You're clearly misconstruing what I've said. Read my earlier posts in this thread.
You're clearly misconstruing what I've said. Read my earlier posts in this thread.
Okay, it would be clearer if I didn't have to reread the whole thread every time you post.
You're saying it would violate the paladin's code to then destroy the altar?
It's against his code of conduct to urinate on it while doing so, or to perform additional degradation beyond saving the sacrifice-ee and rendering the altar unusable. Being good and honorable does preclude such behavior IMO.
This is also a different situation, entirely, from a city or other social construct where the temple is operating legally and largely benignly in a non-evil society. A paladin must, by his code, respect the right of other faiths to practice in a lawful manner; it's kindof, I dunno, part of their point.
After all, if the asmodeans arent actively conducting evil (as most lawful societies will require) they're on the slippery slope that leads right into neutrality and mostly benign self servingness.
Buri, Irontruth, play nice or you both get a time out.
Is it an evil act? Simply put: yes and no.
"It came up." severely lacks something called context.
Allow me to provide context.
Yes
The PCs arrive in Cheliax. Being of noble bearing and pure of heart the Paladin of Iomidae strides into the first Pact Hall of Asmodeus and in her gods name pushes around the Pact Maker and decrees that the temple and all it stands for is an afront to the decent folk of the world.
She proceeds to wreck the place, consecrate the place and 'purge' it of evil. The act itself is not ground breakingly 'evil', but the Paladin was in the wrong and has violated her code of ethics. The temple wasn't guilty of anything but being a temple and, to the Paladin's knowledge, wasn't hurting anyone. All gods reserve their right for worship and she encroached upon those rights and engaged in prideful and malicious destruction.
Being evil is not a crime. Evil acts are. The church is doing nothing wrong simply by existing.
The Paladin would lose her status, because that's not the sort of way Iomidae likes for her people to handle things. If that Pally decided to relieve him/herself while doing so then the other PCs simply abandon the toddler and decide to move on to 'grown up games'.
No
After a harrowing adventure the PCs find the cause of a disease that's been ravaging the countryside. After witnessing the horrors wrought be "Tickle Pickle Fever", where people turn purple and bite each other on the butt while shouting 'g'nap!', spreading the disease instantly, they discover a wily gnome priest of Urgathoa who's still, unfortunately, trapped in the 80's.
They win the day and defeat the wily gnome, consequently destroying his alter to Urgathoa and consecrating the place. Did the gnome reserve the right to worship Urgathoa? Most certainly, but that right ended the moment he unleashed "Tickle Pickle Fever" upon the helpless populace. Since the alter was used in evil acts that the PCs themselves had evidence of and could trace back to the gnome, consecrating the alter is considered part of helping the good people of the community.
While my example is tongue in cheek, the point should get across. Good people are not judge, jury, and executioner. In fact, in most cases if the church is caught committing evil acts, they don't burn down the church... they blame the staff. Even in an evil church where evil is okay, the higher ups blame the staff (they shouldn't have gotten caught) and call it an 'isolated innocent'. The faith lives on, palms are greased with gold, a new staff arrives, and the church goes on doing its thing.
Use some common sense and remember, context is very important when deciding if things are good or evil.
Play nice? I simply said to read what I said. That is a reasonable request. Do the same, sir. Don't talk down to me.
It would violate the code of conduct generally speaking because in most cases things are there with permission of a local magistrate/lord/king/mayor etc. Paladins MUST respect legitimate authority. They would have to appeal to the authority and then abide by their decision. If they violate their code and go busting away regardless then they're no longer a paladin per RAW.
Now, IF there are evil (as defined by the book so killing/oppressing innocents) acts going on then clearly the paladin is well within their rights to rush to their aid. In fact, he has no choice and has to help them or this is a violation of his code and he's no longer a paladin.
If there is an unauthorized shrine/temple/etc and the local ruler says it's got to go then you're well within your space to be the wrecking ball. If you don't then it's a violation of the code and you're no longer a paladin.
Regardless, to go balls to the wall just BECAUSE YOU WANT TO regardless if it's in line with your particular faith is a chaotic act.
Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility.
You're not free to do what you want, period. You're bound to god and country.
Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability.
Unless the GM in a particular instance says your god appears to you and orders you to do this and such, your character must defer to local mortal authority unless innocents are involved which is an exception in the code that allows you to freely intervene.
Don't talk down to me.
I was just making a joke (considering, you know, I can't actually put anyone in a time out). I was under the impression people around here were the humorous, fun sort. My mistake.
Duely noted, sorry for attempting to joke with you. Won't happen again.
On the upside, great minds do think alike since we both agree on the topic at hand. Not a total loss, I suppose.
|
What is "legitimate authority"?
Is a ruler who is evil, legitimate in the eyes of the paladin?
Or is it an evil that must be changed?
Lets say that there is a remote town with a mayor who is LE. The town laws state that carrying weapons in town is punishable by arrest and death. The townies know this and stay within the law and are thus treated well, but outsiders are generally killed with in a day since the trip here is dangerous and most are carrying weapons. Is the mayor "legitimate authority" or can the paladin try to get rid of him? Especially since the paladin was already arrested for carrying a sword into town (their holy bond weapon).
Does the paladin have to follow the law there and accept their death, or fight against the evil ruler?
What is "legitimate authority"?
Is a ruler who is evil, legitimate in the eyes of the paladin?
Or is it an evil that must be changed?
Lets say that there is a remote town with a mayor who is LE. The town laws state that carrying weapons in town is punishable by arrest and death. The townies know this and stay within the law and are thus treated well, but outsiders are generally killed with in a day since the trip here is dangerous and most are carrying weapons. Is the mayor "legitimate authority" or can the paladin try to get rid of him? Especially since the paladin was already arrested for carrying a sword into town (their holy bond weapon).
Does the paladin have to follow the law there and accept their death, or fight against the evil ruler?
Did the paladin know about the law before going there? If so, he should have respected it, and probably looked into legal means of changing things, or failin that, maybe work out a way to warn travelers.
If he was entrapped, he should probably seek to avoid unjust punishment in the most lawful means reasonable. If he has to, to avoid unjust punishment, he should free himself.
Being lawful good is neither convenient nor easy, nor is it or should it be necessarily fair.
Note that I'd the law is simply an clearly a way to murder travelers, then he should obviously cowboy up and prevent such from occurring in the future... In the most lawful good way he reasonably can. That doesn't mean the easiest way though.
Lets say that there is a remote town with a mayor who is LE. The town laws state that carrying weapons in town is punishable by arrest and death. The townies know this and stay within the law and are thus treated well, but outsiders are generally killed with in a day since the trip here is dangerous and most are carrying weapons. Is the mayor "legitimate authority" or can the paladin try to get rid of him? Especially since the paladin was already arrested for carrying a sword into town (their holy bond weapon).
Does the paladin have to follow the law there and accept their death, or fight against the evil ruler?
This has nothing to do with alters, gods, and whether or not destroying them is good/evil.
To answer your question, yes. The Paladin would accept the Mayor as the law and adhere to those laws while in his town. As the GM, you should have guards at the gate notify the PCs of that upon their arrival, not just let them walk in, get arrested, and beheaded.
Not providing any warning to the PCs and then attempting to arrest them, could be considered unlawful, since any crime punishable by death should be made public knowledge, even to visitors. The party as a whole (not just a Paladin) should be given the option to leave their weapons at the gate (to pick them up when they leave) or simply be given the option to move on to the next village.
Unless it's plot based, you shouldn't put the party in the 'ignorance of the law is no excuse, now you have to die' scenario. Since the Paladin has already been arrested in your scenario, he'd petition for a trial and should be allowed a Diplomacy check to plead his case. Entrapment is unlawful and basically that is what you described above and the Paladin should not stand for it.
How it plays out after that, is up to the GM.
Define 'get rid of'. The Paladin, despite how unlawful a law might seem, doesn't have carte blanche to simply put ever low life to the sword. In your scenario, providing the Paladin got out of it, would work with the ruler to find ways of making the law more readily available to anyone entering the city so they aren't blind sided by it and put to death. He'd also state that a death penalty is a bit much for simply carry a weapon.
If that failed he'd petition the local Lord and try to have the mayor removed from office on the grounds that he's unfit for the position. It could become quite political but in the end if things didn't end well at all, the church itself may, through communing with the God and seeking approval, grant the Paladin righteous providence to depose the mayor by force (step down, 'or else'). In this scenario the Paladin is backed by his church and the 'crimes' he may commit in the process fall on the back of the church when the local Lord comes knocking. The Paladin could lay siege to the town, depose the mayor, and work towards installing a more lawful ruler in it's place. The mayor would then answer for his crimes unless the church specifically authorized the Paladin to act as the executioner.
Paladins, Inquisitors, and Clerics of good faith are decent folk, but you do not want to piss them off. Once the church backs them and approves of their course of action it's the same thing to them as their God standing over them saying "It's okay." As long as they are still acting on the tenants of their faith (depose the ruler, protect the people in the case above) they will put an army at the gate and do what needs to be done and there will be no stopping them.
War could happen... all because a guard didn't say "Carrying weapons in the town is illegal, leave it at the gate or face the guillotine. Hey, you know... I used to be an adventurer like you. Then I took an arrow to the knee."
Holy wars have started over less.
|
|
I was merely pointing out that the RAW for the paladin code of "respect legitimate authority" taken by itself is meaningless without the rest of the code. The other parts of that same sentence, "act with honor", "help those in need", and "punish those who harm or threaten innocents" all dictate that the paladin should try to get the mayor to either change the laws, give proper warning, have a higher up change the mayor, or barring a "higher up" (free town under no other ruler), force change the mayor (in that order of attempt).
The innocents being hurt are the travelers, due to the law not posted outside of town.
As for the Alter, even if the evil church was "accepted" by the local authority and townsfolk, a paladin would still be in their code to try to change that to a good religion. Even better to their own.
But out of the field, the best answer (and right one) would be to destroy the alter and consecrate the grounds.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't believe how religiously indoctrinated this board is!
Of course it's not evil! In many cases, it's probably a good act! It may or may not be lawful, as in local laws...but if it's a paladin (as this thread seems to be about), he follows the laws of a "higher power" and still does not give a single ****.
DM: You see before you the altar to Anthrax, god of child murder and Celine Dion music.
Paladin: I take my adamantine greatsword and smash it to pieces for great justice!
DM: Yeah...sorry, by being "religious" it's automatically sacred, so doing that's gonna be evil.
I'm just...speechless right now. very month I think, "that's it, these guys couldn't possibly convince me any more to never, EVER play a paladin in one of their games!" And then...you surpass yourselves...
I'm just...speechless right now.
There are times when people can hold one view, and still understand intellectually how someone could arrive at an opposing opinion, and then there are times when you just can't even see where a viewpoint could be coming from. Paladin and alignment threads are of course fertile breeding grounds for the latter sort of times.
It may or may not be lawful, as in local laws...but if it's a paladin (as this thread seems to be about), he follows the laws of a "higher power" and still does not give a single ****.
Well, the "Respect Legitimate authority" part of the Paladin Code could cause problems for the Paladin if he makes a habit of violating local laws. That's a law-vs-chaos problem though, not a good-vs-evil one. Even then, a lot depends on context.
I'm just...speechless right now.There are times when people can hold one view, and still understand intellectually how someone could arrive at an opposing opinion, and then there are times when you just can't even see where a viewpoint could be coming from. Paladin and alignment threads are of course fertile breeding grounds for the latter sort of times.
That come from the "My point of view / style of play/GM'ing is the only correct one, the rest of you are all wrong." things/mentalities on gaming boards...
A good suggestion was posted earlier. The question being:"what is legitimate authority?" LG is in no way easy to play. Pallys have to do what is right and they have to tow the line with the law. The other thing to remember is that simply because the paladin respects legitimate authority, it doesn't mean they have to follow everything the authorities order. Respect does not equal blind compliance. Furthermore, alot of the class description emphasizes good over law. Even the class abilities reflect it, they get detect evil and smite evil, not detect chaos and smite chaos. I'm reminded of another thread a while back. It said if there is an innocent individual who has been framed and is about to be wrongly convicted, what should the paladin do? This was assuming the state of government was not corrupt. Some claimed that the pally should try to right the injustice through legal means. This I agree with. The paladin must choose to attempt all ways within the legal system to correct an injustice if the law is present, such as in a city or community. However, if that fails then the paladin cannot just stand by and let the innocent victim be executed(which was what some suggested). Someone who has done everything legally(lawfully) but calls it a day after it is unsucessful, is lawful neutral. Paladins are lawful good. Where legiimate authority has failed to see its mistake and has allowed the law to become a mockery of itself at the expense of innocent lives, the paladin seeks to overcome such a failing. Saying:"I've done all I could with accordance to the law and can't do anymore because I'll get in trouble" isn't the attitude of a righteous warrior. Its the actions of a beaurocrat.
If the players are playing heroes, I'm all up for evil altar destruction. A true servant of the good may destroy that altar, purge the area of any influence or taint via blessing, find the cultists and crush their skulls with the masonry from their own altar. And lo evil was purged and a message sent: don't try this again.
I've taken it further, played a CG character that came down hard on a CN to CE church of Callistra. He robbed them of jewels, burned their church, stole the underwear of the head matriarch, shamed and humiliated them publicly, brought about the closure of the holy grounds. Why? Because they were dodgy and up to no good and were trying to shape a city to their whims. It wasn't evil in that game, I didn't get pulled up at all by the dm. When chaotics fight all the rules go out the window.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Premise: Evil and good (and neutrality) are actual spiritual forces, battling it out in a total war for the fate of the multiverse and everything else, not moral concepts. Creatures, actions, social systems, ... are evil insofar they contain or further the power of the evil spiritual force(s), good insofar they contain of further the power of the good spiritual force(s).
1. The altar and temple of an evil god serves to empower or spread evil.
2. Fighting or destroying or preventing evil is always good, though other goods might weight heavier.
Example: If destroying the temple would be certain to unleash the vile plague of evil death upon the twin towns of Mostly Good and In Large Parts Innocent, doing so might not be a good act overall, because the good of large numbers of mostly good and in large parts innocent people not dying from evil's might could weigh heavier than destroying the temple.
This is different if the people killed were themselves evil or at least neutral. The killing of evil people is always a good act. The congregation of a an evil priest is clearly evil as they further, by their acts of worship, the power of the evil spiritual force(s).
Good and evil are not parts of the vague arena of moral judgement, but clear cut lines between two opposing forces. It's us and them. Keep in mind that a worshipper of an evil deity gets equally rewarded for their actions as a worshipper of a good deity. Sure, different deities reward and punish different actions, but that is true even within the alignments. Sarenrae, Cayden and Iomedae will all have different opinions on the appropriateness of certain actions. Furthermore, "did no know" is a very lame escuse in a world where first level characters can detect evil with 100% accuracy.
So, given the (very reasonable) assumption that good and evil in Pathfinder are not moral categories, but spiritual ones and that morality is relative to the specific spiritual category one is aligned with, it is in general not the type of action that ranks something as good or evil (desecrating a temple) but whether or not the action is in favor of the good or evil powers (targeting an evil temple).
Well, the "Respect Legitimate authority" part of the Paladin Code could cause problems for the Paladin if he makes a habit of violating local laws. That's a law-vs-chaos problem though, not a good-vs-evil one. Even then, a lot depends on context.
This.
A Paladin will lose his powers if his alignment ever changes from LG.
A Paladin will lose his powers if he ever commits an Evil act.
He would have to make a HECK of a habit of 'violating local laws', before he would warrant an alignment change. And performing a Chaotic act alone is NOT enough to make him fall.
EVIL =/= Chaotic.
As much fun as DM's seem to get out of tricking Paladin's to fall... I think the benchmark should be... "If the Monk was right there next to him, smashing his fist through the stone Altar... Would I change HIS alignment too?"
What about Clerics destroying Evil Altars? Do their gods abandon them?
There are a few Classes that get hosed over if their alignment shifts... But make sure the character DESERVES to be screwed over before you do it ;)
But yeah, Committing a Chaotic Act is Not enought to change an alignment. :)
Depends on the act and how much Chaos follow.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not saying it's evil. Though, I would argue it violated the Paladin's Code of Conduct. One of the Oaths could modify this, though I don't have them all committed to memory.So a paladin makes his way into an evil temple. He gets to the main room where they are conducting human sacrifice. He manages to defeat the cultists and stop the sacrifice.
You're saying it would violate the paladin's code to then destroy the altar?
+1. I am 100% sure that neither tolerance nor politically correct-ness is on the paladin code of conduct.
Depends on the act and how much Chaos follow.
True. If it was something seriously chaotic, like a Paladin entering a Lawful Neutral community, storming the officially sanctioned and law-abiding temple of Asmodeus and killing everyone there/destroying everything without any proof of wrongdoing, then followed it up by attacking the Town Guard when they try to take him in for questioning...
something seriously chaotic, like a Paladin entering a Lawful Neutral community, storming the officially sanctioned and law-abiding temple of Asmodeus and killing everyone there/destroying everything without any proof of wrongdoing, then followed it up by attacking the Town Guard when they try to take him in for questioning...
While I completely agree with that assessment... "temple of Asmodeus" = "proof of wrongdoing". By their very nature, Paladins live in a world of stark contrasts. The moment they start considering the possibility of moral ambiguity, Paladins make the first step on the road to their fall from grace. They can't engage in the blatantly Chaotic act you described of course, but a Paladin is honour-, duty- and most likely god-bound to act in whatever way they can to oppose this temple, those who frequent it and indeed all those who tolerate its presence.
"All that is necessary for Evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"
something seriously chaotic, like a Paladin entering a Lawful Neutral community, storming the officially sanctioned and law-abiding temple of Asmodeus and killing everyone there/destroying everything without any proof of wrongdoing, then followed it up by attacking the Town Guard when they try to take him in for questioning...While I completely agree with that assessment... "temple of Asmodeus" = "proof of wrongdoing". By their very nature, Paladins live in a world of stark contrasts. The moment they start considering the possibility of moral ambiguity, Paladins make the first step on the road to their fall from grace. They can't engage in the blatantly Chaotic act you described of course, but a Paladin is honour-, duty- and most likely god-bound to act in whatever way they can to oppose this temple, those who frequent it and indeed all those who tolerate its presence.
"All that is necessary for Evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"
Oh yes; a Paladin should definitely be investigating/carefully watching any temple of Asmodeus. While you might have the oddball exception that skews Lawful Neutral (or even the rare misguided good-aligned follower he has according to "Faiths of Corruption"), Asmodeus is an evil deity and his followers are usually up to evil things.
However, unless there's an immediate threat, the Paladin is going to take the time to do things in a way that respects the local laws (so long as that law doesn't prevent him from doing his job). The Paladin would probably prefer finding proof that the temple is up to no good so their official sanctioning can be revoked and the leaders arrested and put on trial (or killed if they resist arrest).
Paladins are all about fighting evil, but they're also all about fighting evil the right way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What about accidental defacement? Say I trip on a candle stick an burn up the sacred contracts that this particular church uses on their dark altar and then try to put it out with the only liquid I have on hand which happens to be Holy Water.
Or does something have to intentional or premeditated to be evil?
I know it's an absurd example but it was what popped into my head.
No, but it might be against the local laws to do so.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't believe how religiously indoctrinated this board is!
Of course it's not evil! In many cases, it's probably a good act! It may or may not be lawful, as in local laws...but if it's a paladin (as this thread seems to be about), he follows the laws of a "higher power" and still does not give a single ****.
DM: You see before you the altar to Anthrax, god of child murder and Celine Dion music.
Paladin: I take my adamantine greatsword and smash it to pieces for great justice!
DM: Yeah...sorry, by being "religious" it's automatically sacred, so doing that's gonna be evil.
I'm just...speechless right now. very month I think, "that's it, these guys couldn't possibly convince me any more to never, EVER play a paladin in one of their games!" And then...you surpass yourselves...
Exactly this.
I can't believe this is even an honest question. "Is doing good an evil act?" Seriously. "Defacing" or destroying an evil temple is called "consecrating." In other words, it is literally impossible to "deface" an evil temple. It can only be worshipped, making it more evil, or consecrated, purging the evil. There is no grey area here.
The only relevent part of destroying worshippers/temples of evil gods is the fact that they are EVIL. By RAW, this makes thwarting/killing/destroying them GOOD. Period. And for paladins, Good always takes precedence over Law.
Good and Evil are black and white in the game world. The sooner you guys figure that one out, the sooner these stupid evil threads can stop.
|
"Good" and "Evil" is relative to a particular game system.
"white" and "black" may exist in some systems, and be extremely grey in others.
On Golarion, it is usually white and black (creating undead = evil act, etc) according to the developers.
The Pathfinder RPG is not so black and white.
"Defacing" and "destroying" an "evil" god's altar or church is usually considered "good", I agree.
But if a GM wants to dig deeper, they can consider the *how* the "good" characters did the deed. Or, in other words, does the end justify the means, or vice-versa? By this I mean, consider if a "good" character destroys an altar by smashing it to pieces, splashes some holy water, etc. Then consider the same "good" character destroying the altar by smashing it to pieces, then doing other "stuff" (like peeing, etc). What will their deity/church/team/society think? What will the consequences be (if any)?
--
I have many "" in use because words have multiple meanings to any particular individual. Solid, agreed upon definitions are key to any debate ;)
Well, the "Respect Legitimate authority" part of the Paladin Code could cause problems for the Paladin if he makes a habit of violating local laws. That's a law-vs-chaos problem though, not a good-vs-evil one. Even then, a lot depends on context.
This really is the crux of this issue.
The current rulers of Cheliax, while being the 'recognized' authority for the past ~150 years would not, IMO, be considered a legitimate authority where a paladin was concerned. They would also not be the legitimate authority of a long lost heir of the previous leadership before they were ousted.
So for a paladin 'legitimate authority' is going to frequently come down to "Would it have the blessing and sanction of my deity whom I serve?"
There are two kinds of altars.
The first kind is for "reaching up". The worshipers are using the altar to somehow communicate praise, gratitude, worth, adoration, etc. to the being they are worshiping.
The second kind is for "reaching down". The worshiped being cannot normally safely interact with people. The altar allows priests to somehow get around this, allowing the worshiped being to manifest more so its influence, power, nature, character, etc. can infuse the worshipers.
Which kind are we talking about?
Destroying the first is proclaiming "You should not be giving something intangible to an evil deity."
Destroying the second is proclaiming "You should not be letting an evil deity give something tangible to you."
In some fantasy settings it is Evil to interfere with other people's intangibles. (If you want to save their souls then be a beacon for Good and bring them to your side. Smashing their tools only makes them angry and resistant to you, elevates the conflict level from verbal to violence, etc.)
In almost all fantasy settings it is Good to stop the tangible spread of Evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Altar only focus.
Site still Evil.
Destroy altar without re-consecrating site as Good -- that nice way to encourage vengeful undead appearing at that place. That Evil.
As a Troll unsure, but guess re-consecrating site as Good means not peeing on it.
|
|
It is not Evil, but it is not respectful.
People who are disrespectful to the gods tend to live in interesting times.
Your own god could protect you from the Evil god's wrath, but it would then be considered as an act of open war from your god, as he encourages mere mortals to disrespect his fellow god.
In the Golarion setting, most Good gods do not look eagerly to waging a full-blown war on most Evil gods. Hatred, border skirmiches and cold war yes, but full-blown divine war not so much.