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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 6041259" data-attributes="member: 6668292">That's why it's the only RPG board I frequent. Interesting. I haven't read books in years (I stopped mid Yuuzhan Vong war), and I haven't read any books from the older in-universe years (though I might browse a wiki now and again). I do know that Luke thought them too rigid, though, so your viewpoint all makes sense with what I've heard.Yeah, I didn't mean to imply he couldn't take out people in one hit. I meant that it's not generally deemed honorable to exploit a weakness to do so. If a guy attacks me with a sword, hitting him in the head with a sword is seen as fine; if I kick him in the groin, I think many people (most of the ones I know) would call that dirty fighting or dishonorable, even though it leads to the same result. That's basically what I'm commenting on.This is interesting. I'd see the Paladin as closer to the third, honestly. The code is to help a Paladin stay true, and to help be a shining beacon of Good to the world. To that end, making fighting Evil and victory over it be more glorious makes sense to me.However, I say it's interesting because I see where you're coming from more clearly, and it makes sense. However, if he can't "cheat" or use poison, even when it would prevent suffering, does it make sense to ban it? That's why I lean closer to your third definition, but I'm curious what your thoughts are on it. (I did read the following three paragraphs, by the way, including your reasoning on poison. But, say a poison or cheating was the way to stop an Evil Thing; it makes sense to cheat or use poison, right? But Paladins refuse, even if that's the only way. What's your take on that?)Very insightful description, thank you; I wanted to make it doubly clear that I did read these, and that they helped me in this discussion.Closest, yep, for the reasons I mentioned above (glorifying Good in its victory over Evil, shining beacon of hope, etc.).Well, hopefully you see how this works in my head. The Paladin is hamstrung by not being able to cheat (even against the biggest cheaters), use poison (even against people that use it), lie (even against the biggest liars), and the like, and I attribute it closer to Honor 3 than Honor 1. It's to prove that Good is above it all, and can defeat Evil without being dirty, without losing honor, etc. It's essentially for inspiration. But again, that's my take on it.Well, he could potentially keep his morals if he died while trying to protect them. He'll just have failed, and he'll be dead. But his morals will be intact. So, it might be "die" or "fall" in that situation, but as I said, I'm sure Paladins in-game debate which choice is better ("I'd fall to save them", "but that defeats the point of the code", "the code says to protect innocents", and so on). The person who would die trying to protect them still attempted it, and thus wouldn't fall, in my eyes.Again, though, it's just my take on it. Again, thanks for the good conversation. As always, play what you like <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    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification