Lawful Good VS Lawful Good


Advice

101 to 150 of 162 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

A fight can happen easily if they have different information and they both believe themselves to be correct. This could result in two forces of good with the same general believe to come into conflict.

The planetars guarding the vault might believe they are guarding it for the good of mankind and the paladin might believe it needs to get inside to save the world, in reality either or both might be duped by evil forces or simple miscommunication.

Silver Crusade

Tacticslion wrote:
Dagon-XIII wrote:
Wow... Thanks for all the ideas. The circumstances are pretty straight forward. Shield Archon, commanded to guard a church from intruders trying to reach an ancient city. The city has become deserted due to it's evil past. The mission is to track an orc war party to the ancient city that is believed to house an ancient weapon. The orcs want this weapon. The orcs have an inside advantage, which gives them a large lead. They must reach the top of the church, that houses the Archon, and ring the bells to unlock the gates to the city. To top it off, the Paladin and Archon are of the same deity. They have done nothing but fight undead, demons, and dragons until this point, so it kinda threw them off a bit. I just wanted to see how others have dealt with these situations. I think it should make for some good role play. Plus there's a lich that's using the Archon to his advantage, due to the fact that it stops all other intruders from entering the church. This should be good... right? Again, thanks for all the insight.

Wait. Why doesn't the archon stop the orcs?

And why is the lich not an intruder?

I'm sure there are answers here, I'm just not seeing them immediately.

The Archon is restricted to guarding the one room, because its the last room before the upper levels, and if the party wants to further the story, they must take this road. Of coarse they don't know that. There are other roads, many others in fact, but this road furthers the story. I just got lucky that it's the road they took first. As for the Lich, there are stronger magics at hand that hide the Lichs presence from the Archon. The players have unknowingly meet the Lich already, and are being toyed with, which will make the reveal all the sweeter.


Exit room, have the ranger shoot the archon to death?

Silver Crusade

Believe it or not, the Paladin is my ranged combatant. Smite is no longer for melee only, and on an island with undead, dragons, and evil outsiders, I've had to step up my game as a GM. Paladin has come a long way since 3.5 edition.


Yeah! Actually the ranged paladin can be pretty good. Some of those cool ranged feats that have been around since 3.0 like ranged disarm are also pretty sweet for an archer of justice.

Now to practice "you have failed this city" until it comes off suitably gravelly.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dagon-XIII wrote:
This is just a quick question as a GM. Has any one forced a Paladin to fight an angel of the same alignment? The Angel has been commanded to guard the room at all costs. How would you handle this as a GM?

Both history and fiction is rife with examples of people of the highest moral character fighting one another. It is the center of many a great tragedy.

The Angel would say "Please forgive me, dear Mortal. But I am sworn to guard this room from all intruders, from the most foul to the most righteous. All who enter, I must strike down. I beg thee to not take another step forward, and flee."

The Paladin would then probably say to the Angel "And I have sworn an oath to take this room at all costs to bring the treasure therein hence. Is there nothing I could say to stay your hand, or stand aside, dearest child of the Empyrean?"

Angel: "Nay. Nothing."

Paladin: (sadly) *raises sword and shield* "Then we both know what must be done. Please know that I do not begrudge you in this."

Angel: (sadder still) *a sword of flame materializes in his hand* "Nor I you. I shall commend thy soul to the Concourse on High, good sir."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Play almost any tactics JRPG ever.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I have played this game and its antecedents for a very long time and I still do not understand why paladins bring out the Richard in some DM's.

Did your paladin player sign up for this no-win morality play BS when he/she decided to be a paladin? I bet not. It's one thing to take on the challenge of a moral code, it's another to be victimized by the DM's perverse Kobayashi Maru conundrums.

Do you treat the other core classes with moral or ethical structures - monks, clerics, druids, etc. - to similar opportunities? Your choice is simple, my druid priestess, burn the Ancient Forest of Glimmermere and the homes of a 1000 dryads to the ground or every reptile species on the Southern Continent goes extinct! I bet not.

It's one thing to give paladins challenging alternatives - save the farm family trapped in the burning barn or chase down the Slobbering Demon of Klormong before it gets to town - this is no win but its also no wrong, no matter what the paladin does its a good thing. But to tell him and his party for 6 months of real (or game) time that the only way to save the universe is to get the McGuffin and then near the end force the paladin to commit an act of evil to get it, is a Richard move.

And since when did angels become automatons? The angel has extremely high int and wis stats; it's self-awareness and insight is extraordinary and it's seen more, done more and been more places than anyone within a 1000 miles including the PC's. Whoever put it here chose it for its ability to reason and apply those qualities. If the sponsor wanted something to blindly follow one sentence orders, it would have chosen a Golem or an Inevitable. Lawful good doesn't mean lawful stupid. The angel should evaluate the paladin's situation and make decisions accordingly including contacting it's superiors for clarification, test the mettle of the paladin (Bring me the broomstick of the Wicked Witch of the East!) or take the McGuffin and go with the paladin to see that it's used properly. (And the paladin's party thought he was preachy!)

If you're looking for an "in game" reason for why both the angel and the paladin should die rather than come to lethal blows here it is: this is not two LG knights from different countries arguing about the heraldic meaning of sinister rampant. These are the divine manifestation of a GOD of good and the highest paragon of mortal goodness - the moment they come to lethal blows (on either side) they will have signaled the ultimate triumph of Evil. Because such a conflict will show in a devastating and incontrovertible way that the powers of Good are no different from Evil - when the going gets tough, they settle their differences with violence and selfishness just like everyone else. The help others shtick is just shiny PR. Beyond being heroes and saving the princess, the real purpose of both the angel and the paladin is to show that Goodness - the power of collaboration and selflessness - is the better path. ALWAYS.

Umm... <rant over>


Latrecis wrote:

I have played this game and its antecedents for a very long time and I still do not understand why paladins bring out the Richard in some DM's.

Did your paladin player sign up for this no-win morality play BS when he/she decided to be a paladin? I bet not. It's one thing to take on the challenge of a moral code, it's another to be victimized by the DM's perverse Kobayashi Maru conundrums.

Do you treat the other core classes with moral or ethical structures - monks, clerics, druids, etc. - to similar opportunities? Your choice is simple, my druid priestess, burn the Ancient Forest of Glimmermere and the homes of a 1000 dryads to the ground or every reptile species on the Southern Continent goes extinct! I bet not.

It's one thing to give paladins challenging alternatives - save the farm family trapped in the burning barn or chase down the Slobbering Demon of Klormong before it gets to town - this is no win but its also no wrong, no matter what the paladin does its a good thing. But to tell him and his party for 6 months of real (or game) time that the only way to save the universe is to get the McGuffin and then near the end force the paladin to commit an act of evil to get it, is a Richard move.

And since when did angels become automatons? The angel has extremely high int and wis stats; it's self-awareness and insight is extraordinary and it's seen more, done more and been more places than anyone within a 1000 miles including the PC's. Whoever put it here chose it for its ability to reason and apply those qualities. If the sponsor wanted something to blindly follow one sentence orders, it would have chosen a Golem or an Inevitable. Lawful good doesn't mean lawful stupid. The angel should evaluate the paladin's situation and make decisions accordingly including contacting it's superiors for clarification, test the mettle of the paladin (Bring me the broomstick of the Wicked Witch of the East!) or take the McGuffin and go with the paladin to see that it's used properly. (And the...

Your referenced analogy of the Kobayashi Maru has convinced me that you are very cool and your opinion worth listening to.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Latrecis makes part of a good point : how do you feel your player will react when presented with the situation ?

Will he feel that it is a wondrous opportunity for rare roleplaying or will he feel that you are just making him jump through your hoops (aka railroading) ?

If the latter, scrap this encounter right now. Or at the very least, allow for a non-lethal way of passing "through" the Archon that is actually feasible and clear to your players.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Latrecis wrote:

I have played this game and its antecedents for a very long time and I still do not understand why paladins bring out the Richard in some DM's.

Did your paladin player sign up for this no-win morality play BS when he/she decided to be a paladin? I bet not. It's one thing to take on the challenge of a moral code, it's another to be victimized by the DM's perverse Kobayashi Maru conundrums.

Nonsense. If you take on the challenge of a moral code, expect to be challenged on it. That's basically what the word "challenge" means.

If you're faced with an angel that won't back down and you don't want to kill it, then simply don't kill it. That's precisely the challenge of the moral code -- find a way to accomplish what you want and get the artifact.

A moral code that the GM is never allowed to use is not a challenge, any more than a weakness to photon torpedoes is a challenge in a PFS-compliant pathfinder game.


Latrecis wrote:

And since when did angels become automatons? The angel has extremely high int and wis stats; it's self-awareness and insight is extraordinary and it's seen more, done more and been more places than anyone within a 1000 miles including the PC's. Whoever put it here chose it for its ability to reason and apply those qualities. If the sponsor wanted something to blindly follow one sentence orders, it would have chosen a Golem or an Inevitable. Lawful good doesn't mean lawful stupid. The angel should evaluate the paladin's situation and make decisions accordingly including contacting it's superiors for clarification, test the mettle of the paladin (Bring me the broomstick of the Wicked Witch of the East!) or take the McGuffin and go with the paladin to see that it's used properly.

Further to previous: The angel is, by your own admission, extremely intelligent, extremely wise, and extremely experienced,.... so naturally, it should be the one that contacts its superiors or bends its order in order to permit the dumb mortal do do something.

Why are you assuming that the angel is wrong and the angel right? I'd turn it around and suggest that a paladin with an ounce more sense than an onion would realize that there's a very good chance that the reason Iomedae put an angel in this room with orders not to let anyone have the McGuffin is because,.... stop me if I'm going too fast,... Iomedae doesn't want anyone to have the McGuffin.

I recognize that's a great leap of logic, so I'll rephrase it.

If an angel tells you that your god doesn't want you to have this item, you might consider the possibility that your god doesn't want you to have the item in question.

To put it a third way -- if you're a paladin who assumes that you are right and everyone else, including the god that you follow, is wrong, then you're probably not a very good paladin.

We've already established that there's at least one BBEG in the scenario that is manipulating the paladin. Sounds to me like there's a perfect reason for the angel to kill the paladin rather than allowing the BBEG to continue to manipulate him into being an unwitting pawn in the downfall of Everything.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

OQ, what if the god's aims are furthered by the paladin and the angel fighting to the death ?

Or maybe he wants them to fight to the death and prove their dedication to their duty, only to have a miracle happen that makes the death unnecessary.

Check Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac for a RL example of such a story.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

A great deal of this is subject to the specifics of the GM, the player and the campaign.

Forcing a player down a road without a reason (for me it is advancing a good story, I'll do almost anything for a good story but only with the player's buy in) when there are clear alternatives is one thing. Doing it and leaving no choice is something else entirely.

I strongly hope that the player thinks outside the box. Find another way. Just because history is rife with examples of evil triumphing over good through good being dumb, doesn't mean you have to make the same mistake. You could, you know choose to learn from history's mistakes and not repeat them.

I'd like to think when presented with such a moral quandry, your faith is being tested by someone who wants you to think not be a blind idiot robot who follows orders. Or if being a mindless slave is what's desired then all paladins should and would be zombies, golems, or wind-up tinkertoys.

And if a GM has 100% control all developmental story and roleplay aspects of the characters, then why bother with a multiplayer game? Go play solo. I feel a good GM lays the groundwork and the setting...the player tells their own saga.

exposition:
I strongly disagree where the concept of good is further advanced by the willful and deliberate sacrifice of innocents. It's even worse when the reason is "someone told me to."

Really? "I was just following orders..."

Sorry no, you are choosing to commit an evil act, no matter what sophistry or justification you attach to it. See no alternative? Fine, knowingly commit the evil deed to accomplish the task and then sorry but welcome to being an ex-paladin. After all, if slaying an innocent is fine, then changing your profession is a minor thing when weighed against the good that you had to accomplish.

Again my personal opinion I openly accept differences and your choice to disagree, thank you.

Oh and the Kobayashi Maru has a solution...in battle, don't do what your opponent wants, do something else. Who knows? You may get that commendation for original thinking...or a dressing down by a pointy-eared green blooded hobgoblin :)


Or, as in my little story, there are two lawful-good deities involved. The paladin's patron believes that using the artefact is the only way to defeat the villain. The angel's patron believes there's too much risk of it falling into the wrong hands. Hundreds of thousands of lives are at stake. The paladin and the angel are caught up in this dispute. There's no obvious right answer. The paladin won't fall, whatever he decides to do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Matthew Downie wrote:
Or, as in my little story, there are two lawful-good deities involved. The paladin's patron believes that using the artefact is the only way to defeat the villain. The angel's patron believes there's too much risk of it falling into the wrong hands. Hundreds of thousands of lives are at stake. The paladin and the angel are caught up in this dispute. There's no obvious right answer. The paladin won't fall, whatever he decides to do.

If you had the player's buy in with the story, great, it's your game so run with it.

For me, I find actually there is a very simple answer.
Both patrons are wrong.

Because it sure sounds like the entities in question are rigid, inflexible, and unable to adapt. If I were that Paladin, that's what I say.

We have a term for life forms like that...extinct. And if my paladin got booted from the order, then he'd accept that.

Or I suppose to throw a little Obi-wan..."Only a Sith deals in absolutes..." (though I'm more of a Trekkie.)


Based on the facts as presented, the paladin shouldn't fall for attacking. He and his god are clearly correct. Real good doesn't play it safe; it dares to do the right thing despite the danger. You risk the artifact to help those in need, and defeat evil. You don't puss out on the chance things might go wrong. Frankly, the paladin should fall, or at least be sternly warned by his god, if he backs off and does nothing.

"You get in the way of me doing what's right, angel or not, I'm going to move you ... and I will win, because I'm on the ... heh ... side of the angels here."

As a matter of fact, if the player role-plays it exceedingly well, our paladin might even convince the angel to defy his patron. That—communication to constructive purpose—would be the best solution.


Wrong about what? There are two possible choices; use the artefact, or don't use the artefact. There's no middle ground. One of them is right but without perfect knowledge of the future it's impossible to know which. Better to have these two champions fight it out than to have an actual war between the gods.
I suppose they could settle on some other means to solve the dispute, like tossing a coin, but that's not very Heroic Fantasy.

"Only a Sith deals in absolutes" is an absolute.


Jaelithe wrote:
Based on the facts as presented, the paladin shouldn't fall for attacking. He and his god are clearly correct. Real good doesn't play it safe; it dares to do the right thing despite the danger. You risk the artifact to help those in need, and defeat evil. You don't puss out on the chance things might go wrong. Frankly, the paladin should fall, or at least be sternly warned by his god, if he backs off and does nothing.

Wow. I guess pride is not a sin in your world.

The idea that a paladin might not know everything going on the universe seems,.... plausible to me. The idea that a paladin might know that he's not omniscient seems equally plausible.

If we're assuming a truly irresistable force meets immovable object situation here, at least one party is wrong. Based on the facts as presented, there's a 50/50 chance that it's the paladin.

"Real good doesn't play it safe; it dares to do the right thing despite the danger." But there's no guarantee or even indication that this actually is the right thing.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dagon-XIII wrote:
This is just a quick question as a GM. Has any one forced a Paladin to fight an angel of the same alignment? The Angel has been commanded to guard the room at all costs. How would you handle this as a GM?

There's at least one or two PFS scenarios where that can happen if the party doesn't play it's cards right. But in both cases the party can do what it needs to do without resorting to combat if they play with a reasonable level of finesse and intelligence.

There should be a VERY GOOD reason that such a fight can't be avoided one way or another, other than the GM just plain wanting to see an angel on Paladin battle.


Jaelithe wrote:
Real good doesn't play it safe; it dares to do the right thing despite the danger.

Hm. "The terrorist has taken a child hostage? Open fire! Sure, there's an extremely high chance I'll kill the child, but not taking the risk would be evil!"

But in this case, trying to beat the bad guy without using the artefact is also a risk. Either could work as a story.


Matthew Downie wrote:
Wrong about what? There are two possible choices; use the artefact, or don't use the artefact. There's no middle ground.

Only in the sense that there are only two possible choices; I am Spider-man, or I'm not. There's no middle ground.

Quote:
One of them is right

Correct....

Quote:
but without perfect knowledge of the future it's impossible to know which.

Really? 50/50 chance that I'm Spider-man, then.

There are literally thousands if not millions of ways to act that don't involve using the artifact. With just this additional piece of information and nothing else, I can tell you that there's at least a 99.9% chance that the paladin is wrong, in the same way that the chances are literally billions to one against my being Spider-man.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
There are literally thousands if not millions of ways to act that don't involve using the artifact. With just this additional piece of information and nothing else, I can tell you that there's at least a 99.9% chance that the paladin is wrong, in the same way that the chances are literally billions to one against my being Spider-man.

You're missing a logical step there if you want to convince, say, LazarX. How does that argument apply to this hypothetical artefact that your god has commanded you to get, and not to the vast wealth of other magical items the party normally carries around, which might also fall into the wrong hands? Aren't there also millions of things you could do with the artefact scroll, such as sell it and give the money to the poor, or wear it as hat?


Matthew Downie wrote:


You're missing a logical step there if you want to convince, say, LazarX. How does that argument apply to this hypothetical artefact that your god has commanded you to get, and not to the vast wealth of other magical items the party normally carries around, which might also fall into the wrong hands?

Because I don't remember an angel telling me "no, you can't have that suit of chain mail."

Edited to add: In pathfinder, an angel (astral deva, the least kind of angel) has intelligence 18, wisdom 18, and the ability to plane shift at will to commune with other, wiser, spirits of pure good.

What's the likelihood that this angel knows more than you do?


Your party wizard and druid have higher intelligence and wisdom than the average angel.

Your god has made you swear an oath to bring back the artefact. The angel's god has made him swear an oath to protect the artefact. Why would you believe the angel over your own god?
Conflict! The essence of drama!


in the end, as long as people can disagree on how to serve the greater good and maintain order, people will fight. and angels are people to, sort of.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Seriously, though, if you can't imagine LG and LG coming to blows (even lethal blows, on occasion), read more books and play more story-oriented games.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
blahpers wrote:
Seriously, though, if you can't imagine LG and LG coming to blows (even lethal blows, on occasion), read more books and play more story-oriented games.

Miko Miyazaki you mean? One such example of how to do it wrong.

Many examples in literature and history? Seem more like examples of lawful something-else (Camelot Arthur vs. Lancelot), not lawful good. Or "the ends justify the means" which falls under Chaotic Evil. Or "I'm just following orders..."

Another is the aforementioned plot railroad which is apparently without the players' buy-in.

As I said, I'm willing to go to almost absurd lengths with the players' buy-in (because it's a social group game) for a good story. Maybe it's a lead-in to a tragedy or change where one or both sides decides to follow a different and hopefully better path than the one he or she is on.

And yes, some would say Obi-wan was a Sith...until he learned better. But by then he was just a blue glowie. ;)

For me, I feel it's fundamentally about choice. If you choose to do something your heart, mind and belief tell you is wrong, then it's your choice. As are the consequences of that decision.

If the above deity placed a epic disaster class artifact (without breaking it down into separate parts) in a building accessible by almost anyone (certainly by the more powerful evil forces in the world) and defended by a lone guardian instead of say, lost in a random pocket dimension or any of a number of far more intelligent choices...then there has to be a reason. Keeping it out of the hands of mortals, especially powerful ones is not one of them.

Again all of this is under the umbrella of a fun fantasy game. If no-choice scenarios (despite the options presented by dozens of other folks) or in this case, one choice (LG fighting/destroying itself) are what the group enjoys, then you are deciding that this is the direction you want the game to go.

I'm sure the either side of the aisle will react accordingly:

Dark Helmet wrote:


Lone Star, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb.

I still believe in another way. That we are not brainless, mindless, slaves without any free will. That our only recourse to a critical issue is *not* two guys with sticks beating up on each other. :)

Justification is not necessary as you are the GM and it's your game, your choice. The players will also exercise their choice on how to participate. And hopefully it will all work out. :)

Silver Crusade

Saw Eltacolibre cite the Bastion example, a good one. Also, a 1st edition Lankmar mini-adventure had a scenario where a paladin was guarding something the party needed to destroy. He had been misled as to his responsibility but firmly believed it was correct. Angelic beings are not immune to deception and can be misled. The encounter could result in combat, and it doesn't mean any code is being violated because both beings are doing what they believe is right.

Bastion is a great example because it's probably a "once in a campaign" scenario, and it really messes with characters who don't see it coming, providing for some excellent game time.


Rerednaw wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Seriously, though, if you can't imagine LG and LG coming to blows (even lethal blows, on occasion), read more books and play more story-oriented games.

Miko Miyazaki you mean? One such example of how to do it wrong.

Many examples in literature and history? Seem more like examples of lawful something-else (Camelot Arthur vs. Lancelot), not lawful good. Or "the ends justify the means" which falls under Chaotic Evil. Or "I'm just following orders..."

Another is the aforementioned plot railroad which is apparently without the players' buy-in.

As I said, I'm willing to go to almost absurd lengths with the players' buy-in (because it's a social group game) for a good story. Maybe it's a lead-in to a tragedy or change where one or both sides decides to follow a different and hopefully better path than the one he or she is on.

And yes, some would say Obi-wan was a Sith...until he learned better. But by then he was just a blue glowie. ;)

For me, I feel it's fundamentally about choice. If you choose to do something your heart, mind and belief tell you is wrong, then it's your choice. As are the consequences of that decision.

If the above deity placed a epic disaster class artifact (without breaking it down into separate parts) in a building accessible by almost anyone (certainly by the more powerful evil forces in the world) and defended by a lone guardian instead of say, lost in a random pocket dimension or any of a number of far more intelligent choices...then there has to be a reason. Keeping it out of the hands of mortals, especially powerful ones is not one of them.

Again all of this is under the umbrella of a fun fantasy game. If no-choice scenarios (despite the options presented by dozens of other folks) or in this case, one choice (LG fighting/destroying itself) are what the group enjoys, then you are deciding that this is the direction you want the game to go.

I'm sure the either side of the aisle will react accordingly:

Dark... [/QUOTE wrote:

Web comics weren't exactly what I had in mind, but there are likely a few examples out there as well.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
The idea that a paladin might not know everything going on the universe seems ... plausible to me. The idea that a paladin might know that he's not omniscient seems equally plausible.

Remove "paladin" from the above sentences and replace with "angel." Same principle applies ... and while one could argue that an angel is more intelligent and wiser (with excellent justification), that's countered by the fact that he's also likely much more rigidly devoted to whatever purpose with which he's been tasked, rather than interested in flexibility. In addition, if he'd been assigned this task a millennium ago, he might well be 1,000 years out of touch, and carrying out orders no longer applicable to the situation.

Quote:
If we're assuming a truly irresist(i)ble force meets immovable object situation here, at least one party is wrong. Based on the facts as presented, there's a 50/50 chance that it's the paladin.

I'm assuming nothing of the sort. The gods of Golarion are neither omnipotent nor omniscient, so ... that's not in play. It's just two beings, one of whom the paladin directly serves, with a difference in opinion. Not only is the paladin obeying the desires of his patron—and it's my assumption (note that if you're allowed to assume, so am I) that he would be warned away from an action contrary to his patron's desires in some fashion, especially if it would lead to a fall—he is moving proactively to preserve lives and defeat evil rather than sitting back on the chance that attempting to do good might result in evil.

Quote:
"Real good doesn't play it safe; it dares to do the right thing despite the danger." But there's no guarantee or even indication that this actually is the right thing.

Isn't there? We know from context that employing the artifact will very likely defeat the BBEG, and might put it at risk. The angel and his god are refusing to do good and attempt to save lives on the possibility things might go wrong.

You're falsely equating doing the right thing with knowing that it'll work out well. You do your best to do the right thing and have faith it'll work out well.


Matthew Downie wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:
Real good doesn't play it safe; it dares to do the right thing despite the danger.
Hm. "The terrorist has taken a child hostage? Open fire! Sure, there's an extremely high chance I'll kill the child, but not taking the risk would be evil!"

Lovely straw man, Scarecrow. Stuff it yourself?


Jaelithe wrote:


Quote:
"Real good doesn't play it safe; it dares to do the right thing despite the danger." But there's no guarantee or even indication that this actually is the right thing.
Isn't there? We know from context that employing the artifact will very likely defeat the BBEG, and might put it at risk. The angel and his god are refusing to do good and attempt to save lives on the possibility things might go wrong.

No, we know from context that the paladin, whom we not only assume to be fallible, but also actively know from meta-knowledge to have been duped already by the BBEG, believes that "employing the artifact will very likely defeat the BBEG, and might put it at risk."

We also know that the angel, who is by assumption smarter, wiser, and more experienced than the paladin, and also capable of much more direct communication with The Powers of Good, disagrees with the paladin.

Hmm. My lawyer says that if I do this, I will probably go to jail. The guy behind the bar at the Cat and Fiddle says that it's okay, he saw something on Law and Order about this. Whom do I believe?

We further know that using the artifact is one option among many, and have no indication that any other possibilities have been explored. As a matter of fact, we've more or less been informed that the paladin has explicitly rejected any other possibilities, because "good dares to do the right thing despite the danger."

FWIW, I think the child-hostage example is not in any way a straw man. What makes "shooting the terrorist" the wrong thing, once you've explicitly decided that danger to innocents is something to be disregarded?

Good takes risks only when there's no better option. The first step in establishing that there's no better option would be looking for one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I guess my whole point in this thread, and probably got lost after my first post, was that you shouldn't force a paladin to fight an angel.

I said in my very first post that I can imagine circumstances under which it will happen, I just personally believe it should be a last resort. An option to used only after all other options have failed. I can't imagine a paladin who walks into a room with an angel, demands access to the McGuffin only to be denied, and then sets about killing the angel without some sort of discussion and exploration of other options. It seems like that kind of paladin would get himself into trouble long before he reached the mcguffin.

I guess my further point is I hate railroading of the level where the GM forces the paladin to fight the angel. Allow the paladin (and the group) to explore other options. Allow them to try other avenues if they look for them. Don't just boil it down to you must fight the angel or else "rocks falls and everybody dies" because you didn't get the mcguffin. I mean, do you really want to end your game in such a s%#@ty way?

Sure, there are example of good fighting good in literature and other sources and its alright to see them come into contention with one another. But if your player is searching for another option don't be Richard and create a world where none exist.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
No, we know from context that the paladin, whom we not only assume to be fallible, but also actively know from meta-knowledge to have been duped already by the BBEG, believes that "employing the artifact will very likely defeat the BBEG, and might put it at risk."

You just called it "meta-knowledge," which means the paladin doesn't know it. He can't act on knowledge he doesn't possess.

Quote:
We also know that the angel, who is by assumption smarter, wiser, and more experienced than the paladin, and also capable of much more direct communication with The Powers of Good, disagrees with the paladin.

And we know that the paladin acts on the desires and dictates of his god, whom he would assume is not only wiser and more intelligent than an angel, but wiser and more intelligent than the god "foolishly" opposing his/her will.

Quote:
Hmm. My lawyer says that if I do this, I will probably go to jail. The guy behind the bar at the Cat and Fiddle says that it's okay, he saw something on Law and Order about this. Whom do I believe?

You (as the paladin) believe the judge from a higher court (your own god) over the judge from a lower court (the angel's god) ... and you believe your heart that tells you doing good and risking bad is better than doing nothing and risking bad.

Quote:
We further know that using the artifact is one option among many, and have no indication that any other possibilities have been explored. As a matter of fact, we've more or less been informed that the paladin has explicitly rejected any other possibilities, because "good dares to do the right thing despite the danger."

If that's indeed the case, and there are numerous unexplored options, then we're arguing about nothing. A paladin who's bullheadedly rushing forward to employ one option among many is a fool headed for a fall or a severe chastisement—either in the form of a stern castigation from his god or an ass-whipping from an angel.

Quote:
FWIW, I think the child-hostage example is not in any way a straw man. What makes "shooting the terrorist" the wrong thing, once you've explicitly decided that danger to innocents is something to be disregarded?

Sure it's a straw man/false dilemma—unless shooting the terrorist is your only option, as you point out above about the other issue. I may have been assuming facts not in evidence having lost track of the thread. If so, my apologies.

Quote:
Good takes risks only when there's no better option. The first step in establishing that there's no better option would be looking for one.

We've never disagreed on that, as is implied in my original post when I mentioned communication. I certainly don't see why a paladin, confronted with an angel who refuses to cooperate with his plan, wouldn't converse and attempt to employ the angel's wisdom for a better plan. I was assuming all other options had been exhausted and the angel was steadfastly refusing to cooperate in any fashion.

That's the problem with these hypothetical situations. (Or see above.)


I'm sure there are reasons for a paladin and angel to fight. It's not likely but there can be reasons considering that LG doesn't negate being a twerp. An archon is more likely to end in a fight considering that they are really uptight in the law department.


There is a significant difference between LG anything and an LG paladin, because of 1) the paladin code, and 2) the paladin is probably very religious (for the sake of discussion, no paladins of causes here, if that's possible).

I'd say, break the problem down and ask, how would an LG fighter deal with this situation? Then, how would the paladin code change that answer? Then, how would a highly religious person change that answer?

Also, suppose the angel were just a regular guard, alignment unknown. Would it be unlawful to kill the guard? Would a paladin have explicit legal authority to dispatch the guard (does it even say anywhere whether paladins, in any region of Golarion, get special legal status)? What if the guard were a well-known hero that has saved countless lives? How does changing the guard to a run of the mill angel change the answer from a famous hero? Would a famous angel be even more special than a famous mortal?

This brings up further questions: if a known agent of Good (or at least highly suspected) is guarding treasure that the party needs, and the party needs the treasure for good, maybe there's some misinformation somewhere. Is the party being duped into delivering the MacGuffin to the bad guy, killing an agent of good in the process? Is the guard being duped? If either group is the victim of a trick, what can be done about it? Is the guard being forced to guard the treasure against their will (geas, planar binding), and prevented from being able to converse with the party?

There are a ton of questions! The paladin would attack the angel, though, if it were necessary for self defense, after attempting to flee or maybe even surrender peacefully (no time to argue, something must be done). But the paladin would at least urge the team not to go all-out, try to capture it, or just don't attack once it falls unconscious (and if they disobey, or a major crit foils the KO, that's the others' fault or accidental, but the pally ought to at least pray about that at some point).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I like the bit where the paladin readies his arms and the angel produces a flaming sword, and they meet in combat, potentially to the death.

Big thumbs up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dagon-XIII wrote:
This is just a quick question as a GM. Has any one forced a Paladin to fight an angel of the same alignment? The Angel has been commanded to guard the room at all costs. How would you handle this as a GM?

This is actually very possible due to things like planar binding. It's very possible to force a good outsider to do evil things even if they don't want to. Sometimes the Paladin may be one of the only people who can save the outsider or offer it release. In some very extreme situations, that release may come with death, but if I was the adventurer involved (Paladin or otherwise) I'd try to end the battle without casualties on either side (like I generally do). Especially since outsiders cannot be raised reasonably and you're actually slaying their soul.


Stazamos wrote:


This brings up further questions: if a known agent of Good (or at least highly suspected) is guarding treasure that the party needs, and the party needs the treasure for good, maybe there's some misinformation somewhere.

This is actually a very standard trope in the Arthurian legends, which were of course the origins of the concept of the paladin.

No "maybe" about it, in Arthur's case. If you think that God wants you to do an evil act, you are wrong. Perhaps you're simply being stupid, or perhaps someone's duping you,.... or more likely you're simply seeing things through the lens of your own sinful nature (pride being a big one).

That's one of the main themes in the Lancelot/Galahad cycle Lancelot failed, because he tried to figure out what God wanted and do it, largely for his own self-aggrandizement. Galahad succeeded because he simply didn't do evil things, and therefore couldn't be tricked or tempted into believing that they were what God wanted.

This is easier to pull off in a monotheistic world with an omniscient God, of course. I'm not sure I'd have quite the same faith that Saranrae knew everything as Galahad did about God. But that's actually MORE reason not to fight the angel, not less. If you think that Saranwrap might not know everything, then she might not know what's going on with this angel and might want you to phone in and check for instructions. If you think that she really does want you to kill this angel, then maybe you don't understand what she thinks as much as you think she does.

But this whole situation hinges on the idea that a paladin is doing what he thinks his god wants, instead of what he knows to be the right thing. Doesn't that idea strike anyone as a touch staged?


There are those who would say that, even for a paladin, doing what the god wants/requires and the right thing are necessarily synonymous—which, of course, gets us into the question of whether morality derives from the (good) gods' endorsement, or the good gods customarily/invariably do the right thing because they possess greater insight into morality.

That's why playing the paladin of a being who's not omniscient is tricky.


Jaelithe wrote:
There are those who would say that, even for a paladin, doing what the god wants/requires and the right thing are necessarily synonymous

Of course. But doing what the paladin thinks the god requires is not necessarily synonymous with either.

Which of course is the whole solution to any apparent paradox.

Quote:


That's why playing the paladin of a being who's not omniscient is tricky.

Not at all. Even Ayn Rand managed to figure this one out, so it hardly takes a rocket surgeon. "Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."

The complete sorite runs as follows
* My god does not want me to take evil actions
* Killing a good outsider is an evil action
* My god wants me to kill a good outsider.
Conclusion: contradiction

One of those three premises, therefore, is false. Simply figure out which one it is, and you're golden.

Of course, Galahad knew this long before Rand.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:
Dagon-XIII wrote:
This is just a quick question as a GM. Has any one forced a Paladin to fight an angel of the same alignment? The Angel has been commanded to guard the room at all costs. How would you handle this as a GM?
This is actually very possible due to things like planar binding. It's very possible to force a good outsider to do evil things even if they don't want to. Sometimes the Paladin may be one of the only people who can save the outsider or offer it release. In some very extreme situations, that release may come with death, but if I was the adventurer involved (Paladin or otherwise) I'd try to end the battle without casualties on either side (like I generally do). Especially since outsiders cannot be raised reasonably and you're actually slaying their soul.

There is a PFS scenario which has a movanic deva being bound by Lissalan cultists (who are definitely not good). However it also provides for the party to get pass the deva without fighting it.


So you're saying, Orfamay Quest, that a god mightn't choose the expedient ... and that a paladin mightn't be guided by it?

What if the paladin is confronted by this conundrum?

  • My god does not want me to take evil actions
  • My god wants me to obey his commands
  • My god commands me to kill this mistaken outsider, who by his mistake is acting in the cause of evil, for the greater good

This could happen, also, if the god himself is imperfect (or relaxes his dictates situationally) ... and it's also possible that obedience might override personal conscience. The paladin might conclude: "I trust my god. Things must not be as they appear. I'll attack and ask for an explanation later, after the world is saved. He's the master; I'm the servant."

This, of course, would likely only arise if the paladin's god were one for expediency when necessary ... or if the angel, by refusing to turn over the object, was acting, whether unwittingly or not, against the cause of good.

Again, only a paladin with a god who was omni-benevolent and omniscient would be certain that obedience was the right choice.

(I'm not fond of Ayn Rand, either.)


Jaelithe wrote:


This, of course, would likely only arise if the paladin's god were one for expediency when necessary

Those are called "neutral" gods.

Quote:
.. or if the angel, by refusing to turn over the object, was acting, whether unwittingly or not, against the cause of good.

So educate the angel.

Quote:


Again, only a paladin with a god who was omni-benevolent and omniscient would be certain that obedience was the right choice.

I don't know how many times I need to repeat myself on this. A paladin can never be certain that obedience is the right choice, because the paladin is not expected to be immune to deception.

I keep coming back to Galahad, but for good reason. If the archangel Gabriel had appeared to Galahad in the flesh and said "God commands that you perform this evil act, for the greater good," he would have refused. He would have known, of course, that that wasn't the archangel Gabriel, but a fiend deceptively clothed in an angelic form.


Dagon-XIII wrote:
This is just a quick question as a GM. Has any one forced a Paladin to fight an angel of the same alignment? The Angel has been commanded to guard the room at all costs. How would you handle this as a GM?

Yes.

The same way I would any other bound outsider. Probably by starting with an initiative roll for all involved.

-TimD


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Killing a good outsider isn't an evil act. It doesn't have the [Evil] descriptor. It's an unfortunate act. But it isn't objectively evil.

Another thing of note is that, in the history of D&D, there have been cases where LG gods have come to blows personally.

So having their servants fight occasionally isn't out of the question at all.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is always so simple. Every paladin NEEDS a Phylactery of Faithfulness.

Have it warn him- or not.

I'd say warn him, and he thus know he should not. This should clue him in there's another way.

Never, EVER put a Paladin in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't' ethics trap. Why not just change the encounter?


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Those are called "neutral" gods.

A paladin may well serve a lawful neutral god, who holds obedience to his dictates a slightly higher priority than blind obedience to the paladin's perceived good.

Quote:
So educate the angel.

That assumes the angel wants to be educated ... that he's open to being educated ... and that his education brings him around to your way of thinking.

Quote:
I don't know how many times I need to repeat myself on this.

Is that the intellectual or ethical high ground you're claiming there?

Quote:
A paladin can never be certain that obedience is the right choice, because the paladin is not expected to be immune to deception.

But he is expected to be obedient to his lord's commands, even if he doesn't understand them.

Quote:
I keep coming back to Galahad, but for good reason. If the archangel Gabriel had appeared to Galahad in the flesh and said "God commands that you perform this evil act, for the greater good," he would have refused. He would have known, of course, that that wasn't the archangel Gabriel, but a fiend deceptively clothed in an angelic form.

Indeed. Galahad would know, because God is omni-benevolent and omniscient, and Satan can appear as an angel of light. In other words, Galahad has absolute certainty that "Gabriel" is full of it—a certainty our paladin of Sarenrae/Iomedae/whoever doesn't have.

And what if the angel protecting the artifact is a disguised fiend, employing magics that make him proof against Detect Evil? Perhaps the god knows this and doesn't feel it necessary to inform the paladin, because he should simply be obedient to the god's will. "Act first, I'll explain later—if I so choose."

"Take thy son Isaac, whom thou lovest..."

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fighting isn't the only solution, because what kind of game would that be. Morale dilemma is one of the best tools a GM has to call. If a Gm is doing his/her job correctly, the players are running the story themselves without even knowing it. Being a GM is full time job, that takes planning to the nine.

You want players to go from point A, to Point B. But in a "real world" situation, excrement occurs and you have to pick up the slack.

Leading the players by the nose is a huge no no, but sometimes the players back themselves into a corner that they can't get out of. This is when a GM may or may not step in. Setting up the scenes, letting them know the degree of there success and failure, these are the things that are expected of GM. Lawful good vs Lawful good was mostly a question to see how other GM's, and players have handled this situation.

Besides, my Paladin "if I know him well enough", will exhaust every other possibility before he goes to blows with an Angel of his own faith. The rest of the party with follow his lead, because it make for cohesive game. The real question i want to know is, whats wrong with putting good vs good? It makes for great story telling, and awesome combat. Guilt and suspicion are also excellent tools for a GM, it makes the players care more about the decisions they make in the future. I've been playing a long time like many others, and sometimes players loose sight of what the game is for.

Being able to strike up a real emotion for a make believe character is hard to do, so putting good vs good is just a n easy way of doing that. \\[T]// Praise the sun!

101 to 150 of 162 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Lawful Good VS Lawful Good All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.