|
Jonked posted:What? You're bring up Captain America, as an ideal paladin, when he's from a setting that doesn't have paladins nor concrete entities of Good and Evil, while talking about a setting that does? Are you serious? Seriously? SERIOUSLY? So... Superman and Captain America don't follow the paladin ideals at all? ESPECIALLY Cap? Truth, justice and righteousness? Thinking laterally is BAD. Yes, the PHB says that lying, as part of acting without honor is a Code of Conduct-worthy offense. But, is lying to an evil despot acting without honor? Is it a GROSS offense against righteousness? I argue no.
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2008 17:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 09:16 |
|
|
O-Chul isn't lying because he doesn't know the real answer. He threw out a vague guess to try to placate someone threatening to rip the souls out of the people he's sworn to protect, and then admitted as such, seconds later. I don't see the violation of the code of conduct here, and that's coming from a GM who loves to tempt Paladins. Some of you need to lighten up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2008 18:06
|
|
|
Kahrytes posted:Are you serious? Yeah, I think they are serious. Yes, Captain America and Superman would both be considered lawfully good. But they are not magically bound to an oath that would strip them of their powers were they to break it. That's what sets a paladin apart from a lawfully good fighter. Fighters can be heroes, but paladins are holy warriors. There is a big difference. That being said, I agree with NutShellBill, in that he really doesn't have the answer. There is no violation of the code here, O-Chul is doing the best he can with what he has.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2008 18:26
|
|
|
Cabbit posted:The definition of "a non-Lawful Good act" can certainly be "Something a Paladin won't do", I would think. No, you've got to have it the other way around. The definition of "something a Paladin won't do" can be "a non-LG act" but if you've got it the other way around then you could have Joe Jackass the Paladin who enjoys torturing babies, and since a paladin is doing it it isn't an evil act. See what I mean? quote:The difference here is that in my comparison, I was going for more of a "Paladins are police" thing than a "Paladins are state and national lawmakers" thing. That still doesn't particularly work, because police can break the law without repercussions the vast majority of the time. So by your logic, being that Paladins are agents of capital G Good, they can do all the evil acts they want and get away with them. quote:Any git with a sword and divine power can club a heretic and call it a crusade. A Paladin does it with grace and humility. That's the point. I completely disagree. The "jackass Paladin who cares only for himself/his order/his church but is convinced he's doing Good, and his deity agrees" is a strong archetype for a reason. In 4e Paladins can only be the same alignment as their deity, whatever that deity's alignment is. To me, that makes a lot more sense. The definition of "Paladin" is "Holy Warrior," not "LG guy who follows a strict code of honor that does not vary from individual to individual."
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2008 18:29
|
|
|
bgaesop posted:In 4e Paladins can only be the same alignment as their deity, whatever that deity's alignment is. To me, that makes a lot more sense. The definition of "Paladin" is "Holy Warrior," not "LG guy who follows a strict code of honor that does not vary from individual to individual." The more I hear about 4e the more excited I get.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2008 18:35
|
|
|
I see Captain America as a Kensai rather than a Paladin. Still bound to a personal oath, but not religiously bound.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2008 19:17
|
|
|
Wind Tempest posted:I see Captain America as a Kensai rather than a Paladin. Still bound to a personal oath, but not religiously bound. If we're going by RAW, there's nothing saying Paladins actually have to follow a deity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2008 19:45
|
|
|
So, we've agreed that O-Chul would fall if he broke the code of conduct established by the 12 Gods to such a degree that it would anger them. We've also agreed that tell Redcloak that the gate is guarded by, say, giant frogs that live in lava, would be a lie. That is, if he lies to Redcloak, he has still lied. Thus, the question is twofold right now? 1)How "evil" an act must O-Chul commit to have his powers taken? 2)How "evil" lying to a false authority to potentially save the people he (I'm assuming) oath bound to protect. Somehow, I don't think we'll ever agree on an answer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2008 19:50
|
|
|
Guys, wasn't O-Chul just not lying? Like, for real? There's no rules conflict here, Redcloak just didn't want to believe that a bunch of paladins would actually be so honorable/retarded as to follow their oath for so long.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2008 19:50
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Guys, wasn't O-Chul just not lying? Like, for real? There's no rules conflict here, Redcloak just didn't want to believe that a bunch of paladins would actually be so honorable/retarded as to follow their oath for so long. They're not talking about him saying he's following Soon's oath, they're talking about the made-up location of the gate from the strip just before that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2008 20:19
|
|
|
Idran posted:They're not talking about him saying he's following Soon's oath, they're talking about the made-up location of the gate from the strip just before that. He didn't make anything up. He told Redcloak the truth: the gate is protected by a ton of illusions and poo poo. Actually, the fact that the answers to riddles guarding it are hidden in the diary is pretty big, but of course Redcloak disregarded it immediately because a human paladin was saying it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2008 20:45
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:He didn't make anything up. He told Redcloak the truth: the gate is protected by a ton of illusions and poo poo. Actually, the fact that the answers to riddles guarding it are hidden in the diary is pretty big, but of course Redcloak disregarded it immediately because a human paladin was saying it. Either he lied about the location of the gate or he lied that he doesn't know anything about where the gate is. They can't both be true.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2008 21:02
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:Except the part where the rules say a gross violation of the code will cause a Paladin to lose his powers. Allowing for, say, non-gross violations in there somewhere?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2008 21:03
|
|
|
People, seriously, Redcloak is in no way a legitimate authority (especially to a Sapphire Guard, as they're ancient blood enemies). If you are justified in killing them, you're justified in lying to them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2008 21:04
|
|
|
Idran posted:Either he lied about the location of the gate or he lied that he doesn't know anything about where the gate is. They can't both be true. Where did he say anything about its location? All he said was that it was protected by a maze and some illusions and you needed to answer riddles to get into it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2008 21:11
|
|
|
bgaesop posted:The Adventures of Joe Jackass, World's Worst Paladin Joe Jackass, who enjoys torturing babies and does stuff like that, wouldn't be a Paladin. Paladin's aren't created on an assembly line with a God's stand in churning out divine powers; they are directly blessed and chosen by that God as a mortal representative and agent. I would imagine a being of divine retribution and justice would probably do a bit of a background check! Edit: And it's not like, if you are forced to do something against your code, you can't get the powers back. There's an Atonement spell for a reason. If you're forced to not be Lawful Good, or you're forced to kill a shitload of people, you're still going to lose your powers. I would imagine mitigating circumstances like that, however, is going to make the Atonement much easier. I still don't buy that extraplanar beings constructed out of no small part pure Lawfulness are going to say "Nah man, s'okay if you break the rules if you have a good reason. They're really more guidelines anyway.  "
Cabbit fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Apr 8, 2008 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2008 21:26
|
|
|
Cabbit posted:I would imagine mitigating circumstances like that, however, is going to make the Atonement much easier. I still don't buy that extraplanar beings constructed out of no small part pure Lawfulness are going to say "Nah man, s'okay if you break the rules if you have a good reason. They're really more guidelines anyway. They aren't Paladins to Modrons.... Yeah, I'm sure a Modron is going to be a stickler to that "following the rule to the letter" gig, but the metaphysical personification of The Twelve? Again. The Twelve determines what a 'gross violation' is, and their Code of Behavior has never been defined, and the rules for paladins does like to use the word 'typical' for it's code of conduct, implying there are others. Especially since Paladins as written are based on a bastardization of western/european philosophy, and the Sapphire Guard is based on Eastern. We have no idea what their Code consists of. So imagine all you like, but the fact remains that until Rich hits O-Chul with punishment, if he ever does, it's moot, all fun dampening rules lawyering aside.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2008 21:42
|
|
|
Kahrytes posted:So... Superman and Captain America don't follow the paladin ideals at all? ESPECIALLY Cap? Truth, justice and righteousness? Then why would you bring him up when talking about D&D paladins? That's not thinking laterally, unless laterally means 'bringing up a tangently-related pop culture icon."
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2008 22:41
|
|
|
Are we sure that Captain America is Lawful, considering Civil War and everything? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2008 00:03
|
|
|
What is an Incarnum user? Third Panel. Also, I'm surprised no-one pointed out the "control group" line from two comics ago, that was one of my favorite lines in a long time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2008 00:05
|
|
|
On the subject of lying, as a DM I'd say this: Lying is not an evil act. Here we see O-Chul lying to protect people, knowing that if it is discovered he is likely to be executed. He is jeopardizing his own safety for the chance to save many more lives. I'd never rule that that was evil, or even a gross violation of the paladin's code of conduct. If a Lawful Good character were to, to use an earlier example, walk into the BBEG's castle, lie his way past his guards and then challenge the guy to a fight to the death, I would not rule that they ceased to be lawful good. Neither would I, for example, rule a chaotic good character to have changed alignment because they once honestly answered a question when it was in their benefit to lie. If they did it as a matter of course, however, I'd start reconsidering. This is because alignment is, for the majority of classes, descriptive rather than proscriptive. A fighter who has "LG" written on his sheet is not forced to act in an LG manner. If his actions on the whole are lawful and good, then he's LG. If he begins to hold his own life above the lives of others, then he begins to change to LN. If he begins to slack in his self-discipline, or starts to be more spontaneous and prefers to "wing it" in battle, then he might drift towards NG. A Paladin, on the other hand, has a proscriptive alignment. He has to act as lawfully and good...ily as he can, otherwise he loses his powers. He has to be the guy who staunchly upholds his honour even if it might jeopardize his own interests, who puts the lives of others before his to the point of sacrificing himself to protect them. He would find the idea of sneaking into the evil king's bedroom to kill him in his sleep distasteful, even if it were the easiest or the only option, and would probably balk at the idea of lying his way into an audience with the BBEG in the earlier example. But that's the point of the paladin class. You are gifted with incredible divine power but it comes at the price of not always being able to pick the most easy or pragmatic route. Also to greatn: under "ex-paladins" the PHB states that a gross violation of the Code of Conduct costs a paladin his powers. Mr. Moon fucked around with this message at 00:44 on Apr 9, 2008 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2008 00:38
|
|
|
It's from Magic of Incarnum, a source book that develops Incarnum (more or less soul energy) as another energy source for the three included base classes. They can do some cool stuff, but most of their big ticket effects take up equipment slots so they aren't all that great. I think that's about right, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2008 00:40
|
|
|
Tricky posted:It's from Magic of Incarnum, a source book that develops Incarnum (more or less soul energy) as another energy source for the three included base classes. They can do some cool stuff, but most of their big ticket effects take up equipment slots so they aren't all that great. The finer points, yeah. WoTC decided to go batshit with alternate power sources as 3.5 got longer in the tooth; Shadow Magic, Pact Magic, Truenaming, Martial Adepts, Incarnum, etc.. most of it being more or less vastly inferior to regular old wizards and clerics. Martial Adepts generally beat the pants off of Fighters, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2008 00:44
|
|
|
Cabbit posted:Martial Adepts generally beat the pants off of Fighters, though. Are those the guys out of the Book of Nine Swords? cause I'm pretty sure they took pointers from those classes/books for 4e Fighters and Warlords. And Incarnum rocks. I like being able, at level 2, to stay alive and fighting until -16 HP. Especially considering my sometimes power-mad DM.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2008 01:20
|
|
|
Mr. Moon posted:Are those the guys out of the Book of Nine Swords? cause I'm pretty sure they took pointers from those classes/books for 4e Fighters and Warlords. Book of Nine Swords was a field test for a lot of the mechanics and design concepts that are crucial to 4e, albeit more simple in a lot of ways.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2008 02:32
|
|
|
Mr. Moon posted:Are those the guys out of the Book of Nine Swords? cause I'm pretty sure they took pointers from those classes/books for 4e Fighters and Warlords. Don't worry they'll be back for the same reason they were introduced the first time. I doubt the 1 new book per month rule will be repealed for 4th.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2008 02:58
|
|
|
Mr. Moon posted:Are those the guys out of the Book of Nine Swords? cause I'm pretty sure they took pointers from those classes/books for 4e Fighters and Warlords. YouuM is power-mad precisely because of escalation of people getting more and more tweaked characters from sourcebooks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2008 03:03
|
|
|
Many of you paladins-are-utterly-inflexible-sticklers must be very dull when you play one. Should we assume that every single paladin of a given faith is identical? (In my campaign we have an NPC paladin who's a known arsehole - even his own priests acknowledge that 'he's difficult', and he's never getting beyond 3rd lvl - as well as people from a wide range of capabilities and moral backgrounds.) As soon as alignment becomes a club to bash players with, rather than a spur to good roleplaying, there's a problem.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2008 10:16
|
|
|
Sergeant Rock posted:Many of you paladins-are-utterly-inflexible-sticklers must be very dull when you play one. Should we assume that every single paladin of a given faith is identical? It comes from the old Gygaxian style of D&D. It's a very 1st/2nd Ed way of thinking. The DM is the enemy of the player, and must do everything in his power to warp their decisions, punish their actions, and make life generally difficult and stupid. It is the reason for many a monster. See: cloaker, darkmantle, gas spores, and those retarded monsterst that looked like floors, ceilings, and doors. I honestly wonder how the hobby made it out of those days. I guess the 70s and 80s were full of masochists? Or maybe no one was taking it seriously and the goal was to see how long you could make it before you die hilariously. I dunno, I started gaming right before the advent of 3E.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2008 10:25
|
|
|
Nah, we just ignored all that crap and (eventually) developed a better style. I speak as a proper grognard here... thirty years of roleplaying later. I should also point out that the annoying NPC paladin mentioned above was intended as a 'bad example' for PCs to learn from. 'Here's what not to do.' Little did I know that he would be out-arseholed by a certain PC paladin within five minutes...
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2008 12:09
|
|
|
greatn posted:YouuM is power-mad precisely because of escalation of people getting more and more tweaked characters from sourcebooks. Actually he's just entirely of the mindset that players are there to be killed by the DM. I was one of only two non-core characters and playing the least powerful Incarnum class (and one he explicitly okayed). I had claws, some natural armour, and what amounted to Diehard and some extra HP. He has run Trumpet Archon DMPCs during our campaign. Still, he's not bad if you adapt to the Gygaxian style  .quote:Many of you paladins-are-utterly-inflexible-sticklers must be very dull when you play one. Should we assume that every single paladin of a given faith is identical? I'm not sure if this was directed at me but I'll step up anyway. Paladins should not be inflexible, otherwise you force them to act Lawful Stupid. If you enforce a code that basically allows you to dictate the paladin's actions you're doing it wrong. All the code is is something they need to consider when faced with a grey area or difficult decisions, with the caveat that if they hugely or consistently break it they lose their powers. I absolutely think DMs who dangle the threat of power-loss over the heads of players for the tiniest infractions are doing it wrong. Still, only following the code when it is convenient is not suitable either. It's easy to not poison someone when you're slaughtering Orcs. It's less easy when you've been handed a poisoned sword to use in a tournament that would ensure your victory. I'd expect a paladin to refuse the poisoned sword in that case, even if it meant a harder fight for him. But if he accepted it he'd expect a stern talking to by either his god or a superior in his order and an opportunity to make up for it, not "GOTCHA!" instant power loss. Paladins are still people and people mess up sometimes. Only repeat offenders get the big punishment, and even then there's the Atonement spell or the CG paladin class.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2008 13:09
|
|
|
Mr. Moon posted:Still, only following the code when it is convenient is not suitable either. It's easy to not poison someone when you're slaughtering Orcs. It's less easy when you've been handed a poisoned sword to use in a tournament that would ensure your victory. I'd expect a paladin to refuse the poisoned sword in that case, even if it meant a harder fight for him. But if he accepted it he'd expect a stern talking to by either his god or a superior in his order and an opportunity to make up for it, not "GOTCHA!" instant power loss. Paladins are still people and people mess up sometimes. Only repeat offenders get the big punishment, and even then there's the Atonement spell or the CG paladin class. Honestly I've just tried to ignore this whole thing because I hate alignment. All I've ever really seen it used for is a shield when one party member decides to gently caress over the others. The paladin code is simple, Act with Honor in all Things. It's to their strength and to their weakness, and heroes are more defined by their weaknesses than their strengths. The poison sword scenario would definitely be grounds for permanent power loss, lying, cheating, using poison and likely killing someone in a non fatal game? All for his own vanity? What would a paladin have to do in your games to lose his powers? Yes lying to an evil lord to save lives is the lesser of two sins but it's still a sin and a paladin would expect some minor form of penance would be necessary. Maybe losing his powers for a day.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2008 13:39
|
|
|
You guys should try playing with people who don't try to gently caress over party members; it makes things tremendously easier. And, incidentally, following the Code of Conduct does not make a Paladin a mindless robot any more than obeying the law makes anyone in this thread one. I'm sorry if the mere thought of conforming to any set of guidelines bruises your precious snowflake of a character, but honestly. It is not a loving iron shackle of doom. Cabbit fucked around with this message at 15:15 on Apr 9, 2008 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2008 15:11
|
|
|
Here's how I see the Paladin: he's not just fighting evil and doing good, he's fighting evil and doing good as an example that evil doesn't always win. Think of a hypothetical situation, where the Paladin lives a city under a evil dictatorship. Two innocent citizens are being hunted by the city guard, and ask the Paladin to help them. Moments later, the City Guard show up, asking where the 'criminals' are. A Good person, even Lawful Good, could lie to the guards and send them off on a wild goose chase. An Evil person could tell the truth to the guards where the 'criminals' are - inside his house. The Paladin, however, does neither of those things. The Paladin puts the two escapees in a good hiding place, puts his sword next to the door, and when the City Guard comes knocking asking about the criminals, the Paladin tells them that they're working for an evil dictatorship, and that, escapees or no escapees, they're not searching his house without a fight. The Paladin doesn't poison the evil dictator, he overthrows him - to show that Good wins because it's better, not because of trickery. It's the same thing here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2008 15:23
|
|
|
Umm guys, if you want to houserule the paladin, that's cool, but from the SRD:code:
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2008 15:40
|
|
|
Winson_Paine posted:Umm guys, if you want to houserule the paladin, that's cool, but from the SRD: From almost the very next paragraph. code:It's not a matter of 'houseruling' it's a matter of it providing two radically different definitions in one page. One has "Does this dress make me look fat" as a trigger for losing paladin hood. This implies that being lawful good, and not committing evil acts is separate and distinct a qualifier from adherence to the Code of Conduct. gothfae fucked around with this message at 15:56 on Apr 9, 2008 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2008 15:48
|
|
|
You guys are really beating this into the ground.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2008 16:03
|
|
|
People love talking about paladins. They are apparently the most contentious subject this thread will ever know!
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2008 16:23
|
|
|
terminal mehmet posted:You guys are really beating this into the ground. Welcome to being a nerd. gothfae posted:From almost the very next paragraph. I am inclined to agree with this, actually.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2008 16:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 09:16 |
|
|
Winson_Paine posted:Umm guys, if you want to houserule the paladin, that's cool, but from the SRD: And "not lying" is not part of the code. "Acting with honor is". "Not lying" is merely given as one of many examples of acting with honor, in parentheses.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2008 17:02
|
|