In playing my Tormite cleric, I'm OOCly shocked at how many characters have taken to lecturing my fella about what worshippers of Torm should and shouldn't do. And seemingly wrong about it to boot, unless I'm flat wrong which is why I rang...

I've researched the dogma of Torm fairly thoroughly (for me at least) and he's the war arm of Tyr. The Loyal Fury. The take I get is that he is the patron of Clint Eastwood, Chuck Norris and John Wayne. Ride into town, take names of the local baddies, kick ass and tip your hat when it's over. Even old testament style - "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth". I will make the disclaimer that this part of the dogma applies to lawless areas like Lower or the Underdark, and that a Tormite will support the law and law enforcement handling things if possible.

There have been at least four characters that have acted like Tormites are supposed to turn the other cheek when they get insulted and such. That they avoid arguments and altercations with characters that are clearly evil, thugs or both.

I'm wondering where this comes from, and am more puzzled by these IG reactions than anything. I don't mind handling it ICly, but just interested in getting some discussion about it. I realize that different people interpret things differently, but just not getting this smile and love your enemy take for Tormites.

People often confound 'good' alignment with 'saint'.

It has nothing to do with OOC, but the IC opinions of these PC's. My Tormtar thinks its just common sense, and being smart. What do you gain from attacking others or dueling them over insults? Basically nothing but agreeing with those who insult you that your god's or your own honor and dignity is decided on physical strength and that if they win, they're better then you or your god.

Tormites do not have to avoid arguments or anything, but I just believe that fighting back achieves nothing at all, sure Tormites are dedicated to smiting evil and all, but they need do not need to be foolish or stupid. Its not called being nice or loving to your enemies by turning the other cheek, its just avoiding dropping to the same level of your enemies.

Feel free to play your character as you want though, this is just an opinion, every character have their weaknesses. :D

I will let the Faiths and Pantheons speak for me first:

Salvation may be found through service. Every failure of duty diminishes Torm and every success adds to his luster. Strive to maintain law and order. Obey your masters with alert judgment and anticipation. Stand ever alert against corruption. Strike quickly and forcefully against rot in the hearts of mortals. Bring painful, quick death to traitors. Question unjust laws by suggesting improvement or alternatives, not additional laws. Your fourfold duties are to faith, family, masters, and all good beings of Faerun. (Dogma of Torm, p.74)

The key lines for me here are - "Strive to maintain law and order" and "Question unjust laws by suggesting improvements or alternatives, not additional laws". Yes Tormites have a strong desire to smite evil. But they have an equally strong compulsion to obey the law. Followers of Hoar may well seek justice that ignored the letter of the law, but followers of Torm would be unlikely to. While they may ride into town and record bad guy names, Eastwood style, they will have to then wait until they find the evil doer actually breaking the law before they can act. Even then the local laws usually dictate arrest and trial, not execution on the spot, so the Tormite will be compelled to haul them up before a court. If the criminal was then let off due to unjust laws (and a specific follower of Torm might think not being allowed to strike down evil people in the street immediately is unjust) then s/he would "suggest improvements or alternatives". S/he would certainly not throw law to the wind and smite the evil doer anyway.

I think Paladins are hard to play, especially the followers of legal code, like Tyr and Torm. Of all the religious, they are most often going to be torn between doing the right, or just thing, and doing the legal thing. But this conflict is not an excuse to damn the law and smite evil. Eastwood, Norris and Wayne are usually playing chaotic good characters. They will kill bad guys and the law be damned. Neither clerics nor paladins of Torm can be chaotic.

The question then arises, what would your average Tormite follower do when in lower, with its limited laws? In there devotion to law and duty, I submit your average follower would not let down their hair and rain death to the evildoers in the streets. They don't feel constrained by law, they believe it to be the best way to bring justice and good into the world. They are most likely to act as though there local laws applied, and act within those constraints.

As to turning the cheek to insults from other players, evil or otherwise, the best response would be to apply the local law. With Sanctuary in different pieces, IG I would learn the laws regarding insults in each area. Very few laws anywhere, at any time, have allowed people to physically attack someone who just insults them.

Good stuff Icy.

I'm not suggesting that I think it's a good Tormie who walks around Lower killing baddies while laughing merrily, nor should one physically attack everyone who insults the Tormie or his god.

But I'll add this to the stew, and will stipulate that the Tormish and Tyrran dogmas are fairly similar, with Tyr being the judge and Torm the executioner from my POV.

This is pretty consistent in most of the Torm/Tyr stuff I've found.

Clerics of Tyr bring law to lawless lands, often serving as judge, jury, and executioner. Without a civilized legal code with which to guide their judgments, they often default to a doctrine roughly equivalent to "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." However, Tyrrans prefer to err on the side of mercy, and frequently commute otherwise harsh sentences for cases in which the offender was ignorant of any wrongdoing. Such criminals usually find their names recorded in the cleric's Book of Lawgiving, which is then shared with the nearest temples to prevent that perpetrator repeating the offense and getting off lightly

What's good about this is that I've just thought of a likely action my PC will take that incorporates the above info.

And yes Wern, Beef does have a bit of a temper - it's a red hair THANG. He's working on it. :D

On a related note, apparently there was once a character named Geoffrey Wellington on CoA? I had no knowledge of that, having only briefly visited there so it was complete coincidence.

Give tyrus some evil points for the wanton slaying of kobolds in lower Sanctuary, he deserves it!

...

...

*looks at the topic, then back at Gwydion, and back to the topic again.*

...

*holds up an index finger in the universal sign for "Hang on a sec".*

^ | | |

https://efupw.com/efu1-forum/topic/24/24192/moved/index.html#post-92389

lovethesuit, this is the funniest post I've ever read :shock: :D

Anyway, from the above arguments I, yet again, have to stress out that Law and Chaos don't mean lawful and unlawful, respectively, behaviour.

A Lawful Good character might attack the corrupt Watchman who is molesting a woman in a shady ally. A Chaotic Good character might shrug, as it's not his fight and will hope the Watchman sees the error of his ways.

What you are all confusing is that the Paladin Code is similar to Lawful Good, which is not at all. As long as this mistake remains, questions like these will arise. It's perfectly fine, bar Dogma, to kick freaking ass as a Lawful Good character, in the middle of the streets, take the booze and the women, and kill anyone who does evil on the spot.

Take a historical referance here, Torm's dogma is the defense of laws that are just and the removal of unjust ones in favor of better ones, such as was the ideal of the Knights Hospitlar for the large part during the time of the crusades. I played a Tormite priest many moons ago that tempered his need to see that fairness was put before other concerns such as just spanking evil because it made some nasty comments about people. Sir Wellington is an interesting character for a more proactive Torm worshipper and your doing a good job. The whole point of Dogma is its an open book people can view in what way best serves their skill and opinions. CLassic examples would b to draw on the differances in knightly orders from history (Templars and Hospitlars being a perfect example of this). Where some might look to crush the evil for its acts others might think it best to repair the damage thay have done and work to give the people strenght to fight that evil themselves giving it no place in their lives. All said keep up the good work Gwydion

If someone takes to lecture your character IC, then it should be dealt with IC. You could always walk away, and thus stop the lecture. Or, if, as a cleric you feel the need to help them change their views by actually teaching the dogma of Torm in the streets, that would go along with your character class too.

Coldburn Anyway, from the above arguments I, yet again, have to stress out that Law and Chaos don't mean lawful and unlawful, respectively, behaviour.

A Lawful Good character might attack the corrupt Watchman who is molesting a woman in a shady ally.

The "corrupt" part demonstrates the Watchman is no longer upholding the law, but his own perverse interests. Hence, defending the woman is actually lawful. Also, protecting the woman is good. Hence, the paladin is being LAWFUL GOOD in this situation.

A Chaotic Good character might shrug, as it's not his fight and will hope the Watchman sees the error of his ways.

Except, that this is not a Good character but a neutral or evil character. A Good character will defend innocent people.

What you are all confusing is that the Paladin Code is similar to Lawful Good, which is not at all. As long as this mistake remains, questions like these will arise. It's perfectly fine, bar Dogma, to kick freaking ass as a Lawful Good character, in the middle of the streets, take the booze and the women, and kill anyone who does evil on the spot.

That is not lawful behavior, that is chaotic evil behavior.

The big problem is that most people don't sit down to consider some big issues before playing paladins or discussing alignment.

First big issue missed: What do the words in my alignment mean?

Good/Evil is the crux of the morality debate. It is a hard cored rule though in the DnD universe, there is no shade of gray. Good morals are good, evil ones are evil. Drow, kobolds etc are naturally born evil and the exceptions are something akin to a miracle because a god/goddess chose to let them live. Murder is evil, charity is good, work is good, sloth is evil. Seven deadly sins==evils.

Lawful/Choatic is the basis of ethics. Lying is unethical when done to gain personal advantage, upholding the law of the land provided it is just is ethical, defending your personal honor from slights is ethical, avoiding slights to your honor, or the honor of your god is unethical if these slights have the ability to seriously taint your or your god's reputation in the eyes of people.

Second people forget paladins are both lawful and good. Far too often people play them as one or the other and forget to really stop and look at both aspects of their alignment coupled with their dogma.

Paladins tend to duel. Because they are the strong arm of their church, if evil is running amuck, mocking their faith, bullying innocent people--they'll face the evil. They're far less likely to gang up and beat evil to a pulp in an unfair fight, or a fight in the streets that can harm innocent people, but quite likely to either challenge a foe to a duel or strike him down in the process of committing an evil act.

Paladins that refuse to defend their honor, or hide like baby cowards because their player doesn't think might defends the right need to pick up a copy of The Once and Future King. The paladin class is based on legends of King Arthur and Charlemagne--many of those legends involve knights dying in what appeared to be senseless duels against evil foes who were far stronger for no better reason than because they had been insulted.

Gwydion ...I've researched the dogma of Torm fairly thoroughly (for me at least) and he's the war arm of Tyr. The Loyal Fury. The take I get is that he is the patron of Clint Eastwood, Chuck Norris and John Wayne. Ride into town, take names of the local baddies, kick ass and tip your hat when it's over. Even old testament style - "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth"...

Chuck Norris knows no patron deity. He is a patron deity.

Paladins that refuse to defend their honor, or hide like baby cowards because their player doesn't think might defends the right need to pick up a copy of The Once and Future King. The paladin class is based on legends of King Arthur and Charlemagne--many of those legends involve knights dying in what appeared to be senseless duels against evil foes who were far stronger for no better reason than because they had been insulted.

weren't the knights templer known from being impetous and reckless in battle? It was the other orders such as the knights of st john etc who where more disicplined i believe..but hey, im being picky :D ...or im talking out me arse....again... :?

Nero24200

Paladins that refuse to defend their honor, or hide like baby cowards because their player doesn't think might defends the right need to pick up a copy of The Once and Future King. The paladin class is based on legends of King Arthur and Charlemagne--many of those legends involve knights dying in what appeared to be senseless duels against evil foes who were far stronger for no better reason than because they had been insulted.

Dying pointless won't stop the evil from running amok. And since most paladins have good Wisdoms score, they would probably realise this. I always saw paladins being based more on Knights Templar. To the best of my knowledge, King Arthur didn't use god's name in any of his battlecrys, but the paladin class is supposed to be a knight in the service of a deity.

This says a lot about how you play paladins and I think bolsters my point.

Using "God" in your battle cry doesn't qualify you as a "holy warrior" so why would Arthur--a knight on a god given quest--need to yell "By God!" ran into battle? (Rhetorical.)

The point of a paladin is not to "stop evil from running amok" solely. A major aspect is to serve as a beacon and guide for other goodly forces as well.

If your church, faith, and honor are all tainted by a foe's insults and challenges and you refuse to fight him--you disgrace what you stand for and prove that it means very little to you.

If you fight to defend these things, but die--then you served as an example for other goodly warriors to stand up and defend truth, faith, and honor even at the ultimate sacrifice. You should have enough faith to believe that even if you fall in death defending the core of your faith, honor, and church--that your god will send more brave souls until the worthy one arrives to triumph.

Now, YOU as a player may think the death is worthless, but a paladin with strong faith will never accept his death is "pointless" if it was the result of battling against evil and defending good while serving as a grand example of a holy warrior unafraid to pit himself against even overwhelming odds when it was necessary to save lives, or defend his honor/faith/church.

I think the inability of people to recognize this accounts for the existence of a number of failed paladins.

I believe defending or not defending your god's honor through physical means for a Paladin is a personal choice.

It is neither wrong or right to do so, but I think its much more strategically smarter not to do so because by defending your honor or your deity's honor over mere words and through physical means you are basically stating that words can and does bring your god's honor down or that physical might equals moral right.

Typically too the people who insult the Paladin's god wants the Paladin to duel them in return and normally if the Paladins lose, everyone else will likely view their god or their selves as wrong even though in truth they were the right.

I'm not saying that Paladins should be soft, of course not, they are still Holy Warriors, but I think they should spend time on fighting evil, the real evil, not the ones that merely insults. Also dying or getting defeated over words seem reckless and stupid to me, but again it is up to the Paladin's own choice.

Whatever the evil or corrupt people could say, the Paladin's deity is still far better and far more just then they are, victory in dueling or not.

Anyway I have played paladins that duel over insults too, it makes for fun experiences, there should always be paladins that do so, but what I'm trying to say is, it is just wrong for anyone to say that paladins who do not defend their god's honor through physical means are not doing their job. :D

You just inferred that Paladins are right, always.

Not true!

Paladin of Eldath.

If you fight to defend these things, but die--then you served as an example for other goodly warriors to stand up and defend truth, faith, and honor even at the ultimate sacrifice. You should have enough faith to believe that even if you fall in death defending the core of your faith, honor, and church--that your god will send more brave souls until the worthy one arrives to triumph.

Now, YOU as a player may think the death is worthless, but a paladin with strong faith will never accept his death is "pointless" if it was the result of battling against evil and defending good while serving as a grand example of a holy warrior unafraid to pit himself against even overwhelming odds when it was necessary to save lives, or defend his honor/faith/church.

I think the inability of people to recognize this accounts for the existence of a number of failed paladins.

As as a DM once said to me, if they're evil, how do you know they can be trusted in any way? If you die for a cause at thier blade, whats to stop them telling others differently? That you were the aggressor, that they defending innocents from your blade or such.

You should know this well Oroborous, since a character you played once killed a paladin claiming him to be the aggressor, though other IC sources has lead others to believe otherwise.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of "You insulted me/somthing dear to me, lets head to the arena!" There are plenty of other alternatives.

This is getting out of order now and has just turned into a rant about how to play a paladin. Its all the more stupid because the bloke that started this thread plays a Cleric who is just looking to express a valid point. If you want to get technical look back to the designers notes for paladins from their first inclusion in roleplay games (not just DnD) where the idea is that of the typical knight of a cause or god. He is the bastion of honour and good intent, King Arthurs knights fit this bill as do most of the knightly orders through-out history. But even then look at those people and you see the great range thay can have in personal ideals. Lancalot tried to steel his kings wife yet was a man of honour. DnD in particular Forgotten Realms makes things a touch easier when it comes to paladins as thay are the holy warriors of a god and as such like the clerics are charged with upholding that gods ideals and dogma but so many

Kenny is right, but it's fascinating stuff. I post stuff in here and in the Suggestions forum to get people to think, or hopefully explain what they think in a mature, polite tone.

That seems to have been accomplished.

Beggar, my character has told others that they don't know what they are talking about, and also engaged in a philosophical debate about the Tormish faith. Handling it IG is not a problem, nor have players been rude/annoying about it at all.

The reason I called was to strengthen my OOC knowledge about the Tormish faith, and to try to see why so many players' OOC opinion was causing their character to attempt to inform a priest his understanding of his own god's dogma was incorrect. Basically, "Am I missing something here?".

I can't imagine a construction worker walking up to a priest of minister of any faith and confidently telling them that their preachings are wrong.

This topic has indeed mutated into how to play a LG pally, so maybe this should be locked.

AND - for the suggestion forum - maybe the DMs or an enterprising player could put together an OOC locked thread about some suggestions on how to play paladins of different patrons. Bare bones stuff, but a good starter point. I'd wager the DMs have had to explain pally stuff LOTS of times to frustrated/confused/angry players, no?