From Shelyn's code
I act to prevent conflict before it blossoms.I accept surrender if my opponent can be redeemed—and I never assume that they cannot be.I lead by example, not with my blade. Where my blade passes, a life is cut short, and the world's potential for beauty is lessened.You won't find a code for a paladin of any good alignment who OKs killing a surrendered enemy. It shouldn't even need to be written out or discussed beforehand.Unless you're a paladin of Torag, then you slay the enemies of your people, no questions asked, no mercy given.
There's a reason Torag and Sarenrae don't get along.
Technically Torag doesn't really consider surrender a thing, but yeah, I guess you're right.
I'd like to point out that all this assumes that the OP is fairly conveying the paladin's side of events.
Actually, I wonder how old the players are? I ask because: ""It attacked me and damaged me and made me angry so it has to die" seems like a really juvenile reason to do anything. I find it hard to believe that an adult would actually say this as his paladins reason.
I dunno, seems like a reasonable turn of events for any thinking creature. Turn it around into a real life scenario.
Some crazy a$~%+!& just stabbed you with a knife.
They are now talking to your friends.
Your first instinct is to let him sit there and talk with your friends, knowing that at any minute said crazy a~&~~*& could pull his knife out and start stabbing them again?
Once someone has attacked you, unprovoked, with lethal force they've pretty much forfeited their right to reasonable doubt.
Which is why police have never negotiated with or arrested someone who killed or attacked a cop.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which is why police have never negotiated with or arrested someone who killed or attacked a cop.I'd like to point out that all this assumes that the OP is fairly conveying the paladin's side of events.
Actually, I wonder how old the players are? I ask because: ""It attacked me and damaged me and made me angry so it has to die" seems like a really juvenile reason to do anything. I find it hard to believe that an adult would actually say this as his paladins reason.
I dunno, seems like a reasonable turn of events for any thinking creature. Turn it around into a real life scenario.
Some crazy a$~%+!& just stabbed you with a knife.
They are now talking to your friends.
Your first instinct is to let him sit there and talk with your friends, knowing that at any minute said crazy a~&~~*& could pull his knife out and start stabbing them again?
Once someone has attacked you, unprovoked, with lethal force they've pretty much forfeited their right to reasonable doubt.
Thankfully, not everyone is police, nor is this the present day where killing people is some sort of taboo.
Things were simpler in the sort of time period Golarion takes place in.
You're in the middle of untamed wilderness.
Someone or something has attacked you with intent to kill.
You are perfectly justified in killing it back.
|
Which is why police have never negotiated with or arrested someone who killed or attacked a cop.I'd like to point out that all this assumes that the OP is fairly conveying the paladin's side of events.
Actually, I wonder how old the players are? I ask because: ""It attacked me and damaged me and made me angry so it has to die" seems like a really juvenile reason to do anything. I find it hard to believe that an adult would actually say this as his paladins reason.
I dunno, seems like a reasonable turn of events for any thinking creature. Turn it around into a real life scenario.
Some crazy a$~%+!& just stabbed you with a knife.
They are now talking to your friends.
Your first instinct is to let him sit there and talk with your friends, knowing that at any minute said crazy a~&~~*& could pull his knife out and start stabbing them again?
Once someone has attacked you, unprovoked, with lethal force they've pretty much forfeited their right to reasonable doubt.
Thankfully, not everyone is police, nor is this the present day where killing people is some sort of taboo.
Things were simpler in the sort of time period Golarion takes place in.
You're in the middle of untamed wilderness.
Someone or something has attacked you with intent to kill.
You are perfectly justified in killing it back.
Unless it's speaking in a language you don't understand to other people, who are responding in a language you don't understand.
Then you have to assume it's surrendering, and not talking smack or vowing revenge against you and your line for all eternity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The paladin should not fall unless the player tells you that he wants his paladin to fall. It's a player decision. He should have all the agency in this call.
Alignment aside, it doesn't look like your player broke the code.
Paladins of freedom do not follow a strict code, other than to say that they always seek to uphold the tenets of liberty and goodness wherever they travel. They resist tyranny and oppression, lead others in fighting unjust rulership, and ignore laws which limit the free and fair choices of intelligent beings. A paladin of freedom adheres to the philosophy of "That which is knowingly consented to by all involved, is just." Most leaders, good or otherwise, consider paladins of freedom anarchists to be sought out and either kept away from others by way of imprisonment, or in more evil societies, simply destroyed as soon as they are discovered. In most organized societies paladins of freedom must operate quietly as to not arouse the attention of the most powerful around them.
A paladin of freedom who fails to uphold these tenets, or who causes, by actions or inaction, sentient creatures to lose their liberty or freedom, or who willfully commits evil acts, loses access to all supernatural and spell-like class features, as well as the spell casting ability. Further, she may not gain further levels as a paladin (of freedom, or otherwise). She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she properly atones for her violations as determined by the GM.
Unless it's speaking in a language you don't understand to other people, who are responding in a language you don't understand.
Then you have to assume it's surrendering, and not talking smack or vowing revenge against you and your line for all eternity.
As a paladin, which, if either, of those assumptions is fair to make? Maybe talk to your friends first.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Being a Paladin of Freedom, for all he knew, the Wyvern was being forced into an unwanted partnership (servitude) by the party by virture of having been defeated. Maybe the paladin felt that the more merciful option was to kill it.
I doubt that's what happened, but I felt like saying something.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is why police have never negotiated with or arrested someone who killed or attacked a cop.I'd like to point out that all this assumes that the OP is fairly conveying the paladin's side of events.
Actually, I wonder how old the players are? I ask because: ""It attacked me and damaged me and made me angry so it has to die" seems like a really juvenile reason to do anything. I find it hard to believe that an adult would actually say this as his paladins reason.
I dunno, seems like a reasonable turn of events for any thinking creature. Turn it around into a real life scenario.
Some crazy a$~%+!& just stabbed you with a knife.
They are now talking to your friends.
Your first instinct is to let him sit there and talk with your friends, knowing that at any minute said crazy a~&~~*& could pull his knife out and start stabbing them again?
Once someone has attacked you, unprovoked, with lethal force they've pretty much forfeited their right to reasonable doubt.
Thankfully, not everyone is police, nor is this the present day where killing people is some sort of taboo.
Things were simpler in the sort of time period Golarion takes place in.
You're in the middle of untamed wilderness.
Someone or something has attacked you with intent to kill.
You are perfectly justified in killing it back.
I'd like to point out that Paladins are supposed to be held to a MUCH higher standard than your average person.
If any of the other players had killed it I would've shrugged.
So basically, you're treating players in your group differently than one another, setting up a double standard.
That never ends well.
If it's evil for one person, it's evil for all people.
If it's not evil for one person, it's not evil for all people.
Simple enough.
I don't think it was evil. It was Neutral. Self preservation (from his PoV) and carrying through with retaliating to a hostile force.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is why police have never negotiated with or arrested someone who killed or attacked a cop.I'd like to point out that all this assumes that the OP is fairly conveying the paladin's side of events.
Actually, I wonder how old the players are? I ask because: ""It attacked me and damaged me and made me angry so it has to die" seems like a really juvenile reason to do anything. I find it hard to believe that an adult would actually say this as his paladins reason.
I dunno, seems like a reasonable turn of events for any thinking creature. Turn it around into a real life scenario.
Some crazy a$~%+!& just stabbed you with a knife.
They are now talking to your friends.
Your first instinct is to let him sit there and talk with your friends, knowing that at any minute said crazy a~&~~*& could pull his knife out and start stabbing them again?
Once someone has attacked you, unprovoked, with lethal force they've pretty much forfeited their right to reasonable doubt.
Thankfully, not everyone is police, nor is this the present day where killing people is some sort of taboo.
Things were simpler in the sort of time period Golarion takes place in.
You're in the middle of untamed wilderness.
Someone or something has attacked you with intent to kill.
You are perfectly justified in killing it back.
I'd like to point out that Paladins are supposed to be held to a MUCH higher standard than your average person.
If any of the other players had killed it I would've shrugged.
So basically, you're treating players in your group differently than one another, setting up a double standard.
That never ends well.
If it's evil for one person, it's evil for all people.
If it's not evil for one person, it's not evil for all people.
Simple enough.
I don't think it was evil. It was Neutral. Self preservation (from his PoV) and carrying through with...
Holding each player in their group accountable to their character isn't treating them differently. No one made the guy play a paladin. If I played a paladin and didn't have to consider my code I would feel cheated. Self preservation from someone posing no threat is the DND equivalent of that guy who shot three men in the back and is claiming "Stand Your Ground". That guy sure ain't a paladin.
Design Manager
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I could have sworn they were NE not N. Perhaps I am confusing editions, but I remember a book from when I was a kid "The Wyvern's Spur" and they seemed like BBEGs back then.
In "The Wyvern's Spur" Giogioni Wyvernspur transforms into a wyvern to heroically rescue his friends and family. Probably not the best reference in defense of the Paladin's actions.....
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Posing no threat"?
He already attacked you, without provocation.
He is still armed.
He is a threat.
Thankfully, not everyone is police, nor is this the present day where killing people is some sort of taboo.
Things were simpler in the sort of time period Golarion takes place in.
You're in the middle of untamed wilderness.
Someone or something has attacked you with intent to kill.
You are perfectly justified in killing it back.
And by 'untamed wilderness' you mean the home territory of intelligent (if primitive) beings.
Now let's look at this scenario in a different context. A small group of modern soldiers enter the territory of a primitive tribe. A hunting party from the tribe attacks the soldiers injuring one. The soldiers using their modern weaponry drive the hunting party off then chases them down and intimidates them into a parley. That's when the injured soldier shows up and (seeing two groups talking) decides to gun down the natives.
If this an evil act or not?
It's morally null, in my eyes.
Neither party is in the right, but the people who attacked without provocation were certainly in the wrong FIRST.
Just because they start parleying when they realize they're outmatched doesn't suddenly mean they're the good guy in this situation. They were just trying to kill you a few moments before.
And if you're under no orders to, and cannot feasibly take prisoners, then ending the potential threat may be the more pragmatic option.
|
Design Manager
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Paladin of Freedom actually still has a Code which includes this bit "That which is knowingly consented to by all involved, is just." It sounds like a Paladin of Freedom more than even a standard paladin would be bound to acknowledge and respect a parlay, especially if, as the GM of the game has stated, it has been made clear that the group shares the consequences of such decisions unless specifically noted otherwise.
I've seen a lot of BS "the paladin falls because ____" scenarios, but this seems a pretty straightforward breach of code and alignment.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins of freedom do not follow a strict code, other than to say that they always seek to uphold the tenets of liberty and goodness wherever they travel. They resist tyranny and oppression, lead others in fighting unjust rulership, and ignore laws which limit the free and fair choices of intelligent beings. A paladin of freedom adheres to the philosophy of "That which is knowingly consented to by all involved, is just." Most leaders, good or otherwise, consider paladins of freedom anarchists to be sought out and either kept away from others by way of imprisonment, or in more evil societies, simply destroyed as soon as they are discovered. In most organized societies paladins of freedom must operate quietly as to not arouse the attention of the most powerful around them.
A paladin of freedom who fails to uphold these tenets, or who causes, by actions or inaction, sentient creatures to lose their liberty or freedom, or who willfully commits evil acts, loses access to all supernatural and spell-like class features, as well as the spell casting ability. Further, she may not gain further levels as a paladin (of freedom, or otherwise). She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she properly atones for her violations as determined by the GM.
(emphasis mine)
Coming in charging the wyvern to drop it to unconscious is one thing - if you believe wyverns are duplicitous and waiting for a chance to attack, rendering it helpless is a perfectly legitimate route of action. But Coup De Grace after his friends stabilized him? There are ONLY two reasons I could think of that would justify that:
- He knew beyond a reasonable doubt the wyvern was irredeemably evil.
- He had a strong reason to believe they were about to be ambushed and the wyvern could be freed to do evil, and there was no time to talk to it.
Otherwise, that counts pretty clearly as "denying a sentient creature of liberty." His friends clearly thought it could be taught and reasoned with, but before even hearing their arguments he killed the wyvern in a blood rage. That's an act befitting a Barbarian, NOT a Paladin.
Again, the key thing to look at here is not that he attacked while his friends were negotiating, but that he killed a helpless creature that possibly could have been reasoned with. Without an extremely compelling reason otherwise, I would say he falls; "It attacked us" is NOT good enough in this scenario.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I vote a soft no. There are some odd circumstances here that make me say that he shouldnt fall but a RP laden warning from his diety of sort might be in order.
1) He didnt speak the language, so talking doesnt really = parlay. Maybe a sense motive might have helped here and should have been offered. Certainly could have been an exchange of taunts and threats for all he knew.
2) He isn't a standard pally correct? The focus is far more on the good than the lawful. So this thing attacks with no provocation and is a public menace. assuming I do understand we are negotiating do I think it should be negotiated with? What if we let it be and it wanders off to attack some children?
3) your party seems to be keen on entering into treaties with agressive, violent and often evil creatures the moment this paladin isnt present. It might be time to question if it is actually an act of good to constantly let monsters off the hook for their actions.
4) The timing of it all is happening a lot faster than people are giving credit. He burst into the clearing and attacked this took mere seconds. No actions took place in between for him other than he was running through the woods chasing the thing that hurt him and his friends. Just because the player was subject to all the exposition...the character wasnt. It wasn't like they got out a table and started signing a peace accord here. Situation are misconstrued.
That is my two CP. He gets a talking to in the form of a vivid dream or holy vision to make sure he doesnt stray from the path and understands that hasty agression is not the way of his order....but striping him of his powers is just a bridge to far for something that is merely a misunderstanding.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a player who is using the Paladin of Freedom - CG https://sites.google.com/site/pathfinderogc/extras/community-creations/hous e-rules/classes/paladin-of-freedom
In this session the party was flying above the forest canopy when the Paladin was jumped by a Wyvern. The Wyvern did some damage before attacks from the party caused it to flee closely pursued by the Sphinx Wizard and Gnome Sorcerer riding a Dire Bat. They called on it to parlay in Draconic. Badly wounded and unable to easily outrun the hasted PC's itagreed to parlay landing on a solid part of the forest canopy. The 2 PC casters had started negotiating for 2 rounds when the angry Paladin caught up. The Paladin couldn't speak Draconic but could see that the PC's and Wyvern were communicating and not fighting. He charged in dropping the Wyvern to -1hit points. The Sphinx PC stopped the unconcious Wyvern from falling at which point the Paladin delivered a Coup De Grace decapitating it.
My thought is that the Paladin has just fallen and lost his Paladin abilities until he has atoned.
1st he attacked the creature when it was in some sort of parlay even if he couldn't understand the words.
2nd After knocking it unconcious he proceeded to decapitate it.Does anyone think this is an unreasonable view by me? And if so can you clarify why you think the Paladin shouldn't fall.
I'm commenting not to disagree but to agree with you. Strip the character of paladinhood...temporarily. Let the player atone for attacking the wyvern after surrender and parley were being established. All paladins, including those of freedom, observe honorable rules of combat. Surrender and parley followed by a paladin attacking and then inflicting a coup de grace action is inexcusable behavior for a paladin. The player should learn from this. Let the player role-play regaining paladinhood and he will appreciate the code of conduct of paladinhood more. And for those out there that believe this is too harsh or not fun, don't play a paladin. By the way. if the player doesn't want to atone, then he can play a fallen paladin crappy fighter equivalent. Trust me, that won't last long.
Thanks
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would consider it evil for any of them to do it in the given circumstances.
Then you are at least consistent, which is good.
Alignment matters are subjective.
However, I would stress that you need to make stuff like this clear (both to your players and people you're asking for advice from).
If you had mentioned something like "I consider that to be evil, are you sure your Paladin would do this?" and he did it anyway...yeah, fall.
But as-is people's opinions on what is evil differ.
If it was not made absolutely clear that this was an evil act, no fall.
But he knows for the future.
And really, not having his Phylactery should not be grounds to ignore this. That item is there as an attempt to force adversarial DMs to be slightly less adversarial. Non-adversarial GMs should have no need of it.
Your Paladin, the Paragon of Good should know when something is considered evil, regardless of the gold he spends. Much like most reasonable people would not require a Cleric to make a Kn. Religion check to know the rites and tenets of his own religion.
No. This game is not about punishing players for making roleplaying decisions. It is about working collaboratively to achieve a fun time and excellent story. Bring it up with your player and work together to achieve the most fun and interesting result.
This makes no sense. Using that guideline, no character ever could possibly ever have any kind of negative consequence for RP.
Which is bananas.
"Posing no threat"?
He already attacked you, without provocation.
He is still armed.
He is a threat.
Thankfully, not everyone is police, nor is this the present day where killing people is some sort of taboo.
Things were simpler in the sort of time period Golarion takes place in.
You're in the middle of untamed wilderness.
Someone or something has attacked you with intent to kill.
You are perfectly justified in killing it back.
And by 'untamed wilderness' you mean the home territory of intelligent (if primitive) beings.
Now let's look at this scenario in a different context. A small group of modern soldiers enter the territory of a primitive tribe. A hunting party from the tribe attacks the soldiers injuring one. The soldiers using their modern weaponry drive the hunting party off then chases them down and intimidates them into a parley. That's when the injured soldier shows up and (seeing two groups talking) decides to gun down the natives.
If this an evil act or not?
It's morally null, in my eyes.
Neither party is in the right, but the people who attacked without provocation were certainly in the wrong FIRST.
Just because they start parleying when they realize they're outmatched doesn't suddenly mean they're the good guy in this situation. They were just trying to kill you a few moments before.
And if you're under no orders to, and cannot feasibly take prisoners, then ending the potential threat may be the more pragmatic option.
Wyverns are territorial. It would have been entirely reasonable for it to feel provoked by the PCs invading its land. And possibility threatening its brood. Those are the sort of details you miss when you kill first ask questions never.
You can't justify the paladin's assumptions without giving the same benefit to the wyvern.
You sure can. You're building a settlement. That means clearing out the area of things that are likely to make meals of the settlers who don't have the ability to defend themselves the way you can. Monsters are not accorded the rights of civilized folk. It's part of what makes them monsters.
Which is why it's also ok when the paladin goes through town killing all the half orcs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's morally null, in my eyes.
Neither party is in the right, but the people who attacked without provocation were certainly in the wrong FIRST.
Just because they start parleying when they realize they're outmatched doesn't suddenly mean they're the good guy in this situation. They were just trying to kill you a few moments before.
And if you're under no orders to, and cannot feasibly take prisoners, then ending the potential threat may be the more pragmatic option.
The natives/wyvern don't need to be the 'good guys' for the paladin to fall. Merely being unpleasant people does not justify a death sentence. Killing people merely because they are unlikable or because it is convenient/safer is an evil act.
If an armed group of strangers enters your territory isn't it pragmatic to 'end the potential threat' they represent? If a wyvern flew into a civilized area without attacking anyone would the citizens of that area have any justification to attack it based on it's potential threat?
I'd say someone whose first act upon seeing a new person is "Stab it and see if it bleeds" is more than merely "unpleasant".
That guy at the DMV who gives you the stinkeye is unpleasant.
That guy who stabs people for being in his territory is a psychopath.
Wyverns are territorial. It would have been entirely reasonable for it to feel provoked by the PCs invading its land. And possibility threatening its brood. Those are the sort of details you miss when you kill first ask questions never.You can't justify the paladin's assumptions without giving the same benefit to the wyvern.
Wyverns are not mindless beats, or this would be a valid argument.
But I'll make sure to side with the gangstaz next time they cap some whitey that steps up in their hood. After all, it's within their right because they're territorial, after all.
It's morally null, in my eyes.
Neither party is in the right, but the people who attacked without provocation were certainly in the wrong FIRST.
Just because they start parleying when they realize they're outmatched doesn't suddenly mean they're the good guy in this situation. They were just trying to kill you a few moments before.
And if you're under no orders to, and cannot feasibly take prisoners, then ending the potential threat may be the more pragmatic option.
The natives/wyvern don't need to be the 'good guys' for the paladin to fall. Merely being unpleasant people does not justify a death sentence. Killing people merely because they are unlikable or because it is convenient/safer is an evil act.
If an armed group of strangers enters your territory isn't it pragmatic to 'end the potential threat' they represent? If a wyvern flew into a civilized area without attacking anyone would the citizens of that area have any justification to attack it based on it's potential threat?
I'd say someone whose first act upon seeing a new person is "Stab it and see if it bleeds" is more than merely "unpleasant".
That guy at the DMV who gives you the stinkeye is unpleasant.
That guy who stabs people for being in his territory is a psychopath.
Wyverns are territorial. It would have been entirely reasonable for it to feel provoked by the PCs invading its land. And possibility threatening its brood. Those are the sort of details you miss when you kill first ask questions never.You can't justify the paladin's assumptions without giving the same benefit to the wyvern.
Wyverns are not mindless beats, or this would be a valid argument.
But I'll make sure to side with the gangstaz next time they cap some whitey that steps up in their hood. After all, it's within their right because they're territorial, after all.
Replace gangstaz with the people in Ukraine worried about they're homes and land and yourself with Russian soldiers trying to annex them, and sure thing bud.
Replace gangstaz with the people in Ukraine worried about they're homes and land and yourself with Russian soldiers trying to annex them, and sure thing bud.Good job on making light of a complicated issue to prove a spurious point.
For your information, a good deal of the population of the Ukraine, especially in Crimea, ARE ethnic Russians. That's been a thing that many Westerners don't realize about the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and a few other places. these former Communist nations did pack a fair number of ethnics that have problems playing nice with each other.
But then again this isn't a surprise when asked where the Ukraine was actually located, a fair number of Americans answered... Iowa.
I'm well aware of the realities of the Ukraine situation. I could have used a less contemporary example to make the same point, but I didn't.
Ethnicities do not make an annexation ok, by the way, but let's not derail a paladin alignment thread for a politically charged one.
So his motive was entirely revenge then, the need to tit for tat the beast? Now I'm sure he should fall.
The paladin should not fall unless the player tells you that he wants his paladin to fall. It's a player decision. He should have all the agency in this call.... So he can walk into an orphanage, start the slaughter, and not fall unless he decides he should?
The DM and the player are not enemies. They are collaborating in creating a story. If either of them doesn't want to have the same story as the other - class features are the least of their worries.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, yeah, I'd say he fell. His Alignment probably wouldn't change...but killing people who aren't posing an active threat at the moment (which he did even if you consider the first attack okay, coup de grace, remember?) especially when people you know and trust try to save them (the Sphinx caught the falling wyvern) is an Evil act. Murder, to be precise, though not First Degree Murder since it was in the heat of combat.
To return to the cop example, the cops get into a firefight and shoot a criminal, he's dropped his gun and is lying there bleeding and unconscious, one cop goes over to perform first aid. Another walks over and shoots him in the head.
Is that second cop Paladin material? I'm gonna go with 'No.' And that's exactly what this guy did.
Trolls are not similar to other monsters, and the fact that he'd faced them before does not excuse deciding 'better safe than sorry' on all injured enemies in the future. That's not a reasonable point of view.
EDIT:
And on Raise Dead: This doesn't always work. It's great that it's possible, but a large (though unstated) proportion of the people it's tried on it simply fails to function, either because they've already received Pharasma's judgment (and become Petitioners) or because they don't want to come back. Treating killing as 'not serious' is like treating beating someone so badly they only have a 50% survival chance as 'not serious'. It's not acceptable behavior.
If you're going with a homebrew setting where it always works, then he's still a dick for effectively torturing the wyvern (ie: causing pain with no tactical reason...death hurts) and either costing the other PCs over 5k in gold or actually killing the wyvern permanently (what amounts to either extortion or negligent homicide), both out of personal pique, and should fall for that.
Replace gangstaz with the people in Ukraine worried about they're homes and land and yourself with Russian soldiers trying to annex them, and sure thing bud.Good job on making light of a complicated issue to prove a spurious point.
For your information, a good deal of the population of the Ukraine, especially in Crimea, ARE ethnic Russians. That's been a thing that many Westerners don't realize about the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and a few other places. these former Communist nations did pack a fair number of ethnics that have problems playing nice with each other.
But then again this isn't a surprise when asked where the Ukraine was actually located, a fair number of Americans answered... Iowa.
I'm well aware of the realities of the Ukraine situation. I could have used a less contemporary example to make the same point, but I didn't.
Ethnicities do not make an annexation ok, by the way, but let's not derail a paladin alignment thread for a politically charged one.
Off topic but: It is actually just Ukraine. 'The Ukraine' is something Ukrainians tend to find offensive since 'the Ukraine' was how the Russians refered to the country while it was in the USSR. Now that it is an independent nation, it is simply, Ukraine.
He's a Paladin of Freedom, not a Paladin of Slaughter.
He is Fallen. Can atone if he wants to.
Off topic but: It is actually just Ukraine. 'The Ukraine' is something Ukrainians tend to find offensive since 'the Ukraine' was how the Russians refered to the country while it was in the USSR. Now that it is an independent nation, it is simply, Ukraine.Replace gangstaz with the people in Ukraine worried about they're homes and land and yourself with Russian soldiers trying to annex them, and sure thing bud.Good job on making light of a complicated issue to prove a spurious point.
For your information, a good deal of the population of the Ukraine, especially in Crimea, ARE ethnic Russians. That's been a thing that many Westerners don't realize about the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and a few other places. these former Communist nations did pack a fair number of ethnics that have problems playing nice with each other.
But then again this isn't a surprise when asked where the Ukraine was actually located, a fair number of Americans answered... Iowa.
I'm well aware of the realities of the Ukraine situation. I could have used a less contemporary example to make the same point, but I didn't.
Ethnicities do not make an annexation ok, by the way, but let's not derail a paladin alignment thread for a politically charged one.
But it would still be "The Ukraine Situation" as opposed to "ukraine situation". You'll notice no "the" in my first post. Unless you're talking to LazarX. And the Ukrainian language has no word for "the".