Ethos and Code of Behavior (dear Paladins..) ~ Moral Debate ~

466 posts / 0 new
Last post

Well, I have my own oppinions about this but the other guy (my friend) who oftenly make campaigns has his own set of views. I just wanna hear community oppinions about it, and find the best compromise.

In your oppinion, how restrictive Paladin`s ethos (or Code of Honor for example) is? I literally mean, does he strictly separate himself from good-aligned common fighter in his behavior and actions, or he just fits general extremely good character made for greater things? For example, if you have a thief in your party, and he commonly does his thieving from time to time (stealing from market, lying, hiding the loot from the rest of the party), would a lawful good paladin tolerate his behavior or he will clearly explain him few rules in the house before he goes into action?

One more to spice things up: do you think that Paladin should be fearless warrior who will willingly risk his own life for noble cause no matter the greatness of the threat or he should be playing smart character who will avoid tough fights and only go for the ones he is sure about winning? Is backing away from trouble a good solution for playing one of strongest classes in early levels, whose powers come from divine source? I just wanted to know what`s your oppinion people, and how should I form my Paladin ethos and organisations in future to a better use. Thanks!

He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.

I think if you use the forum search, you can tap the vast resources of at least 6 years of paladin alignment debates.

http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19670890/Keep_on_the_Shadowfell_Character_Errata

I think it's largely up to the paladin. On the one hand, the whole "defend your allies at the cost of your life" thing is pretty noble, but on the other, a dead paladin isn't going to commit any more acts of justice and whatnot.


As for the thief, I imagine most paladins wouldn't stand for it, although it would be reasonable to think that they're still doing more good than harm, and perhaps continue to travel with them in hopes of eventually convincing them to change their ways.

Zammm = Batman.

It's my sig in a box
58280208 wrote:
Everything is better when you read it in Bane's voice.
192334281 wrote:
Your human antics and desire to continue living have moved me. Just kidding. You cannot move me physically or emotionally. Wall humor.
57092228 wrote:
Copy effects work like a photocopy machine: you get a copy of the 'naked' card, NOT of what's on it.
56995928 wrote:
Funny story: InQuest Magazine (I think it was InQuest) had an oversized Chaos Orb which I totally rooked someone into allowing into a (non-sanctioned) game. I had a proxy card that was a Mountain with "Chaos Orb" written on it. When I played it, my opponent cried foul: Him: "WTF? a Proxy? no-one said anything about Proxies. Do you even own an actual Chaos Orb?" Me: "Yes, but I thought it would be better to use a Proxy." Him: "No way. If you're going to put a Chaos Orb in your deck you have to use your actual Chaos Orb." Me: "*Sigh*. Okay." I pulled out this huge Chaos Orb and placed it on the table. He tried to cry foul again but everyone else said he insisted I use my actual Chaos Orb and that was my actual Chaos Orb. I used it, flipped it and wiped most of his board. Unsurprisingly, that only worked once and only because everyone present thought it was hilarious.
My DM on Battleminds:
no, see i can kill defenders, but 8 consecutive crits on a battlemind, eh walk it off.
144543765 wrote:
195392035 wrote:
Hi guys! So, I'm a sort of returning player to Magic. I say sort of because as a child I had two main TCG's I liked. Yu-Gi-Oh, and Pokemon. Some of my friends branched off in to Magic, and I bought two pre-made decks just to kind of fit in. Like I said, Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon were what I really knew how to play. I have a extensive knowledge of deck building in those two TCG's. However, as far as Magic is concerned, I only ever used those two pre made decks. I know how the game is played, and I know general things, but now I want to get in the game for real. I want to begin playing it as a regular. My question is, are all cards ever released from the time of the inception of this game until present day fair game in a deck? Or are there special rules? Are some cards forbidden or restricted? Thanks guys, and I will gladly accept ANY help lol.
I have the same problem with women.
117639611 wrote:
198869283 wrote:
Oh I have a standing rule. If someone plays a Planeswalker I concede the game. I refuse to play with or against people who play Planeswalkers. They really did ruin the game.
A turn two Tibalt win?! Wicked... Betcha don't see that everyday.

The Pony Co. 

Is this my new ego sig? Yes it is, other Barry
57461258 wrote:
And that's why you should never, ever call RP Jesus on being a troll, because then everyone else playing along gets outed, too, and the thread goes back to being boring.
57461258 wrote:
See, this is why RPJesus should be in charge of the storyline. The novel line would never have been cancelled if he had been running the show. Specifically the Slobad and Geth's Head talkshow he just described.
57461258 wrote:
Not only was that an obligatory joke, it was an on-topic post that still managed to be off-topic due to thread derailment. RP Jesus does it again folks.
92481331 wrote:
I think I'm gonna' start praying to Jesus... That's right, RPJesus, I'm gonna' be praying to you, right now. O' Jesus Please continue to make my time here on the forums fun and cause me to chuckle. Amen.
92481331 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
It was wonderful. Us Johnnies had a field day. That Timmy with the Grizzly bears would actually have to think about swinging into your Mogg Fanatic, giving you time to set up your silly combo. Nowadays it's all DERPSWING! with thier blue jeans and their MP3 players and their EM EM OH AR PEE JEES and their "Dewmocracy" and their children's card games and their Jersey Shores and their Tattooed Tenaged Vampire Hunters from Beverly Hills
Seriously, that was amazing. I laughed my *ss off. Made my day, and I just woke up.
[quote=ArtVenn You're still one of my favorite people... just sayin'.[/quote]
56756068 wrote:
56786788 wrote:
.....would it be a bit blasphemous if I said, "PRAYSE RPJAYSUS!" like an Evangelical preacher?
Perhaps, but who doesn't like to blaspheme every now and again? Especially when Mr. RPJesus is completely right.
56756068 wrote:
I don't say this often, but ... LOL
57526128 wrote:
You... You... Evil something... I actualy made the damn char once I saw the poster... Now you made me see it again and I gained resolve to put it into my campaign. Shell be high standing oficial of Cyrix order. Uterly mad and only slightly evil. And it'll be bad. Evil even. And ill blame you and Lizard for it :P.
57042968 wrote:
111809331 wrote:
I'm trying to work out if you're being sarcastic here. ...
Am going to stop you right there... it's RPJesus... he's always sarcastic
58335208 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
112114441 wrote:
we can only hope it gets the jace treatment...it could have at least been legendary
So that even the decks that don't run it run it to deal with it? Isn't that like the definition of format warping?
I lol'd.
56287226 wrote:
98088088 wrote:
Uktabi Orangutan What the heck's going on with those monkeys?
The most common answer is that they are what RPJesus would call "[Debutantes avert your eyes]ing."
56965458 wrote:
Show
57461258 wrote:
116498949 wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because off-topic discussions are a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_... Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively. If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
...Am I the only one that thinks this is reaching the point of downright Kafkaesque insanity?
I condone the use of the word Kafkaesque. However, I'm presentely ambivalent. I mean, that can't be serious, right? We're April 1st, right? They didn't mod RPJesus for off-topic discussion when the WHOLE THREAD IS OFF-TOPIC, right? Right.
57545908 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
Save or die. If you disagree with this, you're wrong (Not because of any points or arguements that have been made, but I just rolled a d20 for you and got a 1, so you lose).
58397368 wrote:
58222628 wrote:
This just won the argument, AFAIC.
That's just awesome.
57471038 wrote:
57718868 wrote:
HOW DID I NOT KNOW ABOUT THE BEAR PRODUCING WORDS OF WILDING?! WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME?!
That's what RPJesus tends to do. That's why I don't think he's a real person, but some Magic Card Archive Server sort of machine, that is programmed to react to other posters' comments with obscure cards that do in fact exist, but somehow missed by even the most experienced Magic players. And then come up with strange combos with said cards. All of that is impossible for a normal human to do given the amount of time he does it and how often he does it. He/It got me with Light of Sanction, which prompted me to go to RQ&A to try and find if it was even possible to do combat damage to a creature I control (in light that Mark of Asylum exists).
71235715 wrote:
+10
100176878 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
57078538 wrote:
heaven or hell.
Round 1. Lets rock.
GG quotes! RPJesus just made this thread win!
56906968 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
143359585 wrote:
Blue players get all the overpowerered cards like JTMS. I think it's time that wizards gave something to people who remember what magic is really about: creatures.
Initially yes, Wizards was married to blue. However, about a decade ago they had a nasty divorce, and a few years after that they began courting the attention of Green. Then in Worldwake they had a nasty affair with their ex, but as of Innistrad, things seem to have gotten back on track, and Wizards has even proposed.
You are my favorite. Yes you. And moments like this make it so. Thank you RPJesus for just being you.
On what flavor text fits me:
57307308 wrote:
Surely RPJesus gets Niv-Mizzet, Dracogenius?
56874518 wrote:
First: I STILL can't take you seriously with that avatar. And I can take RPJesus seriously, so that's saying something.
121689989 wrote:
I'd offer you a cookie for making me laugh but it has an Upkeep Cost that has been known to cause people to quit eating.
56267956 wrote:
I <3 you loads
57400888 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
"AINT NO LAWS IN THE SKY MOTHER****." - Agrus Kos, Wojek Veteran
10/10. Amazing.

Kouk - thanks for the tip, I`ll be sure to check them out!


RPJesus - generally, I think you are right about that. You think practically, like every human (and paladin) would do.
I personally do not think that they are fearsome beasts, but only humans who try their best at job they do. One of my friends play Paladin like a divine tool who is able to do alot of things "in the name of religion and deity" (if you get my point) which I personally do not like. The other one thinks that Paladin can hang around with women in bars every day and make deal with Orcs like it`s a common stuff. Maybe I am wrong, but should he be an example of some kind of purity and righteousness?

ps: sry for bold, my post went nuts

He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.

It depends on the god the paladin follows. One of the things i like about 4e is we can now have evil and/or chaotic paladins. I love it!

I survived Section 4 and all I got was this lousy sig Off-topic and going downhill from there



In your oppinion, how restrictive Paladin`s ethos (or Code of Honor for example) is? I literally mean, does he strictly separate himself from good-aligned common fighter in his behavior and actions, or he just fits general extremely good character made for greater things? For example, if you have a thief in your party, and he commonly does his thieving from time to time (stealing from market, lying, hiding the loot from the rest of the party), would a lawful good paladin tolerate his behavior or he will clearly explain him few rules in the house before he goes into action?

Thats complicated. Is the rogue stealing from the poor? If so, the LG paladin of bahamut would force the rogue to return the goods, or would feel responsible and repay the rightful owners out of the paladins own pockets. This could lead to great in-party rp opportunities. But the paladin would probably tell the rogue, "Don't let me catch you doing that again", telling the player to do its thievery away from the paladin.


A paladin of Avandra or Sehanine would probably just roll its eyes at the rogue, if not applaud the rogues abilities. (but stealing from the poor is almost always bad in any paladins eyes, even evil)



One more to spice things up: do you think that Paladin should be fearless warrior who will willingly risk his own life for noble cause no matter the greatness of the threat or he should be playing smart character who will avoid tough fights and only go for the ones he is sure about winning?


I think a paladin will always be smart about things, but when there is no other choice, a paladin will stand its ground and make the ultimate sacrifice. Which is what makes a paladin in the first place.


A dumb paladin will constantly be willing to throw its life away in the pursuit of an honorable death, where as an intelligent paladin will know the value of its skill and training and not waste its life. A tactical retreat to restrengthen the parties formation and position and then come back at the enemy, having favorable conditions would be the best choice. A living paladin does more good in the world, than a dead one.


So, depending on what kind of paladin you are, determines how you view things. But when push comes to shove, Most paladins will make the sacrifice.


 Is backing away from trouble a good solution for playing one of strongest classes in early levels, whose powers come from divine source? I just wanted to know what`s your oppinion people, and how should I form my Paladin ethos and organisations in future to a better use. Thanks!


You can make tactical withdrawls without breaking your code. But if there is no other option and your death would save the party or the world, then you would probably be willing to make that choice. Paladins, are after all, the last resort meat shields.





My replies are bolded.
Long Live Dragonlance and the Nexus! I still want an athasian nightmare beast and a warforged dragon mini! "Look, Meat, I'll tear your face off, rip your throat out and eat what's left-because that's what I do to food like you." ~Thrikreen Intimidation Tactic.
My Custom 4th edition Content (New Content:0)
* My Personal 4e Darksun Material found below: Currently updating.

In the campaign we're just starting next week (3.5), we'll have at least one LG character and has a "code of honor" from her background and possibly a paladin.


So I have my own question: when someone plays a paladin and says they have a "code of honor", do you folks know of a website, or do you have your own questions, to help them flesh it out so they have it better known? (and also so you know what their code is in general)

Dave Arneson, on DMing: I was a little naive when we started playing Blackmoor (in 1971), I thought, as a GM, "I will be in control of the situation... I'm the referee!" Ha! Right...

If it's a traditional, LG Paladin, then just ask yourself one thing: WWSD (What Would Superman Do?) 


If it's a traditional, LG Paladin, then just ask yourself one thing: WWSD (What Would Superman Do?) 




Pfah.  WWCBFRCMPD? (What Would Constable Benton Fraser of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Do?)
(I employ zie/zie/zir as a gender-neutral counterpart to he/him/his. Just a heads-up.) Essentials definitely isn't for me as a player, and I feel that its design and implementation bear serious flaws which fill me with concern for the future of D&D, but I've come to the conclusion that it isn't going to destroy the game that I want to play. Indeed, I think that I could probably run a game for players using Essentials characters without it being much of a problem at all. Time will tell, I suppose.



If it's a traditional, LG Paladin, then just ask yourself one thing: WWSD (What Would Superman Do?) 




Pfah.  WWCBFRCMPD? (What Would Constable Benton Fraser of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Do?)




WWDDD! (What Would Duddly Do-Right Do!)


It depends on the god the paladin follows. One of the things i like about 4e is we can now have evil and/or chaotic paladins. I love it!





Yep.  Our group's paladin is a paladin of the Raven Queen.  Good and evil don't matter so much to this guy.  But if there are undead about?  Woah Nelly, he's gonna be charging in!  And nothing will earn his enmity more than insulting the Raven Queen.

Okay, the biggest problem with morality is that it is undefineable ... smarter people than you or I have spent millenia writing about the vagueness of morality since people started defining social activity based on consensus reality of the effect of guilt and suffering on the protagonist, victim and social structure.


It is not as simply as 'what would --' BS ... treating it as such only propagates MORE problems because you're dealing with not only the hypthetical .. but a really obscurely STUPID referencing source.


Now generally speaking, I think Paladins benefit best (and indeed are probably modelled on such philosophies) on deontological morality.


A rigid, and codified series of apriori maxims inherent to all 'healthy thinking individuals'.


For instance ... "Murder is wrong" .... "Why?" ... "Because without any ability to measure it's effect ... without any cognitive faculty capably adequate of rendering such a world in my mind ... I can still imagine a situation where everybody on the planet was allowed to kill any other person willy-nilly ... and I would hate that world"


Thus ... a 'healthy thinking individual'ecognizes murder violates a universal maxim, or 'principle'. Now a 'healthy thinking indiidual' can also commit morally bad actions ...


For instance ... theft? generally speaking however, a 'healthy thinking individual' would justify their action s ... but also know they did a b ad thing. The reason being is because the 'healthy thinking thief' says to himself/herself/themselves "I can justify why I stole this piece of fruit, yet at the same time ... I cannot justify that EVERY PERSON is allowed to steal".


A healthy thinking thief has, as such, justified their actions ... but they can never justify that thievery be a universal maxim applicable to all. If a thief steals and thinks everybody should steal all the time.... then they are completely nuts.


Kant's deontology...


Kant falls on his face a bit though ... As the universal maxim "One should protect oneself from death" ... But why is it that one can see beauty and honour when another person gives their life to save a stranger? Also, you have cases like Robin Hood .... A man who stole, and killed ... but he did it with the best intentions, thus honour is found and inner beauty is found radiant and inspiring.


Thus ... a paladin who is confronted by a thieving party member may not adopt deontology at all ... he/she/they may adopt utilitarianism.


Utilitarianism (Mill's utilitarianism, as Bentham's doesn't make sense) equates to "the most good for the maximum amount of people.


Thus .... has the theif done more good then bad? If so, he might not be moral as far as his conscience goes .. but he has made the world a better place to be by simply existing .. and therefore should be given more chances at trying to 'perfect' their 'nobility of character'


In which case the paladins may not like the thief ... might not condone their actions ... but will tolerate their presence simply because they perform a measure of good .... even when they dont really intend to.


So, by using only the two moral standpoints listed above, you have the 'Categorical Imperative' (Kant) in that a moral action is defined by apriori principles born of all persons for the preserance of common civility (right thinking persons anyways), in which moral worth can be found in the act and the act alone .... and the 'Consequentialist' (Mill) in that a moral action can be moral simply by examining it's effects.


Both have pros and cons ... and with good reason .. morality is a bloody hard thing to debate and there exists no true answers for it in philosophy I'm afraid .... one exists certainly ... but it is likely it can never be explained as it exists solely within the unattainable field of 'perfect truth'....


'Perfect truth', to coin a phrase, being perfect and thus incomprehensible to any human :p Reason being is because if you could rationalize and cognitively analyse perfect truth, then that would would mean morality has a cognitivist attribute .... of which can't be 100% correct because oft he reasons I labelled above X.x


Indeed you could even say 'perfect truth' could equate Kant's 'perfect will' .... and that's really really scary because that would mean truth is divine and absolute in an almost religious context X.x


..But that's opening up another can of worms I'm sure you don;t want to get into...


For the sake of party game mechanics and relations ... having a paladin who promotes a utilitarian prospective of 'good' is perhaps the best uyou can achieve ... he's/she's willing to look the other way for as long as the thief remains a valuable ally in the fight of greater evils and threats to the world then they themselves represent.

In this case, what I tend to do is set up a code of behavior for a divine character, since they draw their power from a certain code of belief.  We break down probably eight to ten lines of a code that they should live by, based upon general morality of alignment and the diety's own take on things.

What Would Captain Carrot Do?


Of course, in 4e paladins don't have to be Lawful Good.  In which case, you can play a paladin, and ask What Would Kara 'Starbuck' Thrace Do?  (Because IMHO she is so a 4e paladin, with MC into ranger.)


3e paladins need a personal code of honour.  I think that means, don't kill opponents who have surrendered or are otherwise helpless, keep all your promises (if not coerced), etc etc.  I don't think they are otherwise required to be more lawful good than anyone else.  I don't think they're required to hold other people to their code of honour.  On the other hand, IMHO lawful characters were pretty much required not to turn a blind eye if they see someone stealing, unless there is a 'for the greater good' justification for the stealing.


4e paladins don't need a code of honour.  They do need to be devoted to some cause greater than themselves.  A 4e paladin of Bahamut does have to believe that the ideals of Bahamut are ideals.  (That's a bit more restrictive than just being lawful good.)  But so can a fighter who worships Bahamut.  The difference is that the paladin gets her power from those ideals, even if she happens not to be living up to them right now.

Hoard: may earn you gp; Horde: may earn you xp.

hehe - as far as this "The difference is that the paladin gets her power from those ideals, even if she happens not to be living up to them right now." goes, it depends on your DM.  I'm not so forgiving, especially in the paragon, and epic tiers (when the gods would notice).

Through the ages, many would wonder "Does art imitate life or does life imitate art?" I wonder "Does the art of discourse on the internet imitate the art of discourse in life or does the art of discourse in life imitate the art of discourse on the internet?"

Dude. A paladin is a religious warrior. He bases his morality and behaviour on the tenets of his religion and the advice of his spiritual advisor (priest, monk, holy guru). He does not turn to philosophy and sociology. "What hath Athens to do with Jerusalem?"



Now generally speaking, I think Paladins benefit best (and indeed are probably modelled on such philosophies) on deontological morality.


A rigid, and codified series of apriori maxims inherent to all 'healthy thinking individuals'.


For instance ... "Murder is wrong" .... "Why?" ... "Because without any ability to measure it's effect ... without any cognitive faculty capably adequate of rendering such a world in my mind ... I can still imagine a situation where everybody on the planet was allowed to kill any other person willy-nilly ... and I would hate that world"


Thus ... a 'healthy thinking individual'ecognizes murder violates a universal maxim, or 'principle'. Now a 'healthy thinking indiidual' can also commit morally bad actions ...


 .... Kant's deontology...


Kant falls on his face a bit though ... As the universal maxim "One should protect oneself from death" ... But why is it that one can see beauty and honour when another person gives their life to save a stranger? Also, you have cases like Robin Hood .... A man who stole, and killed ... but he did it with the best intentions, thus honour is found and inner beauty is found radiant and inspiring.


Thus ... a paladin who is confronted by a thieving party member may not adopt deontology at all ... he/she/they may adopt utilitarianism.


Utilitarianism (Mill's utilitarianism, as Bentham's doesn't make sense) equates to "the most good for the maximum amount of people.


.... So, by using only the two moral standpoints listed above, you have the 'Categorical Imperative' (Kant) in that a moral action is defined by apriori principles born of all persons for the preserance of common civility (right thinking persons anyways), in which moral worth can be found in the act and the act alone .... and the 'Consequentialist' (Mill) in that a moral action can be moral simply by examining it's effects.


....


For the sake of party game mechanics and relations ... having a paladin who promotes a utilitarian prospective of 'good' is perhaps the best uyou can achieve ... he's/she's willing to look the other way for as long as the thief remains a valuable ally in the fight of greater evils and threats to the world then they themselves represent.



Member of Grognards for 4th Edition


hehe - as far as this "The difference is that the paladin gets her power from those ideals, even if she happens not to be living up to them right now." goes, it depends on your DM.  I'm not so forgiving, especially in the paragon, and epic tiers (when the gods would notice).




As both a player and a DM, I've always hated this mindset.  Divine classes aren't any more powerful than other classes, and yet many DM's feel it necessary to gimp them if the PC isn't RP'ed the way the DM thinks it should be.  That it was even supported in previous editions of D&D only made matters worse.  Because those previous editions imposed mechanical penalties to changing alignment, many DMs felt the need to impose their ideas of how characters should play the various alignments, even if a player's interpretation of it was different but equally valid.

Thank god (pun intended) 4e has dropped that completely.  Alignment has been (rightfully, IMO) made into an entirely RP element, and has no mechanical effect on the game, other than the solitary instance of paladins being required to worship gods of the same alignment.  And even in that instance, no penalties are imposed on a paladin if he changes alignment, except that he has to choose a different god to worship.  And even that is only true if the character worships only one particular deity.  The 4e PHB makes it pretty clear that a divine character can worship a single deity, a pantheon of deities, or even a philosphy.  A 4e paladin can worship the entire pantheon from Bahamut to Avandra to the Raven Queen to Tiamat to Gruumsh, or he can follow a philosphical system of beliefs that doesn't really concern itself with gods at all.  The only unifying element among divine classes is that they draw power from the strength of their faith in a set of beliefs.


For the DM to lay the smack down on a PC because of his personal opinion of how the character is being roleplayed, especially when such an action is absolutely not supported by any game mechanics or even fluff, it just wrong.  The DM may as well say a fighter loses his class abilities if the player isn't playing the PC up to to the DM's standards of what a fighter should be.

This is from the 2e Forgotten Realms Boxed Set. But i could still see it applying, especialy for LG palys:


The Paladin's Virtues


An organized approach brings the most good for all.


Laws exist to bring prosperity to those under them.


Unjust laws must be overturned or changed in a reasonable and positive fashion.


People rule: laws help.


Cause the most good through the least harm.


Protect the weak.


Goodness is not a natural state, but must be fought for to be attained and maintained.


Lead by example.


Let your deeds speak your intentions.


Goodness radiated from the heart.


Give others your mercy, but keep your wits about you.

I survived Section 4 and all I got was this lousy sig Off-topic and going downhill from there


..But that's opening up another can of worms I'm sure you don;t want to get into...


For the sake of party game mechanics and relations ... having a paladin who promotes a utilitarian prospective of 'good' is perhaps the best uyou can achieve ... he's/she's willing to look the other way for as long as the thief remains a valuable ally in the fight of greater evils and threats to the world then they themselves represent.




... um, yeah. I was just making a joke while offering up a well known example of LG (you know, in the D&D, traditional, paladin kind of way) type behavior. I didn't mean to imply that there was Truth in what I was saying, and am very sorry if my irresponsible behavior has led anyone astray. 

As both a player and a DM, I've always hated this mindset.  Divine classes aren't any more powerful than other classes, and yet many DM's feel it necessary to gimp them if the PC isn't RP'ed the way the DM thinks it should be. 


Subtle distinction - not the way I think it should be, the way the god in question thinks it should be.  The good thing about 4e is it gets away from the "subjective" notion of alignment, and lays down a set of commandments (WotC's term) for each god.  It's much more objective (and binary) test.
 That it was even supported in previous editions of D&D only made matters worse.  Because those previous editions imposed mechanical penalties to changing alignment, many DMs felt the need to impose their ideas of how characters should play the various alignments, even if a player's interpretation of it was different but equally valid.Thank god (pun intended) 4e has dropped that completely.  Alignment has been (rightfully, IMO) made into an entirely RP element, and has no mechanical effect on the game, other than the solitary instance of paladins being required to worship gods of the same alignment.  And even in that instance, no penalties are imposed on a paladin if he changes alignment, except that he has to choose a different god to worship. 


Alignment isn't the issue here.   So not particularly germane to my statement.

And even that is only true if the character worships only one particular deity.  The 4e PHB makes it pretty clear that a divine character can worship a single deity, a pantheon of deities, or even a philosphy.  A 4e paladin can worship the entire pantheon from Bahamut to Avandra to the Raven Queen to Tiamat to Gruumsh, or he can follow a philosphical system of beliefs that doesn't really concern itself with gods at all.  The only unifying element among divine classes is that they draw power from the strength of their faith in a set of beliefs.


Yes, they are - however, some gods (singularly) will grant special powers to their adherants (good word in this case - I'll let you look it up yourself)
For the DM to lay the smack down on a PC because of his personal opinion of how the character is being roleplayed, especially when such an action is absolutely not supported by any game mechanics or even fluff, it just wrong. 


Again - with the commandments - it's an objective test.
The DM may as well say a fighter loses his class abilities if the player isn't playing the PC up to to the DM's standards of what a fighter should be.


Figures you'd pick on one (of the two power sources) I haven't figured out an effective counter for.

edited: typo

Through the ages, many would wonder "Does art imitate life or does life imitate art?" I wonder "Does the art of discourse on the internet imitate the art of discourse in life or does the art of discourse in life imitate the art of discourse on the internet?"


The good thing about 4e is it gets away from the "subjective" notion of alignment, and lays down a set of commandments (WotC's term) for each god.  It's much more objective (and binary) test.



In what book might I find the 4e "commandments" for the gods?

Dave Arneson, on DMing: I was a little naive when we started playing Blackmoor (in 1971), I thought, as a GM, "I will be in control of the situation... I'm the referee!" Ha! Right...

In what book might I find the 4e "commandments" for the gods?



Player's Handbook
Through the ages, many would wonder "Does art imitate life or does life imitate art?" I wonder "Does the art of discourse on the internet imitate the art of discourse in life or does the art of discourse in life imitate the art of discourse on the internet?"

Thanks

Dave Arneson, on DMing: I was a little naive when we started playing Blackmoor (in 1971), I thought, as a GM, "I will be in control of the situation... I'm the referee!" Ha! Right...

Thanks



My pleasure.  Also note: SOME (as I said below, as not all gods are detailed, though the ones that grant special powers, generally, are) that don't appear in the PHB appear both in the book that introduced them, or in the Character builder/compendium entries.
Through the ages, many would wonder "Does art imitate life or does life imitate art?" I wonder "Does the art of discourse on the internet imitate the art of discourse in life or does the art of discourse in life imitate the art of discourse on the internet?"


In what book might I find the 4e "commandments" for the gods?



Player's Handbook



Might I add that the Divine Power book has a list of the Dieties toward the back and a description of what each of the divine classes should act like for each Diety.


Dude. A paladin is a religious warrior. He bases his morality and behaviour on the tenets of his religion and the advice of his spiritual advisor (priest, monk, holy guru). He does not turn to philosophy and sociology. "What hath Athens to do with Jerusalem?"




Oh and so whenever the paladin is greeted by ANY problem EVER in his ENTIRE LIFE he consults a leading cleric of a prestiguous temple hall on ye 'magic mobile'.


Don'[t be silly <.<


 


"Hold on a trick ... **punches some numbers into his 'Rock of far-distance communication +2'**   ... Ahhh yeah .. hi! Is Tom there? Yeah .. Tom the gold robed guy .... Oh Tom! Yeah .. just a moment ... How do I deal with this thief because he's stealing medicine ...? ---- Oh no Tom .. I can't reprimand him .. he's just a kid .... Oh no ... cant do that either Tom ... can't hand him into the authorities because they'll take his hands ... what do you reckon?"


:P I doubt the paladin carries a 5000 pg book containing every ethical answer to any ethical choice he will come up against, written by his god or a leading priest ..."Thou shalt not steal ..." okay ... but where do you draw the line?


For instance, you find a skeleton with a bag of gold coin ... a paladin should expend every asset to return those coins to the skeleton's next of kin or some other relative .... somehow ... but instead you just donate the bag of gold to charity ...


A god that says "thou shalt not STEAL" is doubtful to have problems with this ... its not technically your gold ... but it's doing some good nonetheless.


I doubt the paladin is going to take the gold to a priest of his faith and say "Find the rellies, or give it to the poor"?


[:P I doubt the paladin carries a 5000 pg book containing every ethical answer to any ethical choice he will come up against, written by his god or a leading priest ..."Thou shalt not steal ..." okay ... but where do you draw the line?





thats the reason why i am play an avenger. they are so zealotic that they can be so violent as they need without bad conscience.
"Nobody expects imperial Inquisition" "What doesn't destroys me, makes me stranger"

Just remember, not all paladins are the same. A paladin of bahamut or pelor is going to handle situations very differently than a paladin of Torog or Bane, and I doubt even the paladins of vecna could fathom the logic and "code of conduct" found with the paladins of asmodeus.


The role of paladin has changed since 2e and 3e.  One paladin may arrest the thief, but go easy on it and then find a way to heal the sick legally. Another paladin might kill the thief and sell the medicine to the sick person while yet another paladin might slap the thief, smash the medicine and tell him that the sick fool deserves to die, since he was too weak to take care of himself.


 


A paladin of bahamut would sacrifice himself to save his allies.


A paladin of kord would remain behind and fight to test his skill and die gloriously, with bravery.


A paladin of bane would force his "allies" to remain behind and defeat the foes, under his command.


A paladin of asmodeus would sell his "allies" to the foes and then kill them all, saving only those who served a purpose.

Long Live Dragonlance and the Nexus! I still want an athasian nightmare beast and a warforged dragon mini! "Look, Meat, I'll tear your face off, rip your throat out and eat what's left-because that's what I do to food like you." ~Thrikreen Intimidation Tactic.
My Custom 4th edition Content (New Content:0)
* My Personal 4e Darksun Material found below: Currently updating.

Poor paladins! I'm so glad they are no longer held to a nebulus standard of Lawful Goodness. I'm enamored with the class but the only time I played one in my 3.x years was during a straight dungeon crawl game completely devoid of RP, where I didn't have to be concerned with what the DM felt a paladin should act like. Since my old DM once played a paladin who had a long-distance, chaste relationship with a woman he intended to marry, would he be fine with my paladin sleeping with the local bard who keeps flirting with me? I never dared to find out.


As a side note, every class has things they're supposed to be doing in order to get these powers--wizards study, druids commune with nature, etc. I think the problem is that it's mostly assumed that the fighter is practicing his stances or what-have-you, whereas the paladin's source of power is more likely to come up during RP. It's not common to have a situation where the other PCs are like, "Yeah, let's burn the forest down!" while the druid's jaw drops, or where the most obvious path forward in the plot is to force the fighter into being strapped into a chair and eating buckets of pudding for a whole month, but a group could feasilby come to the decision that they have to torture their captured enemy for information, or have one PC want to steal an enchanted object from someone's grave to study or use. Then the typical LG paladin has a problem, since they get their power from following an external set of rules.


And that is the end of my rambling.



Dude. A paladin is a religious warrior. He bases his morality and behaviour on the tenets of his religion and the advice of his spiritual advisor (priest, monk, holy guru). He does not turn to philosophy and sociology. "What hath Athens to do with Jerusalem?"




Oh and so whenever the paladin is greeted by ANY problem EVER in his ENTIRE LIFE he consults a leading cleric of a prestiguous temple hall on ye 'magic mobile'.


Don'[t be silly <.<


 


"Hold on a trick ... **punches some numbers into his 'Rock of far-distance communication +2'**   ... Ahhh yeah .. hi! Is Tom there? Yeah .. Tom the gold robed guy .... Oh Tom! Yeah .. just a moment ... How do I deal with this thief because he's stealing medicine ...? ---- Oh no Tom .. I can't reprimand him .. he's just a kid .... Oh no ... cant do that either Tom ... can't hand him into the authorities because they'll take his hands ... what do you reckon?"


:P I doubt the paladin carries a 5000 pg book containing every ethical answer to any ethical choice he will come up against, written by his god or a leading priest ..."Thou shalt not steal ..." okay ... but where do you draw the line?


For instance, you find a skeleton with a bag of gold coin ... a paladin should expend every asset to return those coins to the skeleton's next of kin or some other relative .... somehow ... but instead you just donate the bag of gold to charity ...


A god that says "thou shalt not STEAL" is doubtful to have problems with this ... its not technically your gold ... but it's doing some good nonetheless.


I doubt the paladin is going to take the gold to a priest of his faith and say "Find the rellies, or give it to the poor"?




Huh? I never said a paladin would be unable to make decisions without a priest. You fail to appreciate that millions of people in the real world make ethical decisions based on their religion. A paladin is one of those people. Look around you: millions of people base their decisions on the bible and the Koran. You may question their sincerity, faithfulness, intelligence or consistency, but they would adamantly insist that they do follow a certain code of religious behaviour.


A paladin is a man, so naturally his sinful nature will make excuses, evade responsibility, twist the truth and take advantages, but his earnest desire is to overcome his base instincts and act according to what he believes and has been taught to be right.


My point was to conttadict that a paladin would think in terms of "utilitarian philosophy," Kantian philosophy or any other philosophical or sociological framework. Kujihn, you said that a paladin would not ask' "What would Bahamut do?" My point is that, in cases of moral dilemna, he would indeed ask himself that.

Member of Grognards for 4th Edition

Don't forget: Lawful Good is Lawful Great.


 


There comes a point where roleplaying crosses over from being part of the game to just being boring, dumb and pointless. If the druid wants to save the whale, great. If the thief can't help burglarising the NPCs rooms in the tavern, great. The paladin, more than any other PC class is where the lines have to be drawn.


1988, school RPG club: at the start of a big melee, my MU uses feeblemind on an ogre magi. During all the fighting and confusion, somehow the feebleminded Ogre Magi doesn't get killed. At the end of the battle, some of the party just want to execute him, others want to just turn him loose, but the paladin has to stick up for him, now that he (ogre) is basically a retarded child, and won't allow him to be executed or set free to become the dungeon bitch. Cue a two-hour sociological debate on the death penalty, war crimes, mental suitability to stand trial etc etc etc etc. It came to an empasse, and it was decided to let it tag along with the party as a henchman.


In the end, the DM got so fed up that he killed him off in crossfire in the very next encounter. Two hours wasted because the paladin had to roleplay, and actually served no useful purpose or advancement of anything. When it comes to these moral judgement calls, I strongly recommend the DM steps in and adjudicates them swiftly to prevent the waste of time.


My point was to conttadict that a paladin would think in terms of "utilitarian philosophy," Kantian philosophy or any other philosophical or sociological framework. Kujihn, you said that a paladin would not ask' "What would Bahamut do?" My point is that, in cases of moral dilemna, he would indeed ask himself that.




Without getting into real-world arguments (Tertullian is no more representative of religion in general than Aquinas), there's no contradiction between basing your morality on a religious code and using philosophy to work out how to apply or interpret the religious code.  No religious code applies itself.


In DnD, it would depend on the god.  Some gods probably praise acting on warm generous feeling rather than cold nitpicky calculation - Kord, Melora, Sehanine.  Other gods, e.g. Ioun, would certainly want their paladins to use some kind of rational construction from first principles.  Maybe lawful-type gods have a worked out body of ethical teachings, which would consist of commandments and stories of what Bahamut did in a particular situation.  But even such a body of teaching can't possibly give pre-determined instructions for every situation.  The believer will have to think what is the general principle of those stories, which principle takes precedence here, and so on.  And that is incipient philosophy.


I think as a general rule, the whole point of being a paladin is that you're prepared to give your life for your god's ideals.  (Well, actually, as they say, the aim of war is to make the other side die for their country.  But that doesn't always work out.)  That's why even an evil paladin dresses up in plate armour and smites the good, rather than plotting and scheming in their Evil Overlord Fortress.  I'm not saying paladins don't run from fights.  But they don't run from fights if there's a realistic chance that standing and fighting will achieve something.


 

Hoard: may earn you gp; Horde: may earn you xp.

Ahh..I thought I'd never see these posts again...the old Paladin religion debate.


 


So how should a paladin act?  However they feel like.  There is no true ingame penalty for 'acting wrong' someone who worships and draws power from Pelor...can be a torturing, baby eating, dog kicking evil skum...and still get power from Pelor.  The players handbook says as much...the only thing that can happen is that the other Pelorites may catch wind and decide to disapline them...at which point you set up any sort of encounters as normal.  Oh heck...the Paladin can still be that way and still be Lawful Good..because there is nothing..NOTHING..about how to change alignment..or how to handle someone who isn't playing to their alignment.  Which reminds me..I still need to my Invoker Deva of Amaneuses(spelling is prob incorrect...FR sun god)....who worships in much the way the Aztecs did...


 


If you are speaking more 3.5...the code of honor refers to the Knightly Code of honor.  Google and/or Wiki it.  Otherwise you need to be a good character, which I find the best way to explain that...be merciful, cause no more pain/grief than is neccessary, if causing pain/grief will fulfill a higher goal...try to make sure you get at least double the good as the pain/grief you have caused (also be careful in doing this...as the road to hell is paved with good intentions), in general such acts should only be done if they are your only course of action.  Do not confuse pain/grief with proper discapline and/or punishment.  Do not confuse proper discapline/punishment with abuse.  Try to help the world become a place where more good people can prosper.  If you find evil, get rid of it (how you do so I'll leave it up to you..but do not cause evil in destroying evil).


The problem is that being 'good' is a very wide thing..and each person has their own small definition.  As a DM...you'll find it useful to warn the player when you find actions to be evil, and allow them to not do said action...or commiting to it with full character (and now player) knowledge that the action being committed is evil.  Just remember that you do not do this to control the paladin...the whole good/evil thing...including Paladins, is a strong bit of roleplay flavor that has a mechanic...it is ment to reflect the state of the world.  That special powers and abilities are given to those who hold their own actions and morals above others, that the world, as a whole, actually cares about how you act.  That Good is not just an idea..but a living force..the same with Evil.


For the sake of it..certain things I consider evil IRL...I don't consider Evil in D&D..mostly due to neccessity of the game.  Thievery is chaotic..not evil.  Killing is neutral not evil.  It is completely ok to enjoy extramarital intercourse (seriously some of the gods of good are all about fertility...and some even have what amounts to a holy whorehouse).  In the case of Thievery and Killing...I tend to look at motivation and how its done...that is what makes it good, evil, or just neutral.  If the Paladin worships/draws power from a god..then they need to also look at the tenants of that god..and color their following of good and the law to help reflect that.  Again warn them if they are going to break a tenant that could cause problems..or if they begin to have a pattern of what their god might consider troublesome behavior.


A decent example of extreem good/evil/neutral thats easier to relate to as thus.  In the case of an office environment...two employees are trying to get promoted to a higher paying job.  An evil employee may do what he can to discredit the other employee, spreading nasty rumors, causing things to happen that make the other employee look bad..in order to get that promotion.  The neutral employee will do his best to get the promotion but won't actively hinder the other employee from getting the promotion....no matter the situation.  The good employee will, upon finding out that he is competeing with another for a promotion..look at the other employee..discover the other employee is having money problems..is a good worker...and pretty much needs the promotion..he'll then turn down the promotion if given the option and suggest the other employee should be promoted instead.


 


The final thing to remember...Good is broad..and general.  And nobody is capable of being good all the time.  At least no-one on this earth that is.  Actually being good (just as being evil) is an extreem way of life..you are acting in a very unusual way for a person to act (most people are neutral), this is also a way that most people have problems holding themself to all the time.  Small slipups will occur for most people.  At that point you may wish to look at how much the Paladin regrets such slipups..and tries to make things right..or at least try to not slipup anymore.


Oh..one more extra note..also look to the player...some people don't want to actually roleplay someone who has a strict lawful/good way of life..they just want the powers and abilities...how the DM deals with this is up to the DM and his exact view of the world, and how much he thinks the paladin code of conduct actually helps the world.


 


Oh..another note....do remember Good does not mean nice....


Huh? I never said a paladin would be unable to make decisions without a priest. You fail to appreciate that millions of people in the real world make ethical decisions based on their religion. A paladin is one of those people. Look around you: millions of people base their decisions on the bible and the Koran. You may question their sincerity, faithfulness, intelligence or consistency, but they would adamantly insist that they do follow a certain code of religious behaviour.


A paladin is a man, so naturally his sinful nature will make excuses, evade responsibility, twist the truth and take advantages, but his earnest desire is to overcome his base instincts and act according to what he believes and has been taught to be right.


My point was to conttadict that a paladin would think in terms of "utilitarian philosophy," Kantian philosophy or any other philosophical or sociological framework. Kujihn, you said that a paladin would not ask' "What would Bahamut do?" My point is that, in cases of moral dilemna, he would indeed ask himself that.





Okay .. you fail to understand what I'm saying ...

Utilitarian principle ... paladin encounters a thief. Thief is completely unscrupulous and would steal from his dying grandmother  ....


Thief also prevented the entire city from being destroyed because he managed to assassinate an evil necromancer .... thus has done more good than bad .... even if he wasn't doing it from a altruistic perspective.


Kant's Deontology ... a thief is morally questionable regardless of what he does because he constantly violates the universal maxim "thou shalt not steal", regardless of the consequential benefits of him stealing are.


--------------


Now religious or not, people tend to look inwardly when deciding whether an action is noble or not ... In fact religion tends to adopt deontological maxims and rewrite them as holy script to attempt to explain their force on the human will.


Adultery, Murder, Theft, Jealousy .... universal maxims preventing their morally excuseable activities... and WOW also contained in holy scriptures throughout the WORLD .... Why is that?


P.S: I never said that a paladin WOULDN'T Ask what 'bahamut or pelor would do" .. I merely said its a ludicrous and  'STUPID way' to analyze morality.


I explained why an action can be good, or bad ... and why a paladin might (or perhaps WOULD NATURALLY) deal with morally ambiguous decisions.


P.S: I never said that a paladin WOULDN'T Ask what 'bahamut or pelor would do" .. I merely said its a ludicrous and  'STUPID way' to analyze morality.




It's not a bad first order method.  You've mentioned deontology and consequentialism, but you've left our virtue ethics.  Read Aristotle, for example.  That actually works out as a sophisticated way of asking what would a virtuous person do?


 


 

Hoard: may earn you gp; Horde: may earn you xp.

Without getting into real-world arguments (Tertullian is no more representative of religion in general than Aquinas), there's no contradiction between basing your morality on a religious code and using philosophy to work out how to apply or interpret the religious code.  No religious code applies itself.


Although I stand by my position, I have to respect the arguments of a man who recognizes a quote from Tertullian. Smile  I would have rather quoted a source more hostile to worldly philosophy, but such men, for obvious reasons, usually are not the most eloquent writers.

Member of Grognards for 4th Edition



P.S: I never said that a paladin WOULDN'T Ask what 'bahamut or pelor would do" .. I merely said its a ludicrous and  'STUPID way' to analyze morality.




It's not a bad first order method.  You've mentioned deontology and consequentialism, but you've left our virtue ethics.  Read Aristotle, for example.  That actually works out as a sophisticated way of asking what would a virtuous person do?





I like Hume best ... a good, moral action must be 'felt' ... like the hero risking life and liomb to charge a group of bandits (or maybe even just one bandit) inspires courage in those that view his exploits of derring do and social uprightness.

Power to the will that one may be inspired to even greater acts of nobility through the shining light of another ....


All that sort of poetic romanticism :P


But I think Hume's ToHN or Kant's Deontology is perhaps the solitary, crusading paladin's bread and butter when it comes to goodness and moral standing.


They are clear cut, black and white, heroic and exemplary. "This is wrong because it is ..." "but ..." "Quiet you!"


Of course the p[aladin that travels with others might have to change their outlook and reasoning substantially so that they can sleep at night :p


But I guess I can see what you mean. I don't know .. maybe we have two very different ideals of LG :P


So how should a paladin act?  However they feel like.  There is no true ingame penalty for 'acting wrong' someone who worships and draws power from Pelor...can be a torturing, baby eating, dog kicking evil skum...and still get power from Pelor.




And this is why the penalty should be replaced by the DM.  It doesn't have to be a major penalty, but completely divorcing things the way 4ed did makes little sense.  WoTC did it to make the hack n' slash non-roleplayers happy.  Further, since the paladin must be the alignment of his God, no paladin of Pelor would be a torturing, baby eating, dog kicking evil scum.  He can't be by RAW.  He MUST be good aligned.



Oh heck...the Paladin can still be that way and still be Lawful Good..because there is nothing..NOTHING..about how to change alignment..or how to handle someone who isn't playing to their alignment.




There's also nothing that says that if I roll 3 20's in a row, I don't become a God.  I guess that means if I roll 3 20's in a row, I become a God. 


The DM has the power to change your alignment if you start acting outside it frequently.

@Max: "Further, since the paladin must be the alignment of his God, no paladin of Pelor would be a torturing, baby eating, dog kicking evil scum.  He can't be by RAW.  He MUST be good aligned."


The problem with this is the "good aligned" - many will use the guise of moral relativism to argue that ANY action can be justified as good.  In a way, that's why I prefer to go by the commandments.  In Pelor's case:


  • Alleviate suffering wherever you find it.

  • Bring Pelor's light into places of darkness, showing kindness, mercy, and compassion.

  • Be watchful against evil.

Through the ages, many would wonder "Does art imitate life or does life imitate art?" I wonder "Does the art of discourse on the internet imitate the art of discourse in life or does the art of discourse in life imitate the art of discourse on the internet?"


So how should a paladin act?  However they feel like.  There is no true ingame penalty for 'acting wrong' someone who worships and draws power from Pelor...can be a torturing, baby eating, dog kicking evil skum...and still get power from Pelor. 





Speak for yourself. Our cleric of Bahamut once shouted out a prayer to Tiamat by accident, rolled crap for the rest of the encounter and got beaten unconscious for the second session in a row :D.

Zammm = Batman.

It's my sig in a box
58280208 wrote:
Everything is better when you read it in Bane's voice.
192334281 wrote:
Your human antics and desire to continue living have moved me. Just kidding. You cannot move me physically or emotionally. Wall humor.
57092228 wrote:
Copy effects work like a photocopy machine: you get a copy of the 'naked' card, NOT of what's on it.
56995928 wrote:
Funny story: InQuest Magazine (I think it was InQuest) had an oversized Chaos Orb which I totally rooked someone into allowing into a (non-sanctioned) game. I had a proxy card that was a Mountain with "Chaos Orb" written on it. When I played it, my opponent cried foul: Him: "WTF? a Proxy? no-one said anything about Proxies. Do you even own an actual Chaos Orb?" Me: "Yes, but I thought it would be better to use a Proxy." Him: "No way. If you're going to put a Chaos Orb in your deck you have to use your actual Chaos Orb." Me: "*Sigh*. Okay." I pulled out this huge Chaos Orb and placed it on the table. He tried to cry foul again but everyone else said he insisted I use my actual Chaos Orb and that was my actual Chaos Orb. I used it, flipped it and wiped most of his board. Unsurprisingly, that only worked once and only because everyone present thought it was hilarious.
My DM on Battleminds:
no, see i can kill defenders, but 8 consecutive crits on a battlemind, eh walk it off.
144543765 wrote:
195392035 wrote:
Hi guys! So, I'm a sort of returning player to Magic. I say sort of because as a child I had two main TCG's I liked. Yu-Gi-Oh, and Pokemon. Some of my friends branched off in to Magic, and I bought two pre-made decks just to kind of fit in. Like I said, Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon were what I really knew how to play. I have a extensive knowledge of deck building in those two TCG's. However, as far as Magic is concerned, I only ever used those two pre made decks. I know how the game is played, and I know general things, but now I want to get in the game for real. I want to begin playing it as a regular. My question is, are all cards ever released from the time of the inception of this game until present day fair game in a deck? Or are there special rules? Are some cards forbidden or restricted? Thanks guys, and I will gladly accept ANY help lol.
I have the same problem with women.
117639611 wrote:
198869283 wrote:
Oh I have a standing rule. If someone plays a Planeswalker I concede the game. I refuse to play with or against people who play Planeswalkers. They really did ruin the game.
A turn two Tibalt win?! Wicked... Betcha don't see that everyday.

The Pony Co. 

Is this my new ego sig? Yes it is, other Barry
57461258 wrote:
And that's why you should never, ever call RP Jesus on being a troll, because then everyone else playing along gets outed, too, and the thread goes back to being boring.
57461258 wrote:
See, this is why RPJesus should be in charge of the storyline. The novel line would never have been cancelled if he had been running the show. Specifically the Slobad and Geth's Head talkshow he just described.
57461258 wrote:
Not only was that an obligatory joke, it was an on-topic post that still managed to be off-topic due to thread derailment. RP Jesus does it again folks.
92481331 wrote:
I think I'm gonna' start praying to Jesus... That's right, RPJesus, I'm gonna' be praying to you, right now. O' Jesus Please continue to make my time here on the forums fun and cause me to chuckle. Amen.
92481331 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
It was wonderful. Us Johnnies had a field day. That Timmy with the Grizzly bears would actually have to think about swinging into your Mogg Fanatic, giving you time to set up your silly combo. Nowadays it's all DERPSWING! with thier blue jeans and their MP3 players and their EM EM OH AR PEE JEES and their "Dewmocracy" and their children's card games and their Jersey Shores and their Tattooed Tenaged Vampire Hunters from Beverly Hills
Seriously, that was amazing. I laughed my *ss off. Made my day, and I just woke up.
[quote=ArtVenn You're still one of my favorite people... just sayin'.[/quote]
56756068 wrote:
56786788 wrote:
.....would it be a bit blasphemous if I said, "PRAYSE RPJAYSUS!" like an Evangelical preacher?
Perhaps, but who doesn't like to blaspheme every now and again? Especially when Mr. RPJesus is completely right.
56756068 wrote:
I don't say this often, but ... LOL
57526128 wrote:
You... You... Evil something... I actualy made the damn char once I saw the poster... Now you made me see it again and I gained resolve to put it into my campaign. Shell be high standing oficial of Cyrix order. Uterly mad and only slightly evil. And it'll be bad. Evil even. And ill blame you and Lizard for it :P.
57042968 wrote:
111809331 wrote:
I'm trying to work out if you're being sarcastic here. ...
Am going to stop you right there... it's RPJesus... he's always sarcastic
58335208 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
112114441 wrote:
we can only hope it gets the jace treatment...it could have at least been legendary
So that even the decks that don't run it run it to deal with it? Isn't that like the definition of format warping?
I lol'd.
56287226 wrote:
98088088 wrote:
Uktabi Orangutan What the heck's going on with those monkeys?
The most common answer is that they are what RPJesus would call "[Debutantes avert your eyes]ing."
56965458 wrote:
Show
57461258 wrote:
116498949 wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because off-topic discussions are a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_... Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively. If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
...Am I the only one that thinks this is reaching the point of downright Kafkaesque insanity?
I condone the use of the word Kafkaesque. However, I'm presentely ambivalent. I mean, that can't be serious, right? We're April 1st, right? They didn't mod RPJesus for off-topic discussion when the WHOLE THREAD IS OFF-TOPIC, right? Right.
57545908 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
Save or die. If you disagree with this, you're wrong (Not because of any points or arguements that have been made, but I just rolled a d20 for you and got a 1, so you lose).
58397368 wrote:
58222628 wrote:
This just won the argument, AFAIC.
That's just awesome.
57471038 wrote:
57718868 wrote:
HOW DID I NOT KNOW ABOUT THE BEAR PRODUCING WORDS OF WILDING?! WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME?!
That's what RPJesus tends to do. That's why I don't think he's a real person, but some Magic Card Archive Server sort of machine, that is programmed to react to other posters' comments with obscure cards that do in fact exist, but somehow missed by even the most experienced Magic players. And then come up with strange combos with said cards. All of that is impossible for a normal human to do given the amount of time he does it and how often he does it. He/It got me with Light of Sanction, which prompted me to go to RQ&A to try and find if it was even possible to do combat damage to a creature I control (in light that Mark of Asylum exists).
71235715 wrote:
+10
100176878 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
57078538 wrote:
heaven or hell.
Round 1. Lets rock.
GG quotes! RPJesus just made this thread win!
56906968 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
143359585 wrote:
Blue players get all the overpowerered cards like JTMS. I think it's time that wizards gave something to people who remember what magic is really about: creatures.
Initially yes, Wizards was married to blue. However, about a decade ago they had a nasty divorce, and a few years after that they began courting the attention of Green. Then in Worldwake they had a nasty affair with their ex, but as of Innistrad, things seem to have gotten back on track, and Wizards has even proposed.
You are my favorite. Yes you. And moments like this make it so. Thank you RPJesus for just being you.
On what flavor text fits me:
57307308 wrote:
Surely RPJesus gets Niv-Mizzet, Dracogenius?
56874518 wrote:
First: I STILL can't take you seriously with that avatar. And I can take RPJesus seriously, so that's saying something.
121689989 wrote:
I'd offer you a cookie for making me laugh but it has an Upkeep Cost that has been known to cause people to quit eating.
56267956 wrote:
I <3 you loads
57400888 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
"AINT NO LAWS IN THE SKY MOTHER****." - Agrus Kos, Wojek Veteran
10/10. Amazing.


The problem with this is the "good aligned" - many will use the guise of moral relativism to argue that ANY action can be justified as good.




That's why I go with social/societal relativism, not individual.  With right, wrong, good and evil established by society, individual paladins will be unable to make that argument.  They'll be constrained to act within the "good" established by many.


 


In a way, that's why I prefer to go by the commandments.  In Pelor's case:


  • Alleviate suffering wherever you find it.

  • Bring Pelor's light into places of darkness, showing kindness, mercy, and compassion.

  • Be watchful against evil.



I use those as well. 

Sign In to post comments