If my Paladin is a practicing homosexual, is he violating his knightly code? I mean, back in the medievel ages it was a hideous crime, so it must be true too, right?
If my Paladin is a practicing homosexual, is he violating his knightly code? I mean, back in the medievel ages it was a hideous crime, so it must be true too, right?
Just go farther back and be greek and you will be okay.
Sheeps. Teethes. Childrens. Feets. Peoples. Informations.
Oh God please make the pain stop! No more! No more! ;-P
I'm with you except for the Feets thing but that may be due to too much LOLcats
If my Paladin is a practicing homosexual, is he violating his knightly code? I mean, back in the medievel ages it was a hideous crime, so it must be true too, right?Just go farther back and be greek and you will be okay.
Or be Norse/Scandinavian and depending on what your preferences are you could be just fine or deserving of death.
Paladin archers are honorable.
Next topic.
Back in the AD&D days they had rules about Paladins not being able to used ranged weapons. All combat was Mono-a-mono style. They also had to give up money to the church and had limits on how much magic they could own.
All those rules went away in later editions. So unless you are part of a specific code of knights... or your DM does not really like paladins you should be fine. Now if you choose to RP that way it is fine, but you should not suffer lose of class abilities or anything.
@phantom1592
So you think that all paladins are stupid right?
Because really anyone who gives up a non-evil advantage in a fight is clearly stupid.
Back in the AD&D days they had rules about Paladins not being able to used ranged weapons. All combat was Mono-a-mono style. They also had to give up money to the church and had limits on how much magic they could own.
All those rules went away in later editions. So unless you are part of a specific code of knights... or your DM does not really like paladins you should be fine. Now if you choose to RP that way it is fine, but you should not suffer lose of class abilities or anything.
My advanced dungeons and dragons player's handbook does not say what you are saying. It in fact includes and example of a paladin with a longbow.
I have a friend who suggested making a paladin 'horse archer'...
I hated the idea.
Because of the player or because of the horseback archery theme?
Are you going to set ambushes and shoot the orcs from behind massive cover so they have no idea what killed them.... Not cool.
But... they're orcs! They're too stupid to know anything, anyway.
And again, I have to ask: Did that enter your head because you know the player in question is a sneaky little weasel, or because you just assume that a horseback archer paladin will have to be a weasel?
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.
Not dishonourable, either. I don't think that honourable means you have to play the game by the enemy's rule. Because the whole fighting thing is not a game.
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...
Where are you getting this? Has the sorcerer stated that he feels forced into the front lines? Without seeing the character in action, or, at the very least, knowing about the party composition, assumptions like that are more libel than anything else.
Nobody does it say that the paladin MUST be an immobile tank-like warrior with the heaviest possible armour, a big weapon, who just hacks away while others hack away at him, too.
There is nothing dishonourable about being a mobile fighter rather than a strong one.
My own personal opinion of 'Honor' is that the paladin seeks to even the playing field.
So if a 20th-level paladin is visiting a small shrine in some outback village and a bunch of CR 1/3 goblins with junk for gear show up (let's say there's 10 of them, which gives the encounter an EL of 4 and small change), will he beat himself half to death, drink himself into a stupor and beat at some stones with his sword until it's dull, just so the playing field is evened?
If he's picking a weapon that will give him the biggest unfair advantage over his opponents... NOT honorable.
What's unfair about an advantage? That's how actual fighting is done. You play to your own strengths and your enemy's weaknesses, not the other way around.
In fact, if we consider some of the "historical" examples of "honour", that concept is up to the guy who can make the rules. As people already mentioned in this thread, bows have at times been called dishonourable because they evened the odds. Those peasants were able to use bows and crossbows to kill enemies that spent a lot of time and money on their kind of warfare. So the peasants were told that they may no longer use that stuff, because it's dishonourable.
Plus, it seems that it was only dishonourable when people used ranged weapons to hurt OUR side.
Following that logic, the paladin would consider horseback archery very honourable, but any attempt by enemies without ranged weapons to close the distance between them and the paladin would be dishonourable.
Did anyone else notice that you cannot access the OP's page? You're sent to the main page instead.
Back in the AD&D days they had rules about Paladins not being able to used ranged weapons. All combat was Mono-a-mono style. They also had to give up money to the church and had limits on how much magic they could own.
All those rules went away in later editions. So unless you are part of a specific code of knights... or your DM does not really like paladins you should be fine. Now if you choose to RP that way it is fine, but you should not suffer lose of class abilities or anything.
I think the restrictions early/earlier paladins had were a balancing thing:
They were more powerful than normal fighters, so to balance that they got roleplaying disadvantages.
Nowadays, the paladin class is not any more (or less) powerful than other classes, so you don't need any restrictive RP issues to keep them in line.
It's a change I wholeheartedly welcome. It's just no clean design, since it depends too much on the group's play style and the GM's opinions - in the hand of a liberal or indifferent GM, such classes used to be way too powerful, while strict or even sadistic GMs often made them unplayable.
Not that the jerk GMs have stopped screwing paladin players... (but to be honest, jerk players haven't stopped annoying their fellow players, either. With sufficient distance and light that's dim enough, that might count as balance.)
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...
I'll agree that the first on isa bit on the iffy side as it invokes an ambush, which is a very grey debate point on Paladins (Gods may disapprove).
The 2nd one can't happen unless the person's double move is slower then the paladins single move. If they keep shooting every turn then the guy will catch up. Better yet given a clear path the other guy can RUN (x4, x3, x5) at the Paladin and get within reach. The question is the paladin running out of cowardice or prudence. If the foe catches up and gets in a few good hits will he take off running (x4 move) until he's far enough away to start the fight again a range he feels "safe" at? That's the telling point IMO, once caught in that close quarters does the Paladin break and run flat out or play the dance of 5 ft. steps and AoO dodging?
Many of the Paladin archer builds I've seen revolve around holding your ground a pumping as many arrows into the thing charging you as possible and then firing more up it's nose at point blank range. Game mechanics encourage this when smite is involved. As you want the full attack sequance over shoot and run. The only time I've ever seen a archer style character break and run for distance was a 3.0/3.5 deep wood sniper who could do just fine on one shot a turn. Everyone else tended to put the high Dex AC to use and dance the 5 ft. reposition shuffle to keep full attacks going.
3rd, and face bad penalties for shooting into combat and having his friends act as soft cover for the enemy. Unless you think a Paladin shouldn't be picking off foes at the edge of the melee, brining down the number of foes assulting his companions.
A Greatsword gives me a damage advantage over Sword and Board, a Polearm or Lance gives me a reach advantage over someone with a sword. A mount (which we will agree is honorable to have and use, right?) allows me to ride passed a foe out of reach (with a lance) and strike a killing blow before they can even hit back. Or am I not allowed on use ride-by attacks? (This is a deliberate trap place in the open to make you stop and consider the actual "honor" in may "traditional" knightly combat styles)
My advanced dungeons and dragons player's handbook does not say what you are saying. It in fact includes and example of a paladin with a longbow.Back in the AD&D days they had rules about Paladins not being able to used ranged weapons. All combat was Mono-a-mono style. They also had to give up money to the church and had limits on how much magic they could own.
All those rules went away in later editions. So unless you are part of a specific code of knights... or your DM does not really like paladins you should be fine. Now if you choose to RP that way it is fine, but you should not suffer lose of class abilities or anything.
You are correct, so I went and broke out my old books. It was the Cavalier from Unearther Arcana that had the restrictions on weapons that deal out damage at a distance such as bows and polearms. My bad, but I knew there was something along those lines from AD&D about not using bows from a code of conduct.
You are correct, so I went and broke out my old books. It was the Cavalier from Unearther Arcana that had the restrictions on weapons that deal out damage at a distance such as bows and polearms. My bad, but I knew there was something along those lines from AD&D about not using bows from a code of conduct.
Not a problem -- just wanted to be clear what was and what was not.
I have a friend who suggested making a paladin 'horse archer'...
I hated the idea.
Because of the player or because of the horseback archery theme?
Possibly a bit of both... I have no problem with the idea of horse archers, but tied in with the paladin... It was an admitted min/max character,and We've gamed together for YEARS... He's straight up min/maxer and proud of it! and i'm just not fond of those types of characters...
If it had been based on a 'character concept' rather than rules tweaking... I may have been a little more warm to it, but all i heard were the bonuses ;)
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.
Not dishonourable, either. I don't think that honourable means you have to play the game by the enemy's rule. Because the whole fighting thing is not a game.
Ehhhh... That's a judgement call. If your on a horse, riding circles around a bunch of bandits just firing arrows into them... I don't see that as honorable combat. Just my own opinion.
It may be Good... it may be Lawful... but I don't see it as 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...
Where are you getting this? Has the sorcerer stated that he feels forced into the front lines? Without seeing the character in action, or, at the very least, knowing about the party composition, assumptions like that are more libel than anything else.Nobody does it say that the paladin MUST be an immobile tank-like warrior with the heaviest possible armour, a big weapon, who just hacks away while others hack away at him, too.
There is nothing dishonourable about being a mobile fighter rather than a strong one.
Agreed! like I said, It'll all come down to the character and the player using him. Rangers and Elves and other mobile fighters are absoultley fine with me...
tacking on the whole Paladin and his higher opinions of honor... it gets to be a gray area. I'm sure many groups/players
Vague examples for the most part, the character never actually came into play... However, it's a bit scary when I'm making a bard or rogue, and I hear the paladin wants to fight from the back!! ;)
The question is the paladin running out of cowardice or prudence. If the foe catches up and gets in a few good hits will he take off running (x4 move) until he's far enough away to start the fight again a range he feels "safe" at? That's the telling point IMO, once caught in that close quarters does the Paladin break and run flat out or play the dance of 5 ft. steps and AoO dodging?
Which is the center of the debate really... Paladins are not cowards. If they are breaking and running because they are afraid of getting hit... that's dishonorable.
I'm not saying they should stand there and DIE... that's STUPID. but when the retreat is called. you run. you don't hop a few steps to where your safe... and then start the fight again.
If he's using a bow and getting some hits in... and then when they get close... keep fighting! that's a PALADIN!! Whether he just fires point blank, or grabs a different weapon is irrelevant.
Many of the Paladin archer builds I've seen revolve around holding your ground a pumping as many arrows into the thing charging you as possible and then firing more up it's nose at point blank range. Game mechanics encourage this when smite is involved. As you want the full attack sequance over shoot and run. The only time I've ever seen a archer style character break and run for distance was a 3.0/3.5 deep wood sniper who could do just fine on one shot a turn. Everyone else tended to put the high Dex AC to use and dance the 5 ft. reposition shuffle to keep full attacks going.
Which is an awesome build :)
|
Those bandits you are circle-strafing straight into the ground should know when to quit, if they don't, then they deserve an early grave.
Also: one of the nastier 3.X builds was using the Scout class, which specialized in moving around, one level of rogue, 3 very specific feats, and you are nigh-unstoppable, especially if you started abusing some of the horrifying bow options available. With a little preparation, some very specific magic items, and a few arrows you could destroy a city.... or at least a very large portion of it.
Well, I don't think it is dishonorable, but the idea gave me a thought for how a paladin in universe(the world of Faerun in this case) might have these same questions, and what an in universe reply would be. If you're interested here's a conversation I could see happening in character somewhere, sorry about the length I got a bit carried away.
Ajax struggles to draw back the bow, his muscles screaming in protest. A nobleman's son, Ajax spent his youth studying swordplay, history, and the arts from the finest tutors, but had never held a bow until his acceptance as a potential paladin earlier in the year. His shots are sloppy, his fatigue causing him to lose form and focus, and when his last shots are released not one arrow hit the man-sized target. As the scores are tallied and the initiates sent off for the day Ajax hears the instructor call out, Initiates Ajax, Jherek, and Kera remain here for a moment.
Ajax groans, knowing the request will bring up more work, and angrily pushes his way through the jubilant, free initiates over to the instructors side. Master of Arms William of Torm, known by less than flattering nicknames by the young and impetuous initiates, leans against the wooden fence as he looks over the three initiates. His slate gray beard and balding head frame a face has weathered many years, some worse than others, and bears the weight of those years as countess scars and wrinkles. He walks with a heavy limp, his left leg lost below the knee, replaced by wood and iron, and his left eye is dull and lifeless.
The Weapons Master's stern face softens as he looks over the initiates, anger and embarrassment on their faces, and he speaks gently, "As you have learned the bow is not a weapon to be mastered in a day, or even a month, so I am assigning you additional practice sessions each morning after worship. Do not view these as punishment, but rather an opportunity to regain time that others spent before their arrival here."
He continues to speak, talking about exercises and ways to soothe their sore muscles before Ajax, unable to contain himself, bursts in angrily, "Bah, why are we wasting our time learning to use a coward's weapon anyways? A true knight of Torm should use sword and shield, fighting evil at the front lines, what use will we be as protectors sitting back with a bow?" The other initiatives looks a bit pale at his disrespect, but William, rather than admonishing the boy, actually starts to laugh.
"No, do not get riled up young Ajax, I am laughing not at you but at myself." The old weapon master looks around at the initiates, "It is true, the image of a knight of Torm is one standing at the front of the lines, his body the literal shield between evil and the innocent it preys upon. I actually spoke such words to my own instructor once, if you'd believe that, though with a bit more restraint." Ajax lowers his eyes at this, stammering to apologize as William forges on.
"In reply, let me tell you a tale and let you judge the merits of the bow for yourself. Decades ago, a monastery dedicated to Torm defended the lands around it from orc hordes, rampaging dragons, and many other dangers. The monastery was commanded by three men, Serin, the leader of the cavalry, Olan, the commander of the battle healers, and Kern the leader of the archers. Together the three men coordinated the defenses for the region, and for nearly a decade kept the farmers of the region safe from any evils that rose up."
"As time wore on however the battles and fighting began to drive a wedge between Serin and Kern," He smiles sadly at the incredulous expression on Ajax's face, "Yes, even leaders of the church are just mortals, and must work daily to keep to Torm's teachings. Anyway, the conflict centered around the fighting styles of the two men. Serin was an aggressive commander, leading his cavalry with courage and distinction right into the heart of foes. Kern was more defensive minded, though no less courageous, and liked to pepper the enemy from afar to weaken them for a charge. Eventually, Serin and Kern's differences came to a head when the former accused Kern of being cowardly and dishonorable, striking from afar and letting Serin's cavalry take the bulk of the punishment."
After his rash words Serin split from the monastery, resolving to prove that he did not need Kern's 'cowardly' fighting style to protect the lands. Unbeknownst to them both, a great evil had recently arisen in the region, a powerful lich who was binding fiends, dragons, and the neighboring savage tribes to his will. He watched this split and built up his forces for over a year, letting the bad blood between the two groups build until they had completely cut ties with one another."
"Finally, the lich felt the wound had festered enough and set out with a massive horde of evil creatures to conquer the region. Hearing of the horde the two men, Kern and Serin, rushed to make their preparations. Kern set up his archers in a defensive position in the horde's path while Serin's cavalry set up on an open field and readied themselves to charge the enemy." William's voice chokes up the tiniest amount, and his good eye stares off into the distance.
"The lich had prepared for that, of course, knowing full well the details of the unfortunate schism. As the cavalry began to charge the orc horde pulled back and a flight of dragons appeared overhead, razing the ground with their terrible breath and soaring out of reach when Serin's men tried to counter. Meanwhile, worg-riding goblins circled outside of the archer's position and assaulted the town, while powerful fiends charged straight into the positions, enduring the arrows and savaging the lightly armored archers when they closed in."
"We had to retreat, our cavalry and archers both decimated, and many villagers fell because of our conceit. The worst of it was Olan, who had tried countless times to heal the rift between Kern and Serin. Badly wounded while his clerics tried to hold back the tide, he lay on the edge of death in the hastily set up camp following the cavalry's retreat. A messenger was sent to Kern and Serin and the two former friends both arrived to pay their respects to Olan, who let them believe he was beyond help and on his deathbed."
"'Fools' he called them, and proceeded to berate them both. Whether bow or blade, a weapon is nothing but a tool without the will and conviction of the man holding it to put it to use. And just as you wouldn't use a mallet to fell a tree, or an axe to build a wall, each weapon also has its use in defending the innocent and to reject one based on preference is to let evil have the advantage."
The Master of Arms shakes his head, a sad smile still on his face, "I am sure you are intelligent enough to guess the rest. Olan's words convinced the two men to put aside their differences and, using their combined forces, managed to pull together enough to turn back the massive horde and allow the surviving villagers time to mobilize their militia and stand firm. Still, when the horde was finally disbanded and the lich defeated nearly two in three of Torm's faithful had fallen, including Olan who fell to the lich in the final confrontation. Seeing the result of their pride both Kern and Serin resigned their posts and spent the rest of their days serving Torm as healers, feeling they were not worthy to lead men again."
"So young Ajax, do not see the bow as a coward's weapon, or the sword as the sign of a true knight. Rather, see them for what they are, tools in your hand that are suited for different things, but which both will serve you in upholding Torm's will if you have the strength of your faith behind them." With that the old paladin limped away, leaving the three initiates alone on the practice field. After a few moments Ajax, without a word, walked up to the line and took his stance, newly determined to master the bow so that he may always have the right tool to exercise Torm's will.
Guys the paladin exists. Quick how can I make it fall?
Literally that is what all these threads are.
Guys the paladin exists. Quick how can I make it fall?
Literally that is what all these threads are.
I dunno, this topic at least seems like it would make sense in character from a certain point of view. Someone grows up with tales of the paladin as a faithful knight standing like a shining light on the front lines of battle, probably fighting the most cowardly of cowardly scum of <insert race/creature/nation the tale is vilifying here>. No matter how dirty they fight the paladin stands firm and faces them all, winning glory and honor for his god and country/city/other relevant location or cause!
Then, that person grows up and actually joins a paladin order and learns that while they are good, lawful, and honorable folk the world isn't a storybook and past tales are blown way out of proportion. The kid learns that paladins do retreat, use tactics to gain an advantage, fight from range, and gang up to take out enemies when needed rather than fighting the "duels of honor" so often talked about in tales, since war is a lot nastier than stories like to say.
Did anyone else notice that you cannot access the OP's page? You're sent to the main page instead.
I did. I think he got mad that he was proven wrong and deleted his profile. <--Conspiracy answer. Or it could be a technical glitch. He had a few posts before his page went off line, but later I could not access it.
If my Paladin is a practicing homosexual, is he violating his knightly code? I mean, back in the medievel ages it was a hideous crime, so it must be true too, right?
Short answer. It's your game, do what you wish.
Long answer. As far as I know the only Paladin deity that would have anything against homosexuality is Erastil and that's because someone who is gay isn't using sex for procreation to have babies. These people are polytheistic pegans, not Judeo-Christo-Muslo people.
That being said. If you're going to be homosexual, you have to be a practicing homosexual. Otherwise, how are you suppose to get any better at it?
Ehhhh... That's a judgement call. If your on a horse, riding circles around a bunch of bandits just firing arrows into them... I don't see that as honorable combat. Just my own opinion.
It may be Good... it may be Lawful... but I don't see it as Honorable.
Well, as others have already said: By extension, the whole horseback thing is dishonourable: You have a horse, they don't. You can benefit from the lance on horseback (extra damage, use it one-handed) while for them, it's a sucky choice. You can make a Ride-by Attack, which means you get to attack them, they don't get to attack back (Ride-by Attack prevents AoOs, and anyway, the lance is a reach weapon, so unless they have one of their own, they can't even ready an action), and you're out of their reach again afterwards. The horse is a lot faster, too, so they are disadvantaged in that, too (the horse is probably more than twice as fast, unless they don't have heavy armour, which means you get yet another advantage, since you can wear heavy armour and the horse still has its full speed)
Bottom line is there are already unfair advantages. If that is the criterion for honour, horses are hereby banned unless the other guy also has a horse. So is heavy armour. And, all that magic.
Rangers and Elves and other mobile fighters are absoultley fine with me...
You did pay attention to the rules of this game in the last couple of decades, yes? Because it has been as long as that since "Ranger" and "Elf" were two different character type choices. Nowadays, you can be an elf ranger. You can, in fact, be an elf paladin.
And elves don't have to be a mobile fighter any more than humans have to be.
I'm not saying they should stand there and DIE... that's STUPID. but when the retreat is called. you run. you don't hop a few steps to where your safe... and then start the fight again.
Of course you do. It's called a fighting retreat. Actually, if the retreat is called you definitely do not run. This is not a game where the retreat is successful when you reach the edge of the map.
And static fighting does not equal honourable fighting.
If he's using a bow and getting some hits in... and then when they get close... keep fighting! that's a PALADIN!! Whether he just fires point blank, or grabs a different weapon is irrelevant.
Wrong. That's a STUPID CORPSE.
Firing point blank is beyond stupid, especially if you have the chance to prevent enemies from closing the distance. And nowhere, nowhere. at. all! does it say that Paladins cannot focus on the bow to the exclusion of all other weapons. Nowhere does it say that it's dishonourable to fight with ranged weapons and make sure the enemy does not close up.
Look at a large medieval battle. They have archers. They don't put them in close range. They put them behind the infantry. They put them there to keep others from walking up to the archers and make them useless. Nobody would throw a hissy fit and tell the archer battalion that they're honourless cowards. Mainly because being turned into a pincushion really hurts for a short while. Then death.
You are correct, so I went and broke out my old books. It was the Cavalier from Unearther Arcana that had the restrictions on weapons that deal out damage at a distance such as bows and polearms. My bad, but I knew there was something along those lines from AD&D about not using bows from a code of conduct.
Though, to be fair, they did shift Paladin from Fighter-subclass to Cavalier-subclass when UA came out.
I find it interesting that through out this, the phrase "I see this as...." has been used continuously...
From this I assume that the Player has his own views on how he wish's to portray his Paladin. The Paladin is a PC not an NPC...how you, as a GM, plays a Paladin is irrelevant.
Did either of you discuss what constituted this particular Paladin's Code?
99% of the time, IMO, these issues arise because the GM and Player haven't actually discussed a code before play.
this isn't meant to be snarky...I'm a low charisma swamp blope and failed my diplomacy check
Ehhhh... That's a judgement call. If your on a horse, riding circles around a bunch of bandits just firing arrows into them... I don't see that as honorable combat. Just my own opinion.It may be Good... it may be Lawful... but I don't see it as Honorable.
I would argue that so long as the Paladin offers them the opportunity to surrender as part of that, it's perfectly honorable. But, as you say, opinion -- a lot of this, to me, comes down not to the details.
A paladin who rides into an Orc village (or Ogre Tribe, or...) and kills them all? Not honorable, bordering genocide.
A paladin who rides into an Orc village (or..) and demands the surrender of the raiding party that burned the farmstead and the return of the kids that they took for their later amusement - who then cuts down the entire village when they refuse? Perfectly fine.
A paladin who realizes that there are 80 of them and 1 of him who does his best to misdirect and sneak in, killing a few sentries quietly and breaking the kids out and then high-tailing out of there? Still fine, even if it looks like "ambush" fighting. (Again, to use the knight's code from earlier as a basis, Orc's ain't exactly "Christian" [or the appropriate analogue])
In fact, I would say that a Paladin who refused to do #3 is the one in code violation, because they're allowing harm to befall innocents through their inaction.
If my Paladin is a practicing homosexual, is he violating his knightly code? I mean, back in the medievel ages it was a hideous crime, so it must be true too, right?
actually, i believe in one of the AP's there is a paladin in the town having a homosexual affair with someone (the mayor maybe?) idk, but i heard about it a while back. there was a long thread about it.
If my Paladin is a practicing homosexual, is he violating his knightly code? I mean, back in the medievel ages it was a hideous crime, so it must be true too, right?actually, i believe in one of the AP's there is a paladin in the town having a homosexual affair with someone (the mayor maybe?) idk, but i heard about it a while back. there was a long thread about it.
Yup, Rise of the Runelords...He keeps it quiet because of prejudice from the populace not because his deity is offended. Abadar if my brain is working...
|
Yup, Rise of the Runelords...He keeps it quiet because of prejudice from the populace not because his deity is offended. Abadar if my brain is working...If my Paladin is a practicing homosexual, is he violating his knightly code? I mean, back in the medievel ages it was a hideous crime, so it must be true too, right?actually, i believe in one of the AP's there is a paladin in the town having a homosexual affair with someone (the mayor maybe?) idk, but i heard about it a while back. there was a long thread about it.
IIRC, most of the populace knows and is actually okay with it. It's really that one family in town that gets all frowny-faced about it. That family was also noted as having values differing from the Varisia norm.
Personally I think he tried to keep it on the downlow because his boyfriend is such a prima donna. ;) It's referred to as the "worst kept secret in Sandpoint", and most everyone seems okay with it, save for that one family. (I think it was the one that owns the sawmill)
Personally I think he tried to keep it on the downlow because his boyfriend is such a prima donna. ;)
lol...typical Bard...
Abadar if my brain is working...
Abadar cares not what you do with your private bits! HE cares only that money is counted, laws are followed, and building codes aren't violated.
Abadar if my brain is working...Abadar cares not what you do with your private bits! HE cares only that money is counted, laws are followed, and building codes aren't violated.
I was about to make some innuendo about building codes and all-male private parts, but decided against it.
Yup, Rise of the Runelords...He keeps it quiet because of prejudice from the populace not because his deity is offended. Abadar if my brain is working...If my Paladin is a practicing homosexual, is he violating his knightly code? I mean, back in the medievel ages it was a hideous crime, so it must be true too, right?actually, i believe in one of the AP's there is a paladin in the town having a homosexual affair with someone (the mayor maybe?) idk, but i heard about it a while back. there was a long thread about it.
Where in rise is this, I don't remember seeing this.
I was about to make some innuendo about building codes and all-male private parts, but decided against it.Abadar if my brain is working...Abadar cares not what you do with your private bits! HE cares only that money is counted, laws are followed, and building codes aren't violated.
Simply because abadar prefers tall and shining towers with large round tops implies nothing.
Well, as others have already said: By extension, the whole horseback thing is dishonourable: You have a horse, they don't. You can benefit from the lance on horseback (extra damage, use it one-handed) while for them, it's a sucky choice. You can make a Ride-by Attack, which means you get to attack them, they don't get to attack back (Ride-by Attack prevents AoOs, and anyway, the lance is a reach weapon, so unless they have one of their own, they can't even ready an action), and you're out of their reach again afterwards. The horse is a lot faster, too, so they are disadvantaged in that, too (the horse is probably more than twice as fast, unless they don't have heavy armour, which means you get yet another advantage, since you can wear heavy armour and the horse still has its full speed)
Bottom line is there are already unfair advantages. If that is the criterion for honour, horses are hereby banned unless the other guy also has a horse. So is heavy armour. And, all that magic.
Sigh... This conversation doesn't seem to be going anywere... I don't find hit and run tactics honorable... You seem to think anything goes once the fight is on... I don't think we'll agree on this matter ;)
Out of curiousity though... What do YOU consider to be honorable combat? What strictures do YOU think that paladin's should be under? May help me have better grasp on the debate.
Rangers and Elves and other mobile fighters are absoultley fine with me...
You did pay attention to the rules of this game in the last couple of decades, yes? Because it has been as long as that since "Ranger" and "Elf" were two different character type choices. Nowadays, you can be an elf ranger. You can, in fact, be an elf paladin.And elves don't have to be a mobile fighter any more than humans have to be.
LOL...
Yeah... I realize we don't actually know each other or our respective gaming history, but I found that a LITTLE Condescending. I've been playing 2nd edition for about 15 years... so YES, I'm fully aware of the difference between Race and Class.
Actually, I never even PLAYED the original sets where Elf was a class... O.o
That particular statement was not meant to CONFUSE Rangers with Elves.. but to say Rangers are known for ranged bows... and Elves are known for Bows... Yet, ironically my own Elf Ranger used a spear. ;)
Yes... they are not REQUIRED to be mobile fighters... but it fits the stereotypes well, and your not going to see any threads about whether it's 'ok' for a ranger to shoot from a tree...
My point was that Paladins are not Fighters. They are not Rangers... What is PERFECTLY acceptable in my mind for one... is a bit grayer for the other.
I thought the statement was fairly straightforward, but maybe i should have been more specific.
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.
Well said Gru. I find that there are many here being "subjective" to the differing cultures of Paladins. Pathfinder leaves it quite open to create a Paladin from differing cultures and not limited to an image of Christian Crusaders. Was not Genghis Khan revered by the Mongols as their holy warrior empowered by their god? What of the Persian Immortals, who also wielded bows in service to their divine god. I also find it interesting that the point of shooting down an animal or monster with a bow is fine, but somehow many forget to watch the player behind the bow and his/her reactions. If my player shot down a defenseless villain willing to give up after they asked for mercy, i'd say highly dishonorable. They should be brought to justice. I'd also tell an NPC to "Drop their sword" so they could be brought to justice. If they lunge at me, then face my Paladin gods light. lol
Simply because abadar prefers tall and shining towers with large round tops implies nothing.I was about to make some innuendo about building codes and all-male private parts, but decided against it.Abadar if my brain is working...Abadar cares not what you do with your private bits! HE cares only that money is counted, laws are followed, and building codes aren't violated.
I was more going to do something along the lines of "It is against zoning regulations to let the irrigation drain into the septic network"
Sigh... This conversation doesn't seem to be going anywere... I don't find hit and run tactics honorable... You seem to think anything goes once the fight is on... I don't think we'll agree on this matter ;)
Not everything goes. But honourable combat isn't dumb walking up to each other and roshamboing it south park style, either.
Out of curiousity though... What do YOU consider to be honorable combat? What strictures do YOU think that paladin's should be under? May help me have better grasp on the debate.
In combat? Not that many, to be honest. You don't use poison. You don't kill if you can easily take prisoner (like when someone is paralysed, if they're down and dying but not yet dead, if they surrender). You don't attack those who are helpless. If you clearly have the upper hand, you tell the enemy and offer him to surrender. You don't initiate combat if it's obvious that bloodless solutions are available.
In the heat of battle, there actually isn't that much that is dishonourable. Unless it's a duel and follows specific rules of engagement between two enemies, we're talking about very bloody, hectic, confusing business. The first order of business is to win in order to protect the innocent (I assume the Paladin won't enter combat lightly or for frivolous reason) and prevent evil.
Yes... they are not REQUIRED to be mobile fighters... but it fits the stereotypes well, and your not going to see any threads about whether it's 'ok' for a ranger to shoot from a tree...My point was that Paladins are not Fighters. They are not Rangers... What is PERFECTLY acceptable in my mind for one... is a bit grayer for the other.
I'm sorry, I was not trying to be condescending.
My point is that stereotypes has no place in a discussion about honour.
There might be a stereotypical paladin who uses longsword and heavy shield, wear full plate and ride a heavy warhorse; who is human and nothing else because paladins of "demi-human races" are just wrong; who will be pious and ascetic beyond most real-life ascetic extremists; who will consider any kind of tactics or intelligent behaviour to be dishonourable; who consider the character to have failed if the rest of the party isn't beyond annoyed - and the players as well.
Yes, that stereotype exists. I recently saw such a paladin die (actually, I didn't, I couldn't make it to that session. I was very sad. I really, really wanted to see that prick die).
The thing is, just beyond some people are stuck in AD&D mode doesn't mean that the other fighting styles or behaviours aren't OK for paladins. Not at all.
It just means that some people are prejudiced in the manner. They have that old image stuck in their head.
As I have said earlier: A paladin on horseback with a lance who goes for ride-by attacks also has a significant advantage in mobility and attack opportunities, advantages he exploits to the fullest. Yet nobody seems to think that using that against some low-level orc warriors is wrong.
However, have a paladin go samurai (the kind of samurai who was a horseback archer. For a time, that was what real-life samurai did.) and shoot arrows from atop his horse, and people just assume he'll use the sleaziest, most unfair tactics.
Was not Genghis Khan revered by the Mongols as their holy warrior empowered by their god?No. The Mongols were shamanist/Tengriist -- and that's aside from the fact that Gengis Khan was hardly a good person in any objective philosophical sense.
Depends on who you ask. Iraqis and Afghans sure hated him, he nearly wiped them out. The Mongols and Northern China revere him as a military leader. Think Alexander the Great.
However, he did stabilized the Silk Road.
Paladin archer, honorable ... lets see this scenario:
setting, midnight, citadel compound home base for "baddies", a handful of children have been kidnapped by the psycho cult leader to sacrifice to Moloch, Cthulhu, the four horse men or the flying spaghetti monster (take your pick). Time is pressing and the children will be slain within the next few hours ... now lets see which hero is more efficient:
The fighter and the rogue are tunnel ratting through the sewers trying an assault from below (the rogue is more thinking on a swift escape through the tunnels)... or
The oracle and the sorcerer scry the interior of the citadel and preparing for a good ol' teleport-summon monsters/create illusions-two or three lightning bolts-(grab the kids)-teleport back to safety... or
The wizard and the monk use passwall-stinking cloud-flurry of blows to the guards-open cell (get the kids) and fly away on the flying carpet ... or
The ranger uses "archery" kills the sentries atop the wall, he and the druid crash a Roc through the wall, cast creeping doom on the guards, smash the lock with a well placed hammer, grab the children, are engaged by the boss baddie, whic the ranger replies by shooting his repeating crossbow through his face, magically heal the roc and fly away, not before casting a final "earthquake" on the citadel... or
The paladin and the cleric knock to the gates "<bam, bam, bam> open the doors to this hole of naughtiness! I challenge thee to a duel-to submission, hand over the illegally obtained young folk, come out with your hands in the air and we shall take thee to just trial in front of a legally minded magistrate!"...
which style reflects what the god would prefer this situation to be handled?
Depends on who you ask...(they) revered him....[i]Pirate crews revere the captain who hauls in the richest prizes -- is he a paladin? (That's the argument you're trying to make.)
That depends. Is he a privateer working in the name of god and king?
Is the god a lawful-good deity?
(Whether the king approves is irrelevant -- the analysis was paladin, not cavalier. It is also immaterial what the, ahem, "privateer" claims to be working in the name of, or whether he can delude a large number of people into believing him.)
Of course it's relevant if the king approves. That makes it lawful. :)
Do it in the name of makign a bad war go fast and save the lives of innocents in your own country and that makes it good.
It will also let you get seen as a horrific terrorist in the eyes of the people your being a pirate against.
Just imagine the horror stories goblins tell around the campfire about the terrible shining metal man and his nightmare horse.
In fact since I am feeling the devil's advocate today one could make the argument that u-boat captains during world war 1 were very much into the whole honor thing. They let you get off the boat before they blew up your ship. Then they had to go and arm merchant ships. Well not like that won't backfire on anybody...