quote:
Lashanna had this to say about Tron:Now, if D&D advanced to a 20th-21st century, I'm sure goblins would have their civil rights advocates and what not. Or they might not have progressed to civil rights by then, maybe only PETG.
D20 Modern and I'm fairly sure a lot of organized mythical races have setups like that.
Lyinar Ka`Bael, Piney Fresh Druidess - Luclin
In the same sense, however, an adherence solely to the rules/laws is indicative of Lawful Neutrality.
But a Paladin takes Lawful Good to the next level. Paladins aren't what they are because they're fighter/clerics of Lawful Good alignment. They are what they are because, as you said, they make the greater good of the entire world their personal business. Whatever their deity or church-specific purpose, mandated by a higher power, paladins make the choice (or, depending on how you read it, are chosen) to take their show on the road.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
ACES! Another post by Sean:
That was the absolute worst explanation I have ever, ever heard, and only goes to prove how little you understand about Paladins and alignment in general.You've described a pacifist, not a holy warrior or a knight. Standing by and allowing the slaughter of innocents is the antithesis of a Paladin, sacrifice for the protection of innocents and upholding of the law is what they're all about.
It sounds to me like you've either A) Never played an actual campaign, or B) Never played a campaign with a DM worth his d20s.
By the looks of things, I'm still explaining things poorly. 
By 100% Lawful and 100% good, I don't mean the most lawful or most good that a humanoid can be. I mean there is no more lawful or good force in the entire universe. Take the most lawful good creature in the entire universe, and exactly 100% lawful good is both more lawful and more good.
Killing things is generally considered to be an evil act, thus no paladin can be 100% good. However, paladins kill evil creatures, creatures that harm and kill innocent people. Thus, the act of killing is more than justified. Paladins need to be as lawful and as good as a person can be, true, but that's limited by how lawful and how good people can be. There are limits, as I said, people need lives. Even a paladin can't spend absolutely 100% of his time fighting evil and righting wrongs, although he can devote as much time as a person could. He'd also likely try to put in extra effort, given the heroic adventure style of D&D. Something to set that one paladin apart from every other paladin in the world, something to make him important.
[EDIT- Well, this is why I dislike alignment-restricted classes in general: It seems everyone has a different definition of character alignment. Some take it to mean "OMFG YUO MUST MUST MUST ACT IN THIS WAY", and there's certainly a lot of incentive to act lawful good for Paladins, lawful in general for Monks, et cetera. You don't, and you become a weak fighter.
However, people slip up once in a while and act differently, as in my previous example of the angry Paladin. THreatening the guy isn't lawful, nor is it good, but the paladin's really, really angry, and just needs to release a little. A small, empty threat against an insignificant person isn't worthy of a complete alignment change, is it?] Ruvyen fucked around with this message on 04-19-2005 at 11:14 PM.
quote:
Vise the Stompy spewed forth this undeniable truth:
I would not consider Boba Fett or Deathstroke Neutral, ever. They are completly selfish with their goals and will not hesitate to get their hands dirty. While they may be ruthless, they are not stupid. They don't randomly slaughter what they don't have to, also they don't have delusions of grandiur and now when to hold back force or even help "good guys" if it ends up being beneficial to them. Such selfish attitudes are evil in DnD alignment terms.
How is that not neutral? Mercenaries by definition are neutral, they are people who are hired to fight because they are good at it and the best ones are amoral. And if you're basing all your arguements off of Deathstroke from Teen titans, then you don't know Deathstroke.
quote:
Yes, Vise the Stompy deserved to die, and I hope they burn in hell!
I would not consider Boba Fett or Deathstroke Neutral, ever. They are completly selfish with their goals and will not hesitate to get their hands dirty. While they may be ruthless, they are not stupid. They don't randomly slaughter what they don't have to, also they don't have delusions of grandiur and now when to hold back force or even help "good guys" if it ends up being beneficial to them. Such selfish attitudes are evil in DnD alignment terms.
You're forgetting alignment has two modifiers. Mercenaries are, by and large, True Neutral to Neutral Evil. Boba Fett, Deathstroke, et all are very much Neutral Evil to the core.
And Ruvyen: 
It's not something people hear about.
quote:
Ruvyen wrote this then went back to looking for porn:Killing things is generally considered to be an evil act
Correction, killing without cause or reason is evil. Killing evil goblins for attacking innocent townsfolk is justice.
Lyinar Ka`Bael, Piney Fresh Druidess - Luclin
quote:
Lashanna got all f'ed up on Angel Dust and wrote:
All this talk makes me want to make a new character.
I know the feeling. I've had a few character ideas floating around in my head for a little now with no chance of making them and giving them a try.
quote:
This one time, at Ruvyen camp:
By the looks of things, I'm still explaining things poorly.By 100% Lawful and 100% good, I don't mean the most lawful or most good that a humanoid can be. I mean there is no more lawful or good force in the entire universe. Take the most lawful good creature in the entire universe, and exactly 100% lawful good is both more lawful and more good.
Killing things is generally considered to be an evil act, thus no paladin can be 100% good. However, paladins kill evil creatures, creatures that harm and kill innocent people. Thus, the act of killing is more than justified. Paladins need to be as lawful and as good as a person can be, true, but that's limited by how lawful and how good people can be. There are limits, as I said, people need lives. Even a paladin can't spend absolutely 100% of his time fighting evil and righting wrongs, although he can devote as much time as a person could. He'd also likely try to put in extra effort, given the heroic adventure style of D&D. Something to set that one paladin apart from every other paladin in the world, something to make him important.
[EDIT- Well, this is why I dislike alignment-restricted classes in general: It seems everyone has a different definition of character alignment. Some take it to mean "OMFG YUO MUST MUST MUST ACT IN THIS WAY", and there's certainly a lot of incentive to act lawful good for Paladins, lawful in general for Monks, et cetera. You don't, and you become a weak fighter.
However, people slip up once in a while and act differently, as in my previous example of the angry Paladin. THreatening the guy isn't lawful, nor is it good, but the paladin's really, really angry, and just needs to release a little. A small, empty threat against an insignificant person isn't worthy of a complete alignment change, is it?]
The alignments are open to how the character percieves them, and characters perceive things based on their influences, such as the god they worship, race, and class. It is utterly possible for a paladin to slaughter an antire village of kobolds if he can justify it according to his beliefs.
quote:
Everyone wondered WTF when Lyinar Ka`Bael wrote:
Correction, killing without cause or reason is evil. Killing evil goblins for attacking innocent townsfolk is justice.
What kind of justice, exactly? If you went out and killed a murderer, you'd still be tried for murdering the murderer. The act of murdering the murderer was most certainly not lawful at all, but it was good.
See my edit above. Alignment systems in general suck, because it's hard to pin people down to just one absolute alignment. You can see tendencies in the way they act. Some act a certain way almost 100% of the time, like the paladin being a champion of good almost all the time. However, they're still just tendencies, and paladins are still just people. Mistakes can be made.
quote:
Ferret had this to say about Punky Brewster:
The alignments are open to how the character percieves them, and characters perceive things based on their influences, such as the god they worship, race, and class. It is utterly possible for a paladin to slaughter an antire village of kobolds if he can justify it according to his beliefs.
This is true, and another reason why Alignment systems suck. Yes, your Paladin is lawful good, but... What exactly is Lawful Good? You're given basic guidelines in the PHB and nothing more. Granted, this is the intent of D&D's alignment system in the first place, to have alignments be more open, but still.
Not only can it be difficult to pin people down to one absolute alignment, it can be difficult to define that one absolute alignment you're attempting to pin people down to, and everyone likely has their own version.
Lyinar Ka`Bael, Piney Fresh Druidess - Luclin
quote:
Why, Alaan! where you goin' with that shotgun?
You are also trying to pin more modern moral views on a most un-modern setting.
I think he's trying to recreate the Mona Lisa with fingerpaints.
quote:
Alaan's account was hax0red to write:
You are also trying to pin more modern moral views on a most un-modern setting.
Not to mention putting moral views on entirely different cultures with different belief systems.
quote:
Lyinar Ka`Bael thought about the meaning of life:
You're acting in your god's name against evil beings. You're delivering your god's justice on those who would harm your god's creatures.
Did I ever say that isn't what the paladin does?
I never said that the paladin doesn't live lawfully, I never said they aren't good, I never said they aren't both more good and more lawful than normal people. As 'Deth said, they take it to the next level. However, good has a darker side, that being fighting back when evil threatens. Paladins fight back when evil threatens. Thus, while a paladin can be almost entirely good, he can never be the good-est (Yes, I know, bad grammar) being or force in the entire universe. He's just a person. There are other people, people he cares about, being hurt by evil. He needs to fight back for the greater good, but in doing so, takes a slight hit towards evil himself for willfully harming living beings and taking lives. This won't make the paladin not Lawful Good, he's still as lawful and as good as a person can possibly be. But when danger threatens those you care about, one of your first instincts is to fight back, right? Ruvyen fucked around with this message on 04-19-2005 at 11:35 PM.
quote:
Ruvyen, what the hell are you doin' out here? You oughta be in bed.
He needs to fight back for the greater good, but in doing so, takes a slight hit towards evil himself for willfully harming living beings and taking lives. This won't make the paladin not Lawful Good, he's still as lawful and as good as a person can be. But when danger threatens those you care about, one of your first instincts is to fight back, right?
NO. No, fucking no already.
How many ways and how many times does it have to be said? Taking the life of an evil being when you have the moral and ethical right is.. right. It is the fucking MISSION STATEMENT of a Lawful Good Paladin. Uphold the law, punish the wicked.
You're either willfully ignorant of the 'world' in which fantasy as a whole operates, or not trying hard enough.
It's not something people hear about.
Lyinar Ka`Bael, Piney Fresh Druidess - Luclin
quote:
D had this to say about Captain Planet:
I think he's trying to recreate the Mona Lisa with fingerpaints.
Actually, those are bodily fluids. You might not want to touch those.
And holy crap, I just realized we're cluttering Parce's thread. It doesn't look like either side's going to convince the other, so how about we agree to disagree, or at least take it to another thread or PMs?
quote:
Entertain me with more of your bullshit, Ruvyen.
And holy crap, I just realized we're cluttering Parce's thread. It doesn't look like either side's going to convince the other, so how about we agree to disagree, or at least take it to another thread or PMs?
No. There's nothing further to discuss.
Your perception of the situation at hand is lacking.
It's not something people hear about.
quote:
Ferret said this about your mom:
How is that not neutral? Mercenaries by definition are neutral, they are people who are hired to fight because they are good at it and the best ones are amoral. And if you're basing all your arguements off of Deathstroke from Teen titans, then you don't know Deathstroke.
Im basing Deathstroke off Comic Deathstroke. You know? The one who didn't hesitate to attack a group of men who had a knife at his son's throat because he arrougauntly thought he could beat them before his son came to harm. The one that didn't have a contract on the Titans but attacked them based on a grudge for beating his other son. The one that is apart of VILLIANS united. Don't lecture me about knowing Deathstroke.
Selfish goals and viewing morals as a hinderance is evil. Deathstroke is evil, perhaps Lawful Evil but definatly evil in DnD terms. Vise the Stompy fucked around with this message on 04-19-2005 at 11:44 PM.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael got a whole lot of nerve:
So what exactly are you arguing again?
That's an excellent point, seriously.
quote:
Entertain me with more of your bullshit, Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael.
So what exactly are you arguing again?
I think we should talk about Rob Liefeld now, given all the mention of mercenaries and Deathstroke.
It's not something people hear about.
quote:
Sean had this to say about the Spice Girls:
I think we should talk about Rob Liefeld now, given all the mention of mercenaries and Deathstroke.
It would make my brain hurt less than Ruv.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Entertain me with more of your bullshit, Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael.
It would make my brain hurt less than Ruv.
Detail for us the Slade Wilson - Wade Wilson conspiracy.
In five words or less.
It's not something people hear about.
It's not something people hear about.
After he left Marvel all he did was recreate Cable with different hair colors for whatever comic he was drawing that week.
Well, that and created the completely original Agent: America. A character with a red white and blue(mostly blue) costume, a round shield with a star in the middle that he threw at people while facing his arch nemisis, the Cyber Skull, a Nazi with a skeleton head.
quote:
Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael got all f'ed up on Angel Dust and wrote:
For one thing, I don't run into situations where I have a "well...shit...they aced the critter I wanted to use on them to anchor this adventure in two rounds" sort of problem,
Umm Wheres that Demons head?
quote:
Y.O.T.C probably says this to all the girls:
I'm more supprised noone has posted the evil overlords guide in this thread for parce to terrorize us with.
I'd be surprised if he doesn't know it already.
quote:
Lashanna impressed everyone with:
Now, if D&D advanced to a 20th-21st century, I'm sure goblins would have their civil rights advocates and what not. Or they might not have progressed to civil rights by then, maybe only PETG.
Except that non-human animals (arguably) aren't set on maliciously destroying other civilizations, unlike evil mythical creatures such as goblins, gnolls, etcetera, which are. Unless you delve into the arguments about whether the greater apes are capable of warfare with other divisions of non-human great apes, and so on...
quote:
So quoth Sean:
Detail for us the Slade Wilson - Wade Wilson conspiracy.In five words or less.
Alliteration for the mercenary win?
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Snoota wrote this stupid crap:
The only thing Rob Liefeld ever did right was create Cable. And even then, all he did was create the look; he dropped him into X-Force without any kind of story or concept behind the character and writers that followed had to create his story.After he left Marvel all he did was recreate Cable with different hair colors for whatever comic he was drawing that week.
Well, that and created the completely original Agent: America. A character with a red white and blue(mostly blue) costume, a round shield with a star in the middle that he threw at people while facing his arch nemisis, the Cyber Skull, a Nazi with a skeleton head.
Some of the "Youngblood" stuff was fairly original. At least the character concepts were. Unfortunately, that was about all he could do. His depiction of anatomy was hideous (and repetitive) and he needed actual writers to bring any of his character concepts to life. The other major problem was that he falls into what I think of as the "Image Creator 1.0" mindset. Specifically, it's the "I'm going to take my ball and go home" situation that pretty much all of the major players at Image fell into when they felt they weren't getting everything they deserved. They pulled proprietary characters out of being usable by other members of the Image community for pretty much any reason, which could fuck with character backgrounds (Liefeld pulled Chapel out, which fucked with McFarlane's origin story of Spawn, for instance. Likewise, by pulling Supreme out of the setting, a lot of the reasons for things like needing the project that ended up creating Gen13 got messed with, etc).
Image Comics' intention to put the artists and writers in charge of their own characters was ambitious, and it did shake things up and get creative geniuses at the major companies better rights to their own creations, but ultimately Image 1.0 was a complete failure. Only a few series actually survived, and most of them mutated off into their own realms largely divorced from all the others.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Sean Model 2000 was programmed to say:
Detail for us the Slade Wilson - Wade Wilson conspiracy.In five words or less.
Slade Wilson is Wade Wilson
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
