Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Daedrova" data-source="post: 953716" data-attributes="member: 11835">Hypersmurf … It seems as though you do this very same thing with the rules when you try to find loopholes.  Take statements out of context, ignoring the meaning given to them by the conditions surrounding them.  When I “missed” your meaning, it was simply because its true form simply wasn’t there.  We see that you think “evil” aligned creatures may not be “EVIL” enough to warrant swift death at the hands of the Paladin…  OF COURSE that is a possibility (please read again above, about greater good, and the more positive result of redemption over eradication)I apologize for any abrasiveness in these words.  I know that our general thoughts about the Paladins are quite similar, and that your main disagreement is with Corinth.  I just can’t stand being argued with on the ambiguity or fallible meaning of a point of mine when it can only be taken or comprehended that way when ignoring the meaning given by the explanation (and context) it is contained within.I really do agree that a Paladin shouldn’t (and who really would?) turn on his “radar” when walking into town and just start killing people who are detected as “evil.”  When would a Paladin honestly consider that a valid option or a good decision?  That is simply absurd, and will likely never happen in a campaign.  He is not an island, he is not oblivious to/of the nature of his surroundings and the potential of persons and possibilities of any number of given situations to arise.The triumph over evil, at its most basic level, will occur by killing those obviously evil creatures (demons, undead, etc.), and some evil humanoid races (goblins, ogres, etc., though even here individual exceptions may be possible, and these should and will be subject to the judgment of that Paladin).  I think this is why you, Hypersmurf, and Corinth are arguing from incompatible “levels” or “angles.”  Corinth is arguing that evil should be destroyed (fine in and of itself), but you are giving some unlikely (maybe absurd) situation, that will probably not occur or even be an issue, to argue against his ideology of the Paladin.  Of course that is going to put your view at odds with his.  He is simply not considering some things that should be, and neither are you.  Foremost, little Billy isn’t going to be detected as evil simply because he “threw a stone at a squirrel” or anyone because he/she didn’t “declare the cask of Elvish Wine to the tax inspector.”  (side note: I am sick of hearing this obviously logically fallible argument bout little “innocent” Billy… UGH.   The argument presumes to present “Bill” as an innocent by titling him “little Billy” [“who has probably never done another thing wrong in his life.” …yeah, BS] and then proceeds to tell precisely how Bill is NOT innocent by telling of how he gave himself to selfish acts and desires, such as theft, or hurting little animals…)These examples can all be neutral peoples:“Fred the merchant who cheats his customers? Evil. Frank the bouncer at the Boar's Nest who really, really enjoys beating up patrons? Evil. Angus the gardener, who dreams up a new plot every day for how to kill his master - even though he'll never actually do it? Evil.”Again, there are ways to eliminate evil Without murdering its mislead and unassuming tools or unwitting agents.  These example problems can simply be addressed upfront using diplomacy, if the Paladin where to learn of them.  (and again, a neutral character is capable of any of these, to an extent)Fred can be confronted, and his cheating ways be made public.Maybe Frank even needs a sound thrashing (not killing) to help him understand how this evil desire is hurting people.  As far as Angus is concerned, Neutral, and even Good characters will have desires and thoughts about how to make their own life better, even sometimes by hurting another.  The act itself would be committed by an evil person, the thoughts would play over in a Neutral character’s mind, and a good person would recognize the evil in the desire, and attempt to change his way of thinking.A creature of Evil alignment is not going to be killed for “the slightest provocation.”  Their actions will show them worthy of purification (be that death or repentance).I disagree with the general assumption that “a Paladin destroying evil is good and can’t go wrong” when assuming that the only way to destroy evil is to kill a creature, but I am in complete agreement with the same statement accepting that the creature itself can be redeemed to destroy that evil.  I also believe that the Paladin is a “divinely invested crusading warrior of righteousness charged by to smite evil“, but that “crusading” is simply NOT done inside the town in the context of D&D.  It is silly to think that you would “adventure” and “crusade” INTO a town instead of from one.Further, I must observe that anyone without the wisdom to decide against this (radar on, target locked, destroy…) would never be chosen as a Paladin.  These actions would likely result in what Hypersmurf and Psion imagined (“run, a Paladin is coming” ) regardless of situation.  Yes, a Paladin is someone of sound mind and attractive personality, who others would be attracted to, not a mindless robot.</blockquote>

Verification