the argument that a good paladin is one who smites because he can.  There are many types of good paladins.  A paladin who heals more than smites is perfectly acceptable.  A paladin who is interested in being the benefactor for the downtrodden is perfectly acceptable.In summary, I don't have a problem with the big offensive paladins.  In the OP's case, I think the paladin could have done many things better.  But then again I'm also much more interested in changing lives, not destroying them.  "You catch more flies with honey than vinegar" type person.  In my campaigns, I'd personally rather see a paladin who errs on the side of mercy.  After all, a big bad paladin slaying a lowly imp does nothing but fuel the enemy's hatred.  Capturing them and granting them some measure of mercy (and potentially converting them to your side) at least makes the enemy think and not just hate.As a side note, this argument reminds me of the latest OotS cartoon - the one where Belkar tries to attack the creature under the umbrella.  There are two references to people in that strip who are the attack first and ask questions later type.  Interestingly enough, they are Belkar (a visual reference) and Xykon (a verbal reference).  I think it's been made clear that both of these characters have a bent towards evil, and I'm being nice here.  I'm not trying to make generalizations about all characters, but personally I think that paladins who are about smiting evil at will without evaluating the ramifications of their actions upon their code are in danger.  Being a paladin is hardly ever that black and white.  I think there hae been plenty of posts already about how the paladin could have acted differently and been far more close to the paladin code.</blockquote>

Verification