Apparently my ex was also irrevocably evil 'cause she drank my blood when I cut my hand on a rock when we were sitting in a river on vacation. I was bleeding all over the place, and she just kind of lovingly sucked all the blood off my hand. Would most people find it creepy or unnatural? Maybe. I didn't mind. Of course, apparently people here think that somehow equivalent to sucking my very soul out of my body and consuming it on an alter of fire, before sending my soul and her own into the 9th layer of hell itself.
Yeah, screw that. She didn't hurt me. D&D alignment is simple. If you are hurting, oppressing, or killing something innocent, it's evil. If you're not, then it's not. End of story. Drinking the blood of a corpse is none of those things. This is just people trying to force their own views on others when the rules do not support them.
Here's an interesting question. If it's evil, why doesn't the ability say "using this class feature is evil", or something similar; eh?
Great points Ashiel! I'm in complete agreement with you.
I think the simple answer to this is something that I hit upon in my previous post when using the gun analogy. I'll take it a step further and apply it more towards Pathfinder/D&D and ask another question.
Is the usage of a fireball inherently evil?
I bet everyone will say "no" or "depends on context" because it's a spell, but the fireball can be used for evil and to kill innocents. Any alignment of wizard can use it. That's completely how I feel about "The Blood is the Life" ability if used by a paladin. The supernatural ability isn't evil, it's what that paladin does with it that classifies the ACT as being good/neutral/evil/lawful/chaotic in nature. Pretty easy to understand in these terms if we get down to the bones of it.
Basically true, though you can imagine the typical context will be kill villains/drink their blood, in these circumstances I'd say it is most likely 'improper to slightly evil' not really befitting of the typical paladin. I do feel a good person and especially a paladin should be moved to do the right thing, not just the 'non-evil' thing.
It is just my opinion that a good alignment takes effort to maintain, unlike an evil alignment, a neutral character generally wants to do the right thing but just lacks the conviction and easily reverts to selfish behaviour when the going gets rough.
Though I tend to agree with you on a personal level Remco and if I personally saw this being done: I'd either think it was some kind of elaborate joke or some psychopathic killer who thought he was a vampire.
But as far as if my character in my current game is concerned, if he saw the group paladin (or any character) drinking the blood of a recently slain foe, he'd probably be a bit disgusted and put off by it at first. He wouldn't think it was evil, but definitely strange and perhaps "improper," he'd be curious as to why the paladin was doing this kind of thing.
We also have to take into account the setting that this is being done in and really take a step back and think about it being in an imaginary setting where crazy things like this happen every day. Fireballs, wishes, magical weapons, strange creatures, different humanoids are all present here. I don't think we should impose our own personal (out of character) moral views on it based on western culture, laws, and religions.
In the end, it comes down to how each table interprets this ability and what each individual GM wants to rule on it at their table. As the OP posted that he wanted opinions on this before ruling on it, he's gotten more than enough of those by now!
With some GMs, it's just best to pretend the Paladin doesn't exist. There is no good down that road. Play a cleric instead.Yeah, because "Don't drink people's blood" is such an odious prohibition :P
You miss my point -- or I wasn't clear enough. The point is that people are holding Paladins to standards beyond what they are supposed to be held to. There are people here that even after admitting "Okay, it's not an evil act", they still turn around and go "but a Paladin shouldn't do it".
Case in point:
I do feel a good person and especially a paladin should be moved to do the right thing, not just the 'non-evil' thing.
It's not good enough for it to be "not evil". He still says the paladin shouldn't do it unless it's absolutely good. Paladins cannot exist in that world. Paladins are crusaders who kill people. They kill people and justify that those people deserved to die. Want to know a secret? The only difference between a Neutral person and a Good person is the altruistic spirit and willingness to stick your neck out for others.
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
Nothing about killing evil.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Again, nothing about killing or violence; not even against evil.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
Killing, violence, evil, etc. Eviiiilz.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
And here's the money shot. The only difference between a Neutral character and a Good character is Neutral characters don't have the inclination to stick their necks out for other people. They lack the same compunctions against killing the innocent; and incidentally, a good character has the same sentiments towards killing and violence as a Neutral character.
Paladins are already held to a higher standard than most, because they cannot stumble without losing their powers. Unlike most characters, including every other alignment restricted class (including antipaladin, even), they are not allowed to have an alignment holiday occasionally. That's enough. Good characters are Neutral+. Paladins are Neutral++. But dang it, Paladins are not so bound as to be unable to do things simply because they aren't seen as holy and sacred. Remco Sommeling notes that sure, it's neutral, but the Paladin shouldn't do things that are neutral, only things that are good.
Well screw Paladins in that world. All of them will fall. The only exception is if they are all martyrs who fight with nerf swords; don't use harsh language; cannot use intimidation (not that you'd be intimidated by anyone willing to anything but the purest good); and so forth. Killing non-innocents is a Neutral thing. Good is all about life and love and happiness and kissing babies and helping out your fellow man even if it puts you in harms way. A Paladin is that holy guy who is on the side of good, who goes out and does the dangerous stuff most neutral characters would be fine with but wouldn't risk doing or don't care enough to do. Beyond that, they aren't even allowed to use underhanded methods like lying to draw enemies into a trap.
This blood thing is just another example of how GMs for paladins to not even use non-evil options to do stuff. It could just as well be "throwing venomous snakes at the bad guys". Some GM decides "Uh, snakes are said to be evil in some religion somewhere so your Paladin falls down" and we learn why we should have played a Cleric.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Somewhere along the way, people either forgot or forgot to read the part about the Paladin being a bad-ass, mothafuggin, ass-kicker for their deity's cause, so instead a lot of people seem to have this impression that they have to played as a choirboy who must attempt to be perfect.
Somewhere along the way, people either forgot or forgot to read the part about the Paladin being a bad-ass, mothafuggin, ass-kicker for their deity's cause, so instead a lot of people seem to have this impression that they have to played as a choirboy who must attempt to be perfect.
But being a choir boy might support a deity's cause. More often I see people playing Paladins as bloodthirsty neo-barbarians smiting evil in a sea of blood ignoring both alignment and code except when they think they can score some role-playing points off it.
In many fantasy worlds, including Golarion IMO, good and evil aren't just morally relativistic concepts. If something is evil then it's Evil; it doesn't matter how a person or even an entire culure perceives it. Good and evil are cosmic forces that don't change just because you've crossed over some political boundary.
While there are certainly shades of grey, those shades are far more narrow than in our everyday modern society.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the main things that paladins do is kill people. They are, after all, holy warriors. So if there is a moral justification for hacking somebody to death with your sword, or protecting your wizard friend while he burns them to death with magical fire, then drinking a bit of the bad guy's blood should be pretty minor. In fact, after you have killed someone, and lets assume you had an entirely lawful good reason to do so, then wheat happens to that person then? Well, you party loots the body for anything remotely valuable, then you leave the body to turn into rotting slime to be eaten by bugs, worms, or various other carrion creatures. How exactly is drinking blood from the body worse than letting it be eaten body maggots?
Really, how is drinking the blood of the dead any different than taking a gold piece from the dead person's pocket to help buy a healing potion? Aside from being more gross, in which case eating a spider is more evil than eating a steak.
Really, with any paladin or cleric character, the DM and/or player should come up with a religion that the paladin follows that acts as a code governing different sorts of behavior that doesn't clearly fall into good or evil - which should address these sorts of issues along with providing role playing fodder for the character. Some religions or cultures may well believe that drinking the blood of the dead is honorable, others might hold it to be taboo or sinful. In any case, its clearly not evil, despite being unpleasant to most people's sensibilities.
Somewhere along the way, people either forgot or forgot to read the part about the Paladin being a bad-ass, mothafuggin, ass-kicker for their deity's cause, so instead a lot of people seem to have this impression that they have to played as a choirboy who must attempt to be perfect.
Damn right. These guys are the poster boys for Paladins.
Speaking of falling Paladins.
This is a Paladin's fall done right.
Out of curiosity, what is all this deity bull-stuffing? Paladins are not minions of deities. Maybe once upon a time ago, but their deity has 0% to do with them in the modern incarnation of D&D/PF Paladins. I quote, to ye all, from teh holy rulebook of teh Paladins.
Through a select, worthy few shines the power of the divine. Called paladins, these noble souls dedicate their swords and lives to the battle against evil. Knights, crusaders, and law-bringers, paladins seek not just to spread divine justice but to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve. In pursuit of their lofty goals, they adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline. As reward for their righteousness, these holy champions are blessed with boons to aid them in their quests: powers to banish evil, heal the innocent, and inspire the faithful. Although their convictions might lead them into conflict with the very souls they would save, paladins weather endless challenges of faith and dark temptations, risking their lives to do right and fighting to bring about a brighter future.
Role: Paladins serve as beacons for their allies within the chaos of battle. While deadly opponents of evil, they can also empower goodly souls to aid in their crusades. Their magic and martial skills also make them well suited to defending others and blessing the fallen with the strength to continue fighting.
Alignment: Lawful good.
There's nothing about individual deities for Paladins. Nothing in their codes, their ex-paladins, their alignment, nothing. In fact, a Paladin can legally worship a pay lip service to a chaotic evil deity, as long as he or she is still acting in accordance with the Paladin code, which is beyond deities. At least in the core.
So frankly, it bugs me when people say "What deity does the Paladin follow", because that has absolutely nothing to do with a Paladin. For a cleric, sure (though clerics must grossly violate their deity's code, which most do not have, in order to be a bum cleric).
EDIT: It's entirely possible to play an atheist Paladin who thinks the gods are nothing but moronic mortals with too much Power (and since quite a few of the Golarion gods--at least--are in fact both mortal and morons, it's not a hard stretch), and instead just decide to be a Paladin because the gods sure aren't helping; too tied up in their own petty squabbles between this god and that god, or trying to impose their own views on their followers' morality (like that one deity who would tell female Paladins to shut up and get back in the kitchen making babies) that is irrelevant to the true struggle of good vs evil.
So if there is a moral justification for hacking somebody to death with your sword, or protecting your wizard friend while he burns them to death with magical fire, then drinking a bit of the bad guy's blood should be pretty minor.
I disagree. "Moral justification" is irrelevant. The more you allow moral realtivism in your game the less the alignment system means as a whole. Cheliax is Lawful Evil for a reason. It doesn't matter that some people might not "view" Cheliax as evil because how you view things doesn't matter. Good and evil are fundamental forces and not just abstract concepts that can change from one person to the next.
...cultures may well believe that drinking the blood of the dead is honorable, others might hold it to be taboo or sinful.
What a culture "views" as honorable doesn't mean squat in terms of good or evil. Trying to apply a modern day shades-of-grey mentality onto a world where alignment is hard-coded into the fundamental fabric of reality doesn't work very well.
If I'm playing in a world where demon summoning is evil, then it's evil. It doesn't matter how I or my culture view it. It's going to detect as evil, be smited as evil, and when I die I'm going be punished/rewarded based on how that worlds cosmology treats evil. And all of that is going to happen regardless of how my character "viewed" it.
Now, if i'm playing in a game without alignment, that might all change. But, it seems to me, that if you're going to play alignment without abiding by alignment strictures then you'd be better off just dropping it all together.
I've never been a fan about paladins with no religion. While the RAW does OK it, it seems to me to go against the base concept of what a paladin is, a holy warrior. While an RPG may say that good for good's sake may be enough of a cause for a paladin to dedicate himself to, just about all real world or literary inspirations for the paladin have a deity, religion, or some similarly involved ideology for the paladin to follow. Not just, be good. Sure, you can champion good causes without a religion, but for the paladin, it seems that to me, the religion is as big a part of a paladin's theme as goodness itself, in fact even more so.
When I GM, I would never allow a paladin without a religion.
Out of curiosity, what is all this deity bull-stuffing? Paladins are not minions of deities.
Probably because many people are viewing Faiths of Purity/Balance/Corruption as canon while others have no knowledge of them.
I disagree. "Moral justification" is irrelevant. The more you allow moral realtivism in your game the less the alignment system means as a whole. Cheliax is Lawful Evil for a reason. It doesn't matter that some people might not "view" Cheliax as evil because how you view things doesn't matter. Good and evil are fundamental forces and not just abstract concepts that can change from one person to the next.
Then you require that all paladins be pacifists because killing is never justifiable?
What a culture "views" as honorable doesn't mean squat in terms of good or evil. Trying to apply a modern day shades-of-grey mentality onto a world where alignment is hard-coded into the fundamental fabric of reality doesn't work very well.
If I'm playing in a world where demon summoning is evil, then it's evil. It doesn't matter how I or my culture view it. It's going to detect as evil, be smited as evil, and when I die I'm going be punished/rewarded based on how that worlds cosmology treats evil. And all of that is going to happen regardless of how my character "viewed" it.
Now, if i'm playing in a game without alignment, that might all change. But, it seems to me, that if you're going to play alignment without abiding by alignment strictures then you'd be better off just dropping it all together.
If you want to take that much of a hard line about no shades of gray and the irrelevance of cultural opinions, then drinking blood is fine and not evil, full stop.
When I GM, I would never allow a paladin without a religion.
Neither would I. If I was running a game without alignment then I wouldn't allow the Paladin.
I disagree. "Moral justification" is irrelevant. The more you allow moral realtivism in your game the less the alignment system means as a whole. Cheliax is Lawful Evil for a reason. It doesn't matter that some people might not "view" Cheliax as evil because how you view things doesn't matter. Good and evil are fundamental forces and not just abstract concepts that can change from one person to the next.Then you require that all paladins be pacifists because killing is never justifiable?
I don't see how you get that from my quote. Let me ask a counter question: Why is Cheliax Lawful Evil?
If you want to take that much of a hard line about no shades of gray and the irrelevance of cultural opinions, then drinking blood is fine and not evil, full stop.What a culture "views" as honorable doesn't mean squat in terms of good or evil. Trying to apply a modern day shades-of-grey mentality onto a world where alignment is hard-coded into the fundamental fabric of reality doesn't work very well.
If I'm playing in a world where demon summoning is evil, then it's evil. It doesn't matter how I or my culture view it. It's going to detect as evil, be smited as evil, and when I die I'm going be punished/rewarded based on how that worlds cosmology treats evil. And all of that is going to happen regardless of how my character "viewed" it.
Now, if i'm playing in a game without alignment, that might all change. But, it seems to me, that if you're going to play alignment without abiding by alignment strictures then you'd be better off just dropping it all together.
I never said no shades of grey nor even implied it. I said that the modern notion of shades of grey doesn't map well to fantasy world with hard-coded alignments. This all seems quite clear to me looking back at my post.
If you want to disagree about what I said, fine. But please don't just make things up, apply them to my position, and then complain about it.
|
Looked interesting so I tuned in. Wanted to add this before running out of time. Someone likly made the same suggestions but just in case not.
1-Time when the villians fall and wait for the day that they bite a villian who died more then a minute earlier and then put him through some sort of chocking or force hime to vomit uo or what not. Then again, since that is not in the ability, maybe that would be too much. It reminds me of the Ann Rice vamps who drink blood that has become too old.
2-The half vampire character Blade uses a serum. Maybe he can find such an ally and convince the alchemist who invented the serum to make a dose
for hijm.
I don't see how you get that from my quote. Let me ask a counter question: Why is Cheliax Lawful Evil?
I used "moral justification" in the context of a paladin killing somebody with his sword. You said that there are never moral justifications, which can only mean that you're saying that killing is never justified and thus that paladins must be pacifists.
Maybe you were trying to say that the ends don't justify the means and that you can't commit an evil act for a good cause. But whether or not killing is evil, along with most actions a character might take, depends on all sorts of factors including the goal such actions are trying to achieve.
I never said no shades of grey nor even implied it. I said that the modern notion of shades of grey doesn't map well to fantasy world with hard-coded alignments. This all seems quite clear to me looking back at my post.
If you want to disagree about what I said, fine. But please don't just make things up, apply them to my position, and...
The entire reason that I bring up culture is for role playing. Playing a paladin with a checklist of evil vs good, and lawful vs chaotic acts is lame. It much better to play a character with a real culture and belief system with reasons for accepting or rejecting various activities.
If you don't that fine. It means that drinking blood is OK because it does not match the definition of evil according to the player's handbook.
Paladins are an ideal. Not a religion. That's why Paladins don't require deities. They are all, by default, idealists. They serve good. If a god serves good, then yay for that god; but in D&D, gods do not determine what is good and evil, good and evil determine what gods are.
If Asmodeus woke up one day and said "Y'know, I hate that no one worships me because they really want to. It kind of sucks that some stupid drunkard is more loved than I. Perhaps I've been wrong. Maybe I would have fewer enemies if I mellowed." and began on his way to being a Lawful Neutral instead of Lawful Evil deity, evil doesn't vanish from the world.
Asmodeus is Lawful Evil because he functions in accordance with Law and Evil. If one day he pulled a Grinch and his blackest heart became ten times its size and he became Lawful Good, he's not lawful good because he's a deity and says he's lawful good, he's lawful good because he's lawful good and happens to be a deity.
In a game without alignments, you can totally have Paladins. We don't have alignments in reality, but Paladins are based on historical religious crusaders. But then, Paladins are not champions of good, they are champions of a cause. But in a game where there is alignment, Paladins function regardless of deities. That's why their alignment is lawful GOOD, and not "as your deity".
It's funny to me when I read all this chatter about "cannibalism" this is NOT cannibalism and making up your own words a such as "liquid cannibalism" is not going to fly with intelligent people like myself.That would be a phrase, not a word.
Noted, you are correct in it being a made-up phrase, but still it's made up and not an actual thing.
So someone elses phrase would be more valid? It perfectly describes what you're doing and why its wrong.
You don't eat people. Its a VERY simple rule. You can take it and twist it to drinking people is fine,but you're still imbibing the parts of another sentient being. Whether that part is liquid or solid is semantics, and demonstrates that you haven't the slightest clue about how lawful good is supposed to work
Lawful good is about combing a respect for a process with the respect for people. Your arguments do neither. You do not try to twist the process or more importantly, the entire spirit of the rule, based on a technicality. Your technicalities completely ignore the REASON for the laws to exist in the first place.
That sentient creature is an elf not a human, and its not cannibalism because its a liquid part not a solid one, is disingenuously weaseling your way to an evil action and is the last thing that a freaking paladin should be doing. The next thing you know you'll be tossing babyflesh into a blender and drinking it through a straw "hey its liquid now, so its ok!"
Even your semantic arguments have semantic arguments.
That should be a clue that you're entering Territory far too shady for a paladin unless you're doing it with the absolute nobelist of intentions. Wanting to take a silly straw to the corpses of your fallen enemies? Not the noblest of intentions.
Eating people is not evil.
Agreed, I've had human and I'm not evil.
I noticed that suddenly it became a discussion about "it's not cannibalism so it's not evil", but since when is cannibalism inherently evil?
Once again, chaotic neutral act. It's the "WHY" and occasionally the "HOW" that matters, not the act itself.
I'm still wondering where good/evil/chaotic/lawful come from. If not the gods, then the planes? Societies? Do mortals have the power to change the will of magic itself? Spells that detect alignment have to be getting their compass heading from SOMEWHERE right?
Eating people is not evil.Agreed, I've had human and I'm not evil.
I noticed that suddenly it became a discussion about "it's not cannibalism so it's not evil", but since when is cannibalism inherently evil?
Once again, chaotic neutral act. It's the "WHY" and occasionally the "HOW" that matters, not the act itself.
I'm still wondering where good/evil/chaotic/lawful come from. If not the gods, then the planes? Societies? Do mortals have the power to change the will of magic itself? Spells that detect alignment have to be getting their compass heading from SOMEWHERE right?
Fascinating. How'd you end up eating people? It's not common, to be sure. Must be a rather interesting story behind that one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fascinating. How'd you end up eating people? It's not common, to be sure. Must be a rather interesting story behind that one.Eating people is not evil.Agreed, I've had human and I'm not evil.
I noticed that suddenly it became a discussion about "it's not cannibalism so it's not evil", but since when is cannibalism inherently evil?
Once again, chaotic neutral act. It's the "WHY" and occasionally the "HOW" that matters, not the act itself.
I'm still wondering where good/evil/chaotic/lawful come from. If not the gods, then the planes? Societies? Do mortals have the power to change the will of magic itself? Spells that detect alignment have to be getting their compass heading from SOMEWHERE right?
Well, the thing to know is that my father was a native american and a redneck. One day he came home with an axe wound (another long story, but he used to get into interesting bar fights). There was... well, a little sliver of his back that wasn't going to stay attached. We pulled out his catgut and sewed him up as best we could (he hated hospitals and would rather take care of things himself), and he turned and stared at the sliver of his back that we pulled off.
Saying, "Well, ancestors would be pissed if we let good meat go to waste", he immediately starting cleaning it, prepping it, dried it out in his jerky smoker, and seasoned with some of his favorite seasonings. He only let my siblings and himself split it and decided that this was a lesson about hypocrisy. If we kill and eat animals, we must not feel that we are better than they are. It turned into a sort of native american communion in which we all honored his spirit.
Honestly this is the same father that insisted that I either decide upon vegetarian lifestyle or kill a pig, gut a pig, and cook a pig at the age of eight with absolutely no help from anybody. It was another lesson in understanding not only where meat comes from, but earning the right to eat it by seeing the entirety of a life lost. Once again, native americans are not about wasting a spirit uselessly.
Respect the animals we kill, respect each other, and never let anything go to waste.
Fascinating. How'd you end up eating people? It's not common, to be sure. Must be a rather interesting story behind that one.Eating people is not evil.Agreed, I've had human and I'm not evil.
I noticed that suddenly it became a discussion about "it's not cannibalism so it's not evil", but since when is cannibalism inherently evil?
Once again, chaotic neutral act. It's the "WHY" and occasionally the "HOW" that matters, not the act itself.
I'm still wondering where good/evil/chaotic/lawful come from. If not the gods, then the planes? Societies? Do mortals have the power to change the will of magic itself? Spells that detect alignment have to be getting their compass heading from SOMEWHERE right?
Well, the thing to know is that my father was a native american and a redneck. One day he came home with an axe wound (another long story, but he used to get into interesting bar fights). There was... well, a little sliver of his back that wasn't going to stay attached. We pulled out his catgut and sewed him up as best we could (he hated hospitals and would rather take care of things himself), and he turned and stared at the sliver of his back that we pulled off.
Saying, "Well, ancestors would be pissed if we let good meat go to waste", he immediately starting cleaning it, prepping it, dried it out in his jerky smoker, and seasoned with some of his favorite seasonings. He only let my siblings and himself split it and decided that this was a lesson about hypocrisy. If we kill and eat animals, we must not feel that we are better than they are. It turned into a sort of native american communion in which we all honored his spirit.
Honestly this is the same father that insisted that I either decide upon vegetarian lifestyle or kill a pig, gut a pig, and cook a pig at the age of eight with absolutely no help from anybody. It was another lesson in understanding not only where meat comes from, but earning the...
O.O
...
*golf clap*
Bravo sir...
|
There's nothing about individual deities for Paladins. Nothing in their codes, their ex-paladins, their alignment, nothing. In fact, a Paladin can legally worship a pay lip service to a chaotic evil deity, as long as he or she is still acting in accordance with the Paladin code, which is beyond deities. At least in the core.
World-fluff. Most (though, I believe, not all) Paladins in Golarion do indeed need a deity of some sort (and indeed, the OP has I believe mentioned he's a Paladin devoted to Erastil). It's also a convenient short-hand for talking about Paladins' variable personal codes.
Also, per the Core even Clerics can be of a philosophy, not needing a deity per se.
Out of curiosity, what is all this deity bull-stuffing? Paladins are not minions of deities. Maybe once upon a time ago, but their deity has 0% to do with them in the modern incarnation of D&D/PF Paladins. I quote, to ye all, from teh holy rulebook of teh Paladins.
Through a select, worthy few shines the power of the divine. Called paladins, these noble souls dedicate their swords and lives to the battle against evil. Knights, crusaders, and law-bringers, paladins seek not just to spread divine justice but to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve. In pursuit of their lofty goals, they adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline. As reward for their righteousness, these holy champions are blessed with boons to aid them in their quests: powers to banish evil, heal the innocent, and inspire the faithful. Although their convictions might lead them into conflict with the very souls they would save, paladins weather endless challenges of faith and dark temptations, risking their lives to do right and fighting to bring about a brighter future.
Alignment: Lawful good.
There's nothing about individual deities for Paladins. Nothing in their codes, their ex-paladins, their alignment, nothing. In fact, a Paladin can legally worship a pay lip service to a chaotic evil deity, as long as he or she is still acting in accordance with the Paladin code, which is beyond deities. At least in the core.
So frankly, it bugs me when people say "What deity does the Paladin follow", because that has absolutely nothing to do with a Paladin. For a cleric, sure (though clerics must grossly violate their deity's code, which most do not have, in order...
While certainly the RAW say that you can have clerics or paladins of philosphies rather than religions. Your own quote points out they seek to embody the teachings of the virturuous dieties they serve.
Not only that but your own pictures are of warriors emblazioned with religious symbols.
You have every right to allow blood drinking as not evil in your game. You make a good case for it. Others would object I am not sure why that is so horrible. There are disagreements on thes boards all the time about rules and the finer points of alignment. Not sure why this one is raising so much hullabalou.
I do not believe it is evil.
I like my steak medium rare. Am I evil for eating steak that has a little blood in it?
Drinking blood might be considered an odious personal habit by some, but I do not believe it is evil. That being said, some methods for obtaining blood most certainly are evil.
I wouldn't think drinking a bad guys blood any more evil than killing him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is the kind of nonsense debate I'll miss when alignment is gone. 300 posts of absolute chaotic philosophical discourse. Like "Paladins can't even exist in a game without alignment" who comes up with these takes?