| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| Yvain04-27-08, 01:29 AM | I have also posted this question in the general D&D "Deities and the Planes" forum, as I wasn“t sure where to post it. It“s my first time posting in the D&D forums. I think it should probably go here, though. My DM tells me that Hoar, god of revenge and poetic justice in the Forgotten Realms setting is, in fact, turning evil, that his dogma has been revised and that it no longer charges his clerics and paladins with upholding justice and maintaining the spirit of the law, but now only concerns itself with the letter of the law and seeking vengeance at all costs, and no longer cares for justice. He says he has this from official sources, but try as I might I cannot seem to find any sources where this new dogma of Hoar is mentioned. If true, this would badly affect the character I am playing in his campaign, who is a paladin of Hoar. I have expressed my decision to never abandon Hoar, even if he would abandon me and turn evil, and although it might be interesting to role play the paladin of a fallen deity who refuses to give up on his god, it would also mean I“d lose all my benefits as a paladin (essentially becoming a Lawful Good fallen paladin, which would be a very rare thing). Still, I“d like confirmation on this new dogma of Hoar, and since I can“t find it, or any mention of it, I thought I“d ask if anyone here could point me to an official source stating this change in my in-game deity. Of course, if this is the way he has decided to make Hoar in his campaign, then there“s precious little I can do about it, whether it“s backed by official sources or not. Thanks in advance for your help. |
| BadCatMan04-27-08, 02:36 AM | I'm a bit of a fan of Hoar, and I've not heard anything about a change in his faith; he's been rather static for most of FR's publishing history. But there was always mention of Tyr and Shar trying to influence him in opposite directions, and the god and his faith always walked the narrow line. If so, that's a pretty major change, as the Hoar's dogma always explicitly mentioned upholding the spirit of the law, not it's letter. Perhaps there was something in a novel? If not, then I suppose it's something your DM has either imagined or is concocting for his campaign. Either it will be a great RPing hook and quest for you, or something to screw you over with (call me cynical). |
| Yvain04-27-08, 02:53 AM | That would indeed be a great story hook for me, but (and I suppose you could also call me cynical), I have the awful suspicion that he does, in fact, mean to screw me over. |
| Zanan04-27-08, 04:53 AM | Even if the DM is saying that "his/her Hoar" is going evil, that would be LE, most likely, you need not exactly turn evil too. Furthermore, it is not common knowledge what the deities do or decide to do. It's not like "CNN FR" will report about it, not even clerics of other faiths will know, or other deities, for that matter. As has been said, unless the 4E FRCS and deity related books tell otherwise, nothing in recent books suggests that Hoar has made a decision or is even close to making a decision, if he wants to decide at all! Maybe, just maybe, a few of the former followers of Kiaransalee may take him up (being a former ally of their deity) as patron. That would be the revenge-bound-ilk of them and could turn him a little more to the dark side. |
| Stigger04-27-08, 10:46 AM | Can't think of anywhere that's been decided one way or another either... never seen anything to that effect. Only thing I can think of is a novel, like badcat said. |
| MarkusTay6304-27-08, 11:58 AM | Try asking over at CK (http://forum.candlekeep.com/default.asp), in the "Sages of Realmslore" section - those guys are WAY-knowledgable about lore changes. ;) I do expect some sort of change in him, but only becasue 'his people' have been 'done away with' in 4e. He was originally a part of the Untheric Pantheon, and with Unther gone, I believe that leaves only him and Tiamet from the original gods, so he might go on some sort of 'Vindication Rampage' or some-such (and perhaps be killed off) - but thats all guess-work on my part. Personally, I always referred to him as "Dirty, Filthy Hoar" IMG, but thats just my dimentia kicking in. :P It's not like "CNN FR" will report about it, not even clerics of other faiths will know, or other deities, for that matter.I thought it was CBN FR - "Crystal Ball Network". :dancin: |
| Lord Karsus04-27-08, 12:08 PM | -Officially, no, Hoar is still walking that fine line. Deities who represent justice and goodness are attempting to influence him towards the 'Good' end of the spectrum, while deities that represent evil and such are attempting to influence him towards the 'Evil' end of the spectrum. -But, in the end, as you said, if that's what your DM says in his Forgotten Realms, that's how it is. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin04-27-08, 08:56 PM | I try to keep abreast of any new Realms information, and I have never heard of what this DM is saying (that Hoar is "turning evil"). |
| MerrikCale04-27-08, 10:43 PM | I can only assume its a campaign-specific plot hook |
| Lord Karsus04-28-08, 12:14 AM | I can only assume its a campaign-specific plot hook -One that has much promise, I am sure. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin04-28-08, 12:18 PM | -One that has much promise, I am sure. Very true. |
| MerrikCale04-28-08, 07:44 PM | Course, at first glance I thought this thread was about Governor Spitzer |
| Lord Karsus04-28-08, 10:06 PM | Course, at first glance I thought this thread was about Governor Spitzer :rimshot: -That might have been Hoar's work. After all, the former governor did put in place some of the financial tracking techniques while he was the AG that were used to discover his misdeeds. That would definitley appeal to Hoar. Poetic justice. |
| Bonzai04-29-08, 10:30 AM | Of course with Tyr possibly leaving, that leaves just Shar. It could be that his friend was drawing his own conclusions from that... |
| Draco Spirit05-03-08, 06:07 AM | I always liked the fact Hoarans run the gambit from LG to LE.. and they all fit :D Great for conflicts, consider if you got a LN priest and a LG paladin in the party, now throw a LE npc at them and watch there reactions! |
| SmartPaladin05-04-08, 03:31 AM | I always liked the fact Hoarans run the gambit from LG to LE.. and they all fit :D Great for conflicts, consider if you got a LN priest and a LG paladin in the party, now throw a LE npc at them and watch there reactions! Yes, but if they are all of the same faith? I.E. Hoarites. Would the Paladin of Hoar beat the crap out of the, say, Evil Assassin of Hoar? The Assassin focuses on Vengeance, the Paladin on Poetic Justice/Retribution. I think that could be interesting... If in helping said Evil Assassin, would the Paladin fall? Even though they are both of the same faith? I toyed around with the idea that being of the same faith would relax that part of the Paladin code. So long as the Paladin doesn't willingly do something evil. :thinks: Of course with Tyr possibly leaving, that leaves just Shar. It could be that his friend was drawing his own conclusions from that... There's still Torm... I'm not so sure Torm would wish to see one such as Hoar fall. It might be interesting if Torm added Hoar and some other Lawful non-evil deity and reform the Triad. Hand Hoar the Justice domain... 'cause, ya know, unlike Tyr, Hoar has a sense of humor. I mean... "Poetic Justice"? :dancin: Ya know some of you were just waiting for the SmartPaladin of Hoar to show up. :P |
| Suin Bahhar05-04-08, 10:01 AM | *jumps out of the shadows he's been lurking in* Yeah. I'm back a bit. If Hoar no longer has Tyr to sweet talk him towards the more Poetic Justice side of his dogma and Shar rises in power before and a while after the spellplague Hoar might be tempted to turn evil. Perhaps his planned act of vengeance on Anhur (who stole Rammans portfolios right from under Hoar) is his primary step towards evil. Under influence of Shar he might go as far as blaming the whole Mulhorandi pantheon and slip into evil combatting them from the face of Fearun. Another way for Hoar to fall from grace is if its clergy gets too much influance or power in a region where the eye for an eye laws backfire and create a civil war that spins out of control to the neighbouring regions. If for example the clergy gets power in Unther and Mulhorand and is slighted the tenaciousness of its vengeacestrikes could perpetually continue a war of strife in that area. As to a paladin upholding the old dogma of a changed god perhaps a modified servant of the fallen (/changed) feat allows him to still recieve spells. But my guess is Hoar would sever the ties to his paladins at the slightest gripe so an evil Hoar would eradicate his paladins one by one in a fitting manner (from humiliation to retribution). Blackguards of Hoar unite and join the hunt! |
| Zanan05-04-08, 02:23 PM | Of course with Tyr possibly leaving, that leaves just Shar. It could be that his friend was drawing his own conclusions from that... You mean, once she's getting tired of searching all the lost strands of the shadow weave, she might turn to him for some solace? Or asking him to find the guilty part? Now wait, I'd assume that Hoar might be looking for her rather than vice versa, since she made it all happen! Here comes your poetic justice! |
| SmartPaladin05-04-08, 08:02 PM | You mean, once she's getting tired of searching all the lost strands of the shadow weave, she might turn to him for some solace? Or asking him to find the guilty part? Now wait, I'd assume that Hoar might be looking for her rather than vice versa, since she made it all happen! Here comes your poetic justice! If I was Shar, I'd want to stay away from Hoar if he learns that she was partly to blame for the Spellplague. Because there will be alot of Deities that would be most put out with her, and offer to lead Hoar power to seek Justice/Vengeance/Retribution for her crime. I mean, at least Kelemvor would back Hoar. And as far as backings go, that'd be pretty strong. And thus Hoar/Assuran: The Divine Mercenary, is born. :P |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin05-04-08, 10:07 PM | Yes, but if they are all of the same faith? I.E. Hoarites. Would the Paladin of Hoar beat the crap out of the, say, Evil Assassin of Hoar? The Assassin focuses on Vengeance, the Paladin on Poetic Justice/Retribution. I think that could be interesting... If in helping said Evil Assassin, would the Paladin fall? Even though they are both of the same faith? I toyed around with the idea that being of the same faith would relax that part of the Paladin code. So long as the Paladin doesn't willingly do something evil. :thinks: People can be of the same faith and still come into conflict with each other. That's how I see it. |
| Lord Karsus05-04-08, 10:58 PM | People can be of the same faith and still come into conflict with each other. That's how I see it. -Pssh, how many times do we see examples of that, every day? |
| SmartPaladin05-05-08, 03:49 AM | People can be of the same faith and still come into conflict with each other. That's how I see it. True, but I was wondering what if the Paladin and Assassin had no real bone with eachother. What would happen to the Paladin if he willing associated with the Assassin of the fame faith? Would he fall? Even if they were both, say, best friends before the Assassin became an Assassin? -Pssh, how many times do we see examples of that, every day? Ya want a list? 'cause ya know, there's not much difference between Jewdism, and Christianity. And then there's all of the branches in Christianity that believe they are the true path. |
| Stigger05-05-08, 12:36 PM | Just say that the paladin is working on bring the assassin towards the light, so to speak, maybe towards that Slayer of Domiel (sp?) concept from the BoED... it can work as a relationship that doesn't have to be adversarial, particularly if the paladin isn't being a forceful jerk about the redemption, but taking the long view of it. |
| Lord Karsus05-05-08, 01:09 PM | Ya want a list? 'cause ya know, there's not much difference between Jewdism, and Christianity. -There's massive differences. And then there's all of the branches in Christianity that believe they are the true path. -Yeah, that's kind of what I was hinting at. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin05-05-08, 01:40 PM | It's possible to dislike someone, or even hate someone, who believes in the same religion you do. One might even go a step further and rationalize that one's adversary's religious beliefs aren't quite correct, or they lack the faith you do, etc. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin05-05-08, 01:41 PM | deleted |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin05-05-08, 01:46 PM | -Pssh, how many times do we see examples of that, every day? I did not assert that it happened often, only that it is possible. |
| Lord Karsus05-05-08, 04:03 PM | I did not assert that it happened often, only that it is possible. -It happens all of the time. As the greatest Beatle said, "Imagine there's no countries It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too Imagine all the people Living life in peace... You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the world will be as one" -A study I recall reading in one of my classes a few years ago in freshman year concluded that, regarding world and social politics, one in every six problems were directly related to religion, or had origins tied to religion. |
| Stigger05-05-08, 04:06 PM | There's quite a bit of difference between different sects of Christianity which seem cosmetic at first glance, until one looks deeper into the implications. As to the difference between Judaism and Christianity, the whole acceptance of a messiah having come and gone is a rather... substantive difference in the basic premise of the religions, and that's only the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. Same roots perhaps, but a very deep divide when one truly looks at it. So, yes, to bring that around and to avoid a religious discussion out of context, I think that points to the possibility of the Church of Hoar having different sects with radical philosophical differences despite having a common base in their origins. Nice thought LK, but to be honest, even if we did get rid of religion somehow, I'm still fairly confident we'd find yet another reason to slaughter each other. Its a great excuse to commit atrocity, but it still boils down to just being an excuse to try to kill someone and take their stuff. Which brings it yet again full circle to 4e... reaching there, but at least I got D&D in there somewhere. :D |
| Lord Karsus05-05-08, 04:08 PM | So, yes, to bring that around and to avoid a religious discussion out of context, I think that points to the possibility of the Church of Hoar having different sects with radical philosophical differences despite having a common base in their origins. -I wonder how all of this will be handled in 4e, with deities having worshippers of all stripes and colors not matching their own, from Exarchs and whatnot. |
| Stigger05-05-08, 04:12 PM | I have a feeling it will just be ignored entirely, so a DM can include it if so inclined, but not mentioned otherwise. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin05-06-08, 12:45 PM | -It happens all of the time. As the greatest Beatle said, "Imagine there's no countries It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too Imagine all the people Living life in peace... You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the world will be as one" John Lennon, again.:) But...I thought Paul McCartney was the greatest Beatle! :o I have plenty of mundane, personal examples--for example, when I was a little kid I went to CCD...a weekly class for Catholics (sort of like "Sunday School"). I definitely didn't like all the kids in that class. That we shared a religion was a moot point. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin05-06-08, 12:49 PM | So, yes, to bring that around and to avoid a religious discussion out of context, I think that points to the possibility of the Church of Hoar having different sects with radical philosophical differences despite having a common base in their origins. It is an interesting question, though--how does, say, a LG follower of a LN god rationalize the fact that their deity accepts followers of such different moral beliefs? There is quite a gulf between LG and LE, yet a LN god doesn't discriminate. |
| Lord Karsus05-06-08, 01:10 PM | John Lennon, again.:) But...I thought Paul McCartney was the greatest Beatle! :eek: :P I have plenty of mundane, personal examples--for example, when I was a little kid I went to CCD...a weekly class for Catholics (sort of like "Sunday School"). I definitely didn't like all the kids in that class. That we shared a religion was a moot point. -Oh, I agree. I wasn't originally refuting your point. I was agreeing with it. The "Pshht" wasn't a "pshht" in disagreement, it was a "pshht" as in "tell me about it". I never liked the kids in my CCD class either, when I was forced to go to those. The fact that I was an "outsider", in more than one way, made it worse. It is an interesting question, though--how does, say, a LG follower of a LN god rationalize the fact that their deity accepts followers of such different moral beliefs? There is quite a gulf between LG and LE, yet a LN god doesn't discriminate. -From the perspective of a mortal living in Faerūn, deities are still very much omnipotent and omniscient. Not to us, of course, but to a Faerūnian, sure. Perhaps they rationalize it the same way we rationalize a omnipotent and omniscient deity (whether that be G-d/Elhohim, G-d/ The Trinity, G-d/Allah, the Brahma, whatever you personally believe in) allowing evil, or bad things to happen, and so on. Perhaps they see their deity allowing evil individuals as a way to make their own good actions "shine" and matter more? Perhaps they just write it off as "not understanding the motives" of the deity? Maybe they see evildoers as those 'Ur Priest' PrCs- they 'steal' power from the deity, and aren't 'authorized'? As Stig said, though, it's likely to just be glossed over. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin05-06-08, 01:55 PM | -Oh, I agree. I wasn't originally refuting your point. I was agreeing with it. The "Pshht" wasn't a "pshht" in disagreement, it was a "pshht" as in "tell me about it". I see. Thanks.:) I never liked the kids in my CCD class either, when I was forced to go to those. The fact that I was an "outsider", in more than one way, made it worse. *laughs* You went to those too? Yeah, I can't say I have wonderfully fond memories of those classes. In fact, overall I don't think I learned that much about the Catholic religion from them, either. Oh well. -From the perspective of a mortal living in Faerūn, deities are still very much omnipotent and omniscient. Not to us, of course, but to a Faerūnian, sure. Perhaps they rationalize it the same way we rationalize a omnipotent and omniscient deity (whether that be G-d/Elhohim, G-d/ The Trinity, G-d/Allah, the Brahma, whatever you personally believe in) allowing evil, or bad things to happen, and so on. Perhaps they see their deity allowing evil individuals as a way to make their own good actions "shine" and matter more? Perhaps they just write it off as "not understanding the motives" of the deity? Maybe they see evildoers as those 'Ur Priest' PrCs- they 'steal' power from the deity, and aren't 'authorized'? As Stig said, though, it's likely to just be glossed over. I think all of those are possible, because where human interaction (and rationalization) is concerned, the possiblities are endless. |
| Lord Karsus05-06-08, 02:44 PM | *laughs* You went to those too? Yeah, I can't say I have wonderfully fond memories of those classes. In fact, overall I don't think I learned that much about the Catholic religion from them, either. Oh well. -Yup, a pretty uncool three years. I think all of those are possible, because where human interaction (and rationalization) is concerned, the possiblities are endless. -Y |
| Bonzai05-06-08, 03:10 PM | There's still Torm... I'm not so sure Torm would wish to see one such as Hoar fall. It might be interesting if Torm added Hoar and some other Lawful non-evil deity and reform the Triad. Hand Hoar the Justice domain... 'cause, ya know, unlike Tyr, Hoar has a sense of humor. I mean... "Poetic Justice"? Actually I had suggested that Hoar become the god of justice as well on Green Knights thread on Tyr leaving. Makes sense that with Tyr leaving, and him having taken Hoar under his wing so to speak, that he might pass on to him that portforlio. |
| Stigger05-06-08, 03:18 PM | It is an interesting question, though--how does, say, a LG follower of a LN god rationalize the fact that their deity accepts followers of such different moral beliefs? There is quite a gulf between LG and LE, yet a LN god doesn't discriminate. Depends on the degree of evil of the LE type, as well as the degree of good of the LG type. More moderate views that stressed the lawful societal alignment over the moral view could certainly get along. As for Hoar's worshippers, both LE and LG agree that vengeance and retribution should be visited upon whomever their ire falls upon, its simply how they choose their targets and the methods they use that differ, while their core set of values remain fairly close, with some moral coloration to their views. I see it as a difference between 'standard' LG and 'exalted' LG types, and that there doesn't have to be some inherent conflict between the two if both are reasonable about things. It could be that both of them don't regard good and evil as natural enemies, the true enemy being apathy (to whatever). There are a lot of ways to rationalize why they could work together, and even be friends on some level. |
| SmartPaladin05-07-08, 05:49 PM | Actually I had suggested that Hoar become the god of justice as well on Green Knights thread on Tyr leaving. Makes sense that with Tyr leaving, and him having taken Hoar under his wing so to speak, that he might pass on to him that portforlio. Or hand it off to Torm and tell him to finish "teaching" Hoar, before giving it to him. Both are likely. Depends on the degree of evil of the LE type, as well as the degree of good of the LG type. More moderate views that stressed the lawful societal alignment over the moral view could certainly get along. As for Hoar's worshippers, both LE and LG agree that vengeance and retribution should be visited upon whomever their ire falls upon, its simply how they choose their targets and the methods they use that differ, while their core set of values remain fairly close, with some moral coloration to their views. I see it as a difference between 'standard' LG and 'exalted' LG types, and that there doesn't have to be some inherent conflict between the two if both are reasonable about things. It could be that both of them don't regard good and evil as natural enemies, the true enemy being apathy (to whatever). There are a lot of ways to rationalize why they could work together, and even be friends on some level. I looked at it the same way. Figure the Assassin and Paladin started off as childhood friends/brothers/blood brothers, one goes off and becomes a Paladin, the other a Assassin. Both seek the same thing, are of the same faith... Wait, I think I've seen this story on Showtime... What's the show called? Brotherhood? I don't remember... |
| capnvan05-07-08, 05:58 PM | It is an interesting question, though--how does, say, a LG follower of a LN god rationalize the fact that their deity accepts followers of such different moral beliefs? There is quite a gulf between LG and LE, yet a LN god doesn't discriminate. Reason #1 why I've never allowed LN deities to have paladins. IMNSHO, one of the dumbest ideas ever conceived by the designers. Worshippers? Alright, sure. Paladins? Terrible, terrible idea. |
| SmartPaladin05-07-08, 10:05 PM | Reason #1 why I've never allowed LN deities to have paladins. IMNSHO, one of the dumbest ideas ever conceived by the designers. Worshippers? Alright, sure. Paladins? Terrible, terrible idea. But it's so much fun from a RP stand point! Besides, you weed out the Dumb Paladin's, from the Smart Paladin's. Dumb Paladin's: SMITE EVIL! *wack* Smart Paladin's: I don't like you, I will never like you. I can barely stand you. However, so long as you continue to follow our deity's teachings, and remain true to his/her path. Then... I shall be your ally. Though the first moment you draw steel on me shall be your last. "Smart Paladin's", or maybe "Jaded Paladin's" are the Gray Guards. No, not the class, but the idea and realization that the world is not as clean cut, black and white, as you would wish, hope, and remember it being. Hmm... Maybe I should have been "Jaded Paladin". Because once you see the world as the mess it really is, the light kinda dies... And you wonder how we're all still alive. But then a child normally goes running by laughing and giggling, and your reminded why you get up out of bed everyday, pull on your armor, and go out to face the world... :eek::lightbulb:plotting: *runs off to write that down, and maybe start that Paladin story* Do I take some of D&D a bit to seriously? Probably... But reality is what you make of it. :P |
| Stigger05-08-08, 01:34 AM | Sounds good to me... and I'd definitely agree about the Gray Guards. Sounds more like my take on the class, rather than the seemingly more common Dudley DoRight version of them. |
| SmartPaladin05-08-08, 03:07 AM | Sounds good to me... and I'd definitely agree about the Gray Guards. Sounds more like my take on the class, rather than the seemingly more common Dudley DoRight version of them. The "Dudley DoRight" is an important of Paladinhood. That's the innocents of every Paladin who first starts off, though I found Dudley in the live action movie to be more kickass then the cartoon Dudley was. Probably because he was "Dangerous". :P |
| Stigger05-08-08, 04:29 AM | I was actually referring to the cartoon... the movie, despite having a very cool Dudley, had Sarah Jessica Parker, and I can't stand her, so I can't say its something I actually would refer to. The cartoon version however epitomized the lawful stupid that I can't stand about most portrayals of paladinhood. Not really sure if I can actually think of anyone who would scream paladin to me out of movies or literature... Captain America, were he still around, might fit the bill nicely for me though. |
| Lord Karsus05-08-08, 12:08 PM | -Yeah, Cap would be a very good modern-day equivalent of a Paladin. Perhaps the Punisher would be a modern-day equivalent of an 'evil' Paladin. |
| Stigger05-08-08, 01:17 PM | Is he evil these days? Last I read him was back in the early 90's... back in those days I'd have called him NG with lawful tendencies personally. |
| Lord Karsus05-08-08, 02:08 PM | Is he evil these days? Last I read him was back in the early 90's... back in those days I'd have called him NG with lawful tendencies personally. -Since Marvel 'liberated' itself from the CCA (Comic Code Authority), many of their books have had darker themes, or more gore/language/sexuality/whatever. The Punisher is certainly one of those books that has had a increase in gore/language/subject matter. I'd peg him as CN, since he follows his own code of law and ethics, and with both good and evil tendencies, if that's possible. Captain America dispised the Punisher, though, when they met in Civil War. |
| Stigger05-08-08, 03:28 PM | He wasn't that fond of him before that from what I remember... though really a decent case could be made for him in a lot of different alignments. CN is probably the safest though upon reflection... surprisingly complex character for an archtype really. |
| SmartPaladin05-08-08, 06:01 PM | He wasn't that fond of him before that from what I remember... though really a decent case could be made for him in a lot of different alignments. CN is probably the safest though upon reflection... surprisingly complex character for an archtype really. I was never really a fan of the Punisher, I loved the movie, but I never cared for the character. Though thinking of Super Heroes with 3.x alignments got be wondering... Would Ghost Rider be Lawful Neutral? He has his own little code of do's and don'ts, and he's not as insane as the Punisher is... But if there was a Marvel "hero" that made the Punisher look sane, it would be Moon Knight. That guy has issues. I just pictured Ghost Rider as a Paladin... He riders around, Smites the wicked, protects the innocent, or well... tries to. But then, you find yourself going "Which Ghost Rider?" 'cause there's like, three spirits of vengeance... There's Zarathos, Johnny Blaze's and Dan Ketch's ancestor Noble Kale, and some other spirit I think they still haven't named... |
| Lord Karsus05-08-08, 06:54 PM | -I don't know very too about Ghost Rider, but he sounds like he's fit the Lawful Neutral with Good bill decently enough. |
| Stigger05-09-08, 01:49 AM | The Dolph Lundgren movie was much better than the latest one... which is sad considering it was probably done with 1/10th the budget... and was pretty crappy in most respects for anything but a B movie, which thankfully, it was. |
| SmartPaladin05-09-08, 02:23 AM | The Dolph Lundgren movie was much better than the latest one... which is sad considering it was probably done with 1/10th the budget... and was pretty crappy in most respects for anything but a B movie, which thankfully, it was. I liked the latest Punisher movie, I also liked the Dolph Lundgren Punisher movie. Hells, I even liked the last Hulk movie, and look forward to the new one as well. Although if I recall, they plan to make a remake of the latest Punisher movie... |
| capnvan05-09-08, 11:13 AM | I liked the latest Punisher movie, I also liked the Dolph Lundgren Punisher movie. Hells, I even liked the last Hulk movie, and look forward to the new one as well. Although if I recall, they plan to make a remake of the latest Punisher movie... Quoted as an example of the poster's taste and judgment. :P I mean, honestly, Dolph? His best role was in Rocky IV, specifically because they only let him speak once. But it's so much fun from a RP stand point! Besides, you weed out the Dumb Paladin's, from the Smart Paladin's. Dumb Paladin's: SMITE EVIL! *wack* That's not dumb! That's what paladins are supposed to do! Seek out and smite evil - that's pretty much the job description! Smart Paladin's: I don't like you, I will never like you. I can barely stand you. However, so long as you continue to follow our deity's teachings, and remain true to his/her path. Then... I shall be your ally. Though the first moment you draw steel on me shall be your last. No, no, no, and NO again! (As always, it's your game, do as you like, but... well, I'm right and you're wrong :ayyyy!: ) Paladins are never to associate with evil beings. In 1E, a paladin was never allowed to knowingly be in a party with an evil being. And the only reason to be in a party with anyone of a neutral alignment was if the party was specifically advancing a LG cause. In 2E, the PHB states, "even thieves can be tolerated, provided they are not evil" (emphasis added). Cooperating, in any knowing way, with an evil character was grounds for losing paladinhood. And the 3.5E PHB makes it clear: "A paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code." I'm sorry, but a LE PC or NPC will consistently offend the moral code of a LG person. A paladin can not continue to serve a church in which those of evil alignment are willingly accepted. "Smart Paladin's", or maybe "Jaded Paladin's" are the Gray Guards. No, not the class, but the idea and realization that the world is not as clean cut, black and white, as you would wish, hope, and remember it being. There is a vast difference between "allying" (as you put it), or cooperating, or collaborating, as I might put it, and accepting that evil's existence can not be destroyed today. In other words, a paladin doesn't have to walk down the street, and when the ole' Pally Sense goes off, immediately slaughter the evil being. For the same reason that Elminster isn't involved in everything going on in Shadowdale - he's got better frickin' things to do! However, he might well note the existence of said being for himself for later, or simply pass that information on to his superiors at the local temple, etc. Being a good paladin doesn't mean that you're not familiar with the world. It does mean that you live by a different moral code than the rest of the world. In all of my campaigns, there are a lot more LG fighters than there are paladins. The former are part of a profession, essentially. The latter are literally called, by their gods, to take up a holy calling. They're few and far between. And they don't worship the same gods that evil characters do! |
| BadCatMan05-09-08, 11:26 AM | Fortunately for the Paladins of Hoar, Hoar's faith is by no means a unified church. Most priests et al are itinerant wanderers, free-lancers, and vigilantes. There are relatively few temples, and a whole lot of conflicting, bickering, backstabbing factions, groups and philosophies. They'd attack each other as often as not. The most organised Hoar's clergy gets is in Chessenta, where they're pretty firmly LN/LE, and operate as the justice system (retributive, with gladiatorial contests). |
| SmartPaladin05-09-08, 08:20 PM | Quoted as an example of the poster's taste and judgment. :P I mean, honestly, Dolph? His best role was in Rocky IV, specifically because they only let him speak once. I have yet to find a comicbook movie I was unable to turn my brain off for, although Nick Fury: Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. came close... That's not dumb! That's what paladins are supposed to do! Seek out and smite evil - that's pretty much the job description! Odd, I would have thought "Smite First, ask questions later" would have been a quick way for the Paladin to be killed, if not by the enemy, then by the party. Better to wait, figure out what in the Hells is going on, and see if you can stand being in the same room with said evil doer, so long as both of your goals match up. You don't have to like it, but if it means everyone in your party gets to walkout of where ever you are, alive, then you can deal. No, no, no, and NO again! (As always, it's your game, do as you like, but... well, I'm right and you're wrong :ayyyy!: ) I'm wrong? There's a shocker... More often then not, I'm always right. And you have no idea how much that annoys me. Paladins are never to associate with evil beings. In 1E, a paladin was never allowed to knowingly be in a party with an evil being. And the only reason to be in a party with anyone of a neutral alignment was if the party was specifically advancing a LG cause. In 2E, the PHB states, "even thieves can be tolerated, provided they are not evil" (emphasis added). Cooperating, in any knowing way, with an evil character was grounds for losing paladinhood. I'll give you this one. I have nothing to combat it. And the 3.5E PHB makes it clear: "A paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code." I'm sorry, but a LE PC or NPC will consistently offend the moral code of a LG person. A paladin can not continue to serve a church in which those of evil alignment are willingly accepted. That's funny. No, really. It's funny. Let's see here... *pulls out Faiths & Pantheons* Here's a list of Deities who, if I recall, have Paladin orders, and who also have Evil Clerics. Azuth: Does. Helm: Does. Kelemvor: Does. Jergal: Does/did. Red Knight: Does. Savras: I think he does... Siamorphe: Pretty sure she does... Ulutiu: Unlikely, but stranger things have happened. If you, a Paladin of say... Helm, need to guard someone, and it seems wise to have a fellow member of your faith on hand to help you guard, whoever, and the only one handy is a LE member of your faith? Would you run the risk of failing your task, or would you grab said LE PC/NPC, and make it very clear to them that the only reason your taking their help is because you need another sword/set of eye to keep X safe from harm. You don't have to like it, but I'd think if a Paladin was going to trust any Evil person, it would be someone of their own faith. And Duty if far more important to a Follower of Helm then anything. There is a vast difference between "allying" (as you put it), or cooperating, or collaborating, as I might put it, and accepting that evil's existence can not be destroyed today. In other words, a paladin doesn't have to walk down the street, and when the ole' Pally Sense goes off, immediately slaughter the evil being. For the same reason that Elminster isn't involved in everything going on in Shadowdale - he's got better frickin' things to do! However, he might well note the existence of said being for himself for later, or simply pass that information on to his superiors at the local temple, etc. I'm with you on this one. In fact, I would see this as what a Paladin of not only Tyr, but Hoar would do, if they are unable to do it themselves. Being a good paladin doesn't mean that you're not familiar with the world. It does mean that you live by a different moral code than the rest of the world. In all of my campaigns, there are a lot more LG fighters than there are paladins. The former are part of a profession, essentially. The latter are literally called, by their gods, to take up a holy calling. They're few and far between. That's your campaign, and I hope you are your group have fun with it. Me? I don't think Paladin's are any more different then Clerics. I view them as "Church Knights", and not all Clerics go off and become, well, Clerics, because they think it's a easy way to get money. Some are drawn, called to it, just like Paladin's are. And they don't worship the same gods that evil characters do! Your right, they don't. Because of that pesky little one-step rule. But again, these deities, Azuth, Helm, Kelemvor, Hoar, Jergal, Red Knight, Savras, Siamorphe, Ulutiu, can have Paladin's, and Evil Clerics. Oh, and one last thing. It was a pleasure discussing this with you. I look forward to our next chat. |
| capnvan05-12-08, 08:15 AM | Sorry for the late reply, SmartPaladin - darn pesky social life. I'm also going to take your post out of order, for reasons that I hope become clear. Oh, and one last thing. It was a pleasure discussing this with you. I look forward to our next chat. Ditto! I realize my iconoclastic views of the "correct" role of the paladin (and other things!) have fallen out of favor in the Realms, nonetheless, I carry on... Also, for the sake of brevity, I'm going to state here and now that you're 100% correct in terms of Realmslore and those pesky non-LG deities having paladin orders of their own. (Well, I don't know if they all do, but the point is that the one-step rule has clearly been implemented.) I've been struggling to figure out where that came from - I don't have my copy of Faiths and Avatars anymore, so I can't recall what the situation was there. I do know that Faiths and Pantheons is replete with what one might call "special, one-time modifications" - along the lines of well, normally paladins can't multi-class and then continue to gain paladin levels, but, for worshippers of (somebody, Ilmater?), as long as you take monk levels, you can. Which is the kind of thing, that while I understand may be part and parcel of why F&P gets published, is the kind of thing, that, to me, threatens to weaken the barriers between classes that have been part of D&D for decades, and brought the flavor, as it were. Basically, I don't like the one-step rule, and I'm curious: Anybody know where it got it's start? In short - in terms of lore, you're absolutely right. It's just always seemed to me to be a terrible idea, a slippery slope that's led to paladins of Hoar and other abominations :coolcthul :thumbsdow :twocents: Now, to continue - Odd, I would have thought "Smite First, ask questions later" would have been a quick way for the Paladin to be killed, if not by the enemy, then by the party. Better to wait, figure out what in the Hells is going on, and see if you can stand being in the same room with said evil doer, so long as both of your goals match up. You don't have to like it, but if it means everyone in your party gets to walkout of where ever you are, alive, then you can deal. Definitely agreed on the idea of "Smite first, ask questions later." Not knowing who or why you're smiting is "disordered," one might say. A synonym for chaotic - that would be bad. You're right - being evil is not necessarily cause for summary execution. However, I disagree with the second half of the paragraph. If you can get your hands on the 2E Complete Paladin's Handbook, I would recommend it - it gives some interesting examples of how a paladin ought to operate, including accepting almost certain death as part and parcel of the job. Even Defenders of the Faith makes it clear: "Paladins don't associate on a continuing basis with evil characters." Making it hard to be a member of the same church. And not just for Hoar, but for all of the non-LG deities. (Obviously, that conflicts with the Realmslore you've pointed out. And since we're in the FR part of the forum, obviously your point has to take precedence. This is all part of my long-winded explanation of why I find the one-step rule seriously problematic.) Some of which you alluded to in your own post: If you, a Paladin of say... Helm, need to guard someone, and it seems wise to have a fellow member of your faith on hand to help you guard, whoever, and the only one handy is a LE member of your faith? Would you run the risk of failing your task, or would you grab said LE PC/NPC, and make it very clear to them that the only reason your taking their help is because you need another sword/set of eye to keep X safe from harm. You don't have to like it, but I'd think if a Paladin was going to trust any Evil person, it would be someone of their own faith. And Duty if far more important to a Follower of Helm then anything. Defenders of the Faith would seem to agree with you, at least in the sense of a one-time thing, where the ultimate goal is worth the "risk" (which is the term it uses for these type of limited associations). My point is, that by embracing the "one-step rule," the FR designers, going back a ways now, have opened themselves up to the problems associated with long-term associations. That's your campaign, and I hope you are your group have fun with it. Me? I don't think Paladin's are any more different then Clerics. I view them as "Church Knights", and not all Clerics go off and become, well, Clerics, because they think it's a easy way to get money. Some are drawn, called to it, just like Paladin's are. As you say, it's your campaign, and mine, and as long as we're enjoying it, we can both be right. Obviously, I just happen to be more right. :P And yeah, my wife doesn't really take to that too well, either. :rolleyes: My wish is that, instead of embracing the one-step rule, Eric Boyd, et al. had embraced the prestige class possibilities of 3/3.5E and reverted back to a stricter interpretation of the paladin class with regard to the one-step rule. They didn't, although I happen to in my own campaign. I have yet to find a comicbook movie I was unable to turn my brain off for, although Nick Fury: Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. came close... That's alright - I happen to think that the old Bruce Willis movie, Hudson Hawk, was actually a brilliant satire. And that the Shawshank Redemption was one of the more obvious gay love stories of our time. I get a lot of shaken heads. Of course, I happen to be right... :P |
| SmartPaladin05-12-08, 06:28 PM | Sorry for the late reply, SmartPaladin - darn pesky social life. I'm also going to take your post out of order, for reasons that I hope become clear. That's alright, I'll beat you for it later. :P Ditto! I realize my iconoclastic views of the "correct" role of the paladin (and other things!) have fallen out of favor in the Realms, nonetheless, I carry on... Also, for the sake of brevity, I'm going to state here and now that you're 100% correct in terms of Realmslore and those pesky non-LG deities having paladin orders of their own. (Well, I don't know if they all do, but the point is that the one-step rule has clearly been implemented.) I've been struggling to figure out where that came from - I don't have my copy of Faiths and Avatars anymore, so I can't recall what the situation was there. I do know that Faiths and Pantheons is replete with what one might call "special, one-time modifications" - along the lines of well, normally paladins can't multi-class and then continue to gain paladin levels, but, for worshippers of (somebody, Ilmater?), as long as you take monk levels, you can. Which is the kind of thing, that while I understand may be part and parcel of why F&P gets published, is the kind of thing, that, to me, threatens to weaken the barriers between classes that have been part of D&D for decades, and brought the flavor, as it were. Basically, I don't like the one-step rule, and I'm curious: Anybody know where it got it's start? In short - in terms of lore, you're absolutely right. It's just always seemed to me to be a terrible idea, a slippery slope that's led to paladins of Hoar and other abominations :coolcthul :thumbsdow :twocents: Now, to continue - I don't know, if you focus on the Poetic Justice part of Hoar. Being a Paladin isn't that hard, if you do it right. You could create some kind of confusion where you'd have a player or NPC going "Is he a Hoarite or a Tyran?" :P Definitely agreed on the idea of "Smite first, ask questions later." Not knowing who or why you're smiting is "disordered," one might say. A synonym for chaotic - that would be bad. You're right - being evil is not necessarily cause for summary execution. However, I disagree with the second half of the paragraph. If you can get your hands on the 2E Complete Paladin's Handbook, I would recommend it - it gives some interesting examples of how a paladin ought to operate, including accepting almost certain death as part and parcel of the job. Even Defenders of the Faith makes it clear: "Paladins don't associate on a continuing basis with evil characters." Making it hard to be a member of the same church. And not just for Hoar, but for all of the non-LG deities. (Obviously, that conflicts with the Realmslore you've pointed out. And since we're in the FR part of the forum, obviously your point has to take precedence. This is all part of my long-winded explanation of why I find the one-step rule seriously problematic.) Some of which you alluded to in your own post: Alas, I'm not sure if I could get my hands on the 2E Complete Paladin's Handbook. Which is sad, because I love the Paladin class. But my own thoughts and ideas on the Paladin class had been shaped by at least two of David Eddings characters, one being the Invincible Mimbrate Knight Mandorallen, from The Belgariad and The Malloreon, and the other being Cyrinic Knight Bevier, from The Elenium and The Tamuli. Out of the both of them, Bevier is the closest to being a "D&D Paladin", yet they both bare traits that shaped my own thoughts on the matter. As for myself saying that I am "a Paladin of Hoar", that's more of a repentance for my own past sins, and I come at it with a very strong sense of Justice. If there isn't Justice in any of the actions, then I/my character wouldn't do it. Each one of my characters has always been a part of me, so in a way, I can live up and do things that I deep down wanted and wished I could do. Defenders of the Faith would seem to agree with you, at least in the sense of a one-time thing, where the ultimate goal is worth the "risk" (which is the term it uses for these type of limited associations). My point is, that by embracing the "one-step rule," the FR designers, going back a ways now, have opened themselves up to the problems associated with long-term associations. That's always the problem with change. Because on one hand, you embrace it, while on the other, you wonder if this really is the right thing. I honestly never cared much for the idea that if a Monk or a Paladin cross-classed, that they'd never be able to return to their former path. I always looked at it as a kind of "Why?" As you say, it's your campaign, and mine, and as long as we're enjoying it, we can both be right. Obviously, I just happen to be more right. :P And yeah, my wife doesn't really take to that too well, either. :rolleyes: My wish is that, instead of embracing the one-step rule, Eric Boyd, et al. had embraced the prestige class possibilities of 3/3.5E and reverted back to a stricter interpretation of the paladin class with regard to the one-step rule. They didn't, although I happen to in my own campaign. I think we should both agree that we're both right, and wrong at the same time. On somethings we look at one another and everyone else with a kind of "Duh, this is how it is." while on others, we're more of "We're wrong? Wow..." I honestly hate being right all the time, because I feel I can't learn anything new. I also hate the idea of perfection. Because if you can't continue to evolve and grown, then your dead. I'm not sure making the class more strict would have been the right idea... Let's look at what we have now a days. Now a days, most D&D groups don't like having Paladin's in the party, because they always seem to be "Lawful Stupid", try and steal the team leader spot from the really party leader, and pretty much control just about everything. So much so, that when the party is fine with having a Paladin in the group, the DM may go out of his/her way to make the Paladin fall. If the Paladin class was a bit less strict, then I don't think we'd have this problem. Sure, it has to have "Rules and Guidelines", but not so much that it kills the class for the rest of the Party. As a Paladin, I would make use out of the Rogue's skills, or the Bard's skills. I would tell these sneakier party members at the offset "I won't ask any questions as to how got whatever, I just ask that you don't tell me how you did it, when you did it, and that you don't bring the guards down around our neck." It's the "Don't ask, don't tell" approach, not the best approach, I would agree. But I have no issues with sneaking about, if in doing so would mean that we get out of where ever without needless blood shed. That's alright - I happen to think that the old Bruce Willis movie, Hudson Hawk, was actually a brilliant satire. And that the Shawshank Redemption was one of the more obvious gay love stories of our time. I get a lot of shaken heads. Of course, I happen to be right... :P Hudson Hawk was awesome! I loved that movie. As for the Shawshank Redemption, well, they were in prison for how long? Granted, I laughed evilly at the end of that movie, because I found it almost Poetic. And I am a sucker for Justice. :P |
| Alkasyn05-15-08, 12:26 PM | Having played a cleric of Helm who was LN leaning LG, I admit I also had the same problem. My dm presented me with a pretty simpel dillema, however - the LE high priest of helm I gave him in my backstory turned out to be a demon summoner, virgin ravager and a corrupt clerk, so we took him out. Still, I wonder how Id work with a LE cleric of Helm. I guess that Helm's stance on this is "You can't make an omlet without braking a few eggs" Helm knows , and I think the same applies to Hoar, that sometimes, evil guys are needed to get the job done, even if the LG clergy doesn't fully agree with the methods. The Paladin, being a champion of his God also has to agree on that, I guess, and see the LE in his church as agents of his deity first and foremost, and only later LE characters. As a Paladin, I would make use out of the Rogue's skills, or the Bard's skills. I would tell these sneakier party members at the offset "I won't ask any questions as to how got whatever, I just ask that you don't tell me how you did it, when you did it, and that you don't bring the guards down around our neck." It's the "Don't ask, don't tell" approach, not the best approach, I would agree. But I have no issues with sneaking about, if in doing so would mean that we get out of where ever without needless blood shed. That's what my party came to call a lawful stupid attitude - when the paladin just turns his back and goes shopping while the party goes to torture the guy they just captured. It might be an exaggeration of what you said, but it's still more or less the same. |
| Lord Karsus05-15-08, 01:50 PM | That's what my party came to call a lawful stupid attitude - when the paladin just turns his back and goes shopping while the party goes to torture the guy they just captured. It might be an exaggeration of what you said, but it's still more or less the same. -The one time that situation presented itself when I was playing my LG Cleric of Lathander, my character did everything he could to avoid having the others interrogate the NPC "their" way, but when he could learn nothing, he turned his back, citing that he tried to help the NPC every way he could, and allowed the other characters to do things "their" way. |
| Alkasyn05-15-08, 04:03 PM | -The one time that situation presented itself when I was playing my LG Cleric of Lathander, my character did everything he could to avoid having the others interrogate the NPC "their" way, but when he could learn nothing, he turned his back, citing that he tried to help the NPC every way he could, and allowed the other characters to do things "their" way. Good roleplaying makes even a bad situation look better:P |
| capnvan05-15-08, 07:45 PM | That's what my party came to call a lawful stupid attitude - when the paladin just turns his back and goes shopping while the party goes to torture the guy they just captured. It might be an exaggeration of what you said, but it's still more or less the same. Now, see that's precisely the opposite of the action that a paladin ought to undertake. Frankly, my immediate reaction as a DM would be, 'you're done' as a paladin. Willfully ignoring evil is "un-paladin-ic." |
| capnvan05-15-08, 08:03 PM | I'm not sure making the class more strict would have been the right idea... Let's look at what we have now a days. Now a days, most D&D groups don't like having Paladin's in the party, because they always seem to be "Lawful Stupid", try and steal the team leader spot from the really party leader, and pretty much control just about everything. So much so, that when the party is fine with having a Paladin in the group, the DM may go out of his/her way to make the Paladin fall. If the Paladin class was a bit less strict, then I don't think we'd have this problem. Sure, it has to have "Rules and Guidelines", but not so much that it kills the class for the rest of the Party. Not disagreeing with you on the idea of the paladin as the leader of the group. Obviously, if you are a paladin, everything you do ought to be in service of your god. And that can mean that you're unwilling to engage in the same kind of adventures that the rest of us are... That does not translate as "Lawful Stupid"! I'm comfortable with the idea that many groups remain uncomfortable with the strictures of the paladin - I had a discussion with a poster about whether the Harpers would mindwipe someone without their consent. That poster thought that it would be perfectly OK. But then, it grows late, so let me post again later... |
| capnvan05-15-08, 08:07 PM | That's what my party came to call a lawful stupid attitude - when the paladin just turns his back and goes shopping while the party goes to torture the guy they just captured. It might be an exaggeration of what you said, but it's still more or less the same. Had I been the DM, I would have immediately dropped the PC from the paladin class. "It's your campaign, etc." YMMV |
| Lord Karsus05-15-08, 09:01 PM | Now, see that's precisely the opposite of the action that a paladin ought to undertake. Frankly, my immediate reaction as a DM would be, 'you're done' as a paladin. Willfully ignoring evil is "un-paladin-ic." -Not particularly. In allowing evil to exist, one can still serve the greater good. The Paladin allows the Rogue to torture the evil NPC. The evil NPC then gives the party the BBEG's evil plans to invade the town with an army of Undead. Knowing this, the party is able to rush in and stop him before he is able to summon that army of Undead. Now, how many lives have been saved because of this? Utilitarianism at it's finest, baby! |
| MarkusTay6305-16-08, 12:39 AM | Paladins are not really known to usually recognize "the greater good". Usually its "Smite first, ask questions later", but to each his own - not every Paladin is a musclebound jock-strap, either. |
| Lord Karsus05-16-08, 01:07 AM | Paladins are not really known to usually recognize "the greater good". Usually its "Smite first, ask questions later", but to each his own - not every Paladin is a musclebound jock-strap, either. -Depends on the kind of Paladin. |
| Stigger05-16-08, 02:34 AM | Goodness and the purity of the soul are not commodities to bargain with if they are truly meant! Sorry, BoED moment there, I'm better now... :D |
| Alkasyn05-16-08, 07:07 AM | Had I been the DM, I would have immediately dropped the PC from the paladin class. "It's your campaign, etc." YMMV I'd do the same, btw. I wasn't the DM back then, though. |
| Draco Spirit05-17-08, 04:09 PM | -Not particularly. In allowing evil to exist, one can still serve the greater good. The Paladin allows the Rogue to torture the evil NPC. The evil NPC then gives the party the BBEG's evil plans to invade the town with an army of Undead. Knowing this, the party is able to rush in and stop him before he is able to summon that army of Undead. Now, how many lives have been saved because of this? Utilitarianism at it's finest, baby! I disagree with you on that point. Means do very much matter to a paladin. Information aquired from torture is a unaceptable source to a paladin, especialy knowingly. Princable before praticality.. yes it make life a jerk, but paladins have persade and good wisdom becuse they have to win within limits. |
| SmartPaladin05-17-08, 04:30 PM | I disagree with you on that point. Means do very much matter to a paladin. Information aquired from torture is a unaceptable source to a paladin, especialy knowingly. Princable before praticality.. yes it make life a jerk, but paladins have persade and good wisdom becuse they have to win within limits. Odd, I've always been practical over princable, though that still doesn't make torture right. Nor would I condone the use of torture. I also favored fighting in ways one's foe wouldn't expect. Say you have a sword and shield, thus the enemy would expect you to attack with said sword, not to kick at their leg, trying for a trip/knockdown. A Paladin's greatest weapon is not the one in his hand, it's the one in his head. Be clever, out think your foe. |
| Lord Karsus05-17-08, 05:35 PM | Means do very much matter to a paladin. Information aquired from torture is a unaceptable source to a paladin, especialy knowingly. Princable before praticality.. yes it make life a jerk, but paladins have persade and good wisdom becuse they have to win within limits. -I disagree. The core 'idea' behind the Paladin is a Holy Warrior, who fights for good. Ultimatley, it is about serving the ideals of good. A Paladin is doing the most amount of good, for the most amount of people, by behaving in the manner I described above. The torture is not being condoned by the Paladin. But, it is being seen as a necessary evil, that needs to take place in order to serve the most amount of good, for the most amount of people. |
| MarkusTay6305-17-08, 08:03 PM | If I was a Paladin, I would go with Water-boarding. According to our president, thats not torture, so it should be okay for paladins. :P :D |
| Lord Karsus05-17-08, 08:37 PM | If I was a Paladin, I would go with Water-boarding. According to our president, thats not torture, so it should be okay for paladins. :P :D -Of course, international law does not, on it's own course, impose laws on a national government. That said, waterboarding is not illegal in and of itself in the United States specifically. -Paladins serve the greater good. Preventing the torture of an individual who does deserve it is worth 5 'Good Points'. Killing the evil Necromancer by using the information gained through torture of the individual is worth +25 'Good Points'. Stoping the army of Undead he summoned before it could destroy the kingdom is woth +100 'Good Points'. Using the holy power afforded to the Paladin to cleanse the evil from the Necromancer's lair is worth +10 'Good Points'. Using the riches gained from the Necromancer's treasury to help fund the local orphanage is worth +25 'Good Points'. -Now, let's compare: 5 to 160 -It's a landslide. |
| SmartPaladin05-18-08, 03:51 AM | -Of course, international law does not, on it's own course, impose laws on a national government. That said, waterboarding is not illegal in and of itself in the United States specifically. -Paladins serve the greater good. Preventing the torture of an individual who does deserve it is worth 5 'Good Points'. Killing the evil Necromancer by using the information gained through torture of the individual is worth +25 'Good Points'. Stoping the army of Undead he summoned before it could destroy the kingdom is woth +100 'Good Points'. Using the holy power afforded to the Paladin to cleanse the evil from the Necromancer's lair is worth +10 'Good Points'. Using the riches gained from the Necromancer's treasury to help fund the local orphanage is worth +25 'Good Points'. -Now, let's compare: 5 to 160 -It's a landslide. Whoa... Why did I suddenly remember one of Orlando Bloom's lines from Kingdom of Heaven? I can't remember the set up, all I recall is the reply, Balian of Ibelin: "It is a kingdom of conscience, or nothing." Oddly enough, I can see how that could factor into a Paladin's thinking... Must give this more thought. |
| Stigger05-18-08, 10:16 AM | But, for allowing a being to be tortured and doing nothing to stop it, even if he is a vile bastard who deserves it: +1 evil, so, no more paladinhood. Go read the BoED, its pretty damned clear that torture is always considered an evil act as far as D&D is concerned. While I do agree that much of that books advocated codes of behavior are something to be ignored for non-exalted, the definition of what constitutes an evil act and what doesn't isn't one of those things that are easily ignored. That one act is all that matters, since willingly commiting evil, or allowing your companions to commit evil, is acting in a manner contrary to what a paladin is supposed to be doing. They are holy warriors who are willing to fight for their beliefs and morals, not turn them on and off just because it becomes inconvenient. |
| Lord Karsus05-18-08, 02:10 PM | But, for allowing a being to be tortured and doing nothing to stop it, even if he is a vile bastard who deserves it: +1 evil, so, no more paladinhood. Go read the BoED, its pretty damned clear that torture is always considered an evil act as far as D&D is concerned. While I do agree that much of that books advocated codes of behavior are something to be ignored for non-exalted, the definition of what constitutes an evil act and what doesn't isn't one of those things that are easily ignored. That one act is all that matters, since willingly commiting evil, or allowing your companions to commit evil, is acting in a manner contrary to what a paladin is supposed to be doing. They are holy warriors who are willing to fight for their beliefs and morals, not turn them on and off just because it becomes inconvenient. -If I remember correctly, the PHB states that a Paladin must grossly violate his "Paladin Code of Conduct"- which is not universal, mind you. +1 Evil is hardly grossly violating it. A +25 Evil for torturing the NPC himself, that works. |
| SmartPaladin05-18-08, 04:45 PM | But, for allowing a being to be tortured and doing nothing to stop it, even if he is a vile bastard who deserves it: +1 evil, so, no more paladinhood. Go read the BoED, its pretty damned clear that torture is always considered an evil act as far as D&D is concerned. While I do agree that much of that books advocated codes of behavior are something to be ignored for non-exalted, the definition of what constitutes an evil act and what doesn't isn't one of those things that are easily ignored. That one act is all that matters, since willingly commiting evil, or allowing your companions to commit evil, is acting in a manner contrary to what a paladin is supposed to be doing. They are holy warriors who are willing to fight for their beliefs and morals, not turn them on and off just because it becomes inconvenient. But what's more evil? Not condoning the torture and leaving the place, letting your "allies" have free reign in the torture? Or not condoning the torture, but remaining in the room to bare witness? To be ready to put an end to it when the party starts to go to far, to be ready to offer up healing to the torture victim? |
| capnvan05-18-08, 06:02 PM | -If I remember correctly, the PHB states that a Paladin must grossly violate his "Paladin Code of Conduct"- which is not universal, mind you. +1 Evil is hardly grossly violating it. A +25 Evil for torturing the NPC himself, that works. PHB 3.5E, p. 44: "A paladin... loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act." There's no exception for utility. |
| Meldread05-18-08, 06:59 PM | Stigger and Capnvan have the right of it in my opinion. A paladin who is willing to compromise his beliefs and code for the sake of convenience, no matter how great the cause, is no longer a paladin. |
| Lord Karsus05-19-08, 12:54 AM | PHB 3.5E, p. 44: "A paladin... loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act." There's no exception for utility. -Alright, there's the key point: evil. Can that be considered an 'evil' act. Any Paladin I'd play would what I mentioned above, and I don't consider that an 'evil' act. As discussed, it is ultimatley a 'good' act. Utilitarianism is my moral code of choice, not Kantian ethics, as this seems to be modeled after. |
| SmartPaladin05-19-08, 04:16 AM | Wait! How about the dreaded Chinese water torture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_water_torture)? Is that form of torture okay? You don't hurt them, you just drive them crazy... Hmm... Sounds like something a Hoarite Paladin would do. They are a bit more crazy then most other Paladin's. :evillaugh |
| capnvan05-19-08, 07:23 AM | -Alright, there's the key point: evil. Can that be considered an 'evil' act. Any Paladin I'd play would what I mentioned above, and I don't consider that an 'evil' act. As discussed, it is ultimatley a 'good' act. Utilitarianism is my moral code of choice, not Kantian ethics, as this seems to be modeled after. The act of torture is evil. The ultimate end for the commission of that act might be considered beneficial, but for a paladin, torture is, and must be, always inherently evil. (Self-interruption: you're obviously free to disagree with that assertion. You're free, within the confines of your campaign, to say that Lawful Good behavior includes the sacrifice of babies followed by their ritual consumption by the society. That is not, however, consistent with what I'm comfortable calling the generally accepted sense of what Lawful Good behavior includes in D&D). Utilitarianism proposes that the means to a particular end are ultimately irrelevant, so long as the end is "useful", that is, that it holds utility for maximizing the happiness of humanity in general. In short, the ends justify the means. Utilitarianism is not, however, consistent with the concepts of the standard D&D alignment system. That system is entirely reliant on the idea that the ends do not justify the means. In fact, the means are the defining point in the determination of alignment. To try to be brief: utilitarianism may be a perfectly valid approach to morality in the real world. However, in the standard, albeit arbitrary, D&D universe, it has no relation to Good as an alignment. To qualify as Good, you must both perform good acts, and avoid evil acts, regardless of outcome. (Arguably, utilitarianism might be an excellent alignment philosophy for a LE, or even, carefully, a LN character. An ex-paladin perhaps?) |
| Stigger05-19-08, 09:54 AM | At home, your paladin can subscribe to whatever moral code they like and as long as the DM is good with it, it works. Going by standard D&D definitions however, any evil act, no matter how small, strips a paladin of their abilities. D&D-616 uses the BoED as its gold standard of good, you can do whatever you want with your D&D-617, to put it another way. You know, I'm so used to diagreeing with capnvan that I almost missed that he said pretty much what I was going to... :D |
| Meldread05-19-08, 10:46 AM | I agree again with Capnvan. Although I personally hate the alignment system, and dislike the rigid concept of the Paladin (although a well played Paladin is a wonder to behold) it is all pretty well defined. Utilitarianism may exist as a philosophy in a D&D world, and I'd argue strongly that it was neutral and likely the viewpoint most hold, but it isn't something that is good. In fact, it'd be an appalling idea for any good aligned individual. Playing a good aligned character that actually embraces his alignment is the hardest type of character to play. In some situations, you're just screwed. There were discussions in the Mature Forums that dealt with situations like this a lot. Here are some examples: An evil wizard who worships a powerful demon requires a pure virgin sacrifice. If he gets this sacrifice he will summon forth his demonic master who will then kill you, your friends, and destroy an entire nation. Suffice it to say, as a Paladin it is your duty to stop this evil wizard. Now, a member of your party just so happens to be a virgin and has taken a vow of chastity. She is captured by this evil wizard, and since (thankfully) the sacrifice can only happen during a particular time (when the planets align) it gives you and the rest of your group time to rescue your virgin friend. So there you are, you are storming this evil wizards fortress, fighting his minions, and the planets are aligning. Your party decides to split up. You, the Paladin, are alone when you find your virgin friend tied to an altar, still alive thankfully, but not for long. The Wizard is temporarily distracted but is on his way back, in fact he is just down the hallway. You know you are no match for him and that should combat break out you would die, and no doubt so would your friend. What do you do? Let us assume that you have two choices: You can kill your friend, therefore preventing her from being sacrificed in a ritual, and therefore becoming a murderer. Or you could have sex with your friend, therefore causing her to lose her virginity. You know that there is a chance that if you both work together you can defeat the wizard, or at least hold him off long enough until help arrives. However, none of that is certain. Because you don't want to kill your friend you opt for a quickie. One problem. She does not want to violate her vow of chastity. Time is ticking away. No time to think. You have to act now. You opt to have sex with her regardless of her protests to make her useless to the wizard, and therefore with one hundred percent certainty preventing the summoning of the demon. Now, technically you just raped her but your action prevented the summoning of a demon, and saved thousands of lives not to mention prevented the torment of countless more. The question behind this is: Was this an evil act? According to D&D it was an evil act. What you did tainted your soul and shifted the balance of good and evil toward evil. If you were a Paladin (as you were in this case) you would fall instantly. Now what happens after this point I would argue is completely up to the DM in question. For me, I allow a bit of gray area there. So long as the Paladin in question did it to save other lives, and not his own, so long as he did it with the best intentions, worked for atonement, and then worked to try and repair the damage done to his friend then he could get his powers back. However, had the situation simply been: The Paladin is lust-driven after his female companion and decided to have his way with her, then atonement is out of the question. He falls with no chance of getting Paladinhood back, by any deity, ever. Here is another sticky situation: I am sure everyone has heard of something like, "If you could travel back in time, and kill Hitler as a baby, therefore preventing the Holocaust would you do it?" The same idea applies in D&D. If through the use of magic and the knowledge of prophecy you knew a child was going to grow up to bring about evil and horrible things would you kill the child to prevent it? Let's say, for dramatic effect, the end of the world – literally. You are a Paladin. You have a choice. You can let this child live and then battle him as an adult, you can try and work against the prophecy by raising the child yourself, or you could kill the child. Let's say you chose the most altruistic choice: you decided to raise the child yourself in hopes of preventing the prophecy. However, in the future after you've raised the child, it happens anyway. The world is about to end. However, thankfully, you prepared for this moment and you and your wizard companion travel back in time through the use of powerful epic magic to try and prevent this from taking place. In fact, this is your fourth time traveling back in time. You've tried numerous things to prevent it from happening: but each time it happens anyway. It's just fated to be. So now you are faced with two choices: You can let what is fated to be come to pass, the end of the world, dooming all that lives to death and eternal torment (the child transports the world into the nine hells or the abyss or something), or kill the child thus preventing the prophecy. It is evil to kill a child. In fact, your a Helmite Paladin. Helm's dogma clearly states: "Protect the weak, poor, injured, and young, and do not sacrifice them for others or yourself." If you kill this child not only is killing the child an evil act but you violate a tenant of your deities faith. The child, as of this point in time, is innocent of all crimes and does not detect as evil. In fact, he does not even mean for these things to happen: it is an accident. Each time you've gone back in time to try and prevent it something else has triggered the event, but the trigger has always been this innocent child. A pragmatist would look at this situation and say: Well killing this child is better for the most amount of people. Innocent and good people die everyday. This is no different. However, a Paladin is expected to uphold a different standard. If he kills the child he falls, period. Killing the child is an evil act. Like the aforementioned scenario what happens after the Paladin kills the child is up to the individual DM. Like the above, I'd allow for atonement for this provided the Paladin acted to do this as a last resort, saw no plausible other way (even if another way existed that he did not see), and was willing to atone for his actions. It is for these reasons that good is the hardest alignment to play, and Paladins the hardest class to play properly. They are held to a set of rules that do not govern most other people, and more often than not good does finish last and die young. If you want to know something that will really blow your mind: Paladin's can keep slaves and remain a paladin. How is this so, you ask? Because slavery is based on the law / chaos axis and not on the good / evil axis. Holding slaves, and having them live orderly lives is a lawful act. So long as your deity does not oppose such actions (example: Helm wouldn't really care) then you could get away with it. The only time you'd come into trouble would be how you treat your slaves. They must be treated well. You can't work them to the bone, and you can't do things to cause them undue suffering. This is how Paladin's can exist in a feudalistic society (a form of slavery) and how in the Realms, Horus-Re a LG deity who has tons of Paladins manages to have a Church which keeps slaves and heads up an entire nation. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin05-19-08, 11:51 AM | If I were playing a paladin, I would strive not to commit any evil acts even for utilitarian purposes. My opinion would be that it would not be that character's place to be ultilitarian. That's how *I* would do it--I'm not saying that is the only way to play, and ultimately it would be the DM's call. Regarding the morality books people are mentioning, if I recall correctly the BoED is a bit hypocritical--doesn't it have a game mechanic called a "ravage" which is pretty much a poison in all but name? For example, a goodly character can inflict a "ravage" an on evil character that forces him to crave sex all the time (something to that effect). How is that not a kind of torture? Also, that's only one example--if you look in the book (and I don't have mine with me) you can find other examples as well. Apparently, the book says that kind of torture is OK. |
| Lord Karsus05-19-08, 11:56 AM | The act of torture is evil. The ultimate end for the commission of that act might be considered beneficial, but for a paladin, torture is, and must be, always inherently evil. -The ultimate end, which, in the end, ultimatley redeems an action. To try to be brief: utilitarianism may be a perfectly valid approach to morality in the real world. However, in the standard, albeit arbitrary, D&D universe, it has no relation to Good as an alignment. To qualify as Good, you must both perform good acts, and avoid evil acts, regardless of outcome. -I heartily disagree with this. D&D condones "good" performing random and often senseless acts of murder. D&D condones "good" using various 'wasting' effects, via spells (Level Drain, or Ability Score Drain). Paladins oftentimes partake in both, and yet, the validity of their Paladinhood is not questioned. (Arguably, utilitarianism might be an excellent alignment philosophy for a LE, or even, carefully, a LN character. An ex-paladin perhaps?) -I myself am Lawful Neutral (with Good tendencies), and I can attest to the fact that it is definitley a Lawful Neutral philosophy. |
| Bonzai05-19-08, 01:33 PM | What do you do? ......... To both those scenarios, as a Paladin I would chose a third option. That would be to stand firm in my belief in myself and my diety, and resolve to do whats right, no matter the cost. In the first example it would mean fighting the wizard, even if it means my death, in order to give my friend a chance to get away and foil his plot. In the second scenario, it would mean going back in time a 5th, 6th, 100th time, whatever it takes, to redeem the child, and save the world. |
| Stigger05-19-08, 02:13 PM | Not really that hypocritical when one considers that those Ravages and Afflictions have no effect on a non-evil being/creature. Its their own corruption that brings about the suffering ultimately... should they see their errors, repent, and seek redemption, then it won't affect them any longer. The same cannot be said of their evil and neutral counterparts, which affect creatures indiscriminately in most respects. Sure, you could call it torturous, which I would agree with. But, if one thinks of it as suffering through agonies like those you have inflicted upon others to gain a sense of empathy and understanding for the crimes you have committed, then its a very different thing. Torture is commited to gain something from the creature being tortured, be it information, an action, or just simply breaking them to your will. While an affliction or ravage could be used in that manner, by their nature they are meant to either punish or instruct evil creatures, and are relatively altruistic at their core. As to the 'standard' definitions of good and evil in D&D, the ends do not justify the means, ever, if one wishes to cling to a good alignment. Good is often called upon to kill, but the means that it uses must adhere to the principles of their alignment, or at the very least, not delve into evil means to kill. If someone is overly fond of cruel methods of dealing with foes, then they'd probably start losing that good alignment fairly quickly if one cleaves to the 'standard' interpretation of D&D alignment in their campaign. A paladin tolerating that sort of behavior in their companions without complaint or counselling them to their errors would definitely be something that should be noted and tracked for those alignment issues going by those 'standard' alignment interpretations. I find it too constrictive a system for most games to be honest, and happily ignore it most the time, but by the rules and definitions, that's the way it is in 'standard' D&D. |
| Meldread05-19-08, 03:39 PM | Bonzai- That is EXACTLY what a paladin is supposed to do. You are 100% correct. Even if, in the first example, he is killed and his friend sacrificed and the demon summoned he would take that risk and allow it to happen. Even if, in the second example, it requires him to try a thousand times to save the world without killing an innocent he would do it. As a DM in the first example, I would have allowed the Paladin to sacrifice himself as his friend escaped. I also would have rewarded creativity. Although telling a lie is a breech of the Paladin code it is something that will not cause you to have an alignment shift or cause you serious trouble if done very, very rarely (it is a chaotic act as opposed to an evil act). For example, let's say as the Wizard walks in he sees them "getting dressed" the Paladin then attempts to Bluff the Wizard into thinking that his friend is no longer a virgin. The Paladin calculates that if he and his female companion can hold off the Wizard until his friends arrive then they can defeat him. However, if they cannot then there is a good chance he will simply kill them both without bothering to check to see if his friend is still a virgin. As a DM in the second situation, dealing with an Epic PC Paladin, I'd allow the Paladin to sacrifice himself in some way to prevent the end of the world and saving the child in the process. That may be the only way, with the goal of retiring the character. Although, his soul would go to Helm's Realm and I'd have Helm sponsor him for godhood. Saving the world tends to make you popular like that. |
| capnvan05-20-08, 10:11 AM | I myself am Lawful Neutral (with Good tendencies), and I can attest to the fact that it is definitley a Lawful Neutral philosophy. I don't know that I've ever found a human being who could be slotted into any of the 9 alignments. We tend to be too complicated. I heartily disagree with this. D&D condones "good" performing random and often senseless acts of murder. D&D condones "good" using various 'wasting' effects, via spells (Level Drain, or Ability Score Drain). Paladins oftentimes partake in both, and yet, the validity of their Paladinhood is not questioned. Those "random" and "senseless" acts may be seen, from the point of view of a human living in Brooklyn, or Boston, or Timbuktu, as evil. However, as Stigger alluded to, within the arbitrary rules of D&D, they are, in fact, good. Riding out to slaughter orcs and goblins, demons and dragons, is, in D&D, good! Obviously, in the real world, we would not countenance that sort of thing. But then, we don't live in an arbitrary game world. The ultimate end, which, in the end, ultimatley redeems an action. But not within the standard, D&D-616 world. Again, it can be so in your campaign. But it's not how alignment or the paladin work within the "Core Rules." It's arbitrary, it does not simulate deep moral or ethical thinking or an actual human response. It is, however, The Way Things Are™ within the confines of the standard D&D multiverse. YMMV, particularly if you're trying to model real-world morality in-game. "The Way Things Are™" is a registered trademark of the Krusty Korporation, All Rights Reserved. :bigeyes: |
| capnvan05-20-08, 10:16 AM | I agree again with Capnvan. Mon Dieu! Stigger, Meldread and I are all in agreement? And the boards have been collapsed? Is this the Rapture? |
| Stigger05-20-08, 10:43 AM | No, I don't buy into that armageddon stuff... but it was bound to happen eventually, however unlikely that may seem. Statistics and probability rear their ugly heads once more... :D |
| Lord Karsus05-20-08, 11:32 AM | I don't know that I've ever found a human being who could be slotted into any of the 9 alignments. We tend to be too complicated. -I fit into LN w GT pretty well. Those "random" and "senseless" acts may be seen, from the point of view of a human living in Brooklyn, or Boston, or Timbuktu, as evil. However, as Stigger alluded to, within the arbitrary rules of D&D, they are, in fact, good. Riding out to slaughter orcs and goblins, demons and dragons, is, in D&D, good! -That, I do not believe. They are only "good" because the generic DM doesn't want to get in-depth into the morality and philosophy of good and evil. As we can see in many novels, which examine characters much closer, the arbitrary killing of creatures like these are often second-guessed. For example, Pwent Thwibbledorf examines his conscious, and feels as if he was in the wrong for killing the daughter of an Orc he was fighting during Realms of War. Applied to Star Wars, for a second, Jacen Solo once upon a time, became a hermetic, pacifistic mystic, for a lack of better words, after taking time to ponder morality and ethics, and how they related to the Jedi. But not within the standard, D&D-616 world. Again, it can be so in your campaign. But it's not how alignment or the paladin work within the "Core Rules." It's arbitrary, it does not simulate deep moral or ethical thinking or an actual human response. It is, however, The Way Things Are within the confines of the standard D&D multiverse. -Exactly: It does not stimulate deep moral or ethical thinking. Using such abilities, one comes to a seperate conclusion on the issue. |
| Meldread05-21-08, 03:21 AM | Capnvan again outlines things very well. He also points out the fundamental flaw I find in the alignment system: "I don't know that I've ever found a human being who could be slotted into any of the 9 alignments. We tend to be too complicated." The fact of the matter is this: Morality is relative. It depends on your culture, your personal ethical code, and any number of other factors. What may be morally acceptable and good to one person may be morally abhorrent and evil to another. The alignment system approaches things in a heavy handed way with a one-size-fits all solution. I hate it. Why would someone from Kara-Tur hold the same ethical and moral beliefs on good and evil as someone from Cormyr? It undercuts one of the fundamentally important and good things about the Realms: it's depth. Additionally, I feel the alignment system actually encourages cookie-cutter characters. It's why I always recommend for people to play neutral-aligned characters. It's the most "complex" alignment of D&D because it doesn't lock you into a strict ideology. |
| Stigger05-21-08, 07:02 AM | Funny, I've always treated it, and thought of it as fairly flexible myself... depends on how strictly you interpret things I guess, YMMV and all that. |
| Lord Karsus05-21-08, 10:16 AM | Funny, I've always treated it, and thought of it as fairly flexible myself... -Same thing here. |
| Meldread05-21-08, 02:45 PM | Sure, you can treat it that way, it's not like I think it's impossible or anything. However, in doing so it leads to such arguments as the one LK is making where one player goes, "See my Paladin shouldn't fall for pulling out these Zhent Agent's fingernails and breaking his legs, because you see it ultimately led to a good outcome - we saved the city!" At that point it comes down to the following: "I'm the DM, I say what is good and what is evil, and I think what your Paladin did is evil and therefore he falls." Which, of course, can lead to all sorts of problems. It is simply easier to point to the book and say, "Look it clearly states here that torture of any sort is evil. Your Paladin tortured someone. Therefore he falls it is cannon and in the rules." Additionally, it makes sense in a round-about way if you look at things from a cosmological prospective. Good and Evil are two of the most powerful forces in existence along with Law and Chaos. These are real, tangible forces, that manifest themselves in the form of Devils and Demons and Celestials. It is rather clear that your actions matter, because if you commit an evil action you're effectively empowering the side of evil. The same can be said for committing acts of good. I just find it best to ignore alignment as often as possible. I even encourage the ignoring of alignment for Clerics, and focusing more on the dogma itself. If someone is of an alignment outside of the one step rule for their deity - I just treat them as if they had the heretics of the faith feat. Your Lawful Evil Cleric of Tyr simply takes the concept of Justice above and beyond the normal allowances of the church! The Cleric may or may not actually receive their spells from Tyr, but from the prospective of the Cleric it is pretty irrelevant. Plus such things normally end up causing a good deal of fun conflict. |
| Lord Karsus05-21-08, 05:09 PM | Sure, you can treat it that way, it's not like I think it's impossible or anything. However, in doing so it leads to such arguments as the one LK is making where one player goes, "See my Paladin shouldn't fall for pulling out these Zhent Agent's fingernails and breaking his legs, because you see it ultimately led to a good outcome - we saved the city!" -My argument never included the Paladin himself doing the torture, though, the same philosophies can be used to justify such actions. -But, to be devil's advocate, how is breaking a Zhent Agent's leg, or pulling his fingernails deemed evil, while outright slaughtering Orcs, who may very well be innocent, isn't? |
| Stigger05-21-08, 05:28 PM | The inflicting of unneccesary pain and all that is probably what pushes it into the evil camp, at least that would be what did it for me. And the slaughtering of orcs depends on how and why. Just walking into their cave and starting to kill them? Evil. Meeting them on a battlefield or ambush or the like? Neutral. It all depends on the circumstances. |
| Lord Karsus05-21-08, 05:32 PM | And the slaughtering of orcs depends on how and why. Just walking into their cave and starting to kill them? Evil. Meeting them on a battlefield or ambush or the like? Neutral. It all depends on the circumstances. -Of course. But, if Orcs are automatically evil, and righteous Good needs to snuff said evil, with no ifs, ands or buts, as per the rules/definitions...Well, you see where I am going with this. -It's not like I disagree, though. Orcs = Must Die. ;) |
| Stigger05-21-08, 05:50 PM | Depends on the alignment line in the MM entry more than anything... always, often, usually, all that stuff. That's the key point to playing around with players perceptions and sensibilities and challenging their assumptions on things. Wonder if they're taking that away with 4e or not... |
| Lord Karsus05-21-08, 05:59 PM | Depends on the alignment line in the MM entry more than anything... always, often, usually, all that stuff. That's the key point to playing around with players perceptions and sensibilities and challenging their assumptions on things. -Of couse, things like "Always, Often, Usually", and so on, are all Metagame. Wonder if they're taking that away with 4e or not... -Based on what I was told, and they were using educated heresay, these are the current alignments to be used in 4e: Lawful Good Good Unaligned Evil Chaotic Evil |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin05-21-08, 07:26 PM | -Based on what I was told, and they were using educated heresay, these are the current alignments to be used in 4e: Lawful Good Good Unaligned Evil Chaotic Evil That's is correct--I've been reading about the 4E alignments as much as I could. I personally would have preferred just Good, Unaligned, and Evil...oh well. |
| Lord Karsus05-21-08, 09:56 PM | I personally would have preferred just Good, Unaligned, and Evil...oh well. -Me too. The inclusion of 'wider' definitions for 'Good' and 'Evil' negates the need to have Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil. To me, it seems "half assed", so to speak. Either, go with all of it, or none of it. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin05-21-08, 09:57 PM | -To me, it seems "half assed", so to speak. Either, go with all of it, or none of it. Exactly! |
| Lord Karsus05-21-08, 10:33 PM | -Well, they know best, right? :rolleyes: |
| Stigger05-22-08, 01:15 AM | All I get to do is DM, so metagaming is pretty much par for the course with me in most respects... wish it were otherwise, but, what are ya' gonna do... Though in respects to 4e, I'm rapidly reaching the conclusion that while I may like the mechanics, I just don't think I can choke down the fluff behind them enough to seriously put down money for it. Guess I'll see come release day for sure, but I'm fairly pessimistic about it. |
| Lord Karsus05-22-08, 01:28 AM | Though in respects to 4e, I'm rapidly reaching the conclusion that while I may like the mechanics, I just don't think I can choke down the fluff behind them enough to seriously put down money for it. Guess I'll see come release day for sure, but I'm fairly pessimistic about it. -It's nothing that can't be houseruled to some degree is my final verdict on things. The couple of things I do like, I'll houserule. Maybe. |
| Stigger05-22-08, 01:44 AM | Pretty much the conclusion I'm reaching about it... Not sure until I see the books though. |
| Lord Karsus05-22-08, 02:14 AM | Pretty much the conclusion I'm reaching about it... Not sure until I see the books though. -Go to Barnes & Noble, get a cappuccino, find yourself a seat, and start skimming. ;) -That said, though, are there plans for a 4e SRD, like there is a 3e/3.5e SRD? Anyone know? |
| Stigger05-22-08, 03:52 AM | Generally prefer Borders around here... B&N plays the most annoying music around here. No idea about an SRD, but presumably there is one forthcoming if they have a OGL deal for 4e. |
| Lord Karsus05-22-08, 03:58 AM | Generally prefer Borders around here... B&N plays the most annoying music around here. -Ah, alright. I said B&N because, at least where I am, most Borders' don't really "invite", so to speak, people to sit down and read, whereas Barnes and Noble does. No idea about an SRD, but presumably there is one forthcoming if they have a OGL deal for 4e. -Good point. It's likely there will be something, then. |
| Stigger05-22-08, 04:31 AM | Weird... exactly the opposite here with B&N. No seats anywhere that you can take an unpurchased book to give the once over, whereas Borders has a whole bunch of seating for just that. Regional management I guess. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin05-22-08, 11:22 AM | -Well, they know best, right? :rolleyes: You do. You're Karsus.;) At least the alignments won't have much (if any) mechanics attached to them, though, so that would mean the system could be tweaked without deviating from the rules. |
| Lord Karsus05-22-08, 01:22 PM | You do. You're Karsus.;) -Point taken. :P At least the alignments won't have much (if any) mechanics attached to them, though, so that would mean the system could be tweaked without deviating from the rules. -Alignment never has had much mechanics tied to it. Requirements for classes, feats, PrCs, and items, but other than that? Not much. |
| Alkasyn05-23-08, 04:04 AM | -Point taken. :P -Alignment never has had much mechanics tied to it. Requirements for classes, feats, PrCs, and items, but other than that? Not much. What abotu magic such as "detect evil" "magic circle agaisnt evil" etc? |
| Stigger05-23-08, 04:29 AM | Smite special abilities as well... nothing overt though was what I suspect LK meant, but I'd agree that there's quite a bit of subtle mechanics attached to them. |
| Lord Karsus05-23-08, 10:45 AM | What abotu magic such as "detect evil" "magic circle agaisnt evil" etc? -I didn't say that there was nothing about alignment that transcended into mechanics. I said specifically, "never has had much", and "not much". |
| Blackball805-23-08, 12:25 PM | I am going to have to agree: Paladins are very "clear". Either something is good or it is bad. That's all. That's how I always did it though. |
| capnvan05-23-08, 12:35 PM | Alignment never has had much mechanics tied to it. Requirements for classes, feats, PrCs, and items, but other than that? Not much. Young whippersnapper. Back in the good ole' days, you suffered experience penalties for changing alignment. Like doubling the number of xp required to level, etc. That'll make you think twice... |
| Lord Karsus05-23-08, 12:55 PM | Young whippersnapper. Back in the good ole' days, you suffered experience penalties for changing alignment. Like doubling the number of xp required to level, etc. That'll make you think twice... -We don't live in the Middle Ages anymore. :P |
| Stigger05-23-08, 01:19 PM | More like Dark Ages... |