How does Sup Forums feel about the Paladin...

How does Sup Forums feel about the Paladin? Do you prefer them being complete blinding justice ready to purge the afflicted and guilty?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/YGzqbEeVWhs
youtu.be/0-Q3cp3cp88
youtu.be/Jy6AOGRsR80
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Lawful good with a strict personal code. Not glorified lapdogs to the Church.

Would that personal code mean having to do what is ultimately the right choice? Such as putting down afflicted and damned innocents so they cannot come back as mindless, disease ridden horrors. That would mean even the elderly and children.

What is right when morality is subjective, even in the realm of gods?

Define what you mean by "subjective".

I've honestly never liked the zealous sort of paladin as a character, far better as a villain than anything else. They who claim to be righteous, yet take the low, and easy path that inconveniences themselves less than those who sacrifice and strive to be a beacon of hope in the darkness.

>Uncovered head
>Unshaved face

That is no real Paladin.

Only beautiful females should be allowed to be paladins.

>morality is subjective

Why do people say this? The western, greco-roman (stoic) interpretation of morality is the correct one. All oposing viewpoints lead to failure and societal collapse.

People wrongfully attribute morality to religion when Judeo-Christian morality is just a watered down version of stoicism for dummies. (I.e. do unto others, don't let your basal urges control you, etc.)

I sort of like the Inquisitor zealous Paladins who are Judge Jury and Executioner. There is absolutely no mercy for the condemned, the heretic or ill willed vagrant.

Said no one ever?

Loose cannons who are a danger to themselves and those they claim to protect. To wield such power and authority, is a responsibility that they often fail by being too blind to realize they have already fallen to corruption and become the very evil they were meant to defend against.

Based on people's worldview, like .
What is moral depends on what is right for the individual. Is it the prosperity of self, or of society? And is anything truly moral in a self or societal capacity when neither the self or the society can be considered unbiased?
Everyone is so kept up by helping themselves or others stay alive, they never consider that dying might be the best thing morally.
Maybe it is or isn't, but my point is that the focus of morality is always preservation of self or society.
Surely there's more to a moral structure than that. Especially with gods involved.

Paladin's should act as described in AD&D Paladin's Handbook. There's like 10 pages of shit like:
"Additionally, the paladin must:
• Consider the feelings of others and take care not to offend them. A paladin always demonstrates proper manners (shaking hands with friends, expressing gratitude for favors). He also keeps himself immaculately groomed (bathing regularly, wearing clean clothes).
• Speak tactfully and kindly. A paladin never knowingly insults or slanders another person, even his greatest enemy. If others engage in insults or slander, the paladin walks away.
• Behave with dignity. A paladin refrains from emotional outbursts, excessive eating and drinking, foul language, and other boorish acts."

A Paladin should always be Good first and Lawful second. That's the whole point of Lawful Good, to use the law to enforce the good for all.

So would you consider it lawful good to cull a city struck by a magic plague that painfully kills all afflicted only to resurrect them as undead monsters? Or would you be a weak, blind fool always thinking "there's got to be another way" rather than doing your duty to the Lord, even if it means culling children and elderly so they suffer not.

Wrong. A Paladin is always lawful good. He follows laws of people that are lawful good. He never interferes with them. If they are not lawful good, he may himself exercise law that is.

That depends, are you giving them the chance to die a merciful death, or are you pre-emptively killing them in the name of mercy, against their will?

LN is the best alignment
LG focuses too much on trying to reform people who should just be burnt at the stake

It is better to die quickly and gently by the light and blade than to expel your fluids and die slowly like a sick animal. So the latter.

I mean... you're doing them a favor in the long run.

Lawful neutral is a path that spirals into inevitable chaos to where you become so blindingly corrupt and insane like the original line of innocent and sinner become blurred leading to you burning and killing the people you were meant to protect.

I prefer the Forgotten Realms/Planescape version of Paladins, where they are more living embodiments of the attributes of their chosen deity. More fun to play, allows for a full alignment spectrum, LE Paladins are fun as fuck, and it makes more sense lore-wise than limiting them to LG.

Not doing so would be an act of seasoning.

Maybe they shouldn't have broken the law

I play like some sort of armored Jesus, I dont force people into the paladin faith. I generally make good choices and be a bro and hopefully they look up to my character and see that my faith is something to be followed.

Say's who though? Your assumed accusations?

Righteous edgelord paladin is best paladin.

That is the AD&D version of Paladin. Not your 4e or whatever monstrosity. You don't understand LG if you think Paladins should be any other alignment.

Are you referencing the Culling of Strathholme? Because if so Arthas was absolutely in the right.

Unearthed Arcana variant of Paladin. Chaotic Good Paladin of Freedom. Not bound to follow some abstract code or seek justice. Merely to seek the agency of all peoples.

What if the law itself is unjust?

This is a terrible Paladin idea and you should feel bad. I'm glad I kicked the last 40kid out of my D&D group.
The best Paladins are Don Quixote, Sam Vimes, Superman, Captain America.
Trying to take the ultimate good guy and turn him into a raging edgelord with light powers is cancer. The entire point of playing a Paladin as a good guy is the challenge of it. Like Quixote, he doesn't fit into the world. He expects too much from himself and from those around him.

And that's what makes Paladins interesting. Playing murderous dicks who just happen to have god powers completely misses the point of playing a knight in shining armor in the first place.

And if you think for a moment that it's not cool to be good, then I want you to go roll something else instead. Leave the Paladins to the ones with a song in their hearts, and a righteous mission from god to make men into the great creatures they deserve to be.

And go back to Sup Forums.
youtu.be/YGzqbEeVWhs
youtu.be/0-Q3cp3cp88
youtu.be/Jy6AOGRsR80

One could also argue that by killing someone with absolutely nothing wrong with them, would in the end relieve them of the suffering that life may or may not hold for them in the future. The point is that you are taking the choice into your own hands, when they could possibly make their own choice for themselves however grim. A paladin is given the power to carry out their righteous tasks, but having that power at all means that they must be responsible to it, not flaunt it recklessly.

Why do you bring Sup Forums in every fucking thread you retarded newfag nigger? Anyway just kill yourself. Also it's a reference to the Stratholme dilemma with Arthas and Uther. Ones a real Paladin trying to do his duty and the other is o
Like your comic book autists that autisticly screeches.

No, I just disagree with the fundamentals. Paladins are more interesting when they are directly serving a specific deity, instead of a vague concept of good or justice. Doubly makes more sense since they are granted access to magic and spells that most Clerics have to specifically ask permission to use.

Doing it that way, they turn into Clerics on steroids, which is much more fun to play. The class becomes more a walking embodiment of the goals/virtues/theme of their deity, and unlike Clerics are given unlimited access to divine favor and powers, in exchange for living strictly by the code or beliefs of their deity and varying even slightly from the path has all their magic privs revoked in a flash.

So you can play a LG Pally of Bahamut hardcore dedicated to justice and the eradication of all evil, or you can play a LE Pally of Asmodeus, both equally making sense, both equally possible, much more interesting than having generic Holy Crusader Paladins running around every campaign.

Arthas was absolutely wrong and Stratholme should have been evacuated, which was something Jaina and Uther were preparing to do in the first place.

Also at that time, Arthas was already being influenced by Frostmourne and Ner'zhul. Quit being an edgelord or stay on Sup Forums.

I'm more of an Inquisitor kinda guy, the evil ruthless motherfucker fighting for the "good" side. You know the saliva-dripping fanatic with a flail or some hammer\mace and prayer text tattoos all over his bald head type? Yep, that one
I know it's super dumb and edgy but I guess that's exactly the point for me.

>Leave the Paladins to the ones with a song in their hearts, and a righteous mission from god to make men into the great creatures they deserve to be.

No you fucking muppet, everything in Strathome was infected and attempting to "rescue" the already dead citizens would have put all of Lordaeron in danger. It already was because the largest city in the Eastern Kingdoms was about to be the largest undead army and stronghold. The only moral, logical and right option was to put down the afflicted gently rather die horribly like a sick animal only to be a shambling corpse later. Also get the fuck off my board and fuck off to Reddit, Neogaf or leftypol you faggot.

I for one loved Cole Phelps from LA Noire, his moral code could not be moved by anyone or anything

>He has humanity!
>Must be a fucking commie!
This is why no one takes you seriously.