|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or ride left at a crossroads instead of right, meaning he isn't at the village of Bumsquat when a flash-flood drowns a bunch of orphans he could have saved... if he hadn't turned left.A valid argument if it were something out of his control, but this is not. After the first time Joker escaped to kill hundreds more any sane person would have killed him to prevent the inevitable future tragedy. Certainly so now that he's escaped scores of times now. If Batman didn't any sane government would have executed him by now.
What we can conclude from this is that neither Batman nor Gotham's government are very sane.
[threadjack]I've always had a fun alternate character interpretation involving this:
The Joker is immortal. Not just in the sense that all comic book characters are really tough to keep dead, but actually in-universe unkillable. He'll always come back. I mean, look at how many times he's escaped certain death! And I mean really certain, not just "I can't believe anyone could survive that fall." kinda certain.
And Batman knows that. Which means, when you get right down to it, you can't stop the Joker, ever. All killing him does is delay him a bit. And, being really smart, Batman has done some math. The Joker takes longer to get out of Arkham than come back from the dead. So...logically, sending him to Arkham is the right thing to do.
There's a codicil to this involving the times he's been tempted to kill the Joker and why he didn't. Firstly it'd be the height of selfishness to do so, since that would cause more deaths in the long run, and secondly then he would've broken his one rule for nothing, potentially sending him down the slippery slope to villainy...just as the Joker probably wants.[/threadjack]
Or ride left at a crossroads instead of right, meaning he isn't at the village of Bumsquat when a flash-flood drowns a bunch of orphans he could have saved... if he hadn't turned left.A valid argument if it were something out of his control, but this is not. After the first time Joker escaped to kill hundreds more any sane person would have killed him to prevent the inevitable future tragedy. Certainly so now that he's escaped scores of times now. If Batman didn't any sane government would have executed him by now.
What we can conclude from this is that neither Batman nor Gotham's government are very sane.
I hate the theory that Batman is responsible for the people that Joker killed. It's just lame...
JOKER is responsible. End of story.
Joker is kind of a fringe case anyway... in that he has relatively little backstory or personal growth. However, if you use this argument with anyone else it starts to fall apart. Take someone like Lex Luthor... Genius inventer. How many times has Superman had to team up with Lexcorp to stop some greater threat!??! How many times has an evil scientist gone legit and created a new hero or medicine to save people...
That wouldn't happen if the hero killed them outright in their first meeting.
I had a half-elf monk once who was VERY against killing opponents. He was all for BREAKING them... but not 'killing' them. IN his mind, growing up in an elven city.... People can change. This bandit today, COULD be redeemed, pay his debt to society, become a doctor and save an orphanage. It's a 'Big Picture.'
You could kill Scarecrow... but what if the world someday needs his specialized knowledge?!? How many have you doomed THEN?!
Besides... Why is it BATMAN'S fault Joker isn't dead? The Judges, Cops, guards, Doctors... Anyone could shoot him in his cell 'for the greater good...' Give him some medicine... inject him with an air bubble.. What's the difference?
I always understood Batman's morality as being very big on letting the courts decide in the end. Batman has the power to turn Joker in but he doesn't have the authority to execute him. That's the DA's responsibility. And it would've worked too if Harvey didn't have a severe psychological disorder.
This just makes Batman sound Lawful Stupid though, so shrug.
Batman killed criminals in the early books he had a Super Man intervention that toned him down.
Comic Book Code.
Ah. I suppose the variance shouldn't surprise me. I should mention that about 90% of my understanding of Batman comes from the Animated Series.
His fault? No.
But he is accountable in an indirect sense. If you have the chance to stop something bad don't do it you're still pretty bad.
His fault? No.
But he is accountable in an indirect sense. If you have the chance to stop something bad don't do it you're still pretty bad.
No more accountable then anyone else in gotham then.
This isn't Zod or Doomsday here where ONLY Superman could POSSIBLY stop them... Joker is merely mortal and anyone could put a bullet in him. Considering how much time he spends in straitjackets and handcuffs or unconscious... it wouldn't even be difficult.
|
|
His fault? No.
But he is accountable in an indirect sense. If you have the chance to stop something bad don't do it you're still pretty bad.
No more accountable then anyone else in gotham then.
This isn't Zod or Doomsday here where ONLY Superman could POSSIBLY stop them... Joker is merely mortal and anyone could put a bullet in him. Considering how much time he spends in straitjackets and handcuffs or unconscious... it wouldn't even be difficult.
And think how many victims of his must have surviving family who want him dead! Clearly by all logic he should be dead by now.
Unless my little theory is right. ;)
What is your name?
What is your quest?
What is your favorite color?other acceptable trivia questions are:
whose spell protects the town?
Who do you seek?
What is the Baron's first name?
What is the password to the thieves guild?Mine.
the woman who cursed my junk to turn hot pink.
Red, of course.
The password is ALWAYS swordfish.This game is WAY too easy.
What is your name?
What is your quest?
What is your favorite color?I am count Vlad Von FuelDrop, of the Sussex FuelDrops.
I seek nothing less than complete dominion over all beings in all worlds, both living and dead.
Black.
It gonna take you guys forever to get in to see the wizard, to the bottom of the mountain with you!
You know, I reckon that if someone were to murder the Joker, then turn themselves in and claim it was self defense... there's no jury in the DCU that would convict them. The cops sure as hell wouldn't put any effort into disproving the claim, and really the problem would be finding a jury who're unbias as, well, given the Joker's body count you'd be hard pressed to find a family in DC America who hasn't lost someone to him (heck he's even gone international before now, so even shipping in people from overseas isn't a sure thing!)
There HAS to be a reason he's not dead yet beyond Batman's code... and there is: DC doesn't care about internal logic. (Points to the disaster that is the new 52)
|
Good. "Can we talk in-character, please? It's more fun that way."Negatives of having a paladin:
Forces other players to act in a manner that will satisfy a paladin or suffer inter-group conflict.
Makes it hard to play a morally ambiguous 'team up with a group of vampires to fight a greater evil' type adventure.I cannot recall the last time I've seen such a corner case come up.
Gets so many abilities it's hard to keep track of them all; makes Fighters look inferior.Fighters are only inferior to paladins versus evil. If the paladin has smites left. Versus anything else, the fighter should have higher AC and do considerably more damage. His saves will lag, of course, unless he's a dwarf, then not so much or at all. He'll always have twice the feats. And no paladin splat-book toy is half as powerful as Gloves of Dueling for twice the price.
Forces the GM to make rulings about what constitutes lawful good behavior and decree whether or not the paladin should fall.There's a cheap bauble for that (forget its name).
Causes long threads on the internet about whether executing prisoners is an evil act.
That can happen with any good characters present.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with paladins is the same as with all parties, just more obvious: You have to clearly agree on what kind of game you want to play, as a gaming group and stick to it..
Right. If one player wants to play a CE Murderhobo, another wants to play a CN thief, another a Chivalrous Knight and another a Good cleric of a Good deity, you're gonna have conflict without a paladin.
In fact i find that the "CE Murderhobo" and the " CN thief" give by far the most issues with party conflict. WAY more than a paladin.
The problem with Paladins is that most people are bad at running them and most GMs are poor at handling them. Unlike virtually all the other classes which require little to zero effort and cooperation to get them played out right, Paladins pretty much need a very mature, intelligent and committed player coupled with a sensible, flexible and level-headed GM and a gaming group that's fine with such a dynamic at the table. .
Most? I have seen this very very rarely in my 40 years of gaming. Mostly at Con games with strangers.
Just play with mature adults and it's not an issue. Hmm, let me make it even easier- don't play with jerks.
Well, in 30+ years of playing D&D and its successors, I've never had a problem with paladins that weren't directly related to either a disruptive player or a power-tripping GM.
I think the perceived problems with paladins are due to the attraction the class has to disruptive players and/or the class being an easy target for GMs who enjoy screwing with players.
Yes, we agree. But I find that the "CE Murderhobo" and the " CN thief" have the most attraction to disruptive players.
The Paladin class is also the only class where your character really forces their values on the rest of the party. .
The CE Murderhobo and CN Thief both do this as well. Once one PC starts killing innocent peasants for their coppers, the rest of the party is tarred with that brush. And when a PC takes it upon himself to start stealing from shopkeepers, this can & should also rebound upon th party in a very bad way. Both of these can be MUCH worse that a Paladin trying to lead the party down the path of Good & Law, since you don;t need to be either Good or lawful. You can be CN or NN or many other alignments or paths.
As a pc I love paladins. I love role playing. I love being the hero. I love being the star at the table. I love being a leader. I love building a following. Paladins make all of this easy.
For what its worth, other classes can do all of that, from the lowly fighter to the god-like wizard. The paladin is just the only one with a code of conduct telling you to be a particular kind of person or else! Any other class can even choose to have that code.
Oddly enough, never seen that happen. Even among folks who like a role-playing challenge. ;)
"You see, my LE assassin follows the paladin code..."
I have a CE guy with the assassin profession and a code For Justice! You can do all of these things!
Sure she isn't a complete Paladin, more of a Dragon Disciple but I try to play her Lawful Good and I think whatever I play next I will forever miss Paladin saves.
The trouble with Paladin's is that everyone has a different opinion on what alignment means. Paladin is unique because they have to be only ONE alignment and it's Lawful Good. Many think that there is only ONE way to play Lawful Good and a Paladin falls making a decision that deviates from their alignment ONCE.
That's a fallacy to me; but it is also something we will never agree on.
Personally I would love to see a Barbarian or Monk suffer the consequences of alignment shift. How do you play a Drunken Master? In 3.5 there was even a class for it. Wouldn't you skirt just a little too close to the Chaotic edge playing someone who was constantly drunk? We ignore that of course and there are no topics for it.
Practically everyone I have ever known plays a barbarian to stereotype; hard to imagine how you would be in danger of being too disciplined or what would cause you to lean that way. Of course we never ask what happens if a Barbarian follows the laws in cities does that make him in danger of losing his Chaotic nature. It's because following the laws in a city has nothing to do with alignment. Except when people look at the Paladin...then suddenly following laws has everything to do with HIS alignment but we never think twice about the Barbarian not committing petty crimes in the city just to maintain his Chaotic nature.
Unfortunately there is no way to resolve this and how it is handled will change at every table.
Including the part about doing no evil? :)Oddly enough, never seen that happen. Even among folks who like a role-playing challenge. ;)
"You see, my LE assassin follows the paladin code..."
yes. Why not?
I submit Lex Luthor. Public Servant and to the Public Eye a very good man.
If Good isn't going to be good, and Evil isn't going to be evil, then why have alignments at all?
To represent outsiders for the purpose of spell effects. 90% of the time your fighting your opposing alignment anyway. Good fights evil and evil fights good, blahblahblah.
If Good isn't going to be good, and Evil isn't going to be evil, then why have alignments at all?To represent outsiders for the purpose of spell effects. 90% of the time your fighting your opposing alignment anyway. Good fights evil and evil fights good, blahblahblah.I guarentee Hitler viewed himself as "good". I guarentee the terrorists from 911 viewed themselves as good.
Americans view themselves as good as a people while majority of the world sees America in a different light.
Jading alignments creates a realistic immersion. My biggest issue with many campaigns is the story's feel fake and alot of that comes down to the cookie cutter good vs evil storylines
Yeah I agree, the nature of good vs. evil, imposing the will of the strong to oppress and control the weak, and stopping them are extremely disbelief suspension breakers. Those f*cking dragons that are flying around though, totally legit.