|
Evil characters thought of themselves first while Good placed others before themselves.
That cuts pretty close to how I see Good-Evil. I've never really been a fan of boiling Law-Chaos down to group-self, largely because it really sells CG and to a lesser extent NG short. Chaotic Good characters should have the potential to be just as selfless as a Lawful Good character can be, with the difference between them being the hows and whys of it.
The more self-oriented outlooks, where one seeks to do what's good for themselves and those inside their monkeysphere first, were always pretty much textbook neutral on the Good-Evil axis to me. Dipping into evil depending on how far they took it. What sets Good apart is that it doesn't play the monkeysphere game.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I' going to agree with Aranna (and Aelyrinth) on this one. I don't think the prisoner's desires force the CG to do anything except consider them in light of the CG's personality and worldview. I blanch at the thought of a CG even having a "code of conduct" - codified behaviour is anathematic to a free-spirit. (And no, a code of no-code does not count!)
Chaotic paladins cannot allow innocents to be oppressed by tyranny against their will.
There's one codified behavior.
|
Evil characters thought of themselves first while Good placed others before themselves
Umm... as a chaotic, I think that individuality is the right path to benefit myself and the others. As good, I will freely sacrifice myself for the good of others. That's how I see it.
This. Being Good and doing the right thing is choosing to benefit others over yourself. Law/Chaos is about the method.
Bardess, I can see a CG Paladin/Champion with a strict no killing policy making a different choice, but I think it would represent a major ethical dilemma, along the lines of a Lawful or Good dilemma for the traditional paladin. The CG redeemer paladin's value for life could still win over the value for freedom, but making that choice isn't easy. And if a CG smite-happy paladin tried to take prisoner a villain who asked for death instead, I'd call it violation of alignment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Evil characters thought of themselves first while Good placed others before themselvesUmm... as a chaotic, I think that individuality is the right path to benefit myself and the others. As good, I will freely sacrifice myself for the good of others. That's how I see it.This. Being Good and doing the right thing is choosing to benefit others over yourself. Law/Chaos is about the method.
i follow this same idea though i phrase it to new players as, good/evil are the alignments of motivations, law/chaos are the alignments of actions. i basically rendered them down to why and how. i recognize that not everyone agrees with me on this topic, so i am only stating it for sake of sharing with the group. however it should be noted that belief, and therefor alignment, is incredibly abstract as concepts so we all interpret them in different ways. i would ask, as a fellow gamer, to please keep this discussion relatively open minded and not go on attacks against other players personal views. now it hasn't escalated to the really nasty stuff yet, but that doesn't mean it won't. i really am curious how this discussion will develop, and don't want to see a webninja have to lock it down. thank you for your time.
the toast who cried wolf
Evil characters thought of themselves first while Good placed others before themselvesUmm... as a chaotic, I think that individuality is the right path to benefit myself and the others. As good, I will freely sacrifice myself for the good of others. That's how I see it.This. Being Good and doing the right thing is choosing to benefit others over yourself. Law/Chaos is about the method.i follow this same idea though i phrase it to new players as, good/evil are the alignments of motivations, law/chaos are the alignments of actions. i basically rendered them down to why and how. i recognize that not everyone agrees with me on this topic, so i am only stating it for sake of sharing with the group. however it should be noted that belief, and therefor alignment, is incredibly abstract as concepts so we all interpret them in different ways. i would ask, as a fellow gamer, to please keep this discussion relatively open minded and not go on attacks against other players personal views. now it hasn't escalated to the really nasty stuff yet, but that doesn't mean it won't. i really am curious how this discussion will develop, and don't want to see a webninja have to lock it down. thank you for your time.
the toast who cried wolf
wow what a overly sensitive wuss;)
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I' going to agree with Aranna (and Aelyrinth) on this one. I don't think the prisoner's desires force the CG to do anything except consider them in light of the CG's personality and worldview. I blanch at the thought of a CG even having a "code of conduct" - codified behaviour is anathematic to a free-spirit. (And no, a code of no-code does not count!)Chaotic paladins cannot allow innocents to be oppressed by tyranny against their will.
There's one codified behavior.
The way I see it, both Lawful Good and Chaotic Good are inferior types of good to Neutral Good, because they allow rules (or the defying of rules) to restrict / curtail exactly what sort of 'good' they can do.
Neutral Good could give a crap if they have to break a rule (or kowtow to an underserving authority) to accomplish the most good. They just do it, while the lawful or chaotic sorts are worrying about what sort of actions they can take without messing with their Lawful / Chaotic status.
Chaotic is every bit as 'restrictive' as Lawful, and Lawful doesn't deserve any special powers or regard or status for having it 'harder' than Chaotic, because it doesn't. Both Lawful and Chaotic place limits on how good (or evil) you can be, and channel / restrict your actions.
The Neutral Good exemplar doesn't have to follow the rules, but can respect and admire rules and authorities that accomplish good aims, and work within the system without a hitch, while completely ignoring and defying a rule or authority that they feel is hampering their ability to do good. Neutral Good gets the job done, while Law and Chaos are still bickering over minutiae.
Anywho, for Paladins, it hardly matters. It's not like they really give a rat's butt about the Lawful part of their LG alignment anyway. They don't have an Aura of Chaos, they don't Detect Chaos, they don't Smite Chaos, and they don't have any restrictions about partying with Chaotic allies, after all, so the Lawful alignment restriction is entirely fluff, utterly unbacked by any rules mechanics, unlike the Good alignment restriction, which is backed by their Aura of Good, their power to Detect Evil, their power to Smite Evil, and the restriction against hanging out with Evil allies.
If the Lawful component meant as much as the Good component, the rules would back it up. They don't.
I' going to agree with Aranna (and Aelyrinth) on this one. I don't think the prisoner's desires force the CG to do anything except consider them in light of the CG's personality and worldview. I blanch at the thought of a CG even having a "code of conduct" - codified behaviour is anathematic to a free-spirit. (And no, a code of no-code does not count!)Chaotic paladins cannot allow innocents to be oppressed by tyranny against their will.
There's one codified behavior.
You make a good point TOZ. I'm guess I'm not sure that "cannot" fits with my view of the Chaotic, but your general point of a progressing or layered priority or primacy of freedoms (mine, yours, theirs and where they lie for LNC or GE) is still valid. I would also say that in the example given earlier in the thread that the prisoner in question was no innocent. I also gave the Chaotic good person (though perhaps I should have kept on-subject and qualified it as CG paladin, but i got a bit general...) the freedom to choose how restricted by honor, duty, social expectations etc. One could say that the degree to which such bending to the yoke of compulsion ( however derived) would be the degree of codified behavior.
[EDIT - though now that I think about it, perhaps "cannot" does fit. To give Chaotics their due, they have to stand for something or be relegated to a joke. They have stamd for something, or just be Whatever Good, Whatever Neutral or Whatever Evil.
Also, the definition of "tyranny" would be very broad for many Chaotics. :)
And just to throw a spanner in the works, as far as the inherent illogicality of an "alignmet system" I always found Palladium's system... different. Being Unprincipled and still "good". Or Principled and "evil".
The way I see it, both Lawful Good and Chaotic Good are inferior types of good to Neutral Good, because they allow rules (or the defying of rules) to restrict / curtail exactly what sort of 'good' they can do.Neutral Good could give a crap if they have to break a rule (or kowtow to an underserving authority) to accomplish the most good. They just do it, while the lawful or chaotic sorts are worrying about what sort of actions they can take without messing with their Lawful / Chaotic status.
Chaotic is every bit as 'restrictive' as Lawful, and Lawful doesn't deserve any special powers or regard or status for having it 'harder' than Chaotic, because it doesn't. Both Lawful and Chaotic place limits on how good (or evil) you can be, and channel / restrict your actions.
The Neutral Good exemplar doesn't have to follow the rules, but can respect and admire rules and authorities that accomplish good aims, and work within the system without a hitch, while completely ignoring and defying a rule or authority that they feel is hampering their ability to do good. Neutral Good gets the job done, while Law and Chaos are still bickering over minutiae.
Anywho, for Paladins, it hardly matters. It's not like they really give a rat's butt about the Lawful part of their LG alignment anyway. They don't have an Aura of Chaos, they don't Detect Chaos, they don't Smite Chaos, and they don't have any restrictions about partying with Chaotic allies, after all, so the Lawful alignment restriction is entirely fluff, utterly unbacked by any rules mechanics, unlike the Good alignment restriction, which is backed by their Aura of Good, their power to Detect Evil, their power to Smite Evil, and the restriction against hanging out with Evil allies.
If the Lawful component meant as much as the Good component, the rules would back it up. They don't.
+100.000.000
It also allows for a lot more party diversity with a paladin. I really like the class features, but don't like being limited to lawful good.
That's the problem of the whole issue.
Too often players want everything everywhere, but some things are in certain places for a reason."I like the Wizard's class features, but I don't like that it's limited to having a spellbook."
"I like the Monk's class features, but I don't like that they can't wear a full plate."
And so on.
To which the answer is: alright, go on and change those things, but then you're no longer playing that (broad) concept upon which the class was created. There are some variants to those concepts, but indeed they're rare exceptions and are represented with variant classes and class archetypes, where applicable.
The Paladin is made the way it is because the types of characters it was inspired by are in that way. Certain changes denaturate a class at its core, which is no good thing.
Now, if you ask me if I would like to see non-Paladin holy/unholy warriors of any alignment who smite evil/good, my answer is yes. But, as said, they would be sacred warriors of another kind, which means many different class features (and class skills, possibly proficiencies, and so on) than what the standard Paladin gets.
Roland was a berserking paladin.^^
Rainaut was a ladies' man.
Lancelot and Tristram seduced their lieges' wives...
Literature paladins are HARDLY LG...^^
If the Lawful component meant as much as the Good component, the rules would back it up. They don't.
Oh but the rules DO back it up. You lose all powers if you fail to follow the code just once. Lawful behavior is a big part of the code.
Chaotic paladins cannot allow innocents to be oppressed by tyranny against their will.
There's one codified behavior.
You have that a little wrong TOZ. GOOD can't allow innocents to be oppressed by tyranny. It is codified as part of good not chaotic.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You have that a little wrong TOZ. GOOD can't allow innocents to be oppressed by tyranny. It is codified as part of good not chaotic.
I'm not talking about a Chaotic character Aranna, I'm talking about a Chaotic Paladin.
A Chaotic character values individual liberty and freedom. A CG Paladin CANNOT allow other people to languish in slavery. It's the same as a LG Paladin refusing to aid a people under attack by bandits.
Imagine we have a country with tyranical and harsh government. But the country works; the people feel secure and, tough not happy with some mesure, a bit more than half the population prefer that situation to an unknown alternative.
A LG paladin surely will not like that situation, but have no necessity to oppose that goverment. A CG paladin, MUST defend the liberty of that people.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to call foul on the whole notion that LG, code-of-conduct-abiding Paladins are held to a higher standard and thus are more good than good. And I'm not speaking for myself, but the rules of how the Pathfinder game/setting is set up.
Get an LG, COC-abiding Paladin and stand him next to a LG but not COC-abiding Cleric of equal level. Get a third Cleric (or anyone else with the spell) to cast Detect Good. They both ping Good. They ping Good equally as much as the other, not more, not less. Hell, if the second Cleric casts Detect Law, those two will ping Lawful the same way. The fact that the Paladin has an additional COC just makes him more handicapped.
(It'd be like me saying my horse is held to a higher standard than someone else's if it had a busted leg. Both horses are expected to convey their passengers from place to place, but mine must contend with a limp, so it's held to a higher standard? No, not at all. What needs to happen is that I need to get that horse healthy again (by healing and removing said limp).)
Furthermore, get that same Paladin and set him up against a CG (and still not COC-abiding) Cleric. Assuming they're the same level as each other, they will ping Good the same way (only as much as the other).
And these are things that people would be able to scientifically (at least as far as that word can be used in Golarion or wherever) prove for themselves, had they the inclination to go out and test this for themselves.
"Yeah, that makes them equally good, but the LG, COC Paladin is still held to a higher standard on the L-C axis, and without that, a Paladin just isn't a Paladin."
Yeah, I'm sorry. You mean to add "for you" to that. For me, the PF Paladin isn't a Paladin. Rather, it is the only available class for someone wanting to play a character combining the elements of "Warrior capabilities" and "Modicum of spellcasting", while subtracting "Nature-y bent" (believe me, I wish the Ranger was suitable enough to stand in for the Paladin with regards to the other alignments).
Why is it that that specific combination of elements can only be expressed by a concept saddled with an alignment restriction when the elements themselves aren't? Fighters have no alignment restriction, Rangers have no alignment restriction, Inquisitors and Clerics have no alignment restriction, etc., but when we combine those abilities into a class of their own, as with the Paladin, an alignment restriction magically congeals out of nowhere.
|
|
Roland was a berserking paladin.^^
Rainaut was a ladies' man.
Lancelot and Tristram seduced their lieges' wives...
Literature paladins are HARDLY LG...^^
Roland -- Lawful good, (lawful stupid counts). Volunteers for the rear guard, dies fighting against superior numbers after refusing to call for help, taken to Paradise by angels.
Rainaut -- I'm not familiar with Rainaut. From the little I saw in Wikipedia, I would suggest Cavalier/Bard/Battle Herald may be a better match than Paladin.Lancelot -- Lawful good. The iconic example of a fallen paladin after he sleeps with Queen Guinevere.
Tristan -- Neutral good. Cavalier, Order of the Sword.
--
Literature is full of lawful good paladins such as: Galahad, Percival, Gawain, Hiawatha, Guan Yu, and Captain America.
--
Literature (and history) are full of chaotic good heroes, but are they "paladins". Fighters, rogues, rangers, and clerics, sure, but paladins? Thise whole thread depends on how you define paladin, of course: holy warrior?, armored peer of Charlemagne?, servant of truth and justice?
--
I believe magic missles should be auto-hit, and paladins should be limited to lawful good. Yes, I am a grognard.
I believe magic missles should be auto-hit, and paladins should be limited to lawful good. Yes, I am a grognard.I'm happy to say that you can have your vanilla cake, and I can have my chocolate cake. And we can both eat them too!
Can you TOZ? Only if you are in separate games. Either paladins are icons of lawful good held to a higher standard or they are a rainbow of numerous holy warriors from every cause and idea. The two can't exist together in the same game.
You have that a little wrong TOZ. GOOD can't allow innocents to be oppressed by tyranny. It is codified as part of good not chaotic.I'm not talking about a Chaotic character Aranna, I'm talking about a Chaotic Paladin.
A Chaotic character values individual liberty and freedom. A CG Paladin CANNOT allow other people to languish in slavery. It's the same as a LG Paladin refusing to aid a people under attack by bandits.
Right sort of... then you should have said paladin and not tried to tie it to chaotic. My point stands it is the Good part of this impossible CG paladin that fights oppression of innocents, not the chaotic side. A chaotic has no guiding rules that's the whole point to chaotic. They are free from restrictions telling you what you can and can't do. A CG character fights evil his own way. No one can say they are doing it wrong.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A chaotic has no guiding rules that's the whole point to chaotic. They are free from restrictions telling you what you can and can't do. A CG character fights evil his own way. No one can say they are doing it wrong.
Except himself.
You keep saying Chaotic is 'no rules' but that is impossible. Everyone has their own rules. Lawful/Chaotic is just an obfuscation of Conservative/Liberal. And unless you're willing to tell me Liberals have no rules, you're wrong.
A chaotic has no guiding rules that's the whole point to chaotic. They are free from restrictions telling you what you can and can't do. A CG character fights evil his own way. No one can say they are doing it wrong.Except himself.
You keep saying Chaotic is 'no rules' but that is impossible. Everyone has their own rules. Lawful/Chaotic is just an obfuscation of Conservative/Liberal. And unless you're willing to tell me Liberals have no rules, you're wrong.
Huh? What do politics have to do with alignments? If you study political alignments then both democrats and republicans are Authoritarian. Both sides believe in the Lawful side of things. They are just two separate viewpoints from a lawful perspective.
"Except himself"
True in more ways than you suspect I imagine. He is the ultimate arbiter of his own actions. If he wants to grant mercy in one fight but later decides to execute the transgressors then that is perfectly fine. A good role player will know why his character did one in one situation and something else in the other situation. But neither violates his chaotic alignment.
If you want a more chaotic analogy to politics perhaps Libertarianism is a better fit for chaos.
|
|
True in more ways than you suspect I imagine. He is the ultimate arbiter of his own actions. If he wants to grant mercy in one fight but later decides to execute the transgressors then that is perfectly fine. A good role player will know why his character did one in one situation and something else in the other situation. But neither violates his chaotic alignment.
Unless it goes against his personal code of freedom.
What code?
A code is an outside guide for your actions. A chaotic character dislikes any attempt to codify behavior.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If there are no rules for CG "Paladins", how do temples for CG deities even work?
-"What, we have a holiday tomorrow? Screw that, I want to go fishing!"
It's not about not having any rules, it is about bending or even breaking them deliberately for the greater cause. And not just the own rules but rules of governments or organisations as well.
In our gaming world, we call the holy warriors 'Templars' and they can be of any alignment, following the same alignment rules as clerics. You may not want to play with us because of that, or play in any campaign that uses houserules you don't like. And fortunately, you don't have to.
Puma we have an accord on this thread that the two versions of paladins are both fun to play and stand just fine in their own games. As far as I know nobody is screaming they would NEVER play under such and such a version.
I guess this has devolved into an argument of the definition of Chaotic... something there IS NO CORRECT ANSWER for. Since the final arbiter of alignment is the GM you are playing under. I guess I am going to have to agree to disagree with TOZ on this since we are both correct in our own games.
I do want to explain something however moot it may be.
In my view having a code that governs your behavior whether the source of this code in internal or external makes you lawful.
I knew that nothing will advance once this turns into an alignment discussion. But I agree with TOZ.
Exactly Morgen.
Anyone remember the old 1st Ed. AD&D dragon magazine article (also in 'best of dragon' for that year) that had a class description for all 7 alignments not previously covered by paladin/anti-paladin?
I remember the 1st edition version of this and I definitely liked it. I'd welcome their return.
Like I said earlier, it never works.
Literature is full of lawful good paladins such as: Galahad, Percival, Gawain, Hiawatha, Guan Yu, and Captain America.
Although I agree with you on the perspective, I must inform you that with those two words you killed my desire of ever playing a Paladin again in this and all my future lives. I hate you.
I believe magic missles should be auto-hit, and paladins should be limited to lawful good. Yes, I am a grognard.
Ah, but I too am an oldskool grognard and am happy with paladins of all alignments. ;)
I dont use Paladins of any alignment, however I freely let my players be any of the goods. For me the real hump is the Paladin's code..it's just to vague for my liking...so I personally make codes with my player or let them pick a Cavaliers Order that is a "good order" like Shield,lion and dragon.
|
|
Although I agree with you on the perspective, I must inform you that with those two words you killed my desire of ever playing a Paladin again in this and all my future lives. I hate you.Literature is full of lawful good paladins such as: Galahad, Percival, Gawain, Hiawatha, Guan Yu, and Captain America.
Sorry. I'm also sorry I've ruined returning light adamant quickdraw shields.
Note that Captain America in the comics holds himself to a paladin's code, but he's not a holy warrior. In terms of how a paladin should act, you'll find no better reference.
We're not talking the movie or modern Avengers, but the classic, mind you.
A Paladin of GOOD cannot allow innocents to suffer under the yoke of tyranny. Law and Chaos have nothing to do with that. Law might go around changing the system, Chaos might, and might choose to go around killing slave owners, starting a revolution, lead a band of merry men in the forest, etc.
A population which is happy under a tyrant is absolutely not something a CG paladin has to let slide. Remember, he doesn't give a fig about society, he cares about individuals, and he is against Evil. he's still going to fight against it, even if most of the people don't want to fight. In doing so, he inspires others to stand up for themselves, seek a better life, and furthers the cause of Good. He will force that population to confront the Evil that they do and are witness to, and push, and push, and push, until there is a breaking point. CG Paladins would be the absolute epitome of rabblerousers...they don't knuckle under to anyone, and that includes the disdain of the populace.
And anyone saying that Chaotics are as restricted in their actions as Lawfuls, has only to ask, "Can Chaotics freely break the law?" and "Can Lawfuls freely break the law?" to realize that's not true at all.
Again, Chaotics can undertake any actions a Lawful person might undertake, if it is appropriate for the moment. Indeed, most of the time Chaotics will seem as law-abiding as the next joe, because most laws are based on simple standards of behavior.
The difference is that the Lawful character will adhere to those standards when it doesn't matter, and the CHaotic character will ignore them at his convenience.
==Aelryinth
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Questions for general consumption:
1. Should the alignment restriction on paladins be lifted, or should there be a archetype that widens the alignment restriction? (Like the martial artist modifying the monks Lawful only restriction.)
2. What abilities would a "chevalier of freedom" have that are different from a LG paladin?
3. What are the alignment inspired code requirements of a (say) CG, or CN "Paladin"? Wouldn't hey by definition be more broad/permissive than the code requirements of the standard LG Paladin?
4. What is the flight velocity of an summoned swallow? Would it change if it were summoned by a chaotic "paladin"?
Literature is full of lawful good paladins such as: Galahad, Percival, Gawain, Hiawatha, Guan Yu, and Captain America.
Yes. This is so very true. Now notice something important about this example.
What if Cap went off the deep end? He's brainwashed; he's held captive; he's faced with a situation with no good choices; or just for the kicks and giggles, he decides he wants to be a jerk for once.
What happens to his abilities, his strength, his athleticism, his knowledge of trajectories and angles that lets him fling his shield at targets in such a way that it nearly always returns to him?
Well, he's a lawful good paladin so if he consciously turns evil, then of course they're going to...
Stay...
Right...
Where...
They...
Are.
This is what we're trying to get at. Ability is independent of concept. We want "guy with full BAB with some spellcasting". That does not automatically equal "guy with a fully assembled Rod of Seven Parts up his rear". The two are independent of each other.
Look, alignment sans the mechanical ties isn't an issue. Play any game where alignment isn't codified into the system, and then take a guess at what alignment your character would be were alignment part of the system. Then go with it. And if someone else at the table disagrees, then you two can have a fun little discussion and because there's nothing at stake, then you don't have to have someone be right and someone be wrong. You may agree, you may not, you may agree to disagree, it doesn't matter.
In Pathfinder, I might have a character that I believe to be a decisive sort of person. Someone else at the table might think he's more wishy-washy. And yet, because there exist no feats, no spells, no classes, no nothing that one of us has to lose for the game to go on, we can file this under "neat side conversations that thankfully aren't forcibly exaggerated far beyond what they should be". Hallelujah for the lack of the Decisiveness-Wishy-Washiness Axis.
How many threads come out in a day where someone has an issue with their character being deemed wishy-washy when the player thought otherwise? Per week? Month? Ever?
Would that we could say the same about alignment.
at some point some one mentioned something about a 10 level paladin prestige class.
considering the huge bonus paladins get just for being paladins I think this would be an awesome idea that players have to essentially aspire to. rather than some one waking up one day strapping on a sword choosing a god and saying "AM PALADIN SMITE THEE!"
if this were done I would say scrapping the alignment is fine. but the character (in order to qualify for the prestige class) has to kind of STAND for something... as someone mentioned before CG can be that rogue that is generally a nice guy but does basically what he wants... OR it could be that paladin who actively fights the powers that be for the freewill and freedom of the oppressed. same alignment totally different character.
A paladin is basically a holy warrior, term most commonly attributed to the peers from the court of Charlemagne. You could argue that Charlemagne is THE example of a paladin in history. Charlemagne was not lawful good, his era in history would not allow him to be straight good. He was more lawful neutral with good leanings. So it is a romanticized archetype that the class is based off of to begin with. That being said, any alignment could be a holy warrior, in my mind. If you can follow a god and have enemies of your religion or virtues of your religion, then those are the prerequisites to being a paladin (of some sort). I think a mixture of Unearthed Arcana and sound judgement can guide you. I don't think you need a whole new set of skills and abilities for each and every alignment, but go for it if you want to get really detailed.
If you aren't comfortable calling the class Paladin for non-lawful good characters call it hero or anti-hero, if you want to, but it equates to the same thing. In the games I run it comes down to the following idea for me. My evil races and characters do not see what they do as evil, for the most part, they see what the 'good' guys are doing as evil. They can crusade against that 'evil', just as a lawful good paladin crusades against what he sees as evil. Hopefully that last part made sense and this post helped in any way.
If you want a Marvel Comics paladin, you only need look at Crusader.
With his faith strong, he took out THOR.
When his faith wavered, Thor beat him by wuss slapping him.
That's the power of faith..and that it's hard to smite a Good Asgardian, obviously.
==Aelryinth