Common foot soldiers will often stay and fight to the death against overwhelming odds.
I am sorry but do you even know any actual soldiers/military people? Or do you mean soldier's in RPG's?
I know a TON of current and former servicemen and women and staying and fighting to the death is nowhere on their bucket list if ANY other option lets them live. That is called fighting smart.
Are they willing to fight and die in service of their country? Yes if they have to and have no other options. But saying soldiers often stay and fight to the death is ridiculous.
As General Patton said, "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
And while Paladins are an exception to REALITY in that they are motivated and willing to die for their cause in ways that real people aren't, the ones with BRAINS in their heads still do not put it at the top of 'things to do today'. They realize a futile death that accomplishes nothing is neither advancing the cause of good or helping protect anyone/anything.
The DO value the lives of innocents over their own and will die to protect others, but if that sacrifice does not actually SAVE lives then it is a waste and most Paladins, as people with brains, know that.
Yes, I'm talking about footsoldiers in D&D/Pathfinder, ever since D&D got rid of morale checks.
Anyway bestiaries/codexes/adventures entries usually have a Morale section which indicates the creature strategy, especially when losing
Yes, I'm talking about footsoldiers in D&D/Pathfinder, ever since D&D got rid of morale checks.
... In Pathfinder scenarios, it seems to be the default tactic. I can remember one crime boss fought to the death because we would not give him a 50 gp bribe. Ridiculous.
That
That is more a flaw with the gaming group and not the game system IMO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're undercutting your own defense.
You first quote the reason the paladin was made, which was AD&D. THEN you turn around and endorse him being put under the cavaliar, which was NOT the reason he was originally made.
You're not making any sense or you're unable to follow the discussion.
You tried to claim that the Paladin is the KISA. I pointed out that AD&D introduced the Cavalier because not all KISA are Paladins. Then you tried to tell me that Cavaliers were "lawful stupid" but not Paladins. Except that the same book in which Cavalier were introduced to AD&D is the same book in which Paladins became a subclass of the Cavalier. So every criticism you leveled at Cavaliers, you unwittingly attached to Paladins.
So, stick to one set of arguments. I'm arguing the original paladin and cavaliar, you're arguing the paladin-under-UA-which-is-a-European-Knight-trope.Then you don't know what you're talking about because their never was a Cavalier separate from a Paladin in AD&D. When Cavalier came into being, AD&D stuck Paladins with the same burden.
Again, that's not what we are talking about.
If you're arguing 'later revisions to the paladin', then I can simply note that the cavaliar was downtoned in 2e to a Kit of the fighter, and paladins became their own class again. YAY.
So, either we're arguing original class concepts, or we're arguing later revisions of them. Make up your mind. I'm arguing the beginning of both classes, and you are trying to set a double standard.
And all KISA aren't cavaliers, either, and I never said Paladins were the only ones. But Paladins were meant as that stereotype. There's no reason you can't have a fighter as saintly as a paladin, just lacking the 17 Charisma. Just because paladins were meant to embody the trope, didn't mean they excluded everyone else from it!
But Paladins were indeed very much meant to be the trope, and people playing them lawful stupid who didn't know how to be heroes are the ones deviating from the code.
==Aelryinth
Fascinating.
I see what you did there. :)
|
I tend to fluctuate between mildly amused and mildly irritated when someone claims they know the "one true way" to play a paladin, especially when that way is some form of nutjob.
Let's make this clear, in Pathfinder at least, paladins are bound by a code of behavior, yes. That code varies slightly from paladin to paladin, but in general there is nothing that prevents a paladin from working with people of differing religions or moralities. It's not like in the real world where religions battle compete over who is right. A paladin of Iomedae recognizes that Desna exists, and in general will be favorable towards worshippers of Desna even though she's a chaotic deity because followers of Desna tend to be good people. The paladin might have disagreements over specific points of doctrine or social policies, but they don't have to make a deal out of it (some might, but then some people are jerks). Read up on the Inner Sea gods, there are big sections explaining how the various faithful get along with each other, and (shock of shocks) people of different world views can still find common ground. Paladins of Torag get along great with followers of Cayden Cailean, and paladins of Serenrae are open and accepting of EVERYBODY (including evil people that may be redeemed) due to their deity's generous and redemptive nature (not to say they will abide evil acts or fail to strike down evil should it be necessary). Most of the gods (even some of the evil gods, particularly Asmodeus) are on at least cordial terms with one another, and few of them have any expectation that their faithful should impose their will on others. Hell, there are paladins in the Chelish Hellknight Orders for Pete's sake! If paladins can justify serving Cheliax, there is far more latitude in paladin codes than you are allowing for.
Also, on the subject of fighting pointless battles that will result in their companions dying, several of the paladin codes expressly forbid that. Serenrae's paladin code has an explicit commandment to protect their allies, a paladin of Serenrae that needlessly endangers their allies has violated their oaths and should lose their paladinhood. Also, many of the codes command the paladin to fight meaningful battles (and to, you know, try to avoid dying). The paladin is absolutely willing to give up their life in productive sacrifice, but they aren't required to fight absolutely everything regardless of the outcome.
Again, that's not what we are talking about.There is no "we" in this discussion. You repeatedly march out straw man arguments and then knock them down as if you've won a debate.
Just because paladins were meant to embody the trope, didn't mean they excluded everyone else from it!
But Paladins were indeed very much meant to be the trope, and people playing them lawful stupid who didn't know how to be...
Neither statement addresses or refutes any point I've made.
But by all means, carry on.
The sure sign that you've lost an argument is when somebody responds directly to what you just posted and you say they didn't.
Thank you, on to the next subject!
==Aelryinth
|
That is the thing with Paladins. They have no fight or flight reflex only a fight or fight some more reflex. Also trying to torture information out of a Paladin is any exercise in frustration.Getting information via torture is generally not nearly as effective in real life as it is for Jack Bauer. The CIA after all sponsored overseas torture mills for decades, and yet still got caught flatfooted in 9/11.
Actually you are more likely to get false information as they will tell you what they think you want to hear, to get the torture to stop.
Look what Leia did when threatened with the destruction of Alderaan. She told them the rebel base was on Dantooine. But that was at best a half truth if not an outright lie... She knew they were in the process of moving (or already had... I forget the exact timeline of when they actually were on Dantooine vs. the end of the movie when they were on Yavin 4) so by the time the Death Star got there, they would be gone. But, she was telling them SOMETHING to get them to leave Alderaan alone.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...I tend to fluctuate between mildly amused and mildly irritated when someone claims they know the "one true way" to play a paladin, especially when that way is some form of nutjob.
Let's make this clear, in Pathfinder at least, paladins are bound by a code of behavior, yes. That code varies slightly from paladin to paladin, but in general there is nothing that prevents a paladin from working with people of differing religions or moralities. It's not like in the real world where religions battle compete over who is right. A paladin of Iomedae recognizes that Desna exists, and in general will be favorable towards worshippers of Desna even though she's a chaotic deity because followers of Desna tend to be good people. The paladin might have disagreements over specific points of doctrine or social policies, but they don't have to make a deal out of it (some might, but then some people are jerks). Read up on the Inner Sea gods, there are big sections explaining how the various faithful get along with each other, and (shock of shocks) people of different world views can still find common ground. Paladins of Torag get along great with followers of Cayden Cailean, and paladins of Serenrae are open and accepting of EVERYBODY (including evil people that may be redeemed) due to their deity's generous and redemptive nature (not to say they will abide evil acts or fail to strike down evil should it be necessary). Most of the gods (even some of the evil gods, particularly Asmodeus) are on at least cordial terms with one another, and few of them have any expectation that their faithful should impose their will on others. Hell, there are paladins in the Chelish Hellknight Orders for Pete's sake! If paladins can justify serving Cheliax, there is far more latitude in paladin codes than you are allowing for.
Also, on the subject of fighting pointless battles that will result in their companions dying, several of the paladin codes expressly forbid that. Serenrae's paladin code has an explicit
Your changing your rules midstream doesn't make the rest of the posts wrong. It makes you avoiding the counterpoints by 'divine fiat', which, naturally enough, isn't working.
==Aelryinth