|
|
Post by mao on May 2, 2019 8:21:00 GMT -5
Give this a thought, How much trouble would a paladin have in replacing Batman
Batman has a strict code of conduct and does not kill
The most prob a paladin have is breaking and entering, but remember the law is curupt
Thoughts
|
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on May 2, 2019 17:52:47 GMT -5
Hmmm! Well in OD&D terms I would consider Superman Lawful and Batman Chaotic, based on their motivations. Where Superman is very altruistic, Batman is much darker in his motivations, so Chaotic, or Neutral at best. With AD&D alignments, I would think Superman is Lawful Good even though he is a vigilante. Batman on the other hand I would go with Neutral Good with a dark side that sometimes threatens him.
The DC characters are more definite in what they are, where the Marvel characters are more like real people being a mixture of the alignments and most would be hard to fit into an alignment, which is true of most players and the way they play their characters IMO.
Alignments are useful IMC, but not as a straight jacket for the PC. I do like it for the interface between PCs and their aligned magical weapons. The weapons have a more Black and White mentality, sometimes they have opinions about the behavior of a PC.
|
|
|
|
Post by mao on May 3, 2019 9:00:00 GMT -5
In any situation at all, if you knew Batman well,you would be able to predict what Batman does. This is caused by his strict code of personal code. He is clearly lawful.
|
|
|
|
Post by El Borak on May 4, 2019 11:20:27 GMT -5
In any situation at all, if you knew Batman well,you would be able to predict what Batman does. This is caused by his strict code of personal code. He is clearly lawful. The TV Batman I would agree, but the comic book Batman, marched to his own drummer and was not too concerned about crossing T's and dotting i's were the law was concerned. |
|
|
|
Post by Hexenritter Verlag on May 4, 2019 14:40:02 GMT -5
Hmmm! Well in OD&D terms I would consider Superman Lawful and Batman Chaotic, based on their motivations. Where Superman is very altruistic, Batman is much darker in his motivations, so Chaotic, or Neutral at best. With AD&D alignments, I would think Superman is Lawful Good even though he is a vigilante. Batman on the other hand I would go with Neutral Good with a dark side that sometimes threatens him. The DC characters are more definite in what they are, where the Marvel characters are more like real people being a mixture of the alignments and most would be hard to fit into an alignment, which is true of most players and the way they play their characters IMO. Alignments are useful IMC, but not as a straight jacket for the PC. I do like it for the interface between PCs and their aligned magical weapons. The weapons have a more Black and White mentality, sometimes they have opinions about the behavior of a PC. With OD&D Batman would be Lawful, he is upholding the principles of Law within a highly corrupt society, where the official government is lacking & overly permissive of chaotic elements in society - like modern society is. |
|
|
|
Post by True Black Raven on May 18, 2019 19:27:31 GMT -5
Hmmm! Well in OD&D terms I would consider Superman Lawful and Batman Chaotic, based on their motivations. Where Superman is very altruistic, Batman is much darker in his motivations, so Chaotic, or Neutral at best. With AD&D alignments, I would think Superman is Lawful Good even though he is a vigilante. Batman on the other hand I would go with Neutral Good with a dark side that sometimes threatens him. The DC characters are more definite in what they are, where the Marvel characters are more like real people being a mixture of the alignments and most would be hard to fit into an alignment, which is true of most players and the way they play their characters IMO. Alignments are useful IMC, but not as a straight jacket for the PC. I do like it for the interface between PCs and their aligned magical weapons. The weapons have a more Black and White mentality, sometimes they have opinions about the behavior of a PC. With OD&D Batman would be Lawful, he is upholding the principles of Law within a highly corrupt society, where the official government is lacking & overly permissive of chaotic elements in society - like modern society is. I have to go with this, if Batman and Superman and all the rest were around, they would all have a price on their heads in our world. |
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on May 19, 2019 14:50:40 GMT -5
A knight has a serious problem. He is sworn to protect his King, his people, and his family. Things rarely are this easy, he is going to run into situations where his orders, or chivalry will force him to betray his own oaths. If we add God into this, his problems are even more complicated. Which oaths to you uphold? If you betray your god, you may lose your status, if you betray your country, you may lose your status. The Laws of Chilvery are impossible to uphold for the common knight, but the Paladin MUST uphold them.
This is why I don't like to have paladins in my game. It forces a specific style of game and makes it too easy for the player to take over the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by raikenclw on Sept 4, 2019 22:52:35 GMT -5
This is why I don't like to have paladins in my game. It forces a specific style of game and makes it too easy for the player to take over the game. I like to *play* paladins, but I play them very gritty. For me, they are quite simply religious fanatics, except that the deity they worship is usually of the "goody two shoes" variety which doesn't permit them to be as murderous and uncaring of the general welfare as real world religious fanatics. In the real world, such fanaticism tends to lead to such things as "Kill them all; the Lord will know his own." My paladins would *like* to indulge in such simplicity, but they know that they'll get into serious trouble if they actually do so. |
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on Sept 4, 2019 23:22:35 GMT -5
This is why I don't like to have paladins in my game. It forces a specific style of game and makes it too easy for the player to take over the game. I like to *play* paladins, but I play them very gritty. For me, they are quite simply religious fanatics, except that the deity they worship is usually of the "goody two shoes" variety which doesn't permit them to be as murderous and uncaring of the general welfare as real world religious fanatics. In the real world, such fanaticism tends to lead to such things as "Kill them all; the Lord will know his own." My paladins would *like* to indulge in such simplicity, but they know that they'll get into serious trouble if they actually do so. I think that I would enjoy you at the table. Heck, I would read this as a novel! Did you ever watch "Vikings" on History Channel? There is a paladin which appeared on the show which was amazing! On a technical note, I kind of wish that Gygax chose to promote the Cavalier class instead of the Paladin. |
|
|
|
Post by raikenclw on Sept 4, 2019 23:34:45 GMT -5
I think that I would enjoy you at the table. Heck, I would read this as a novel! I manage to display a little bit of this sort of "paladin grit" in one of the scenes in the "Ruins" game I'm in here. One of mormonyoyoman's PCs insults my paladin's deity, with the result that these two characters almost come to blows. My PC finally decides that the insulting PC is not quite right in the head and so doesn't really comprehend that she's given insult, which position was more-or-less confirmed by the other player OOG. Did you ever watch "Vikings" on History Channel? There is a paladin which appeared on the show which was amazing! I've been meaning to get to it. Now I have even more reason to do so!  On a technical note, I kind of wish that Gygax chose to promote the Cavalier class instead of the Paladin. To my way of thinking, the Cavalier would be essentially the Paladin without brakes but also without mystical powers. They'd be likely to die rather quickly, unless they had some sort of effective support system. The code of chivalry was an attempt to channel the wanton brutality of private warfare, not stop conflict completely. If I were to play a Cavalier, he'd probably be wanting to horsewhip the Chaotic Neutral members of the party every time they conversed.  |
|
|
|
Post by mao on Sept 6, 2019 13:42:58 GMT -5
This is why I don't like to have paladins in my game. It forces a specific style of game and makes it too easy for the player to take over the game. I like to *play* paladins, but I play them very gritty. For me, they are quite simply religious fanatics, except that the deity they worship is usually of the "goody two shoes" variety which doesn't permit them to be as murderous and uncaring of the general welfare as real world religious fanatics. In the real world, such fanaticism tends to lead to such things as "Kill them all; the Lord will know his own." My paladins would *like* to indulge in such simplicity, but they know that they'll get into serious trouble if they actually do so. Your paladins would be very at home in my Mysantia game. The prevailing alignment is NE and paladins are given a LOT of leeway w the Law. |
|
|
|
Post by raikenclw on Sept 7, 2019 4:19:16 GMT -5
I like to *play* paladins, but I play them very gritty. For me, they are quite simply religious fanatics, except that the deity they worship is usually of the "goody two shoes" variety which doesn't permit them to be as murderous and uncaring of the general welfare as real world religious fanatics. In the real world, such fanaticism tends to lead to such things as "Kill them all; the Lord will know his own." My paladins would *like* to indulge in such simplicity, but they know that they'll get into serious trouble if they actually do so. Your paladins would be very at home in my Mysantia game. The prevailing alignment is NE and paladins are given a LOT of leeway w the Law. Is that an invitation? |
|
|
|
Post by mao on Sept 7, 2019 5:30:33 GMT -5
Your paladins would be very at home in my Mysantia game. The prevailing alignment is NE and paladins are given a LOT of leeway w the Law. Is that an invitation? if I try to run online,I'll keep you in mind |
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Sept 9, 2019 20:07:54 GMT -5
In my view, Paladins make a vow to their god and that precludes making a vow to any earthly authority, in fact a Paladin of name level would have authority over Kings. I view Paladins as tough, gritty and pragmatic in the service of their god.
|
|
|
|
Post by mao on Sept 11, 2019 5:57:03 GMT -5
In my view, Paladins make a vow to their god and that precludes making a vow to any earthly authority, in fact a Paladin of name level would have authority over Kings. I view Paladins as tough, gritty and pragmatic in the service of their god.
I love the idea that the paladin has power over royalty, nice touch |
|
|
|
Post by raikenclw on Sept 11, 2019 7:13:22 GMT -5
In my view, Paladins make a vow to their god and that precludes making a vow to any earthly authority, in fact a Paladin of name level would have authority over Kings. I view Paladins as tough, gritty and pragmatic in the service of their god.
I love the idea that the paladin has power over royalty, nice touch Very nice. But if the monarch rules through Divine Right, which is then actually superior to the other? The one given responsibility by the deity over only his own actions? Or the one given responsibility by the deity over an entire kingdom? Maybe it isn't the same deity? In which case, which is the more senior/powerful? Also, the King might not appreciate being upstaged and so decide that the Paladin should become a martyr for his deity . . . |
|
|
|
Post by mao on Sept 11, 2019 7:17:57 GMT -5
I love the idea that the paladin has power over royalty, nice touch Very nice. But if the monarch rules through Divine Right, which is then actually superior to the other? The one given responsibility by the deity over only his own actions? Or the one given responsibility by the deity over an entire kingdom? Maybe it isn't the same deity? In which case, which is the more senior/powerful? Also, the King might not appreciate being upstaged and so decide that the Paladin should become a martyr for his deity . . . I suppose that the only way to do this would be that the common man and the elites are indoctrinated that that is the way things are and royalty dare not monkey w the holy warriors |
|
|
|
Post by raikenclw on Sept 11, 2019 7:22:38 GMT -5
Very nice. But if the monarch rules through Divine Right, which is then actually superior to the other? The one given responsibility by the deity over only his own actions? Or the one given responsibility by the deity over an entire kingdom? Maybe it isn't the same deity? In which case, which is the more senior/powerful? Also, the King might not appreciate being upstaged and so decide that the Paladin should become a martyr for his deity . . . I suppose that the only way to do this would be that the common man and the elites are indoctrinated that that is the way things are and royalty dare not monkey w the holy warriors An uneasy truce? Unity in public, knives/duels in the dark? Cardinal Richelieu versus the King, except that the deity/deities in question might actually take sides? |
|
|
|
Post by mao on Sept 11, 2019 7:32:04 GMT -5
I suppose that the only way to do this would be that the common man and the elites are indoctrinated that that is the way things are and royalty dare not monkey w the holy warriors An uneasy truce? Unity in public, knives/duels in the dark? Cardinal Richelieu versus the King, except that the deity/deities in question might actually take sides? simple little rule has a TON of rping potential, there are so many ways of looking at this |
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Sept 11, 2019 14:19:45 GMT -5
In my view, Paladins make a vow to their god and that precludes making a vow to any earthly authority, in fact a Paladin of name level would have authority over Kings. I view Paladins as tough, gritty and pragmatic in the service of their god.
I love the idea that the paladin has power over royalty, nice touch Thank you! |
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Sept 11, 2019 14:24:34 GMT -5
I love the idea that the paladin has power over royalty, nice touch Very nice. But if the monarch rules through Divine Right, which is then actually superior to the other? The one given responsibility by the deity over only his own actions? Or the one given responsibility by the deity over an entire kingdom? Maybe it isn't the same deity? In which case, which is the more senior/powerful? Also, the King might not appreciate being upstaged and so decide that the Paladin should become a martyr for his deity . . . Those are great questions, so many ways to go with it. One would be that a name level Paladin picks and anoints each new king when the old one dies. Kingship is not a hereditary position, but one that is a chosen position and the Paladin being gods representative on earth does the choosing as he (or she) is directed from above. You can probably guess where the genesis of that idea came from. Cough "Samuel" Cough. |
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Sept 11, 2019 14:25:53 GMT -5
Very nice. But if the monarch rules through Divine Right, which is then actually superior to the other? The one given responsibility by the deity over only his own actions? Or the one given responsibility by the deity over an entire kingdom? Maybe it isn't the same deity? In which case, which is the more senior/powerful? Also, the King might not appreciate being upstaged and so decide that the Paladin should become a martyr for his deity . . . I suppose that the only way to do this would be that the common man and the elites are indoctrinated that that is the way things are and royalty dare not monkey w the holy warriors Also another way to do it, especially in a sometimes 'hands on" world. |
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Sept 11, 2019 14:26:29 GMT -5
I suppose that the only way to do this would be that the common man and the elites are indoctrinated that that is the way things are and royalty dare not monkey w the holy warriors An uneasy truce? Unity in public, knives/duels in the dark? Cardinal Richelieu versus the King, except that the deity/deities in question might actually take sides? Sweet! |
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Sept 11, 2019 14:30:42 GMT -5
An uneasy truce? Unity in public, knives/duels in the dark? Cardinal Richelieu versus the King, except that the deity/deities in question might actually take sides? simple little rule has a TON of rping potential, there are so many ways of looking at this Quite, I like things that open the game up and you never know what might happen. You put an idea out there and then you see where the players take it. You have an idea and you think it might go this direction and then the players come up with something you would never have thought of. That is why you throw out hooks, but you do not pre-define the direction it might go from your initial starting point. To me this is the Sandbox way, you throw out many starting places and then you find out where the players will take it. |
|
|
|
Post by raikenclw on Sept 11, 2019 17:26:25 GMT -5
The Perilous Dreamer simple little rule has a TON of rping potential, there are so many ways of looking at this Quite, I like things that open the game up and you never know what might happen. You put an idea out there and then you see where the players take it. You have an idea and you think it might go this direction and then the players come up with something you would never have thought of. That is why you throw out hooks, but you do not pre-define the direction it might go from your initial starting point. To me this is the Sandbox way, you throw out many starting places and then you find out where the players will take it. Yep. I stumbled across something on DriveThruRPG the other day called "The No-Prep Gamemaster: Or How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love Random Tables." The author gives the very same advice as above. |
|
|
|
Post by El Borak on Sept 11, 2019 19:11:58 GMT -5
The Perilous Dreamer simple little rule has a TON of rping potential, there are so many ways of looking at this Quite, I like things that open the game up and you never know what might happen. You put an idea out there and then you see where the players take it. You have an idea and you think it might go this direction and then the players come up with something you would never have thought of. That is why you throw out hooks, but you do not pre-define the direction it might go from your initial starting point. To me this is the Sandbox way, you throw out many starting places and then you find out where the players will take it. Have an exalt TPD. |
|
