|
|
Post by Southpaw on Mar 5, 2017 8:40:01 GMT -5
This is the most Lawful thread I've ever seen. I mean it's like the poster for everything wrong with the alignment. Chaos has some crazy but this is nuts. I could take this more than one way, and I'm curious for a little elaboration. Mostly because I find the great majority of your comments vastly entertaining, because I think they're cool, but could you elaborate a little?  |
|
|
|
Post by lucid on Mar 5, 2017 13:57:58 GMT -5
No, sorry, there comes a time when to open one's mouth further can only serve to detract, and one must simply lower one's shades and walk away.
|
|
|
|
Post by marredwolf on Mar 15, 2017 19:09:11 GMT -5
This is the most Lawful thread I've ever seen. I mean it's like the poster for everything wrong with the alignment. Chaos has some crazy but this is nuts. No, sorry, there comes a time when to open one's mouth further can only serve to detract, and one must simply lower one's shades and walk away. calling someone crazy and dismissing all that they say is a bad way to solve an argument. If you want to call someone "nuts" and devalue their entire argument, just be aware of what you are doing. if you wish to discuss the actual matter at hand, im open to it (tho im sure you would deny the proposition). i can make a very thorough point, but why should i bother when all i get is "you're wrong" or "you're nuts" with no sources or quotations to back up their position. i can make the point, the question is are you willing to consider it... step up and own it, instead of putting your shades down and walking away with a one-liner. |
|
Fenix
~
Sleepless Golem, aka Kenny
If you read this, send me a love note.
Posts: 2,183
|
Post by Fenix on Mar 16, 2017 0:19:14 GMT -5
This is the most Lawful thread I've ever seen. I mean it's like the poster for everything wrong with the alignment. Chaos has some crazy but this is nuts. No, sorry, there comes a time when to open one's mouth further can only serve to detract, and one must simply lower one's shades and walk away. calling someone crazy and dismissing all that they say is a bad way to solve an argument. If you want to call someone "nuts" and devalue their entire argument, just be aware of what you are doing. if you wish to discuss the actual matter at hand, im open to it (tho im sure you would deny the proposition). i can make a very thorough point, but why should i bother when all i get is "you're wrong" or "you're nuts" with no sources or quotations to back up their position. i can make the point, the question is are you willing to consider it... step up and own it, instead of putting your shades down and walking away with a one-liner. You literally called me fk face for pointing out how you were proven wrong nesr every time you repeated a question. Literally. Its part of my signature now. Think you lost the moral high ground faster than a fat kid on a seesaw there kiddo. |
|
|
|
Post by StabbingNirvana on Mar 16, 2017 7:41:45 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure he called you a fk face because of your post in page 1 where you quoted an entire essay response he wrote in reply to other posts with "perhaps you should invest in the fall".
I'm 99.999999999% sure that it is not because you pointed out that he was proven wrong. Literally, your only other post on the thread before that point is you putting a definition of honor and touching on some points about poisoned daggers, assassins, and a really lame example of banditry that is highly arguable.
Get over yourself, dude.
|
|
|
|
Post by lucid on Mar 16, 2017 10:27:04 GMT -5
I would love to discuss it, but you're frothing at the mouth, so...no. The fact that you're doing this is exactly what I was talking about, though, so I guess we are discussing it, after a fashion. I made my point well enough that others figured it out. Either way you can shove your assumptions about me, don't care.
|
|
Fenix
~
Sleepless Golem, aka Kenny
If you read this, send me a love note.
Posts: 2,183
|
Post by Fenix on Mar 16, 2017 12:04:34 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure he called you a fk face because of your post in page 1 where you quoted an entire essay response he wrote in reply to other posts with "perhaps you should invest in the fall". I'm 99.999999999% sure that it is not because you pointed out that he was proven wrong. Literally, your only other post on the thread before that point is you putting a definition of honor and touching on some points about poisoned daggers, assassins, and a really lame example of banditry that is highly arguable. Get over yourself, dude. I respond to this with my initial post, which was preceeded and followed by several other posts by others that said much a similar thing, and discussed many counterpoints with provided sources, such as those by Death and Reaper, where all of the asked information was given, discussion was attempted, and was responded to with inane flailing of arms saying "Yur ignorin mah post an' not reedin!" because nobody agreed with his side. I think that a paladin is defined by his intentions. the statement that the 'road to hell is paved with good intentions' is not something i think makes much sense. i prefer 'the road to failure..." In many ways the paladin is the law himself, or so he sees it that way, my opinion. He is allowed and encouraged to distinguish between a 'bad law' and a good one. as to what he puts ahead of his belief, rather his god first or the law first or the paladinhood first, should be decided by the paladin himself. A paladin does at times seem like a vigilante when you consider that he may decide to go against the law. it could be as dark as the dark knight himself, like Batman, believing in a real sense of justice but without going thru the process of the system of laws, judges and executioners. heard alot of people saying that i play my own paladin the wrong way. what they dont understand is that i never wanted to be a perfect paladin to begin with. by saying that im not doing it right just makes a stronger case for my 'flawed paladin' concept. i want to be flawed, as humans are, and not perfect. if you say im doing it wrong chances are that i have succeeded in my attempt to play my character. wolf munroe said it is a very hard thing to do to walk that fine line with a paladin in frc, that its hard to maintaing the paladinhood in frc. i like playing it the hard way then, to this day i havent received a word that ive fallen my flawed paladin is still a a paladin. that is perfect, exactly what i had in mind. not a fallen or failed paladin, just a flawed being trying his best to do good by more means than most paladins are willing to consider. Paladins are not the law, nor do they see themselves as the law. They -follow- the law, and they follow a code. They however have no authority to enact the laws of any country. They are the will and warrior of their deity. As far as intentions...Not really either. If i killed 30 people with the intention to stop them from doing that in a week, well...thats not Good. Thats a decidedly evil action. Thus, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. You're going to hell because you intended to stop something, but you did it in a sinful manner. Batman isn't lawful good. CG or LN would be more accurate. He doesn't follow laws, he is a vigilante that actively escapes police custody and acts in ways not sanctioned by laws to achieve a GREATER Good. A paladin doesn't go against the law itself, they act within it. Thats why they are LAWFUL good. A CHAOTIC good paladin might do that, but that is not the sort of paladin that is supported or allowed on FRC. So far as your paladin...well, you're not flawed. Honestly from many of the examples of things you gave in the past, he should have fallen as a paladin. Like denouncing his faith, or using poison. Things rather blatantly against a lawful good code, as you could review in a post I was recently corrected in. Literal word for word "They do not use poison as it is against their code." Here, we have my very first post int he thread, where I try to explain the concepts of the Alignment system, and morality in general as a whole. Doing something with good intent doesnt mean good. Killing a child because he is touched by plague isn't mercy, its still murder. The concept he describes is not flaw, it is fallen. The only argument is that the DMs didnt fall him, which they do not tend to do very often here. Your response later in the thread is that the player of Fenix the "druid" shouldnt be saying that. Sure, I accept that, Sir Troll. But the thing is, I have never once stated to be good at playing a Druid. Fenix himself says he is not very good at being a druid, but he does try hard to fulfill that requirement of his PC to the best of his ability. He is a flawed druid, who could be a fallen druid. And at no point in his character have I ever tried to dispute the option of him falling as one. he does not make always the best or the right choices, because when I joined FRC i had never played DND to know what a druid does. And while I welcome the criticism, as you are more than welcome to express in my "Personal Criticisms" thread which relates to my character concept and how it is roleplayed, and has seen a lot of positive impact on myself as a roleplayer and the development of my sole character, I would ask that you do it as someone whom has actually had any real roleplay with him, and not someone who sits there swinging his cock around about how his character literally won't ever see reprecussions about bagging on players, and exists strictly to prove that point Slate. But lets continue. trying to get my stuff together so im in compliance. some questions: the source (dungeons.wikia.com) says that a paladin must "act with honor...not using poison" honor is a term that i find hard to define. the wiki spells out examples. is this universal honor or can you have your own code of honor. what is honor anyway? if i can save a life by giving up my honor, is that an evil act? a personal sacrifice to save others is a wrong act? can a paladin get away with using poison if he/she repents in some way afterwards or everyday? this is under the code of conduct for a paladin whihc says: "...she ever willingly commits an evil act." will then fail as a paladin. why i stated earlier that intention was more important than methods. does "willingly commits an evil act" mean that i can unwillingly do the same and get away with it? (again, the road to hell" my will was to do good, but instead i did evil, my methods sucked). also (looking at that 'evil thread') what is an evil act? is it written down somewhere or is it up to the dm? im sure some are quite clear, but others are not. is losing some honor an evil act or important enough to make a paladin fall? if i wanted to fight an enemy but if i raised my sword and called him out to fight, i would be obliterated. Would I then be allowed to persue more subversive methods in order to win? you can have your honor but you would be dead/fail/others dead, or you can simply play it smart and find a way to win. would i even have that choice available to me? Definition of honor 1 a : good name or public esteem : reputation b : a showing of usually merited respect : recognition <pay honor to our founder> 2 : privilege <had the honor of joining the captain for dinner> 3 : a person of superior standing —now used especially as a title for a holder of high office <if Your Honor please> 4 : one whose worth brings respect or fame : credit <an honor to the profession> 5 : the center point of the upper half of an armorial escutcheon 6 : an evidence or symbol of distinction: such as a : an exalted title or rank b (1) : badge, decoration (2) : a ceremonial rite or observance <buried with full military honors> c : an award in a contest or field of competition d archaic : a gesture of deference : bow e honors plural (1) : an academic distinction conferred on a superior student (2) : a course of study for superior students supplementing or replacing a regular course 7 : chastity, purity <fought fiercely for her honor and her life — Barton Black> 8 a : a keen sense of ethical conduct : integrity <a man of honor> b : one's word given as a guarantee of performance <on my honor, I will be there> 9 honors plural : social courtesies or civilities extended by a host <asked her to do the honors> 10 a (1) : an ace, king, queen, jack, or ten especially of the trump suit in bridge (2) : the scoring value of honors held in bridge —usually used in plural b : the privilege of playing first from the tee in golf Youre not going to get away with using poison every day. Its dishonorable, and evil. You would be willingly committing an evil act everyday, and there fore not a paladin. I imagine once your god may let it go. After youve dine it eight times this week hes probably going to tell you to get bent, as would any cleric. Yknow why assassins are evil? The lack of moral ambiguity to commit the evil acts they do, often involving poison, as per the class description. Intention doesnt supercede methods. If i intended to stop a shopkeeper from being extorted by killing the bandits and their every friend, or extorting them, did i save the shopkeep or just become the same thing? Id be acting evil, even though my "intention" was to protect someone. Dnd keeps it pretty cut and dry clear. Not really ambiguous In this post, I answer his first question. "How does one define honor?". I tend to think the dictionary definition of Honor is a pretty good place to start, thus why I quoted this excerpt from the Webster's English Dictionary. I quoted the definition in its entirety, as it gives a great deal of thorough examination in few words, which if read in that same entirety can be a very enlightening addition to the discussion! That establishes a preemptive basis of the initial point being asked; What is Honor? How does one define honor, and what does it mean? Well, now thats open for interpretation that could have been expanded on and discussed further. The examples he cited of his own design, such as fighting an army but calling out a single opponent for an honorable duel, well...They don't seem to add up. He equates Honor with victory by any means. By getting "obliterated" for fighting in a single man encounter, you did not lose honor for being defeated. You lost victory. Victory by any means necessary however, does not constitute honor, as shown by the fact his paladin uses a poisoned dagger that he spent an exorbitant amount of money on to acquire. Two points, Paladin code strictly and directly marks against the use of poison, as it is not "honorable". Paladins are also known for not spending lavishly on themselves, and instead contributing a major portion of their income to the church, as shown by several members of the Triad. So, bearing that all there, we cna move on to my next post. a very insightful post, and thanks for the continued politeness of this discussion. i am indeed trying to find potential options, but from what i gather this is not the way to go. perhaps im reading the room wrong. i find that in every instance of the term 'honor' being used throughout history, it relates to the (paladin) person trying to hold onto some form of personal recognition. this is a selfish thing in my opinion. tho widely accepted in most cultures it does not deviate from the idea of a personal moral victory. Not one that puts others ahead of himself. imo. with that being said, and that argument can go on for days, i feel that there is something more important to define a paladin's state of mind. the paladin code, together with the purple dragons own code, adhere to the idea that if the law is wrong it should not be followed. you must try to think on this... who decides the answer to that question? a paladin does not go around asking people what they think and then making a decision. it doesnt even involve praying to your god and asking for insight, tho this would be a wise decision, the decision ends up being left to the paladin himself. it is the very definition of a vigilante. my paladin gets to decide whether this or that law should be enforced or acted against. as far as the rules that ive read this is the case, the paladin decides. this should not be the case for purple dragons. these individuals should function like the US army, do your goddam job. That's a rule on the 'official' book of the purples that should be addressed, enforce the law instead of siding with a paladin's oath. it makes sense for a paladin tho, to distinguish between what -he- thinks is right and wrong. But still, it is the paladin's own decision that a law is enforced or even be actively agaisnt it. good thoughts tho, ill be selling my special 140k poison dagger and getting something more...honorable, i guess. sorry, i value victory over methods, perhaps thats why i cant play a good paladin, but must instead be satisfied with one that fumbles around alot. Perhaps invest in a pillow for the fall. This would be my next post, which predates the point where I am insulted. I said to invest in a pillow you twit. "Get over yourself." <3, Fk Face. Edit for contribution: This story does well to represent the concepts of the thread - i.imgur.com/XMejg.jpg |
|
|
|
Post by marredwolf on Mar 16, 2017 19:39:00 GMT -5
i was waiting for the repercussions, that was why i was delayed. I would love to discuss it, but you're frothing at the mouth, so...no. dismissive yet again, thats the easy way out of an argument.. you dont want to discuss it because if you thought you had the logic behind you, you would make me look like a fool. thats a frothing challenge. i can make a logical argument, but i dont think you can handle it. (ill do it anyway down further). No, sorry, there comes a time when to open one's mouth further can only serve to detract, and one must simply lower one's shades and walk away. you have literally done just that and then said that you dont want to do it. you opened your mouth and have only furthered detracted from the point of this threat(which is all you have done) and then you say that you dont want to do this. wtf? ...He is a flawed druid, who could be a fallen druid. And at no point in his character have I ever tried to dispute the option of him falling as one. he does not make always the best or the right choices... this is exactly what my paladin is. and what i have explained that he is before i even made the character. a flawed character. I have waited for the consequences and none have happened. honestly i think that the dms really dont care too much about this. but you just hit yourself on the nose. your position on your own character is exactly the same that i have on mine. for the record, it is not only your negative posts about this subject that makes me classify you as a bully. but a very specific thread that was created by a certain frost lady that ridiculed me and another player (shamming) which is completely agaisnt the rules of this forum. it wasnt only you, but i remember you well, and i dont like bullies. lets get back to the topic of this thread.... source: frc.wikia.com/wiki/Paladinthe first rule of a paladin/pdk is that you follow the law, unless you think the law is wrong. the paladin decides this. (=follow the law always, unless you think the law is wrong) if you dont think this is a contradiction, thats fine, as long as you accept what is being said. "A paladin must be of Lawful Good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act." This goes back to "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." If the paladin is not willingly committing an evil act then he's in the clear. Meaning that if his intentions are good, then he is within his order to do so and he is not going against his order. "So long as the laws are just and applied fairly to all people, it doesn't matter to the paladin whether they originate from a democracy or a dictator." again, this is a decision made by a paladin, and no one else. "However, a paladin will not honor a law that runs contrary to his alignment. A government may believe that unregulated gambling provides a harmless diversion, but a paladin may determine that the policy has resulted in devastating poverty and despair. In the paladin's mind, the government is guilty of a lawless act by promoting an exploitative and destructive enterprise. In response, the paladin may encourage citizens to refrain from gambling, or he may work to change the law." again, the paladin is the one that makes that decision. "But he most likely keeps neutral characters at arm's length, resisting their gestures of friendship." my character doesnt like druids, because they are neutral. "A paladin doesn't choose which edicts to follow. Rather, he pledges to follow any and all edicts issued by specified sources. The paladin chooses his sources when he begins his career. Additionally, the DM may make recommendations or require specific sources." a weird sentence: first a paladin "doesnt choose his edicts" but then again he does choose "his source" of those edicts, which give him his edicts. he therefore chooses his edicts and thus making the first part of that sentence into complete nonsense. "It's possible that a source may never issue an edict. In anœy case, it's up to the paladin to keep track of his edicts and follow them exactly." again, the paladin chooses between right and wrong and which edicts are to be followed. "There are no rules for adjudicating virtue violations. The DM is advised to err in favor of the paladin when the player makes honest mistakes. Conversely, the player should graciously accept the DM's rulings and, in the spirit of the paladin, avoid looking for loopholes to take advantage of the DM's good will" virtue violations are to be determined by the DMs. and even then, the rules are quite loose. "He may decline to speak or choose to withhold information, but he will never intentionally mislead anyone, even his enemies." this should be noted because a paladin is able to keep certain information secret without breaking his oath. Additionally, an honorable paladin: "Defers to the judgment of all lawful good characters of superior social class, rank, and level." deferring to the judgement of others goes against the established notion that a paladin acts with his own judgement. its either one or the other, but these rules dance in between. Do i defer or do I follow what all my instincts and reasoning are telling me? (the edicts are choosen by me or not?) you can taunt all you want Fenix. but this man-crush you have on me must at least be put to an end. its okay to be gay, just not with me. |
|
|
|
Post by Fluffy the Mad on Mar 16, 2017 20:20:25 GMT -5
"A paladin must be of Lawful Good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act." This goes back to "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." If the paladin is not willingly committing an evil act then he's in the clear. Meaning that if his intentions are good, then he is within his order to do so and he is not going against his order. This is incorrect. As stated previously in this thread, a wiki is a good guide, but is not source material. If a paladin commits an evil act- even with good intentions- he can fall. If he is somehow tricked by another entity, person, or being then he might have a pass, but even that is possibly a reason to fall. "A paladin doesn't choose which edicts to follow. Rather, he pledges to follow any and all edicts issued by specified sources. The paladin chooses his sources when he begins his career. Additionally, the DM may make recommendations or require specific sources." a weird sentence: first a paladin "doesnt choose his edicts" but then again he does choose "his source" of those edicts, which give him his edicts. he therefore chooses his edicts and thus making the first part of that sentence into complete nonsense. "It's possible that a source may never issue an edict. In anœy case, it's up to the paladin to keep track of his edicts and follow them exactly." again, the paladin chooses between right and wrong and which edicts are to be followed. The quote makes sense and you're misunderstanding it. A paladin chooses to accept the edicts of their god and an order of paladins. This includes the edicts of those two entities in their entirety, he does not pick and choose. A paladin may give themselves personal oaths to follow, but these laid down by their deity and order become inviolate. Additionally, an honorable paladin: "Defers to the judgment of all lawful good characters of superior social class, rank, and level." deferring to the judgement of others goes against the established notion that a paladin acts with his own judgement. its either one or the other, but these rules dance in between. Do i defer or do I follow what all my instincts and reasoning are telling me? (the edicts are choosen by me or not?) Have you ever heard the phrase 'older and wiser heads?' That's what this passage is referring to. A paladin might defer to the judgement of a mentor or lawful priest of their own god or others they would generally agree with as-is. A paladin does not have to listen to, agree with, or even be respectful of lawful good people who are their betters in class, rank, or experience. But they generally will. As for the edicts, see the above answer. A lawful good character of similar views is pretty unlikely to be in severe opposition to many edicts of similarly LG paladins. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2017 20:41:45 GMT -5
the first rule of a paladin/pdk is that you follow the law, unless you think the law is wrong. the paladin decides this. (=follow the law always, unless you think the law is wrong) if you dont think this is a contradiction, thats fine, as long as you accept what is being said. When it's a conditional statement, it's no longer a contradiction. "A paladin must be of Lawful Good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act." This goes back to "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." If the paladin is not willingly committing an evil act then he's in the clear. Meaning that if his intentions are good, then he is within his order to do so and he is not going against his order. Yes, however, there are two parts to this, one of which is not explicitly stated here but is covered by the alignment system itself. Basically, If a paladin willingly commits evil, he falls instantly. However he can still fall by having his alignment shifted when committing evil acts — unwillingly or unknowingly — even if the intent is good, as an evil act is still an evil act under the alignment system with very few exceptions given. And an evil act committed under the watchful eyes of a DM may result in an alignment point shift, which might result in a paladin breaking his required alignment and falling. "So long as the laws are just and applied fairly to all people, it doesn't matter to the paladin whether they originate from a democracy or a dictator." again, this is a decision made by a paladin, and no one else. "However, a paladin will not honor a law that runs contrary to his alignment. A government may believe that unregulated gambling provides a harmless diversion, but a paladin may determine that the policy has resulted in devastating poverty and despair. In the paladin's mind, the government is guilty of a lawless act by promoting an exploitative and destructive enterprise. In response, the paladin may encourage citizens to refrain from gambling, or he may work to change the law." Lisa the Rogue does not decide how Jake the Paladin feels about a law, and Jake the Paladin does not determine how Lisa feels about them either, though Jake the Paladin may try to inform and convince Lia that a certain law is evil, and Lisa might try to persuade or bluff Jake into thinking he was mistaken or misunderstood the law. Those relationships are dynamic, but decisions are always made by the character them-self if they have free will. Social rolls and roleplay throw in more dynamics, possibilities, and hopefully fun into the mix, but how your character reacts to something whether persuaded/bluffed or not is still your decision. "But he most likely keeps neutral characters at arm's length, resisting their gestures of friendship." my character doesnt like druids, because they are neutral. Ultimately to the roleplayers choice and how they decide to express their alignment towards others perceived alignments, though obviously Paladins fall under more scrutiny due to their codes. easydamus.com/alignment.html is a nice place to pull ideas and inspiration from. "A paladin doesn't choose which edicts to follow. Rather, he pledges to follow any and all edicts issued by specified sources. The paladin chooses his sources when he begins his career. Additionally, the DM may make recommendations or require specific sources." a weird sentence: first a paladin "doesnt choose his edicts" but then again he does choose "his source" of those edicts, which give him his edicts. he therefore chooses his edicts and thus making the first part of that sentence into complete nonsense. Yes, A paladin can choose his source, but the source chooses the edicts, which could be anything. The Paladin has little influence over that other than trying to choose a source that best represents the paladin. "There are no rules for adjudicating virtue violations. The DM is advised to err in favor of the paladin when the player makes honest mistakes. Conversely, the player should graciously accept the DM's rulings and, in the spirit of the paladin, avoid looking for loopholes to take advantage of the DM's good will" virtue violations are to be determined by the DMs. and even then, the rules are quite loose. One of the best qualities of the DMs here is that they are here to promote fun for all the players. From what I've seen they don't typically do something unless it's enjoyable for those involved, or a necessity to protect the servers values. I don't think a DM here would fall anyone unless they knew it would be an enjoyable plot for the player, or because the players actions have necessitated it from some kind of gross negligence of what paladins are with no intent toward correcting that behavior. "He may decline to speak or choose to withhold information, but he will never intentionally mislead anyone, even his enemies." this should be noted because a paladin is able to keep certain information secret without breaking his oath. Yep! Additionally, an honorable paladin: "Defers to the judgment of all lawful good characters of superior social class, rank, and level." deferring to the judgement of others goes against the established notion that a paladin acts with his own judgement. its either one or the other, but these rules dance in between. Do i defer or do I follow what all my instincts and reasoning are telling me? (the edicts are choosen by me or not?) Paladins don't have to be individualists, if they all were then their orders would be a little weird wouldn't they? Paladins can certainly defer to other characters they know can aid them make the correct decisions, such as deferring to another paladin in their order. |
|
|
|
Post by malclave on Mar 16, 2017 23:51:32 GMT -5
"A paladin doesn't choose which edicts to follow. Rather, he pledges to follow any and all edicts issued by specified sources. The paladin chooses his sources when he begins his career. Additionally, the DM may make recommendations or require specific sources." a weird sentence: first a paladin "doesnt choose his edicts" but then again he does choose "his source" of those edicts, which give him his edicts. he therefore chooses his edicts and thus making the first part of that sentence into complete nonsense. Yes, A paladin can choose his source, but the source chooses the edicts, which could be anything. The Paladin has little influence over that other than trying to choose a source that best represents the paladin. I think it's worth explicitly noting that the paladin is also bound by FUTURE edicts from the source, not just the ones in place when the player selects the source for the character. If Narcissus Adonis, Paladin of Sune, pledged to obey the strictures of the Order of the Golden Rooster of the city of Ravens Bluff, and the Knight Commander of that order determined that waxed moustaches were no longer in style and therefore banned, Narcissus Adonis better not wax his moustache, even if non-Paladins in the order thumb their noses (and twirl their moustaches) at the edict. |
|
|
|
Post by marredwolf on Mar 17, 2017 19:10:51 GMT -5
This is incorrect. As stated previously in this thread, a wiki is a good guide, but is not source material. If a paladin commits an evil act- even with good intentions- he can fall. If he is somehow tricked by another entity, person, or being then he might have a pass, but even that is possibly a reason to fall. you say a wiki is a good guide, but yet you provide none yourself. should i believe that you are yourself a wiki guide? where is this source material that you are drawing these conclusions from? This source is very specific in stating that a paladin must willingly commit an evil act in order to 'fail'. the implied answer is that if he does not willing commit an evil act, he is on the clear. The quote makes sense and you're misunderstanding it. A paladin chooses to accept the edicts of their god and an order of paladins. This includes the edicts of those two entities in their entirety, he does not pick and choose. A paladin may give themselves personal oaths to follow, but these laid down by their deity and order become inviolate. the rules sated from my source (and im still looking to find your own source) states that a paladin: "doesnt choose his edicts" but then again he does choose "his source" of those edicts. that means he picks and chooses. To break it down, i can go around looking for a source with edicts that i want. i dont choose the edicts, but i choose the source of the edicts i want, and thereby choose the edicts themselves. simple stuff. the rules dont make sense just because these are the rules (as of yet unconfirmed as you've stated no sources) Basically, If a paladin willingly commits evil, he falls instantly. However he can still fall by having his alignment shifted when committing evil acts — unwillingly or unknowingly — even if the intent is good, as an evil act is still an evil act under the alignment system with very few exceptions given. again, no source. but lets talk anyway. trying to determine what is an evil act has been a question in the history of humanity that has come up many times. I must, however, stay within the rules that i can read, which states that a paladin who doesnt believe he is commiting an evil act is on the clear. sourcessourcessources "A paladin doesn't choose which edicts to follow... as i have sated before, a paladin can very much choose which edicts to follow. not by choosing edicts, but by choosing sources that use certain edicts. its a loophole, making him able to choose a source with the edicts that he wants. "Paladins don't have to be individualists, if they all were then their orders would be a little weird wouldn't they? Paladins can certainly defer to other characters they know can aid them make the correct decisions, such as deferring to another paladin in their order. i dont disagree. i would just like to point out that it is the paladins decision to defer or not. thanks for the lack of hostility. i much prefer it. |
|
|
|
Post by Fluffy the Mad on Mar 17, 2017 19:42:55 GMT -5
Okay, I've been pretty polite in my replies to this. If you're going to play the 'someone wrote this on the internet so I'm right' card I'm going to get less polite very quickly. The reason your wiki quotes are incorrect or inaccurate are two reasons thus far:
1) Misinterpretation
2) Mixing entire editions of DnD
If you look waaaay at the bottom of the wiki page you're quoting from, you'll see that it mixes information from the 5th edition handbooks, the 3rd edition, the FRCS, Faiths&Pantheons, and Divine Power. We're playing on 3/3.5 rules as they're the ones NWN is coded with and is our current timeline. The only books you should be concerned with for facts are the FRCS, Faiths&Pantheons, and any other OCR, 3/3.5-Ed manual published by WOTC regarding Forgotten Realms or aspects of paladins the FR books do not cover. Others like The Book of Exalted Deeds are very good for inspiration, but aren't as binding to Forgotten Realms as a setting.
To reply to the edicts bit, that's very circular reasoning and not exactly the same. There is not a god or group for every edict you might feel is right for your paladin. If they're a paladin of Torm, they accept everything Torm demands of his paladins. Then they also accept everything their particular order ordains. They can have additional ones they assign themselves, but they must accept all of those of their chosen deity and order. (An order is not expressly required unless one wishes to multiclass here, in which case they're only stuck with those the deity demands)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2017 19:59:49 GMT -5
(An order is not expressly required unless one wishes to multiclass here, in which case they're only stuck with those the deity demands) I have a somewhat related question to that actually, maybe better suited for the DM Q&A forum but this topic works well enough for all things paladiny! When a paladin (or monk) multiclasses out of their order's allowed multiclass restrictions and can no longer further advance in paladin levels, do they also leave their order? I assume so, but never actually checked or asked. |
|
|
|
Post by Fluffy the Mad on Mar 17, 2017 20:04:41 GMT -5
(An order is not expressly required unless one wishes to multiclass here, in which case they're only stuck with those the deity demands) I have a somewhat related question to that actually, maybe better suited for the DM Q&A forum but this topic works well enough for all things paladiny! When a paladin (or monk) multiclasses out of their order's allowed multiclass restrictions and can no longer further advance in paladin levels, do they also leave their order? I assume so, but never actually checked or asked. I would assume that represents leaving the order, but a DM would be better to chime in on that than I would. It seems pretty rare among monks, much less paladins. The FRCS lists the orders, but doesn't state the consequences of leaving in the same area. I'll look it through. Edit: So, I haven't found much on the orders. The multiclassing restriction originated from the 3rd Edition Player's Handbook, which doesn't require a paladin to follow one deity, much less join an order before multiclassing. It persisted through the FRCS, but didn't offer any notes on whether or not it involves leaving the order. |
|
|
|
Post by malclave on Mar 17, 2017 20:09:37 GMT -5
1. If a Paladin willingly commits an evil act, he falls. The wiki does NOT say that only a willing act has an effect. A Paladin is still bound by the alignment system, and if he ever falls away from LG (either to LN or to NG), he is no longer a Paladin.
2. Yes, you can choose a source with edicts you like. The source might later issue edicts with which you disagree. You're still bound to follow them... THAT is what people mean when they say you don't choose your edicts.
3. I have NEVER seen a rules source that says that a Paladin is in the clear if he doesn't "believe" he's committing an evil act.
|
|
|
|
Post by Viridian Knight on Mar 17, 2017 20:33:19 GMT -5
I have a somewhat related question to that actually, maybe better suited for the DM Q&A forum but this topic works well enough for all things paladiny! When a paladin (or monk) multiclasses out of their order's allowed multiclass restrictions and can no longer further advance in paladin levels, do they also leave their order? I assume so, but never actually checked or asked. I would assume that represents leaving the order, but a DM would be better to chime in on that than I would. It seems pretty rare among monks, much less paladins. The FRCS lists the orders, but doesn't state the consequences of leaving in the same area. I'll look it through. I'd say such is covered here in the monk orders thread at FRC used to require that you maintain your monk order restriction even if you planned to no-longer advance as a monk. This was in part because we couldn't tell what the order of levels taken was, so couldn't check if you were still advancing as a monk. We have since learned how to check the order of levels taken, and can tell if someone is still taking monk or paladin levels after violating the multiclass rules of their monk or paladin order. It's not convenient, but it is possible to check. If you belong to a monk order with restricted multiclassing, and plan to take no more levels in your monk class, you can leave the order to pursue other class options. IF YOU MULTICLASS OUTSIDE OF YOUR MONK ORDER, YOU CAN NO LONGER ADVANCE AS A MONK. When leaving a monk order, you are supposed to inform the DM Team so we can note your existing monk level. What is said above is also true of paladins. If you belong to a paladin order with restricted multiclassing, and plan to take no more levels in your paladin class, you can leave the order to pursue other class options. IF YOU MULTICLASS OUTSIDE OF YOUR PALADIN ORDER, YOU CAN NO LONGER ADVANCE AS A PALADIN. When leaving a paladin order, you are supposed to inform the DM Team so we can note your existing paladin level. The paladin reply of the same nature can be found in the paladin order thread at frc.proboards.com/post/85205/threadVK. *edit* bah, can't get the source part of quote to work correctly, clicking on the source link should take you to the post from the quote. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2017 20:42:58 GMT -5
Basically, If a paladin willingly commits evil, he falls instantly. However he can still fall by having his alignment shifted when committing evil acts — unwillingly or unknowingly — even if the intent is good, as an evil act is still an evil act under the alignment system with very few exceptions given. again, no source. but lets talk anyway. trying to determine what is an evil act has been a question in the history of humanity that has come up many times. I must, however, stay within the rules that i can read, which states that a paladin who doesnt believe he is commiting an evil act is on the clear. sourcessourcessources Alignment: Paladins must be lawful good, and they lose their divine powers if they deviate from that alignment. Additionally, paladins swear to follow a code of conduct that is in line with lawfulness and goodness. Ex-PaladinsA paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin's mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations [(see the atonement spell description)], as appropriate. AlignmentGood and evil are not philosophical concepts in the D&D game. They are the forces that define the cosmos. AlignmentIf your character acts in a way more appropriate to another alignment, the DM may decide that his alignment has changed to match his actions. From the Players Handbook 3.5e, pages 42, 44, 104, and 105. And yeah, determining whether an act is evil or good — or even lawful or chaotic for that matter — is difficult, especially when you try to compare it to the real world and attempt to apply real world morals and ethics to it. As in the above quotes, Good and evil are treated as black and white within the alignment system, and that's ultimately left to the DM to determine if a character is appropriately acting their alignment. In NWN the alignment system is represented by axes of good-evil and law-chaos, with lawful good being (100,100) and chaotic evil being (0,0). Each alignment has a small range within their axis before becoming a different alignment, and points towards good, evil, lawful or chaotic can be given by a DM with an alignment point shift. If your alignment points shift out of their axis range, then your PC's alignment changes. nwn.wikia.com/wiki/Alignment has a table with the alignments and their point ranges within their axis. If you commit an evil act and a DM observes it or you petition the DM team to review your actions because they didn't happen to be around at the time, then you alignment might be shifted. And if you're a paladin and shift out of the required Lawful Good alignment range, then you become an Ex-Paladin, aka you fall. |
|
|
|
Post by marredwolf on Mar 18, 2017 20:41:30 GMT -5
Okay, I've been pretty polite in my replies to this. If you're going to play the 'someone wrote this on the internet so I'm right' card I'm going to get less polite very quickly. sorry for the apparent outburst, but dont try to intimidate. you are questioning my source. this is an entire different conversation. is my source invalid? you must answer this question. To reply to the edicts bit, that's very circular reasoning and not exactly the same. i actually believe i have deciphered what that rule means. You choose your source (torm for example) and therefore choose his edicts. this however does not allow one to decide which edicts to follow and which ones to not follow. a paladin must always follow the edicts that he -has choosen himself (ooc creation)- i believe this is what the original writer of this particular rule meant to say. and it would make perfect sense. so, once committed to this source and its edicts, a paladin cannot choose to follow certain edicts and not other ones. The wiki does NOT say that only a willing act has an effect. if any unwilling act of evil done by a paladin would cause him to fail, then the sentence that a paladin who -knowingly- commits an evil act would not be necessary. the answer would be 'willingly or unwillingly" if the act is evil he would fail. but thats not what is said. it clearly states that it must be a knowingly act of evil. 2. Yes, you can choose a source with edicts you like. The source might later issue edicts with which you disagree. You're still bound to follow them... THAT is what people mean when they say you don't choose your edicts. i hope my explanation above puts us in the same page. 3. I have NEVER seen a rules source that says that a Paladin is in the clear if he doesn't "believe" he's committing an evil act. ill explain it again. the rules says that if a paladin commits a knowingly evil act he fails. it sets the circumstance as knowingly, so if its un-knowingly it would be fine. |
|
|
|
Post by hellscream123 on Mar 18, 2017 20:48:25 GMT -5
A paladin can still fall to an "unknowingly" evil action as the action is still evil and will change his alignment accordingly, enough a shift and he changes alignment as as it states in the source i sent you Marred. If a pally isn't LG they are no longer a pally.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2017 21:16:10 GMT -5
sorry for the apparent outburst, but dont try to intimidate. you are questioning my source. this is an entire different conversation. is my source invalid? you must answer this question. Fluffy answered that in the same post you're quoting from, as well as earlier: here and here.The problem with the wikis is they are updated with 4th and 5th edition rules and lore, as well as being open to editing anonymously, thereby open to errors or misinterpretation by the article authors, and so are not accurate sources to the edition and campaign setting NWN and FRC subscribe to (3e, 3.5e and the appropriate editions of the Forgotten Realms campaign setting). As for: if any unwilling act of evil done by a paladin would cause him to fail, then the sentence that a paladin who -knowingly- commits an evil act would not be necessary. the answer would be 'willingly or unwillingly" if the act is evil he would fail. but thats not what is said. it clearly states that it must be a knowingly act of evil. That has been answered a few times above now by various posters including me, who went to the liberty of quoting you the source rulebooks. Evil acts are still evil, regardless of intent or knowledge of the act, and committing evil acts will result in your alignment being shifted away from Lawful Good, which is the required alignment to stay a Paladin. |
|
|
|
Post by marredwolf on Apr 10, 2017 21:14:55 GMT -5
[/quote]Fluffy answered that in the same post you're quoting from, as well as earlier[/quote]
This is not an answer. you are dismissing my source, which is fine, unless you fail to provide one of your own. what is your source so i can look at it myself? not one of you have posted a source, yet you continue to discredit my source.
[/quote]That has been answered a few times above now by various posters including me, who went to the liberty of quoting you the source rulebooks. Evil acts are still evil, regardless of intent or knowledge of the act, and committing evil acts will result in your alignment being shifted away from Lawful Good, which is the required alignment to stay a Paladin.[/quote]
you are not quoting "source rulebooks" you are not in fact quoting anything...again you have failed to provide a single source or a quote (tho you here claim to have done this in the past and currently). i can read this entire thread and find -nothing- even close to a source or a quote. as for the source given to me via PM, post it here for the sake of others and the argument itself. why hide it if its all legit?
evil acts are still evil, true. but an act that is done with the right intentions that leads to evil iis not the same as purposely commiting an evil act. thats my point. In other words you must want to commit an evil act, but if you are trying to do good and things go wrong, it does not mean that it is your fault. A mistake, an error, an accident...but not an knowingly act of evil that would lead some god to declare his disciple as evil.
give me a quote and a source.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fluffy the Mad on Apr 10, 2017 21:32:45 GMT -5
We gave you a list of books. The Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, Faiths & Pantheons, the Player's Handbook (3.5 E). You might also want to read Champions of Valor and Champions of Ruin. @steelgrin was quoting the Player's Handbook above, as the quote author tag shows. If you do not have or do not believe these to be source tomes, I can upload the PDFs for you to read over.
|
|
|
|
Post by hellscream123 on Apr 10, 2017 21:44:37 GMT -5
Fluffy answered that in the same post you're quoting from, as well as earlier[/quote] This is not an answer. you are dismissing my source, which is fine, unless you fail to provide one of your own. what is your source so i can look at it myself? not one of you have posted a source, yet you continue to discredit my source. [/quote]That has been answered a few times above now by various posters including me, who went to the liberty of quoting you the source rulebooks. Evil acts are still evil, regardless of intent or knowledge of the act, and committing evil acts will result in your alignment being shifted away from Lawful Good, which is the required alignment to stay a Paladin.[/quote] you are not quoting "source rulebooks" you are not in fact quoting anything...again you have failed to provide a single source or a quote (tho you here claim to have done this in the past and currently). i can read this entire thread and find -nothing- even close to a source or a quote. as for the source given to me via PM, post it here for the sake of others and the argument itself. why hide it if its all legit? evil acts are still evil, true. but an act that is done with the right intentions that leads to evil iis not the same as purposely commiting an evil act. thats my point. In other words you must want to commit an evil act, but if you are trying to do good and things go wrong, it does not mean that it is your fault. A mistake, an error, an accident...but not an knowingly act of evil that would lead some god to declare his disciple as evil. give me a quote and a source.[/quote] Dude. Didn't i give you a pretty clear source text that explains this? Even unknowning evil is wvil and this brings alignment shift. Riskinga paladin whom acts as such. If a pally willingly did known evil thats pretty mich an auto fallen. Unwillingly or unknown evil however carries the risk of falling. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2017 22:16:21 GMT -5
|
|
Fenix
~
Sleepless Golem, aka Kenny
If you read this, send me a love note.
Posts: 2,183
|
Post by Fenix on Apr 10, 2017 22:35:50 GMT -5
Its been a month and this was dragged up?
|
|
|
|
Post by malclave on Apr 10, 2017 23:16:59 GMT -5
This is not an answer. you are dismissing my source, which is fine, unless you fail to provide one of your own. what is your source so i can look at it myself? not one of you have posted a source, yet you continue to discredit my source. Nobody is dismissing your source. We just disagree with your interpretation that a special circumstance, which we take as an ADDED restriction on Paladins, somehow exempts Paladins from the alignment system every other character in the game has to follow. |
|
|
|
Post by FORSETIS on Apr 11, 2017 0:02:22 GMT -5
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
|
|
|
|
Post by mandene on Apr 11, 2017 0:47:25 GMT -5
Book of Exalted Deeds is rather clear on evil deeds and good intentions:
ch. 1 The Nature of Good / Ends and Means
Book of Vile Darkness complicates it though:
ch1: Nature of Evil / Intent and Context:
I hope it's enough for now.
|
|
|
|
Post by mandene on Apr 11, 2017 6:15:13 GMT -5
Here's more that I used already in another paladin thread. This is about paladins and the law. Also from the Book of Exalted Deeds
There you go. I gave you more than just sources - but the actual quotes to show you what people are talking about. Do you also require d&d paladin virtues and the Forgotten Realms'IC version?
|
|
