If you want to play the empowered champion of a deity, the cleric class is right where it always was.
The paladin is a specific cultural concept of the heroic chivalric knight, le chevalier sans peur et sans reproche. Which is why one crime makes him not a paladin anymore; one crime means he is no longer without reproach. He's not a paladin anymore, because he no longer meets the definition. This isn't punishment, this is merely axiomatic. A person who commits an evil act—even once! For a good reason!—isn't a paladin, any more than a person who has sex—even once! For a good reason!—is a virgin.
Atonement as a mechanic makes some sense because it at least theoretically renders him now blameless; he is a paladin again because he again is sans reproche. On the other hand, that can seem sort of cheap, which is why, for example, First Edition said that knowing and willingly performing an evil act ended paladinhood irrevocably.
Now, maybe there shouldn't be a paladin class, any more than there's a "virgin" class. And maybe there should be a full-BAB empowered champion of a deity. But then give the paladin a decent burial and the new class a new name, like sohei or templar or something.
The Paladin's rule is different. It's not even written the same. Likewise, it wouldn't be the first time they had something in the core rulebook that literally references nothing. As-is, there is no cleric code.
This is incorrect. RAW states they have such a code and they must follow that code or loose all power. The PRD states they have such a code. Its the GM's job to craft and enforce that code but they do in fact have a code.
YOu are giving the cleric a pass because you don't feel like having to enforce something. Yet you seem to be fine with people enforcing the paladins code because unlike a cleric they just have one, not 700.
Just because you choose not to enforce that rule, does not make it vanish from the rulebook.
First, Jedi are Lawful Good
No. Jedi are not good. Jedi are not evil. Jedi are balance.
Absolutely, the concepts that people ascribe to "Grey Jedi" are actually those of a proper "Light" Jedi. You're either In Balance or Out of Balance, there's no in between the two states.No. Jedi are not good. Jedi are not evil. Jedi are balance.First, Jedi are Lawful Good
Total agreement. Luke wasn't a great Jedi. He was powerful but not a "good" jedi knight as he kept "falling" because he was to emotional and was out of balance.
To be absolutely fair, he was pretty darned good, considering the circumstances of his training and the rather limited amount of it.
I should have used the term "proper" as he did rebuild the training from half recalled and corrupted data. But he did cause some issues as he thought it was ok to be emotional and tried way to hard to be good when the jedi way was not in and of itself "good". Which lead to all kinda of issues and a score or so fallen jedi.
Heh, it took the new Jedi a while to fig out that was just the wrong way to look at it. And by 130 ABY they had thrown out that rather odd notion of his.
Here's a possibility.
Falling from grace as a paladin is catastrophic, and leaves you as a shell of the man you once were (losing all the paladin-specific abilities). However, over time and with long soul-searching, you can come to grips with your loss and even grow stronger from your struggles.
Game terms:
Let's say you are a 5th-level paladin, and you fall. You are now a 5th-level paladin without any paladin abilities; life sucks.
However, when you reach 6th level, you not only take a level in whatever class you select (obviously not paladin), but you also swap one level of paladin for a level in another class, and recalculate your abilities as if you had always had a level in that class. Do this again each time you gain a level, until you either run out of paladin levels or decide to hang onto some paladin levels in case you fully atone some day.
Hit points are a stickler, but easy enough: for each level in a class with d10 hit dice, keep hit points the same. For each level in a class with d8 hit dice, remove 2 hit points from your maximum. For each level in a class with d6 hit dice, remove 4 hit points from your maximum (I realize that's not statistically accurate, but it makes for an equitable trade-off).
This change is one-way; if you atone and regain your paladin-hood (assuming you still have any levels of paladin left), you do not re-convert those class levels back to paladin.
I believe that, if it were my campaign, I would make a rule that you can only convert levels of paladin into levels in specific classes. The most appropriate classes to choose from are fighter and cavalier, as their class abilities at least resemble a paladin without divine abilities. However, I could also see the player selecting ranger (as he draws away from people into the wilderness) or barbarian (his frustration with falling from grace becoming a burning rage). Balance-wise, no class is really a problem, though.
GT
Make it 1 hit point per different die size Glen. That's the change in average HP.
I thought of that, but went with the change in maximum possible hit points rather than average, which is more stringent, but either would work. I like the idea of a higher trade-off so the player perceives it as a genuine price being paid.
I suppose, also, that my way would have you gaining 2 hit points if you converted a level of paladin into barbarian. Going with average, you would gain 1 hit point.
Just decide which rule to use and stick with it, and it's fair.
GT
i wanted to add my 2 cents here to this interesting Thread..
First of all.. I thought 2nd Edition Paladins COULD not specialize in weapons (ala Fighters only).. Page 37 in 2nd edition handbook (2nd printing)
Rangers/Paladins/ and Fighters were all part of the WARRIOR CLASS... but only FIGHTERS can SPECIALIZE in WEAPONS...
Whomever said 2nd Edition Paladins were Fighters with Benefits was WRONG... and infact with certain Magic items a 20th Level Good Fighter would destroy a 20th level Paladin
Second... I hated Paladins in 2nd Edition... they weren't special enough for me to be forced into EXTREME LAWFUL Good... infact I once made (but never played) a Crazy Fighter that had magic items that mimic EVERY 2nd Edition Paladin ability..
Shield that emanated 10 foot radius Protection from Evil
Ring that could do Lay of Hands
Magic item that could cure disease, Blah blah blah..
remember when the Encyclopedia Magica books came out? Made the Paladin even less special..
3rd edition tried to improve but failed horribly again..
Pathfinder made the Paladin's abilities bypass Damage reduction.. made SMite ability LASt the entire encounter... not just one or two attacks... Now a Paladin can be fun since it doesn't suck against Evil Foes..
I did play a Paladin once in 2nd Edition and lost my Paladin status while gaming... To make a long story short... there was a curse Artifact that shrunk everyone in a 5 mile radius.. and our party went to investigate.. meeting with some Halflings that lived there... they made some Burrows underground (mud/brick holes in the ground)..
We eventually fought our way to some Tree Tower thing that housed the Evil Artifact.. I was about to die and in near my death I hurled my sword into the artifact (some sort of giant ruby thing) and it was destroyed... and Everyone INSTANTLY reverted to the normal Size..
I killed ALL the Halflings... I originally told them that when we found whatever was causing the extreme Honey I shrunk the kids... I would tell them so they can get above ground..
Well.. I didn't... I destroyed an Evil Artifact buy caused the DEATHS of hundred of Halflings... so instant Paladin Lost..
I did Antone later on... but died in that Quest..
Honestly... unless it happens while adventuring... I think trying to make a Paladin fallen,ect.. is a waste of time.. because some things should be ROLLplayed out in its entirety... Including certain character creation ideas
No. Jedi are not good. Jedi are not evil. Jedi are balance.First, Jedi are Lawful Good
No, they really aren't. Jedi are altruistic. They protect the people. They fight evil. Jedi are all about balance inside, but they're constantly striving to make the outside a better place. In D&D terms they are amazingly Lawful Good.
The power of the Jedi Source Book specifically rejects the concept of "Grey Jedi". You're either a Jedi, or you're a Fallen Jedi. The only difference between a Fallen Jedi and a Dark Force devotee is the degree of fall.
Absolutely, the concepts that people ascribe to "Grey Jedi" are actually those of a proper "Light" Jedi. You're either In Balance or Out of Balance, there's no in between the two states.
Other Star Wars material contradicts with this thought. In fact, there's a lot in SW cannon that conflicts with the SW-RPG. Plenty of gray Jedi are those who have found problems with the Jedi teachings, or simply do not follow the lawful portion of their codes as heavily as others. For example, Qi-Gon Jinn was arguably very Neutral Good, which is why he wasn't a member of the council. Others of course dropped from the Jedi code and acted in a different way. The council no longer accepted them as Jedi in some of this cases, or considered them Jedi but tasked them with few things.
i wanted to add my 2 cents here to this interesting Thread..
First of all.. I thought 2nd Edition Paladins COULD not specialize in weapons (ala Fighters only).. Page 37 in 2nd edition handbook (2nd printing)
Rangers/Paladins/ and Fighters were all part of the WARRIOR CLASS... but only FIGHTERS can SPECIALIZE in WEAPONS...
You're right. I made a mistake because I was thinking about the mastery supplement. It was by no means core, and I was mistaking it for core. Mah bad dude. :P
If you want to play the empowered champion of a deity, the cleric class is right where it always was.
The paladin is a specific cultural concept of the heroic chivalric knight, le chevalier sans peur et sans reproche. Which is why one crime makes him not a paladin anymore; one crime means he is no longer without reproach. He's not a paladin anymore, because he no longer meets the definition. This isn't punishment, this is merely axiomatic. A person who commits an evil act—even once! For a good reason!—isn't a paladin, any more than a person who has sex—even once! For a good reason!—is a virgin.
Atonement as a mechanic makes some sense because it at least theoretically renders him now blameless; he is a paladin again because he again is sans reproche. On the other hand, that can seem sort of cheap, which is why, for example, First Edition said that knowing and willingly performing an evil act ended paladinhood irrevocably.
Now, maybe there shouldn't be a paladin class, any more than there's a "virgin" class. And maybe there should be a full-BAB empowered champion of a deity. But then give the paladin a decent burial and the new class a new name, like sohei or templar or something.
Paladins aren't really very good at filling the archtype of Paladins. They were even conquerors, which is definitely outside the D&D concept of D&D Paladins. In fact, D&D Paladins share as much in common with actual Paladins as World of Warcraft Paladins do. Almost nothing.
The Night Watch has more paladins than the Jedi do. The Jedi are mostly Magi.
The Night Watch has more paladins than the Jedi do. The Jedi are mostly Magi.
Psions aren't terrible for them either, if you pick your powers just right. Grab one or two energy powers and select lightning or sonic pretty much exclusively, some telekinetic powers, a few telepathy and seer powers, and you'll have the makings of a fairly represented force-user.
For the martial bit, Ranger/Psion/Slayer makes for a pretty decent Jedi. More levels of Ranger equate to more combat ability and skill use (for Jedi Guardians / Sentinels) while more Psion equates to more of a supernatural bent (like Consulars or force witches). Ranger 1/Psion 9/Slayer 10 ends with a +15/+10/+5 BAB like a cleric, fairly decent saving throws, and CL 18th manifesting.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Jedi aren't Lawful good, lawful neutral at best.
They lie (a lot) "A different point of view."
They cheat (Qui gon at dice)
They've no qualms about using their mind control powers to get what they want ("You will take Republic Credits") or just to be left alone ("You want to go away and give up your job because you're annoying me.")
They're extremely callous, (Look at how they treat Whinykin. Your mom's in trouble, sucks to be you. You're worried about someone dying, sucks to be you.)
And what exactly would they have done to Annikin had Qui Gon not told them to take a flying leap. "Ok kid, you're one of the most powerful force sensitive people we met, but you're too old for us to train. So we're going to let your phenominally powerful butt go."
And that's just from the movies. If we include the Clone Wars cartoon it gets worse.
The Sith weren't out to destroy the Jedi because of good vs evil, they were eliminating the competition.
I actually like the Imperial Knights for coolness factor.
As to fallen Paladins, I think the loss of wisdom as a primary stat hurts them in a way. A high Wisdom Paladin should have DM help in not losing his Paladinhood through trickery (Just like an 18 int character shouldn't be expected to be only played by a rocket scientist, or an 18 str character played by a professional athlete) I also think the dead levels should come into play with how the player wants to proceed. In any event, it's the duty of the GM to make very clear what the code is, clear to the point of crossing it. This should be true for Monks and Barbarians too, but especially true for the Paladin.
Three options I can think of.
Also the difference between a game and real life... I don't think a Paladin can accidently fall. It has to be an informed (if not wholely informed) issue. To use a kosher example, slipping some bacon into a Rabbi's Hamburger renders him unclean, even if he doesn't know. A Paladin bathing in 'Asmodaeus flavoured unholy water (TM)' doesn't, unless he had ample reason to believe it was an evil act. Now if the priest of Asmodaeus invites him in, and offers to let him take a bath to wash the grime off the road, and he doesn't fire off a detect evil...
As to 'fictional characters who are Paladin-like' Benton Frasier is the Ur-example of a Lawful Good Paladin like character.
Again, IMHO.
*
|
I usually give my fallen paladins a few options.
Redemption: The option which follows the traditional paladin rules.
Transition: The paladin may change paladin levels to antipalidin, ranger, inquisitor, heretic inquisitor, or cavalier levels.
Reroll: I offer the player a new character with equivilant items and levels, and take their fallen character into my ranks of villians.
Mainly because it's a house rule.
No. Its not only In the book and the PRD I provided a word for word quote. You like many it seems just simply choose not to use that rule, yet its is ok to roast people who enforce the very same rule with the paladin.
The Paladin's rule is different. It's not even written the same. Likewise, it wouldn't be the first time they had something in the core rulebook that literally references nothing. As-is, there is no cleric code. You can make one, but there isn't. You can add one, but there isn't. If you want to talk about the classes as they actually exist, there isn't one. Paladin has its code of conduct build in.
Clerics can have some added, probably based on campaign setting. By default they have no such code. However, they are limited by their alignment. That's probably good enough, since falling (or rising) too far from your deity's alignment can shut your abilities off or force you to select new ones. I'm OK with that.
But yeah, citing a rule that doesn't exist isn't going to get you very far. It's like clicking a shortcut to a file that doesn't exist on your computer. Cleric_Code.dat was not found.
EDIT: Yeah, maybe Arthas was indeed a Cleric. I mean, that would explain it. As he became corrupted, his alignment shifted from Good to Neutral to Evil. When he hit evil, he became a Death Knight, who uses negative energy instead of positive energy. As a neutral cleric he could still retain all his holy powers, but as an evil cleric he'd lose them for a different set.
EDIT 2: So yeah, the best example of a Paladin and his struggle with corruption I've ever seen isn't even a Paladin by D&D standards. :P
There is no cleric code written in the CRB because it would depend on the deity in question as written in the book, and the devs can't cover everything in one book. In order to make that work by RAW they would have to write codes for every deity. Now the Faiths of Purity and other similar pathfinder books do have restrictions on what they want their worshippers to do in Golarion. For a homebrew game a GM would have to make his own. Telling someone what to do is basically a code of conduct.In short clerics do have codes to follow. The difference is that instead of trying to shoehorn all the clerics into one code like they did with the paladin the decision of what the code is has been left to the deity the cleric serves.
Taboos If you see an opportunity to right a wrong and fail to
take it, you have sinned against Iomedae and must perform a penance that fixes the original situation. If that’s not possible, you must find three others like it and make those right instead. You must stand
for justice, and the only exception is if you are playing a longer game that will have far greater benefits when it comes to fruition. Should you fail in this, you may lose traits and class abilities related to your faith until you complete your penance.
Jedi aren't Lawful good, lawful neutral at best.
They lie (a lot) "A different point of view."
They lie when it is necessary. They do not lie for personal gain, nor for the sake of trickery. They lie if lying is called for. They do this only when needed.
They cheat (Qui gon at dice)
Out of context. Jedi aren't out to take everyone's stuff. They don't go around cheating at games for the heck of it, or for personal gain.
They've no qualms about using their mind control powers to get what they want ("You will take Republic Credits") or just to be left alone ("You want to go away and give up your job because you're annoying me.")
Um, hello? Rescuing a princess and saving a planet of people under hostile occupation > forcing someone to take your foreign money or telling drug dealers to go and rethink their lives.
They're extremely callous, (Look at how they treat Whinykin. Your mom's in trouble, sucks to be you. You're worried about someone dying, sucks to be you.)
Callous does not mean evil. Nor does it mean Chaotic. There were bigger fish to fry. A Jedi's life means a lot of sacrifices. It's not about always getting to do just what you want. Likewise, it didn't happen like you paint it.
And what exactly would they have done to Annikin had Qui Gon not told them to take a flying leap. "Ok kid, you're one of the most powerful force sensitive people we met, but you're too old for us to train. So we're going to let your phenominally powerful butt go."
Good question. Most likely whatever they felt the best thing for the boy was. They might have even allowed him to stay at the Temple, even if he wasn't going to be trained; similar to how some children aren't taken on to be trained as knights, and instead get desk jobs.
And that's just from the movies. If we include the Clone Wars cartoon it gets worse.
Do you mean the CGI one, or the one animated like Samurai Jack? I don't get your meaning either way here.
The Sith weren't out to destroy the Jedi because of good vs evil, they were eliminating the competition.
Interesting that you should say this. Considering the Sith are a combination of both tyrannical behavior, lust for killing, backstabbing, and subjugation of peoples, versus a group of people dedicated to protecting the peace and prosperity of a democracy, who sacrifice their own wealth, power, and desires for the betterment of the world...
Can I have some of what you're smoking? For scientific analysis of course.
EDIT: But this does make a good point. If the Jedi were Paladins, all the bad guys would always win. Why? Because Paladins cannot do anything except murder people with swords and hope those people were deep enough in the alignment pool that it doesn't call them to fall.
Let's not forget that dealing in absolutes tends to create problems in anything.
Badguy: "I know that the rebels are hiding here somewhere. Either you tell me truthfully where they are, or I will have those people captured yesterday executed. Your choice, fool."
Paladin: *Hmmm, I could lie to him and tell him the wrong place, and attempt to rescue the innocents. I can't do that though, because that would be something smart. Paladins aren't allowed to be smart. Today's a bad day to be a Paladin. Why can't I just whack things with my sword?*
No. Jedi are not good. Jedi are not evil. Jedi are balance.First, Jedi are Lawful Good
No, they really aren't. Jedi are altruistic. They protect the people. They fight evil. Jedi are all about balance inside, but they're constantly striving to make the outside a better place. In D&D terms they are amazingly Lawful Good.
No, They really are not good. Not in the lest. They could care less about good or evil. They are about balance and the Laws of the republic, but hang what happens outside the republic. The sith they see as (In balances) within the force, things that need to be removed to balance the force. They do not fight evil. They fight imbalance and enforce the Law. Kinda like Hellknights.
You really do not seem to grasp what a Jedi is.
There is no emotion, there is peace.
There is no ignorance, there is knowledge.
There is no passion, there is serenity.
There is no chaos, there is harmony
There is no death, there is the Force.
How is this good? It is Promoting Order and neutrality. They are monks with magic swords.
No, They really are not good. Not in the lest. They could care less about good or evil. They are about balance and the Laws of the republic, but hang what happens outside the republic. The sith they see as (In balances) within the force, things that need to be removed to balance the force. They do not fight evil. They fight imbalance and enforce the Law. Kinda like Hellknights.
But why? Because of Altruism. Altruism is the heart of goodness. Why do they protect the Republic, and their democracy? Why do they have such strict rules to keep their power in check?
The Jedi are most definitely the good guys.
You really do not seem to grasp what a Jedi is.
How is this good? It is Promoting Order and neutrality. They are monks with magic swords.
There is no emotion, there is peace.
There is no ignorance, there is knowledge.
There is no passion, there is serenity.
There is no chaos, there is harmony
There is no death, there is the Force.
It's certainly not evil. The Paladin's code isn't good either. The core of the code is mechanical, saying "you gotta be lawful good". It mentions to act with honor, which is neither lawful nor good in its own right. It says to help people in need, and punish those who harm and threaten the innocent.
Jedi do all of those things, except they're not so much caught up on the honor part, but are equally lawful. Their code is about self control, and learning to be without fear, aggression, or have emotions that will cloud their mind.
However, the Jedi themselves, and what they do, are quite Lawful Good. They're about as Lawful Good as you could possibly get while still remaining able to actually do good in the world.
Though, I suppose if we must decide to help those in need, we should make Paladins fall if they don't start murdering people who legally own slaves in some lands, or going out of their way to punish people who do harm to people.
Little Boy to Little Girl: "You're ugly."
Little Girl: *cries*
Paladin walking bye: *b+!**slaps little boy*
Little Boy Cries: *cries*
Paladin: "Good. Now that you are punished for harming her spirit with your words, remember..."
Lady: "WTF are you slapping my child for!?"
Paladin: "It is part of the noble co..."
Lady: "I'm calling the guards! Guards! Guaaaaards! There's another one of those Paladin things here causing problems again!"
If you think the Jedi are good, its no wonder you have issues with the paladin's code. The Jedi code does not promote good, not in the lest. It promotes emotionless action, not governed by good or evil. The cJedi council were not good, Qui-gon was a near outcast among Jedi because of his un-jedi like actions.
They are LN, not good. They do not battle evil, they do not seek it out they do not try to root it from the galaxy. They battle things that unbalance the force or threaten the republic or the order itself, nothing more. This is not action of good, much less a paladin. Again they are more action a Hellknight order would take, not an order of paladins.
They do not root out evil with violence.
They root it out with peace.
I think that is the epitome of good.
Umm no, they do not root it out at all. Jedi have no impact upon anything until they are called into action. They do not even impact the worlds upon which they live outside the compound walls.
They do not seek to convert people, they do seek out other force users to train in the "balance" but they could give a rats ass about anything else really. They do not even seek out the sith unless its at war or trying to start a war with the republic.
\
If you think the Jedi are good, its no wonder you have issues with the paladin's code. The Jedi code does not promote good, not in the lest. It promotes emotionless action, not governed by good or evil. The cJedi council were not good, Qui-gon was a near outcast among Jedi because of his un-jedi like actions.
They are LN, not good. They do not battle evil, they do not seek it out they do not try to root it from the galaxy. They battle things that unbalance the force or threaten the republic or the order itself, nothing more. This is not action of good, much less a paladin. Again they are more action a Hellknight order would take, not an order of paladins.
To Jedi, peace is good. The so called "balance" that you say they are striving for is the perfect existence. Evil creates imbalance. Cruelty creates imbalance. They guard themselves from their emotions because they do not want to risk becoming tempted to the evil that would create the imbalance. Attachment can cause fear and desperation, or the desire for revenge, jealousy, and hate. They don't want other people to suffer.
Think about what Yoda said. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate...leads to suffering. For a group of people who apparently are apathetic to the rest of the world, they sure seem to care a lot about preventing people from suffering.
Also, you're wrong. They do battle evil, and root it out where they can. They're just not stupid about it. Jedi don't want innocents hurt. They're not running out there and trying to cut down every petty criminal, or causing chaos out of a sense of self-righteousness. The fight against evil, tyranny, and the pursuit of peace is what the entire concept is built around.
Exactly what do you think a Paladin is supposed to do then? I want to know how you think a Paladin should have handled himself, or how you think a Paladin should handle himself in a D&D game. Especially socially, and in regard to politics, order, and making the world a better place. Is he going to do it at the tip of his sword ran over a river of blood? Is that the only way you will accept someone as being good?
Also, Qi-Gon Jinn was exactly as you describe. He was more Neutral Good than he was Lawful Good. He tended to act as he thought was best, regardless of tradition. That's textbook Neutral Good. That's why he was both loved and respected but also seen as not entirely safe, because the Jedi are ultimately supposed to be Lawful Good.
EDIT:
Umm no, they do not root it out at all.
"This Jedi ferrets out deceit and injustice, bringing it to light."
―Dorak
The Jedi Code and Teachings[/url]]Render Aid
Jedi were obliged to help those in need of aid whenever possible, and were expected to be able to prioritize quickly. Jedi were taught that while saving one life was important, saving many lives was even more so. This principle did not mean a Jedi had to abandon other goals in every circumstance, but merely that a Jedi must do his or her best to make sure that they aided those who were most in need of assistance.[1]Defend The Weak
Similarly, a Jedi was expected to defend the weak from those who oppressed them, ranging from small-scale suffering at the hands of an individual to large-scale enslavement of entire species. However, Jedi were taught to remember that all may not have been as it seemed, and that they should respect other cultures, even if they clashed with a Jedi's moral or ethical code. Jedi were also warned not to act in areas out of their jurisdiction, and to always consider the consequences of their actions.[1]Provide Support
At times, it was necessary for a Jedi to stand aside and let other people defend the weak, even if the Jedi felt that they could do a superior job. Jedi were taught that they should assist by word or action as required by the situation, offering advice when requested to, warning when necessary, and arguing only when reason failed. Jedi should remember that they wielded the marvelous tool of the Force, and that they should be prepared to use it only for good.[1]
I am gonna have to disagree. The action of the Jedi seem to fly in the face of this good you claim. They do not root out evil, they did not even root out the sith until they were a threat to the republic.
Lets look at this "code" they never use
Rendering Aid: well they don't often do this, not unless they stumble across it and it happens to be useful they stop it or they have the time.
Defend the weak: This one made me laugh. Since when if ever have they done this? They don't even defend folks on the same planet as the prime temple. They don't fight crime, they do not help the enslaved, they do not feed the poor, help the homeless, they do not stop druglords or gangs or pirates or well anything. Unless, it happens to be under orders from the republic or a threat to the force or the Jedi Order.
Provide Support: Also made me laugh, they act as sages, but that is about all the support you are gonna gt from them.
You can keep ding up old text and I can keep digging up all they times they ignored it and did nothing as it did not threaten them or the republic. They place balance far above "good" because most of those "good" ones fall and became dark jedi or sith.
Edit: Anyone else suddenly amused we somehow turned a paladin argument into a jedi argument?
Well, no. To me, they are the same argument. :)
Edit: Anyone else suddenly amused we somehow turned a paladin argument into a jedi argument?
And to me they are as far apart as a barbarian and a monk. One is champion of all that is holy, just and good the other is a more monk-like hellknight with a magic sword :)
In an odd turn of events I think you're both right depending on circumstance. However to make this argument I would have to acknowledge that sometimes the dark jedi are good guys.
I'm going to flee now before someone force chokes me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In an odd turn of events I think you're both right depending on circumstance. However to make this argument I would have to acknowledge that sometimes the dark jedi are good guys.
I'm going to flee now before someone force chokes me.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean, unless you mean someone who uses dark powers in altruistic ways. There are some examples of this, such as the main character from Force Unleashed. Generally, this is the anti-hero concept, which interestingly Paladins can do.
Anti-Paladins, for example, have a far more wavering code. Perhaps the reason they are Chaotic Evil in alignment instead of Evil is because they are allowed to make excuses for their code. See, an Antipaladin legally gets to decide what his code means to him.
This does not mean that an antipaladin cannot take actions someone else might qualify as good, only that such actions must always be in service of his own dark ends. An antipaladin's code requires that he place his own interests and desires above all else,
This makes antipaladins not only harder to pick out in a crowd, but also makes them less disruptive to being in a party unless the player is kind of stupid. An antiapaladin can go all the way through an adventure path or campaign acting like a hero, as long as he's doing it for self serving reasons.
Player A: "Hey Regmar, why did you just give that beggar ten gold pieces?"
Antipaladin: "Because everyone in the street could see it. This act of generosity shall serve me well later when I'm trying to influence these people."
Player A: "Oh...I thought you might have grown a heart."
Antipaladin: "I thought you might have grown a brain."
Player A: "Hey Regmar, why did you help us kill the orc warlord who was ravaging the countryside?"
Antipaladin: "Because I was protecting my investment. What good is it if these fools think I'm a hero if they are dead or penniless? That orc was in my way to greater power, and had to be dealt with."
Player A: "Do you ever do anything nice without it being about you?"
Antipaladin: "No."
Player A: "Hey Regmar, why did you spare that Paladin's life, after saving him from those orcs, and saving the damsel in distress?"
Antipaladin: "Because I wanted him to know I did his job better than he can because he is weak. he will have doubts, and he will question, because he has been shown I am superior. One of the orcs looked at me funny, and I decided he had to go, so I flexed my sword arm. The damsel's father now owes me a favor, which I may collect on when I feel it is time."
Player A: "You're an evil loon, you know that?"
Antipaladin: "Do as thou wilt is my motto. Now get out of my face, 'afor I feed you your spell components."
I am gonna have to disagree. The action of the Jedi seem to fly in the face of this good you claim. They do not root out evil, they did not even root out the sith until they were a threat to the republic.
Lets look at this "code" they never use
Rendering Aid: well they don't often do this, not unless they stumble across it and it happens to be useful they stop it or they have the time.
Can you give an example of this that doesn't involve having some sort of pressing good cause of equal or greater significance? Preferably an example that wouldn't cause more harm than good, or put the person they are aiding in greater danger.
Defend the weak: This one made me laugh. Since when if ever have they done this? They don't even defend folks on the same planet as the prime temple. They don't fight crime, they do not help the enslaved, they do not feed the poor, help the homeless, they do not stop druglords or gangs or pirates or well anything. Unless, it happens to be under orders from the republic or a threat to the force or the Jedi Order.
This is actually quite false. Jedi do interact with law enforcement and assist with bringing criminals down. They're not so cavalier about it that they just run into places brandishing lightsabers. They often acquire information, help with planning, act as bodyguards, and so forth.
Paladins don't do that either. At least, not by default. Not trying to fix everything does not mean they are not good. By this argument they should be running a soup kitchen while tearing people apart in the criminal underworld and causing more chaos. Let's use our power to enforce our beliefs on other people, regardless of the law and order and protocols that society has put into place? Is that what you think would make the Jedi more Good?
Provide Support: Also made me laugh, they act as sages, but that is about all the support you are gonna gt from them.
Seriously? They support the republic during times of war, function as impartial mediators in situations, provide that sagely information, save princesses, and fight big bad racist tyrants who enslave people, and put their lives on the line without payment and obviously without a lot of thanks in return either.
You can keep ding up old text and I can keep digging up all they times they ignored it and did nothing as it did not threaten them or the republic. They place balance far above "good" because most of those "good" ones fall and became dark jedi or sith.
I haven't actually seen you provide any examples at all.
Edit: Anyone else suddenly amused we somehow turned a paladin argument into a jedi argument?
There similarities are noteworthy. Both follow a code, contest evil, and live lawful and disciplined lives. They strive to resist corruption, and do so selflessly and altruistically.
Honestly, the Jedi are closer to Paladins in terms of their existence than anything else in D&D.
Paladins
Knightly spiritual warriors with supernatural powers, who seek to live their lives and temper their actions by means of a code to guide them. Altruistically placing others before themselves, wealth, and power, to protect the peace and sanctity of the people of their world.
Jedi
Knightly spiritual warriors with supernatural powers, who seek to live their lives and temper their actions by means of a code to guide them. Altruistically placing others before themselves, wealth, and power, to protect the peace and sanctity of the people of their world.
Again disagree. The Jedi help when
A: They are told to by the republic
b: It benefits the Jedi order itself
c: When it balances the force in some manner.
Nothing they have done in the whole history of the orders ( Been a few at this point) does not meet one of those three.They have the power to do much good, yet they do not. They seek balance there code is all about balance they could give a rats ass about good if that good unbalances the force is is bad. They do not heal the sick ( they can) , they do not cloth and feed the poor or homeless ( hey could) they do not battle druglord, pirates or slavers unless it meets one of the three above. They do not run around righting wrongs, they never have. They go on missions they are given by either the republic and sometimes these do "good" things, which is a side effect of the mission not the goal.
But you seem to falsy thing " Light" side = good and "dark" side=bad. This is not the case.Some "Dark" jedi are not evil, they are in fact good or at lest lean more toward good and less toward balance. You "fall" when you use emotion to rule you, when you call upon the force not with a calm sense of balance but emotion. And not just with fear, hate or anger but also joy,lust or excitement.
And before you bring up sith, they are NOT dark "jedi" or just dark force users. They are a single type of force users who tap into the force using darker emotions. Mostly Hate, fear and anger.
The "Dark" side is emotion, the "Light" side is balance. Good or evil does not enter into it really.
Again disagree. The Jedi help when
A: They are told to by the republic
b: It benefits the Jedi order itself
c: When it balances the force in some manner.Nothing they have done in the whole history of the orders ( Been a few at this point) does not meet one of those three.They have the power to do much good, yet they do not. They seek balance there code is all about balance they could give a rats ass about good if that good unbalances the force is is bad. They do not heal the sick ( they can) , they do not cloth and feed the poor or homeless ( hey could) they do not battle druglord, pirates or slavers unless it meets one of the three above. They do not run around righting wrongs, they never have. They go on missions they are given by either the republic and sometimes these do "good" things, which is a side effect of the mission not the goal.
But you seem to falsy thing " Light" side = good and "dark" side=bad. This is not the case.Some "Dark" jedi are not evil, they are in fact good or at lest lean more toward good and less toward balance. You "fall" when you use emotion to rule you, when you call upon the force not with a calm sense of balance but emotion. And not just with fear, hate or anger but also joy,lust or excitement.
And before you bring up sith, they are NOT dark "jedi" or just dark force users. They are a single type of force users who tap into the force using darker emotions. Mostly Hate, fear and anger.
The "Dark" side is emotion, the "Light" side is balance. Good or evil does not enter into it really.
All right, I'll weigh into this tangent...
The paladin is intended to be the ultimate paragon of a D&D campaign world. He embodies the highest virtues of the world itself in a world where good and evil are made manifest and concrete. Although there is sometimes a grey area between good and evil actions, good and evil are potent forces in their own right and cannot be denied.
The jedi is intended to be the ultimate paragon of the Star Wars universe. He embodies the highest virtues of the Galaxy in universe embroiled in a titanic struggle between the the light and dark sides of the Force, a limitless power formed from all life and consciousness. Living according to a code of serenity grants the jedi power, which becomes corrupted if he strays from that code.
From a narrative point of view, paladins and jedi are equivalent. The paladin follows a very objective code; here's a list of things you must do, here's a list of things you must not do. The jedi live by a more holistic code than the paladin; they serve the big picture, which might require some acts that are less than honest or even harm others, but it always serves to uphold the ascendancy of the light side of the Force.
Within their settings, the codes are equally stringent, so the real difference is a matter of flavor.
GT
Soooooooo they only thing they have in common is they both have some kind of code, yet theses codes have nothing in common other then they are called codes.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Soooooooo they only thing they have in common is they both have some kind of code, yet theses codes have nothing in common other then they are called codes.
Does that mean that if Jedi = Paladin, Pirate = Jedi? :=)
Does that mean that if Jedi = Paladin, Pirate = Jedi? :=)
As some Jedi use the code more like guide lines then real rules anyhow, yeah they are closer to pirates then paladins :)