Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Axiomatic Unicorn" data-source="post: 106559" data-attributes="member: 1974">I did think you were saying that &quot;no sneak attacks on unaware opponents is a direct interpretation of the PH, which should be clear to all&quot;.&nbsp; Now that it is clear that you are not, the stereo-type is less bad.&nbsp; I'll will never question anyone's freedom to establish their own interpretations for their own game.&nbsp; (I'll just debate the reasoning to death <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> )I doubt you will have any paladin/rogues either.&nbsp; At least now I do.&nbsp; <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&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />But the PH says that &quot;A paladin will not continue to associate with someone who consistently offends her moral code.&quot;&nbsp; So it could be hard to have a paladin and rogue even in the same group, if sneak attacks against unaware opponents is offensive.I just see the knight in shining armor thing as being a throwback from other games, unrequired by the balance of this game.&nbsp; To bad.I agree that being a paladin does define the character.&nbsp; But, obviously, the debate is over what that definition is.Yes, I was saying he is not crippled, he must just pretend to be.&nbsp;&nbsp; Obviously your meter got a small blip, you just had to &quot;J&quot; flag it.&nbsp; (inside analytical chemistry joke)Yeah the details of the encounter are not important.&nbsp; But I balk at your &quot;ends justifies the means&quot; characterization.&nbsp; That is just not accurate.&nbsp; Paladins may not perform any evil act and effectively may not perform any chaotic act.&nbsp; &quot;Ends justifies the means&quot; implies you can do Bad things if you think they lead to good results.&nbsp; Dirty Harry is not a paladin.We are ultimately debating exactly 3 words in the code, &quot;act with honor&quot;.&nbsp; To say that sneak attacking unaware opponents can still be honorable is a very long way from saying &quot;the ends justifies the means&quot;. *IF* you put more emphasis on the honor of the paladin than me it would ONLY be because I put more empahsis on the protection of innocents than you.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; But I still don't allow &quot;the ends justifies the means&quot;I guess if some where to, say, write a book about paladins, they might want to tread lightly on the code.&nbsp; Based on your survey it looks like any effort to directly interpret the code will be viewed as &quot;wrong&quot; by about half the readers.&nbsp; BTW, I still don't follow your example as possible.&nbsp; Even with a readied action, you can not both bluff (standard action 1) and attack (standard action 2), in between your opponents 2 turns.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Axiomatic Unicorn, post: 106559, member: 1974"] I did think you were saying that "no sneak attacks on unaware opponents is a direct interpretation of the PH, which should be clear to all". Now that it is clear that you are not, the stereo-type is less bad. I'll will never question anyone's freedom to establish their own interpretations for their own game. (I'll just debate the reasoning to death :p ) I doubt you will have any paladin/rogues either. At least now I do. :) But the PH says that "A paladin will not continue to associate with someone who consistently offends her moral code." So it could be hard to have a paladin and rogue even in the same group, if sneak attacks against unaware opponents is offensive. I just see the knight in shining armor thing as being a throwback from other games, unrequired by the balance of this game. To bad. I agree that being a paladin does define the character. But, obviously, the debate is over what that definition is. Yes, I was saying he is not crippled, he must just pretend to be. Obviously your meter got a small blip, you just had to "J" flag it. (inside analytical chemistry joke) Yeah the details of the encounter are not important. But I balk at your "ends justifies the means" characterization. That is just not accurate. Paladins may not perform any evil act and effectively may not perform any chaotic act. "Ends justifies the means" implies you can do Bad things if you think they lead to good results. Dirty Harry is not a paladin. We are ultimately debating exactly 3 words in the code, "act with honor". To say that sneak attacking unaware opponents can still be honorable is a very long way from saying "the ends justifies the means". *IF* you put more emphasis on the honor of the paladin than me it would ONLY be because I put more empahsis on the protection of innocents than you. :p But I still don't allow "the ends justifies the means" I guess if some where to, say, write a book about paladins, they might want to tread lightly on the code. Based on your survey it looks like any effort to directly interpret the code will be viewed as "wrong" by about half the readers. BTW, I still don't follow your example as possible. Even with a readied action, you can not both bluff (standard action 1) and attack (standard action 2), in between your opponents 2 turns. [/QUOTE]

Verification