Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7065044" data-attributes="member: 42582">I don't know that I really get this sublcass.It saysThe Oath of Redemption sets a paladin on a difficult path, one that requires a holy warrior to use violence only as a last resort. . . . These paladins face evil creatures in the hope of turning them to the light, and the paladins slay them only when such a deed will clearly save other lives. . . . Violence is a weapon of last resort. Diplomacy and understanding are the paths to long-lasting peace. . . . While every creature can be redeemed, some are so far along the path of evil that you have no choice but to end their lives for the greater good.Some of this seems self-contradictory: the first paragraph says that these paladins kill only in defence of others, while the last one says that they kill "for the greater good", which strongly implies killing for reasons other than defence of others.And some of it seems redundant - given that killing wantonly is pretty much the hallmark of evil, it seems that any good character will tend to use violence only as a last resort (or perhaps in more-or-less consensual situations, where the violence doesn't undermine the dignity of its victim - eg duels, some sorts of warfare).I've also read some people describing these characters as pacifists, but clearly they don't repudiate violence.</blockquote>