|
6 months ago ::
Dec 29, 2012 - 9:42PM
#1
|
|
|
Some of the misconceptions that I am aware of some (but not most) people having are: self-righteously throws fights by using the word "dirty" to refer to "realistic fighting," doesn't care about murderous tyrants as long as they gave themselves legal permission, believes that strategic retreats are always "cowardly," doesn't believe in letting the other people fight when "talking" would be more "right" in a "fighting" game. I would like to challenge some of these, and I'm wondering if anybody else thinks I am on the right track.
Somebody else's article that I love: www.rdinn.com/guild/66/how_to_play_an_ef... Personal musings: “A paladin’s code of honor is not about throwing fights; it’s about not starting them. If someone is as evil and dangerous as you think they are, then will have no problem throwing the first blow, and if they do not do so, then perhaps they are not as dangerous as you think. How many have been killed in fights that they picked with somebody whom they FALSELY believed would’ve attacked them first, but who in fact had no intention of doing so until he himself was attacked and had to defend himself? And yet, how many people have killed in self-defense in the same circumstance, when they in fact could’ve simply incapacitated their attacker and learned that his only real crime was stupidity? More importantly, a paladin learns to pick her battles, but BEFORE the battle actually starts. If you attack something that you know to be dangerous, and then run off without planning to finish the job, then you have put others in danger by angering the enemy you attacked and encouraging them to lash out. If you plan to help people by deposing a tyrant, and you don’t bother gathering enough allies to ensure that you actually defeat him when you engage him, then the tyrant needs to know that when – not if – he defeats you, his quarrel with you will be finished, and he needs not burn entire villages to the ground looking for where you fled to and who helped you. If he was not the kind of ruler who would do that after a half-a**ed assassination attempt, then you would not have needed to depose him in the first place, and thus, if you are stupid enough not to bring enough allies to ABSOLUTELY guarantee victory, then you would need him to know that you acted alone and never had a chance worth him getting worried about after you are dead.” Orc baby dilemma: “Does a paladin kill an "innocent" child that he knows would absolutely become irrevocably, homicidally evil if allowed to live in it’s own society?” Answer: “If the orc society truly believes that the way the world works is by violence alone, then it is your job to show them that there is a better way; that the real world works by people building each other up instead of tearing each other down. That way, even if they choose to continue raising their children for violence, they will know on some level that they chose it INSTEAD of what the real world looks like, of what has allowed every other great civilization to flourish. If, on the other hand, they are as “irrevocably” evil as you claim that they are, then they will absolutely relish proof that even paladins are as bloodthirsty as they are themselves, and will feel completely satisfied that they are correct about the world being as violent as they pretend that it is.”
Another "article" I like: http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=810533#post810533 Angel (Episode 4x1): “I did get time to think: about us, about the world. Nothing in the world is the way it ought to be. It's harsh, and cruel. But that's why there's us. Champions. It doesn't matter where we come from, what we've done or suffered, or even if we make a difference. We live as though the world was what it should be, to show it what it can be." Batman (The Dark Knight): “What were you trying to prove? That deep down, everyone’s as ugly as you? You’re alone.”
What do you guys think? Am I making sense? Misunderstanding something? Leaving something out? Should I organize this more cohesively?
A character sheet is a player's love letter to the DM. If someone wants to do something and they want to do it well, let them. Encourage them. Have fun with it. -Unknown
An adventure is a DM's love letter to the players. If the DM wants something to happen in the game, let it. Encourage the DM. Have fun with it. -Centauri I'd love for input as to what it should be rather than arguments against why I shouldn't have it at all. -lialwyn Best defense that I've read in favor of having alignment systems as an option
Spoiler:
Show
However, if some people are heavily benefiting from the inclusion of alignment, then it would behoove those that AREN'T to listen up and pay attention to how those benefits are being created and enjoyed, no? -YagamiFire
But equally important would be for those who do enjoy those benefits to entertain the possibility that other people do not value those benefits equally or, possibly, do not see them as benefits in the first place. -wrecan
That makes sense. However, it is not fair to continually attack those that benefit for being, somehow, deviant for deriving enjoyment from something that you cannot. Instead, alignment is continually attacked...it is demonized...and those that use it are lumped in with it.
I think there is more merit in a situation where someone says "This doesn't work! It's broken!" and the reply is "Actually it works fine for me. Have you considered your approach might be causing it?" than a situation where someone says "I use this system and the way I use it works really well!" and the back and forth is "No! It is a broken bad system!" because the former posits that improvement could be made...the latter only undermines the enjoyment of the person who is using alignment. -YagamiFire
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 29, 2012 - 10:01PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
The paladin is a knight with holy powers. It's a character class, it's not a behavior mode. "Knight" is just a job description. All the issues cease upon realizing this, and upon realizing that people can be allowed to play their characters however they want.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 30, 2012 - 7:17AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Nov 30, 2005
|
Should I organize this more cohesively?
probably. Its got a bit of wall of text which results in TLDR.
Its also written out like an essay, but if its an essay its not really meaty enough to make any awesome points. Not sure the response you are looking for? The only thing I can give you is "Yes, you now have an opinion on the topic of paladins, and I see it". I'm not really sure the point though.
5e comments and thoughts all in one place. Check it out to provide feedback, mock, or steal ideas.
http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/28835423/Krusks_5e_Design_Goals?sdb=1
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 30, 2012 - 8:47AM
#4
|
|
|
Presuming you're discussing 3e Paladins ...
The whole thing with alignment and what the Paladin code does and doesn't allow is so completely, totally, and utterly subjective that there's really no point in discussing it. How appropriate ANY action is will be determined individually by each person's readings and preferences.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 30, 2012 - 9:48AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
May 14, 2010
|
A paladin living in an orc society. The amount of roleplay in it.
One of the reasons why I love playing the paladin.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 30, 2012 - 12:10PM
#6
|
|
|
Presuming you're discussing 3e Paladins ...
The whole thing with alignment and what the Paladin code does and doesn't allow is so completely, totally, and utterly subjective that there's really no point in discussing it. How appropriate ANY action is will be determined individually by each person's readings and preferences.
This. Take the Knights Templar during the crusades. They believed they were God's chosen warriors. They /believed/ they were essentially paladins. They swore their vows, much like the vows ones would have expected of a paladin. They /were/ paladins.
Yet they murdered and massacred with the best of them, acts which we would consider evil. They didn't and their church didn't consider them to be evil. Perspective is a powerful thing, and why /alignment/ has no business being part of game mechanics.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 31, 2012 - 9:06AM
#7
|
|
|
Presuming you're discussing 3e Paladins ...
The whole thing with alignment and what the Paladin code does and doesn't allow is so completely, totally, and utterly subjective that there's really no point in discussing it. How appropriate ANY action is will be determined individually by each person's readings and preferences.
This. Take the Knights Templar during the crusades. They believed they were God's chosen warriors. They /believed/ they were essentially paladins. They swore their vows, much like the vows ones would have expected of a paladin. They /were/ paladins.
Yet they murdered and massacred with the best of them, acts which we would consider evil. They didn't and their church didn't consider them to be evil. Perspective is a powerful thing, and why /alignment/ has no business being part of game mechanics.
Ah, but if they had both the ability to Detect Evil AND the knowledge that God Himself would cut them off if they killed innocents by neglecting it, wouldn't they have behaved differently?
There is a word for a Lawful Neutral/Evil who THINKS he's Good (Lawful Stupid), and on TV Tropes at least, the Knights Templar seem to be an accepted symbol of Lawful Stupid, not Good.
And couldn't alignment be a part of game mechanics as long as the DM/players just discuss it before hand and come to an understanding?
A character sheet is a player's love letter to the DM. If someone wants to do something and they want to do it well, let them. Encourage them. Have fun with it. -Unknown
An adventure is a DM's love letter to the players. If the DM wants something to happen in the game, let it. Encourage the DM. Have fun with it. -Centauri I'd love for input as to what it should be rather than arguments against why I shouldn't have it at all. -lialwyn Best defense that I've read in favor of having alignment systems as an option
Spoiler:
Show
However, if some people are heavily benefiting from the inclusion of alignment, then it would behoove those that AREN'T to listen up and pay attention to how those benefits are being created and enjoyed, no? -YagamiFire
But equally important would be for those who do enjoy those benefits to entertain the possibility that other people do not value those benefits equally or, possibly, do not see them as benefits in the first place. -wrecan
That makes sense. However, it is not fair to continually attack those that benefit for being, somehow, deviant for deriving enjoyment from something that you cannot. Instead, alignment is continually attacked...it is demonized...and those that use it are lumped in with it.
I think there is more merit in a situation where someone says "This doesn't work! It's broken!" and the reply is "Actually it works fine for me. Have you considered your approach might be causing it?" than a situation where someone says "I use this system and the way I use it works really well!" and the back and forth is "No! It is a broken bad system!" because the former posits that improvement could be made...the latter only undermines the enjoyment of the person who is using alignment. -YagamiFire
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 31, 2012 - 9:43AM
#8
|
|
|
Good game mechanics are concrete and unambiguous. If you have to have a long discussion, especially one where you're trying to define undefinable abstract terms that philosophers have failed to reach a concensus on for millenia, it's a bad rule.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 31, 2012 - 11:21AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Nov 27, 2006
|
Presuming you're discussing 3e Paladins ...
The whole thing with alignment and what the Paladin code does and doesn't allow is so completely, totally, and utterly subjective that there's really no point in discussing it. How appropriate ANY action is will be determined individually by each person's readings and preferences.
This. Take the Knights Templar during the crusades. They believed they were God's chosen warriors. They /believed/ they were essentially paladins. They swore their vows, much like the vows ones would have expected of a paladin. They /were/ paladins.
Yet they murdered and massacred with the best of them, acts which we would consider evil. They didn't and their church didn't consider them to be evil. Perspective is a powerful thing, and why /alignment/ has no business being part of game mechanics.
It doesn't matter what they or the church bellieved on the subject. Just how God ultimately judged them.
Anyways, as far as D&D goes? Yes, alignment, & some mechanical rules for it, most certainly do have business being included.
Because wether or not you like it? The developers present Good/Evil as physical, tangable forces/effects that'll come into play during games.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 31, 2012 - 12:44PM
#10
|
|
|
...and then they gave us 4e which removed that stupidity.
Just because some developer some time had an idea, doesn't mean it was a good one.
|
|
|
