-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Would you allow this paladin in your game? (new fiction added 11/11/08)
- Thread starter shilsen
- Start date
Rystil Arden
First Post
I remember when I was still a lurker and I first saw this thread. Now its time to weigh in:
I agree with this for the most part, although I'd like to think that I (and some of the others who agree with me) *did* make my decision that Cedric is A-OK on the basis of the D&D rules, rather than from real-world ideological judgments, whereas those who immediately dismiss Cedric do so because of personal reasons. I'm sure those of you, like Pielo, who read the "jgbrowning, Rystil Arden, and Hypersmurf" thread know from my opinions on that thread in the Rules Forum the amount of respect that I pay the ruleset, so I'd like to think that my decision is based upon the rules, and that others are projecting real-world belief-systems into their game (and not to say unjustly so, for that seems to be the very intention of some of the quite reasonable naysayers in the thread, as compared to the "No and/or Hell No!" guys).
I agree with this for the most part, although I'd like to think that I (and some of the others who agree with me) *did* make my decision that Cedric is A-OK on the basis of the D&D rules, rather than from real-world ideological judgments, whereas those who immediately dismiss Cedric do so because of personal reasons. I'm sure those of you, like Pielo, who read the "jgbrowning, Rystil Arden, and Hypersmurf" thread know from my opinions on that thread in the Rules Forum the amount of respect that I pay the ruleset, so I'd like to think that my decision is based upon the rules, and that others are projecting real-world belief-systems into their game (and not to say unjustly so, for that seems to be the very intention of some of the quite reasonable naysayers in the thread, as compared to the "No and/or Hell No!" guys).
Allanon
Explorer
Wow after reading this whole thread (and that ain't bragging) I can only say... yes I'd allow this Paladin. Why, first I love the backstory and his motivations. Second as a DM he would be very appriopriate as a PC because of his outset, he would be interesting and a surefire way of adding interesting plot hooks to an ongoing campaign.
Oh and btw. Shilsen the short pieces of story you hid through this thread alone for me put you on the same "Need to read that storyhour" level as Shemeska, Piratecat and Sepulchrave.
Oh and btw. Shilsen the short pieces of story you hid through this thread alone for me put you on the same "Need to read that storyhour" level as Shemeska, Piratecat and Sepulchrave.
shilsen
Adventurer
Gez said:
Congratulations! Here you go!
*hands Gez something that reads "I posted on that damn paladin thread and all I got was this lousy chainmail bikini"*
Allanon said:Oh and btw. Shilsen the short pieces of story you hid through this thread alone for me put you on the same "Need to read that storyhour" level as Shemeska, Piratecat and Sepulchrave.
*swoons in ecstasy*
*opens eye and notes smiley*
*decides not to give a damn and swoons anyway*
Actually, with some of the compliments on this thread helping to swell my already overdeveloped head, I'm considering working on some of the writeups I do for my group and turning them into a story hour. I'm off on summer break (back to India for 3 months) in 3 weeks time, so I should have a fair bit of free time.
Absolutely -- I'd not only allow it, I'd love it.
Here are some other riffs on the "non-standard" paladin that I've really enjoyed seeing in play:
1. The Paladin of Love: why on earth would a paladin of a goddess of love be a prude and a sissy? We had one person play a temple "priestess" (there's another term) in the old fertile crescent tradition. Gives the immunity to disease and the cure abilities a completely new meaning.
2. The Unwilling: This one I really enjoyed. The guy *wanted* to do all sorts of bad stuff -- he was a regular person like us all. The problem was that his god talked to him. Literally. And told him not to. It was hilarious. He'd start oggling some barmaid and ....stop. He'd roll his eyes at the ceiling and say "oh, you CAN'T be SERIOUS!"
3. The decent man: This guy refused to admit he was anything special. Just some guy with a sword. He wasn't devoted to a god in particular. He just loved his wife and kids very, very much. And was willing to fight the evil that threatened the world just to keep them safe. My favorite paladin-of-a-cause concept.
Here are some other riffs on the "non-standard" paladin that I've really enjoyed seeing in play:
1. The Paladin of Love: why on earth would a paladin of a goddess of love be a prude and a sissy? We had one person play a temple "priestess" (there's another term) in the old fertile crescent tradition. Gives the immunity to disease and the cure abilities a completely new meaning.
2. The Unwilling: This one I really enjoyed. The guy *wanted* to do all sorts of bad stuff -- he was a regular person like us all. The problem was that his god talked to him. Literally. And told him not to. It was hilarious. He'd start oggling some barmaid and ....stop. He'd roll his eyes at the ceiling and say "oh, you CAN'T be SERIOUS!"
3. The decent man: This guy refused to admit he was anything special. Just some guy with a sword. He wasn't devoted to a god in particular. He just loved his wife and kids very, very much. And was willing to fight the evil that threatened the world just to keep them safe. My favorite paladin-of-a-cause concept.
Last edited:
Psychic Warrior
First Post
Son_of_Thunder said:
Why?
Voadam
Legend
Rystil Arden said:
Check out the Sigil's arguments in this thread though. They argue that engaging a prostitute is an evil act based on extrapolations of the srd definitions of good and evil. I think his rules extrapolations are invalid, but I believe he thinks naysaying is fully supported by the rules.
Jeremy Ackerman-Yost
Explorer
I don't think that's fair, either. "The people that agree with me are staying within the bounds of the exercise, but the people who don't are not."Rystil Arden said:
My point is that people on both sides of the argument used the rules to justify their points, but they had already made the decision before they started looking at the rules. All referents to the rules are secondary rationalizations. It's convenient that you can read the rules both ways, but not unusual. The Devil quotes Scripture to his own purpose, after all.
I'm equally guilty. I would accept Cedric because he's a wonderful illustration of how far off the mark of true "Good"ness I find your average dogmatic paladin. It's a convenience that I can easily read the RAW in a way that allows for him, despite my gross differences of opinion with the RAW on what constitutes Good, Evil, Law, Chaos, etc.
Rystil Arden
First Post
Canis said:I don't think that's fair, either. "The people that agree with me are staying within the bounds of the exercise, but the people who don't are not."
My point is that people on both sides of the argument used the rules to justify their points, but they had already made the decision before they started looking at the rules. All referents to the rules are secondary rationalizations. It's convenient that you can read the rules both ways, but not unusual. The Devil quotes Scripture to his own purpose, after all.
I'm equally guilty. I would accept Cedric because he's a wonderful illustration of how far off the mark of true "Good"ness I find your average dogmatic paladin. It's a convenience that I can easily read the RAW in a way that allows for him, despite my gross differences of opinion with the RAW on what constitutes Good, Evil, Law, Chaos, etc.
Hey I didn't say that
I said I'd like to think that *some* of the people who agreed with me did so because of the rules, but I acknowledged that it was possible this was not the case. I know that I did not pass judgment until I cracked open the Player's Handbook and reread the Paladin's Code, and I made my judgment based solely on the rules, as far as I'm concerned. I'm willing to accept the argument that I still might have been biased and I acknowledged that, so please, don't build a straw man for me where I've already qualified More to the point, though, I find some of the anti-Cedric ideological arguments to be thoughtful and apt, but I have yet to see a convincing rules argument from that side. They have been more of the line: "I know I'm right, so after begging the question and assuming I'm right, I can paint in the things I want it to say between the lines because the rules are not stopping me from restricting Cedric."
Similar Threads
