Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dannyalcatraz" data-source="post: 4942212" data-attributes="member: 19675">There have been several Paladin articles in Dragon over the years.  One of my faves was the one in which they pointed out that it was entirely possible to find Paladins on both sides of a vicious war.Taking a page from one of my English profs, Bates Hoffer (who taught "Biblical Themes in Literature"): you talk about it as a literary/historical source (which we've been able to do, so far, and hope to continue).Well, I didn't mention any by name, actually.I was more indirectly referencing talion law in general- a.k.a. "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" type ethics that dates back to the Code of Hamurabi, as well as several divine edicts to wipe out entire peoples (there are a couple in Joshua, as I recall)- IOW, genocide- because that people would not hear God or repent.(IMHO, the "justified genocides" were probably revisionist history on the part of some long lost scribe...but that's a different story.)Samson is probably the best example of a Paladin getting hosed by a RBDM (<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />)- he didn't cut his hair, it was shorn by Delilah while he slept.  Really, what he was guilty of was not keeping a secret!  (That and being criminally dumb- Delilah tried 3 times previous to bind him and make him "as weak as any other man." before he completely opened up to her.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused    :confused:"  data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" />)The injunction against wine, hair cutting and touching the dead was initially directed at his mother, since Samson was to be a under the Nazirite vow, and she had to maintain ritual purity.  As a Nazirite, though, he still had to eschew wine and let his "freak flag fly."  (I couldn't remember if/when he drank, however- was it under Delilah's ministrations?)As for him being a thug, he beat a bunch of Philistines after his wife had been married off to the man who had been best man at his wedding...for which he he burned their grain.  In response, they killed his wife and her family, so he killed them.  After Delilah's trickery, he lost his powers- just like any Paladin who violates his vows- but also like a Paladin, he regained them after prayer.Ehud?  The Israelites had ticked of God, and set the Moabites against and over them.  However, after 18 years of brutal servitude "...the Lord raised up for them a savior..."  -definitely a call from the divine.  And his assassination was "...a message from God for you."  IOW, classic JJ&E.  Was it an assassination?  Sure.  But nobody ever said Paladins had to be "Lawful Stupid"- he freed Israel from Moab by killing one man, as opposed to the Lancelot method of killing everyone on the way in and on the way out.  And shortly thereafter, he led the Israelites in battle, slaughtering thousands of Moabites in true holy warrior fashion.David, like the others before him, was called directly by God- a characteristic of many (all?) legends of even the latter day Paladins.Did they all have failings?  Sure- and in many cases, those flaws ultimately doomed them, or at least brought them low.All that that means is that they eventually failed as Paladins, not that they never were Paladins to begin with.  If their late in life failings disqualify them from being Paladins, then Lancelot is equally disqualified, as is King Arthur.I don't know- David was merciful, but he really was the exception...on many levels.Thanks!While I did come up with the OT/NT terminology, perhaps there is another way to distinguish the 2 viewpoints linguistically in order to further distance the discussion from the minefield of religion?Merciful/MercilessAvenger/SaviorThere are, however, RW situations every bit as nasty as that in which there are no good answers according to a consensus of ethical theories.  I presented one in the (now lost) WWYP Do thread.  It dealt with the commander of an overloaded lifeboat who must decide who gets a chance to live by deciding which people will no longer be supported by the lifeboat and the supplies within it.  For purposes of the thread's examination of alignment/paladin issues, the commander was a Paladin.Not only would a Paladin have an issue with the problem, there is no Good alignment that wouldn't have at least some difficulty.However, I was of the opinion that in no way should such a scenario be used in game unless you give the players some kind of satisfactory "out."</blockquote>

Verification