text:
Giant in the Playground Forums > Gaming > Roleplaying Games > Paladin's Behavior - Am I doing something wrong here?
View Full Version : Paladin's Behavior - Am I doing something wrong here?
Fawsto
Friends, Friends, I've got a pretty headache today... Lemme introduce it to you and you tell me if I was doign it right. Ya know, I am a "Veteran Pally Player", so I am pretty used to the rules and limitations, but the following topic became a discussion. I need a light here, please help me.
The scenario: A wolrd where everybody kind of hate the Elfs (for no justified reason, at least, none we know). A anti-elfist tyrant takes the throne of a important city and kill mostly all the elves from the same city. Now he sends messengers to nearby citys demanding them to kill or expell the elves or else he will attack and destroy them. The problem, he can do it. The city possess the best and most powerful army in the land.
The character: I play a Paladin-to-become fighter of the Important city in question (LG and Human for instance) who likes to help Elfs who are arrested for doing nothing or are being treated with injustice. Being I one of the city Guards and postulant to the Paladins Cavalary Order present on the town (just to add, even the Pallys treat the Elfs with mistrust and sometimes "uneccessary force") I can do the "Job" with some ease. I am still one of the Guards because I find in it the perfect position to help people in general. Till here, am I lawful good?
What happened: I met a Young Elf Lady, who happened to be a noble, in the town before the Tyrant took over, but she got killed during what we called "the holocaust" when the Tyrant killed her personaly and sent his grunts (mostly the entire army) to kill the remaining elves. I took her body out of the throne room and buried it properly, being late to rescue her. After that I went to help the other Elfs as much as I could, killing a few guards in the process.
After that I and the group went to a previous visited town where we had met personaly the King (it was a Gnome Town) where the remaining elfs where trying to hide. The tyrant sent a messenger to the town with a letter to be sent to the Gnome King. At this time I was a 3rd level Fighter (till now I am wondering why the hell I took the 3rd level instead of taking Paladin 1) who was trying to convince the King not to listen to any lies that were written on the letter, but the King was "too busy" to hear anyone in the group. So I went to talk to a General who was a friend of ours to see if he could mark an audience with the King before the messenger did. He could not. What I did them?
Well I decided to do the following: I entered the Castle and wnet directly to the throne room (the messenger was already in the King's chambers), but a few guards intercepted me. I intimidate one of them (just looking him with anger in the eyes) and sayed something like this "Let me pass, for I am to give urgent advice to your King, since this City might be in great danger If I do not". And tryed to advance, being stopped by a unsheated sword guard. I proceeded to land a non-lethal attack on the guy (basicaly beacause I roleplay my character as a "too proud" guy, and because I was desperate). After that they called more guards and I went arrested with another party friend.
Well the discussion happened because of this: The player who roleplays the group's rogue said that If I had any paladin levels I would had lost them, not because It was an Evil act, but because it was chaotic. Do you think so? I mean, ok, I entered the castle and defied authority, is that an all chaotic act, even being the last option my character could think of and with the intent to defy a non legitimate authority (the tyrant who sent the messenger, who I treat as my personal enemy)? Chaotic enough to loose the Paladin's powers? I thought a lot and I think that it was a Neutral act. What you think?
Later the discussion came to this: Ok, and if a Evil commander send a group of neutral humans to attack a paladin, should he just stay still and let them rape his ass? My friend says that the Paladin MUST use his Diplomacy skill in this situation, and I think the same way. But he says that this must be the last thing he does against the Neutral guys.
I sayed WTF!?!?!?
What you think about this?
Clementx
Even using the horrible code as written, a Paladin isn't forbidden to commit chaotic acts, only evil ones. He cannot commit enough of them to become Neutral, though. Storming one castle in defense of justice and vows of protection isn't an alignment-shifting act.
Crow T. Robot
Pallies are held to a high standard, but they are allowed to defend themselves if attacked. If it is possible, the pally should attempt to talk his way out, but in the end he has the right to defend himself.
As for storming the throne room, he should be in the clear. Pallies are bound to their ethics and morals not any mere legal system, no mater how lawful. Granted pallies are more at him fighting demons (The Holy Avenger bares that out) but they would have no alignment problems hammering a devil into the ground.
Laurellien
I side with you Fawsto. You don't appear to have done anything inherently against the paladin's code of conduct.
Riffington
You didn't do anything bad. You defied authority after having given it proper thought and coming to the conclusion that it was necessary because of the evil decree (the ongoing elficide). A lawful person may violently oppose even a rightful king if he has a really good reason (and thinks hard before doing so).
Additionally, self defense is fine. You should use the minimum force that does the job. So if you can talk someone out of attacking you, that's what you should do. If the only way to stop them is lethal force, then you may do so. Even if the people attacking you are Good, you may kill them if this is the only way to stop them.
You were consistently standing up for what you believed, and you defied authority only as a last resort with something important at stake. I'd call that Lawful.
Additionally, the man he opposes is a tyrant, thus not a king by law, a king wrongly in power. He has no lawful authority. You have all the right in the world to defend yourself against lethal force with lethal force in return.
Aquillion
Paladins are allowed to commit occasional chaotic acts as long as their overall outlook remains lawful (and, in fact, they are sometimes required to behave chaotically if the alternative is to do something evil--for instance, if a legitimate king orders a Paladin subject to do something evil yet legal, the Paladin must respectfully decline.)
A paladin can also sometimes justify seemingly chaotic acts by saying that they are in service to a "higher law". 'Lawful' does not have to mean 'mindlessly obeys the local laws' (aka lawful stupid); it can also mean 'has a higher code of conduct that they adhere to.' In that case, to remain lawful you would have to ignore local laws when they conflict with your principals. To do otherwise (to change your principals to suit the local law) would, in fact, be chaotic.
Of course, it's a bit more complicated for a Paladin, since part of their principals involves respecting legitimate authority. Still, the only part of the code that brings instant fall-now-do-not-pass-go status is committing an evil act; only gross violations of the rest of the code cause you to fall immediately. I don't think that this qualifies.
Defending yourself against the misguided neutrals (or goods, or, for that matter, evils in many cases) is more complicated. The straightforward things are that you must treat them with mercy, try to avoid fighting, then try to avoid killing them if you have to fight (say, by stabilizing wounded people instead of finishing them off, once the fight is over.) Invoking 'self defense' to kill them all without mercy would be at best a neutral response (and possibly evil if you just killed them out of expedience.)
One of the fundamental parts of "good" is, basically, being better than you have to be. Invoking "law of the jungle" to defend yourself is ultimately a neutral outlook. You can do it as a paladin, certainly, but you should at least feel regretful afterwards that it had to come to that, and should show this in your actions. If you ever reach the point where you say "well, they may have been misguided, but they were trying to kill me, so fair's fair and I don't feel bad about it at all", chances are you're neutral, not good.
Mewtarthio
You also have to consider the reasoning behind the code. "Respect legitimate authority" does not mean "obey anyone who has legitimately obtained power." Rather, it means "respect the concept of legitimate authority": Paladins obey authority, true, but only because to do otherwise would be to imply that authority has no meaning. Paladins believe that earthly authorities have value, and since Paladins are the paragons of Good, that value must be to uphold the rule of Good and ensure that Evil cannot take power. Thus, an Evil authority must be changed. Its Good and Neutral statues should still be followed, but if the authority promoted Evil, a Paladin has a divine imperative to disobey it.
Now, "respect legitimate authority" still means that a Paladin should try to fix an Evil rulership through legitimate means before going for something different. In your particular situation, helping the elves escape and burying the slain one is the best you could have done (okay, she'd have likely preferred for you to resurrect her, but I'm assuming you didn't have the resources for that)--attempting to change the law through legitimate means would have only meant more deaths in the meantime, and a Paladin upholds Good before Law, not the other way around (it helps if you think of Law as simply a means to a Good end).
Storming the palace is probably less-than-Lawful, as it essentially means you believe the legitimate legal system is wasting its time while you have something important to say (in short, you trust the judgement of a lone paladin above the judgement of a king), but in this situation I see nothing that would cause you to fall. You are, after all, only human.
I also weigh in in support of fawsto. Your friend is wrong. The fact that you attacked non-lethally when presented with a sword point puts you completely in the clear.
As a person who's never read the code(I only use the SRD) I have to say that I would make you lose paladin levels for not doing what you did. You're a paladin(IE, a hero) and people too often read the code as law and forget the image the word "paladin" is supposed to conjure.
Plus, you didn't really "storm the castle." It was more like you barged in.
Sir Iguejo
ha! something funny happened here.
I am the rogue Fawsto told about in his post. I was just randomly opening threads on the gaming forums and read this one. I just felt the urge to instantly register and post MY side on the story.
Fawsto is known in our group for creating "special-feats-combo-killing-machines" instead of D&D characters. I do not disapprove him at all, `cause if he`s having fun with his characters, it is fine for me.
Unfortunately, we have different opinions about the law-and-chaos axis and the good-and-evil one. Breaking into a "neutral-good" castle and fighting its militia is NOT a lawful-good act. No matters whats behind it. First, he tryed to talk his way out, but at the first sign that the guard wouldn't let him pass, the paladin just knocked him out and started to fight everyone else. The first hit was non-lethal dmg (with the -4 penalty), but the others were not. And in the middle of the skirmish, he was coming up with plans on how to exterminate all of the guards in one or two rounds, in order to go throught that room.
I said to him that it wasn't very "paladinish" to do that, but he countered me saying that it was for a greater good. I have read many times on core and standard D&D books that "an evil act is not an excuse for a good act". I think a paladin would try diplomacy,bluff and even intimidate checks on the guards, but never attacking them first (fawsto wasn't defending himself against the guards, he was attacking them). Trying to contact the gnome general we knew sounded like a good idea to me.
I play a CG elf rogue, who managed to survive the holocaust and run away from the evil tyrant. I just found an elven noble wandering in that castle and disguised myself like his guard. Then I was able to speak with the king and other important gnomes. Without even drawing my sword or sneak-attacking anybody.
Also, I was unaware that a paladin may commit chaotic acts without losing paladinhood, so I thought the DM should forbid him on getting pal levels before an atonement or some truly LG acts. We argued a little, but everything is settled now.
Hope i made this story clear on my side, and I apologize for grammar and/or spelling mistakes, my english is not so keen anymore.
thank you all, and specially fawsto
I think the whole concept of "legitimate authority" is rendered meaningless when monarchs are the standard of the land and paladins hail from feudal systems.
So then do paladins have the lawful right to engage in war or combat with lawful beings? Of course, that is the definition of a paladin! The important thing is not a lawful or nonlawful system of government, but the way you wage war. I think the following are pretty basic guidelines:
1:You should not harm civilians, infrastructure, or cause unnecessary destruction.
2:You should not take hostages, make threats or unscrupulous demands.
3:You should not engage in deceit, espionage, or undeclared attack.
4:You should not engage in vigiliantism and should bring criminals to justice where there is a lawful good system to try them.
5:You should not use poison, torture, or permanently disabling attacks.
You did not violate any of these rules to the point of being unlawful. When you bluffed the gaurds, you chose rule 1 over rule 3, but that isn't a big issue.
Your biggest area of of violation would have been what you would do to the king. An assassination would definately be out of the question. As would threatening to kill him unless he recalled his guards/army from foreign territory. You would be able to negotiate with him. If he personally attacked you or sent his guards knowing why you were there (A reason to be forthright about your intentions) you could attack and arrest him (killing him if necessary). You could rescue elves or give him advanced notice that killing another elf is reason to kill him (and follow-up if he does so). The distinction may be subtle, but it is important.
Doresain
...but he countered me saying that it was for a greater good...
inquisitor maybe?
Nerd-o-rama
Just responding to the OP here,
Paladins fall for singular Evil acts, not Chaotic ones. Habitual Chaotic acts will shift your alignment and cause you to lose abilities by not being Lawful Good anymore.
You stepped out of line once for the sake of saving thousands of lives. The way you went about it was not especially effective, but you wouldn't get tossed out of your alignment just for that.
EDIT: Damn, the rest of the thread did contain relevant information. Since when does that happen? Okay, the lethal attacks on the guards are definitely less Good than your other actions, especially since you provoked hostilities. That goes over into questionable territory. Again, though, single Chaotic acts don't un-Paladin someone.
Dervag
One of the fundamental parts of "good" is, basically, being better than you have to be. Invoking "law of the jungle" to defend yourself is ultimately a neutral outlook. You can do it as a paladin, certainly, but you should at least feel regretful afterwards that it had to come to that, and should show this in your actions. If you ever reach the point where you say "well, they may have been misguided, but they were trying to kill me, so fair's fair and I don't feel bad about it at all", chances are you're neutral, not good.I'd say that that depends on other aspects of the person's personality. For instance, imagine someone comes from a culture with a very strong "fair fight" concept. They may be very generous, self-sacrificing, altruistic, and so on, and yet have absolutely no problems killing an attacking enemy in a fair fight.
Are they not good?
Unfortunately, we have different opinions about the law-and-chaos axis and the good-and-evil one. Breaking into a "neutral-good" castle and fighting its militia is NOT a lawful-good act. No matters whats behind it.On this subject, I disagree; under some circumstances it might be absolutely essential, and indeed required, for a good character to do so. It might also be absolutely essential, and indeed required, for a lawful character to do so. There are very few acts which can absolutely be stated to qualify as 'against X alignment' in the absence of circumstances.
First, he tryed to talk his way out, but at the first sign that the guard wouldn't let him pass, the paladin just knocked him out and started to fight everyone else.First sign, or first persistent sign?
The first hit was non-lethal dmg (with the -4 penalty), but the others were not. And in the middle of the skirmish, he was coming up with plans on how to exterminate all of the guards in one or two rounds, in order to go throught that room.Did he have a choice?
I said to him that it wasn't very "paladinish" to do that, but he countered me saying that it was for a greater good. I have read many times on core and standard D&D books that "an evil act is not an excuse for a good act". I think a paladin would try diplomacy,bluff and even intimidate checks on the guards, but never attacking them first (fawsto wasn't defending himself against the guards, he was attacking them). Trying to contact the gnome general we knew sounded like a good idea to me.OK, if the paladin was planning first strikes against well-intentioned men without a serious attempt to talk them down, in circumstances where doing so was feasible, then yes, that would qualify as an evil act. However, I think it should be an atoneable act, since the paladin's intentions really were good.
Barging into the castle was an entirely forgiveable chaotic act; it was the sort of thing that a truly Lawful Neutral person would never do. However, in and of itself it was fine. Going all 'murderous first strike' on well-intentioned guards within that castle would not be a chaotic act, it would be evil.
I play a CG elf rogue, who managed to survive the holocaust and run away from the evil tyrant. I just found an elven noble wandering in that castle and disguised myself like his guard. Then I was able to speak with the king and other important gnomes. Without even drawing my sword or sneak-attacking anybody.What you accomplished was impressive, but what you accomplished and what the paladin could accomplish were not necessarily the same. The paladin's actions should be judged independently, as should yours.
Fhaolan
Breaking into a "neutral-good" castle and fighting its militia is NOT a lawful-good act.
That's true. However, in the scenario as described, I would have a hard time describing the government as Neutral Good. The king has gone on a genocidal rampage against elves. Now, there might be an explanation that we don't know about, but without that explanation it sounds more like Neutral Evil (True Neutral at best). And to a paladin, anyone who supports a Neutral Evil tyrant is by association Evil.
And I don't think anyone would be upset about a paladin breaking into an Neutral Evil castle and fighting it's militia. :smallsmile:
Weasel2007
I think that after reading both accounts it was neutral, leaning towards evil depending on your level. What I think you should have done is just kept walking and being intimidating while waiting for them to strike first. The longer you wait the less people you have to fight through and subsquently hurt. I also didn't like the fact you only did non-lethal on the first hit and you should definitely not knock the people to -10
And to a paladin, anyone who supports a Neutral Evil tyrant is by association Evil.I'm not sure I'd say that for a good paladin (in the sense of 'a good painting' or 'a good knife', not in the sense of 'a good-aligned paladin). For instance, imagine a person who despises all war crimes and genocide, but is absolutely convinced that the alternative to the tyrant's government is something even worse. Say that this person believes that the legitimacy of the government is worth tolerating, though not encouraging, its evils.
I think that such a person might reasonably be Lawful Neutral. Since paladins are quite good at telling the difference between evils and neutrals whenever they choose to do so, they would surely be aware of this kind of thing.
Likewise, not every supporter of a Good government is good-aligned.
AslanCross
A king who orders holocausts for whatever reason (in this case mere racism, it seems) is definitely not Neutral Good, even if his subjects might be. A tyrant would invariably be lawful evil, as he uses his authority to dominate others. That would have been a chaotic act, but since it was the last thing on your mind and you were forced into it, I'd say it doesn't affect your alignment at all.
Ow, ow, lemme clarify something here
I tryied to enter a Gnome King's castle who was at the moment, giving support to the elfs, but there was a messenger from the tyrant trying to talk to the King, so I was trying to, at least, point the side of the elfs during the audience or at least try to convince the Gnome King to continue to help the elfs even under manace of attack, since it would be the right thing to do.
What happened was the following. I walked the corridor to the castle room and a group of guards intercepted me, I intimidated the first one (hey, I am still a 3rd level Fighter, so I chose this skill to be my "non-lethal resource" till I can fill some Diplomacy without spending 2 skills per 1). The second one Pulled his sword and made a treat, so I pulled my Bastard Sword and hammered the non keen part at his head knocking him to the ground uncountious, after that, there were just a 6 vs 1, and later a 14 vs 2 fight where the guards were using lethal force, so I proceeded to use lethal force... But I wasn't lucky and I did not land any blows. BTW, Yes, I was thinking on how I'd defeat my enemies as fast as possible on the ocasion, well because they were trying to kill/arrest me! Taking -4 on all attacks against 6 well armed foes isn't quite the way to end a battle fast.
About that "He makes only War Machines", in my defense I tell you that: Fighter and Paladin are underated classes by the "D&D Tiers", aren't they? At least they are quite less powerfull than other classes on higher levels. What I do? I combo feats and PrCs to make it usefull and interesting to play for the rest of the game, am I totaly wrong?! I normaly use my own personality to delimitate my charcaters one, so my charcter IS roleplayed, the problem is that I roleplay a 3rd level fighter who is trying to do his best to save the elfs and possibly retake the city. Am I guilty to play my favoured class (Paladin) and try not to be a Lawful Dumb character?
edit: Everything is settled, thanks for the clarifications, dudes. I hope it is alright now. I think we are now falling into some good conclusion here.
See ya all.
CatCameBack
Fawsto, from what I read you were attempting to prevent a greater evil by direct action. It does look as if things spiraled quickly out of control after thhe first confrontation at the door. If you don't have levels in Diplomacy then a) if someone else had levels, they should have stepped in and helped; b) you were roleplaying a character well, IMO.
You are currently boxed in by a larger issue of alignment confusion. The tyrant king who is racially cleansing another non-evil race is NOT Neutral Good, even if he is being fed bad information by an advisor or something. If you look up tyrannical in the dictionary, you'll get something approximating Lawful Evil. Someone who unevenly implements a bloodthirsty policy of racial hatred would be Neutral Evil. "Move out of the city or I'll kill you. Know what? Skip it, I'll just kill you." This misreading of alignment, in turn is creating a moral dilemma for your party. You and the rogue wouldn't be having this discussion if that was a Demon or Devil in private meeting witht he king, would you?
The characteristics of a Paladin, as I see them, are these:
1. Courage - Especially after gaining the ability of Immunity to Fear, the reprecussions to one's own health, wealth, status or life should never be a consideration when achieving the goals of Law and/or Good. People are starving? Buy food. Someone needs help surrounded by 100 orcs? Do something, don't just stand there. This doesn't mean the Pally should necessarily be suicidal, but he/she wouldn't remain unengaged and watch evil transpire.
2. Forthrightness - Honesty is always telling the truth. Being Forthright is putting it first, volunteering it (even if it hurts), and seeking it out. A NG person might know the truth, but could stand in the corner and keep their mouth shut about it, as long as suffering didn't result. A LG person knows better, because, like Merlin says, "When a man lies, he murders some part of the world."
3. Steadfastness - When a LG character says they will do something, they do it. If someone who plays a Paladin takes a stand, they follow through. It is a lucky PC who can count a Paladin amongst his close allies, because he can count on the Pally.
If you are doing these things, or at least trying, the DM shouldn't punish you too hard. Another device for Paladin behavior is the Chivalric code from the first Ed. Unearthed Arcana (I can't remember for sure, but it's probably reprinted elsewhere).
Dalboz of Gurth
Ok from what I skim read this is my understanding:
1. Fawtso was definitely acting like a paladin with a wisdom of 1. I would have definitely given him a slight alignment shift of +1 towards neutral (in one of the DragonLance supplements there's a nice alignment shift gauge you can use).
Basically they look like this:
Evil.............................................. ..........|Neutral
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]|
Neutral........................................... ........|Good
Good.............................................. ........|Super Awesome Good
Samge gauge used for Chaotic Neutral and Lawful.
2. This would've only been a minor alignment shift and far from the 25 points needed for an actual alignment change or fall from grace check.
3. Just because a paladin acts like he has a wisdom of 1 does not necessitate them falling from grace. It'd take at least 10 MAJOR encounters for me to knock a paladin down from Grace (barring magical causes, which I would mark as temporary falls).
I'm a stickler for Lawful Good. You need to ask yourself: What Would Superman Do? But even then I don't knock people down for acting dumb unless it's be a reoccuring theme (like what happened with Miko).
Runolfr
Even if you considered his actions chaotic (which I doubt, since he was attempting protect a group from unjust persecution), a Paladin does not fall because of a single chaotic act; it would take a pattern of behavior sufficient to change his/her alignmetn to non-lawful.
As a Paladin, I would expect you to make a good-faith effort to avoid killing the neutral guards, but you can certainly defend yourself if attacked. Even then, you should probably attempt to use non-lethal damage as much as possible, though.
SpikeFightwicky
Ummm, the code's in the SRD:
Code of Conduct: 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.
So from what I gather, the gnome king is N/G (as is his kingdom)? I don't think what you did was really evil (though if you hurt or killed a guard, that would likely push you over the edge), though definately chaotic. As long as your future plans involve less random beatings, you should be alright. Problem is, they can probably lock you up for a long time for what you did, and you wouldn't have any good defence if the messenger didn't do anything overtly terrible.
Ok, apparentry there are some misunderstandings here.
let me explain:
1-City = Arenaria, Ruler = Drake, Alignment = LE, want to kill the elves
2-City = St. Bodinock, Ruler = Gnome king, Alignment = NG, want to save the elves
we broke into St.Bodinock castle (NG) trying to stop Drake's (LE) messenger, who we were afraid of convincing the NG king to exterminate/expelling the elves, under threat of war, if possible.
Fawsto managed to get involved in a skirmish with the NG guards, when he was trying to get to the throne room to stop said messenger. The problem is that, after he failed social skill checks, he ATTACKED the guards, who were trying to halt him.
hope i made this clearer now :smallbiggrin:
I'd say that that depends on other aspects of the person's personality. For instance, imagine someone comes from a culture with a very strong "fair fight" concept. They may be very generous, self-sacrificing, altruistic, and so on, and yet have absolutely no problems killing an attacking enemy in a fair fight.
Are they not good?Well, people are complicated. You can be generous, self-sacrificing, altruistic, and so on, and still absolutely detest elves and never be generous to them. You'd still be good, overall. Good does not have to mean "paragon".
But overall, the "fair fight" concept is lawful neutral in nature... someone whose philosophy is dominated by it will probably be neutral. A good character would care more about avoiding the killing of innocents, and less about the exact rules to honorable combat.
Not Dice
Reading both sides, I do have mixed feelings about it. It's understandable where the Paladin was coming from and may have felt desperation in trying to break into the throne room, but there is a line that was crossed.
The first tenet of the Paladin code requires the Paladin to respect legitimate authority. This Gnome King and his guards were the legitimate authority in this scenario, and the Paladin rejected that authority in pursuit of his quest. All other tenets were followed, to be sure, and his intentions were in the right place. He just made the wrong decision there. There could have still been the opportunity to seek an audience with the king after the messenger had his say. It's not as if any capable ruler would instantly make up his mind just seconds after hearing such a threat. He'd likely want the counsel of his advisors and such, and may welcome a well-meaning soul intimate with the situation and weigh their words as well.
If I'm in the DM's shoes, I would probably make the character atone for that act in some fashion before being allowed to take Pal1. It's important to keep in mind that he wasn't yet a Paladin and was simply acting in the best interest of the elves, but in order to become a Paladin he'd have to realize his errors and make efforts to correct them. It may have been for the "greater good" but how many atrocities in the past have been committed for the "greater good"? That's the lesson he would have to learn before being granted divine graces.
Just my two copper farthings.
Here's some of stuff I don't get:
- If the king's N/G, he likely would not join in elf genocide crusades, and if he decided to kick the elves out (to avert a war), he'd probably do something to help them out, likely covertly (he's N/G, not N).
- What would happen if the messenger was stopped? The tyrant would likely declare war (and would have a semi-justified reason) if his messenger was killed or captured. If the messenger was allowed to leave, he'd report back to el tyranto and fill him in with all the details, and he'd attack the gnome kingdom because they're harboring elves and are in league with 'sympathizers'.
Seems like the plan was good intentioned, but not well thought out.
PsyBlade
I haven't read the entire topic, but anyone remember ST:TNG's Data's time as a captain? In order to prevent Romulan forces from committing a great travesty against the more good Klingons he chose to go against orders. He was kept in Star Fleet inspite of disobeying orders. He did the right thing, and Captain Picard commended him for doing so instead of taking the easy way out of obeying orders. In other words, going against 'law' isn't chaotic if it is for a higher purpose. Especially if there is logic to your reason for having done so.
We were afraid of some kind of "magic persuasion" (like suggestion or dominate person) to be cast on the king, so we needed to get there before the messenger. Not to stop or harm him, but to protect the king.
Oh yeah, I had forgotten that too. For some reason, we felt that the messenger was somehow suspicious, my final feeling was something like this "Oh S*** if I don't freaking stop that messenger he will mess everything and we will have 2 Kings wanting Elf Heads at the end of the day!" Btw, teh messenger was kind of racist, just to add =P, not if this would interfere with anything, since, as stated, you are not evil just for don't liking another person. Lol
AnnShadow
Who said you have the right to defend yourself if you are Lawful Good?
Was is Socrates who went to his death after his followers told him that they could free him saying: I practice that one should obey the law. My death sentence was lawful. I will follow the law. or something like that.
You are both lawful and good. Not good with a bent toward lawfullness.
You were wrong.
Let me put it this way. Say you are stopped by the police. You have an important message to give to the mayor of the town. Are you justified in killing the police or attacking them with a sword or shooting them in the knees to disable them??
Just because you want to talk to the policemen's boss?
I would hate to go to court with that story
Azerian Kelimon
No. But you can use rethoric to dazzle them, or run past 'em, or whateva. You're LG, not Lawful Stupid. Anyone with two grains of Wisdom and intelligence will see that averting a war or doing greater good is worth skipping some ethics. Or did you never wonder WHY people are clearly defined in their Moral Axis, and not in their Ethical Axis?
If you didn't notice, Paladins are said to be Paragons of GOOD. Not Paragons of Lawfulness. Lawfulness is there because a lawful heart is encessary for staying on such a harsh track, not because you should respond to ole Primus from Mechanus.
Yeah, I guess this thread is suffering from a giant dose of "we weren't there to see it". As a DM, whether or not the Paladin abilities would be lost would depend greatly on how I (acting as the host of higher powers collectively) perceived the intentions of the Paladin, via the words and actions of the player.
I've had players who, while playing paladins, were constantly fretting about their alignment and abilities, constantly chafing against the Code and trying to skirt or equivocate at every turn. It was like one of those witnessess at a congressional hearing who stops every other sentence so his lawyer can lean over and whisper in his ear to make sure whatever he's doing is not going to cost him anything. These players usually ended up not playing the Pally for long. Too much stress. :smallcool:
Sounds like an "action vacuum" as well. There's a scene in Conan the Destroyer where the tomb priest and the party wizard are babbling along...Conan sees it's going nowhere fast, and no one else is suggesting anything...so he whips out a dagger, yells "Enough Talk!" and nails some poor chump to start round one. We have a guy in our group that does the same thing, his lline is "I tell you what...."...as in, "I tell you what. You open that %$#@ door, or I'm gonna blast you!" Funny. He plays a lot of Lawful clerics, but never paladins.
So, in your case: I'm getting a picture of a pause after the second guard pulls out his weapon......everyone else is kinda staring off into space or doing something unconnected (eating cheetos, doodling on the character sheet, trying not to think about some girl at school, working out how hard their sneak attack could hit for if they critted, etc.). Fawsto decides he's had it "up to here"...Intimidate didn't work, Diplomacy is a dead end...so
"Enough Talk!" THUMP.
Everyone else has been sitting around like good little D&D players waiting to roll dice in anger for a while now. Since the Paladin was the one who struck first...it must be a righteous fight...blood is in the water! Let the XP flow! Arrrrraaagghh!!
But I'm just guessing here. I'm sure I'm just stabbing in the dark.
Yes, because DnD and Real Life have a 1:1 correspondence on the do/do not list. Oh wait.... They don't at all! :smallamused:
I think there are very few people who wouldn't wind up in jail if they tried to do what their PCs do on a regular basis. :smallwink:
As for your overall point, Paladins are Lawful GOOD as opposed to LAWFUL Good. They have Smite Evil, not Smite Chaos. They fall for committing an Evil act, as opposed to an Chaotic Act. They can't associate with Evil people, but they can associate with Chaotic people. Every single piece of the Paladin description points to Good being more important that Law when the two are in conflict.
Now in a perfect world, Paladins would want to be as Lawful and as Good in equal measure. But perfect worlds are BORING. At least to campaign in. Besides, and this can't be stressed enough: Being Lawful Does NOT mean you HAVE to obey the Law.
Really. :smallsmile:
It's not just my sig that points to a wonderful article about this, you know. Or are you telling me that a Paladin has to enforce the Legalized Ritualized Sacrifice of People's Souls? Yeah... I didn't think so. :smallwink:
What does it take to loose your Lawful status? What does it take to loose your Good Status?
Small acts of chaos are not enough. Small acts of evil are not enough. Significant acts of Chaos would make you loose your paladinhood.
Significant acts of Evil would make you loose your paladinhood.
Loosing Law or Good make you an EX-Paladin. Plain and simple.
Would you consider a person who throws the switch on executions necessarily evil because he or she kills innocent people?
there are many Lawful Good people who meet on the battle field and kill each other.
Remember, the holy bible discusses where/who you can take as a slave and who you should not take. Is slavery evil?
What if this king said kill all the drow elves. A paladin's job is to wade into the battlefield killing all who are not on his side.
If this paladin found the orders given him abhorrent, his duty was to resign stating his reasons. Otherwise, this paladin should have obeyed the lawful orders given him.
The soldier never knows what the general knows. Some times the general must sacrifice innocent soldiers for a reason which to others may seem evil.
You cannot be a Neutral Good Paladin. Chaotic Good, .... Only Lawful Good
In DnD? Yes, absolutely.
As for the rest of your points:
Good But Misguided King: Paladin, go outside and into the Tea House Of Really Good People and kill that Granny for me. Here's a signed order and everything.
Lawful Stupid Paladin: Hoo-kay.
<BAMPH>
Lawful Stupid Fighter-Without-Bonus-Feats.: Whaaa happened? :smallconfused:
Paladins Fall for committing a single Evil Act. Paladins do not Fall for committing a single Chaotic Act unless it grossly violates his or her Code of Conduct or it shifts his or her alignment.
I know people love to try to complicate Paladins, but they're really not that hard to play. Don't commit Evil and don't violate your Code of Conduct. And if you need to have a nice long talk with your DM over just what is an Evil Act and what isn't, so be it. :smallsmile:
I guess Porthos has the correct idea here.
If I being a Pally at the ocasion, if the Messenger was to convince teh king to stop helping the elves and I having the oportunity to try and stop the messenger but stayed quiet and obeing the law, I would had been thrown directly to Lawful Neutral in one hit.
It'd also be acceptible for the paladin to obey the law, but insist on finding a way to convince the King to ignore the Messenger.
For you see, stopping the messenger won't resolve the issue, another messenger can be sent later on.
It's best to confront the issue and use the power of your words to sway the King away from abandoning allies.
It was quite the only solution I could think of right on the bat... Also the actions were quite my character, being him proud and caring for the elves. :smallbiggrin:
As a person who's never read the code(I only use the SRD) I have to say that I would make you lose paladin levels for not doing what you did. You're a paladin(IE, a hero) and people too often read the code as law and forget the image the word "paladin" is supposed to conjure. Woah, woah, woah, back up a bit. Even if you never noticed the code in the SRD, I have to stop you at the bolded parts. The Code causes enough problems as it is without people's assumptions about it making it even worse.
A paladin who breaks the code loses the use of his Paladin abilities until he atones. This is typically by having someone cast the fifth-level Atonement (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/atonement.htm) spell, which costs 500 xp and may, at the caster's option, involve a quest set by whoever cast the spell--not a deity, note, and not at some deities' option (deities don't, in fact, grant paladin powers, or have any say over them), but the character who casts the spell.
This is, per RAW, the absolute limit of what a Paladin can lose for breaking the code: A casting of the atonement spell, possibly up to three if their alignment needs to be corrected. Paladins don't suddenly lose levels for breaking the Code, no more than Fighters lose levels for running away from a fight. You can houserule in more if you really want, but be aware that the Code is widely considered to be too strict and too problematic even as it is written. If you are going to houserule in a harsher code, make sure you inform all your players before they take Paladin levels. You wouldn't suddenly tell a wizard midway through the game that you've shifted Wizard spell progression to 6 levels modelled on Bards, would you? You wouldn't tell your Fighter after the game started that you're taking away some of his bonus feats. Suddenly using a stricter code and imposing penalties on a Paladin beyond what is printed in the books without warning them before they took the class is just as bad.
But, to get back to the OP... I just noticed something. This guy wasn't a Paladin when it happened.
Nothing else in this thread matters. Discussion over. The Paladin code is not retroactive, fullstop; as long as your alignment is Lawful Good, you can become a Paladin, and if you did anything against the code earlier, you can just say that you've seen the light or whatever. (You could do that even if you weren't lawful good before, but it would take more roleplaying.)
like I said before your character maybe acted like he had a low wisdom, but I wouldn't punish him for it. I'd probably have tried to convince you to use another method (I like to play good angel bad angel on my PC's shoulders to give them a different perception), but I wouldn't have punished you.
Charles Phipps
My take?
What the Hell makes people want to come down on Paladins like the Wrath of God every time they step over the line? The guy made a seriously wrong choice based on desperation.
It's called ROLEPLAYING.
I don't think the deities keep score like this unless they make a dramatic Miko esque act of evil.
Minor point about that, and it's relevant to the discussion.
There were easier ways Data could have done it. "Sir, there may be another way to detect cloaked Romulan vessels. Stand by." The writers did it to bring some tension in, and it was one of those times when I personally thought the did a bad job.
On-topic, there was an easier, better way. Now, I agree that genocide is evil, and preventing genocide is good. However, if you can do it without murdering people who are innocent, that's better.
sorry but i have to disagree here. If fawstos char wants to become a paladin, he have to follow the code. the fact that the code comes with the class, just like detect evil, dont expell the paladin-to-be from following it. its not like: "awww! got my 1st pal level, so i cant kill innocents anymore." If the 3rd level fighter want to join the paladins, he need to follow the code since fighter lvl1.
I'd allow a fighter at 3rd level who wants to become a paladin even if past actions weren't 100% paladin, to spend some time role playing by having his/her character do a "soul searching side quest" in some monestary to reconcile his/her new outlook on life.
Or I'd just say it happened and fastforward the game a few months.
Idea Man
Talking down a guard - cool. Smacking down a guard for the greater good - very dramatic. Drawing steel on the king's guards - ahhh, a little too far, there. If you thought you could strong arm your way to the messenger without a big ruckus, that makes sense. Once the hammer fell, and you were faced with the consequences, you should have surrendered. Of course, nobody ever surrenders if they can help it. :smallwink:
Would a paladin fall from that mistake? I say no, but he may need to tread carefully if this becomes a habit. Would this stop your fighter form becoming a paladin? I doubt it. He may need to prove himself, but I've always thought paladin should be a prestige class.
I would say if your first instincts are to do a Chaotic act instead of a Lawful act then the totality of the circumstances would point in favor of your ONE chaotic act is great enough to make you loose your paladinhood.
Why do I believe that? Because it shows a MINDSET for rash and Unlawful behavior.
In other words, it is a serious chaotic act. As I said above you must be both lawful and good. A small evil act or a small chaotic act are not sufficient but it seems that your character's outlook on life is to be an individualistic person and not follow a strict code of conduct which all knights and paladins must follow.
This outlook is not bad. In fact, it is extremely good. Just not lawful. Say what you want about the Greater Good. People who do acts for the Greater Good are NEUTRAL Good characters.
Think about it. How would you describe a Neutral Good Alignment? I would say almost exactly as your paladin acts and believes.
I almost always play Neutral Good and i would have done exactly as you did. Of course, I never play a paladin because of it.
I Must disagree... My character, as I created him, knows how is living with strict orders (he was in fact one of the city guards and a postulant paladin), and, for sure, he wasn't caring a lot for it, since it was costumary for him to help elfs and other inocent people if they were arrested for unjustified reasons. Ok, looking at a first time sou say: Chaotic! Against the Law! Ha! Got ya! No Paladin 4 u!!!
But no. My character follows his own beliefs and is completely loyal to them. IMO. He has something more than laws guiding his actions, he has something superior, he has his own morale and strong beliefs, that I find more important than any code or laws when I am to define Lawfull.
Hello!? Lawfull Evil Villains mostly NEVER follow any laws! They just stick to their plans and beliefs while trying to obtain power. Isn't this true?
It's wrong, actually. Anywhere you look, ole Count Strahd (He was LE, last time I checked), Arty Entreri, Asmodeus, all of them follow rules. The thing is, most of them established the rules, because they got there first, but the underlings still play under their rules, as do the Archdukes of Hell under Asmodeus. Or, rules are already set and they play by 'em, but mercilessly. See Entreri, he doesn't go against the order of Calimport, he just makes the most outta it, including assasinations, for example.
If the 3rd level fighter want to join the paladins, he need to follow the code since fighter lvl1.
Let me ask you this then: how would anyone ever repent? How could anyone ever atone for their sins? Is it not possible for an unscrupulous person to learn the error of his ways, reform, swear to the code and become a paladin henceforth? If what you say is true, why is there a mechanic built in to the Pld class that allows them to regain their powers should they be taken away?
My character follows his own beliefs and is completely loyal to them. IMO. He has something more than laws guiding his actions, he has something superior, he has his own morale and strong beliefs, that I find more important than any code or laws ...
I would suggest to you that this is, in fact, a Neutral outlook. Beliefs don't affect one's alignment by virtue of their existence. One could believe in Santa Claus but it doesn't spin the alignment wheel in any one direction. Even if one did have a strong belief that would influence their alignment, alignment is as much action as it is belief. For instance, if someone believed strongly in anarchism but always followed the letter of the law, he's not chaotic. He may wish he were chaotic, but he does not live his life that way.
In much the same sense I get the impression that your character is one who wants to be lawful, but is not by virtue of his actions. Neutral characters obey the law when it's convenient and break it when it's necessary. And, matter of fact, the first line of the Chaotic description is: "Chaotic characters follow their consciences." Based solely on what you've described of your character, especially the part I quoted, you sound Neutral Good.
In my campaigns they mostly always follow the laws. They just do so in a mean/oppressive/cruel way. When the rules allow for a bit of leniency/mercy, they smile instead.
lord_khaine
the only thing required for taking the first level of paladin is to be lawfull good, everything else is just house rulings.
Hmm I guess I said too much with that NEVER. They will follow the Laws they think are good for theyr plans.
IMO, Neutral Good Characters won't follow any codes of moral superior to one's society, they are Good just for being Good. Think of my character as if he never really entered that Paladin's order. Think like if the only rules he knew where the ones imposed to the town guards. Following those rules dont make him Lawful, it would make him Neutral at best, 'cause he would only obey those to keep as a Guard, earn his paycheck and help a few people in the process. My charcter sticks so much to his own "code of conduct", a morale natured one, that he is there to "ignore" the law to help people in need. Actually, in the first gaming night, my character let some people get out of jail because he knew that they were absolutely inocent and if they stayed in jail they would have been harmed somehow and he wouldn't be able to help them. They were Elfs (who would have been tortured till confession for crimes undone). And you ask, why a Lawful Good character works to the city guards if he knows that those things happen to the prisoneers? Because working from the inside out is far more effective in this situation.
Again, what you are describing is Neutral at best. A code of conduct is not more defining of an alignment than a belief is. The code of conduct could be "break the law whenever you can, lie for profit and steal when you can get away with it." You can adhere very strictly to such a code, but it doesn't make you lawful.
Alignment has as much to do with action as it does outlook. I think that is the part you are missing.
I still believe that the actions are Lawful. I just can't find something not written to use as example on this subject... And it is quite hard to not look Neutral in most of time. That is what you are missing. Also, you are looking too mcuh to the Good Evil Axis, it is a lot different from the subject, the Law Chaos Axis. They don't work the same way in practice.
As I am telling you, even if my character was a Ranger who had little contact with civilization, he would still act this way if he was presented with the situation, doing whatever he did in the name of his code. He is Lawful to his code, if I could say that. You are too conceted with the "Following the Law" thing. You are being too superficial on this subject.
What I am trying to say is that, knowing my character's morale, it is easy to predict his actions. Far more easier than predicting a Neutral's and far from being as hard as predicting a Chaotic's.
Btw, Lawful has nothing to do directly with following written, spoken or common laws. Got it?
Quite frankly? Your actions are Neutral Good, period. It's nothing to be ashamed of, at all, since NG usually has things clearer than an LG or a CG. Try asking your DM if you can be a NG pally. You acted in-char, and you deserve it. I know you want to be a pally, but you can't deny your character has a NG behavior. If worst comes to worst, play a Crusader and enjoy being more powerful too.
let me put it this way fawtso, if your character's wisdom score is above 12 then you might have some problems if you keep doing what you're doing (because he does know better).
Below 12 it's fine.
Thats exactly what I was trying to say. But, WITHOUT any kind of atonement, someone who didnt follow the code before taking pal levels should not be allowed to get them.
Becoming a paladin is not something that takes two or three days. Its not like, "yay! level up! now Im a paladin!". Fawsto didnt have any paladin powers to lose, but he shouldnt be allowed by the DM to take pal levels before he atones/regrets or at least stick closer to lawful ideals instead of NG ones.
take a look on todays OOTS strip (N° 502):
Is leaving haley behind to die in a city crowded with blood-thirsty hobbos an evil action?
Sailing back there wouldnt be the best to do if you want to save her life?
if you look like this, isnt hinjo , by ommission (spelling please), leaving haley behind?should he lost paladinhood?
Hinjo is by now sticking to lawful ideals rather than good ones (protecting the people on the ship is also good, but this isnt the case). Sailing back in a rush to get haley out of trouble is indeed a CG action, and staying where he is now is a LN action.
He chooses the LN.
He doesnt lose paladinhood.
Case book description of Neutral Good.
And, yes, sadly, No Paladin for you!!
Edit: If it makes you feel any better, Neutral Good is actually more GOOD than Lawful Good.
Edit #2: See if your DM will Allow you to join/Become an Neutral Good Paladin.
You are being too superficial on this subject.
Cool down there, I think you are taking this all too personally. You opened the thread with "Am I doing something wrong?" and what we are (and I am) trying to say is, "Yes, you are." Take this for example:
"My charcter sticks so much to his own "code of conduct", a morale natured one, that he is there to "ignore" the law to help people in need. Actually, in the first gaming night, my character let some people get out of jail because he knew that they were absolutely inocent and if they stayed in jail they would have been harmed somehow and he wouldn't be able to help them."
This is absolutely Neutral Good. It is a textbook example. I would like to echo other suggestions to ask your GM to allow a NG Paladin build, or perhaps explore the possibility of a Paladin of Freedom. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#paladinofFreedomClassF eatures) I think you are trying to force your character concept into a mold he's not shaped for. Perhaps this might suit him better, given your notions of what your character ascribes to and the conditions of the campaign.
elliott20
this is all, of course, a moot point as we don't know how the GM interprets the whole LG alignment thing.
Do not forget, he DID initially take the proper route to meet the king. But that route did not work. He couldn't get an audience and so in an act of desperation he did something brash.
It's chaotic out of the necessity of the situation. It wasn't his first impulse to go beat up some guards.
True, we do not have the DM view. But we do have another member of the group he was in who was actually controlling the NPC Guards.
I think he did say that attacking the guards was his first impulse after he failed his intimidation check.
Any way. It seems pretty obvious that he needs to talk to the DM and see if he can become a Neutral Good Paladin.
Or they can pretend that he is Lawful Good... it is a fantasy game after all. But he should not think in reality that his character IS lawful. If anything, he sounds more chaotic. Letting prisoners escape? Attacking guards? Has he ever done a lawful thing? I'm sure he has ... however not a single example of his character's behavior as he himself described it was lawful as far as i could see.
Again, it is a fantasy game. If you want to say that white is red ... then guess what ... white is red.
this is why I don't like how paladins are handled in D&D. The way it is written, it either comes across as being far too narrow a role to play, or we end up having every GM become paladin police dogs, looking to drop the paladin status at a moment's notice.
Hmmm... Taking to personal? I think not. I just have enough on the previous pages to feel that you are not so correct. But if you want some core, lemme try this... after we read the following no one here will be able to tell if I was completely Neutral, Lawful or Chaotic.
Definition of Lawful by the Book
"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and
reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closemindedness,
reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness,
and a lack of adaptability
How it is with my character: My character has been acting with Honor (the guards pulled their swords before my character did. He only entered the castle as the ultimate option he could find, being desperate at teh time), being that fact by solely making a vow to protect the Elves and doing so the best way he can. My character is absolutely trustworthy, once he gives his word, he won't come back. Obedience to Authority? Ok, he lacks some, but for doing a greater good. Pehaps some Closemindedmess, being stuck in his head that he must talk to the King in order to prevent a massacre.
The Definition of Lawful Good, by the book
A lawful good character acts as a good
person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment
to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the
truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against
injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty gounpunished. Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines
honor and compassion.
Lets make some comparisson here: My character sole Mission is to protect teh Elves and defy the Tyrant, being this his greatest desire. My character tells teh truth, always keeps his words, and is more than helping those in need and oposes firecely injustice (letting inocents flee from a corrupted law system). Honor and Compassion? It's my character.
now, for more basis:
other 2 definitions from the book: Neutral Good and Chaotic Good
A neutral good character does the
best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He
works with kings and magistrates
but does not feel beholden to them. Neutral good is the best
alignment you can be because it
means doing what is good
without bias for or against
chaotic good character acts
as his conscience directs
him with little regard for
what others expect of him.
He makes his own way,
but he's kind and
benevolent. He believes in
goodness and right but has
little use for laws and
regulations. He hates it when
people try to intimidate others
and tell them what to do. He
follows his own moral compass,
which, although good, may not
agree with that of society. Chaotic good is the best alignment you
can be because it combines a good heart with a free
If we read all the 3 definitions we can see traces of the Law vs Chaos Axis in everybody. I admit my character has many traces of the other alignments, being not 100% any of them, and this is not the same as saying that he is Neutral. You see my point? It is too hard to tell anyone's alignment on the Law Chaos axis. Possible similarities? Acting with benevolence for the NG def, and following his own moral compass, which is by definition when I created him, very similar to the Paladin's Code.
You know what makes my character different from a Neutral Good or Chaotic Good guy? He is trying his best to be Lawful Good, while keeping his word, acting with honor and trying to save the land from teh influence of a tyrant.
You are probably now saying something like this "The retard cant get my point, sh**". This is not the case, I just don't find enough conclusive points on your posts to make my mind. Understand? That's why it seems personal.
Number one reason I do not play a paladin.
We have a very strict DM and I have actually had spell levels taken away from me until I atoned on my cleric.
No one (at least in my group) can play a paladin and stay within the alignment requirements in the situations D$D places a character in.
As far as my atonement went, it took forever because, to this day, I believe I was acting correctly.
so much for the Last Post promise
If you cannot see that the quote from Chaotic Good matches your actions, then nothing anyone here can say on these boards can change your mind.
And Honor may not mean what you seem to think it means.
I still believe your character is more Neutral Good, but I may tend towards Chaotic, again, based on what you and your party member said of the situation.
Based on what you SAY you believe, I tend to lean towards Neutral Good.
However, your ACTIONS are pretty much Chaotic Good.
take this for what it is worth.
Perhaps you can step back from what you were "Thinking at the time you did what you did" and read your own account of what you actually did do. you may see why everyone else believes you are not playing Lawful.
I just have enough on the previous pages to feel that you are not so correct.
Well, you came to the forum and opened a thread to ask a question. Your question is being answered, but you are disputing the answer. If your mind was already made up and you won't accept any answer except the one you have already decided upon, why ask the question in the first place?
so the point here is: "Am I doing something wrong?"
I think so. Is it the end of the world? No.
Im sure our DM will just 'let this go' because it was just one isolated action. and now everybody is judging your char alignment by that desperate measures.
the best you could do now is to think more 'lawful-like' and try to atone for what you have done. Looking for the guards and apologize. trying not to get in jail anymore waiting the party rogue to save you. (:smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: )
thats what i would expect from you if i were the DM.
__________________________________________________ ___
For the rest of the forum, what happened after the guard skirmish:
I (rogue 2) managed to disguise me as an elven noble's guard and get inside the royal chamber. The gnome king refused Drake's ultimatum and readied the town army for the incoming invasion. The party monk and the ranger tried to save fawsto from the guards and ended locked up with him. A gnome general asked a meeting with us (unaware of fawstos problem) and ordered us to guide the remaining elves back to the elf country. end session.
If I were fawsto, I would take control of the remaining army or the fleeing elves and try to maintain order there (a very lawful action, to counter his recent NG behavior).
do you all agree?
Becoming a paladin is not something that takes two or three days. Its not like, "yay! level up! now Im a paladin!". Fawsto didnt have any paladin powers to lose, but he shouldnt be allowed by the DM to take pal levels before he atones/regrets or at least stick closer to lawful ideals instead of NG ones.This explictly not true for Paladins. In fact, Paladin is one of the few classes that, as described, can be gained in a single instant with no prior study or devotion. It is described as answering a "call"; you could have broken the code every single day of your life (while being generally lawful good), then one day heard the call in your heart and decided to accept it. Poof, you're a Paladin on the spot. (What you described is much much more true for wizards, say, since that's supposed to take years and years of magical study. But it doesn't apply to Paladins. The fluff for Paladins says that the only requirements to become one are to hear the call and accept it.)
In terms of crunch, the rules as written allow anyone to take any class at any time as long as they meet the prerequisites. The prerequisites for Paladin are "have a lawful good alignment." Period. That is the only requirement. The code has nothing whatsoever to do with those requirements, because it only applies once you're already a Paladin.
It is like taking on sacred vows; you don't have to obey your vows before you take them. Per RAW you would be perfectly justified in travelling with an evil cohort all your life (who you disagree with, since you're lawful good, but still have as a friend), then one day telling them "Last night I felt the call. I have decided to answer it and become a Paladin, and until you mend your ways I can no longer associate with you."
(The fact that a Paladin would actually say something like that to someone they've known their whole life goes a long way towards explaining why Paladins are so unpopular, but that's a different story.)
in terms of D&D mechanics, you are absolutely right
but IMO, someone should feel the call only if he follows the code. Kind of, the patron deity (if any) should only call the most honest and pure men, not just anyone walking there who suddenly "POOF!!! Paladin level!". (again: in terms of mechanics, this could happen as long as the walking being is LG) Or like the problem with fawstos char, who want to become a paladin (not by receiving the call, but by applying the "Paladin College":smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: This men should live by the paladin code, not having them as something like "Do this and you lose paladinhood". They must follow its principles by free will, not something imposed to them as they turn paladins.
But this is my opinion.
You DO know, Iguejo, that a paladin can feel The Call of Justice (Yes, full name. Was confirmed by ole Gygax on an interview.) and just follow the cause of Greater Good. I really think Fawsto is doing admirably well as an RP'er, and he would actually make a goooooood pally, if it weren't for the stupid alignment restriction, which forces a player to metagame his or her char concept. Which sucks. I'd really, REALLY insist on your DM on the point "can't I be a NG pally? A paladin requires devotion to the cause of good. What is more devoted that a character who focuses solely on Good?".
BTW, what would be the name of a NG pally? Paladin of Equality? Somethin' else.
in the 2nd ed pally's handbook I believe there is a class kit for a NG paladin. These paladins consider themselves LG but they follow the laws of their order rather than the laws of society.
Name's, and any way to convert 'em to 20 levels and 3.5 ed, please.
uhh actually I don't think I have the complete paladin's handbook, if I do it's put away on the shelves. I never used it :O
AAAACK, guess I'll have to take a look at my collection. I hope against hope I have it in my bibliotek.
Sir Iguejo is right... Why the hell I should let my character be judged for 1 event only... Nosense. What matters in fact and turns him to Lawful Good is that he is trying, no matter what happened he was 90% of time Lawful, mostly in other ocasions not discussed here. But being, like 51% Lawful and 49% Neutral is still more Lawful... I guess my Paladin is right on the 70% L and 30% N... Not Chaotic.
But also I find something wrong... I dunno... Keeps remembering me of Joan D'Arc... Lawful Good Comoner today, holy Paladin and Saviour of France in the other. Never followed the code, just a pure hearted comoner with any flaws anyone could have, but even with this a Superior Force choses her to be her instrument.
I guess it is the classical Paladin story. Like being the assistent to a famous Knight and years later ordered paladin of holy "insert deity here".
Ohhh, BTW, Yeah, Sir Iguejo, I am planing something to show that there are no more animosities between my character and the guards. I shall tell you when I get the time to do so :smallbiggrin: Ohh, did you notice, Sir Iguejo, that my character has been faced by some difficult decisions since the beginig? I am starting to see this now. Lol. :smalltongue: It is kind of funny.
Yeah I remember the NG paladin was a good class. Only a couple of drawbacks. Basically it was giving paladins their Lawful Good nature entirely over to their oath, almost completely releasing them from bad social laws that DMs would use to harass players. But it was very rigid about their Oaths.
You know I think I do have the CPHB somewhere but it is in a bunch of boxes if it is. I packed away some of my books a year ago for the painters and never put them back on the shelves.
Ohhh, BTW, Yeah, Sir Iguejo, I am planing something to show that there are no more animosities between my character and the guards. I shall tell you when I get the time to do so :smallbiggrin: Ohh, did you notice, Sir Iguejo, that my character has been faced by some difficult decisions since the beginig? I am starting to see this now. Lol. :smalltongue:
i think this was our DM's plans since the beginning of the adventure :smallamused:
Hmm. Checked the handbook and all the kits list standard alignment reqs. No NG kit.
I know I saw one.
>:| hrm.
Dude you said all the kit's required standard alignment? What about the Lawful Evil anti-paladin kit, I know that was in the same handbook :O My friend made such a big deal about his anti paladin character I know it's gotta be somewhere.
maybe I'm thinking about another supplement
The kits are: True pally, it's the normal one, Chevalier, Divinate, Envoy, Equerry, Errand, Expatriate, Ghosthunter, Inquisitor, Medician, Militarist, Skyrider, Squire, Votary, and Wyrmslayer. Nonovem have NG as requirement. Maybe some kind of PHBII for 2nd ed?
shoot. I don't remember him getting PHBII. It must've been something else then.
And you're saying that Nonovem isn't a real pally class?
shoot this is going to drive me nuts until I can organize all my RPG books now.
You know what I think it was also around the time we were looking through old dragon magazines. Maybe I should peruse the Dragon Magazine CD Collection I bought a while ago and see if I can find it in one of the issues.
If I'm in the DM's shoes, I would probably make the character atone for that act in some fashion before being allowed to take Pal1. It's important to keep in mind that he wasn't yet a Paladin and was simply acting in the best interest of the elves, but in order to become a Paladin he'd have to realize his errors and make efforts to correct them.Oh. Wow. I totally missed that.
I see no reason why this person cannot become a paladin, though they should probably have to atone as you say. You can even work this into the story- the character realizes that he's just slaughtered several good people because he let things get out of control. In future, he resolves to be more diplomatic and to have more respect for honorable and good authority- and that's what makes him a paladin instead of a Lawful Good fighter leaning toward Neutral.
In other words, going against 'law' isn't chaotic if it is for a higher purpose. Especially if there is logic to your reason for having done so.I'd say that sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. Remember, chaotics do not necessarily, or even usually, act at random. A logical act may well be chaotic depending on the circumstances.
Who said you have the right to defend yourself if you are Lawful Good?Who said you didn't?
If an authority is clearly in the wrong, it is not an alignment changing act to resist them in and of itself. To resist with deadly force, perhaps; but if the authority in the wrong is using deadly force, perhaps not.
Was is Socrates who went to his death after his followers told him that they could free him saying: I practice that one should obey the law. My death sentence was lawful. I will follow the law. or something like that.First of all, you can make a good case that Socrates was wrong here, or that Plato was putting words in his mouth- Plato was a very strong believer in the power of the state to make over society in its own image, and therefore in all citizen's duty to follow laws absolutely regardless of whether or not they are just.
Just because you want to talk to the policemen's boss?If it is a desperate emergency (which these characters believed it was), you might well be justified in attempting to stun one of them. You would not be justified in doing so to protect you from being arrested for committing a crime, but if you were, for instance, trying to stop the mayor from being treated as they expected the Gnome King to be treated, you might be so justified.
And then, once the guards started making lethal attacks, the situation changed entirely; this fighter was under no obligation to die quietly based on his actions at this time.
Loosing Law or Good make you an EX-Paladin. Plain and simple.What if you weren't a paladin in the first place? What if this is instead a black mark on your job application to become a paladin, which is what appears to be the situation?
You cannot be a Neutral Good Paladin. Chaotic Good, .... Only Lawful GoodThese statements do not lead to a single coherent conclusion; some of them are false or oversimplified. Therefore, I cannot come up with a good way to address them except to point out that, as others have said, being lawful does not mean you automatically follow laws regardless of whether it would be a good or an evil act to follow those laws. Paladins are not necessarily members of a national armed force subject to the commands of senior officers in a military, for instance. Therefore, arguments about soldiers and generals are moot, unless you want to generalize the argument into some sort of variation on the theme of Führerprinzip (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Führerprinzip), in which all human institutions are organized as a hierarchy of absolute rulers, each with absolute authority below him and absolute duty to obey those above him.
sorry but i have to disagree here. If fawstos char wants to become a paladin, he have to follow the code. the fact that the code comes with the class, just like detect evil, dont expell the paladin-to-be from following it. its not like: "awww! got my 1st pal level, so i cant kill innocents anymore." If the 3rd level fighter want to join the paladins, he need to follow the code since fighter lvl1.This is not a fair interpretation. A paladin is required to follow the code. This does not mean that a paladin is required to have followed the code at all times in the past. For instance, a paladin is forbidden from associating with evil people. Is the fact that you associated with an evil person as a teenager a reason why you can never, ever be a paladin? The claim strikes me as absurd, and I imagine it strikes you in this way as well, especially because a pre-paladin who does not yet have paladin powers will have much more trouble identifying an evil person in the first place.
Quite frankly? Your actions are Neutral Good, period. It's nothing to be ashamed of, at all, since NG usually has things clearer than an LG or a CG. Try asking your DM if you can be a NG pally. You acted in-char, and you deserve it. I know you want to be a pally, but you can't deny your character has a NG behavior. If worst comes to worst, play a Crusader and enjoy being more powerful too.A lawful good character can commit a neutral good act and remain lawful good, y'know. And, of course, there's always the option that this event changes the character's outlook on life a little and makes him more inclined to respect the law and less inclined to ignore it out of irritation or impatience. So he thinks:
"Those guards are dead. They are dead because I was in a hurry, and they tried to stop me. Not because they were evil, not because they worked for an evil man and tried to protect him, but just because they got in my way and I couldn't think of a way to get past them quickly.
My gods, I can't let this kind of thing keep happening! This is terrible! Sure, if the law is unjust it's OK to resist it, but I can't be so blatant about disregarding it from now on!"
Is leaving haley behind to die in a city crowded with blood-thirsty hobbos an evil action?Not if the alternative was to perform a more evil action of feeding hundreds of refuges to said blood-thirst hobbos.
Haley is, in fact, fairly good at taking care of herself. Belkar is a sexy shoeless god of war. Their ability to escape and evade the hobgoblin army is far greater than Hinjo's ability to overcome said army with the forces at his disposal. Moreover, Hinjo is privately convinced that Haley is dead, and that there is no possibility of any rescue attempt succeeding.
Suicidal folly to no effect is not automatically the appropriate action for good characters under any circumstances.
Edit #2: See if your DM will Allow you to join/Become an Neutral Good Paladin.Umm... again, single actions need not change alignments, especially if they do not reflect a significant change in the mindset underlying the character's alignment. If they did, then alignment would be utterly unstable and alignment would be effectively meaningless in D&D. People would go from good to neutral to evil and back on a daily basis without undergoing any personality changes.
but IMO, someone should feel the call only if he follows the code.OK, that is reasonable, but it is a personal opinion and other people may not share it for perfectly valid and logical reasons of their own. Perhaps the paladins call on the people with the greatest potential for good, not those with the most exemplary records.
Or like the problem with fawstos char, who want to become a paladin (not by receiving the call, but by applying the "Paladin College":smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: This men should live by the paladin code, not having them as something like "Do this and you lose paladinhood". They must follow its principles by free will, not something imposed to them as they turn paladins.If that is the rule for paladins in this setting, then there is a problem, but I don't know whether that is or is not the rule.
JadedDM
You must be thinking of something else. All of the kits in the Paladin's Handbook are LG only. The only mention of an anti-paladin is in a very brief paragraph where it states that they are a bad idea, and the book highly advises against them.
Dervag obviously did not read the entire thread.
:smallsmile:
There's actually a very simple test, which you will understand if you have seen any police movie ever.
Imagine the grizzled captain, played by a slightly overweight man with balding gray hair. Quite possibly he's four days away from retiring. He's called your character into his office.
If he says "I don't like his methods, but he gets results!", you're falling towards Chaotic.
If he says "Turn in your badge, you're off the case!", you're falling towards Evil.
If he partners you with the maverick, wisecracking, talented but hot-headed rookie, played by Will Smith, and tells you to "Teach him the ropes," you're Lawful Good.
Good Example.
And the captain in this example is .....
Neutral Good.
Looking the other way and begrudgingly accepting the chaotic good officer and turning towards the Lawful good character to make sure the maverick gets tempered.
Starbuck_II
Nope. Turn in your Badge makes you the hero. All is forgiven once he catches the bad guys.
PnP Fan
Just my take on the OP, and a few of the informational posts.
Okay, so let's make sure I have this clear:
Our paladin hero is:
1. Breaking in to a NG gnome king's castle.
2. Getting into fights with the king's guard.
3. Using non-lethal force against the kings guard
All so he can talk to the king.
Okay, I think our paladin's motives are good. But unless the emissary from the evil king is some kind of wizard, what makes you think that the good king is going to make a decision in favor of genocide of an otherwise non-aggressive race? Unless the king is a moron and easily duped into such things, just because some evil guy talks to him first, doesn't mean that he's going to side with the genocidal king. This goes double if your doing a high fantasy type game (which it sounds like you are). So, in short, I think you are definitely acting chaotic, by disrespecting the legitimate authority. The legitimate authority of the gnome king to see visitors to his own court, never mind that clearly you think he's incapable of thinking for himself. Disrespecting the ligitimate authority of the guard to enforce the king's will. etc. . .
I think your better option would be to walk in after the king has seen the evil visitor, and speak to him instead of beating up his guards ('cause let me tell you, nothing undermines your own case and makes you look like the bad guy, like invading someone else's home and beating up their servants).
Put yourself in the guards' place. If you were responsible for protecting the leader of your city/country, and some guy just kept walking past you, what would you do? Especially if he's trying to be intimidating and angry. My first thought is, "troublemaker", and try and stop him. If he doesn't listen to reason (like the paladin in question didn't), then yes, you'd probably threaten him with whatever weapon is available.
Would you fall? Probably not, I'd say more like a temporary weakening of your powers as a warning.
He didn't waltz in because of the dialogue, but because the emissary could have charmed the king. Try and read the thread, please.
My apologies, The one post I failed to read from Sir Ig is the one that mentions the fear of "magical persuasion". All of the other posts prior to that mention "persuasion" or "convinced" or something similarly diplomatic.
oops. Sorry.
DivineBriliance
Well, since there being controlled by evil then knocking them unconscious,avoiding it(Mabey by meens of a pit.), diplomacy/intimidate. are all good ways to avoid killing them but id say traping them in a pit then running up to the evil guy controlling them and smite the heck out of him.(hehe i made a funny) knocking them out is ok if there controled by evil or have evil means.


Despite the two hundred other ways to score a website on search engine result pages, hyperlinks still are the most effective tool to maximize visibility and maintain competition in the search results. More than just linking your page to other reputed sites in your industry, links extract SEO juices that act as the perfect potion to boost SERP ranking. WeblinkIndia is a leading link building company that has assisted countless companies with its link building services and fulfilled its promise of high ranking and improved visibility online.
SEO experts at WeblinkIndia, a reliable link building agency, not only emphasize on the number of links but also on the quality of those links, which will play a vital role in deciding the future of your online venture. The analytical approach followed by our backlink service providers during the customization of various link building packages helps us in catering the needs of individual websites consistently.
Get relevant, high-quality one way backlinks to your website from authority sites to achieve better search engine ranking and qualified traffic that stays on your website for a longer time span.
With our best link building services, we offer you relevant reciprocal links from popular websites that not just connect you with the relevant websites with higher page rank, but also do wonders in enhancing your website's popularity.
Give your visitors an enriched user experience and increase your website's credibility by incorporating contextual links to your page.
Rank higher on SERPs with our result-oriented guest blogging services. Get 1-2 quality backlinks embedded in your blog post, along with your author bio.
In web 2.0 Link building, the links are placed at 2.0 Web sites like Wordpress, Squidoo, Hubpages, etc. to generate qualified traffic to your page that converts.
Gov and .edu links might be hard to get, but are very effective at bringing relevant traffic. With our quality link building services, you can get high-authority backlinks from .edu and .gov sites to enhance the value and credibility of your website.
As a prominent player in the industry, we leave no stone unturned to bring out the optimum results from the link building efforts. Being one of the best link building companies, we connect our backlinks to each other so that a link wheel is created.


text:
e-lawresources
Providing resources for studying law
Land law
Home Kirkham v CC Greater Manchester Police
Kirkham v CC Greater Manchester Police [1990] 2 QB 283 Court of Appeal
Mr Kirkham was an alcoholic and suffered from depression. He had made a two suicide attempts on 6th Jan 1980. He was admitted to hospital but discharged himself the following day. When he arrived home his wife prevented him from drinking and he became violent and started smashing furniture. The police were called and arrested him. His wife informed them of his suicide attempts and discharging himself from hospital and it was agreed that he should be remanded in custody for his own safety. However, the police failed inform the prison authorities that Mr Kirkham was a suicide risk. He committed suicide whilst on remand at Risley Remand Centre. His wife brought an action based on the negligence of the police in failing to pass on the information. The Police raised the defences of volenti non fit injuria and ex turpi causa.
Held:
The claimant was successful. The defence of volenti non fit injuria, although normally would apply where a person of sound mind were to take their own life, had no application where a person of unsound mind took their life. The defence of ex turpi causa was not limited to illegal acts but extended also to immoral acts. The court applied the public conscience test and concluded that to allow the claimant to succeed would not affront the public conscience, or shock the ordinary citizen.
Lord Justice Lloyd:
Where a man of sound mind injures himself in an unsuccessful suicide attempt, it is difficult to see why he should not be met by a plea of volenti non fit injuria. He has not only courted the risk of injury by another; he has inflicted the injury himself. In Hyde v. Tameside Area Health Authority, the plaintiff, who had made an unsuccessful suicide attempt, brought an action for damages against the Health Authority alleging negligence on the part of the hospital staff. Lord Denning doubted whether a defence of volenti non fit injuria would be available in such a case "seeing that [the plaintiff] did not willingly injure himself - he wanted to die". I find that reasoning hard to follow. Any observation of Lord Denning is, of course, entitled to great weight; but the observation was obiter, since the court held that the hospital staff had not been negligent. Moreover we were told by Mr Foster, who happened to have appeared for the plaintiff in that case, that the point was never argued.
So I would be inclined to hold that where a man of sound mind commits suicide, his estate would be unable to maintain an action against the hospital or prison authorities, as the case might be. Volenti non fit injuria would provide them with a complete defence. There should be no distinction between a successful attempt and an unsuccessful attempt at suicide. Nor should there be any distinction between an action for the benefit of the estate under the Law Reform Act and an action for the benefit of dependants under the Fatal Accidents Act. In so far as Pilcher J. drew a distinction between the two types of action in Pigney v. Pointers Transport Services Ltd. 1957 2 All E.R. S07, I would respectfully disagree.
But in the present case Mr Kirkham was not of sound mind. True, he was sane in the legal sense. His suicide was a deliberate and conscious act. But Dr Sayed, whose evidence the judge accepted, said that Mr Kirkham was suffering from clinical depression. His judgment was impaired. If it had been a case of murder, he would have had a defence of diminished responsibility due to disease of the mind.
I have had some doubt on this aspect of the case, in the light of Dr Sayed's further evidence that, though his judgment was impaired, Mr Kirkham knew what he was doing. But in the end I have been persuaded by Mr Foster that, even so, he was not truly volens. Having regard to his mental state, he cannot, by his act, be said to have waived or abandoned any claim arising out of his suicide. So I would reject the defence of volenti non fit injuria.
Back to lecture outline on volenti non fit injuria in Tort Law
Back to lecture outline on ex turpi causa in Tort Law

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Previous releases on on When I Met You from label owner Ten Ven have generated multiple radio 1 plays across the dance specialist shows as well as a global club support.
Trujillo, Jacques Renault, Fred P, Wankelmut and Catz N Dogz, Soul Clap, Dave Harvey, Jasper James, James Priestley.
Pezzner, Ilija Rudman, Carl Craig c/o Ernie, Jack Savidge, Illyus & Barientos, Pochartrain (Whiskey Disco), Henry Saiz (sorter), Tronik Youth, Spiller, Sean Brosnan (Future Disco) and Julian Sanza. Bill Brewster, Felix Dickinson, Pete Herbert, Kristian/Ame, Joris Voorn, Jimpster.


text:
Spyros Livathinos (; born 8 January 1955) is a former football player who played as a midfielder, coach and current scout of Panathinaikos.

Career
Born in Patras, Livathinos started his football career in the Panathinaikos youth system. In 1975, he made it to the greens' first team where he played a total of 267 league games in 10 seasons, winning three Alpha Ethniki and four Greek Football Cup titles. Livathinos then moved on to Cyprus where he became player/coach of Pezoporikos. In 1988, he led the Larnaca club to the championship of Cyprus and retired as a player.

Livathinos made 27 appearances and scored one goal for the Greece national football team.

He continued his coaching career guiding Ethnikos Asteras to the championship of the Greek B Division. He continued to coach the Kaisariani club in the A Division from 1999 until 2001. In 2002, he coached Panachaiki for the early part of the season and Ethnikos Asteras in the latter part, replacing Nikos Alefantos. Livathinos currently is scout of Panathinaikos.

References

External links

1955 births
Living people
Greek football managers
Greek footballers
Greece international footballers
Panathinaikos F.C. players
UEFA Euro 1980 players
Expatriate footballers in Cyprus
Super League Greece players
Cypriot First Division players
Panachaiki F.C. managers
Footballers from Patras
Pezoporikos Larnaca players
Pezoporikos Larnaca managers
Association football midfielders

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Northeast Region Home News Representative Tram Nguyen will appear at Tewksbury Virtual Team Hope Walk
Representative Tram Nguyen will appear at Tewksbury Virtual Team Hope Walk
Takes place Saturday, September 18th
Tewksbury, Massachusetts (September 15, 2021) – The Massachusetts and Rhode Island Chapter of the Huntington's Disease Society of America (HDSA) has announced that Rep. Tram Nguyen (D-Andover) will appear at the Tewksbury Virtual Team Hope Walk on Saturday, September 18th at 10:00 AM (EST). All proceeds support HDSA's mission to improve the lives of people affected by Huntington's disease (HD) and their families.
"The Tewksbury Virtual Team Hope Walk has done incredible work raising both awareness about HD, and much-needed funds to combat the disease and help people who are struggling with it," said Rep. Tram Nguyen (D-Andover). "I'm truly in awe of Dan Kieran and Mike Miller for all that they've done to advance research and bring hope to families facing this disease. When a cure is found, it will be because of community support like this event."
Team Hope is HDSA's largest national grassroots fundraising event, which takes place in over 100 cities across the U.S. and has raised more than $20 million for HD since its inception in 2007. Thousands of families, friends, co-workers, neighbors, and communities walk together each year to support HDSA's mission to improve the lives of people affected by HD and their families. A virtual walk is a real walk, but on your terms: You get to choose your own course, you can walk in your in your house, driveway, neighborhood, local park, hike trail, and even on treadmill! Sign up now and participate in the virtual walk by raising money and awareness.
For more information about the event, please contact Michael Miller (mikxx7@yahoo.com, 978-289-8884). Online registration and donation can be found at hdsa.org/thwtewksbury
HDSA's Team Hope Walk Program is nationally sponsored by Genentech and Teva Pharmaceuticals.
Huntington's disease (HD) is a fatal genetic disorder that causes the progressive breakdown of nerve cells in the brain. It deteriorates a person's physical and mental abilities during their prime working years and has no cure. Every child of a parent with HD has a 50/50 chance of inheriting the faulty gene. Today, there are approximately 41,000 symptomatic Americans and more than 200,000 at-risk of inheriting the disease. The symptoms of HD are described as having ALS, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's – simultaneously.
The Huntington's Disease Society of America is the premier nonprofit organization dedicated to improving the lives of everyone affected by HD. From community services and education to advocacy and research, HDSA is the world's leader in providing help for today and hope for tomorrow for people with HD and their families. HDSA was founded in 1967 by Marjorie Guthrie, the wife of legendary folk singer Woody Guthrie. Woody died from HD complications when he was only 55 years old, but the Guthrie family legacy lives on at HDSA to this day.
To learn more about Huntington's disease and the work of the Huntington's Disease Society of America, visit www.hdsa.org or call (800)345-HDSA.