But what if the god she worships is chaotic?

 

 

Let's try to not drift to that discussion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

A paladin cannot worship a chaotic aligned deity. Paladins are restricted to deities that are only one notch away from Lawful Good so only Lawful Good, Lawful Neutral, and Neutral Good deities are allowed to have Paladins. At least that is my understanding of the rules.

Is Vheraun lawful?

 

Look, I'm trying to explain my interpretation of the paladins. If you are fiercely devoted enough to have access to divinish abilities, but are not a cleric...then what are you?

The problem is that D&D has defined Paladin as a religious warrior dedicated to all things good and righteous. So going by D&D standard you can't be a Paladin unless your're good.

 

Of course there exists counterparts for evil and neutral religious warriors, they just have other names. I have no idea what those are though (Dark Paladin?), I'm not exactly well educated when it comes to D&D rules.

 

I'd personally be fine with Paladin being used for any devoted religious fighter, it's just not the way it's done.

 

Never much liked the D&D versions of Paladins anyway. Don't like to roleplay those type of characters and if I just want to create a tank for a computer game, I tend to go with pure fighters anyway. Extra feats beats Paladin abilities any day (I like feats a lot though, so I'm a bit biased).

 

The only exception being Keldorn in BG2. If I'm powergaming through that game, he is the first NPC to get inclcuded, but that's because his dispel-ability is just insane.

The problem is that D&D has defined Paladin as a religious warrior dedicated to all things good and righteous. So going by D&D standard you can't be a Paladin unless your're good.

 

Of course there exists counterparts for evil and neutral religious warriors, they just have other names. I have no idea what those are though (Dark Paladin?), I'm not exactly well educated when it comes to D&D rules.

 

I'd personally be fine with Paladin being used for any devoted religious fighter, it's just not the way it's done.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ok, thanks Spider.

 

It's a shame though. Fanatism has a lot of untapped potential.

Is Vheraun lawful?

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No. Chaotic Evil.

Thanks. I got the info I was looking for.

 

mmm...evil stealth paladin...

Edited October 19, 200619 yr by Musopticon?

The problem is that D&D has defined Paladin as a religious warrior dedicated to all things good and righteous. So going by D&D standard you can't be a Paladin unless your're good.

 

Of course there exists counterparts for evil and neutral religious warriors, they just have other names. I have no idea what those are though (Dark Paladin?), I'm not exactly well educated when it comes to D&D rules.

 

I'd personally be fine with Paladin being used for any devoted religious fighter, it's just not the way it's done.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ok, thanks Spider.

 

It's a shame though. Fanatism has a lot of untapped potential.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Champions of Torm and Blackguards?

Thanks. I got the info I was looking for.

 

mmm...evil stealth paladin...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paladins can't stealth kill! They have to stand up and say "Halt, in the name of the law!"

 

If you use the Unearthed Arcana paladin subclass Paladin of Slaughter, you can have a fairly nasty Chaotic Evil Paladin.

*** snip long ayn rand post ***

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

pretty good assessment, meta. seems you pay attention to such things. i disagreed with pop's assessment that an objectivist cannot consider others. on the surface, this is how objectivism comes across, though there is a subtlety that you won't get simply from a little reading. concerns for others are very important to an objectivist, though his motives for said concern are based on self-interest.

 

i think ayn believed that _most_, if not all, people were actually sort of "closet objectivists" simply because their motivations are rooted in their own self-interests more often than not. the difference being that someone calling himself an objectivist openly admits his motivations (most of this my own opinion, btw). for example, people that do a lot of charity work often talk about how good it makes them feel to help others (not all, of course).

 

that said, most of my "roleplaying" in games is based on a similar philosophy. as a result, i have a very hard time playing any alignment on the extremes (lawful good), or evil (evil deeds to not make me happy). i usually end up either chaotic good, neutral good or true neutral. that way, i don't mind walking into an empty house in the wilderness and lifting the potions of cure critical wounds out of their chest!

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ayn Rand argues that as soon as a person accepts altruism, he becomes beneath contempt. "If a man accepts the ethics of altruism", she writes, "his first concern is not how to live but how to sacrifice it." Rand is focused on the individual, such that she demands that one not practice altruism.

Parasites, moochers, looters, brutes and thugs can be of no value to a human being - nor can he gain any benefit from living in a society geared to their needs, demands and protections, a society that treats him as a sacrificial animal and personalizes him for his virtues in order to reward them for their vices, which means: a society based on the ethics of altruism.

 

Thus, a man must focus on himself, and never consider others. A man who denies a beggar coin because "they should pull themselves up" is concerning himself with others' welfare. Rand calls this "sacrificing one's life", in that one's life consists of goods earned and created. To Rand, when one even acts in a way that benefits others by not helping them, he has no longer concerned himself with the betterment of the being of ultimate value: himself. He has become an altruist, and is therefore a scumbag. A true egoist would not recognize the existence of the poor.

 

This is where Rand parts ways with other egoists like Hobbes. The claim that all people act out of their own self-interest is made by Hobbes, not Rand. Hobbes was making a descriptive claim, saying "this is the way things are". Rand's argument was "this is the way things should be". Hobbes is much more flexible, as he says that people can include others into their own self-interest. Let's say I have a family, and I'm an egoist. If I'm a Hobbesian, I can care for their well-being, because if I'm not a good husband and father, I won't value myself. This makes some sense, but it still runs into a problem that I won't get into in that there could be a point at which I'm willing to die for my family, at which point the principle of self-interest breaks. If I'm a Rand objectivist, I cannot love my family. Rand dictates that I cannot care for my family, as I am the only morally important being, and investing in their well-being is being altruistic, which I cannot be if I am a true individual. Rand disregards the is/ought fallacy in this way, and her philosophy is greatly weakened in the process (see my signature)

 

There are 4 parts of Rand's argument.

 

(1) Each person has one life to live. If we value the individual, that is, if the individual has moral worth, then we must agree that this life is of supreme importance. It is all that one has, and is all one is.

 

(2) The ethics of altruism regards the life of the individual as something one must be ready to sacrifice for the good of others. Therefore, the ethics of altruism does not take seriously the value of an individual.

 

(3) Ethical Egoism, which allows each person to view his or her own life as being of ultimate value, does take the individual seriously - it is, in fact, the only philosophy that does so.

 

(4) Thus, we have no choice but to accept Ethical Egoism as true.

 

*those 4 parts and the Rand quotes taken from "The Elements of Moral Philosophy"

 

This argument is bull****, as it's oversimplistic. One can only choose between altruism and egoism, and there's no in-between, as I've demonstrated with my family example. It makes assumptions that altruism gives individual interests no value and that altruists must be expected to sacrifice their lives totally and unquestioningly whenever asked. Which is idiocy. There is a middle ground. One can seriously consider the interests of oneself and that of others. This is why Rand's brand of egoism is not given serious consideration by the vast majority of ethicists. It's a big bad sponge of a philosophy.

 

*addendum - And this is why Rand works so well with the Sith. One of the things you can say to Kreia to piss her off is "A jedi's life is sacrifice". Jedi in Star Wars are the ultimate Rand antagonists Sith are concerned with bettering themselves, and since they're sociopaths, they don't consider others. Everything they do, even apprenticeships, are done with the interest of the self in mind at the expense of all else. Perfect egoists.

Edited October 19, 200619 yr by Pop

There are 4 parts of Rand's argument.

 

(1) Each person has one life to live. If we value the individual, that is, if the individual has moral worth, then we must agree that this life is of supreme importance. It is all that one has, and is all one is.

(2) The ethics of altruism regards the life of the individual as something one must be ready to sacrifice for the good of others. Therefore, the ethics of altruism does not take seriously the value of an individual.

(3) Ethical Egoism, which allows each person to view his or her own life as being of ultimate value, does take the individual seriously - it is, in fact, the only philosophy that does so.

(4) Thus, we have no choice but to accept Ethical Egoism as true.

 

*those 4 parts and the Rand quotes taken from "The Elements of Moral Philosophy"

 

This argument is [specious], as it's oversimplistic. One can only choose between altruism and egoism, and there's no in-between, as I've demonstrated with my family example. It makes assumptions that altruism gives individual interests no value and that altruists must be expected to sacrifice their lives totally and unquestioningly whenever asked. Which is idiocy. There is a middle ground. One can seriously consider the interests of oneself and that of others. This is why Rand's brand of egoism is not given serious consideration by the vast majority of ethicists. It's a big bad sponge of a philosophy.

 

*addendum - And this is why Rand works so well with the Sith. One of the things you can say to Kreia to piss her off is "A jedi's life is sacrifice". Jedi in Star Wars are the ultimate Rand antagonists   Sith are concerned with bettering themselves, and since they're sociopaths, they don't consider others. Everything they do, even apprenticeships, are done with the interest of the self in mind at the expense of all else. Perfect egoists.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's good! I see your Sith analogy in full force, now that Rand's Objectivism is laid bare (no wonder she wanted to call it Existentialism!) I hadn't seen any reference to that, and the axioms placed emphasis on the individual creating their own value system. (So that's a Good Intentions lift straight to hell.)

 

Indeed, though, your conclusion is diametrically opposite to the spirit of the tenets (not having read her writing in total, I can only guess at her reasoning), in effect becoming exactly what it shouldn't: "selfishness without a self". (Note the quote about living on a sub-human level, vide infra):

*** snip long ayn rand post ***

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

pretty good assessment, meta. seems you pay attention to such things. i disagreed with pop's assessment that an objectivist cannot consider others. on the surface, this is how objectivism comes across, though there is a subtlety that you won't get simply from a little reading. concerns for others are very important to an objectivist, though his motives for said concern are based on self-interest.

 

i think ayn believed that _most_, if not all, people were actually sort of "closet objectivists" simply because their motivations are rooted in their own self-interests more often than not. the difference being that someone calling himself an objectivist openly admits his motivations (most of this my own opinion, btw). for example, people that do a lot of charity work often talk about how good it makes them feel to help others (not all, of course).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ayn Rand argues that as soon as a person accepts altruism, he becomes beneath contempt. "If a man accepts the ethics of altruism", she writes, "his first concern is not how to live but how to sacrifice it." Rand is focused on the individual, such that she demands that one not practice altruism.

Parasites, moochers, looters, brutes and thugs can be of no value to a human being - nor can he gain any benefit from living in a society geared to their needs, demands and protections, a society that treats him as a sacrificial animal and personalizes him for his virtues in order to reward them for their vices, which means: a society based on the ethics of altruism.

Thus, a man must focus on himself, and never consider others. A man who denies a beggar coin because "they should pull themselves up" is concerning himself with others' welfare. Rand calls this "sacrificing one's life", in that one's life consists of goods earned and created. To Rand, when one even acts in a way that benefits others by not helping them, he has no longer concerned himself with the betterment of the being of ultimate value: himself. He has become an altruist, and is therefore a scumbag. A true egoist would not recognize the existence of the poor.

 

This is where Rand parts ways with other egoists like Hobbes. The claim that all people act out of their own self-interest is made by Hobbes, not Rand. Hobbes was making a descriptive claim, saying "this is the way things are". Rand's argument was "this is the way things should be". Hobbes is much more flexible, as he says that people can include others into their own self-interest. Let's say I have a family, and I'm an egoist. If I'm a Hobbesian, I can care for their well-being, because if I'm not a good husband and father, I won't value myself. This makes some sense, but it still runs into a problem that I won't get into in that there could be a point at which I'm willing to die for my family, at which point the principle of self-interest breaks. If I'm a Rand objectivist, I cannot love my family. Rand dictates that I cannot care for my family, as I am the only morally important being, and investing in their well-being is being altruistic, which I cannot be if I am a true individual. Rand disregards the is/ought fallacy in this way, and her philosophy is greatly weakened in the process (see my signature)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

cf.:

There is a difference, however, between rational self-interest and what she calls "selfishness without a self" - a state of range-of-the-moment selfishness to promote a self that has no esteem. Thieves, according to her, are not motivated by a desire to live (as the man of production is), but by the desire to live on a sub-human level. Instead of using "that which promotes the concept of human life" as their standard of values, they promote "that which I value" as the standard of value; thus leaving a blank check on what is and isn't moral. The "I value" in that sentence can be replaced with "we value", "he values", or "He values" and still be a blank-check ethics-killer, according to Rand. She is not asking you to believe that either rational selfishness and hedonistic selfishness-without-a-self should be considered good and evil at the same time (as "double-think" may ask) but that the former should be considered good and the latter evil and that there is a "fundamental" difference between them.

 

I agree totally that the extremist viewpoints (as usual), including the total disregard of altruistic motivations, even for people one might care for, is nonsensical. Just as August Comte isn't nonsensical, too: the total neglect of the self will not provide the maximum benefit to others, and so it is a self-defeating concept. Ignoring self-survival is as wrong as enslavement to it.

 

Ethical egoism does not necessitate that individuals disregard the well-being of others, nor does it require that an individual refrain from taking the well-being of others into consideration. It allows for the possibility of either as long as what is chosen is efficacious in satisfying self-interest. For some, it is the philosophical basis of their espousal of libertarianism or anarchism, which advocate that individuals do not coercively prevent others from exercising freedom of action.

 

I think a sensible social theory needs to include some sort of allowance for ethical egoism, with some sort of value being placed on the society: after all, it is far better to be an individual in a prosperous society than an individual outside society.

Ayn Rand argues that as soon as a person accepts altruism, he becomes beneath contempt. "If a man accepts the ethics of altruism", she writes, "his first concern is not how to live but how to sacrifice it." Rand is focused on the individual, such that she demands that one not practice altruism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i wasn't referring to altruism. i made it very clear that the needs of others were important, though necessarily connected to the individual's own gain. i even gave an example...

 

taks

Ethical egoism does not necessitate that individuals disregard the well-being of others, nor does it require that an individual refrain from taking the well-being of others into consideration. It allows for the possibility of either as long as what is chosen is efficacious in satisfying self-interest.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

which is exactly the point i made, and reiterated in the post previous to this. pop's original comment, to which i was referring, was that objectivism completely ignores others over self, which is only true on the surface. whether or not that's what he intended with the comment is another matter, but that's how it came across.

 

personally, i tend to behave similarly to meta's last comment. though that may only be because some form of society provides a definite benifit to me... which is selfish, of course.

 

taks

If you use the Unearthed Arcana paladin subclass Paladin of Slaughter, you can have a fairly nasty Chaotic Evil Paladin.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you gather them all together, then you have 'paladins' for:

LG

NG

CG

LN

N (druidic)

LE

CE

 

 

And these for a base class, not a prestige one

So someone relate the Rand arguments to Paladins? Or is that not what we're trying to do anymore.

 

Most 'evil' paladins, or non-LG paladins, redefine paladinship as not the obligation to champion Good wherever you go, but the obligation to champion your sense of morality or worldview wherever you go - in essence, take the "Halt, in the name of the law", then replace "law" with whatever. It can get rather interesting if the roleplayer is good enough to mimic (or actually believe in) an alternate worldview than the Paladinic Good (not hard, that) then champion it in a very.. uh.. Paladinic way.

 

Heh. Paladinic.

So someone relate the Rand arguments to Paladins? Or is that not what we're trying to do anymore.

 

Most 'evil' paladins, or non-LG paladins, redefine paladinship as not the obligation to champion Good wherever you go, but the obligation to champion your sense of morality or worldview wherever you go - in essence, take the "Halt, in the name of the law", then replace "law" with whatever. It can get rather interesting if the roleplayer is good enough to mimic (or actually believe in) an alternate worldview than the Paladinic Good (not hard, that) then champion it in a very.. uh.. Paladinic way.

 

Heh. Paladinic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, let's take CE:

 

'Halt, in MY name!"

Or you could have a LN Paladin who believes vehemently that he is really LG but that helping that beggar in the street or that war refugee is not in the interest of the 'big picture'.

I wish I could play a kensai. I miss my Kensai PC from BG2.

 

I love the idea of roleplaying a warrior totally dedicated to the katana. I'm kinda of a martial arts freak myself.

 

A weaponmaster just doesn't have the same feel.

There's a Developer Diary #4 movie on Gametrailers.com for anyone who's interested in seeing more of Neverwinter Nights 2 in action. The graphics sure doesn't blow you away, that's for sure. But I'm equally sure the atmosphere and story will do that anyhow.

 

http://www.gametrailers.com/gamepage.php?fs=1&id=2403

 

Oh, and I suspect that Tim Donley's eyebrows are trying to take over the world

 

Obey me, underlings!!

The graphics sure doesn't blow you away, that's for sure. But I'm equally sure the atmosphere and story will do that anyhow.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I tend to disagree with your first assessment and agree with your second; I think that a good _representative_ model of a virtual world is better than photo-realistic grass and soil (-erosion).

 

Of course, better graphics are always welcome (except when they come at the expense of critical elements, like writing), but I feel the virtual worlds created by NwN2 are very immersive. At least that is how I feel looking at the fly-over views in the videos.

 

Civilization 2, for example, modelled a virtual landscape enough to draw me into the game.

I wasn't saying that it wasn't a good representative model ofa virtual world (as I am sure I'll be as engrossed in the game as the rest of you). I was saying that the graphics doesn't blow you away, as in making your jaw drop from awe. Not that I expected as much either..

 

It's not exactly Crysis.

There's a Developer Diary #4 movie on Gametrailers.com for anyone who's interested in seeing more of Neverwinter Nights 2 in action. The graphics sure doesn't blow you away, that's for sure. But I'm equally sure the atmosphere and story will do that anyhow.

 

http://www.gametrailers.com/gamepage.php?fs=1&id=2403

 

Oh, and I suspect that Tim Donley's eyebrows are trying to take over the world

 

Obey me, underlings!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He looks like a mean wizard, would be a cool portrait.

The interior environments look quite slick, for example in the scene where the guy in metal armor is running with a huge axe. People seem to run with really funny animations in this game though.

I thought the interiors were v. good: it was difficult to tell they were tiles!

Don't run with sharp objects!

The interior environments look quite slick, for example in the scene where the guy in metal armor is running with a huge axe.

 

I agree. I was impressed how his shadow moved around him as he ran past the torch.

 

The more I see of this game, the more I like. I just wish I wasnt such a n00b on the rules.

 

EDIT: Yeah, Donely needs to see someone about those brows. Ay carumba!

Edited October 20, 200619 yr by Gfted1