Paladin with Glamered Armor...yes or no. (3.5)

On 2008-12-23, keifer113.RemoveThis@gmail.com <Keifer113.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> Would a paladin get/use glamered armor? On one hand, it is deceptive
> and sneaky...not very paladinlike. On the other hand, it allows him to
> always be ready to fight evil at his max capability.

Depends what he glamers it /to/.

There's a difference between looking like a paladin who's not in full
gear at the moment (possibly a little questionable, but hardly false
advertising) and disguising yourself as a minion of the evil overlord
complete with spiky doom armor (Right Out).

Like most situations with vows and grey areas, this one is likely to
depend hugely on the individual situations.

--
--- An' thou dost not get caught, do as thou wilt shall be the law ---
"Religion disperses like a fog, kingdoms perish, but the works of
scholars remain for an eternity." - Ulughbek

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:15:20 +0000 (UTC), sw <sw.RemoveThis@eerie.org> wrote:

>On 2008-12-23, keifer113.RemoveThis@gmail.com <Keifer113.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Would a paladin get/use glamered armor? On one hand, it is deceptive
>> and sneaky...not very paladinlike. On the other hand, it allows him to
>> always be ready to fight evil at his max capability.
>
>Depends what he glamers it /to/.
>
>There's a difference between looking like a paladin who's not in full
>gear at the moment (possibly a little questionable, but hardly false
>advertising) and disguising yourself as a minion of the evil overlord
>complete with spiky doom armor (Right Out).
>
>Like most situations with vows and grey areas, this one is likely to
>depend hugely on the individual situations.

Depends on the code the paladin follows, too. For some codes, it would
be A-OK to disguise oneself as a minion of the evil overlord, the
better to overthrow said evil. (See Kinnison, Kimbal, L2, unattached.)

Under the version of the code I use in my games the answer would be a
definite "probably."

Paladins of the Universal Brotherhood [in my "broken world" game] all
follow this code:

0. A paladin will always be able to tell, on introspection, if a
proposed course of action is a violation of the Code, or of Good or
Lawful behavior.

1. A paladin must tithe 10% of his income to the Solarian Temple or to
other worthy charities.

2. A paladin may not use poison.

3. A paladin may not kill, maim, or torment prisoners.

4. A paladin must avoid, to the best of his ability, inflicting harm
on innocents.

5. Before attacking, a paladin must give opponents who are not engaged
in combat an opportunity to surrender.

6. A paladin may not feign weakness or innocence in order to avoid
attacks or hostility.

7. A paladin must keep his word, and fulfil any oaths he swears.

8. A paladin may not lie to his comrades, to those with legitimate
authority over him, or to those who serve under his command.

9. A paladin may not claim any authority that he does not legitimately
possess.

Notes and quibbles

0. This is a side effect of the paladin's ability to detect evil. Or
rather the ability to detect evil is a side effect of this gift: The
paladin "detects evil" on himself when considering if a course of
action is consistent with the Code.

1. This is a concrete form of the generosity normally expected from
all Good characters.

2. Not using poison is something that applies to all Good characters
in this campaign, not just paladins.

The use of poison on non-sapient parasites is a tolerated exception to
the no-poison rule (it's technically considered to be "medicine"
rather than "poison.") The use of non-lethal poisons is also a
tolerated exception, provided that the victim is then treated (and
protected) as a prisoner.

3. Not harming prisoners is something that applies to all Good
characters in this campaign, not just paladins. The death penalty as a
punishment is explicitly Not-Good in this campaign, and Good societies
don't use it.

The use of corporal punishments that don't cause scarring or permanent
damage are allowed as specific punishments for specific crimes (as
opposed to "he just needs to be horsewhipped"). Lethal attacks on
prisoners who are armed and rebelling are allowed. Lethal attacks on
escaping prisoners are also allowed, but the attackers had better be
prepared to show that the escape was real and not just a put-on job to
justify killing the prisoners.

4. "To the best of his ability" is a weasel-phrase here, but there
aren't any exceptions to this rule.

5. Calling for surrender and waiting for opponents to respond is not
necessary when joining an ongoing combat. It's also not necessary in a
mutual surprise situation, when the opponents are springing an ambush,
when the opponents are standing guard with ready weapons, or when the
opponents are engaged in tormenting innocents.

6. A paladin may pretend weakness or innocence to draw attacks onto
himself (and away from actual innocents). For example, a paladin may
pretend to be a simple merchant in order to draw outlaw attacks on
himself.

In general, deceiving your opponents is a legitimate "ruse of war"
provided that the deception does not violate any other item in the
Code. (Giving a false oath, for example, is not a legitimate ruse.)
Lying to or otherwise deceiving non-opponents is only tolerated if
justified by the need to deceive opponents at the same time.

7, 8, and 9. These three points cover honorable Lawful behavior.

--
Erol K. Bayburt
ErolB1.RemoveThis@comcast.net

Erol K. Bayburt wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:15:20 +0000 (UTC), sw <sw DeleteThis @eerie.org> wrote:
>
>
>>On 2008-12-23, keifer113 DeleteThis @gmail.com <Keifer113 DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Would a paladin get/use glamered armor? On one hand, it is deceptive
>>>and sneaky...not very paladinlike. On the other hand, it allows him to
>>>always be ready to fight evil at his max capability.
>>
>>Depends what he glamers it /to/.
>>
>>There's a difference between looking like a paladin who's not in full
>>gear at the moment (possibly a little questionable, but hardly false
>>advertising) and disguising yourself as a minion of the evil overlord
>>complete with spiky doom armor (Right Out).
>>
>>Like most situations with vows and grey areas, this one is likely to
>>depend hugely on the individual situations.
>
>
> Depends on the code the paladin follows, too. For some codes, it would
> be A-OK to disguise oneself as a minion of the evil overlord, the
> better to overthrow said evil. (See Kinnison, Kimbal, L2, unattached.)
>
> Under the version of the code I use in my games the answer would be a
> definite "probably."
>
> Paladins of the Universal Brotherhood [in my "broken world" game] all
> follow this code:
>
> 0. A paladin will always be able to tell, on introspection, if a
> proposed course of action is a violation of the Code, or of Good or
> Lawful behavior.
>
> 1. A paladin must tithe 10% of his income to the Solarian Temple or to
> other worthy charities.
>
> 2. A paladin may not use poison.

How about holy water or those funky 'good' diseases from the Book of
Exalted Deeds?




--
Tetsubo
--------------------------------------
"The apparent lesson of the Inquisition is that insistence on
uniformity of belief is fatal to intellectual, moral and spiritual health."
-The Uses Of The Past-, Herbert J. Muller

BLUP

On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 21:38:30 -0500, Tetsubo <tetsubo DeleteThis @comcast.net>
wrote:

>Erol K. Bayburt wrote:
>

>> Paladins of the Universal Brotherhood [in my "broken world" game] all
>> follow this code:
>>
>> 0. A paladin will always be able to tell, on introspection, if a
>> proposed course of action is a violation of the Code, or of Good or
>> Lawful behavior.
>>
>> 1. A paladin must tithe 10% of his income to the Solarian Temple or to
>> other worthy charities.
>>
>> 2. A paladin may not use poison.
>
> How about holy water or those funky 'good' diseases from the Book of
>Exalted Deeds?

Those funky 'good' diseases from the Book of Exalted Deeds are silly,
rude, and Not In My Campaign.

Holy water - that's actually a good point. But I'd say that holy water
isn't a poison any more than boiling water is. Both are charged with
energies that happen to do damage to those vulnerable to those energy
types.

--
Erol K. Bayburt
ErolB1 DeleteThis @comcast.net

This message is not archived

In article <gjb97t$1r6$2@pyrite.mv.net>,
Patrick Baldwin <pax.RemoveThis@osmium.mv.net> wrote:

> I've never really understood the whole "poison is Evil" meme.
>
> I just don't think "stabbing that guy with my poisoned knife,
> oh look, he's hurt real bad" is worse than "crushed that guy's
> ribcage with my mace, he's hurt real bad" or "gutted him with
> my spiked gauntlet, he's hurt real bad" or "set him on fire
> with magic..." etc.
>
> Now, running about and poisoning wells, or the town's granary,
> that I could see as Evil.

One reason is that it bypasses strength and lets sneaky types gain equal
status. The fables all say the good and strong guys face each other in
open combat.

Using skills valued in the society and natural talent is "good". Using
"tricks" is "bad".

- Allen

Allen Wessels wrote:
> In article <gjb97t$1r6$2@pyrite.mv.net>,
> Patrick Baldwin <pax.TakeThisOut@osmium.mv.net> wrote:
>
>> I've never really understood the whole "poison is Evil" meme.
>>
>> I just don't think "stabbing that guy with my poisoned knife,
>> oh look, he's hurt real bad" is worse than "crushed that guy's
>> ribcage with my mace, he's hurt real bad" or "gutted him with
>> my spiked gauntlet, he's hurt real bad" or "set him on fire
>> with magic..." etc.
>>
>> Now, running about and poisoning wells, or the town's granary,
>> that I could see as Evil.
>
> One reason is that it bypasses strength and lets sneaky types gain equal
> status. The fables all say the good and strong guys face each other in
> open combat.
>
> Using skills valued in the society and natural talent is "good". Using
> "tricks" is "bad".

I suspect a poisoned knife wielded in open combat might not be quite so
frowned upon; it's the sneakiness of being able to poison the food of a
noncombatant (plus the possibility/likelihood of collateral damage) that
most people consider evil.

On 2008-12-29, David Alex Lamb <dalamb.TakeThisOut@cs.queensu.ca> wrote:
> Allen Wessels wrote:
>> In article <gjb97t$1r6$2@pyrite.mv.net>,
>> Patrick Baldwin <pax.TakeThisOut@osmium.mv.net> wrote:
>>> I've never really understood the whole "poison is Evil" meme.
>>>
>>> I just don't think "stabbing that guy with my poisoned knife,
>>> oh look, he's hurt real bad" is worse than "crushed that guy's
>>> ribcage with my mace, he's hurt real bad" or "gutted him with
>>> my spiked gauntlet, he's hurt real bad" or "set him on fire
>>> with magic..." etc.
>>>
>>> Now, running about and poisoning wells, or the town's granary,
>>> that I could see as Evil.
>>
>> One reason is that it bypasses strength and lets sneaky types gain equal
>> status. The fables all say the good and strong guys face each other in
>> open combat.
>>
>> Using skills valued in the society and natural talent is "good". Using
>> "tricks" is "bad".
>
> I suspect a poisoned knife wielded in open combat might not be quite so
> frowned upon; it's the sneakiness of being able to poison the food of a
> noncombatant (plus the possibility/likelihood of collateral damage) that
> most people consider evil.

The idea of poison weirds people out, whereas the idea of simply being
attacked doesn't. It's like people who are more afraid of flying than they
are of driving, despite the higher chance of accident-related death while
driving.

What's honorable/valued and what's logical are not necessarily the same.

--
--- An' thou dost not get caught, do as thou wilt shall be the law ---
"Religion disperses like a fog, kingdoms perish, but the works of
scholars remain for an eternity." - Ulughbek

sw wrote:
> On 2008-12-29, David Alex Lamb<dalamb.TakeThisOut@cs.queensu.ca> wrote:
>> Allen Wessels wrote:
>>> In article<gjb97t$1r6$2@pyrite.mv.net>,
>>> Patrick Baldwin<pax.TakeThisOut@osmium.mv.net> wrote:
>>>> I've never really understood the whole "poison is Evil" meme.
>>>>
>>>> I just don't think "stabbing that guy with my poisoned knife,
>>>> oh look, he's hurt real bad" is worse than "crushed that guy's
>>>> ribcage with my mace, he's hurt real bad" or "gutted him with
>>>> my spiked gauntlet, he's hurt real bad" or "set him on fire
>>>> with magic..." etc.
>>>>
>>>> Now, running about and poisoning wells, or the town's granary,
>>>> that I could see as Evil.
>>> One reason is that it bypasses strength and lets sneaky types gain equal
>>> status. The fables all say the good and strong guys face each other in
>>> open combat.
>>>
>>> Using skills valued in the society and natural talent is "good". Using
>>> "tricks" is "bad".
>> I suspect a poisoned knife wielded in open combat might not be quite so
>> frowned upon; it's the sneakiness of being able to poison the food of a
>> noncombatant (plus the possibility/likelihood of collateral damage) that
>> most people consider evil.
>
> The idea of poison weirds people out, whereas the idea of simply being
> attacked doesn't. It's like people who are more afraid of flying than they
> are of driving, despite the higher chance of accident-related death while
> driving.

Using "tricks" is "bad", when it isn't you (or the people in power) who
are doing it. The definition of honor has a lot to do with who wields
the power. What's "dishonorable" for the enemy is "brilliant tactics"
when the general orders it.

- Ron ^*^

In article <I_a6l.231$ib.42@read2.cgocable.net>,
David Alex Lamb <dalamb.DeleteThis@cs.queensu.ca> wrote:

> Allen Wessels wrote:
> > In article <gjb97t$1r6$2@pyrite.mv.net>,
> > Patrick Baldwin <pax.DeleteThis@osmium.mv.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I've never really understood the whole "poison is Evil" meme.
> >>
> >> I just don't think "stabbing that guy with my poisoned knife,
> >> oh look, he's hurt real bad" is worse than "crushed that guy's
> >> ribcage with my mace, he's hurt real bad" or "gutted him with
> >> my spiked gauntlet, he's hurt real bad" or "set him on fire
> >> with magic..." etc.
> >>
> >> Now, running about and poisoning wells, or the town's granary,
> >> that I could see as Evil.
> >
> > One reason is that it bypasses strength and lets sneaky types gain equal
> > status. The fables all say the good and strong guys face each other in
> > open combat.
> >
> > Using skills valued in the society and natural talent is "good". Using
> > "tricks" is "bad".
>
> I suspect a poisoned knife wielded in open combat might not be quite so
> frowned upon; it's the sneakiness of being able to poison the food of a
> noncombatant (plus the possibility/likelihood of collateral damage) that
> most people consider evil.

I think it is. A trivial cut with a poisoned blade can kill. To a
lesser extent it was true of arrows and bolts. Anything that bypassed
the classic trial of strength was considered "low".

- Allen

In article <FIe6l.19271$H11.18330@newsfe09.iad>,
Werebat <ranpoirier.TakeThisOut@cox.net> wrote:

> sw wrote:

> > The idea of poison weirds people out, whereas the idea of simply being
> > attacked doesn't. It's like people who are more afraid of flying than they
> > are of driving, despite the higher chance of accident-related death while
> > driving.
>
> Using "tricks" is "bad", when it isn't you (or the people in power) who
> are doing it. The definition of honor has a lot to do with who wields
> the power. What's "dishonorable" for the enemy is "brilliant tactics"
> when the general orders it.

Honor has a definition separate from who wields the power. In general,
meeting on the field of honor under traditional terms is honorable.
Basically changing the rules of engagement is less than honorable.

On the other hand, a good general is pragmatic. Winning ends up being
honorable since you get to do the writeup.

- Allen

On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 01:32:33 -0800, Allen Wessels
<awessels.RemoveThis@EXPUNGEpacbell.net> wrote:

>In article <I_a6l.231$ib.42@read2.cgocable.net>,
> David Alex Lamb <dalamb.RemoveThis@cs.queensu.ca> wrote:
>
>> Allen Wessels wrote:
>> > In article <gjb97t$1r6$2@pyrite.mv.net>,
>> > Patrick Baldwin <pax.RemoveThis@osmium.mv.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I've never really understood the whole "poison is Evil" meme.
>> >>
>> >> I just don't think "stabbing that guy with my poisoned knife,
>> >> oh look, he's hurt real bad" is worse than "crushed that guy's
>> >> ribcage with my mace, he's hurt real bad" or "gutted him with
>> >> my spiked gauntlet, he's hurt real bad" or "set him on fire
>> >> with magic..." etc.
>> >>
>> >> Now, running about and poisoning wells, or the town's granary,
>> >> that I could see as Evil.
>> >
>> > One reason is that it bypasses strength and lets sneaky types gain equal
>> > status. The fables all say the good and strong guys face each other in
>> > open combat.
>> >
>> > Using skills valued in the society and natural talent is "good". Using
>> > "tricks" is "bad".
>>
>> I suspect a poisoned knife wielded in open combat might not be quite so
>> frowned upon; it's the sneakiness of being able to poison the food of a
>> noncombatant (plus the possibility/likelihood of collateral damage) that
>> most people consider evil.
>
>I think it is. A trivial cut with a poisoned blade can kill. To a
>lesser extent it was true of arrows and bolts. Anything that bypassed
>the classic trial of strength was considered "low".

I don't think it's just that. "Poison is Evil" is a real-world meme,
with the use of poison gas being against the international laws of
war. And that position solidified back when poison gas was Advanced
Weaponry produced by Powerful Nations, rather than being a weapon of
the weak & tricky.

--
Erol K. Bayburt
ErolB1.RemoveThis@comcast.net

In article <p7rll49jkaspkisu7u8a1qg1v5scfrpsmo.DeleteThis@4ax.com>,
Erol K. Bayburt <ErolB1.DeleteThis@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 01:32:33 -0800, Allen Wessels
> <awessels.DeleteThis@EXPUNGEpacbell.net> wrote:

> >I think it is. A trivial cut with a poisoned blade can kill. To a
> >lesser extent it was true of arrows and bolts. Anything that bypassed
> >the classic trial of strength was considered "low".
>
> I don't think it's just that. "Poison is Evil" is a real-world meme,
> with the use of poison gas being against the international laws of
> war. And that position solidified back when poison gas was Advanced
> Weaponry produced by Powerful Nations, rather than being a weapon of
> the weak & tricky.

That's right. It doesn't matter who is bypassing the trial of stength,
whether weak or strong.

Insidious weapons with no defense are evil. It gets worse with WMD
because not only do they act outside the normal rules of engagement, but
they indiscriminately attack civilians as well.

- Allen