| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"I blew up the city because I didn't like the people in it."
-God
I could pull up less biased bits from the Bible where vengeance (in equal measure, though) is called out as acceptable, if not commendable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
-Jehovah is a strangely LN god, unlike Jesus who seems to be more NG to CG.
I kind of like them, but I think there could be a paladin archetype for variant alignment paladins. I think paladin is one of the positives of the alignment system, the paladin gets mechanical bonuses for striving to attain the ideal of an alignment.
An archetype for something that should already happen isn't the best. Martial artist for instance changes many of the monk features, and locks the monk out of monk archetypes. The anti-paladin doesn't fit perfectly into many paladin archetypes without homebrew. Ideally an archtype should be more specific than the class itself I would think. You could also champion and get bonuses for any of the alignments I'd think, so the paladin as a LG isn't really that special in that respect, unless you have a particular favor for LG.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think paladin is one of the positives of the alignment system, the paladin gets mechanical bonuses for striving to attain the ideal of an alignment. The discussion of presidents and the supreme court I think provides a pretty good example of how alignments don't necessarily work in real-world examples. But the paladin is an in-game example of making alignment work, and illustrates how difficult that can be.
I'd never thought of it like that. I generally have a long-standing objection to paladins, but this thinking makes a bit more sense to me.
I'd never thought of it like that. I generally have a long-standing objection to paladins, but this thinking makes a bit more sense to me.
I've always thought that type of thinking was a trap. Yes its special, it makes it seem special! But you took away options to get there. That's something I'm not a fan of. I think things are best when they're flexible, so everyone can win and make their choices. It also creates this idea that a class is more special than the others, which can create stigmas and other things.
I'm a fan of less options, in general, so that's not part of my dislike of paladins. I also have very little interest in 'balance' so one class being outright better than another is not something which bugs me.
My objection to the class goes back to their introduction in AD&D. I always thought they took the cleric's schtick (since they were not really priests but were already the devout, holy warriors of the game world).
Describing paladins as trying to live up to an impossible ideal represented by an alignment is a slightly different take - one which I see as different from a cleric (who strives to emulate their god, in my view).
Yep, vengeful and not taking s!&$, is not exactly covered by alignment.
blessed are the merciful, for they will obtain mercy?
Pretty sure vengence isn't good.
I would like to talk to you about rampaging orcs/goblins/trolls/giants destroying villages.
5001 posts, woot!
I think paladin is one of the positives of the alignment system, the paladin gets mechanical bonuses for striving to attain the ideal of an alignment. The discussion of presidents and the supreme court I think provides a pretty good example of how alignments don't necessarily work in real-world examples. But the paladin is an in-game example of making alignment work, and illustrates how difficult that can be.I'd never thought of it like that. I generally have a long-standing objection to paladins, but this thinking makes a bit more sense to me.
Yep to both of you. If you play a paladin as a hero, an old school hero, you won't have many problems unless you have a dick dm that hates paladins.
For me the fun of playing a paladin is trying to live up to an impossible ideal. Being an examplar of CG, LE, and CE would probably be easier. Paladin is the only time the intersection of the lawful/chaotic and good/evil axes works for me. Sometimes a paladin has to choose between being lawful and being good if there is conflict between the two.
If I remember correctly, Neverwinter Nights had a scenario where that choice is required. The game rated your lawful/chaotic and good/evil on a scale of 1-100. I believe a paladins powers works a little better the higher both lawful and good were. There was a scenario where you encounter an escaped minotaur gladiator. The gladiator refused to throw a fight, and was sentenced to death so he escaped. If I remember correctly you would lose points of good and gain points of law if you turned the gladiator over to the authorities, and would lose points of lawful and gain points of good if you looked the other way while he eluded the authorities.
So this scenario typifies alignment for me. An action must be judged by the standards of the lawful/chaotic axis and the good/evil axis. Sometimes this makes things interesting, and sometimes it requires a judgement call that will not necessarily make sense. Killing monsters in a dungeon crawl is easy to judge by these standards. Supreme Court rulings and Presidential Executive Orders that fall outside of what a president is allowed to do by law don't necessarily fit into this framework.
Cool. Yeah I allow my LG players to go a bit NG with no negative consequences.
Yep to both of you. If you play a paladin as a hero, an old school hero, you won't have many problems unless you have a dick dm that hates paladins.I think paladin is one of the positives of the alignment system, the paladin gets mechanical bonuses for striving to attain the ideal of an alignment. The discussion of presidents and the supreme court I think provides a pretty good example of how alignments don't necessarily work in real-world examples. But the paladin is an in-game example of making alignment work, and illustrates how difficult that can be.I'd never thought of it like that. I generally have a long-standing objection to paladins, but this thinking makes a bit more sense to me.
My objection to paladins is not because of any DM horror story. I've just never really 'got' what made them different from a LG cleric of the same god.
...
Martial templars basically, and their abilities differ, different training and armour proficiencies (pf).
I don't mean mechanically. I mean that clerics have always seemed like holy warriors to me (as I picture them, anyhow - priests don't generally wear armor).
When paladins came out I couldn't see the point - "They're just like LG clerics but more...?" I like the idea of de-emphasising their connection to their god and focussing on their striving to meet an impossible ideal.
Yeah, you can also play a fighter cleric if you want something very much like a paladin, without a paladin's code and able to be N, NG or CG and still stomp and rock like a pally in heavy plate.
F/C is one of those good old builds for small parties. I want to be able to fight, and heal and buff.
If you get yourself lost or trapped in a dungeon you've got the abilities within you, to keep you going. If you take the defensive manoeuvre feat you may be laughing (to avoid grab and grabble, sunder and trip attempts).
I've never played a LG cleric, partly for that reason. Even though I really like paladins, playing a LG cleric is kind of like playing a paladin without playing a paladin. I tend to play CG clerics with NG tendencies, or NG clerics with CG tendencies. My concept of cleric of a good god falls halfway between CG and NG.
And congrats on the 5001st post, 3.5 Loyalist.
Your name. Once a player took out an entire tavern with a dire badger.
Yeah.
Aristocrats use the sword instead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess when you really get down to the nitty-gritty details of it all, I just don't like aliignment having a mechanical effect on a game. I see Paladins as divine champions, who go out and enforce the tenants of their faith through the point of a sword, whatever faith that may be. Why shouldn't you be able to play a barbarian who is by alignment lawful and just has anger issues? Monks I see as being martial artists of various stripes who may be chaotic people by nature. Look at Brad Pitts character in Snatch. He's a bare knuckle boxer who cheats people out of their money through doublespeak and letting people underestimate him then kicking their ass. Very chaotic behavior but monk is the best way to emulate that so long as you remove the alignment requirement. So I just drop alignment from my games. If people still want to use that as a descriptor, fine. It just has no mechanical effect.
So...stupid arrogant pride but not aristocratic...Yep, vengeful and not taking s&*!, is not exactly covered by alignment.
A LG knight character of mine was a bit like that, he had pride (not the stupid arrogant pride of an aristocratic stereotype), you treated him with respect or you got the mace.
C'mon, there is no call for that.
I guess when you really get down to the nitty-gritty details of it all, I just don't like aliignment having a mechanical effect on a game. I see Paladins as divine champions, who go out and enforce the tenants of their faith through the point of a sword, whatever faith that may be. Why shouldn't you be able to play a barbarian who is by alignment lawful and just has anger issues? Monks I see as being martial artists of various stripes who may be chaotic people by nature. Look at Brad Pitts character in Snatch. He's a bare knuckle boxer who cheats people out of their money through doublespeak and letting people underestimate him then kicking their ass. Very chaotic behavior but monk is the best way to emulate that so long as you remove the alignment requirement. So I just drop alignment from my games. If people still want to use that as a descriptor, fine. It just has no mechanical effect.
I'll agree on the monk wholeheartedly, it has come up a lot in game, especially involving a drunken monk.
Ninjas, also ki users, can be any alignment but the poor monk is stuck being a lawful ki user. Pure neutral or neutral disinterested in the affairs of high morality (there is only the ki, and training) also makes a lot of sense to how I see monks.
That's not a Paladin, that's a crusader. There is a BIG difference between the two. Paladin's don't enforce tenets of their faith, they are bastions of goodness and justice. Kinda like Superman.
If that is how you see it, that's fine. For me, and by extention my games, paladin and crusader are synonomous.
|
C'mon, there is no call for that.So...stupid arrogant pride but not aristocratic...Yep, vengeful and not taking s&*!, is not exactly covered by alignment.
A LG knight character of mine was a bit like that, he had pride (not the stupid arrogant pride of an aristocratic stereotype), you treated him with respect or you got the mace.
Oh, sorry if i insulted. I was kidding. Should have put in a smiley.
If that is how you see it, that's fine. For me, and by extention my games, paladin and crusader are synonomous.
So you're equating a paragon of virtue who should inspire people to do good with his/her selflessness, kindness and proper behavior to a roving killer and rapist who slaughtered other people because they believed in another god? Nice.
The crusades were a war of defence (see the history of Islamic expansion, Sicily, Spain and the Balkans), however the crusaders were indeed grisly knights.
The Turks loved to conquer, glad we agree. I do have a question though, the crusaders opposed the largest and most expansionistic empire of the times they lived in. Which sought to change how people thought, loot and impose foreign elites, take over and steal from every civilisation that fell to its power, how were the crusaders who selflessly battled this menace, donating what they owned to do so, mostly "not really nice people"?
If the crusaders had fought something more recent and close to home, a certain major enemy to your people and civilisation, would you think of them as the good guys?
|
|
Well, going to war to protect your land is one thing, but if you know what to read, you'll notice that many historians agree that crusades after the first (and maybe second) crusade were mostly done to acquire loot. Why do you think there are still tales of Templar treasure, and how do you think they came by it?
So you have an army of people burning, pillaging and raping, going towards Jerusalem. I'm sure some of them were true men of god who did it for justice and freedom. But that's not a picture i get in my mind when i think of a crusader.
Plus, my country was trampled almost under every crusade, so, to us, both sides sucked. Maybe not equally, but still.
Edit: Also, turks had more advanced science, medicine and were all around more civilized then european kingdoms.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How 'civilized' either group was is up for debate. The turks used to round up people and have slave auctions in churches after taking cities.
But lets not get off topic. :/
I admit that every campaign I've ever been in that was 'without alignment' seemed to think my character should behave in a way I'd describe as NE.
This was even to a point where one DM forced me to make will saves when I tried to not be a jerk because 'this is how you'd really act.' Now, I might be a bit of a cynic but even I think that was a bit inappropriate.
I do think the modern 'too cool for school' anti-alignment mindset comes from the belief that there ultimately is no objective pole-star for good or evil to be set upon. These people think that because these positions arise from the opinions of people, that putting labels on it is troublesome. These are the more honest ones.
The dishonest ones say that setting the alignment is difficult, and therefore impossible. They're not really being honest.
Just because its hard to peg someone doesn't mean that its impossible, and alignment is always being portrayed as lines, or circles, or fields, and not as the 9-slots method that is usually viewed.
There's a difference in LG between the honest judge and Sir Galahad. There's a difference in CE from Miss Yukari from Azumanga Daioh and say a puppy-eating anti-paladin.
Glad we are on the same page.
As to the advanced science
Yes, because they looted the culture of Persia and the Byzantine territories, and had a golden age after that which led into Turkish ascendance. The civilisation was appropriated and adopted post sacking and subordinating the people.
Europe was on the periphery to this major force, and divided with all manner of kingdoms and city states pursuing separate avenues of development (Catholic theocracy and Dutch/Swiss democracy were both tried in Europe) and further sub-divided along ethnic lines and elite lineages (which were sometimes very provincial, and other times they could unit multiple territories under one leadership the Hapsburgs of HRE and Spain).
How 'civilized' either group was is up for debate. The turks used to round up people and have slave auctions in churches after taking cities.
But lets not get off topic. :/
I admit that every campaign I've ever been in that was 'without alignment' seemed to think my character should behave in a way I'd describe as NE.
This was even to a point where one DM forced me to make will saves when I tried to not be a jerk because 'this is how you'd really act.' Now, I might be a bit of a cynic but even I think that was a bit inappropriate.
I do think the modern 'too cool for school' anti-alignment mindset comes from the belief that there ultimately is no objective pole-star for good or evil to be set upon. These people think that because these positions arise from the opinions of people, that putting labels on it is troublesome. These are the more honest ones.
The dishonest ones say that setting the alignment is difficult, and therefore impossible. They're not really being honest.
Just because its hard to peg someone doesn't mean that its impossible, and alignment is always being portrayed as lines, or circles, or fields, and not as the 9-slots method that is usually viewed.
There's a difference in LG between the honest judge and Sir Galahad. There's a difference in CE from Miss Yukari from Azumanga Daioh and say a puppy-eating anti-paladin.
Yeah, back on topic, I too have seen the, there is no alignment, now we are all NE, and most of the npcs too!
How 'civilized' either group was is up for debate. The turks used to round up people and have slave auctions in churches after taking cities.
But lets not get off topic. :/
I admit that every campaign I've ever been in that was 'without alignment' seemed to think my character should behave in a way I'd describe as NE.
This was even to a point where one DM forced me to make will saves when I tried to not be a jerk because 'this is how you'd really act.' Now, I might be a bit of a cynic but even I think that was a bit inappropriate.
I do think the modern 'too cool for school' anti-alignment mindset comes from the belief that there ultimately is no objective pole-star for good or evil to be set upon. These people think that because these positions arise from the opinions of people, that putting labels on it is troublesome. These are the more honest ones.
The dishonest ones say that setting the alignment is difficult, and therefore impossible. They're not really being honest.
Just because its hard to peg someone doesn't mean that its impossible, and alignment is always being portrayed as lines, or circles, or fields, and not as the 9-slots method that is usually viewed.
There's a difference in LG between the honest judge and Sir Galahad. There's a difference in CE from Miss Yukari from Azumanga Daioh and say a puppy-eating anti-paladin.
Dms really need to get over telling players how to play their characters. It should be a golden rule on page 1 of every guidebook. Emboss that sucker. One of the giant divides between good dms and bad dms.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dms really need to get over telling players how to play their characters. It should be a golden rule on page 1 of every guidebook. Emboss that sucker. One of the giant divides between good dms and bad dms.How 'civilized' either group was is up for debate. The turks used to round up people and have slave auctions in churches after taking cities.
But lets not get off topic. :/
I admit that every campaign I've ever been in that was 'without alignment' seemed to think my character should behave in a way I'd describe as NE.
This was even to a point where one DM forced me to make will saves when I tried to not be a jerk because 'this is how you'd really act.' Now, I might be a bit of a cynic but even I think that was a bit inappropriate.
I do think the modern 'too cool for school' anti-alignment mindset comes from the belief that there ultimately is no objective pole-star for good or evil to be set upon. These people think that because these positions arise from the opinions of people, that putting labels on it is troublesome. These are the more honest ones.
The dishonest ones say that setting the alignment is difficult, and therefore impossible. They're not really being honest.
Just because its hard to peg someone doesn't mean that its impossible, and alignment is always being portrayed as lines, or circles, or fields, and not as the 9-slots method that is usually viewed.
There's a difference in LG between the honest judge and Sir Galahad. There's a difference in CE from Miss Yukari from Azumanga Daioh and say a puppy-eating anti-paladin.
Amen.
This guy used the will save method to compel action. He also didn't like 'game approaches,' like say not messing around with obviously suspicious things, and he's kind of responsible for why I dislike 4e as he would add hit points to monsters until he felt they had 'accomplished what they were supposed to,' which was always killing a party member.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dms really need to get over telling players how to play their characters. It should be a golden rule on page 1 of every guidebook. Emboss that sucker. One of the giant divides between good dms and bad dms.
What i do, however is produce consequences for their actions. Act like a douchebag? Someone will call on your behavior. Most probably someone who can crush your head with one hand.
Start behaving in a true NE way? Authorities will come down on you with a vengeance.I don't inhibit roleplay. I simply respond to it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess when you really get down to the nitty-gritty details of it all, I just don't like aliignment having a mechanical effect on a game. I see Paladins as divine champions, who go out and enforce the tenants of their faith through the point of a sword, whatever faith that may be. Why shouldn't you be able to play a barbarian who is by alignment lawful and just has anger issues? Monks I see as being martial artists of various stripes who may be chaotic people by nature. Look at Brad Pitts character in Snatch. He's a bare knuckle boxer who cheats people out of their money through doublespeak and letting people underestimate him then kicking their ass. Very chaotic behavior but monk is the best way to emulate that so long as you remove the alignment requirement. So I just drop alignment from my games. If people still want to use that as a descriptor, fine. It just has no mechanical effect.I'll agree on the monk wholeheartedly, it has come up a lot in game, especially involving a drunken monk.
Oddly enough, in my last game that was alignment heavy we did have a monk who got drunk and occasionally goofed around. He wasn't causing a problem, but two people who weren't playing the game but always watched us berated him for it and constantly tried to tell him how to play and urged the GM to remove his monkhood! I suggested he move to urban barbarian for the sake of enjoying the game as is, but that game fizzled out for numerous reasons. He was still pretty monk like, punching people in the face and exercise and a bit of wisdom here and there, just that the player occasionally did something they didn't consider lawful now and then.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say the concept of a crusade in most high-fantasy settings (where the infidels are devils, undead, or evil wizards) is far different than the concept of The Crusades (Lets go sack Christian Constantinople for the hell of it cause we're bored!)
-I'd say all this thread needs are some Armenians. This will end well.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I admit, I'm not sure where the monk alignment issue arose from, aside from desires to prevent beserker monks (barbarian monks).
The source material (kung fu movies, mythologies and the like) never seems to really emphasize a lawful mindset, the wuxia stuff doesn't even do that. I have trouble seeing say Win-Without-A-Knife Yankuma as a lawful character, although I do see the Master of the Flying Guiloteen himself as a LE. The One-Armed Boxer from the same movie uses trickery an ddeception to win most of his fights. Jackie Chan arguably plays CN or CG in Drunken Boxer. Admittedly, a lot of wuxia heroes tend towards LN or the like but that shouldn't be the primary defining charateristic of 'monk,' either.
I think I've had a mild epiphany, its not alignment that cheeses people, its its inconsistent and senseless application. Like in Planescape where you had LG people who were apparently a-ok with re-education camps and of course my beserk button the 'too much good is evil' craziness. "Too much good is evil, Neutral is good, because Neutral isn't too good!" Its crazy talk. Is too much evil good under that system?
Dms really need to get over telling players how to play their characters. It should be a golden rule on page 1 of every guidebook. Emboss that sucker. One of the giant divides between good dms and bad dms.What i do, however is produce consequences for their actions. Act like a douchebag? Someone will call on your behavior. Most probably someone who can crush your head with one hand.
Start behaving in a true NE way? Authorities will come down on you with a vengeance.
I don't inhibit roleplay. I simply respond to it.
Of course, if they want to be villains, real heroes will emerge (or just a lot of guards).
I admit, I'm not sure where the monk alignment issue arose from, aside from desires to prevent beserker monks (barbarian monks).
The source material (kung fu movies, mythologies and the like) never seems to really emphasize a lawful mindset, the wuxia stuff doesn't even do that. I have trouble seeing say Win-Without-A-Knife Yankuma as a lawful character, although I do see the Master of the Flying Guiloteen himself as a LE. The One-Armed Boxer from the same movie uses trickery an ddeception to win most of his fights. Jackie Chan arguably plays CN or CG in Drunken Boxer. Admittedly, a lot of wuxia heroes tend towards LN or the like but that shouldn't be the primary defining charateristic of 'monk,' either.
I think I've had a mild epiphany, its not alignment that cheeses people, its its inconsistent and senseless application. Like in Planescape where you had LG people who were apparently a-ok with re-education camps and of course my beserk button the 'too much good is evil' craziness. "Too much good is evil, Neutral is good, because Neutral isn't too good!" Its crazy talk. Is too much evil good under that system?
Sometimes playing neutrals can be a relief. Neither too good, nor evil, nor lawful nor chaotic. Just right in the centre with small moves either way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The entire concept of a D&D paladin is a holy knight who holds to a strict and inflexible lawful good code.
And the entire concept of the D&D druid is a strictly Neutral specialty priest who carefully monitors the balance of Good and Evil, often changing allies to ensure that neither side becomes dominant. D&D druids also have a strict globe-spanning hierarchy; there can only be a certain number of high-level druids per campaign world. Which means in order to advance to very high levels, a druid must kill a druid above him.
Oh wait...D&D concepts change, and the paladin is no different!
Call it the 'holy warrior' if it satisfies your sense of propriety, but calling on tradition to justify strictly LG paladins is a poor argument indeed.
My objection to paladins is not because of any DM horror story. I've just never really 'got' what made them different from a LG cleric of the same god.Yep to both of you. If you play a paladin as a hero, an old school hero, you won't have many problems unless you have a dick dm that hates paladins.I think paladin is one of the positives of the alignment system, the paladin gets mechanical bonuses for striving to attain the ideal of an alignment. The discussion of presidents and the supreme court I think provides a pretty good example of how alignments don't necessarily work in real-world examples. But the paladin is an in-game example of making alignment work, and illustrates how difficult that can be.I'd never thought of it like that. I generally have a long-standing objection to paladins, but this thinking makes a bit more sense to me.
High BAB and fewer spells. :)
The paladin is essentially a hybrid class that got stuck with an overly specific archetype.
I think I've had a mild epiphany, its not alignment that cheeses people, its its inconsistent and senseless application. Like in Planescape where you had LG people who were apparently a-ok with re-education camps and of course my beserk button the 'too much good is evil' craziness. "Too much good is evil, Neutral is good, because Neutral isn't too good!" Its crazy talk. Is too much evil good under that system?
QFT.
Recently I've been writing a PS conversion, because it's my favorite D&D setting of all time. And it got me thinking Which faction would I belong to? The two philosophies I relate to most strongly are those of the Bleak Cabal (existentialism) and the Fraternity of Order. In real life, I essentially live by those two philosophies.
But in PS canon, a Bleaker can't be lawful, while a Guvner must be lawful. I don't know where that leaves me, but I know it's another example of alignment sticking its nose where it doesn't have any business.
|
|
I think I've had a mild epiphany, its not alignment that cheeses people, its its inconsistent and senseless application. Like in Planescape where you had LG people who were apparently a-ok with re-education camps and of course my beserk button the 'too much good is evil' craziness. "Too much good is evil, Neutral is good, because Neutral isn't too good!" Its crazy talk. Is too much evil good under that system?QFT.
Recently I've been writing a PS conversion, because it's my favorite D&D setting of all time. And it got me thinking Which faction would I belong to? The two philosophies I relate to most strongly are those of the Bleak Cabal (existentialism) and the Fraternity of Order. In real life, I essentially live by those two philosophies.
But in PS canon, a Bleaker can't be lawful, while a Guvner must be lawful. I don't know where that leaves me, but I know it's another example of alignment sticking its nose where it doesn't have any business.
I always had a liking for the Hardheads, until I found out their paladin boss apparently condoned horrible acts that genuinely should have resulted in him losing his paladinhood all because 'too much good becomes arrogant and intolerant and becomes evil' or some similar bromide.
A similar issue I had was how you couldn't be a lawful good member of the Doomguard. Given the doomguard was just about entropy, I had trouble seing why you couldn't be like a paladin of Shiva or something helping along the next talpa or something.
I don't have a problem with Alignment, or with spells like detect good or evil, or holy smite or the like. My problem is with stuff like this, where the game developers just make a decision that doesn't really stand up to logical examination and /then/ build game mechanics around it.
It especially stands out when differing philosophies write the alignments across different books ostensibly in the same system or world and you get LG folks who'd see other LG folks as LN or LE.
I've just never really 'got' what made them different from a LG cleric of the same god.High BAB and fewer spells. :)
The paladin is essentially a hybrid class that got stuck with an overly specific archetype.
I think a cleric is a hybrid class (a cross between a warrior and a priest).
I always regarded clerics as basically crusaders/knights templar/whatever. Then along came a paladin and it just puzzled me: "Does the introduction of these new fangled 'holy knights' imply that those LG clerics are actually priests from the local parishes?" :o
I always regarded clerics as basically crusaders/knights templar/whatever. Then along came a paladin and it just puzzled me: "Does the introduction of these new fangled 'holy knights' imply that those LG clerics are actually priests from the local parishes?" :o
There is a horrific realization when you realize that the local priest can fight as well as the thug in the alley... What happened there?
Honestly, as DM, just write up a quick paladins code
1)Can you lie for the greater good?
2)Torture?
3)Sexual morality?
4)Relation to non-combatants
5)Mercy vs justice
6)Break the laws of the land? Or work within the confines of the law?
Spare your players the anguish later.