I was thinking of playing a paladin at some point but was not certain of how binding the code actually is. Are paladin entirely forbidden from necessary evil actions ? if so are they then responsible for the potentially dire consequences of in-actions?
Say they were tasked with over seeing a quarantine situation and the solider on guard decided to pepper those trying break quarantine (scared peasants) with arrows. Would the paladin have to stop them even though doing so would not be a lawful action (stopping members of the watch carrying out their duty) and not necessarily a good act (if the plague spreads hundreds more might die)?
Also does a paladin get to kill the joker?
Ask a Paladin question on these boards, and you will never get a consistent answer. No one can agree on what will cause them to fall.
That's one of the great things about RPG's - our answers might be totally different, and both be correct. Playing with what alignment means can be incredibly rewarding, or it can lead to frustration; and a lot of this depends on the other participants, both players & GM.
The biggest thing I'd say you'd want to look at, is hashing out these topics with the gm in question.
There are many flavors of Paladin. Some favor the Lawfulness; some favor the Goodness; and some both. And both Lawful and Good depend on the cultural context. The application of the code of conduct entirely depends on GM's interpretation and the player's to some extent.
Bottomline, you must enjoy yourself in dramatic restraint.
Most paladins kill the Joker, and some don't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only person you need to have this conversation with is your GM. The paladin code is what you guys agree it is. There is no one answer to this question. But if you commit what your GM considers an evil act even if you think it is necessary you should fall.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've always though that a good rule of thumb for Paladin behavior is to ask: "What would Superman do?" Superman never lies, he acts with honor, and does everything he can to make the world a better place. He's not quick to fight, but he recognizes that it's a possibility. He's not an idiot, but he does come off as corny sometimes because he's just so overwhelmingly good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Superman, or Captain America, from modern mythology.
Historically, Joan of Arc, or William Marshal (the regent after King John's death), or George Washington, or more poetically Galahad or Lancelot or Bors or Percival.
Paladins don't believe in "necessary evil" IMO.
The only person you need to have this conversation with is your GM. The paladin code is what you guys agree it is. There is no one answer to this question. But if you commit what your GM considers an evil act even if you think it is necessary you should fall.
Ding ding ding
This one gets the prize.
I'd argue the one consistency is that out-of-game, you and the GM MUST come to a consensus on what the Paladin code is going to mean. If you've got one interpretation and the GM has another, its going to be a huge headache to even BOTHER with. If you are both equally unwilling to budge, the best option would not to play a Paladin at all.
I've always though that a good rule of thumb for Paladin behavior is to ask: "What would Superman do?" Superman never lies, he acts with honor, and does everything he can to make the world a better place. He's not quick to fight, but he recognizes that it's a possibility. He's not an idiot, but he does come off as corny sometimes because he's just so overwhelmingly good.
Superman is omni-competent so he can afford to never compromise and always do things which he believes are right, are Paladins forbidden pragmatism and are the automatically absolved of the consequences of doing the right thing over the smart thing?
Say your paladin is tasked with defending a city under siege a bunch of refugees come to your gates and you let them in because that is the good and right thing to do (otherwise they will be caught between the walls and the besieging army). But then not 3 weeks later supplies are running, low people are starving, infection is running rampant and it seems the enemy slipped some agent in with the refugees who have poisoned a couple of the wells. 1000's die the town fall and it is your fault but as you haven't committed an evil action you don't fall?
So the perfect Paladin is Ned Stark who never compromises his honor who never betrays his oaths even in the face of a much bleaker outcome?
I've always though that a good rule of thumb for Paladin behavior is to ask: "What would Superman do?" Superman never lies, he acts with honor, and does everything he can to make the world a better place. He's not quick to fight, but he recognizes that it's a possibility. He's not an idiot, but he does come off as corny sometimes because he's just so overwhelmingly good.Superman is omni-competent so he can afford to never compromise and always do things which he believes are right, are Paladins forbidden pragmatism and are the automatically absolved of the consequences of doing the right thing over the smart thing?
If by pragmatic you mean evil then no. You don't have to play lawful stupid but pallys sometimes have to make inconvenient/unpopular choices. Paladins can be master strategist but certain tool and tricks are forbidden to them.
Paladins don't believe in "necessary evil" IMO.
this sentence and the quote of St. augustin of hippo "An unjust law is no law at all." should be IMHO the guide lines for a paladin
As other stated, its up to the GM and his world.
For the extreme in Paladins acting nasty look at the(D&D) Paladins of the Silver Flame in the World of Eberron. They are lawful good by way of the Spanish Inquisition
In the other thread, you said Lawful meant killing any peasant leaving the quarantine zone and finding dubious loopholes in the wording of holy moral codes and vows. After that Vow of Poverty nonsense you tried to pull, I wouldn't even let you roll a paladin at my table.
In the other thread, you said Lawful meant killing any peasant leaving the quarantine zone and finding dubious loopholes in the wording of holy moral codes and vows. After that Vow of Poverty nonsense you tried to pull, I wouldn't even let you roll a paladin at my table.
I wouldn't want to be in the game of a person who think the primary purpose of a gm is to ban people, hostile gm's are the worst. Well actually hostile, sarcastic and impolite gm's are the worst.
I wouldn't want to be in the game of a person who think the primary purpose of a gm is to ban peopleGood thing there isn't anyone here saying that.
In the other thread he mentioned he said that main reason gm exist are to ban rules lawyers, you know rather than say running a game. Which interestingly means that 33.3 of all gm's I know exist to ban themselves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the other thread, you said Lawful meant killing any peasant leaving the quarantine zone and finding dubious loopholes in the wording of holy moral codes and vows. After that Vow of Poverty nonsense you tried to pull, I wouldn't even let you roll a paladin at my table.
This. When I see people at my gaming table whose character "design" is all about trying to find loopholes in their limitations, I cringe at allowing them to throw dice, because I know they are going to ruin the fun factor.
Trying to take a share of party loot as a VoP monk goes against the Vow and the alignment of Lawful.
Now add even MORE restrictions because you're both Lawful AND Good AND a Paladin and I'll throw the book at you for attempting to skirt the rules. If you're even asking the question of how strict the code is, you may as well roll a Fighter at my table. Because that's what you're going to become with a quickness.
The "fun" Paladins at my table consider every encounter a moral and religious challenge. I don't allow them to be Judge Dredd on the party's collective actions during a battle, but I will warn them about the very obvious difference between killing out of necessity and killing out of preference or pleasure.
To be fair, I have not answered your actual question at all. Firstly, the code is VERY strict, and is meant to be. But, it's only as strict as your DM makes it.
At my table, you cannot, under your own knowledge or conscious action, commit an evil act. If you allow an evil act to occur and you had the power to stop it, you may as well have committed the act yourself.
If you are forced to do it upon threat, compulsion, or magic, you will need to Atone at the earliest opportunity. I will not strip your powers for things that happen if you cannot control it.
'This thread is a great illustration of why the game has a GM. After all, otherwise there would be nobody to disinvite players for pulling self-serving hair-splitting lawyer nonsense and expecting to be taken seriously.'
Implying gm exist to ban players.
Yep. That's the post. Clearly implied. Although, I would not "disinvite" a player from my table for hair-splitting rules lawyer nonsense. I would warn them that such shenanigans are not tolerated.
If the RAW is clear, it's clear. If it's open to interpretation because of RAW vs RAI, that's the DM's job and his authority to make the command decision. Do I think it should involve player buy-in? Absolutely. But I'm the DM for a reason. Ultimately, it's my call.
I've been playing the game in all it's iterations for longer than some of my players have been alive. I've lived through decades of rules an errata, and I can usually make a good call between RAI and RAW. If my players come up with clever ways to make up for their shortfalls, I'll congratulate them. But that's a completely separate thing (and very noticable distinction) from trying to skirt around the Vow of Poverty or Code that your Lawful Monk or Paladin swore to honor and uphold.
Certain things (like especially those two are personal pet-peeves of mine) I take very seriously in the game. Monks and Paladins receive certain benefits for upholding their rules, and their descriptions even say what happens when they don't. I expect my players to honor those rules unless they can convince me (not an easy thing to do) otherwise.
When answering the question why do games have gm's he replies that it is too ban players. Saying it in that way implies it as their primary functions. If he had said one of the reasons games have gm's then he wouldn't be implying it was there primary function.
I don't think that was the primary contextual reasoning behind that statement. No one in their right mind thinks the primary sole purpose of the DM is to ban players. Or to kill players. Or to take fun away from them. I think you're just twisting the meaning to suit your purpose, Tameknight.
I will allow that there are DMs out there with those three tenets in mind. But normally their campaign worlds are vacant of PCs because they are rarely tolerated at the head of the table for very long. I know I certainly wouldn't play with them.
The DM's role is to ensure everyone at the table has a good time, and plays the game within certain limitations. The RAW is assumed to be in effect unless otherwise agreed upon, and homebrews and house rules should also be considered. Ultimately, he's the "leader" if you want to boil it down to brass tacks. Or use the term "storyteller" if you're uncomfortable with the former term.
My paladin would stop the guards from shooting the refugees, then he would go down into the quarantined area and convince the refugees that they can't risk infecting others, because the more infected, the fewer resources there are to care for each refugee. Then he would do his best to help out, even if he couldn't cure the disease, he would see to other maladies, injuries, and problems.
However, if his attempts to convince the refugees failed, he would not stop the guards from performing their duty... but as soon as it was over, he'd be the first one in there healing the injured. It would be neither good nor lawful to allow infected people to spread a disease.
As a divinely empowered agent of Good, yes a paladin can kill the Joker, unless he surrenders himself to the paladin. In that case, if they are in a city, a place with a legitimate authority, he should turn him in. If they are not... the paladin is the legitimate authority and he is free to carry out a sentence.
I am not twisting the words at all, I am interpreting them as they are written.
Your skill at interpreting written words without twisting them is remarkably consistent.
Edit: Well, that post was deleted quickly.
Ok I will break down your statement for you,
"This thread is a great illustration of why the game has a GM."
You are rhetorically posing the question why games have gms.
"After all, otherwise there would be nobody to disinvite players for pulling self-serving hair-splitting lawyer nonsense and expecting to be taken seriously."
And then you are answering it with the statement games have gm's to ban players.
What am I misinterpreting here?
Sorry back to the thread, thanks Talynoyx you kind of gave me the answer I wanted, you do the best you can and you don't dirty your hands. All I wanted to know was whether a Ned Stark Lawful Stupid character would work for a paladin.
By the way, in your situation, the Paladin would already be amongst the sick trying to help where he could. He would sternly protest against the guards shooting at scared, helpless victims of the disease, and even move to stop them if he were so able.
A good Paladin in my game would be rolling ridiculous amounts of Diplomacy checks on both the guards and the victims, heal checks, attempting to bypass the need for the guards to be firing into the crowd in the first place, etc...
That's a Paladin's job description, pretty much to a "T". Eliminate the need for fighting if possible, step between the opponents if necessary, and end any current fighting humanely and with honor.
I am not twisting the words at all, I am interpreting them as they are written.
Interpreting words' meaning instead of asking the author for clarification is, by nature, twisting the words. All you had to do was ask the context.
"After all, otherwise there would be nobody to disinvite players for pulling self-serving hair-splitting lawyer nonsense and expecting to be taken seriously."
And then you are answering it with the statement games have gm's to ban players.
What am I misinterpreting here?
Pretty much everything said. I see no words in there that says the sole primary purpose of the DM is to lord over the table with puppet strings and cut those strings at every opportunity, all the while curling her Dick Dastardly Mustache and cackling like a Witch. You seem to be doing a pretty terrible job of both twisting people's words when they disagree with you, and giving credit to those who share your point of view. I'd say there are simply two people raising up the BS flags on your shenanigans. You don't like it, so you make every attempt to justify through wordsmithing and assumed, inferred semantics. Let's make that three, since I'm offering my two copper. I pick apart semantics and interpret rules and regulations for a living. So you're not going to silver tongue your way out of anything with me.
All I see is that she is saying, IF a player needs to be removed from the table, either temporarily for a sidebar, or permanantly for a ban, it is the DM's authority and responsibility to do so.
Or am I misinterpreting something? At any rate, I believe your original question was answered both honestly AND to your satisfaction, so my inputs are done.
|
I say the statement the reason the economy is going down hill is due to capitalism.
So now according to your interpretation I am saying that I think the reason the economy is going down is for a variety of reason one of them including capitalism.
No, because you changed the format of the statement to be a direct assertion. You've also chosen something that has many distinctive parts to it. (Capitalism) Which is by itself many different reasons.
|
In any event, we've gotten far afield of the point that your arguing of the letter of the rules would make you unwelcome at Roberta's, Barry's, and my own table. If this is acceptable to you, by all means continue.
How is is the statement, 'This thread is a great illustration of why the game has a GM. After all, otherwise there would be nobody to disinvite players for pulling self-serving hair-splitting lawyer nonsense and expecting to be taken seriously.' not a direct assertion that games have gm's to dis-invite players, that is exactly what the statement is saying.
Oh it is. But is not an assertion that they ONLY exist for that reason, which you have consistently ignored.
Because the implied statement at the end is 'or do any of the other things a GM does'.
How is is the statement, 'This thread is a great illustration of why the game has a GM. After all, otherwise there would be nobody to disinvite players for pulling self-serving hair-splitting lawyer nonsense and expecting to be taken seriously.' not a direct assertion that games have gm's to dis-invite players, that is what the statement is saying.
Because you took it a step further and not only assumed, but directly stated that you felt this was a PRIMARY duty of a DM, according to her words. Which was neither stated or implied, by reading the context.
It was something you CHOSE to infer through wordsmithing. Just because you infer a meaning into something does NOT mean it was the implied definition by the author.
That is where your plot-twisting to serve your point always comes into play, and the assumptions that you're making.
In any event, we've gotten far afield of the point that your arguing of the letter of the rules would make you unwelcome at Roberta's, Barry's, and my own table. If this is acceptable to you, by all means continue.
To be fair to Tameknight, here, I never said he'd be completely unwelcome at my table.
But his Vow of Poverty Monk and Lawful Good Paladin would be, if his entire point of purpose was to get around the rules he set for himself by choosing those classes and options.
Simple if you make a blanket statement saying a thing is so because of reason x and list no other reason you are implying the reason x is the primary reason.
That is absolutely untrue unless the author of that blanket statement says it is. And it's a dangerous assumption to make in communication. AND, in this specific scenario, blanket statement because of reason X was never made. It was assumed that just because no other reason is listed, it HAS to be the reason you inferred. Again, a dangerous assumption in any communication. One that only leads to drama.
Simple if you make a blanket statement saying a thing is so because of reason x and list no other reason you are implying the reason x is the primary reason.
And you are the only one interpreting it this way.
I was thinking of playing a paladin at some point but was not certain of how binding the code actually is. Are paladin entirely forbidden from necessary evil actions ? if so are they then responsible for the potentially dire consequences of in-actions?
Say they were tasked with over seeing a quarantine situation and the solider on guard decided to pepper those trying break quarantine (scared peasants) with arrows. Would the paladin have to stop them even though doing so would not be a lawful action (stopping members of the watch carrying out their duty) and not necessarily a good act (if the plague spreads hundreds more might die)?
Also does a paladin get to kill the joker?
In my humble opinion, the paladin does not have to kill the guard shooting down peasants; you can stop someone without killing them, which would likely fit the paladin's code of ethics. However, as has has been mentioned earlier, the paladin likely would have been in the quarantined section curing the sick of their plague in the first place.
Personally, I always trust the rhetorical interpretations of people who read "He cannot borrow or carry wealth or items worth more than 50 gp that belong to others" as "He may borrow freely provided the goods are borrowed from groups of people instead of individual people".
Note: despite having said that I always trust the rhetorical interpretations of such people, what I actually meant is actually that I do not always trust the rhetorical interpretations of such people. It is unfortunate that spelling that out explicitly is necessary.
Simple if you make a blanket statement saying a thing is so because of reason x and list no other reason you are implying the reason x is the primary reason.That is absolutely untrue unless the author of that blanket statement says it is. And it's a dangerous assumption to make in communication. AND, in this specific scenario, blanket statement because of reason X was never made. It was assumed that just because no other reason is listed, it HAS to be the reason you inferred. Again, a dangerous assumption in any communication. One that only leads to drama.
Its fine that is perhaps the best part of the internet I never have to meet any of you, our assumptions about each others characters will never be tested. Though the amount of hostility for a back pack pedal and character that will probably never exist is quite amusing. Laila Tov.
Its fine that is perhaps the best part of the internet I never have to meet any of you, our assumptions about each others characters will never be tested. Though the amount of hostility for a back pack pedal and character that will probably never exist is quite amusing. Laila Tov.
Indeed it is amusing. As said in this and the VoP thread, you have hit on both of my personal pet peeves in less than a 24 hr period.
The WORST part about the internet is that you're assuming hostility even though you cannot read my non-verbals. To be hostile, I'd have to care about you or your opinion way more than I actually do. Everything I post here is said with a complete air of neutrality, and always has been.
And, as far as I've read, you're the only one backpedaling. The rest of us seem to have Step Up as a bonus feat and you rolled a Nat 1 on Conc check.