From: Rannou@info.polymtl.ca (Patrick Rannou)
Subject: Re: Paladins
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal, Canada
	<kimcm.714582690@login.dkuug.dk>
	<1992Aug23.160031.3956@news.acns.nwu.edu>
	<1992Aug25.130209.1@economics.adelaide.edu.au>
	<BtJvD7.CMt@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
	<RANNOU.92Aug27040133@zuse.info.polymtl.ca>
	<BtpCE3.2K5@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 04:34:20 GMT

In article <BtpCE3.2K5@news.cso.uiuc.edu> dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Axly) writes:



   after I say:

   >   I do disagree with saying he would have lost his paladinhood and become
   >   a Lawful Neutral fighter. I think that the judgement call for the 
   >   paladinhood loss is a sticky one, and could go either way depending on
   >   how you feel on the topic. I think that changing his alignment is 
   >   Overkill with a real big O. A Lawful Good fighter could very well
   >   kill one of his companions for stealing and be perfectly within his
   >   alignment. Good people aren't stupid,nice, or perfect by any means.

   Pat says:

   >Killing his evil. A paladin will kill as a last resort tactic. Why else do
   >you think it's so hard being a paladin? Of coursem when fighting MONSTERS
   >or clearly evil creatures, the paladin need not have such qualms about
   >killing first asking questions later.

   I guess this is our essential point of disagreement. You say killing is evil
   I say that it is an essentially neutral act. Why you kill is what makes the
   killing good or evil, not the act itself.   Otherwise, good dieties wouldn't
   have any warrior adherents.

   Axly

Being a warrior doesn't necesseraly have something to do with killing, at
least not in a direct fashion/ the PC looks forward to it.

Think about a cop having a gun and learning to use a gun. Does it mean he;s
going to want to use it on every crackpot who goes the wrong way of the
law? Of course not. Well, maybe, but we talk about good alignement, and if
it isnt's the in the generalition as a rule for most cases, then it's not
true for at least some subset of "good" cops in hte general group.

Same thing, why do a guy laern to become black belt at karate? 

So he can be better at killing people? Duh. Of course not.

A fighting skill here has nothing to do with the INTENT of killing.
These characters learn the fighting skill and thus MAY have to kill, but
they don't learn the fighting skill BECAUSE they will maybe kill. see the
difference?

Good deities can still have plenty of warrior adherents. It's just thatt
they won't asdhere for the killing, and that's good.

"Hey, i'm going to become a cop so I can shoot criminals!!!"

is evil.

"Hey, I'm going to become a cop so I can protect the people!!!"

is good, but nonetheless you will then have to learn to use a gun and
be good with it, because there may just be a moment when, even if you
DON'T want to take a life, you'll HAVE to.

And of course killing is not "always" evil, and is shaped by the REASON why
you kill. Someone killed an animal so I may eat. That doesn't mean I think
the guy was evil and I am a complice in an evil act. We kill to EAT, we
have no choice. Well, we could maybe eat only plants, but we rationalize
killing animals because they aren't human, or not sentient enough.

So, I'm just saying that a mix of both views should be taken into account.









--
/---------------------------\
| Patrick "Paradak" Rannou. |
| Rannou@info.polymtl.ca    |
\---------------------------/

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd