Yes! This!

'Slavery' could just mean indentured service though... and some slves lived pretty well in 'ye olde' days.

_________________
Jess Incognito: F.L.A.G. Inc.
Gharl Killith: Hobgoblin Headhunter
Olaf Grudgebringer: Bad tempered Dwarvern Weaponsmith
"But thats mainly because I'm an Aussie and what you guys call flaming and rudeness I call a normal conversation."

Lying is definitely lawful as opposed to good. An example thats great is from planescape torment, - theres a human from mechanus or some other law based plane who has something stolen from him, and he can't understand why the other person lied to him to get it (she was just trying it for size)

_________________

Jys'zyne Do'larn

Man, this account is over 10 years old. Where do I get my old man beard?

The whole argument rests upon relative terms of Good and Evil as opposed to absolute terms of Good and Evil. Where in the real world, everything exists in shades of gray, as opposed to black and white. On Amia, everything is black and white for a paladin. There's a really good bit of text in the Book of Vile Darkness about relative and absolute evil. Relative allows for two paladins to face off and be able to use Smite Evil against the other, even though they're both LG..... dependent upon the laws of their culture. *shrugs* It's a nasty topic to get on and I've found it's better left alone. Iron can expound upon it more, as we've talked about it in a topic before this and he was way more eloquent and poignant than I was.

_________________


"I once took the high road and it took me straight to hell and I stood there all by myself." -Hank III

I actually wanted to avoid arguments on alignment in general.. especially "good and evil" but the gnomish paladin example brings up a place where things can't add together. Either "Lawful" must be relative, "Lying" must be irrelevant on the Cosmic good/evil/law/chaos scale, Paladins don't have to be "lawful" good, OR paladins are required to maintain a similar LG code of conduct regardless of their deity (and thus the god of deceit's paladins cannot actually deceive)

One of those has to be established.. which is where I'll have to await Iron's response.

_________________
Captain William Jackson Malloy of the Debra Sanchez!
also staring:
Elyon Vassius, Paladin of Kelemvor
Kael Jericko, gentleman of fortune.
Marcus Tyberius of the Eternal Order

Can paladin flee a battle?

_________________
My favourite sniper loadout: Huntsman, jarate, bushwacka.
Team Fortress 2 is FREE TO PLAY!

Sure. No man ever served his deity by committing suicide.

_________________
Davion Telemos - Monk of the Four Winds
Korthan Isharnos - Dragon Shaman of Thunder Spirit Zamasham

Just look up Mulhorand and Calimshan. Slavery is an established piece of society and in Mulhorand's case, it is even law that slaves are treated well. It is a benevolent dictatorship, and the paladins of Mulhorand know that for their homeland to survive, its people must endure, or fall prey to invaders.

Eeek, what? I made a detailed reply to Dwagin and Brooks, and I sure posted it, but now it's gone. It was my clearest presentation of why I am not a moral relativist but still disagree with the typical interpretations, to date. Oh damn, I'll have to start over when I get home. Stay tuned!

_________________

Just look up Mulhorand and Calimshan. Slavery is an established piece of society and in Mulhorand's case, it is even law that slaves are treated well. It is a benevolent dictatorship, and the paladins of Mulhorand know that for their homeland to survive, its people must endure, or fall prey to invaders.[/quote]


I'd say Mulhorandi servitude is far...far far far...different than what goes on in Calimshan or Thay. In fact I'd go out on a limb and say Mulhorandic 'slavery' is closer to caste systems/ or similar in fundamental aspect of the feudal culture than slavery. And it is so regulated that it isn't evil, or even real slavery.





Succinctness in response is best. Its the mark of a keen mind with a well formulated point!

_________________
Dwagin [Duh-wa-GIN] N. - 1a. Small and cute thingum, particularly fond of four legged scaled creatures of the metalic and chromatic varieties.

-Extraordinarily ordinary in the mostest of ways.

Well, it's important not to make any short-cuts in argumentation. Especially at this point, where we clearly diagree, it's good to explicate every relevant detail of your opinion. Sorry, it's gonna be tl;dr again!



The Paladin's Code doesn't say that flatly, because there isn't one. Not one you could have read, at least. The revised FRCS states this clearly. You probably mean the OOC rules in the core PHB. I admitted this, but I also said I can't take everything written about paladins there as absolute truth. The source material is contradictory. My personal call is to draw a consistent big picture that is as inclusive as possible, so that we don't have to retcon particular facts about the setting. Your call is to stick to the core PHB and either discard other material and common sense if it can't conform to those rules. It's fine, but remember it's also interpretation: you choose to give more weight to one source over another. Whatever we do, something doesn't fit in. There's nothing simple or flat about it.

There's no moral relativism in my posts. Well, I'm not exactly sure what you mean with it. There are at least three different meanings for the abused term, off the top of my head. I won't go there, but my next post will show why I am not a moral relativist when it comes to FR.

I'm often accused of cheapening paladins with my approach. Personally, I feel the opposite: simple answers are taking the easy way out, and that's what cheapens paladins. The complexity, impossibility and diversity of their faith and culture is what makes them an interesting class. If you take what's written without criticism, you don't treat the class with due gravity, IMO. But I'm sure both approaches can create wonderful characters. Each to their own, I guess.

One final note: Calimshan is not a goodly society. It is decadent and treats its slaves as objects. Yet paladins of Tyr are among its important legal authorities.

My next post will answer Brooks, and it'll have more substance. It's going to be dry, but I want to clear up my view once and for all so that I'm no longer suspected of relativism and opposed on a false basis.

_________________

This is the crux of the issue. Well put! Two of the alternatives you offered are on to something, but inaccurately stated.

1.”Either "Lawful" must be relative”

Yes and no.

How Lawful is relative: Lawfulness can only mean something in a human context. Laws, customs and human situations take different forms in different societies. Lawful behavior can be different to people with different duties, laws and values. ”Lawful” has different meanings even in core PHB descriptions: it covers dutifulness, discipline, consistency, formal legality, tradition. There's also some cosmic order that partakes in the force of Law. The lawfulness of a paladin, a monk and a judge are all quite different. While lawfulness cannot be reduced to legal behavior in society, clearly it's one aspect of the alignment. And lawful behavior in this sense is, of course, relative to the actual laws in different societies. However!

How Lawful is not relative: Because Law is a cosmic force, there must be something in common between different instances of lawfulness. I said paladins, monks and judges are lawful in different ways, but they are all ”really” and ”objectively” lawful. There's nothing relative about their alignment. A paladin is lawful because of his unwavering loyalty to the law and will set down by his god. A monk is lawful because of his discipline and dedication to his training and principles. A judge is lawful because of his respectful adherence to the legislation he interprets. Thus their lawful behavior takes many forms but they are all objectively lawful: it says so on the character sheet!

So here is my proposition: the universal aspect of Lawfulness is not in the contents of behavior, but in a character's relationship towards what law he holds most dear. All lawful characters treat some law or principle with a respectful, dedicated, uncompromising or consistent attitude. This is what makes them lawful, not the specifics of what they do.

2."Lying must be irrelevant on the Cosmic good/evil/law/chaos scale”

No, not irrelevant. However, too ambigious.

We can agree that the cosmic forces of Good, Evil, Law and Chaos exist. We can also agree that many individual events and objects have an alignment value assigned to them. (How exactly this happens is unclear, though. Perhaps reality reflects or partakes in these cosmic forces like Platonic Ideas? Or maybe there really are cosmic propositions about ethical truths, but there would have to be an infinite number of them.) This is objective, not relative.

However, ”lying” itself is relative to language and culture. The definition is arbitrary: we could very well extend this group to truths, and call them ”statements.” Conversely, we can seperate lies further into categories: white lies, lies for personal profit, forced lies, lies for the greater good, lies as encouraged by divine dogma. Ultimately, every single lie is its own incident. There is no universal ”Lie.” Two lies can be similar, but they're never numerically identical, they are not ”the same. Their context, subjects and objects are different. Therefore, Lie A may really, objectively be Chaotic. However, it doesn't follow that Lie B is automatically Chaotic as well. If the conclusion was valid, you'd also have to say that because Statement A (which happened to be a lie) was Chaotic, also Statement B (which happens to be a truth) must be Chaotic. This is not true, obviously. Lies and statements are categories of language and culture, not reality as such.

Now, every single lie has an objective alignment value that can be quantified. However, not every lie has the same alignment value. Some lies are 73% Chaotic, 68% Evil. Some lies are 90% Chaotic and 50% Good/Evil. Some lies might even be 52% Lawful and 80% Good (imagine your legitimate superior ordered you to lie to save the village).

In conclusion: every lie is relevant to alignment and partakes in the four cosmic forces in some quantity. But because every lie is different, they may also have different alignment values. There is no universal truth that can be applied without consideration.


I think the above is consistent with D&D cosmology and reconciles it with the undeniable diversity of the FR setting, without accepting relativism. Not to mention the freedom and responsibility it facilitates in paladin RP.


Whew!

_________________

Wow, Iron - that was most eloquently, clearly, and succinctly stated. I really appreciate that, coming from the standpoint of a fan of Paladins and their roleplay. I believe that you essentially further expounded upon and, in truth, did a much clearer and organized job of explaining what I was attempting to. Damn words - so difficult to wrangle them into doing what I need!

At any rate, I think that a few principles for Paladin RP have to be kept in mind to do so effectively.

1.) Remember your setting. This is not real life. This is not American politics. This is not theological debate between gnostic worldview and redemptive worldview. This is Faerun. Welcome to a world where the answers so many of us have in real life are answered plainly: There are "cosmic aspects" (Thanks, Iron) that define, clearly, black and white lines of Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil. Relativism has no place here.

2.) Remember your character. Before your character is a paladin, he is a character - by that, I mean that he has a fully fleshed out concept, ideology, belief system, and rhetoric by which he views and interacts with Faerun. Being a paladin on top of that specifies and defines him, clarifying and centralizing those world views and giving justification to his purpose and action. Being a paladin isn't a character per say all on its own, thus not all paladins can or will be the same - however, all paladins will share certain aspects that follow their alignment upon the cosmic grid of black and white lines. Basically: Paladins are more than just Detect and Smite robots devoid of free will. They are men asked to be the impossible, as Yossarin to beautifully put, and do so without complaint - instead taking up arms and humbly accepting the burden of being a hero, even when being a hero grants them no personal gain, gratitude, or fame (and oftentimes, only compensates them with persecution and agony).

God, that was well put Iron - and Yoss. I'm really enjoying this discussion.

_________________
Espiel Callahan

There's something that I dislike about the use of "black-and-white" in this context, though. While I agree that cosmically, these things are objective, it's also true that the social reality of Faerûn is anything but clear. Forgotten Realms, thematically, isn't a setting of Good Versus Evil. It is very much about shades of grey, compared to other D&D/tabletop worlds. You don't do the setting proper justice if you reduce it to the concepts of Core D&D, IMO. So I'd disagree with your point 1 somewhat: the questions we have in real life do have plain answers in FR, but they're not answered plainly to mortals. Or even gods. Paladins and everyone else still have to struggle to find out what the right thing is, and the knowledge that this standard of evaluation is real and universal only makes the burden heavier, if anything.

I took a very theoretical perspective to paladins in the previous post. From a literary perspective, Yossarin's definition catches the essential: they are heroes who have to make the tragic choice of doing the right thing, despite the inevitable fall they know will be their reward. This might not be inevitable from an objective perspective, and my previous post tries to facilitate paladins as a viable, consistent concept. But in the end, maybe this tragedy and contradiction in the idea of paladins makes for the best stories.

_________________

.

1. Devote yourself to life. If there is any way to prevent death and preserve life, it is the way of a Paladin.
2. Judge not others. By judging others, you yourself are judged.
3. Honor your words and live by them. Your oath is as true as these laws.
4. Help others live a full life, and harm not the harmless.
5. Help those in misfortune, for gold is valueless next to life.
6. Heal the sick and wounded who ask for assistance. Those whom you have deathlessly defeated remain your responsiblity.
7. Abandon all greed, hatred, and evil feelings towards others. These close the mind to truth and engender a hatred for life.
8. Pay homage to life by living freely and allowing others the same.
9. Respect those who would teach you and ask nothing of those you teach.
10. Respect the laws of mortals,but remember always that your fealty is to the laws of your Faith.
11. Pledge your life, soul, and word to your Faith. Never should you worship another and never should your faith falter.
12. Not Pride, Humility. Not Greed, Generosity. Not Envy, Love. Not Wrath, Kindness. Not Lust, Temperance. Not Gluttony, Moderation. Not Sloth, Zeal Never Evil, always Good. Bring light to the darkness and you shall always be counted among your Faith's blessed.
13. Wear the symbol of your Faith with Honor, Love, and Devotion. Never rape, steal, or murder.
14. Take only what you need, and give only what you can.
15. The Undead deserve only their rest. Destroy them without hesitation.

_________________
Dwagin [Duh-wa-GIN] N. - 1a. Small and cute thingum, particularly fond of four legged scaled creatures of the metalic and chromatic varieties.

-Extraordinarily ordinary in the mostest of ways.

Ah, that. It's not normative or canon in any way, and there was discussion of removing or replacing with something more IC. Nothing came of it, I guess. It might be someone's paladin code, but it's not a universal code because there isn't one. It's supposed to be a guideline to general paladin RP, and it seems very good in general. (Note that it doesn't actually say anything about lying, unless I missed it.)

_________________

3. Honor your words and live by them. Your oath is as true as these laws.

.. Like to think this partly at least covers Lying, Iron.

Not specifically, no. It clearly refers to oaths. When you "give your word" you are to honor it. You are to live by your word, which means you are to practice what you preach and do what you promise to do. If we didn't already have the preconception that a paladin never lies, it would be quite a stretch see it in that line of text. "Be true to your word" doesn't mean the same as "Speak true words" unless we practice some interpretational acrobatics.

But yeah, it could be one of the meanings behind that clause. It doesn't really matter, though, since it's no more normative than anyone of us giving our opinion on a suitable paladin code.

_________________

Iron, I'd really really like to thank you for the amount of time and energy you put into your responses. I still have not decided if I entirely agree, but I at least understand your side of it.

I think the problem comes where D&D writing and rules simply create situations where things can't add together. I've based a lot of my concepts of the alignment system on Outsiders.. as the concept of these alignments being "universal" and cosmic principles is most clearly illustrated when we look at outsiders from various planes who then do not suffer the issue of "social norms" from a human perspective.

Lawful Aasimon and Archons will not lie. I think someone else mentioned mechanicus as well. We can discuss there being degrees of lying and to what purpose, but there is an extremely clear line between the two. "Truth as the person knows it." and "Deviation on that truth." Good and evil, I suspect are hinged on to what end that person lies.. But I am not sure I can ever believe lying in any form can be a lawful act in and of itself.

That isn't to say its an argument wherein paladins can't lie, I suppose. It just doesn't seem lawful behavior. If I were looking at it from the opposite end of the spectrum, I could see a methodical villain master-mind very easily being lawful evil, regardless of how many lies he tells to further his plans. His Lawfulness being in his rigid methodology and calculating nature (rather than a Joker type figure who may or may not have a plan, but is mostly making things up as he goes along with no clear end game in mind)

I suppose my own views simply become more strict in what an alignment category does the higher up you get towards the "Good" spectrum.

That seems to be where we meet our impasse. I am attempting to understand the alignment system and then finding myself bothered with bits of FR, you seem to be starting with FR, and figuring out how to make the alignment system fit what we already know about the world (read: cover the contradictions and oddities that have slipped into the patchwork collaboration of rules across dozens of authors. )

I should state, for the record, that I actually hate every part of the alignment system and I actually homebrewed it out of my D&D games back in the day. The world is too complex to fit into nine squares.

_________________
Captain William Jackson Malloy of the Debra Sanchez!
also staring:
Elyon Vassius, Paladin of Kelemvor
Kael Jericko, gentleman of fortune.
Marcus Tyberius of the Eternal Order

A paladin topic with actual discussion and interesting debate? Count me in!

Samantha, my paladin character, started as a sketched character concept, a class, a name, a birthday... and I just went for it. Started playing, meeting, and interacting... and figuring it out along the way. This is just how I've come to love playing. She didn't start out as a paladin-type, but I love everything about what Sam has become. As Samantha, I've even taken what Iron is saying a step further-- as a paladin, Samantha has been friends with, loved and forgiven people who have done THE ABSOLUTE WRONG. And she's lied. She's called her superior an idiot in the most respectful way she possibly can. She's stabbed someone in the back before.. And she's felt great about it. And she justifies it, and justifies it well, by the obvious examples of contradiction within the book you quote here, Dwagin.

It's simpler to me. (Though I do love your detail, Iron.) Rule 10: Respect the laws of mortals, but remember always that your fealty is to the laws of your Faith.

Now. Take this rule and put it as Rule 1. Foremost before all other rules. Because essentially, that's what it's doing itself already. The laws of Faith precede every single numbered rule in that book. They precede any city laws, pretty much even any personal laws you have made to yourself. Any "laws" dictated by culture. By what is "right." And what are the laws of faith? Complete, utter interpretation of the hazy sentences we're given. In Samantha's case, she has trouble with the ambiguity of the laws of her faith. She struggles with if they're meant to be ambiguous or not. Not only are there very few Gods (if any) that directly state "you cannot lie," but Iron is completely right, almost every deity that WOULD state "you cannot lie" would never consider that above saving lives. And almost every deity has different sects/temples/cities/followers/ideas that can encompass and insinuate so many numerous facts. I'm sure in situations it can be black/white -- depending on if the deity wants to see it that way, especially. But Samantha will easily break a rule if she has to if it means following a higher rule. And she will take penance for it. She will take penance gladly. FR was set up so that you CAN do that. It doesn't mean you have to, but for some of us it's so much more fun.

I'll use an example of that she did the other day. In Cordor, she blatantly shapechanged into an umberhulk. She knew it broke the city law-- she didn't even think twice. If she was going to keep someone safe, she had to see if there were shadowdancers. And she has learned early on not to trust others to see the shadowdancers for her. She was doing the "Greater Good" (even though she hates those words)-- keeping this person safe was essential to her God's dogmatic law, the higher law. So she just went and paid the fine afterwards, prayed and explained herself, and moved on. If it required Samantha to lie to save that person's life, she might've. Depending on if she thought it was the only way to save them, or not. Depending on whom she was lying to. Depending on if she was asked to lie, told to lie, or told not to lie.

How can those things NOT play a role in how black/white it is? She has survived thus far without Falling. Good thing she wasn't devoted when she was a rat... *shakes fist at Robert*


Sam is wonderfully fun to play. Not only is it a game of doing the best she can the best possible way she can and making sure that she does it at the best possible time -- it's a game of whether she can maintain friendships, relationships and respect for other Amians at the same time. I love playing her with the flux of drow, dragon-people and ridiculously prideful characters floating around the island. With the preconception that paladins are psychotic idiots. Not only is it challenging from a player perspective, but it's so fun to watch Sam navigate her way personally. I encourage anyone to try it!

Exactly. I play Forgotten Realms first, D&D second. There's no seamless consistency to be found in D&D, so I choose to give precedence to the actual game world and its particularities. Game rules are kind of like scientific theories: they do their best to explain something, but if actual facts of the game world refuse to conform to those rules, the rules have to be modified. And because there really are different opinions about the matter even among authors and game designers, I think we do the most justice to the setting if our theory or rule is as inclusive as possible/feasible. Especially on a PW server, that can only be a good thing for role-play.

_________________

I have a simple idea of a paladin. The living example of the dogma of their deity. No codes, no silly rules, no rituals. The dogma of their deity is their law and code. That's how I play them.

:O I thought that Sam has a fighter/rogue/1 cleric build. I guess I've missed something

!

I'll spare you the long version.

I hate paladins.

_________________

Jys'zyne Do'larn

Man, this account is over 10 years old. Where do I get my old man beard?

Well, that's fairly constructive.

I could understand hating the way a paladin is played by certain people, but unless you're an evil player with a distorted beef, I'm not sure how one can actually hate an entire class, particularly such a core and archetypal one. (which is an entirely different matter than, say, hating one of the newer or more cheesy things added by WotC later on)

I fear that in sparing us the "long version" you've reduced your statement to being negligible.

_________________
Captain William Jackson Malloy of the Debra Sanchez!
also staring:
Elyon Vassius, Paladin of Kelemvor
Kael Jericko, gentleman of fortune.
Marcus Tyberius of the Eternal Order

Hey, I like the Alchemist, the Summoner, the Inquisitor, the cavalier, the Oracle and the witch!
how can you say-...
oh wait this is DnD 3.x
carry on.

_________________
My favourite sniper loadout: Huntsman, jarate, bushwacka.
Team Fortress 2 is FREE TO PLAY!

*coughs* for the record, Cavalier was actually introduced in 2e's Unearthed Arcana Supplement.

That is all.

_________________
Captain William Jackson Malloy of the Debra Sanchez!
also staring:
Elyon Vassius, Paladin of Kelemvor
Kael Jericko, gentleman of fortune.
Marcus Tyberius of the Eternal Order

Truth be told, I hate paladins too. Not the concept itself, but how it's universalized: why make a very specific and limited thing into a base class and cause this much problems, when you could just have a generic Holy Warrior adaptable for every alignment and god, and let paladins be one kind of a Holy Warrior, or a Prestige Class at most. But that's neither here nor there, I guess.

_________________

Oh, the answer to that's easy: Champion. Of. Torm*(Insert deity here). But they don't get divine might/shield/Cha saves. And heavenforbid you not have divine shield.


I have a headache, so I might be more cynical with that statement than I should be. But.. whatever.

_________________
Dwagin [Duh-wa-GIN] N. - 1a. Small and cute thingum, particularly fond of four legged scaled creatures of the metalic and chromatic varieties.

-Extraordinarily ordinary in the mostest of ways.

Well, to be fair, the original D&D material all seems to be written as a generic template for an equally general medieval Europe - in which case Paladin is a class works perfectly. Start adding in Polytheistic and multicultural aspects and that is when it begins to fall apart. I am not sure a class-based system could ever really model a world as diverse as the cultures it attempts to emulate.

_________________
Captain William Jackson Malloy of the Debra Sanchez!
also staring:
Elyon Vassius, Paladin of Kelemvor
Kael Jericko, gentleman of fortune.
Marcus Tyberius of the Eternal Order

Dwagin: I don't know what your point is. How is that an answer to the fact that Paladin is a specifc and restricted Base Class? Yes, there is a Divine Champion Prestige Class, and there are several deity-, alignment- and fiend-specific Prestige Classes.

I'm not complaining you can't play a generic Divine Champion. I'm not complaining the Paladins exist. I'm complaining about their hierarchy and power: why is the narrow and particular Paladin a base class and the generic, all-around useful Divine Champion a Prestige Class? And furthermore, why do Lawful Good deities have the easiest time sponsoring the most powerful of mortal servants, while NG and LN deities have to do acrobatics to make it happen, and other deities are magically prevented from sponsoring such powerful servants at all?

You can't seriously say that if you were to design the game from scratch, you'd make a base class with all the Paladin's restrictions, and leave the more open and sensible class as a difficult-to-reach Prestige Class. It's just bad design, and it's only so because of the long history of the game in a time where the adventuring party was automatically assumed to be good. Rangers had to be good, Clerics couldn't spill blood because it was bad, and Paladins had a pole up their butt. From the OOC perspective of game design, the Paladin is a relic that I'd rather see updated. It's a good character concept, if only it was given the marginal place in game design that it has in IC society.

_________________

That is true. But by no means is the status quo inevitable. The Druid is another abomination: it's based on an absurd blend of shamanism, popular beliefs about Celtic culture and historical druids, and New Age nonsense philosophy.

It would be better game design to state very few, very generic facts about classes, and introduce more specific variants and cultural options seperately. Or better yet, let the DM and player decide together what kind of a background the character has, where his powers come from and what kind of restrictions that imposes.

Cleric: You get your magic from a divine, otherwordly source.
Druid: You get your primitive, shamanistic or ecosystem-oriented magic from something related to nature.
Paladin/Holy Warrior: You get your combat skillz from a divine, otherwordly source.
Fighter: You hit well.
Barbarian: You hit better, for a short time
Rogue: You're skilled.
Wizard: You cast spells after preparation and study.
Sorcerer: You cast spells without preparation.
Ranger: You know your way around.
Monk: Your body and mind are honed to perfection.
Bard: Your music, art, knowledge and/or personality grant you sublime talents.

There really isn't a need for anything more. The DM and players can fill in the blanks. Of course, lore is good, but none of it has to be normative.

_________________

The PrC .hak must be your nightmare, hundreds of base and prestige classes.

What? No, I think it's awesome. The more diversity, the better.

As long as we're restricted to a small set of base classes, though, they had better be as neutral and inclusive as possible. At least if you want a game system that can adapt to many different genres and campaigns, like D&D. It would be different if you were making up a system for your own campaign use, but that's not the case with D&D anymore. It's used in hundreds of fantasy worlds, in space, in the planes, in the future, and so on. In that grand scheme of things, the Paladin base class doesn't fit in. It doesn't make sense from a game perspective, and it certainly doesn't make sense IC.

_________________

You have to remember that the paladin is historically linked to Charlemagne and medieval chivalry. Much like you said, the game itself is written from a "good" perspective.. specifically that "lawful good" is the highest good. Paladins and their strict codes make less sense outside of their current incarnation specifically because they were meant to be knightly crusaders with divine blessing - think King Arthur.

This archetype only makes sense from a more simplistic representation of medieval Europe. At the same time, Paladinhood loses a great deal when you make it a more relative thing based on deity. The codes and strictures on the class is what make them as interesting as they are.

If anything, I would argue that the Paladins themselves need not be updated, but some form of equally interesting and powerful champions be allowed to other deities based on whatever criteria.

The Divine Champion idea works well at this, but fails to deliver the same power. Likewise, unless I'm mistaken, there are evil counterpart classes in the PnP world somewhere.

I will point out though..that.. I really dislike the idea of making Good and Evil exactly the same, save for color scheme in terms of power and ability. I want to have a totally different skillset for my Lord of Evil, than my Paladin.. playing "the dark knight" isn't particularly interesting to me, even if it is more fair.

Of course, in 4e they DO update the paladin. The Paladin is updated entirely. He may be of any alignment that matches any deity he follows (including Evil, Chaotic, and Unaligned). Even more interesting, he does not get his power directly from his/her deity, but rather it comes from a series of rituals when they first become paladins. Also, they can't fall now and are instead hunted down by other members of their faith if they stray.

And.. if I didn't have enough problems with the 4e rules and lore, that by itself would make me lose interest.. because in 4e.. paladin doesn't really stand for anything anymore.

/Edit: came out sounding unintentionally mean-spirited. Sorry.

_________________
Captain William Jackson Malloy of the Debra Sanchez!
also staring:
Elyon Vassius, Paladin of Kelemvor
Kael Jericko, gentleman of fortune.
Marcus Tyberius of the Eternal Order

I am too lazy to read all that huge sheets of texts, where is the argument going on? are they calling each other nazis already?

_________________
My favourite sniper loadout: Huntsman, jarate, bushwacka.
Team Fortress 2 is FREE TO PLAY!

alright, you asked for it.

The original paladin class created the precedent for one player thinking he has the right to dictate the morality of other players. That drives me nuts. Ever since, players who select a Lawful Good character automatically assume it is up to them to police the rest of the party, and too often, the rest of the party lets them. As far as I'm concerned, no player has the right to tell another player how to act. Lawful Good is not the "right" way to be, and it is unacceptable to push your character's ideals on other players whether they want them or not. And I see this all the time, in every interaction I have with a Paladin, whether I'm a LE villain-in-disguise stroking a white cat or a CG Eili whose just chillin out.

_________________

Jys'zyne Do'larn

Man, this account is over 10 years old. Where do I get my old man beard?

You just confused FR moraliy and real life morality with each other. You fail so hard it hurts to see. Keep the OOC attitudes away from the setting.

_________________
Gagis Silvarna, the Robocop with wings who shoots lasers from his fingertips
Lily Havthorn, the Waukeenar
Silwe, the elf

If you're not going to read it, don't post. Especially if you aren't contributing anything

Sound fair? Kthnx.



It sounds to me like you're personalizing it. I can't imagine the situation in which one player is telling another player how they should live their life based on their class choice in the game. On the other hand, a Goodly Aligned character voicing his moral opinions to another character? That sounds like Role playing to me. I'm fairly certain that's why we're here.

As well, your character is not required to listen to said paladin any more than I am required to accept pamphlets from the various religious groups that come to my door from time to time. On the other hand, if you're being openly evil and harming people or breaking the law, you are *asking* them to intervene. That is the point of being Evil.. and what would be the fun in playing evil if you weren't opposed?

I'm not sure I understand your complaint.

_________________
Captain William Jackson Malloy of the Debra Sanchez!
also staring:
Elyon Vassius, Paladin of Kelemvor
Kael Jericko, gentleman of fortune.
Marcus Tyberius of the Eternal Order

Paladins are Lawful Good and have to be. They have a solid moral compass that they are likely to impose upon other characters they are traveling with in character. They tell people how to behave in character. At no point does making a paladin violate another player's rights as a player or whatever-the-fuck you're saying. It's an in-character issue, deal with it in-character.

As it stands, this just sounds like a dumb parallel to your views on real life religion.

_________________
The origin of storms.

Nah, you're all reading too much into it. I'm just saying that this gives the behavioural template to the player of 'The paladin is always right.' and so... he is.

Frankly though, just don't play Paladins, Druids or Rangers, and make my day

_________________

Jys'zyne Do'larn

Man, this account is over 10 years old. Where do I get my old man beard?

like anything written on this forum is going to contribute anything to the actual game. Despite seeing all this fancy sheets of letters about how this and that is good rp and all that, there still are those who decide to be all douche ingame.

everybody posting here are in the end going to leave with their own opinions, and play their paladins how they want to.(not limited to this topic only)

_________________
My favourite sniper loadout: Huntsman, jarate, bushwacka.
Team Fortress 2 is FREE TO PLAY!

No. It is saying that the CHARACTER of the Paladin is morally just and Lawful Good. And that they are strong in their beliefs..which are, by definition, GOOD. Your complaint seems to be that your characters who are not good hear about their behavior..and rather than have your characters deal with it in whatever fashion, you rant about paladins themselves and how it makes their Players bad people for telling you how to live.

_________________
Captain William Jackson Malloy of the Debra Sanchez!
also staring:
Elyon Vassius, Paladin of Kelemvor
Kael Jericko, gentleman of fortune.
Marcus Tyberius of the Eternal Order

Amen

_________________

Jys'zyne Do'larn

Man, this account is over 10 years old. Where do I get my old man beard?

You're welcome to your opinion, but if you really believed that then you're just here trolling. No one ever said anything about changing anything and I don't think anyone has yet even said "X" was good or "Y" was bad. It is simply an exchange of ideas. If you aren't interested in participating, feel free not to.

_________________
Captain William Jackson Malloy of the Debra Sanchez!
also staring:
Elyon Vassius, Paladin of Kelemvor
Kael Jericko, gentleman of fortune.
Marcus Tyberius of the Eternal Order

okay maybe I can try to contribute something... gonna read those big sheets of texts.

but do remember, that every piece of sentence, every word, does affect you. Human mind is a fascinating thing.

_________________
My favourite sniper loadout: Huntsman, jarate, bushwacka.
Team Fortress 2 is FREE TO PLAY!

I just noticed that the paladin player is policing the other posters.

_________________

Jys'zyne Do'larn

Man, this account is over 10 years old. Where do I get my old man beard?

Yep. It's pretty shocking when a player who has a paladin and thus starts a thread about paladins and RPing them.. and asks two people who are contributing nothing positive... to please stop posting in said topic and derailing it from its stated purpose.

The nerve of that jerk.

_________________
Captain William Jackson Malloy of the Debra Sanchez!
also staring:
Elyon Vassius, Paladin of Kelemvor
Kael Jericko, gentleman of fortune.
Marcus Tyberius of the Eternal Order

Stop spamming, you twit.

_________________
Gagis Silvarna, the Robocop with wings who shoots lasers from his fingertips
Lily Havthorn, the Waukeenar
Silwe, the elf

I contributed positively, you responded rudely and dismissed my commentary out of hand. I was only returning the favour.

_________________

Jys'zyne Do'larn

Man, this account is over 10 years old. Where do I get my old man beard?