That case gets blown out of proportion. It was late at night, NO ONE went out on the streets at that hour, and more than one person did call the cops. The problem is that on a cold night with the windows shut with city back ground noise its hard to tell the difference between "TAXI!" and "HEELP!" and "Damn you woman you burned the eggs again" . People called the police with what they heard, which was a scuffle between a man and a woman of unknown severity. The police responded by.. not responding.
A paladin of course, would say this is WHY you put on your coat and shoes and stand out in the cold for 20 minutes looking for someone that PROBABLY isn't there.
|
My biggest question in the whole discussion is this: what is the paladin finding abhorrent? Is it the action, or the person?
If it's the action, then I would say it's ok to find it abhorrent. If it's the person, then no, that's not ok and the paladin is headed in the wrong direction. I would have part of the paladin's motto be "love the sinner, hate the sin".
I believe that it was intended to speak to the former case - paladins find the inaction of good people abhorrent, especially when those good people (who aren't doing anything) could stop much evil. Good people who stand by and do nothing when they could be doing something useful can expect a stern rebuke from a good paladin!
And since that's the interpretation you agree with anyways, I recommend you run it that way!
The OP seemed to take it as implying that the paladin should find the people abhorrent. I think it could be read that way, but I certainly have never run it that way. Haven't run a paladin in PF yet, but I've run plenty in 3.x and never had an issue with someone trying to pull something. Of course, I always had them write a code that I'd approve, so I could pull that out and ask them if they really thought they were behaving in accordance with that.
All good deities are evil because they do not invade the material plane and try to stop all of the evil that occurs.
...
Ozzy is neither lawful nor good. He has no respect for the laws or a system that is doomed to bring down Armageddon, and while his GOAL is good, his METHODS are evil. Good intentions are NOT enough to be good. You have a line that you can't cross when reaching them, and killing 10,000 people including innocent women and children crosses it and keeps going.
If you want a lawful good ANTAGONIST, try a.. better done Tony Stark (iron man) from civil war. He wanted the superheroes working under government auspices with regulation and training because a bunch of yahoos running around with superpowers were getting people killed.
|
...
Ozzy is neither lawful nor good. He has no respect for the laws or a system that is doomed to bring down Armageddon, and while his GOAL is good, his METHODS are evil. Good intentions are NOT enough to be good. You have a line that you can't cross when reaching them, and killing 10,000 people including innocent women and children crosses it and keeps going.
If you want a lawful good ANTAGONIST, try a.. better done Tony Stark (iron man) from civil war. He wanted the superheroes working under government auspices with regulation and training because a bunch of yahoos running around with superpowers were getting people killed.
I would call ozzy LE, he is ruthless in imposing order and peace his way and will crush anything in his way. I find stark too personaly chaotic but his actions in the civil war did come of as very LG.
I'm an orphan whose orphanage recently burned down and I find that comment highly offensive.
I would call ozzy LE, he is ruthless in imposing order and peace his way and will crush anything in his way. I find stark too personaly chaotic but his actions in the civil war did come of as very LG.
But a lawful person assumes ironfisted steel footed control over the situation themselves. They don't set up a complicated Machiavellian plot that still leaves everyone else that's not him in power. Ozzy didn't get control or power out of the plot. He's not looking to have everyone do what he wants when he wants it, he just wants people to not do one thing (total nuclear annihilation)
|
|
I would call ozzy LE, he is ruthless in imposing order and peace his way and will crush anything in his way. I find stark too personaly chaotic but his actions in the civil war did come of as very LG.But a lawful person assumes ironfisted steel footed control over the situation themselves. They don't set up a complicated Machiavellian plot that still leaves everyone else that's not him in power. Ozzy didn't get control or power out of the plot. He's not looking to have everyone do what he wants when he wants it, he just wants people to not do one thing (total nuclear annihilation)
He created order in the manner he thought best, not every lawful wants to deal with being in charge.
Ozzy is LE with delusions of Good. I agree with that. Civil War gives a very good example of LG villain doesn't it? Never thought about it that way.
Best example of how a paladin should act, to me, is Michael Charpenter from the Dresden Files. He never forces his believes on anyone, he is mercyfull when an enemy asks for mercy and believes in redemption but will kill anything that endangers innocents. I don't think a paladin would abhor good people for not acting, I think he would find small ways that they could help and ask. And on worst case think they are weak willed, but that is just another reason that they need protection.
The best paladins, in my opinion, are the ones who when faced with the classic "save the child or save the city" conundrum will defy the paradigm presented to him by the enemy who says that they have to make a choice in the first place.
Evil lies. That is in its nature. Never accept terms from your enemy as though they were inarguable truth. Take a Third Option.
(Disclaimer: I have always loathed it when GM's present characters whose very class concept is built around being an avatar of the idea that people can be better then the world forces them to be with a challenge that simply amounts to "Your character must compromise his ideals or fail at his task. Because the world sometimes sucks like that." Take a Third Option, Defy that dark destiny, dammit. You're a paladin, dare to believe that the right will win out over all the cynicism and wickedness in the world, and then Make. It. Happen. )
The best paladins, in my opinion, are the ones who when faced with the classic "save the child or save the city" conundrum will defy the paradigm presented to him by the enemy who says that they have to make a choice in the first place.
Evil lies. That is in its nature. Never accept terms from your enemy as though they were inarguable truth. Take a Third Option.
(Disclaimer: I have always loathed it when GM's present characters whose very class concept is built around being an avatar of the idea that people can be better then the world forces them to be with a challenge that simply amounts to "Your character must compromise his ideals or fail at his task. Because the world sometimes sucks like that." Take a Third Option, Defy that dark destiny, dammit. You're a paladin, dare to believe that the right will win out over all the cynicism and wickedness in the world, and then Make. It. Happen. )
Well said, bard. Well said.
Greg
|
|
If that is the meaning, then it would make sense, but it is indeed badly worded.
I think the statement references the paladin himself, not his views on others. It is worded a little bit awkwardly, but that is how I originally understood it.
She would find it abhorrent in others that have the means to fight evil but don't. She wold lead by example and rally the people to stand up and fight. Paladins are ladies of action.
The best paladins, in my opinion, are the ones who when faced with the classic "save the child or save the city" conundrum will defy the paradigm presented to him by the enemy who says that they have to make a choice in the first place.
Evil lies. That is in its nature. Never accept terms from your enemy as though they were inarguable truth. Take a Third Option.
(Disclaimer: I have always loathed it when GM's present characters whose very class concept is built around being an avatar of the idea that people can be better then the world forces them to be with a challenge that simply amounts to "Your character must compromise his ideals or fail at his task. Because the world sometimes sucks like that." Take a Third Option, Defy that dark destiny, dammit. You're a paladin, dare to believe that the right will win out over all the cynicism and wickedness in the world, and then Make. It. Happen. )
I honestly find that most PCs are going to take their own action to achieve all the win conditions, even when evil. Usually the evil characters will do it just to prove that they are the ones who have the power to say who lives and who dies. I absolutely agree with you otherwise.
The best paladins, in my opinion, are the ones who when faced with the classic "save the child or save the city" conundrum will defy the paradigm presented to him by the enemy who says that they have to make a choice in the first place.
Evil lies. That is in its nature. Never accept terms from your enemy as though they were inarguable truth. Take a Third Option.
(Disclaimer: I have always loathed it when GM's present characters whose very class concept is built around being an avatar of the idea that people can be better then the world forces them to be with a challenge that simply amounts to "Your character must compromise his ideals or fail at his task. Because the world sometimes sucks like that." Take a Third Option, Defy that dark destiny, dammit. You're a paladin, dare to believe that the right will win out over all the cynicism and wickedness in the world, and then Make. It. Happen. )
Well said, bard. Well said.
Greg
+1. If presented with unpalatable options, a good paladin player should be looking for ways to jump the tracks of the GM railroad and forge his own path. If the MM refuses to allow any solution to a problem that does not involve compromising the ideals of the paladin, then that GM should just announce up front that paladins are not a playable class in his/her game. If he does allow paladins to play and then delights in presenting them with no-win situations, he's a lousy GM.
As for the OP's original argument, I tend to agree with him that the language in the SRD is poorly written and seems to be written by someone who doesn't really like paladins much, as it reinforces a negative stereotype of paladins very common in gaming circles, as self-righteous, pompous asses.
Why do so many gamers (both players and GMs) hate paladins so much? My theory is that paladins (as exemplars of all that is right and good) make us feel a little bit bad about ourselves. We don't like feeling bad about ourselves, so we delight in seeing them fall or exposing their weaknesses.
|
The best paladins, in my opinion, are the ones who when faced with the classic "save the child or save the city" conundrum will defy the paradigm presented to him by the enemy who says that they have to make a choice in the first place.
Evil lies. That is in its nature. Never accept terms from your enemy as though they were inarguable truth. Take a Third Option.
(Disclaimer: I have always loathed it when GM's present characters whose very class concept is built around being an avatar of the idea that people can be better then the world forces them to be with a challenge that simply amounts to "Your character must compromise his ideals or fail at his task. Because the world sometimes sucks like that." Take a Third Option, Defy that dark destiny, dammit. You're a paladin, dare to believe that the right will win out over all the cynicism and wickedness in the world, and then Make. It. Happen. )
@#$% YEAH
|
|
As for the OP's original argument, I tend to agree with him that the language in the SRD is poorly written and seems to be written by someone who doesn't really like paladins much, as it reinforces a negative stereotype of paladins very common in gaming circles, as self-righteous, pompous asses.
That sort of self-fulfilling prophecy turns up far more often than I'd like, sadly.
Additional musing I wanted to share:
Do you believe that ultimately one must darken onesself to succeed in this world? Do you feel that regardless of one's ideals, one must be prepared to have to compromise them for the greater good? If yes, then you are not a paladin. A paladin is one who believes, so strongly, so deeply, with utterly all of themselves, that this is NOT the case, that doing the right thing, the right way, is ALWAYS an option, somehow, and that it is his sacred duty and trust to find it, no matter how he must bleed or suffer to make it so.
He holds to this creed with such dogged, powerful conviction, and such rigorous, disciplined devotion that reality bends to manifest wondrous powers that enable him to make that faith a reality in a dark and bleak world. Devotion and belief made manifest as divine might and righteous force of will. Idealism with a gleaming edge. Muscle, sinew, and bone infused with the burning fire of literal hope. Love, strength, and might in the service of right so deep that it can be used to strike down the wicked and succor the fallen.
Clap your hands and believe. In your soul, there is a fire that can light the world.
I love paladins.