Pathfinder Pathfinder: Kingmaker - Enhanced Plus Edition - now with turn-based combat

[pomenitul]

Batman is a literal outlaw.

 

[razvedchiki]

going into mental gymnastics to justify all the weird multiclassing is always amusing,every fantasy setting has an internal logic why the x or z happen,if you dont adibe by that logic you are a power/metagamer simple as that.

 

[Sykar]

I dunno man, I always thought Batman was a thug paladin with a monk thrown in for good measure. He has a powerful code of honour that he never breaks, he acts for the good of everyone, including his "victims", beats up, threatens his enemies, uses fear as a weapon and uses martial arts learned at a monastery.

Batman was never a paladin. He was thug vigilante detective literally working outside of the law adhering to a personal code of conduct which essentially just prohibited him from killing his adversaries but otherwise do anything which he deemed necessary to enforce what he deemed to be justice. This is a far cry from a paladin. The superheroes closest to being a paladin would be guys like Superman or DC Captain Marvel.

going into mental gymnastics to justify all the weird multiclassing is always amusing,every fantasy setting has an internal logic why the x or z happen,if you dont adibe by that logic you are a power/metagamer simple as that.

I mean I have no problem if people like Haplo say that they do not care about RPG and just want to game the system as much as possible. I just find the rationalizations comically retarded to justify such class combinations outside of power gaming which at this point in my life find trite and boring.

 

[jungl]

Keldorn in BG2 was based as fuck. Called out the drow girl being a evil thot and was all around a jedi master like badass.

 

[Sykar]

Batman is a literal outlaw.

A dark KNIGHT.

That's what Nolan called him. In the comics he was mostly refereed to as detective and vigilante, cannot remember anyone calling him a knight. Oh and by the way, the DARK part is far more important because he was a far cry from an actual knight.

 

[santino27]

Batman is a literal outlaw.

A dark KNIGHT.

That's what Nolan called him. In the comics he was mostly refereed to as detective and vigilante, cannot remember anyone calling him a knight. Oh and by the way, the DARK part is far more important because he was a far cry from an actual knight.

Batman was called the dark knight in Batman #1, back in the 40s, fyi. And the name was revived heavily by Frank Miller in the 80s for The Dark Knight Returns. It's a very common nickname for Batman and Nolan didn't in any way coin the phrase.

 

[Thonius]

There is vigilante class btw...

 

[Yosharian]

Wasn't rogue limited to non-lawful at some point? Anyway, Thug definitely should be limited to non-lawful.

As for Monk/Paladin, well... I don't think those two are irreconcilable. They are slightly different, but that's the whole point of multiclass characters, they balance different disciplines.

Batman's definitely not a Paladin. But he does follow a code, so is he Chaotic? If anything, he's probably Neutral Good.

 

[InD_ImaginE]

Batman is literally Neutral Good at best and Chaotic Neutral at worst.

The thought that Batman is a Paladin a.k.a Lawful is non-sense in classical D&D alignment.

 

[Yosharian]

Batman is literally Neutral Good at best and Chaotic Neutral at worst.

The thought that Batman is a Paladin a.k.a Lawful is non-sense in classical D&D alignment.

Which actions, attitudes, or philosophies place him as Neutral on the Good-Evil axis?

 

[Incendax]

Batman is literally Neutral Good at best and Chaotic Neutral at worst.
The thought that Batman is a Paladin a.k.a Lawful is non-sense in classical D&D alignment.

 

[Cael]

Lawful, perhaps if he fulfills his threats, but not Good.

Is this considering threats as promises?

By this logic, failing to fulfill a threat would be like breaking a promise or lying.

I can already imagine a good example:

"I will hang you by your entrails, bandit," threatened the Paladin

However, he (accidentally or not) gives the bandit a quick death.

*You failed to fulfill your threat of hanging the bandit by his entrails* -> Your alignment has shifted to chaotic, you have fallen from grace as a Paladin.

"I will kill you if you don't put down the weapon," the paladin threatens the thug.

If the thug puts down the weapon and the paladin doesn't kill him, the paladin was being lawful.
If the thug didn't put down the weapon and the paladin kills him, the paladin is being lawful.

Your stupid attempt at gotcha is why the alignment system seem to fail for some people. It is not the system, it is the fucktards with the gotcha attempts.

 

[Cael]

You forgot the "Good" part of a Paladin's alignment. "Threats of force and violence to get what she wants" is not Good behaviour. Lawful, perhaps if he fulfills his threats, but not Good.

So, let me get this straight:

• "Using threats of force and violence" - not OK
• "Using actual force and violence" - OK

Paladins use force and violence all the time to get what they want (ridding the world of evil, for example).

Why don't you try threatening a criminal and see how you end up in a court of law?

Beating up or killing a criminal while he is in the process of enacting a crime, on the other hand...

*waits for the convoluted, illogical attempt at gotcha get even more specific and convoluted*

 

[InD_ImaginE]

Batman is literally Neutral Good at best and Chaotic Neutral at worst.

The thought that Batman is a Paladin a.k.a Lawful is non-sense in classical D&D alignment.

Which actions, attitudes, or philosophies place him as Neutral on the Good-Evil axis?

Different interpretations of Batman I guess? modern Justice League DC Movies Batman which have no qualms on killing the criminal while branding the alive one with his batrang arguably is more Neutral than good.

 

[Cael]

Batman is literally Neutral Good at best and Chaotic Neutral at worst.

The thought that Batman is a Paladin a.k.a Lawful is non-sense in classical D&D alignment.

Which actions, attitudes, or philosophies place him as Neutral on the Good-Evil axis?

Different interpretations of Batman I guess? modern Justice League DC Movies Batman which have no qualms on killing the criminal while branding the alive one with his batrang arguably is more Neutral than good.

One act does not make a person's alignment. That is like saying muhammed is LG because he spared Mecca as he promised if they submitted to him.

This is the major flaw of sjws and leftards. They cherrypick one act and brand you forever with it. Take a look at what they did to Liam Neeson.

 

[Cael]

A god of Justice that seeks vengeance for crimes that go unpunished in the court of law would be a Lawful Good god. His paladins can be "Rogues" because they must act in secret to dispense Justice. Nothing Chaotic about it. Unless you equate Lawful Good to Lawful Stupid, that is.

Lawful Neutral, actually. That alignment is called "the Judge" for a reason...

 

[Cael]

A god of Justice that seeks vengeance for crimes that go unpunished in the court of law would be a Lawful Good god. His paladins can be "Rogues" because they must act in secret to dispense Justice. Nothing Chaotic about it. Unless you equate Lawful Good to Lawful Stupid, that is.

Lawful Neutral, actually. That alignment is called "the Judge" for a reason...

True. But he would allow for Lawful good paladins.

That is debatable. If we are looking at Paladins as the idealised pious Christian Knight, as Gygax does, then probably not. If we are looking at Paladins as just holy warrior, as paitard does, then most definitely. They would most likely to turn out to be like Judge Dredd or worse, though.

 

[InD_ImaginE]

Batman is literally Neutral Good at best and Chaotic Neutral at worst.

The thought that Batman is a Paladin a.k.a Lawful is non-sense in classical D&D alignment.

Which actions, attitudes, or philosophies place him as Neutral on the Good-Evil axis?

Different interpretations of Batman I guess? modern Justice League DC Movies Batman which have no qualms on killing the criminal while branding the alive one with his batrang arguably is more Neutral than good.

One act does not make a person's alignment. That is like saying muhammed is LG because he spared Mecca as he promised if they submitted to him.

This is the major flaw of sjws and leftards. They cherrypick one act and brand you forever with it. Take a look at what they did to Liam Neeson.

It is kind of implied in the movie that Affleck old Batman is disillusioned regarding the whole no killing and will use lethal force against his villains. In term of alignment he had shifted from Good to Neutral before the movie started. The solo Affleck Batman movie is supposed to explore that but that stuff is cancelled.

Of course the gritty batman stuff is kinda ret conned as soon as Justice League where he is much softer.

 

[Sykar]

Wasn't rogue limited to non-lawful at some point? Anyway, Thug definitely should be limited to non-lawful.

As for Monk/Paladin, well... I don't think those two are irreconcilable. They are slightly different, but that's the whole point of multiclass characters, they balance different disciplines.

Batman's definitely not a Paladin. But he does follow a code, so is he Chaotic? If anything, he's probably Neutral Good.

I disagree from a RPG standpoint. Their world views and ideals are fundamentally different. A monk seeks enlightenment through personal self perfection via meditation and training the body to its best possible state. Furthermore they tend to be not particularly religious, most certainly not even remtotely to the same degree as a paladin. Being good is a byproduct of it but it is not a core tenant and in fact many view those who completely detach themselves from the world and therefore society as the most enlightened. A paladin serves as a weapon and an arbiter of justice to and for a higher power by adhering to a strict code of honor which covers a wide variety of behaviors like acting chivalrous towards ladies and those less fortunate for example but being uncompromising towards those who do evil while not stooping down to their level. Contrary to the monk a paladin places the greater good above everything else except maybe for his god and is therefore never detached from the people or the world, quite the contrary.

A god of Justice that seeks vengeance for crimes that go unpunished in the court of law would be a Lawful Good god. His paladins can be "Rogues" because they must act in secret to dispense Justice. Nothing Chaotic about it. Unless you equate Lawful Good to Lawful Stupid, that is.

Vengeance is never a good act since it primarily serves only one purpose, personal satisfaction. Such a god should be LN not LG. At best. Thinking about a person who embodies vengeance in comics that would be Frank Castle who is borderline CE considering how little qualms he has killing and causing collateral damage in pursuit of vengeance.

Batman is a literal outlaw.

A dark KNIGHT.

That's what Nolan called him. In the comics he was mostly refereed to as detective and vigilante, cannot remember anyone calling him a knight. Oh and by the way, the DARK part is far more important because he was a far cry from an actual knight.

Batman was called the dark knight in Batman #1, back in the 40s, fyi. And the name was revived heavily by Frank Miller in the 80s for The Dark Knight Returns. It's a very common nickname for Batman and Nolan didn't in any way coin the phrase.

I never read that volume I am not a major comic book nerd, just read a couple of them but I was always more of a book reader than comic reader. Does not matter anyway since there are now so many versions of Batman that it is impossible to nail him exactly into one archetype anyway. Even granting the DARK knight moniker, still does not change the fact that Batman is even remotely a paladin. Hell considering the elaborate code of honor and code of conduct knights were expected to adhere to "knight" is a misnomer for a thuggish vigilante detective if I have ever seen one. Hell even the non-killing part runs contrary to a knight/paladin ideal who most certainly are willing to kill and would consider it a good deed unless an innocent person would get killed.

 

[Sykar]

Vengeance not being good is a modern concept outside of the far eastern spheres. The bible literally says "Eye for an Eye". It is a part of the oldest legal code known to us, the code of Hammurabi. Also, this is not personal vengeance. it is vengeance against the unjust taking advantage of the just. It is perfectly a "good" act in that sense because the evil need be punished not for Balance, but for protecting the weak and discouraging the evil.

Eye for an eye is old testament and runs contrary to the teachings of Jesus in the new testament where forgiveness is center piece alongside turning the other cheek. And Code of Hammurabi, really? That one was established 1700 years prior to the bible in a completely different culture.
So no, vengeance is not "good" and vengeance is not necessarily just eye for an eye, often it goes way beyond that because people get consumed by it, again Frank Castle being the prime comic example where it is cranked up to 11.

 

[Sykar]

Easy man, Don't get consumed by it. Don't make it personal. And boom, vengeance that is not evil.

Tell that to the Muslim families engaged in blood feuds. Or tell that to Irish Protestants and Catholics during the 80s and 90s. Etc. The thirst for vengeance often does not just consume individuals but entire families. And as I have said, vengeance primary function is the fulfillment of a personal need more so than justice.

 

[Cael]

Justice is not vengeance. Punishing the guilty is not vengeance. Equating the two is a sjw tactic to try to shame the just into following their brand of lunacy, just as they have conflated so many Good concepts like truth, compassion and tolerance with racism, bigotry and ignorance.

 

[Cael]

Batman is literally Neutral Good at best and Chaotic Neutral at worst.

The thought that Batman is a Paladin a.k.a Lawful is non-sense in classical D&D alignment.

Which actions, attitudes, or philosophies place him as Neutral on the Good-Evil axis?

Different interpretations of Batman I guess? modern Justice League DC Movies Batman which have no qualms on killing the criminal while branding the alive one with his batrang arguably is more Neutral than good.

One act does not make a person's alignment. That is like saying muhammed is LG because he spared Mecca as he promised if they submitted to him.

This is the major flaw of sjws and leftards. They cherrypick one act and brand you forever with it. Take a look at what they did to Liam Neeson.

It is kind of implied in the movie that Affleck old Batman is disillusioned regarding the whole no killing and will use lethal force against his villains. In term of alignment he had shifted from Good to Neutral before the movie started. The solo Affleck Batman movie is supposed to explore that but that stuff is cancelled.

Of course the gritty batman stuff is kinda ret conned as soon as Justice League where he is much softer.

Are you seriously telling me that the recent line of DC movies is a good representation of the personalities of the characters as they were originally portrayed? You. Fucking. Millenial.

 

[ArchAngel]

Cael - trying his best to put himself on as many ignore lists as possible.

 

[Sykar]

Easy man, Don't get consumed by it. Don't make it personal. And boom, vengeance that is not evil.

Tell that to the Muslim families engaged in blood feuds. Or tell that to Irish Protestants and Catholics during the 80s and 90s. Etc. The thirst for vengeance often does not just consume individuals but entire families. And as I have said, vengeance primary function is the fulfillment of a personal need more so than justice.

You are confounding the "personal* motives of a Blood Feud and the "religious* motives of a divide with apersonal punish the wicked vengeance. Vengeance is a *factor* in justice. The Justice system exists to not to just reeducate the wicked but to actually *punish* the guilty. The re-education part is a modern invention as I point out. But courts and legal frameworks can be compromised through bribery and corruption of all sorts. So a god that allows for Justice (a divine law) outside of the Court system, makes sense. There are numerous examples of heroes who must act outside the legal system to protect justice and yet have a rigid code of conduct. Zorro, the Phantom, Batman, Sherlock Holmes (Abbey Grange), Ian Fleming's James Bond (a patriot and a chivalrous character from the books, referred to as a Knight by several other characters the books) etc.

What makes these characters Lawful despite acting outside of legal frameworks, is their strict adherence to a code of conduct. They do not break promises and cheat people who have done no wrong. Compare with Robin Hood, who steals from the Rich and gives it to the poor, even the Good Rich people. This is a classic example of Chaotic Good.

Whether or not you agree with it and whether this is desirable is a separate question. I would personally oppose a vigilante system, but I can see how sometimes it can become inevitable when justice cannot be gained via legal frameworks at all.

There is rarely an actual distinction in practice. Most people seeking vengeance especially during more religious times always justified it via religion. That does not make vengeance good. Hell even evil people invoke god to justify their thirst for vengeance, just ask Muhammad. Punishment and vengeance are not synonymous and society over the centuries tried its hardest to cross vengeance out of the justice system. I never said that a god of vengeance does not make sense. I said he would hardly be considered "good". Hell he does not even need to be lawful considering that the vengeance he would stand for would occur outside the law.
Rigid code of conduct? Since when is the mere avoidance of killing an opponent a "rigid" code? All the people mentioned did whatever needed otherwise to get the job done. Lying, drugging, backstabbing, deceiving, etc. Sure it was for what they perceived to be the greater good. It still were not "good" methods nor methods a paladin would condone nor was it knightly behavior. Adhering to a personal code of conduct is also not what makes you lawful. Lawful goes far beyond personal conviction. It is the belief that laws are vital for a society to function and that adhering to the law more often than not is better than not to.
This does nothing to justify labeling vengeance as anything "good". Justified at times maybe, but good? Hell no.