| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| Tectorman09-05-07, 03:30 PM | This is just a thread to express how being a Paladin can be fun, never mind the alignment restrictions. Let's look at King Leonidas (not historically, but the version presented in 300). By process of elimination, let's look at what alignment he'd have. Well, he's not evil. Furthermore, he led his most trusted men into battle to defend Greece, even dying to do so. Leonidas opposed a tyrant, nay, the very idea of tyranny. Thus, not evil. A Neutral (along the good-evil axis) person would go with whatever's convenient at the time. So I think we can agree that Leonidas was good (Obvious, right?). So, where are we ethically? I mean, he was defending freedom, and the last stand was to show that 300 free Spartans died for glory. Wouldn't that make him chaotic? Yeah, but he was also defending Athenian logic, a concept based on an ordered mind. Furthermore, the guy was a king. There are very few anarchists that become kings. So Leonidas is lawful. What does all that mean? It means that a Lawful Good person can indeed kick someone down a well for no other reason than that he suggested the LG dude was mad. A Paladin can break his country's laws when said laws say "Don't go out and fight today." It showcases the fact that respecting legitimate authority doesn't necessarily mean obeying that authority. The next time you want to give Paladins a hard time, just remember: King Leonidas could've been one (he'd be more like a Crusader {read the first paragraph of the Immortal Fortitude stance and tell me otherwise}, but you get the idea). Just something that occured to me. |
| Vaelan09-05-07, 03:47 PM | A Neutral (along the good-evil axis) person would go with whatever's convenient at the time. Mistake the first. Being Neutral doesn't mean you're mindless. It means you don't care about Good and Evil. You cannot by any means eliminate Neutral on these grounds. Yeah, but he was also defending Athenian logic, a concept based on an ordered mind. Mistake the second. Care to cite the passage in the PHB that attributes logic and "an ordered mind" to Lawful characters? I think that you will find, upon careful examination, that no such passage exists. In reality, logic is more likely to be embraced by Chaotic characters because, unlike Lawful characters, they have to make decisions on their own. Lawful characters can just follow what is expected of them or whatever it is that they let dictate their lives. Chaotic people have no such guidelines and thus are more likely to go looking one to help them out, though they won't adhere to it so slavishly as a Lawful person might. Furthermore, the guy was a king. There are very few anarchists that become kings. Yes, because all Chaotic characters are anarchists. :rolleyes: So Leonidas is lawful. If you had any idea how alignment worked or what Chaotic actually meant, you may come to a different conclusion. What does all that mean? It means that a Lawful Good person can indeed kick someone down a well for no other reason than that he suggested the LG dude was mad. Yeah, we all knew that, believe it or not. And I quote... Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent. Taking into account that alignments represent a broad range of personality types and personal philosophies, Chaotic is clearly more appropriate. The concern of freedom and dislike for external authority are significant Chaotic traits, whereas you haven't actually shown any Lawful traits. I don't even know how this is a question, beyond the use of the aforementioned moronic stereotypes. |
| Salla09-05-07, 03:52 PM | Whether or not Leo was a Paladin, he didn't stay that way. Kicking a dude down a deep hole because he said 'this is madness' (not even 'you're mad', but 'this is madness') most definitely constitutes murder (if he died), and an unprovoked assault in any case. |
| Witch09-05-07, 03:52 PM | I'd but Leonidas at NE myself. Killing diplomats? Defying what constitutes as parliament? Eugenics? The man's not good at all. Neutral at best, but likely evil. |
| mlund09-05-07, 04:02 PM | I'd but Leonidas at NE myself. Killing diplomats? Defying what constitutes as parliament? Eugenics? The man's not good at all. Neutral at best, but likely evil. Addressing only the movie character: I wouldn't put his at Evil. He's a great example of a Neutral character that isn't apathetic about anything. He's a King. His position is to lead, especially in war time. Committees are terrible at dealing with war, and the system he defied was proven corrupted. He restricts his killing specifically to those who serve Xerxes, who have committed themselves to the murder and / or subjugation of his citizens. The idea that the messenger is somehow exempt from violence after coming in and threatening the lives and freedoms of Leonidas and his people is a social construct that Leonidas did not ascribe to. None of those actions are particularly Lawful or Good, but they certainly don't show-case him debasing or destroying innocent life. No, the messenger does not qualify as "innocent life," in the context of who he served and what he attempted to accomplish any more than the Mouth of Sauron did in the Lord of the Rings. - Marty Lund |
| BlaineTog09-05-07, 04:04 PM | Plus the naughty secret that Sparta had 5 slaves for every free man (IIRC). The movie made him out to be CG, in any case. |
| Tempest Stormwind09-05-07, 04:07 PM | Regardless of his alignment, I didn't see him, or any of the 300 in the movie, as paladins. (I'm not addressing real-world alignment for reasons that should be obvious.) I looked and saw crusaders. Which is the ToB equivalent to the paladin, in some ways. They worked well as a team. They specialized in shields. They Just Didn't Die, almost as a rule. All of those are characteristics of crusaders. Just give them gloryborn armor (DMG2, I believe) and you're set. Just as the crusader neatly sidesteps the entire alignment issue by allowing any non-TN alignment, that also nicely sidesteps this entire point. Which is exactly why I use the crusader wherever I'd be tempted to use a paladin in *any* module. (I'm trying to flat-out remove alignment from any of my games.) |
| DMs_Favourite09-05-07, 04:20 PM | If you want a couple good examples of a LG character from history or fiction they are; Saladin; the true historic version is more LN with good tendencies (He practiced slavery, and the killing of Raynold was more of a butchery than in the movie) but the movie Kingdom of Heaven portreys him as very LG. Balian of Ibealin; very LG both in real life and the movie. Historically he was at the Horns of Hittin, allowed to leave and bring his family to safety. When he reached Jerusalem the people begged his aid so much he wrote to Saladin to exempt from the original deal. The fact Saladin allowed it is a definate sign of the Good aspects of Saladin's character. Class wise history's Balian is Paladin, Movie's Balian is Knight Boromir (From LotR); Definatly LG, but he fails a critical Will save and bad things happen. More Knight than Pally. Aragorn; Probably Ranger but still shows the LG nature. All 4 of these have certain traits that are not perfectly LG but each can work as an example. |
| BlaineTog09-05-07, 04:25 PM | Regardless of his alignment, I didn't see him, or any of the 300 in the movie, as paladins. (I'm not addressing real-world alignment for reasons that should be obvious.) I looked and saw crusaders. Which is the ToB equivalent to the paladin, in some ways.I saw Paragons, but then again, I just got GW:Nightfall recently. |
| Wiseblood09-05-07, 04:58 PM | Regardless of his alignment, I didn't see him, or any of the 300 in the movie, as paladins. (I'm not addressing real-world alignment for reasons that should be obvious.) I looked and saw crusaders. Which is the ToB equivalent to the paladin, in some ways. They worked well as a team. They specialized in shields. They Just Didn't Die, almost as a rule. All of those are characteristics of crusaders. Just give them gloryborn armor (DMG2, I believe) and you're set. Just as the crusader neatly sidesteps the entire alignment issue by allowing any non-TN alignment, that also nicely sidesteps this entire point. Which is exactly why I use the crusader wherever I'd be tempted to use a paladin in *any* module. (I'm trying to flat-out remove alignment from any of my games.) I agree they aren't paladins. I would prefer to leave alignment in. Though not having a mechanichal impact per se. |
| Count Nerindil Van Seraph09-05-07, 05:13 PM | http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd153/Nerindil981/Alignment2.jpg :tiphat: |
| Tectorman09-05-07, 05:35 PM | http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd153/Nerindil981/Alignment2.jpg :tiphat: Hah! Thank you! But I won't (argue, that is). My idea of what alignment is and what it represents is subject to my and the DM's interpretation of the PHB. And if it's different than someone else's, oh well. @Vaelan: I presented this as an alternate way to think of the alignment issue. People often think of alignments as "You're on this side of the bar and can't have anything to do with the other side" when the PHB gives the example of (who was it?) Torlek being lawful good (my PHB is packed up in a box on a moving van right now, so please don't lay into me for being inaccurate right now), but also having a greedy streak. The Druid's Grove test says you are [insert alignment here] not because you have nothing to do with the other alignments, but because you show more tendency there than anywhere else. I'm trying not to take offense at that blatant attack on my "Just a thought...", so do you maybe want to back off? Be nice? Thanks. |
| Fireclave09-05-07, 06:37 PM | Count Nerindil Van Seraph has added much win to this thread, says I. |
| Jshock_7509-05-07, 08:36 PM | "this is madness!!!" "THIS IS LAWFULLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!" |
| Mecha_Pope09-06-07, 09:48 AM | For goodness sakes people, read your phb! King lenidus, as portrayed in the movie 300, cannot be a paladin. That outfit breaks the paladin code. |
| Leo09-06-07, 10:33 AM | Even if the persian diplomat was rude, his guards were just doing their jobs, and still they were all killed whitout any kind of mercy. They didn't threaten or insulted anyone, but did the spartans care about it? No, kill them all! So, definetely not good guys. And I really can't understand why people complain about paladin codes so much. What, you wanted to play a backstabbing poison specialist liar cheater and still claim you're a paragon of good, order and honor? And it's not like they need to be crusaders. Since they can't heal themselves in any way(each day they are more worn out, and Leonidas itself comments the persians will just end defeating them by atrition), and there are plenty of regular feats for group fighting, you could do it with fighters. Heck, maybe even warriors. |
| mlund09-06-07, 05:10 PM | Even if the persian diplomat was rude, his guards were just doing their jobs, and still they were all killed whitout any kind of mercy. They didn't threaten or insulted anyone, but did the spartans care about it? No, kill them all! They were part of Xerxes army, sent on a mission to intimidate and subjugate the Greeks. While it wasn't polite, they were soldiers in an army that effectively declared war on Sparta and demanded its immediate surrender. Whether refusing to take prisoners is a good / bad thing is fairly moot. In that setting the modern concept of prisons were almost unfathomable. You couldn't waste food and guards on people who came to your country to kill and enslave your family and neighbors. The punishment for participating in such an action was a death - period. - Marty Lund |
| Dog_O_War09-07-07, 03:26 PM | posted by Salla, Whether or not Leo was a Paladin, he didn't stay that way. Kicking a dude down a deep hole because he said 'this is madness' (not even 'you're mad', but 'this is madness') most definitely constitutes murder (if he died), and an unprovoked assault in any case. Actually, insulting a king in any country (calling him mad is an insult) is a crime in itself. Calling a king mad after threatening his country (an act of war) is punishable by death. To be put to death by a good character for attempted slavery would not cause him to lose his alignment, even if the guy to be executed was, "just the messenger" as he had an active part in said crimes. |
| Khatoblepas09-07-07, 04:05 PM | This is blasphemy! This is madness! http://khato.fatfurs.co.uk/tempstuff/smiteevil.jpg Hell yeah, paladins rock the house. Smite Evil boot to the face. |
| Sphere09-07-07, 04:20 PM | They didn't threaten or insulted anyone You have much to learn about politics. Telling someone you have an army of thousands and they should do this or give you free stuff is a threat. |
| Count Arioch the 28th09-07-07, 06:22 PM | A lot of things to respond to in this thread. I don't think King Leonides was a paladin, but I think that Leo kicking the diplomat down the well wouldn't be an evil act considering the circumstances. I would not make a paladin fall for that. (It's Lawful Good, not Lawful Nice) The thing about law meaning following the rules and chaos not following the rules kind of falls apart when you realize that every culture has a different set of rules. If a paladin goes to an evil land where the law states he must commit acts that he finds repugnant, is he chaotic for not doing them? Law and Chaos means whatever it is the DM says it does, really. And to Leo, the poster: No one is saying that they want to play that and consider themselves a paragon of honor. What we are saying is that the paladin's code makes DMs think they have the right to be douchebags to paladin players. |
| Straploknight09-07-07, 07:18 PM | Bah, Leonidas and the 300 are simply to bad ass to be constrained by some wimpy alignment system! However, that said, I was originally gonna say Lawful Neutral, but it just didn't follow the rules for the sake of following the rules. Leonidas seemed to care about his people (although it seemd he was a bit p-whipped :P with Gorgo) so I'm settling on Neutral Good, he followed the rules to the extent that he found them useful, but didn't have a problem bending them for the greater good, and he generally cared for people and his troops (I think the bit were the 300 first assembled and he told Captain that his son was to young to have felt the warmth of a woman was more or less telling his friend that his son didn't need to march with them) Captain i'd say was Lawful Neutral though and Stellios, hhhhhmmmmmm... maybe true neutral (while he was all for keeping Greece free, Stellios really just liked to kick arse, but not in a chaotic kind of way) |
| Always-Late09-10-07, 09:07 PM | Actually, insulting a king in any country (calling him mad is an insult) is a crime in itself. Calling a king mad after threatening his country (an act of war) is punishable by death. To be put to death by a good character for attempted slavery would not cause him to lose his alignment, even if the guy to be executed was, "just the messenger" as he had an active part in said crimes. Soldier: "I have been requested by <GENERAL 1> to give you these peace terms." GENERAL 2: "Complete and unconditional surrender? What is this? OFF WITH HIS HEAD!" Soldier: "Wait, what, I'm just - " *head rolls off* Real just there. |
| Dog_O_War09-10-07, 09:45 PM | Originally posted by Always-late Soldier: "I have been requested by <GENERAL 1> to give you these peace terms." GENERAL 2: "Complete and unconditional surrender? What is this? OFF WITH HIS HEAD!" Soldier: "Wait, what, I'm just - " *head rolls off* Real just there. that was your response to my... Actually, insulting a king in any country (calling him mad is an insult) is a crime in itself. Calling a king mad after threatening his country (an act of war) is punishable by death. To be put to death by a good character for attempted slavery would not cause him to lose his alignment, even if the guy to be executed was, "just the messenger" as he had an active part in said crimes. What you have implied with your diologue is that a battle has been fought and lost. Also, said diologue given by the enemy soldier was neither a threat nor an insult (as the king had to inform everyone that Spartans don't surrender). What had happened in the scene of the movie was that the messenger had come to the king wanting his submission (different from an unconditional surrender) to avoid a battle and that if he refused his people would be put to death. And if he accepted, he would be forced then to fight for another (slavery). Perhaps you should read more carefully. |
| NobodyRemembersThis09-10-07, 10:19 PM | Soldier: "I have been requested by <GENERAL 1> to give you these peace terms." GENERAL 2: "Complete and unconditional surrender? What is this? OFF WITH HIS HEAD!" Soldier: "Wait, what, I'm just - " *head rolls off* Real just there. Soldier: "I have been requested by <GENERAL 1> to show you the heads of the kings that defied us. I will now give you these terms of 'tribute' that must be paid or we shall annihilate you. Your tribute shall be unconditional surrender." GENERAL 2: "Complete and unconditional surrender? No. Soldier: You and your people are mad for not surrendering. GENERAL 2:What is this? OFF WITH HIS HEAD!" Soldier: "Wait, what, I'm just - " *head rolls off* That is a better example. |
| ArcTan09-10-07, 10:39 PM | So, where are we ethically? I mean, he was defending freedom, and the last stand was to show that 300 free Spartans died for glory. Wouldn't that make him chaotic? Yeah, but he was also defending Athenian logic, a concept based on an ordered mind. Furthermore, the guy was a king. There are very few anarchists that become kings. So Leonidas is lawful. Poppycock. He expresses nothing but contempt for the Athenians and their "logic", and Chaotic people absolutely can have kings. Just as being Lawful doesn't mean "I obey the written law at all times", Chaotic doesn't mean "I never ever obey the law and the government, even when I'm in charge of it". Otherwise Orcs couldn't have chieftains and Drow couldn't have Matrons. Leonidas represents the epitome of a Chaotic leader -- "I'm doing this because I'm king and I think it's a good idea", with very little appeal to tradition, abstract philosophy of right and wrong, etc. Notice he never *argues* why they should ignore the Oracle in any kind of point-by-point, systematic way. He just does what he thinks is right and assumes any right-minded person will go along with him. That's Chaotic Good. What does all that mean? It means he was a Paladin of Freedom from UA, if he was a Paladin at all. |
| ArcTan09-10-07, 10:41 PM | Soldier: "I have been requested by <GENERAL 1> to show you the heads of the kings that defied us. I will now give you these terms of 'tribute' that must be paid or we shall annihilate you. Your tribute shall be unconditional surrender." GENERAL 2: "Complete and unconditional surrender? No. Soldier: You and your people are mad for not surrendering. GENERAL 2:What is this? OFF WITH HIS HEAD!" Soldier: "Wait, what, I'm just - " *head rolls off* That is a better example. Actually, the film made it pretty clear that the Persians were offering *conditional* surrender, not unconditional surrender. If it was ambiguous at first, it was surely clear when Xerxes was offering to make Leonidas lord of all Greece (whether you believed him or not). It was Leonidas and the Spartans who, in the movie, made it clear they weren't going to budge an inch (no surrender at all of any kind, no matter what conditions were put on it). |
| ArcTan09-10-07, 10:45 PM | posted by Salla, Actually, insulting a king in any country (calling him mad is an insult) is a crime in itself. Calling a king mad after threatening his country (an act of war) is punishable by death. To be put to death by a good character for attempted slavery would not cause him to lose his alignment, even if the guy to be executed was, "just the messenger" as he had an active part in said crimes. 1) He didn't call him mad until *after* it was obvious Leonidas was going to kill him. 2) All this stuff about how not taking prisoners and not respecting diplomatic immunity was inconceivable in ancient Greece is ridiculous. The fact that in the movie -- and in the real history -- the act of executing the messengers rather than merely sending them home empty-handed was viewed with shock and horror shows that killing a messenger for delivering a threat was *not* in any way normal or expected behavior. 3) I'm glad you think that insulting a king is automatically a treasonable offense, and that this is an objective and correct way to view morality. Guess I know what you think of the American Declaration of Independence. |
| Dog_O_War09-10-07, 11:34 PM | Given that I am not american, but Canadian (that country above you that is still technically part of a monarchy) and that I won't declare my independence from Britain (that's a, "will vote no" if such a thing were ever called for), you can "know" what I think all you want because I am not apart of your country. 1) Also, when he called him "mad" has no bearing to my original statement, "insulting a king in any country is a crime in itself." 2)...and the demand of a kingdom to surrender to become slaves is normal and expected? |
| ReverendBSB09-10-07, 11:46 PM | Aragorn; Probably Ranger but still shows the LG nature. I have always thought of Aragorn as more of a Paladin. He never really does anything Ranger specific, while his healing abilities seem to go beyond the norm, and he "turns" the ringwraiths. |
| ArcTan09-11-07, 12:13 AM | Given that I am not american, but Canadian (that country above you that is still technically part of a monarchy) and that I won't declare my independence from Britain (that's a, "will vote no" if such a thing were ever called for), you can "know" what I think all you want because I am not apart of your country. What does that have to do with anything? Are Canadians now in favor of summary execution of anyone who insults the Queen? Do they consider the USA an outlaw state because no subject of the Crown may throw off the yoke of Empire? 1) Also, when he called him "mad" has no bearing to my original statement, "insulting a king in any country is a crime in itself." ...Which isn't *true*, in the modern era, largely because we've decided this *should not* be true. It's kind of funny that we're painting 300's Leonidas as some kind of stalwart defender of "freedom" and then claiming that his willingness to kill people for insulting the monarch is part of what "freedom" means. The idea that a monarch is immune to criticism or insult, and that insulting the monarch is moral grounds for *taking someone's life* -- do you really think that's a good foundation for a "free" country to be built on? Is that the principle of democracy, that these Spartans are supposedly fighting to die for? The British Empire started to be free when they stopped enforcing laws like this, when it became possible for someone to write a pamphlet attacking the Queen and not have his head summarily lopped off for it. Saying "Well, this is how it used to be" doesn't make it Good. FWIW, even the Spartans portrayed in the movie aren't especially Good in this light -- they aren't actual democrats, the King does seem to carry quite a hefty amount of unelected power, people who are unable to contribute to society are "discarded" at birth or allowed to die at adolescence, etc. Am I really that off-base in finding this movie's rather rabid fanbase to be just plain *creepy*? The movie makes no secret of the fact that its Spartans are monarchists, eugenecists, xenophobes, etc. and people are still defending them as paragons of "Lawful Good"? 2)...and the demand of a kingdom to surrender to become slaves is normal and expected? Not really. Still doesn't mean that killing ambassadors was a normal, okay thing in their society. It *wasn't*. It has all its dramatic impact because it wasn't. Just as never taking prisoners was not common or ordinary in the real history of the Greco-Persian Wars, *or* in the reality of the movie, where the Spartans talk about the fact that they take no prisoners as a reason they're so badass (as opposed to being the practical necessity of what everyone has to do). Refusing to take any prisoners was actually pretty unusual from a practical *and* a moral standpoint -- most cultures did have quite a lot of stuff about how "honor" demanded consideration for those who surrendered on the battlefield, especially the noble ones, and as a practical matter you took prisoners then for the same reason people take prisoners now -- they give you a labor force and a bargaining chip. People who kill all their enemies have nothing to offer the enemy should they decide to sue for peace, and back then most wars *did* end with a suit for peace -- wars of annihilation have never been the default. |
| Dog_O_War09-11-07, 12:38 AM | You make some good points, ArcTan; but for the monarchy thing (in relation to the insult) I was referring to the time period that it would have taken place. As to regards with me being Canadian and you being american, I was suggesting that I like my own countries' laws and rules more (well not all of them...but who does, right?) as compared to yours, and that you shouldn't jump to conclusions pertaining to a person's beliefs. |
| Always-Late09-11-07, 01:46 AM | Mouth of Sauron: "I am a herald and ambassador and cannot be assailed!" He survived. Yay Aragorn. |
| ArcTan09-11-07, 03:22 AM | You make some good points, ArcTan; but for the monarchy thing (in relation to the insult) I was referring to the time period that it would have taken place. Yes, because people back then were jackholes. The fact that Leonidas is in many ways a typical monarch of his time, and the ways in which he was exceptional are not actually ways in which he was *morally* exceptional, throws doubt to me on the whole Paladin thing. You can call him Good, sure, fine, but he's not Lawful (which is a state of mind more than it is a "Do you follow the law?" question) and he's only Good if you make tons and tons and tons of allowances for his time period. (You do realize the real Spartans kept slaves and were totally dependent on them, right? The movie glosses over this, but this is what he means when asks "Spartans, what is your profession?" They're all professional soldiers because all actual work in Sparta is done by helots.) As to regards with me being Canadian and you being american, I was suggesting that I like my own countries' laws and rules more (well not all of them...but who does, right?) as compared to yours, and that you shouldn't jump to conclusions pertaining to a person's beliefs. ...Okay, see, most people who aren't American still think of the Declaration of Independence as an overall positive thing. (If not the Revolutionary War itself, the kind of stuff the Declaration says -- you know, Lockean theory of the nature of government to serve the people, that kind of thing.) That was my only point. If you want me to use the French Declaration of the Rights of Man instead, fine. |
| ArcTan09-11-07, 03:23 AM | Mouth of Sauron: "I am a herald and ambassador and cannot be assailed!" He survived. Yay Aragorn. In the books, he did. In the deleted scene from the movies, Aragorn goes all Leonidas on him. It was one of the changes I didn't appreciate. |
| Naderion09-11-07, 04:11 AM | In the extended version of the movie, he just cuts his head off. But a.) he was probably a half-fiend or something like that, and b.) Aragorn may be LG, but not a Paladin, so he can afford to sometimes let go a bit. :D But I agree, a really good example of an RG character. |
| Millenia09-11-07, 03:50 PM | Am I really that off-base in finding this movie's rather rabid fanbase to be just plain *creepy*? The movie makes no secret of the fact that its Spartans are monarchists, eugenecists, xenophobes, etc. and people are still defending them as paragons of "Lawful Good"? I think you're somewhat off-base, but part of the problem is that the fanbase either doesn't think enough, or thinks too much. On one hand, they could not have thought too much about the movie (which wasn't really meant to bring up philosophical discussions, likely) and just thought that the Spartans were the good guys because they were the protagonists. It also helps that the Spartans had a sympathetic point of view (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main.SympatheticPOV) and were totally badass. On the other, they did help keep democracy alive by allying with the Athenians and other Greeks, even if they didn't like it that much. Besides, just about everyone was xenophobic and monarchist back in those days. |
| Puggins09-11-07, 04:12 PM | Whether or not Leo was a Paladin, he didn't stay that way. Kicking a dude down a deep hole because he said 'this is madness' (not even 'you're mad', but 'this is madness') most definitely constitutes murder (if he died), and an unprovoked assault in any case. He didn't kick the guy down the well because the guy said anything about being mad. He kicked the diplomat down the well because: (1) The diplomat showed up with a string of skulls ripped off the heads of kings that Xerxes had conquered. (2) The diplomat threatened Sparta with annihilation if Leonidas refused to become a slave state to Persia. Look at what happened to that Greek town that the immortals raze- mass crucifixion is not exactly a neutral act. Just re-watch the scene. Leonidas even tells the guy why he's about to throw him down the well. Look at what happens to the Mouth of Sauron in the LOTR movies- Mouth threatens Frodo, Aragorn decapitates Mouth. Killing the messenger isn't exactly rare when the messenger is employed by the BBEG. As for the original point, the OP has a good point, even though his arguments are misguided. His point is that Leonidas COULD have been Lawful Good. I personally would've pegged him at NG based on just his actions during the movie, but he behaves lawfully enough (obeys the tradition of consulting with the Oracles, looks for a way around the stipulation rather than outright defying it, Follows the Spartan Code of 'Never Retreat, Never Surrender' to his death, even though his last show of defiance really doesn't buy Greece any advantage) that LG is perfectly possible, and he COULD have been a paladin, even thoughhe probably WOULDN'T have been one. |
| Straploknight09-11-07, 09:30 PM | (2) The diplomat threatened Sparta with annihilation if Leonidas refused to become a slave state to Persia. Look at what happened to that Greek town that the immortals raze- mass crucifixion is not exactly a neutral act. Hey interesting note, that scene with all the villagers hanging from a tree, that really happened, somewhere in eastern europe, during our time. |
| ArcTan09-12-07, 03:33 AM | In the extended version of the movie, he just cuts his head off. But a.) he was probably a half-fiend or something like that, and b.) Aragorn may be LG, but not a Paladin, so he can afford to sometimes let go a bit. :D Enh. What's annoying is that Aragorn doesn't give fair warning, like movie-Leonidas does. The Mouth says he's an ambassador and he's only going to speak because he has diplomatic immunity. Aragorn rolls with it. The Mouth says Frodo is dead. Aragorn wigs out and gives it to him old-school. If Aragorn had said anything akin to what Leonidas said in 300, I'd care less. But this shows Aragorn basically accepting a rule and then choosing to break it because the Mouth really, really ticks him off. (He wasn't even threatening Aragorn, just gloating over his friend's death.) The book does change this scene in many ways; the most notable one is that in the book the Mouth of Sauron is an ordinary human, though whether this factors into why Aragorn doesn't kill him we don't know. (The book never makes it even look like Aragorn had the *chance* to kill him -- it's only in the movie that anyone who has a retinue of bodyguards will inevitably find such bodyguards to be worthless and easily slaughtered.) |
| MerlintheTuna09-12-07, 04:01 AM | On the other, they did help keep democracy alive by allying with the Athenians and other Greeks, even if they didn't like it that much.That's something of a coincidental consequence, though. Playing a role in the survival of democracy is decidedly not the same thing as fighting to save democracy, and I'm not about to give the Spartans that kind of credit. |
| OneWinged4ngel09-12-07, 04:14 AM | Mistake the first. Being Neutral doesn't mean you're mindless. It means you don't care about Good and Evil. You cannot by any means eliminate Neutral on these grounds. Mistake the second. Care to cite the passage in the PHB that attributes logic and "an ordered mind" to Lawful characters? I think that you will find, upon careful examination, that no such passage exists. In reality, logic is more likely to be embraced by Chaotic characters because, unlike Lawful characters, they have to make decisions on their own. Lawful characters can just follow what is expected of them or whatever it is that they let dictate their lives. Chaotic people have no such guidelines and thus are more likely to go looking one to help them out, though they won't adhere to it so slavishly as a Lawful person might. Yes, because all Chaotic characters are anarchists. :rolleyes: If you had any idea how alignment worked or what Chaotic actually meant, you may come to a different conclusion. Yeah, we all knew that, believe it or not. And I quote... Taking into account that alignments represent a broad range of personality types and personal philosophies, Chaotic is clearly more appropriate. The concern of freedom and dislike for external authority are significant Chaotic traits, whereas you haven't actually shown any Lawful traits. I don't even know how this is a question, beyond the use of the aforementioned moronic stereotypes. Law/Chaos doesn't actually mean ANYTHING. You can justify pretty much any action as either alignment *using quotes from the source material.* Arguing it will only produce headaches. |
| herceg09-14-07, 04:09 AM | 1) I may be mistaken, but isn't the Ranger class "specifically" based on / designed for Aragorn and his ancestrors (and their like)? 2) Law and Chaos are like political left and right (sorry :) ): they meet at both ends, that's why it's hard to point at them. But Law basically represents stagnation and rigidness , all the while it also represents both order, security and stability (tradition and society with all of its virtues and flaws), while Chaos represents change, freedom, and at the same time randomness, the lack of order and security (individuals and personal achievments). So, from this point Leonidas seems to represent Law (the preservation of order) while he himself may be more chaotic (he is willing to defy tradition in favor of succes / victory / freedom etc.) |
| shepardrpg09-14-07, 10:35 AM | Just read through this thread, and this reply is the first post I have ever made on the Wizards community. Aragorn is very clearly a archteypal Ranger, and definitely CG. Leonides is a warrior-king with a lot of responsibilities and seems to me to fit LN, and is not THAT close to a paladin. Rule Number 1 for playing a paladin 1. THINK! It's not that hard to play a paladin, but you have to actually PLAY it. I have played in groups with very good paladins, and groups with lousy paladins. |
| _Jayne_Cobb_09-14-07, 12:37 PM | This is just a thread to express how being a Paladin can be fun, never mind the alignment restrictions. Playing a paladin has always been fun, and no harder than another other PC class, really. |
| Stormbrand09-14-07, 04:17 PM | He didn't kick the guy down the well because the guy said anything about being mad. He kicked the diplomat down the well because: (1) The diplomat showed up with a string of skulls ripped off the heads of kings that Xerxes had conquered. (2) The diplomat threatened Sparta with annihilation if Leonidas refused to become a slave state to Persia. Look at what happened to that Greek town that the immortals raze- mass crucifixion is not exactly a neutral act. Just re-watch the scene. Leonidas even tells the guy why he's about to throw him down the well. Look at what happens to the Mouth of Sauron in the LOTR movies- Mouth threatens Frodo, Aragorn decapitates Mouth. Killing the messenger isn't exactly rare when the messenger is employed by the BBEG. As for the original point, the OP has a good point, even though his arguments are misguided. His point is that Leonidas COULD have been Lawful Good. I personally would've pegged him at NG based on just his actions during the movie, but he behaves lawfully enough (obeys the tradition of consulting with the Oracles, looks for a way around the stipulation rather than outright defying it, Follows the Spartan Code of 'Never Retreat, Never Surrender' to his death, even though his last show of defiance really doesn't buy Greece any advantage) that LG is perfectly possible, and he COULD have been a paladin, even thoughhe probably WOULDN'T have been one. Glad someone else recognises this. :w00t: Leonidas does behave in a very paladinic manner in the film, and 300 is to Sparta as the Paladin class is to religious knights - the ideal rather than the reality. The Persian Empire was not that bad in real life either. People. Enjoy the film as a celebration of warrior and martial values - courage, loyalty, passionate defence of homeland, victory in battle and strength at arms. Do not expect it to be a comprehensive example of how to behave in peaceful society. Leonidas was certainly a good leader, and the sort of king I would definately follow into battle against overwhelming odds. |
| ArcTan09-15-07, 12:40 AM | People. Enjoy the film as a celebration of warrior and martial values - courage, loyalty, passionate defence of homeland, victory in battle and strength at arms. Do not expect it to be a comprehensive example of how to behave in peaceful society. I dislike the movie precisely because I hate the "martial values" it describes -- it idealizes a society built around war where people are raised for nothing but war and men are judged solely by their ability to fight in a war. It derides the possibility of diplomatic alternatives to war as the path of cowards and collaborators. It claims the only acceptable outcome of a war is obliteration of one's own forces or the enemy's. It treats war as a *way of life* rather than a tool used to accomplish a goal. It is, in short, the kind of story that has caused uncountable damage to human lives through human history, teaching boys that they might fight and kill and never compromise in order to be "men", and motivating generation after generation of senseless bloodshed that leads nowhere and accomplishes nothing. It's the kind of crap you'd expect from a fascist propaganda film -- indeed, the idolization of the military above all else is essential to the nature of fascism. I'm sorry, but the fact that America seems to have taken this movie to its heart -- especially the D&D-playing side of America -- bothers me a lot. It's like sitting around and hearing a bunch of people extol the virtues of Birth of a Nation or Triumph of the Will. |
| Straploknight09-15-07, 01:11 AM | I dunno, 300 seemed to illustrate our own politicians rather well; enfeeble, corrupt, greedy as well as indesicive. Guess it just seemed to resonate, especially when Leonidas in effect told both the ephors and the politicians to buzz off by gathering the 300. |
| ArcTan09-15-07, 01:28 AM | I dunno, 300 seemed to illustrate our own politicians rather well; enfeeble, corrupt, greedy as well as indesicive. Guess it just seemed to resonate, especially when Leonidas in effect told both the ephors and the politicians to buzz off by gathering the 300. Yeah, except for the part where such feeble, corrupt, greedy politicians voted *against* the war instead of *for* it, and where the war was a *good* idea rather than a *bad* one. |
| Alex_P09-15-07, 01:32 AM | Yeah, except for the part where such feeble, corrupt, greedy politicians voted *against* the war instead of *for* it, and where the war was a *good* idea rather than a *bad* one.And that war was a defensive war against a multicultural superpower led by a guy trying to live up to his father's legacy. That part's kind of backwards. -- Alex |
| Stormbrand09-15-07, 06:21 AM | I dislike the movie precisely because I hate the "martial values" it describes -- it idealizes a society built around war where people are raised for nothing but war and men are judged solely by their ability to fight in a war. It derides the possibility of diplomatic alternatives to war as the path of cowards and collaborators. It claims the only acceptable outcome of a war is obliteration of one's own forces or the enemy's. It treats war as a *way of life* rather than a tool used to accomplish a goal. It is, in short, the kind of story that has caused uncountable damage to human lives through human history, teaching boys that they might fight and kill and never compromise in order to be "men", and motivating generation after generation of senseless bloodshed that leads nowhere and accomplishes nothing. It's the kind of crap you'd expect from a fascist propaganda film -- indeed, the idolization of the military above all else is essential to the nature of fascism. I'm sorry, but the fact that America seems to have taken this movie to its heart -- especially the D&D-playing side of America -- bothers me a lot. It's like sitting around and hearing a bunch of people extol the virtues of Birth of a Nation or Triumph of the Will. Interesting point, and I think it is no accident that the film avoids things like the Helots and slave-labour which made Sparta function. Both in real life and the film, the stand at Thermopylae was heroic - defending home and nation against attack from a vastly superior force with total courage. I think it is a way to enjoy the urge to hack apart your enemies in a context where doing so is morally acceptable. Quite frankly, I have enough of compromise in daily life - work, romance, family - all of which are mostly compromise. So I enjoy escapisms where I can forget about compromise and take part in righteous battle against a clear enemy. The mentality is thoroughly barmy, but strangely compelling - such as relishing the thought of death in battle. Why I enjoy playing paladins, for example, is to fight evil with the complete certainty that the world is being made a better place, instead of being expected to sympathise with thugs or thieves or backstabbers. |
| Witch09-15-07, 06:41 AM | People. Enjoy the film as a celebration of warrior and martial values - courage, loyalty, passionate defence of homeland, victory in battle and strength at arms. Do not expect it to be a comprehensive example of how to behave in peaceful society. I'd consider at least some of those "values" to be vices. Incidentally, looking back at the argument, I'd likely put Leonidas as Chaotic Evil. Possibly Neutral with Chaotic & Evil tendencies. |
| Stormbrand09-15-07, 01:37 PM | I'd consider at least some of those "values" to be vices. Incidentally, looking back at the argument, I'd likely put Leonidas as Chaotic Evil. Possibly Neutral with Chaotic & Evil tendencies. That only makes sense if assuming 'Law' and 'Good' means 'compliant' and 'pacifist.' Marching off to block an advancing army in order to protect others seems very LG to me. |
| ManTimeForgot09-15-07, 07:59 PM | Playing a paladin has always been fun, and no harder than another other PC class, really. Anyone who says this truly does not understand what it means to actually roleplay a paladin. Paladins are by a W I D E margin the most complicated class to roleplay in D&D. Being Good aligned in D&D may not be very difficult; all one has to do is make sure that the preponderance of one's actions are in line with what the force of Good wants, and your alignment becomes Good. But a paladin is held to a MUCH higher standard. The paladin never knowingly commit an evil act, and when you actually consider what that means in a D&D context it is only maybe a fraction of a percent off of what it means to be exalted. A paladin when presented with a situation where they choose between a good action and an evil action, must without fail choose the good one. This means that when faced with situations where the outcomes will all be similarly terrible the paladin must always try to find the least harmful. This means that when it comes to relaxation, vacation, rest, comfort, emotional attachment, pleasure, and in some cases even basic commodities (like food, clothing, shelter) that the paladin MUST be willing to sacrifice all those things during times of need. The flip side of this is that the paladin must not ignore himself completely, because to disrespect one's self is to disrespect life. And thus a paladin who forgoes food entirely to give that food to others is not doing good because he would then lack the strength to defend the town/village from evil attack. To complicate this further a paladin can never stray from altruistic, which means taking care of one's self but ALWAYS in moderation (a little on the less indulgent side to be sure). Another thing to consider is that is no one's own morality system ever completely coincides with D&D's, even if that person agrees with the fundamental principles. All people value certain virtues over others and have vices for whom such acts are more heinous than for others or for the standard of good. Some people consider gambling to be a horrific vice, while others consider it to be largely benign. Some people consider love to be the highest virtue, others perhaps consider honesty to be. The sum of this is that paladins will always have little idiosyncracies which, while highlighting their human nature, mean that they are not able to be perfect good. For instance a paladin for whom honesty is the highest virtue who is put into a situation in which he must not tell the truth or great harm will be done has two choices: either avoid the truth or lie outright. The latter would to such a paladin seem a betrayal of principle, but so long as the lie is believable the chance that the foe will detect is much less than consumate evasion (a believable/low risk lie according to sense motive modifiers is very hard to pick up). Whereas someone who is constantly spouting things like: "I wouldn't say I know where they are... I can't help you with finding them... All I can tell you about the items is that they didn't leave them here..." is bound to arouse suspicion which increases the danger to the people who are being hunted. Goodinator (detect-smite-call it a day), Chargadin (Find place of great evil, Charge, Die gloriously), and Dumbadin (Find place of great evil, knock on door annoucing your intention to attack so as to give the enemies a chance to prepare, wait 12 hours, come back, charge, and die stupidly in a pit trap that the enemies dug while you were away) are all easy to play, but they aren't paladins. A paladin is devoted to the protection of others against forces that they could not possibly defend themselves against, but must not become a hindrance to the people he protects. A paladin is dedicated to the destruction of evil beings, but must not become so obsessed with the destruction of evil that he ceases being able to tell right from wrong. A paladin must be compassionate and caring without emphathizing too much with one's foes (refusing to attack when necessary). A paladin must be honorable, noble, and forthright so long as doing so does not bring harm to others. A paladin must respect the laws of rightful rulers, so long as those laws do not prevent a paladin from doing his duty (which first and foremost is to the innocent). A paladin must be willing to use force, and even kill, when necessary, but must not grow to love harming for harming's sake. All this culminates in one dizzyingly difficult class to roleplay; one that takes great preparation, fortitude, and forethought to play properly. ArcTan: Its really easy to be an armchair quarterback of a historian. History has proven time and again that people become complacent, ceasing to cherish the value of their freedoms. Only those who are forced to choose between their comfort and their freedom understand how important their freedom truly is. It's really easy to sit comfortably in a major world-power and say things like: I'm against violence, diplomacy always works, or some such pacifistic nonsense. The only reason why modern states exist with the levels of freedom and comfort that they do is because of the existence of a standing army. In ancient times (like that of the Greeks which you apparently despise), it was only the existence of the Hellenic armies that allowed philosophy, medicine, science, and sport to exist as they did. You are right to suggest that one should not revel in the "glories" of war, because those who know, know that war is anything but glorious, but one should NEVER forget the value of one's defenders. And one should NEVER take for granted the freedom that 1,000 years ago virtually no nation or state on the planet could claim to have. MTF |
| Stormbrand09-15-07, 08:27 PM | Anyone who says this truly does not understand what it means to actually roleplay a paladin. Paladins are by a W I D E margin the most complicated class to roleplay in D&D. Being Good aligned in D&D may not be very difficult; all one has to do is make sure that the preponderance of one's actions are in line with what the force of Good wants, and your alignment becomes Good. But a paladin is held to a MUCH higher standard. The paladin never knowingly commit an evil act, and when you actually consider what that means in a D&D context it is only maybe a fraction of a percent off of what it means to be exalted. A paladin when presented with a situation where they choose between a good action and an evil action, must without fail choose the good one. This means that when faced with situations where the outcomes will all be similarly terrible the paladin must always try to find the least harmful. This means that when it comes to relaxation, vacation, rest, comfort, emotional attachment, pleasure, and in some cases even basic commodities (like food, clothing, shelter) that the paladin MUST be willing to sacrifice all those things during times of need. The flip side of this is that the paladin must not ignore himself completely, because to disrespect one's self is to disrespect life. And thus a paladin who forgoes food entirely to give that food to others is not doing good because he would then lack the strength to defend the town/village from evil attack. To complicate this further a paladin can never stray from altruistic, which means taking care of one's self but ALWAYS in moderation (a little on the less indulgent side to be sure). Another thing to consider is that is no one's own morality system ever completely coincides with D&D's, even if that person agrees with the fundamental principles. All people value certain virtues over others and have vices for whom such acts are more heinous than for others or for the standard of good. Some people consider gambling to be a horrific vice, while others consider it to be largely benign. Some people consider love to be the highest virtue, others perhaps consider honesty to be. The sum of this is that paladins will always have little idiosyncracies which, while highlighting their human nature, mean that they are not able to be perfect good. For instance a paladin for whom honesty is the highest virtue who is put into a situation in which he must not tell the truth or great harm will be done has two choices: either avoid the truth or lie outright. The latter would to such a paladin seem a betrayal of principle, but so long as the lie is believable the chance that the foe will detect is much less than consumate evasion (a believable/low risk lie according to sense motive modifiers is very hard to pick up). Whereas someone who is constantly spouting things like: "I wouldn't say I know where they are... I can't help you with finding them... All I can tell you about the items is that they didn't leave them here..." is bound to arouse suspicion which increases the danger to the people who are being hunted. Goodinator (detect-smite-call it a day), Chargadin (Find place of great evil, Charge, Die gloriously), and Dumbadin (Find place of great evil, knock on door annoucing your intention to attack so as to give the enemies a chance to prepare, wait 12 hours, come back, charge, and die stupidly in a pit trap that the enemies dug while you were away) are all easy to play, but they aren't paladins. A paladin is devoted to the protection of others against forces that they could not possibly defend themselves against, but must not become a hindrance to the people he protects. A paladin is dedicated to the destruction of evil beings, but must not become so obsessed with the destruction of evil that he ceases being able to tell right from wrong. A paladin must be compassionate and caring without emphathizing too much with one's foes (refusing to attack when necessary). A paladin must be honorable, noble, and forthright so long as doing so does not bring harm to others. A paladin must respect the laws of rightful rulers, so long as those laws do not prevent a paladin from doing his duty (which first and foremost is to the innocent). A paladin must be willing to use force, and even kill, when necessary, but must not grow to love harming for harming's sake. All this culminates in one dizzyingly difficult class to roleplay; one that takes great preparation, fortitude, and forethought to play properly. ArcTan: Its really easy to be an armchair quarterback of a historian. History has proven time and again that people become complacent, ceasing to cherish the value of their freedoms. Only those who are forced to choose between their comfort and their freedom understand how important their freedom truly is. It's really easy to sit comfortably in a major world-power and say things like: I'm against violence, diplomacy always works, or some such pacifistic nonsense. The only reason why modern states exist with the levels of freedom and comfort that they do is because of the existence of a standing army. In ancient times (like that of the Greeks which you apparently despise), it was only the existence of the Hellenic armies that allowed philosophy, medicine, science, and sport to exist as they did. You are right to suggest that one should not revel in the "glories" of war, because those who know, know that war is anything but glorious, but one should NEVER forget the value of one's defenders. And one should NEVER take for granted the freedom that 1,000 years ago virtually no nation or state on the planet could claim to have. MTF *Applauds* |
| ArcTan09-15-07, 08:53 PM | ArcTan: Its really easy to be an armchair quarterback of a historian. History has proven time and again that people become complacent, ceasing to cherish the value of their freedoms. Only those who are forced to choose between their comfort and their freedom understand how important their freedom truly is. And only those who have seen the terror and pain inflicted by violence committed by those convinced their goals were righteous, and that they were fighting in the name of "freedom", can understand how horrible violence is and how dangerously, terribly seductive it can be. We don't *need* a movie to remind us how AWESOME killing our enemies is. It's already built into us. Despite what Frank Miller seems to think, the average American man is *already* rip-roaring-raring-to-go if you whisper to him promises of glory in battle and the joy of killing. People in our country *like* war. They *like* seeing movies about war. They *like* seeing videos of American missiles smashing into buildings. It's absolutely ridiculous that you're saying people like Frank Miller are somehow the ones who have their finger on the beating pulse of history and those of us who think that war is usually a bad idea are the "armchair historians". For cripes' sake, the *majority* of idiots like Frank Miller who write stories about the glory and pride of war are people who've never set foot on a battlefield in their entire damn lives. Yeah, sure, I admit it, I'm a civilian. I've never fought in a war. I've lived my whole life in a military superpower. Sure. I try to make myself widely-read and educated, though, and the more firsthand accounts I read from people who did *not* have the fortune to live in a superpower, who did *not* get to live their whole lives thinking of war as something that happens on TV, the more horrifying I find it. Most of the people who have survived places where war was a reality of life rather than something that happens on TV don't talk about the choice between "comfort" and "freedom". They talk about the choice between being able to go to work and have a family without fear, and being shot down randomly in the street by warring factions. It's really easy to sit comfortably in a major world-power and say things like: I'm against violence, diplomacy always works, or some such pacifistic nonsense. The only reason why modern states exist with the levels of freedom and comfort that they do is because of the existence of a standing army. That's kind of a bizarre statement to make. The only reason modern states need standing armies is because of other people's standing armies. If no one had armies, no one would need armies. This is tautological. I'm not advocating a utopian "contract to end war" or some such nonsense. I don't trust my fellow man enough for that. But it's *stupid* to say that soldiers are in some way the cause of civilization. Soldiers, at their best, are a defense against *other soldiers*. At their worst, they become a parasitic force on their own that depletes the resources of civilization and prevents civilization from ever doing anything but churning out soldiers. This is the kind of civilization Sparta was. (Did you remember the scene in the movie where the Spartans brag about not having any profession but "soldier"? Doesn't this *bother* you? Do you realize that this means the only thing actually keeping Sparta alive -- you know, the people making the weapons and armor, tilling the fields, weaving clothes, making buildings -- was *slaves*?) Sure, America's soldiers saved America during World War II. *From Germany's soldiers*. By contrast, Germany's soldiers were the reason the whole rest of Europe was almost enslaved. Japan's soldiers were the reason the city of Nanking was ravaged and pillaged. And yes, it was the fault of the *Japanese soldiers* first, and only secondarily the fault of the Chinese soldiers for failing to protect the city. The single most dangerous, creepy element of this kind of celebratory war movie is that it treats the enemy as a kind of force of nature, an amoral force that we don't judge -- so 300, for example, is a movie about Why It's Bad to Capitulate to Invaders, not Why It's Bad to Invade Countries. (If 300 *had* been a movie about Why It's Bad to Invade Countries, the right-wingers wouldn't have taken it with nearly the same good spirits.) The real bad guys in the movie are Theron and Ephialtes. Xerxes is barely a character, barely human -- infuriatingly, the movie has Leonidas mock Xerxes' rhetoric about being a "god-king", but really does portray Xerxes more like a god -- or a devil -- than a man. In ancient times (like that of the Greeks which you apparently despise), it was only the existence of the Hellenic armies that allowed philosophy, medicine, science, and sport to exist as they did. ...So, what, the Persian Empire had no philosophy, medicine, science or sport? You need to go back and re-read your history. Preferably an actual history of the Achaemenid Dynasty that talks about what the Persians did when they weren't inventing Greece. In many ways Persia had a great deal more social mobility -- and certainly economic opportunity -- than Greece. I'm not saying our history would necessarily be better if the Persians had won the Greco-Persian War. But to draw a black-and-white line and say that any side in any war was the obviously "evil" side, and that that side winning would've spelled total disaster for history, is blindness. There are very few times in history when you can call that true. By the way, the thing about Sparta itself is that Sparta *did* have very little philosophy, science, medicine or sport to contribute, because it was a society built on the backs of slaves to support a military dictatorship that could do nothing but fight wars. Saying Sparta was the side of "freedom" is more than a little stupid. (EDIT: Okay, they did have sports. That's mainly because they thought of athletic competition as practice for war, and therefore the highest way for a man to occupy his time.) Yes, the fact that Sparta was on the side of Athens allowed Athenian democracy to survive, sure. Until a hungry Spartan war machine turned against the Delian League and tried to *destroy* Athens, sparking the Peloponnesian Wars and marking the beginning of the end of Athens' golden age. That's the funny thing about war machines. They have a tendency to do that. You are right to suggest that one should not revel in the "glories" of war, because those who know, know that war is anything but glorious, but one should NEVER forget the value of one's defenders. And one should NEVER take for granted the freedom that 1,000 years ago virtually no nation or state on the planet could claim to have. And 300 doesn't really celebrate those values. 300 presents to us a nation that's basically "free" in name only -- Sparta is a country where no man has any choice but to be a soldier, where those who are unfit to serve are abandoned to die, where they *celebrate* the fact that they have no population of artisans, or scholars, or artists, only soldiers. It's (no exaggeration) the dream Hitler had for Nazi Germany. It bears no resemblance to the Yankee frontier of Ben Franklin, where a man who has trouble with his neighbor could simply pull up stakes and move out West, and where petty things like war were only to be tolerated because they helped protect the liberty to publish newspapers, to invent cunning machines, to drink and eat and enjoy life -- all things the Spartans of the movie would deride as "softness". It's a movie that's *disguised* as a movie celebrating the values of freedom while all the time attacking them. It's a movie that says that fighting is good *for its own sake*, not to "defend" anything else in particular. What's the Spartan way of life they're fighting for? They're fighting for abandoning infants on the hillside, for forcing adolescents through the agoge, for "SPARTANS! What is your profession?" "AOO! AOO! AOO!" There's not much "freedom" anywhere in that, other than "We're free to be ruled by our own king and not this nasty dark-skinned foreign king". It's, in short, everything I hate about the "warrior spirit". Good soldiers are soldiers who understand what George Washington meant when he called his order the Order of Cincinnatus -- that the good soldier is one who only fights when *needed*, and who is instantly ready to abandon the sword for a life of peace on the soil. The Spartans are the opposite of that -- they have combined the sword of war and the scepter of rulership into one weapon and they wield it *all the time* and they're *awesome* and they *kill people* and they don't have to do regular jobs, just fight FIGHT FIGHT. I really hope that most people who watched the movie did appreciate it purely in a shallow, visceral, temporary way. Because if they didn't, I fear for our society. |
| ArcTan09-15-07, 09:00 PM | Interesting point, and I think it is no accident that the film avoids things like the Helots and slave-labour which made Sparta function. Both in real life and the film, the stand at Thermopylae was heroic - defending home and nation against attack from a vastly superior force with total courage. In some sense it's "heroic". I think that word's been spoiled from overuse. A man who survived for three weeks in the Arctic without supplies was also lauded as "heroic" by newspapers, even though all he was was exceptionally courageous in a goal that is, itself, the definition of morally neutral -- his own survival. Sure, the 300 fought to defend their society from foreign aggression. I can get behind that. That doesn't really excuse the fact that the society they were fighting to defend was not a good society. I mean, I may be Godwinning myself here, but the German soldiers who participated in the Battle of the Bulge did a lot of "heroic" things too. That doesn't mean that if I were magically transported there, I'd be cheering their side and not the Allies. Another example -- the underdogs in the USA-Iraq fight are, pretty obviously, the Iraqi insurgency. Does that make the guy who risks his life to sneak out onto a patrolled coalition supply route and plant IEDs there a "hero"? I think it is a way to enjoy the urge to hack apart your enemies in a context where doing so is morally acceptable. Quite frankly, I have enough of compromise in daily life - work, romance, family - all of which are mostly compromise. So I enjoy escapisms where I can forget about compromise and take part in righteous battle against a clear enemy. The mentality is thoroughly barmy, but strangely compelling - such as relishing the thought of death in battle. I understand that. I'm also wary of it. Fantasy is fantasy, but even pure fantasy can condition a person into certain habits of thought. General Sherman blamed the medieval romances of Sir Walter Scott for the foolish, costly bloodshed of the Civil War, and he had a point. As he said, war is only pure hell. At the end of it, there is no more to it than that -- it's people killing people. It's horrible. But our culture insists on continuing to try to obscure that fact and blur the issue with distortions and romanticizations. We'll keep on doing what they did in the Civil War -- the equivalent of taking picnic baskets to a hillside by the first Battle of Bull Run to cheer our team -- until something (God forbid) happens to remind *us*, personally, that war is hell, like Sherman's March to the Sea. I would rather we keep in mind the hellishness of war and factor it into our decision-making *before* things get to that point. Why I enjoy playing paladins, for example, is to fight evil with the complete certainty that the world is being made a better place, instead of being expected to sympathise with thugs or thieves or backstabbers. I find myself more interested in asking whether it's possible that someone *could* make me sympathize with a common criminal, rather than the relatively simple task of appealing to emotions I already know I have and beliefs I already know I have irrationally ingrained into me. |
| sooperspook09-16-07, 02:31 AM | ArcTan, get down of your high horse. 300 was a great escape from reality. A movie. Some entertainment. I don't "need" people like you to remind me how horrible war is. |
| Disciple_of_Salsa09-16-07, 03:12 AM | Simply being LG doesn't make you Paladin worthy. Being a paladin is being extremly LG. Enforced, constant, LG. All these other LG people are just LG, not paladins. |
| Stormbrand09-16-07, 07:03 AM | In some sense it's "heroic". I think that word's been spoiled from overuse. A man who survived for three weeks in the Arctic without supplies was also lauded as "heroic" by newspapers, even though all he was was exceptionally courageous in a goal that is, itself, the definition of morally neutral -- his own survival. Sure, the 300 fought to defend their society from foreign aggression. I can get behind that. That doesn't really excuse the fact that the society they were fighting to defend was not a good society. I fully agree. My understanding of the film is that it celebrates that act of defence and self-sacrifice, rather than the society itself. Or at least what I enjoy about the film is. I am far less sympathetic to the graphic novel. I find myself more interested in asking whether it's possible that someone *could* make me sympathize with a common criminal, rather than the relatively simple task of appealing to emotions I already know I have and beliefs I already know I have irrationally ingrained into me. My personal gripe with modern society really - laws seem to favour the criminals rather than the victims. There are things such as burglar's rights (people can be sued by burglars who get hurt breaking into someone's home) and 'reasonable force' in self-defence. Obviously this is a tangent best not explored in detail, but it is what I want to escape both through D&D and 300. |
| Leo09-16-07, 07:22 AM | They were part of Xerxes army, sent on a mission to intimidate and subjugate the Greeks. While it wasn't polite, they were soldiers in an army that effectively declared war on Sparta and demanded its immediate surrender. Whether refusing to take prisoners is a good / bad thing is fairly moot. In that setting the modern concept of prisons were almost unfathomable. You couldn't waste food and guards on people who came to your country to kill and enslave your family and neighbors. The punishment for participating in such an action was a death - period. - Marty Lund Actually, Sparta whole society was based in going to other cities, kill some people and enslave the others. Honestly, in a society where children are taught nothing but to kill each other from an earlier age who the hell does the farming/clothing/building? The movie makes the spartans look like a really good guys, but notice this: -They don't give a damn about basic diplomacy, yet they follow the oracle religiously. Leonidas has no trouble killing messengers from a mighty nation, but will obey perv old corrupt hermits even if it means dying. WTF? -The spartan society in the film is completely unsestentable. If everybody is being trained to war and there are no slaves who the hell does the heavy work? -Even so, why not the hell stick a spear over Xerxe's butt when he comes to talk directly to Leonidas? A perfect oportunity, a 1 to 1 combat, as honorable as it gets, and the Persian army would quickly root and destroy itself whitout his main leader. But noooo, Leonidas waits untill the last moment, ends up not killing xerxes, and loses all his mens. -Finnally, it's a society of freedom where parents send their young in suicide missions when there is plenty of hardened veterans ready to die for the king. Yeah, really LG. |
| Shinigami4209-16-07, 06:36 PM | I have always seen Leo as Chaotic Good Chaotic: Although he does bend to tradition enough to at least VISIT the oracle, he recognizes that they are either a)corrupt or b)too daft to know what to do. He then defies the representatives and goes forth for battle. This shows that he has no real respect for law or tradition, preferring to do what must be done. Good: Everything he did was to protect his people from slavery and death. Every decision was made with the intent of stopping Xerxes. From what I remember, the messanger had been warned before his message that he would be held accountable. After hearing this, the messanger was still arrogant and insulting. He didn't actually insult the king with his word, but rather with his demeanor. The executing of the messanger was not an actual evil act because of this. The act of executing the messanger became a declaration of war, so naturally all enemy soldiers on Spartan ground were killed too. From this reasoning, Leo was Chaotic Good, with some neutral tendancies on the Law-Chaos axis. |
| calronmoonflower09-16-07, 07:54 PM | It is a bit off topic but I feel the urge to speak up. That's kind of a bizarre statement to make. The only reason modern states need standing armies is because of other people's standing armies. If no one had armies, no one would need armies. Not quite. Other armies are the biggest reason for armies to exist especially in the modern age, but other things do threaten countries. Internal forces that are too big for the police to handle are another reason for armies. Many small groups that fight among themselves and against the state are a huge problem in some areas even in modern times. Armies in these areas are needed to stop the death and destruction that they cause. This is tautological. Not really. I'm not saying that you don't have a point, but a tautological is wholly true from every variation or it is not really a tautological. I'm not advocating a utopian "contract to end war" or some such nonsense. I don't trust my fellow man enough for that. Me neither. Peace through strength is a common concept, but it is based on the willingness to use that strength at some point. With no standing armies smaller groups are more free to try to impose their will on the community at large. |
| The_Shaman09-16-07, 08:19 PM | I'd put him around LN or TN myself. Normally, he'd be LN: by and large he adheres to the laws of his community (note that a Lawful character needn't adhere to all laws, just those he considers legitimate) and is willing to make sacrifices to protect them. ON the good-evil axis, he is mostly neutral. However, defying a legitimate social institution is in itself a chaotic act. Whether that is enough to warrant a shift towards TN is another topic (probably no). I tend to think that it's the lawful people tend to take concepts such as honor, country etc so seriously. Chaotics care about people more than about institutions, so I don't think he'd be chaotic: he lives and dies for Sparta. But back to the OP: he is not a paladin, not by a long shot. Besides, one can be of LG alignment, act in all ways like a paladin and not be one. |
| ManTimeForgot09-16-07, 11:50 PM | Arctan: I don't recall ever saying I thought Frank Miller was doing anybody a favor, or that I thought that 300 was great because it was a war movie? I don't think people need to go out and watch war movies, or support people who make them. What I do take issue with is your attitude with regards to the whole thing. You are acting like you are so much better than everyone else for "scorning these obvious signs of modern/american decadence." Well news flash: I am college educated, I have a degree in sociology, and have taken multiple courses in world history and pre-history. This included studying the hellenistic dynasties and Persia under Xerxes. So I have a good idea just what Persia was capable of producing. I know about Zoroaster, the Persian Heresy regarding Lucifer, and the real story behind how Thermopylae went down. So I would appreciate it if you could try and keep the intellectual d&*k waving to a minimum. Persia enslaved millions, and was widely known for its efforts to convert its "citizens" by incorporating their deities into their religious pantheon. Sure, Persia had quite a bit of "civilization" going for it, but the only reason why it could have that is because of its army. Saying that nations have standing armies because of other nations' standing armies is wrong. Nations have required a military long before the advent of standing armies. I won't pretend that what Frank Miller does in any way supports a country, its soldiers, or freedom (by reminding us of the cost of complacence). But anyone who tries to downplay the importance of soldiers, the struggle for freedom, or denies the importance of their own country really gets on my nerves. Note: Those countries which have problems greater than a lack of freedom (loss of life), don't have a military force capable of dealing with the situation. But this is wayyyy off topic now. Let's get back to paladins please; no more Frank Miller since he has nothing to do with paladins. Anyone who wants to discuss the relative ease or difficulty in playing a paladin should feel free to pipe up. I've already said my piece in this regard. MTF |
| Rogue Shadows09-17-07, 12:22 PM | Leonidas? Chaotic Neutral if I ever saw one. He had some good tendencies, some evil tendencies. He ignored laws that didn't suit him; those that he did follow, he followed because it happened to be what he would do anyway. Chaotic people don't have to rail against the barricades of order, they just have to ignore it if it doesn't appeal to them. Xerxes? Neutral Evil. Evil definitely, if for no other reason than his voice. (Kree jaffa!). When a DM puts on a voice like Apophis or Sokhar, you know it's a baddie. Xerxes' defining ethical trait was that he was greedy, and I usually equate greed with neutrality for some reason. Frank Miller? Fraked if I know. Me? Well, depending on the test, I'm either Chaotic Good, Neutral Good, True Neutral, or Chaotic Evil. Pick your poison. I'm leaning towards Chaotic Good myself. |
| Jaxgaret09-17-07, 01:01 PM | Am I really that off-base in finding this movie's rather rabid fanbase to be just plain *creepy*? The movie makes no secret of the fact that its Spartans are monarchists, eugenecists, xenophobes, etc. and people are still defending them as paragons of "Lawful Good"? It's the abs, man. And the pecs. 300 fans just can't get enough. |
| Khayar09-17-07, 01:47 PM | This is just a thread to express how being a Paladin can be fun, never mind the alignment restrictions. Let's look at King Leonidas (not historically, but the version presented in 300). By process of elimination, let's look at what alignment he'd have. Well, he's not evil. Furthermore, he led his most trusted men into battle to defend Greece, even dying to do so. Leonidas opposed a tyrant, nay, the very idea of tyranny. Thus, not evil. A Neutral (along the good-evil axis) person would go with whatever's convenient at the time. So I think we can agree that Leonidas was good (Obvious, right?). So, where are we ethically? I mean, he was defending freedom, and the last stand was to show that 300 free Spartans died for glory. Wouldn't that make him chaotic? Yeah, but he was also defending Athenian logic, a concept based on an ordered mind. Furthermore, the guy was a king. There are very few anarchists that become kings. So Leonidas is lawful. What does all that mean? It means that a Lawful Good person can indeed kick someone down a well for no other reason than that he suggested the LG dude was mad. A Paladin can break his country's laws when said laws say "Don't go out and fight today." It showcases the fact that respecting legitimate authority doesn't necessarily mean obeying that authority. The next time you want to give Paladins a hard time, just remember: King Leonidas could've been one (he'd be more like a Crusader {read the first paragraph of the Immortal Fortitude stance and tell me otherwise}, but you get the idea). Just something that occured to me. Thank you. Now you have removed my wish to play a Paladin again, and I shal lremove Paladins as a playable class in DnD from now on :P Leonidas was about as Lawful Good as Bucky the Cat from Get Fuzzy. |