PDA

View Full Version : The reason why evil paladins don't work



Pages : [1] 2

EvilElitest
2008-03-16, 05:02 PM
Right, now one of the changes with Paladins in 4E goes along side with the 3E alternate class feature of evil paladin. Now at first glance one simply goes "Oh yeah, evil paladins, like blackguards, oh yeah" and kinda go with it. But think harder. This is missing a very important part of the paladin's nature.

Now first lets adress the most commonly stated argument for evil paladins

"Why can't evil also have champions for their cause. It makes perfect sense for evil gods to have champions at their command as well. Evil can have people serve their causes as well, it is an arch typical part of fantasy, evil knights and all that. I mean evil order could exist, knights of hexor to oppose his half brother all of that."

Yet again at first glance this seems reasonable. But your forgetting something very important. That your mixing concepts. Your mixing the paladin up with the crusader, Knight, and Cleric.

For one, the Cleric is the champion of the god's wishes. Paladins don't draw their power from gods, they represent the raw element of Law and good, not from gods. Different concepts.

A far larger concept that people forget is the idea of repersenting a cause. A paladin does not in fact repersent a cause so much as an entire alignment. More on that below. A knight or a crusader repersents a cause, they are the champions of a particualar cause or belief. For example, if i represent say the cause of a certain nation, i am held to that nation's moral code. Or what ever code i embody. This code can be good, evil, neutral, lawful, anything that isn't chaotic will be upheld by the knight (lawful only).

A crusader will fight for any cause, the service of a demon lord, the righteous justice of heaven, equal rights for the blind, or the untied goblin humanitarian front. They will fight for any cause.

Paladins on the other hand are something else. They embody an alignment concept. Lawful Good. Now the most important part of the paladin is that they are held to a code that is tied to the alignment they represent, not to a god or group's code, but an aligment code

All good, more so lawful good is held to some sort of moral code. Good people can't do certain things, because well, they wouldn't be good otherwise. The idea of good is not doing evil things. Now a paladin simply embodies these good ideals to an extreme by not committing any evil actions ever. All a paladin is doing is taking his/her alignment to an extreme, but they are still upholding their alignment, which by its nature demands some sort of code, good in not committing evil and being a generally good person, law in well, holding one's self to a code


This doesn't work with evil. The idea of evil is that you can do what ever you want if you feel like it. An evil person could chose to hold themselves to a code, but their alignment doesn't force them too, unlike a good person. A good person who kills innocents will become evil, an evil person who doesn't kill every innocent he sees is still evil.

Paladins uphold the concept of Lawful Good. And you can't do that for evil.

The principle of Lawful Good is limitations. Lawful good people, paladin or not, have moral limitations. They cannot kill innocents, they cannot murder prisoners, they cannot break the creed of their alignment. There is an inherent code in Lawful Good, you have to be lawful and good (as dictated by WotC).

Evil doesn't have a code, that is the point of evil, you can do what ever you want whenever you want. A LE paladin doesn't make sense, because part of the nature of evil is doing things to suit your own selfish ends. Paladins represent an alignment code, not a gods code or a particular group/cause, they represent the embodiment of Lawful Good and are held to a code because of that. As evil rejects codes in its nature (it is possible, but not an inherent part of the alignment) an evil paladin doesn't make sense

In short, knights and crusaders can represent evil causes, Clerics represent evil gods. But you can't have an evil paladin in the same way you have a good paladin

from
EE

quiet1mi
2008-03-16, 05:05 PM
Amen... well said

Dode
2008-03-16, 05:08 PM
Trying to debunk 4E classes by using 3E's mechanics & cosmology = instafail

Rutee
2008-03-16, 05:11 PM
So, the logic is "Evil doesn't want dedicated servants". And further, "Only Lawful Good wants paladins".

This notwithstanding that Unearthed Arcana, a WotC product, has Paladins of Freedom (CG), Tyranny (LE), and Slaughter (CE).

And that the term "Paladin" isn't innately tied to Good any more then Cleric is, on a conceptual level ('A knightly champion', from dictionary.com; It comes from the 12 Peers, Charlemagne's greatest champions.. who were indeed Good, but there was really only one God to serve at the time period :smallwink: )

EvilElitest
2008-03-16, 05:11 PM
Trying to debunk 4E classes by using 3E's mechanics & cosmology = instafail

4E hasn't make any claim of changing the 3E concept of paladin other than powers and being evil. We assume it is the same as 3E until shown other wise, i've seen no attempt to make them more like knights.

Also this goes for the 3E alternate paladins
from
EE

Eita
2008-03-16, 05:12 PM
I have a problem with your definition of Evil. What you gave seems more True Neutral. Evil is not doing Good. An Evil person cannot nurse injured puppies back to health, because that is a Good act.

Riffington
2008-03-16, 05:12 PM
But maybe the 4e paladin is like a 3e crusader. Just that Paladin is a much cooler name.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-03-16, 05:15 PM
I have a problem with your definition of Evil. What you gave seems more True Neutral. Evil is not doing Good. An Evil person cannot nurse injured puppies back to health, because that is a Good act.Evil (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0435.html) can preform good acts.

Eldan
2008-03-16, 05:16 PM
Also:
Evil=/=doing whatever you want.
That's chaotic evil. Neutral Evil perhaps as well. But think about Lawful Evil. A lawful evil code works very well. I've written a few for campaigns or characters.

However, this still leaves us with non-lawful paladins. Those, I think, are total bullsh*t.

Riffington
2008-03-16, 05:16 PM
I have a problem with your definition of Evil. What you gave seems more True Neutral. Evil is not doing Good. An Evil person cannot nurse injured puppies back to health, because that is a Good act.

The black knight would not be such a superb horseman were this true.

dman11235
2008-03-16, 05:16 PM
...But paladins don't have to draw their power from L/G. They can, oh I don't know, draw their power from a deity like it says in the fluff.

You say that they don't represent a cause, but more of an alignment. What if they are representing L/E? C/E? C/G? Or what if they are being the martial champions of an extreme alignment deity?

And the idea of evil is harming things. The embodiment of chaos is doing whatever you want. You got those mixed up.

You are arguing that the paladin cannot be anything but L/G because they embody L/G. What if they embody C/E? Then they are C/E. It works.

EvilElitest
2008-03-16, 05:17 PM
So, the logic is "Evil doesn't want dedicated servants". And further, "Only Lawful Good wants paladins".

This notwithstanding that Unearthed Arcana, a WotC product, has Paladins of Freedom (CG), Tyranny (LE), and Slaughter (CE).

And that the term "Paladin" isn't innately tied to Good any more then Cleric is.

1. No that is a perversion of a the logic. The logic is that with the way paladins embody an alignment with a code doesn't work for evil, because evil isn't held to a code, nothing to do with evil not wanting dedicated servents (ergo, the section on knights and crusaders
2. Evil can have servants, just not in the same nature that paladins serve good, because evil doesn't have a code inherent to its nature
3. And i'm saying those products work more light knights/crusadors than paladins

I have a problem with your definition of Evil. What you gave seems more True Neutral. Evil is not doing Good. An Evil person cannot nurse injured puppies back to health, because that is a Good act.
you misunderstand. Evil is its own action, murder is evil, slavery is evil, rape is evil in D&D. If i do these things i'm evil. However evil doesn't have a code inherent to it, if i'm evil i can do pretty much what ever i want and keep my alignment with the exception of the law/chaos angle. A LE person doesn't need to be held to any sort of code the way a LG person does, a LE person makes his own code, while a LG person has to at least try to be a good person. A LE person could just be very lawful in nature but still kill commit other evil deeds on a regular basis
from
EE

Rutee
2008-03-16, 05:18 PM
However, this still leaves us with non-lawful paladins. Those, I think, are total bullsh*t.
You could argue that they're not Knights without a code (A Paladin is roughly defined as a Knightly Champion), and therefore, are unpossible. Can't Chaotic individuals swear to and keep a code though? I didn't think it was the sort of thing that would change an alignment.


1. No that is a perversion of a the logic. The logic is that with the way paladins embody an alignment with a code doesn't work for evil, because evil isn't held to a code, nothing to do with evil not wanting dedicated servents (ergo, the section on knights and crusaders
2. Evil can have servants, just not in the same nature that paladins serve good, because evil doesn't have a code inherent to its nature
3. And i'm saying those products work more light knights/crusadors than paladins
1. Good and Evil have nothing to do with holding to a code. PHB and DMG fluff make this very clear, assuming common sense didn't.
2. Good doesn't have a code inherent to its nature either. Oshi, there goes your point.
3. No, they work just like paladins. Just with a different code and emphasis. Have you read Unearthed Arcana?

Thufir
2008-03-16, 05:22 PM
An Evil person cannot nurse injured puppies back to health, because that is a Good act.

Yes they can, if they like puppies. EvilElitest's point, or at least part of it seems to be that while you can restrict someone to never committing an evil act, it's incredibly hard to never commit a good act. For example, would you expect an evil paladin to leap forward and save their master/general/whatever (Who is also evil) from falling off a cliff? Of course you would. But saving someone's life is an inherently Good act, regardless of their alignment. So, for doing what makes perfect sense and is expected of them, the evil paladin immediately loses all their powers. Huh?

This said, I do think that evil paladins can work, but obviously that particular restriction would have to be removed or more carefully worded.

Dode
2008-03-16, 05:24 PM
4E hasn't make any claim of changing the 3E concept of paladin other than powers and being evil. We assume it is the same as 3E until shown other wise, i've seen no attempt to make them more like knights. Right, this is all based on an assumption that nothing has been changed to D&D cosmology.


Also this goes for the 3E alternate paladins
from
EE
Not really. The Nine Hells is possibly the most repressed and codified bureaucracy in the game, where everyone has a ranking superior and is iron-bound to duty and rank. Their adherence to law and their own twisted moral code is just as powerful as any LG Paladin's. The definition of LE and it certainly doesn't go with your "evil = do whatever you want" notion.

The_Snark
2008-03-16, 05:24 PM
You're kind of pushing your own idea of a paladin here. Some people use paladins as people who gain strength from unyielding adherence to the ideas of Law and Good; Ebberon is a good example of this in a published setting. (Clerics there don't have alignment restrictions; as long as they remain faithful, a chaotic evil cleric of a lawful good deity would still be casting spells... but paladins, for reasons unknown, can still lose their powers.) For others, however, a paladin is a divinely empowered champion (see Forgotten Realms, where every paladin has to draw power from a god), and there's absolutely no reason why evil gods couldn't have champions as well.

In short, the concept of the paladin and the crusader are not necessarily different. If, in your game, the ideals of law and good are what gives a paladin supernatural abilities, not allowing evil paladins makes sense; but if paladins are the chosen warriors of deities, evil paladins make perfect sense.

Both views work fine. What you're saying is true for one of them, but not the other.

On the other hand, even if paladins gain their powers solely from adherence to law and good, shouldn't characters who embody other alignments be able to get abilities as well? Not necessarily the same abilities; but a character who embodied law and evil might get domination spells from the universal concept of tyranny, a chaotic evil character could get destructive abilities and become an embodiment of the eventual decay of the universe... saying that Law and Good are the only alignments that can ever give special powers is sort of saying they're the "correct" alignments.

Kyeudo
2008-03-16, 05:26 PM
Trying to debunk 4E classes by using 3E's mechanics & cosmology = instafail

Quoted for truth.

Also, the OP's arguments are founded most definatively upon his interpretation of the alighnment guidelines, and thus his argument makes sense when viewed that way.

However, that is not true of all methods of looking at alignment. My personal views are that Good and Evil represents how selfish or unselfish you are and that Law and Chaos represent how you go about your goals, either with logic and planning or on the spot improvisation. Using that perspective, Lawful Evil paladins become very viable, as they believe in personal gain through planning and order. See the Knights of Takesis in Dragonlance for a good example.

Most interpretations of alignment allow for the possibilities of other types of paladins as divine champions. Even Chaotic Evil.

EvilElitest
2008-03-16, 05:36 PM
But maybe the 4e paladin is like a 3e crusader. Just that Paladin is a much cooler name.

Maybe, but as we haven't seen anything to indicate this, i'm going under the 3E assumption of paladin.

...But paladins don't have to draw their power from L/G. They can, oh I don't know, draw their power from a deity like it says in the fluff.

Oh really. Did you try the paladin section under religion? They don't draw their power from gods, through they can often worship them


You say that they don't represent a cause, but more of an alignment. What if they are representing L/E? C/E? C/G? Or what if they are being the martial champions of an extreme alignment deity?

1. LE? How do you represent that? Evil doesn't have a code, and lawful is rather general. Not an evil concept.
2. CE? Are you freaking kidding me? What would that code be? It is chaos and evil, ergo it involves doing what ever you feel like doing, when ever you want to do it. Ergo lack of a code
3. And CG? Point of chaotic, why would you be held to a code





You are arguing that the paladin cannot be anything but L/G because they embody L/G. What if they embody C/E? Then they are C/E. It works.
A paladin who embodied this? Think about it, what tenets would they be held to? The main paladin ideal is a code, and what code comes with CE? You just do what you want


Also:
Evil=/=doing whatever you want.
That's chaotic evil. Neutral Evil perhaps as well. But think about Lawful Evil. A lawful evil code works very well. I've written a few for campaigns or characters.

However, this still leaves us with non-lawful paladins. Those, I think, are total bullsh*t.
No that is law and chaos your talking about, i'm talking about evil

A Good person cannot kill an innocent person and expect to keep his alignment. To be good you need to not do certain actions (murder, rape, slavery ect)

An evil person isn't held to that. Unless the evil code is "Never commit a good act" it doesn't make sense. And such a code would be absurd


You could argue that they're not Knights without a code (A Paladin is roughly defined as a Knightly Champion), and therefore, are unpossible. Can't Chaotic individuals swear to and keep a code though? I didn't think it was the sort of thing that would change an alignment.

A chaotic person could swear to a code, but it isn't inherent part of the alignment.



1. Good and Evil have nothing to do with holding to a code. PHB and DMG fluff make this very clear, assuming common sense didn't.
2. Good doesn't have a code inherent to its nature either. Oshi, there goes your point.
3. No, they work just like paladins. Just with a different code and emphasis. Have you read Unearthed Arcana?
1. Common sense? Look at this, a good person can't murder innocents. Why? Because if they do they won't be good. they stop being good. Oh my, there a code right there
2. Can good people do what ever they want? Oh wait, they can't, because if they committed evil actions, they wouldn't be good. Ergo, they are held to a moral code. Oshi, there goes your point
3. No, there codes work like ones of a knights. WotC claims they worked like paladins, i'm claiming this is BS because an evil paladin doesn't work out. An evil knight does



Right, this is all based on an assumption that nothing has been changed to D&D cosmology.
No this works under hte assumptions paladins have been changed. Have they? Provide a link please


Not really. The Nine Hells is possibly the most repressed and codified bureaucracy in the game, where everyone has a ranking superior and is iron-bound to duty and rank. Their adherence to law and their own twisted moral code is just as powerful as any LG Paladin's. The definition of LE and it certainly doesn't go with your "evil = do whatever you want" notion.
The devils are organized and have a strict hierarchy yes. but they don't have a code. There isn't a rule "you cannot do something chaotic" or "You cannot do something good" in the same way that good paladins cannnot do something evil. Devils act in a lawful manner, however they can commit both good, neutral and evil actions without fear of ceasing to be good, because they commit all of these actions with evil intentions



You're kind of pushing your own idea of a paladin here. Some people use paladins as people who gain strength from unyielding adherence to the ideas of Law and Good; Ebberon is a good example of this in a published setting. (Clerics there don't have alignment restrictions; as long as they remain faithful, a chaotic evil cleric of a lawful good deity would still be casting spells... but paladins, for reasons unknown, can still lose their powers.) For others, however, a paladin is a divinely empowered champion (see Forgotten Realms, where every paladin has to draw power from a god), and there's absolutely no reason why evil gods couldn't have champions as well.
1. Ebberon is a specific setting, and thus special rules there can be applied differently. I'm working with the D&D non setting specific
2. Even so, paladins in ebberon are still held to the same code
3. in FR paladins drawn their powers from gods yes. But they are still held to the same code. A code that requires you to never willfully commit evil actions. Would an evil version of that require you to not commit good actions? Remember, an evil person committing good acts makes sense, they are evil for other reasons. A man who steals from his company but helps in a hospital is still evil, he is just selfish and steals money.

And Kyeudo, in D&D good and evil are absolute, not left up to personal views or interpretations
from
EE


form
E

Rutee
2008-03-16, 05:47 PM
A chaotic person could swear to a code, but it isn't inherent part of the alignment.
The only person who cares about codes being inherent is you. Therefore, this is not grounds to make claims about Paladins that aren't LG.


Nonsense about codes being ingrained.
So Evil doesn't stop being Evil when it behaves Good, but Good stops being Good when it behaves Evil. I SENSE A DOUBLE STANDARD.

[quote3. No, there codes work like ones of a knights. WotC claims they worked like paladins, i'm claiming this is BS because an evil paladin doesn't work out. An evil knight does[/quote]
You're done. Good morning. They work exactly like a Paladin's. They're not the same code, but the codes functions the same way.

Eita
2008-03-16, 05:48 PM
you misunderstand. Evil is its own action, murder is evil, slavery is evil, rape is evil in D&D. If i do these things i'm evil. However evil doesn't have a code inherent to it, if i'm evil i can do pretty much what ever i want and keep my alignment with the exception of the law/chaos angle. A LE person doesn't need to be held to any sort of code the way a LG person does, a LE person makes his own code, while a LG person has to at least try to be a good person. A LE person could just be very lawful in nature but still kill commit other evil deeds on a regular basis
from
EE

By your logic an LE person could donate millions to orphanages and still be LE because that fits into his code.


Evil (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0435.html) can preform good acts.

Belkar did that so he could commit more Evil in the future. Thus, the intent is Evil and ergo, one could make the case that such was the act.


The black knight would not be such a superb horseman were this true.

See above. Then again, I guess that does contradict what I said. Heh. War Puppies for the name of Evil.

The_Snark
2008-03-16, 05:51 PM
1. Ebberon is a specific setting, and thus special rules there can be applied differently. I'm working with the D&D non setting specific
2. Even so, paladins in ebberon are still held to the same code
3. in FR paladins drawn their powers from gods yes. But they are still held to the same code. A code that requires you to never willfully commit evil actions. Would an evil version of that require you to not commit good actions? Remember, an evil person committing good acts makes sense, they are evil for other reasons. A man who steals from his company but helps in a hospital is still evil, he is just selfish and steals money.

I was using Ebberon as an example of one that supports your view; despite the general moral ambiguity that the setting incorporates, paladins seem to gain their abilities from faith to their code or alignment.

However, in FR there are several ways for paladins to be evil. The variant paladins, not to mention a feat that allows a paladin to commit evil acts without losing their powers because Cyric is granting them their powers in hopes of converting them to a greater force of evil.

Your view seems to be that it's adherence to the code that gives a paladin their powers, and while that's a perfectly valid way of looking at it, it isn't the only way. For some people, paladins gain their powers from a god, just like clerics, and that god can be evil. Their code of conduct will change, and for less lawful gods might simply be "if I decide you're not worthy, I'll take away your powers," but there is no reason that evil gods might not grant powers very similar to that of a paladin.

Saying that Lawful Good is the only alignment that can grant special powers that others don't have is like saying that Lawful Good is the best alignment.

Randel
2008-03-16, 05:57 PM
Anti-paladins are required to be Chaotic Stupid? What kind of villain wants one of them on our team.


Dragon: Okay BBEG, I've just looked over over the applicants and narrowed it down to two guys... one is a multiclassed fighter/Cleric of The Generic Dark God.

Fighter: I can heal, curse, and still decapitate my enemies with my blade of fury!

Dragon: And the other is an evil paladin.

Evil Paladin: Blargle barlgle! You are all worthless! My mastery of arcane might, bestial rage, and cybernetic technology will make me more powerful than all of you combined! You will worship me!

BBEG: What the hell? This guy seems kind of psychotic.

Dragon: Yeah well, since he's evil he apparently has to maintain a chaotic evil alignment or lose his magical powers... so he can't tell the truth, follow orders, keep promises, or show respect to a higher authority... plus his moral beliefs require him to back stab everyone he encounters.

BBEG: ... thats stupid. Why would anyone choose such an absurd profession?

[Several years earlier in the Temple of Goodness]

High Priest: So... we will take all of our Lawful Stupid paladins, put helmets of Opposite Alignment on them and send them over to our phony Blackguard Training Academy to make them join the forces of darkness.

Lower Priest: What... why would we do that.

High Priest: With any luck, they will give the bag guys as much trouble as they gave us!

EvilElitest
2008-03-16, 06:02 PM
The only person who cares about codes being inherent is you. Therefore, this is not grounds to make claims about Paladins that aren't LG.

Me and the rules dictating that good people can commit evil acts and expect to keep their alignment.


So Evil doesn't stop being Evil when it behaves Good, but Good stops being Good when it behaves Evil. I SENSE A DOUBLE STANDARD.

Um, yeah. That is the idea of good and evil. It is far easier to be evil. Being good is a challenge, because it requires you to not do evil things. An evil person can do good things if their intention is evil. A paladin cannot commit evil actions ever. A dude who has one evil flaw and commits many evil actions is still not good


You're done. Good morning. They work exactly like a Paladin's. They're not the same code, but the codes functions the same way.
Did you miss the part where i pointed out that such a code doesn't make sense by a paladin view point. Lets look at these code



A paladin of slaughter must be of chaotic evil alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits a good act. Additionally, a paladin of slaughter's code requires that she disrespect all authority figures who have not proven their physical superiority to her, refuse help to those in need, and sow destruction and death at all opportunities.
I'm not going to insult your intelligence by spelling how the absurdities here.

Yet again


A paladin of tyranny must be of lawful evil alignment and loses all class abilities if he ever willingly commits a good act. Additionally, a paladin of tyranny's code requires that he respect authority figures as long as they have the strength to rule over the weak, act with discipline (not engaging in random slaughter, keeping firm control over those beneath his station, and so forth), help only those who help him maintain or improve his status, and punish those who challenge authority (unless, of course, such challengers prove more worthy to hold that authority

The paladins cannot commit good actions, ever. Anyone else see a problem arising from that?



By your logic an LE person could donate millions to orphanages and still be LE because that fits into his code.
Well lets say he does so because it helps his esteem and reputation and earns him respect. Or lets say this is his one good point and generally he is an evil bastard. He is still evil yes


Belkar did that so he could commit more Evil in the future. Thus, the intent is Evil and ergo, one could make the case that such was the act.
The action would be good, the intention would be evil

from
EE

Eita
2008-03-16, 06:07 PM
Randel, wouldn't the Lawful Stupids then become Chaotic Smart?

Bleen
2008-03-16, 06:11 PM
If Evil commits an act that looks Good but is doing it solely for personal gain, then it's not a Good act. It's a neutral act at best. Thus, it's perfectly possible for them to never commit a Good act. Thus, they could still be adhering to their code by doing an act that, publicly, would seem "Good".

Xuincherguixe
2008-03-16, 06:12 PM
I mostly agree that Paladins are something that can only be Good. (If Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic Paladins are appropriate depends on what one has decided Law/Chaos are)

But the thing is, Evil can still have a code. Though it's likely to be twisted. Evil will usually be self serving, but consider for instance someone dedicated to "Power". All of their actions they do, they consider the right thing. They may feel that they have a right to kill the weak, but, if they are killed that is how things should be.

Or, perhaps a bit more believable character(still a worshiper of power) who feels that there is a certain "correct" way that things should be. They "know" that they must correct all of the rest of these people, living the "wrong" way. If there is a more capable person, he would bow to them (assuming they have the acceptable values). If some sacrifices must be made, so be it. If they must be "cruel" in order to get people to accept the truth, they will be cruel. Admittedly this may be more Lawful than Lawful evil.

Consistent, emotionally stable types are not traditionally what one thinks of as evil types, but they are likely the most dangerous. I think either of these could even be a knight. Polite, courteous, selfless, even merciful most of the time. However, the ideals they are dedicated to are dark and twisted.

There is an assumption that they are deriving power from "evil" entities, and will sacrifice others to them which also they justify morally, either as that the weak deserve to be food (perhaps telling them that they have a great honor this way, being able to serve some purpose despite their weakness) or that it is the price to pay for the benefit of others.

Evil does not have to be tyrannical, psychotic, cruel, and intolerant all at the same time.

In that sense, maybe an Evil Paladin could work. However, in order to be this sort of champion of evil, there must be something fairly twisted about their beliefs.

Narmoth
2008-03-16, 06:12 PM
OK, kids. I suggest somebody post a short description of the aligments, as they are defined in core 3.5 or 4th ed. (The last is preferable if obtainable).
Then all agree on them.
A big problem in this discussion is the lack of agreement on interpretation of the aligments.
Below is my own interpretation as apliable to the paladin and such consepts:

all good - the preson believes in doing good, and strays from aligment if he don't stop to help a wounded person.

LG - in addition to being good, he believes in doing things by the law. Unlike a lot heroes, like Robin Hood, he can't violate a just law (like don't steal) just to do good (distributing money to the poor).

LE - he does evil as sanctioned by the law. If the law obliged him to help a wounded person he would. The problem is that he isn't less evil (he doesn't violate his aligment code) by doing this. A lawfull good person would violate his by not helping.

CG - as opposed to LE, he has the opportunity (or wish to have it) to violate laws rather than abide by them.

Now, a paladin (as they have traditionally been pictured in AD&D and D&D) has greater power than a fighter because he has greater restrictions than a normal fighter.
What kind of meaningfull restrictions would a LE paladin have? As opposed to a blackguard, he isn't a corrupted mockery version of the paladin, but a champion in his own right, and not a champion of a power, but of an aligment. But evil, as opposed to good, hasn't a common agenda. Good want's the whole world population to have it well, while evil would want to exploit someone.
So what principle of evil is the LE paladin defending?

And a chaotic good paladin is of course possible. But it cheapens the paladin status, reducing it to a tile.

Chronos
2008-03-16, 06:14 PM
So Evil doesn't stop being Evil when it behaves Good, but Good stops being Good when it behaves Evil. I SENSE A DOUBLE STANDARD.Of course there's a double standard. Good is different from evil, and it's precisely things like this that are the reason that good is different from evil. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the D&D rules; it has to do with what good and evil are.

EvilElitist has a very good point, here: If you portray paladins as drawing their power from devotion to their alignment, then it doesn't make sense to have chaotic paladins, because devotion of that sort is a lawful trait. Yes, a chaotic character can swear an oath to do something, and can even keep that oath. But a chaotic character isn't going to devote his entire way of life to keeping an oath he's made, since if he did that, he wouldn't be chaotic.

Now, if you instead portray paladins as champions of particular gods (which D&D, by default, does not), then, sure, you could have champions of any alignment. But even there, there's the question of why such champions should in any way resemble paladins. Heck, there's no reason why they should even necessarily be melee types: I would expect the champions of Boccob to be more like wizards, and the champions of Olidamarra ought to be something like rogues.

Rutee
2008-03-16, 06:15 PM
If Evil commits an act that looks Good but is doing it solely for personal gain, then it's not a Good act. It's a neutral act at best. Thus, it's perfectly possible for them to never commit a Good act. Thus, they could still be adhering to their code by doing an act that, publicly, would seem "Good".
The best example of this is a Tyrant who tries to keep the fighting away from the civilians. This /looks/ Good, and it /is/ valuing of innocent lives, sure.

Except the Tyrant doesn't care about the fact that they're innocent. He cares about the fact that they're working folks, and allowing them to die is going to damage the economy.


Of course there's a double standard. Good is different from evil, and it's precisely things like this that are the reason that good is different from evil. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the D&D rules; it has to do with what good and evil are.
If For the Greater Good is unacceptable, and you must adhere strictly to alignment, a double standard might make sense, though I don't see Evil doing Good any more then Good doing Evil (The most classic example, saving puppies? Maybe the Evil guy just /likes/ puppies.)

If Utilitarianism, of sorts, plays into things, then a double standard makes no sense whatsoever.

EvilElitest
2008-03-16, 06:16 PM
If Evil commits an act that looks Good but is doing it solely for personal gain, then it's not a Good act. It's a neutral act at best. Thus, it's perfectly possible for them to never commit a Good act. Thus, they could still be adhering to their code by doing an act that, publicly, would seem "Good"

Techincally the action itself is good

For example, i the dark knight EE save princess from a dragon. Little does she know i did that so i could obtain the kingdom, not because i felt it was a good thing to do. However, the action of saving her is good. However, my alignment won't become any more good, because i have evil intentions. I"m still strictly evil.



But the thing is, Evil can still have a code. Though it's likely to be twisted. Evil will usually be self serving, but consider for instance someone dedicated to "Power". All of their actions they do, they consider the right thing. They may feel that they have a right to kill the weak, but, if they are killed that is how things should be.
Evil is so vast that it doesn't have a paladin styled code. However, it is quite possible for evil people to have a code, hence evil knights and evil crusaders make perfect sense.
Narmoth, WotC has defined the alignments actually and what classifies as a good action.
from
EE

Randel
2008-03-16, 06:19 PM
Randel, wouldn't the Lawful Stupids then become Chaotic Smart?

I'm not sure even Epic magic can turn Stupid to Smart.

Ozymandias
2008-03-16, 06:20 PM
Gee, all this talk almost makes a fella think that the entire alignment system is a poorly-thought-out relic.

I mean, chaotic characters are chaotic, but not too chaotic, otherwise they'd be devoted to being chaotic, which is a lawful trait...

Bleen
2008-03-16, 06:21 PM
Nope, the action is Neutral, or even worse, Evil. Intent does matter. If a Paladin isn't doing what they're doing for the sake of being Good, then they're not being Good. They can still screw up horribly and commit an evil act with good intent, but that's a one-way street because of the standards Good is held up to.

GammaPaladin
2008-03-16, 06:21 PM
Meh.

Mechanically a Paladin is simply a melee fighter with some divine spells and special abilities that work against specific alignments.

So there's no reason to limit them to LG.

Remember kids, fluff is what you make of it. Only the mechanics of your class matter, because you can make up the rest.

Dode
2008-03-16, 06:24 PM
No this works under hte assumptions paladins have been changed. Have they? Provide a link please They have been changed by virtue of the fact they're in an entirely different edition of the game.

The devils are organized and have a strict hierarchy yes. but they don't have a code. There isn't a rule "you cannot do something chaotic" or "You cannot do something good" in the same way that good paladins cannnot do something evil. Devils act in a lawful manner, however they can commit both good, neutral and evil actions without fear of ceasing to be good, because they commit all of these actions with evil intentions And thus making their acts evil (The "good" portion of the Paladin's code is based entirely on intent as well). Saving puppies so you can rear them to be vicious attack dogs and let them loose in a playground is still an evil act, even though it was saving a puppy. Pretty basic logic. Also, a devil's disobedience to the code of laws in the Hells gets you stripped of both powers and mind, known as a "demotion". So you're wrong about the nature of LE in D&D.

EvilElitest
2008-03-16, 06:33 PM
Nope, the action is Neutral, or even worse, Evil. Intent does matter. If a Paladin isn't doing what they're doing for the sake of being Good, then they're not being Good. They can still screw up horribly and commit an evil act with good intent, but that's a one-way street because of the standards Good is held up to.
I was talking about an evil person commiting a good action

The action is good, teh intent is not
Your right however, a paladin needs to have both good actions and intent


They have been changed by virtue of the fact they're in an entirely different edition of the game.

Have paladin's concept been confirmed to have been changed? I"m working off of the current paladin theory as it hasn't been changed yet.



And thus making their acts evil (The "good" portion of the Paladin's code is based entirely on intent as well). Saving puppies so you can rear them to be vicious attack dogs and let them loose in a playground is still an evil act, even though it was saving a puppy. Pretty basic logic. Also, a devil's disobedience to the code of laws in the Hells gets you stripped of both powers and mind, known as a "demotion". So you're wrong about the nature of LE in D&D.
1. The action of saving the puppies is still good, not no good intent. It is still a good action, as actions have good/evil definitions in D&D
2. The devil's rank is only stripped if he gets caught, not if he does it, unlike a paladin.
from
EE

Xuincherguixe
2008-03-16, 06:34 PM
I mean, chaotic characters are chaotic, but not too chaotic, otherwise they'd be devoted to being chaotic, which is a lawful trait...

One who is truly devoted to chaos understands this, and embraces it ^_^.

Bleen
2008-03-16, 06:38 PM
..The intent at least somewhat defines the action. I know for a fact that's written somewhere in either the DMG or the PHB. You can't randomly decapitate the king or torture someone "for the greater good" and still be Good, because those are evil actions no matter what. But when determining whether a possible good action is Good or not, intent still matters. I think I need to draw out a flowchart or something, because this is a pain to explain in written text.

And you know, because first sentences tend to get lost in the rest of a paragraph: Your intent defines whether an action is good or not. The intent and the act are not mutually exclusive.

Ozymandias
2008-03-16, 06:45 PM
If a different type of Paladin is being introduced that contradicts the 3.x concept of a Paladin, doesn't it stand to reason that said concept has been changed? Isn't that a whole lot more reasonable than assuming that there would be a contradiction in the new rules?

EvilElitest
2008-03-16, 06:46 PM
..The intent at least somewhat defines the action. I know for a fact that's written somewhere in either the DMG or the PHB. You can't randomly decapitate the king or torture someone "for the greater good" and still be Good, because those are evil actions no matter what. But when determining whether a possible good action is Good or not, intent still matters. I think I need to draw out a flowchart or something, because this is a pain to explain in written text.

And you know, because first sentences tend to get lost in the rest of a paragraph: Your intent defines whether an action is good or not. The intent and the act are not mutually exclusive.

I'm not saying intent doesn't matter. For a good person to stay good they need to commit good actions with good intentions. However an evil person can just commit good actions without the intentions (they will still be evil because of this)
from
EE

Bleen
2008-03-16, 06:53 PM
Right! So it's perfectly possible for Evil Paladins to exist, with an Evil Paladin Code, commiting acts in the name of Evil, and never doing Good, because they don't stop being Evil.

Green Bean
2008-03-16, 06:53 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the released 4e information imply that Paladins can get their powers from their gods? I think they referenced Paladins of Asmodeus once or twice.

EvilElitest
2008-03-16, 06:55 PM
Right! So it's perfectly possible for Evil Paladins to exist, with an Evil Paladin Code, commiting acts in the name of Evil, and never doing Good, because they don't stop being Evil.

No because the action is good. A good paladin can commit an evil action and fall without losing her alignment. Same would go with an evil paladin.
from
EE

Nerd-o-rama
2008-03-16, 06:57 PM
Sigh. It looks like this is yet another alignment thread I will never read through due to the massive walls of text. However, as promised, I am cut-and-pasting a comment I made in the original Media Discussions argument that spawned this. Here you go:



1. Yes but that isn't inherent in the alignment, just an add on. A LE person who sticks to a code and one who doesn't are both equally LE, the code is an add on but not a requirement
You could say the same thing about Paladins and Lawful Good people in general. There's plenty of LG people who don't have a specific personal code ( :roy: ). One who does may be a Paladin (but not necessarily).

I fully support the mechanical generalization of the Paladin class, although only LG members of the class are Paladins in the traditional sense; others are different kinds of alignment exemplars. I don't see the problem. Unless, of course, the designers half-ass it like they did the Chaotic/Evil Paladin Variants in 3E Unearthed Arcana.

EvilElitest
2008-03-16, 07:05 PM
You could say the same thing about Paladins and Lawful Good people in general. There's plenty of LG people who don't have a specific personal code ( :roy: ). One who does may be a Paladin (but not necessarily).

I fully support the mechanical generalization of the Paladin class, although only LG members of the class are Paladins in the traditional sense; others are different kinds of alignment exemplars. I don't see the problem. Unless, of course, the designers half-ass it like they did the Chaotic/Evil Paladin Variants in 3E Unearthed Arcana.

1. LG are still held to the code of there alignment. Roy can't go around killing innocents the way Belkar does because he would cease to be good.
2. In that any good action makes you fall?
from
EE

Tequila Sunrise
2008-03-16, 07:43 PM
Right, now one of the changes with Paladins in 4E goes along side with the 3E alternate class feature of evil paladin. Now at first glance one simply goes "Oh yeah, evil paladins, like blackguards, oh yeah" and kinda go with it. But think harder. This is missing a very important part of the paladin's nature.

Now first lets adress the most commonly stated argument for evil paladins

"Why can't evil also have champions for their cause. It makes perfect sense for evil gods to have champions at their command as well. Evil can have people serve their causes as well, it is an arch typical part of fantasy, evil knights and all that. I mean evil order could exist, knights of hexor to oppose his half brother all of that."

Yet again at first glance this seems reasonable. But your forgetting something very important. That your mixing concepts. Your mixing the paladin up with the crusader, Knight, and Cleric.

For one, the Cleric is the champion of the god's wishes. Paladins don't draw their power from gods, they represent the raw element of Law and good, not from gods. Different concepts.

A far larger concept that people forget is the idea of repersenting a cause. A paladin does not in fact repersent a cause so much as an entire alignment. More on that below. A knight or a crusader repersents a cause, they are the champions of a particualar cause or belief. For example, if i represent say the cause of a certain nation, i am held to that nation's moral code. Or what ever code i embody. This code can be good, evil, neutral, lawful, anything that isn't chaotic will be upheld by the knight (lawful only).

A crusader will fight for any cause, the service of a demon lord, the righteous justice of heaven, equal rights for the blind, or the untied goblin humanitarian front. They will fight for any cause.

Paladins on the other hand are something else. They embody an alignment concept. Lawful Good. Now the most important part of the paladin is that they are held to a code that is tied to the alignment they represent, not to a god or group's code, but an aligment code

All good, more so lawful good is held to some sort of moral code. Good people can't do certain things, because well, they wouldn't be good otherwise. The idea of good is not doing evil things. Now a paladin simply embodies these good ideals to an extreme by not committing any evil actions ever. All a paladin is doing is taking his/her alignment to an extreme, but they are still upholding their alignment, which by its nature demands some sort of code, good in not committing evil and being a generally good person, law in well, holding one's self to a code


This doesn't work with evil. The idea of evil is that you can do what ever you want if you feel like it. An evil person could chose to hold themselves to a code, but their alignment doesn't force them too, unlike a good person. A good person who kills innocents will become evil, an evil person who doesn't kill every innocent he sees is still evil.

Paladins uphold the concept of Lawful Good. And you can't do that for evil.

The principle of Lawful Good is limitations. Lawful good people, paladin or not, have moral limitations. They cannot kill innocents, they cannot murder prisoners, they cannot break the creed of their alignment. There is an inherent code in Lawful Good, you have to be lawful and good (as dictated by WotC).

Evil doesn't have a code, that is the point of evil, you can do what ever you want whenever you want. A LE paladin doesn't make sense, because part of the nature of evil is doing things to suit your own selfish ends. Paladins represent an alignment code, not a gods code or a particular group/cause, they represent the embodiment of Lawful Good and are held to a code because of that. As evil rejects codes in its nature (it is possible, but not an inherent part of the alignment) an evil paladin doesn't make sense

In short, knights and crusaders can represent evil causes, Clerics represent evil gods. But you can't have an evil paladin in the same way you have a good paladin

from
EE

EE, usually I agree with your sentiments but this time I have to call you out. I think you're making the mistake that far too many of us make far too often; you're over-thinking the concept. You're restricting a word to a very specific definition based on the arbitrary technicalities of "rulebook" of a very specific subculture. You're taking the game writers and designers too seriously.

I won't go over your arguments point by point, but the gist of your argument seems to be "paladins have to be LG because only a LG person has the right motivations to dedicate themself to their alignment." First I'd like to point out that the "paladin = dedication to alignment" idea is a technicality of the PHB flavor text. No matter what the book says, it is exceedingly common for players and their paladins to dedicate themselves to a god rather than their alignment. And it's easy to see why they would do so; paladins share many things in common with clerics who most often follow deities, and alignment is just so much more abstract than a god and therefore more accessible as the object of obsession...ugh, I mean, dedication. Whether you or anyone else considers this a breach of RAW or tradition or definition or whatever is irrelevant. Even if it is a breach of one or all of those things, rules, traditions and definitions change, often with good reason.

Second, I'd like to comment on your idea that "only LG people have the right motivations to dedicate themselves to their alignment". While this might arguably be true in real life (and that argument could go on forever), we're talking about archetypal images in a fantasy game of imagination. If we were to apply real life logic to D&D, there wouldn't be clerics dedicated to obviously malignant and pointless gods like Nerull. (Well there would be one or two, but we'd have to limit their Wisdom and/or Intelligence to about 7 to represent how insane and/or downright moronic they were.) Obviously, we don't apply real life logic to D&D, so why waste page space on a PrC whose archetypal role would be just as easily filled by deleting that pesky line in the paladin class description: "Alignment: Must be lawful good"? It might be harder to come up with motivation for a character to dedicate themselves to an evil alignment, but it's certainly possible. (Heck, I could just convert Hitler into a D&D equivalent and I'd be playing a LE paladin.)

TS

Renegade Paladin
2008-03-16, 07:46 PM
3. No, they work just like paladins. Just with a different code and emphasis. Have you read Unearthed Arcana?
Don't know if he has, but I have, and the non-paladins contained therein are absolute rubbish. First, a paladin is a heroic champion, which has nothing to do with being evil. Secondly, yes, evil should have its champions, but they shouldn't work on the same principles as the paladin, and UA demonstrated why perfectly. Come on, simply reversing the paladin's abilities and calling it good enough? You can't even begin to tell me that's actually a good idea. If there are to be evil champions, then they should have their own set of abilities, not simply a mirror or ripoff of the paladin's.

Nerd-o-rama
2008-03-16, 07:47 PM
1. LG are still held to the code of there alignment. Roy can't go around killing innocents the way Belkar does because he would cease to be good.
And Lawful Evil people can't go around helping people out for no other reason than charitableness because they would cease to be Evil. That's not a Code, that's an alignment description. The only difference is that it's harder to do something truly Good than it is to do something truly Evil. That's sort of the point of Evil.

Would Lawful Evil alignment-exemplars (whatever you want to call them) lose their powers over one Good act? Maybe they should. You could argue making the restrictions a little more lenient, as it's easy to perform an Evil act that appears Good in the short term. But if you restrict fall-able actions to major transgressions of alignment on both sides of the street, I think it could work.

Rutee
2008-03-16, 07:48 PM
Don't know if he has, but I have, and the non-paladins contained therein are absolute rubbish. First, a paladin is a heroic champion, which has nothing to do with being evil. Secondly, yes, evil should have its champions, but they shouldn't work on the same principles as the paladin, and UA demonstrated why perfectly. Come on, simply reversing the paladin's abilities and calling it good enough? You can't even begin to tell me that's actually a good idea. If there are to be evil champions, then they should have their own set of abilities, not simply a mirror or ripoff of the paladin's.

Out of curiosity, does this sentiment hold true for Clerics to you? Because the Good and Evil Domains are mirrors. As are Turn/Rebuke.

If it does, rock on, of course, but if it doesn't, why not?

Starbuck_II
2008-03-16, 07:55 PM
Don't know if he has, but I have, and the non-paladins contained therein are absolute rubbish. First, a paladin is a heroic champion, which has nothing to do with being evil. Secondly, yes, evil should have its champions, but they shouldn't work on the same principles as the paladin, and UA demonstrated why perfectly. Come on, simply reversing the paladin's abilities and calling it good enough? You can't even begin to tell me that's actually a good idea. If there are to be evil champions, then they should have their own set of abilities, not simply a mirror or ripoff of the paladin's.

A Base class evil Paladin is a base class Blackguard: really, it wouldn't be overpowered. What is wrong with a class that gives options/not forced to one thing? I mean Fighters are.

Blackguards did just reverse Pally abilities/call it good.

Renegade Paladin
2008-03-16, 08:06 PM
Out of curiosity, does this sentiment hold true for Clerics to you? Because the Good and Evil Domains are mirrors. As are Turn/Rebuke.

If it does, rock on, of course, but if it doesn't, why not?
Game balance, for starters. Contagion and remove disease are nowhere near each other on the power scale; neither is having a flat damage pool inflicted by touch in place of the healing pool of lay on hands. Contagion is especially egregious, because not only is it better than remove disease by the axiom of offense being better than defense (which is in itself better than repairing the damage after the fact), but it's better in that it is, de facto, multiple target, since it inflicts the subject with a real, communicable disease that it can then pass on to others.

Secondly, flavor. Great, I'm now an evil overlord. So... why do I not want to keep my minions in good shape, again? What do you mean I only get inflict spells? Rather than turning all the paladin's healing abilities around and making dark knights simply carry around disease and destruction in a can instead, they should have their own set of abilities.

The domains you mention don't have this problem, as the powers in question are simply +1 to caster level for roughly equal subsets of spells; it's a whole other kettle of fish.

Blackguards did just reverse Pally abilities/call it good.
No, it really didn't. Take a look at the blackguard class chart. Unless I'm grossly misremembering (and I'm not) you will not find contagion x/week on it, nor will you see baleful touch (or whatever they called the damaging lay on hands variant). The blackguard has some abilities modeled after the paladin's, such as dark blessing and smite good; these make sense. The other paladin abilities do not make sense when mirrored to evil, so instead the game designers did the sensible thing and replaced them with other abilities, such as sneak attack, poison use, and their own aura, which other than being an aura has nothing to do with Aura of Courage.

Nebo_
2008-03-16, 08:07 PM
Have paladin's concept been confirmed to have been changed? I"m working off of the current paladin theory as it hasn't been changed yet.

This is your problem. You assume that they haven't changed because you haven't seen it written down. Not only is that presumptuous, it's arrogant. You see, we can tell that the Paladin flavour has changed, because, and this is important, there are evil paladins now. When they tell us that there are now evil paladins, it's a logical step to now assume that the 'all paladins are lawful good' rule has changed.

Roderick_BR
2008-03-16, 08:11 PM
I think you are right. The problem in 4e, is that while they didn't say they were changing the paladin, they didn't say they wouldn't. I think the 4e paladin will be a lot like the crusader, the same way the fighter will be more like the warblade.
When the character is created (or multiclasses into paladin), he chooses a code, representing what he's fighting for. Maybe it'll still be like the 3.x paladin, that can either follow a concept or a deity, but still, it looks like paladins will be crusaders by any other name.
Now, I like the basic paladin's concept, even if it sounded more like a PrC than a base class, even from 2nd edition (and the way he was written in 1e, it looks like something like a PrC with his "name level").
I think it's fine to have others "paladins" because it makes the game more varied. You just need to remember that your LG paladin is the classic paladin, a CG is like a Holy Liberator (a mix of paladin and ranger from Masters of the Wild), and the evil ones are like Black Guards.

Myself? When 4e come out, I'll play a CG paladin as always. And when I DM, I'll make a BBeG LE or CE paladin.

Edit: About powers, I'm willing to bet that paladins can choose powers based on alignment, the same way clerics (probably) will have powers based on which deity they choose.

Rutee
2008-03-16, 08:16 PM
Game balance, for starters. Contagion and remove disease are nowhere near each other on the power scale; neither is having a flat damage pool inflicted by touch in place of the healing pool of lay on hands. Contagion is especially egregious, because not only is it better than remove disease by the axiom of offense being better than defense (which is in itself better than repairing the damage after the fact), but it's better in that it is, de facto, multiple target, since it inflicts the subject with a real, communicable disease that it can then pass on to others.

Secondly, flavor. Great, I'm now an evil overlord. So... why do I not want to keep my minions in good shape, again? What do you mean I only get inflict spells? Rather than turning all the paladin's healing abilities around and making dark knights simply carry around disease and destruction in a can instead, they should have their own set of abilities.

The domains you mention don't have this problem, as the powers in question are simply +1 to caster level for roughly equal subsets of spells; it's a whole other kettle of fish.

Don't evil/Good clerics possess the first problem de facto (Small note; You were thinking De Jueur before, I think. De Facto is "By Custom", the latter is "By Law"), because they're expected to prepare Damage and destruction spells rather then Healing or Buff ones? Or at least, predominantly, Damage and Debuffs over ally buffs?

The second, of course, is a problem; I'd forgotten that EVIL PALADINS can't heal at all..

Renegade Paladin
2008-03-16, 08:16 PM
An evil or chaotic paladin is a contradiction in terms; a chaotic man by definition doesn't have the paladin's dedication to chivalry, and an evil one is not heroic. The term "paladin" means a heroic champion and paragon of chivalry, and means such outside of the game and has for centuries. By all means, have your evil champions, but call them something else.

EvilElitest
2008-03-16, 08:18 PM
And Lawful Evil people can't go around helping people out for no other reason than charitableness because they would cease to be Evil. That's not a Code, that's an alignment description. The only difference is that it's harder to do something truly Good than it is to do something truly Evil. That's sort of the point of Evil.

Yeah they can. A LE person can be honestly charitable if they are evil for some other reason. Or they can do a good deed (helping others) for evil reasons. It is still a good action, but doesn't make him good




EE, usually I agree with your sentiments but this time I have to call you out.

Um, thanks for agreeing with me, i don't think i've seen you around before?



I think you're making the mistake that far too many of us make far too often; you're over-thinking the concept. You're restricting a word to a very specific definition based on the arbitrary technicalities of "rulebook" of a very specific subculture. You're taking the game writers and designers too seriously.

Explain please, because i'm just working off the definition of paladin as written


I won't go over your arguments point by point, but the gist of your argument seems to be "paladins have to be LG because only a LG person has the right motivations to dedicate themself to their alignment." First I'd like to point out that the "paladin = dedication to alignment" idea is a technicality of the PHB flavor text. No matter what the book says, it is exceedingly common for players and their paladins to dedicate themselves to a god rather than their alignment. And it's easy to see why they would do so; paladins share many things in common with clerics who most often follow deities, and alignment is just so much more abstract than a god and therefore more accessible as the object of obsession...ugh, I mean, dedication. Whether you or anyone else considers this a breach of RAW or tradition or definition or whatever is irrelevant. Even if it is a breach of one or all of those things, rules, traditions and definitions change, often with good reason.

Wait a second
1. My point was that only LG paladins can have a code that works in teh paladin fashion, not what you said
2. But Paladins by RAW who dedicate them selves to a god still need to abide by the rules of their alignment. The code is based after alignment, not gods will. Clerics depend on gods will



Second, I'd like to comment on your idea that "only LG people have the right motivations to dedicate themselves to their alignment". While this might arguably be true in real life (and that argument could go on forever), we're talking about archetypal images in a fantasy game of imagination. If we were to apply real life logic to D&D, there wouldn't be clerics dedicated to obviously malignant and pointless gods like Nerull. (Well there would be one or two, but we'd have to limit their Wisdom and/or Intelligence to about 7 to represent how insane and/or downright moronic they were.) Obviously, we don't apply real life logic to D&D, so why waste page space on a PrC whose archetypal role would be just as easily filled by deleting that pesky line in the paladin class description: "Alignment: Must be lawful good"? It might be harder to come up with motivation for a character to dedicate themselves to an evil alignment, but it's certainly possible. (Heck, I could just convert Hitler into a D&D equivalent and I'd be playing a LE paladin.)
TS
1. Um, that isn't what i was saying actually
2. You can apply logic to D&D, it isn't all about archtypes. For example, Nerull example, here are some
A) He is a nature god, he repersents death. People who believe in embodying the dark side of nature will worship him, or just death itself
B) He is the god of death. Death is a scary concept, and it has power over everybody. It makes sense for people to worship it
C) As the God of death, people would worship him to protect themselves from death, or wish death upon their foes
D) he is an extremly powerful god, i mean he is the god of death, when ever people dies he gets stronger. People are attracted to evil gods
E) people are always attracted to power. Nerull is extremly powerful, people will be attracted to that. He can grant extreme powers as well , people will worship him for that
F) going along with E, He is impressive. I mean he is the god of death, he wields control over death and the undead, pretty scary guy. Pretty impressive guy, and as we know, people will work for dudes who scare/impress them enough
G) Undead and necromancers will be attracted to him anyways. Death and all that
H) Already existing cultists will most likely recruit him the way real cultist do. I mean we have had some really creepy cults in our history.
I) on that subject, most likely people who lack other options will worship him because its a cultural thing. Or because they don't know any better to not worship the scary death god.
J) And you could make an argument what he is doing is for the best i suppose
and that is just a few



This is your problem. You assume that they haven't changed because you haven't seen it written down. Not only is that presumptuous, it's arrogant. You see, we can tell that the Paladin flavour has changed, because, and this is important, there are evil paladins now. When they tell us that there are now evil paladins, it's a logical step to now assume that the 'all paladins are lawful good' rule has changed.
If it is arrogant to want evidence before making assumptions that the class has been changed, then so be it. But because we haven't seen any changes to the paladin concept of their code being one of alignments, i'm going to work with the 3E assumption.

Now more to the point, if Paladins are becoming more like Crusaders, or knights, why can't we just call them crusaders or knights, keep old concepts on both ends

Edit
Renegade Paladin, that is what we have knights or Crusaders for, they act as both the good and evil champions


from
EE

shadowdemon_lord
2008-03-16, 08:21 PM
I think it does make sense for the various different champions of alignment x be mirrors of each other. I mean, if it works for LG, why can't it work for LG's mirror, CE?

Still, EE has a point. Saying anyone can't commit any act that is considered an x alignment act without taking into account intent doesn't make sense at all, ever. I mean, knowingly associating with evil people is an evil act. Under this interpretation of the alignments Roy trying to channel Belkars destructive rage into something productive would have made him fall were he a paladin. But it helped him get into Celestia, because of intent.

So, taking intent into account, I think paladins of all alignments (even chaotic neutral) make perfect sense. After all, outsiders are representations of their alignment, and Slaad exist. If you can have a being that is the represenation of an alignment, you can have someone try and emulate that being. A chaotic neutral champion would be living life the way he wanted to everyone else be damned, or not depending on how much he liked them. Authority, long term relationships, anything that really tied him down would be anathema to his very existence. He'd probably get cool class features that slowly turned him into a living embodiment of entropy. Such a character would be living life mostly for the thrill of it, his own (and everyone elses) safety be damned. Mechanically such a character would probably have a mix of divine spells, fighter, and rogueish abilities.

EvilElitest
2008-03-16, 08:23 PM
actually knowly working with evil to commit evil is an evil act, working with evil isn't, at least according to BoED
from
EE

Nebo_
2008-03-16, 08:25 PM
If it is arrogant to want evidence before making assumptions that the class has been changed, then so be it. But because we haven't seen any changes to the paladin concept of their code being one of alignments, i'm going to work with the 3E assumption.

It's stupid to assume that it hasn't changed when WotC has said the it has. Your whole argument is flawed. You're trying to argue with incomplete information, so there is nothing backing you up. How's this for an idea: Wait until there is more information, then, and only then, if there are inconsistencies in the fluff, then you can bitch all you like.

Rutee
2008-03-16, 08:28 PM
An evil or chaotic paladin is a contradiction in terms; a chaotic man by definition doesn't have the paladin's dedication to chivalry, and an evil one is not heroic. The term "paladin" means a heroic champion and paragon of chivalry, and means such outside of the game and has for centuries. By all means, have your evil champions, but call them something else.

Actually, outside of its original context, it merely means "Knightly champion". The original context, of course, will be Good, just as Cleric used to mean an exclusively good priest, because ideally, /that's all you had/ (Because you just had the one Good God to serve. Paladin in this case hearkening back to the 12 Peers). Knights really don't have to be 'good', at all. You could argue that they can't be chaotic, but wouldn't that contradict the idea of the Black Knight?

Renegade Paladin
2008-03-16, 08:29 PM
(Small note; You were thinking De Jueur before, I think. De Facto is "By Custom", the latter is "By Law")
Not at all, because "by law" (the spell's rules) the spell contagion is single target. Its effect, however, is not, hence "de facto," which means "in fact" or "in practice." :smalltongue:

Talya
2008-03-16, 08:30 PM
Evil doesn't have a code

I think you're mixing up evil with chaos.

But then again, even Pirates have a code, laid down by Morgan and Bartholomew... okay, so they're more like guidelines, really...

Just don't tell Teague.

EvilElitest
2008-03-16, 08:32 PM
It's stupid to assume that it hasn't changed when WotC has said the it has. Your whole argument is flawed. You're trying to argue with incomplete information, so there is nothing backing you up. How's this for an idea: Wait until there is more information, then, and only then, if there are inconsistencies in the fluff, then you can bitch all you like.

It is also far more stupid and arrogant to presume change that hasn't been indicated yet, and also to avoid reading the first post. I've already said, this is about the idea of evil paladin working off of what we already know about paladins. We know about 3E paladins, and we don't know what has been changed. That doesn't change the fact taht evil paladins are an absurd idea unless we go with the crusader or knight concept which has not been confirmed

Here is an idea. How about, you know, working with the information we have, and stop whining about what we don't have.
from
EE

Rutee
2008-03-16, 08:33 PM
Not at all, because "by law" (the spell's rules) the spell contagion is single target. Its effect, however, is not, hence "de facto," which means "in fact" or "in practice." :smalltongue:

Ah hah. I was thinking of that as "By law, the spell affects multiples (Because that's what a disease is), but by 'custom' it doesn't"

Dode
2008-03-16, 08:34 PM
It is also far more stupid and arrogant to presume change that hasn't been indicated yet Like the presumption that 4E's paladins and cosmology are equivalent to a previous edition?
You have no basis for your arguments because, as the previous poster says, you have incomplete information.

Nebo_
2008-03-16, 08:36 PM
Here is an idea. How about, you know, working with the information we have, and stop whining about what we don't have.

You are working with outdated information. Why would I work with something that is going to change anyway? The Paladin has changed, live with it. They keep calling it a paladin because that's what people are used to. Hell, if they'd called it something different, you'd probably have started a thread complaining about how they took the paladin out.

Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll
2008-03-16, 08:40 PM
People keep saying that a good person can't do evil acts because they would stop being good.

I would like to correct that. A good person can do evil acts. They just possibly stop being good afterwards. Paladins are an exception.

Evil can have moral guidelines.

I once played a man, a nobleman, who would never harm a lady, always was imppeccably nice, and perfectly ordered in every way, and devoutly stuck by those rules, but was, quite undoubtedly, evil. He would horribly and coldheartedly murder people, and then adopt their children, because he didn't believe in harming children.

Another guy, a merchant, didn't believe in hurting people. He didn't believe in causing physical pain. He was quite the pacifist, actually. However, he did believe in taking away other's livelihood and leaving them to languish and starve to death.

These people were evil, and yet they had moral codes, that they stuck to resolutely.

Nebo_
2008-03-16, 08:44 PM
People keep saying that a good person can't do evil acts because they would stop being good.

I would like to correct that. A good person can do evil acts. They just possibly stop being good afterwards. Paladins are an exception.

Evil can have moral guidelines.

I once played a man, a nobleman, who would never harm a lady, always was imppeccably nice, and perfectly ordered in every way, and devoutly stuck by those rules, but was, quite undoubtedly, evil. He would horribly and coldheartedly murder people, and then adopt their children, because he didn't believe in harming children.

Another guy, a merchant, didn't believe in hurting people. He didn't believe in causing physical pain. He was quite the pacifist, actually. However, he did believe in taking away other's livelihood and leaving them to languish and starve to death.

These people were evil, and yet they had moral codes, that they stuck to resolutely.

QFT. I'm playing a beguiler very much like your nobleman at the moment. He's friendly, generous, personable and utterly black hearted. EE's version of Evil is two dimensional and, honestly, boring.

EvilElitest
2008-03-16, 08:45 PM
Like the presumption that 4E's paladins and cosmology are equivalent to a previous edition?

who's to say the cosmology change makes a difference. In the Races and classes the've said nothing about changing paladins except in the alignment thing and their powers. Nothing else. So lets work with the paladin as defined, and what it means to be a paladin



You are working with outdated information. Why would I work with something that is going to change anyway? The Paladin has changed, live with it. They keep calling it a paladin because that's what people are used to. Hell, if they'd called it something different, you'd probably have started a thread complaining about how they took the paladin out.

1. Out dated? then where is the update. Provide it please. Prove that they are outdated
2. How have they changed. THe alignment is a bad change, and some mechanical changes, and i'm saying that an evil paladin doesn't make sense and is more like a knight or crusader. What your doing is generally whining about stuff that hasn't been proven yet. What to prove me wrong? Show the changes, or prove my theory wrong, don't waste time
3. Not all change is for the better i would like to point out
4. And yeah, i would complain if they left the paladin out, but i would applaud them having crusaders and knights and i would complain less. Inconsistency is more annoying than them leaving something out.

Edit
Evil can have guidelines, but it doesn't have to
Good people can commit evil actions, doing so will eventually lead to them ceasing to be good


EE's version of Evil is two dimensional and, honestly, boring.

Correction, your misrepresentation of EE's version of evil is two dimensional.
Evil people can have morals and codes, however none inherent to the alignment itself

from
EE

Bleen
2008-03-16, 08:47 PM
I think you're mixing up evil with chaos.

But then again, even Pirates have a code, laid down by Morgan and Bartholomew... okay, so they're more like guidelines, really...

Just don't tell Teague.
Actually (putting aside the extraplanar entities who embody the concepts and are probably incomprehensible by mortal standards), wouldn't it be possible for a Chaotic person or organization to have a code, so long as that code supports a Chaotic viewpoint? Extreme, pure Chaos shuns all form of rules and predictability, but the extreme ends of all the alignments seem pretty far past what humans are capable of even thinking of being.

Like if me and my club had a code that included something like, say, not taking lame crap from people just because of their position in a hierarchy, we'd still have a set of rules to follow, but we'd still be Chaotic.

EvilElitest
2008-03-16, 08:49 PM
Actually (putting aside the extraplanar entities who embody the concepts and are probably incomprehensible by mortal standards), wouldn't it be possible for a Chaotic person or organization to have a code, so long as that code supports a Chaotic viewpoint? Extreme, pure Chaos shuns all form of rules and predictability, but the extreme ends of all the alignments seem pretty far past what humans are capable of even thinking of being.

Like if me and my club had a code that included something like, say, not taking lame crap from people just because of their position in a hierarchy, we'd still have a set of rules to follow, but we'd still be Chaotic.

chaotic people can have a code, however it isn't inherent in the aligment.
from
EE

Rutee
2008-03-16, 08:51 PM
Actually (putting aside the extraplanar entities who embody the concepts and are probably incomprehensible by mortal standards), wouldn't it be possible for a Chaotic person or organization to have a code, so long as that code supports a Chaotic viewpoint? Extreme, pure Chaos shuns all form of rules and predictability, but the extreme ends of all the alignments seem pretty far past what humans are capable of even thinking of being.

Like if me and my club had a code that included something like, say, not taking lame crap from people just because of their position in a hierarchy, we'd still have a set of rules to follow, but we'd still be Chaotic.

I think that's what she was saying by mentioning pirates (Whelp). Even Chaotic people can have codes. But it would still stand to reason that by saying "Evil can't have a code", he'd be confusing CHaos with Evil, since it's a stereotype of Chaos.

Of course, I agree with you both; Even chaotic people can have codes. It's rarer, and those codes will embody some concept of freedom (And have some freedom of interpretation, possibly). But they'd be there.

Bleen
2008-03-16, 08:54 PM
:S Looks like I need to go take "Figuring out what people are trying to imply during textual conversations 101" again...

Nebo_
2008-03-16, 08:57 PM
1. Out dated? then where is the update. Provide it please. Prove that they are outdated

I can't, it comes out in June -_-.


Prove that they are outdated

I'll have to say this carefully so that you understand. Fourth Edition.


who's to say the cosmology change makes a difference. In the Races and classes the've said nothing about changing paladins except in the alignment thing and their powers. Nothing else. So lets work with the paladin as defined, and what it means to be a paladin

What it means to be a paladin has obviously changed. When there are evil paladins now, I cannot possibly fathom why you can't understand that there will be differences in the fluff. It boggles the mind how stubborn and closed minded you're being. I will stop posting in this thread now, there's no point arguing with you; all you do is repeat the same argument, over and over.

EvilElitest
2008-03-16, 09:01 PM
I can't, it comes out in June -_-.

Oh dear, that must mean that we don't know if anything has been changed. Oh well, i guess we just have to work with what we have


I'll have to say this carefully so that you understand. Fourth Edition.

So? Races and Classes only says that they are changing the aligment and the powers, nothing about the code



It boggles the mind how you base your points on nothing. Paladins can be evil now, that
A) Doesn't mean that anything else is changed
B) The Code isn't fluff, it is a game rule
C) Also doesn't mean the concept of a paladin can't be discussed

[QUOTE]
I will stop posting in this thread now, there's no point arguing with you; all you do is repeat the same argument, over and over.
As do you. Except i actually base mine on something we know
from
EE

Yahzi
2008-03-16, 09:03 PM
So Evil doesn't stop being Evil when it behaves Good, but Good stops being Good when it behaves Evil. I SENSE A DOUBLE STANDARD.
It's not a double-standard, it's an "OR" gate.

You can do all the good acts in the world, heal every puppy in the universe, but if you murder one innocent person, you are still a murderer. You are still evil. You can't erase an evil act with any amount of good acts; you can't pay off your moral crime against one person by doing any amount of good things to other people.

Now you may occasionally be able to justify harming one person because it helps many others; but that's different. That's arguing that to cause that good you had to cause some harm. Whether or not you win that argument is irrelevant, because what we're talking about here is evil you didn't have to do.

Evil is an "OR" gate. If you do any of a number of things, you're evil, regardless of what else you do.

Dode
2008-03-16, 09:06 PM
who's to say the cosmology change makes a difference. Not you, making your assertions on 4E void and invalid.


1. Out dated? then where is the update. Provide it please. Prove that they are outdated Quoting new, innovative technique to criticizing material that hasn't been released yet. The update is know as "4th Edition" btw:smallbiggrin:

2. How have they changed. THe alignment is a bad change, and some mechanical changes, and i'm saying that an evil paladin doesn't make sense and is more like a knight or crusader. What your doing is generally whining about stuff that hasn't been proven yet. And bam here's some irony for the GitP audience.

What to prove me wrong? Show the changes, or prove my theory wrong, don't waste time And we close with some classic Flying Spighetti Monster. EvilElitest, please stop trying to fill in the massive blanks about 4E with 3E material and challenge other posters to "prove you wrong". It's patently absurd and a waste of everyone's time.



Evil can have guidelines, but it doesn't have to...

...Correction, your misrepresentation of EE's version of evil is two dimensional.
Evil people can have morals and codes, however none inherent to the alignment itself This is known as the Lawful and Chaotic alignments. And they apply to both good and evil.

EvilElitest
2008-03-16, 09:06 PM
To build off what Yahzi said, an evil person can only make up for his evil nature and become good if he atones and tries to become a better person. THis normally requires

A) Not committing any more evil actions
B) Committing good actions with good intent
C) admitting you past evil actions were wrong and trying to atone
D) Eating tofu
from
EE

Rutee
2008-03-16, 09:08 PM
[quote]Evil is an "OR" gate. If you do any of a number of things, you're evil, regardless of what else you do.

That's a bunch of bull. Sorry. It's that simple; One minor on the evil scale can not outweigh a lifetime of good. And that's all I can say according to board rules.

EvilElitest
2008-03-16, 09:09 PM
Not you, making your assertions on 4E void and invalid.

What in 4E proves me wrong


Quoting new, innovative technique to criticizing material that hasn't been released yet. :smallbiggrin:
I'm saying, with the already established concept of paladin, evil paladins don't make sense
.

And we close with some classic Flying Spighetti Monster. EvilElitest, please stop trying to fill in the massive blanks about 4E with 3E material and challenge other posters to "prove you wrong". It's patently absurd and a waste of everyone's time.
are paladins any different in terms of code or where they draw their power i ask you? Not as such no. With the already existing concept of paladin, do evil paladins make sense? No. Should evil paladins come about? No, evil knights and crusaders should come about, not paladins. A new edition change that has evil paladins would change the very nature of paladins

That's a bunch of bull. Sorry. It's that simple; One minor on the evil scale can not outweigh a lifetime of good. And that's all I can say according to board rules.
murder is more than a minor. Good people can fail after years of work when they commit evil acts

from
EE

Dode
2008-03-16, 09:13 PM
What in 4E proves me wrong Nothing in it proves you right though, ranking your theories with "Flying Spighetti Monster".

I'm saying, with the already established concept of paladin, evil paladins don't make sense ...which is irrelevent because it's a previous edition.

Rutee
2008-03-16, 09:14 PM
Nothing in it proves you right though, ranking your theories with "Flying Spighetti Monster".
Dude pastafarianism is funny. There's a big difference :P

EvilElitest
2008-03-16, 09:16 PM
Nothing in it proves you right though, ranking your theories with "Flying Spighetti Monster".
...which is irrelevent because it's a previous edition.

1. Ergo, why i'm protesting this change. If the paladin is being changed, i'm saying nay, bad idea. Work with the paladin concept, don't mangle it
2. We already have a paladin, and all 4E is apparently doing is making them evil and giving them cooler smites. THat is it
from
EE

Talya
2008-03-16, 09:19 PM
Dude pastafarianism is funny. There's a big difference :P

Indeed. It also makes an interesting point that we can't discuss on these forums.

I have been touched by His noodley appendage.

Rutee
2008-03-16, 09:23 PM
Indeed. It also makes an interesting point that we can't discuss on these forums.

I have been touched by His noodley appendage.

As have I. By many of them. At the same time.

In retrospect that was really the sort of urge I should have avoided giving into. :smalltongue:

Patashu
2008-03-16, 09:23 PM
I can definitely see LE paladins working (moral code followed strictly, unwavering devotion to an evil cause, etc). I'd concur that a chaotic paladin is contradictory, as chaotic alignments by definition are not restricted to a cause, a code or anything of the sort. The whole point of paladinhood is pledging yourself, and someone who is chaotic can't do this.

Rutee
2008-03-16, 09:29 PM
I can definitely see LE paladins working (moral code followed strictly, unwavering devotion to an evil cause, etc). I'd concur that a chaotic paladin is contradictory, as chaotic alignments by definition are not restricted to a cause, a code or anything of the sort. The whole point of paladinhood is pledging yourself, and someone who is chaotic can't do this.

This is the logic I don't understand; If Chaos can't pledge itself to chaos.. it could work to encourage law on at least a short term basis. I guess you could argue that chaos is more self-wounding, but Chaos seems like a focus on personal decision, individualism, civil liberties, etc, rather then a focus on never behaving the same way twice. The latter is more like the incarnations of Chaos that humans can't really behave like..

EvilElitest
2008-03-16, 09:32 PM
I can definitely see LE paladins working (moral code followed strictly, unwavering devotion to an evil cause, etc). I'd concur that a chaotic paladin is contradictory, as chaotic alignments by definition are not restricted to a cause, a code or anything of the sort. The whole point of paladinhood is pledging yourself, and someone who is chaotic can't do this.

Here is the thing go, the alignment LE has not moral requirements other than acting in a generally lawful manner. Where a paladin truly works to embody his alignment, a LE couldn't do that, because there isn't any real requirement
from
EE

Zincorium
2008-03-16, 09:33 PM
A new edition change that has evil paladins would change the very nature of paladins

Maybe it does. You may wish to consider the possibility now that you've admitted you know it exists.

And just maybe, judging by the arguments, character ruination, and just general stupidity that the paladin class has created over time...

This is a GOOD THING.

Seriously. I don't allow paladins for the most part because chances are very good that I and someone else (you, just for instance) fundamentally and completely disagree one what a paladin is. And what they should do.

This does not happen with the other classes. Maybe it shouldn't happen with the paladin either.

EvilElitest
2008-03-16, 09:38 PM
Maybe it does. You may wish to consider the possibility now that you've admitted you know it exists.

And just maybe, judging by the arguments, character ruination, and just general stupidity that the paladin class has created over time...

This is a GOOD THING.

Seriously. I don't allow paladins for the most part because chances are very good that I and someone else (you, just for instance) fundamentally and completely disagree one what a paladin is. And what they should do.

This does not happen with the other classes. Maybe it shouldn't happen with the paladin either.

The paladin problem comes from people misunderstanding it, not hte paladin itself. WotC has stated what a paladin is, what they represent, the do and do nots of being a paladin very clearly over time, however people often play them wrong or understand them wrongly. If paladins can be evil, and that implies that they are now held to personal codes instead of alignment codes. I say this is more like a knight or a crusador instead of a paladin
from
EE

Mitxel
2008-03-16, 09:46 PM
First, a disclaimer, I have not read the last two pages and am responding the OP.

You make an excellent arguement has to why "Paladin of Freedom" or any other Chaotic consept makes no sense. And, personally, I see it as a cheep way of getting around the restrictions of being a paladin.
I what is happening here is that you are incorporating Lawful qualities into the definition of Good. A good person need not have a personal code, beyond simply doing things that they believe will benefit people in the end. A Paladin is not simply a paragon of Good, but of Lawfull Goodness. But, evil too can be heavily lawfully aligned, and I would even argue that it in many cases is more so than good. Lawfully algined Evil will work for the domination of it's own cause over all things. It is not hard to see how this would force a character looking to represent the alginment itself. A Lawfully Evil code might, for example, force a character to return escaped slaves to their masters or the like. The codes will be radically different in the nature of the situation which would make a specific imposition upon that code, but they would both have to strictly follow one.

BardicDuelist
2008-03-16, 09:46 PM
I'm not sure even Epic magic can turn Stupid to Smart.

Fox's Cunning?

Zincorium
2008-03-16, 09:48 PM
The paladin problem comes from people misunderstanding it, not hte paladin itself. WotC has stated what a paladin is, what they represent, the do and do nots of being a paladin very clearly over time, however people often play them wrong or understand them wrongly. If paladins can be evil, and that implies that they are now held to personal codes instead of alignment codes. I say this is more like a knight or a crusador instead of a paladin
from
EE

Have you even looked at your own interpretation of what a paladin is to see if it's clearly supported? WotC has not stated anything about the paladin that supports your particular argument. You are reading entire paragraphs in between the lines, and while everyone has to do that, insisting that anyone who doesn't make the same assumptions you do is wrong... I'll let you figure out why that means people can legitimately reject your opinion.

Your idea that somehow an evil character cannot have an alignment-based code, despite the fact that evil is an alignment and has precepts which define it, is nonsense. A code, based on the constant and untiring harm to others and stamping out of those who wish to help, is not only possible, it has existed in real life. It's called social darwinism (no relation to biological darwinism).

Advocating the extinction of anyone who does not pursue their own success and life regardless of the cost? Evil.

Also, there is no difference between an alignment code and a personal code that contain the same things. Alignment is pretty damn personal.

Admiral Squish
2008-03-16, 09:48 PM
Why do we all seem to think doing evil means 'going over to the dark side'?

If I kill a man, that's inherently evil. However, if by doing so, I save all his future victims, then it's evil with good intentions. If a warlord saves a puppy, you can wager he plans to raise said puppy into a snarling warhound. Good can do evil, and evil can do good. A single evil act does NOT make good into evil. This is why I never play paladins, because a righteous good guy doesn't go around in full plate with heavy weaponry, slaying things he hopes are evil. You only get that kind of untainted good from pacifists and priests.

an kobold
2008-03-16, 09:48 PM
What your doing is generally whining about stuff that hasn't been proven yet. What to prove me wrong? Show the changes, or prove my theory wrong, don't waste time


Um. . .
What?

You are arguing(or whining, however you would like to call it) under the unproven assumption that the 3.5 fluff/semi-crunch of the paladin as well as the alignment system will hold true in 4th edition. You yourself acknowledge this by calling your own assertions a "theory." So don't claim that other posters are "wasting time" by voicing their own opinions, "standing up for what they believe," so to put it, when you yourself have no more concrete evidence about the issue at hand than they.

As for the whole working with paladin concept, why assume that change is a bad thing? I remember back in the day paladins had to have a charisma score of 17 and a strength of 12 or 13 and could be only human. Now if that is not changing the very definition of what a paladin is, I don't know what will. Paladins have changed before and they will change again.

EvilElitest
2008-03-16, 09:49 PM
First, a disclaimer, I have not read the last two pages and am responding the OP.

You make an excellent arguement has to why "Paladin of Freedom" or any other Chaotic consept makes no sense. And, personally, I see it as a cheep way of getting around the restrictions of being a paladin.
I what is happening here is that you are incorporating Lawful qualities into the definition of Good. A good person need not have a personal code, beyond simply doing things that they believe will benefit people in the end. A Paladin is not simply a paragon of Good, but of Lawfull Goodness. But, evil too can be heavily lawfully aligned, and I would even argue that it in many cases is more so than good. Lawfully algined Evil will work for the domination of it's own cause over all things. It is not hard to see how this would force a character looking to represent the alginment itself. A Lawfully Evil code might, for example, force a character to return escaped slaves to their masters or the like. The codes will be radically different in the nature of the situation which would make a specific imposition upon that code, but they would both have to strictly follow one.

1. Kudos for the manners
2. A good person does however need to abide by the tenants of being good,not committing evil acts, being a good person ect.
3. Here is the thing however, LE people with a code make sense an could have a code like that. However that code isn't inherent with the alignment. It is a personal code, much like a knight's code
from
EE

Nebo_
2008-03-16, 09:55 PM
1. Kudos for the manners
2. A good person does however need to abide by the tenants of being good,not committing evil acts, being a good person ect.
3. Here is the thing however, LE people with a code make sense an could have a code like that. However that code isn't inherent with the alignment. It is a personal code, much like a knight's code
from
EE

Way to ignore the awesome posts by an kobold, Admiral Squish and Zincorium.

I'd like to see you address some of those well founded arguments.

Yes, I'm aware that I said I wouldn't post in this thread, but EE is just so frustrating that I had to.

Bleen
2008-03-16, 09:58 PM
Here is the thing go, the alignment LE has not moral requirements other than acting in a generally lawful manner. Where a paladin truly works to embody his alignment, a LE couldn't do that, because there isn't any real requirement
from
EE

Yes, there is, and there are a number of possibilities. An LE character could have to work to bring suffering to those who do not follow his ideals, enforce the "Laws" of society in a painful, brutal, efficient manner, etc etc etc. Being Evil doesn't just mean being Evil for the sake of it. And honestly, neither does Good - a number of characters have different opinions of why and how the morally-right path should be taken, just as a number of Evil characters have an opinion of why their generally mean, nasty, and just plain despicable things are "right".

The only difference is that you don't go around openly flaunting being Evil, because that's bad for PR. You go around flaunting an ideal that is or supports Evil. And if you adhere to that sort of ideal enough, guess what? You're now a paragon of Evil.

You still aren't going to say that to your next door neighbors, or even admit it to yourself. Because that's why and how Evil characters get around in the first place. They aren't afforded the convenience of going around "HEY GUISE I AM A RIGHTEOUS DEFENDER OF GOOD" like the Good guys get to. Good characters throw on the morality like icing, Evil characters tend slather as much BS as they can over theirs.

EvilElitest
2008-03-16, 10:02 PM
Have you even looked at your own interpretation of what a paladin is to see if it's clearly supported? WotC has not stated anything about the paladin that supports your particular argument. You are reading entire paragraphs in between the lines, and while everyone has to do that, insisting that anyone who doesn't make the same assumptions you do is wrong... I'll let you figure out why that means people can legitimately reject your opinion.

Before people go on a righteous crusade to reject my option, what dare say, has WotC not supported? Examples please


Your idea that somehow an evil character cannot have an alignment-based code, despite the fact that evil is an alignment and has precepts which define it, is nonsense. A code, based on the constant and untiring harm to others and stamping out of those who wish to help, is not only possible, it has existed in real life. It's called social darwinism (no relation to biological darwinism).
Social darwinism is a code within the tenants of evil, however it is not the tenant of evil. The difference between an evil person and a good person is that a good person cannot commit evil acts out of fear of becoming evil, while an evil person can commit good acts and evil acts




Also, there is no difference between an alignment code and a personal code that contain the same things. Alignment is pretty damn personal.

What are you reading? Alignments in D&D are no subjective, they are absolute

Why do we all seem to think doing evil means 'going over to the dark side'?


If I kill a man, that's inherently evil. However, if by doing so, I save all his future victims, then it's evil with good intentions. If a warlord saves a puppy, you can wager he plans to raise said puppy into a snarling warhound. Good can do evil, and evil can do good. A single evil act does NOT make good into evil. This is why I never play paladins, because a righteous good guy doesn't go around in full plate with heavy weaponry, slaying things he hopes are evil. You only get that kind of untainted good from pacifists and priests.
Depends on the evil act in question. Killing a murder who is trying to murder you or somebody else is neutral, not good or evil. killing a serial killer in his sleep is evil. A good person (not a paladin) could get away with that once or twice, but would eventually fall into neutral or evil A evil person can save a million puppies but is still evil if he believes in social darwinism
from
EE

EvilElitest
2008-03-16, 10:07 PM
Way to ignore the awesome posts by an kobold, Admiral Squish and Zincorium.

I'd like to see you address some of those well founded arguments.

So your just going to hang around and vaguely comment on things? Well kudos to you i suppose, though they have actually addressed the issues at hand


Yes, I'm aware that I said I wouldn't post in this thread, but EE is just so frustrating that I had to.
__________________
Your hardly doing anything, i'm sure it doesn't count



Yes, there is, and there are a number of possibilities. An LE character could have to work to bring suffering to those who do not follow his ideals, enforce the "Laws" of society in a painful, brutal, efficient manner, etc etc etc. Being Evil doesn't just mean being Evil for the sake of it. And honestly, neither does Good - a number of characters have different opinions of why and how the morally-right path should be taken, just as a number of Evil characters have an opinion of why their generally mean, nasty, and just plain despicable things are "right".

I never said evil means being evil for the sake of it, however evil does not have an united code inherent to it by nature. All good characters, who would most likely have different beliefs will not condone murder, rape, or torture, because such acts are evil

That is a inherent moral shared by all good people

Evil people do not have this, some might condone rape, some will be repulsed by it, while working under hte same alignment

from
EE

Bleen
2008-03-16, 10:15 PM
I never said evil means being evil for the sake of it, however evil does not have an united code inherent to it by nature. All good characters, who would most likely have different beliefs will not condone murder, rape, or torture, because such acts are evil

That is a inherent moral shared by all good people

Evil people do not have this, some might condone rape, some will be repulsed by it, while working under hte same alignment


Actually, Evil is defined under several unifying traits in the alignment system:



"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
(taken from http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#goodVsEvil )

All Evil people share these traits, just as all good people are expected to respect life, be altruistic, etc.

And guess what? Two Good-aligned people don't have the same ideals on how things should be done, either. Ever seen a Dwarf and an Elf in a standard fantasy party argue? A LG Paladin and a CG Rogue? Just as one Evil character may not condone, say, rape (as you mentioned) above, the LG Paladin might not condone stealing no matter what the circumstances, while the Rogue might do it to help save a starving family from oppressive rulers without batting an eye.

Nebo_
2008-03-16, 10:15 PM
Alignments in D&D are no subjective, they are absolute

Explain yourself. It is because alignment isn't absolute that there are so many arguments about it.



So you're just going to hang around and vaguely comment on things? Well kudos to you i suppose, though they have actually addressed the issues at hand

They have addressed why your arguments are flawed (very well, in fact), you should be aware of that.



Before people go on a righteous crusade to reject my option, what dare say, has WotC not supported? Examples please

Try a reversal. You provide examples of where they agree with you.

Zincorium
2008-03-16, 10:17 PM
Before people go on a righteous crusade to reject my option, what dare say, has WotC not supported?

Right. Double standards. You haven't provided a shred of evidence, either quotes from developers or even specific passages from the PHB, to show that wotc has provided more than a general framework within which your ideas could fit.

But when I question whether it's supported, you tell me I need to provide examples.

I'm asking for justification of your as-yet unsupported claim that wizards of the coast espouses your specific position (instead of simply enabling it), not making a claim of my own. Don't pretend any differently.


Social darwinism is a code within the tenants of evil, however it is not the tenant of evil. The difference between an evil person and a good person is that a good person cannot commit evil acts out of fear of becoming evil, while an evil person can commit good acts and evil acts

An evil person can commit good acts without ceasing to be evil. Although legitimate selfless acts can cause an alignment change.

Evil people don't have to do good. An exemplar of evil certainly wouldn't willingly commit good acts, just like your paladin wouldn't willingly commit evil acts.

Also, fear of becoming evil? That's not a reason to be good. If anything, it detracts from any good you do, because you're no longer doing it because it's the right thing.

Fear is a motivation to do evil. Fear of being weak, having others take advantage of you, or just plain survival.


What are you reading? Alignments in D&D are no subjective, they are absolute

Why do we all seem to think doing evil means 'going over to the dark side'?

I never said subjective. I said personal. There's a big difference, and saying I said one instead of the other is lying about my position. People who have strong alignments feel that way in the very depths of their being, they don't compromise if they're not forced to. This can clearly hold just as true for a malevolent person as a benevolent one.

dukeh016
2008-03-16, 10:21 PM
The basis of the argument seems to hinge on "what does the text give us as truth," yet EE refutes the supposed newer changes in the text (the giver of truth). So it seems to me that EE's arguments in support or refutation of good and evil must come from his own definition of good and evil. If this is untrue, please do send me the link that describes good and evil as EE describes it. Assuming this is impossible(Yes, I'm actually admitting to assuming something. I may even be wrong. Perhaps we could all stand to make this admission?), then all we are arguing about is each person's definition of good and evil. This, for those of you that don't watch the news or learn history, is a futile process.

On a quite different note, I'm disturbed by the constant assertion that the good can't "murder." What is the point of this game except killing? Who picked up D&D and said "Man, pacifist is my kind of class"? It just so happens that when we apply the action to a situation, we then have the tendency to add things like alignment. However, the action itself is not inherently good or evil. It just is. Perhaps it would be more factually correct to state the good cannot kill for pleasure (although I believe Paladins enjoy their jobs) or wealth (on the other hand, I know good temples to be quite lavish). My point is that good and evil are not simple measurements of actions, even in the D&D world. This is a complicated issue that deserves more examination than "evil kills and good saves." Such a judgment creates, and I paraphrase an earlier poster, a two-dimensional world that is quite boring.

Just my two cents.

Bleen
2008-03-16, 10:23 PM
Explain yourself. It is because alignment isn't absolute that there are so many arguments about it.
I just want to add to this.
From an in-world standpoint, alignments are absolute.
On an OOC level though, outside of the examples we're given by RAW, it's subjective to the whims and opinions of the people interpereting the world. It's the DM's (or writer's) job to adjudicate who is what alignment, and no two DM's will have the same opinion on going about determining it.

From where we sit, here in the very real world, alignments are in fact very subjective. One DM may have a certain act or person set off a blip on the Paladin's Evil-sonar, while another may not. In the world, the Paladin knows for a fact he is going towards that blip to fight someone who is evil. Outside, in our world, opinions differ on whether or not that act should have set off the paladins Evil-dar.

Basically, EE's argument fails because it cannot separate OOC context from IC context.

Edit: I'd also like to add that WoTC kind of sucks at writing fluff (See: 4e's new setting fluff) and that the evil variant Paladins in UA have very poorly-written codes of conduct, IMO. Part of the arguments presented have used them for reference, and honestly, the codes they follow need to be drastically re-written before they make any sense to me at all.

sikyon
2008-03-16, 10:24 PM
I haven't read the whole thread, but this is my take on why you're wrong EE:

Evil =/= chaotic. Example: Lawful evil would be an iron fist dictatorship. Everyone is controlled, everyone is enslaved, everything is very lawful. Human life isn't valued, etc. What would a paladin of this alignment do? He'd follow the laws of evil laid down by the ruler.

Now, I'm sure that you'd say that selfishness is evil, and therefore evil people are selfish. However, I completely disagree that selfishness is a result of evil, instead, evil is a result of selfishness. Therefore you can, in fact, be evil without being selfish, and therefore you can follow the laws of others and still be evil (as those laws would be evil).

Consider a world dominated by evil kingdoms. There would be paladins of lawful evil throughout the land, enforcing the evil laws, similar to how in a world dominated by good, there would be good paladins throughout the land, enforcing the good laws.

The same goes for chaotic paladins. These would be paladins who champion the cause of chaos. They would try and live by a code of disorder as much as possible.

I really think that people have a problem with understanding that law =/= good and chaos =/= evil. It's actually proven that in general society as a whole, law is ingrained as good. If an evil law is ordered on a good person, they will typically follow the command (~60% of the population).


Also EE, you make alot of assumptions in your OP of what a paladin "should" be (namely a champion of the alignment). I'm not so sure that this is correct. I find that in general D&D, paladins are often not treated this way. Now I'm not sure if there is RAW on this, of course, but it's just my general experience.

Nebo_
2008-03-16, 10:27 PM
From an in-world standpoint, alignments are absolute.

Sort of. In game, alignments are an abstraction. They are there for game mechanics as far as I am concerned, and everything else comes under the character. I would rather play a character who isn't a nice person than one that is evil. Some people might see that as the same thing, but it detracts from verisimilitude.

Nonanonymous
2008-03-16, 10:28 PM
If evil paladins don't work, neither do good paladins. According to the Code of Conduct, a paladin must help those in need, provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends. So what if they save someone hanging onto the ledge of a cliff who just happens to be evil or chaotic? They would immediately lose all class abilities and spells. But if they could see and hear this person, letting them fall to their death would certainly be a willful evil act, and therefore, they would also lose all class abilities and spells by not acting as well. It also dictates that they must respect the legitimate authority, but what if the legitimate authority commanded the paladin to murder an individual guilty of no more than being a member of a different race, religion, etc.? They can't punish and respect the legitimate authority at the same time, can they? But they can't just let that innocent die either, but saving their life would be disrespecting the authority! So either the alignment system is ridiculously flawed, or the paladin is. Well, actually... Both are, but that's sort of beside the point here, isn't it?

Also, I have to point out that many L/E individuals are committing terrible acts in the name of an honorable and good cause, or at least one that they think is honorable and good, and they're generally held to a code of conduct of some sort. At least that's how I usually represent them, and arguably how Rich Burlew represents at least one of them (:redcloak:).

EvilElitest
2008-03-16, 10:32 PM
Actually, Evil is defined under several unifying traits in the alignment system:

Quote:
"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
(taken from http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#goodVsEvil )

All Evil people share these traits, just as all good people are expected to respect life, be altruistic, etc.

No no no no no, evil people do not, and i repeat do not have to have all of the those traits, just some. You can be evil without having ever killed somebody, a rapist for example, or a thief. Good people on the other hand have to embody all of those traits


And guess what? Two Good-aligned people don't have the same ideals on how things should be done, either. Ever seen a Dwarf and an Elf in a standard fantasy party argue? A LG Paladin and a CG Rogue? Just as one Evil character may not condone, say, rape (as you mentioned) above, the LG Paladin might not condone stealing no matter what the circumstances, while the Rogue might do it to help save a starving family from oppressive rulers without batting an eye
you missed my point. I never said that good people have to agree on everything. However both the LG paladin an the CG rogue will both agree that rape, murder, and torture are bad. Stealing is an evil act that can be counteracted by it being put to good use.

Evil however isn't unified on anything other then committing evil actions



Right. Double standards. You haven't provided a shred of evidence, either quotes from developers or even specific passages from the PHB, to show that wotc has provided more than a general framework within which your ideas could fit.

Well i presumed everybody here has read everything on the subject. what isn't backed specifically. Your saying i'm making this up, and i say that i'm basing it off of the books. What isn't backed a beg of you, please enlighten me


But when I question whether it's supported, you tell me I need to provide examples.

i'm telling you its supported, an i'm asking you what you think isn't supported


I'm asking for justification of your as-yet unsupported claim that wizards of the coast espouses your specific position (instead of simply enabling it), not making a claim of my own. Don't pretend any differently.

My option that paladins draw their tenant from the lawful good alignment? My option that paladins don't draw their powers from the gods? Which one are you talking about. Generally i'm using the PHB, BoED, and BoVD


An evil person can commit good acts without ceasing to be evil. Although legitimate selfless acts can cause an alignment change.

I know, i just said that.


Evil people don't have to do good. An exemplar of evil certainly wouldn't willingly commit good acts, just like your paladin wouldn't willingly commit evil acts.

but what about committing good actions for evil purposes. Evil people can do that, but it is still an evil action. A paladin who followed that code couldn't do any good action ever


Also, fear of becoming evil? That's not a reason to be good. If anything, it detracts from any good you do, because you're no longer doing it because it's the right thing.

Sorry, i mean to say that a good person who commits evil actions will loose his good alignment. An evil person however isn't held to any moral code because of his alignment other than general law and chaos



I never said subjective. I said personal. There's a big difference, and saying I said one instead of the other is lying about my position. People who have strong alignments feel that way in the very depths of their being, they don't compromise if they're not forced to. This can clearly hold just as true for a malevolent person as a benevolent one.
Ok, but that doesn't dispute my point. All good people have a few things in common with their moral system, but not all evil people will


Explain yourself. It is because alignment isn't absolute that there are so many arguments about it.

Look up good an evil under the PHB. Good isn't left up to option, it is a force in the world, like evil. This is a fact in the D&D world. They are not subjective, there is a clear line on evil acts and good acts.


Quote:

They have addressed why your arguments are flawed (very well, in fact), you should be aware of that.

No they didn't, which i why i countered that. Ergo, you prove nothing.



Try a reversal. You provide examples of where they agree with you.

On what issue? That paladins don't get their powers from gods? PHB, look up paladins. That paladins are held to the tenants of LG? Look up paladin code and BoED. that evil people aren't held to any code? BoVD, no code there, it is a list of things that make you evil, not a list of things that evil people need to do to stay evil
from
EE

Bleen
2008-03-16, 10:47 PM
No no no no no, evil people do not, and i repeat do not have to have all of the those traits, just some. You can be evil without having ever killed somebody, a rapist for example, or a thief. Good people on the other hand have to embody all of those traits


you missed my point. I never said that good people have to agree on everything. However both the LG paladin an the CG rogue will both agree that rape, murder, and torture are bad. Stealing is an evil act that can be counteracted by it being put to good use.

Evil however isn't unified on anything other then committing evil actions

Bzzt! You missed MY point! That is, my point is that Evil people don't have to agree on everything!

Both sides are unified by a common ideal. Good is unified by helping people, and Evil is unified by hurting them. How they hurt or help people can be vastly, vastly different, but they are still united by a single, common ideal. One Evil person might feel that slow, painful torture is the best way to deal with a foe, where another might feel that immediately and suddenly outright killing them is a better way to do it. They are both still evil. Since they're Evil, and they disagree, there's a good chance of them turning on each other and trying to commit harm upon the other. But they're still unified in that they feel that the unnecessarily harmful and cruel routes are the better. To go even further on that point, their ideals are uniform because they both feel that harming each other is the best way to handle things.

The Paladin and the Rogue (to use the previous example), are, on the other hand, unified by the fact that, were they to fight each other over such a simple disagreement, it would lead to unnecessary harm and bloodshed. This is why they are more likely to work with rather than against each other. It doesn't make them "More unified" in their ideals than the Evil guys, it just means that they're less likely to slit each others' throats.

Maxperson
2008-03-16, 10:48 PM
<< For one, the Cleric is the champion of the god's wishes. Paladins don't draw their power from gods, they represent the raw element of Law and good, not from gods. Different concepts. >>

I disagree. Clerics are not champions at all. They are worshipers that are granted spells by their gods. They are the priests, Paladins are the Knights Templar. The whole idea that a paladin needs to be lawful good is a vestigal leftover from first edition when Gygax modeled them after the middle ages church. This concept needs to go. Since a paladin is basically a holy warrior of the "church", every god would have them, and they would have an alignment and granted abilities compatible with their god, not some preconceived idea of law and goodness.

StGlebidiah
2008-03-16, 10:48 PM
1. No that is a perversion of a the logic. The logic is that with the way paladins embody an alignment with a code doesn't work for evil, because evil isn't held to a code, nothing to do with evil not wanting dedicated servents (ergo, the section on knights and crusaders

It's been said already, but Evil can very easily have a code. In fact, Evil often does have a code. In fact, Evil often derives much of its power FROM a code.

In fiction, you can look at any number of characters who follow codes to the letter and are, often as a direct result, incredibly evil. If you look at reality you'll find more (there are numerous historical examples of governments that prove this - I'll just throw the Nazis out there for one).

Your logic is, well, wrong.

Lack of a code, under the DnD system, and under basic logic, is Chaos, because a code can be considered a system of "laws" and hence Lawful, making the lack of a code the opposite of Law and hence Chaos.

"Doing whatever you want" can also be Chaotic Good, if the things you want to do are Good. By the same token, you can "do whatever you want" and be labelled Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Evil - it depends purely on your actions.

EvilElitest
2008-03-16, 10:52 PM
The basis of the argument seems to hinge on "what does the text give us as truth," yet EE refutes the supposed newer changes in the text (the giver of truth). So it seems to me that EE's arguments in support or refutation of good and evil must come from his own definition of good and evil. If this is untrue, please do send me the link that describes good and evil as EE describes it. Assuming this is impossible(Yes, I'm actually admitting to assuming something. I may even be wrong. Perhaps we could all stand to make this admission?), then all we are arguing about is each person's definition of good and evil. This, for those of you that don't watch the news or learn history, is a futile process.

I'm not basing good and evil off of personal opiton. WotC defined what qualifies as good or evil, Book of Exalted Deeds, Book of Vile Darkness, Players Hand Book, Fiendish Codex I, II ect. What doesn't match up might i ask?


On a quite different note, I'm disturbed by the constant assertion that the good can't "murder." What is the point of this game except killing? Who picked up D&D and said "Man, pacifist is my kind of class"? It just so happens that when we apply the action to a situation, we then have the tendency to add things like alignment. However, the action itself is not inherently good or evil. It just is.
You confuse murder will kill. Killing is ending somebody's life, and can be ether evil or neutral. If i kill in self defense or defense of others being harmed, i'm only killing them, neutral action. If kill a man for his money, or because i want to sleep with his wife, or if i kill a guy who has surrenered it is murder

Actions have alignment effects, BoED and BoVD make this clear. Rape is always an evil action (and don't let Mookie tell you otherwise). Murder is always evil, as is torture.

I just want to add to this.

From an in-world standpoint, alignments are absolute.
On an OOC level though, outside of the examples we're given by RAW, it's subjective to the whims and opinions of the people interpereting the world. It's the DM's (or writer's) job to adjudicate who is what alignment, and no two DM's will have the same opinion on going about determining it.

From where we sit, here in the very real world, alignments are in fact very subjective. One DM may have a certain act or person set off a blip on the Paladin's Evil-sonar, while another may not. In the world, the Paladin knows for a fact he is going towards that blip to fight someone who is evil. Outside, in our world, opinions differ on whether or not that act should have set off the paladins Evil-dar.

Basically, EE's argument fails because it cannot separate OOC context from IC context.
Where your argument fails is where you being in OOG context. That isn't the issue. Within the rules of the game, within teh game world alignment are absolute. Good and evil are two separate powerful forces with absolutes




Edit: I'd also like to add that WoTC kind of sucks at writing fluff (See: 4e's new setting fluff) and that the evil variant Paladins in UA have very poorly-written codes of conduct, IMO. Part of the arguments presented have used them for reference, and honestly, the codes they follow need to be drastically re-written before they make any sense to me at all.
That is part of my point you realize



I haven't read the whole thread, but this is my take on why you're wrong EE:

Evil =/= chaotic. Example: Lawful evil would be an iron fist dictatorship. Everyone is controlled, everyone is enslaved, everything is very lawful. Human life isn't valued, etc. What would a paladin of this alignment do? He'd follow the laws of evil laid down by the ruler.

You've missed the point. Not every LE nation would be an iron fist dictatorship. Not every LE person needs to be a upholder of dictatorship rules. Some would be, but that isn't always the case. LE rulers only need to be evil in a lawful way, and there are many many many ways to do that. Not all LE paladins would be sharing the same code




Now, I'm sure that you'd say that selfishness is evil, and therefore evil people are selfish. However, I completely disagree that selfishness is a result of evil, instead, evil is a result of selfishness. Therefore you can, in fact, be evil without being selfish, and therefore you can follow the laws of others and still be evil (as those laws would be evil).
Actually, almost all evil people are selfish in some way, that is kinda the root of evil. They don't believe it so, but almost all of the evil deeds can be traced back to selfishness. Putting your life in front of others, working for self motivation, sacrificing others for the "greater good" ect.



Consider a world dominated by evil kingdoms. There would be paladins of lawful evil throughout the land, enforcing the evil laws, similar to how in a world dominated by good, there would be good paladins throughout the land, enforcing the good laws.

The same goes for chaotic paladins. These would be paladins who champion the cause of chaos. They would try and live by a code of disorder as much as possible.
1 . Not all LE people believe in such a goal however. Some believe in different things
2. And each chaotic paladin would have a different code of disorder, or would they all fall if they started organizing things? If the former, then they are more akin to knights than paladins, if the later then that is just stupid



Also EE, you make alot of assumptions in your OP of what a paladin "should" be (namely a champion of the alignment). I'm not so sure that this is correct. I find that in general D&D, paladins are often not treated this way. Now I'm not sure if there is RAW on this, of course, but it's just my general experience.

Paladins are champions of their alignment, look them up in the PHB and BoED


If evil paladins don't work, neither do good paladins. According to the Code of Conduct, a paladin must help those in need, provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends. So what if they save someone hanging onto the ledge of a cliff who just happens to be evil or chaotic? They would immediately lose all class abilities and spells.
No they wouldn't
1. Saving somebody who is Chaotic and Evil is part of mercy and kindness, it isn't helping those ends,
2. And under the BoED, it is expected as an act of mercy




It also dictates that they must respect the legitimate authority, but what if the legitimate authority commanded the paladin to murder an individual guilty of no more than being a member of a different race, religion, etc.? They can't punish and respect the legitimate authority at the same time, can they? But they can't just let that innocent die either, but saving their life would be disrespecting the authority! So either the alignment system is ridiculously flawed, or the paladin is. Well, actually... Both are, but that's sort of beside the point here, isn't it?
1. No because he wouldn't be an legitimate authority then
2. the aligment system is badly understood, not badly made however



Also, I have to point out that many L/E individuals are committing terrible acts in the name of an honorable and good cause, or at least one that they think is honorable and good, and they're generally held to a code of conduct of some sort. At least that's how I usually represent them, and arguably how Rich Burlew represents at least one of them ().

i know, but that isn't the point here
from
EE

StGlebidiah
2008-03-16, 10:53 PM
Yes they can, if they like puppies. EvilElitest's point, or at least part of it seems to be that while you can restrict someone to never committing an evil act, it's incredibly hard to never commit a good act. For example, would you expect an evil paladin to leap forward and save their master/general/whatever (Who is also evil) from falling off a cliff? Of course you would. But saving someone's life is an inherently Good act, regardless of their alignment. So, for doing what makes perfect sense and is expected of them, the evil paladin immediately loses all their powers. Huh?

This said, I do think that evil paladins can work, but obviously that particular restriction would have to be removed or more carefully worded.

I would disagree with this - saving a life is not necessarily an inherently good act. In fact, saving the life of an evildoer can be viewed as an inherently evil act, for it perpetuates evil. But even then it's not black and white - Elan is not evil because he saved Nale way back when.

What matters is your REASONS just as much as your actions. If you save your evil buddy because he owes you money, that's kinda selfish. If you save your evil buddy because you need him to pick the lock to the orphanage so you can rape and slaughter all the orphans, that's pretty twisted. If you save your evil buddy because you're just such darned good friends, maybe it's slightly good?

Rutee
2008-03-16, 10:57 PM
What matters is your REASONS just as much as your actions. If you save your evil buddy because he owes you money, that's kinda selfish. If you save your evil buddy because you need him to pick the lock to the orphanage so you can rape and slaughter all the orphans, that's pretty twisted. If you save your evil buddy because you're just such darned good friends, maybe it's slightly good?

It could be argued that you're saving them because you enjoy the company, and thus, still evil.

But I'm more likely to just call it Good, in the same sense that murdering someone who dings as Evil without any further justification is still evil; but is technically something a Paladin is allowed to do.

Yahzi
2008-03-16, 10:57 PM
That's a bunch of bull. Sorry. It's that simple; One minor on the evil scale can not outweigh a lifetime of good. And that's all I can say according to board rules.
I have to confess I understand almost nothing in your post.

The law is clear: murder is murder, irrespective of who committed the murder, and without regard to his past or future conduct, standing, or popularity. Hence the old adage, "Justice is blind." To murder is to be a murderer; end of story.

Ordinary moral understanding is also clear: Hitler was an exemplary dog owner, a vegetarian, and against smoking. He was also personally brave to literally heroic proportions. None of which makes even the slightest difference in evaluating his moral worth.

And murder, the specific example I mentioned, is not minor.

Finally, I have no idea why you think we can't discuss moral evaluations.

I do agree that it seems a bit unfair to punish the Paladin for doing one evil act, while the Necromancer can do good acts all day long (as long as they profit him in some way) without anybody complaining. But of course the point is not what you do, but why you do it. If you only heal puppies because it pays better than killing kittens, and if that's literally your only reason, then you're not what D&D means by "Good." Now, if the Necromancer started giving away gold just because he felt sorry for poor people, I agree the DM should start talking about alignment shift. But that's a little different.

One more thing: a minor evil does, in fact, wipe out a lifetime of good acts. That is not to say that atonement is impossible. If one commits an evil act for evil reasons, and afterwards feels guilt, confesses, and does everything in ones power to do correct the act, then we would say that person was now a Good person despite their single lapse. More accurately, we would say they were Good, then Evil, and now Good again. Which, of course, is the point of the Atonement spell: to signify that the person has returned to Good, not to assert that they never left it.


But I'm more likely to just call it Good, in the same sense that murdering someone who dings as Evil without any further justification is still evil; but is technically something a Paladin is allowed to do.
Isn't it the case that the Paladin can't murder people who detect as evil, because there is still a chance they can become good; yet if he detects a demon as evil, he can kill it without hesitation because there is no chance it can ever become good?

As you pointed out, a person in the middle of an evil act is not necessarily irredeemably evil; but demons, devils, etc. are. Ergo, the Paladin can freely whack away at them.

Which brings us to the sticky point of Orcs, who are only usually evil. Suddenly there's all these shades of gray where there are supposed to be clear team colors. Really, Drizzit has a lot to answer for. :smallbiggrin:

Bleen
2008-03-16, 10:57 PM
That is part of my point you realize


So you concede that it would be possible to create a class that champions the cause of evil, but it would need fluff and powers that weren't a bunch of "evil-looking" things shoehorned into the format the LG Paladin uses for his abilities and code of conduct? 'Cuz that's what I meant, and you basically just said you agree with it.

BRC
2008-03-16, 10:58 PM
Evil Paladins don't work, I agree there. Paladins are by definition paragons of good. However, that dosn't mean you can't have the evil-equivilant to a paladin, like a blackguard or paladin of slaughter. If paladins draw their strength from the almighty force of Law and Good, then why can't somebody else do the same thing for Chaos and Evil, Though they wouldn't be a paladin, and would only be reffered to as one (if they were a Paladin of Slaughter) for lack of a better term/comparison.

Maxperson
2008-03-16, 11:00 PM
I have a problem with your definition of Evil. What you gave seems more True Neutral. Evil is not doing Good. An Evil person cannot nurse injured puppies back to health, because that is a Good act.

This is why alignmenst systems fail miserably. They just CANNOT ever encompass a true personality. Why can't an evil person nurse puppies back to health? Do you think a maffia boss cannot love animals, or even friends? Evil is an overall way of acting, not the ONLY way someone can act. A good person can commit murder in cold blood and not be evil. Intent means a lot as far as good and evil are concerned.

StGlebidiah
2008-03-16, 11:01 PM
The paladins cannot commit good actions, ever. Anyone else see a problem arising from that?

There are precisely no more or fewer problems with that than the equally absurd notion that paladins cannot commit Evil actions, ever.

I don't think you said it, but, if we argue that saving a life is inherently Good, then LOGICALLY taking a life is inherently Evil. So Good can never kill anyone. Kinda makes that full BAB progression useless...

Basically, because we're viewing this is whole thing through a Good-Neutral-Evil lense, the best you can ever do (if you are saying that an action has an alignment connotation regardless of intent or upon what/whom the action is perpetrated) is say that Good paladins can do everything that Evil paladins cannot do, and vice-verse, unless the action is Neutral, in which case they can both do it. So either way is completely ridiculous.

Bleen
2008-03-16, 11:02 PM
It could be argued that you're saving them because you enjoy the company, and thus, still evil.

Comes off to me as kinda neutral. You're not doing it for evil purposes, but you're not exactly doing it for the safety of the people around you, either.

Now if your buddy was thrown in jail 'cuz he was framed for a crime he didn't commit, and you knew this, and you snuck in to bust him out..

Nonanonymous
2008-03-16, 11:02 PM
No they wouldn't
1(A). Saving somebody who is Chaotic and Evil is part of mercy and kindness, it isn't helping those ends,
2. And under the BoED, it is expected as an act of mercy

1(B). No because he wouldn't be an legitimate authority then


1(A). If you don't know their alignment due to a masking effect of some sort and let them go, I believe it would be.
2. I don't have the BoED, and it's not core so has a bit less of an application than the PHB.

1(B). Hitler, Ferdinand II of Aragon, Isabella I of Castile, Caligula, and Mussolini were all legitimate authorities within their realms, and the Code of Conduct makes no distinction between 'legitimate' and 'good.'

EvilElitest
2008-03-16, 11:05 PM
Bzzt! You missed MY point! That is, my point is that Evil people don't have to agree on everything!

But good people do. Evil doesn't agree on everything, ergo, it can't have a common code


Both sides are unified by a common ideal. Good is unified by helping people, and Evil is unified by hurting them. How they hurt or help people can be vastly, vastly different, but they are still united by a single, common ideal. One Evil person might feel that slow, painful torture is the best way to deal with a foe, where another might feel that immediately and suddenly outright killing them is a better way to do it. They are both still evil. Since they're Evil, and they disagree, there's a good chance of them turning on each other and trying to commit harm upon the other. But they're still unified in that they feel that the unnecessarily harmful and cruel routes are the better. To go even further on that point, their ideals are uniform because they both feel that harming each other is the best way to handle things.
Except you can't make a paladin code for evil
The paladin code for good is
Do this (good actions) and don't ever do this (evil actions)
However an evil code has no inherent do nots, because evil people can easily commit both good and evil actions without fear of losing there alignment



The Paladin and the Rogue (to use the previous example), are, on the other hand, unified by the fact that, were they to fight each other over such a simple disagreement, it would lead to unnecessary harm and bloodshed. This is why they are more likely to work with rather than against each other. It doesn't make them "More unified" in their ideals than the Evil guys, it just means that they're less likely to slit each others' throats.
that also shows that they are held to a common moral code, one that evil is not held to



<< For one, the Cleric is the champion of the god's wishes. Paladins don't draw their power from gods, they represent the raw element of Law and good, not from gods. Different concepts. >>

I disagree. Clerics are not champions at all. They are worshipers that are granted spells by their gods. They are the priests, Paladins are the Knights Templar. The whole idea that a paladin needs to be lawful good is a vestigal leftover from first edition when Gygax modeled them after the middle ages church. This concept needs to go. Since a paladin is basically a holy warrior of the "church", every god would have them, and they would have an alignment and granted abilities compatible with their god, not some preconceived idea of law and goodness.
sigh
As i said, get your PHB out and look under the religion section of paladin please




t's been said already, but Evil can very easily have a code. In fact, Evil often does have a code. In fact, Evil often derives much of its power FROM a code.

Correct, evil people have a code, but not evil itself as a force. Good has a unified code, evil does not


In fiction, you can look at any number of characters who follow codes to the letter and are, often as a direct result, incredibly evil. If you look at reality you'll find more (there are numerous historical examples of governments that prove this - I'll just throw the Nazis out there for one).

Evil does not =nazi. Really people, did any of your read my original post? paladin's code represent the code of the alignment, knight's repersent a code that fits into an alignment. An evil knight might be a nazi but the evil paladin could would not




Lack of a code, under the DnD system, and under basic logic, is Chaos, because a code can be considered a system of "laws" and hence Lawful, making the lack of a code the opposite of Law and hence Chaos.

No because Evil unlike good doesn't have a set of rules for Do and do nots

"
Doing whatever you want" can also be Chaotic Good, if the things you want to do are Good. By the same token, you can "do whatever you want" and be labelled Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Evil - it depends purely on your actions.

No because CG can't do whatever they want, they can't randomly rape people for example. Any evil can however

I
would disagree with this - saving a life is not necessarily an inherently good act. In fact, saving the life of an evildoer can be viewed as an inherently evil act, for it perpetuates evil. But even then it's not black and white - Elan is not evil because he saved Nale way back when.

What matters is your REASONS just as much as your actions. If you save your evil buddy because he owes you money, that's kinda selfish. If you save your evil buddy because you need him to pick the lock to the orphanage so you can rape and slaughter all the orphans, that's pretty twisted. If you save your evil buddy because you're just such darned good friends, maybe it's slightly good?
in D&D both the actions and the intentions dicate your alignment. Saving a life is a good action, however when done with evil intent it doesn't effect ones alignment

Yahzi, the reason why the necromancer can get away with so much is because he isn't held to any code. It is harder to be good than to be evil



So you concede that it would be possible to create a class that champions the cause of evil, but it would need fluff and powers that weren't a bunch of "evil-looking" things shoehorned into the format the LG Paladin uses for his abilities and code of conduct? 'Cuz that's what I meant, and you basically just said you agree with it.

sigh, i said that in my original post you realize. I said that evil knights, or evil crusaders are fine. they make sense, evil knights would champion a particular cause of evil, evil crusaders would fight for a certain evil belief


Now i'm going to bed, and at the rate this thread has been going, it will be at page 8 when i get back, but try not to yell at me for a while until i wake up
from
EE

Maxperson
2008-03-16, 11:07 PM
<< Um, yeah. That is the idea of good and evil. It is far easier to be evil. Being good is a challenge, because it requires you to not do evil things. An evil person can do good things if their intention is evil. A paladin cannot commit evil actions ever. A dude who has one evil flaw and commits many evil actions is still not good >>

But someone who is good and commits an evil act, or even two is not evil. People can make mistakes or do things out of anger that they would never do under normal circumstances. You could also have someone who is a saint in every aspect of life, except for the fact that he loves to molest 6 year old boys. How do you classify that person?

Rutee
2008-03-16, 11:07 PM
Now if your buddy was thrown in jail 'cuz he was framed for a crime he didn't commit, and you knew this, and you snuck in to bust him out..

Depends on how hard it is to break him out. "I know this guy. He's broken in. I know he won't backstab me over some stupid trifle. And breaking him out will be easy."

If it's genuinely hard and you still do it, it'd definitely be at least Neutral.

Nebo_
2008-03-16, 11:11 PM
The paladins cannot commit good actions, ever. Anyone else see a problem arising from that?

Yes, which is why it will probably be changed in the new edition.


But good people do.

BS


sigh, i said that in my original post you realize. I said that evil knights, or evil crusaders are fine. they make sense, evil knights would champion a particular cause of evil, evil crusaders would fight for a certain evil belief

That's what 4e paladins are, crusaders and knights by a different name.

StGlebidiah
2008-03-16, 11:17 PM
Evil people can have morals and codes, however none inherent to the alignment itself

Ah, maybe I WAS misunderstanding.

Are you saying that there is an inherent code to the Good alignment, namely, to not do Evil, but there is NOT the same for the Evil alignment, namely, to not do Good?

Because if you are, that's ridiculous. I should stop replying to this whole thread if that is the case.

Under the DnD system, the presence or lack of a code of any sort, personal or otherwise, is SOLELY the realm of Law and Chaos, and even then it's a bit fuzzy as has been stated already.

StGlebidiah
2008-03-16, 11:23 PM
Evil does not =nazi.

Yeah, you're absolutely correct. Just because someone is Evil does not mean they are a Nazi. Congratulations, that's not what I was saying.

What I was saying was that, by and large, people who were wholly dedicated to the Nazi ideology, which included the odd act of genocide, were Evil. You flipped it to make it wrong. Amazing.

I was using Nazis as an example of people who follow a code of sorts, and were Evil, darn it!

Anyhoos, I'm done. I really shouldn't have bothered in the first place. Enjoy your perception of DnD alignment rules, and I'll enjoy mine, and we'll all have fun!

Bandededed
2008-03-16, 11:24 PM
So I just found this thread, and uh...

wow.

Anyway, my 2 cp...

Many people are arguing about evil having a code and whatnot. Whether it does or does not, etc. It does. It's code is not good. Always, evil is used as a catch-all for anything not good. This, of course, goes for anything that actually means something, and so does not apply to neutral acts. (I pick up a lamp). Any example of a neutral act that could possibly have some sort of label attached to it (aforementioned killing in self-defense) is not truly neutral: this example is an evil act. Self-interest lying in the forefront, most people think of this as a good act. It really isn't. Killing is always, always, always, an evil act.

"I'm going to slay the evil overlord to save the town from oppression!"- hero
*crowd cheers*
Nerdy book guy - "Technically, you cannot kill him, because you are good, and that would be an evil act. You should restrain him."
"Killing him would be a good act, because he is evil!" - hero
*crowd cheers*
Nerdy book guy - *sigh* I always lose this argument...

That aside, I think an evil paladin could have a very decent chance to make it past conception. If a good paladin must embody _____ (insert whatever you need for good to work right), then an evil paladin must A). NOT do _____ under any circumstances or B). must embody NOT _____, which may be confusing, but there it is.

Nonanonymous
2008-03-16, 11:24 PM
Except you can't make a paladin code for evil
The paladin code for good is
Do this (good actions) and don't ever do this (evil actions)
However an evil code has no inherent do nots, because evil people can easily commit both good and evil actions without fear of losing there alignment


Is it me, or are you starting to blur the lines of good and lawful good? Maybe you can't make a paladin who's C/E or N/E, but you can certainly make a L/E equivalent of the paladin. The Code of Conduct applies only to the paladins, and is in no way a definition of good or law when examined as separate concepts. For instance, a character who does not respect legitimate authority, regardless of the authorities alignment, would be tipping the scales towards chaotic, but not evil. Cheating, lying, and poisoning can also be used for the cause of good, or even law, but there are various parameters which dictate where either of the three things would fall on the alignment scale. Using torture to punish those who threaten or harm innocents would be a morally ambiguous act, though as far as I'm concerned would be a bit too evil for someone who is supposed to be a paragon of good, though a L/N or L/E paladin-esque class or character could do such a thing. Nothing in the Code of Conduct other than "A paladin must be of lawful good alignment" actually has anything to do with both 'law' and 'good' at the same time, unless certain specific circumstances such as the laws of a particular kingdom come into play.

Maxperson
2008-03-16, 11:24 PM
<< sigh
As i said, get your PHB out and look under the religion section of paladin please >>

Yes. As I mentioned, you like wizards are married to this outdated concept about the paladins, created with the Catholic Church in mind. This DOES NOT WORK. D&D has many gods, not one. As for pointing to the players hand book, I'll go ahead and point you to the part that says that the rules are only guidelines. The idea that a paladin must be LG is a very narrowminded and outdated view of things.

Tequila Sunrise
2008-03-16, 11:39 PM
Um, thanks for agreeing with me, i don't think i've seen you around before?
You probably don't remember me because I don't have your patience for pages and pages of legalistic minutae and debate; I tend to pop into a thread, say what I have to say and then move on.



Explain please, because i'm just working off the definition of paladin as written

That's part of my point; evil paladins may or may not make sense using the printed definition of a paladin, but such is a very narrow definition that in my experience is not used exclusively in practice. So basing your argument on such a narrow definition may or may not be technically sound but it ultimately doesn't matter in practice because a lot of gamers don't follow that definition anyway.


Wait a second
1. My point was that only LG paladins can have a code that works in the paladin fashion, not what you said
2. But Paladins by RAW who dedicate themselves to a god still need to abide by the rules of their alignment. The code is based after alignment, not gods will. Clerics depend on gods' will.
Sorry I paraphrased wrong; my points still stand. Paladins, clerics, druids, favored souls, whatever--they all have assigned dedications to gods or causes or alignments, but that's just flavor text that can be easily changed and often is. It isn't hard to imagine other paladin codes for paladins of different alignments--or, Heronious forbid, paladins with no code at all.

"The Code is more of what you'd call a guideline."
--Captain Barbossa


1. Um, that isn't what i was saying actually
2. You can apply logic to D&D, it isn't all about archtypes. For example, Nerull example, here are some
A) He is a nature god, he repersents death. People who believe in embodying the dark side of nature will worship him, or just death itself
B) He is the god of death. Death is a scary concept, and it has power over everybody. It makes sense for people to worship it
C) As the God of death, people would worship him to protect themselves from death, or wish death upon their foes
D) he is an extremly powerful god, i mean he is the god of death, when ever people dies he gets stronger. People are attracted to evil gods
E) people are always attracted to power. Nerull is extremly powerful, people will be attracted to that. He can grant extreme powers as well , people will worship him for that
F) going along with E, He is impressive. I mean he is the god of death, he wields control over death and the undead, pretty scary guy. Pretty impressive guy, and as we know, people will work for dudes who scare/impress them enough
G) Undead and necromancers will be attracted to him anyways. Death and all that
H) Already existing cultists will most likely recruit him the way real cultist do. I mean we have had some really creepy cults in our history.
I) on that subject, most likely people who lack other options will worship him because its a cultural thing. Or because they don't know any better to not worship the scary death god.
J) And you could make an argument what he is doing is for the best i suppose
and that is just a few
While these are all perfectly viable variations on Nerull, he is not by d&d tradition represented as anything other than malicious, scary and evil. Using real world logic, any followers he had would be few and far between and just wouldn't survive in the long run.


Now more to the point, if Paladins are becoming more like Crusaders, or knights, why can't we just call them crusaders or knights, keep old concepts on both ends.
Because "paladin", "crusader" and "knight" are effectively three words for the same archetype. You might consider them to be different, you might even be able to site literary and historical precedents for these differences, but in terms of common usage they all effectively mean "a guy with a sword in armor dedicated to something larger than himself, whether it be a king, a country, an ideal or a god."

Serenity
2008-03-16, 11:43 PM
Except that good people can disagree with each other just as much as evil people can. They all believe in helping others. But does that mean that it's OK to help a starving family by stealing the taxes from the coffers of the corrupt noble? Good Rogue says yes, Good Paladin says no. Some would say every criminal deserves a second chance. Others would say that a murderer should be executed to keep him from causing more pain and suffering. Even two Lawful Good characters can be as different as night and day--Batman and Superman, for example. The Paladin's Code is not the Lawful Good Code, but a specific code that is objectively Lawful and Good. Just like drow society has a code that it ingrains into its people which is objectively Chaotic and Evil

Are 4e Paladins more like Crusaders than the flavor of the Paladin presented in the 3.x PHB? Perhaps. But the flavor difference seems more like splitting hairs to me. You define Paladin as 'Paragon of Lawful Good'. What, exactly, is the functional flavor difference between that and a Crusader who dedicates himself, not to a specific deity, but to the principles of Law and Good, much like a Cleric can serve a cause in lieu of a god? Or if you insist that Crusaders must serve a od and not a cause, how does a Crusader of Heironeous behave differently than a paladin?

Bleen
2008-03-16, 11:48 PM
Holy crap. Did we walk into Godwin's Law yet? I can't tell if this is a legit application of Nazi's, so I'm leaning towards "Yes, we did."

Rutee
2008-03-16, 11:49 PM
Nazis are not directly germane to a discussion on paladins; Godwin's Law indeed.

Solo
2008-03-16, 11:50 PM
*pop*


You probably don't remember me because I don't have your patience for pages and pages of legalistic minutae and debate; I tend to pop into a thread, say what I have to say and then move on.

I do the same, but people seem to find me... memorable.

ps. I'm pretty sure I remember you from around the forums.


*pop*

Bleen
2008-03-16, 11:59 PM
Nazis are not directly germane to a discussion on paladins; Godwin's Law indeed.
Ah, awesome. Now I don't feel strangely-obligated to hang around in this thread any more. Time to find a different dead horse to beat, then.

StGlebidiah
2008-03-17, 12:05 AM
Nazis are not directly germane to a discussion on paladins; Godwin's Law indeed.

I feel compelled to defend my use of the Nazi regime in this thread. It was intended PURELY as an example of a regime [one which many would consider to be Evil] that followed a strict code [one that included acts which many would consider to be Evil]. That is ALL. I could just as easily have used the Roman Empire, whichever group it was that instituted the whole Terror thing in France with all the beheadings, the Aztecs with their sacrifices, or any number of historical governing institutions which have followed codes that have required acts that many would condemn as Evil, consequently leading to the condemnation of the institution itself as being Evil.

Besides of which, I was under the impression that the both of us disagreed with EE, or do you just like to disagree with everyone (I do that too sometimes)?

Bleen
2008-03-17, 12:18 AM
Everyone disagrees with everyone in alignment threads. Duhr.

Fhaolan
2008-03-17, 12:18 AM
The term "paladin" means a heroic champion and paragon of chivalry, and means such outside of the game and has for centuries.

Actually... yes and no. :smallsmile:

Paladin meaning heroic champion has existed since the tales of the twelve peers of Charlemagne. In the tales themselves, however, they are refered to as Paladins because the word meant 'Knight with extra awards' at the time. These specific individuals were vaguely devout as they were required to follow the code of chivalry as supposedly modelled by the Knights of the Round Table by Charlemagne's decree, but they were not paladins in the D&D sense. At least not in the version of the tales *I* remember. It's been a couple of decades since I read them though, so I may be misremembering.

Prior to that time Paladin was identical in meaning to Chamberlain, as Paladin literally meant 'Palace Count' since Roman times. Chamberlains of the Catholic church were also named Paladins, which gave the older D&D versions the more rigorous religious overtones.

So, if you go far back enough Paladin can mean anything you want it to mean. :smallsmile:

Nebo_
2008-03-17, 12:21 AM
I feel compelled to defend my use of the Nazi regime in this thread. It was intended PURELY as an example of a regime [one which many would consider to be Evil] that followed a strict code [one that included acts which many would consider to be Evil]. That is ALL. I could just as easily have used the Roman Empire, whichever group it was that instituted the whole Terror thing in France with all the beheadings, the Aztecs with their sacrifices, or any number of historical governing institutions which have followed codes that have required acts that many would condemn as Evil, consequently leading to the condemnation of the institution itself as being Evil.

Besides of which, I was under the impression that the both of us disagreed with EE, or do you just like to disagree with everyone (I do that too sometimes)?

Doesn't matter if you defend it, it's still Godwin's Law in effect.


Everyone disagrees with everyone in alignment threads. Duhr.

No they don't.

Bleen
2008-03-17, 12:25 AM
No they don't.
I see what you did there :smallmad:

Anyway, there was no need to mention Nazis, but they were anyway despite other alternatives available. Thus, Godwin's Law.

Rutee
2008-03-17, 12:27 AM
I stand in stark opposition to the use of Nazis in any unnecessary capacity. Your use was, nominally, not so bad. But it's very easy to use them incorrectly, and I genuinely prefer to just not touch the subject with a 10' pole.

Incidentally, it would be easy to argue that what the Aztecs, and the Reign of Terror, were not really evil. Trouble is, that encroaches on politics and religion.

StGlebidiah
2008-03-17, 12:34 AM
Doesn't matter if you defend it, it's still Godwin's Law in effect.

I don't disagree with that. I just want to be clear that I feel that my usage was appropriate, and that I was not trying to derail the thread, or knowingly use hyperbole, or any of the other [not necessarily true] negative connotations that are associated with Godwin's Law being in effect.

After all, the Law merely states is that eventually somebody will mention Nazis or Hitler. Doesn't say that they're instantly wrong [or right] for doing it, which is what some people seem to be implying.

Bleen
2008-03-17, 12:37 AM
Ah. I'm not implying that the usage is right or wrong, just that it's a viable condition for "thread over, let's argue about something else now," since Godwin's Law is a good sign of a discussion becoming stale and repetitive.

Stormcrow
2008-03-17, 12:44 AM
A Paladin is a paragon not of law but Dogma. Every paladin must, to be considered a paladin have a faith, he holds it's dogma as his law and follows its codes. It might even say that in FR somewhere. Its a reality. Paladins in D&D were based in large part on the Knights of the First Crusade not the Knights of the Round Table or some kind of Batman figure who upholds the law.

I wont be checking back through here.

StGlebidiah
2008-03-17, 12:47 AM
I stand in stark opposition to the use of Nazis in any unnecessary capacity. Your use was, nominally, not so bad. But it's very easy to use them incorrectly, and I genuinely prefer to just not touch the subject with a 10' pole.

Incidentally, it would be easy to argue that what the Aztecs, and the Reign of Terror, were not really evil. Trouble is, that encroaches on politics and religion.

Maybe that's what this thread is really becoming - arguing whether a given action is inherently Evil or not. I too tend to not really enjoy bringing up Nazis, precisely because of this sort of thing, however, as a product of a Western education, addressing an audience of largely (I presume) Western-educated posters, Nazis are more relatable than any other examples (I mean, before I entered university, I had been taught WWII at least three times, and then again in first-year history - as far as I know, that's unfortunately fairly standard).

In any case, I propose that if we accept that any given action can be assigned an alignment value regardless of intent or any other variables beyond the specifics of the most basic statement of the action (ie, Bob picked up the stick), then any class which relies upon never wavering from a given alignment is going to run into serious problems, regardless of the alignment they are trying to follow.

Bleen
2008-03-17, 12:49 AM
So what if Bob picked up the stick, and then used it to to kindle a fire that burned down a village?

StGlebidiah
2008-03-17, 12:57 AM
So what if Bob picked up the stick, and then used it to to kindle a fire that burned down a village?

Bob picking up the stick - Neutral.

Bob burns down the village - I'll assume this is meant as an example of an Evil action.

The extension of my proposal to method means that we must examine each action as completely individually as possible. So, picking up the stick, who cares. Burning down the village, Evil. Separate actions.

Suppose Bob picks up the stick with the intent to kindle a fire to burn down a village, but it's raining really hard, Bob has ADD, and by the time his stick is dry enough to start any fires he's gotten bored and wandered off. Was picking up the stick Evil? Under my proposal, again no, because all he did was pick up the stick, which as stated is Neutral.

What I am proposing is NOT, however, that we examine actions in this manner (that's another argument) - I am merely proposing that if we DO examine actions in this manner, it poses problems for alignment-restricted classes.

Bleen
2008-03-17, 01:06 AM
Huh. What do you propose we use as a standard for determining whether or not alignment-restricted classes, then? I personally prefer "Common Sense", but it's also a commodity that's hard to come by, not to mention impossible to use as a ruler for debate.

Granted, I feel it would all be fixed if the extreme-alignment-classes were a little more lenient. For instance, the LG Paladin should never "Commit any great evils, nor should they consistently commit any number of lesser evils," whereas the LE's champion (avoiding 'Paladin' for its debated term here) would be required to avoid "Needlessly committing acts out of such simplistic motives such as goodness, altruism, etc". The way it's put in RAW just doesn't work because of how specific it is and how it comes off as "One-strike-you're-screwed-you-fall".

StGlebidiah
2008-03-17, 01:18 AM
Huh. What do you propose we use as a standard for determining whether or not alignment-restricted classes, then? I personally prefer "Common Sense", but it's also a commodity that's hard to come by, not to mention impossible to use as a ruler for debate.

Granted, I feel it would all be fixed if the extreme-alignment-classes were a little more lenient. For instance, the LG Paladin should never "Commit any great evils, nor should they consistently commit any number of lesser evils," whereas the LE's champion (avoiding 'Paladin' for its debated term here) would be required to avoid "Needlessly committing acts out of such simplistic motives such as goodness, altruism, etc". The way it's put in RAW just doesn't work because of how specific it is and how it comes off as "One-strike-you're-screwed-you-fall".

I think you're missing a word there - what precisely is your question?

If you mean to ask me how I determine whether a class is alignment-restricted or not, that's fairly simple: if the published class description states that all members of the class must be of one and only one alignment, or they will no longer be members of the class and will lose all class abilities, then the class is alignment-restricted. I haven't yet considered whether restrictions to multiple alignments (as in the case of Monks, who must be Lawful but can be Good, Neutral, or Chaotic) present the same problem, because this discussion is centering on Paladins who are alignment-restricted to only one alignment.

I would have to use more terms, like "alignment-restricted in the first degree" or some weird arcane nonsense like that, if we started expanding this to classes with more alignment options less than "any."

EDIT: and yes, what you propose would probably solve everything. I actually rather like the flair and feel of that... "no great evils." I think we are agreeing on the central point, that being that the current "one-strike" system as you put it is unworkable for any alignment.

Renegade Paladin
2008-03-17, 09:59 AM
Maybe it does. You may wish to consider the possibility now that you've admitted you know it exists.

And just maybe, judging by the arguments, character ruination, and just general stupidity that the paladin class has created over time...

This is a GOOD THING.
Erm... No. If someone's playing a paladin in such a way as to try and control the party by fiat, he's doing it wrong; if someone's playing an evil character in a party containing a paladin then that person's doing it wrong, and if someone wants to play a paladin in an evil campaign, then he's doing it wrong. The problem doesn't lie with the paladin class, and since the paladin is an awesome concept, it should stay as it is.

Zincorium
2008-03-17, 10:16 AM
Erm... No. If someone's playing a paladin in such a way as to try and control the party by fiat, he's doing it wrong; if someone's playing an evil character in a party containing a paladin then that person's doing it wrong, and if someone wants to play a paladin in an evil campaign, then he's doing it wrong. The problem doesn't lie with the paladin class, and since the paladin is an awesome concept, it should stay as it is.

Half the people who like paladins seem to think that more than 75% of everyone else plays them wrong.

There is no other class that even comes close to this. I think that points to a definite problem, probably in the way it's presented and old misconceptions about how it was. Either way, it could do with a bit less tradition and dogma and more emphasis that paladins truly believe in what they do and that's why they have powers. Paladins should never feel falling because they have no intention of ever doing evil.

I personally really like paladins (read the 'Deed of Paksenarrion' by Elizabeth Moon for exactly the way I think of them), and think they should be better supported.

Bleen
2008-03-17, 10:22 AM
I think you're missing a word there - what precisely is your question?
Ah, well. My question was, if we can't assign alignments to actions, then what how do we determine whether or not, for instance, the Paladin, would fall?

But really, the entire point of me asking that is moot (and possibly cracky-chan too) since our general agreement comes down to "Nip it in the bud by fixing the problem: The Paladin's poorly-written and horribly stiff code of conduct." I don't think we can expand on the original concept for other alignments such as CG, LE, CE, and I could see LN and CN fitting in there too if you wanted, even, unless we fix the problems with the concept (The current RAW LG Paladin) we're working out of.

This isn't to say the Paladin class itself is a bad concept, just a poorly-executed one in 3e. It'd be nice if the class itself got some help in terms of power and optimization and whatnot, but this is an ALIGNMENT THREED, and redundant character optimization arguments are for another place and time.

Talya
2008-03-17, 10:29 AM
I stand in stark opposition to the use of Nazis in any unnecessary capacity.

It's always good to use Nazis! Preferably as secondary plot hooks in more modern settings. There's never been an easier way to make large groups of humans automatically evil and killable without remorse, than by making them Nazis!

Rutee
2008-03-17, 10:34 AM
It's always good to use Nazis! Preferably as secondary plot hooks in more modern settings. There's never been an easier way to make large groups of humans automatically evil and killable without remorse, than by making them Nazis!

This is especially true and awesome when they're /also/ ninjas, vampires, or werewolves. But I despise them used in a debate still XD

Deepblue706
2008-03-17, 10:36 AM
This is especially true and awesome when they're /also/ ninjas, vampires, or werewolves. But I despise them used in a debate still XD

You forgot Nazi Zombies. And Frankensteins.

Mr. Friendly
2008-03-17, 10:38 AM
*reads thread*
*notices a "familar pattern"*
*takes blood-pressure medicine*
*begins walking away from the thread...*

Incidentally EE, you may want to fix this:



you misunderstand. Evil is its own action, murder is evil, slavery is evil, rape is evil in D&D. If i do these things i'm evil. (rest of post) (emphasis mine)

I would like to point out that you make it sound as though either:

Rape is only evil in D&D.

OR

Rape, Murder and Slavery are only evil in D&D.

:smallbiggrin:

Really though, my interpretation is more of the former than the latter; you define murder and slavery as evil, yet define rape as being evil within the confines of D&D.

sikyon
2008-03-17, 10:38 AM
Holy moley this thread moves fast!


You've missed the point. Not every LE nation would be an iron fist dictatorship. Not every LE person needs to be a upholder of dictatorship rules. Some would be, but that isn't always the case. LE rulers only need to be evil in a lawful way, and there are many many many ways to do that. Not all LE paladins would be sharing the same code

Not all LG paladins share the same code either. I don't see how any of this doesn't apply to LG...



Actually, almost all evil people are selfish in some way, that is kinda the root of evil. They don't believe it so, but almost all of the evil deeds can be traced back to selfishness. Putting your life in front of others, working for self motivation, sacrificing others for the "greater good" ect.


Yes, that's what I said. Selfishness may be the number one cause of evil, but evil does not inherently imply selfishness. Again, selflessness is not an inherently good act. You can be selfless and sacrifice yourself for your dark god to perform an evil ritual... you're still evil. If you don't want to kill yourself to save 10 other people, you're still a good person.



1 . Not all LE people believe in such a goal however. Some believe in different things
2. And each chaotic paladin would have a different code of disorder, or would they all fall if they started organizing things? If the former, then they are more akin to knights than paladins, if the later then that is just stupid

1. Same goes for LG
2. The later. They would be knights of CHAOS, randomness, etc. Chaotic people don't have a code. The have an aversion to a code.

SamTheCleric
2008-03-17, 10:38 AM
I'm not going to read 6 pages of this drivel... I wanted to just point out...

If WOTC didn't intend for paladins to be anything but LAWFUL GOOD (Stupid), why did they publish the Grey Guard prestige class in which a paladin retains his paladin status, but resorts to back alley beatings instead of diplomacy...

It's easier to ask forgiveness then to ask for permission.

Hyozo
2008-03-17, 10:43 AM
I would post my oppinion of EE's "logic", but I have no desire to be banned from these forums. What I will say is that he is being too narrow minded, to the point of ignoring existing rules and justifications, in order to prove a point which is not supported by any official rules or their justifications. In short, he is wrong.

Mr. Friendly
2008-03-17, 10:49 AM
I'm not going to read 6 pages of this drivel... I wanted to just point out...

If WOTC didn't intend for paladins to be anything but LAWFUL GOOD (Stupid), why did they publish the Grey Guard prestige class in which a paladin retains his paladin status, but resorts to back alley beatings instead of diplomacy...

It's easier to ask forgiveness then to ask for permission.

Don't bother. It is just as his sig line says, you cannot defeat him. He is like a machine. He doesn't listen to logic or reason. He doesn't feel pity or pain; and he absolutely will not stop until he has given you an aneurism.

SamTheCleric
2008-03-17, 10:53 AM
I present to you... the definition of Paladin.

[http://www.m-w.com]


paladin
One entry found.

paladin



Main Entry: pal·a·din
Pronunciation: \ˈpa-lə-dən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Italian paladino, from Old French palatin, from Medieval Latin palatinus courtier, from Late Latin, imperial official — more at palatine
Date: 1592
1 : a trusted military leader (as for a medieval prince)
2 : a leading champion of a cause


PS. It doesnt say Law or Good anywhere in there. :smallbiggrin:

Rutee
2008-03-17, 10:57 AM
Don't bother. It is just as his sig line says, you cannot defeat him. He is like a machine. He doesn't listen to logic or reason. He doesn't feel pity or pain; and he absolutely will not stop until he has given you an aneurism.

That is in fact exactly what Setra meant when he said it.

Mr. Friendly
2008-03-17, 10:58 AM
Sam... you're doing it wrong...

That's logic..

It cannot work on EE.

*eats popcorn and waits for the barrage of madness*

SamTheCleric
2008-03-17, 11:00 AM
Hmm, so false logic is his weakness you say.


I R WIN THREAD.

There, the discussion is over. Paladins must wear a tutu and invoke the ancient hawaiian totem of tastycakes to receive their lay on hands ability.

ZekeArgo
2008-03-17, 11:12 AM
Hmm, so false logic is his weakness you say.


I R WIN THREAD.

There, the discussion is over. Paladins must wear a tutu and invoke the ancient hawaiian totem of tastycakes to receive their lay on hands ability.

Hmmm.... I always did want to make a paladin devoted to quality baked goods...

Renegade Paladin
2008-03-17, 11:29 AM
That's what 4e paladins are, crusaders and knights by a different name.
Then they shouldn't have a different name; "paladin" is a defined term. Calling an evil champion a paladin is like calling a cat a dog; you can use the word, but that doesn't make it so.

And I present the actual definition of paladin.

pal·a·din (pāl'ə-dĭn) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. A paragon of chivalry; a heroic champion.
2. A strong supporter or defender of a cause: "the paladin of plain speaking" (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.)
3. Any of the 12 peers of Charlemagne's court.

Obviously, two and three are irrelevant to this discussion; the knightly standard of paladin, and therefore the one relevant to the character class, is definition one. Note that it says paragon of chivalry and heroic champion. Evil people are by definition neither chivalrous nor heroic.

Maxperson
2008-03-17, 01:35 PM
I'm not going to read 6 pages of this drivel... I wanted to just point out...

If WOTC didn't intend for paladins to be anything but LAWFUL GOOD (Stupid), why did they publish the Grey Guard prestige class in which a paladin retains his paladin status, but resorts to back alley beatings instead of diplomacy...

It's easier to ask forgiveness then to ask for permission.

Because lawful doesn't necessarily mean that you uphold the laws. It can also mean someone whose life is very structured and focused. Monks are a good example of a lawful society that is not dependant or a strict upholder of laws.

Years ago, when TSR was still the owner of D&D, Dragon magazine put out an article intended to show how LG didn't have to mean "goodie two shoes". As an example of a paladin of justice who didn't behave that way, they directed us to look at Batman. Batman is an individual who has dedicated his life to bringing criminals to justice. He is someone who will risk life, limb, and property to save an innocent, which when combined with his very orderly and focused life, marks him as both lawful and good. Food for thought.

Rutee
2008-03-17, 02:28 PM
Then they shouldn't have a different name; "paladin" is a defined term. Calling an evil champion a paladin is like calling a cat a dog; you can use the word, but that doesn't make it so.

Um. Problem with that is that there's only one scientific definition of what can qualify as a dog, at the end of the day. Language being what it is, there are multiple sets of definitions. Frankly? The etymology of the word "Paladin" has been presented. Despite the 12 Peers being the only truly noteworthy examples in fiction, there's no reason why it can't be used for 'evil' Kniggits. It was actually possible before the 12 Peers became legend, actually.

Sorry, but the word really does function just as well for evil. That's the way it goes. Notwithstanding that the soldier of God kick, if taken, by definition allows for Evil Paladins; Just because ostensibly the only god (To Europeans in this time period, and not all of them, just the ones using the term) was a Good God doesn't mean it's the case in DnD settings. Basically, ti's the same logic behind there being Evil Clerics. Cleric in the real world in theory only referred to Good people, because it denoted one of the Christian God's clerics, whom were all supposed to be Good.

Mr. Friendly
2008-03-17, 02:36 PM
What were the classes in the 1e PHB?

Bleen
2008-03-17, 03:10 PM
Do Time-Travelling Vampire Nazi Communist Robots work?

Anyway.

I feel that, regardless of the real-world etymology behind the word "Paladin", "Paladin" IS generally a title given to the iconic "Knightly divine LG guys" in Role-Playing games for quite a while now. People have already built their conceptions of what the word means, and it's a word that gets used in games other than just DnD to imply the same thing. AFAIK, the term "Evil Paladin" in the original intent of the OP has generally been used to refer to a knightly character similar to the Paladin, but with different beliefs, a different alignment, a different name, and a different set of abilities doing largely the same thing: Going around kicking arse as a representative of his belief(Alignment).

I think the crazy semantics here have caused a bit of a misunderstanding, is all...

Morty
2008-03-17, 04:05 PM
The real problem with evil paladins is that they've got huge game-destroying potential. It's hard enough already to find an evil character that doesn't act like a genocidal maniac, and it's going to be even worse with yet another -in addition to evil clerics we've already got- class that can be religiously devoted to evil.

Roderick_BR
2008-03-17, 04:13 PM
I agree that changing the name for something else would avoid a lot of problem since people cares too much for names ("Gold Wyvern Adept?! They ruined D&D!!!!!", "It's like Extraordinary Spell Aim. Same thing". "Wolf Fang Strike? Tome of Battle is too anime!!!" "It's just a variation of Two-Weapon Fighting")
I'd say that either crusader or knight could work. Paladin would just be a title for the LG ones.

Oslecamo
2008-03-17, 04:33 PM
Cleric in the real world in theory only referred to Good people, because it denoted one of the Christian God's clerics, whom were all supposed to be Good.

"Burn the devil lover!"

There were "heretic" clerics who worshiped the devil, or satan, or whatever you call it, and were hunted and burned at the stake by the "good" clerics.

These evil clerics suposedly disguised themselves as good clerics as to not atract atentions but get worshippers.

God wasn't the only being you could worship in cristianity. The devil also took worshipers and clerics. There are "satanic" cults almost since there was the christian religion.

What, you tought that the whole "good vs evil" thingy started only in the last century?

EDIT:Mind you I'm not saying they actually worshiped the devil. However what matters is not exactly what it really was but what people tought. And more than one person was killed for having slightly diferent beliefs than the guy next door.

snoopy13a
2008-03-17, 06:15 PM
I don't even think paladins should be a class. If people want to play a noble warrior then play a lawful good fighter and call him/her a paladin or knight or whatever. If people want to play an evil warrior who serves some evil religion then play an evil fighter.

GammaPaladin
2008-03-17, 06:19 PM
I agree that changing the name for something else would avoid a lot of problem since people cares too much for names ("Gold Wyvern Adept?! They ruined D&D!!!!!", "It's like Extraordinary Spell Aim. Same thing". "Wolf Fang Strike? Tome of Battle is too anime!!!" "It's just a variation of Two-Weapon Fighting")
I'd say that either crusader or knight could work. Paladin would just be a title for the LG ones.
Or maybe they're, y'know, changing the Paladin deliberately so that this issue will quit being debated everywhere.

Tren
2008-03-17, 06:19 PM
"Burn the devil lover!"

There were "heretic" clerics who worshiped the devil, or satan, or whatever you call it, and were hunted and burned at the stake by the "good" clerics.

These evil clerics suposedly disguised themselves as good clerics as to not atract atentions but get worshippers.

God wasn't the only being you could worship in cristianity. The devil also took worshipers and clerics. There are satanic cults almost since there was the christian rligion.

What, you tought that the whole "good vs evil" thingy started only in the last century?

Oslecamo, you might want to edit that before you get this thread locked. And as a historical note, the majority of heresies and heretical groups in middle ages Europe were non-orthodox Christian sects that simply differed in their views from the Church. There weren't any major heretical groups that actually had anything to do with "Satan."

EvilElitest
2008-03-17, 07:05 PM
There are precisely no more or fewer problems with that than the equally absurd notion that paladins cannot commit Evil actions, ever

Thats not absurd, a paladin is the paragon of virtue and goodness, and thus doesn't commit any evil acts


1(A). If you don't know their alignment due to a masking effect of some sort and let them go, I believe it would be.
2. I don't have the BoED, and it's not core so has a bit less of an application than the PHB.

1. Being evil is not a crime. you can't kill somebody for being evil, only if they are doing evil things and not other option is around
2. and even if he was something like a demon or something, if the paladin didn't know he can't be held responsible
3. BoED is the text that makes the nature of a paladin clear as published by WotC, and thus is considered perfectly cannon.




1(B). Hitler, Ferdinand II of Aragon, Isabella I of Castile, Caligula, and Mussolini were all legitimate authorities within their realms, and the Code of Conduct makes no distinction between 'legitimate' and 'good.'
not by the rules of goodness, this has been covered oh so many times. A legitimate authority has to be in agreement with the good evil aligment as well. So for a LE person, a legetimate Authority would most likely be evil, for LN it could be any, for LG it almost has to be Good or Neutral


But someone who is good and commits an evil act, or even two is not evil. People can make mistakes or do things out of anger that they would never do under normal circumstances. You could also have someone who is a saint in every aspect of life, except for the fact that he loves to molest 6 year old boys. How do you classify that person?
1.A good person who commits evil acts will become evil if he keeps it up. However an evil person can commit as many good deeds as he wants and stay evil as long as he doesn't atone for his evil acts
2. That person would be evil, most likely LE but still evil, because rape is evil. He might think he is good, but he is evil. And no matter how many good acts he does, he will never be good until he stops raping small boys, admits it was wrong, and tries his earnest best to repent
3. Paladins cannot commit any evil acts ever because they take good to an extreme.


That's what 4e paladins are, crusaders and knights by a different name.

Only in terms of code, in powers they are like knights. I think they should just call them something else to avoid confusion and harming the paladin concept (which was quite well done if you knew all the material)


Are you saying that there is an inherent code to the Good alignment, namely, to not do Evil, but there is NOT the same for the Evil alignment, namely, to not do Good?

Yeah, now here me out

All good people need to do good things to keep their aligment . Every time they do something evil, they inch closer to becoming evil and must do more good acts to make up for it. Now aligment changes are not instant so they can get away with a few evil acts before becoming neutral (or evil), however they will cease to be good if they commit evil acts. Good people need to commit good acts and not commit evil acts to stay good[

Evil people on the other hand have no problem with committing good acts, they just need to commit evil acts to stay evil. A knight who helps his people, donates to charity, saves lives and builds houses for free to help the poor is still evil if he kills goblin women and children. As long as he doesn't repent for those murders, he will remain evil no matter how many good deeds he commits. Evil doesn't need to not do good deeds, just to keep doing evil deeds. Because other wise evil would have to absurdly stupid and couldn't even save their own people because that would be a good act



Under the DnD system, the presence or lack of a code of any sort, personal or otherwise, is SOLELY the realm of Law and Chaos, and even then it's a bit fuzzy as has been stated already.


Um, paladin code? WHat are you talking about



Yeah, you're absolutely correct. Just because someone is Evil does not mean they are a Nazi. Congratulations, that's not what I was saying.

What I was saying was that, by and large, people who were wholly dedicated to the Nazi ideology, which included the odd act of genocide, were Evil. You flipped it to make it wrong. Amazing.

yeah, and i acknowledged that, however i'm pointing out, as i've already pointed out, several times, that the nazi code of racial supremacy isn't inherent to all evil people. No code is inherent to the aligment, only to people who have the aligment. As i've already said, i know evil people can have codes. I said taht in my first argument at the start of the thread, ergo evil knights and evil crusaders. A nazi might have a cod yes, i've already admitted that. However another evil person of the same aligment might not have any code what so ever and would gladly treat all races equally in terms of his systematically killing them. However a pair of good people will have a few things in common in terms of moral code. paladins follow an aligment code, not a particualar mortal code, unlike knights



I was using Nazis as an example of people who follow a code of sorts, and were Evil, darn it!


I know that, i already said that and your missing my point. My point is, that while Nazis might have an evil code, not all people who are evil have a code. When your evil a code is an added bonus, not a requirement like it is for good


Anyhoos, I'm done. I really shouldn't have bothered in the first place. Enjoy your perception of DnD alignment rules, and I'll enjoy mine, and we'll all have fun!
you mean your delusions of the D&D aligments



Is it me, or are you starting to blur the lines of good and lawful good? Maybe you can't make a paladin who's C/E or N/E, but you can certainly make a L/E equivalent of the paladin. The Code of Conduct applies only to the paladins, and is in no way a definition of good or law when examined as separate concepts.
1. Actually the Code of Conduct is simply a radical version of the Lawful Good Code. Anyone who is Exalted follows a very similar code (in the do not commit any evil acts area). Exalted means you are just super super good when it comes to your goodness and don't commit any evil actions, much like the Paladin code (all paladins are considered exalted)
2. LE people often have codes, however they don't have to. They just have to respect the nature of law and order and that is it. the often do have codes, but nothing in their aligment forces them to. If i'm LE, here are teh things that can change my aligment
A) me no longer committing evil actions and repenting with good actions
B) Me ignoring and activity going against law and/or generally lawful approaches to things.
So a LE paladin would have to not act chaotic, and never commit good actions. Which is rather silly actually.


For instance, a character who does not respect legitimate authority, regardless of the authorities alignment, would be tipping the scales towards chaotic, but not evil.
yes, but that would be the same for LN, LE, or LG paladin, nothing to do with the Good evil axis. A LN paladin could be possible, because they would just have to respect law, but LE would not have that loophole.


Cheating, lying, and poisoning can also be used for the cause of good, or even law, but there are various parameters which dictate where either of the three things would fall on the alignment scale.
1. poison is apparently always evil, unless you use the "good guy poison" described in the BoED. Don't ask me how that makes sense
2. Cheating and lying are normally evil, but like killing can 'become' good acts when used in certain situations, much like stealing. You cant cheat or lie for personal gain or to harm innocents however.



Using torture to punish those who threaten or harm innocents would be a morally ambiguous act, though as far as I'm concerned would be a bit too evil for someone who is supposed to be a paragon of good, though a L/N or L/E paladin-esque class or character could do such a thing.
Torture is covered actually, it is always evil, no matter who does it. Mercy is good however.


Yes. As I mentioned, you like wizards are married to this outdated concept about the paladins, created with the Catholic Church in mind. This DOES NOT WORK. D&D has many gods, not one. As for pointing to the players hand book, I'll go ahead and point you to the part that says that the rules are only guidelines. The idea that a paladin must be LG is a very narrowminded and outdated view of things.
ok WTF?
1. Um, paladins don't have to worship any gods at all, as their powers don't come from gods. Except in FR, but even then the code isn't instated by the gods
2. only guidelines in general behavior, not in actions you realize, because actions have aligment with them, for example rape is always evil
3. Not really, because paladins are the paragons of an aligment, not a particualar cause. In that sense, LG is the best aligment suited to those requirements


You probably don't remember me because I don't have your patience for pages and pages of legalistic minutae and debate; I tend to pop into a thread, say what I have to say and then move on.
ah, that explains it


That's part of my point; evil paladins may or may not make sense using the printed definition of a paladin, but such is a very narrow definition that in my experience is not used exclusively in practice. So basing your argument on such a narrow definition may or may not be technically sound but it ultimately doesn't matter in practice because a lot of gamers don't follow that definition anyway.
Actually i'm basing my theory that evil paladins don't makes sense under the current idea of a paladin, because i feel that the new concept is becoming something akin to a knight


Sorry I paraphrased wrong; my points still stand. Paladins, clerics, druids, favored souls, whatever--they all have assigned dedications to gods or causes or alignments, but that's just flavor text that can be easily changed and often is. It isn't hard to imagine other paladin codes for paladins of different alignments--or, Heronious forbid, paladins with no code at all.

That is homebrewing, which has no effect on this discussion sorry. Also the paladin flavor text directly effects the class' mechanics actually


"The Code is more of what you'd call a guideline."
--Captain Barbossa
not with the current paladin's code, however a crusader's code, or a black gaurd's code it is a different story


While these are all perfectly viable variations on Nerull, he is not by d&d tradition represented as anything other than malicious, scary and evil. Using real world logic, any followers he had would be few and far between and just wouldn't survive in the long run.
He is given more flavor in Deties and Demogods i believe, along with some appearances in the many splat books.




Because "paladin", "crusader" and "knight" are effectively three words for the same archetype. You might consider them to be different, you might even be able to site literary and historical precedents for these differences, but in terms of common usage they all effectively mean "a guy with a sword in armor dedicated to something larger than himself, whether it be a king, a country, an ideal or a god."
correction, they were three words for the same archetype, they have moved into three separate concepts however
paladin- upholder of the good aligment before all else
Knight- Upholder of some Lawful Cause, the Lawful Alignment before all else
Crusader- Upholder of any non neutral ideal or cause




Except that good people can disagree with each other just as much as evil people can. They all believe in helping others. But does that mean that it's OK to help a starving family by stealing the taxes from the coffers of the corrupt noble? Good Rogue says yes, Good Paladin says no. Some would say every criminal deserves a second chance. Others would say that a murderer should be executed to keep him from causing more pain and suffering. Even two Lawful Good characters can be as different as night and day--Batman and Superman, for example. The Paladin's Code is not the Lawful Good Code, but a specific code that is objectively Lawful and Good. Just like drow society has a code that it ingrains into its people which is objectively Chaotic and Evil
1. I never said that good characters have to agree with each other on everything. However all good characters have to agree on a few points, for example all good characters who aren't on the verge of losing their good status believe that rape is evil and wouldn't do it
2. the other issues you mentioned aren't really aligment issues in terms of good not being allowed to do it, just issues they might disagree on. First off, teh Good paladin would say the criminal do deserve a second chance because of the mercy deal, if the criminal repents and wants to have a second chance. Secondly even if the Good Rouge says he shouldn't have a second chance and should be lawfully executed, both of them will agree that raping his will be evil. However get a pair of evil guys to decide his fate and anything in on the table, it is left up to the individual's moral values, because the LE Blackguard might just rape and then kill him or the equally LE Rogue might kill him in a painless manner, and the equally Le Wizard might torture him , kill him, raise him as an undead



Holy crap. Did we walk into Godwin's Law yet? I can't tell if this is a legit application of Nazi's, so I'm leaning towards "Yes, we did."

We are toeing the line, but it is still relevant to the discussion (somewhat) so we aren't there yet.



I do the same, but people seem to find me... memorable.
Well you do have a very funny dry wit


Incidentally, it would be easy to argue that what the Aztecs, and the Reign of Terror, were not really evil. Trouble is, that encroaches on politics and religion.
Human Sacrifice and wide spread murder isn't evil? What?



So what if Bob picked up the stick, and then used it to to kindle a fire that burned down a village?
Picking up the stick is neutral
Burning the village, three questions
1) Did he mean to burn the village? Was it an accident?
2) Why did he burn the village? Was it infested with zombies? Was he trying to light a fire and it went out of control? Is he an arsonist? What?
3) Was anyone hurt in the fire? I mean if he burned an abandon village or one filled with people?
D) was he possessed or something?


Granted, I feel it would all be fixed if the extreme-alignment-classes were a little more lenient. For instance, the LG Paladin should never "Commit any great evils, nor should they consistently commit any number of lesser evils," whereas the LE's champion (avoiding 'Paladin' for its debated term here) would be required to avoid "Needlessly committing acts out of such simplistic motives such as goodness, altruism, etc". The way it's put in RAW just doesn't work because of how specific it is and how it comes off as "One-strike-you're-screwed-you-fall
No because they the paladin's code gets even more vague and unseemly and ends justifies the means goes everywhere

Also why can't LE paladins commit good actions for good reasons? Because LE people can commit good actions with good intentions as long as they are also committing evil actions


Half the people who like paladins seem to think that more than 75% of everyone else plays them wrong.
Wow, wouldn't it be nice if WotC published a book to let us know the to do and do not of hte paladin code. Yeah, that would be swell


*reads thread*
*notices a "familar pattern"*
*takes blood-pressure medicine*
*begins walking away from the thread...*

which pattern, the aligment pattern or what



(emphasis mine)

I would like to point out that you make it sound as though either:

Rape is only evil in D&D.


OR

Rape, Murder and Slavery are only evil in D&D.



Really though, my interpretation is more of the former than the latter; you define murder and slavery as evil, yet define rape as being evil within the confines of D&D.


In real life Slavery and Murder, and even rape are left up to people's personal options. Personally i think they are all evil, but i imagine some people would disagree. Withing D&D, where morals are absolute, they are evil in D&D. nice catch however






Not all LG paladins share the same code either. I don't see how any of this doesn't apply to LG...
WFT are you talking about, all LG paladins share the same code, ergo the paladin code


1. Same goes for LG
2. The later. They would be knights of CHAOS, randomness, etc. Chaotic people don't have a code. The have an aversion to a code.

1. no because all LG people believe in certain actions being evil (rape, murder, slavery ect)
2. Exactly



I would post my oppinion of EE's "logic", but I have no desire to be banned from these forums. What I will say is that he is being too narrow minded, to the point of ignoring existing rules and justifications, in order to prove a point which is not supported by any official rules or their justifications. In short, he is wrong.
Prove me wrong. Go ahead, prove me wrong, i'd love to see. Going "I'd say something, but i'm going to, so there" only wastes time



Don't bother. It is just as his sig line says, you cannot defeat him. He is like a machine. He doesn't listen to logic or reason. He doesn't feel pity or pain; and he absolutely will not stop until he has given you an aneurism.

Does starting at least four, now banned sarcastic 4E/3E threads, making untrue accusations of people trolling and lying which you avoid backing up, making personal attacks and belittling other's options without backing it up in an immature and cowardly way before leaving the thread by not addressing the issues or any specific points count as logic? Because that certainly has been your style so far



That is in fact exactly what Setra meant when he said it.
you can't condemn me from countering points, defending an arguments and backing up what i say. if you'd quite wasting time with attempts to discredit me, you might try actually countering the points at hand (gasp)



Sam... you're doing it wrong...

That's logic..

It cannot work on EE.

*eats popcorn and waits for the barrage of madness*
Coming from a guy who sits on teh side lines and flames people? Classy. Fun fact, your not using logic, and in fact avoid doing so. you use propaganda styled flaming, but you do however avoid addressing any real points. It is interesting to note, because you really can't make any real points, you just resort to flaming because you are ether unable or unwilling to actually try to prove me wrong, which is rather hypocritical to call me a one who doesn't listen to logic when you don't use it.


Hmm, so false logic is his weakness you say.


Actually, my weakness is countering my points and using real arguments instead of wasting time with badly worded personal attacks would get you more ground

from
EE

Renegade Paladin
2008-03-17, 07:08 PM
Um. Problem with that is that there's only one scientific definition of what can qualify as a dog, at the end of the day. Language being what it is, there are multiple sets of definitions. Frankly? The etymology of the word "Paladin" has been presented. Despite the 12 Peers being the only truly noteworthy examples in fiction, there's no reason why it can't be used for 'evil' Kniggits. It was actually possible before the 12 Peers became legend, actually.
Oh, please. Yes, languages evolve, but that's not free license to redefine words to mean whatever you want.

And there is significant literary precedent for the word meaning what I say it does; to name an example, let's have a look at this passage of the Arthurian poem, "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight." First, the context (spoilerized for those who may wish to read the story). The premise of the poem is that a certain Green Knight wished to test the valor of King Arthur's court, so he rode to Camelot and issued a challenge: One Knight of the Round Table would on that day get to take one blow at the Green Knight as he stood bent over, neck exposed and unresisting, and one year thereafter the Green Knight would get to do the same to the knight who accepted the challenge.

The Round Table as a whole thought of this as foolishness and attempted to persuade the Green Knight to take up some other challenge, for surely it was madness for him to die in this way before getting to fulfill his chosen test!

But the Green Knight insisted, and King Arthur decided that, if it was to be done, it was the responsibility of the King to take the challenge thrust at the whole court. But Sir Gawain prevailed upon him not to risk the head of the ruler in case the Green Knight did have some means of making good on his threat, and took up the challenge himself.

He promptly struck off the Green Knight's head, but the Green Knight simply walked over to his head, picked it up, and affixed it back to his neck, whereupon he rode from court after instructing Gawain to appear at the Green Chapel to receive his blow in kind after the span of one year.

One year later, as promised, Gawain set out for the Green Chapel with a heavy heart. He arrived three days earlier than the appointed date and found it deserted, so he took shelter at a nearby castle, the lord of which, in good spirits, made a bargain with Gawain: Each day that the Knight of the Round stayed at the castle, he would give the lord what he had gained in the day, and the lord would give Gawain what he had gained. So the lord rode out hunting, and while he was out, the lord's wife proceeded to try and woo Gawain.

Gawain, being an honorable man, refused her advances, but each day she kissed him. So when the lord returned from his hunt on the first and second days, he would give Gawain the day's catch, and Gawain, fulfilling his bargain, kissed the lord, but did not tell him where he'd gained what he'd given.

On the third day, the lord's wife came to Gawain and offered him a braided belt, which she told him bore enchantments to make losing his head as inconsequential to him as it was to the dreaded Green Knight of the Green Chapel in the nearby forest. She persuaded him to wear it and then kissed him, and when the lord returned, he gave the lord the kisses but did not turn over the belt.

The next day, he rode to the Green Chapel, and there found the Green Knight awaiting him. Gawain removed his helm and stood bowed with his neck exposed, and the Green Knight took one swing at him and missed. He took a second one and missed again, whereupon Gawain told him to stop his taunting and get on with it. So the Green Knight took a third swing and barely grazed Gawain's neck. Upon receiving the blow, the bargain was fulfilled, and Gawain leaped back and drew his sword, demanding that the Green Knight cease his blows now that the bargain was fulfilled, or he would reply in kind.

So the Green Knight leaned on his axe and removed his helm, revealing himself to be the castle's lord. He revealed that the first missed blow had been to signify the first day where Gawain kept their covenant, and the second blow the second day. The third blow, where Gawain was nicked, was for not turning over the belt he now wore, but the lord did not take Gawain's head for this, and this brings us to the passage I want to show.
Now that's done with:
For that braided belt you wear belongs to me.
I am well aware that my own wife gave it you
Your conduct and your kissings are completely known to me,
And the wooing by my wife - my work set it on.
I instructed her to try you, and you truly seem
To be the most perfect paladin ever to pace the earth.
As the pearl to the white pea in precious worth,
So in good faith is Gawain to other gay knights.
The Green Knight then goes on to explain that he did not take Gawain's head because Gawain kept the belt from him, not out of greed, but out of desire to save his own life, which is less blameworthy; but the Knight of the Round had still broken his oath, and so received a lesser blow.

Now I ask you: In this context, if you did not know the meaning of the word "paladin," what would you infer it to mean given the surrounding phrases? Hint: It isn't "maleficent champion of all that is evil."

Rutee
2008-03-17, 07:13 PM
"Burn the devil lover!"

There were "heretic" clerics who worshiped the devil, or satan, or whatever you call it, and were hunted and burned at the stake by the "good" clerics.

These evil clerics suposedly disguised themselves as good clerics as to not atract atentions but get worshippers.

God wasn't the only being you could worship in cristianity. The devil also took worshipers and clerics. There are satanic cults almost since there was the christian rligion.

What, you tought that the whole "good vs evil" thingy started only in the last century?

Tren already got your historical back. This, however, doesn't touch my point. You're claiming that there were people who spread the word of other cults. You were called a Cleric strictly in a Christian context.

Now you could legitimately claim that the term goes back to greek! But then Paladin becomes Chamberlain when we look at it's latin roots.

Hyozo
2008-03-17, 08:23 PM
Prove me wrong. Go ahead, prove me wrong, i'd love to see. Going "I'd say something, but i'm going to, so there" only wastes time


Why bother? No point in arguing with somebody who is about as sane as the CW samurai is overpowered. Yeah, I have several good points which would convince any logical person that I'm right, but I've seen some of them posted already, and you've just pretended they either weren't there or "don't count". I won't say anything more on this topic, but I might look in on it from time to time if I need a laugh.

Tequila Sunrise
2008-03-17, 08:31 PM
Now I ask you: In this context, if you did not know the meaning of the word "paladin," what would you infer it to mean given the surrounding phrases? Hint: It isn't "maleficent champion of all that is evil."

I for one am familiar with SGGK and I don't consider an evil paladin far fetched. It's just a word changed to mean its opposite; we do have those in the English language. If you really just can't wrap your head around the idea of an evil paladin, feel free to change the name in your own game. It's no big deal; I do it all the time to refer to female "sorcerers".

EvilElitest
2008-03-17, 08:44 PM
Why bother? No point in arguing with somebody who is about as sane as the CW samurai is overpowered. Yeah, I have several good points which would convince any logical person that I'm right, but I've seen some of them posted already, and you've just pretended they either weren't there or "don't count". I won't say anything more on this topic, but I might look in on it from time to time if I need a laugh.

So basically your have half hearted bark and no bite. You make these grand claims and don't back them up. Pathetic. The points that you oh so conveniently refused mentioned specifically i've countered. What arguments apparently "prove" i'm wrong to logical people. If your not even going to back up your statements, then your doing nothing more than wasting everybody's times with your pretense that you have something useful to say. You don't, your only have poor attempts at flaming and vague claim. As you don't contribute at all to this discussion, it is apparent you really don't have any points at all, logical or not. Stop wasting mine and everybody's else's time with unbacked claims and lies
from
EE

Citizen Joe
2008-03-17, 08:46 PM
Paladin = Religious champion of some church (or possibly some ideals)
Tenets of Faith
1. We are right and thus good
2. They are wrong and thus evil
Thus an Alvian Paladin would be considered good amongst Alvians but a Pastafarianism Paladin would be evil (In the eyes of Alvians).

This is how you get evil paladins.

Renegade Paladin
2008-03-17, 08:57 PM
I for one am familiar with SGGK and I don't consider an evil paladin far fetched. It's just a word changed to mean its opposite; we do have those in the English language. If you really just can't wrap your head around the idea of an evil paladin, feel free to change the name in your own game. It's no big deal; I do it all the time to refer to female "sorcerers".
"Just a word changed to mean it's opposite?" First, what? Secondly, what? A sorceress is not the opposite of a sorcerer, if that's what you mean; it's simply the feminine form of the same word for the same concept. I don't see how that applies at all to paladins and champions of evil by whatever other name.

Paladin = Religious champion of some church (or possibly some ideals)
Tenets of Faith
1. We are right and thus good
2. They are wrong and thus evil
Thus an Alvian Paladin would be considered good amongst Alvians but a Pastafarianism Paladin would be evil (In the eyes of Alvians).

This is how you get evil paladins.
This assumes subjective morality. D&D employs objective morality, so your line of reasoning does not work.

Serenity
2008-03-17, 08:58 PM
Two Lawful Good characters faced with a criminal disagree about whether to show him mercy and try to redeem him or lawfully execute him. They agree that what he did was wrong, and that the problem must be dealt with with an eye towards human rights and dignity.

Two Lawful Evil characters must deal with the same criminal, whose deeds have wronged/inconvenienced them. One suggests they slit his throat in his sleep, another wants to torture him to death as an example for others. Heck, throw in a third who wants to ruin his life in a non-fatal way. Again, different methods, but all driven by a common idea: look out for number one at the expense of other's rights.

For another point, while evil is most certainly not monolithic, good is hardly any more so. It's perfectly possible to disagree about what is good. One character says that stealing and lying is always evil. Another says that it's OK to do so to protect and help others. No code constrains all LG Fighters to act the same, so this talk of Codes 'inherent in alignments' is not based on anything.

Oslecamo
2008-03-17, 09:01 PM
Tren already got your historical back. This, however, doesn't touch my point. You're claiming that there were people who spread the word of other cults. You were called a Cleric strictly in a Christian context.

Now you could legitimately claim that the term goes back to greek! But then Paladin becomes Chamberlain when we look at it's latin roots.

The term cleric was also used for arabic non christian spiritual leaders, at the same time the word paladin was first used.

So you could have a fight between a cleric of God and a cleric of Alah, but you couldn't get a fight between a christian paladin and an arabic paladin.

Nebo_
2008-03-17, 09:08 PM
I would post my oppinion of EE's "logic", but I have no desire to be banned from these forums. What I will say is that he is being too narrow minded, to the point of ignoring existing rules and justifications, in order to prove a point which is not supported by any official rules or their justifications. In short, he is wrong.

I like you.


So basically your have half hearted bark and no bite. You make these grand claims and don't back them up. Pathetic. The points that you oh so conveniently refused mentioned specifically i've countered. What arguments apparently "prove" i'm wrong to logical people. If your not even going to back up your statements, then your doing nothing more than wasting everybody's times with your pretense that you have something useful to say. You don't, your only have poor attempts at flaming and vague claim. As you don't contribute at all to this discussion, it is apparent you really don't have any points at all, logical or not. Stop wasting mine and everybody's else's time with unbacked claims and lies
from
EE

*sigh* That's exactly what he said you'd do. I also draw your attention to the bolded section. Please, take your own advice.

Renegade Paladin
2008-03-17, 09:08 PM
So you could have a fight between a cleric of God and a cleric of Alah, but you couldn't get a fight between a christian paladin and an arabic paladin.
Technically you could; there's always Sir Palamedes. :smalltongue: But as he was a Christian Arab, I somehow think that wasn't what you meant.

Scintillatus
2008-03-17, 09:11 PM
How many of these ridiculous arguments would be solved by the Anti-4e people just going out and getting Races and Classes?

"D&D employs objective morality"

Let me do my best Lex Luthor impression. *Ahem.*

Wrong.

Races and Classes, pages 74 and 75;

"A major change to the system is the concept of unaligned characters. Most people just never choose sides, and never dedicate themselves to an ideal - they just do what they can to get by. Alignment is now a system you don't have to play in if you don't want to. Only characters with strong ideals will take up the cause of Good or Evil. This allows players more latitude. They can play a character who isn't all that nice, but can still be in the same party as the bright and shining paladin and not have much difficulty. An "Evil-curious" character might be underhanded or bloodthirsty without crossing the line into evil.

We also wanted to emphasize the different between personality and alignment. For a long time, people have used alignment as a guide to roleplaying, but that ends up being too restrictive and predictable. While alignment should influence your actions, it shouldn't define your whole personality. A Good-aligned person can be surly, or evil do something that's not exactly "good" once in a while. This doesn't mean the person isn't trying to uphold the virtues of a good alignment - and the dedication to keep trying is what's important about alignment.

Perhaps more important is the de-emphasis of alignment. Instead of the overarching system of previous editions, alignment is now a much smaller part of the experience. Only a minority of people (and monsters) is aligned at all, and most spells and abilities that key off alignment have been eliminated. For a player, choosing a Good alignment won't make your player more susceptible to evil attacks. Dungeon masters get the freedom to create storylines with intrigue and deception that can't be derailed by a detect evil spell. Shades of gray can make a campaign deeper and ultimately more rewarding. PCs should decide for themselves whether they think someone is evil, not rely on spells to make their decisions for them."

Emphasis added.

TL;DR?

Third edition rules don't have to apply to Fourth edition, and people trying to restrict gameplay with their own paradigm fail hilariously.

Arguing about a misspelling of a historical legal term and its applications to a fantasy game? Goofy. Crusaders/Paladins/etc are all in one class; deal. Swashbucklers/Rogues/Etc are all in one class too, as are Warblades and Fighters and... Well, you get the picture: we've got less bloat and more customisation. Quitcher bitchin'.

Nebo_
2008-03-17, 09:15 PM
How many of these ridiculous arguments would be solved by the Anti-4e people just going out and getting Races and Classes?

"D&D employs objective morality"

Let me do my best Lex Luthor impression. *Ahem.*

Wrong.

Races and Classes, pages 74 and 75;

"A major change to the system is the concept of unaligned characters. Most people just never choose sides, and never dedicate themselves to an ideal - they just do what they can to get by. Alignment is now a system you don't have to play in if you don't want to. Only characters with strong ideals will take up the cause of Good or Evil. This allows players more latitude. They can play a character who isn't all that nice, but can still be in the same party as the bright and shining paladin and not have much difficulty. An "Evil-curious" character might be underhanded or bloodthirsty without crossing the line into evil.

We also wanted to emphasize the different between personality and alignment. For a long time, people have used alignment as a guide to roleplaying, but that ends up being too restrictive and predictable. While alignment should influence your actions, it shouldn't define your whole personality. A Good-aligned person can be surly, or evil do something that's not exactly "good" once in a while. This doesn't mean the person isn't trying to uphold the virtues of a good alignment - and the dedication to keep trying is what's important about alignment.

Perhaps more important is the de-emphasis of alignment. Instead of the overarching system of previous editions, alignment is now a much smaller part of the experience. Only a minority of people (and monsters) is aligned at all, and most spells and abilities that key off alignment have been eliminated. For a player, choosing a Good alignment won't make your player more susceptible to evil attacks. Dungeon masters get the freedom to create storylines with intrigue and deception that can't be derailed by a detect evil spell. Shades of gray can make a campaign deeper and ultimately more rewarding. PCs should decide for themselves whether they think someone is evil, not rely on spells to make their decisions for them."

Emphasis added.

TL;DR?

Third edition rules don't have to apply to Fourth edition, and people trying to restrict gameplay with their own paradigm fail hilariously.

Arguing about a misspelling of a historical legal term and its applications to a fantasy game? Goofy. Crusaders/Paladins/etc are all in one class; deal. Swashbucklers/Rogues/Etc are all in one class too, as are Warblades and Fighters and... Well, you get the picture: we've got less bloat and more customisation. Quitcher bitchin'.

Well said and well informed. That's what most of us have been trying to say for a while, but EE simply won't listen.

Renegade Paladin
2008-03-17, 09:18 PM
How many of these ridiculous arguments would be solved by the Anti-4e people just going out and getting Races and Classes?

"D&D employs objective morality"

Let me do my best Lex Luthor impression. *Ahem.*

Wrong.

<Snip a long bunch of paragraphs basically saying they didn't change anything.>
So they're now calling Neutral "unaligned." I fail to see how that makes good and evil not objective. Nothing in what you posted says morality is now subjective in 4e.

Dode
2008-03-17, 09:19 PM
I'm just surprised people are still seriously debating a guy who misspelled their own profile name.

Scintillatus
2008-03-17, 09:24 PM
You are seriously, seriously kidding me.

"A Good-aligned person can be surly, or evil do something that's not exactly "good" once in a while."

No more "woop, you tortured a dude, you're Lawful Evil now."

"Shades of gray can make a campaign deeper and ultimately more rewarding. PCs should decide for themselves whether they think someone is evil, not rely on spells to make their decisions for them."

Shades of gray, your own personal definition of evil.. Do I really need to go on?

Unaligned is not "neutral", either; unaligned is unaligned. Unaligned is what anyone short of a Paladin is. Don't matter if you do good or not - the alignments are now for paragons of that ideal - the good crusaders and the evil crusaders.

Again, you have been proven neatly to be wrong.

MeklorIlavator
2008-03-17, 09:24 PM
So they're now calling Neutral "unaligned." I fail to see how that makes good and evil not objective. Nothing in what you posted says morality is now subjective in 4e.

Except that neutral means that you still must uphold certain ideals or change to one of the more extreme alignments. From what I got from the snippet of the article, in 4ed you don't change unless you decide to become a champion of your alignment.

Tren
2008-03-17, 09:25 PM
So they're now calling Neutral "unaligned." I fail to see how that makes good and evil not objective. Nothing in what you posted says morality is now subjective in 4e.

Objective might not be the best term, but the clear intent is that they're trying to reduce the mechanical effects of alignment and ostensibly reduce the fluff implications. A greedy merchant who overcharges customers and uses malicious business practices would be evil in 3E, probably unaligned in 4E (unless he sacrifices puppies to Asmodeus).

Renegade Paladin
2008-03-17, 09:28 PM
You are seriously, seriously kidding me.

"A Good-aligned person can be surly, or evil do something that's not exactly "good" once in a while."

No more "woop, you tortured a dude, you're Lawful Evil now."

"Shades of gray can make a campaign deeper and ultimately more rewarding. PCs should decide for themselves whether they think someone is evil, not rely on spells to make their decisions for them."

Shades of gray, your own personal definition of evil.. Do I really need to go on?

Unaligned is not "neutral", either; unaligned is unaligned. Unaligned is what anyone short of a Paladin is. Don't matter if you do good or not - the alignments are now for paragons of that ideal - the good crusaders and the evil crusaders.

Again, you have been proven neatly to be wrong.
No, I haven't. Good characters could be surly in the old editions; they're stating the obvious because there have been people for a long time (including, apparently, you) who just didn't comprehend that simple fact. Single actions didn't alter alignment in the old editions; they're stating the obvious because there have been people for a long time (including, apparently, you) who just didn't comprehend that simple fact. PCs should decide for themselves whether they think (that word is important) someone is evil; this means they're getting rid of alignment detection spells, which has nothing to do with objective morality.

Do you understand what the term "objective morality" means? Make sure you know what you're debating before declaring victory, because as of now everything you've posted has been totally irrelevant to my point.

an kobold
2008-03-17, 09:35 PM
EE, I've said so before and said will say so again, as thus far you have failed to address my post.
The entire basis of your argument of why evil paladins should be an oxymoron in 4e is assuming that the alignment system of 3.X will carry over into 4e as well as the current concept of a paladin. I have no problem with your argument that evil paladins should not exist in 3.X, but your are attempting to apply the same evidence to a new addition. Also, if you had bothered to do your homework on 4th edition outside of the two preview books, you would have discovered that the designers had addressed the issue of renaming the paladin class.


# In response to a poster asking whether WotC considered changing the name of the paladin in light of the fact that paladins can be of any alignment, Rich Baker had this to say:: "Yes, the question was considered, but ultimately it boils down to this: We want one class in the job of "holy warrior", not nine...Currently the text in the Player's Handbook says something to this effect: Paladins are almost always lawful or good. Chaotic or evil paladins do exist in the world, but they're almost never heroes; go see the DM if you want to play one."

Apparently, the paladin is no longer considered solely devoted to a "lawful good" idea but as a "holy warrior" in general.
Also, alignment has changed a great deal as well:


It’s not going to be what it is now. Alignment is part of the story, part of the character. It is a useful shorthand, but too many books and too many players mistake it for limitation. We want to treat alignment as something bigger than that. We won’t get rid of it, but we don’t want it to be a replacement for character and personality.

Interesting changes and reasons for them, don't you agree?

Edit: Lol, ninja'd. That's what happens when you try to watch Three Kings while browsing the internets.

EvilElitest
2008-03-17, 09:40 PM
I'm just surprised people are still seriously debating a guy who misspelled their own profile name.


Dear gods, do you even pretend to argue here? You've already brought this up on another thread, and i responded

The misspelling in my name is deliberate. I've already said that many many many times. And people's names have nothing to do with the subject at hand, it is flaming and time wasting


Two Lawful Good characters faced with a criminal disagree about whether to show him mercy and try to redeem him or lawfully execute him. They agree that what he did was wrong, and that the problem must be dealt with with an eye towards human rights and dignity.

Two Lawful Evil characters must deal with the same criminal, whose deeds have wronged/inconvenienced them. One suggests they slit his throat in his sleep, another wants to torture him to death as an example for others. Heck, throw in a third who wants to ruin his life in a non-fatal way. Again, different methods, but all driven by a common idea: look out for number one at the expense of other's rights.

Except that the Good people are obligated to care about the Criminal's fate. The LE people are not. Lets say the man in question is a murdering rapist. now the good people are required to stop him and then (presuming they captured him) deal with him in the best way possible (which is debatable). The LE aren't. Nothing forces them to even lift a finger to stop the rapist, nor doesn't anything make them obligated to care about his fate



For another point, while evil is most certainly not monolithic, good is hardly any more so. It's perfectly possible to disagree about what is good. One character says that stealing and lying is always evil. Another says that it's OK to do so to protect and help others. No code constrains all LG Fighters to act the same, so this talk of Codes 'inherent in alignments' is not based on anything.
Except that morals are absolute in D&D. The LG fighter might lie to protect somebody or he might not, however all LG people will never rape somebody. that is something that is always evil according to the rules of good.


*sigh* That's exactly what he said you'd do. I also draw your attention to the bolded section. Please, take your own advice.

nether you or him actually have any points. You don't use evidence, you don't counter points, your don't even back up your claims with any thing to support it. you just hang around going "Yeah, i'd do something, but i won't. So there, you illogical, and i prove that by saying so." Which accomplishes nothing and wastes time. If you have a problem with what i say, then grow up and directly counter it, don't waste time with trivial whining


How many of these ridiculous arguments would be solved by the Anti-4e people just going out and getting Races and Classes?

well considering most of the anti-4E people get their arguments out of Races and Classes, none.


4E stuff

Ignoring the absurdities of that system for a moment, that doesn't address the issue actually. All that shows is that in 4E, apparently you need to be really devoted to good/evil to make a difference. That doesn't change the fact that the concept of 'paladin' opposed to the concept of 'knight' or 'crusader' is somebody that is devoted to a particular aligment, not a cause.


we've got less bloat and more customisation. Quitcher bitchin'
How very close minded. your working under the assumption that change is a good thing. Some people feel it is not and robs the paladins of its traits. This is a change that hurts the paladin ideal and is turning it into a knight.




Well said and well informed. That's what most of us have been trying to say for a while, but EE simply won't listen.

If by most of use you mean four people, then yeah. Also by the by, why do you post here, you don't have any points to make

No more "woop, you tortured a dude, you're Lawful Evil now."
yes, how dare 3E have moral repercussions for 'good' people acting inhuman, cruel and callus manner. Oh dear, they are making you evil for acting evil, how awful of them


Shades of gray can make a campaign deeper and ultimately more rewarding. PCs should decide for themselves whether they think someone is evil, not rely on spells to make their decisions for them."

1. You can have shades of gray in 3E. Problem is that most people, Wizards included just can't pull it off due to confusions in the aligment system.
2. Why have aligment at all if this is the case? ether keep the system or ditch it, not this half way measure
from
EE

Edit
And Kobold thank you for that, i hadn't read that, makes a lot of sense So WotC has basically admitted that they are changing the entire concept of paladins and making it a knight and that is there stated intended goal. With the new and laughable aligment system, "paladins" are basically dudes who fight for causes now instead of aligment, like knights. So my point about the paladin concept being changed into knights is right

Now my other point, under the paladin (not the knight) concept evil paladins are impossible. However now paladins are just knights under a different name which i already stated made sense.

Goodbye paladins, we will miss your often misunderstood glory
from
EE

Tren
2008-03-17, 09:41 PM
this means they're getting rid of alignment detection spells, which has nothing to do with objective morality.

I completely agree with your post except on this point. How is having Good and Evil be specific tangible forces in the universe with specific effects (i.e. circle against X, Smite X, and so on) by anything but objective?

Renegade Paladin
2008-03-17, 09:43 PM
I completely agree with your post except on this point. How is having Good and Evil be specific tangible forces in the universe with specific effects (i.e. circle against X, Smite X, and so on) by anything but objective?
It is objective; where did I say it wasn't? What I said was that not having a spell to instantly detect whether something is evil or not doesn't mean that evil is not there and not objective.

EvilElitest
2008-03-17, 09:47 PM
Ironically, with the new aligment system, these absurd aligment threads will become even more rampant, as there won't be any definition of aligment to go by. Players can justify anything they want now. This is going to be interesting to say the least. I really do wish they'd just ditch it completely
from
EE

Tren
2008-03-17, 09:50 PM
Ah, my mistake. I read your statement to mean detect alignment spells had nothing to do with objective morality, my apologies :smallwink:

Tequila Sunrise
2008-03-17, 09:52 PM
That is homebrewing, which has no effect on this discussion sorry. Also the paladin flavor text directly effects the class' mechanics actually
Don't be sorry, because house ruling actually does impact the discussion. If a particular house rule becomes popular enough, it becomes standard in the next edition, which is apparently what's happening now. The paladin flavor text affects the class' mechanics only so far as you want it to; hence this discussion.

The bottom line is that this whole discussion is not a matter of 'correct' or 'incorrect', it's a matter of opinion. You can rebut and debate until your fingers get carpel tunnel, but the fact remains that the narrow definition of paladin (at least in d&d) is apparently changing with 4e. The question is, are you going to deal with it or are you going to get carpel tunnel? There are things about 4e that irk me, but nevertheless I will probably end up playing it so I'll just have to deal with those things as they come.

The way I see your options are:
1: Play 4e and live with evil paladins, even though they irk you. (God knows I, and many like me, have lived with the rediculous LG restriction for years, so join the club.)
2: Call evil paladins something else. It's easy and not even a house rule, it could easily be part of your campaign setting or character history.
3: Use a house rule that paladins must be LG. You might get flack for it and even lose a player or two as a result, but players who are worth having know that the game has to work foe DM too.
4: Stick with 3e, as many others seem to be doing.
5: Find a new game. (White Wolf has a great deal for you...)

Nebo_
2008-03-17, 09:52 PM
nether you or him actually have any points. You don't use evidence, you don't counter points, your don't even back up your claims with any thing to support it. you just hang around going "Yeah, i'd do something, but i won't. So there, you illogical, and i prove that by saying so." Which accomplishes nothing and wastes time. If you have a problem with what i say, then grow up and directly counter it, don't waste time with trivial whining

I have made many good and backed up points only to have them ignored. It's just a waste of time after a certain point to keep arguing.



Now my other point, under the paladin (not the knight) concept evil paladins are impossible. However now paladins are just knights under a different name which i already stated made sense.

Now, why is it that when I said this, you completely ignored it?

Now watch, people, as he tries to trivialise my points, tells me there is no backing to my claims and then says something totally unjustified.

EvilElitest
2008-03-17, 09:56 PM
I have made many good and backed up points only to have them ignored. It's just a waste of time after a certain point to keep arguing.

Yet again, i countered your points. If you wish to counter the counter points go ahead, it will be far preferable to this whining


Now, why is it that when I said this, you completely ignored it?
Hmmmmmm, let me think about that one for a second. Maybe because
1. You didn't back it up
2. You didn't actually say that the way he did actually
3. You didn't provide niffty interview statements
4. You were far more rude
Just a few



Now watch, people, as he tries to trivialise my points, tells me there is no backing to my claims and then says something totally unjustified.[/COLOR]
Exactly the way you do? Hypocrite, and i least i don't hide what I say in white text.
what don't judge me

This also doesn't change the point that the very idea of a paladin is being changed to the concept of a knight. Sadly, everyone is saying this is a good thing when they didn't even change the name :smallfurious:
from
EE

ZekeArgo
2008-03-17, 10:05 PM
Starting a discussion just to ignore any opposing viewpoints is trolling.

And trolls should be ignored, lord knows how much it's helped my sanity.

EvilElitest
2008-03-17, 10:08 PM
Starting a discussion just to ignore any opposing viewpoints is trolling.

Entering a discussion for not other reason than to make personal attacks, untrue claims, and cause flaming is in fact trolling
For one if i ignored oppose view points, why would i respond to it.
In fact, considering you never actually address points and in fact ignore them......

Don't throw stones in a glass house


And trolls should be ignored, lord knows how much it's helped my sanity.
Along with ignoring all of the points in the fist post i notice :smallsigh:

back to my original point, under the concept of paladin (not knights, which is what the 4E paladins basically are sadly) evil paladins are impossible. Can we agree on that.
from
EE

BRC
2008-03-17, 10:08 PM
Except that the Good people are obligated to care about the Criminal's fate. The LE people are not. Lets say the man in question is a murdering rapist. now the good people are required to stop him and then (presuming they captured him) deal with him in the best way possible (which is debatable). The LE aren't. Nothing forces them to even lift a finger to stop the rapist, nor doesn't anything make them obligated to care about his fate

Actually EE, they are still obliged to dtop the rapist, they are LE, which means they believe in the laws of the land just as much as the LG's. Now, they only mind because the criminal is breaking the law, if the law said raping and murdering were just fine, then the LE people wouldn't mind as much, but the law DOES ban those things, so, being lawful they are obliged by their alignment to punish the criminal. Now, the LG people are obliged to stop the criminal both because he is breaking the law, AND because he is doing horrible things, but that dosn't mean the LE people are not obliged to stop him.

Let's take an example where what you said above would be right, A local duke is going to declare war neighboring barony that he dosn't like very much. The Barony is no threat to the Duke or his people, and he dosn't intend to conquer it so much as he intends to burn it to the ground out of spite for the Baron winning a bet against the Duke or somthing. Now, waging this war would be an Evil act, so our LG people would be obliged by their alignment to stop the war somehow. However, there is no law or code that says this Duke can't declare war on that Baron, no treaty between the two, nothing. Therefore, the LE people wouldn't mind the war, the LG people would.

Dode
2008-03-17, 10:09 PM
Dear gods, do you even pretend to argue here? You've already brought this up on another thread, and i responded

The misspelling in my name is deliberate. I've already said that many many many times. And people's names have nothing to do with the subject at hand, it is flaming and time wasting Must've been someone else who picked up on the hilarity of it.

But no, I don't really pretend to argue someone who starts criticizing an unreleased RPG system and bases his criticisms on the previous edition's alignment and cosmology, which has been confirmed as being overhauled from the ground-up.

That's like arguing with a flat-earther.

EvilElitest
2008-03-17, 10:12 PM
Actually EE, they are still obliged to dtop the rapist, they are LE, which means they believe in the laws of the land just as much as the LG's. Now, they only mind because the criminal is breaking the law, if the law said raping and murdering were just fine, then the LE people wouldn't mind as much, but the law DOES ban those things, so, being lawful they are obliged by their alignment to punish the criminal. Now, the LG people are obliged to stop the criminal both because he is breaking the law, AND because he is doing horrible things, but that dosn't mean the LE people are not obliged to stop him.

Well about your point on the law of the land, well thats exactly it, it depends on mortal laws, not aligment laws. Lets take two LE people,
Bob the LE blackguard

And Jim the LE Wizard

In Bob's land, raping is totally ok

In Jim's it is illegal

They come into conflict over this issue. And jim kills bob. however in this situation their aligment isn't hte source of their moral problem just the laws of their homelands



Let's take an example where what you said above would be right, A local duke is going to declare war neighboring barony that he dosn't like very much. The Barony is no threat to the Duke or his people, and he dosn't intend to conquer it so much as he intends to burn it to the ground out of spite for the Baron winning a bet against the Duke or somthing. Now, waging this war would be an Evil act, so our LG people would be obliged by their alignment to stop the war somehow. However, there is no law or code that says this Duke can't declare war on that Baron, no treaty between the two, nothing. Therefore, the LE people wouldn't mind the war, the LG people would.

Actually some LE people might agree with the LG, just for different reasons. For example, mr. happy might say that "For the good of the nation, we must keep the peace". Now he uses evil methods to keep this peace, but he still wants peace
from
EE

Tequila Sunrise
2008-03-17, 10:12 PM
"Just a word changed to mean it's opposite?" First, what? Secondly, what? A sorceress is not the opposite of a sorcerer, if that's what you mean; it's simply the feminine form of the same word for the same concept. I don't see how that applies at all to paladins and champions of evil by whatever other name.

Look up "cleave" in the dictionary. It means both "to bring together" and "to separate". No, strictly speaking a sorceress is not the opposite of a sorcerer. My point is that changing a character's title to reflect a personal linguistic preference is a perfectly viable solution to your problem with evil paladins. In other words, call it a "blackguard" or a "grayguard" or a "penny-porridge-perriwinkle" if you don't want to call it a "paladin"--because I seriously doubt anyone will have an issue with you doing so.

EvilElitest
2008-03-17, 10:14 PM
Must've been someone else who picked up on the hilarity of it.

That your trying to discredit me because of my name's spelling, which is on purpose? Wow, that is frankly pathetic.


But no, I don't really pretend to argue someone who starts criticizing an unreleased RPG system and bases his criticisms on the previous edition's alignment and cosmology, which has been confirmed as being overhauled from the ground-up.
Well as i already said, we are working with the concept of paladins, not knights.
from
EE

Nebo_
2008-03-17, 10:19 PM
Now watch, people, as he tries to trivialise my points, tells me there is no backing to my claims and then says something totally unjustified.

See? Just like I said.

Dode
2008-03-17, 10:22 PM
That your trying to discredit me because of my name's spelling, which is on purpose? Wow, that is frankly pathetic. Considering all the accidental misspellings in your posts, hell, even in this quote, it's not that unfeasible that you spelled your profile name wrong.

But don't worry, I wouldn't bother trying to discredit you. This thread does that better then I ever could.


Well as i already said, we are working with the concept of paladins, not knights.
from
EE And this is a rebuttal how exactly?

I must have missed the WotC charter that states that the Paladin is an unique, immutable concept that must be preserved exactly from 3.5E to 4E, unlike the Crusader, Knight and 2E Paladin oh wai

EvilElitest
2008-03-17, 10:22 PM
Considering all the accidental misspellings in your posts, hell, even in this quote,

Don't worry, I wouldn't bother trying to discredit you. This thread does that better then I ever could.

1. Yeah, my name is deliberately misspelled. It is a play on the word elitist.
2. Wow, so instead of trying to counter a point, you make a flame. Pathetic
3. You name is Dode, that is hardly, how can you even start pointing at names. Its pathetic, cowardly and time wasting. I don't insult Nebo because of his name, i don't insult Sunrise because of hers.




See? Just like I said.

and as i said, your being hypocritical and bordering trollish. As you don't contribute to the discussion, in taht you don't even bother to pretend to counter points, this only comes off as trollish.
from
EE

Renegade Paladin
2008-03-17, 10:22 PM
Look up "cleave" in the dictionary. It means both "to bring together" and "to separate". No, strictly speaking a sorceress is not the opposite of a sorcerer. My point is that changing a character's title to reflect a personal linguistic preference is a perfectly viable solution to your problem with evil paladins. In other words, call it a "blackguard" or a "grayguard" or a "penny-porridge-perriwinkle" if you don't want to call it a "paladin"--because I seriously doubt anyone will have an issue with you doing so.
You have no evidence that "paladin" has the same linguistic peculiarity as "cleave," largely because it doesn't. This whole thing is a non sequitur, especially since you started it as a response to my posting the excerpt of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, which in no way supports any of what you're saying.

Thinker
2008-03-17, 10:22 PM
That your trying to discredit me because of my name's spelling, which is on purpose? Wow, that is frankly pathetic.
You spelled your name wrong.



Well as i already said, we are working with the concept of paladins, not knights.
from
EE

Paladins can be evil because as virtuous as good one can be another can be so morally corrupt that its the opposite. Who cares about a name anyway? I call them the bitches of good or evil or whatever and who cares? If they have the same meaning it shouldn't matter.

Edited out drunkenness.

EvilElitest
2008-03-17, 10:26 PM
you speleld yourfr name worng.

As i already said, it is a play on the world Elitist.



paladinds can be evil because as fvirtuous a sa good one can be another can be os morally corrupt that its the opposite. who the **** cares bout a name anyway? i call theme e bitches of good or evil or whatever an dwho cars? if they have th esam meaninging it shouldnt matter.

The bitches of good and evil? Well that is a unique way to put it
from
EE

Dode
2008-03-17, 10:27 PM
meeting of the minds itt

Nebo_
2008-03-17, 10:29 PM
1. Yeah, my name is deliberately misspelled. It is a play on the word elitist.
2. Wow, so instead of trying to counter a point, you make a flame. Pathetic
3. You name is Dode, that is hardly, how can you even start pointing at names. Its pathetic, cowardly and time wasting. I don't insult Nebo because of his name, i don't insult Sunrise because of hers.


I don't see how it's a play on that word. What is the joke you're trying to make (I'm genuinely interested, this isn't an attempt to belittle you)



and as i said, your being hypocritical and bordering trollish. As you don't contribute to the discussion, in taht you don't even bother to pretend to counter points, this only comes off as trollish.
from
EE

ffs, Have you actually read my posts? I made several very good, well backed up points that you completely ignored. Thus my reluctance to waste my time making any more, lest they are simply overlooked. Again.

You calling someone trollish is rich. Just let me say that your title is apt.

EvilElitest
2008-03-17, 10:35 PM
I don't see how it's a play on that word. What is the joke you're trying to make (I'm genuinely interested, this isn't an attempt to belittle you)
[/QUOTE
elitism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitism)

now an elitist looks down upon and mocks those who prove to not be part of the elite. now elitists tend to fit into their own definition of the elite. thus an evil elitist would be a very nasty elitist, which is evident in that i'm condescending and nasty to those who don't back their points up. The joke is that the name itself is spelled wrong, indicating that i my self am not part of the elite

in short, an elitist is somebody who is arrogant because they have the qualifications to prove it

And elitest just acts like an elitist, without any qualifications

[QUOTE]
ffs, Have you actually read my posts? I made several very good, well backed up points that you completely ignored. Thus my reluctance to waste my time making any more, lest they are simply overlooked. Again.

1. And i countered those "very good backed up points". I read your points, and countered them and you claiming they proved something means nothing if you don't back it up
2. Then why are you here? If you want to fight for what you believe then actually fight for that.



You calling someone trollish is rich. Just let me say that your title is apt.
Well for the last, waht, four pages you haven't actually made any points, just sat around whining about what a bully i am and trying to instigated conflict.

from
EE

Serenity
2008-03-17, 10:38 PM
Wasn't there a fallacy somewhere on these boards about how you can't prove things in D&D by using the dictionary? By the dictionary, Medusa is an individual, not a race, Gorgons were not metal bulls, and Wizard and Sorcerer are synonyms. Fantasy and fantasy games redefine words to suit their purpose. Always have, and always will.

Citizen Joe
2008-03-17, 10:38 PM
This assumes subjective morality. D&D employs objective morality, so your line of reasoning does not work.
Unless 4e goes to subjective or no alignment system. In which case it works fine. Since we already KNOW 4e has paladins of some devil, then we know that subjective or no alignment system will be used for 4e.

Renegade Paladin
2008-03-17, 10:43 PM
Unless 4e goes to subjective or no alignment system. In which case it works fine. Since we already KNOW 4e has paladins of some devil, then we know that subjective or no alignment system will be used for 4e.
Incorrect. All that says is that WotC is, wrongly, making it possible for paladins to be evil. That doesn't mean evil is not objective. In fact, the existence of paladins of Asmodeus (due to the existence of Asmodeus) is a strong case for objective evil.

Citizen Joe
2008-03-17, 11:12 PM
Incorrect. All that says is that WotC is, wrongly, making it possible for paladins to be evil. That doesn't mean evil is not objective. In fact, the existence of paladins of Asmodeus (due to the existence of Asmodeus) is a strong case for objective evil.
Or it means that Asmodeus is not a one dimensional character and has aspects beyond being evil... like being a strong ruler... like discipline... like order... like being a total playah with all those succubi that are now devils instead of demons.

an kobold
2008-03-17, 11:14 PM
Or it means that Asmodeus is not a one dimensional character and has aspects beyond being evil... like being a strong ruler... like discipline... like order... like being a total playah with all those succubi that are now devils instead of demons.

Big A's pimpin', yo!

Ozymandias
2008-03-18, 12:47 AM
Contention A) The working and conceptual definitions of a "Paladin" will remain largely unchanged in the new system.

Contention B) These selfsame definitions contradict material that has been stated to be put into place in 4E.

Conclusion: Wizards of the Coast is evil and hates Gary Gygax.

Now, that would be all well and good, except for the first contention, which is an absurd assumption in light of what WotC has posted. It's far more reasonable to assume the existence of change than of a contradiction.

E.G. here's a better syllogism:

Contention A) Paladins in the old system could intrinsically not be evil.

Contention B) Paladins in the new system intrinsically can be evil.

Conclusion: Paladins in the new system are intrinsically different.

Remember: Occam's Razor. Down the road, not across the street.

Tequila Sunrise
2008-03-18, 01:04 AM
You have no evidence that "paladin" has the same linguistic peculiarity as "cleave," largely because it doesn't. This whole thing is a non sequitur, especially since you started it as a response to my posting the excerpt of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, which in no way supports any of what you're saying.

It is in fact a smooth sequitor; I'm using "cleave" as a precedent for "paladin" meaning the opposite of itself. There is actually a technical term for words that mean the opposite of themselves, but 11th grade English is way beyond my memory capacity. No, the Webster Dictionary definition of "paladin" is not one of them, but it is not unreasonable for "paladin" to become one of those words in the context of D&D. The hobby that we love is one of imagination and fantasy, and as Serenity said it tweaks the meaning of words all the time. Getting worked up about a slight change in the definition of "paladin" is a waste of energy, which is why I've already suggested to you a simple solution to your problem that doesn't involve getting carpel tunnel syndrome for no good reason.

Renegade Paladin
2008-03-18, 01:33 AM
Or it means that Asmodeus is not a one dimensional character and has aspects beyond being evil... like being a strong ruler... like discipline... like order... like being a total playah with all those succubi that are now devils instead of demons.
Okay, I have to ask. Do you understand what "objective morality" means? Because right now it's reading like you don't; it has nothing to do with whether any given character is one-dimensional.

GammaPaladin
2008-03-18, 01:36 AM
Objective morality is an oxymoron ;)

Dode
2008-03-18, 01:38 AM
Objective morality is an oxymoron ;)
Also, nitros for the Idioticdebatemobile

Renegade Paladin
2008-03-18, 01:43 AM
Objective morality is an oxymoron ;)
No, it isn't. It is the idea that moral actions are objectively good or objectively evil. For instance, if murder is always wrong regardless of human opinion, that is an objective moral standard.

D&D has always employed objective morality. Nothing posted thus far has indicated that this has changed. Objective morality allows for shades of grey, but as long as there are lists of things that are good and things that are evil, there is still objective morality in the game. :smalltongue: And we know there's still objective morality in the game because, while most characters are unaligned, there are still alignments, which means there's some sort of objective standard for them.

Fhaolan
2008-03-18, 02:23 AM
Wasn't there a fallacy somewhere on these boards about how you can't prove things in D&D by using the dictionary? By the dictionary, Medusa is an individual, not a race, Gorgons were not metal bulls, and Wizard and Sorcerer are synonyms. Fantasy and fantasy games redefine words to suit their purpose. Always have, and always will.

The D&D Gorgons was from a medieval bestiary written in the 16th century by Genser, and translated into english in 1607 by Topsell (with added commentary). Gygax and company were avid collectors of obscure medieval lore and had a copy of this bestiary. They modified it a bit for D&D, as the bestiary creature also had wings and hands, and that was a bit too much.

The exact same creature in a different bestiary was called the Catobelpas, and that got introduced into D&D as well with a slightly different description to keep them separate.

Kioran
2008-03-18, 02:56 AM
Well, my thoughts on this could be phrased thusly:

No base class should ever have alignment restrictions

Alignment restrictions on base classes make little sense, since base classes were, in Core, assumed to have a more generalized feel, so that the difference between one Rogue and the other or two Wozards can be rather large. Paladin, Monk and Druid might be the only classes which are a little too specific....I even agree that a Paladin should be a "Holy Warrior", since that´s the archetype, and LG/NG are the only possible alignments for that type....

If I wanted 3rd Ed evil Paladin-like PCs, I wouldn´t take the UA variants (sucky and full of cheese potential like Tyranny Pala 3 + Hexblade 3 + Blackguard 2 yeehaw..........). I would (and will, for my homebrew) make an "ordained warrior" class, and make Paladin a low-entry PrC. Both start out as ordained Warriors, evil goes Blackguard, good goes Paladin, Chaotic goes JBWB(Jack Bauer wannabe, which gives a substantial bonus to Intimidate and makes you NE as it´s capstone) Base classes can be generic and easy to handle, let the specific roles be PrCs.

However, 4th Ed has no PrC/base class separation.
It might have Paragon paths later on, but for the first ten levels you are "stuck" with your base class. Thus, it should immediately do what you want from it. There´s that "ordained warrior" class - but for the sake of simplicity they call it a Paladin. I dislike this, but it´s not exactly a tragedy - 4th Edition has already trashed most of the assumptions of 3rd.......

Mr. Friendly
2008-03-18, 07:10 AM
Well about your point on the law of the land, well thats exactly it, it depends on mortal laws, not aligment laws. Lets take two LE people,
Bob the LE blackguard

And Jim the LE Wizard

In Bob's land, raping is totally ok

In Jim's it is illegal

They come into conflict over this issue. And jim kills bob. however in this situation their aligment isn't hte source of their moral problem just the laws of their homeland

Right, except their alignment AND their regional laws are the source of the conflict. They are both "lawful".

Also, why do they come into conflict over the issue? If one is in the others kingdoms, the laws of the land still apply; thus if Bob is visiting Jim's kingdom he still follows the law and doesn't go rape-crazy; as a member of a different LE society, he knows all too well what happens to violators of the law.

And why exactly are they killing each other? More important, where are they killing each other?

KoDT69
2008-03-18, 07:13 AM
Man, my first guess would have been wrong. I thought evil Paladins didn't work because of laziness... *ducks* :smallbiggrin:

Roderick_BR
2008-03-18, 09:19 AM
Or maybe they're, y'know, changing the Paladin deliberately so that this issue will quit being debated everywhere.
It's very likely. I'm just pointing out how people doesn't like some names, and complain a lot. If paladins are to be a more generic "divine warrior", they could as well make a different name.
We know where the name paladin came, and we know that in the present day it means some kind of champion of good. Some grammar books even says that saying "good paladin" is as wrong to say as "go down downwards" or "no never". It's redundancy.
Then some games use the name paladin as the warrior version of the cleric, even evil ones. 4E is going towards that direction. But since since 1E paladin have always been good, people are finding it weird. They want paladin to be a more generic name.

Kioran, I like your idea. I wrote something like that once, but it's too incomplete, and I'm already working on some others things, but maybe someone will do something like that in the Homebrew section.

Tokiko Mima
2008-03-18, 09:36 AM
Wow, this is a really long and inconclusive debate. I just skimmed over it, so my apologies if someone already pointed this out. My understanding is that the reason the variant Paladins from UA don't work per RAW is simply that they lack a section on Ex-Paladins, which the original Paladin class description has.

Why is this an issue? Because it means that they inherit a section which reads:


Ex-Paladins

A 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.

Like a member of any other class, a paladin may be a multiclass character, but multiclass paladins face a special restriction. A paladin who gains a level in any class other than paladin may never again raise her paladin level, though she retains all her paladin abilities.

Which means that all the variant Paladins, by definition have no spells or abilities and cannot regain them unless they become lawful good which violates their code of conduct and causes them to fall again. I mean, unless you consider a Paladin of Tyranny maintaining a lawful good alignment and never willfully committing an evil act to not be grossly violating their code of conduct. :smalltongue:

Telonius
2008-03-18, 09:48 AM
Incorrect. All that says is that WotC is, wrongly, making it possible for paladins to be evil. That doesn't mean evil is not objective. In fact, the existence of paladins of Asmodeus (due to the existence of Asmodeus) is a strong case for objective evil.

I think it means that WotC is making it possible for big-P Paladins (not small-p paladins) to be evil. It also suggests to me that they're changing the definition of a Paladin.

If they make the mechanics possible while copy-pasting the 3.5 fluff, then they're being stupid. But I don't think they're going to do that. What I think they're going to do is change the concept of the Paladin to be an ordained warrior of a specific deity, rather than a Lawful Good warrior of no specific deity.

Thinker
2008-03-18, 10:31 AM
As i already said, it is a play on the world Elitist.



The bitches of good and evil? Well that is a unique way to put it
from
EE

I'll leave the content, but edit out the typos. It was from St Patrick's Day.

Bleen
2008-03-18, 11:09 AM
Which means that all the variant Paladins, by definition have no spells or abilities and cannot regain them unless they become lawful good which violates their code of conduct and causes them to fall again. I mean, unless you consider a Paladin of Tyranny maintaining a lawful good alignment and never willfully committing an evil act to not be grossly violating their code of conduct. :smalltongue:
Well...yeah.

Welcome to why UA was a terribad book. I can't name any part of it that wasn't poorly-written or made of pure gouda. Or boring. Except like..the dice-rolling variants. But that's it...

Maxperson
2008-03-18, 11:37 AM
<< ok WTF?
1. Um, paladins don't have to worship any gods at all, as their powers don't come from gods. Except in FR, but even then the code isn't instated by the gods
2. only guidelines in general behavior, not in actions you realize, because actions have aligment with them, for example rape is always evil
3. Not really, because paladins are the paragons of an aligment, not a particualar cause. In that sense, LG is the best aligment suited to those requirements >>

1) you are correct, they don't have to. However, this does not mean that many do in fact worship gods, and that those who worship say Zeus, would be LG. It's all about what cause they dedicate themselves to, USUALLY it's a god.

2) This only matters if the cause or god you are dedicated to(enough to receive divine aid), is one that is good. A paladin who is dedicated to the Church of Cyric wouldn't balk at, or be hurt by a rape.

3) This again, is YOUR narrow perception. As has been pointed out to you countless times, the definition of paladin is broader than you paint it, and ThAT'S the narrow Judeo/Christian version of it. Judeo/Christian anything, has no place in D&D which is a polytheistic society. To limit yourself to that view defies reason.

Renegade Paladin
2008-03-18, 12:04 PM
3) This again, is YOUR narrow perception. As has been pointed out to you countless times, the definition of paladin is broader than you paint it, and ThAT'S the narrow Judeo/Christian version of it. Judeo/Christian anything, has no place in D&D which is a polytheistic society. To limit yourself to that view defies reason.
The definition of paladins as lawful good has nothing to do with Judeo-Christian theology and everything to do with chivalry.

Maxperson
2008-03-18, 12:09 PM
<< 1.A good person who commits evil acts will become evil if he keeps it up. However an evil person can commit as many good deeds as he wants and stay evil as long as he doesn't atone for his evil acts
2. That person would be evil, most likely LE but still evil, because rape is evil. He might think he is good, but he is evil. And no matter how many good acts he does, he will never be good until he stops raping small boys, admits it was wrong, and tries his earnest best to repent
3. Paladins cannot commit any evil acts ever because they take good to an extreme. >>

You seem to be applying modern American standards to this. If the paladin were in ancient Rome, a society MUCH closer to the ones in which we play(being medieval), sex with young boys would be accepted and not evil at all. Nor do I actually consider it "evil" in modern terms. Evil is 100% intent based, and if a molester is doing what he does without malice or evil intent, then it is wrong by society's(and my)standards, but not evil.

I will agree with you that if someone continues doing what he percieves is evil, then no amount of good actions will change that.

Renegade Paladin
2008-03-18, 12:26 PM
You seem to be applying modern American standards to this. If the paladin were in ancient Rome, a society MUCH closer to the ones in which we play(being medieval), sex with young boys would be accepted and not evil at all. Nor do I actually consider it "evil" in modern terms. Evil is 100% intent based, and if a molester is doing what he does without malice or evil intent, then it is wrong by society's(and my)standards, but not evil.

I will agree with you that if someone continues doing what he percieves is evil, then no amount of good actions will change that.
Real-world standards, whether modern America's or ancient Rome's, have no bearing whatsoever on D&D's alignment system, which is wholly foreign to anything that exists in the real world, or at least anything existing that we can detect. In D&D, there are things that are, objectively and without question, Evil. I would argue that there are also such things in the real world, but that's neither here nor there.

Maxperson
2008-03-18, 12:26 PM
<< I even agree that a Paladin should be a "Holy Warrior", since that´s the archetype, and LG/NG are the only possible alignments for that type.... >>

If you've gone this far, why is it such a stretch to believe that all gods would have holy warriors? All alignments would fit a holy warrior, depending on the god or ideal they dedicate themselves to.

MeklorIlavator
2008-03-18, 12:28 PM
Real-world standards, whether modern America's or ancient Rome's, have no bearing whatsoever on D&D's alignment system, which is wholly foreign to anything that exists in the real world, or at least anything existing that we can detect. In D&D, there are things that are, objectively and without question, Evil. I would argue that there are also such things in the real world, but that's neither here nor there.

So then why are we using real world standards(definitions) to define what a paladin is? It seems a double standard is in effect.

Renegade Paladin
2008-03-18, 12:30 PM
So then why are we using real world standards(definitions) to define what a paladin is? It seems a double standard is in effect.
No it isn't, because while D&D doesn't use real world moral philosophies, it does use the English language.