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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aurondarklord" data-source="post: 6041161" data-attributes="member: 6667464">heh...I joined this board because I saw this thread and it looked really interesting.  I've been glad I did so far, the posters seem extremely erudite and civil.A bit on the Jedi...I'm very much looking at old republic days here.  post empire Jedi Order I consider neutral good, because Luke Skywalker was neutral good, and his beliefs and principles largely defined his incarnation of the order.  But old republic Jedi Order was VERY LG, and that was actually one of the things Luke perceived as wrong with it and that contributed to its fall, it was TOO rigid, and imposed unrealistic and unfair behavioral standards on its members, but even back in those days, tactics like mind tricks were generally accepted.I think our biggest area of disagreement is this concept of "bypassing the fight", using a tactic or weapon that the enemy has no counter-move to, as being dishonorable, while I just see it as common sense, not to mention inevitable.  At some point, a paladin is gonna level up to the point he can just one-shot orcs and kobolds, what's he to do then if he encounters monsters too low level for him?  Refuse to save the town from the orc horde because it wouldn't be fair for him to fight them?  that sounds absurd to me.  Nothing in the RAW says, implies, or suggests that a paladin is not allowed to "bypass combat" or attempt to end a fight in one hit.  That would be akin to saying a paladin is forbidden from using weapons with x3 or x4 crit bonus, because a crit with those weapons (which I see as generally a gameplay method of saying you've hit a vital spot) is likely to kill in one hit.  I have never heard such an interpretation of the code used or considered before.In the real world, most systems of "honor" ultimately stem from one of three things: an effort to prevent needless cruelty and suffering in war, an effort to enforce a power gap between social classes, or a desire to make war and victory more glorious.  The former I see as the legitimate form of honor that a paladin is bound to, and the latter two I see simply as a form of oppression that a paladin should rail AGAINST, and an indulgence of ego and thus the sin of pride, respectivelyHonor model 1 is the kind of honor evident in rules like the geneva conventions, or the paladin's prohibition against poison.  Real world rules of warfare are not arbitrary sports rules, they all exist for very good reasons.  Why can't you impersonate neutral parties like the red cross or united nations?  Because if you do, people are less likely to trust anyone ELSE who claims to be the red cross or the united nations, doctors and peacekeepers will get shot at, wounded soldiers will die because the doctors coming to help them got killed, net result, more needless suffering and death.  Why can't you fake a distress call or a surrender?  Because it makes people paranoid, and less likely to accept the real thing.  Net result, needless suffering and death.  Why can't you use poison gas?  because it drifts across the battlefield and potentially into civilian populations indiscriminately.  Why can't you use poisoned or explosive bullets?  Because in the real world, where a medic can't just cast cure critical wounds and heal you in an instant, if a soldier gets shot, he's probably out of the war for the foreseeable future, there's no need to make the injury even worse and reduce his chances of surviving or eventually recovering, it makes war that much crueler than it has to be.  Similarly, a paladin's prohibition against poison exists because poison often kills in slow, cruel ways or lingers long after the battle is over to "finish off" an enemy who was defeated anyway.  Ravages and Afflictions, which you may not like but are part of the RAW, are intended to avoid these problems, and thus bypass the practical reasons why the use of poison was considered dishonorable for a paladin, and are thus allowed under the code.Honor model 2 is the kind of "honor" that was propagated in ancient societies to keep the lower classes in their place.  Banning cheap, relatively easy to use weapons that defeat armor, like the crossbow, would mean that for all practical purposes, a mounted knight in full plate was invincible against poorly equipped, barely trained peasant footmen and hand-drawn bowmen, enforcing the superiority of the highborn, wealthy knight who can afford all that plate and his warhorse.  Dueling was a similar concept, if you were highborn, you could afford good steel and the master at arms at the castle you grew up in probably taught you swordsmanship since you were a kid.  Should any uppity peasant ever cross you, you can just challenge him to a duel, and since he likely has no training, cut him to pieces, or if he declines the duel, then he's branded a coward and loses all social credibility anyway.  This is not real honor, this is a form of social control.Honor model 3 is probably closest to what you're talking about, the kind of knight who knocks an opponent off his horse, then jumps off HIS horse as well to finish the duel on the ground instead of using the advantage that he's still on his horse, or disarms an enemy, then allows him time to pick up his weapon.  Really, this only serves to humiliate the enemy, to show your utter superiority by giving him charity and STILL kicking his butt.  It is a form of showing dominance and superiority, a massive indulgence of ego, and an attempt to make your deeds in war bring you more fame and glory, often glorifying the bloody and horrific business of warfare in the process.  I don't see this as real honor either, I see it as turning an awful necessity, one of life and death, often with the lives of many innocents hanging in the balance, especially for a paladin, into a game.In any system of honor I would consider reasonable, the rules exist for logical reasons and are there to prevent needless misery, death, and treachery, not to be "sporting" or artificially level the playing field, especially not in a way that actually stacks it AGAINST the good guys.As for your example of having to choose between falling to save innocents and allowing innocents to die to keep honor...considering that allowing innocents to die is ALSO a violation of the paladin's code, this becomes a moral catch 22, no matter what a paladin does in this situation, he falls.  I do not believe a valid system of morality can exist in which a person can be in a catch 22 where ALL of the available choices reflect badly on their moral character.</blockquote>

Verification