RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Then go look up the legal definition of self defense -- it isn't what most people think it is.Did this, it's a very long rule.Exactly for those that want a very easy layman's version:
1. It isn't self defense if you walk up to them.
2. It isn't self defense if you argue with them.
3. It isn't self defense if you do not try and retreat first.
4. It isn't self defense if you use force disproportionate to the attack on you.
5. It isn't self defense if you attack in any way when the opponent runs or falls.
6. It isn't self defense if you aren't personally being attacked in a physical manner.
7. If you help provoke the attack in any way then it isn't self defense.
As always, I am not a lawyer or your lawyer. But some of that is wrong. Some of it depends upon jurisdiction.
Then go look up the legal definition of self defense -- it isn't what most people think it is.Did this, it's a very long rule.Exactly for those that want a very easy layman's version:
1. It isn't self defense if you walk up to them.
2. It isn't self defense if you argue with them.
3. It isn't self defense if you do not try and retreat first.
4. It isn't self defense if you use force disproportionate to the attack on you.
5. It isn't self defense if you attack in any way when the opponent runs or falls.
6. It isn't self defense if you aren't personally being attacked in a physical manner.
7. If you help provoke the attack in any way then it isn't self defense.
1. [deleted]
2. It isn't self defense if an argument leads you to initiate a fight.3. It isn't self defense if you don't attempt to back down from a challenge to a fight.
4. It isn't self defense if you use force disproportionate to the immediate threat of danger.
5. It isn't self defense if you attack in any way when the opponent is no longer a threat.
6. It isn't self defense if you aren't personally being threatened in a physical manner. (But legally, there isn't really any distinction between protecting yourself and protecting another in similar situations).
7. It you purposefully provoke the attack in any way then it isn't self defense.
Fixed it for you a bit.
Number 1 is actually rather important and I wouldn't recommend deleting it.
If you are on your property and someone down the street is causing a ruckus and you decide to go see what is going on then you are performing high risk behavior that can easily be construed as looking for a fight. Especially if you bring along a nice big maglight flashlight, "To see with and just in case." That maglight is a club -- and when you use it as such in 'self defense' you are going to look very bad since you could have simply stayed away.
@ John Spalding -- jurisdiction is always important. However those are easy to follow guidelines that will almost always keep you out of legal trouble.
|
Number 1 is actually rather important and I wouldn't recommend deleting it.
If you are on your property and someone down the street is causing a ruckus and you decide to go see what is going on then you are performing high risk behavior that can easily be construed as looking for a fight. Especially if you bring along a nice big maglight flashlight, "To see with and just in case." That maglight is a club -- and when you use it as such in 'self defense' you are going to look very bad since you could have simply stayed away.
@ John Spalding -- jurisdiction is always important. However those are easy to follow guidelines that will almost always keep you out of legal trouble.
yet doing nothing brings you to that story about the girl stabbed and bleeding out screaming for hours that no one called 911 for that they always tell you about in motivational speeches in high school
yet doing nothing brings you to that story about the girl stabbed and bleeding out screaming for hours that no one called 911 for that they always tell you about in motivational speeches in high school
I'm sorry did I say do nothing? Because I don't remember saying that. The proper response is to call the police first. Then turn on the lights, get neighbors to do the same -- criminals stop when it looks like the number have changed against them -- the more people and light that are active the less chance they have of getting away. So call the cops then get people up and make noise.
IF the attack doesn't stop then yes something may have to be done -- but you should be very sure of what you are doing before you decide that you are the one to get physically involved -- otherwise you are likely to simply end up another victim.
Number 1 is actually rather important and I wouldn't recommend deleting it.
If you are on your property and someone down the street is causing a ruckus and you decide to go see what is going on then you are performing high risk behavior that can easily be construed as looking for a fight. Especially if you bring along a nice big maglight flashlight, "To see with and just in case." That maglight is a club -- and when you use it as such in 'self defense' you are going to look very bad since you could have simply stayed away.
@ John Spalding -- jurisdiction is always important. However those are easy to follow guidelines that will almost always keep you out of legal trouble.
But that's not what your guidelines said. You said if you ever approach someone, then it's not going to be self defense, with an implied "no matter what they do." And that broad statement, just really didn't make any sense to me.
And even in your embellished example, the man is still probably going to walk away free using a self defense justification so long as he didn't violate any of the 6 other guidelines.
Now if you maybe wanted to make a number one be: It isn't self defense if you go looking for a fight. I could get behind that- but I thought it was kind of a given.
That said, your right that fighting should be a last resort. And the best way to insure your own safety is to call police whenever there is trouble. But that doesn't change your right to use self defense (ie it's probably best to just listen to the man robbing you with the gun, and call the cops later- but if you break his arm to stop him, that, while dangerous, is perfectly legal).
|
|
yet doing nothing brings you to that story about the girl stabbed and bleeding out screaming for hours that no one called 911 for that they always tell you about in motivational speeches in high schoolI'm sorry did I say do nothing? Because I don't remember saying that. The proper response is to call the police first. Then turn on the lights, get neighbors to do the same -- criminals stop when it looks like the number have changed against them -- the more people and light that are active the less chance they have of getting away. So call the cops then get people up and make noise.
IF the attack doesn't stop then yes something may have to be done -- but you should be very sure of what you are doing before you decide that you are the one to get physically involved -- otherwise you are likely to simply end up another victim.
no, but you said "If you are on your property and someone down the street is causing a ruckus and you decide to go see what is going on" If you do NOT go to see what is happening, you have no reason to call the cops other than a noise complaint, which will most likely get a much different response than a beating/attack in progress.
Number 1 is actually rather important and I wouldn't recommend deleting it.
If you are on your property and someone down the street is causing a ruckus and you decide to go see what is going on then you are performing high risk behavior that can easily be construed as looking for a fight. Especially if you bring along a nice big maglight flashlight, "To see with and just in case." That maglight is a club -- and when you use it as such in 'self defense' you are going to look very bad since you could have simply stayed away.
@ John Spalding -- jurisdiction is always important. However those are easy to follow guidelines that will almost always keep you out of legal trouble.
But that's not what your guidelines said. You said if you ever approach someone, then it's not going to be self defense, with an implied "no matter what they do." And that broad statement, just really didn't make any sense to me.
And even in your embellished example, the man is still probably going to walk away free using a self defense justification so long as he didn't violate any of the 6 other guidelines.
Now if you maybe wanted to make a number one be: It isn't self defense if you go looking for a fight. I could get behind that- but I thought it was kind of a given.
Yeah I'm good with that change -- you have stated most of the points in a much better manner. I agree with the change to "It isn't self defense if you go looking for a fight" -- a much better way to put it.
As a general sidenote -- when the police show up realize that almost everyone is going to say they were simply defending themselves. That is very common, and the police are use to both sides saying it was self defense. You are going to have to be sure that the actual events and what the witnesses or video tape saw backs up your claims of self defense. It doesn't look good if you are coming to the situation, start talking, yelling happens, and you don't back down. Especially if you brought something with you, and even more so if you swing first.
The first rule of self defense is not to be someplace where you need to defend yourself. If you have broken that rule then you have already screwed up.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Many jurisdictions recognize defense of others - though I suppose that technically is not self-defense. Some have limited defense of property (especially as to preventing theft). The duty to retreat is very jurisdiction dependent and also depends upon where you are (e.g. some states have no duty to retreat in your own home for example).
Some of the others are nearly universally true, but also not very far from a sort of common sense view of what self-defense means. E.g.beating someone viciously after they aren't a threat isn't much of a defense.
no, but you said "If you are on your property and someone down the street is causing a ruckus and you decide to go see what is going on" If you do NOT go to see what is happening, you have no reason to call the cops other than a noise complaint, which will most likely get a much different response than a beating/attack in progress.
Do you need to go down the street? Do you really need to do that? Can you not tell the difference between someone screaming in pain and a bunch of drunks just being loud? Call the police first. Always call the police -- that is their job -- let them do it. IF you think there is a fight state as much to the police when you call them. That makes them move faster than a simple noise complaint.
But if it is actually a fight do you really want to get involved? Honestly? There is a good chance that the person assaulting someone else is going to have more experience with violence than you have. I'm not talking dojo training -- I mean "Stab you in the gut" violence. They have obviously decided what level they are going to go to -- if you are not capable or willing to be at that level when you get there you are a victim waiting to happen.
***
Honestly your question reminds me of what Macyoung refers to the as the "27 ninjas" questions, I really recommend that website to you as I think if you honestly read it and think about you'll realize that walking down that alley isn't likely to help anyone.
Samurai used bows and were in many ways similar to knights. Food for thought.
That being said I imagine an elven paladin wont think twice about shooting down a raging orc berserker with smite arrows. Same goes for halflings.
IN FACT, would it not be more dishonorable to ride down a man atop a 1000 pound horse than shoot him with a arrow?
One important thing that everyone is forgetting is the paladin has a code of conduct, not a code of chivalry. Now this is not to say that some paladins do not follow the code of chivalry, but not all of them have to. A paladin could just as easily follow the code of bushido as chivalry.
The Knight in shining armor is a cavalier not a paladin. Actually any class can be a knight. Think of Sir Robin of Locksley otherwise known as Robin Hood. He was just as much a knight as anyone. Not all paladins are going to be knights anyways.
If you want to argue that using a bow is against the code of chivalry that is another story.
Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good
alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies
if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
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.
"coppied from the CRB"Act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)
after looking at a few Paladin builds im finding this increasing trend for paladin archers.
Its in common lore that it is dishonarble to use a bow against a knight or worthy oponent.
IE a knight may not shoot a bow at another knight but must meet him with lance or sword.
A peasant may not shoot a knight with a bow for he is a lesser. "unless the knight carries a bow of course"
So under chivalric law, wouldnt a Paladin useing a bow against a non ranged oponent be violateing there code of conduct?
Edit/ added
1130 The Church banned bows and crossbows as immoral weapons not to be used against Christians. Knights considered the weapons beneath them
They are honorable weapons. There have been quiet a few threads on this. If my search-fu mojo is on tonight I will post a link to one that has a pretty good explanation of why it is ok, and the real reason why knights claimed they were dishonorable.
1ST ed. Unearthed Arcana DID hold the cavalier/ paladin to this kind of nonsense.
Actually it only held the cavalier to that standard and my mystery post has that information also.
I wonder if I listed it(put the thread in my list).
and the real reason why knights claimed they were dishonorable.20 internet dollars says it's "It leveled the playing field between knights and peasants and the knights weren't having any of that." ;)
LOL, yes that is correct. Here is your 20 internet dollars. The other poster said it better than I could have so I will still be posting it for the OP.
I will summarize and link several things.
The first is the 1st edition cavalier.
This is straight out of the 1st ed. Unearthed Arcana:
[Cavaliers are not limited in which weapons they can use, but certain weapons are preferred over others, such that a cavalier will seek proficiency in these weapons before learning other weapons. These weapons are the lance (required of the 1st-level Armiger), long sword, broad sword, bastard sword, short sword, horseman’s mace, horseman’s flail, horseman’s military pick, dagger, scimitar, and javelin. In addition, elven and half-elven cavaliers will prefer to use a short composite bow. Only after these weapons have been mastered may the cavalier become proficient in the use of other types.
Weapons that deal out damage at a distance (including pole arms, missile weapons, and the two-handed sword) call into question the cavalier’s personal bravery, and as such are avoided by all except the most powerful of cavaliers. The cavalier may use these questionable weapons at normal non-proficiency penalties, but their use may violate the character’s chivalric code.
As the post that is a little further down will tell you the paladin has evolved and the cavalier was not the first paladin. The later ones had not restrictions on weapons.
More paladin edition history from Jason Nelson.
There is a more than what I am about to post, but here is the history list. I still suggest you go to the link.
1st Ed pre-UA (1978-1985) - paladins like ranged weapons just fine
1st Ed post-UA (1985-1989) - paladins don't like ranged weapons
2nd Ed (1989-1995) - paladins like ranged weapons just fine
2nd Ed Player's Option (1995-1999) - paladins like ranged weapons just fine
3.0 (1999-2003) - paladins like ranged weapons just fine
3.5 (2003-2009) - paladins like ranged weapons just fine
PF (2009-) - paladins like ranged weapons just fine
It seems like the ranged weapons have it.
|
IIRC, it also bears pointing out that the one book in that list that said "no bows for paladins" also gave us one of the derpiest griefer-friendly classes of all time, the original cavalier.
Back to Golarion, along with Erastil and his longbows, there's Abadar and his crossbow loving paladins.
A paladin can weild a gun if he so chooses. Freaking Greyhawk even had a perfect deity match for such a character.
Here is your 20 internet dollars.
brb, flaunting new internet wealth in front of Canada
Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good
alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies
if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
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.
"coppied from the CRB"Act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)
after looking at a few Paladin builds im finding this increasing trend for paladin archers.
Its in common lore that it is dishonarble to use a bow against a knight or worthy oponent.
IE a knight may not shoot a bow at another knight but must meet him with lance or sword.
A peasant may not shoot a knight with a bow for he is a lesser. "unless the knight carries a bow of course"
So under chivalric law, wouldnt a Paladin useing a bow against a non ranged oponent be violateing there code of conduct?
Edit/ added
1130 The Church banned bows and crossbows as immoral weapons not to be used against Christians. Knights considered the weapons beneath them
In Europe these things had very little to with honor - those in power were scared of these DEADLY & AFFORDABLE weapons.
In England there were periods where it was illegal for commoners to practise any other sport than archery. The king would absolve any good bowmaker's debts - and this was done in order to ensure that the english would have the formidable power of longbow archers. Something that often proved decisive against the french.
The Paladin s a fantasy character and concerned with "REAL" honor, regardless of social politics or national ditto.
The Persian nobleman (iron age) was expected to "ride a horse, speak the truth and shoot a bow".
GRU
As others have noted, there are multiple cultures where the most "honored" warriors were expected to be highly proficient with bows. Romans, Persians, Japanese, Chinese, Mongols and many others. Henry VIII was even an experienced archer, in addition to the laws he (and his predecessors) passed to encourage archery in their country. Even the French have some strong archery traditions, but they were greatly overshadowed by the English.
All this tells me that the bow has never been considered a "dishonorable" weapon. On the other hand, when two opponents of stature meet, the "proper" way to fight is in melee. A knight, or knightly paladin, who issues a challenge to an opponent (on a battlefield or off) would probably do with a melee weapon.
Besides the horse, the bow was one of the most prevalent and powerful weapons available throughout most of history. Therefore, it seems silly that a martial caste of society would ignore it.
|
So under chivalric law, wouldnt a Paladin useing a bow against a non ranged oponent be violateing there code of conduct?
Maybe in real life... but I think the rule might have less to do with honor and more to do with the vulnerability of these expensively equipped, trained and landed individuals than honor.
In most Pathfinder settings, Paladins come up against foes like demons, devils, mages, sorcerers, etc. that have a lot more ability to project power at range than anything their real life counterparts had to contend with - not to mention FLYING enemies.
I don't think there should be no such mechanical restriction at all.
That said, there's nothing stopping you from playing a really archetypical paladin with a lot of principles exactly like that one. No ranged weapons, no flanking, no attacking an unarmed opponent, no attacking an opponent by surprise, no retreating from battle, and so forth. I'd love to play as a really stubborn paladin, myself!
This isn't stubborn.
This is overdoing it.
Nonsense like that gave the paladin class a bad name.
People's minds being stuck in the last millennium, thinking that a paladin character MUST annoy the rest of the party.
The last paladin I saw played that way died when he ran into the midst of a quartet of assassins. Smack in the middle, basically begging them to pump 8 sawtooth sabres' worth of sneak attacks into him.
A certain Abadan cleric... "failed to reach" him in time to take him back from the dead. He was very "heartbroken" to lose this jerk who was more a liability to the party and its goals than an asset.
+1
Thanks for saving me a bunch of typing.
No problem. I also do speeches.
"Ich bin ein Bernhardiner!"
|
New-age riffraff, is what these paladins today are. With their "tactics" and their "viable fighting styles". There used to be few paladins back in the old days because the vast majority died believing in their principles, no matter how outnumbered they were or how hopeless their battles were.
Aaah, those were the days. It was so laughably easy to kill those idiots back then. I was almost ashamed that I charged for assassinating them. Lucky for me, I'm a professional and won't let shame get in the way of profit.
Those new-fangled ones, on the other hand, often are a real challange. They're no longer already braindead. Those do-gooder gods these days, they actually allow them to think for themselves. They should be ashamed of themselves.
i think we should all remember that the code that a paladin follows is different depending on each god.
Just so. But even Torag, god of Stereotypes, does not forbid ranged weapons.
i think most people are saying the a paladin has not only a code of honor for his deity but also a chivalric code (but they arent knights so that isnt the case).
You said it yourself: They have one code of conduct.
If they're also knights, maybe in service to a king, they might get another code. But the stupid kings who forbid their knights to use bows and the like probably died out long before the Age of Darkness, so that's allright, too.
i think we should all remember that the code that a paladin follows is different depending on each god.Just so. But even Torag, god of Stereotypes, does not forbid ranged weapons.
i think most people are saying the a paladin has not only a code of honor for his deity but also a chivalric code (but they arent knights so that isnt the case).You said it yourself: They have one code of conduct.
If they're also knights, maybe in service to a king, they might get another code. But the stupid kings who forbid their knights to use bows and the like probably died out long before the Age of Darkness, so that's allright, too.
Their code of conduct is interpreted and enforced by their diety. A paladin doesnt fall because his lord or king doesnt like something they did, but becasue their god doesnt like what they did.
The OP's example of a decree by the pope is nonsense, even the high priest of a god cant make a paladin fall or enforce his code of conduct. The pope also didnt live in a world where there are quite literal walking miracles (divine casters) and people who can make literal fire rain down from the heavens (all kinds of casters). I do believe such realities would cause a slightly different view on the laws of chivalry.
Samurai used bows and were in many ways similar to knights. Food for thought.
No, they're a lot more honourable than anything else in the world. And better warriors. And they can fold paper interestingly. And make poems with exactly 17 syllables. And have those great samurai swords. They can cut through three tanks at once, you know.
And yes, they had bows. All claims that bows aren't honourable are thereby rendered invalid, and, indeed, ridiculous.
Here is your 20 internet dollars.brb, flaunting new internet wealth in front of Canada
Flaunt it as much you want.
Because I got here 20 internet Euros, which is, approximately, one killion internet dollars. HA!
Samurai used bows and were in many ways similar to knights. Food for thought.No, they're a lot more honourable than anything else in the world. And better warriors. And they can fold paper interestingly. And make poems with exactly 17 syllables. And have those great samurai swords. They can cut through three tanks at once, you know.
And yes, they had bows. All claims that bows aren't honourable are thereby rendered invalid, and, indeed, ridiculous.
Your post is no good.
I found it unamusing.Prepare for trolling.
That's popular media talking. While they were on the average somewhat more educated, Samurai were for the most part, pretty much the same swaggering bullies that most Knights were. In fact they were even more likely to cut down a peasant for a trivial reason than Knights were.Samurai used bows and were in many ways similar to knights. Food for thought.No, they're a lot more honourable than anything else in the world.
He used sarcasm.
I know it translates poorly.I'm still not amused.
Edit/ added
1130 The Church banned bows and crossbows as immoral weapons not to be used against Christians. Knights considered the weapons beneath them
James, the honorabilty of using a bow is a cultural restriction, not an absolute game restriction. If the culture that the paladin is playing in/is from has a view that using a bow is cowardly or dishonorable then it is.
While the concept of the Paladin is steeped in real world analogues and legend from the hero's and knights of ancient europe, they are based on, not rigidly restricted to, those concepts.
In other words, no, bows are not dishonorable unless the setting your playing in says they are. If your playing in a campaign set in 1130 Europe and your Paladin is an adherent to that culture and faith then yes, folks would view his use of missle weapons as cowardly.
Otherwise it is pretty safe to use almost any weapon in nearly all campaigns.
As another example, the Church of the Silver Flame in the Ebberon setting is FULL of Paladins using Longbows since it is the favored weapon of the entire church, which has numerous knights and Paladins in it's numbers.
That's popular media talking.Samurai used bows and were in many ways similar to knights. Food for thought.No, they're a lot more honourable than anything else in the world.
No. Popular media wouldn't shamelessly exaggerate the way I do.
Wait, no, they'd do it without batting an eye. But they'd totally mean it. And I totally don't.
i think we should all remember that the code that a paladin follows is different depending on each god.Just so. But even Torag, god of Stereotypes, does not forbid ranged weapons.
i think most people are saying the a paladin has not only a code of honor for his deity but also a chivalric code (but they arent knights so that isnt the case).You said it yourself: They have one code of conduct.
If they're also knights, maybe in service to a king, they might get another code. But the stupid kings who forbid their knights to use bows and the like probably died out long before the Age of Darkness, so that's allright, too.
you make it seem like im AGAINST paladins using bows and such.
im saying that chivalric code and paladin code are different and the paladin code would be what dictates if they could use ranged weapons or not. i havent seen anything that says they cant for paladin codes, therefore, i think its perfectly viable and ok for a paladin to go ranged. im actually thinking of doing that myself.
If the Paladin is adventuring in a kingdom where archery has been outlawed or restricted, then using a bow would be a violation of their code of conduct in regards to following the laws where they operate.
I can see a Chelaxian authority having difficulty with paladins of unsanctioned religions doing just this sort of thing, including requiring licences to practice archery which are rubber stamped for citizens and nigh impossible for outlanders to get.
Beyond the borders of that authority's domain however, then it's just anecdotal.
If the Paladin is adventuring in a kingdom where archery has been outlawed or restricted, then using a bow would be a violation of their code of conduct in regards to following the laws where they operate.
I can see a Chelaxian authority having difficulty with paladins of unsanctioned religions doing just this sort of thing, including requiring licences to practice archery which are rubber stamped for citizens and nigh impossible for outlanders to get.
Beyond the borders of that authority's domain however, then it's just anecdotal.
This depends exclusively on the locale and falls under the "respect legitimate Autority" part of the code of conduct, not the acting with honor part. If the law says no bows or no unregistered bows then as a lawful good character a paladin is going to follow the law laid down by legitimate authority (cheliax is kind of a corner case there but other wise it holds true). The 'honorable' part of the code is his personal code and enforced not by the laws of the land but by the direct hand of his diety.
Well, I would say that there are a few issues here that can be unraveled.
However, as has been said a bunch of times, the point of the "no bows" in RL history was to make bows look like bad, evil weapons (largely because bow and - the even worse crossbows) let an essentially untrained (unworthy) commoner kill an expensive knight (in terms of equipment and training). So bows were to be used for hunting and not as weapons of war, because "real" war was done by slugging it out with weapons.
This allowed for "elite" warriors (like knights) to be worth dozens of men-at-arms who weren't so well trained or equipped. [And, I also echo the earlier statement about running someone down on a horse not being in any way honorable...]
Now, in a fantasy world where: (a) common people are likely to be attacked by goblins or orcs (or others, but let's stick with that), and (b) a single poorly-trained peasant with a heavy crossbow is not likely (heck, able) to kill a well-trained knight [he's likely to miss the high AC, and 2 or 3 hit dices pretty much guarantee survival even if you are hit], well I would say that no authority (be it church or nobility) would try to prevent people from using these weapons. (In case one, people are allowed and encouraged to protect themselves, and in case 2, crossbows aren't equalizers they way they are in RL).
Plus, even the initial edict you're quoting specified "against Christians" -- which meant that any other foe, fair game. So, then, OP, I would say if you cared to have a restriction in that spirit, the paladin would be allowed to use a bow against Orcs, Goblins, Trolls, etc -- and not just flying dragons or demons.
As many have said, this is a different world than the one of Crusade-era Europe, and society (and rules) evolve for reasons -- and those reasons would not have evolved on Golarion. [I mean one of the two LG deities has the bow as his preferred weapon!]
So, the bow is not automatically less-honorable.
Now, if you want your paladins to have to face other intelligent humanoid foes who challenge them (and don't attack them with ranged weapons) in hand-to-hand combat, that's totally your call -- but then the honor-violation isn't the bow, it's not answering the challenge.
you make it seem like im AGAINST paladins using bows and such.
I apologise, that was not my intent.
Well, I would say that there are a few issues here that can be unraveled.
Well said.
I just want to be pedantic and correct two things:
It's dice, not dices. Singular is die, plural dice. You don't pluralise the plural any further, or you shatter set theory as we know it ;-P
The other is that there are three LG deities: Iomedae, goddess of justice and valour; Erastil, goddess of families, hunting and farming; and Toerag, god of dwarven stereotypes.
I just want to be pedantic and correct two things:It's dice, not dices. Singular is die, plural dice. You don't pluralise the plural any further, or you shatter set theory as we know it ;-P
But it's way more fun to double plural. Really, you should try it. Set theory be damned!
The other is that there are three LG deities: Iomedae, goddess of justice and valour; Erastil, goddess of families, hunting and farming; and Toerag, god of dwarven stereotypes.
Ach, you're right. I wasn't thinking with a fake Scottish accent and completely missed old beardy.
You might want to consider that in a setting where wizards are commonly encountered a bow might give a warrior a fighting chance and bows might be considered less cowardly held against the 'greater' cowardice of witchcraft, which is often invisible, ranged and misunderstood.
I do not think every paladin should be restricted beyond what is in the basic code, surely a paladin (or other character) that is forcing himself to follow a more restrictive code is viable, but this should be balanced in some way.
Taking it in another direction :
It might be fun to create some codes for any character to follow, that can be picked, coming with some inherent advantages and disadvantages, this might appeal to lawful and religious characters in particular.
Other characters might be beholden to a similar code as the paladin gaining a bonus on saves versus fear effects and disease.
An even more restricted code for the paladin might enhance his laying on hands ability or give an extra spell per spell level.
There might be codes associated with certain organisations, like an assassins / thieves code as giving a bonus on social skills in specific situations or a discount on poison and other illegal / rare goods.
Characters following a particular religion's code of conduct to the letter might get minor blessings dependent on the dominion of the deity.
But it's way more fun to double plural. Really, you should try it. Set theory be damned!
I just want to be pedantic and correct two things:It's dice, not dices. Singular is die, plural dice. You don't pluralise the plural any further, or you shatter set theory as we know it ;-P
Sheeps. Teethes. Childrens. Feets. Peoples. Informations.
Oh God please make the pain stop! No more! No more! ;-P
witchcraft, which is often invisible, ranged and misunderstood.
Oh, you're misunderstanding? It's easy: I wave around with me arms, talk some gibberish, and that bloke's head comes clean off. Good times!
I have a friend who suggested making a paladin 'horse archer'...
I hated the idea.
All in all the 'honorablity' of the paladin, will be based on the character/player in question. How are you going to USE the bow?
Are you going to poke away at heavy monsters from range... FINE!
Shooting down flying enemies... FINE!
Trying to pierce through heavy armor... By all means FINE!
Are you going to set ambushes and shoot the orcs from behind massive cover so they have no idea what killed them.... Not cool.
Are you going to plink away at a charging opponent, and every time he gets close, RUN away to your full movement and just keep sniping them, as they try desperately to get near you... Not Honorable.
Is the Paladin going to be in the rear of the combat while the rogues and sorcerers are in the front line fighting melee for their lives... not cool...
My own personal opinion of 'Honor' is that the paladin seeks to even the playing field. If the Bow makes it so that he can save people he normally couldn't... Then by all means He's PERFECTLy allowed to use it.
If he's picking a weapon that will give him the biggest unfair advantage over his opponents... NOT honorable.
It's all in the goals and playstyle of the character, NOT in the weapon itself. the Paladin is meant to be the shining beacon of hope... and an example for all little villagers to want to be. If he can do that with a bow. More power to him.
Are you going to plink away at a charging opponent, and every time he gets close, RUN away to your full movement and just keep sniping them, as they try desperately to get near you... Not Honorable.
To quote a smart character:
"Or you could just surrender."