Slavery didn't fit well into my (and most other peoples i think) definition of "Valor", "Virtue" and "his blade defends the helpless".
Except those things are not in the paladin code. The code is as follows:
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.
RAW, valor and virtue are not in the paladin's code. They may do whatever they choose so long as they follow those guidelines and remain lawful good. The code is about as unambiguous as one can expect for its level of breadth. It is the staying lawful good thing that makes things complicated.
"act with honor", did this not include "valor and virtue"? I think yes, honor is a very strange term and used by many cultures in many diferent forms, but I think in this case, a Paladin is a european creation and it's bound narrow to the "Knights of the round table", it could be read as "Knightly honor" or? (Again it's a idelistic world).
And thanks for posting the code of conduct:
"and punish those who harm or threaten innocents" - enslave someone, isn't this the next step from "threaten someone with slavery"?
Paladins are the iconic shinning knights, who uphold the good, chivalry and sacrifice themself for this and their duty.
@Abraham spalding:
These are the excuses of evildoers. Is a Mass murderer a good man only because he killed only squatter. Because "they don't have to suffer so much, if i kill them now." - No, because the act itself is evil. Finding excuses for a evil act didn't change the core of it, it only cheats your own conscience.
What define good and evil? Ok, thats something everybody had to define for it's own in the real world, but in a P&PRG it's well defined by the Gods (and rules^^).
But back to topic, I want to hear more stories. :)
Escpecially the one from Caine and Nate, they are awesome. :)
I have no problem with them doing so But HOW they did so
you have to maintain the mind...
Your description jumps from "A child runs up to you bleeding and say: Help, he's hitting my mom! You run to the house and kick the door in!"
to "A man and woman look up surprised as they're sitting over their dinner." I can't blame the PCs for reacting the way they did if that was similar to the description they got from the DM. I will agree with you that going into the psychological effects of abuse was breaking character but that's not really breaking the paladin's code.
@Abraham spalding:
These are the excuses of evildoers. Is a Mass murderer a good man only because he killed only squatter. Because "they don't have to suffer so much, if i kill them now." - No, because the act itself is evil. Finding excuses for a evil act didn't change the core of it, it only cheats your own conscience.
What define good and evil? Ok, thats something everybody had to define for it's own in the real world, but in a P&PRG it's well defined by the Gods (and rules^^).
I can actually support a Paladin "owning slaves". In the Darksun setting most Paladins had no chance of taking on a Dragon King. So working the system to better the lives of those they can works for me. I could also see one buying slaves in a generally just kingdom. I'd expect in either case the "slaves" would quickly be able to buy their freedom as soon as they could support themselves and be treated extremely well until that point. I also could see a Paladin supporting using proven criminals as forced labor in a just nation. Treating them as anything other then human (or whatever they are) I'd have a problem with.
@Abraham spalding:
These are the excuses of evildoers. Is a Mass murderer a good man only because he killed only squatter. Because "they don't have to suffer so much, if i kill them now." - No, because the act itself is evil. Finding excuses for a evil act didn't change the core of it, it only cheats your own conscience.
What define good and evil? Ok, thats something everybody had to define for it's own in the real world, but in a P&PRG it's well defined by the Gods (and rules^^).But back to topic, I want to hear more stories. :)
Escpecially the one from Caine and Nate, they are awesome. :)
I would say the same about many other acts. However I pointed out Dark Sun for a reason. Also for a long, long, long time slavery wasn't considered evil. No matter your skin color.
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.
Heh, it's good to know there are more paladins around than the one he was playing. ;) Thanks, guys. The other two players were another girl and the guy's friend, and the DM was another friend, so no chivalry there, I'm afraid. Though the DM did apologise for Jerk Guy's behavior as I left. He seemed pretty shocked, too.
More OT, I also like the pledge from Dragonheart as a code. It hits on most of the major moral problems that might be encountered and how to handle them.
A paladin is sworn to valor, <- a limit on sneaky behavior, such as using poison
his heart knows only virtue, <- a representative of his deity
his blade defends the helpless, <- no mowing down, for example, unarmed people
his might upholds the weak, <- which side he should choose in a conflict
his word speaks only truth, <- lead by example
his wrath undoes the wicked. <- pure paladin-y goodness
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.You CANNOT impose modern mores on a society that's not modern. I'm fairly sure Romans* didn't consider slavery illegal. Whether they considered it evil is difficult to prove, but the historian in me says "No, they didn't consider it evil". Of course, in a Fantasy world with objective and physical manifestations of good and evil (celestials and demons/devils), you might be able to have things in Black and White, but that's not how the real world works.
*or any other society up to and including Western civilization in the 19th Century.
Yeah, the problem is that we have about 60 years of Hollywood portraying slavery as pure evil incarnate. After so many brutal depictions of slaves being beaten for any little infraction, a lot of people can't imagine a situation where slavery would actually improve the slave's life.
|
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.
This requires a test of one premise:
Is the paladin balanced against having an alignment restriction, or is that merely a flavor option.
Depending on the exact version of 'paladin' you're talking about, it could likely swing either way. In 1e for example, it was certainly the former. 2e as well, IIRC. Beyond that, I'm not certain. But this is salient.
If balance is an issue, either play something else (that's balanced appropriately) or work out the details ahead of time.
If it's just flavor, then yeah, the GM's just 'being arbitrary' - though this is, in fact, what you're asking them to do when asking them to run a game.
|
|
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
I don't see how the fact the historical 'Middle Ages' was essentially a LE society defines what it means to be LG. These aren't really relativist things. Either it is 'Good' to beat someone or it is 'Evil'. Wherein it falls in a 'grey area', that's got a label, too: Neutral.
It shouldn't matter if the beating takes place in China, on Mars, etc. The deity whom would be taking the powers away doesn't have to consult with a philosophy major before making that call, does he?
Part of managing a game containing clerics and paladins is playing the (sometimes vaguely-defined) roles of their deities.
Also, there's the meta-game angle that your players wouldn't be happy in a fully-realistic setting anyway. Perhaps this is just one more way in which this is 'fantasy' rather than 'historical reenactment'.
|
|
It might be worth the time to consider the difference practices that the term 'slavery' has represented throughout history.
Indeed. It applies to your post as well. If, in that setting, those 'slaves' were free to leave whenever they wished (and accept their death sentence), weren't forced into manual labor or otherwise deprived of value without anything in return, and had a voice in the matter, then yes, there's no 'E' here. However, those aren't 'slaves' by modern English, either. Those might be 'wage slaves', 'indentured servants' or the like, but not the sort of people bound by chains, hunted by dogs and killed for escaping, etc.
The problem with being flexible about the labels is the whole 'normal' justification. (Which in my view wouldn't fly with the paladin's deity.) You'll wind up in a scenario where the paladin argues that it is 'normal' to whip an escaped slave, and necessary to prevent further escapes, and therefore okey-dokey. And, clearly, whipping a bound and defenseless captive is NOT paladin-ly behavior.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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 stillI don't see how the fact the historical 'Middle Ages' was essentially a LE society defines what it means to be LG. These aren't really relativist things. Either it is 'Good' to beat someone or it is 'Evil'. Wherein it falls in a 'grey area', that's got a label, too: Neutral.
It shouldn't matter if the beating takes place in China, on Mars, etc. The deity whom would be taking the powers away doesn't have to consult with a philosophy major before making that call, does he?
Part of managing a game containing clerics and paladins is playing the (sometimes vaguely-defined) roles of their deities.
Also, there's the meta-game angle that your players wouldn't be happy in a fully-realistic setting anyway. Perhaps this is just one more way in which this is 'fantasy' rather than 'historical reenactment'.
Opps, I spanked my child for doing something dangerous last night. I am a bad, bad man.
Just FYI, "beating" is a subjective term. One person's horrible beating is another's safe, sane, and consensual playtime activity.
|
|
Opps, I spanked my child for doing something dangerous last night. I am a bad, bad man.Just FYI, "beating" is a subjective term. One person's horrible beating is another's safe, sane, and consensual playtime activity.
Again, though, this isn't from some kind of democratic 'take a vote' point of view. How does the paladin's deity view it? That's all that matters.
Further, if you cannot determine the difference between sex-play and abuse then you may well struggle when dealing with characters adhering to a strict alignment code. It isn't for everyone. Lots of players have cast alignment to the wayside as an unnecessary hindrance, and play in a world where everyone is 'N'. There's nothing wrong with that, per se, but that's not what we're discussing here, I don't think.
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 stillI don't see how the fact the historical 'Middle Ages' was essentially a LE society defines what it means to be LG. These aren't really relativist things. Either it is 'Good' to beat someone or it is 'Evil'. Wherein it falls in a 'grey area', that's got a label, too: Neutral.
It shouldn't matter if the beating takes place in China, on Mars, etc. The deity whom would be taking the powers away doesn't have to consult with a philosophy major before making that call, does he?
Part of managing a game containing clerics and paladins is playing the (sometimes vaguely-defined) roles of their deities.
Also, there's the meta-game angle that your players wouldn't be happy in a fully-realistic setting anyway. Perhaps this is just one more way in which this is 'fantasy' rather than 'historical reenactment'.
Beatings and slavery are considered evil here and now. That does not make them considered so in the D&D contemporary era.
Don't really see the whole "Dark ages" aspect of Pathfinder. Golarion has rather modern takes on gender equality (there are females with hero class levels, nuff said), rights and opinions. The countries that have slavery AT ALL are mostly the borderline or full-on evil lands, rife with racism.
Just because it is common practice, does not mean it is not evil. Genital mutilation is still common practice is some backwards places of our modern world, but I am pretty sure we can all agree that it is EVIL.
|
|
Don't really see the whole "Dark ages" aspect of Pathfinder. Golarion has rather modern takes on gender equality (there are females with hero class levels, nuff said), rights and opinions. The countries that have slavery AT ALL are mostly the borderline or full-on evil lands, rife with racism.
Just because it is common practice, does not mean it is not evil. Genital mutilation is still common practice is some backwards places of our modern world, but I am pretty sure we can all agree that it is EVIL.
Yeah, this. Put it better than I could, at that.
Don't really see the whole "Dark ages" aspect of Pathfinder. Golarion has rather modern takes on gender equality (there are females with hero class levels, nuff said), rights and opinions. The countries that have slavery AT ALL are mostly the borderline or full-on evil lands, rife with racism.
Just because it is common practice, does not mean it is not evil. Genital mutilation is still common practice is some backwards places of our modern world, but I am pretty sure we can all agree that it is EVIL.
The problem is WHO agrees it is evil. Good and evil are entirely subjective as they are simply philosophical outlooks.
at the end of the day we just need a reference guide on the likes and dislikes of different deities. then you can check and go "uh no your god wasn't happy with that" and whats "good or evil" doesn't need to be defined.
anyway, paladin story, One of my group members liked the paladin powers so without much thought set out to be a generic paladin. He never actually killed anything.... he spent every moment of his time detecting evil and drawing his sword when he found some and shouting EVIL!!!! then continuing to drink his drink at the tavern.
It was odd.... Maybe not a terrible paladin but definitely odd
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.You CANNOT impose modern mores on a society that's not modern. I'm fairly sure Romans* didn't consider slavery illegal. Whether they considered it evil is difficult to prove, but the historian in me says "No, they didn't consider it evil". Of course, in a Fantasy world with objective and physical manifestations of good and evil (celestials and demons/devils), you might be able to have things in Black and White, but that's not how the real world works.
*or any other society up to and including Western civilization in the 19th Century.
Since you missed this, the paragraph you quote was my modern response to some one else's modern response... unless the original post was made by some one who owns a time machine and has infact had those debates in a time before, say 1900. If that is the case, or the original poster is immortal, then that should have been stated in his/her original post.
If you also look, I responded on how I felt a Paladin might respond to such things in a fantasy society where slavery exists and is legal. Keep in mind that a Paladin is also a fictional person pattern after ideallized people or fictional characters. Show me a Paladin in the "real world" and chances are I can find reasons why they wouldn't fit the bill.
The problem is WHO agrees it is evil. Good and evil are entirely subjective as they are simply philosophical outlooks.Don't really see the whole "Dark ages" aspect of Pathfinder. Golarion has rather modern takes on gender equality (there are females with hero class levels, nuff said), rights and opinions. The countries that have slavery AT ALL are mostly the borderline or full-on evil lands, rife with racism.
Just because it is common practice, does not mean it is not evil. Genital mutilation is still common practice is some backwards places of our modern world, but I am pretty sure we can all agree that it is EVIL.
IRL, definitely agree that philosophical outlooks require a much more refined look on things.
In Golarion, I tend to look at what god governs the issue at hand, and how the world looks at it. And obviously open up possibilities to look at a theme from various perspectives. Like fighting. Gorum is the god of battle itself. Raw, untamed and chaotic (CN). Torag is the god of protection and defense, ordered and to preserve the weak (LG). Rovagug is the god of violent destruction (CE).
Slavery is all under Asmodeus wing. No neutral, and definitely no GOOD deities touches that particular slice of pie. Hence, it is by association evil.
Yeah, the problem is that we have about 60 years of Hollywood portraying slavery as pure evil incarnate. After so many brutal depictions of slaves being beaten for any little infraction, a lot of people can't imagine a situation where slavery would actually improve the slave's life.
Actually the brutal portrayal of slaves in media goes back much farther. One of the most famous was "Uncle Tom's Cabin" which was taught as one of the causes of the American Civil War back when I was in school.
But your right, being some one elses property must have been all smiles and roses. All those slaves who tried to escape or rebel were all just crazy people. Not all the movies were bad though, you did have that one that showed all those slave who thought they were Sparticus. See, it shows those bad ol' rebel slaves as the crazy people they were.
And yet, you fail to take into account all the societies in which slavery was not considered evil, even by the slaves themselves, or at least wasn't considered evil by default. Some Roman slaves held more power than freemen, simply because they were the slaves of important/powerful people. And they were treated well, and had the ability to gain their freedom.
As for modern day "paladins", Mahatma Gandhi or Mother Therese would come close. And yes, I realize they probably didn't approve of slavery, but they were living in an age far removed from the ancient or even medieval one.
How am I failling to take them into account? From my stand point in a modern age, I still condemn slavery as it existed and as it exists today. But, again, you are talking about my modern view point. I wish I remembered the term for the polar opposite of some one who is ethnocentric, some one who is willing to accept other's cultural beliefs and customs no matter what they are. I respect other cultures, I can respect many of Rome's achievements for instance, but there are some things I can not personally stand for, I am not one of those people I wish I knew the term for.
Now if this was a discussion of a game set during the Roman Empire and I was say "No, don't represent slavery in your game, it's evil." I could see your point. Slaver did exist, it was something that you could survive, gain freedom, and even power. On the other hand it could still be miserable, pass on to your children, and was something you really couldn't say "I don't feel like doing this anymore". I've actually had games that used slavery as a fact of life with owners that treated their property well. Of course I will point out that I say property, not people.
While both Mahatma Gandhi and Mother Therese were wonderful people, I can't remember any time they used active resistance. Paladin's in DnD be very much about the active resistance.
Yeah, the problem is that we have about 60 years of Hollywood portraying slavery as pure evil incarnate. After so many brutal depictions of slaves being beaten for any little infraction, a lot of people can't imagine a situation where slavery would actually improve the slave's life.Actually the brutal portrayal of slaves in media goes back much farther. One of the most famous was "Uncle Tom's Cabin" which was taught as one of the causes of the American Civil War back when I was in school.
But your right, being some one elses property must have been all smiles and roses. All those slaves who tried to escape or rebel were all just crazy people. Not all the movies were bad though, you did have that one that showed all those slave who thought they were Sparticus. See, it shows those bad ol' rebel slaves as the crazy people they were.
Yes, every single slave was unhappy being a slave, and they all tried to escape every single day of their lives.
/end sarcasmNot every slave was unhappy with their position in life, and tried to escape.
I am not saying slavery was sunshine and roses, but I don't think "Uncle Tom's Cabin" is 100% accurate either. A large part of why it caused the Civil War it that it slanderously painted every slave owner in America at being a vile evil person with no reguard for human life.
Also, slavery in America just before the civil war probably has very little in common with slavery in Rome or Greece 2000 years ago or indentured servitude in Europe 200-400 years ago.
Yes, every single slave was unhappy being a slave, and they all tried to escape every single day of their lives.
/end sarcasmNot every slave was unhappy with their position in life, and tried to escape.
I am not saying slavery was sunshine and roses, but I don't think "Uncle Tom's Cabin" is 100% accurate either. A large part of why it caused the Civil War it that it slanderously painted every slave owner in America at being a vile evil person with no reguard for human life.
Also, slavery in America just before the civil war probably has very little in common with slavery in Rome or Greece 2000 years ago or indentured servitude in Europe 200-400 years ago.
For "Uncle Tom's Cabin": I was pointing out that such depictions went back longer then 60 years. Though while not all slave owners were as bad as those presented in the book, it was well within the realm of possibility.
While there are some differences between slavery between the 19th century and those in Rome, it still doesn't change the fact that a slave was property, not a person. I can't look at another person and not see them as a person. Slavery was not something a person excelled at, it was something that you survived. Sometimes you could make a good life for yourself if freed, like gladiators who survived long enough to gain their freedom, but these are exceptions, not rules.
Slavery still exist today you know. Would you be happy if some thugs dragged you off the street, drugged you, and shipped you off to another country to be sold as a slave?
Aff... this thread became a discussion about slavery. A pity, the stories about paladins wa really funny.
I suppose I should say something here.
People coming here and discussing about point of view and modern ethics miss the point, IMO.
DnD, PF... are not worlds where ethics are abstract concepts, but real forces. It's a game, not a discussion about slavery in Earth.
Slavery is the portfolio of an EVIL Deity, so it's evil in my chronicle.
Believe me, I know my way around the topic od slavery and human rights, from Aristotle to modern Constitutions. I simply don't apply them in my fantasy game.
In the end, it comes down to the campaign world. If you want to somehow justify slavery because it's legal... have fun. (and read Lawful Evil entry). I would not.
I'm not really interested in discussing philosophy here, though, so I'll move on to another thread... maybe: Funny Paladin stories... whatever.
CHeers!
Aff... this thread became a discussion about slavery. A pity, the stories about paladins wa really funny.
I suppose I should say something here.
People coming here and discussing about point of view and modern ethics miss the point, IMO.
DnD, PF... are not worlds where ethics are abstract concepts, but real forces. It's a game, not a discussion about slavery in Earth.
Slavery is the portfolio of an EVIL Deity, so it's evil in my chronicle.
Believe me, I know my way around the topic od slavery and human rights, from Aristotle to modern Constitutions. I simply don't apply them in my fantasy game.
In the end, it comes down to the campaign world. If you want to somehow justify slavery because it's legal... have fun. (and read Lawful Evil entry). I would not.
I'm not really interested in discussing philosophy here, though, so I'll move on to another thread... maybe: Funny Paladin stories... whatever.
CHeers!
+1
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Beatings and slavery are considered evil here and now. That does not make them considered so in the D&D contemporary era.
The problem is WHO agrees it is evil. Good and evil are entirely subjective as they are simply philosophical outlooks.
I don't want to be starting an argument here, but what you are describing is a philosophy called Moral Relativism, and it is based on a profound logical fallacy. It is provably invalid as a moral foundation.
I'd recommend taking an Ethics class or two at your local university. They're pretty interesting.
What it comes down to is that in order to have any kind of moral foundation at all we have to take as a given that there is such a thing as Absolute Goodness( rightness, morality, whatever). We don't have to claim to know what it is, but we do have to understand that it does exist and that it is universal (i.e. not relative or subjective). It doesn't have to be religious or spiritual, and it doesn't have to be backed up by any kind of consequence, but it does have to exist.
This is the foundation of the paladin. Not necessarily someone who understands the full scope of goodness but someone who is wholly dedicated to the idea of goodness as a concept and an ideal. They have the supernatural ability to detect evil in all it's forms. To me, this would include not just someone's nature or the culmination/stains of their choices, but also something's inherent moral worth. A book espousing the virtues of slavery would show up just as evil as a tyrant king.
It wouldn't even matter if slavery was good for a society, or the slaves themselves. It is founded on the simple idea that it is morally allowable for one creature to unjustly remove the autonomy of another. That is evil, therefor slavery is evil, no matter the benefits.
Paladins deal in absolutes. That's why they're the cause of such arguments. Most rational people recognize that absolutes can't usually be afforded or believed in, and when we try to conceptualize absolutes we all have different interpretations of what the absolute encompasses, which makes it seem relative, and therefor open to interpretation. It's circular and frustrating.
Strangely enough, it only gets complicated when we overthink it. I find that when playing a paladin, the best question to ask yourself is "what choice would a hero make". It's hard to go wrong with that.
The worst paladin I've seen . . . fortunately, I haven't seen many.
But this one player, sheesh. Our characters were working for a church as "special operatives." Our new addition was a paladin of said church. Throughout the entire time I played (not long), he asked "What is the church's stance on (whatever)."
We're facing a mayor who's been charmed by evil brigands? "What's the church's stance on executing thieves?"
We are attacked from on high by harpies . . ."What's the church's stance on missile weapons?"
We pass a beggar on the street . . . "What's the church's stance on beggars?"
I played a wizard . . . "What's the church's stance on magic?"
Dude couldn't understand that the DM didn't have Ye Olde Book of Church Doctrine at his fingertips, and wouldn't take it upon himself to make a decision.
And for everyone still debating what constitutes Lawful Good, please go read that article on The Escapist regarding alignment. Really good stuff, and pretty much eliminates all the bickering. Unless you like bickering, then don't read it.
The worst paladin I've seen . . . fortunately, I haven't seen many.
But this one player, sheesh. Our characters were working for a church as "special operatives." Our new addition was a paladin of said church. Throughout the entire time I played (not long), he asked "What is the church's stance on (whatever)."
We're facing a mayor who's been charmed by evil brigands? "What's the church's stance on executing thieves?"
We are attacked from on high by harpies . . ."What's the church's stance on missile weapons?"
We pass a beggar on the street . . . "What's the church's stance on beggars?"
I played a wizard . . . "What's the church's stance on magic?"
Dude couldn't understand that the DM didn't have Ye Olde Book of Church Doctrine at his fingertips, and wouldn't take it upon himself to make a decision.
And for everyone still debating what constitutes Lawful Good, please go read that article on The Escapist regarding alignment. Really good stuff, and pretty much eliminates all the bickering. Unless you like bickering, then don't read it.
I like that the player did this actually, DM's never say what they consider lawful good (or don't cover everything) and then strip powers anyway for bad acts. Asking every time gives the player a better chance to keep his powers
I like that the player did this actually, DM's never say what they consider lawful good (or don't cover everything) and then strip powers anyway for bad acts. Asking every time gives the player a better chance to keep his powers
To an extent, yes, I agree. But it was everything we came across. Even something like my wizard working for the church - "What's the church's stance on magic?" If they have a wizard on staff, it's probably not a big deal.
Now, this pales in comparison to some other stories, but we need more bad/funny paladin stories to get this thread back on track!
I do recall a friend played a paladin who was the proverbial stick-in-the-mud. During travels through the countryside, they met up with some nomadic sheepherders, and the paladin proceeded to preach about the glories of his god. The wizard of the group got ticked and cast "cantrip" that night to create sound effects issuing forth from the paladin's tent. To put it kindly, the paladin was not welcome at breakfast the next morning.
I soo agree
Another paladin I had once, asserted his knightlyhood on everything he came across, soooo many things took gauntlet damage cause he kept smacking people for disrespecting him and all he does for the world.
My character got particularly annoyed so was always making him sound bad hehe DM let him keep his powers because of it
I think that it is not only completely legitimate to have a campaign setting were men and women are equal, as well as concepts such a slavery being being outlawed, but I also feel it necessary.
We live in a world with enough problems, in my campaigns civilized people don't beat their wives without consequence, nor do LG Paladins abide by slavery.
There is enough insanely fantastical things in DnD, adding in concepts of our time that allow people to be treated equally in decent societies are not anymore unrealistic than dragons, and mindflayers.
First of all, interesting posts all, even if the thread has meandered a little.
Second, My thoughts on slavery is that it should be up to the DM, but a character should not be penalized if alignment positions were not originally clear. It is my opinion that slavery as an institution cannot have a de facto alignment. Like many government laws, it is a tool. How that tool is used reflects on its wielder, not itself. A lawful slave owner will treat his slaves lawfully,and a good owner would treat slaves well. Obviously, if a religion states some opinion about slavery that should be followed. Also, blatant generalizations should not be the tools of the paladin. They should seek divine guidance, and that is what Detect Evil and Phylactery of Faithfulness is for. A good DM will take these aspects of slavery into account when introducing them into a game, and they can be great tools for character growth. A similar test could be creating a town where everyone worships an evil deity who had legitimately protected it at some point (probably only to increase his follower base), but every villager from that town worshiped regardless of their alignment.
A paladin has tools for separating good and bad, and they should be used to clarify things in a grey environment sometimes resulting in difficult decisions. Allowing a paladin to just live in the black and white views is encouraging boring characters with very rigid decision making.
So, if you read that far, I guess I can share some stories.
1.) Not technically a paladin, but a monk who became a sacred fist character of mine, Rakkar, did something that is still a joke among my group. We had invaded some subterranean fortress and the opening encounter was a room full of beaten and emaciated slaves being overseen by a beholder who situated himself between two statues formed of former slaves.
When the beholder saw my monk rush in, he quips, "What are YOU doing here?"
Rakkar, "We're here to free the slaves!"
Again the beholder, "We?"
Every other PC,...
I actually enjoyed the reading. Thanks for sharing! =D
First of all, interesting posts all, even if the thread has meandered a little.
Second, My thoughts on slavery is that it should be up to the DM, but a character should not be penalized if alignment positions were not originally clear. It is my opinion that slavery as an institution cannot have a de facto alignment. Like many government laws, it is a tool. How that tool is used reflects on its wielder, not itself. A lawful slave owner will treat his slaves lawfully,and a good owner would treat slaves well. Obviously, if a religion states some opinion about slavery that should be followed. Also, blatant generalizations should not be the tools of the paladin. They should seek divine guidance, and that is what Detect Evil and Phylactery of Faithfulness is for. A good DM will take these aspects of slavery into account when introducing them into a game, and they can be great tools for character growth. A similar test could be creating a town where everyone worships an evil deity who had legitimately protected it at some point (probably only to increase his follower base), but every villager from that town worshiped regardless of their alignment.
A paladin has tools for separating good and bad, and they should be used to clarify things in a grey environment sometimes resulting in difficult decisions. Allowing a paladin to just live in the black and white views is encouraging boring characters with very rigid decision making.
So, if you read that far, I guess I can share some stories.
1.) Not technically a paladin, but a monk who became a sacred fist character of mine, Rakkar, did something that is still a joke among my group. We had invaded some subterranean fortress and the opening encounter was a room full of beaten and emaciated slaves being overseen by a beholder who situated himself between two statues formed of former slaves.
When the beholder saw my monk rush in, he quips, "What are YOU doing here?"
Rakkar, "We're here to free the slaves!"
Again the beholder, "We?"
Every other PC,...
Ooo that's sounds like a fun one to pull.
2.) As a DM, I feel I inadvertently try to turn all my PCs' pallys to the dark side. I think I just enjoy tempting them as players. One paladin was working with the party to take down a BBEG who was a constant thorn for his character. After several escapes, the party finally was able to pin down Mr. Evil with the help of the good church, and, just as he is about to be beaten, Mr. Evil throws down his arms and begs for mercy. The church shows it to him, and takes him into custody.
Later, the paladin visits his arch rival in the prison after interrogation (no torture, but magical compulsion type stuff), and the villain taunts him. "I find it amazing how weak the lot of you are. All it took were two words, 'I surrender', and all your strength is for naught. I know you think you won, but do you really think you can keep me here forever. I will get out, and I will be loosed upon this world once more in the name of my dark master. It is laughable that I can murder whomever I choose, even your friends (a PC death), and, for all your divine might, you cannot manage to even do the right thing."
The paladin performed a coup de grace on the NPC right on the spot. He surrendered to the guards, and accepted the temporary loss of his paladinhood. He planned to ask the good church for forgiveness and an atonement for what he had done. However, during his imprisonment the stronghold of the church where they had the villain held comes under assault from the BBEG's devilish master, and the rest of his evil forces. The other PCs fight are fighting their way through the throng, and the paladin is stuck in the dungeon. Not wanting to waste the opportunity, He is approached by a disembodied voice. It admits to being a devil, but identifies the assaulting bad guy to be his enemy. The tempting devil explains that taking down this church would make the assaulting devil uncomfortably powerful, and he knows that without the former paladin's power the stronghold will fall. He offers arms and armor with the advice "You are a warrior trained in the use of otherworldly might, and there are many sources where that power can be found."
The paladin accepts swapping to Blackguard levels. He is given a magical silver sword, an oil of align weapon(good), some enchanted full plate, and his door is opened. That was the last session I let him play that character as he slaughtered his way through templar and devil worshiper alike to help the PCs take down the new BBEG. The blackguard fled afterward, and the PCs(including that players new character) actually spent some time thwarting the evil plots of their old ally.
That's a nice story, very well played and great in all points!
...It may be appropriate that, if your gods work mostly through their agents, a cleric is sent to a paladin to strip him of his abilities via a spell that is the opposite of atonement, only granted by a cleric of the paladin's own religion. This may make more sense than a god suddenly becoming instantly and viscerally reactive to a player's actions.
That's a great idea. I will share that with my GM as one of our players has talked of playing a paladin that we know will only have his abilities for 10 minutes.
Paladin support groups...
Our group might make that into a DR. Pepper commercial.
Ok...think this is near the top of the heap:
A paladin in my group, hovering at 90 hp, insisted the mage at 8hp open a known-to-be-trapped-but-couldnt-disarm door. Rationale? "The group needs the paladin to survive to lead them to great deeds...the mage is weak with few hit points and will likely die anyway".
When the group called the paladin on his cowardly behavior, his response: "Oh..I guess I'm just supposed to play paladins as lawful stupid".
Sooo, instead he decided to play stupid evil ex-Paladin? ]:->
As I've already given my really bad paladin moments, here's one from one of the few times I've played a paladin (I commonly play rogues) that got a good laugh from the rest of my group. I'll leave you to judge if it was bad or not.
We're fighting a major villian in our campaign, a vampire, back in 3.0 I believe. The DM set the encounter so that if X number of rounds passed something bad was going to happen in the campaign. The deadline is coming up in a round or two so, on the vamp's action, it starts to monolog as the DM figures we can't do enough damage at this point to send it back to it's coffin in time. I went right after the vampire and I roll my attack, hit, and dump my full Lay on Hands into the vamp. We were high level and I remember dumping resources into enhancing my Lay on Hands but don't remember the exact formula, just the total: 98 hit points worth. The Dm gets this look that is some where between shock, horror, and amusement and, after a minute or two say "oh... I forgot they could do that..." The vampire goes poof.
So my paladin gets points off for exploiting monologing (no I wasn't actually punished for not waiting for the vampire to finish). Still it was very funny to my group at the time.