|
Oi I hope we can steer clear of the one night stand stuff since it has its own thread lol . I've learned a lot from the posts here that a paladin can be a lot of fun and not just stuck to being lawful stupid lol, after all not all paladins are saints lol and that makes it fun and challenging to create a unique paladin idea :)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll have to disagree, Ascalaphus, and here's why:
The question many seem to be either avoiding or unconcerned with—and I'm not sure which of those is worse—is this: What is the real purpose behind a one-night stand? Primarily, if not exclusively, it is about the desire to experience physical pleasure and release.
What's wrong with that?
Frankly, if it were about forming a genuine and substantive emotional connection with someone, a few hours conversing in tavern over a hot meal would better serve than a few hours (or minutes, for you efficiency experts) in bed atop a hot babe/dude.
I don't see the contradiction. Some people want physical release. Some people want a moment of personal bonding. Some people want both. None of them are wrong to me.
(Sorry, but ... no one rolls into town thinking, Here's my chance to find some needy person and give myself to her/him selflessly.) In addition, those high Charisma paladins don't seem to be sharing themselves with the average or homely. It's always about finding some perfect wench/stud that can make the night worth their while.
Why should paladins need to be selfless all the time? That nowhere in the class description. When you become a paladin you take certain vows and accept certain duties. You must serve those duties fully, but what you do in your free time is another matter. You shouldn't be nasty but you can have something for yourself too.
Contraception has always been about avoiding the possible consequences of your actions—about having your cake (or cock) and eating it, too, as it were.
So? In the middle ages the church understood that "go forth and multiply" was meant to populate the largely empty earth. Now that the earth wasn't so unpopulated, it was okay for a man and wife to not get so many kids that they can't feed them. The modern church position against contraception is just that, modern.
And the idea that you can treat someone like a person by meeting them and banging them within the hour is a specious one. All you're doing at that point is seducing them (and perhaps yourself) with the illusion of caring about their welfare, the better to get into their pants/panties and get your rocks off. That, too, is most emphatically something a paladin such as the idealistic type I described above just wouldn't do. (Those exemplars of an alignment or a deity might be another story, of course.)Using each other just means you're both doing evil. Consent is most emphatically not a panacea justifying indulgence, and any paladin truly worth his or her spurs would know that.
And if a paladin and someone else realize they both find the other person physically attractive and just want to get off. And the next day their respective armies will move in different directions and they might never see each other again. But right now they're just having a good time. What's wrong with that?
A paladin does have some "rules" to follow when it comes to sex, but I don't see those preventing him from actually getting some. Including, but probably not limited to:
I am distraught good fellows, I was watching a new anime, and my favourite paladin died.
Modern Japan setting, the guy was a ghoul hunter, very dedicated. Caring and supportive towards his comrades. Truly hated the ghouls. Uninterested in advancement, only the hunt mattered, so as to put down the flesh-eaters. Extremely brutal fighter, quite cruel towards ghouls, always very honest that their death was coming. Made good use of taunting and a range of attacks to take out the ghouls, including reach weapons like a giant spiked chain.
Alas he didn't make it! Ah well.
I know which anime you are talking about and NO that guy is NOT a paladin.
Cruel and paladin don't go hand in hand.
I disagree. He is always frightfully honest as to what is in store for them, and he attacks evil without restraint.
Very close to a paladin of an anti-undead god. As to cruelty, yes, cruel towards ghouls. Cruel towards creatures that eat people, and cruel towards ghouls that try to hide what they are. The anime gives him the mannerisms of a bit of a crazy person, but I saw fierce devotion to eradicating ghouls, along with, as I said, real care for his comrades and people often ripped apart by ghouls. He hunts because he must. Personally and for society.
Also the white outfit with white hair and implacable fearless nature really felt very paladin to me. I don't mind the darker paladins, because a lot of fantasy really does have its dark side, including Golarion. Paladins have to watch out they don't become monsters, but there is a whole lot of monster killing to be done - even to just protect one beleaguered town from threats.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll have to disagree, Ascalaphus, and here's why:
The question many seem to be either avoiding or unconcerned with—and I'm not sure which of those is worse—is this: What is the real purpose behind a one-night stand? Primarily, if not exclusively, it is about the desire to experience physical pleasure and release. Frankly, if it were about forming a genuine and substantive emotional connection with someone, a few hours conversing in tavern over a hot meal would better serve than a few hours (or minutes, for you efficiency experts) in bed atop a hot babe/dude. (Sorry, but ... no one rolls into town thinking, Here's my chance to find some needy person and give myself to her/him selflessly.) In addition, those high Charisma paladins don't seem to be sharing themselves with the average or homely. It's always about finding some perfect wench/stud that can make the night worth their while.
Contraception has always been about avoiding the possible consequences of your actions—about having your cake (or cock) and eating it, too, as it were.
And the idea that you can treat someone like a person by meeting them and banging them within the hour is a specious one. All you're doing at that point is seducing them (and perhaps yourself) with the illusion of caring about their welfare, the better to get into their pants/panties and get your rocks off. That, too, is most emphatically something a paladin such as the idealistic type I described above just wouldn't do. (Those exemplars of an alignment or a deity might be another story, of course.)
Using each other just means you're both doing evil. Consent is most emphatically not a panacea justifying indulgence, and any paladin truly worth his or her spurs would know that.
Paladins are immune to fear, that doesn't meant they are immune to having a sex drive.
Of course whatever they get up to, they simply can't lie. Which could be a kinky dare all in itself...
"So paladin, do you like this?"
I... must admit that I do."
|
|
I am distraught good fellows, I was watching a new anime, and my favourite paladin died.
Modern Japan setting, the guy was a ghoul hunter, very dedicated. Caring and supportive towards his comrades. Truly hated the ghouls. Uninterested in advancement, only the hunt mattered, so as to put down the flesh-eaters. Extremely brutal fighter, quite cruel towards ghouls, always very honest that their death was coming. Made good use of taunting and a range of attacks to take out the ghouls, including reach weapons like a giant spiked chain.
Alas he didn't make it! Ah well.
I know which anime you are talking about and NO that guy is NOT a paladin.
Cruel and paladin don't go hand in hand.
I disagree. He is always frightfully honest as to what is in store for them, and he attacks evil without restraint.
Very close to a paladin of an anti-undead god. As to cruelty, yes, cruel towards ghouls. Cruel towards creatures that eat people, and cruel towards ghouls that try to hide what they are. The anime gives him the mannerisms of a bit of a crazy person, but I saw fierce devotion to eradicating ghouls, along with, as I said, real care for his comrades and people often ripped apart by ghouls. He hunts because he must. Personally and for society.
Also the white outfit with white hair and implacable fearless nature really felt very paladin to me. I don't mind the darker paladins, because a lot of fantasy really does have its dark side, including Golarion. Paladins have to watch out they don't become monsters, but there is a whole lot of monster killing to be done - even to just protect one beleaguered town from threats.
ok now im beyond curious what anime are you all talking about, sounds epicly awesome :D lol
I would think that a good example would be Batman. Has a morale code that he lives by about no guns and killing but he also does what needs to be done to stop the evil and corruption.Which Batman?
Batman has gone through a lot of incarnations.
+1
Batman has done things that fit every alignment, although he's usually not evil. But he's still usually darker than a paladin.
From a less traditional angle, there is Michael Carpenter from The Dresedn Files. Skin Game should be required reading for anyone wanting to play a Pally. A good man of unshakeable faith and unending patience.
Besides, everyong should read Skin Game, ** spoiler omitted **
Michael was the reason I wanted to play a paladin in kingmaker :)
Best Paladin I ever read :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ok now im beyond curious what anime are you all talking about, sounds epicly awesome :D lolI am distraught good fellows, I was watching a new anime, and my favourite paladin died.
Modern Japan setting, the guy was a ghoul hunter, very dedicated. Caring and supportive towards his comrades. Truly hated the ghouls. Uninterested in advancement, only the hunt mattered, so as to put down the flesh-eaters. Extremely brutal fighter, quite cruel towards ghouls, always very honest that their death was coming. Made good use of taunting and a range of attacks to take out the ghouls, including reach weapons like a giant spiked chain.
Alas he didn't make it! Ah well.
I know which anime you are talking about and NO that guy is NOT a paladin.
Cruel and paladin don't go hand in hand.
I disagree. He is always frightfully honest as to what is in store for them, and he attacks evil without restraint.
Very close to a paladin of an anti-undead god. As to cruelty, yes, cruel towards ghouls. Cruel towards creatures that eat people, and cruel towards ghouls that try to hide what they are. The anime gives him the mannerisms of a bit of a crazy person, but I saw fierce devotion to eradicating ghouls, along with, as I said, real care for his comrades and people often ripped apart by ghouls. He hunts because he must. Personally and for society.
Also the white outfit with white hair and implacable fearless nature really felt very paladin to me. I don't mind the darker paladins, because a lot of fantasy really does have its dark side, including Golarion. Paladins have to watch out they don't become monsters, but there is a whole lot of monster killing to be done - even to just protect one beleaguered town from threats.
The anime in question is Tokyo Ghoul. And NO WAY that Mado is a Paladin. The part that Under the Bridge is missing is that not all Ghouls are evil. Some of theme take great pains to no kill humans despite their hunger for human flesh. Someone that kills Good creatures because their race, even if 95% of the race is evil, can't be a Paladin.
He kills a woman Ghoul while her daughter is there, and mocks the child. Difficult to see something less paladinesque, but he would be a great anti-undead Inquisitor.It's a angsty but good anime.
Ghouls are chaotic evil. Mado is completely feasible for Golarion, or any D&D-AD&D-3.5 setting where all ghouls are evil flesh eaters on the look out for people-chow.
As to the anime, I'm not sold ghouls aren't evil. Some are canny, some are better at hiding their natures than others, but I'm with Mado on this one. Yes, team Mado. Paladin Mado the just.
http://generallycritical.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/tokyo-ghoul-3-12.png
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/F0vMnVBKd-Y/hqdefault.jpg
The anime in question is Tokyo Ghoul. And NO WAY that Mado is a Paladin. The part that Under the Bridge is missing is that not all Ghouls are evil. Some of...ok now im beyond curious what anime are you all talking about, sounds epicly awesome :D lolI am distraught good fellows, I was watching a new anime, and my favourite paladin died.
Modern Japan setting, the guy was a ghoul hunter, very dedicated. Caring and supportive towards his comrades. Truly hated the ghouls. Uninterested in advancement, only the hunt mattered, so as to put down the flesh-eaters. Extremely brutal fighter, quite cruel towards ghouls, always very honest that their death was coming. Made good use of taunting and a range of attacks to take out the ghouls, including reach weapons like a giant spiked chain.
Alas he didn't make it! Ah well.
I know which anime you are talking about and NO that guy is NOT a paladin.
Cruel and paladin don't go hand in hand.
I disagree. He is always frightfully honest as to what is in store for them, and he attacks evil without restraint.
Very close to a paladin of an anti-undead god. As to cruelty, yes, cruel towards ghouls. Cruel towards creatures that eat people, and cruel towards ghouls that try to hide what they are. The anime gives him the mannerisms of a bit of a crazy person, but I saw fierce devotion to eradicating ghouls, along with, as I said, real care for his comrades and people often ripped apart by ghouls. He hunts because he must. Personally and for society.
Also the white outfit with white hair and implacable fearless nature really felt very paladin to me. I don't mind the darker paladins, because a lot of fantasy really does have its dark side, including Golarion. Paladins have to watch out they don't become monsters, but there is a whole lot of monster killing to be done - even to just protect one beleaguered town from threats.
Once found out, she actually resisted and attacked Mado and the investigators. Yes, to protect her child, but they do actually take in ghouls for questioning and also make use of catch and release (to find more ghoul scum, as they know they are social creatures). The flesh eating criminals resisted, but Mado sure has a whole lot of goad to get them to commit/sacrifice themselves.
|
|
What's wrong with that?You said this multiple times in your post. Rather than continuing here—both because someone pointed out that there's another thread discussing it, and because I should learn not to be drawn into these conversations any longer—I'll just respond thus: We could go round and round about this. It's pretty apparent we're not going to convince each other. I've explained my position. You've done so with yours. Never the twain shall meet.
Thanks for your perspective.
Fair enough. I highly agree with your main point (if you need subtle reasonings to explain why what you did wasn't Bad, you're not playing a paladin), just not with the side point.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One big thing - remember that the court system isn't like our modern one. Torture may be evil - summary execution for evil doers isn't evil. Holding a serial killer captive for the days needed to haul him back to town is just asking for something to go wrong.
I think of paladins this way:
(scene - paladin standing with blade drawn over an evil blackguard (or whatever) who has been disarmed, bound, and who's on his knees)
Paladin: "I find you guilty of murder, slavery, demon worship, and" he touches a cut on his face, "assault. The sentence is death."
Blackguard (or whatever): "Please forgive me!"
Paladin: *nods* "I forgive you. The count of assault is dropped. The sentence of death still stands."
Blackguard (or whatever): "But I thought you said you forgave me."
Paladin: "I do. But I can only forgive you for what you did to me. Justice must still be done for what you inflicted upon others."
*schlink* (sound of the paladin's sword coming down and decapitating the blackguard)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My take on paladins is that they're like the military arm of the church. They're quite good at dealing with demons, undead and dragons. They're not trained for civil conflicts; it's their job to keep out the eldritch things from beyond so that regular clerics and inquisitors can deal with that.
As a result, paladins have a reduced jurisdiction and responsibility for such things. You don't send paladins to investigate a burglary. They wouldn't have a clue how to deal with it, and they're fairly bad at subtle response to criminals.
Police and military are separate jobs. Paladins are military. They might lend a hand, in the kind of situations where the National Guard might get called in. But normally police work is outside of their jurisdiction.
For my future campaigns where I am GM (not the current campaign that already has a paladin), I'm going to include the following in the pre-campaign write-up.
If you want to play a holy warrior dedicated to X deity, please consider the inquisitor. That doesn't have the oath as part of the class.
If you want to play a paladin, you as player and I as GM will need to work it out before the game. What does your paladin require in certain types of moral/ethical quandary situations (goblin babies, surrendered opponents not near authorities, authorities are bad guys, slavery (or whatever) is legal in this country, redemption of devils/demons, pretty sure of guilt, lack of evidence, what crimes warrant capitol punishment, etc...) must be worked out and written down before game day. *
I will allow a lot of lee way, but there are limits. I can not be convinced that horrible evil for the eventual greater good, torture, cruelty, greed, etc... are acceptable for paladin behavior.
A ping on Detect Evil does NOT justify unprovoked murder. A person/creature can be evil and not yet have committed any crime that warrants death.
Other players can raise a point or ask a question during game play, but 2 hour game stopping arguments about a paladin always / never must / can't / should / wouldn't whatever will not be tolerated. It is between the player and the GM. The rest of you just shut the heck up about it.
{{ That is during game time. Out of game time, please feel free to discuss it all you want. That is reasonable and encouraged activity. }}*
How does the above sound to you folks?
|
|
One big thing - remember that the court system isn't like our modern one. Torture may be evil - summary execution for evil doers isn't evil. Holding a serial killer captive for the days needed to haul him back to town is just asking for something to go wrong.IMO, this is a paladin who emphasizes lawfulness over goodness. It's also rather situational. If the paladin himself is the baron, or if he is the King's Justice, or if his church is charged with administering justice, it'd be entirely right. On the other hand, if the paladin is not the proper authority, then he ought to take this murderer to the proper authorities.
That's my entire point. You're assuming that a medieval world has a robust and fair justice system. You're applying a modern worldview on a medieval world. Mostly the courts would just be the local noble sitting down and doing his best guess based upon testimony. And who should he believe? The paladin!
And technically it isn't emphasizing lawfulness. If they were - they'd go to court. It's emphasizing justice. (Which paladins should do IMO. They aren't proficient with armor & swords so that they can hold a food drive.)
|
|
For my future campaigns where I am GM (not the current campaign that already has a paladin), I'm going to include the following in the pre-campaign write-up.
How does the above sound to you folks?If you want to play a holy warrior dedicated to X deity, please consider the inquisitor. That doesn't have the oath as part of the class.
If you want to play a paladin, you as player and I as GM will need to work it out before the game. What does your paladin require in certain types of moral/ethical quandary situations (goblin babies, surrendered opponents not near authorities, authorities are bad guys, slavery (or whatever) is legal in this country, redemption of devils/demons, pretty sure of guilt, lack of evidence, what crimes warrant capitol punishment, etc...) must be worked out and written down before game day. *
I will allow a lot of lee way, but there are limits. I can not be convinced that horrible evil for the eventual greater good, torture, cruelty, greed, etc... are acceptable for paladin behavior.
A ping on Detect Evil does NOT justify unprovoked murder. A person/creature can be evil and not yet have committed any crime that warrants death.
Other players can raise a point or ask a question during game play, but 2 hour game stopping arguments about a paladin always / never must / can't / should / wouldn't whatever will not be tolerated. It is between the player and the GM. The rest of you just shut the heck up about it.
{{ That is during game time. Out of game time, please feel free to discuss it all you want. That is reasonable and encouraged activity. }}*
Pretty good - but you might want to address the fact that some paladins want to hold the rest of the group to their standards.
I'd say that while a paladin can't lie - he doesn't have to tell everyone when someone else in the group does etc.
...
Butters is certainly good and becoming holy. He kinda idolizes both Michael (very LG) and Harry (closer to CG). I just don't think we've seen enough of his decisions to decide on whether he is or will become lawful.
It is definitely possible to be a good and holy warrior with out being either a paladin or lawful. I can easily see butters as more of an oracle, inquisitor, or holy vindicator type personality. Actually, I think in PF terms I would construct him as an alchemist that is trying to multiclass into holy vindicator.Yes, I read it. It is a great book. Not my favorite of the series but in the top 3.
|
|
@Kydeem: sounds pretty reasonable, although you should also address the point Charon raised;
Pretty good - but you might want to address the fact that some paladins want to hold the rest of the group to their standards.
I'd say that while a paladin can't lie - he doesn't have to tell everyone when someone else in the group does etc.
Make sure you and the player are on the same page about how much responsibility a paladin has for the behaviour of other PCs. I'd say he's somewhat responsible - no condoning pillaging sprees - but not to Big Brother levels either.
In my games, people who want to play paladins require some consent from other players, because they do place some restrictions on what other people can reasonably play. But so do people who want to play "nasty" characters that normal, sane characters might not want to be in a party with. And I'm openly biased towards allowing paladins rather than demoniacs.
...
Pretty good - but you might want to address the fact that some paladins want to hold the rest of the group to their standards.I'd say that while a paladin can't lie - he doesn't have to tell everyone when someone else in the group does etc.
.
...
Make sure you and the player are on the same page about how much responsibility a paladin has for the behaviour of other PCs. I'd say he's somewhat responsible - no condoning pillaging sprees - but not to Big Brother levels either.In my games, people who want to play paladins require some consent from other players, because they do place some restrictions on what other people can reasonably play. But so do people who want to play "nasty" characters that normal, sane characters might not want to be in a party with. And I'm openly biased towards allowing paladins rather than demoniacs.
Ok, I added a couple other items to the things that need to be worked out.
..
1) If you want to play a holy warrior dedicated to X deity, please consider the inquisitor. That doesn't have the oath as part of the class.
2) If you want to play a paladin, make sure it will not conflict with the desires of the rest of the party. I'm not allowing anti-paladins and paladins in the same groups since that is pretty much guaranteed to end up with PvP.
3) If you still want to play a paladin, you as player and I as GM will need to work it out before the game. What does your paladin require in certain types of moral/ethical quandary situations (goblin babies, surrendered opponents not near authorities, authorities are bad guys, slavery (or whatever) is legal in this country, redemption of devils/demons, pretty sure of guilt, lack of evidence, what crimes warrant capitol punishment, lies by associates, standards of associates, etc...) must be worked out and written down before game day. *
4) I will allow a lot of lee way, but there are limits. I can not be convinced that horrible evil for the eventual greater good, torture, cruelty, greed, etc... are acceptable for paladin behavior.
5) A paladin should not have to struggle or engage in complex sophistry to justify their actions to others of the same faith. They are the beacon and example, it should be obvious.
6) A ping on Detect Evil does NOT justify unprovoked murder. A person/creature can be evil and not yet have committed any crime that warrants death.
7) Other players can raise a point or ask a question during game play, but 2 hour game stopping arguments about a paladin always / never must / can't / should / wouldn't whatever will not be tolerated. It is between the player and the GM. The rest of you just shut the heck up about it.
{{ That is during game time. Out of game time, please feel free to discuss it all you want. That is reasonable and encouraged activity. }}*
How does the above sound to you folks?
The problem with "how to play a paladin" has more to do with the relativistic morality introduced once the characters are worshipping deities whose definitions of "lawful" and "good" are so vastly divergent that a paladin of Charlemagne (one of legend and not fact, mind you) would likely find one of, say, Shelyn to not only be unlawful, but arguably evil in his or her outlook.
It is good that you qualified that as the legend rather than fact.
Frankly, those who point to Captain America as a shining example of a paladin are time on target. His loyalty is not to the United States, but to God and Country, if you grok the distinction.
Simple rule: If you have to worry about constructing subtle arguments to defend your behavior to the casual observer, you're not behaving as a paladin would. Thus, torturing captives, whacking babies (even baby dragons, orcs and demons) and sleeping around, despite the fervent, desperate desire of various players and DMs to justify it (and their invariable employment of sophistry to do so), ain't the behavior of a paladin.
Note of course that the above applies only to the original concept of paladin for D&D, which owes a tremendous debt to traditional Judeo-Christian morality. If instead you're one who prefers more the "exemplars of alignment" or "animate showcases for a particular deity's ideals" take, well ... that's an entirely different story. If you're goin' that way instead, knock yourselves out.
I would say true to his god's teachings and those teachings are of goodness. The lawful is mostly the strictures that the paladin holds themselves to in their following of their god.
A paladin of Shelyn and a paladin of Erastil are quite different, and I can see a follower of one questioning the virtue of the paladin of the other. Mix in Sarenrae and Abadon and you get quite a mix of differing expectations.
None of the paladins should have to explain their actions to one of their own faith.
...
None of the paladins should have to explain their actions to one of their own faith.
I like and am stealing that!
|
|
A paladin of Shelyn and a paladin of Erastil are quite different, and I can see a follower of one questioning the virtue of the paladin of the other. Mix in Sarenrae and Abadon and you get quite a mix of differing expectations.This could make for an interesting adventure, actually. Imagine a small frontier community. The local cleric of Erastil asks the PCs (including, perhaps, a paladin of Erastil) to rescue kidnapped villagers. The PCs hat up and go after the orcs ... only to find that the orcs merely fight defensively. As the PCs invade, they hear orcs yelling to get the women and children to safety. The orcs turn out to be quite amenable to negotiation, releasing the kidnapping victims in exchange for food.
But ... the final kidnappee (and the daughter of the local cleric of Erastil) is ... in love with the half-orc chieftain's son! They've retreated to a remote temple to Shelyn, and the players find that there's a paladin of Shelyn (goddess of love and beauty) defending the young lovers.
Yes... because it isn't likely Stockholme Syndrome :P
|
|
Or maybe the whole "kidnapping" was a ruse orchestrated by the chieftain's son and his lover so they could be together ... oh dear, that'd be even funnier. The players and the chieftain figuring out how to save face ...Yes... because it isn't likely Stockholme Syndrome :PA paladin of Shelyn and a paladin of Erastil are quite different, and I can see a follower of one questioning the virtue of the paladin of the other. Mix in Sarenrae and Abadon and you get quite a mix of differing expectations.This could make for an interesting adventure, actually. Imagine a small frontier community. The local cleric of Erastil asks the PCs (including, perhaps, a paladin of Erastil) to rescue kidnapped villagers. The PCs hat up and go after the orcs ... only to find that the orcs merely fight defensively. As the PCs invade, they hear orcs yelling to get the women and children to safety. The orcs turn out to be quite amenable to negotiation, releasing the kidnapping victims in exchange for food.
But ... the final kidnappee (and the daughter of the local cleric of Erastil) is ... in love with the half-orc chieftain's son! They've retreated to a remote temple to Shelyn, and the players find that there's a paladin of Shelyn (goddess of love and beauty) defending the young lovers.
'
Wouldn't that make both of them horrible people? They kidnapped several other people - likely killing innocents along the way - just so that they could be together? What jack-donkeys! Someone may deserve some smiting after all!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But ... the final kidnappee (and the daughter of the local cleric of Erastil) is ... in love with the half-orc chieftain's son! They've retreated to a remote temple to Shelyn, and the players find that there's a paladin of Shelyn (goddess of love and beauty) defending the young lovers.
It would be interesting for the Paladin of Erastil at that point. Does he help wed the lovers because it would strengthen the community as a whole? In general, Paladins and Clerics of Erastil are very amenable to shot-gun weddings that would strengthen the community.
Another slant on this would be a Paladin of Erastil forcing someone to wed a person they don't love. I could see a Paladin of Shelyn trying to prevent that.
|
|
But ... the final kidnappee (and the daughter of the local cleric of Erastil) is ... in love with the half-orc chieftain's son! They've retreated to a remote temple to Shelyn, and the players find that there's a paladin of Shelyn (goddess of love and beauty) defending the young lovers.It would be interesting for the Paladin of Erastil at that point. Does he help wed the lovers because it would strengthen the community as a whole? In general, Paladins and Clerics of Erastil are very amenable to shot-gun weddings that would strengthen the community.
Another slant on this would be a Paladin of Erastil forcing someone to wed a person they don't love. I could see a Paladin of Shelyn trying to prevent that.
See - IMO I think you guys are starting to think as if they're inquisitors, not paladins, focused more upon their deity's wants than the greater picture of justice and righteousness.
|
I would agree that Carrot Ironfounderson, Karen Murphy, and Michael Carpenter are all LG.
Vimes? Not so sure. It depends on which book you are reading. In a couple he is at best NG and edging pretty close to CG.
I think I would say Vimes is NG with CE tendencies. So he tries to force himself to behave as if LG to keep from losing control and becoming one of the bad guys.
I think that is what disqualifies him of pally-hood, but NG/CG with CE tendices? Not so much. He may have started out CG, but doesn't forcing himself to act LG just make him LG with flavor? He is always on the edge of loosing it, but holds himself up to a standard he will not deviate from. He knows the monster is in him, and that if he justifies ANYTHING, he will eventualy justify EVERYTHING.
Not sure if I would call Carrot a paladin or not. Might be just a pretty smart and highly charismatic fighter. Not sure I've seen him do anything that really screams paladin-ish to me other than following the code. But anyone could decide to really stick to the code.
Agree... Pally-hood is about faith in a higher power, and Carrot hasn't really shown any. Of course this seems to be pretty standard on the Disk. There are a LOT of gods (they have a god of Hangovers for dog's sake) but the religions don't seem to have a huge impact on the day-to-day lives of the inhabitance. Then again, Carrot can be said to have faith in goodness. He seems to believe in the goodness of everyone, despite the evidence to the contrary.
Then again, it’s been years since I read the books, and that may be my memories messing with me…
If I set this up as a GM, I'm not looking to create a situation where I tell the player, "You were a bad paladin, you fell lol." Rather, I would want to create an interesting situation that the players could solve with RP rather than combat, if they so choose.
Exactly my thoughts. They can both be correct (for their religion) and yet not agree.
It would even be possible for both to get what they want if they try hard enough. The paladin of Erastil isn't against love, they just are more concerned with the stability of the rural community than they are about marriages of love.
I think that is what disqualifies him of pally-hood, but NG/CG with CE tendices? Not so much. He may have started out CG, but doesn't forcing himself to act LG just make him LG with flavor? He is always on the edge of loosing it, but holds himself up to a standard he will not deviate from. He knows the monster is in him, and that if he justifies ANYTHING, he will eventualy justify EVERYTHING. ...I would agree that Carrot Ironfounderson, Karen Murphy, and Michael Carpenter are all LG.
Vimes? Not so sure. It depends on which book you are reading. In a couple he is at best NG and edging pretty close to CG.
I think I would say Vimes is NG with CE tendencies. So he tries to force himself to behave as if LG to keep from losing control and becoming one of the bad guys.
There are several times where he makes everyone adhere to the law, but in his head he says something like "Because if anyone is going to go to far outside the law it has to be me."
He often seems to have a 'do as I say not as I do' attitude. Behaving in a lawful manner, except when I really need to do something outside the law. I don't think of that as lawful even if it is in their best interest.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are several times where he makes everyone adhere to the law, but in his head he says something like "Because if anyone is going to go to far outside the law it has to be me."I think that is what disqualifies him of pally-hood, but NG/CG with CE tendices? Not so much. He may have started out CG, but doesn't forcing himself to act LG just make him LG with flavor? He is always on the edge of loosing it, but holds himself up to a standard he will not deviate from. He knows the monster is in him, and that if he justifies ANYTHING, he will eventualy justify EVERYTHING. ...I would agree that Carrot Ironfounderson, Karen Murphy, and Michael Carpenter are all LG.
Vimes? Not so sure. It depends on which book you are reading. In a couple he is at best NG and edging pretty close to CG.
I think I would say Vimes is NG with CE tendencies. So he tries to force himself to behave as if LG to keep from losing control and becoming one of the bad guys.
Yes, but how often does he actually go outside of the law? Saying something in your head doesn't make a paladin fall, even by the strictest of RAW.
He often seems to have a 'do as I say not as I do' attitude.
I think it's better described as a 'do as I say, not as I want to do' attitude.
I don't think anyone in Discworld really qualifies as a paladin, in part because the gods of Discworld aren't really the sort that lend themselves to that sort of whole-hearted devotion. Since they tend to have the morals and manners of spoiled children, it's hard to respect that kind of whimsy. (And by extension, the people who are capable of giving the all-too-flawed gods that kind of devotion tend not to be particularly good themselves.)
But with that said, I think that Vimes acts almost like a type specimen of lawful good, and that's how he comes across in the books that are written from someone else's point of view (e.g., The Truth, Monstrous Regiment). Being tempted to evil will not make a paladin fall, only yielding to that temptation. And if there's one thing that Vimes is really good at, it's not yielding.
... Being tempted to evil will not make a paladin fall, only yielding to that temptation. And if there's one thing that Vimes is really good at, it's not yielding.
Agreed. However there have been those few times...
Specifically, I'm think of the book where he went back in time. There are a few times in that book where he did yield to temptation a did do some things that were good but clearly not lawful.
There have been a few in other books as well. Times he arrested people when he didn't have jurisdiction or for things that should have been a crime but weren't.
Are those few events enough to push him out of LG to NG? Maybe not. I would have to give a more careful read of the books sometime more recently than a couple decades ago to really decide.
I wouldn't have any heartburn if one of my players modeled their PC off Vimes and called him LG. Just not sure I would do the same myself.
However, I certainly would not call him a paladin. Yet I know many people do.
|
|
In large part that might depend upon how much one think's Lawful Good is necessarily following the actual Law, and how much it is following a code. I've always thought of it being the latter.
After all - laws are external and you have no control over it. You have total control over any oaths and/or personal code.
The thing is there are as many good ways to play a paladin as there are players.
You can be dark grim and moody (good doesn't necessarily mean nice). You can also be butterflies, rainbows and unicorns or anything in between. As long as you do the right thing it doesn't matter.
The only advice I would give you is TALK TO YOUR DM. Establish his expectations of behaviour. Discuss your ideas for how you want to play it. Set up a paladins code between you. In the long run this will save a lot of time and aggro.
In large part that might depend upon how much one think's Lawful Good is necessarily following the actual Law, and how much it is following a code. I've always thought of it being the latter.
After all - laws are external and you have no control over it. You have total control over any oaths and/or personal code.
Agreed.
But I would counter that Vimes' code IS the law. Been to long but I can remember something about him being worried about the monster inside him getting loose and becoming the evil nightmare. So he decided that being the law was the way to try and keep that from happening.
|
|
Again, I see Vimes as being LG with LOTS of flavor text. His actions are LG, even if he has to continously convince himself (via internal monolog)to act that way. We only get to see the conflict beacuse we, as the readers, get to hear inner thoughts.
Agreed. However there have been those few times...
Specifically, I'm think of the book where he went back in time. There are a few times in that book where he did yield to temptation a did do some things that were good but clearly not lawful.
This is more about non-Pally than non-lawfull. he was in a crappy situation, dealing with crapy people, and crapy laws. He made decisions that he was not happy with, but not bad enough to force an alignment change.
There have been a few in other books as well. Times he arrested people when he didn't have jurisdiction or for things that should have been a crime but weren't.
in those instances he followed the spirit of Law rather than the letter. he did at one point try to arrest the Patrician for treason. And in a lot of cases, afterward he tried to change the letter as well.
However, I certainly would not call him a paladin. Yet I know many people do.
Absolutly agree.