Well my 2cents. Please forgive my english if i do not know all necessary terms.
First of all, I did do a paper on torture in the middle ages as method to find facts.
In most cases the act of torture was seen as a necessary evil to solve a case. Testemony was necessary to judge someone in court. That was the legal system of those times.
Bear in mind that there was no forensic medicine and many times it was a case of word against word. The torturer, most often the town-executioner, had to try to find the truth by the least necessary means of torture. A couple of years ago in my country a police captain threatened a man who had kidnapped a child with torture and a veritable shitstorm was the result. Now the child was already dead, but he did not know that. Still he was reprimanded.
Now police questioning, and sometimes torture, are a common practice in many countries in the world, even in some countries who claim to be civilized.
The question here is, is in uniformly an evil act. In a nutshell yes!
Is it a necessary act? Sometimes yes! Would you if your child was kidnapped beg that any possible tool is used. Absolutly.
Is it something you do as an officer and feel absolutly wrong afterwards. Maybe and I hope. Actually if you save the child and you used every other tool and it was fruitless and you got an answer after roughing up the prisoner, I wouldn´t have one sleepless night. Would I even go to my boss to tell him. Yes, what I did was legally wrong but morally right!
And now something that may shock you. Someone who did specialise in torture will get answers and "will" know what answers are true and what answers are given just to stop that he is tortured.
Now my main character is at the moment an inquisitor of erastil.
Does he threaten to torture. Absolutly.
Will he torture to get his information? As we are hunting a group of baby killers you can bet your ass on it! Will I go to my temple and repent. Yes I will, but I will for sure do it again.
Would I do it as a Paladin? If I know for sure that the one in front of me knows something that is necessary to save a child. Yes!
One last thing. Remember the "Dark Knight".
Batman was quite willing to torture the joker. Hell even Harvey Dent (not two-face) was willing to torture.
As always, post modern ethical egoists and atheists can't play paladins right...
How to play a paladin
by their fruits ye shall know them
...Okay?
"Would you do it as a Paladin" is not "does it violate the paladin code". A paladin may decide that torture is necessary for the greater good, but it's an evil act all the same.
And Batman is not the person you should be citing when justifying the behavior of a paladin.
Well, but Harvey Dent in his best time is!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good gods.... Just once I would like to see a pally thread that does not devolve into an argument about.... heck... anything to be honest. One day I'm going to start a 'How does smite work' thread JUST so we can all agree about SOMETHING with pallys....
Assuming the OP is still checking in on this I was recently playing a pally, so I'll share how I was playing her.
She became a pally at a young-ish age and by this point in time was a well learned and VERY veteran campaigner. She'd seen enough of the world to know that she can't force change down other people's throats and she'd resolved herself to that fact. So she approached it differently.
She wanted to be an inspiration to others. Someone to look up to and think "When I grow up, I want to be her." not "Thank goodness psycho preachy girl left."
She'd also had a lot of the 'newbie shine' I guess knocked off her by being such an old campaigner.... she'd served in many 'front line' towns with other non-pallys in the military and had long ago accepted things like
- Yes... the fighters will drink and make bawdy jokes and go wenching. It's his way of un-winding and there's a lot more harmful things he could be doing instead.
- The barbarian drinks too... but at least while he's doing shots with me, he's not trying to pick a fight with WOEFULLY under levelled bouncers.
- Yes... the rogue will probably try and sneak around to watch me bathe. Your not going to spot him anyway, and after the years she's been campaigning... she half welcomes the thought of someone being close enough to help if she's ambushed.
- Yes... wizards did break the world, but not this wizard. Only give him a hard time about it when he needs to be reigned in.
You could never FORCE a change onto another person. They have to accept it. If you try to tell people what to do and can't back it up with a better reason than "Because I said so..." then your no worse than the people your supposed to be opposing. Your job is to pull the blinkers off people's eyes and be an inspiration to them not so that they do not choose evil because it will offend you or to shut you up... but for them to actively want to be good after you've left because you've shown them a much better way.
It's not your job to destroy evil. It's your job to oppose it and prevent it. This does not mean you need to murder everyone who crosses your path who seems evil. It means that if there is an evil plan hatching you need to prevent it. If that means disrupting a ritual by nabbing the sacrifice and running, then you perform a snatch and dash. If you can explain to the necromancer that his dead wife isn't going to come back as anything more than a zombie, then you make it clear to him.... and when he does it anyway, you contain the zombie, wait til he's worked it out himself, kill the zombie and set him back on the right path. You don't need to kill him if he's seen the error of his ways. He doesn't need a coffin. He needs help.
Every single evil creature or person that you kill is a soul consigned to the abyss (or hell) to be tortured for eternity before turning into another evil outsider for the next generation to fight. Killing an evil creature is the WORST possible outcome you can have. Showing an act of mercy and setting an evil creature on the path of redemption is VASTLY the preferred option. That doesn't mean you have to be a trusting moron. She (usually) viewed being force into taking an intelligent life as a failure on her part... even when it couldn't have been prevented (which happened more than a few times)
You should be the hand of your god / goddess, open to those who are around you with a helping hand to pick them up out of whatever they have fallen. If someone wants to have a go, then they will find very quickly that the helping hand is encased in mail, and can quickly become a fist... but you should never be actively seeking to kill things as a first option.
All of the above is just how I was playing her BTW... not any reflection of "Thou shalt play a pally this way and shouldst thou doth not play in accordance to the above, then thou are playing most grievously wrong-bad". Just saying.
that's a very clericish paladin, may I wager follower of Sarenrea? Also, there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with the above paladin.
Assuming the OP is still checking in on this I was recently playing a pally, so I'll share how I was playing her.
Looks fine to me.
Point is, while there's no One True Way to play a paladin, there are plenty of wrong ways--if you're going with the paladin as defined in the CRB.
At the end of it, though, there really is no wrong way to play a paladin--or any other character--so long as everybody at your table is having fun. If you find the RAW paladin too restrictive/one-dimensional/Lawful Stupid and your GM is fine with it, fix it. Better to play a character you actually want to play than conform to someone else's ideals.
I have a bully paladin that used to be a street-orphan gang leader. He then bought into the Church of Iomedae crap about good and evil, and that if he continues with his wicked ways he'll end up in hell/abyss. Thus he follows a strict code of what to do (slaughter evil wherever you find it) and what not to do (Acts that are considered "evil" or "unlawful" by the church of Iomedae). He does that from an entirely egotistical reason- the quality of his afterlife- and no internal inclination for good or law. But in all effect his acts are that of a lawful good person. It does not matter that he's a bully that enjoys the power he has over his victims, who gets a kick out of violently butchering other sentient beings, because he inflicts his twisted pleasure over evil creatures, which is what his church deems "good". In fact, his acts were such an exemplary execution of the ideals of Iomedae that she blessed him with the grace of her paladins.
He won't torture captives ("Cause that's 'gainst the rule of'a church, dont'chu know?") but give them clean death. He has absolutely no problem with other party members torturing anyone ("If y'r fine with ending in 'ell, enjoy yr'self bro! But that's a no-no fo' miself").
I give him of an example of playing a paladin by the CRB that's somewhat different and not the usual stick in the mud. There's a multitude of ways you can take the LG/Code of Conduct and play it in the way that you and your table enjoy most. Be creative and have fun, that's what this game is all about..
That's certainly creative, and adheres to the letter of the code (if not the spirit). It also highlights one of my problems with the alignment system, but that's another flamewar entirely.
[Describes his "bully paladin" and the character's underlying motivation.]Wow ... that's really an intriguing and thought-provoking concept, Sebastian the third.
You have me considering at length how I'd handle that as a DM.
On the one hand, his motivations and mentality are pretty evil, or at least not good. On the other hand, he's learned to harness those motivations and mentality for good ends without sullying those ends with evil deeds.
Reminds me a bit (though not completely) of Mace Windu.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, no, no, no. We can't be having an amicable discussion and complimenting each other in a paladin thread. I demand that somebody fall immediately.
Wait, no, no, no. We can't be having an amicable discussion and complimenting each other in a paladin thread. I demand that somebody fall immediately.
[Catches blahpers.]
Nice try. ;)
Now that's the paladin thing to do.
I've met those without mercy, remorse, or regret. They were monsters, in spirit if not in form.
She wanted to be an inspiration to others. Someone to look up to and think "When I grow up, I want to be her." not "Thank goodness psycho preachy girl left."
....
You could never FORCE a change onto another person. They have to accept it. If you try to tell people what to do and can't back it up with a better reason than "Because I said so..." then your no worse than the people your supposed to be opposing. Your job is to pull the blinkers off people's eyes and be an inspiration to them not so that they do not choose evil because it will offend you or to shut you up... but for them to actively want to be good after you've left because you've shown them a much better way.
It's not your job to destroy evil. It's your job to oppose it and prevent it. This does not mean you need to murder everyone who crosses your path who seems evil. It means that if there is an evil plan hatching you need to prevent it. If that means disrupting a ritual by nabbing the sacrifice and running, then you perform a snatch and dash. If you can explain to the necromancer that his dead wife isn't going to come back as anything more than a zombie, then you make it clear to him.... and when he does it anyway, you contain the zombie, wait til he's worked it out himself, kill the zombie and set him back on the right path. You don't need to kill him if he's seen the error of his ways. He doesn't need a coffin. He needs help.
Every single evil creature or person that you kill is a soul consigned to the abyss (or hell) to be tortured for eternity before turning into another evil outsider for the next generation to fight. Killing an evil creature is the WORST possible outcome you can have. Showing an act of mercy and setting an evil creature on the path of redemption is VASTLY the preferred option. That doesn't mean you have to be a trusting moron. She (usually) viewed being force into taking an intelligent life as a failure on her part... even when it couldn't have been prevented (which happened more than a few times)
You should be the hand of your god / goddess, open to those who are around you with a helping hand to pick them up out of whatever they have fallen. If someone wants to have a go, then they will find very quickly that the helping hand is encased in mail, and can quickly become a fist... but you should never be actively seeking to kill things as a first option.
I find myself quite fond of and feeling some kinship with this paladin. :)
Just like every other paladin thread that I've really cared about. Here, read it. Probably the greatest/world's worst paladin, I give you Cedric.There are some minor issues with Cedric's conduct, but not totally fatal ones. I don't think he needed to cut loose with the foul language, and his relationships with women need to something more than objectifying them. I'd actually have a lot less of an issue if he had a steady ongoing relationship with the Madame, instead of Girl X for the Night.
Nothing un-paladinly about any of those things. Such objections reflect more upon the objector's cultural perspective than the conduct of the paladin.
I am also of the same opinion that Cedric is a paladin that is potentially headed for a fall at some point in the future for the same reasons that Jaelithe details.
|
One of the paladins of Iomedae in our Wrath of the Righteous campaign regularly sees a prostitute.* He is however respectful and both are clear with each other about the nature of their relationship, as well as showing a modicum of discretion. That and the prostitute is a priestess of Lymnieris(who, it should be noted, has paladins himself).
And the guy is definitely a paladin through and through. Cordial too.
Of course, he also has faith that what he's called to do does matter in the end.
*It's made for some fun personal conflict between the Iomedaeans in the party too.
Sebastian's put together a fantastic character that I'd love to see in action. Buuuut at the same time that guy is going to burn out and fall eventually if he doesn't learn to do what he does out of compassion rather than fear. Trust me, I know, that's what I did. :v
I kinda wish that a Paladin falling wasn't such a massive break from a gameplay perspective. Paladins constructed with a fatal flaw that will strip them of their status eventually would be fantastic if going in that direction didn't cripple everything you contribute to the team mechanically.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing un-paladinly about any of those things. Such objections reflect more upon the objector's cultural perspective than the conduct of the paladin.Just like every other paladin thread that I've really cared about. Here, read it. Probably the greatest/world's worst paladin, I give you Cedric.There are some minor issues with Cedric's conduct, but not totally fatal ones. I don't think he needed to cut loose with the foul language, and his relationships with women need to something more than objectifying them. I'd actually have a lot less of an issue if he had a steady ongoing relationship with the Madame, instead of Girl X for the Night.I disagree.
I'd assert that he's arguably not a paladin, or at least not one in excellent standing (though perhaps short of an actual fall) for a variety of reasons:
...
- His cynicism indicates existential crisis
"Everything that I do ... is meaningless in the greater scheme of things."
Really? Really, Cedric?
A paladin should not say such things in public. He or she might have moments when faith is sorely tested, but he would know to take them to a spiritual counselor, or to his god in prayer. To assert that his or her work is essentially without lasting impact and final import is itself a violation of the beliefs he or she should hold, and arguably impugns his god and his or her plan. A paladin would, instead, believe, as Maximus says in Gladiator, "What we do in life echoes in eternity."
- The dispute over whether prostitution inherently speaks to the objectification and even trivialization of those who ply the "trade" is not one we'll resolve here. But a paladin would, for the sake of the order, the god and the simple people of faith, likely know avoiding even the hint of
I could (and started to) write an essay detailing how wrong this is, but suffice it to say that Cedric is one of the most paladin-like paladins I've ever seen. None of your cited issues constitute a violation of the Code either in letter or spirit. You've instead injected your own cultural context--the context that claims that profanity is demeaning, that any pleasure that leaves you less than fully combat-ready is a sin, and, that avoiding the appearance of impropriety has any importance--into your interpretation of what "good" means. This is fine if you're the player, but if you were the GM and decided to take umbrage at a player's paladin for this without agreeing to such a definition, well, I wouldn't want to be there when it came up.
Cedric is honest. The stereotypical paladin fights evil pretending that it can ultimately be vanquished. True paladins know that the battle against evil will never end in a permanent victory, that at best they can only battle the evil before them--and then they do the right thing anyway, because it is what you do now that defines who you are, and it is what happens now that matters, if only for the moment.
Cedric has no crisis of faith. He already dealt with that. He is completely, utterly at peace with his spiritual situation. He does not hide his beliefs and pretend to be unshakable and perfect just to keep morale up and make the order look good. A paladin who does otherwise would be both arrogant and a liar. Cedric is above such illusions.
YMMV, but I can think of few paladins who could measure up against Cedric's example.
*shrug*. No worries here. I've stated my case and it remains unassailed. : D
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree.
I'd assert that he's arguably not a paladin, or at least not one in excellent standing (though perhaps short of an actual fall) for a variety of reasons:
Interesting. I rather think he is, and am going to respond.
His cynicism indicates existential crisis "Everything that I do ... is meaningless in the greater scheme of things."
Really? Really, Cedric?
A paladin should not say such things in public. He or she might have moments when faith is sorely tested, but he would know to take them to a spiritual counselor, or to his god in prayer. To assert that his or her work is essentially without lasting impact and final import is itself a violation of the beliefs he or she should hold, and arguably impugns his god and his or her plan. A paladin would, instead, believe, as Maximus says in Gladiator, "What we do in life echoes in eternity."
That statement isn't necessarily what you're implying it is. The TV show Angel includes a quote from the main character,after he's just figured out the universe is meaningless (or believes he has, anyway):
Angel: Well, I guess I kinda worked it out. If there's no great glorious end to all this, if nothing we do matters... , then all that matters is what we do. 'Cause that's all there is. What we do. Now. Today. I fought for so long, for redemption, for a reward, and finally just to beat the other guy, but I never got it.
Kate Lockley: And now you do?
Angel: Not all of it. All I wanna do is help. I wanna help because, I don't think people should suffer as they do. Because, if there's no bigger meaning, then the smallest act of kindness is the greatest thing in the world.
Kate Lockley: Yikes. It sounds like you've had an epiphany.
Angel: I keep saying that, but nobody's listening.
That sounds like a solid Paladin philosophy to me, and always seemed to me to be where Cedric was going with that.
The dispute over whether prostitution inherently speaks to the objectification and even trivialization of those who ply the "trade" is not one we'll resolve here. But a paladin would, for the sake of the order, the god and the simple people of faith, likely know avoiding even the hint of unnecessary impropriety would be best. (We know that in this reality, prostitution is not looked upon approvingly, or Magnus would not have reacted the way he did.)
I could not possibly disagree with you more. A Paladin doesn't care about his reputation, or at least he shouldn't. That's not what being a Paladin is about. A Paladin's behavior should never be swayed by 'what other people think'. Heck, they're immune to fear, peer pressure or fear for their good reputation can't influence them.
Now, there are certainly sound moral reasons to not visit prostitutes (being in a monogamous relationship, or the prostitutes in question being effectively enslaved both come to mind, with the second being a very common situation) but 'impropriety'? No. And neither of those reasons apply to Cedric (the particular brothel in question is detailed in some further adventures of his).
As to premarital sex/fornication/bein' a horn dog and bangin' sluts, suffice it to say that not everyone considers the question easily dismissed by a (with all due respect to blahpers) in-my-opinion facile reference to "cultural perspective" and leave it at that. The same argument about impropriety applies here, too. (I remember a Dragon magazine article mentioning casual sex as an inherently chaotic act. Not sure I wholeheartedly agree, but it could be strongly argued.)
Lymneris, the LG Empyreal Lord of prostitution would beg to disagree with you...
Lawful Alignment, especially on a Paladin, is about self-discipline, an ordered approach to things, and honor. None of these preclude relatively casual sex provided it is done in a certain fashion. Cedric, for example, patronizes a certain place, overpays, never sleeps with women who have stopped being prostitutes, and in many other ways follows a very set pattern in regards to his sexual activities...the fact that they are with a number of women doesn't change that simple fact.
Despite the fact that Cedric was not, in fact, drunk when Magnus addressed him, excessive consumption of alcohol (which the author seems to be implying occurs with Cedric regularly; if he's not, then I stand corrected) leaves one's senses muddled, one's will weakened, and one's reflexes dulled; if someone needed his help in the instant he was incoherent, drunk or even simply buzzed, and the alcohol meant the difference between victory and defeat ... moderation in all things but those that are obvious virtues.
Actually, the author of the Cedric story explicitly clarified that this is not the case. Cedric drinks a lot, but he's got a high capacity and always stops short of actually getting drunk.
I agree that were this not true, it might be a problem, though.
Profanity demeans in slight measure the person at whom it is directed, but more the user. A paladin should not employ such language ... ahem ... cavalierly. Granted, it's likely not an offense that would cause an immediate fall, but ... every little disregard of the code's spirit (and treating people with respect by not cursing in their face is part of the code's spirit), weakens his will to the Truth and the Right.
I...strongly disagree with this entire statement. Cursing can be impolite, but there are equally times and places where it is extremely impolite not to curse, it's a matter of local etiquette, much like burping after eating (very impolite in some cultures, required to be courteous in others).
Additionally, while I personally hold courtesy in very high esteem, I don't think it's an inherent part of the Paladin's code to always be polite.
And that's just in a few paragraphs. Needless to say, I think Cedric's an interesting and nuanced character.
I agree. :)
I'm just not certain he's a paladin. He might make a great inquisitor, ranger or cleric, though.
I disagree. :)
[Oh, and ... if you just like "rule of cool," that's a strong argument for saying, "Lighten up, Jaelithe: He's a paladin." :)]
I'm not actually arguing from this perspective. I actually think a Paladin lie Cedric should be the exception not the norm, simply because his attitudes and behavior are unusual for his Alignment...but 'unusual for' and 'inconsistent with' are very different things, and I don't see any way in which his behavior isn't Lawful and Good.
I could (and started to) write an essay detailing how wrong this is, but suffice it to say that Cedric is one of the most paladin-like paladins I've ever seen. None of your cited issues constitute a violation of the Code either in letter or spirit. You've instead injected your own cultural context--the context that claims that profanity is demeaning, that any pleasure that leaves you less than fully combat-ready is a sin, and, that avoiding the appearance of impropriety has any importance--into your interpretation of what "good" means. This is fine if you're the player, but if you were the GM and decided to take umbrage at a player's paladin for this without agreeing to such a definition, well, I wouldn't want to be there when it came up.
Strawmanning, appeal to authority.
Cedric is honest. The stereotypical paladin fights evil pretending that it can ultimately be vanquished. True paladins know that the battle against evil will never end in a permanent victory, that at best they can only battle the evil before them--and then they do the right thing anyway, because it is what you do now that defines who you are, and it is what happens now that matters, if only for the moment.
No true Scotsman, appeal to emotion.
Cedric has no crisis of faith. He already dealt with that. He is completely, utterly at peace with his spiritual situation. He does not hide his beliefs and pretend to be unshakable and perfect just to keep morale up and make the order look good. A paladin who does otherwise would be both arrogant and a liar. Cedric is above such illusions.
Strawmanning, appeal to emotion, special pleading, argument from false premises.
Just remember that Paladins are about preserving the good, protecting the innocent, and so forth. Play him like an Arthurian Knight of the Round Table and you're golden. Defeat evil, accept surrender, and uphold the cause of goodness and law because the weak ~need~ the law to survive.
Chaos is great if you're strong enough to stand on your own, but the vast majority of people are not that strong.
Paladins are not about law and order for law and orders sake, that is the Hellknight, Paladins are about goodness, and if the Law's methods and ends are good then so too does the paladin support it.
Just remember that you need only drive evil from what you protect (which is all innocent people who are, in and of themselves, are not evil).
There is something in one of the books that defines, loosely, what "good" means, but it is basically Arthurian ideals.
I could (and started to) write an essay detailing how wrong this is, but suffice it to say that Cedric is one of the most paladin-like paladins I've ever seen. None of your cited issues constitute a violation of the Code either in letter or spirit. You've instead injected your own cultural context--the context that claims that profanity is demeaning, that any pleasure that leaves you less than fully combat-ready is a sin, and, that avoiding the appearance of impropriety has any importance--into your interpretation of what "good" means. This is fine if you're the player, but if you were the GM and decided to take umbrage at a player's paladin for this without agreeing to such a definition, well, I wouldn't want to be there when it came up.Strawmanning, appeal to authority.
Cedric is honest. The stereotypical paladin fights evil pretending that it can ultimately be vanquished. True paladins know that the battle against evil will never end in a permanent victory, that at best they can only battle the evil before them--and then they do the right thing anyway, because it is what you do now that defines who you are, and it is what happens now that matters, if only for the moment.No true Scotsman, appeal to emotion.
Cedric has no crisis of faith. He already dealt with that. He is completely, utterly at peace with his spiritual situation. He does not hide his beliefs and pretend to be unshakable and perfect just to keep morale up and make the order look good. A paladin who does otherwise would be both arrogant and a liar. Cedric is above such illusions.Strawmanning, appeal to emotion, special pleading, argument from false premises.
Explain.
Explain.I could (and started to) write an essay detailing how wrong this is, but suffice it to say that Cedric is one of the most paladin-like paladins I've ever seen. None of your cited issues constitute a violation of the Code either in letter or spirit. You've instead injected your own cultural context--the context that claims that profanity is demeaning, that any pleasure that leaves you less than fully combat-ready is a sin, and, that avoiding the appearance of impropriety has any importance--into your interpretation of what "good" means. This is fine if you're the player, but if you were the GM and decided to take umbrage at a player's paladin for this without agreeing to such a definition, well, I wouldn't want to be there when it came up.Strawmanning, appeal to authority.Cedric is honest. The stereotypical paladin fights evil pretending that it can ultimately be vanquished. True paladins know that the battle against evil will never end in a permanent victory, that at best they can only battle the evil before them--and then they do the right thing anyway, because it is what you do now that defines who you are, and it is what happens now that matters, if only for the moment.No true Scotsman, appeal to emotion.Cedric has no crisis of faith. He already dealt with that. He is completely, utterly at peace with his spiritual situation. He does not hide his beliefs and pretend to be unshakable and perfect just to keep morale up and make the order look good. A paladin who does otherwise would be both arrogant and a liar. Cedric is above such illusions.Strawmanning, appeal to emotion, special pleading, argument from false premises.
He is basically being pretentious, saying that there is nothing supporting your arguments but hot-air, and using terms from critical theory and fallacy study to say so instead of just saying so. The pretentiousness comes from trying to make himself look excessively smart by using terms that are intended to either confuse you or, if you know what they mean, say that you're full of crap.
Don't you love it when everything is stated in plain English?In other words he is being passive-aggressive and hiding behind words that he does not expect you to understand. Sort of like when you tell someone who you don't like to go eviscerate themselves. If they know what it means then you're telling them to go kill themselves, if they don't then they are confused and tend to blunder off somewhere.
Well, I was giving him the benefit of the doubt and a chance to elaborate, since the only thing even close to accurate was appeal to emotion.
Even more than the devil being in the details, God is.
This is getting dangerously close to a discussion on real-world religions--one in particular--and it wouldn't be a pleasant one. Enjoy your game. Just don't ever GM for me.
... because the weak need the law to survive.Precisely ... which is why a paladin will concern himself with his reputation—not because he's self-righteous, but because he worries about the honor and influence of his god, his church, and himself as an inspiration.
Off topic: What does Taku Ooka Nin mean?
Taku Ooka Nin evidently means something in Japanese or something, but it isn't intentional. It started with "Nintaku" before I knew anything aside from English, then Ooka was a nickname adopted in Furry Fandom, and from there Nintaku was converted to Taku Nin, and Ooka was a nickname thrown in the middle so Taku and Nin could both be used as names for whatever with combinations thereof.
So to directly answer your question: it doesn't have an intentional meaning. Ooka was truncated from Ookami, or "wolf" in Japanese.
On-topic, Paladins care about their reputation in context to the society they live within. I haven't read every post, I have far more important things to do than that, but if a Paladin has a poor reputation then he will ignore it to try and rise above his reputation by his actions. He wont stray from his ideals just to satisfy others. I always view Paladins as Arthurian Knights. As "alpha"s.
They don't care what people who do not subscribe to their ideals think because these people are impure. That does not mean they are enemies, but instead just people whose opinions are lesser to those who share his deity, alignment, or goals. Paladins are the unchanging, unapologetic, and stoic guardians of the weak and innocent. Their enemy is everyone who would tyrannize or terrorize those he protects, but he doesn't need to kill his enemies other than drive them off or stop them.
A Paladin kills when he needs to, but to him it makes little difference if the villain leaves his guardianship alone or if the villain lays dead as both protect the good of the innocent.
Paladins have Diplomacy and Intimidate as class skills for a reason. One is "If you let my daughter go, I'll forget all of this happened" and the other is, "Let my daughter go, or I will find you and I will kill you."
One asks for conformation to a desire, while the other is an ultimatum with lethal consequences. Never push a Paladin that far, because if he swears by his god that you will die then either you or he are going to die sooner or later unless you truly atone for your actions. Either way the villain who forced the Paladin's hand is "dead" in that he has either changed his ways for redemption or died.
|
|
You express yourself well. We don't agree, but your points are worth exploring.
I feel the same. :)
The philosophy, if such was the author's intent, is specious in context. This paladin exists in a reality where his god is an incredibly powerful and tangible force for good, and an afterlife is known verifiably to exist, so an attempt at setting at naught acts that serve the good and seeing acts as meaningful only in the conduct of self in a finite existence is demonstrably wrong. No religious person would buy into this, let alone a paladin in a world where the gods' powers are manifest. You don't worship a god and then say, "But the gods are meaningless." Doesn't fly. Doesn't even get off the ground.
He doesn't say the Gods are meaningless, he says he and his (an other humans') acts are so small compared to the Gods (among other things) that those acts are meaningless on any larger scale. Which is both true and humble, and comes to the same thing from a mortal perspective.
You're partially correct, but have missed the point in some measure. A paladin wouldn't and shouldn't care about his reputation in the least if it harmed only him ... but when such can besmirch his church and his god, he would definitely factor it into his actions.
Ah, but who is he setting an example for? And why? It seems from Cedric's favored areas to stay and favored classes of people to associate with that he has decided to inspire the lower rungs of society...who are much more likely to aspire to Paladinhood and goodness in general if they see that a 'guy like them' a 'man of the people' can be one. Seeming untouchably pure actually makes people less likely to try and emulate you, as they feel that such feats are impossible for them.
It's probably not that calculated on Cedric's part, but inspiring people is something he both cares about and knows how to do, so it's probably kicking around in there somewhere.
I left the other reasons for avoiding prostitution aside intentionally. Rest assured, I'm quite aware of the moral and ethical difficulties, and how it might affect a paladin's status.
Oh, I know. I was just clarifying that I was aware of them as well, and not trying to dismiss or disagree with them.
I'm ... I'm just going to reflect on that, and let it speak for itself.
"The LG ... Lord of Prostitution."
That says it all.
He's also the Empyreal Lord of virginity and rites of passage. To quote a bit from his description:
Lymnieris and his agents sometimes come to the aid of good-hearted virgins pressed into marriage or threatened with being deflowered against their will, as well as those devotees who wish to fulfill their sexual desires but who are restrained by culture or tradition. Any individual on the threshold of a major personal change may call on Lymnieris for aid. Prostitutes who work lawfully and willingly out of love for their profession also worship Lymnieris, and those forced into carnal service pray to him for salvation.
How does that not sound LG? His domain might be better described as the sanctity of sexual freedom, making sure people can make whatever choices they wish in regards to sex (from prostitution to celibacy), but he remains a legitimate and Good patron of prostitutes.
I think this is a difference of perspective that moral relativists and universalists cannot resolve.
I don't think that's the issue in conflict here. I believe in absolute and universal moral principles myself...I just don't think casual sex, or even having sex for money, is inherently wrong by those standards.
Fair enough. I haven't read enough, and certainly accept your correction.
Cool. Like I said, I actually agree with your point, it just doesn't happen to apply to the character in question.
In situations where cursing is considered acceptable or even desirable, obviously it's not an issue. But when it's done in anger, to assail or in frustration, it does demean both user and victim. Conflating the two situations is not a valid counter-argument.
The person he swears at walked into a low-class bar (the exact kind of place where it's impolite not to swear) and he only swore at him before finding out he was not part of the usual clientele. So it's exactly that kind of situation. As soon as he knew who he was talking to his language became precise and meticulous.
So I see.
As I said, he's an interesting character. He may even be, for the most part, lawful good. But he's in no way an exemplar of all the ideals a paladin must keep faith with.
I, as mentioned, disagree. He exemplifies those ideals in a non-standard fashion, but he certainly exemplifies them.
Even more than the devil being in the details, God is.
This is true, metaphorically anyway.
Enjoyable, thoughtful perspective, Deadmanwalking.
Thanks. :)
I feel the same towards yours.
|
|
I'm ... I'm just going to reflect on that, and let it speak for itself.
"The LG ... Lord of Prostitution."
That says it all.
I think this is a difference of perspective that moral relativists and universalists cannot resolve.
He's also the Empyreal Lord of virginity and rites of passage. To quote a bit from his description:
Lymnieris and his agents sometimes come to the aid of good-hearted virgins pressed into marriage or threatened with being deflowered against their will, as well as those devotees who wish to fulfill their sexual desires but who are restrained by culture or tradition. Any individual on the threshold of a major personal change may call on Lymnieris for aid. Prostitutes who work lawfully and willingly out of love for their profession also worship Lymnieris, and those forced into carnal service pray to him for salvation.
How does that not sound LG? His domain might be better described as the sanctity of sexual freedom, making sure people can make whatever choices they wish in regards to sex (from prostitution to celibacy), but he remains a legitimate and Good patron of prostitutes.
I'm firmly with Deadmanwalking on this. Lymnieris being LG isn't an example of moral relativism. It's a matter of disagreement on what is and is not moral.
And honestly, I'd be much more comfortable with a paladin of Lymnieris than a paladin of Torag.
edit-Someone on the boards, I believe it might have been Set, suggested that one way to really encapsulate what Lymnieris is about is to think of him as the Empyreal Lord of the sanctity of consent. I really like that take on him.
|
|
In that, I think they are more akin to crusaders than Arthurian Knights.
Crusaders were not afraid to dirty their hands, since most sins were negligible to the holy act of the crusade. They would catapult rotten body parts into besieged cities to spread diseases, pillage and whore, knowing that it is all a part of carrying out their holy mission. Wars are a dirty business.I think that if the church in the real world can overlook such behavior of its holy knights, the varied religions of Galorian (that are, in most part, less fussy and judgmental) can easily disregard whoring, drinking, swearing and other acts that are irrelevant to the good fight.
The Crusaders were NOT the ideal of paladins. The concept behind the crusaders, perhaps, but the actual product is represented in Pathfinder, with the Low Templar PrC.
Don't confuse someone who ostensibly kills in the name of a deity with a paragon of LG values who is empowered by their god through the strength of their belief and virtue.
This entire thread is just a reminder that:
* No two people have exactly the same definitions of what is lawful and good - while there are areas of overlap that most can agree on there are large areas where people disagree
* When applying lawful and good to the game using a hard mechanic like the Paladin - very very few can accept the idea of a morality that exists outside of their *present day* location and circumstances. (using the 'prostitution discussion' above - there are areas of the world where it's legal, licensed, not a stigma, and not treated with scorn - there are religions that feel the same - applying local laws, customs and or your own religious views onto the subject (while fine - don't cross lines your game you are uncomfortable with) - causes problems when the game obviously has the ability to accommodate other viewpoints that don't brand things like that as lawless or evil)
* Unless you talk to your game master ahead of time and feel *very* comfortable - or play in PFS where the flavor is tossed for pure mechanics - the Paladin as a class is just a trap for table drama. If the two people having the disagreement tried to play together - without the understanding it would lead to bad feelings as they consider the concept so radically different.
* Last point is - an addendum to the previous one - a secondary trap for the Paladin class is the presumption that the code is fertile ground for story focus. Again another thing that two people can have very different ideas about - many players are attracted to the Paladin class because they want to be righteous boot-kickers of goodness. They didn't pick it thinking that they were going to be subjected to moral traps and such - while those elements of the game can be fun - it really depends on the player - if they just want to be the shining knight and aren't ready for that kind of game - it ruins the experience. On the other hand someone wanting to play the nuance would be equally disappointed if that aspect were ignored. Something to discuss with your game master before rolling the character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You used to be able to tell what a paladin would do in any given situation without bothering to ask. Weird how much that's changed.