Plays a paladin

>Plays a paladin
>Swears in character

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=ebGOhAGFC4M
youtube.com/watch?v=tNBFLZxSQZg
twitter.com/AnonBabble

> Not playing Sir Gilles de La Tourette, paladin of Coprolalia.

Hey, it's not against the law to tell a heretic to go fuck themselves.

> Not swearing politely.

Lawful good does not mean lawful nice. If their patron god is known to curse up a literal storm I'd say their clergy would be free, nay encouraged, to do so as well.

>Plays a thief
>Doesn't steal at every opportunity

>Plays a fighter
>Stops fighting

So long as the paladin isn't taking his Lord's name in vain it should be fine

>Plays a monk
>Eats a bacon cheeseburger

1) Paladins in a fantasy setting are not implicitly bound to the behaviors of IRL Christian knights. Who, by the way, often acted far differently than most media portrayals

2) Have you ever seen cops or firefighters interact with each other? They're some of the most foul-mouthed and sardonic people you'll ever meet. Given paladins have a similar job, it makes sense to me they'd act like that too.

I always resented this notion that Paladins and Clerics must be blushing, stuttering, 2pure4u anime characters who freak out the moment someone says "penis".

>plays an elf
>Isn't constantly sucking cocks

>plays a wizard
>has a sense of right and wrong

>plays and Arbites
>doesn't crack down on every single infraction the rest of the war-band commits.

>plays a ranger
>doesn't hunt daily and shit in holes

I'd be more appalled by a paladin that never swears at all. How can you be a paladin if you can't even swear an oath?

>plays a monk
>isn't sitting underneath a tree starving himself

>Playing a paladin
>Uses only swear words from the Bible like Hell, damn, ass, whore, and Leviticus

...

>plays D&D
pleb

You don't really understand what's happening here, do you?

How else are they going to swear an oath if they don't swear?

>Plays a druid
>Talks about something other than trees
>Isn't smoking weed

>Go to a party at a Friend of a Friend's place
>Get introduced to FoF's girlfriend
>D&D gets brought up
>Her: "I play a Chaotic Evil Paladin!"

>plays a warlock
>isn't summoning a voidwalker

>play in a session
>doesn't come back

>he plays paladin without swearing an oath IC

except cops and firefighters don't defend anything good or worthy.

Okay, I understand your statement regarding cops, but firefighters? Do you hate buildings?

...

That's for when your fighter is having an existential crisis

>People’s homes and properties
>The woods
>not good things

>corrupt government
>prison industrial complex
>corporate interests
>government + capitalism in an incestuous orgy of death

that would be because of all the places where firefighters either refuse to help people who aren't wealthy enough to pay for their "public" services or prioritise the fires that effect the wealthy.

Do... do you live in Rome under Crassus or something?

>God wants to smite people and turn their works to rubble
>Evil firefighters try to prevent this

It all makes sense now

Heretical Knight? idk

>is proletariat
>stops working

>knight
>no steed

What manner of duplicity is this?

where the fuck do you live? Africa?

>he isn't a knight with his own spaceship.

>That moment when the party reaches town and the fighter has to choose between fighting all the wolves and shit outside of the walls or going inside and fighting everyone including the questgiver

Last time I tried that the psyker lit me on fire

Don't make yourself an enemy of the team.

This is a thing in parts of America where firefighters aren't funded by taxes.

Oh I get it you're retarded.

Fuck off and let the adults talk

Paladin ≠ Puritan. You can be a paragon of kindness, compassion, and good deeds while swearing as much as anyone else.

>people should risk their lives to save you from your own stupidity
>these people should not be able to receive financial compensation
>you're not responsible for your own safety
Buy a fire extinguisher, faggot

sure, maybe you don't believe firefighters should be a public service, but if you do believe that then they're just contractors and not the equivalent of paladins.

If anyone's wondering why the US lags behind other first-world countries, it's because a large part of our population thinks like this.

I am not sure if you are arguing the '''Libertarian''' point of view or a sane point of view here.

general profanities, are fine
taking God's name in vain is not

youtube.com/watch?v=ebGOhAGFC4M

It seems like it's a mixture of both in that
A) Public services for the good of the public should be funded, founded in the statement:
>these people should not be able to receive financial compensation
Implying they should, in order to be a part of the public they're deemed to serve.
B) If you don't have access to such a public service you are responsible for your own safety and should not deem others beholden to save you from mistakes made of your own, by happen chance or not.
>you're not responsible for your own safety
Taking it as sarcastic.

Bitch, if you lived far enough into the sticks that firefighters arent a public service, youd u derstand what the fuck i just said. Firefighters in rural areas arent paid by taxes because they couldnt AFFORD to be paid by taxes. When ypu have a 500 square mile area with a population of 5,000, every single person in the county giving that fire department 1 dollar a month doesnt cut it. Not to mention, if your shit is burning down and you dont at least TRY to deal with it, you're already dead. Average response time is more than 15 minutes out here in "fuck off my property" land.

As is, you're an over indoctrinated, under educated city folk blowing hot air out his ass. You'd call the cops over a bear in your backyard.

>Deep South American country hick who doesn't like big gubmint, is self-sufficient, looks down on city folk and probably owns a gun and has a southern drawl too
Please be a girl.
Please be cute.
This is my fetish.

Yeah, it really seems almost like a character that poster is playing.
I can't for the live of me figure out how you'd argue against it.

And really doesn't help, either. This has to be bait, right?

(And, as a side note, are volunteer firefighters not a thing in america?)

What this user said.
Are you cute, user?

>volunteer firefighters
Help someone? For free? Are you some sort of socialist leftist commie?

Like most public services education is underfunded in America
So it's impossible to tell whether the poster is baiting or just standard burger intelligence

God damn America is scary big.
In other countries in the first world you're never very far away from a major population centre, America can have situations where your tiny village is like an hour or more away from any other PERSON, let alone a big town or something.
Manifest Destiny was a hell of a drug.

I played a Paladin who was a foul mouthed boozehound of a manwhore, who competed in bum-fights as a hobby.
Remember, all is fair game as long as it does not violate your oath.

>are volunteer firefighters not a thing in america?

They are, but they're becoming less and less relevant as the years go on, at least in places where huge wildfires aren't a concern.

Buildings don't burn down that often anymore. Like 80% of what firefighters do now is paramedic calls. And if someone's put in all that work to get a medic cert and wants to do firefighting too, then they're probably full time firefighters

Here in NZ our fire service renamed itself to Fire and Emergency because they spend more time prying people out of cars and collapsed buildings than fighting fires.

American here, volunteer firefighters are a thing and can be quite common. The problem that America has is that we have so much land parts of our population become very stretched and sometimes, like has pointed out, two problems arise. Not enough of the local populace volunteers to be firefighters and/or the local funding for such a service is minimal and doesn't allow for a wide employment option. This leads to decreased response times in conjunction with having to drive large distances for some of the more out of the way houses.
In the end, it really isn't bait. It falls to both a personal responsibility and communal effort, which is why I broke down the statement as I did:

...

Its a utilitarian point of view stemming from self reliance as necesity. Even IF firefighters were capable of being funded through taxes in rural counties, the nature of living inna woods means you rely on yourself. The hospital is 45 minutes away by road, 30 minutes by chopper (gunna take them 20 to respond). Fire crews are a solid 30 minutes out. If you cant handle emergency situations on your own, you either need to move or you will die. Not everyone is capable of living this way. This is fine. I can, i enjoy it. I like the seclusion, shooting guns off my back porch, hunting deer on my own property.

I cant wait to get out of the city and back to innawoods living

>doesnt like big gubmint
Handle roads, taxes, schools, and the military. Fuck off of everything else
>looks down on city folk
They're alright, little ditsy. Bit rude, but damn useful.
>owns a gun
A gun! pfff "A" is an insuficient article
>southern drawl
My granddaddy is from oklahoma. I moved back to oklahoma from northern california mountains. Its a mix of valley and okie, gets drawley when i get loud.
>cute
As a button
>girl
5/6 aint bad. I have a great ass.

Who else thought at first that OP was talking about the paladin swearing an oath and not, well, swearing?

Volunteer firefighters are great people. They risk their lives to rescue others. Honest to god heroes. Thats why it infuriates me when people take them for granted and say stupid shit like , expecting people to have a MORAL OBLIGATION to rescue retards from their own problems.

Its not evil to not put your life on the line for a complete stranger that lives 30 miles away.

You are now my favorite user, HopefullyAGirlAnon

>People don't have a moral obligation to do good things
Atheism is a scourge on society

>moral absolutism
>believing anything that isnt heroic is inherently evil
Show me the "thou shalt put yourself in peril" comandment, faggot. Hoe do you manage to start your car on that many levels of moral ineptitude?

Im glad im someone's favorite
t. Definitely not a girl, but knows how to suck like oneanon

>God damn America is scary big.
Yeah. With the exception of the West Coast and everything East of the Mississipi it's practically empty.

Life is best in the grey areas. I honestly feel bad that Europeans will never know the joy of private land. Not as in owning your own house, but land that is private. Living space so great that ypu could build a castle and wander the woods naked and never be bothered.

>trying this hard to justify being immoral trash

Why is mental illness so prevalent among leftists?

Swearing is perfectly normal and healthy there is no reason why a paladin would not do it

>hopefully a girl
Now now user, let's not get hasty
As long as it's cute it's quality

>John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.
>Romans 15:1 We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak and not to please ourselves.
Christianity is pretty big on self sacrifice and helping the poor.

I'm a christian anarchist, the other guy is probably some right-wing libertarian amerifat
He might even be a "christian" who's part of a church which refuses to help the poor

But as i see it even for the 5k pop/ 500 sqr mi example given it could work if its planned out well and not pathetically underfunded, and that's assuming it's done at the lowest level.

If this where funded an organized on a state level it would be no problem, but >EvilGovernment so it won't happen.
Oklahoma has 3.9 million inhabitants. If on average everyone only payed 1$ of 'firefighter tax' a month that's 46 million a year. The average firefighter makes around 45k/year, and lets say with overhead it's something like 60k/year.
If we assume that the salaries are just 1/5 of the whole budget that's 9.4 mil or 156 thousand potential firefighters.
Oklahoma has 70k sq mi of land, meaning each full-time firefighter has less then half a square mile to 'guard'.
If the fire stations where spread equally and maned by crews of 15 professionals with no volunteers (both tall assumptions) we are still have an effective area of 6.7 sq mi, or under 2.6 miles direct line, so maybe 4 by road at the very edge.

>Atheism has literally anything to do with morals
Well there's your first mistake.
>Theists are moral people
Yep, the Middle East is looking lovely this time of year. Prisons too, a VAST majority of those are religious.

>Living space so great that ypu could build a castle and wander the woods naked and never be bothered.
Reminds me of a greentext.
youtube.com/watch?v=tNBFLZxSQZg

I'm kinda jelly to be honest, America has both huge cities and large stretches of wild, truly untamed nature and ancient forests that you can't really find in Europe outside Scandinavia and the Baltic state. On the other hand, living miles away from the nearest human being sounds like it would suck. I imagine it gets awfully lonely, and having to drive a significant distance just to get a bottle of milk rather than going for a walk to the local supermarket sounds shitty too.

>to lay down one's life for one's friends
>for one's friends
>FRIENDS
You really think random strangers are your friends?
>bear with the failings of the week
>he thinks "bear with" means risk your life
Adjust yourself.
>christiant anarchist
>christians
>live by a strict set of edicts and comandments
>anarchists
>living without rule of law
Yfw

As someone who was born in the country and then moved to the city, let me tell you something.

The country sucks. It's absolutely awful to be that isolated from the rest of society. Sure, you can go out into the woods and basically do whatever you want because there is no one else around. But I'm gonna be real blunt: that's not all that interesting.

If you're in a city and not dirt poor, it's so much better. You can do so much more, you can experience so much more. You're able to build a sense of community that you're really not able to when your nearest neighbor lives miles and miles away.

Now I mention not being dirt poor because being poor in a city is an actual nightmare. Everywhere you turn there is someone trying to nickle and dime you out of more and more of your wages, until you bottom out.

The problem here is you assume firefighters are distributed evenly and have an even work load. Oklahoma city has several fire stations because firefighters dont just respond to fires. They respond to any incident resulting in grievous injury. Ambulances are not equipped to pull people from wrecked cars or get people out of collapsing buildings. Cities require a much greater firefighter force.

Firefighters are also paid from state and county/city taxes. You csnt just pool all of oklahoma's taxes because tulsa isnt going to pay oklahoma city's firefighters.

>the country sucked
>he didnt ride four wheelers
>he didnt build gigantic snow forts
>he didnt hunt with his pa
>he didnt run with his dogs out into virgin forests
The city suits you. Dont come back.

>implying
>he doesnt realize im also hopefullyagirlanon
Rip.

>anarchism
>noun
>belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.

Atheists who have not studied ethics tend towards naïve moral relativism.

>without recourse to force or compulsion.
"Do this or burn in hell" counts as compulsion.

>he thinks religion isnt a form of government
Pay your taxes (tithes), listen to your representatives (priests), follow your laws (commandments). Stay plebtier.

Yeah, i know it's not perfect, but it's just some back of the napkin maths to illustrate that it's not even a problem of money, but assholes and ineffectiveness

>tulsa isnt going to pay oklahoma city's firefighters.
...and that's the crux of the problem.

Free of compulsion means free of compulsion from society
In an anarchist society you are free to go to hell for sinning in the same way you are free to starve if you refuse to eat

You're confusing religion with organised religion

>Athiests are moral relativists
Even if that's the case, that's not BECAUSE they're atheists, that's because they're moral relativists, correlation isn't causation.

I'd also contend that that's the case. An atheist might be a moral relativist in the sense of "Your ethics are determined by your culture", but it doesn't follow that "Therefore I can have no moral standing." If I was born in Saudia Arabia I'd probably find homosexuality immoral; but I wasn't, and thus don't find homosexuality immoral for what I believe are good reasons, and thus don't want homosexuals thrown off rooftops.
I find that most atheists tend toward some kind of "live and let live" type approach. If it isn't hurting anyone else or restricting their freedoms, go for it, unless you need to do that to stop people doing either of those two things.
You can look up stats on where American atheists fall on moral issues if you'd like, there's a good amount of data out there, maybe you agree with the majority of them more than you think?

Oh yeah, fuck god, man! It's so mean of him to tell us to do stupid shit like "tell the truth" and "don't covet other people's stuff." It's totally God's fault when I ignore all those rules and make my life miserable, too!

>Even if that's the case, that's not BECAUSE they're atheists, that's because they're moral relativists, correlation isn't causation.
In a way it is because they're atheists, if we presume that user meant materialist atheists in particular (so not stuff like platonists... I think taoists are technically atheists too?).

>If I was born in Saudia Arabia I'd probably find homosexuality immoral; but I wasn't, and thus don't find homosexuality immoral for what I believe are good reasons, and thus don't want homosexuals thrown off rooftops.
You actually express the key problem of morality without a meta-ethical foundation.
>and thus don't want homosexuals thrown off rooftops
Yet the Saudi's do. This is a discussion of wanting vs not wanting, which means moral quandries are reduced to the same level as a discussion about your favorite ice cream flavor. I like strawberry, you like pistachio, which one of us is right? A meta-ethical foundation may perhaps not directly prove which one of you is right, but it at least means it's possible for someone to be right. In the absence of such a foundation nobody is right. At best you can arrive at intersubjective morality, which is a measure anthropologists use if I'm not mistaken. It basically means you can only judge one's actions by the standards of his own society, meaning that Saudi's who push homosexuals off rooftops do nothing wrong by the standards of their own culture. I really hate to go full Godwin here, but it also means Hitler did nothing wrong.

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)

“This is what the Lord Almighty says... ‘Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1 Samuel 15:3)

“In the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.” (Romans 1:27)

“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)

The Bible has some pretty fuckin' shitty moral lessons that apparently come from God.
It has some good ones too, don't get me wrong, but that's kind of my point.

You can find in the Bible passages and arguments to support any kind of lifestyle you like. Martin Luther King Jr used the Bible as inspiration and was by most accounts a pretty upstanding guy. But the slavers who would have considered him property because of the colour of his skin 100 years prior would also have pointed to the Bible as their justification.

Religious people are found on all sides of the socio-political spectrum, meaning that each of them can pull what they wish from their holy book. Unless everyone who does things you don't agree with isn't a True Scotsman, of course.

>defending the woods
>saying it like it's a good thing
Those ash trees are finally going to live up to their name!
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

>be nigger
>shoot firefighters and ambulances
>cry "raysism" when they stop coming to your ghetto

Who are you going to play traditional games with once you're living innawoods?

Squeak squeaker squeaken.

Depends on how you define atheism. It just means "a lack of belief in a god", so some Buddhists could count as Atheists as well.

>spoiler
It's fine, I getcha, he's an easy example for a reason.

I think there can be atheistic basis for morality. Human empathy, for example - what causes pain to people who are not harming or seeking to harm another is not an ethical thing to do.
I do not want homosexuals thrown of rooftops because I find it immoral, and I find it immoral because it conflicts with the basic morality I have of not causing people pain and suffering. Therein is my basis for my ethical view on the killing of homosexuals; you are causing harm to a person for something that does not inflict harm upon you and infringing on their freedom to live.

I have a very slight smattering of ethics education, so I think the thing I'm describing is a way more rambly and less thought out version of John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism. Based upon my ability to understand pain and pleasure, I can confer that anything that causes harm to others is a pain to be avoided and be declared immoral, and anything that causes pleasure to another is to be endorsed and called moral. Then it's about ordering the importance of various factors as stated by the empathy I've been given to understand society - the pain of causing harm to another is given greater precedence than the pleasure of a group of sadists who would enjoy causing it, and the higher pleasure of liberty and debate is more important to the pain of hurt feelings, for example, and the safety and protection of others may warrant taking away the liberties and causing harm to a criminal by imprisoning them.

I suppose one could say that empathy itself is relativistic, but I think it's more that empathy can be over-written by things like greed and tribalism. To lose one's empathy for another is to act immorally by definition because one is ignoring the basis of morality.