Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SHARK" data-source="post: 435724" data-attributes="member: 1131">Greetings!Well, Celebrim, I don't really disagree with you that there isn't a spectrum from being utterly ruthless and immoral to being a fastidious fop incapable of doing anything effective.My main point, --and maybe I should give some more concrete examples than I have to illustrate the point better--is that many actions and tactics that many seem to assume that a paladin could not, or should not, ever do, while nice in a tournament setting, would lead to utter defeat upon a grim and brutal battlefield.For example:The paladin and his companions, with some troops perhaps, come upon an enemy encampment of sleeping gnolls. Lets say several hundred of them, in the middle of the night, all crashed out from a debauched feast from earlier in the evening.Scenario (1): The "Chivalrous Good" position would demand that the paladin blow his own, and alert the enemy to their presence before attacking; and or, await until the Gnolls have further chance to arm and equip themselves before carrying out the attack, or--waiting until sunrise, when the Gnoll host would awake naturally, and proceed to arm and equip themselves for battle, and then proceeding to make an attack.Scenario (2):The "Realist" position would have the paladin and his forces sweep into the enemy encampment, slitting the Gnoll's throats while they sleep as many as possible, before wasting the rest that do manage to awake with as much fire and ferocity that the paladin and his forces can bring to bear.The Object: The Gnoll forces are evil, and must be defeated.For the paladin to impose his chivalrous, idealistic notions--inspired from the tournament and designed for other knights as well, in regulating combat between noble equals--into the situation when a superior tactic has better merits for victory is just stupid. Furthermore, it puts the men under the paladin's command needlessly at risk, so that the paladin can feel better about himself. In addition, it risks the entire force being defeated by the greater numbers of the Gnoll forces, when a surprise attack while they were weak and asleep would increase the chances of victory would be far superior. To fail to do so would be the height of immorality and dereliction of the paladin's duty.The realities of war demand victory or defeat. Saying that well, we lost, and all my men are dead, and the people that are depending on me are raped and enslaved, because it was more important to me that the enemy Gnolls be allowed a "fair" chance to arm and equip themselves, and fight us in a "fair" manner, where they then proceed to use their superior numbers to slaughter us to the last man, than to achieve victory, with a minimum of casualties to the men that are putting their trust and their lives in my hands. Attacking the Gnolls when they are asleep is unchivalrous; so is attacking by cover of darkness, for the enemy can't see as well; attacking them when they are unarmored and unarmed is unchivalrous, because they are less able to defend themselves from us, and so on.This is nonsense, and to insist that paladins be forced to abide by such notions of idealistic chivalry on a strange battlefield, where noone fights "fair" and the cost of being wrong is death, and the enemy may in fact outnumber you significantly, is just crazy. There is no "glory" in this, and there isn't anything especially noble about it. The men under your command have entrusted their lives to you, as a paladin commander, and your primary responsibility is winning, and making sure as many of them get to come home alive as possible. All other considerations, while important in their own way, must ultimately be subordinated to these primary considerations. If the paladin commander cannot do such in good conscience, then he has no business being in a war, or commanding anyone.Does that mean that torturing captured enemies needlessly is appropriate? Nope. Does that mean that mercy should never be shown to a defeated enemy? Not at all. And with many other moral considerations, they are all important, and they have their place in guiding the commander and troops alike in their conduct, even while in the crucible and hell of war. But to make the ideals themselves, paramount over the greater need of winning, and preserving the lives of the troops under your command, and defending the people that you are charged to defend, is just a prescription for absolute disaster.Does that make sense? I have read far too many people who interpret paladins as being stupid, and beholden to outmoded, stupid ideals that have no place on a battlefield, and in fact, the insistence of them, will only spell defeat of the first order. It is no wonder that many people think paladins are stupid, because so many people play them as stupid, and so many Game Masters insist that paladins act in stupid ways, and if the paladin chooses not to run down into the fiery trap set to kill him, well, the Game master can cackle with glee as they proceed to strip the paladin of his powers. It is this kind of philosophy that I find entirely incongreous, and unrealistic, as well as ultimately unfair to players that seek to play paladains in something more than simple caricatures.What do you think?<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Semper Fidelis,SHARK</blockquote>

Verification