I contributed positively, you responded rudely and dismissed my commentary out of hand. I was only returning the favour.
I didn't dismiss anything. I said I didn't understand your arguement..as you were complaining about one character of a moral alignment role playing said alignment.. and arguing that the player had no right to tell you what to do as another player.
I do not understand your premise, and I do not understand your argument. It sounds like Roleplaying to me.
_________________ 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
Indeed. If a DM or similarly empowered individual would like to do some pruning on this topic, it would be appreciated.
_________________ 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, I didn't exactly read everything, merely glimpsed.
but this indeed comes to mind: if a criminal is obviously going to be judged to death (that is easily done for even the simplest criminals in FR, or middle-ages alltogether) Just as the paladin is there to get the guilty one to the court(or something like that), there runs a woman/man crying to save the man/woman he/she loves. it also turns out that the guilty one loves him/her back.
what should actually paladin do? Isn't love a part of this great good the paladin stands for? or should he ignore the woman so the justice could be served. What if they already have kids?
a poor example, indeed...but I hope you get my point.
edit: hey guys settle down :S no need to go to actual insulting.
_________________ My favourite sniper loadout: Huntsman, jarate, bushwacka. Team Fortress 2 is FREE TO PLAY!
Last edited by TeroSNS on Fri, Sep 24 2010, 21:34 PM, edited 1 time in total.
Joined: 23 Sep 2005 Location: Jyväskylä, Finland, Europe
TeroSNS wrote:
okay, I didn't exactly read everything, merely glimpsed.
but this indeed comes to mind: if a criminal is obviously going to be judged to death (that is easily done for even the simplest criminals in FR, or middle-ages alltogether) Just as the paladin is there to get the guilty one to the court(or something like that), there runs a woman/man crying to save the man/woman he/she loves. it also turns out that the guilty one loves him/her back.
what should actually paladin do? Isn't love a part of this great good the paladin stands for? or should he ignore the woman so the justice could be served. What if they already have kids?
My paladins follow the just path.
Lawun Good does not equal Lawful Nice
_________________ Gagis Silvarna, the Robocop with wings who shoots lasers from his fingertips Lily Havthorn, the Waukeenar Silwe, the elf
But shouldn't the paladin, who currently has the power here, show some mercy? The FR/medieval/whatever court system surely wont. Paladins do have high wisdom, and they could be able to come up with solutions out of the obvious "box". maybe ensure put that man under surveillance for certain period of time, ensure that he doesn't break the law again. but if the culprit does it again, then you could indeed say "we are out of mercy, try in afterlife" And as paladins are knowledgeable of thing or two, maybe know another place where he could be judged, and not be executed, thus still be able to spread some good.
this brings the question: When is there no room for mercy anymore?
_________________ My favourite sniper loadout: Huntsman, jarate, bushwacka. Team Fortress 2 is FREE TO PLAY!
Paladins are largely defined by their codes. They uphold the laws they are sworn to. A paladin of Tyr would see justice done, I imagine. If they weren't deserving of death, then a Tyran might appeal to the legal authorities, etc and see what they can do. If it was deserving of death, then it is moot. Justice must be carried out.
A paladin of Helm probably would do as he was ordered regardless. To my understanding, they hold law itself as sacred (I could be totally off, it's been a while.)
The actions of other paladins depend on their deity and oaths. Unless the law itself was totally unjust, and the government evil by nature, they likely aren't going to break the Law or ignore their orders just because the guilty has a girlfriend.
The Paladin is not the one "who currently has the power" ..unless you are saying that the Paladin is the one who was asked to judge the guilty. In which case, mercy may or may not be within his discretion.
/Edit: At least, that is how I see it and would have to play it. Others may differ in their opinions.
_________________ 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
Joined: 23 Sep 2005 Location: Jyväskylä, Finland, Europe
I see Tero's example as being a question of the Order and Chaos axis. People often focus too much on the lowsy Good and Evil axis and forget the totally awesome conflict of Order and Chaos.
It would be lawful to be consistent about judgements and treat everyone the same under the law regardless of their friends and family.
A neutral good or chaotic good character might disagree with paladins there.
_________________ Gagis Silvarna, the Robocop with wings who shoots lasers from his fingertips Lily Havthorn, the Waukeenar Silwe, the elf
Paladins are largely defined by their codes. They uphold the laws they are sworn to. A paladin of Tyr would see justice done, I imagine. If they weren't deserving of death, then a Tyran might appeal to the legal authorities, etc and see what they can do. If it was deserving of death, then it is moot. Justice must be carried out.
A paladin of Helm probably would do as he was ordered regardless. To my understanding, they hold law itself as sacred (I could be totally off, it's been a while.)
The actions of other paladins depend on their deity and oaths. Unless the law itself was totally unjust, and the government evil by nature, they likely aren't going to break the Law or ignore their orders just because the guilty has a girlfriend.
The Paladin is not the one "who currently has the power" ..unless you are saying that the Paladin is the one who was asked to judge the guilty. In which case, mercy may or may not be within his discretion.
what if the law has some sort of hole? What if the laws go against each other?
and slightly misunderstood: I was thinking that this adventuring paladin found this criminal behaviour out, and is yet to bring the thing to authorities.
_________________ My favourite sniper loadout: Huntsman, jarate, bushwacka. Team Fortress 2 is FREE TO PLAY!
I see Tero's example as being a question of the Order and Chaos axis. People often focus too much on the lowsy Good and Evil axis and forget the totally awesome conflict of Order and Chaos.
It would be lawful to be consistent about judgements and treat everyone the same under the law regardless of their friends and family.
A neutral good or chaotic good character might disagree with paladins there.
and thus, as usually paladins don't work alone (especially the adventuring ones) how would he react if other chaotic good or neutral good characters are disagreeing in this situation? would he bring them upon justice too, as they are "aiding an obvious criminal"?
_________________ My favourite sniper loadout: Huntsman, jarate, bushwacka. Team Fortress 2 is FREE TO PLAY!
Last edited by TeroSNS on Fri, Sep 24 2010, 21:54 PM, edited 1 time in total.
Joined: 23 Sep 2005 Location: Jyväskylä, Finland, Europe
TeroSNS wrote:
Silvarus wrote:
I see Tero's example as being a question of the Order and Chaos axis. People often focus too much on the lowsy Good and Evil axis and forget the totally awesome conflict of Order and Chaos.
It would be lawful to be consistent about judgements and treat everyone the same under the law regardless of their friends and family.
A neutral good or chaotic good character might disagree with paladins there.
and thus, as usually paladins don't work alone (especially the adventuring ones) how would he react if other chaotic good or neutral good characters are disagreeing in this situation?
Then we will get an argument and some good character development, and things enter the real of who makes the most convincint argument.
_________________ Gagis Silvarna, the Robocop with wings who shoots lasers from his fingertips Lily Havthorn, the Waukeenar Silwe, the elf
what if the law has some sort of hole? What if the laws go against each other?
and slightly misunderstood: I was thinking that this adventuring paladin found this criminal behaviour out, and is yet to bring the thing to authorities.
Silvy there has a very good point. This is fundamentally a question of Law vs. Chaos.
IN the above example, I would not be comfortable making snap decisions on the law or its punishment. If I caught someone stealing, then it would be my duty to bring them in to the authorities. What is done with them would be per the legal standing. If the laws are contradictory, then it is for the courts/judge/noble with standing to decide, depending on who is in charge in that system.
The only time I would feel it was my duty to directly deal judgement would be if a) someone was in immediate danger of harm- such as killing someone in battle to prevent the death of an innocent or b) it had something to do with Divine Dogma.
As a Kelemvorite paladin, laws are mostly beyond my scope of judgement. I will comply with the authorities when necessary or when it is demanded, but I'm not out to police anyone unless their activities conflict with my two main directives - the preservation of life before its appointed time, and the sanctity of death.
If I catch someone poaching in the King's forest, I might pass word to someone, or I might warn the poacher. But I'm not going to bother arresting them unless I'm ordered 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
For some reason I get the picture that the final argument would be that "there is no way that we can keep an eye on him forever, and showing mercy enough might still not keep him on right track, lets hurry him to the executioners, or better yet, lets execute him ourselves!" or something like that. Paladin wins.
_________________ My favourite sniper loadout: Huntsman, jarate, bushwacka. Team Fortress 2 is FREE TO PLAY!
eh. That might be your view of it, but someone who decides to execute a prisoner out of convenience might not be paladin material in the first place.
The biggest problem in this discussion is that it lacks context.. But one of the classical paladin virtues is Justice. That means doing what is right and what is fair.
And there is a lot of discussion in the various source materials about what paladins do when they are bound by laws that themselves are not necessarily Good.
Those complicated moral decisions are part of the fun of playing a Paladin.
_________________ 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
It's indeed important to remember that one of primary Paladin stats is Wisdom. This means they cannot rely on their code and faith blindly. They are expected to consider all the sides of an issue and put theoretical doctrines into practice. This fact alone, that they need Wisdom to get spells (and in earlier editions, to even take the class), proves that the image of Paladins as single-minded rules-lawyers is false. So I'd be very skeptical of any paladin that made a quick and easy decision when faced with a complicated situation like the example. Ultimately, they might hand the culprit over to the legal authorities, but they wouldn't come to the conclusion immediately "just because." Their absolute devotion does not release them from responsibility. They can't hide behind their code and say "I did it because I had to; my divine duty says so." They must always be able to say, "I did it because I came to the conclusion it was the right thing to do, and chose to do it."
To return to the earlier topic of whether Paladin as a class should exist, this is my answer to Brooks in a nutshell:
Paladins are special and different because many players and designers (yourself included) find that this status apart from other mortals is what makes them an interesting class. That's fine and I can sympathise with that. But it's not enough: it's good enough only for those who actually agree that the class is cool as is. If you disagree, you get the short end of the stick. "Oh yes, your idea of a paladin/holy warrior could be viable somewhere else, but it would just ruin Paladins as we like them." Traditional Paladin fans are basically forcing everyone to fit into their mold or give up playing a Paladin. This might be good in a home campaign where the DM has artistic control over the setting and genre. This is not good in a post-modern sandbox game that's used in many different contexts for many different purposes. The Paladin's status is based on a bias in taste. I hate them because of the attitude their existance relies on: "I think a holy warrior should be played like this, and if you don't agree with me you should go play something else. Paladins are special, my precious!"
Their special status doesn't make sense IC, either. We get into endless contradictions when we try to justify why paladins have to act in a certain way even if their god doesn't care, not to mention the huge glaring absurdity that only LG, NG and LN deities can sponsor these super-powerful mortal servants. Why wouldn't Oghma, Bane or Corellon want to have such powerful holy warriors, just without the rules that don't suit them? The only possible answer is that they can't, because paladin rules are logically inevitable and gods cannot bestow their powers as they wish. But this is absurd. Surely the gods make the rules for their followers and freely choose what kind of power to bestow. There's simply no good reason why it has to be this way, IC.
There are plenty of concepts that wouldn't be special if their rules and special features were eradicated. Lolthite drow would be pretty lame if they had a modern legal system based on human rights. If priests of Oghma weren't duty-bound to further culture and learning, and never to slay minstrels, they'd lose their flavor. I could go on. The point is: none of this is OOCly enforced and supported by a narrow base class. Yet the concepts are still doing fine. You could still play your traditional Paladin, even if the unwarranted special status of the class was removed. You can be everything you think a Paladin is supposed to be, and I don't see how putting Paladins to the same level with other generic classes could change that. All it would do is remove one tool petty players use to police eachother in matters of taste. Any PC can be special, and they shouldn't be more or less special because of the class they take.
In fact, I could even meet you half-way and say Paladins could be kept as they are, but as a Prestige Class rather than one of the precious few base classes in the game. Replace the base class with a generic Divine Champion instead. That would sure keep the Paladin as something special.
Also: Haha. Numbers, contributing? Sure.
_________________
On Joon, Kjetta wrote:
The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!
It's indeed important to remember that one of primary Paladin stats is Wisdom. This means they cannot rely on their code and faith blindly. They are expected to consider all the sides of an issue and put theoretical doctrines into practice. This fact alone, that they need Wisdom to get spells (and in earlier editions, to even take the class), proves that the image of Paladins as single-minded rules-lawyers is false. So I'd be very skeptical of any paladin that made a quick and easy decision when faced with a complicated situation like the example. Ultimately, they might hand the culprit over to the legal authorities, but they wouldn't come to the conclusion immediately "just because." Their absolute devotion does not release them from responsibility. They can't hide behind their code and say "I did it because I had to; my divine duty says so." They must always be able to say, "I did it because I came to the conclusion it was the right thing to do, and chose to do it."
To return to the earlier topic of whether Paladin as a class should exist, this is my answer to Brooks in a nutshell:
Paladins are special and different because many players and designers (yourself included) find that this status apart from other mortals is what makes them an interesting class. That's fine and I can sympathise with that. But it's not enough: it's good enough only for those who actually agree that the class is cool as is. If you disagree, you get the short end of the stick. "Oh yes, your idea of a paladin/holy warrior could be viable somewhere else, but it would just ruin Paladins as we like them." Traditional Paladin fans are basically forcing everyone to fit into their mold or give up playing a Paladin. This might be good in a home campaign where the DM has artistic control over the setting and genre. This is not good in a post-modern sandbox game that's used in many different contexts for many different purposes. The Paladin's status is based on a bias in taste. I hate them because of the attitude their existance relies on: "I think a holy warrior should be played like this, and if you don't agree with me you should go play something else. Paladins are special, my precious!"
Their special status doesn't make sense IC, either. We get into endless contradictions when we try to justify why paladins have to act in a certain way even if their god doesn't care, not to mention the huge glaring absurdity that only LG, NG and LN deities can sponsor these super-powerful mortal servants. Why wouldn't Oghma, Bane or Corellon want to have such powerful holy warriors, just without the rules that don't suit them? The only possible answer is that they can't, because paladin rules are logically inevitable and gods cannot bestow their powers as they wish. But this is absurd. Surely the gods make the rules for their followers and freely choose what kind of power to bestow. There's simply no good reason why it has to be this way, IC.
There are plenty of concepts that wouldn't be special if their rules and special features were eradicated. Lolthite drow would be pretty lame if they had a modern legal system based on human rights. If priests of Oghma weren't duty-bound to further culture and learning, and never to slay minstrels, they'd lose their flavor. I could go on. The point is: none of this is OOCly enforced and supported by a narrow base class. Yet the concepts are still doing fine. You could still play your traditional Paladin, even if the unwarranted special status of the class was removed. You can be everything you think a Paladin is supposed to be, and I don't see how putting Paladins to the same level with other generic classes could change that. All it would do is remove one tool petty players use to police eachother in matters of taste. Any PC can be special, and they shouldn't be more or less special because of the class they take.
In fact, I could even meet you half-way and say Paladins could be kept as they are, but as a Prestige Class rather than one of the precious few base classes in the game. Replace the base class with a generic Divine Champion instead. That would sure keep the Paladin as something special.
Also: Haha. Numbers, contributing? Sure.
answering to each paragraph respectively (I dunno how to edit things fast :S) I couldn't agree with Iron on that one. This might be just me, but all paladins I've encountered on amia seem to be so certain that their situation is answered by their code, and never give a second thought to it... isn't that exactly the lawful stupid thing?
Didn't I say that everyone is going to hold onto their image of paladins, no matter what is said here xD
Paladins are the virtuous holy warriors. There would be something really wrong if gods who allow chaotic and/or evil amidst the followers would provide pretty... weird paladins.
idea of a paladin as a prestigeclass is pretty cool, but Paladin has certain status of being "holy warrior" not warrior who later on gained his holyness. nor a holy man who went onto warriorhood after he realized becoming hand of his god requires more than just preaching words.
also noting:People tend to say all the time about paladins and their players that they shouldn't police around campaigns/amia. everyone are just stating what is wrong, but they should also provide a solution (or a suggestion of a solution that is)
_________________ My favourite sniper loadout: Huntsman, jarate, bushwacka. Team Fortress 2 is FREE TO PLAY!
It's entirely possible I did not communicate my position clearly, or maybe you took it as something other than what it was. I'll attempt to rephrase it.
What I intended to communicate was that Paladin is an archetypal western concept. It fits beautifully well in a medieval European setting and for such, it is perfect.
The problem is when you try to put it into a more multicultural setting and you try to make it fit in more ways in more molds. The reason all of them want to try to retain that *particular image* is because that is what a Paladin was originally intended to be.
I did not argue that all gods should not have equal access to divinely powered warriors of various sorts. Indeed, they should. But I don't think these should be "paladins." Paladin wants to scream a specific image and mythos.
If you change this argument up some and look at it from another angle, you might better be able to understand my meaning.
If this was a game with Japanese roots, and that was the "Default" culture of this genre..then the class may well have been called Samurai. And they likely also would have been Lawful Good (because that's how they would have perceived themselves, regardless of the fact that samurai would likely have been Lawful neutral as a whole in our view)
Then let us put in as many multicultural elements in our fictional Japanese setting as we have in the Realms. We would then be sitting and arguing about why other deities did not also have access to samurai - chaotic samurai, evil samurai, elven samurai and so forth. We would then also be arguing why despite the wide variety of cultures and backgrounds, samurai should behave in XYZ ways.
The short answer is that they shouldn't. The LG guys of X deity have this type of warrior. The Elves have another type..the dwarves another, the people of this land yet another, and the guys that serve Bane would be another entirely.
However, a samurai will still evoke a very specific set of images and references. My argument was never that all paladins regardless of alignment, culture, and background should be the same. My argument was also not that LG supporting Deities should be the only ones with access. My argument was that "Paladin" tends to mean specific things, and is associated with a series of archetypal images. Other Deities, other cultures, and other races would have their own individual "Holy Warrior" types, and each would be known for different things.
That would be my argument in a Homebrewed game or anything of the sort. I understand that isn't really feasible in NWN...and thus we are faced with a series of choices without any particularly good ones. BUT..that was what I was attempting to say. Similarly, when you change the definition of "paladin" as per the 4e rules, you lose a lot of that which goes with them. If they had made it "Divine Champion" and then had different powers and abilities characteristic of alignment and deity, then I'd not have been bothered by it.
-----------------------
As for TeroSNS,
Iron is right. Paladins are required to have a certain degree of wisdom, as they have a lot of power they are charged with using responsibly. I don't think any well-played paladin blindly follows his code. You have to have a certain amount of wisdom and Insight to interpret what that code means in a given situation and what the right thing to do is.
There is a very good quote from a movie called Kingdom of Heaven that I have always liked.
"A king may move a man, a father may claim a son. But remember that, even when those who move you be kings or men of power, your soul is in your keeping alone. When you stand before God you cannot say 'but I was told by others to do thus' or that 'virtue was not convenient at the time.' This will not suffice. Remember that."
And you said "everyone is going to hold onto their image of paladins, no matter what is said here" but I never said the object of the discussion was to change anything. It is an open exchange of ideas. Debate is the heart of intelligent exchange.
Besides, you never know who will take something from this sort of discussion. I know I have.
_________________ 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
Firstly; is it just me or is the paladin, by definition, a very wooden character? There is plenty of room for personal conflict there but to remain a paladin, an avatar of all that is good and true, the character does pretty much the same thing all the time. Unless I'm getting this wrong a paladin must maintain their strict code constantly or stop being a paladin? They must also be Lawful Good without fault constantly or stop being a paladin. There is no leeway, no bending of rules here and there.
Frankly I fail to see how any true Paladin PC could not be banned from basically every settlement on Amia if they were to maintain their oaths at all times. It just seems too inconsistant when you consider the nature of the IC Amian world. It is a paladins nature to be the morality police of 'the Good'(that's good not god) to which they are inextricably linked and failing to do so should have dire consequences.
Insofar as RPing a paladin goes it would be nice to see the same stigma that is attached to absolute evil in action applied to absolute good in action. To the majority of the population they would often appear to be about the same.
_________________ 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."
Firstly; is it just me or is the paladin, by definition, a very wooden character? There is plenty of room for personal conflict there but to remain a paladin, an avatar of all that is good and true, the character does pretty much the same thing all the time. Unless I'm getting this wrong a paladin must maintain their strict code constantly or stop being a paladin? They must also be Lawful Good without fault constantly or stop being a paladin. There is no leeway, no bending of rules here and there.
Frankly I fail to see how any true Paladin PC could not be banned from basically every settlement on Amia if they were to maintain their oaths at all times. It just seems too inconsistant when you consider the nature of the IC Amian world. It is a paladins nature to be the morality police of 'the Good'(that's good not god) to which they are inextricably linked and failing to do so should have dire consequences.
Insofar as RPing a paladin goes it would be nice to see the same stigma that is attached to absolute evil in action applied to absolute good in action. To the majority of the population they would often appear to be about the same.
All lawful characters are relatively stable characters, in terms of their habits and behaviors. This is a significant part of what makes them lawful.. as opposed to the unpredictable barbarian.. or bard. That is what makes them Chaotic. To call them wooden though would be unfairly limiting their potential. Paladins in the classic sense live by a very specific code of conduct, but that does not make them robots. They are still individual people, with individual beliefs, perspectives and personalities.
As for "banned from civilization" ..civilization is, by and large, bound in a lawful mindset. Most depend on laws to function. As lawful beings, paladins do not disregard the law as they see fit unless there is no other means to accomplish their task. In this way, they are no different than any other religious character or any other character with a mission. Indeed, Paladins are more likely to uphold the local laws than other characters.
For your final comment, I will say two things. To your average person, from your average viewpoint good is simply better than evil. It isn't two sides of a political argument.. it isn't simply two different groups with different gang colors going at it.. Good means something. So does Evil.. and Evil is scary and dangerous. Regardless of what you might think about the real-world, in this one good and evil are actual forces doing battle. If they all "look the same" because they are on the same side..well. So do cops. They have the same uniform, do the same job, and have the same mission - protect and serve. Some do it well and admirably, some fall on the side of moral corruption - but every one of them is a person behind the badge.
_________________ 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
It still feels like you're glossing over the absolutism that defines a paladin. If one is to assume that the average person is going to be predominantly lawfully minded(a very big assumption in any setting I might add) then it could still be argued that the Paladin derives moral legitimacy from being they keystone representation of 'the good' that the rest of the society they exist in subscribes too. That is to say that a paladin will be accepted (and admired?) due to a moralistic trickle down effect; that to touch the hem of the passing paladins coat will be a step closer to a divine 'good' that everyone agrees with.
The classic paladin code is almost word for word copied from the historical code of chivalry, as you said. It is worth considering that without a violent monothiestic clergy codes like this are worth nothing at all to anyone who doesn't live by them. Without this backup then the paladin becomes another zealot and does not hold the charaterisric moral authority the mechanics and lore of the class implies. I think this is why so many people see them as being somewhat out moded.
_________________ 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."
If one is to assume that the average person is going to be predominantly lawfully minded(a very big assumption in any setting I might add)
The fact that civilisation exists at all would seem to me a very big indicator that the average is lawfully minded.
That, or that those that either didnt enter lawful city died, or that the people leading lawful communitiess essentially said, "you are part of our lawful community, here are the rules and we will crack your skull if you disagree".
_________________ Wyjyn: Loving all of you (and above all Disco) since 11 Jan 2007.
Joined: 06 Jan 2008 Location: ANU, behind the coffee mug (+10 GMT)
Wyjyn wrote:
Yurell wrote:
billytheid wrote:
If one is to assume that the average person is going to be predominantly lawfully minded(a very big assumption in any setting I might add)
The fact that civilisation exists at all would seem to me a very big indicator that the average is lawfully minded.
That, or that those that either didnt enter lawful city died, or that the people leading lawful communitiess essentially said, "you are part of our lawful community, here are the rules and we will crack your skull if you disagree".
Yes, but the former would imply that the evolutionary pressures favoured the lawful, while the latter has its own inherent lawfulness - there are quite simply not enough police to monitor everyone all the time, and France generally has a series of riots that show just how little control there is when people chose not to be lawful. If these riots happened all the time, civilisation would collapse. The fact that they don't, however, encourages me to believe that people are in general lawful, at least to the extent they are willing to follow most laws most of the time (generally those that are within reason). True, there are people that break these laws in a major way (murderers, rapists, arsonists etc.) but they are a true minority.
If not lawful, certainly that side of neutral at any rate.
_________________ 2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player
you're getting into philosophical territory now... the reason I said hegemonic 'lawfulness' is a big assumption is because reasoned arguments can and have been made that identity is fundamentally selfish and will act in a way that brings the greatest possible benifit or 'good' to the individual. This may include following a uniform mode of operations that results in co-operative behaviour.
_________________ 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."
It still feels like you're glossing over the absolutism that defines a paladin. If one is to assume that the average person is going to be predominantly lawfully minded(a very big assumption in any setting I might add) then it could still be argued that the Paladin derives moral legitimacy from being they keystone representation of 'the good' that the rest of the society they exist in subscribes too. That is to say that a paladin will be accepted (and admired?) due to a moralistic trickle down effect; that to touch the hem of the passing paladins coat will be a step closer to a divine 'good' that everyone agrees with.
The classic paladin code is almost word for word copied from the historical code of chivalry, as you said. It is worth considering that without a violent monothiestic clergy codes like this are worth nothing at all to anyone who doesn't live by them. Without this backup then the paladin becomes another zealot and does not hold the charaterisric moral authority the mechanics and lore of the class implies. I think this is why so many people see them as being somewhat out moded.
I apologize, but I'm not sure I understand your argument. The second paragraph strikes me a bit like someone saying "Without the legal system behind them, cops are just another armed gang on the streets." This is technically true, but it sort of glosses over the entire form, function, and role in society. Obviously there are dirty cops, but the role of a police officer is nothing like the role of a gangbanger.
With or without a church backing and arguments of authority - the characters themselves are Lawful Good. This carries a certain moral weight regardless of any other argument. In core D&D paladins can even be given their power by dedication to a philosophy - no church needed. I'm not sure where a "violent clergical code" has anything to do with with morality, nor the mechanics or lore of the class.
It feels like a lot of these arguments come from the side of arguing that "Good" is not the "good" side.. and that your average human being is neutral, seeing "good" as equally zealous and wrong as "Evil." The problem here is that this argument carries a level of modern philosophy and moral relativism that is totally out of place in the world of Forgotten Realms. In a world where there are actual undeniable demons out to rend your soul, and actual celestials, gods, and mortal servants to oppose them, there is no moral relativism.
Forgotten realms exist in a model of theology that has far more to do with Zoroastrianism or Platonism than anything we can sit and readily discuss today. Good and Evil are absolute forms and forces. This is undeniable even to the most jaded adventurer and can even be tested and measured by the "science" of the day (which magic is, for all intents and purposes)
You said I glossed over the absolutism that defined a paladin - I am not. That absolutism does not make them god-like, nor would most paladins abuse said power (as that would be morally corrupt and would slowly shift them out of their alignment). On the other hand, I notice that where absolutism should be most present - in terms of world-view and outlook - most people tend to gloss over it and plant their modern values instead.
_________________ 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
_________________ 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."
It is worth considering that without a violent monothiestic clergy codes like this are worth nothing at all to anyone who doesn't live by them. Without this backup then the paladin becomes another zealot and does not hold the charaterisric moral authority the mechanics and lore of the class implies. I think this is why so many people see them as being somewhat out moded.
This is a good observation, IMO. There is cosmic Good and Evil in the Realms, but there certainly isn't a single worldview and common agreement on what they contain - perhaps not even on what their relevance is. There is an inevitable gap between human moral behaviour and moral beliefs, and these cosmic forces. Even in the Realms, just like in real world, you can always ask "is Good the right thing to do?" This is a relevant and understandable question, and the fact that there's a cosmic force called Good doesn't actually solve anything in practical moral life.
This does put Paladins in an awkward position, because while they are supposed to be paragons of Lawful Good, individuals and socities can still intelligently question whether what the Paladin represents is good, right or acceptable for them. If a Paladin enters a society that is, to his mind and also objectively, not Good and not Lawful, does he automatically have the right to start changing things? This is where we get to the relativity of morals between cultures (strictly speaking, not moral relativism). There is objective Good, clearly. But what does that Good say about relativity? Is it objectively Good for the paladin to destroy a way of life its practicioners are happy with, even if that way was not Good? They have to consider this, because putting in effect a Good regime is not necessarily a Good action.
What right does the Paladin have to judge something and force his own values upon it? Perhaps the right of objective Lawful Good that he represents. Or perhaps it is on the contrary both Lawful and Good to respect this diversity of values, whether they're themselves LG or not. I'm not saying Yay or Nay OOC, and I don't think anyone should. It's something the Paladin must acknowledge and consider IC, and make a solution that may or may not be the right one. That's between the Paladin, his God, the Multiverse and the DM.
_________________
On Joon, Kjetta wrote:
The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!
This does put Paladins in an awkward position, because while they are supposed to be paragons of Lawful Good, individuals and socities can still intelligently question whether what the Paladin represents is good, right or acceptable for them. If a Paladin enters a society that is, to his mind and also objectively, not Good and not Lawful, does he automatically have the right to start changing things? This is where we get to the relativity of morals between cultures (strictly speaking, not moral relativism). There is objective Good, clearly. But what does that Good say about relativity? Is it objectively Good for the paladin to destroy a way of life its practicioners are happy with, even if that way was not Good? They have to consider this, because putting in effect a Good regime is not necessarily a Good action.
What right does the Paladin have to judge something and force his own values upon it? Perhaps the right of objective Lawful Good that he represents. Or perhaps it is on the contrary both Lawful and Good to respect this diversity of values, whether they're themselves LG or not. I'm not saying Yay or Nay OOC, and I don't think anyone should. It's something the Paladin must acknowledge and consider IC, and make a solution that may or may not be the right one. That's between the Paladin, his God, the Multiverse and the DM.
Joined: 21 Jul 2005 Location: Awarded most Confused Git of 2014!
TeroSNS wrote:
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)
That's actually rather insulting spam, you know. Many people are perfectly capable of conversation that shapes their own views. True interaction requires two-way communication. If you can't concede to the better argument or see another perspective, that's your flaw. You shouldn't generalize and assume others are similarily handicapped, IMO. You probably didn't mean it like that, of course, but that's the actual implication of it.
_________________
On Joon, Kjetta wrote:
The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!
Haha. Yeah, that needs to stop. You're also insulting brooks and I think he posted about it earlier in the thread. Even if you don't want to learn anything, he posted for a reason, and I think he's got something from the thread. I know that I've at least gotten a very happy feeling knowing that I'm not the only one who sees paladins the way I do!
_________________ 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."
Joined: 20 Apr 2008 Location: The downeaster "Alexa"
ticket wrote:
Can a Paladin of Hoar raise an undead?
In terms of spells repertoire, not by default.
It's clerics of Hoar that can raise people as Revenants anyway.
But if a Paladin of Hoar somehow did gain the ability to summon undead, I would suspect that they had best be Revenants and for a specific cause that will be returned to rest after that purpose has been served.
Otherwise they're still a paladin, and they're still raising undead. Outside of the rules their god has specified as well. *shrug* I'd like to see a DM answer this. But I'm thinking they more or less just accept the undead that their church raises for specific purposes. Even if they did have an undead spell, that fact alone does not give them the right to run around willy nilly summoning undead.
I didn't know it was a specific type of undead, but yes, that's what I meant. Revenants.
I was guessing that raising an undead, even if Hoar-approved, would still shift a Paladin's alignment toward evil. Which would suggest that Paladins, as a class and regardless of deity, share certain unbreakable "laws".
Paladins can't create Revenants, so it's moot anyway. And you're certainly going too far if you say a Paladin of Hoar would do that if they could, IMO. Where I draw the line is that they won't be happy about it, but they won't outright stop or attack a faithful priest who does it.
_________________
On Joon, Kjetta wrote:
The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!
Priests can be Paladins and Paladins can be priests.
Anyways, thanks for the clarification. No undead creation for Paladins, under any circumstance. Reading about grey guards suggests the same for them too, they just have an easier time getting atonement?
Yes. Grey Guards have exactly the same codes as they had when they were normal Paladins. When they reach high enough a level, they can just break the code without penalty. Good point about multiclasses.
_________________
On Joon, Kjetta wrote:
The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
FAQ
Search
Login
Good point about multiclasses.