Guild of paladins

[Kell]

Hey, I wonder. If this order begins to exist, can my Whitney join too then?

"Yes! Torture me! Blame me, hurt me with all your might! Let me take your sins, take it out on me and let me Cleanse you of all evil! HURT ME!"

There are many ways of playing a paladin. As there are many ways of playing any other class really. But I think that there are certain ways of playing a "better" paladin too. Paladins are -supposed- to be thick, stupid idiots who will ssschmite any evil on sight. Just like every wizard is -supposed- to be a librarian or at least someone who drags his bag of books everywhere.

Of course, you can play your character differently. That's not by deffinition wrong either. And it's no real use to tell someone else that he or she isn't playing his or her character the "right" way. You can, however, give -constructive- criticism. Meaning to take him or her along and show him or her how it can be done better.

I agree with it being impossible to be a paladin of Nergal though There are certain stereotypes you have to live up to. Paladins will not worship and evil deity and I don't see why an evil deity would grant powers to a LG character either. I do agree with the paladin being for the greater good, if a child can be saved by teaming up with a lich, then the paladin will do so. That is, if that is the last and only solution.

Wizards are intelligent beings with too many books who will break down and cry if you even point at their spellbooks. Druids are treehuggers who can melt in trees and talk to bunnies. Rangers are fake druids. Rogues are sneaky buggers who liked blowing up things and picking pockets.

And Paladins are thick, religious numbskulls with big swords that hurt.

[BeyondRedemption]

Breaking stereotypes and giving a character more depth only enhances the experience. I welcome more pragmatic paladins.

[Jimmy]

When I say constricting I am referring to your inability to give Paladins any of the human qualities that give a person a dynamic personality. You deny internal conflict. You deny difficult emotional decisions. You deny a Paladin the ability to open his or her eyes and see that the world really isn't so black and white...that there is more than one way to achieve the "Ultimate Purpose" and sometimes compromise is necessary if failure is the only other alternative.

Correct, and it's up to the individual character's personality as to whether they'll take that compromise or not. If Legnar (soon to be Paladin) had the choice to destroy Maelstrom forever or save Sal's life, he's destroy Mael. By killing Mael he's sparing the many lives that Mael would take in the future. Although there would be many other Paladins who would do the opposite.

As far as a story goes...hell you don't even need much of one. Paladin is a mortal. Nergal is a god. Nergal can appear before mortal. Nergal is cunning. Nergal can convince mortal of whatever the hell he pleases.

I hightly doubt that.

One more thing...if a Paladin commits an act that can be construed as evil but the Paladin TRULY BELIEVES he is doing good and serving his god, if the action still serves the god's ultimate purpose, it is entirely conceivable that there would be zero punishment or retribution.

Think beyond black and white.

Paladins don't, that's the problem.

I don't get it Kell, you seem to think that the steriotypical Paladin is stupid. Why?

[Kell]

I don't think that. I am exagerating the fact that D&D is based on stereotypes. Elves don't like dwarves and vice versa, drow are evil, halflings are pickpockets and half orcs smell. Paladins are just that. A stereotype. And many people believe that too. I actually do welcome more extravagant views on that and I love seeing someone going outside the box with their character, but the point is that the game is and stays based on stereotypes, with the allowance to change it yourself.

[BeyondRedemption]

As far as a story goes...hell you don't even need much of one. Paladin is a mortal. Nergal is a god. Nergal can appear before mortal. Nergal is cunning. Nergal can convince mortal of whatever the hell he pleases.

I hightly doubt that.

Sorry but I can certainly conceive of a situation where a Paladin believes the current followers of Nergal are misinterpreting His wishes and worshipping him incorrectly. I could see Nergal sitting back laughing and enjoying the show.

One more thing...if a Paladin commits an act that can be construed as evil but the Paladin TRULY BELIEVES he is doing good and serving his god, if the action still serves the god's ultimate purpose, it is entirely conceivable that there would be zero punishment or retribution.

Think beyond black and white.

Paladins don't, that's the problem.

Nope. They can and will as they are people with emotion. I find the robotic paladin you describe to be quite boring. In that other thread in the State of the Server forum regarding alignments, you'd see what the definition of Lawful and Good are. You'd see there is PLENTY of flexibility to act in a dynamic manner as I describe and still be TRUE to being a paladin.

[BeyondRedemption]

with the allowance to change it yourself.

This however is what Jimmy appears to disagree with.

[Loki]

I would suggest that anyone struggling to catch what BR is saying picks up a copy of the original Dragonlance chronicles and pays particular attention to the story of Sturm.. ohh.. and the whole order of knights in the book for that matter.. hell.. in fact all the characters.. it kinda validates all of what BR says.

[Kell]

with the allowance to change it yourself.

This however is what Jimmy appears to disagree with.

Jimmy is allowed to disagree as you are allowed to do whatever you want too. There is no right and wrong where it comes to playing your character. There are only DM's guidelines and books you can follow.

When I played Whitney, Cirran started whacking me with the allignment wand because he thought it was a wrong way of playing a paladin. Though imho, it wasn't at all. But it was a DM's decision, so that's what I had to stick with.

You don't have to actually "listen" to what another player says. Just to what they "advise". But as said, you don't have to agree at all.

[lankycheese]

Well... Many different opinions have been launched here. So I'm just going to say this. Making a different paladin, so as to be a balance seeker, and have emotion etc. Can be fine, if done well. I only met Clensing Light just earlier, but it seems you got it solid and down pat. But the thing is, is that this guild is about LG paladins that really hate evil. The stereotypical paladin, the jedi, the crusader etc.
I also think it's a bit unfair to simply lable paladins that follow the stereotype idea, robots. The great paladins that I have played with, though they follow the stereotype idea, the characters themselves are there own. They are different, they have there own personality, they are definatly not stereotypes. But they still follow this basic idea of the general paladin.
Tilirinn, though not a paladin, follows the typical good guy fighting evil idea. Though, to me, he is my own character, though I could be wrong. But I think he isn't a stereotype character, yet he follows the basic idea of being good and fighting evil.

[BeyondRedemption]

with the allowance to change it yourself.

This however is what Jimmy appears to disagree with.

Jimmy is allowed to disagree as you are allowed to do whatever you want too. There is no right and wrong where it comes to playing your character. There are only DM's guidelines and books you can follow.

When I played Whitney, Cirran started whacking me with the allignment wand because he thought it was a wrong way of playing a paladin. Though imho, it wasn't at all. But it was a DM's decision, so that's what I had to stick with.

You don't have to actually "listen" to what another player says. Just to what they "advise". But as said, you don't have to agree at all.

The difference is what I am promoting does not have the potential of limiting and/or destroying someone else's character. What Jimmy promotes, however, does.

[Fera'Vanna Rilynn'lylth]

I agree with some off what BR is saying, I play Fera as having many shorcomings as a paladin, he makes mistakes, makes the wrong descisions. From his absolute hartred of drow...to his dealings with Mael to save the Elves from a situation he placed them in himself. Playing a Paladin is great fun, but its up to everyone to find a unique trait and play it. And yes Sturm Brightblade is a perfect example and one that I would draw insperation from

[Jimmy]

with the allowance to change it yourself.

This however is what Jimmy appears to disagree with.

I honestly had no idea what you meant with that quote until I read back and found the context from what it was taken from. Try and add it all please.

Every single Paladin I've met on Dasaria was EXTREMELY individual. But all did adhere to how a Paladin is desribed as in NWN and D&D. Holly, Deph, Meld, Kisanth, Kurich etc. LG Destroyer of evil, extremely devout and so on. But they each were totally different and had very different emotions and reacted in many different ways. Sometimes I get convinced they're real people. Honestly, they're THAT good.

The difference is what I am promoting does not have the potential of limiting and/or destroying someone else's character. What Jimmy promotes, however, does.

It sure does. I wouldn't allow an evil paladin as there's no such thing. Those are called Blackguards. I think what I am saying is that it would actually make a character far more "real" by failing in their duties or misinterpreting and being punished by the gods for it. makes for some fun RP. Fera is a great example as he just mentioned

[BeyondRedemption]

I never said anything about an evil paladin. Such a thing does not exist.

[Jimmy]

Sorry, I meant "Evil Worshipping Paladin". Meaning their god of worship. Sorry, I should've been more clear.

[Winky Willis]

I voted yes on the poll, the paladins do need guidance Meld,Holly and Fera would be great at this. I argued tooth in nail in the other post "I think Paladins are to strong" about the rights and wrongs of Paladins, but I do think that the players at present do an excellent job of it.

I like the concept of Romars idea about paladins of Nergal, but it does stretch the bounds of belief at present, perhaps one tricked so much he thought he was doing good. At present Nergal's faith is deemed as monsterous baby eaters.. it would need to be readjusted somewhat for a Paladin to be tricked into even contemplating joining the faith. Its a minefield picking through a Paladins place in society.. killing people because thay are evil... in itself an extreme act.

One thing I think a Paladin should always do is make his enemy aware that he is to attack them. Its honourable.. and above all they should fight to some code of honour, there god whoever it may be would surely look on in disdain if the holyknight was to fight with the tactics of a petty low life.