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="Dragonblade" data-source="post: 447544" data-attributes="member: 2804">Well, first to commend everyone on the fine debate! <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=":)" />Basically to reiterate my point it is that there seems to be two main camps of paladin thought.  One camp is operating from the assumption that violence and war are evil in and of themselves and the end never justifies the means.This is foundation upon which the belief that pacifism is "good" is based.But my paladins and SHARK's are based on the premise that violence and war are not evil in and of themselves.  And that the ends do justify some means.  (Although some in the other camp construe this to mean we believe the end always justifies the means; we do not.)Because our difference on this one point, our entire perspective on paladins and pacifism is totally different.  Based on my premise, pacifism takes on a much more neutral cast, if not becoming a downright evil and insidious philosophy.  Since we don't operate on the basis that violence is wrong, then we see no merit or moral strength in those who refuse to act in the face of evil.  From our perspective, failing to act then becomes a somewhat selfish or even evil act.There is also another premise which shapes our paladin view, that evil and good can be objectively determined regardless of the feelings or opinions of the actors in a given situation via rational and philosophical judgement of that situation.  It is operating from this premise that allows us to field zealous paladins dedicated to rooting out evil and bringing war and death to the forces of darkness!!There are some of you who undoubtedly take the opposite premise.  That good and evil are simply two different teams.  That morality is relative and good and evil are interchangeable concepts that can differ based on the perspective of the viewer or actor in a given situation.Operating from this premise undoubtedly makes you feel uncomfortable with our righteous crusading paladins.  To you the paladin has no special claim to goodness or righteous.  Because all morality is neutral, there can be no moral high ground.  Thus you are uncomfortable with those who claim one.  This sentiment is fueled by tyrants who also claim their actions are also good and just (though obviously not).But the difference is we do recognize that there is a moral high ground thus we are comfortable with the concept of the crusading paladin.  To us the dark lord who commits evil in the name of righteousness is not proof of moral relativity but rather proof that such a dark lord is not only evil but deluded too.Because of these profound differences in the very foundations of our arguments, the two camps of thought on paladin behavior are irreconcilable as I posted before.</blockquote>

Verification