Paladins

Mark Blunden wrote:

> On Dec 30, 10:59 am, John <imnot... RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Tetsubo wrote:
>>
>> > What if the 'evil' person *never* acts on his impulses? Never.
>> > How could you define such a person as evil?
>>
>> It would depend on why the person never acts on his impulses. If the
>> person thinks, "Wow, I sure would like to torture and kill this person
>> but I know its wrong" they are probably not Evil, but if its "I know I
>> would get caught" yeah, probably Evil.
>> Evil can be pragmatic and realistic.
>
>
> That's about it, yes. Basically, the paladin's Detect Evil is like
> finding that somebody has a criminal record. It doesn't mean they're
> doing anything wrong at this moment, but it's sufficient cause to take
> closer notice of them, and perhaps bar them from certain positions of
> responsibility. Ultimately, it may lead to them never getting the chance
> to commit a major wrongdoing. That doesn't make them less evil, but it
> does protect others from them.
>

I see that has eliminating the possibility of redemption. And what
Paladin doesn't want to redeem an evil-doer?

--
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

"Shawn" wrote:
> "John" wrote in message
>
> > Yeah but 3.5 alignments are simplistic,
>
> Feature, not a bug.
>
> I agree, but when I Dmed 3.5 and earlier I sometimes liked to play something
> a little more morally complex than that.  

It’s easy to play a morally complex game in 3.5. One just has to
accept the idea that staying Good is not easy.

>I remember one night when our
> group spent the whole night arguing what to do while they were on the
> outskirts of the kobold camp.  1/2 the group wanted to go in and slaughter
> them all and take their treasure and the other half said hold on, is that
> really a Good act?  It helped that one of the players modelled his character
> after Socrates.

That seems like less a problem with Alignment than Role Playing. Or,
perhaps not even a problem with Role Playing if this is what they
enjoy doing.

> >  But in 3.5 I allowed my alignment system to be relative,
>
> Which imo is just asking for trouble.
>
> Well it does create alot of issues with certain spells, planar alignments,
> and abilities related to alignment, and I suppose it could imbalance things
> in certain ways

Too much figuring out who Smites who

>(my paladin's order sees all monsters and people outside the
> order as evil, and so he can smite evil on everyone and everything)

Why not just make a Blackguard?


> but
> there are ways to balance that out too.  (well if your paladin's order hates
> everyone outside themselves, outsiders tend to dislike them too.  And will
> tend to attack on sight, kick them out of town, or choose to gang up on the
> paladin while the other characters might only face one npc/monster each)  I
> suppose it is creating work for yourself as DM, but that is part of the fun
> IMO.

It sounds like a case of 'I want to play a Evil character but I want
to call my character Good'.


John

In article <gjd549$r34$1@news.motzarella.org>,
Tetsubo <tetsubo RemoveThis @comcast.net> wrote:


> A baddie can fantasy all he wants about evil acts. But until he commits
> those acts, he hasn't *done* anything evil. He can create all the plans
> he wants. As soon as he begins to act on them however, the Paladins of
> the world get to stomp him.
>
> We could argue that thinking evil thoughts is bad for a person. And I
> would agree. But you don't arrest, charge, try and possibly convict a
> person for those evil thoughts.

Your definition is circular. They're not evil if they don't commit an
evil act because acting evil is how you define evil.

But I can have zombies commit evil acts all day and they're never evil?

Evil is about intent.

- Allen

In article <gjd549$r34$1@news.motzarella.org>,
Tetsubo <tetsubo DeleteThis @comcast.net> wrote:

<snip>

> We could argue that thinking evil thoughts is bad for a person. And I
> would agree. But you don't arrest, charge, try and possibly convict a
> person for those evil thoughts.

Depends on the laws of a lawful society. If the law says that thinking
evil thoughts is a capital offense, then it's a capital offense. Same
with the Rules of militant Orders that produce Paladins: if the Rule of
an Order says that people thinking evil thoughts should be slain, then a
Paladin who belongs to that Order had jolly well better follow that Rule.

Note, however, that both of these fall under the DM's purview, not that
of the player. In other words, this is a problem that could easily be
solved by the DM: either Law or Rule says that people, creatures or
entities thinking evil thoughts should be slaughtered out of hand or it
doesn't mention them. If evil thoughts aren't mentioned, then I can't
see that they're any of an individual Paladin's business.

This means the DM must pay a bit more attention to the creation of his
world and not rely on the generics provided by the books, but that's
life - or maybe that's fantasy.

I have two series that I suggest for anyone who wants to play or DM a
paladin. The first is David Weber's series that begins with THE WAR
GOD'S OWN and ends with WINDRIDER'S OATH; the second is the David
Eddings series with the precious gems in the titles (the Elenium, maybe?
I've a cat on my lap at present who will object, vocally, to any effort
to get up and root through the library...). Different approaches to
paladinhood, but they also illustrate different approaches to the moral
judgements that paladins must face, by the nature of their vocation, and
different ways to deal with them.

And the other lesson, the one for DMs, is the effort the authors went to
to create the Orders involved, and the worlds in which they function.
They did not pick the concept of "paladin" off the shelf and try for
"one size fits all."

Baird

--
Bumper sticker: "If you can't operate your turn signal,
what makes you think you can drive the rest of the car?"

In article
<61f9ecb3-2192-47f9-8938-f454653e885b.TakeThisOut@m12g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
Firelock <firelock_ny.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> My favorite example is the "Wow, I'd like to torture and kill
> these people, but I'm chained to a wall in a dungeon right
> now and can't move." Such a villain effectively can't act at
> all, but they can certainly still be evil.

Erm. Good folks can think exactly the same things under those
conditions....

Baird

--
Bumper sticker: "If you can't operate your turn signal,
what makes you think you can drive the rest of the car?"

In article <baird-E9EAF7.18011130122008.DeleteThis@news.giganews.com>,
Baird Stafford <baird.DeleteThis@newstaff.com> wrote:

> In article
> <61f9ecb3-2192-47f9-8938-f454653e885b.DeleteThis@m12g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
> Firelock <firelock_ny.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > My favorite example is the "Wow, I'd like to torture and kill
> > these people, but I'm chained to a wall in a dungeon right
> > now and can't move." Such a villain effectively can't act at
> > all, but they can certainly still be evil.
>
> Erm. Good folks can think exactly the same things under those
> conditions....

You're not Good if you're wanting to torture someone. It may feel good
to think it, but evil folk do feel good about the evil oftentimes.

- Allen

This message is not archived

In article <gjdoqd$ps3$1@pyrite.mv.net>,
Patrick Baldwin <pax.DeleteThis@osmium.mv.net> wrote:

<snap>

> I wonder though, is there a degree of detectable Evil that
> requires immediate action if you're a paladin? If you're
> hanging out in the tavern, waiting for your fellow adventurers
> to arrive before you set off on your latest mission, and you
> notice a guy in the corner who pings Evil like he was an 18th
> level undead demon cleric.

> It seems that, as a paladin, you Must Do Something.

And hang the collateral damage. "Kill them all. The Lord will know His
own."

Baird
noting that 18th level undead demon clerics very seldom go quietly

--
Bumper sticker: "If you can't operate your turn signal,
what makes you think you can drive the rest of the car?"

Tetsubo <tetsubo.RemoveThis@comcast.net> writes:

> Firelock wrote:
>
>> On Dec 30, 10:59 am, John <imnot....RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Tetsubo wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> What if the 'evil' person *never* acts on his impulses? Never.
>>>>How could you define such a person as evil?
>>>
>>>It would depend on why the person never acts on his impulses. If the
>>>person thinks, "Wow, I sure would like to torture and kill this person
>>>but I know its wrong" they are probably not Evil, but if its "I know I
>>>would get caught" yeah, probably Evil.
>>>Evil can be pragmatic and realistic.
>>
>>
>> My favorite example is the "Wow, I'd like to torture and kill
>> these people, but I'm chained to a wall in a dungeon right
>> now and can't move." Such a villain effectively can't act at
>> all, but they can certainly still be evil.
>>
>> --
>> Walt
>
> If they can communicate, they can act. Not directly I
> admit. But by influencing others. Hannibal Lechter was able to get a
> fellow inmate to suicide through words alone. But if that person never
> acts on those evil thoughts in any way, not evil.

It still depends on why he does not or cannot act. On intent, in
shorter words.

If a person doesn't act on evil thoughts, because they recognise them
as Evil, that makes that person non-Evil IMO. If they don't act
because they are unable to act, Evil. If they don't act but cheer the
actors on, Evil.

Honestly, why complicate things unnecessarily?

Mart

--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.

Mart van de Wege wrote:

> Tetsubo <tetsubo.DeleteThis@comcast.net> writes:
>
>
>>Firelock wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Dec 30, 10:59 am, John <imnot....DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Tetsubo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> What if the 'evil' person *never* acts on his impulses? Never.
>>>>>How could you define such a person as evil?
>>>>
>>>>It would depend on why the person never acts on his impulses. If the
>>>>person thinks, "Wow, I sure would like to torture and kill this person
>>>>but I know its wrong" they are probably not Evil, but if its "I know I
>>>>would get caught" yeah, probably Evil.
>>>>Evil can be pragmatic and realistic.
>>>
>>>
>>>My favorite example is the "Wow, I'd like to torture and kill
>>>these people, but I'm chained to a wall in a dungeon right
>>>now and can't move." Such a villain effectively can't act at
>>>all, but they can certainly still be evil.
>>>
>>>--
>>>Walt
>>
>> If they can communicate, they can act. Not directly I
>>admit. But by influencing others. Hannibal Lechter was able to get a
>>fellow inmate to suicide through words alone. But if that person never
>>acts on those evil thoughts in any way, not evil.
>
>
> It still depends on why he does not or cannot act. On intent, in
> shorter words.
>
> If a person doesn't act on evil thoughts, because they recognise them
> as Evil, that makes that person non-Evil IMO. If they don't act
> because they are unable to act, Evil. If they don't act but cheer the
> actors on, Evil.
>
> Honestly, why complicate things unnecessarily?
>
> Mart
>

Because life is grey, not black & white. Even in my campaigns.

--
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

Tetsubo <tetsubo RemoveThis @comcast.net> writes:

> Mark Blunden wrote:
>
>> On Dec 30, 10:59 am, John <imnot... RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Tetsubo wrote:
>>>
>>> > What if the 'evil' person *never* acts on his impulses? Never.
>>> > How could you define such a person as evil?
>>>
>>> It would depend on why the person never acts on his impulses. If the
>>> person thinks, "Wow, I sure would like to torture and kill this person
>>> but I know its wrong" they are probably not Evil, but if its "I know I
>>> would get caught" yeah, probably Evil.
>>> Evil can be pragmatic and realistic.
>>
>>
>> That's about it, yes. Basically, the paladin's Detect Evil is like
>> finding that somebody has a criminal record. It doesn't mean they're
>> doing anything wrong at this moment, but it's sufficient cause to
>> take closer notice of them, and perhaps bar them from certain
>> positions of responsibility. Ultimately, it may lead to them never
>> getting the chance to commit a major wrongdoing. That doesn't make
>> them less evil, but it does protect others from them.
>>
>
> I see that has eliminating the possibility of redemption. And
> what Paladin doesn't want to redeem an evil-doer?

Again, that is *your* interpretation. The rules leave plenty of room
for a Paladin who fights Evil without mercy, if the DM is so inclined.

Mart

--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.

Mart van de Wege wrote:
> Tetsubo <tetsubo.TakeThisOut@comcast.net> writes:
>
>
>>Mark Blunden wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Dec 30, 10:59 am, John <imnot....TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Tetsubo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>What if the 'evil' person *never* acts on his impulses? Never.
>>>>>How could you define such a person as evil?
>>>>
>>>>It would depend on why the person never acts on his impulses. If the
>>>>person thinks, "Wow, I sure would like to torture and kill this person
>>>>but I know its wrong" they are probably not Evil, but if its "I know I
>>>>would get caught" yeah, probably Evil.
>>>>Evil can be pragmatic and realistic.
>>>
>>>
>>>That's about it, yes. Basically, the paladin's Detect Evil is like
>>>finding that somebody has a criminal record. It doesn't mean they're
>>>doing anything wrong at this moment, but it's sufficient cause to
>>>take closer notice of them, and perhaps bar them from certain
>>>positions of responsibility. Ultimately, it may lead to them never
>>>getting the chance to commit a major wrongdoing. That doesn't make
>>>them less evil, but it does protect others from them.
>>>
>>
>> I see that has eliminating the possibility of redemption. And
>>what Paladin doesn't want to redeem an evil-doer?
>
>
> Again, that is *your* interpretation. The rules leave plenty of room
> for a Paladin who fights Evil without mercy, if the DM is so inclined.
>
> Mart
>

Undoubtedly my interpretation. Who else's would I care about?

A Paladin that kills a person because they detect as Evil would be
committing murder. Not a good way to keep your paladinhood.

--
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

"Tetsubo" <tetsubo.DeleteThis@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:gjd549$r34$1@news.motzarella.org...
> Allen Wessels wrote:
>
>> In article <gjbf6r$to9$1@news.motzarella.org>,
>> Tetsubo <tetsubo.DeleteThis@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I've always ruled that a paladin can only react to an evil action. Even
>>> if they detect evil on a person, until that person does something evil
>>> they can't do anything other than watch. Evil is about actions, not
>>> intent.
>>
>>
>> Of course evil is about intent. It's far simpler to go on actions alone,
>> but intent absolutely counts. If it doesn't, all the evil geniuses will
>> be assembling hideous plans of ultimate evil constructed of individual
>> acts of good.
>>
>> See also, "the road to hell".
>>
>> - Allen
>
> A baddie can fantasy all he wants about evil acts. But until he commits
> those acts, he hasn't *done* anything evil. He can create all the plans he
> wants. As soon as he begins to act on them however, the Paladins of the
> world get to stomp him.
>
> We could argue that thinking evil thoughts is bad for a person. And I
> would agree. But you don't arrest, charge, try and possibly convict a
> person for those evil thoughts.
>

That depends on the local authorities. For eg., the Kingpriest of
Dragonlance fame.
> --
> 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