Caine was later resurrected by the Goblin High Priest. :)
It's little touches like this that make great campaigns. Well done, DM and players!
My worst paladin in our group was actually my CG cleric who pretended to be a paladin. My cleric was a good person who wanted to help people. He just happened to believed that by removing the shackles of order, the common people could rise up and take their rightful place in the world. He was all about winning the hearts of the commoners, and equipping them to stick it to the man.
I played up the standard uptight A-hole lawful stupid paladin whenever anyone was looking. I had a ring to hide my chaotic alignment. When no one was looking, I played every organization against the others. If I found something valuable, I would sell or give the information to multiple groups, knowing that a blood bath would result when everyone tried to claim it.
The CG halfling in our group was plotting to kill me because he believed I was getting in the way of his get rich quick schemes. The truth was that I didn't trust him enough to cut him in on my scheme, so I use my LG persona to keep him in line.
I had to leave town on short notice after our group was framed for murder, but on the way out of town, I did incite a riot.
The really sad part was the the big bad was trying to destabalize the region to create a power vacuum. Our group did more damage to order in the region in 2 days than he did in about 6 months. Bah, Amateur.
Ah, if we're going to throw in fake paladins into the mix . . . I had a player that was a rogue that took the minor magic and major magic rogue abilities, took disrupt undead, and wore full plate armor. He took lots of ranks in use magic device and carried cure wands.
He then proceeded to tell everyone around him that he was a paladin. The character actually did mean well. He was Chaotic good, and was roleplaying that he really wanted to be a paladin, but just couldn't wrap his head around the tenants.
There were a few times in that game where the rest of the party looked to him for moral guidance, and he proceeded to give his knee jerk, CG point of view, and then immediately began to cloak his knee jerk comment in platitudes and double talk and claims that what he just said was actually okay in this or that god's church.
It was great, and the rest of the party never quite caught on that he wasn't a paladin, though they knew something was up with his dodge behavior.
Pally: "Draw your sword!"
Goblin: "I'm unarmed!!"
Pally: "What's that thing at your side?"
Goblin: "What, this? It's just for show, I never use it!"
At which point the Paladin simply killed the Goblin. The DM was generous, though, and didn't make a big deal of it. No jury would have convicted him, I think. :P
I'm glad you DM was reasonable. Never using your sword doesn't make you unarmed. Not having a sword makes you unarmed.
Goblin wasn't really thinking this through.
I'm going to run a paladin NPC in one of my games pretty soon who's a slobbering drunk that gambles away his money and spends his nights with surly women down by the docks (taking full advantage of his immunity to disease).
Yet he's still a paladin. He always pays for his drinks on the spot, never leaves a debt unresolved, and would never take a woman to bed without consent (and potentially a bag of gold). He is lawful. He is good. He is also a smelly alcoholic that sleeps in the gutter when he can't afford his rent.
In the same vein of thought, I have an entire religious country in one of my games where paladins are considered to be horrible people whose enforcement of laws borders on overt cruelty. All "evil" races are rooted out and eradicated, anyone who does not praise their god is removed from the country, and laws are upheld with spear and blade. Are they lawful? Yes. Are they good? Technically. Are they complete arses? Absolutely.
But they're still paladins.
And that, I think, is where people get hung up. It might be a strict code, but even the strictest code has wiggle room for character.
I played a Paladin who commit similar acts but again never being evil or chaotic, disease immunity is there so pallys can bang whores right?
In a campaign I'm currently playing, the "Paladin" (and we do the little quotes with our fingers when we refer to his class) doesn't ever remember the name of his god, but manages to fit "convert or die!" into most conversations.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I played a Paladin who commit similar acts but again never being evil or chaotic, disease immunity is there so pallys can bang whores right?
I'm going to have to make a paladin archetype: Pimp. It replaces smite with B****slap and the mount gets really kickin rims for free. It also replaces the divine bond with the bling ability that lets it wear extra magical rings and necklaces.
I played a Paladin who commit similar acts but again never being evil or chaotic, disease immunity is there so pallys can bang whores right?I'm going to have to make a paladin archetype: Pimp. It replaces smite with B****slap and the mount gets really kickin rims for free. It also replaces the divine bond with the bling ability that lets it wear extra magical rings and necklaces.
I heard the Pimp, much like most of DnD was based on characters from Lord of The Bling
I heard the Pimp, much like most of DnD was based on characters from Lord of The Bling
Wait . . . did you think that Goldberry chick that hung out with Tom Bombadil was a friend? Tom Bombadil invented the the Third Age Pimp Walk.
Wait . . . did you think that Goldberry chick that hung out with Tom Bombadil was a friend? Tom Bombadil invented the the Third Age Pimp Walk.
I heard the Pimp, much like most of DnD was based on characters from Lord of The Bling
Totally the only way to cross the barrows safely is by pimp walking.
He was exceptionally rude. He almost got the group killed a couple of times when he refused to do any sort of negotiation with enemies, even if they had virtual armies at their disposal.
HAHA
that sounds ALL to familiar but ours was a cavalier
ABSOLUTELY REFUSED to negotiate with the Lawful neutral Hobgoblin that SPARED HER LIFE after falling into one of his armies traps because HIS BOSS had tortured prisoners
And i swear if i hear one more word about "Do not interferer with my challenge" again i'm going to blow a gasket
YOUR A DRAGON CAVALIER YOU GIVE BONUSES TO YOUR ALLIES ATTACKING YOUR CHALLENGE
Well ive never had a bad paladin, but ill share my favorite paladin momemnt, My friend Jarrett was playing one and the group arrived at a tavern in the woods and a guy was thrown through the window, everyone was like this place is pretty seedy watch yourselves and then the paladin is like "Detect Evil" so i just said the entire tavern is a Glowing Orb of Evil, He then proceeded IRL to place his hands on the table open his eyes as far as he could and scream EVIL!!! and then charged in and fought the entire bar and killed no one, he aressted all of them. everyone was stunned
|
This old gem.Actually, by the law of the day, the paladin was within his rights morally and legally.
Desertion is still punishable by death, and aiding the mass desertion of your own forces is easily treason, with battlefield punishment of immediate execution possible, even in America.
Well we don't know what day's laws there were, since not everyone runs their games as being historically true to medieval Euroope. That and those forces weren't the paladin's.
The guy was just a straight up control freak douche that had no right playing a paladin. He also was suicidally stupid for pootentially starting a race war and further fragmenting the PCs' forces into original enemy vs vengeful elves vs everyone connected to that fake paladin.
Dude was a classic That Guy.
This one happened while we were still playing the beta.
GM: You enter the main chamber. The entire governing body of the city sits before you on raised platforms waiting for you to make your case.
Pally: I detect evil
GM: pause…
GM: You are in a room filled to the rafters with lawyers and politicians.
Pally: “POP!!!” AAAARRRGGG!!!!!! My head!!!!!!
I'm waiting for an opportunity to play my redneck paladin. "Now I detect some evil right over there hick."
I'm waiting for an opportunity to play my redneck paladin. "Now I detect some evil right over there hick."
Redneck pally now that's a concept!
I'm waiting for an opportunity to play my redneck paladin. "Now I detect some evil right over there hick."Redneck pally now that's a concept!
You might be a redneck pally if, your holy water is made with a still.
You might be a redneck pally if, you detect evil on your girls cooking
You might be a redneck pally if, if your mount is a three legged dog named lucky
You might be a redneck pally if, your divine bond is to a garden tool
I could go on, this concept has so much potential.
I don't know what you'll think of this guy but here it goes.
So there is a dwarf paladin who rides a boar mount.
-While his friend is stuck in an ice pit being helped by the party ranger he sits back and drinks his ale.
-They get to the old dwarven forges which is infested with drow scouts.
-They defeat the drow and rather than kill one himself he throws it to the remorhaz nest at the bottom of a pit.
-He spits down a hole which leads to the drow city and also chucks a barrel of rotten mead down.
-In the city someone kills some of the dwarf guards and so he alerts everyone in the inn to their presence.
-To get out he jumps through the window and summons his boar to land on. -Then tells the person who is evil (confirmed by detect evil) to surrender or he'll attack.
-He waits two rounds while the person is performing a ritual to summon some evil god/beast thing.
-He then charges and beats the s%#@ out of them.
-They summon the beast which he does a lot of damage to before becoming paralyzed from the legs down and fleeing with the rest of the city.
My paladin story came from another player being a CN A-hole lol.
He was "created" by another player being a CN sorcer who burned a goblins nursery
it inspired my other friend to make a goblin paladin who had survived that massacre and was mentored by a paladin who took pity on the burned and scarred small goblin child
so his goal was to enlighten/convert goblins and protect children
his name? Neer the goblin.
also what has helped me as a DM and a player with alignment was this article.
really helped make sense of it all.
Later that day, the paladin's player punched me in the head for arguing with him about what constituted dishonorable behavior. Yeah, the irony wasn't lost on me. The jerk went on to become a known figure in the LARP community of Denmark.
Wow...just...wow. Maybe we do things differently here in the southern US, because had that guy punched me or any gamer I know in the head he'd still be taking his meals through a straw.
Maybe the worst example of a Paladin I ever saw was a DM when I first began playing AD&D back in the 80s. He took the alignment description for things in the MM as gospel, and it didn't matter if the orc was going toe to toe with him or was a babe in a crib, he was going to kill it.
He was also notorious for using his own PC's in the games, giving them equal shares of the loot and experience. In one game, where the example with the orc child occurred, I was playing a Paladin as was another guy. We refused to kill the children, and he withheld XP from us for not playing our alignment correctly.
|
As long as slavery was not illegal by the local laws it would not go against the paladin code, as upholding personal freedom is a chaotic standpoint.
EDITED
So long as the paladin was LE or LN you'd be correct. LG, probably not so much. The 'G' would require that the 'L' was actually applied fairly. Being born into slavery, for example, would violate the 'G'.
The worst paladin I've ever seen was a guy I played with back in grad school, 1st edition. Didn't know the name of his God - had no discernible code. Was always the first to bring up the possibility of torture. Was utterly cowardly, always the first to flee a fight. Liked to make cruel jokes about peasants, children and other helpless creatures. Was arrogant beyond belief.
And totop it all. The player was caught red-hamded cheating on die rolls ... not just once, but multiple times. The irony of someone playing a pladin cheating on their die rolls was completrely lost on him. Finally had to pull him aside and tell him flat out he couldn't play a paladin anymore, or even a LG character.
|
|
Again in the vein of 'not-paladins', I once had a player with a dragon-worshiping centaur cause a TPK in the exact middle of running the Dragon Mountain boxed set. The party was approached by a 'competing party' comprised of holy warriors, clerics, and paladins from 'The Big Church' of that campaign. It went something like this:
Church: Stand aside, weary travelers. While you need rest and healing, our group is more than ready to ascend into the dragon's lair. What's more, we are far better equipped to actually kill it.
Centaur: WHAT? You KILLED a DRAGON?
And so on. She got all lathered up and launched an attack pitting one 'good' force against the other 'good' force because one of these had the audacity to kill dragons in a game with this very notion in the title. Unfortunately for her, the other group really WAS better equipped... Much more so.
So not so much a 'paladin' as in the class, but definitely in the vein of 'religious conviction makes you stupid' territory.
I've never really had an issue with players abusing paladins as a class, but then again, I rarely tolerate a powergamer for more than a session.
I do remember one of the first games I ever ran, AD&D2e, I didn't check over all my players' character sheets; I just took for granted that they had read the character creation rules, despite being mostly all new players (I was a new DM too). About halfway into the first adventure, I noted the paladin was doing an absurdly good job at not being hit. I took a look at his sheet and lo and behold, his 1st level paladin was somehow wearing field plate. I asked him how the heck he thought he could afford armour with a price tag of several thousand gold with starting gold of around 150gp. His response: "But all paladins wear plate armour!"
On the flip side, I know I've been criticized for how I play my paladins as well. Mercy in particular is a concept I've argued with DMs over. I played an elf paladin in one D&D3e game, and during a dungeon crawl, we stumbled across a wounded, half-dead drow as it stumbled up from the lower levels, chased up by something bigger and meaner; usual Underdark circle-of-life stuff. We (the players) questioned the drow, but when the time came to decide what to do with it, I voted to let it live. I wasn't going to strike down an opponent that had no chance to defend itself and I wasn't going to leave it tied up in a dungeon where it would be prey for whatever random encounter was lucky enough to stumble across a bound and mostly alive meal. That was pretty much cold-blooded murder to me. I essentially voted to let the drow go, let him continue fleeing, and lick his wounds elsewhere. The other party members were all for just killing the drow and to end the argument another party member just up and killed the drow before I could intervene. Didn't sit well with my character and I later got pulled aside by the DM and told that, as a paladin, I should be eagerly smiting any evil thing I come across, no matter the circumstance, and drow are pretty clearly evil things.
I dropped out of the game shortly thereafter because I didn't appreciate being pressured into changing my playstyle and the DM was now on my case for not playing to his standards. I typically play paladins with a merciful streak in them, sort of like rookie cops that believe the system still works. But that's me. There's flexibility in the class for how paladins (and players) interpret their code and it tends to rankle on me when DMs are inflexible on how paladins should be played in their games.
But that's my two cp.
So long as the paladin was LE or LN you'd be correct. LG, probably not so much. The 'G' would require that the 'L' was actually applied fairly. Being born into slavery, for example, would violate the 'G'.As long as slavery was not illegal by the local laws it would not go against the paladin code, as upholding personal freedom is a chaotic standpoint.
EDITED
Depends on the terms of the slavery. If it was that old-timey hereditary slavery then yeah. However, if it was more along the lines to pay off the debt and both were released when the debt was paid then it is a defensible position (providing local legality etc.).
|
|
However, if it was more along the lines to pay off the debt and both were released when the debt was paid then it is a defensible position (providing local legality etc.).
Agreed. Barring exploitation, there's no violation of the 'G', and 'L' was already good to go.
Question: Is the paladin evil for not stopping to find out which it is?
:)
[sidetrack]
Wow...just...wow. Maybe we do things differently here in the southern US, because had that guy punched me or any gamer I know in the head he'd still be taking his meals through a straw.
I'm not a very strong girl, whereas the guy was pretty fit, so I wasn't about to get into a fight with him. Had I been the Hulk, though, it would have been awfully tempting.
[/sidetrack]
However, if it was more along the lines to pay off the debt and both were released when the debt was paid then it is a defensible position (providing local legality etc.).Agreed. Barring exploitation, there's no violation of the 'G', and 'L' was already good to go.
Question: Is the paladin evil for not stopping to find out which it is?
:)
No. The paladin is not lawful for stopping to find out. The paladin needs to uphold the laws of the land, which cannot be done if the laws are not known.
The paladin needs to uphold the laws of her deity, which cannot be done if the laws are not known.Somewhat subtle difference, but still. They'd want to check and see if it matched, maybe.
Hmm... since their powers are tied to the deity probably checking in with them might be the wiser. But (correct if I'm wrong, I don't play divine characters very much) aren't most deity descriptions a little on the vague side? So still they have to balance their deity's hardline views and creating chaos by disturbing the peace.
The paladin needs to uphold the laws of her deity, which cannot be done if the laws are not known.Somewhat subtle difference, but still. They'd want to check and see if it matched, maybe.
Actually, a paladin is supposed to uphold all laws(Diety/Order/Country), unless there is a conflict.
If there is a conflict, then the higher power overrides the lower. Laws of your diety take are more important than the laws of your order. The laws of your order are more important than the laws of the country you are in. and so on.
[sidetrack]
Wow...just...wow. Maybe we do things differently here in the southern US, because had that guy punched me or any gamer I know in the head he'd still be taking his meals through a straw.I'm not a very strong girl, whereas the guy was pretty fit, so I wasn't about to get into a fight with him. Had I been the Hulk, though, it would have been awfully tempting.
[/sidetrack]
You're a GIRL and he hit you!?
Actually, a paladin is supposed the chivalry code, he's the shining knight, the one who always speaks the truth etc.
Short form:
A paladin is sworn to valor,
his heart knows only virtue,
his blade defends the helpless,
his might upholds the weak,
his word speaks only truth,
his wrath undoes the wicked.
This is what a Paladin is about, a Paladin who take slaves, regardless how good he treat them, isn't good, is no shining knight.
Also someone who really think about using torture or any dirty trick to get to his goal.
A Paladin is the pure and exemplary good, the one with the white jacket, everything else is just a fighter who claimed to be a Paladin/Knight
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of my first Rogues got stabbed in the back by the group Paladin for picking a lock in the dungeon we were in. He waited until after I succeeded. My Wizard that followed died because we were running from some monster and that same Paladin slammed and locked that very same door behind him, leaving me behind to be eaten.
I also died from a Paladin for trying to fend off a monster polymorphed as a woman. The paladin comes around the corner, sees me stab "her", and then procedes to strike down his loyal friend he'd known for years.
If some one is playing a Paladin I think they should read about Michael Carpenter from the Dresden Files, one of the best portrayals of a Paladin I've seen.
[sidetrack]
Wow...just...wow. Maybe we do things differently here in the southern US, because had that guy punched me or any gamer I know in the head he'd still be taking his meals through a straw.I'm not a very strong girl, whereas the guy was pretty fit, so I wasn't about to get into a fight with him. Had I been the Hulk, though, it would have been awfully tempting.
[/sidetrack]
Hold the phone. Not only did he hit a fellow player, he hit a GIRL?! Who is this guy so I can kick his @$$. Better yet, why didn't anyone else at the table step in?
Actually, a paladin is supposed the chivalry code, he's the shining knight, the one who always speaks the truth etc.
Short form:
A paladin is sworn to valor,
his heart knows only virtue,
his blade defends the helpless,
his might upholds the weak,
his word speaks only truth,
his wrath undoes the wicked.This is what a Paladin is about, a Paladin who take slaves, regardless how good he treat them, isn't good, is no shining knight.
Also someone who really think about using torture or any dirty trick to get to his goal.
A Paladin is the pure and exemplary good, the one with the white jacket, everything else is just a fighter who claimed to be a Paladin/Knight
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Now there is nothing in the paladin's code that prevents him from practicing slavery. There are heavy restrictions on it though. Slavery must be legal where the paladin practicing (legitimate authority), they must not be forcefully acquired (act with honor), it must at some point provide them with some benefit (help those in need), and must not exploit them (punish those who harm or threaten innocents). Only the third really seems contrived and in practice it would be the primary limitation to the practice. The providing of a benefit can take different forms. Most commonly it would for absolving debt, though other instances may crop up. Technically a paladin could even maintain hereditary slaves provided that they came willingly and the paladin treated them better than their previous master.
What's up with this recent fascination of paladins holding slaves?
Slavery is EVIL in PF. Asmodeus is the god of slavery. The _PRINCE OF HELL_ counts it as one of his chief portfolios.
The only way a paladin would be able to hold slaves would be if they had nowhere to go, no means for surviving on their own, and they were free to go if this changed. And they would not be called SLAVES while this was going on. They work out of the goodness of their hearts, for a benevolent protector.
What's up with this recent fascination of paladins holding slaves?
Slavery is EVIL in PF. Asmodeus is the god of slavery. The _PRINCE OF HELL_ counts it as one of his chief portfolios.
The only way a paladin would be able to hold slaves would be if they had nowhere to go, no means for surviving on their own, and they were free to go if this changed. And they would not be called SLAVES while this was going on. They work out of the goodness of their hearts, for a benevolent protector.
Because you obviously haven't talked to a philosophy department at a university, these kinds of debates are always to be had and are quite enjoyable.
I'm not a very strong girl, whereas the guy was pretty fit, so I wasn't about to get into a fight with him. Had I been the Hulk, though, it would have been awfully tempting.
[/sidetrack]
The paladin in me wants to find this guy and get very creative in my expressions of disapproval. My collection of disapproval tools is extensive, and I can be very expressive.
|
Actually, a paladin is supposed the chivalry code, he's the shining knight, the one who always speaks the truth etc.
Short form:
A paladin is sworn to valor,
his heart knows only virtue,
his blade defends the helpless,
his might upholds the weak,
his word speaks only truth,
his wrath undoes the wicked.This is what a Paladin is about, a Paladin who take slaves, regardless how good he treat them, isn't good, is no shining knight.
Also someone who really think about using torture or any dirty trick to get to his goal.
A Paladin is the pure and exemplary good, the one with the white jacket, everything else is just a fighter who claimed to be a Paladin/Knight
Isn't that the "Old Code" from the movie Dragonheart? :P
While I agree that that is a very good code for RPG Paladins, the actual "code of chivalry" is a much more nebulous thing, and there was never a single code which was followed everywhere. In his book "Chivalry", Maurice Keen makes a good case for five major "virtues" of chivalry (forgive my mangling of the french spellings:
Loyaute (loyalty, to the knight's liege lord or commander)
Courtoisie (Courtesy, primarily to other knights and respect for the wife of his liege, proper behavior at court, etc)
Prouesse (prowess in battle)
Largesse (generosity, primarily to his fellow knights and vassals who he needed to equip for war)
Franchisse (Frankness, basically plain speaking and open dealing with fellow knights)
It's a good book, I heartily recommend it.
Because you obviously haven't talked to a philosophy department at a university, these kinds of debates are always to be had and are quite enjoyable.
Outside of those philosophy departments, most place consider slavery illegal as well as evil. To be honest I've had similar discussions but they've always been about the nature of good and evil or whether such concepts really exist, not as specific as whether slavery was evil or not. No matter how good an arguement is I also find slavery illegal and evil.
What's good or evil is largely up to the individual but I can tell you somethings will not fly with me if you plan on keeping your Paladin abilities:
-Killing the defenseless because they are evil.
-Rape.
-Torture.
-Taking Slaves.
-Genocide.
-Taking land/property simply because they're evil.
-Standing by and letting others do evil because it's convinent
There are things that players can do that might get around these if it serves a greater good. For instance stealing a dangerous artifact from a private owner so that they don't accidently release some ancient evil and the paladin avoids hurting innocent guards. I also won't fault a paladin for not showing mercy to a Demon or Devil as they are evil by their very existance (as in "Evil Outsider", not "Alignment: usually evil") and supernatural.
Heh. That just further illustrates the real problems with paladins; the interpretation of a paladin's code, what constitutes "good", the base concept of one actually is and the disagreements that come up between the player and GM's concept/biases.
Many GM's want to shackle paladins down with restrictions that are not borne out in the description or in the rules of the class. This is turn further restricts the player’s ability to build their character concepts unless they fit in the GM’s (very often extremely narrow) worldview.
What's up with this recent fascination of paladins holding slaves?
Slavery is EVIL in PF. Asmodeus is the god of slavery. The _PRINCE OF HELL_ counts it as one of his chief portfolios.
The only way a paladin would be able to hold slaves would be if they had nowhere to go, no means for surviving on their own, and they were free to go if this changed. And they would not be called SLAVES while this was going on. They work out of the goodness of their hearts, for a benevolent protector.
Okay. In a current and Modern mindset, i fully agree. But in a Fnatacy qusi-medeivl mindset, i'm unsure.
In a game i play in, a child walked a general store crying and bleeding. When our parties paladin asked what was wrong he said that a man was hitting his mother.Our paladin, rouge, and cleric all rush too the scene. My charcter on the other hand ask who this man is. The kid replies, his step-father. So the 3 charters break down the door expecting a combat encounter with bandits or something only to find the to sitting at the table. so rather than a fight the characters (who had COMPLETELY broke character by the way) spent THE ENTIRE SESSION explaining why beating the wife and children is wrong (The paladin actually said that the child would become a sociopath)
My character (human druid) simply said "Whats wrong with that, thats how i was brought up"
From a modern mindset yeas, the child beating and slavery are 100% evil but in a fantasy setting they very well may be the norm... maybe not necessarily GOOD but still
OH and that town, now believes that sociopath is a holy term from desna and decided to rename their town Sociopath"
Okay. In a current and Modern mindset, i fully agree. But in a Fnatacy qusi-medeivl mindset, i'm unsure.
In a game i play in, a child walked a general store crying and bleeding. When our parties paladin asked what was wrong he said that a man was hitting his mother.
Our paladin, rouge, and cleric all rush too the scene. My charcter on the other hand ask who this man is. The kid replies, his step-father. So the 3 charters break down the door expecting a combat encounter with bandits or something only to find the to sitting at the table. so rather than a fight the characters (who had COMPLETELY broke character by the way) spent THE ENTIRE SESSION explaining why beating the wife and children is wrong (The paladin actually said that the child would become a sociopath)
My character (human druid) simply said "Whats wrong with that, thats how i was brought up"From a modern mindset yeas, the child beating and slavery are 100% evil but in a fantasy setting they very well may be the norm... maybe not necessarily GOOD but still
OH and that town, now believes that sociopath is a holy term from desna and decided to rename their town Sociopath"
Well most fantasy games I've played in have had women being equals to men, a vast seperation from medieval cultures. This is largerly because this is how myself and the other male players see them. We wouldn't be able to beat a woman for expressing her opinion, especially a fellow PC, even though it would be "appropriate". Similarly we would never portray child prostitution as anything but evil even though it was culturely appropriate in some medival cultures.
Also, even if woman weren't the equals of men in your game, I'd have no problem if the Paladin ran off to help when a child came, desperate for help for his mom, because she was being beaten and not him. I'll leave the child discipline vs abuse alone.
You're a GIRL and he hit you!?[sidetrack]
Wow...just...wow. Maybe we do things differently here in the southern US, because had that guy punched me or any gamer I know in the head he'd still be taking his meals through a straw.I'm not a very strong girl, whereas the guy was pretty fit, so I wasn't about to get into a fight with him. Had I been the Hulk, though, it would have been awfully tempting.
[/sidetrack]
Yeah. That brings a certain saying to mind that is relevant to that particular situation and the thread at large.
“Of course we must fear evil men, but there is another evil that we must fear more… and that is the indifference of good men.”
Sounds like the people just standing by with stupid looks on their faces should be kicked in the face just as much as the offending guy.
Okay. In a current and Modern mindset, i fully agree. But in a Fnatacy qusi-medeivl mindset, i'm unsure.
In a game i play in, a child walked a general store crying and bleeding. When our parties paladin asked what was wrong he said that a man was hitting his mother.
Our paladin, rouge, and cleric all rush too the scene. My charcter on the other hand ask who this man is. The kid replies, his step-father. So the 3 charters break down the door expecting a combat encounter with bandits or something only to find the to sitting at the table. so rather than a fight the characters (who had COMPLETELY broke character by the way) spent THE ENTIRE SESSION explaining why beating the wife and children is wrong (The paladin actually said that the child would become a sociopath)
My character (human druid) simply said "Whats wrong with that, thats how i was brought up"From a modern mindset yeas, the child beating and slavery are 100% evil but in a fantasy setting they very well may be the norm... maybe not necessarily GOOD but still
OH and that town, now believes that sociopath is a holy term from desna and decided to rename their town Sociopath"
Well most fantasy games I've played in have had women being equals to men, a vast seperation from medieval cultures. This is largerly because this is how myself and the other male players see them. We wouldn't be able to beat a woman for expressing her opinion, especially a fellow PC, even though it would be "appropriate". Similarly we would never portray child prostitution as anything but evil even though it was culturely appropriate in some medival cultures.
Also, even if woman weren't the equals of men in your game, I'd have no problem if the Paladin ran off to help when a child came, desperate for help for his mom, because she was being beaten and not him. I'll leave the child discipline vs abuse alone.
I have no problem with them doing so But HOW they did so
you have to maintain the mind set of the character, the chareters do NO know modern psychology, and would be limited by their knowledge. So in that mindset would BASHING IN THE DOOR WEAPONS IN HAND to a quite family dinner be the right course of action.A different character of mine would have a different mindset. I'm just saying a different approach is necessary in a past setting.
Slavery is legal in MANY places, and accepted. keeping salves may not be evil, and keeping slaves but treating them well may even be considered good
the atmosphere must be kept. And different thought processes are required.
Isn't that the "Old Code" from the movie Dragonheart? :P
Yes :)
And I think, even if this is a knight code, it also fit the Paladin, lets face it, Paladin are only the idealistic version of the good knight, lead by a greater good (his faith).Now there is nothing in the paladin's code that prevents him from practicing slavery.
Slavery didn't fit well into my (and most other peoples i think) definition of "Valor", "Virtue" and "his blade defends the helpless".
Don't mess up slavery with a feudal system, I would say yes to a Paladin in a feudal system with servants. But there is a main difference between servants and slaves.
Servants are treated like every other human, the lord have to care for them and protect them(it wasn't uncommen, that a lord who didn't care or exploit his servants would be punished by his king).
Slaves on the other hand are goods, a owner of slaves can do whatever he want with them, exploit them, kill them... doesn't matter.
The example which was given here from the Paladin with slaves, looks more like a "landlord and his servant" version, he cared for them, he defend them etc.
Don't mix up this both, even if the line is very thin.
Also think of Pathfinder as an idealistic Medival world, the world of King Arthur etc. not the real dark age. This is also something which needs to be considered, sometimes someone argue with the "but it's a medival world..", no it isn't its a romantic, idealistic version of our dark ages.
So bring it to a point, don't mess up slaves and servants.
e.g.:
We have had a party that had a paladin that kept slaves. He treated them well (fed regularly and healthily, kept in clean clothes, with a good shelter to sleep in -- allowed rest if working in a very hot/cold environment -- punished but didn't maim or kill run aways (there were a few), etc) and freed them after several years of service.
This isn't slavery, it's a system of feudal tenure with servants.
Isn't that the "Old Code" from the movie Dragonheart? :P
Yes :)
And I think, even if this is a knight code, it also fit the Paladin, lets face it, Paladin are only the idealistic version of the good knight, lead by a greater good (his faith).Now there is nothing in the paladin's code that prevents him from practicing slavery.Slavery didn't fit well into my (and most other peoples i think) definition of "Valor", "Virtue" and "his blade defends the helpless".
Don't mess up slavery with a feudal system, I would say yes to a Paladin in a feudal system with servants. But there is a main difference between servants and slaves.
Servants are treated like every other human, the lord have to care for them and protect them(it wasn't uncommen, that a lord who didn't care or exploit his servants would be punished by his king).
Slaves on the other hand are goods, a owner of slaves can do whatever he want with them, exploit them, kill them... doesn't matter.
The example which was given here from the Paladin with slaves, looks more like a "landlord and his servant" version, he cared for them, he defend them etc.
Don't mix up this both, even if the line is very thin.
Also think of Pathfinder as an idealistic Medival world, the world of King Arthur etc. not the real dark age. This is also something which needs to be considered, sometimes someone argue with the "but it's a medival world..", no it isn't its a romantic, idealistic version of our dark ages.So bring it to a point, don't mess up slaves and servants.
e.g.:
We have had a party that had a paladin that kept slaves. He treated them well (fed regularly and healthily, kept in clean clothes, with a good shelter to sleep in -- allowed rest if working in a very hot/cold environment -- punished but didn't maim or kill run aways (there were a few), etc) and freed them after several years of service.This isn't slavery, it's a system of feudal tenure with servants.
OH...woops i skrewed up
this is more what i had in mind when i was supporting the whole paladin w/ slaves idea
WARNING -- The following is from a dark sun campaign. Take into mind that in dark sun it's what eats you not if you die. As such (and due to the lack of water) take several steps back when considering the following.
LG character (not a paladin because dark sun doesn't really have paladins) has slaves, DM asks him how he can keep slaves and be lawful good. Player response:
1. These are the weak and invalid. These would be slaves no matter what. I treat them better thereby improving their lives.
2. If released these would soon end on the streets with little to sustain them. By releasing them I would in effect be giving them a death sentence, which is undeserved.
3. By having slaves handle my daily needs I give their lives purpose and direction -- they in return give me time back that can be better spent help those that are actually less fortunate than my slaves. By better utilizing my time I better the world and they contribute to making everyone's lives better.
Now I realize this would not hold in every setting, which is why the warning is at top -- but in many cases the theory of proper treatment can lead to 'slavery' being a good thing. However in such cases it often comes to better represent the feudal system, and is easily corrupted.
The basis of slavery in the old testament of the Bible was very different then the practices we have come to know today. It might be worth the time to consider the difference practices that the term 'slavery' has represented throughout history.