Posted by Gachricar on August 9, 2000 at 05:35:44:
In Reply to: Couple questions on law, cities, paladins, interpretations, etc... posted by Smirk on August 8, 2000 at 20:56:58:
It's not "can even" or "sometimes must". The Arbiter cabal is supposed to have three Lords, one of each alignment, for the purpose of interpertation of the Law. The fact that there isn't one (an evil Lord) right now simply suggests that the winning combination of "Immortals liking the Arbiter" with "Arbiter wanting the job" hasn't been found yet. As for the rest of the points, does it define, anywhere in the Code, what is "evil"? For an Arbiter paladin, perhaps, being a criminal is simply another taint on someone's soul. Therefor an elven criminal should be "cleansed" through death. Plus, take into account that the paladin banner from the Academy is ancient compared to the Code, and more importantly is pre-revamp. I am no Immortal, nor am I a paladin, but I would certainly say that, in my opinion, the Code supercedes that banner. If you keep taking that "at all costs" stuff to the extreme you're doing so, you'll wind up with paladins consorting with Empire shamans just so they have a chance at killing an Imperial anti-paladin. Darsyolnian law-enforcement... sure, work that into your role if you want. But remember, laws normally only apply to the land their creator rules. Hence, if you're outside of Darsylon you can kill any drow you want, but be prepared that the Arbiters are going to tell you to stuff your "no drow" law down your pants and rotate. As an aside, that banner seems to be geared towards a Maran-esque attitude. There are MANY other succesful paladin roles in the game (Selric, Bria, Balgrimnr, etc) that would not necessarily "destroy evil at any cost", in my mind. Going to that sort of extreme, for some roles, would be evil in and of itself.