Paladins and Sex
SP
paladin can make - they are not necessary to be a paladin. Also, sex is good
(hehe) and it is not against the law, so what stops the paladin from having
sex? And if he doesn't want to marry, what's wrong with using a banana peel?
NoelDog
>In the Complete Paladin's Handbook, chastity and celebacy are choices the
>paladin can make - they are not necessary to be a paladin. Also, sex is good
Each game world/campaign setting has it's own mythos and deities. Each
one of these has an ethos and under each ethos there are various sects. For
instance, in the Forgotten Realms, A Paladin to Torm(duty loyalty obedience)
might be "married" to the sect of Torm he supports and chasity & celebacy might
be a requirement. However a paladin to Ilmater might encourage marriage and
procreation (endurance & suffering).
It is generally a DM's call as to what role the paladin class plays within
a game world or campaign.
> Also, sex is good...
Can't argue that.
>... it is not against the law, so what stops the paladin from having
>sex?
Again in some cultures, procreation outside of wedlock and for any other
purpose but reproduction is unlawful and thus a paladin would be inclined to
follow the rules of the road.
>And if he doesn't want to marry, what's wrong with using a banana peel?
I'm not quite sure I follow you on this point (and question if I really want
to?).
The Amorphous Mass
siray...@aol.communist (SirAyastar) wrote:
[paladins having sex]
> On another marriage and such is a mainstay of most society's. They
> form a basis on which community's are built. You get married with
> expectations of exclusive sexual contact for a couple reasons, chief
> amoung them is that it's nice to know that the kid's you think are
> yours are actually in fact yours. It also avoids conflict if people are
> 'labeled' as taken or available.
The reason the Protestants emphasized the idea during the Renaissance is
that it went some way toward ensuring that a child would be born into a
stable situation, and the mother would not have to raise the child
herself. I haven't seen anything to the effect that single mothers had it
any better then than they do now.
> lawful organizations would probably be
> pro-marriage. Good ones would require you take care of any
> 'circumstances' that arise.
>
> All of this is mostly european in outlook and almost completely based
> on a male dominated society.
I'm not sure what's "male-dominated" about a familial society, since a
dominant male is not a requisite for a family. I *certainly* fail to
understand what is male-dominant about taking care of any
"circumstances." A society that favored men would leave the burden of
rearing a child out of wedlock entirely on the women.
That said, whether chastity is required of a paladin would depend on the
particular faith he was serving. I seem to recall the DMG1 noting in the
random city encounter section that there was nothing wrong with a paladin
getting drunk and going home with a prostitute, but I might be
misremembering.
--
The Amorphous Mass
amo...@avalon.net
http://www.avalon.net/~amorph <-- being rebuilt from scratch
Werebat
> Each game world/campaign setting has it's own mythos and deities. Each
> one of these has an ethos and under each ethos there are various sects.
Uh, Noeldog, he asked about *SEX*...
:^)
- Ron ^*^
krysta...@my-dejanews.com
noe...@aol.com (NoelDog) wrote:
> Okay, I'm a gonna step out on a limb here...
>
> >In the Complete Paladin's Handbook, chastity and celebacy are choices the
> >paladin can make - they are not necessary to be a paladin. Also, sex is good
>
> instance, in the Forgotten Realms, A Paladin to Torm(duty loyalty obedience)
> might be "married" to the sect of Torm he supports and chasity & celebacy might
> be a requirement. However a paladin to Ilmater might encourage marriage and
> procreation (endurance & suffering).
> It is generally a DM's call as to what role the paladin class plays within
> a game world or campaign.
>
> > Also, sex is good...
> Can't argue that.
>
> >... it is not against the law, so what stops the paladin from having
> >sex?
>
> Again in some cultures, procreation outside of wedlock and for any other
> purpose but reproduction is unlawful and thus a paladin would be inclined to
> follow the rules of the road.
>
> >And if he doesn't want to marry, what's wrong with using a banana peel?
>
> I'm not quite sure I follow you on this point (and question if I really want
> to?).
>
They DO have Paladins that have sex continuously. One of the most famous
ones went on to become a legendary heroe in table porn conversations. (Long
Dong Silver) Hell, where do you think the term "Swinging Dick" comes from?
Probably Paladins who used theirs as a club or other weapon. Come to think
of it, pretty much every weapon has at least a little bit of a phallic
reference, so you could say that DND is just a fantasy roleplaying game where
you go find cultures and monsters, compare penis sizes, and declare them your
enemy based on how much bigger/smaller theirs is to yours. Why, I remember
fondly the old "Whorebag" class from 1st edition, and when "Chainmail" was
just "Chicks in Chainmail....and very little at that." For that matter, why
does TSR even bother putting out modules. Playboy comes out once a
month.....
Sheeyah.... and I drive a Mercedes.....
wait a minute.....
"I come to game, I don't game to cum."
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
ALEX NIXON
SP <mcp...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<KI6r2.27$Qi1....@news.rdc1.on.wave.home.com>...
> In the Complete Paladin's Handbook, chastity and celebacy are choices the
> paladin can make - they are not necessary to be a paladin. Also, sex is
good
> (hehe) and it is not against the law, so what stops the paladin from
having
> sex? And if he doesn't want to marry, what's wrong with using a banana
peel?
Although I can see it as a restriction for a god, I don't know of any god
who would make it one. Plus, I remember a book where the paladin had sex
and he a her wasn't even DATING, let alone married.
Alex
SirAyastar
>choices the paladin can make - they are not necessary to be a paladin.
>Also, sex is good (hehe) and it is not against the law, so what stops the
>paladin from having sex? And if he doesn't want to marry, what's
>wrong with using a banana peel?
Well for one banana's are tropical fruits and very expensive in your
typical AD&D setting....
On another marriage and such is a mainstay of most society's. They
form a basis on which community's are built. You get married with
expectations of exclusive sexual contact for a couple reasons, chief
amoung them is that it's nice to know that the kid's you think are
yours are actually in fact yours. It also avoids conflict if people are
'labeled' as taken or available.
So while it's possible that a paladin wouldn't have to be chaste or celebate
he'd probably have a requirement that being unchaste
requires being uncelebate as well. Alot of this could vary with
the religion but most lawful organizations would probably be
pro-marriage. Good ones would require you take care of any
'circumstances' that arise.
All of this is mostly european in outlook and almost completely based
on a male dominated society. So take it as you will.
"Nobody ever said anything worth Quoting" --Anonymous
Return my adderess to it's undiluted capitalist state from it's present
misguided state, go ahead the computer says you should and the
computer is your friend.............Right?
SirAyastar
>Renaissance is that it went some way toward ensuring that a child
>would be born into a stable situation, and the mother would not have
>to raise the child herself. I haven't seen anything to the effect that
>single mothers had it any better then than they do now.
Was even thinking about the Renaissance. Mostly Ancient Isreal since
I've studied that a little.
> I'm not sure what's "male-dominated" about a familial society, since a
>dominant male is not a requisite for a family. I *certainly* fail to
>understand what is male-dominant about taking care of any
>"circumstances." A society that favored men would leave the burden
>of rearing a child out of wedlock entirely on the women.
Not really. Male-dominated often translates to "Women are property",
it'd be impossible and not right for a woman to try and survive (By
any means but charity) in those circumstances. At any rate I put that in
mostly because every society I've ever studied was male-dominated
and I'm not used to thinking in any means but that so my views are
prejudiced.
> That said, whether chastity is required of a paladin would depend on
>the particular faith he was serving. I seem to recall the DMG1 noting
>in the random city encounter section that there was nothing wrong
>with a paladin getting drunk and going home with a prostitute, but I
>might be misremembering.
As long as drinking and whoring are legal (lawful) and he's not hurting
anybody (Good) there's not real problem with the generic run of the
mill paladin doing such. Wether a specific paladin can or not depends
(As everybody has said) on the specific deity.
mai...@my-dejanews.com
Werebat <HES...@ETAL.URI.EDU> wrote:
> NoelDog wrote:
>
> > Each game world/campaign setting has it's own mythos and deities. Each
> > one of these has an ethos and under each ethos there are various sects.
>
>
> :^)
Sex? What's that? (Oh, yeah, the Roman numeral VI, I remember now . . .)
Ralph Glatt
Marshall
<mcp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In the Complete Paladin's Handbook, chastity and celebacy are choices the
> paladin can make - they are not necessary to be a paladin. Also, sex is good
> (hehe) and it is not against the law, so what stops the paladin from having
> sex? And if he doesn't want to marry, what's wrong with using a banana peel?
Depending on the circumstance, sex may be an unlawful act. irl sex
outside of marriage has been at various times illegal along with
masturbation. A Paladin of the catholic church would never engage in
either of them. However, there are religions out there which have very
different views on sexuality and a paladin could have different behaviour
codes. Not all paladins act alike, even though they share the same
alignment. As a DM I would rule that wanton sex with every tavern server,
while not evil, is chaotic and not something a paladin would engage in.
-Andrew
Michael Scott Brown
Marshall <mars...@brandeis.edu> wrote:
>Depending on the circumstance, sex may be an unlawful act. irl sex
>outside of marriage has been at various times illegal along with
That has nothing to do with a paladin's lawfulness, however.
The question is whether disavowing such things is compatible
with the paladin being Ordered; you don't want to use as a reference
the petty legalities which change from culture to culture. However,
denial-of-personal gratification *is* disciplined and fits in the
Lawful mold well enough.
I agree with your further point (haphazardly snipped!) that
ultimately it depends on the values of the particular sect;
chastity isn't *neccessary* for all paladin visions but it is
certainly compatible with many, while being exceptionally free
with one's favors does smell more like a Chaotic mindset.
-Michael
NoelDog
>
>:^)
I was getting to it....I just take a little bit to warm up....
Quentin Stephens
>So while it's possible that a paladin wouldn't have to be chaste or celebate
>he'd probably have a requirement that being unchaste
>requires being uncelebate as well.
Hmm... a paladin sponsered by a fertility deity?
qts
Usenet readers please reverse the elements of my given address to get my real one
Colin Neilson
wrote:
>As long as drinking and whoring are legal (lawful) and he's not hurting
>anybody (Good) there's not real problem with the generic run of the
>mill paladin doing such. Wether a specific paladin can or not depends
>(As everybody has said) on the specific deity.
I would disagree with this. Acting according to the law is not
necessarily lawful. Getting drunk and taking a prostitute is acting
in a random uncontrolled manner. That is chaotic whether it is legal
or not. As such, I would think that such behaviour would be out for
any Paladin, although not as serious a breach as murder or torture,
for example. IMC, I am having a similar discussion with a player
running a Paladin. He has been warned once about the dangers of
casual sex and has apparently ignored the warnings and had a fling
with an Elven PC during a dangerous and critical mission. As a
result, he was weaponless when a horde of undead attacked the inn they
were staying in. He was chastised by his god through an intermediary,
and until he meets some criteria for attonment (although not as
stringent as they would be for a more serious breach), he has lost his
protective abilities. He can still use his powers to help others, but
not himself. If he remains faithful to his partner, even marrying
her, and does not allow his lust to overrule his judgement again,
however, there will be no further problems.
Colin Neilson
<s...@mardlin.oc.ku> wrote:
>On 26 Jan 1999 02:43:56 GMT, SirAyastar wrote:
>
>>So while it's possible that a paladin wouldn't have to be chaste or celebate
>>he'd probably have a requirement that being unchaste
>>requires being uncelebate as well.
>
>Hmm... a paladin sponsered by a fertility deity?
Would probably be required to take a wife and have many children, but
would still be forbidden from casual sexual encounters because they
are chaotic.
verkuilen john v
>On 26 Jan 1999 02:43:56 GMT, SirAyastar wrote:
>>So while it's possible that a paladin wouldn't have to be chaste or celebate
>>he'd probably have a requirement that being unchaste
>>requires being uncelebate as well.
>Hmm... a paladin sponsered by a fertility deity?
That's a real good example. Let's say one was using the Japanese pantheon
from Legends & Lore. You could quite easily have a paladin of Amaterasu
(goddess of sun, fertility, etc.) and I doubt quite highly this individual
would remain celibate and chaste. Chaste perhaps, but they might well have
fertility rites to participate in, etc.
Bottom line: Don't simply assume that you can slap Christian (particularly
Catholic) morality onto paladins and the like. They may well not have to
behave this way and those values may well not be the ones of the society.
I doubt rampant promiscuity or drunkeness would be acceptable to the vast
majority of lawful good types, but the prohibition is probably not necessary
either.
Jay
--
J. Verkuilen ja...@uiuc.edu
"Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it
concentrates his mind wonderfully." --Dr. Samuel Johnson
D. Cameron King
> I would disagree with this. Acting according to the law is not
> necessarily lawful. Getting drunk and taking a prostitute is acting
> in a random uncontrolled manner. That is chaotic whether it is legal
> or not. As such...
No, no, no, no, NO! Acting in a "random, uncontrolled manner" does
not equal Chaotic. It's surprising to see you make this blunder,
since you obviously understand that acting "according to the law"
is not necessarily Lawful. Furthermore, there is nothing "random"
about getting drunk or whoring (at least as far as I can see; it's
quite deliberate and typically involves conscious choice--beer or
wine? redhead or blonde?), and arguably nothing "uncontrolled,"
either (well, maybe the orgasm; and puking if you drink to excess).
ROHAN118
>paladin can make - they are not necessary to be a paladin. Also, sex is good
>(hehe) and it is not against the law, so what stops the paladin from having
>sex?
It would depend on the LG mythos that the Paladin serves. But in a historical
world, a Christian Paladin would have to be celibate, or at least refrain from
sex out of wedlock. Sir Lancelot lost favor with God when he had his affair
with Gwenevere, and on the Grail Quest, Sir Bors was tempted by many beautiful
women (which were really fiends in human form), even when some maidens told him
that they were under a witches' curse and would die if they didn't have sex
with a knight. He still refused, and was one of the three knights to
successfully complete the Grail Quest.
Rohan
SirAyastar
>I would disagree with this. Acting according to the law is not
>necessarily lawful. Getting drunk and taking a prostitute is acting
>in a random uncontrolled manner. That is chaotic whether it is legal
>any Paladin, although not as serious a breach as murder or torture,
>for example.
What if he planned it? Moderates his imbiding so that he doesn't
lose control? Goes to a prostitute to relieve sexual tension that were
otherwise interphering with his judgement? I don't see these actions
to be unlawful regardless of circumstance. I do acknowledge that
these actions could indeed be a voilation in the proper instance.
ba...@digital-marketplace.net
not sound too lawful an action. Further there can be unexpected
results. Can you say daddy?
Michael Scott Brown
D. Cameron King <hac...@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>> I would disagree with this. Acting according to the law is not
>> necessarily lawful. Getting drunk and taking a prostitute is acting
>> in a random uncontrolled manner. That is chaotic whether it is legal
Hmm. Drunkenness is certainly undisciplined behaviour and thus
is not Lawful - but it need not be actually Chaotic either. There is
a neutral ground of happy drunks who are pleasantly addled but aren't
going off mooning people and starting tavern brawls.
Sleeping with soemone - for money or not- is likewise unaligned,
though how one goes about it will be a reflection of their personality.
-Michael
ba...@digital-marketplace.net
>
> On 26/01/99 14:35, in message <36ae427c...@nntp.telusplanet.net>, Colin
> Neilson <cnei...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 20:21:54 +0000 (GMT), "Quentin Stephens"
> > <s...@mardlin.oc.ku> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >>So while it's possible that a paladin wouldn't have to be chaste or celebate
> > >>he'd probably have a requirement that being unchaste
> > >>requires being uncelebate as well.
> > >
> > >Hmm... a paladin sponsered by a fertility deity?
> >
> > would still be forbidden from casual sexual encounters because they
> > are chaotic.
> Why?
>
> ---
> No matter where you go in the World, there you are.
Well here I agree, go forth and multiply, serving a deity of
fertality. might not even contentence marriage
ba...@digital-marketplace.net
<snip>
>
> Alright, I have my answer 10-fold: if the paladin's faith permits it, then
> he can have sex. If it doesn't, then he can't. I am thus assuming that if he
> doesn't worship a god (the character I am talking about) then he doesn't
> have any religious rules to follow.
If a fighter does not worship a god, he can not be a Paladin
ba...@digital-marketplace.net
>
> In article <36AE6...@digital-marketplace.net>,
> <ba...@digital-marketplace.net> wrote:
> >If a fighter does not worship a god, he can not be a Paladin
>
>
>
> -Michael
*S* I did mean fighter, as that is reguried to be a Paladin,
having no god/godess or breaking faith with one, all Paladins
become just fighters and certainly not any other class *Smiles*
PJS
Neilson <cnei...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> On 26 Jan 1999 03:38:23 GMT, siray...@aol.communist (SirAyastar)
> wrote:
> >As long as drinking and whoring are legal (lawful) and he's not hurting
> >anybody (Good) there's not real problem with the generic run of the
> >mill paladin doing such. Wether a specific paladin can or not depends
> >(As everybody has said) on the specific deity.
>
> I would disagree with this. Acting according to the law is not
> necessarily lawful. Getting drunk and taking a prostitute is acting
> in a random uncontrolled manner. That is chaotic whether it is legal
> or not.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Once again inappropriate real world values (this time Judaeo-Christian) are
creeping into the game... in what way, objectively speaking, is this behaving
in a "random" way?
PJS
Neilson <cnei...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 20:21:54 +0000 (GMT), "Quentin Stephens"
> <s...@mardlin.oc.ku> wrote:
>
> >On 26 Jan 1999 02:43:56 GMT, SirAyastar wrote:
> >
> >>So while it's possible that a paladin wouldn't have to be chaste or celebate
> >>he'd probably have a requirement that being unchaste
> >>requires being uncelebate as well.
> >
> >Hmm... a paladin sponsered by a fertility deity?
>
> Would probably be required to take a wife and have many children, but
> would still be forbidden from casual sexual encounters because they
> are chaotic.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Why?
---
DebiHuman
of wives could be based on his abilty to "honor" all of them.
Moslems and Mormons dealt with this issue of more than one wife. How many
wives did King David have? .
The Roman Catholic church doesn't allow priests and nuns to marry because part
of their vocation is considered to be married to the Church, and, as such, to
have sex would be like committing adultry (major sin for almost all religions).
Debby
SP
news:amorph-2501...@dial26.icwest.avalon.net...
> I'm not sure what's "male-dominated" about a familial society, since a
>dominant male is not a requisite for a family. I *certainly* fail to
>understand what is male-dominant about taking care of any
>"circumstances." A society that favored men would leave the burden of
>rearing a child out of wedlock entirely on the women.
Oh, come on! In a situation like this, the woman would usually stay at home
and govern household affairs, having maids look after the house and guards
look after the towers, while the husband would usually go off to work in
whatever position he worked as; maybe a banker, lord, politician,
whatever... However, the man, even though he had a technically equal
position next to his wife, would still make the big desisions around the
house.
> That said, whether chastity is required of a paladin would depend on the
>particular faith he was serving. I seem to recall the DMG1 noting in the
>random city encounter section that there was nothing wrong with a paladin
>getting drunk and going home with a prostitute, but I might be
>misremembering.
Alright, I have my answer 10-fold: if the paladin's faith permits it, then
SP
news:78lkm3$jmj$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
>In article <Pine.GSO.4.04.990126...@dilbert.ucdavis.edu>,
>D. Cameron King <hac...@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>>> necessarily lawful. Getting drunk and taking a prostitute is acting
>>> in a random uncontrolled manner. That is chaotic whether it is legal
>
> Hmm. Drunkenness is certainly undisciplined behaviour and thus
> is not Lawful - but it need not be actually Chaotic either. There is
> a neutral ground of happy drunks who are pleasantly addled but aren't
> going off mooning people and starting tavern brawls.
> Sleeping with soemone - for money or not- is likewise unaligned,
> though how one goes about it will be a reflection of their personality.
If a drunk man commits no unlawful acts while he is drunk (even a lawful
good man), then I don't see how it's undisceplined behaviour. In this case,
he is just having a good time. However, a paladin would never get willingly
drunk because it blurs his concept of what is right and wrong, even if he is
mildly drunk, and therefore he would not be able to act as a force of lawful
goodness if he was needed. If he was a lone wolf, and followed his own
principals, as opposed to following a religion, the paladin would just see
getting drunk as:
1. A waste of time.
2. A danger for himself and others. If he got drunk, and someone attacked
him, he might not be able to defend himself as well, and if he does, he
might do something unwilling, like kill the attacker, as opposed to just
restraining him.
SP
news:78lgdl$flu$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu...
>That's a real good example. Let's say one was using the Japanese pantheon
>from Legends & Lore. You could quite easily have a paladin of Amaterasu
>(goddess of sun, fertility, etc.) and I doubt quite highly this individual
>would remain celibate and chaste. Chaste perhaps, but they might well have
>fertility rites to participate in, etc.
IMHU, I wouldn't use a paladin for a champion of Amataresu Omikami, I would
use either a sohei, shukenja, or a fighter who simply her champion. I don't
see why it would take paladinic abilities to be her champion..
Michael Scott Brown
SP <mcp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Hmm. Drunkenness is certainly undisciplined behaviour and thus
>> is not Lawful - but it need not be actually Chaotic either. There is
>> a neutral ground of happy drunks who are pleasantly addled but aren't
>> going off mooning people and starting tavern brawls.
>> Sleeping with soemone - for money or not- is likewise unaligned,
>> though how one goes about it will be a reflection of their personality.
>
>If a drunk man commits no unlawful acts while he is drunk (even a lawful
>good man), then I don't see how it's undisceplined behaviour.
It's the act of saucing yourself in the first place that is
undisciplined- not what you do once you are (that's another issue).
Relaxing your personal discipline; or using a chemical to do it;
either way, same result. Less discipline. Undisciplined-ness.
However, if you were enough of a stiffy to start with, then even
when 'relaxed' you might not be prone to engaging in Chaotic actions.
But you're definitely less Lawful than when you're sober.
> However, a paladin would never get willingly
>drunk because it blurs his concept of what is right and wrong, even if he is
>mildly drunk, and therefore he would not be able to act as a force of lawful
>goodness if he was needed.
I don't agree with this. Someone of as good moral character as
a paladin isn't going to lose his focus on right and wrong
just because he is intoxicated (he's more likely to lose focus of
his sense of proportion, rather). It's neutral and evil pukes who
wind up raping and pillaging (as an extreme) when they're drunk-
true nature coming out when uninhibited and all that.
A paladin will be Good sober and Good drunk. Drunkenness will
just change his volume setting and his aim.
The argument that he 'might not be able to act as a force of good
while drunk doesn't fly, IMO - by that logic the paladin should
never sleep or use the restroom. They're human. They can relax.
The relative risk of allowing one's guard down ... that's an issue
with each character's own sense of paranoia, not the class.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
Michael Scott Brown
<ba...@digital-marketplace.net> wrote:
>> >If a fighter does not worship a god, he can not be a Paladin
>>
>> Assuming you meant "character" and not fighter (tautology) .. Bah.
> *S* I did mean fighter, as that is reguried to be a Paladin,
No, it isn't. Paladins and Fighters are separate classes.
If you are a Fighter, you are not a Paladin, by definition - and
the prerequisite for Paladin status is by no means Fighter status.
Hence, the tautology comment. Get it?
>having no god/godess or breaking faith with one, all Paladins
>become just fighters and certainly not any other class *Smiles*
No. Read the manual. The paladin loses his Paladinic status
*for committing evil acts*. There is no mention of breaking faith
with a diety, or a discussion on the subject of paladins having a
god (or not). A Paladin need not acknowledge a diety at all.
He just has to be righteous.
-Michael
Chris Moran
ba...@digital-marketplace.net wrote:
>
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> >
> > In article <36AE6...@digital-marketplace.net>,
> > <ba...@digital-marketplace.net> wrote:
> > >If a fighter does not worship a god, he can not be a Paladin
> >
> > Assuming you meant "character" and not fighter (tautology) .. Bah.
> >
> >
> > -Michael
> *S* I did mean fighter, as that is reguried to be a Paladin,
> having no god/godess or breaking faith with one, all Paladins
> become just fighters and certainly not any other class *Smiles*
I think we need to distinguish with "warrior" and "fighter". "Warrior"
is the major class that fighters and paladins belong to. They are not
the same thing. As for the whole god/goddess thing, sorry, but there's
nothing official that says that a paladin has to worship anyone. While
paladins are USUALLY religious, it is not a strict requirement. Only
the Lawful Good alignment is.
Wetwyrk
their god/goddess.
Phantommagi
a_jedi...@my-dejanews.com
mai...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <36AD6C...@ETAL.URI.EDU>,
> Werebat <HES...@ETAL.URI.EDU> wrote:
> > NoelDog wrote:
> >
> > > Each game world/campaign setting has it's own mythos and deities.
Each
> > > one of these has an ethos and under each ethos there are various sects.
> >
> > Uh, Noeldog, he asked about *SEX*...
> >
> > :^)
>
>
> Ralph Glatt
hehe, I see this degenerating into a pun war. first to answer the question
with a question, can a catholic preist have sex? a Rabbi?, a nun?, it all
depends on the religeon, thus the reference to various deity or sect. My
paladin is quite popular with the ladies. His religeon forbids marriage to
the clergy(and in that sect, there are no clerics, all clergy are paladins)
BUT, the religion has no restrictions on premarital sex. so celebacy(never
marrying) is required, chastity(no sex) is not.
--- --- --- ---
I submit that we are both atheist, I simply beleive in one fewer god
than you. When you can understand why you dismiss all other gods, then
you will understand why I dismiss yours.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Staffan Johansson
>
> Then where do the Paladins gain their special abilities if it isn't granted by
> their god/goddess.
The Complete Priest's Handbook mentions that some philosophies can be so
compelling as to generate the same type of "faith energy" used by gods.
Three examples of those philosophies are included in the book: Good,
Evil and Divinity of Mankind. I could easily see a Paladin gain his
powers from simply being righteous.
--
Staffan Johansson (d9...@efd.lth.se)
Drive defensively. Buy a tank.
ba...@digital-marketplace.net
>
> In article <36AE92...@digital-marketplace.net>,
> <ba...@digital-marketplace.net> wrote:
> >> >If a fighter does not worship a god, he can not be a Paladin
> >>
> >> Assuming you meant "character" and not fighter (tautology) .. Bah.
>
>
> If you are a Fighter, you are not a Paladin, by definition - and
> the prerequisite for Paladin status is by no means Fighter status.
> Hence, the tautology comment. Get it?
Okay you must be reading 2nd ED. where warrior is used as Class
group, In 1st Ed. Paladins and Rangers are sub-class fighters *S*
>
> >having no god/godess or breaking faith with one, all Paladins
> >become just fighters and certainly not any other class *Smiles*
>
> No. Read the manual. The paladin loses his Paladinic status
> *for committing evil acts*. There is no mention of breaking faith
> with a diety, or a discussion on the subject of paladins having a
> god (or not). A Paladin need not acknowledge a diety at all.
> He just has to be righteous.
>
> -Michael
This is a semantics, breaking faith could in itself could be commiting
an evil act. The tread started with idea of a Paladin getting under the
influence of drink to do something he would have felt was improper
(prehaps evil?) when sober.
ba...@digital-marketplace.net
*nods* an option book, I can offer that not serving Tyr for example
but the idea of just good, that the spells and special abilities are
still god granted, prehaps they have a co-op of powers of good that
the Paladin of such make up gets spells and powers from. *shrugs*
jr...@hermes.cam.ac.uk
> <snip>
> >
> > Alright, I have my answer 10-fold: if the paladin's faith permits it, then
> > he can have sex. If it doesn't, then he can't. I am thus assuming that if he
> > doesn't worship a god (the character I am talking about) then he doesn't
> > have any religious rules to follow.
>
>
Rubbish. Read the Complete Paladin's Handbook.
(Yes, I've bought a copy. I love playing Paladins...)
Jack Rudd
President of the unofficial Jackie Woodburne Fan Club
http://www.geocities.com/EnchantedForest/Glade/9872/index.html
ba...@digital-marketplace.net
>
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> >
> > In article <36AE92...@digital-marketplace.net>,
> > <ba...@digital-marketplace.net> wrote:
> > >>
> >
> > > *S* I did mean fighter, as that is reguried to be a Paladin,
> >
> > No, it isn't. Paladins and Fighters are separate classes.
> > If you are a Fighter, you are not a Paladin, by definition - and
> > the prerequisite for Paladin status is by no means Fighter status.
> > Hence, the tautology comment. Get it?
>
> Okay you must be reading 2nd ED. where warrior is used as Class
> group, In 1st Ed. Paladins and Rangers are sub-class fighters *S*
> >
> > >having no god/godess or breaking faith with one, all Paladins
> > >become just fighters and certainly not any other class *Smiles*
> >
> > No. Read the manual. The paladin loses his Paladinic status
> > *for committing evil acts*. There is no mention of breaking faith
> > with a diety, or a discussion on the subject of paladins having a
> > god (or not). A Paladin need not acknowledge a diety at all.
> > He just has to be righteous.
> >
> > -Michael
>
> This is a semantics, breaking faith could in itself could be commiting
> influence of drink to do something he would have felt was improper
> (prehaps evil?) when sober.
corrects spelling and adds "Lawfulness and good deeds are the meat and
drink of a paladin. If a paladin ever knowingly performs a chaotic act,
he must seek a high-level (7th or more) cleric of lawful good alignment,
confess his sin, and do penance as prescribed by the cleric. If a
paladin should ever knowingly and willingly perform an evil act, he
loses the status of paladinhood immediately and irrevocably. "
Looking toward the cleric being needed to forgive a Paladin for
chaotic act, imples forgiveness of god/godess. Some campaignes leave
most religions out of campaigns, are have smomple god gods, bad gods,
netural gods without any further details, other DMs indeed get very
much involved in specific gods FR certainly has, as have other RSR
game worlds.
Michael Scott Brown
<ba...@digital-marketplace.net> wrote:
>Okay you must be reading 2nd ED. where warrior is used as Class
>group, In 1st Ed. Paladins and Rangers are sub-class fighters *S*
Ah. Little hint for your future here. When you're referring to
rules that were supplanted a decade ago, you should point that out.
>> No. Read the manual. The paladin loses his Paladinic status
>> *for committing evil acts*. There is no mention of breaking faith
>> with a diety, or a discussion on the subject of paladins having a
>> god (or not). A Paladin need not acknowledge a diety at all.
>> He just has to be righteous.
>
>This is a semantics,
Bah.
>breaking faith could in itself could be commiting an evil act.
You are confusing sufficient with neccessary.
>The tread started with idea of a Paladin getting under the
>influence of drink to do something he would have felt was improper
>(prehaps evil?) when sober.
But *you* said that a paladin had to have a diety. You are wrong.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
<ba...@digital-marketplace.net> wrote:
>corrects spelling and adds "Lawfulness and good deeds are the meat and
>drink of a paladin. If a paladin ever knowingly performs a chaotic act,
>he must seek a high-level (7th or more) cleric of lawful good alignment,
>confess his sin, and do penance as prescribed by the cleric. If a
>paladin should ever knowingly and willingly perform an evil act, he
>loses the status of paladinhood immediately and irrevocably. "
>
>Looking toward the cleric being needed to forgive a Paladin for
>chaotic act, imples forgiveness of god/godess.
But notice yourself - if the Paladin had to have a diety *of his own*
then he would have to go to a priest *of that diety*, logically.
But this isn't the case.
He simply has to atone with *any* priest of *any* god as long as
that god is lawful good in ideals.
If the character has a god, then going to a priest of his god
meets this description easily, of course - but it works just as
well if he does not recognize a personal champion.
Thankyou for pulling the quote that proves my point.
-Michael
ba...@digital-marketplace.net
The Paladin seemed at best finding a way to have and eat cake at
same time and keep ability. The way I replied though had made some
reliance on gods being active in campaing *shrugs* The warrior
fighter caught me a little flack as well.
ba...@digital-marketplace.net
>
> In article <36AF26...@digital-marketplace.net>,
> <ba...@digital-marketplace.net> wrote:
> >Okay you must be reading 2nd ED. where warrior is used as Class
> >group, In 1st Ed. Paladins and Rangers are sub-class fighters *S*
>
> Ah. Little hint for your future here. When you're referring to
> rules that were supplanted a decade ago, you should point that out.
Well in case you did not notice 1st Ed is still arround, I
could however also request that when you guote options books for
second, Complete Handbook for class it can also help *S*
>
> >> No. Read the manual. The paladin loses his Paladinic status
> >> *for committing evil acts*. There is no mention of breaking faith
> >> with a diety, or a discussion on the subject of paladins having a
> >> god (or not). A Paladin need not acknowledge a diety at all.
> >> He just has to be righteous.
> >
> >This is a semantics,
>
> Bah.
>
> >breaking faith could in itself could be commiting an evil act.
>
> You are confusing sufficient with neccessary.
>
> >The tread started with idea of a Paladin getting under the
> >influence of drink to do something he would have felt was improper
> >(prehaps evil?) when sober.
>
> But *you* said that a paladin had to have a diety. You are wrong.
>
> -Michael
">> >If a fighter does not worship a god, he can not be a Paladin
>>
>> Assuming you meant "character" and not fighter (tautology) .. Bah.
> *S* I did mean fighter, as that is reguried to be a Paladin,
>> >If a fighter does not worship a god, he can not be a Paladin
>>
>> Assuming you meant "character" and not fighter (tautology) .. Bah.
> *S* I did mean fighter, as that is reguried to be a Paladin,
" is what was said, considering the sites made from CHB of
Priests there still is implied a greater power, the concept of
good that conferrs god gifted powers, Take word god and replace
with keeping faith to belief, I believe we generally agree.
Bruce L. Grubb
(Michael Scott Brown) wrote:
>In article <36AE92...@digital-marketplace.net>,
> <ba...@digital-marketplace.net> wrote:
>>> >If a fighter does not worship a god, he can not be a Paladin
>>>
>>> Assuming you meant "character" and not fighter (tautology) .. Bah.
>
>> *S* I did mean fighter, as that is reguried to be a Paladin,
>
> No, it isn't. Paladins and Fighters are separate classes.
This depends on which version of AD&D one plays. In Pre-UA AD&D1 the
Paladin is a subclass of the fighter, only after the UA came out did
Palidins become a supclass of the cavalier class
> If you are a Fighter, you are not a Paladin, by definition - and
> the prerequisite for Paladin status is by no means Fighter status.
> Hence, the tautology comment. Get it?
Relate this idea to Pre-UA AD&D1 and it maght make more sence.
>>having no god/godess or breaking faith with one, all Paladins
>>become just fighters and certainly not any other class *Smiles*
>
> No. Read the manual. The paladin loses his Paladinic status
> *for committing evil acts*. There is no mention of breaking faith
> with a diety, or a discussion on the subject of paladins having a
> god (or not). A Paladin need not acknowledge a diety at all.
> He just has to be righteous.
The problem with the 'committing evil acts' is that what a diety considers
good and evil may not jive with the AD&D alignment system. Which bring up
the question of why the absolute sytem exist in the first place.
shouldn't the diety be the one desiding what are 'evil' act rather than
the alignment system?
Wetwyrk
Thanks for the info
Phantommagi
Colin Neilson
I'm assuming the question is why are casual sexual encounters chaotic.
Law implies stability, chaos implies randomness and change. Casual
sex is a very random act. Promiscuity is not sable. having many
sexual partners does not help to form stable relationships. As such,
casual sex is chaotic. Since Paladins are supposed to stay away from
chaotic acts, casual sex is out.
SP
news:36AE6...@digital-marketplace.net...
>SP wrote:
><snip>
>>
>> Alright, I have my answer 10-fold: if the paladin's faith permits it,
then
>> he can have sex. If it doesn't, then he can't. I am thus assuming that if
he
>> doesn't worship a god (the character I am talking about) then he doesn't
>> have any religious rules to follow.
>
Bullshit.
Complete Paladin's Handbook: TABLE 14 - FEALTY COMBINATIONS
COMBINATION PERMITTED/FORBIDDEN
Government, Religion, and Philosophy Forbidden*
Government and Religion Permitted
Government and Philosophy Permitted <-- Do I see any
Religion? No!
Religion and Philosophy Forbidden*
Government alone Forbidden**
Religion Alone Permitted
Philosophy Alone Permitted <-- My argument wins
again
* For the purposes of fealty, religion and philosophy are mutually
exclusive.
** Every paladin must pledge fealty to either a religion or a philosophy,
which serves as the source of his special powers (described in Chapter 2).
Sorry about having to draw the big guns, but you really shouyldn't jump to
conclusions.
Colin Neilson
wrote:
>> > Would probably be required to take a wife and have many children, but
>> > would still be forbidden from casual sexual encounters because they
>> > are chaotic.
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> Why?
>>
>> No matter where you go in the World, there you are.
>fertality. might not even contentence marriage
I am operating under the official rules for Paladins where they must
be Lawful Good, and as such only LG or occaisionally LN dieties will
support them. Fertility gods are normally not Lawful. On the other
hand, I see no reason why a Lawful fertility god would not contenence
marriage as long as the marriage was fruitful.
Colin Neilson
>Hmm or why not just have a Paladin with more than one wife. In fact, the number
>of wives could be based on his abilty to "honor" all of them.
>
> Moslems and Mormons dealt with this issue of more than one wife. How many
>wives did King David have? .
Under standard rules for Paladins, such a thing would be plausible, if
it were appropriate for the culture. A Paladin from a culture based
on the Moslem faith would probably be obligated to take more than one
wife under certain situations. That is not the same as casula sexual
relationships, however.
SP
> It's the act of saucing yourself in the first place that is
> undisciplined- not what you do once you are (that's another issue).
> Relaxing your personal discipline; or using a chemical to do it;
> either way, same result. Less discipline. Undisciplined-ness.
> However, if you were enough of a stiffy to start with, then even
> when 'relaxed' you might not be prone to engaging in Chaotic actions.
> But you're definitely less Lawful than when you're sober.
This brings up a different question. If a paladin were to spark a joint,
what would be his punishment?
> The argument that he 'might not be able to act as a force of good
> while drunk doesn't fly, IMO - by that logic the paladin should
> never sleep or use the restroom. They're human. They can relax.
> The relative risk of allowing one's guard down ... that's an issue
> with each character's own sense of paranoia, not the class.
Yes, but sleeping and answering nature's call are natural. Getting drunk is
a choice, not something that HAS to be done, and therefore the paladin would
probably take the lawful good path, aka not getting drunk.
Colin Neilson
<hac...@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Colin Neilson wrote:
>
>> I would disagree with this. Acting according to the law is not
>> necessarily lawful. Getting drunk and taking a prostitute is acting
>> in a random uncontrolled manner. That is chaotic whether it is legal
>> or not. As such...
>
>No, no, no, no, NO! Acting in a "random, uncontrolled manner" does
>not equal Chaotic. It's surprising to see you make this blunder,
>since you obviously understand that acting "according to the law"
>is not necessarily Lawful. Furthermore, there is nothing "random"
>about getting drunk or whoring (at least as far as I can see; it's
>quite deliberate and typically involves conscious choice--beer or
>wine? redhead or blonde?), and arguably nothing "uncontrolled,"
>either (well, maybe the orgasm; and puking if you drink to excess).
Funny, It has always been my experience that drunkenness leads to
unplanned actions. It is also my understanding from reading the books
that a chaotic alignment implies random actions. For example,
"Chaotic Neutral characters believe that there is no order to
anything, including their own actions." (PHB 2nd ed. p 47)
The Barbarians handbook, which does an excellent job of describing the
alignments also shows Chaotic Neutral to be a force of randomness. In
their example of two tribes in a dispute over corn, they state that a
CN tribesman might just burn down the cornfield if the mood struck
him.
Law being the antithesis to chaos must, therefore act in a stable and
somewhat predictable manner. Since casual drinking leads to
unpredictable actions, and possibly even more chaotic and possibly
evil behaviour, it is something a Paladin should avoid. Since casual
sexual encounters do not result in stable long term relationships,
they are chaotic.
Colin Neilson
>> I would disagree with this. Acting according to the law is not
>> necessarily lawful. Getting drunk and taking a prostitute is acting
>> in a random uncontrolled manner. That is chaotic whether it is legal
>> or not.
>Once again inappropriate real world values (this time Judaeo-Christian) are
>creeping into the game... in what way, objectively speaking, is this behaving
>in a "random" way?
Unless you have abandoned the real world to the point that alcohol
makes one more alert and better able to make good judgements, getting
drunk encouirages chaotic behaviour due to its impairments on
judgement. availing oneself of a prostitute does not lead to a long
term, stanble (read Lawful) relationship. If the Paladin were to
remain faithful and true to the prostitute, that might constitue a
Lawful relationship, but if he is just going for a one night fling,
that is not Lawful behaviour. Real world Judeo-Christian morality
does not enter into it. The definition of Lawful in the AD&D game
world is the important point here.
verkuilen john v
>verkuilen john v <ja...@ux6.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
>news:78lgdl$flu$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu...
>>That's a real good example. Let's say one was using the Japanese pantheon
>>from Legends & Lore. You could quite easily have a paladin of Amaterasu
>>(goddess of sun, fertility, etc.) and I doubt quite highly this individual
>>would remain celibate and chaste. Chaste perhaps, but they might well have
>>fertility rites to participate in, etc.
>IMHU, I wouldn't use a paladin for a champion of Amataresu Omikami, I would
>use either a sohei, shukenja, or a fighter who simply her champion.
Because I don't use the sohei, shukenja, etc., classes?
I don't
>see why it would take paladinic abilities to be her champion..
It wouldn't, I'm just pointing out an example of a lawful good diety that
wouldn't be in the celibate norm.
Heck, if you used the Jewish God as an example, maybe paladins HAVE to be
married.
--
J. Verkuilen ja...@uiuc.edu
"Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it
concentrates his mind wonderfully." --Dr. Samuel Johnson
verkuilen john v
[snip]
>I am operating under the official rules for Paladins where they must
>be Lawful Good, and as such only LG or occaisionally LN dieties will
>support them. Fertility gods are normally not Lawful. On the other
>hand, I see no reason why a Lawful fertility god would not contenence
>marriage as long as the marriage was fruitful.
Why not? Fertility is a pretty regular thing. Society is built on
the changing of the seasons, agriculture, marriage, birth, etc. Fertility
could mean a lot of things, not just babe-a-liscious sex pots.
Jay
Werebat
entirely in the header, folks.
- Ron ^*^
ba...@digital-marketplace.net
>
> <ba...@digital-marketplace.net> wrote in message
<snip>
> >
> >If a fighter does not worship a god, he can not be a Paladin
>
> Bullshit.
>
*motes rude reply* As I posted other wise in thread, subsitute
faith, (or if you pefer ethos) for word god. A Paladin is held to a
high standard, based on the DMs world.
<snips options>
>
> Sorry about having to draw the big guns, but you really shouyldn't jump to
> conclusions.
I repeat a Paladin is held to a high standard, if not to a god,
godess certainly to a standard of conduct
Marshall
> > >
> > >Hmm... a paladin sponsered by a fertility deity?
> >
> > would still be forbidden from casual sexual encounters because they
> > are chaotic.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Why?
>
I'm not going to bore everybody in this group with all the monographs out
there on this, but suffice it to say that illegitimate children and
bastardy were considered a very serious problem in early modern Europe.
They confused issues of property rights, inheritence clauses as well as
adding an alienated element to society which was often viewed as being
dangerous and disruptive. The importance of virginity before marriage was
a hallmark of society-destroying that broke down the traditional family
functions, again a chaotic act. A Paladin who promotes this is acting in
a chaotic manner (and, imho, there's not much wiggle room here). The
advent of birth control has changed society's view on sex outside the
family since it is no longer as chaotic vis-a-vis established roles as it
once was, but assuming campaigns lack effective birth control methods, the
paladin in question could very well be adding to the non-lawful elements
of society with illegitimate offspring. Before people break down my door
claiming that such thoughts are mired in Christianity, I'd like to point
out that in the dark ages (when most people were still Christian to some
degree), such laws did not exist for the most part because of a lack of
formal conceptions of property and society on large scales. Most D&D
games I've seen (and certainally the campaign settings out there) run on a
late dark age level of technology with an early modern sense of society.
A paladin of any standing (and one could argue that all paladins have some
social/religious standing) would not knowingly engage in behaviour which
could threaten the society and/or institutions in which he has standing.
Of course, paladins of non-LG alignments (from the old Dragon article)
could have very different views on all of this.
-Andrew
ba...@digital-marketplace.net
>
> In article <36AE6...@digital-marketplace.net>,
> ba...@digital-marketplace.net wrote:
> > <snip>
> > >
> > > Alright, I have my answer 10-fold: if the paladin's faith permits it, then
> > > he can have sex. If it doesn't, then he can't. I am thus assuming that if he
> > > doesn't worship a god (the character I am talking about) then he doesn't
> > > have any religious rules to follow.
> >
> >
>
>
> (Yes, I've bought a copy. I love playing Paladins...)
>
> Jack Rudd
> President of the unofficial Jackie Woodburne Fan Club
> http://www.geocities.com/EnchantedForest/Glade/9872/index.html
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
*S* okay you have your option book. A Paladin is still held to a code
of conduct.
Hey if you send me the money, I can buy the book to read it *Grin*
Be Well happy gaming, BTW have answered a few times now the hated
term of god that I used. replace <code of conduct> for the word <god>.
kane
ba...@digital-marketplace.net wrote:
> jr...@hermes.cam.ac.uk wrote:
> >
> > In article <36AE6...@digital-marketplace.net>,
> > ba...@digital-marketplace.net wrote:
> > > SP wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > Alright, I have my answer 10-fold: if the paladin's faith permits it, then
> > > > he can have sex. If it doesn't, then he can't. I am thus assuming that if he
> > > > doesn't worship a god (the character I am talking about) then he doesn't
> > > > have any religious rules to follow.
> > >
> > > If a fighter does not worship a god, he can not be a Paladin
> > >
> >
> > Rubbish. Read the Complete Paladin's Handbook.
> >
> > (Yes, I've bought a copy. I love playing Paladins..
ok correct me if i am wrong here wasint the origial palidan a figher/priest
so you tell me that priest does not need to worship a god or gods in order to get
power
im sorry a palidins power comes from a diety of dietys if he does not worship a
spicific diety
and as for sex i dont thank a palidan would have casual sex but he mite fine a woman
court her
marry her and have children
kewlkane was here
peace out
mistyrain
>Ah... I was going to say something about bards, but... Well, the joke's
>entirely in the header, folks.
>
> - Ron ^*^
candidates for sainthood and would faint if Elvis showed up at the Inn.
<eyes dancing>
IMPORTANT NOTE... For all of you who don't get humor (and there sure are a
pack of people here with no sense of the ridiculous), I'm kidding. <bracing
myself for long flaming thread explaining why Paladin's don't faint> hehehe
<wide grin> mistyrain
kane
PJS wrote:
> On 27/01/99 16:26, in message <36AFAEAB...@magick.net>, kane
> <kewl...@magick.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > ok correct me if i am wrong here wasint the origial palidan a figher/priest
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> you're wrong.
i disagree with you a palidan must worship a diety that is were his powers
comeform
and that is why he loses them when he fucks up and pisses off the deity
and im sure most people would agree with me
kane
PJS wrote:
> On 27/01/99 16:26, in message <36AFAEAB...@magick.net>, kane
> <kewl...@magick.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > ok correct me if i am wrong here wasint the origial palidan a figher/priest
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> you're wrong.
ok than explane to were a palidan gets priest spells from
than if not from diety then were from
and if from a diety he would not give them to him or her if him or her did not
worship the diety
so like i said were does paladin get priest spells from than
kewlkane was here bad grammar and all
pease out
kane
ba...@digital-marketplace.net wrote:
> The explaination is powers come from a sphere of good, no
> god, no faith , the complete Paladin or Complete Priest
> Handbook explains it.
ok following that logic why do we even need gods in the game right
sencse these powers exist to do every thang that is needed
there for there is no need for gods in the world
and what exactly are theses powers and were does there power come from
see ya
Lone Gunman (SP)
news:36AFB5...@ETAL.URI.EDU...
>Ah... I was going to say something about bards, but... Well, the joke's
>entirely in the header, folks.
Sir Galahad would have something to say about Maralyn Manson.
Lone Gunman (SP)
>>IMHU, I wouldn't use a paladin for a champion of Amataresu Omikami, I
would
>>use either a sohei, shukenja, or a fighter who simply her champion.
>
>Because I don't use the sohei, shukenja, etc., classes?
So have a fighter who just happens to be oriental, and also worship
Amatarezu.
>It wouldn't, I'm just pointing out an example of a lawful good diety that
>wouldn't be in the celibate norm.
I see...
>Heck, if you used the Jewish God as an example, maybe paladins HAVE to be
>married.
Oy, why does this red dragon have to attack ME???
Lone Gunman (SP)
news:78o55d$r24$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...
>In article <36AE6...@digital-marketplace.net>,
>(Yes, I've bought a copy. I love playing Paladins...)
I got mine for free by trading most of my first edition stuff for it, and
AGE OF HEROES.
>capitalnet.com
>In the Complete Paladin's Handbook, chastity and celebacy are choices the
>paladin can make - they are not necessary to be a paladin. Also, sex is good
>(hehe) and it is not against the law, so what stops the paladin from having
>sex? And if he doesn't want to marry, what's wrong with using a banana peel?
>
>
Keep in mind, What is legally ethical and what is socially ethical are
not the same. A Paladin strives to be a champion for the common weal,
an example, a paragon of virtue that the masses can look up to and
trust. His actions are not just constrained by what is legally
correct, but also what is morally correct as well. A Paladin upholds
law and order, but strives to be so much more.
A Paladin is answerable to his leige, but even more so to his God.
Paladins are based on the knights of legend such as Aurthur, Lancelot
and Roland. A Paladin would not get drunk, as it leads to impure
thoughts and actions. Likewise a Paladin would not engage in extra-
marital sex, as such an act would be impure. For a Paladin to engage
in extra-marital sex would be to abandon his morality and self
-discipline in favour of base urges and emotion in the name of
self-gratification...the very essence of Chaotic behaviour.
Thats my view on the matter anyways
PJS
Neilson <cnei...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jan 99 07:47:10 GMT, P...@winwaed.demon.co.uk (PJS) wrote:
>
> >On 26/01/99 14:35, in message <36ae427c...@nntp.telusplanet.net>, Colin
> >Neilson <cnei...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 20:21:54 +0000 (GMT), "Quentin Stephens"
> >> <s...@mardlin.oc.ku> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 26 Jan 1999 02:43:56 GMT, SirAyastar wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>So while it's possible that a paladin wouldn't have to be chaste or
> celebate
> >> >>he'd probably have a requirement that being unchaste
> >> >>requires being uncelebate as well.
> >> >
> >> >Hmm... a paladin sponsered by a fertility deity?
> >>
> >> Would probably be required to take a wife and have many children, but
> >> would still be forbidden from casual sexual encounters because they
> >> are chaotic.
> >-----------------------------------------------------------------
> >Why?
>
> I'm assuming the question is why are casual sexual encounters chaotic.
> Law implies stability, chaos implies randomness and change.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hmm. Hmmmmm. Does it? A change is in and of itself not chaotic: if it did,
then, for instance, the replacement of a Chaotic government with a Lawful one
would itself be a chaotic act... I can't really subscribe to the "randomness =
chaotic" view either: randomness is not within the sphere of alignments at all
- is a character who believes in freedom one day and in iron-fisted
dictatorship the next more Chaotic than someone who consistently maintains the
former position? Chaos is quite as much a consistent ethical system as Law.
----------------------------------------------------------------
> Casual sex is a very random act.
----------------------------------------------------------------
No it isn't. Rolling a dice to determine whether or not you sleep with someone
that night, and then another dice to see who it is, that would be a random act.
Casual sex is a conscious choice; it might involve very careful consideration.
The "casual" just means there is no lasting tie to the sexual partner.
----------------------------------------------------------------
> Promiscuity is not stable.
----------------------------------------------------------------
It is if you are consistently promiscuous.
----------------------------------------------------------------
> having many sexual partners does not help to form stable relationships.
----------------------------------------------------------------
No, but so what? You are assuming that marriage is automatically the goal of
every Lawful Good person. It might be that a culture believes a Paladin can
better do his duty to all the World if he is free from family ties.
PJS
Neilson <cnei...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 15:11:41 -0800, "D. Cameron King"
> <hac...@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>
> >... there is nothing "random"
> >about getting drunk or whoring (at least as far as I can see; it's
> >quite deliberate and typically involves conscious choice--beer or
> >wine? redhead or blonde?), and arguably nothing "uncontrolled,"
> >either (well, maybe the orgasm; and puking if you drink to excess).
>
> Funny, It has always been my experience that drunkenness leads to
> unplanned actions. It is also my understanding from reading the books
> that a chaotic alignment implies random actions. For example,
> "Chaotic Neutral characters believe that there is no order to
> anything, including their own actions." (PHB 2nd ed. p 47)
>
> The Barbarians handbook, which does an excellent job of describing the
> alignments also shows Chaotic Neutral to be a force of randomness. In
> their example of two tribes in a dispute over corn, they state that a
> CN tribesman might just burn down the cornfield if the mood struck
> him.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, that's as may be, but this shows that Complete Barbarian was written by
someone who didn't understand the alignment system.
Michael Scott Brown
Bruce L. Grubb <bgr...@zianet.com> wrote:
>> No. Read the manual. The paladin loses his Paladinic status
>> *for committing evil acts*. There is no mention of breaking faith
>> with a diety, or a discussion on the subject of paladins having a
>> god (or not). A Paladin need not acknowledge a diety at all.
>> He just has to be righteous.
>
>The problem with the 'committing evil acts' is that what a diety considers
>good and evil may not jive with the AD&D alignment system. Which bring up
>the question of why the absolute sytem exist in the first place.
>shouldn't the diety be the one desiding what are 'evil' act rather than
>the alignment system?
Little hint for you. The Paladin is defined in terms of the game's
*absolute* reference-frame definition of Lawful Goodness. Therefore,
if a Paladin actually has a diety, that diety will have ethics that
conform to the pre-defined LG bin, and thus what the diety thinks
is evil will be what the *game* states is Evil, and there's no
confusion for anyone but you.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
Colin Neilson <cnei...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>I'm assuming the question is why are casual sexual encounters chaotic.
>Law implies stability, chaos implies randomness and change.
No. You're making the usual newbie-puke mistake of using the
dictionary definitions instead of the game's.
>Casual sex is a very random act.
Bah.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
SP <mcp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Yes, but sleeping and answering nature's call are natural. Getting drunk is
>a choice, not something that HAS to be done, and therefore the paladin would
>probably take the lawful good path, aka not getting drunk.
<raises hand>
What alignment are ... dwarves?
-Michael
PJS
Neilson <cnei...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jan 99 07:46:40 GMT, P...@winwaed.demon.co.uk (PJS) wrote:
> >> I would disagree with this. Acting according to the law is not
> >> necessarily lawful. Getting drunk and taking a prostitute is acting
> >> in a random uncontrolled manner. That is chaotic whether it is legal
> >> or not.
> >-----------------------------------------------------------------
> >Once again inappropriate real world values (this time Judaeo-Christian) are
> >creeping into the game... in what way, objectively speaking, is this
> behaving
> >in a "random" way?
>
> Unless you have abandoned the real world to the point that alcohol
> makes one more alert and better able to make good judgements, getting
> drunk encouirages chaotic behaviour due to its impairments on
> judgement.
----------------------------------------------------------------
It encourages reckless and stupid behaviour. Foolishness is not any more
Chaotic than it is Lawful. You are subscribing to the "Chaotic stupid"
interpretation. Unfortunately, so do half the current writers of AD&D; although
I'm no fan of his, EGG knew better and had a more realistic assessment of what
Chaotic Neutral meant: it was a philosophy which said that life had no purpose
or meaning and no order to it, therefore everyone should do as they please. It
wasn't "Whoopee! I'm mad!" - indeed, it was a 1st ed. rule that insane people
didn't have an alignment. I know you may say that all this doesn't matter
because we're talking 2nd ed. now, but really, what has been written in the PHB
is a total self-contradictory balls-up. Why couldn't they see the essential
difference between placing one's individual desires above society and the
deterioration of the personality into random behaviour? Twats. Chaotic Neutrals
should be the LAST people to go mad...
----------------------------------------------------------------
> availing oneself of a prostitute does not lead to a long
> term, stanble (read Lawful) relationship.
----------------------------------------------------------------
I already replied to this: why is a stable relationship automatically a
desirable goal for a Paladin?
PJS
<mars...@brandeis.edu> wrote:
> > > Would probably be required to take a wife and have many children, but
> > > would still be forbidden from casual sexual encounters because they
> > > are chaotic.
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > Why?
> >
>
> I'm not going to bore everybody in this group with all the monographs out
> there on this, but suffice it to say that illegitimate children and
> bastardy were considered a very serious problem in early modern Europe.
> They confused issues of property rights, inheritence clauses as well as
> adding an alienated element to society which was often viewed as being
> dangerous and disruptive. The importance of virginity before marriage was
> a hallmark of society-destroying that broke down the traditional family
> functions, again a chaotic act. A Paladin who promotes this is acting in
> a chaotic manner ... (snip) ... Most D&D
> games I've seen (and certainally the campaign settings out there) run on a
> late dark age level of technology with an early modern sense of society.
> A paladin of any standing (and one could argue that all paladins have some
> social/religious standing) would not knowingly engage in behaviour which
> could threaten the society and/or institutions in which he has standing.
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a pseudo-mediaeval society with primogeniture, laws about bastardy and so on
and so forth, there's no arguing with anything you've said. But hang on. One
example talked about sleeping with an Elf. This doesn't necessarily fit in with
your real world model unless we can say Elvish society works the same way; and
what about those backgrounds where society ISN'T like that? Nowhere does it say
that a Paladin is automatically a knight in shining armour - a Paladin can be
just as easily an Amazon or a CFHB "Savage".
PJS
>
> ok correct me if i am wrong here wasint the origial palidan a figher/priest
----------------------------------------------------------------
you're wrong.
---
Chris Adams
is
>>a choice, not something that HAS to be done, and therefore the paladin
would
>>probably take the lawful good path, aka not getting drunk.
>
> <raises hand>
>
> What alignment are ... dwarves?
LOL . . . but paladins can only be human, in most campaigns, and most
campaigns also have separate gods concerned with human and dwarven
interests. A LG *human* deity would not necessarily share *all* the same
opinions as a LG *dwarven* deity.
Chris Adams
faranno dei cimiteri le loro cattedrali
e delle citta le vostre tombe.
ba...@digital-marketplace.net
>
> In article <_QKr2.539$kA1....@news.rdc1.on.wave.home.com>,
> SP <mcp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >a choice, not something that HAS to be done, and therefore the paladin would
> >probably take the lawful good path, aka not getting drunk.
>
> <raises hand>
>
> What alignment are ... dwarves?
>
Hmm as far as I have seen Draves are considered lawful
*reaches for 2nd ED*
LG "Dwarves are a noble race of demihumans who dwell under the earth,
forging great cities and waging massive wars against the forces of chaos
and evil. Dwarves also have much in common with the rocks and gems they
love to work, for they are both hard and unyielding. It's often been
said that it's easier to make a stone weep than it is to change a
dwarf's mind.
Standing from four to 4½ feet in height, and weighing 130 to 170 pounds,
dwarves tend to be stocky and muscular. They have ruddy cheeks and
bright eyes. Their skin is typically deep tan or light brown. Their hair
is usually black, gray, or brown, and worn long, though not long enough
to impair vision in any way. They favor long beards and mustaches, too.
Dwarves value their beards highly and tend to groom them very carefully.
Dwarves do not favor ornate stylings or wrappings for their hair or
their beards.
Dwarven clothing tends to be simple and functional. They often wear
earth tones, and their cloth is considered rough by many other races,
especially men and elves. Dwarves usually wear one or more pieces of
jewelry, though these items are usually not of any great value or very
ostentatious. Though dwarves value gems and precious metals, they
consider it in bad taste to flaunt wealth.
Because dwarves are a sturdy race, they add 1 to their initial
Constitution ability scores. However, because they are a solitary
people, tending toward distrust of outsiders and other races, they
subtract 1 from their initial Charisma ability scores. Dwarves usually
live from 350 to 450 years.
Dwarves have found it useful to learn the languages of many of their
allies and enemies. In addition to their own languages, dwarves often
speak the languages of gnomes, goblins, kobolds, orcs, and the common
tongue, which is frequently used in trade negotiations with other races.
"
reading further on In MC, Draveves appear not to drink at all, but if
they do thier consitution indeed could negate drug effects, the
improved save throw given that race.
ba...@digital-marketplace.net
>
> PJS wrote:
>
> > On 27/01/99 16:26, in message <36AFAEAB...@magick.net>, kane
> > <kewl...@magick.net> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > ok correct me if i am wrong here wasint the origial palidan a figher/priest
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > you're wrong.
>
> than if not from diety then were from
> and if from a diety he would not give them to him or her if him or her did not
> worship the diety
> so like i said were does paladin get priest spells from than
> kewlkane was here bad grammar and all
> pease out
>
> >
> >
> > No matter where you go in the World, there you are.
Robert Baldwin
wrote:
>Michael Scott Brown wrote:
>>
>> In article <36AE6...@digital-marketplace.net>,
>> <ba...@digital-marketplace.net> wrote:
>> >If a fighter does not worship a god, he can not be a Paladin
>>
>> Assuming you meant "character" and not fighter (tautology) .. Bah.
>>
>>
>> -Michael
> *S* I did mean fighter, as that is reguried to be a Paladin,
>having no god/godess or breaking faith with one, all Paladins
>become just fighters and certainly not any other class *Smiles*
Not at all. I've played in several campaigns where Good and Evil were
very real Forces, but where the "gods" simply did not exist in the
usual sense.
--
Saint Baldwin, definer of the unholy darkspawn.
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well."
"Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out" [MSB].
-
Spam Satan! www.sluggy.com
Remove the spam-block to reply
Ty McCarthy
not, does the paladin (regardless of race) break any laws or commit evil
acts while under the influence? If the answers are 'no' all the way through,
it's a moot point. The paladin wouldn't be going against his lawful good
alignment.
Ty
ba...@digital-marketplace.net
*nods* I have agreed that gods are not always a factor in
certatian worlds, in at least of one my many posts to this thread.
The theme of good and evil certainly applies to conduct of a Paladin.
IAE will not post any more to this thread unless posted directly, ot
appears that I have been killfired by at least one, and prehaps more
either for typos, siting 1st ED or prehaps other reasons.
The Amorphous Mass
> PJS wrote:
> > On 27/01/99 16:26, in message <36AFAEAB...@magick.net>, kane
> > <kewl...@magick.net> wrote:
> > > ok correct me if i am wrong here wasint the origial palidan a
figher/priest
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > you're wrong.
>
> i disagree with you a palidan must worship a diety that is were his powers
> comeform
1) That doesn't mean the Paladin was a fighter/priest. The original
Paladin was... a Paladin.
2) From the PHB under "Priests of Specific Mythoi:" "IN the simplest
version of the AD&D game, clerics serve religions that can be generally
described as 'good' or 'evil.' Nothing more needs to be said about it; the
game will play perfectly well at this level."
3) Druids are Priests, but they worship "nature," which does not have to
be a discrete god, and they get spells.
4) Some time after my PHB was printed (in 1989) 2nd Edition genericized
from "gods" to "Powers," which are Things Powerful Enough to Grant Spells
for all intents and purposes. A god is a Power but a Power is not
necessarily a god.
> and that is why he loses them when he fucks up and pisses off the deity
> and im sure most people would agree with me
That's a plausible explanation, and it might even be the explanation
that most campaigns use. But it ain't necessarily so.
--
The Amorphous Mass
amo...@avalon.net
http://www.avalon.net/~amorph <-- being rebuilt from scratch
Michael Scott Brown
>campaigns also have separate gods concerned with human and dwarven
>interests. A LG *human* deity would not necessarily share *all* the same
>opinions as a LG *dwarven* deity.
Of course - each diety's take on the merits of temperance will
be a "personal decision" - but the point is, given that we
have an entire culture of stout inebriates who are also LG, then
it is nonsensical to claim that indulging in the spirits is
incompatible with *Lawful Goodness*. That doesn't follow.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
>ok following that logic why do we even need gods in the game right
>sencse these powers exist to do every thang that is needed
>there for there is no need for gods in the world
>and what exactly are theses powers and were does there power come from
>see ya
Gods, man! Is there any chance you could post in coherent English?
Between your reasoning and your writing, it is impossible to
distinguish you from a village idiot.
-Michael, offering constructive criticism
a_jedi...@my-dejanews.com
cnei...@telusplanet.net (Colin Neilson) wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 15:11:41 -0800, "D. Cameron King"
>
> >On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Colin Neilson wrote:
> >
> >> I would disagree with this. Acting according to the law is not
> >> necessarily lawful. Getting drunk and taking a prostitute is acting
> >> in a random uncontrolled manner. That is chaotic whether it is legal
> >
> >No, no, no, no, NO! Acting in a "random, uncontrolled manner" does
> >not equal Chaotic. It's surprising to see you make this blunder,
> >since you obviously understand that acting "according to the law"
> >is not necessarily Lawful. Furthermore, there is nothing "random"
> >about getting drunk or whoring (at least as far as I can see; it's
> >quite deliberate and typically involves conscious choice--beer or
> >wine? redhead or blonde?), and arguably nothing "uncontrolled,"
> >either (well, maybe the orgasm; and puking if you drink to excess).
>
> Funny, It has always been my experience that drunkenness leads to
> unplanned actions. It is also my understanding from reading the books
> that a chaotic alignment implies random actions. For example,
> "Chaotic Neutral characters believe that there is no order to
> anything, including their own actions." (PHB 2nd ed. p 47)
>
> The Barbarians handbook, which does an excellent job of describing the
> alignments also shows Chaotic Neutral to be a force of randomness. In
> their example of two tribes in a dispute over corn, they state that a
> CN tribesman might just burn down the cornfield if the mood struck
> him.
>
> somewhat predictable manner. Since casual drinking leads to
> unpredictable actions, and possibly even more chaotic and possibly
> evil behaviour, it is something a Paladin should avoid. Since casual
> sexual encounters do not result in stable long term relationships,
> they are chaotic.
>
>
Yes. also, to reiterate the law aspect, the law of the land does not make the
lawful portion. for example, my paladin defies regularly the laws and customs
of the land he is in, and is considered right and true in doing so. of course
the land he is in is ruled by a preist of Set, and the laws include ritual
sacrafice and church sanctioned rape....
--- --- --- ---
I submit that we are both atheist, I simply beleive in one fewer god
than you. When you can understand why you dismiss all other gods, then
you will understand why I dismiss yours.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Chris Adams
Michael Scott Brown wrote in message <78p00l$8m0$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>...
Are dwarves *necessarily* Lawful Good? Unless you're speaking of a
particular setting, like Forgotten Realms for instance, I'd tend to
classify dwarves as Lawful Neutral more often than not - you have to agree,
reclusiveness is a good way of maintaining order *and* not upsetting the
balance . . . :)
Colin Neilson
wrote:
>>I am operating under the official rules for Paladins where they must
>>be Lawful Good, and as such only LG or occaisionally LN dieties will
>>support them. Fertility gods are normally not Lawful. On the other
>>hand, I see no reason why a Lawful fertility god would not contenence
>>marriage as long as the marriage was fruitful.
>
>Why not? Fertility is a pretty regular thing. Society is built on
>the changing of the seasons, agriculture, marriage, birth, etc. Fertility
>could mean a lot of things, not just babe-a-liscious sex pots.
And, as stated above, the fertility god in question would probably
permit the Paladin to live in a fruitful bond of marriage, but not
indulge in casual sexual encounters.
Colin Neilson
>> "Chaotic Neutral characters believe that there is no order to
>> anything, including their own actions." (PHB 2nd ed. p 47)
>>
>> The Barbarians handbook, which does an excellent job of describing the
>> alignments also shows Chaotic Neutral to be a force of randomness. In
>> their example of two tribes in a dispute over corn, they state that a
>> CN tribesman might just burn down the cornfield if the mood struck
>> him.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>Yes, that's as may be, but this shows that Complete Barbarian was written by
>someone who didn't understand the alignment system.
An interesting opinion since the Barbarian's Handbook supports
everything the PHB says about the CN alignment.
kane
Michael Scott Brown wrote:
My point being, if a palidan does not get his powers from a god, but from shere
of good.
Than what is the point of haveing gods, if you dont need them for you powers and
abilteys for clerics and palalidins for spells or powers.
If you follow the logic that priest and paladins dont need gods for there
abilitys spells
why have them at all you dont need them.
All you need is three spheres of power out there one for good and evil and
neutual
riight you dont need gods at all.
is that better michael
kewlkane was here
pease out
Colin Neilson
>> Unless you have abandoned the real world to the point that alcohol
>> makes one more alert and better able to make good judgements, getting
>> drunk encouirages chaotic behaviour due to its impairments on
>> judgement.
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>It encourages reckless and stupid behaviour. Foolishness is not any more
>Chaotic than it is Lawful. You are subscribing to the "Chaotic stupid"
>interpretation. Unfortunately, so do half the current writers of AD&D; although
>I'm no fan of his, EGG knew better and had a more realistic assessment of what
>Chaotic Neutral meant: it was a philosophy which said that life had no purpose
>or meaning and no order to it, therefore everyone should do as they please. It
>wasn't "Whoopee! I'm mad!" - indeed, it was a 1st ed. rule that insane people
>didn't have an alignment. I know you may say that all this doesn't matter
>because we're talking 2nd ed. now, but really, what has been written in the PHB
>is a total self-contradictory balls-up. Why couldn't they see the essential
>difference between placing one's individual desires above society and the
>deterioration of the personality into random behaviour? Twats. Chaotic Neutrals
>should be the LAST people to go mad...
Hmm. Life has no purpose and order therefore everyone should just do
as they please. That would mean if you felt like just casually
slaughtering a few innocents, you should go ahead and do it. Sounds
more evil than neutral to me. I never said CNs were insane or stupid.
I ran a CN character once who had chosen that path for a reason. He
was totally unpredictable, did not have any patterns to his
behaviours, and did thewse things because he had a number of powerful
enemies and had decided that unpredictability was the best way to
prevent them from gaining advantage over him. He was not stupid, but
he was Chaotic.
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>> availing oneself of a prostitute does not lead to a long
>> term, stanble (read Lawful) relationship.
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>I already replied to this: why is a stable relationship automatically a
>desirable goal for a Paladin?
I never said a stable relationship was always a desirable goal for a
Paladin. Many Paladins are forbidden to marry or have families, and
many others will choose not to simply because their families will
likely be put in danger as a result of the Paladin's line of work.
What I am arguing is that casual relationships are not Lawful because
there is not permanence or stability to them. If a Paladin wants to
be in a sexual relationship, it must be a stable and faithful one (on
the part of the Paladin anyways) or it is not Lawful.
Colin Neilson
>> I'm assuming the question is why are casual sexual encounters chaotic.
>> Law implies stability, chaos implies randomness and change.
>Hmm. Hmmmmm. Does it? A change is in and of itself not chaotic: if it did,
>then, for instance, the replacement of a Chaotic government with a Lawful one
>would itself be a chaotic act... I can't really subscribe to the "randomness =
>chaotic" view either: randomness is not within the sphere of alignments at all
>- is a character who believes in freedom one day and in iron-fisted
>dictatorship the next more Chaotic than someone who consistently maintains the
>former position? Chaos is quite as much a consistent ethical system as Law.
Chaos supports individual desires, like promiscuity and casual one
night stands. Law supports organized social systems, like marriage
and stable relationships.
>> Casual sex is a very random act.
>No it isn't. Rolling a dice to determine whether or not you sleep with someone
>that night, and then another dice to see who it is, that would be a random act.
>Casual sex is a conscious choice; it might involve very careful consideration.
>The "casual" just means there is no lasting tie to the sexual partner.
Which leaves out of the purview of Law which supports stable
organizational systems.
>> Promiscuity is not stable.
>It is if you are consistently promiscuous.
This would mean a series of one night stands for the purpose of
satisfying individual desire, which is one of the essences of Chaos.
>> having many sexual partners does not help to form stable relationships.
>No, but so what? You are assuming that marriage is automatically the goal of
>every Lawful Good person. It might be that a culture believes a Paladin can
>better do his duty to all the World if he is free from family ties.
I agree with you absolutly on this point. Most Paladins would either
be required by their religious or philosophical ideals to remain
celebate and chaste or they would do so because they do not want to
endanger other people. Since evil beings will tend to attck families
to get at their real targets, a married Paladin would give his enemies
ample opportunities.
This does not mean a Paladin will engae in casual sex. It means they
will normally abstain.
Colin Neilson
wrote:
It depends on what level of intoxication we are talking about. Even a
tipsy person has impaired judgement which could easily lead to bad
decisions. A severly intoxicated person can take actions that are
very out of character, mostly involving scale. This might lead to
chaotic actions or even (extremly rarely) evil actions. As such it is
defintily in the Paladin's best interests to avoid drinking to excess.
Colin Neilson
<mist...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>LOL, haven't you been paying attention, Ron? Paladins are righteous and
>candidates for sainthood and would faint if Elvis showed up at the Inn.
><eyes dancing>
>IMPORTANT NOTE... For all of you who don't get humor (and there sure are a
>pack of people here with no sense of the ridiculous), I'm kidding. <bracing
>myself for long flaming thread explaining why Paladin's don't faint> hehehe
><wide grin> mistyrain
Flaming? Why would anyone falme you? Elvis is The King, and as such
Paladins from a fuedal type campaign would be required to pay homage
to him. :)
Colin Neilson
Scott Brown) wrote:
>>I'm assuming the question is why are casual sexual encounters chaotic.
>>Law implies stability, chaos implies randomness and change.
>
> No. You're making the usual newbie-puke mistake of using the
> dictionary definitions instead of the game's.
Alright, let's go right to the PHB. "Characters who believe in law
maintain that order, organization and society are important, indeed
vital forces in the universe."
"The believers of chaos hold that there is no preordained order or
careful balance of forces in the universe." "Chaotics can be hard to
govern as a group because they place their own needs and desires above
those of society."
"Chaotic Neutral characters believe that there is no order to anything
including their own actions."
These are right from the PHB, so I will assume that you will accept
them as game definitions.
Order, organization and society are concepts of stability. While a
government or other ruling power may change, the society stays the
same. Order implies an absence of instability.
Chaotic Neutrals believe that even their own actions have any order,
therefore they will be as close to random as any human being can be.
Casual sex involves the gratification and satisfaction of individula
desires, exactly what the PHB says is the essence of Chaotic
behaviour.
The game definitions support both my definitions of Law and Chaos (at
least as it applies to the CN alignment) and my position that
Paladins, being Lawful, would not engage in casual sex.
>>Casual sex is a very random act.
>
> Bah.
If insults and "Bah" are the best arguments you can come up with to
support your position, it must be very weak indeed.
Colin Neilson
Scott Brown) wrote:
>>> What alignment are ... dwarves?
>>
>>LOL . . . but paladins can only be human, in most campaigns, and most
>>campaigns also have separate gods concerned with human and dwarven
>>interests. A LG *human* deity would not necessarily share *all* the same
>>opinions as a LG *dwarven* deity.
>
> Of course - each diety's take on the merits of temperance will
> be a "personal decision" - but the point is, given that we
> have an entire culture of stout inebriates who are also LG, then
> it is nonsensical to claim that indulging in the spirits is
> incompatible with *Lawful Goodness*. That doesn't follow.
Since when are all Dwarves inebriates? They enjoy ale. That doesn't
mean they drink to excess. Dwarves tend to have good constitutions,
making them more resistant to becomeing drunk than other races. This
means they can drink more than a Human without being as badly affected
by it. There is no game definition of Dwarves as alcoholics. Those
that are are probably not LG.
verkuilen john v
>>Because I don't use the sohei, shukenja, etc., classes?
>So have a fighter who just happens to be oriental, and also worship
>Amatarezu.
Right I could do that, but *if* I allowed the paladin class (which I don't)
and was using a Japanese background, I might want to let someone be especially
holy and have the paladin class, perhaps altered a bit to suit the flavor
of the mythos. I'm not saying every holy warrior of Amaterasu would be a
paladin, just some of them.
>>Heck, if you used the Jewish God as an example, maybe paladins HAVE to be
>>married.
>Oy, why does this red dragon have to attack ME???
Hey, those Old Testament guys were nothing to laugh at (to say nothing of
the modern Israeli Army.) I don't see Jacob or Joshua reacting like Woody
Allen at all.
Watch the stereotypes.
--
J. Verkuilen ja...@uiuc.edu
"Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it
concentrates his mind wonderfully." --Dr. Samuel Johnson
Michael Scott Brown
>My point being, if a palidan does not get his powers from a god, but from
>shere of good. Than what is the point of haveing gods, if you dont need them
> for you powers and abilteys for clerics and palalidins for spells or powers.
My commentary before on "coherent english" seems not to have stuck.
Two hints.
(1) Learn to spell better. Use a spellchecker. Do *something*.
6 bargles in three lines is hideous. It renders you asinine.
(2) You'd be amazed at how much better a post looks when its margins
aren't bleeding all over the place. 80 columns. Please.
With respect to your point, such as it can be found lurking among
the flotsam of your writing, you would do well to recall that
there *isn't* a "point" to having gods, per se, beyond personal
preference and tradition. The game rules are deliberately vague on
the subject and things work fine with druids and clerics and paladins
of 'nature' and 'good' without any further specification. Gods
*aren't* neccessary to the game.
However, choosing to have some entities use the 'philosophy' approach
in a campaign doesn't somehow invalidate the entertainment potential
of having specific dieties. Both coexist quite peacefully.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
>> have an entire culture of stout inebriates who are also LG, then
>> it is nonsensical to claim that indulging in the spirits is
>> incompatible with *Lawful Goodness*. That doesn't follow.
>
>Since when are all Dwarves inebriates? They enjoy ale. That doesn't
>mean they drink to excess.
Early in the first paragraph describing the dwarfish mindset,
we see ..."They enjoy beer, ale, mead, and even stronger drink".
Elves get mention of liking wine, but seldom to excess, but no
such disclaimer applies to dwarven alchohol consumption.
Dwarves are blue-collar minerfolk. How do you think they'd unwind?
Think back to Tolkein's dwarves in LOTR for further examples.
Suffice to say, the general idea of dwarven culture is one of
good hearted, hard working, and hard *drinking* people. They're
tough, of course, so it doesn't impair them in the morning, and
it certainly takes more hootch to send them snoring than a human,
but these guys like their drink. And it makes no sense to suggest
that they don't get drunk in the process. That defeats the purpose!
>There is no game definition of Dwarves as alcoholics. Those
>that are are probably not LG.
Careful - liking the drink, and being happy to indulge in drunkenness,
is not the same as *alchoholism*. It's probably almost impossible
for a dwarf to become addicted. But being alchoholic isn't really an
alignment concern, anyway (unless you start snarfing your morals
in search of your next bottle, that probably lurches toward Chaotic
on the individual > society front).
-Michael