Heroes

[Truth]

I'd like to think my character has stayed consistantly good and helpful and righteous throughout the majority of my stay.  Responding to Gutshanks post from before, I would be interested in organizing perhaps some player run events of RP between people or factions considering my faction mates and I are some of the only good aligned people there are, and the only good aligned faction.  If anyone is interested in possibly designing something, hit me up in a PM

[Rill]

Good and Evil are quintessentially subjective.  They have nothing truely to do with being a "Hero".  To be a hero is not something any of us can truely decide for our characters; by definition, a hero is only a hero, by how he/she is perceived by others.  Good or Evil, they're heroes to someone or something if they are truely exceptional enough.

By D&D rules, good and evil is defined by the rulebook and not subjectively. If I kill a child, it's evil. If I believe it's good, then my beliefs are evil. Period. I may think I'm good, but I will still look like a child murderer and be a child murderer in every aspect.

-- If I'm wrong, someone that I didn't just quote may very well dispute me. But only with a WOTC-certified source claiming the opposite or a great variation from what I said. *Nods sagely*

[Nefensis]

a paladin that kills a child to save the world would surely fall but not turn evil, difference

[Rill]

The thing is, though -- the paladin operates by very strict moral codes, like Kant's ethics. In the moral question "Kill a child and save the world, or save the child and the world dies", the paladin may *NEVER* choose to kill the child, according to his moral codes.

[Ravenous]

Well, he may.. But then he will fall and will have to go on a major quest to redeem himself in the eyes of his god. Well, a Shadowbane Inquisitor could kill the child without losing his powers, but seeing as that PrC is not in that statement is moot.

[Catacomb]

In the situation presented... I believe an self respecting paladin would do everything in their power to try and substitute themselves or any other volunteer in the place of the child... but in the end World > Child. 
World has lots of Children > Child is just one Child.
If world goes Child goes too > If Child goes... well.. just that Child goes.

I would expect that most good dieties would require only a minor atonement quest tops (or perhaps none at all if they realized that the paladin had no choice really) in order to restore Paladinhood in that situation.

But that's just my view.

[Aldarris]

The thing is, though -- the paladin operates by very strict moral codes, like Kant's ethics. In the moral question "Kill a child and save the world, or save the child and the world dies", the paladin may *NEVER* choose to kill the child, according to his moral codes.

Morals can change over time, depending on circumstances as well as how one would interpret their outcomes.  Paladin's are the "chosen", yet in all other aspects human paladins are only human.  Humans faulter, and make mistakes...even those who were chosen for having strict moral fortitude when it comes to their beliefs.

In this situation, the Paladin makes a decision...being a rationally thinking person with a strict moral code, and not just some "belief following machine".  If there were no other way, the Paladin must choose between sacrificing the child, as well as his moral standing for something greater than himself, or let the child live, and the world end (which might just take the child along with it regardless).  Yet he may also choose to let the child live, and the world end leaving fate in his god's hands.  But if his god were slain prior to the decision, that would change things entirely...

Alignments shift with character's actions.  Different characters follow and adhere to morals and beliefs differently than others (One paladin is not exactly as devote as another).  There is also no set path one can take, regardless.

The paladin will face consequences for either action, whether being responsible for the destruction of the world, or going against his beliefs and killing the child in order to save everyone else who's fate rests on his shoulders.  If he does the latter, he'll fall from grace...

[Rill]

But that's just my view.

Still, my point is that the paladins, as I have been meticulously indoctrinated to believe -- do not think like you and me might. You and me, we are both sinners. Or dirty minded people. People who aren't as devout as the paladin in question. Your logics are, at this point, highly utilitaristic (Bentham) and not at all very paladin-y, as I have had them described to me.

So Aldarris put it best when he said "If he does the latter, he'll fall from grace...". The paladin is a highly restrictive and strong class. It can't be interpreted to all hells, or it'll be an undead fighter with healing spells. D'yousee?

[Catacomb]

But that's just my view.

Still, my point is that the paladins, as I have been meticulously indoctrinated to believe -- do not think like you and me might. You and me, we are both sinners. Or dirty minded people. People who aren't as devout as the paladin in question. Your logics are, at this point, highly utilitaristic (Bentham) and not at all very paladin-y, as I have had them described to me.

So Aldarris put it best when he said "If he does the latter, he'll fall from grace...". The paladin is a highly restrictive and strong class. It can't be interpreted to all hells, or it'll be an undead fighter with healing spells. D'yousee?

No. Paladin's are not perfect jesus figures that always choose the ultimate "good" choice at any point.  If you need any evidence of this, look at the paladin's code of conduct.

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).

This tells me that paladin's -are- allowed to make minor violations to their code of conduct, their gods are willing to forgive them as long as they try to stay true to their true goal.  No matter how much Paladins are supposed to be an ultimate symbol of Lawful Goodness, a Paladin is still human.

Of course, the situation in question would still most likely require atonement...

And if I'm getting too far  please forgive me.

[Nefensis]

I dont see this as that off topic as heroes are different on many points of views.

Would a paladin choose to abandon his beleifs and god and code to save the world ? A rationnaly thinking living being would likely do so.

A hero of evil is still a hero for the people he represents. Marcus was a hero of his kind for all the goodness he eradicated and destroyed along his life. Styr on the other hand is a hero for her own people/group of missfit and outcasts, Carrib is a hero for the calibans etc etc..

[Cole]

IMO (Or if I was playing said paladin), He would Save the world at the cost of the child's life if he had no other choice - but would certainly become dissolutioned to his beliefs afterwrds.  Afterall, he'd likely be lead to believe that good wins, his beliefs are just and him and others like him, are there to make sure choices like this don't happen.


Just because D&D says things about good and evil, doesn't make it the best thing.   Isn't that the ultimate point of settings like Ravenloft?  Questioning the Basic Moral and Ethical principles put forth by basic D&D?   Killing a child is never simply killing a child, The Ethical reasons decide the moral issue.  D&D contradicts itself plenty here.

[Nefensis]

In doubt refers to the first lines in the Dungeon master's book..

Rules are guidelines.. [etc etc] basicly meaning.. you make the rules as you see fit.

[Aldarris]

Just because D&D says things about good and evil, doesn't make it the best thing.   Isn't that the ultimate point of settings like Ravenloft?  Questioning the Basic Moral and Ethical principles put forth by basic D&D?   Killing a child is never simply killing a child, The Ethical reasons decide the moral issue.  D&D contradicts itself plenty here.

Bravo...I couldn't put it any better.   

[Rill]

Let me tell you exactly what i have been trying to say:

A paladin's move, purely from the basis of the character being a paladin -- is to save the child.

What renders him a functioning character and not just a paladin that might as well have been scripted -- is his decision to kill the child in order to save the world, only then to lose faith or otherwise. It is a gross violation of the rules of conduct to murder an innocent.

[Nefensis]

Here's to add a twist.. the paladin isnt even sure killing the child will save the world but he has no time to think and decide..

[Catacomb]

Here's to add a twist.. the paladin isnt even sure killing the child will save the world but he has no time to think and decide..

Ooooo.... That's just mean. 

[Nefensis]

Blue wire or red wire? 

[Cole]

This is why paladins always lose.

[Nefensis]

This is why paladins always lose.

Yep, it dosnt take much to put the gear in motion for a paladin's falling only neg and i know the true reason of his own destabilization   

[Rex]

The motivations of Paladins are easily understood (and the general guidelines for Lawful Good) if you read the Book that the class was taken from, Three Hearts and Three Lions, by Poul Anderson.

I could post tons of literature, all of which helps since the entire game was structured around a sun source of books back in the day.  Once you know the source material, the rules argument ends since it takes the "real world" out of the equation all together.  If your an old gamer like me you still have the things lying about with the bibliographies intact so you can go find the books they based what on for whatever effect.  From the Paladin of Three hearts and Three Lions (one Holger Carlson) attempting to fit Modern thinking (granted 50's modern thinking) into a medieval fantasy world, to the Magic taking directly from Jack Vances Tales of the Dying Earth right down to spell names (color spray) and effects.  Once you know it's all easy, and like the Superfriends say, Knowing is half the Battle.



~Rex

[Cole]

Once you know it's all easy, and like the G.I. Joes say, Knowing is half the Battle.

*Lets out a slight cough, his eyes darting around to anyone around* Fixed.

[Rex]

Once you know it's all easy, and like the G.I. Joes say, Knowing is half the Battle.

*Lets out a slight cough, his eyes darting around to anyone around* Fixed.

Bah.....the Superfriends Health and Saftey tips were the foundation of the Gi Joe knowing is half the battle.  The only modern Joe worth a crap, was Snake Eyes and the reson they don't have a cartoon anymore is he got pissed at the rest of the Joe's not being able to hit water if they fell out of a boat and he killed them all in their sleep.

 Besides that, there is only one real GI Joe and his name was JOE and he had Kung Fu Grip.   

~Rex....  Who used to use his Six Milion Dollar Man to beat up his neighbors GI Joe because Bionic trumps Kung Fu Grip every day.