Qraces/classes

[Valsgarde]

It is the exact opposite. That's what I'm saying. They are symmetrical. Goodness is restricted to helping it's own. Evil is not.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhh...Asymmetrical........?

I said according to my religion. I don't pretend to govern anyone else's. So that's what it comes down to. Belief.

How does that even remotely refute my point? I'm not attacking you, I'm showing you how you proved my point. You are restricted, I am not. And you're right. Getting along in the (un)civilized world is hmm....how you say.....

That isn't even to say you aren't civilized, but if you have no regard for the law or doing anything kind, as chaotic evil implies, then alot of people are going to start have problems with that.

No regard? I have plenty of regard, it's just ill-regard. I'm an anarcho-tribalist, but that doesn't mean (as much as I'd like to) I'm gonna start kicking Uncle Sam in the balls, he's got a lot of big dumbass cronies...kind of like Tribunal.

Point is, Paladins can be something other than lawful. But it's stupid. And so the same is for monks being something other than lawful, and so is the same for berserkers being able to be lawful, and so is the same for Knight/Nexus not allowing Lawfuls.

Edit: As for Spiegel's post...I'd be careful. One of the things my parents told me when I was a kid was when in public, don't discuss religion or politics. Good advice, at least as far as how to not start a forum wildfire. We're already toeing the discussion of one, and there's the other...probably a bad idea.

[Twinblades713]

How does that even remotely refute my point? I'm not attacking you' date=' I'm showing you how you proved my point. You are restricted, I am not. And you're right. Getting along in the (un)civilized world is hmm....how you say.....[/quote']

I didn't think I did refuted your post. Just saying I'm not attacking you either or trying to say what someone else believes is all. =D

No regard? I have plenty of regard' date=' it's just ill-regard. I'm an anarcho-tribalist, but that doesn't mean (as much as I'd like to) I'm gonna start kicking Uncle Sam in the balls, he's got a lot of big dumbass cronies...kind of like Tribunal. [/quote']

No regard, ill-regard... ok.

Point is' date=' Paladins [i']can be something other than lawful. But it's stupid. And so the same is for monks being something other than lawful, and so is the same for berserkers being able to be lawful, and so is the same for Knight/Nexus not allowing Lawfuls.

It may be stupid, but it makes sense.

As for Spiegel's post...I'd be careful. One of the things my parents told me when I was a kid was when in public' date=' don't discuss religion or politics. Good advice, at least as far as how to not start a forum wildfire. We're already toeing the discussion of one, and there's the other...[i']probably a bad idea.

Totally agreed. I would not take any of this out in public. No way. That's just asking for a fight, or some other dumb crap that could be easily avoided. Not everyone can talk about this like we can. Many would rather beat you up and then tell you you're wrong.

[Pali]

I'm aware FL is not D&D; but FL is most certainly a child of D&D. You're basically playing some strange variant-version of it.

Exactly. A variant-version in which many of the rules are so different that comparing it to the original is a mistake.

Ironic that while having something as Lawful in nature as a set Charter of collective ambitions and ideals that Knight doesn't allow in lawful characters...something that I think is retarded in the first place. Yes. I know that it says sometimes what they do might be unlawful, blah blah blah, but why? That should be left up to the individual character to decide how he regards and reacts to the law. A Lawful Good paladin/monk unable to join the Knights? Right, that makes sense.

Wanna know WHY it's like this? Because in FL, being lawful means adhering to the laws of the cities. And to be a Knight, you have to be willing to overthrow those city governments in order to establish the rule of the King once more. This is not D&D. Lawful in FL and lawful in D&D are two different things.

Stealing is evil/wrong/bad, and to steal from someone that is evil or bad does not make it any less evil/wrong/bad, it just makes it so the victim is someone who, according to some monotheist moral dichotomy, deserves punishment. Moreover, stealing from/killing someone who is evil because they're evil is an act that is more often than not decided upon based on the victim's race (Drow, Duergar, FG, etc), assuming that they are X, evil in this case; that is called racism, and is 'evil' itself. I can count the amount of PK-successful Paladins and Knights that aren't completely hypocritical in this sense on one hand: zero.

Stealing from the rich and immoral (usually riches they gained immorally) to give as charity to the poor is evil? Not in my book. Also, racism in reality is evil. Racism in FL is not, because in FL some races are by their very natures EVIL. This is a fantasy game; races can be inherently good or evil. There is an eternal war going on in this game between the forces of Good and Evil. Going after someone on the other side is what a soldier does.

P.S. I've got an elf paladin right now that only aggressively attacks drow, undead, demons, and those who commit evil acts in his presence. He's doing just fine pk-wise.

P.P.S. No, I'm not lawful. I have no respect for the laws of the Tribunal.

[Pali]

Also many can have different views on certain things' date=' Evil is subjective, For example to muslims (the ones that attacked us not all) consider us evil so they did what they did and in return we considered them the same.[/quote']

There is a good point here. My necro Vryxtyx, for instance, did not consider himself evil at all. His actions were meant as service to the Hive. He simply did not allow any sort of morality to come into play at all. Killing was the same as breathing, simply an action with a purpose.

[Twinblades713]

P.S. I've got an elf paladin right now that only aggressively attacks drow' date=' undead, demons, and those who commit evil acts in his presence. He's doing just fine pk-wise. [/quote']

Wonder who that could be.

[Pali]

*shrugs* Haven't done that much to make a name for myself yet... the char's meant to be primarily an RP char, which is why I'm avoiding cabal affiliation like the plague right now. Eventually I'll step up his profile a bit.

[Twinblades713]

Life's alot simpler while not in a cabal...

[Kyzarius]

And how can a paladin be lawful if the law itself is made by "man" and corrupt?

Paladins in FL follow the rule of the divine, now if they have percieved this rule to be in favo of the current man made laws then fine.

But a chaotic paladin is only so because he/she does not uphold the law of man, he upholds the law of his/her chosen diety.

A prime example is a paladin avatar (or just a paladin of purity)....

An avatar has devoted itself to purity, and takes the mandate of such literally, not only this but if Irumeru ordered so the paladin would drop dead or slay a nursery of infants. Now this clashes with the law of man, because such law is flawed and does not see that which divine eyes see. This law does not know that it protects the very devils and demons it might have...at one time...been designed to do before it became corrupted by men unworthy who do not know Irumeru's will. No no, such is flawed because such is of man, only Irumeru is supreme and there is no law above that which governs a paladin of purity because he will die defending any innocent soul from whatever evil rears its ugly head.

Now in the scheme of FL this is chaotic, because this paladin does not follow the law. Though you cannot begin to tell me that this is not truly a paladin, just because he does not embrace the laws of man.

Claiming that a paladin MUST be lawful is like saying an ogre cant like bunnies...D&D or not.

[mya]

I personaly think that if we replaced "Lawfull" with "Orderfull" it would make a lot more sense.

Being "Lawfull/Orderfull" is being correct and thrustfull. Acting as expected in society.

For example a "Lawfull/Orderfull" would not poison/ambush from hidden position his enemies. That is contrary to Order.

"It is taboo for a paladin to lie or use poison, and some interpretations say they should only use stealth as a last resort."

[Evangelion]

Too bad Orderful isn't a word...

[goldbond]

one of the things FL has got RIGHT in the last couple years is making the clear distinction of Lawful Tribunal and Chaotic Knight, and helping an environment to encourage conflict with those two cabals. that, and allowing Tribunal to be, on occasion, a whole lot more corrupt, unfair, and power hungry. all of this is much more realistic. i love to see far less paladins and healers in Tribunal, and more classes that would make the organization actually have personality.

[Aeva]

i love to see far less paladins and healers in Tribunal' date=' and more classes that would make the organization actually have personality.[/quote']

problem is that 99% of people that make tribunals do so because they are afraid to die, and like to use the whole "wanted" threat as a sortof protection in pks, because a lot of other people are afraid to get wanted. this playstyle coulpes quite nicely with less pk-friendly classes with high survivability, since they can use guards to do the work

[Kyzarius]

problem is that 99% of people that make tribunals do so because they are afraid to die' date=' and like to use the whole "wanted" threat as a sortof protection in pks, because a lot of other people are afraid to get wanted. this playstyle coulpes quite nicely with less pk-friendly classes with high survivability, since they can use guards to do the work [/quote']

when you login and see 3+ outlaws on, you see the result of what you said backfiring.

[Evangelion]

problem is that 99% of people that make tribunals do so because they are afraid to die' date=' and like to use the whole "wanted" threat as a sortof protection in pks, because a lot of other people are afraid to get wanted. this playstyle coulpes quite nicely with less pk-friendly classes with high survivability, since they can use guards to do the work [/quote']

Not to mention that the guard has been toned down quite a bit.

[Roykagh]

Point is' date=' Paladins [i']can be something other than lawful. But it's stupid.

My question is, why is it stupid for a paladin not to be lawful? Again, I know you're aware of this, but it has to be said - the FL paladin is not a D&D paladin, or any other type of paladin that exists in a traditional fantasy environment. The similarities end once you get past the fact that they have a similar skillset and the fact that they are honourable priest-warriors of good. The FL world, whilst similar to D&D in many respects, still has it's own FL spin on things.

The paladin was not invented in D&D. Again, the various definitions for paladin are as follows:

pal·a·din /ˈpælədɪn/ –noun

1. any one of the 12 legendary peers or knightly champions in attendance on Charlemagne.

2. any knightly or heroic champion.

3. any determined advocate or defender of a noble cause.

paladin

noun

someone who fights for a cause [syn: champion]

A paragon of chivalry; a heroic champion.

A strong supporter or defender of a cause: "the paladin of plain speaking" (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.)

Any of the 12 peers of Charlemagne's court.

There's the definition of paladin. Nothing to do with a lawful mindset is implied there - D&D may have taken that title, formed a class/guild/otherwise that calls itself paladin and that must be expected to be lawful, but FL doesn't share that.

A couple of definitions of chaotic good:

Chaotic Good

Chaotic Good is known as the "Beatific" or "Rebel" alignment. A chaotic good character favors change for the greater good, disdains bureaucratic organizations that get in the way of social improvement, and places a high value on personal freedom. Most elves are chaotic good, as are some fey.

Chaotic good characters are strong indivualists marked by a streak of kindness and benevolence. They believe in all the virtues of goodness and right, but they have little use for laws and regulations. They have no use for people who "try to push folk around and tell them what to do." Their actions are guided by their own moral compass which, although good, may not always be in perfect agreement with the rest of society. A brave frontiersman forever moving on as settlers follow in his wake is an example of a chaotic good character.

Keeps his word to any other good person (unless it conflicts with his/her plans against neutral or evil characters in which case this would be explained to the good characters unless it may put them in harms way).

Lies only to neutral or evil people (see #1).

Never attacks or kills an unarmed foe, unless of course they are truly evil and need to be done away with.

Never harms an innocent... unless it is unavoidable

Never tortures for pleasure. Threats may be permissible... (Under extreme duress torture for information may be permissable).

Never kills for pleasure (yet destroying evil seems to pleasure them).

Always tries to help others.

Distrusts authority.

Works well in groups, but dislikes confining rules and 'red tape'.

Never takes dirty money or items except in extreme circumstances where the acceptance of money or items is a ruse and contributes to the greater good.

Never betrays a friend, unless that friend betrays them with bad intent.

Whilst the above may not fit well with the D&D definition of a paladin, I don't see why the above couldn't sit within the definition of a defender/advocate of a noble cause or a heroic champion. Perhaps a couple of those points in the second quotation wouldn't particuarly describe an 'honourable' person, but all of those above points don't have to apply for someone to be 'chaotic good' - a chaotic good doesn't neccessarily have to llie to neutrals/evils, for example.

[Valsgarde]

Exactly. A variant-version in which many of the rules are so different that comparing it to the original is a mistake.

No it's not.

Wanna know WHY it's like this? Because in FL' date=' being lawful means adhering to the laws of the cities. And to be a Knight, you have to be willing to overthrow those city governments in order to establish the rule of the King once more. This is not D&D. Lawful in FL and lawful in D&D are two different things.[/quote']

This is only because the general consensus of the pbase is too dense to concieve something like Lawful or Chaotic as anything more complex than "I LAIK LAWZ" or "I DUN LAEIK LAWZ". Your inability to acknowledge the vast possibilities of ethos and related subjective viewpoint does not nullify or make wrong my comprehension of it in a much more intricate and organic manner.

Stealing from the rich and immoral (usually riches they gained immorally) to give as charity to the poor is evil?

A. Yes it is.

B. Who says that the rich gained riches through immoral ways? Baseless statement.

C. Who says that much of the poor are not just as evil? Evil is not social caste-restricted.

Also' date=' racism in reality is evil. Racism in FL is not, because in FL some races are by their very natures EVIL.[/quote']

Lawful Evil' date=' “Dominator”: A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. [b']He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises. This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.

P.S. I've got an elf paladin right now that only aggressively attacks drow' date=' undead, demons, and those who commit evil acts in his presence. He's doing just fine pk-wise.[/quote']

Thanks for proving my point entirely. Welcome to Lawful Evil, how are you doing? I'm Valsgarde, your Chaotic Evil guide for this evening. Can I get you something to drink?

And how can a paladin be lawful if the law itself is made by "man" and corrupt?

Lawful != "I LAEIK LAWZ". Thanks for proving another of my points.

one of the things FL has got RIGHT in the last couple years is making the clear distinction of Lawful Tribunal and Chaotic Knight' date=' and helping an environment to encourage conflict with those two cabals. that, and allowing Tribunal to be, on occasion, a whole lot more corrupt, unfair, and power hungry. all of this is much more realistic. i love to see far less paladins and healers in Tribunal, and more classes that would make the organization actually have personality.[/quote']

Most certainly your opinion, and you're entirely entitled to it. You have sound reasons for it. However, I disagree with this opinion, as well as Knight being 'Chaotic', or at the very least 'non-lawful', by nature.

My question is' date=' why is it stupid for a paladin not to be lawful? The similarities end once you get past the fact that they have a similar skillset and the fact that they are honourable priest-warriors of good. [/quote']

Oh, so the similarities end once you get past the fact that what they are, what they do, and how they do it are the same? Yeah, I totally agree.

Whilst the above may not fit well with the D&D definition of a paladin' date=' I don't see why the above couldn't sit within the definition of a defender/advocate of a noble cause or a heroic champion.[/quote']

It most certainly could and often does sit within the definition of a defender/advocate of a noble cause or a heroic champion. However, one of the many bases for my standpoint on the issue is that Paladins (and clerics) are held to a higher standard. They are paragons and exemplars for Good/Evil. The notion of "don't do bad things unless it's to an evil because then it's okay" is hypocritical. Don't do what evils do...but it's fine if it's to an evil, that's retarded. There is a difference between punishing the wicked and being some retard with an underdeveloped RP slant, and thankfully, there is a small contingency in the pbase which seems to understand this, or at least they play/have played characters which demonstrate an understanding of that, whether or not they agree with it.

Lawful Good, “Crusader”: A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion.

If that's not the text-book Paladin alignment, I don't know what is.

[Kyzarius]

Please enlighten me then, to how I should be interpreting lawful and chaoic in FL?

Oh and I didnt say lawful meant you "liked" the laws, just that you follow them.

[Kyzarius]

that and...

But a chaotic paladin is only so because he/she does not uphold the law of man, he upholds the law of his/her chosen diety.

A prime example is a paladin avatar (or just a paladin of purity)....

An avatar has devoted itself to purity, and takes the mandate of such literally, not only this but if Irumeru ordered so the paladin would drop dead or slay a nursery of infants. Now this clashes with the law of man, because such law is flawed and does not see that which divine eyes see. This law does not know that it protects the very devils and demons it might have...at one time...been designed to do before it became corrupted by men unworthy who do not know Irumeru's will. No no, such is flawed because such is of man, only Irumeru is supreme and there is no law above that which governs a paladin of purity because he will die defending any innocent soul from whatever evil rears its ugly head.

you ignored this....if your going to lash out at a statement from my post, dont convienantly ignore the rest.

[Valsgarde]

The help files will shed mild insight, but for the serious student: Lawful and Chaotic are complex terms. The actual LAW often has not much to do with the terms (as Laws are only applicable in civilized areas, the cities, which spawned them, which is like what....1% of the world? If that?). If you are lawful, you yes, might in fact follow the law - but not because you neccessarily believe it's right. I'm willing to wager that most of the people here are Lawful, and there are plenty of Laws that you probably disagree with, but you still obey them.

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

“Law” implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

“Chaos” implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.

Devotion to law or chaos may be a conscious choice, but more often it is a personality trait that is recognized rather than being chosen. Neutrality on the lawful–chaotic axis is usually simply a middle state, a state of not feeling compelled toward one side or the other. Some few such neutrals, however, espouse neutrality as superior to law or chaos, regarding each as an extreme with its own blind spots and drawbacks.

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic.

And just so this lesson is a little more complete:

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good–evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them.

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.

Since the lesson is over...

you ignored this....if your going to lash out at a statement from my post' date=' dont convienantly ignore the rest.[/quote']

PUH-LEASE. Ignored it? When you get up and first thing in the morning you make an excessively extensive and comprehensive rebuttle for everything said over the past 18 hours, then get back to me. If you only miss one point, I'll be impressed. Don't insult my intellect by suggesting that I ignored it because I have no way to combat it.

But a chaotic paladin is only so because he/she does not uphold the law of man, he upholds the law of his/her chosen diety.

That is still Lawful. Said Paladin is still upholding a Code/Creed of Tenets/Morals/Conduct, it's just not an Earthly one, in that case.

A prime example is a paladin avatar (or just a paladin of purity)....

An avatar has devoted itself to purity, and takes the mandate of such literally, not only this but if Irumeru ordered so the paladin would drop dead or slay a nursery of infants. Now this clashes with the law of man, because such law is flawed and does not see that which divine eyes see. This law does not know that it protects the very devils and demons it might have...at one time...been designed to do before it became corrupted by men unworthy who do not know Irumeru's will. No no, such is flawed because such is of man, only Irumeru is supreme and there is no law above that which governs a paladin of purity because he will die defending any innocent soul from whatever evil rears its ugly head.

I think that's just blatantly and absurdly retarded in the first place. Murdering innocents, especially children, is incredibly evil, it doesn't matter how you justify it. Terrorists that suicide bomb Israeli schools and bus-stations and whatnot, also in the name of their God, is that any less evil? No, not even remotely.

On an RP level, need I bring up Sirant? Checkmate, next please. Who wants a pwning, I'm having a liquidation sale.

[Roykagh]

It most certainly could and often does sit within the definition of a defender/advocate of a noble cause or a heroic champion. However' date=' one of the many bases for my standpoint on the issue is that Paladins (and clerics) are held to a higher standard. [/quote']

I'm fine with that.

They are paragons and exemplars for Good/Evil.

That too.

The notion of "don't do bad things unless it's to an evil because then it's okay" is hypocritical.

I disagree. There is a difference between person x pillaging, raping and murdering because they enjoy inflicting pain, and person y murdering person x because if they don't, person x is going to pillage, rape and murder.

Don't do what evils do...but it's fine if it's to an evil, that's retarded.

Again, see above. How is this retarded? Take paladins aside for a moment, and just look at it as good and evil. It's not the actions that they carry out, but the context they are within. Now, you could argue that what is good and what is evil differs depending on the perspective of each side - the evil may believe that their actions are just, and vice versa - but the general stance is going to be that a man who kills because he loves to inflict pain is evil, whilst a man who kills that man because he does not wish to see pain and suffering, because he wishes to protect others (assuming no ulterior motive) is a good man.

Now let's assume this good man is an honourable fellow. He shows piety to, and has trained to fight and pray under, his Lord's ideals of Purity - a church that preaches that the destruction of evil is paramount. These people who train as preiest-warriors under this religion are renowned, and held in high regard by those who too understand and show piety to, Lord Irumeru. This man is a holy man, and his beliefs lead him to do things that may not conform to laws that are in place within the townes – such as slay the evil man who he KNOWS is going to murder, rape and pillage yet hasn’t been deemed a criminal because he has yet to break any laws (or be caught breaking laws).

A paladin played as a purity believer may take it upon himself to slay this evil person himself.

A paladin played as a purity believer may seek council with the proper authorities and have them deal with it.

Both are fine RP angles as far as FL paladins go. You say paladins and clerics are held to a higher standard – in terms of what? They certainly aren’t held in high regard with respect to how they handle issues regarding law and order (unless they are order-believers), but held in high regard with respect to how they represent their chosen religions.

There is a difference between punishing the wicked and being some retard with an underdeveloped RP slant, and thankfully, there is a small contingency in the pbase which seems to understand this, or at least they play/have played characters which demonstrate an understanding of that, whether or not they agree with it.

In what way does this difference exist? Is a person punishing the wicked, a la the above scenario, not showing developed roleplay, simply because they don’t fit in with YOUR interpretation of how a paladin should and should not act? Like I stated before, all classes are open to some degree of interpretation, and nobody is saying your interpretation is wrong.

EDIT:

That is still Lawful. Said Paladin is still upholding a Code/Creed of Tenets/Morals/Conduct, it's just not an Earthly one, in that case.

Having just read what you said there, I now understand exactly what you have been getting at with your posts.

That is a very interesting point.

I think what needs to be considered though, is that generally speaking, in FL, lawful neutral and chaotic is considered to be what your character's perspective is in regards to Aabahranian law. Whilst you are exactly right, looking at things from a purist point of view, adopting a purist D&D stance on alignment and ethos will complicate things. Good thing or bad thing? I would say that would be a bad thing, as not everybody is going to want that level of involvement with their character, and may find it hard to cope with developing a character at that level – it’s just simpler to say “lawful ethos = law abider” and it doesn’t really restrict any roleplay at all, it just means that whilst your ethos may be one thing in D&D, it’s gonna be different in FL.

And I have to say it again, I know you're aware that FL isn't D&D.

[Kyzarius]

First off you dont have to be an ***, I am no child for you to insult at every turn (neither is 99% of the poeple here) and your argumentive style is more like a troll trying to get people pissed than someone trying to prove a point. Calling people ignorant, stupid, and their stances ignorant and stupid is quite immature and not appreciated.

Now to your points...

“Law” implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

I do not deny that this can apply to a paladin. Honor, trustworthiness, indeed these things are part of a lawful paladins resume. However, obedience to authority is not neccesarily a trait a paladin has to have. Which is funny, considering your point to the contrary that lawfulness does not mean you "follow the law" when in the help file you quoted it is clearly stated that this is a definable lawful trait.

“Chaos” implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

Freedom, adaptability and flexibility...yes all these things can apply to a Paladin. Recklessness, resentment towards legitimate authority, all capable of defining a paladin. Nowhere in this snippet is it defined that a chaotic inividual has to be dishonourable or is untrustworhy. It merely defines that such person has their own agenda that is potentially against society

resentment toward legitimate authority,

this line in the chaotic portion of your quote actually supports the case of the chaotic paladin. He does not recognize the legitamate authority because it is corrupt, again your own rebutle refutes your rather uncouth debunking of my post.

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

I like that you put the part about sacrifices in here, its true that this is the grounds for the "Avatar Paladin". This person has sacrificed their very soul for their cause their body given to it, their existence ending when they are no longer needed. The slaying infants thing I got from two approved avatars, this is sacrifice. It is sacrifice often misinterpreted at the moment, an example is that it is divine knowledge that the percieved innocence is temporary and that this "child" will be responsibl for countless deaths and suffering. This is the paladin who has sacrificed everything, even thir own wil to a higher more knowing power. They sacrifice their own name, their reputation, for a cause they know is good and they know is beyond even their own understanding....i mean comeon these people follow the god that savd the world as they know it that hods back the tide of destruction etc etc.

Quote:

But a chaotic paladin is only so because he/she does not uphold the law of man, he upholds the law of his/her chosen diety.

That is still Lawful. Said Paladin is still upholding a Code/Creed of Tenets/Morals/Conduct, it's just not an Earthly one, in that case.

no, it is not lawful by your own quoted definition. This person is against the "established authority" they are against the "norm of society" they are following their diety which is a minority...and if a soldier of the empire is protecting some demon and said paladin puts them to mercy so he can slay the demon he will become outlaw and is shunned by normal society. You cannot judge the scope of the laws within FL by the % of the mud they cover. The Cities are by all respects considered the seat of civillization, one that is fighitng against pitfall and harm on all fronts.

I think that's just blatantly and absurdly retarded in the first place. Murdering innocents, especially children, is incredibly evil, it doesn't matter how you justify it. Terrorists that suicide bomb Israeli schools and bus-stations and whatnot, also in the name of their God, is that any less evil? No, not even remotely.

Then you are thinking very flat and with a high lack of creativity...I do not condone the actions in the middle east, perceptivley I find it hideous and disgusting. Though I am sure if you ask one of them they would profess that they are martyrs to a cause that you could never understand.

Evil and good are labels of perception. In any conflict both sides are right if you ask them. That is the natural birthing of a conflict. In this debate the paladin in question, slaying a perceptually innocent infant because their god deems them a great threat, is fiting to his chaotic nature...by YOUR OWN DEFINITIONS. He is going against society, against established order, he is taking his own cause in which he knows to be good because he believes in it, and acting upon it no matter the sacrifice to his own name. Now somoene of compassion would vomit at the thought, but thus is the different grades of good in FL.

On an RP level, need I bring up Sirant? Checkmate, next please. Who wants a pwning, I'm having a liquidation sale.

...dont use the word "pwn" its really just takes away from any serious credit you might have.

[mya]

A Lawful Paladin would not kill children just because their god tells him that they are going to become evil. He just cannot. And will damn (damnation??) him before killing them. Because it would go against his "Good" alignment.

To do an evil act at the request of a god as an Good aligned is to outcast yourself into the realm of Neutral. As you are betraying your aligment for personal favor of your god.

For example if the children were centaur babies (clear evil) even then he would not kill them as a Lawful, because it would conflict with his code of conduct by slaying the defenseless. A neutral ethos Paladin would probably consider/do it, but not a Lawful.

The Lawfull Paladin would probably turn a blind eye on the Neutral Ethos Paladin and leave knowing that the Neutral Ethos Paladin could kill the evil Babies.

[Evangelion]

Actually, Mya, that's not really accurate.

A paladin's chosen deity is the all-powerful recipient of that person's veneration. He grants the paladin his powers, and allows the paladin to worship him, in order that the paladin can serve his will.

So if Irumeru tells a paladin to wipe out all the children in the sewers beneath Miruvhor, because they were tainted by Malchaeius and will soon transform into demons, then the paladin should do it.

Why? Three reasons:

Reverence and Respect: It is completely and totally within his alignment. His God is his alignment, and his God told him to do it.

Self-Preservation: If he doesn't, the God will strip him of his powers, mark him an outcast, and probably turn him into a smoking crater.

Legitimacy of the Action: Chances are good that if Irumeru tells him to do this, it's because the children actually are tainted.

Now, the gods are manipulative, you say. They might be testing him, you say. Well, when push comes to shove, it doesn't matter if the gods are testing him. Yes, you could individually choose to abstain from killing the children, claiming to be some stalwart defender of goodness and light. But then your God is going to outcast your *** faster than you can blink. Why? Because he put you on Aabahran to serve him, and you're doing a crappy job of it. It's a catch-22, because no matter what you do, someone's going to be pissed.

I, personally, would kill the kids. All of my paladins are pro-abortion anyway.

[mya]

No the Lawfull Paladin would chose be an Outcast rather than to break his convictions.

A Paladin that sacrifices his life to protect other does not does this just because his god tells him. He will prefer to sacrifice himself than to harm the children.

You can be a Godless Paladin, but you cannot be an neutral Paladin.

Also just because your god turns evil, it does not mean the Paladin has to follow through.

[Roykagh]

Actually, Mya, that's not really accurate.

A paladin's chosen deity is the all-powerful recipient of that person's veneration. He grants the paladin his powers, and allows the paladin to worship him, in order that the paladin can serve his will.

So if Irumeru tells a paladin to wipe out all the children in the sewers beneath Miruvhor, because they were tainted by Malchaeius and will soon transform into demons, then the paladin should do it.

Why? Three reasons:

Reverence and Respect: It is completely and totally within his alignment. His God is his alignment, and his God told him to do it.

Self-Preservation: If he doesn't, the God will strip him of his powers, mark him an outcast, and probably turn him into a smoking crater.

Legitimacy of the Action: Chances are good that if Irumeru tells him to do this, it's because the children actually are tainted.

Now, the gods are manipulative, you say. They might be testing him, you say. Well, when push comes to shove, it doesn't matter if the gods are testing him. Yes, you could individually choose to abstain from killing the children, claiming to be some stalwart defender of goodness and light. But then your God is going to outcast your *** faster than you can blink. Why? Because he put you on Aabahran to serve him, and you're doing a crappy job of it. It's a catch-22, because no matter what you do, someone's going to be pissed.

I, personally, would kill the kids. All of my paladins are pro-abortion anyway.

With Pamiyn, his stance was that the word of Irumeru was above everything, and that exact argument was in the avatar app. If Irumeru commanded him to slay his own children, if he had any, he would do it. Why? Because he was so commited to the ideals of Purity, and knew that Irumeru would not command him to do such if it was not in the name of Purity.

Again, it's open to interpretation. You can't say "paladins must deal with scenario X in this way or they are not paladins". A paladin can choose to deal with it in whatever way they see fit, provided they know that there are consequences no matter what.

Taking my own as another example, as it's one I'm most familiar with (obviously), Pamiyn was not a 'true' paladin, if that's what you want to call it. He was played as a character utterly devoted to the ideals of Purity above anything. He became more and more extremist in these views until it reached a point where he would sooner see an entire town of Drow obliterated even if they were keeping 'good' prisoners, than attempt to free the prisoners and give chance for the Drow to escape. He do everything in his power to see the obliteration of any evil presence.

Is this the behaviour of a good-aligned paladin? Maybe not. I knew as a player that Pamiyn was doing things that may be of a questionable nature as far as a good paladin goes (lying to neutrals and evils to get at other evils, looting good-aligned Tribunes so that they would leave him alone whilst he killed evils, etc.) but Pamiyn thought he was doing the right thing because he was furthering Purity.

In reality, Pamiyn was summoned to the Will of Irumeru and was so very near to obliteration at his hands. Pamiyn's actions were not what were of expected of a good/paladin, never mind an Avatar. I knew something like this would happen from the start, but choose to play that way anyway because I enjoyed playing a more contraversial paladin.

That's another view on the argument Valsgarde. Whilst it's fine to say a paladin should have traits x, y and z in order to be the perfect paladin, and anything else is poor and undeveloped RP because a paladin isn't meant to be like that, what's to stop somebody not having those traits and not being perfect? Just like in real life, everybody has their bad traits that may not be discovered by the masses until later on, and people change and may do things that changes people's perspectives on them.