Was it easier to play a Paladin back then when, barring outright

>>53218379
>inb4 thread goes 323 / 97 / 43 with nothing of value being said

>>53218379
Well you know, a Paladin can become an Oathbreaker if it troubles you that much.

That goddamned difference in definition of fun.
That goddamned difference in definition of goodness.
That goddamned difference in definition of what makes a paladin.
Misunderstandings, miscommunications, outright lies, the root of all that's evil in this world... No, wait, I forgot apathy, carelessness. The wicked pair of falseness and "who cares".

>>53218452
Why should I have to become evil just to stop evil without having to open a dialogue with every sentient being that pings as Evil with a capital "E?"

Shouldn't there be an inherent limit beyond DM fiat that dictates when a creature is 100% irredeemable? As in "you've crossed the line and are now totally incapable of being anything more than evil" or something like that?

Because as it stands, it feels like paladins are designed to either fall or become martyrs by default while evil is free to get unlimited chances for redemption no matter how many atrocities they caused.

>>53218510
Oh boo-fucking-hoo!

If you wanted to make a villain that wouldn't earn 3 1/2 inches of solid holy steel through their sternum, they shouldn't have orchestrated an orc raid that killed over 1,037 villagers and fuck up trade routes, causing widespread famine across the kingdom.

>>53218551
Because a monster would be extremely efficient at killing other monsters while the "Good" cower in fear of their true protector and die trying to do what you do best, destroy evil with a capital "E"

If evil commits an atrocity, as an Oathbreaker you can commit another one.

For instance, say a random town is destroyed, you could declare holy war against anyone and everyone who stops you from killing the person who did this.

Anyone, absolutely anyone.

Monsters kill monsters, paragons of virtue die trying.

On another note, if the DM is against killing evil with a capital "E" so much, why don't you become evil with a capital "E"?

>>53218379
Hello, 2004. How's life in the past? I'll tell you a secret - they'll make a new edition in the future, and playing a paladin will be nice and pleasant there.

>>53218379
That's why in 5e you play a paladin of vengeance and Deus Vult heathen asses

>>53218379
>Was it easier to play a Paladin back then
No, much harder in fact, as rolling the required 17 CHA on 3D6 is unlikely.

Why do people on /tg/ love to invent problems so much? Aren't there any actual issues to complain about? Like, good companies going under, embezzlement scandals, scams or writers shooting the shit with new releases?

>>53218742
That still doesn't answer the question of why Paladins are doomed to fall while Evil has unlimited continues to rape babies.

I mean, didn't anyone who wrote any of the books realize the connotations that would create?

>>53218379
Is it truly evil? Does it evil? If yes, smite it with all your power. Your God has given you the burden to see through the evil disguise. Paladin's job is to protect the good, the weak, the innocent. Paladin's utmost duty is to smite evil.

To leave evil unpunished, even to show compassion to it is to help it. Nothing is more damning than such sin.

Redeeming is never your job. It's cleric's. A custom of detainment should only be observed if the villain hasn't attacked you, or, worse, murdered innocents first.

Remember: your God lets you know if an orc, a demon or sinister-looking vizier are good with but a look at them. If they are not - they're to be smiten the moment they commit the vile act.

>>53218947
But who cares about the rape babies when you can exterminate them?

>>53218991
Because if I can fall from smiting an evil person who begged for mercy, there should be a point where someone becomes so evil that they will never be redeemed, even if they wanted to.

Otherwise, why even have Paladins as a class if they're not allowed to be paladins?

>>53219151
You do not fall from smiting evil. Ever.
Whoever told you otherwise preys off your gullibility.

>>53218591
did your mouse miss

>>53218379
Your DM is doing wrong.

>>53219231
This is what happened in our recent campaign
>Assail the Dindu's castle and finally meet him in combat
>Tough fight, but between our mages locking his shit and us pummeling him, we manage to bring him down to like 3 HP (which the DM stated after our Rogue landed a sneak attack)
>Start of the new round, DM tells us that the Dindu throws down his weapon and surrenders and claims that he wants to redeem himself.
>Keep in mind, he was responsible for every major atrocity that happened throughout the campaign, leading to over 1000 civilian deaths and widespread famine
>At first, I'm like "fuck you, you're beyond salvation" but then the DM told me that if I killed a surrendered opponent offering to change their ways, I'd fall because I have to show mercy or some shit.
>Cue 1 1/2 session escort mission back to town where we have to defend him from shit.
>Then 2 sessions later, we find out he escaped and razed another village to the ground.
And this is a running theme by the way.

>>53219151
>>53219151
Well even if you do fall, that only makes you a better protector.

An Oathbreaker can do things no Paladin can.

Don't perceive falling as a limitation, but a gateway to becoming ruthless and efficient at cleansing evil.

>>53219383
If I wanted to play an inquisitor, I'd play a fucking inquisitor. I shouldn't have to become evil just to do my job as a good guy defending the weak.

>>53219424
But a good guy can't defend the weak, which includes those that have surrendered.

>>53218379
>dindu

Whatever little credibility you might have had? Gone.

>>53219382
At this point I'd just disregard the DM's shit and kill Dindu. Sometimes you have to be a little bad to be a greater good, even as a paladin.

Hard choices like this make characters interesting, escorting a villain back to town so that he can escape is boring, and even the most devout/single-minded characters can change when challenged.

I think the question here is, why is it so important to you that you play a Paladin that does everything he's told to do?

>>53218379
>"take them to the proper authorities."
"I am the proper authority"

>>53219382
And thus you fell to the villain deceit. Now you know better.

But, if you feel merciful... Wherever in doubt, ask your God - does that person feel remorse? Would it commit further evil? Remember, you can always tell if a person is evil.

>>53219492
It's not my fault that people on this board defend always evil creatures by stating "not all orcs!" in response.

A part of me thinks that it's because monstrous races became playable but for fucks sake, even in books that focus on the exception, it still makes a point of stating that most members of the always evil races are still fucking evil by default.

What's the purpose for punishment? Is it vengeance? Getting rid of them? Rehabilitation? A paladin wouldn't care for the first one, and if someone honestly wants for mercy then you should at least stop and listen - but it doesn't mean you need to just let them get away with all the shit they did.

If there's a good solid prison to throw them into and it's the law of the land, then throw them there. If it's impossible to keep this guy under the bars or you think there's no way he can ever turn to goodness, kill the fucker.

And if your DM makes it so the prison breaks and they get out and go right back to the crime? Well, you gave them a chance and they fucked it up. No more of that shit.

Really I don't get why people think it's so fucking hard, why keep making these threads, why keep bumping them. Being a paladin is easy peasy.

>>53219555
>It's not my fault that people on this board defend always evil creatures by stating "not all orcs!" in response.

I don't think anyone here thinks you should go any easier on them if they do evil shit. You're just strawmanning and projecting your own issues to us.

>>53219547
>Remember, you can always tell if a person is evil.
Apparently not actually.
>Offer to kill all orcs? You can't because #NotAllOrcs!
>Offer to slay local banditry? Can't because they're just doing what they can to survive!
>Offer to slay Dindu who orchestrated the entire plot? Can't because he laid down his weapon and said he feels guilty about it, honest.
Also, there was one time I couldn't even slay a demon because one of the players was playing a NG fiend and this LITERAL PERSONIFICATION OF EVIL GIVEN FORM might be redeemed as that PC was.

It's insane.

>>53219570
Nigga, being a paladin fucking blows.

Everyone wants you to fall but evil gets a free pass because they have a tragic backstory.

>>53219611
Just the other day there was a fucker going on about how wiping out orcs was evil, even though people told him that the book itself said that it was okay if the orcs you're killing were evil.

These bleeding hearts are fucking everywhere nowadays.

Tell me why you won't fall, again?

File: Alignment Gary Gygax Paladins Lawful Good.png (2MB, 674x932px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 674x932px

>>53218379
Your GM is bad and he should *feel* bad.

Repeat after me:
Lawful Good does not mean Lawful Nice.
Lawful Good does not mean Lawful Nice.
Lawful Good does not mean Lawful Nice.

>>53219637
>Offer to kill all orcs? You can't because #NotAllOrcs!
You mean ALL the orcs? Or just the ones doing a bunch of raping and murdering? The former is genocide and genocide is evil.

>Offer to slay local banditry? Can't because they're just doing what they can to survive!
Keep stabbing them until they surrender, then take them to jail.

>Offer to slay Dindu who orchestrated the entire plot? Can't because he laid down his weapon and said he feels guilty about it, honest.
Jail. Also,

>Dindu
Please stop using that word.

>>53219652
Tragic backstories don't excuse for shit:half the party probably was just as badly off, and they didn't turn evil for it. Turning evil was the guy's choice.

Why would he really honestly all of a sudden regret what he did? Put your sense motive (or insight or whatever they call it these days) to work. Maybe leave a weapon around for him and turn your back to him, he'll probably give you the excuse. Or if he really is genuine, take him along and toss him to jail - are you really telling me that isn't a punishment? Jail's a shitty place, especially in medieval times.

Being a paladin is easy, you just suck.

>>53219677
Again - killing orcs doing bad shit is good, going the extra mile to genocide is evil. It says that in the books. This really isn't that hard.

>>53219721
Are you Mr. "I have straight A's in history class" from the alignment thread from a day or so ago?

If not, it's not evil so long as the creatures you're doing it to register as evil

>>53219151
>Because if I can fall from smiting an evil person who begged for mercy

Him begging for mercy is only an opportunity for you to give him the mercy of the blade and send him to be judged by a higher force.

Begging for mercy does not mean that mercy should be given. You took tally of his crimes, you judged him, and you found him wanting.

Sentence: Death. To be carried out post-haste, in accordance to the creed and the laws of justice and the divine orders of the high heavens.

It really is that fucking simple.

>>53219769
I don't frequent alignment threads and I fully acknowledge I know shit of history, but I do know my rules and I can say you're objectively wrong.

If they're just minding their own business, living in their tribe somewhere off and doing nothing to you, marching in and killing them all is evil.

>>53219637
You always can tell. If it does evil, then it's of evil alignment. If it even pings your evil detector then it's meant to be put down as soon as it gives you a just cause to do it. No two ways about it. Grey and Gay morality is for thieves and swindlers, paladin's world is white and black.

Play a Vengeance Paladin.

>>53219790
Orcs were made by a CE god to serve his CE purposes and they frequently go to war with either themselves or other races because they are told that everything belongs to them and everyone else stole it from them.

Orcs are inherently disposed towards being evil bastards anon, doesn't matter if less than 1% of them decided to become a viable member of society, if they come up as evil, they've done SOMETHING to deserve being smote over.

>>53219721
>The former is genocide and genocide is evil.

Wrong. Genocide of an evil race is not evil. It is good. The fact that some of them are not completely evil is irrelevant.

Good and Evil are universal laws and primordial forces of the multiverse. Angels and Solars are intrinsically Good and created from literal Goodness, even though some Angels fall, and their job description is the genocide of demonkind, who are intrinsically evil, even though some of them are redeemed.

Like it or not, feel free to consider alignments stupid and the fact that "Good" and "Evil" were ever added to the classic and much more morally ambiguous axis of Law vs. Chaos, but this is objective fact.

Genocide is Good. Capital punishment can be Good. War in the name of Peace is Good.

>>53219867
>, doesn't matter if less than 1% of them decided to become a viable member of society
Yeah, no.
That's straight up evil.
Even the BoBD says any grandscale killing of evil tends to end up evil because good people get caught in the middle.

I remember a thread a little while ago about whether genocide was evil or not. I'm pretty sure you people were all there too.

Are we just going to repeat that thread? Because it was pretty stupid. I mean I don't think anyone learned anything or changed their minds about anything back then either: it was a waste of everyone's time and so will this be.

Someone, post the "Paladin job is killing evil" paste already.

>>53219790
If they do no evil, nor feel inclined to it should the opportunity provide itself then their alignment wouldn't be evil.

>>53219885
Quite wrong. Genocide has been stated many times in the books to be evil. It's never stated to be good.

At absolute best, genocide is neutral.

See, the thing about that is that it actually creates far more evil than it solves. You've got an army's worth of guys in PTSD for murdering orc babies. Then they will take those issues out on everyone around them, very possibly turning evil themselves - even if they don't, they'll cause significant deteoriation in mental health and put a dent on economy for fixing that, bringing the kingdom to a downward spiral. Pretty evil stuff.

>>53219899
Yeah, when it's done by idiots who don't have LITERAL RADAR THAT DETECTS IF YOU'RE EVIL OR NOT!

Think about it anon, you're playing a class where you have the ability to detect how much evil is radiating off of someone, how the fuck is any *good* orc going to get caught in the crossfire?

>>53219932
>If they do no evil, nor feel inclined to it should the opportunity provide itself then their alignment wouldn't be evil.

Most of the time the assumption is that they do it to each other. They wreck other orc tribes, and other humanoids like gnolls and goblins and such.

Why not let them do that? Why do you need to butt in?

>>53219942
This is why an Oathbreaker works.
Ends to justify the means.

>>53219942
>At absolute best, genocide is neutral.
Good enough.
>You've got an army's worth of guys in PTSD for murdering orc babies.
Such individuals wouldn't be paladins, because in order to become a paladin, you need to be willing to slay ALL evil for the sake of good.

>>53219957
>Ends to justify the means.

But that never works.

>>53219817
Pretty much this. They are on the side of gods and angels. They are not worrying about subjective morality and other bullshit from our society that people try to spew.

>>53219970
Okay then, how about something along the lines of this.
>Monsters kill monsters, paragons of virtue die trying.

>>53219969
>in order to become a paladin, you need to be willing to slay ALL evil for the sake of good

In order to become a paladin, you need to be better than everyone. That doesn't include killing orc babies. That's the easy way out.

The hard way out is to get them adopted and raised as functional members of society. If they turn out to be shitheads, well enough, then you gotta kill them. But you give them the chance.

Just killing them is the same as killing the baby of two serial killers. You wouldn't do that either.

>>53219955
Because they wage war with ANY sentient creatures, whether they're other orc tribes who can take it or a human settlement where the inhabitants don't stand a chance.

You think it's a coincidence that in areas with civil wars, some groups eventually branch out to take resources from neighboring groups?

>>53219867
Is this a metaphor for niggers

>>53219998
if you want to raise baby orcs become a fucking priest. Not a holy warrior for fucks sake.

>>53220020
No one said you have to do it youself. There are plenty of priests to take that bugger off your hands.

>>53218379
Only an issue if your dm is shit.

File: 270px-Paladin_by_yuu_(pixiv)_-_resized[1].jpg (30KB, 270x270px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 270x270px

>>53219790
>If they're just minding their own business, living in their tribe somewhere off and doing nothing to you, marching in and killing them all is evil.

No. If they are Evil, killing them is never Evil. No, not even if they're babies. You might consider it evil, but in this, you're objectively wrong.

If it helps, you can substitute "Good" for "A" and "Evil" for "B", and think of both A and B as assholes, but the fact still remains, no matter what you think about it. Alignment systems do not do relativism and they were never intended to, and any attempt to relativize them has only ended in them being rendered irrelevant due to openness of interpretation.

A Lawful Good Paladin is completely within his rights to judge anything and everything that is literally considered Evil, even if they're in the forest, minding their own business, because by their nature, intrinsically, they are Evil, purveyors and spreaders of Evil, and will not hesitate to eat children and raid villages, or summon daemons.

This is part of the reason alignments are usually stupid and why Paladins easily become one-dimensional characters and pose issues in parties in games where people are trying to play potentially morally ambiguous characters, and why Paladins falling is practically a meme (because most DM:s have a highly subjective interpretation of "evil" completely divorced from the actual nature of Evil).

>>53220013
Closer to sandniggers, really

>>53220045
>You might consider it evil, but in this, you're objectively wrong.
>Alignment systems do not do relativism and they were never intended to, and any attempt to relativize them has only ended in them being rendered irrelevant due to openness of interpretation.

It says in the books that genocide is evil, though.

File: BoBD - Questionable acts on a large scale.png (47KB, 455x266px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 455x266px

>>53219948
You gonna scan every person?
Also, Ao said that gods should calm down and Detect evil now only works on Evil Matter, ie. demons and devils (and yugoloths, but barely anyone uses them).

>>53220045
Care to show any source?

>>53219998
>In order to become a paladin, you need to be better than everyone. That doesn't include killing orc babies. That's the easy way out.
Okay, now I'm sure you're Mr. straight A's in history class because he said this exact same bullshit.

It's neither my responsibility nor my job to take care of orc orphans. My duty is towards the eradication of evil in any form it may take. God gave me the eyes to detect evil and the power to smite it. If your prerogative is to put the lives of evil on the same level as the lives of good, become a cleric and preach your sermons to those who have the patience to listen.

>>53219955
Because a neutral goblin tribe enslaved by them is sick and tired of it, but can't quite run away. Because there's a peaceful gnome village without even the weakest militia just behind the hills to which those tribes rolled over.

>>53220037
So I should steal an entire generation of orc babies and heavily indoctrinate them?

>>53220117
As long as is a good god, yeah.
Go ahead.
The Orc Crusade of Torm will come.

>>53220105
>Okay, now I'm sure you're Mr. straight A's in history class because he said this exact same bullshit.
Or maybe it's not bullshit?

>It's neither my responsibility nor my job to take care of orc orphans.
Again, you don't have to. You just have to do something a little more complicated with them than killing them.

>>53220117
>heavily indoctrinate them
If that's what you call giving them the same decent childhood you would to a human or dwarf child, then yes, I suppose.

Or maybe it just reflects that your own childhood was shit and you're now projecting that to the rest of us.

>>53220094
>You gonna scan every person?
Yes, because my blade is only for the wicked.

>>53220141
Uh... I was thinking along the lines of "Noddite cult of Zarus"

>>53220143
I'm not the OP, just a curious anon trying to do what's right.

>>53220143
Even on a fantasy game where races have different racial traits. he believes that all races are equal and its just a question of teaching and nurturing. Well, Then scrap the whole Good/Evil and Lawfull/Chaotic from the game, it doesnt works for you, specially because killing fathers and mothers and stealing babies so you can set them against their own race is also fucked up then.

>>53220173
>Zarus

You know he's evil, right?

I mean everyone here advocating slaying all the orcs really sounds like a worshipper of Zarus, but Zarus won't have paladins...

>>53220143
>Or maybe it's not bullshit?
No, it's pretty fucking bullshit. It doesn't matter if you feel that it's the "easy way out," because what matters is that evil doesn't have a chance to harm innocent lives. People who purposefully do the hardest option available just because "that way's the easy way out" are fools, because the goal of any community is to fix their problems in the most easy and effective means possible.
>Again, you don't have to. You just have to do something a little more complicated with them than killing them.
And you don't think that raising a group of orphans to hate their own race isn't something an evil person would do? At least by killing them, their souls will automatically avoid punishment like their brethren who fell to my blade.

>>53220191
NODDITE cult, NODDITES, the only ones who actually spare others, and wish to share their culture because they believe it's the best.

File: league_of_angels_cover_art_by_wraithdt-d9b7upf.jpg (249KB, 825x1200px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 825x1200px

>>53219948
>Yeah, when it's done by idiots who don't have LITERAL RADAR THAT DETECTS IF YOU'RE EVIL OR NOT!

I really always hated this part of Paladins, honestly. I feel like reading auras and determining alignment should be some high-level priest magic or some shit like that, a form of divine divination.

The idea that a Paladin, starting out, can just sorta go around and read auras BUT ONLY THE AURAS OF EVIL PEOPLE was always complete and utter horseshit. I don't understand why the mechanic remains.

At best, I'd let a Paladin perform a ritual to see if he can determine, with the aid of his divine patron, if someone is evil or not, and still, they would have issues just walking up to them and stabbing them in the face, because it's sorta hard to prove just exactly they actually did to deserve it.

Could lead to some interesting roleplaying, as well, as the Paladin meets someone he thinks is evil, decides to determine if the person is evil, succeeds, and then looks for evidence so the person can be judged. Or his patron doesn't show him that person at all, but gives him some other mark, somewhere, in the city or nearby, because premonitions and divine visions aren't perfect, and the gods work in mysterious ways, etc.

But at-will detect evil? Horseshit. Utter horseshit, and makes it hard to believe that anyone evil anywhere ever gets into a position of power.

>>53220175
I don't know whether "different racial traits" and "all races are equal" would go against each other any. You can raise a human and an orc together, and the orc will likely be physically stronger but both will have about the same odds of turning out to be a good person.

>>53220201
>People who purposefully do the hardest option available just because "that way's the easy way out" are fools, because the goal of any community is to fix their problems in the most easy and effective means possible.
Yeah, well, it still says in the book that you're wrong, so...

>And you don't think that raising a group of orphans to hate their own race isn't something an evil person would do?
No? Where did I even say that? Most likely those orcs would in fact be raised to do the opposite: to give their own race the chance, for that was the chance they themselves were given and it turned out to be pretty okay.

I mean, telling them to hate all other orcs sounds kind of backwards, doesn't it?

Ok, let's start over.

What problems do any of you have with Oaths?

>>53220216
They don't have that on 5e.
They can sense undead and fiends like a radar though.

>>53220216
>I really always hated this part of Paladins, honestly. I feel like reading auras and determining alignment should be some high-level priest magic or some shit like that, a form of divine divination.
Detect Evil is a divine spell, it's just that paladins get it innately.
>The idea that a Paladin, starting out, can just sorta go around and read auras BUT ONLY THE AURAS OF EVIL PEOPLE was always complete and utter horseshit.
It only works on creatures with 5+ HD though.
>But at-will detect evil? Horseshit. Utter horseshit, and makes it hard to believe that anyone evil anywhere ever gets into a position of power.
Well, there are ways to mask alignment...

>>53220255
>Well, there are ways to mask alignment...
I get that skinning a fiend can mask good, and a good guy could have killed a fiend for Good reasons, but how does anyone look at a guy wearing angel skin and think
>Yep, not evil, must be a gift.

>>53220216
That's the whole point of the paladin class. Protect the innocent, detect the evil, smite the evil.

>>53220239
>Yeah, well, it still says in the book that you're wrong, so...
Yeah, well, it also says that there's exceptions to the rules, so...
>Where did I even say that?
If you raise an Orc in a human society, especially one where the populace has dealt with Orc raids in the past, the Orcs will end up developing a hatred for their own race.

Maybe it's because of the prejudice that they deal with from non-orcs, maybe it's because they can't understand why their race would do something like that, or maybe it's because the person who raised them unwittingly taught them to hate all the qualities that make orcs what they are.

But best believe, they'll hate them, just like any other lawful/good aligned citizen in a lawful/good society.

>>53220239
Except that Charisma, Intelligence and Wisdom are important to be able to function in a society.with law and order. Guess what the dumb and stronger orc would lack by his racials? D&D is eugenic.

File: we have to start over.png (4MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1920x1080px

In war, kill them. Charge through the ranks to kill their leaders. Storm the tower to kill the leader.

If he begs for mercy, demand to know how many of his own enemies HE ever gave mercy. If he continues begging, shrug and turn your back to him. He will try to stab you in the back, allowing you to end him at last.

Then let all the priests and merchants and politicians do their diplomacy thing. Let them forge friendship between the races. Bring a lasting peace and mutual prosperity instead of keeping the downright spiral of death and war going. You're the paladin: your war is over.

How is that so hard?

>>53220271
There are amulets and spells that obscure alignment for the purpose of masking the user from detect X spells that are completely innocuous unless you know anything about magic items.

>>53220074
Genocide in general is. Genocide of evil isn't genocide. Unless you want to argue that Good is literally Evil.

>>53220094
>Care to show any source?
>ctrl-f
>"Gygax"

Also, on the issue of your picture, that refers to people, not intrinsically evil beings. It also refers to the actions of a madman and someone being tricked, and it clearly states that the madman is wrong.

If that "town" is a goblin den, poisoning the well is an act of Good; the danger here lies in the fact that innocents could be hurt due to your carelessness. If you want to make sure, you go in and you put the entire place to the fire and the sword, men, women, and children.

That way, it won't poison some human baby upstream. That being said, even if that would happen, it wouldn't necessarily be evil, since intent actually matters; if you were willfully careless, it's evil, but if you were careful and the child got poisoned by accident, it would not be evil, merely a tragedy.

>>53220348
>ctrl-f
>"Gygax"

Did Gygax ever deal with genocide or baby orc dilemmas at all? The closest I remember him going for is allowing paladins to kill criminals they first had converted to good gods.

If he never said a word about this subject, then I don't think you should bring him up at all. If he did, then surely you can screencap something and provide an actual counterargument that's more than just anons flinging shit?

>>53220348
Good enough, question before I agree or sperg.
If the innocent, even if it was a good family of goblins died because of your purge, would your do his penance?

I've found this question is the main difference between a zealot and and a rabid murderhobo pointed at the tag [Evil].

Should I seriously indoctrinate baby orcs into believing the Noddite way?

>>53220239
>and it turned out to be pretty okay.

This assumes, of course, that it turned out "pretty ok". Your "nurture over nature" bullshit has no place in a multiverse literally governed by concrete laws and where beings are born inherently evil.

Some can overcome it, some can fall, others can redeem themselves, but they are by no means the norm. If it says that the race is Evil, it's Evil, and anyone that isn't is the exception to the rule.

Lawful doesn't do exceptions to the rules.

>>53220248
>Detect Evil is a divine spell, it's just that paladins get it innately.
I know.
>It only works on creatures with 5+ HD though.
I know.
>Well, there are ways to mask alignment...
I know.

None of this is relevant, nor new information. I still think that at-will Detect Alignment (Evil, Good, whatever) is horseshit. I'd place a Paladin at the gate and just have him stare at anyone that enters the city, knowing full well that only those that know how to and have the means to do so will be able to mask their evul.

It's ridiculous, uninteresting, and gives rise to tons of issues for no good reason.

>>53220457
>beings are born inherently evil

They're not, though. Alignments can change and infants are neutral: it's nurture what turns them evil. Otherwise you'd never have a non-evil orc at all.

Pretty sure this is in the books as well.

>>53220283
>That's the whole point of the paladin class. Protect the innocent, detect the evil, smite the evil.

Huge difference between "Protect the innocent, detect the evil, smite the evil", and being able to literally see the alignment of anyone they lay their eyes on if they happen to be evil.

Would be a lot more sensible and interesting (as well as causing a lot less bullshit issues relating to this dogma) if Paladins actually had to work to detect evil, investigate, hunt, and could make mistakes.

Reasonable suspicion should be as much of a thing as nagging doubts.

>>53220454
Any god that takes his fate away from Gruumsh is good enough.
>>53220457
Misquote?

>>53220457
Paladins should be rare and busy smiting real villains, not guarding gates.

>>53220419
No worries, seeing all their friends and neighbors murdered by me would've turned them evil anyway.

>>53220419
Not him. But an goblin is a evil monster. Evil is a tag. So is monsters. There is no good, hardworking, blue collar family of goblins anon. If there is an exception and dont live among their own tribe. You can purge it safely,

>>53218379
Your DM is just shit.

>>53220509
*if there is an exception they dont live among their tribe.

>>53220457
>If it says that the race is Evil, it's Evil
>>53220509
>an goblin is a evil monster

Actually it only ever says "usually evil" or "often evil" with monster races. "Always evil" is reserved for evil outsiders and undead, and even then there's the occasional exception.

>>53220457
That's how D&D is, that's how paladins are. They are knights of good sent to find and vanquish evil. Arguing abut it as pointless as arguing about one spell per day thing.

>>53220509
You're dancing around an issue. Regardless of what you think may have happened or whether it should've been possible, a family of good goblins died because of your crusade.

Will you do your penance?

>>53220550
There is no such thing as a good goblin.

>>53220327
>Did Gygax ever deal with genocide or baby orc dilemmas at all?
No, because most of these problems (as with many D&D problems) started in 3.PF after WotC tried to redefined what each alignment was supposed to be, while keeping each definition vague enough to where 10 different anons could cite 10 different passages and come up with 10 different interpretations for each alignment, yet still somehow be right and wrong at the same time.

Also, back then gamers generally didn't bother with catch-22 nonsense like this because paladins were more limited in material wealth than in permissible actions they could take so long as they didn't violate the spirit of the LG alignment.

>>53220573
In that case Gygax shouldn't be brought up and Book of Vile Darkness is a perfectly valid source. It's the best source we have at hand, yet for some reason people argue against it without providing any evidence.

>>53220550
If they were good goblins then they wouldn't have been detected on my radar nor affected by my smite.

>>53220457
Part of why you can't do that is sheer lack of resources. Paladins require such high stats that you cant waste the few you have on guard duty. That, and there's much more proactive ways to fight evil than being a gate guard.

>>53218379
>muh orc babies

That's what you can blame.

File: d504d8896bd4b6e4fd6aea678a259ed0[1].jpg (109KB, 690x1035px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 690x1035px

>>53220392
>If he never said a word about this subject, then I don't think you should bring him up at all. If he did, then surely you can screencap something and provide an actual counterargument that's more than just anons flinging shit?

Nits make lice, anon. Nits make fucking lice. He's pretty fucking clear in the intentions of Paladins and what Lawful Good entails, combined with the knowledge of Good and Evil as cosmic forces in the setting(s) that employ this alignment system.

>Mercy is to be displayed for the lawbreaker that does so by accident.
>Benevolence is for the harmless.
>PACIFISM IN THE FANTASY MILIEU IS FOR THOSE WHO WOULD BE SLAVES
>They have no place in determining general alignment, albeit JUSTICE TEMPERED BY MERCY IS A NEUTRAL GOOD MANIFESTATION, whilst well-considered benevolence is generally a mark of Good

Justice tempered by mercy is Neutral Good. If you're just out to be a good person, you're Neutral Good. If you're out to follow the letter of your tenets, if you're out there, smiting Evil as a matter of principle and an article of faith, you are Lawful Good.

Ergo, burn that fucking village of *intrinsically* evil beings to the fucking ground, and judge and fucking murderhobo the BBEG to death the second you doubt his sincerity, no matter how much he begs for mercy.

>>53220493
Once again, that's just how paladins are. Lay hands - detect evil - smite evil. Wouldn't be much of a paladin without his signature powers. And what would be the point of restrictions then?
>Would be a lot more sensible and interesting (as well as causing a lot less bullshit issues relating to this dogma) if Paladins actually had to work to detect evil, investigate, hunt, and could make mistakes.
I see your point. Don't play paladins (or allow them to be played) if you want this intrigue to happen. Or make players themselves neither lawful nor good.

>>53220666
Nice try satan, but that only works for OAD&D.

>>53220562
Goblins are sentient creatures with thoughts, andcan make decisions. They have morality, and though most can be considered evil, some may differ.

>>53220666
Why not have a Neutral Good cleric with you to stop you when you go too far and let him do the rest?

File: 1490154097510.jpg (105KB, 500x562px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 500x562px

Guy, guys, come on. We just had this exact same thread yesterday. With some of the exact same people, by the look of certain posts. Each side cited sentences and paragraphs from THE EXACT SAME BOOKS that supported both sides.

Can we please not do this again? It's tiresome. Surely we can argue about literally anything else and give the whole alignment- orc-genocide argument a rest for today?

>>53220594
Gygax is a viable source because he defined the alignment before WotC fucked everything up.

LG was not the same as lawful-nice, you could slay any evil creature you wanted, regardless of whether it begged or if it went down swinging, because the game assumed that the players were capable of policing themselves and determining when a LG paladin was becoming zealous enough to backslide into LN or NG.

Book of Vile Darkness is okay to a point but the thing that fucks it up is that it was written in a language that's too afraid to define what something is without offering exceptions to the rule, like the example where a man could poison a village yet still be good because he was tricked into doing so.

If you can offer a passage that directly states an evil action and why it's evil, I can guarentee that it'll be written in such a way that's not dissimilar to arguments of RAW vs. RAI.

>>53220686
Y'mean the best editions?

>>53220698
But I missed yesterday's!
I only took part of last week's!.
>>53220705
>because the game assumed that the players were capable of policing themselves and determining when a LG paladin was becoming zealous enough to backslide into LN or NG.
in 3.pf, even before the splats defining alignments, this was a problem.

I prefer 5e's method. Things have alignment, but it's a guideline, and very few things are affected by it/ affect it.
>>53220734
>editions
At least google it before replying.

>>53220694
Not a bad idea at all, and a perfectly reasonable thing to do, honestly. Having a gun-ho crusader alongside a mellow and introspective cleric could be a lot of fun.

I'm not saying that a Paladin is forced to act this way; it's just OK if he does, and it's completely within the alignment to do so, as long as he doesn't violate any of his oaths/vows/tenets.

>>53220759
>in 3.pf, even before the splats defining alignments, this was a problem.
That's because 3.PF sucks in every conceivable way, from the way the rules are written to the way the mechanics are designed.
>At least google it before replying.
I thought you were referring to 1e and 2e.

>>53220759
>I prefer 5e's method. Things have alignment, but it's a guideline, and very few things are affected by it/ affect it.

Ridiculous. Alignment shouldn't be a guideline to define your actions. Your actions should define your alignment. Otherwise, throw alignment out completely, both mechanically and fluff-wise, because you've rendered the very point of it useless.

And I don't even like alignment systems.

>>53220806
>Alignment shouldn't be a guideline to define your actions. Your actions should define your alignment.

Mostly agree, but at the very beginning - in chargen and maybe over the first couple sessions - the former might apply. You give your guy an alignment, then you mold him into acting accordingly: then once the character's wheels are running, you can flip it the other way around.

>>53220832
You don't put the carriage in front of the horse and you shouldn't determine your alignment before play unless you're playing a class that has alignment restrictions on them.

>>53220799
It's the starter box, no changes at all, no errata.
And yes, its a good one.
>>53220806
Goes both ways.
If you manage to make friends with your neutral evil goblin guide, and he saves you and starts acting good, he will probably going to change to neutral good.

Same if the Oathbreaker starts rescuing kittens, it swaps, but it's mostly a tool for the DM.
>>53220832
Agree, but I replied first thinking about monsters.

>>53220688
Evil creatures that can make decisions. D&D is a fantasy world. Being Sentient is not a special thing like on our world anon. Even a fucking beholder is sentient.

File: tipsvisor.jpg (1MB, 920x1226px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 920x1226px

That's what you dumb fucks get for not playing grimdark RPGs where everyone is evil with more or less solid excuses for being evil.

>>53220872
>If you manage to make friends with your neutral evil goblin guide, and he saves you and starts acting good, he will probably going to change to neutral good.
That assumes that the NE goblin isn't acting nice to save his sorry ass. Evil people can do good things, but they're still evil people. Paladins know this, and their job is to stop evil people from doing anything by smiting them.

>>53219637
while i'm no fan of the paladin "smitebot" TM
>Also, there was one time I couldn't even slay a demon because one of the players was playing a NG fiend and this LITERAL PERSONIFICATION OF EVIL GIVEN FORM might be redeemed as that PC was.
is just fucking bullshit.

That's pretty much like "maybe we should NOT cure this disease that has culled multiple countries... it could mutate to a cancer curing virus."

Clearly even your settings gods are misguided and the world needs a vanguard of justice (oathbreaker) and a lesson why you do not want the paladin to fall.

also also, talk about it with your GM like grown adults and calmly explain to him that the alignment system removes the aspect of subjective perception from interpersonal moral dilemmas.

Either the alignment system goes or subjective morals go, those two bitches can't share the same room.

File: greaterevil.jpg (30KB, 263x235px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 263x235px

>>53220908
But so long as he's stopped doing evil and is now doing good, even for his own self-serving sake, the paladin can put his judgement on hold and give the guy a benefit of the doubt - if perhaps also sleep with one eye open.

Who knows, perhaps the goblin is genuine, or will be one day.

>>53220872
>If you manage to make friends with your neutral evil goblin guide, and he saves you and starts acting good, he will probably going to change to neutral good.
Nope, redemption is a long and perilous journey that forces you to accept your limitations as a person. That, and evil can do good actions but they're ultimately done for purely selfish reasons that have nothing to do with any true feelings of changing their ways.

Lex Luthor is seen as a philanthropist, yet he does evil shit like making a machine to give normies superpowers and then taking them away from everyone and watching them fall to the earth like human meteorites.

>>53220972
Take it as a short example meant to illustrate a point in few words.

>>53218379
>not playing your paladin modeled after Vimes

>>53220972
>redemption is a long and perilous journey that forces you to accept your limitations as a person

And here we have someone that's started on that road. If he keeps on following it, hard as it may be, then that's great. We are so quick to kill orcs and goblins that anyone that truly redeems themselves should honestly be celebrated.

Besides, why would you kill him if he's helping people out?

>>53221057
The point in the argument wan't about killing him, it was about him still beign evil or not after saving you from a accident (so you can still pay him)

>>53220955
First off:
>OotS
Ugh.
Second, give an evil character an inch and they'll take a mile. Instead of just
>give the guy a benefit of the doubt - if perhaps also sleep with one eye open
why not keep both eyes on him at all times and smite him the first time he slips up OR smite him immediately? You're missing the point of what paladins are supposed to do. Paladins are intended solely to fight evil. Saying that a paladin shouldn't smite evil when they encounter it and instead "give it the benefit of the doubt" is like saying a cleric shouldn't cast Remove Disease on someone that got visibly bit by a zombie because they might make their Fortitude save.

>>53218379
If you have a sensible, non-liberal DM, you will be able to smite the shit out of evil.

>>53221129
What's your definition of a "slip"?

>OR smite him immediately?
Why? What's the point? He's helping. Let him keep helping.

How do so many gm's not realize that the Paladin IS the proper authority.

>>53221396
That's the thing about falling: his god deciding he's not the ultimate authority any longer.

>>53219721
Why the fuck does "dindu" bother you?

>>53221407
Mainly because of abuse or willful harm of a non-evil entity.

>>53221427
Because it immediately associates the whole thing with real-life racial tension and conflict. In the absolute (and rather unlikely) best case scenario, whoever's using it is being lazy in having appropriated a simple single word so that they wouldn't need to properly explain just what the fuck they mean - far more likely it means they're projecting their own real-life issues into the hobby, even melding the two together in a way I find neither desirable no fun: worst case scenario, they would associate orcs with blacks, or perhaps blacks with orcs, in ways that I honestly don't want to get into.

Also it's just kind of an ugly word.

>>53221513
You could've just said that you were a liberal and saved yourself some time.

>>53218379
I've never had a Paladin fall at my table. And I'm not convinced it is anything but a hypothetical problem.

We've had paladin's show weakness, show fear, fail, and take righteous vengeance on evil, but I've never found a legitimate reason to make a paladin fall.

My paladin kills bad guys left and right. I just always check whether I am fighting bad guys, or desperate people driven to evil acts. The DM is usually clear on which is which.
One is there to be helped and redeemed. One is there to get smote.
Evil must be destroyed, but first it must be found.

>>53221561
If only liberals are allowed to keep politics out of their games, then I guess I am one.

I play games to have fun, not to project our real issues into the games as well. Fuck that.

>>53221513
Oh, that's actually a reasonable answer. Wasn't really expecting that.

>>53221611
I'm just saying man, you're the only one ITT who's getting bent out of shape over a word that, for all we know, has nothing to do with racial bullshit.

By bringing up connotations associated with race, YOU inadvertently became the one to make it about racial shit while also comparing African American citizens with the word, as well as orcs by association.

If you didn't want to make it about racial shit, you should've just filtered the phrase and ignored it, but since you didn't, here we are.

>>53220457
I disagree. The ability for a paladin to smell evil is very evocative imagery.
Especially since (at least in the 5th ed I play) it only detects undead and fiends. The foes that more than anything else paladins exist to destroy.

The ability to sense evil forces is a fundamental difference between the paladin and the fighter. I feel it is important. Arguably as important as Lay on Hands and Divine Smite.
I also find it a neat thematic point that human evil isn't something they can sense out. Just Fiends and undead; generally fundamentally awful things (some necromancers aside).
>>53220495
Damn straight. Though any city with enough paladins to have paladin guards is likely some sort of crusader's fortress, and beyond the reach of undead or fiends. Somehow always within the reach of plain old shitty people though.

>>53221737
I don't know whether kindly asking you to stop using the word would constitute as "getting bent out of shape". I believe I gave well enough reasons to why I find the word disagreeable: it does kind of give a certain paint to the entire discussion. It's like you going to war wearing this big black spiked armor that makes your eyes glow red - you kind of give an impression in it.

And anyway, we had most of the thread without that word being brought up even once, until you asked me about it. Now that I've answered, maybe we can go right back to how it was.

>>53221791
Fine, just know for future reference, if something offends you on a personal level, you're better off filtering it and going about your business than trying to tell people why they should've say the word.

Just as the word painted OP in a certain light, so too does your response paint you in a certain light, and if people ITT weren't engrossed in having a discussion, your comment would've caused the whole thread to derail.

You're not going to change minds on an Albanian Apple Dialogue by telling people to stop, it'll only inspire trolls to keep shitposting.

>>53221880
>You're not going to change minds on an Albanian Apple Dialogue

Relevant part quoted.

No one is ever going to change their minds on the Internet.

>>53222476
You're late, we're already done.

For about fifth time this week.

>>53221407
Depends on the god.

>>53219995
>destroy evil or fall trying

>>53223582
Exactly.

>>53218551
>>53220890

Basically this. I don't know about you, but now I just want to kill fucking everything.

File: 1229566348722.png (79KB, 1061x771px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 1061x771px

Moralfags, objectively, cannot be interesting or well-written if played straight.

>>53221737
This is the argument of a sophist child

File: knight_facepalm[1].jpg (25KB, 408x486px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 408x486px

All these people claiming "Oh Genocide is bad, even if it is against Evil!", or " Killing the Evil sorceror who just sodomized and sacrificed all those children to open a rift to Hell is wrong!" really seem to be forgetting what Evil really is. Evil is corruption, it is the Dissolution of all things pure and natural. It is the death of one's soul, the annihilation of all light and purity. If a person has truly succumbed to Evil, it is the obligation of any true Paladin to strike that person down as it would be a mercy. Once Evil has sunken it's roots into you, there is no going back. You belong to it. If you people wish to say that all acts of destroying Evil are wrong, why do you not just willingly let the world be consumed by demonic horrors from the outside. Because surely, all those eldritch nightmares just "did nothing wrong", right? They're just trying to show us their "culture" right?

>>53225471
Basically this."Moralfags" are largely one-dimensional. They never stop to think about what they do, to ponder the meanings of right, wrong, good, and evil. They blindly maintain an arbitrary stance, and never display any hesitation in action. By this, they are unrealistic and unengaging, because they are not human.

The only ways to reconcile this tired archetype is to present situations where the moralfag is either proven to be a fanatic, and thusly becomes a villain or goes insane when their feeble perceptions collapse, or is forced to deeply reconsider his/her naive position for a more guarded, perhaps even hostile, stance.

File: twirlingwedgie.jpg (39KB, 338x450px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 338x450px

>>53218774
>>53218762

But 5th edition is a bland, 1 dimensional game, and anything enjoyable in it comes from the people you play it with.

Don't give wotc urmuny

This all comes down to one question.

>Are Orcs in your setting automatically evil?

Not "are they usually evil?"

Not "are they attacking good people?"

When they're born, are they capable of making moral and good choices?


If so, then genocide is an evil act. Because you're killing good/neutral entities based on what they might do in future.

If they can't decide for themselves and are naturally evil and destructive, they aren't good/neutral, they're Evil. So killing the orc babies is fine.

This doesn't mean you can't kill orcs. Protecting the innocent (or Good) is always more important than protecting the Evil. This doesn't mean you have to let the BBEG go free because he 'promises not to do it again.'

The reason so many people abhor the death penalty IRL is the chance you kill someone who doesn't deserve it. How many people do you know that think executing innocent people is a Good act? Whereas, if someone does something truly abhorrant then a simple "oops, sorry" doesn't cut it.

>>53225735
So you're a paladin, and you march into an orc village to burn it to the ground and kill everyone in it. Why are you doing it?

Are you here to protect people the orcs are threatening?
Are you there to purge evil?
Are you there to kill a bunch of people with no consequences?

If you're defending the innocent, how are the orcs a threat?
If you're there to purge evil, are you sure you're only harming evil?
If you're there for the bloodshed, that's Evil.

>>53221737
I have seen dindu used many, many times as a slur towards black people. Yet you somehow managed to browse 4chan without having heard it in that context?

>>53225471
The only bit in that list I disagree with is killing the villain.

If you're obligated to protect innocents from evil, you're also obligated to use the method which will insure their safety as swiftly as possible. I'm not going to sit around bleating platitudes while the bad guy lays into a crowd of bystanders.

>>53225954
Do you realize how many words have their meanings changed as a result of being overused on 4chan?

>>53225825
>Are you here to protect people the orcs are threatening?
Yes
>Are you there to purge evil?
Yes
>Are you there to kill a bunch of people with no consequences?
No
>If you're defending the innocent, how are the orcs a threat?
They routinely wage wars between themselves and any settlements around them. If left uncheck, they'd eventually begin to raid human settlements as they capture more territory and expand.
>If you're there to purge evil, are you sure you're only harming evil?
Yes, because my God gives me the power to detect if one is evil or not.

That's what you need to understand, the paladin is a paragon of light that sheds brilliance upon the creatures lurking in the shadows. The concept of "gray" is no longer viable when one has the ability to objectively see that one's soul is tainted by the corruption of evil because in order to attain such a malignant aura, you had to have done things that warranted such a shift towards that alignment.

>>53218379
The problem is your DM, not the class, not us.

>>53225471
>1
This point is too vague to argue for or against, especially when you realize that Kenshiro exists in a post-apocalyptic world where raiders routinely have the strength to lift steel girders with their bare hands and show no remorse in slaughtering innocent people.
>2
Again, based on the setting, the chances that these people would change over time is slim to none.
>3
If you wouldn't hesitate to protect a family member, you shouldn't hesitate in protecting innocents if your stance is to protect anyone you come across.
>4
Being predictable is not the same as being unlikeable
>5
Badwrongfun: the point
>6
Only point I can agree with.

>>53219382
It sounds like your DM put all his eggs in one NPC and doesn't know how to engineer a believable escape for him during a fight

I'm sure it's been posted already

And it's been posted a million times, in every thread like this

Regardless, garygygax.wav

>>53220216
I wouldn't mind detect evil if it was just the paladin going "hey I feel some evil shit over in that general direction" or "this place is tainted by a malign presence" instead of just being "Oh yeah that guy is evil"

>>53228151
The sad part isn that everyone forgets that orcs are "always evil" in AD&D.

Oh wait, that's not correct. They ignore that orcs are always evil in AD&D because then he has an actual point and is correct, which offends people.

>>53228151
Paladins are not stupid, and in general there is no rule of Lawful Good against killing enemies. The old adage about nits making lice applies. Also, as I have often noted, a paladin can freely dispatch prisoners of Evil alignment that have surrendered and renounced that alignment in favor of Lawful Good. They are then sent on to their reward before they can backslide.

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is by no means anything but Lawful and Good. Prisoners guilty of murder or similar capital crimes can be executed without violating any precept of the alignment. Hanging is likely the usual method of such execution, although it might be beheading, strangulation, etc. A paladin is likely a figure that would be considered a fair judge of criminal conduct.

The Anglo-Saxon punishment for rape and/or murder of a woman was as follows: tearing off of the scalp, cutting off of the ears and nose, blinding, chopping off of the feet and hands, and leaving the criminal beside the road for all bypassers to see. I don't know if they cauterized the limb stumps or not before doing that. It was said that a woman and child could walk the length and breadth of England without fear of molestation then...


Chivington might have been quoted as saying "nits make lice," but he is certainly not the first one to make such an observation as it is an observable fact. If you have read the account of wooden Leg, a warrior of the Cheyenne tribe that fought against Custer et al., he dispassionately noted killing an enemy squaw for the reason in question.

I am not going to waste my time and yours debating ethics and philosophy. I will state unequivocally that in the alignment system as presented in OAD&D, an eye for an eye is lawful and just, Lawful Good, as misconduct is to be punished under just laws.

>>53228170
Lawful Neutrality countenances malign laws. Lawful Good does not.

Mercy is to be displayed for the lawbreaker that does so by accident. Benevolence is for the harmless. Pacifism in the fantasy milieu is for those who would be slaves. They have no place in determining general alignment, albeit justice tempered by mercy is a NG manifestation, whilst well-considered benevolence is generally a mark of Good." -Gary Gygax 2005

>>53218379
> Was it easier to play a Paladin back then when, barring outright breaking your code and hostile actions against good aligned individuals, you were free to pretty much smite whatever evil creature you wanted without impunity?

> I hate how limp-wristed paladins have become, to where you can't even kill an evil-aligned creature anymore if the DM forces to use mercy and "take them to the proper authorities."

But I AM PROPER AUTHORITY

>>53218379
In all my time of gaming, I have never seen a GM even comment on a paladin smiting evil alligned creatures.

I have only seen a couple of paladins fall. One because she started worshipping demons, another because he broke several rules of his deity for very weak reasons.

>not considering yourself the proper authority

dude.

>>53225825
>Sucking nietzsches dick so hard, you fail to see the implications of good and evil becoming objective

>>53218379
don't play with shit DMs

File: 1489612614674.jpg (274KB, 1100x804px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 1100x804px

>Goblins are born ev-

Just play a fucking hacknslash murderhobo module, you FUCKING RETARD!

>>53218947
It's not a Paladin problem it's a your DM is a shit DM problem.

>>53228403
>having a dead jew god corpse stuck so far up your arse, you can't even see that the only thing in the world that is objective is the raw materiality of existence

>>53228924
>trying to apply real life philosophy into a fantasy realm meant for group fun

>>53219382
Did any of you roll to see of he was lying? Insight exists for a reason, and surrendering to not get killed when you're clearly defeated is the automatic go to when the people about to kill you have a Paladin.

Yeah, we've had this exact same shit about good and evil for about five times this week, and that's just the threads I've seen.

I can guarantee that A) it's always the same people involved, and B) none of them ever change their minds or learn anything of the experience, just trying to smash their own "objective" philosophy through the thick skull of the opposite.

Why do you people even bother? It's honestly pretty baffling.

>>53228931
Who's to say you can't have fun with philosophy?

One of my favourites personally is a platonian wizard trying to reach the true meaning of things.

>>53228952
I mean you can do it, so long as you make sure to base it into the fantasy realm you're from. If you just copy-paste your favorite real-world philosophy, you'll be spending the game sucking your own dick and no one wants to deal with that.

>>53228952
i would play that kind of wizard

>>53218947

I think the answer is to penetalize evil entities for acting good as harshly as you penatalize a good character for acting evil.

File: ROBOCOP.jpg (51KB, 600x270px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 600x270px

>>53218379

This is how I Lawful Good.

>>53218379
That's how I let my paladins play. I currently have a player who is honestly ruthless. He took a murderous cultist to the proper authorities to get a verbal confession for the promise of staying alive and then slaughtered him right in front of the guards after they heard what the cultist had to say.

I always view paladins as more of a weapon of good. Theres so much crazy evil shit in the fantasy world that a rough paladin is necessary. If you want to play nice, be a cleric and worship a lawful good god.

File: 1417275365faiM'ladyintensifies.jpg (32KB, 460x481px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 460x481px

>>53228924
9/10 for this jump to conlusions.

>Oh no another person is using a neutral argument for a imaginary setting and i feel like my personal view on morals has been attacked. Now i could spend ten seconds to think about what he meant, oorrrr... i just assume his motivation is based from one of the two major religions, that will show him my intalectual superiporiti.

>>53219611

Bullshit, /tg/ was infested for a long time with "hurr durr no you can't kill all the orcs you have to raise the babies and make them snowflake LG paladins hurr durr" faggots.

>>53232531
To be fair, those mostly operated on the basis that those "might" become neutral at least and the "evilness" of the orcs was cultural..
The silent agreement was that they get killed to if they stay evil.

>>53232531
>>53232557
One question, is it genuinely possible to raise Orcs the Noddite way?

>>53232591
Depends on the setting, if orcs are inherently evil it comes down to the individual paladin when it comes to smite / not smite orc baby.
Both are justified.
If orcs are evil by culture the babys should not ping as evil and so the only conclusion is "not smite".

>>53219721

Walking every bad guy out of the wilderness to jail is a stupid idea. Did he do it? Yes. Would he likely receive capital punishment for his deeds? Again, yes. If anyone is authorized to be an executioner here and save the taxpayer time and money, it's a Paladin.

>>53218551
There is oath of vengeance in 5e for edgelords like you. Practically no restrictions to being Boring McSmitebot (which has always been a shitty way of playing a paladin and would sensibly cause you to fall in many editions). And a paladin falling in 5e is so hard it practically must be the player's choice. On "earlier editions" paladins got their power from gods and were restricted to being LG, so I don't know why you would think that gives you more freedom

>>53221611
>gets bent out of shape and starts policing "loaded" language because of a word
>keep politics out of their games

You and other cultural marxists are the ones shoving politics into anything and everything.

>>53221753
>Especially since (at least in the 5th ed I play) it only detects undead and fiends.

Detecting only undeads and fiends is fine. That's absolutely not what I was talking about. I was talking about literally seeing evil auras, all the time.

Detecting Fiends and the Undead is perfectly fine, and a completely different thing.

>>53221753
>enough paladins
Like, 2? 4 at most.

>>53218379
>mommie the baddie DM won't allow me to be a lawful stupid murderhobo anymore
Maybe you should just find a group that shares your peculiar way of thinking?
There are plenty of groups out there whose campaigns are essentially mental masturbation.

>>53233979
>Punishing Evil for their crimes
>Murderhobo'ing
I bet you're the type who equates spanking a child with child abuse.

>>53220216

So you're a bad DM, good to know.

>>53219970

Yes, it actually does in real life and not fiction crammed full of Hollywood propaganda and social engineering. Look at America in World War II. Wiped two cities off the fucking map with two bombs and saved countless lives by doing so.

>>53235530
Why? Because I don't enjoy Paladins being able to simply see anyone with evil alignment at will? Or anyone simply seeing anyone's alignment at will, really. Don't be daft.

File: Hitler Ritter.png (7MB, 1521x1537px) Image search: [Google]

7MB, 1521x1537px

>>53219885
>tfw you can play this and be objectively good
That's why I dislike D&D's morality and especially Paladins. Too soon.

>>53236732
Hitler didn't limit his genocide to evil races though, in a D&D campaign he would've fallen the moment he started executing people who disagreed with his methods.

I'm not even going to get into the implications of you equating Jews to a chaotic evil race such as Orcs

>>53236816
I wasn't talking about Jews. But you can take his speeches and books, replace any untermench race with CE of your liking, and everything will be a-ok.

>in a D&D campaign he would've fallen the moment he started executing people who disagreed with his methods.
Can't you bullshit your way around it by saying that your eyes tell you who is evil, and being compassionate to evil is being complicit?

>>53218379
>In earlier editions, Paladins were only restricted in material goods but now? It feels like they inherently clash with the concept of adventuring parties by default.

Wut? In older editions, you literally couldn't associate with anyone who was not Good/Law aligned unless it was for a very short time to achieve a very specific goal. That's pretty restrictive if you ask me.

I never new how to resolve it since it stops a paladin from being able to be in most parties. Recently the players have all just been lying to the paladin about there alignment so they can keep him around for his strength. They don't have detect evil so its worked so far. I may find a way to change it to something more fun in the future though.

>>53236883
>I wasn't talking about Jews. But you can take his speeches and books, replace any untermench race with CE of your liking, and everything will be a-ok.
You're obviously confused or very stupid. You can't equate an IRL dictator's actions with a fictional character that lives in a world where evil is not only an objective force, but also one that can be detected from a class ability.
>Can't you bullshit your way around it by saying that your eyes tell you who is evil, and being compassionate to evil is being complicit?
No, because even if someone sympathizes with evil, that alone won't make their aura show up as evil. If it did, then pacifistic clerics who abhor violence would technically be considered evil for wishing no ill-will against anyone, even people who deserve it. So again, you're obviously confused or very stupid.

>>53236816
>Hitler didn't limit his genocide to evil races though

Ignoring the fact that there was no such thing as the Holocaust, that Germany was in no way responsible for WW2, and that Hitler quite literally did nothing wrong, even by publicly known common myth.... yeeaaaah, if it had happened it was limited to evil races and people.

>>53236967
>You can't equate an IRL dictator's actions with a fictional character that lives in a world where evil is not only an objective force, but also one that can be detected from a class ability.

Evil was objective to him, and he ostensibly had morality of a holy warrior on a crusade.

>Just as the night rises against the day, the light and dark are in eternal conflict. So too, is the greenskin the greatest enemy of the good races of earth. The greenskin is a biological creature, crafted by evil, which has hands, legs, eyes and mouth, even the semblance of a brain. Nevertheless, this terrible creature is only a partial humanoid being.
Although it has features resembling a man, the greenskin is lower on the spiritual and psychological scale than any animal. Inside of this creature lies wild and unrestrained passions: an incessant need to destroy, filled with the most primitive desires, chaos and coldhearted villainy.

Not quite my cup of tea.

>>53236964
>In older editions, you literally couldn't associate with anyone who was not Good/Law aligned unless it was for a very short time to achieve a very specific goal.
False: Paladins can work with non-LG individuals in 2e so long as they weren't obviously evil and/or legitimately trying to amend their ways.

Later editions were the ones that made it more of a "but thou must" thing, and that can be blamed on morons who don't understand what Paladins actually are.

>>53237108
>that Germany was in no way responsible for WW2
You're actually right on this point. The root cause of WW2 was the treaty of Versailles causing a disproportionate amount of suffering upon the German people which would eventually give rise to the NAZI party taking control of the government.

So if you want to be technical, France is the root cause of WW2, not Germany.

>>53237135
>2e is the oldest edition
That's what your post implies, but I know you can't actually be that dumb, right?

File: sarajevo-murder.jpg (125KB, 668x497px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 668x497px

>>53237167
Yeah, but you know who's responsible for that?

>>53237125
>Evil was objective to him, and he ostensibly had morality of a holy warrior on a crusade.
Yet he lacked the ability to detect evil energy within others, which meant that anything he did was done for personal reasons rather than in the name of objective good.

Also, your argument falls apart the moment you realize that Orcs were not only created in a universe where evil can be objectively measured, but were also created by a CE god for the sole purpose of spreading chaos and disarray throughout the land. If good Orcs do exist, their auras wouldn't come up as Evil, which means that they'd most likely be living among other non-Evil races and wouldn't be put to the slaughter in the first place.

Once more, you're obviously confused or very stupid, though at this point I'm willing to bet that you're both in equal quantities.

>>53237171
Well in 1e the closest thing it had to LG was the "Lawful" alignment, and even then it only meant that on the general axis of the universe, you were more aligned to angels than demons.

But I know you already knew that, right?

File: 1e alignment.png (305KB, 378x863px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 378x863px

>>53237266
1e already had "Good" and "Evil".

>>53237296
Which version is that though? I know in B/X there was only Lawful-Neutral-Chaotic alignments.

>>53237319
When you say "1e" you mean "1st edition AD&D", which is quite distinctly different from B/X.

>>53237245
Yes, D&D is game where rhetorics of Hitler, slightly adjusted, are objectively right. That's why I dislike it.

>Orcs were not only created in a universe where evil can be objectively measured, but were also created by a CE god for the sole purpose of spreading chaos and disarray throughout the land.
>The greenskin is a biological creature, crafted by evil, which has hands, legs, eyes and mouth, even the semblance of a brain.
>Inside of this creature lies wild and unrestrained passions: an incessant need to destroy, filled with the most primitive desires, chaos and coldhearted villainy.

>>53237349
Ah, my bad. I'm still getting into OSR and I'm still getting used to the various distinctions of the older D&D editions.

IIRC, there's red box, black box, Moldvey, B/X, and...that's all I can recall off the top of my head ATM.

>>53237360
But that's all wrong.

>>53237360
Beyond how fucking stupid your position is, you shouldn't equate stances based off of objective morality with IRL issues based off of subjective morality.

If the first thing you think about when thinking of D&D Paladins is Hitler, that says more about you than it does about the concept within the context of D&D's world.

>>53237266
AD&D had good and evil. Older editions didn't but that's why in my original post I wrote:
>Anyone who was not Good/Law aligned
Because I was describing the original 3 step alignment system. While the Law is the correct way to refer to it, it roughly equates to what people traditionally think as Good. Chaos is also referred to as Evil in spells so I thought it would be tactful to call it use describe it as Good/Law meaning you can call it either one. Not as a combination of the two on the 9 step alignment system. So yeah I know what I'm talking about.

File: editions_of_DD_graphic.png (229KB, 911x1470px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 911x1470px

>>53237266
>>53237508
Continuation:
Assuming by 1e you meant 1e AD&D. Just using numbers to describe the editions is gross because how many more editions of D&D there are.

>>53237559
>>53237508
as I said here >>53237370
I'm just getting into OSR and I thought that B/X was a part of 1e. I apologize for the confusion and will say that I was mistaken in assuming that 2e was the edition that introduced the 2nd axis for alignment.

With that being said, thank you for the primer so that I can avoid this mistake in the future.

This has always been a problem since Paladins were introduced as a class.

Originally paladins were LG only and were thought to be unbalanced if they were allowed to stray even slightly from their alignment.

The simple thing to do then is to just to ask the DM if what you want your paladin to do is within the DMs interpretation of LG.

It seems no one can really agree on what alignments ever meant. Did they reflect modern morality, medieval morality, a characters cultural morality, or (most likely) the DMs personal belief of good and evil. It was no biggie for others but a Paladin would become fallen.

>>53218551
First, the whole point of being a paladin is accepting the limitations of being one and roleplaying around that. Those limitations are rules that your deity imposes on you - you make an oath to not do certain things and work as its champion and the deity will give you divine powers in exchange.
If you can't outright kill someone Evil because your god is going to condemn you for not giving that someone a change to redeem itself. If your character doesn't agree with that, then why did he make that oath in the first place? Why didn't you choose some other god that have no problems with instant death sentences? Deities come in many flavors, each deity with its own set of rules.

Yes, following rules makes you inherently inferior than someone Evil, because Evil don't follow rules unless it benefits them. Its like playing a game of chess with less pieces than your adversary.

If you're already playing a paladin and realize that's a huge problem, there are alternatives.
You could roleplay a paladin that stops believing in his deity's way of doing things and break his oath, perhaps converting to a different deity that is more to your taste, or you could multiclass into something else more fitting, paladins can make interesting multiclassed characters.

Anyway just use your imagination.

>>53237845
>This has always been a problem since Paladins were introduced as a class.

Not really. It usually works out well because most players aren't insipid autists.

>>53237619
Yeah, no problem. Most people are grossly misinformed about all the editions of D&D anyways, so any attempt to get to know more makes me very happy. If you want to know more about the history of the game (like everything there is to know) I recommend reading "Playing at the World" by Jon Peterson.
It's a bit too lengthy and comprehensive for just a casual read though. If you keep getting into OSR or just want to know how RPGs came to be, it's fantastic if you have the time.

I never played paladins myself.

I was just remembering old Dragon magazine forum letters which would debate this stuff for months. So I guess these guys were the autists.

I always thought it would be simple enough to ask the DM if my characters action would be within his interpretation on the alignment.

That was really my point. It seems no one asks this.

>>53237856
>First, the whole point of being a paladin is accepting the limitations of being one and roleplaying around that.
So the limitations of being a paladin include not being able to stamp out evil when it's smart enough to parlay when it loses?
>If you can't outright kill someone Evil because your god is going to condemn you for not giving that someone a change to redeem itself.
Even when it's obvious that they are fundamentally irredeemable and have sins that are too heavy to allow them to truly repent? This wasn't a dude who was a thief to kill his family, this was a tyrant who used innocent people as disposable pawns just to gain favor in a local kingdom.

At what point does the universe just go "y'know what senpai, fuck this guy, smite at will!" or something? Because as it stands, I could literally be a baby raping mass murderer and still find some fag going on about how I'm misunderstood while any Paladin who smites me will be treated as literally Hitler.

>>53237965
But the DM is wrong.

>>53238008
>So the limitations of being a paladin include not being able to stamp out evil when it's smart enough to parlay when it loses?

What's the point of killing him? He's through.

What you need to make sure is A) he's not going to do any more of that shit, which doesn't necessarily require killing him, and B) that the families and loved ones of his victims are taken care of, with an optional C) of rehabilitating the villain back to society.

Just flat-out killing him without taking these into consideration is revenge, and paladins don't deal with revenge.

>>53237965
Most DM's know just as little about this shit than the players/devs do though. In fact, the whole business that started this thread was because the BBEG begged for mercy and the party was railroaded into taking him to the authorities, just so he could bail out and slaughter more innocent people.

>>53235434
Having to deal with all the complications of having to observe a strict code of conduct is half the fun of playing a paladin.
If you just want to hit things with an oversized sword, play a fighter instead.

>>53238053
>Just flat-out killing him without taking these into consideration is revenge

No, it isn't. It's classic Anglo-Saxon justice - righteousness bringing swift death to evil.

I get it. You like milquetoast pseudo-utilitarian "modern" good. You're baizuo. That's fine for your game; but it's not what historical, Gygaxian, Kantian, consequentialist, or virtue-ethics good entails, and classic paladin players usually prefer one of those flavors.

>>53238118
>classic paladin players usually prefer one of those flavors.

How about the next time this exact same thread is made - I'm forecasting tomorrow - we'll add a strawpoll to the OP? Then we'll see. Because I don't believe you.

>>53238053
>What's the point of killing him? He's through.
>what is the point of justice

>>53238053
>What's the point of killing him?
He slaughtered innocent people and had no compunctions or remorse for doing so. He also immediately went back to killing the moment that he escaped from prison.

People like him are neither capable of rehabilitation, nor or are worthy of mercy when their actions caused such tragedies throughout the land that their aura is tainted by the stench of evil caused by the sins of their crimes.

If you want to argue about rehabilitation, keep such discussions within realms where morality is less than objective.

>>53238107
Any complications that a Paladin faces should not interfere with their jobs of erradicating all evil they find the moment they find it.

I'm not advocating death because I enjoy it, I'm advocating death because of the circumstances, which dictate that these individuals deserve no quarter for the suffering that they've caused to others. You don't ping evil from kicking a puppy or stealing candy one time when you were a child, it's something that entails chronic and deliberate actions that involve harming innocents who have done nothing to deserve such treatment.

If you want to give mercy to those who don't deserve, that's your perogative, but my god gave me the ability to judge those who are tainted by evil for their crimes against humanity, they deserve justice through a quick and painless death from my holy weapon.

>>53220573
I refuse to believe that Alignment arguments did not happen in pre-3.PF days. And if what you're saying is true I demand a written apology from everyone who played D&D ever.

>>53238011
How is the DM wrong? They are going to bring what their concept of a paladin should be into the game.
>>53238067
They know what they want a paladin to be in their campaign. They may be a shitty DM and thats what I think they are doing in that situation you described. That is the reason I always avoided paladins. People often act like asses and for DMs it seems they can't resist fucking with paladins by railroading them.

>>53238128
Count the number of posts supporting Paladins killing evil vs. the bleeding hearts who think that you should always show mercy.

The former is much larger than the latter.

>>53238141
>He also immediately went back to killing the moment that he escaped from prison.

That changes the whole thing then, doesn't it?
You gave him the chance he didn't deserve, and he blew it. Now you kill the fucker.

>People like him are neither capable of rehabilitation, nor or are worthy of mercy when their actions caused such tragedies throughout the land that their aura is tainted by the stench of evil caused by the sins of their crimes
What do you mean with "people like him"?

>If you want to argue about rehabilitation, keep such discussions within realms where morality is less than objective.
Objective morality doesn't mean an evil-aligned guy is going to be 100% certain to break out of prison and continue his reign of terror. That right there makes two assumptions, but if you think there's a reasonable chance of both being true, then you shank the motherfucker.

But if you think there's a chance he can be kept away long enough to see the error of his ways and become a decent person, then it is far better for the objective Good that he is given that chance: stamping out Evil is all very well, but adding a bit of Good in is better.

It's like you said - morality is objective in this realm.

>>53238231
The only thing that proves is that you are more vocal. If that meant you were also the most numerous, it would call the same of antivaxxers and flat-eart theorists.

>>53225721
>Im-fucking-plying that you don't need a fun group to have fun in an RPG

>>53238216
Alignment problems generally didn't happen pre-3.PF because the alignment system as a whole was meant as a loose guideline and made it clear that shifts in alignment only occurred in instances where one repeatedly performed actions that went against the tenets of their alignment.

3.PF is where this shit hit a fever pitch because now, not only were alignments written to be more objective in what they represented but classes could also lose their abilities for not following their alignments closely enough. It has to do with the language that 3.PF was written, it tries categorizing every possible instance that could show up in a campaign but the wording on some things is so vague that 10 people could find 10 different definitions for certain wordings within the rules; hence RAW vs. RAI.

Then in later editions, they realized that they fucked up in 3.PF and made alignment as hands-off as possible without removing them altogether.

>>53238261
>ITT enjoying traditional paladins means you are an anti-vaxxer having badwrongfun

You do you m8.

>>53238218
>How is the DM wrong?
Because he railroaded the party into sparing the BBEG by abusing the wording on the paladin's code even though the paladin (as well as the party) was within their rights to kill him for his crimes during the campaign.

It's one thing if it added something to the campaign but what he did was purely out of spite for the group beating his end-boss too early while forcing them to take 1 1/2 sessions to resolve a sidequest that shouldn't have happened in the first place.

>>53238372
I'm just saying that being vocal doesn't make you being the majority.

>>53238232
>You gave him the chance
No, we were FORCED to escort him back to civilization while defending him from several peasants who lost family because of him, only to be told later that not only did he escape but he went right back to killing people all over again.
>What do you mean with "people like him"?
People who view others as pawns in their sick games and have no remorse for the lives that they've ruined because of their actions.
>Objective morality doesn't mean an evil-aligned guy is going to be 100% certain to break out of prison and continue his reign of terror.
Objective morality states that he earned a smiting by doing enough evil shit for his aura to ping on my paladin-senses.
>stamping out Evil is all very well, but adding a bit of Good in is better.
I am under no obligation to rehabilitate evil, they made their choice and will now suffer the consequences of their actions. Not only that, but their deaths weaken the pull of evil within this realm.

>>53238446
>No, we were FORCED to escort him back to civilization while defending him from several peasants who lost family because of him, only to be told later that not only did he escape but he went right back to killing people all over again.
That's just your DM being terrible and it sounds like you're pulling too far to the other direction in your anger.

>I am under no obligation to rehabilitate evil, they made their choice and will now suffer the consequences of their actions.
You're under no obligation if it were impossible, but if it is possible and you know it, you should try. As a paladin you strive for the greatest good possible.

>Not only that, but their deaths weaken the pull of evil within this realm.
Yeah, but wouldn't it be neat if you could also strengthen the pull of good within the realm at the same time?

>>53238399
I don't care about the majority, I care about having fun with my group, which entails LG exemplifying traditional, philosophically consistent virtues.

If you like pretending CN is actually LG, or rolling for anal circumference, or kitsunes errywhere, great. Have at it.

>>53238399
>>53238261
Well by that logic, why even make a straw poll in the first place? It's not like they're any better in judging the general opinion of shit.

>>53238008
Yes.
I feel like you're replying to me without even reading my post. But I'm a highschool teacher and I am used to repeating the same thing over and over again to kids, so let me try again:

Wizards get their powers by memorizing complex magical formulas and reciting magical words and performing gestures.
Warlocks get their powers by making a pact with some powerful magical being.
Paladins get their powers by swearing an oath to some divine dude and following his laws.

If you're a paladin and you follow a deity that demands you to bring the Evil guy to justice then you're obligated to do that if you want to keep receiving divine powers from that deity. You won't become Evil by killing a mass murderer, you're just breaking an oath you did to some divine jerk so he would imbue you with his powers in exchange.
Helm and Lathander might condemn you for killing that Evil guy without giving him a change to change his evil ways. But Selune or Sune would probably have no problem with it.

Next time choose you deity more carefully.

There is no such thing as someone who is fundamentally irredeemable, people can learn and change the way they think and view the world around them. Unless they are mentally disabled. The only beings that can be considered fundamentally irredeemable are devils and demons.

You wouldn't be treated as Hitler, in fact I think people would even praise you highly for doing it. But that divine douchebag you follow would be displeased because you broke a promise you did to him.

Its not the universe that will be displeased at you, just the god you follow.

Come on, its not that hard to understand.

>>53238508
There's a far smaller threshold in simply clicking what you think than making a long and coherent argument for its sake.

>>53238497
>I don't care about the majority, I care about having fun with my group, which entails LG exemplifying traditional, philosophically consistent virtues.

Then we perfectly agree. Good.

>>53238496
>That's just your DM being terrible and it sounds like you're pulling too far to the other direction in your anger.
I'm angry because this is the same sort of shit I've seen anytime I, or others, decided to play Paladins, you can see it ITT. Paladins are no longer the judge, jury, and executioner standing against the tide of evil within the realms, now they're basically Clerics with less wiggle room, less spells, and planned obsolescence.
>You're under no obligation if it were impossible, but if it is possible and you know it, you should try.
No, because if this person wanted to be good, they wouldn't have kept going after they engineered the first Orc raid that slaughtered a village.
>Yeah, but wouldn't it be neat if you could also strengthen the pull of good within the realm at the same time?
It would, but it's not a risk that I'm willing to take, especially when failure could result in the deaths of more innocents. I can gamble my own life, but not the lives of others.

>>53238540
>There's a far smaller threshold in simply clicking what you think than making a long and coherent argument for its sake.
It's also trvially easy to fix those polls in your favor simply by having a dynamic IP or some sort of spambot.

>>53238384
I agree. This is a shitty DM. I said this here>>53238218
And I said this was a problem all the way from the beginning here>>53237845

>>53238567
>I'm angry because this is the same sort of shit I've seen anytime I, or others, decided to play Paladins, you can see it ITT.
Maybe all your games are just shit because I've never seen this. I only hear legends of it on /tg/. And me and my groups play a lot of paladins.

>No, because if this person wanted to be good, they wouldn't have kept going after they engineered the first Orc raid that slaughtered a village.
Obviously they don't want to be good now. They just want to get away from being smitten by you and you're a naive moron if you think otherwise. Maybe he'll think to bribe the judges on his side and to get away with it fine.
So you make sure none of that happen and maybe he'll come around. Who knows. Worth a shot.

>It would, but it's not a risk that I'm willing to take, especially when failure could result in the deaths of more innocents. I can gamble my own life, but not the lives of others.
If you're a true servant of a good god, then are you not strong enough to look after this one faggot for a little while instead of taking the easy way out and just killing him? Or will you admit weakness?

File: 1387086264865.jpg (48KB, 392x500px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 392x500px

>>53238528
>I'm a highschool teacher
Stopped reading right here. If you have a point to make, don't try and add needless qualifications to an argument being made on a Canadian Bacon Chatline, it serves no purpose and the only people who do this are the type with more ego than good points to make.
>inb4 you're ignoring me, you obviously have no argument
Whether or not I choose to read your wall of text and respond to it is entirely upon whather I feel as though the argument being made is worth engaging. Next time, keep it short and leave the resume in the bin where it belongs.

>>53218419
It's funny how near to correct this anon is going to be, except there are even more posters.

Maybe your paladin wants to take the guy to see lawful justice? That's fine.
Or maybe your paladin would rather decide he deserves precisely the amount of mercy he gave to his own enemies - that is to say, none at all? That's fine too.

A good DM will accommodate to either and will use them as a springboard for further adventure and fun. In the former case there may be courtroom shenanigans.
A bad DM will apply his own subjective morality to the game and cause the paladin to fall if they make the wrong choice. A worse still DM will railroad.

OP had the shittiest DM. Probably not worth starting a heated argument over.

>>53238692
>And me and my groups play a lot of paladins.
There's a difference between playing with friends and playing with random people anon. With that being said, I'm happy that you have a good group.
>So you make sure none of that happen and maybe he'll come around.
It's much faster, efficient, and logical just to slay evil anon rather than bet the lives of others on the 1:1,000,000 chance that he actually changes his ways.
>If you're a true servant of a good god, then are you not strong enough to look after this one faggot for a little while instead of taking the easy way out and just killing him?
It's not my job to look after one instance of evil while there are other instances of evil to protect the land against. If you want to focus on rehabilitation, talk to the Clerics.

>>53218379
Depends on the game and setting, OP.
In some settings of D&D, something like a paladin was the closest thing to a fair and just arbiter of law the world had. However, what you are saying is also twisted up in how people played paladins, not how they were intended or interpreted.
The paladin falls trope is based on exactly what you are talking about, how a paladin could seemingly commit acts that if done by others, would be cruel, but got a pass for it, and if held to the same standard of what is being a goodly man, would lose their mandate.

>>53238768
>There's a difference between playing with friends and playing with random people anon.
Are you implying that unless we follow your pattern of morality we are not true friends? Or that I am too much of an autist to have friends myself? That's rather harsh of you.

>It's much faster, efficient
Paladins deal not with speed and efficiency. That's for merchants, politicians, and other neutrals. Paladins make the hard calls.

>It's not my job to look after one instance of evil while there are other instances of evil to protect the land against. If you want to focus on rehabilitation, talk to the Clerics.
So find one. There's plenty around.

Does anyone have a quote from a rule book that describes paladins as having to refrain from killing evil things if they surrender/parley? This seems to be the crux of what a lot of people don't like, but I don't think I've ever seen it an a book. Is this just an expectation that the player base evantually developed?

In my mind paladins despise anything evil and would jump at the chance to slay enemies of Law. To be fair I mostly run older systems with a sword and sorcery feel, but I don't think Ive ever played in game where people demanded that paladins be like this either. What planted this seed in people's minds?

>>53238810
>Are you implying that unless we follow your pattern of morality we are not true friends? Or that I am too much of an autist to have friends myself?
No, I'm saying that there's a difference between playing with friends who know each other's playstyles and reasons for why do what they do and randoms who have no obligation to play nice with others who share a differing opinion. This isn't a personal attack, so stop treating it like it is.
>Paladins make the hard calls.
And the hard call in this situation is judging an evil man to a death sentence for the crimes that they made against others, which most people wouldn't be able to do.
>So find one.
No, if I'm standing in front of you and I detect that your aura bleeds Evil, it's already too late for talk or redemption.

>>53238876
>Does anyone have a quote from a rule book that describes paladins as having to refrain from killing evil things if they surrender/parley?
It's an extraction of the rule "Must act honorably at all times" following the classic chivalry tradition, same as not using poison.

>>53238697
>being a highschool teacher in a third world shithole
>a qualification
>especially when we're discussing mechanics of make-believe cooperative storytelling games
I just wanted to point out that I'm used to repeating myself to people who have a hard time understanding stuff.

If you want to use that as an excuse to run away from this discussion. Sure, go ahead.
Just try to use your your brain a little more the next time you play a paladin.

>>53238886
>No, I'm saying that there's a difference between playing with friends who know each other's playstyles and reasons for why do what they do and randoms who have no obligation to play nice with others who share a differing opinion. This isn't a personal attack, so stop treating it like it is.
There certainly is a difference, but I still don't understand why you are implying my group belongs to the latter while yours is in the former.

>And the hard call in this situation is judging an evil man to a death sentence for the crimes that they made against others, which most people wouldn't be able to do.
Given the scenario we're arguing about, I'd imagine just about anyone and their mothers would instantly want to kill the bastard. It's not exactly a hard call to make.

>No, if I'm standing in front of you and I detect that your aura bleeds Evil, it's already too late for talk or redemption.
It's never too late.

>>53219721

Just FYI, the genocide of all Orckind is an act sanctioned by Moradin, the Lawful Good god of Dwarves.

>>53238939
>I still don't understand why you are implying my group belongs to the latter while yours is in the former.
I'm not saying anything of the sort.
>It's not exactly a hard call to make.
Most people, regardless of what you may believe, are generally averse to killing another person unless they're pushed into doing so to protect themselves or others. The Paladin is there to make sure that an innocent person will never have to make this choice and become a killer out of necessity.
>It's never too late.
Yes it is, the moment you slay multiple villages of innocent people, you've become too far gone to save.

>>53238987
Even dwarven gods are jerks.

>>53239016
>I'm not saying anything of the sort.
Then what the hell ARE you saying?

>Most people, regardless of what you may believe, are generally averse to killing another person unless they're pushed into doing so to protect themselves or others. The Paladin is there to make sure that an innocent person will never have to make this choice and become a killer out of necessity.
You've already got a whole bunch of murderhobos there capable of doing the deed. What makes you any different?

>Yes it is, the moment you slay multiple villages of innocent people, you've become too far gone to save.
I know instances where villains have blown up a planet or more and still become good guys by the end. There's really no hard rules about it. You just need to go with your gut.
If you think this guy was beyond redemption and that in this instance there was nothing else you could do, then hey, I'm not saying you were wrong. I'm just saying that sometimes that's not the case and that you might want to look into it before running him through with your sword.

>>53238987
According to what?

>>53239159
According to Moradin, the Lawful Good god of Dwarves. Weren't you listening?

>>53239053
>Then what the hell ARE you saying?
That there's a difference between playing with friends and playing with random people.
>You've already got a whole bunch of murderhobos there capable of doing the deed. What makes you any different?
My god gives me the power to see the taint of evil upon a man's soul. For me, there is no question of innocence, there is only an answer in holy steel upon the guilty's form.
>I know instances where villains have blown up a planet or more and still become good guys by the end.
Just because Vader killed the Emporer in the end doesn't mean that he's redeemed from killing every major Jedi, his wife, Alderon, several rebels, and Obi-Wan (to name a few). Even then, I can safely say that he's not relevant to this conversation because the Star Wars universe doesn't have a force power that allows one to automatically detect when one is objectively evil the moment you lay your eyes upon them.

Also, as far as anyone knew, Anakin died in episode 3.

File: paladins.png (137KB, 429x350px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 429x350px

>>53238928
Hm, I suppose that follows. Which edition and book is that from? It would be interesting to know when the branch happened.

Pic is of how paladins were first ever described.

>>53239193
>That there's a difference between playing with friends and playing with random people.
Yes, but what does that have to do with anything and why do you imply my group is the latter?

>My god gives me the power to see the taint of evil upon a man's soul. For me, there is no question of innocence, there is only an answer in holy steel upon the guilty's form.
So? That's just all about reasons and shit, the outcome is still the exact same.

>Star Wars universe doesn't have a force power that allows one to automatically detect when one is objectively evil the moment you lay your eyes upon them.
So you're saying Darth Vader would not have pinged as evil were he in D&D setting - even, dare I say it, that he did nothing wrong?

>>53239184
No, I'm asking you to source it.
Edition, book and page number.

>>53239315
If it weren't true, why would dwarves not get +1 to hit orcs?

>>53239251
>So?
When you have a way to objectively judge the level of evil in one's soul, there's no longer any question about whether or not they deserve to get smote, it's only a question where and when. You are the one give the task of eradicating evil from the lands, anyone else is merely an ally in the pursuit of evil.
>So you're saying Darth Vader would not have pinged as evil were he in D&D setting - even, dare I say it, that he did nothing wrong?
Darth Vader would be Evil under a D&D setting for all the questionable shit that he did before and after putting on the helmet. Don't forget, he betrayed Mace Windu in a crucial moment and slayed a room full of younglings as well, which would've automatically made him Evil under D&D's definition of the term.
>inb4, well how do you know that killing children is wrong?

>>53239218
Pointedly in 3e, alluded to in 2e, I believe.
As for your picture, the issue is that it gives no real details on what constitutes Good or Lawful behavior, no litmus test. My running issue with early paladins, what created OP's post, was that everyone has their own ideals, and the DM's ideals not meshing with your own is where problems crop up.

>>53239367
>When you have a way to objectively judge the level of evil in one's soul, there's no longer any question about whether or not they deserve to get smote, it's only a question where and when. You are the one give the task of eradicating evil from the lands, anyone else is merely an ally in the pursuit of evil.
Yeah, but if you were just a fighter the end result would be the exact same. All you're saying is that you have some moral justification to doing this, which really only means shit like you knowing you're right because it's you and you're never wrong.
Shit, you could at least try and do better than a fighter.

>Darth Vader would be Evil under a D&D setting for all the questionable shit that he did before and after putting on the helmet. Don't forget, he betrayed Mace Windu in a crucial moment and slayed a room full of younglings as well, which would've automatically made him Evil under D&D's definition of the term.
Yes, and did he not return to goodness by the very end?

>>53239350
Because you never read in the book where that +1 came from.
Anon, you keep posting half the information and making an argument out of it when the book plainly says why dwarves get a +1 to attacking orcs/goblins/giants, depending on edition.
Your reliance on half truths is a /pol/ style tactic which fails here because there exists the actual text which can be found by a google search, or on my shelf, and fact checked inside of 2 minutes.
>>53239413
>Yes, and did he not return to goodness by the very end?
By the measure of Star Wars, he redeemed himself.
By measure of Good/Evil in D&D, it requires more than a single act borne of selflessness to swing from long habitual behavior.

>>53239457
>By measure of Good/Evil in D&D, it requires more than a single act borne of selflessness to swing from long habitual behavior.

How do you know this? Can you point me where it says so in the book?

I mean he seemed pretty honest at the time, had struggled with the issue throughout the film, and in the end had a decent reason to redeeming. He didn't just throw his weapon down when he started to lose and beg for mercy. It seemed legit to me.

>>53239315

IIRC, it's in either Faiths and Pantheons or Deities and Demigods.

>>53239413
>All you're saying is that you have some moral justification to doing this, which really only means shit like you knowing you're right because it's you and you're never wrong.
False: I'm right because I can see that this person has an objective and observable measurement of evil within his soul, that could only have been gained if they had engaged in questionable behavior deserving of being smote. If he didn't have evil tainting his aura, and didn't cause widespread suffering throughout the realm, then we wouldn't be having this conversation about whether or not he deserves salvation.
>Yes, and did he not return to goodness by the very end?
One act of good does not make up for the slew of evil acts that Darth Vader had made up until that point. Under D&D's objective alignment system, he'd still count as LE.

File: lWo0f.jpg (41KB, 720x309px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 720x309px

>>53239566
>False: I'm right because I can see that this person has an objective and observable measurement of evil within his soul, that could only have been gained if they had engaged in questionable behavior deserving of being smote. If he didn't have evil tainting his aura, and didn't cause widespread suffering throughout the realm, then we wouldn't be having this conversation about whether or not he deserves salvation.
Yes, yes, more preachy paladin buzzwords. It still amounts to the same thing in the end: you kill the fucker, and you kill him easily. If anything it comes even -easier- to you because you think you're objectively correct to do so.
It's a far cry from a "hard choice" of any kind.

>One act of good does not make up for the slew of evil acts that Darth Vader had made up until that point.
So you say, but he still shows up in the Jedi equivalent of lawful good afterlife.

>>53239505
>I mean he seemed pretty honest at the time, had struggled with the issue throughout the film, and in the end had a decent reason to redeeming. He didn't just throw his weapon down when he started to lose and beg for mercy. It seemed legit to me.
Darth's alignment would be LE, which doesn't prevent him from sacrificing his own life to save his surviving kin from the emporer's wrath, especially after Luke showed mercy in sparing Darth Vader's life.

Even then, for the same reason why a Paladin shouldn't fall based off of one morally questionable action, so too shouldn't evil be redeemed based off of one act of selflessness. If it worked like this then alignments would become meaningless and you wouldn't even need the atonement spell to regain your Paladin levels.

>>53238928
If they are ordered by a king not to slay the evil wizard but bring him to justice they would have to. Paladins are duty bound to respect legitimate authority.

>>53239619
>It's a far cry from a "hard choice" of any kind.
It's a hard choice for others because they don't have my abilities and cannot judge evil based on a glance. They won't know if someone is truly deserving of death, they can only reach conclusions based off of information that might end up being false or a gross misunderstanding, as can happen when people are more concerned with the idea of revenge than of justice. I take that hard choice away by saying whether or not the person carries the taint of evil and my god gives me the authority to do so. You may view these words as buzzwords but at the end of day, that's what Paladins are; judge, jury, and executioner of all evil that they find.
>So you say, but he still shows up in the Jedi equivalent of lawful good afterlife.
Mostly because the Star Wars universe doesn't operate on the same contentions as D&D does in regards to its morality system.

Why is it so hard to bring the guy back to justice instead of just killing him, anyway?

Is he a fighter? Strip him off his weapons and armor.

Is he a wizard? Burn his books.

Is he a thief? Break his fingers.

Is he a sorcerer? All of the above.

Maybe if he's an evil cleric or a psion you could just stab his ass, but otherwise you can well afford it.

>>53239749
>It's a hard choice for others because they don't have my abilities and cannot judge evil based on a glance.
They're called murderhobos for a reason. They each probably killed scores of foes in getting to the villain to begin with. Why would they suddenly balk away in the face of the asshole who made it all happen?

>Mostly because the Star Wars universe doesn't operate on the same contentions as D&D does in regards to its morality system.
Again, do you have a source to a book that says he wouldn't have redeemed himself with that deed? Mostly you're just talking out of your own ass.

>>53239672
Paladins are duty bound to the law when it does not interfere with their authority as a paragon working to defend the weak from the wicked.

An evil wizard is too powerful to hold in a mortal prison and the risks of them escaping to torment innocents again is too high to leave in the hands of man, who may or may not have agendas that run against the tenets set by my god.

If he wishes to take issue with my decisions, that is he perogative, but a Paladin will not kneel to law when it opposed what is right.

>>53239819
>An evil wizard is too powerful to hold in a mortal prison

Just take his fucking spellbook away.

>>53239819
It says in their oath they have to.

>>53239795
>Why would they suddenly balk away in the face of the asshole who made it all happen?
My position was more in regards to the common man who has never lifted a weapon, much less pointed it at another living creature. Even if my party members have different reasons for doing so, it does not matter because at that moment, we are brothers in arms working to cut down evil.
>Again, do you have a source to a book that says he wouldn't have redeemed himself with that deed?
As I've already explained, it's the same reason why Paladins don't fall at the drop of a hat, you can't make a drastic alignment change based off of one action, it's just common sense.

>>53239867
>My position was more in regards to the common man who has never lifted a weapon, much less pointed it at another living creature. Even if my party members have different reasons for doing so, it does not matter because at that moment, we are brothers in arms working to cut down evil.
And my point is that in this situation it doesn't matter one bit whether you're a paladin or just a fighter. You would do the exact same thing anyway.

>As I've already explained, it's the same reason why Paladins don't fall at the drop of a hat, you can't make a drastic alignment change based off of one action, it's just common sense.
Certainly not, but it was shown throughout the movie that it wasn't just that one action: Vader struggled with it over the entire film, possibly over the several years that passed between Empire and Return. He didn't just dial his Evil from hundred to zero on top of the hat - it was a slow and reasonably gradual change.

>>53239832
Spells can be memorized and there are also ways for some members of the arcane to cast even when you take their spellbooks away. It's much safer to cut them down than to risk their escape, especially when one remembers that members of the arcane arts tend to have the resourcefulness to make things happen, even without the aid of magic.
>>53239843
My oath is in service to Lawful and Good, not one or the other. Just because a king tells me to bring the wizard to trial, it doesn't mean that I have to follow the order if such an order would allow evil to regain its influence at a later time. It's the same reason why I'm not obligated to slay innocents in a realm controlled by evil, my oath is to my god, not to the petty egos of man.

>>53239382
Yeah, the original LBBs didn't define alignment at all and just said the characters must choose one. The Greyhawk supplement that introduced paladins only contains a definition of the Chaotic alignment.

I guess at the end of the day it's a people problem, OP just made it seem like a edition or game design issue, which doesn't seem to really be the case.
It's a shame alignments have always been so subjective and awful. If they weren't spells and class abilities dependent on them I would of done away with them in my games years ago.

Below is the chaotic definition just for anyone interested.

>Chaotic Alignment by a player generally betokens chaotic action on the player's
part without any rule to stress this aspect, i.e. a chaotic player is usually more prone to
stab even his lawless buddy in the back for some desired gain. However, chaos is just that, chaotic. Evil monsters are as likely to turn on their supposed confederates in order to
have all the loot as they are to attack a lawful party in the first place. While there is no rule to apply to groups of chaotic players operating in concert, referees are urged to formulate
some rules against continuing co-operation as fits their particular situation, but consideration for concerted actions against chaotic players by lawful ones should be given.

>>53239367
>inb4, well how do you know that killing children is wrong?
It's all right to kill some children. Children of some races, specifically. For example, goblins.

>>53239936
You mean to say killing children indoctrinated from infancy in a fanatical worldview or religious cult, trained in battle and thrown into war with whatever those in charge think needs to go away, might not be evil?

>>53239905
>You would do the exact same thing anyway.
False: A Fighter would cut down the man regardless of whether he deserved it while a Paladin would only do so if they find that he carries the taint of evil. That's the difference here.
>Vader struggled with it over the entire film, possibly over the several years that passed between Empire and Return.
Can you recall these moments? It has been a while since I've seen the movies and I don't remember there being hints of redemption before the final fight.

>>53239921
>Spells can be memorized and there are also ways for some members of the arcane to cast even when you take their spellbooks away

If wizards are so fucking common you'd think the law enforcement had ways to deal with them as well. Like, I don't know, good guy wizards.

>>53239964
>False: A Fighter would cut down the man regardless of whether he deserved it while a Paladin would only do so if they find that he carries the taint of evil. That's the difference here.
As I understand it, in this scenario he's already massacred entire cities. I don't think Detect Evil is required here.

>Can you recall these moments? It has been a while since I've seen the movies and I don't remember there being hints of redemption before the final fight.
In a conversation earlier, Luke tried to sway him back, and he quite clearly hesitated. Earlier still there were hints in his behavior - more subtle ones, by means of body language and tone of speech - that he might no longer be entirely loyal to his emperor or even to his alignment.

>>53239749
>judge, jury, and executioner of all evil that they find.
>implying there's any meaningful judgement or deliberation when paladin's algorithm is completed in two steps: 1) see evil aura 2) kill it's body

Wow, it's another 300+ thread with people arguing over their own subjective standards of good and evil in their completely independent fantasy worlds.

What a surprise.

>>53218379
The state does not have a monopoly on legitimate violence in D&D. Executing people who have wronged you is totally acceptable, regardless even of their alignment.

I don't care that the bandits might have a few Chaotic Good or Neutral members who've simply fallen on hard times, if they jump out of the bushes and try to extort the party and they resort to violence when the party refuses they deserve to die because they were willing to kill themselves.

Good and neutral aligned people can still do bad things and end up killed. Two kingdoms at war with one another might both be comprised of entirely upstanding individuals, but due to irreconciliable differences or resource scarcity still be forced to war. That doesn't mean paladins on either side will suddenly fall if they kill others in defense of their homeland just because they don't light up on their HUD when detect evil is used.

>>53239967
Wizards are not actually supposed to be common, or at least not in relation to classes such as Fighter, Rogue, or Barbarian.

Most people who have heard of wizards are probably those who have only ever been around Acolytes (who have no spells higher than level 1-2 at best and lack metamagics such as silent or still spell) or those who have only heard of people like Tasha or Bigsby from the spells that they've created.

The truth of the matter is that many areas won't be aware of what a decently leveled mage can do, which is why many areas underestimate them based off of what they used to deal with acolytes (namely, binding their hands and gagging them).

>>53240000
>As I understand it, in this scenario he's already massacred entire cities. I don't think Detect Evil is required here.
I'm merely stating: The Fighter would kill him because he thinks that he's Evil, The paladin would kill him because he KNOWS that he's evil.
>In a conversation earlier, Luke tried to sway him back, and he quite clearly hesitated. Earlier still there were hints in his behavior - more subtle ones, by means of body language and tone of speech - that he might no longer be entirely loyal to his emperor or even to his alignment.
Okay then, I vaguely recall the scenes you were talking about but I trust that what you're saying is true.

>>53240082
>I'm merely stating: The Fighter would kill him because he thinks that he's Evil, The paladin would kill him because he KNOWS that he's evil.
Once again, the end result is the exact same. You being a paladin is null in this scenario.

>>53220313
>If you raise a human in a human society, especially one where the populace has dealt with human banditry in the past, the human will end up developing a hatred for their own race.

I'm answering a several hour past post but I felt it necessary to say that you aren't MAKING the child orc hate his own race, but simply making him hate people who kill and steal and murder.

If he comes across another orc who doesn't do that, there is no problem, is there?

>>53240030
Killng a Good-aligned person is an act of Evil. There's nothing ambiguous about it
>in b4 muh good bandits
They already have the intent to commit an act of Evil, and paying Evil unto Evil is not bad, and in most cases is Good.

>>53240094
>You being a paladin is null in this scenario.
Not necessarily, because a sufficiently powerful mage can attempt to use ways to obfuscate their appearence, such as using a simulacrum or polymorphing an unwilling party to take their place so that the Fighter believes that they're actually dead. With a Paladin's sight, such events are less likely, since neither of those things would be able to fool my paladin's sight quite as easily as they could fool the Fighter.

>>53240104
>I'm answering a several hour past post but I felt it necessary to say that you aren't MAKING the child orc hate his own race, but simply making him hate people who kill and steal and murder.
Which are qualities that make up the average Orc by default.

>>53240164
In this scenario there would seem to be great many orc children raised by humans and quite possibly being mainly exceptions to the general rule of their kind.

>>53240149
>A mage would use simulacrum, but make no attempt to protect the dupe from magical scrying
Please.

Undetectable Alignment is a second level spell.

>>53240215
>Casually insists everyone in the world plays Shitfinder

>>53240215
>cue Paladins cutting down anybody whose aura they do not see, since no good man would hide his Aligment from eradicators of evil

>>53240190
Even if you hide your alignment, you're still going to be affected by effects that target persons of a specific alignment.

>>53240215
see >>53240254

>>53240254
So it's >>53240253 then.