Questions on some quotes from Gaming Den members

[Captain_Bleach]

This is in the sig of Crossover-Chronicler on the Gleemax boards, and I l realized that two of the people quoted were members of the Gaming Den members. The fact that the Chronicler was using house rules for a Ravenloft game perked my interest. If possible, I would like to know what happened to provoke said quotes. If needed, link is right here.

Here is the sig:
The following constitute only opinions:
Remember kids: "DM" stands for "Deus ex Machina."
Every DM thinks every other DM is doing it wrong. Never play under a DM who utters the words "I am God," even in jest.
Originally Posted by bitnine
"You are not only wrong in your call, but possibly are the worst DM ever, akin to some sort of biblical plague. I'm surprised that your players don't start bleeding from their eyes or spontaneously combusting from being in the same room with you, let alone survive subjecting themselves to what you've termed a game."
I'm getting real tired of all this I hear at the table about "DM's rights." The DM is only entitled to indulge in as much stupidity and jerkery as the players will allow. The players are not obligated to take it, or even take it quietly, and walking away is not the only "right" option. Players have as much right to whine, or try to impose their wills as do DMs. And it's as a DM that I say this.
Originally Posted by Sir Neil
It's like a horrible cascade of stupidity, washing the fun out of D&D.

[Sir Neil]

Crossover-Chronicler. Haven't seen that name in a long time.

***
It was in one of the endless paladin arguments. Some dick was arguing that paladins are unplayable because of a moral Catch-22 he invented.

I might have been explaining to him that if he treats paladinhood as some un-sustainable goal, his players'll do it when they DM, and it will snowball to the point WotC might as well leave it out of the book.

Or maybe I was explaining that losing your class' power isn't fun, (especially for new players) and making players feel bad was a great way to kill the hobby.

I do remember I tore apart his "Catch-22", and C-C posted afterward to say two things. First, that he agreed with nearly everything I just said, and two, that the cascade quote was the funniest thing he'd seen in a while.

Originally Posted by Sir Neil
It's like a horrible cascade of stupidity, washing the fun out of D&D.

[Captain_Bleach]

So if Paladins can't lie, cheat, or steal, doesn't that invalidate the purpose of killing monsters and looting their homes and corpses? If one simply hand waves it away, then it makes the Paladin no better than a religious zealot rationalizing his/her atrocities and sins. Or am I wrong and there is nothing in the Paladin Code about stealing?

[Crissa]

First, find me where they actually bothered to write down the Paladin's code.

-Crissa

[Sir Neil]

3.0 PHB pg. 43

1198113024[/unixtime]]Or am I wrong and there is nothing in the Paladin Code about stealing?

See for yourself.

*Don't commit an evil act
*Respect legitimate authority
*Act with honor (don't lie, cheat, or poison)
*Help those (non-chaotic or non-evil) who need help
*Punish those who harm/threaten innocent [beings]

In OA, it suggested a different way of handing out treasure to samurai, since they don't loot bodies. It works great, I recommend it.

But ultimately it just doesn't matter.

If the player says he's following the Paladin's code, that should be good enough for the DM. Since they could play a LG cleric and be better in every way, it must be really important to them to write "Paladin" on their character sheet. Why would you take that away from them?

[tzor]

1198113024[/unixtime]]So if Paladins can't lie, cheat, or steal, doesn't that invalidate the purpose of killing monsters and looting their homes and corpses?

Yes, No, You see it all depends. I know there is no wrong way to play a paladin but there are many ways to play a paladin that well sort of gets you into hand waving paradoxes. Being a paladin doesn't require rocket science but it does require the ability to hand wave moral arguments, such as the just war theory (one fights evil in effect to prevent evil from harming innocents).

Killing people just so you can get their stuff is an evil act.

Taking stuff from dead people is a fuzzy area. (I'm going to ignore taking stuff from dead people who might have a reasonable chance at resurrection for the moment.) Being dead, they aren't going to be using it any time soon. Webster defines stealing in terms of theft, and theft as "the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it." Being dead, you're not really depriving the rightful owner of it, death himself already did that deed for you.

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Paladins probably shouldn't be doing too much stealing, as that is generally against the law (except where it isn't) and long term that could cause an alignment shift. Otherwise it is important to know that for the paladin the law axis is not the same as the good axis. One evil act and you're out. One chaotic act and it's a slap on the wrist and a mild warning.

[Captain_Bleach]

Yet another reason why I hate alignment: hand waving moral arguments, which, to a person whose entire life is based around moral arguments, invalidates the concept. Every game in which I had a Paladin character involved him acting like just another guy with a sword, but with holy powers, in which a Cleric can do but better.

[tzor]

When I say "hand waving moral arguments" I don't mean explaining things away to get whatever result you want. I mean taking the basic simple principles of good and applying them in a non self serving manner. "A paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."

So you can go deep into the just war theory or you can hand wave it by just insisting that hurting innocents is wrong and it's good to prevent others from doing that. You can go deep into the principle of double effect or you can always just go for the option with the most good and the least evil.

When you play a paladin there is a sort of understanding that needs to exist between the player and the DM. Just like there is an understanding when someone plays a wizard that magic is a core element in the campaign, there is an understanding that there is a higher moral power when a paladin is in the campaign.

[JonSetanta]

So, if a young maiden or lad becomes smitten with the Paladin because of his/her looks, they violated the code for "stealing their heart".

[tzor]

No because that is a figure of speech. As there is no "supernatural" effect involved this is all "free will" on the part of the lady (lad). Now if we are talking about a charm person effect as might be the case of a dryad, then this is indeed a true case of "stealing."

[Captain_Bleach]

1198187626[/unixtime]]When I say "hand waving moral arguments" I don't mean explaining things away to get whatever result you want. I mean taking the basic simple principles of good and applying them in a non self serving manner. "A paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."

So you can go deep into the just war theory or you can hand wave it by just insisting that hurting innocents is wrong and it's good to prevent others from doing that. You can go deep into the principle of double effect or you can always just go for the option with the most good and the least evil.

When you play a paladin there is a sort of understanding that needs to exist between the player and the DM. Just like there is an understanding when someone plays a wizard that magic is a core element in the campaign, there is an understanding that there is a higher moral power when a paladin is in the campaign.

But a lot of players aren't like that; one of my players just wants to be another guy with a sword; another player may apply his real-world religious standards to alignment, and basically makes his Paladin character/campaign unsuitable to those with different moral standards (no, you can't have sex outside of marriage or for any reason other than the purpose of procreation, that's not something a Paladin would do).

[tzor]

1198246964[/unixtime]]But a lot of players aren't like that; one of my players just wants to be another guy with a sword; another player may apply his real-world religious standards to alignment, and basically makes his Paladin character/campaign unsuitable to those with different moral standards (no, you can't have sex outside of marriage or for any reason other than the purpose of procreation, that's not something a Paladin would do).

I agree and I think there are more cases of paladin abuse than any other class out there. The problem has been with us for as long as the game has had the class. Here is an old 1E joke: What do you call a chaotic paladin? A ranger.

Without going too deeply into the subject, a paladin's code is always in the FIRST PERSON. A paladin has no right to tell anyone what they can or can't do unless he or she has been given that right by a rightful authority. A paladin's code is help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends) not just help those who follow his religious or moral code.

Personally I like C&C's approach; most of the real meat of the paladin class is stripped out of it and put into a knight class that is based on honor. Honor is easier to understand than good, and it keeps people from making the false assumption that the paladin is a "holy fighter" because he really isn't.

[Captain_Bleach]

I remember having a DM was believed that consensual S&M sex was inherently evil. So much so a self-flagellating Paladin of Ilmater who takes others suffering upon himself. Would have made a great story IMO.

[Leress]

1198257753[/unixtime]]I remember having a DM was believed that consensual S&M sex was inherently evil. So much so a self-flagellating Paladin of Ilmater who takes others suffering upon himself. Would have made a great story IMO.

Well that DM is bloody ignorant of what S&M really is and has watched too many Hollywood movies.

[Captain_Bleach]

Leress, that is why S&M gets a bad name in D&D, what with all the Evil characters (Drow, women of Loviatar) being sadistic and slutty psychos. Not to mention the Book of Vile Piercings lists it as evil.

[Neeek]

1198246193[/unixtime]]No because that is a figure of speech. As there is no "supernatural" effect involved this is all "free will" on the part of the lady (lad). Now if we are talking about a charm person effect as might be the case of a dryad, then this is indeed a true case of "stealing."

Reminds me of a Batman comic I once read. The Joker kidnaps Robin and threatens to kill him if Batman doesn't disgrace himself by publicly cheating, stealing, and killing. Batman gets around the deal by parachuting out of a crashing Batplane ("cheating death"), disrupting one of the Joker's robberies ("stealing his thunder"), and performing at the circus ("killing the audience").