I know that people are talking about paladins always sacrificing for good and the like. However has anyone ever thought about Neverwinter Nights? This, and I quote says:
'Paladins will do what is right for their community' (something like that). This means that a Drow paladin will do evil in the eyes of a human but will do right for other Drow. Therefore they are lawful good and we are chaotic evil for what we do to them (I personally say destroy them, but that's my opinion)
Any thoughts or a reply please post.
I'd like to hear them.
---------------------------------------------
Evil will fall at the blade of righteousness!
Paladins
Paladins
Perverteer Paladin
Evil has always been in the eye of the beholder. The alignement system present in Dungeons and Dragons only serves as a way to justify the killing of "monsters". IE they are evil and noone should feel bad for killing them (like the devils in Doom or the aliens in Halflife to name but two). Not very mature perhaps but propably saved a struggling roleplaying industries from being sued asunder when it was still in its infancy.
I am quite against the alignement system in the game. I feel that it is stale and unimaginative, and very unfair since it labels evil as unredeemable and good as truly virtious. But I can't argue against that it fills a purpouse.
Considering the wast number of creatures killed by even the most heroic heroes of BG2 it would be very hard to describe him as just and true had he not been slaying evil monsters but rather just people in general.
Not that one really should discuss such matters in a game. It's just a game after all. And a game is a game is a game...
I am quite against the alignement system in the game. I feel that it is stale and unimaginative, and very unfair since it labels evil as unredeemable and good as truly virtious. But I can't argue against that it fills a purpouse.
Considering the wast number of creatures killed by even the most heroic heroes of BG2 it would be very hard to describe him as just and true had he not been slaying evil monsters but rather just people in general.
Not that one really should discuss such matters in a game. It's just a game after all. And a game is a game is a game...
So you do not belive that people have morals other than those given by (a) society?
------------------
"Beyond the grave they will find nothing but death. But we shall keep the secret, and for their happiness we shall allure them with the reward of heaven and eternity." -- Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov
------------------
"Beyond the grave they will find nothing but death. But we shall keep the secret, and for their happiness we shall allure them with the reward of heaven and eternity." -- Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov
Thomas, Consider This.
A Drow (sorry to use again) sees a Spider being lined up for a crossbow shot, the final blow as it were. S/He is Chaotic Evil.
I think he would throw himself in the way
for a reward for Mother Lloth. Would a Lawful good do it for the spider and just for the spider? What do you think about theb fact that the race of character affects the alignment or decisions. Another example is the racial enemy of a Ranger. A ranger is generally kind yes? Well if he was against gnolls but saw one against insurmountable odds would he help or join the pummeling?
Consider this and post a reply. I want to get a really good discussion going!!
---------------------------------------------
Were i go evil will feel the sting of my blade.
A Drow (sorry to use again) sees a Spider being lined up for a crossbow shot, the final blow as it were. S/He is Chaotic Evil.
I think he would throw himself in the way
for a reward for Mother Lloth. Would a Lawful good do it for the spider and just for the spider? What do you think about theb fact that the race of character affects the alignment or decisions. Another example is the racial enemy of a Ranger. A ranger is generally kind yes? Well if he was against gnolls but saw one against insurmountable odds would he help or join the pummeling?
Consider this and post a reply. I want to get a really good discussion going!!
---------------------------------------------
Were i go evil will feel the sting of my blade.
Perverteer Paladin
Dear Nippy.
In my own humble way of envisioning events of fantasy and beyond I would say that the chaotic evil drow would not sacrifice his or her life to say that of the spider. I would say that he or she would reason that the spider must be weak and stupid to get itself killed like that.
This assumption is of course turned upon its head if the drow belived that saving the spider would grant him some kind of reward, sufficient enough to die for, or if he or she felt strongly for the spider, wich is not completely grasped out of the air since drow apparently consider giant spiders in the same way humans consider dogs. But the motive would either be completely selfish or an act against his or her usual view of the world, hence acting against the alignement set.
A lawful good drow would propably not get himself or herself killed for the spider either. Most people are not selfdestructively unselfish in their ways, if not just for the fact that they would not be able to save other spiders in the future if they got killed for this one. But if the spider somehow meant something special for the drow, be it pet or token of faith, then it might sacrifice itself for its wellbeing, that much I agree upon.
But not for the spider and just for the spider. That is as impropable as myself, though I do not consider myself either especially good or evil, would take a bullet for a dog just like that. I would have to have a very good reason, in my own view, to do such a thing. Not to mention that the shooter might have a good reason for trying to kill the dog wich I do not know about...
The ranger and his enemy of choise says nothing about his feelings for the inviduals of that enemy. In my opinion. Imagine that you are a soldier in a war. Would you kill all enemies just because they were your enemies? Or would you reach out and help one that laid wounded before you, if you could do so? Though I do not imagine rangers to be above a soulconsuming hatred for their chosen foe (wich they propably chose for a very good reason) I do not think that most of them actually hate their "racial enemy". They are just for some reason trained to be especially skilled at fighting such creatures, knowing their strengths and weaknesses better than folk in general.
So a ranger would be able to help a gnoll if he or she wanted to, and be quite good at it as well considering the knowledge posessed, and would propably do so if for no other reason than honor and consience. A gnoll is not an animal after all, and I doubt even the most hateful ranger would consider one to be such since one tends to know ones enemies well if you want to survive fighting them.
My answer thus is a question to you. Is there, the fictional gameworld of Faerun and AD&D in general, something called redemption?
Or is evil always evil and good always good?
My answer is that there is. And evil can do good and good can do evil and the rules of alignements is stale, unrealistic and boring. But a game is a game is a game...
In my own humble way of envisioning events of fantasy and beyond I would say that the chaotic evil drow would not sacrifice his or her life to say that of the spider. I would say that he or she would reason that the spider must be weak and stupid to get itself killed like that.
This assumption is of course turned upon its head if the drow belived that saving the spider would grant him some kind of reward, sufficient enough to die for, or if he or she felt strongly for the spider, wich is not completely grasped out of the air since drow apparently consider giant spiders in the same way humans consider dogs. But the motive would either be completely selfish or an act against his or her usual view of the world, hence acting against the alignement set.
A lawful good drow would propably not get himself or herself killed for the spider either. Most people are not selfdestructively unselfish in their ways, if not just for the fact that they would not be able to save other spiders in the future if they got killed for this one. But if the spider somehow meant something special for the drow, be it pet or token of faith, then it might sacrifice itself for its wellbeing, that much I agree upon.
But not for the spider and just for the spider. That is as impropable as myself, though I do not consider myself either especially good or evil, would take a bullet for a dog just like that. I would have to have a very good reason, in my own view, to do such a thing. Not to mention that the shooter might have a good reason for trying to kill the dog wich I do not know about...
The ranger and his enemy of choise says nothing about his feelings for the inviduals of that enemy. In my opinion. Imagine that you are a soldier in a war. Would you kill all enemies just because they were your enemies? Or would you reach out and help one that laid wounded before you, if you could do so? Though I do not imagine rangers to be above a soulconsuming hatred for their chosen foe (wich they propably chose for a very good reason) I do not think that most of them actually hate their "racial enemy". They are just for some reason trained to be especially skilled at fighting such creatures, knowing their strengths and weaknesses better than folk in general.
So a ranger would be able to help a gnoll if he or she wanted to, and be quite good at it as well considering the knowledge posessed, and would propably do so if for no other reason than honor and consience. A gnoll is not an animal after all, and I doubt even the most hateful ranger would consider one to be such since one tends to know ones enemies well if you want to survive fighting them.
My answer thus is a question to you. Is there, the fictional gameworld of Faerun and AD&D in general, something called redemption?
Or is evil always evil and good always good?
My answer is that there is. And evil can do good and good can do evil and the rules of alignements is stale, unrealistic and boring. But a game is a game is a game...
Thomas, in your statement, "Evil can do good and Good can do evil" you imply there is an absolute to what is good and evil.
Certainly noone (or only a very rare individual) is perfectly good or evil, but the listed alignment is only a guideline to the playing of the character, not a true rule. For some classes straying too far from this guideline will have severe consequences...for others it will result in an alignment change and little else. It seems reasonable that if someone usually act evil they would be considered evil and if they usually acted good then good. If the alignment change was from evil to good, this would be redemption. I would call a change from good to evil corruption.
Certain types of beings would be very unlikely to be redeemed or corrupted: Angels, Demons, Dragons (of either side), Undead, Paladins, Anti-Paladins, etc.
Good and evil also implies a sufficient level of intelligence to choose actions. Certain creatures operate on instinct and really can't be considered anything but neutral: Slimes, Elementals, etc...anything with animal level of intelligence.
Certain cultures in a fantasy world are far more good or evil than anything in real life. The drow are an evil example. AFAIK there are only 2 non-evil drow on record: Drizzt and Solafein (though Viconia seems close to redemption).
Your description of how drow would think and act sounds pretty close to the mark though I would put their attitude toward spiders closer to the Hindu attitude towards cows than our attitute towards dogs and mix in fear of what Lloth might do to them for not protecting the spider...there are fates worse than death. At the same time, Lloth might not notice or might not care too much since as you say the spider must have been weak and stupid.
As you say of course, it is all a game.
Certainly noone (or only a very rare individual) is perfectly good or evil, but the listed alignment is only a guideline to the playing of the character, not a true rule. For some classes straying too far from this guideline will have severe consequences...for others it will result in an alignment change and little else. It seems reasonable that if someone usually act evil they would be considered evil and if they usually acted good then good. If the alignment change was from evil to good, this would be redemption. I would call a change from good to evil corruption.
Certain types of beings would be very unlikely to be redeemed or corrupted: Angels, Demons, Dragons (of either side), Undead, Paladins, Anti-Paladins, etc.
Good and evil also implies a sufficient level of intelligence to choose actions. Certain creatures operate on instinct and really can't be considered anything but neutral: Slimes, Elementals, etc...anything with animal level of intelligence.
Certain cultures in a fantasy world are far more good or evil than anything in real life. The drow are an evil example. AFAIK there are only 2 non-evil drow on record: Drizzt and Solafein (though Viconia seems close to redemption).
Your description of how drow would think and act sounds pretty close to the mark though I would put their attitude toward spiders closer to the Hindu attitude towards cows than our attitute towards dogs and mix in fear of what Lloth might do to them for not protecting the spider...there are fates worse than death. At the same time, Lloth might not notice or might not care too much since as you say the spider must have been weak and stupid.
As you say of course, it is all a game.
I agree with you, Nighthawk. What else could I do? My statement was not meant to imply anything actually. It was just a pun with words to further express my loathing for the futulity of the alignement system present in AD&D.
I might be inclined to calm myself a bit though when the first orc is knighted as a paladin of the Radiant Order of Torm. And the rights of kobolds everywhere are recognised.
What can change the nature of a man? I say that anything can do such. 'Cause it's in mans nature, and thus in the nature of every creature man can be, to change.
I might be inclined to calm myself a bit though when the first orc is knighted as a paladin of the Radiant Order of Torm. And the rights of kobolds everywhere are recognised.
What can change the nature of a man? I say that anything can do such. 'Cause it's in mans nature, and thus in the nature of every creature man can be, to change.
I'll add a little story I heard from somewhere. I don't know whether this actually happened during a game session, or whether someone made this up, but here it goes:
A Paladin got to a village, and saw an angry mob, on the verge of lynching an Orc Shaman. After a few questions it appeared the mob blamed the Orc Shaman for killing numerous innocents. While people have been killed, the evidence against the Shaman is scarce and not closing, to say the least.
Because of this, and despite the vile nature of the Orc, the Paladin stepped in and prevented the lynching of a supposed innocent being, so justice was served. As he escorted the Shaman to safety, far away from the mob, the Shaman could not control his rage against mankind any longer, despite the fact that the Paladin saved his life. The claims were true, as it seemed, and he attacked the Paladin. In the ensuing battle the Shaman was slain, but the Paladin was mortally wounded, and died shortly thereafter.
The ways of a Paladin are sometimes obscured, and not rarely without peril.
A Paladin got to a village, and saw an angry mob, on the verge of lynching an Orc Shaman. After a few questions it appeared the mob blamed the Orc Shaman for killing numerous innocents. While people have been killed, the evidence against the Shaman is scarce and not closing, to say the least.
Because of this, and despite the vile nature of the Orc, the Paladin stepped in and prevented the lynching of a supposed innocent being, so justice was served. As he escorted the Shaman to safety, far away from the mob, the Shaman could not control his rage against mankind any longer, despite the fact that the Paladin saved his life. The claims were true, as it seemed, and he attacked the Paladin. In the ensuing battle the Shaman was slain, but the Paladin was mortally wounded, and died shortly thereafter.
The ways of a Paladin are sometimes obscured, and not rarely without peril.
-
bullions27
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2000 11:00 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Before anyone can ask what a Paladin is, they need to understand the differences between the AD&D alignments. Again, Paladins are like tragic heroes and yes tragic fools also. Unfortunately AD&D decided to make the subject even more confusing by making every damn race minus probably the Zhakarim slimes Paladins which is IMO totally absurd and silly. Each race can have champions of their own faiths and deities but they are not Paladins. The word itself isn't a class like a Fighter that can be broken down to smaller subclasses. Certain races, or churchs, (humans, not any other) may have separate ways of life but their reasons are all the same.
Another confusion is the difference between a dark paladin and a paladin. Read the novel Dragonlance Second Generations and look at the Knights of Takhisis (think that's the spelling). There is an excerpt in the end that is perfect for descibing to you what the differences are. I don't want to keep going. Explanations like this will take pages.
Another confusion is the difference between a dark paladin and a paladin. Read the novel Dragonlance Second Generations and look at the Knights of Takhisis (think that's the spelling). There is an excerpt in the end that is perfect for descibing to you what the differences are. I don't want to keep going. Explanations like this will take pages.
"What we have here is a failure to communicate." - Cool Hand Luke
JBullions' TeamBG Custom Items
JBullions' TeamBG Custom Items