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: 6041997" data-attributes="member: 6668292">Agreed.I agree, I think I just disagree on your interpretation of what falls under their code. Like I've said, I believe in "justified dirty fighting", but I don't think that it's good enough for the Paladin. I'm sure, even by RAW, there might be times where's there's a "fall or fall" moment, in my eyes. I don't know think it's fair to purposefully inflict that on a player, but that's more of a social contract issue than a "in a bad situation, there's no wrong answer" issue, to me.I strongly disagree. Part of being a Lawful Good character is not willing acting Evil too often, else you become Neutral on your way to Evil. Not being able to willingly commit any Evil act is definitely a higher standard. I guess this is true in a sense. This is part of the Paladin conflict, I think. Is a tyrannical government "legitimate authority"? If so, you're going to run into problems like what you're pointing out. If tyranny isn't legitimate, in the Paladin's mind, he can dismiss it, including being bound to permanent service.I wouldn't say it's a problem within the RAW, more of an unknown. It's Good. It may not be sentient. In the D&D universe, Good is an actual, objective force (Detect Good, and all). At some point, someone could have been granted Paladin powers by how they acted; over time, people were able to observe that under the right circumstances (the Code), they were granted power. Thus, granted by Good (in essence; commit any Evil act and lose your powers).Yes to the first sentence, and "who knows?" to the second. It's obviously self-evident; Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are all objective forces in the D&D universe. Who decided on them being objective forces? Based on the Core 3, I don't know. I know there's some lore on it, though.Well, as we're talking about 3.Xe, as far as I know (and you note), it's explicitly clear that Clerics don't need to worship a deity (something I never much liked, but that's how it was). I think the same is true for the Paladin. I know the setting in the book is briefly mentioned as Greyhawk (I think), but I don't know much on the assumed setting other than what the rules imply (that lying, cheating, and poison are a matter of honor, for example).Not if you accept what I have <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=":)" />That is, Good is an objective force, that following certain rules (the Paladin's Code) can grant you power (Paladin class), and that the setting (noted as Greyhawk, I think?) assumes that lying, cheating, and poison are dishonorable (as per the description of the Paladin class).I think the gods are assumed as part of the setting, just not part of the Paladin class.I'll agree to disagree, on this. Needless to say, I don't feel the need to include all the splat books when discussing RAW, as I find that it will actually lead a lot more to contradiction than the Core 3... but that's a discussion for another thread.Cannot act Evil does not mean always acts Good. There's always inaction. And I don't mean letting innocents die; I mean constant proactive attempts to do as much Good as possible. There's no such thing as spending money for you, there's only Charity. There's no need for magic items; you have a vow of poverty (which is described as extra Good). Same for the other vows, I think. And so on. There's room to go.As I said, I'd interpret that as "conscious and voluntary disregard" of the code, much as one might define "gross negligence" ("Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care"). If we go by that definition, then that means the Paladin might not lose his powers by making a mistake, but he will if he act against the Code knowingly. So, accidentally using a poisoned weapon wouldn't make him lose his powers (though it'd probably upset the Paladin), but using poison on purpose will.Again, that'd be my interpretation of it, but as I said then, I can see a lighter interpretation of it.I wasn't convinced by those arguments. But, I don't think he showed proper respect to the Paladin that showed up with orders from his church (which violates respecting authority) when he physically grabbed the man, I think he meets some of the guidelines for both Law and Chaos. You can read my reasoning based on 3e alignment guidelines in the spoiler.[sblock]"Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability." On this note, I think he probably tells the truth, keeps his word, judges those who fall short of their duties, and is trustworthy (4/9). I definitely think he doesn't honor tradition (the church disagreed with him), and I don't think he respects authority or is obedient to them (bucking the church enough that the head Cleric lost his powers). I don't think he's honorable. And I don't think I'd consider him reliable (he's going to do things his own way, and if I'm not on board, I can't really rely on him work with me in a way that I find helpful). That's 4/9 Lawful, and 5/9 not Lawful."On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should." Cedric isn't that close-minded, definitely doesn't have a reactionary adherence to tradition, is probably less judgmental than most (as long as it's not hurting people), and isn't lacking for adaptability (0/4). I doubt he believes in Lawful society being the only way for people to depend on each other (0/5)."Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it. Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility." On the Chaotic characteristics, I think that Cedric does follow his conscience, resents being told what to do, favors new ides over tradition, values his personal freedom, favors adaptability, as well as flexibility (6/7). I think he probably goes through with what he promised, whether or not he likes it (1/7). That's 6/7 Chaotic, 1/7 not Chaotic."On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them." I see Cedric as somewhat reckless (the scene where he gets in a fight to get to the Ogre, and then the aftermath where he died), and he seems to resent his church to some degree. I don't think he's acting arbitrarily, and he doesn't seem irresponsible (unless going into a situation as a Paladin where you're positive you're going to die without really changing anything is irresponsible, as Cedric does). I'd put him at 2/4 on this Chaotic scale. I think he'd lean towards individuals expressing themselves, but maybe not "unfettered personal freedom". So maybe 2/5 on this Chaotic side."Lawful Good, "Crusader"A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished." This isn't entirely inaccurate, but the first line doesn't ring true for my view of Cedric at all. The rest I can see him following."Chaotic Good, "Rebel"A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he’s kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society." I think this describes Cedric more accurately. He doesn't care what others think, follows his conscience, makes his own way, but is kind and benevolent. He follows his own good moral compass, even though it may not fit with society."Neutral Good, "Benefactor"A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them." This has the least description, but I think it could describe him. He's looking out for Good. And, I think with how he acts in combination of Law and Chaos, he probably lands here, with Chaotic tendencies.[/sblock]Anyways, this has been a very interesting, civil conversation still. And I want to thank you again for that. 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