|
Short answer: Damned if you do, really damned if you don't. The lesser of two evils is to abandon your code to save the lives of innocents, you may be damned because of it, but it is the noble sacrifice.
Umm, when would saving the lives of innocents equate to abandoning the code? I think the point I made was that following the code means saving the lives of innocents.
|
And I would say that asking the paladin to abandon her ethics to save innocent lives is like asking someone to fly by passing gas. It is just not feasible in their mind. In that case they must find another way to achieve their goals.
Of course pass their minds, i guess all the time, we are talking about imperfect mortals don´t us ? if the paladin already atained superior level of morality, then we are talking about an angel outsider no longer a mortal and is not an interesting character to roleplay. If being a paladin means that i would ban the class from my game.
As an analogy, for some people breaking their word is unacceptable for any reason. These people are occasionally in difficult situations because of this personal code/ethic, situations where if they would be willing to break their word would make their lives easier. Why don't they? Their personal beliefs do not allow them to.
Say at least one true or fiction person who has this absolute perfect paladin morals and absolution.
In the module, they perhaps should say, "No thank you on the drow skin disguise. Instead we will rush the gate and secure it. Question any survivers, and then working on finding out the information some other way. I have no intention of infiltrating a group of demon worshippers." Now that might be a "dumb" plan, lawful "stupid" if you will, but it would still be following the code, while trying to save innocent lives (drow within PF context are not innocent by definition).
But evil is more effective anyway, unless the GM makes a divine intervention to reward the paladin faith, the only reasonable option in the situation is the paladin quit being a paladin or quit the adventure.
So, what is better, allow him to do that or quit the campaing because we can´t compromise for fun ?So the code should be tossed whenever it hinders the defense of innocents, even that of a single innocent? Kind of doesn't really sound much of code at that point, what do the...
Yes, sorry but the code is stupid to be into a game. No problem with the code for a romance or in real life. It would be cool to be a PERSONAL code, but a world wide class, who have different religions, different cultures, it make no sense to have a Tian samurai paladin who follow this, an Mwangi paladin warrior who thinks this or anything not eurocentric for being into this.
But it is. I can do nothing about it beside not following it.
Is that OK?
|
You keep saying it is ok to move away from the code, if there is genocide going on. Very well. What if it is just the destruction of one metropolis? One village? 100 people? 10 people? 1 person? When is it ok to abandon the code for the good of others? That is the problem with these things, once you begin to allow the code to be broken, it isn't really a code anymore.
It's not about moving away from all of the code. Protection of the innocent is the highest part of the code. If you abandon your resposibility to that, you have broken the code. Everything else is secondary.
And stop moving your arguement away from the situation. Your arguement doesn't hold water in the Second Darkness senario.
|
|
So you're saying that the code trumps the lives of innocents? You aren't willing to sacrifice your powers to stop the destruction of innocent life?I'm saying you are looking at it from a pragmatic point of view, but a paladin looks at it from an idealistic point of view. It is not a choice of saving lives or following the code, it is that following the code is the method to achieve the best outcome, in the paladin's faith (note this isn't necessarily religion). What if in order to save the lives, you had to condemn all of the souls to the hells for all eternity? Would that be a good deal in your view? Some means are too extreme, and ultimately are self-defeating. What if a paladin sacrificed his ethics, but failed to stop the apocolypse? What had he accomplished in that case? Feeling good about himself that he gave it the college try?
Also, to satisfy Herald and speak about the actual module itself, we should point out that when the party goes to the underdark, they don't know the issue is about the apolocypse, they have indications of it, but don't know for certain. And if the deities knew so much, why even go, just use some divination spells and avoid the entire issue to begin with, so I don't think we can say that the deities know full well, and thus couldn't reasonably say, "This is such an extreme situation that we are talking all restrictions off the board."
(Cough) Strawman {cough)
|
|
So the code should be tossed whenever it hinders the defense of innocents, even that of a single innocent? Kind of doesn't really sound much of code at that point, what do the...
And once again, you've slipped into left field. You asking for a senario that no one is propossing but you. Now your talking about a senario without context.
Stop dancing around here pres man. All Paladins have it in there code to help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends) and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
A paladin can not turn his back and satisfy the code.
Oddly enough, the Paladin's code encourages them to punish those who harm innocents. Drow society harms innocents. If he were to walk among them, he'd encounter so many transgressions that his code would encourage him to punish, he'd fall just by ignoring them.
Every time an alignment discussion like this comes up, I'm reminded of Sailor Moon. The S season of Sailor Moon does an excellent job, especially at the end, of demonstrating how adherence to a higher code, despite the pragmatic view that would make things easier, can actually achieve more noble ends. I love that season so very much.
I'm also reminded of a quote from Moon Knight, the Marvel character. "Killing isn't hard. It's the easiest thing there is. Why do you think it's so damn popular?"
Of course pass their minds, i guess all the time, we are talking about imperfect mortals don´t us ? if the paladin already atained superior level of morality, then we are talking about an angel outsider no longer a mortal and is not an interesting character to roleplay. If being a paladin means that i would ban the class from my game.
I would argue that paladins do have a more ... put whatever adjective you think is appropriate ... ethical code than almost all of the other classes. Even a LG fighter/cleric, is not held to the same standard as a paladin, as long as their god is happy, they are golden. Now that might be boring to you, but it is not boring to all people. Some people do actually like Superman or Captain America (before they made him all wacky). Of course there are also those that love Wolverine and the Punisher and don't understand the attraction of the previous two.
Say at least one true or fiction person who has this absolute perfect paladin morals and absolution.
Well, remember when Faramir follows his father's orders in the movie, even though he knows it is a suicide mission and many if not all of his men (innocent men) are going to die because of it. When challenged by Gandalf he says, "Where else should I be, but right here doing my lord's command." I'm not sure if I would say that he was a paladin (especially in the movies, his treatment of Gollum disgusted me), but that is an ethical stance in that direction.
But evil is more effective anyway, unless the GM makes a divine intervention to reward the paladin faith, the only reasonable option in the situation is the paladin quit being a paladin or quit the adventure.
So, what is better, allow him to do that or quit the campaing because we can´t compromise for fun ?
Actually I gave a third option, rally the elves to join the party and rush the gate and secure it. Forget the infiltration effort (which in any case paladins are very poorly equipped for both ethically and functionally) and make an assault effort. It might not be the most "efficient" way, but it still might work, that is unless the DM plays the "rocks fall, you all die" fiat.
Yes, sorry but the code is stupid to be into a game. No problem with the code for a romance or in real life. It would be cool to be a PERSONAL code, but a world wide class, who have different religions, different cultures, it make no sense to have a Tian samurai paladin who follow this, an Mwangi paladin warrior who thinks this or anything not eurocentric for being into this.
But it is. I can do nothing about it beside not following it.
And I think right there is the fundamental issue. If you don't see the value in it, then no matter how I try to discuss it, it isn't going to resonate with you.
I'm also reminded of a quote from Moon Knight, the Marvel character. "Killing isn't hard. It's the easiest thing there is. Why do you think it's so damn popular?"
Moon Knight don't kill no more. He's a hero!
But what if he/she is a Paladin of Asmodeus?
-the fact that these are even contemplated is an issue to me. What happened to good being good? Not boring cookie cutter good- just not working for the Devil good! I do sometimes worry that Paizo version good/evil (I mean D&D game good evil not hitler, catholics or whatever)is pretty different to mine.
My group also has mentioned (and they have only played runelords but some have read some other bits) that in Golarion it feels like evil is kewl, can do what it likes and so forth but good is lame, ineffectual (and probably behind closed doors pretty nasty- the priest who raised Nualia comes to mind). The comment made was that the evil guys are black hats and the good guys are grey hats- there are no white hats.
having said that
In runelords I have allowed a fair bit of downtime after the runeforge where I have made the effects of the runeforged items clear, they didnt really comprehend the creation process as anything evil or off- the Paladin (of Iomadae) is looking to have the taint removed from his weapon and most of the others are locking up that weapon until they go after Karzoug. That works for me.
BTW really interesting thread- I agree with much of the OP's comments about the pervasiveness of evil -and the bizarre defining of what I would think of as evil as neutral- and would be happy to have an AP without the 'you must side with evil' element. If it doesn't happen and I am left with the excellent quality of AP I have been getting so far- I will still be happy.
|
But what if he/she is a Paladin of Asmodeus?
-the fact that these are even contemplated is an issue to me. What happened to good being good? Not boring cookie cutter good- just not working for the Devil good! I do sometimes worry that Paizo version good/evil (I mean D&D game good evil not hitler, catholics or whatever)is pretty different to mine.
Yeah, I was a little bugged by that as well. It just doesn't make sense to me, and I probably wouldn't allow it in a game I DM'd.
So, what you're saying is SKR is in cahoots with Jason Nelson?
So, what you're saying is SKR is in cahoots with Jason Nelson?
I knew it!!! They both had waaay to many of the same letters in their names for it to be a coincidence. I bet they're in league with the slug-men from Venus!
I'm curious, though, to find out if the worry that we put too much evil in our adventures is shared by others? Again... the grittier adventures and elements we produce generally get good reviews and good sales, so I feel pretty justified in presenting these more mature, edgier products and adventures, but if folks...
Wow, this thread went all over the place!
Aiming at the original topic, I'd like to add in my $0.02 that I do tend to find the Golarion/Pathfinder stuff darker than I'd prefer. I'd like to see more heroic fantasy with occasional splashes of the weird, and fewer horror stories with elves.
This (plus cost) is a major reason I never renewed my adventure path subscription, tho I am buying the rulebooks. For my scenarios I've mostly been sticking to Goodman Games or homebrew.
FWIW, my current campaign is a sequel to Red Hand of Doom, which had the flavor I want spot-on. :)
-The Gneech
|
I'm curious, though, to find out if the worry that we put too much evil in our adventures is shared by others? Again... the grittier adventures and elements we produce generally get good reviews and good sales, so I feel pretty justified in presenting these more mature, edgier products and adventures, but if folks...Wow, this thread went all over the place!
Aiming at the original topic, I'd like to add in my $0.02 that I do tend to find the Golarion/Pathfinder stuff darker than I'd prefer. I'd like to see more heroic fantasy with occasional splashes of the weird, and fewer horror stories with elves.
This (plus cost) is a major reason I never renewed my adventure path subscription, tho I am buying the rulebooks. For my scenarios I've mostly been sticking to Goodman Games or homebrew.
FWIW, my current campaign is a sequel to Red Hand of Doom, which had the flavor I want spot-on. :)
-The Gneech
Red Hand of Doom 2: The OTHER Hand!
|
|
I would argue that paladins do have a more ... put whatever adjective you think is appropriate ... ethical code than almost all of the other classes. Even a LG fighter/cleric, is not held to the same standard as a paladin, as long as their god is happy, they are golden. Now that might be boring to you, but it is not boring to all people. Some people do actually like Superman or Captain America (before they made him all wacky). Of course there are also those that love Wolverine and the Punisher and don't understand the attraction of the previous two.
Superman, Captain America or even He-Man would not treat the Paladin Code as the Asimov´s Laws of Robotics as you suggest. They have conflict and doubts as any other human level mind.
Well, remember when Faramir follows his father's orders in the movie, even though he knows it is a suicide mission and many if not all of his men (innocent men) are going to die because of it. When challenged by Gandalf he says, "Where else should I be, but right here doing my lord's command." I'm not sure if I would say that he was a paladin (especially in the movies, his treatment of Gollum disgusted me), but that is an ethical stance in that direction.
So if his father asked him to infiltrate Mordor using the dead bodies of Orcs he should do it ? Or by the paladin code, would be right to him do that ?
Actually I gave a third option, rally the elves to join the party and rush the gate and secure it. Forget the infiltration effort (which in any case paladins are very...
I have problems with being easier for the paladin siding with chaotic allies than evil allies, but skipping that, the problem with this solution is being outside of the scope of the adventure as someone told he bought the book because he did not want to have work writing anything.
And I think right there is the fundamental issue. If you don't see the value in it, then no matter how I try to discuss it, it isn't going to resonate with you.
But i do see value in that, i just don´t throw all my coins in one hat. As i said, it´s a cool concept for a character, but is a bad concept to all paladin character in the world functioning like that.
Hmmm...black & white v. shades of gray again? In a paladin thread?!?!?
Shocking.
Maybe we should start a betting pool on how this will end. People can put their souls up as collateral.
I'm in.
As I said above this arguement has being going on since circa 1976.
Personally I'm taking my dog home from this fight..nobody is going to shift their view no matter what arguements are used. In the end it's down to each individual DM to define the limits of the code for Paladins in his game.
Yeah, there's no point arguing with people who've been wrong since 1976.
|
While I have enjoyed all APs tremendously (perhaps except for second half of Second Darkness, which we are still slugging through), the OP makes a few good points. I wouldn't mind future APs with more interactions between good folks and less "mingling" with evil types. A few 95% of people are good and you get the odd evil monster (i.e. more of a "us" against "them" feel) would be refreshing. Real life is somewhat like this after all, and there is a very wide spectrum of emotions/interactions that exists between good folks (i.e. an AP that includes conflicts or wars between good folks would be awesome, and a true roleplay experience). The odd evildoers, in a world where priests and paladins (the champions of the people) can detect evil within seconds, should be on their best behavior and take every measure possible to hide or remedy/seek redemption for their evil/darker side.
Oddly enough, the Paladin's code encourages them to punish those who harm innocents. Drow society harms innocents. If he were to walk among them, he'd encounter so many transgressions that his code would encourage him to punish, he'd fall just by ignoring them.
It is similar to how there would be a lot of harming of innocents going on in Riddleport as well. And at that point, the perpetrators are likely to be more powerful than the paladin, and beyond his ability to punish. From what I can tell, it is the same situation as the drow society. Either the paladin falls from failing to punish them or the paladin is killed trying to punish all of them.
One could even interpret not running down and fighting drow society then and there as a failure of the paladin code. Because, you know that the drow are doing evil underground, and you aren't doing anything to punish there.
One might infer the paladin isn't forced to go on completely suicidal runs just to punish every infraction they see. That the 1st level paladin shouldn't lose her powers for not jumping the first balor they see. Encountering a transgression doesn't mean that they are capable of dealing with it or should deal with it.
Someone has to keep the torch alite :P
I was born in 1976, did i miss so much fun since then ? :P
'76 was the year the Paladin was introduced..or was it '75 anyway the point I was trying to make was that this is the longest running arguement in the history of the game..
Edit I checked..the folio Greyhawk was 1975..but I think it took about a year for the arguement to filter through to stuff like Alaurms and Excursions(now that dates me)and become a standard trope
Hmmm...black & white v. shades of gray again? In a paladin thread?!?!?
Shocking.
actually paladins in a black & white v shades of gray thread.
Maybe the kill one innocent to save many debate is too polarizing.
My suggestion to any player that is put in the situation where you have to kill the innocent to save the world by their DM, they should:
1)kill the innocent.2)have their character commit seppuku, to regain their honor and pay for their transgression.
3)smack the DM over the head with the game book. (figuratively, mostly)
4)leave and find a group without a moron running it.
Yeah, I'm not a big fan of the whole "no good choice so you get to just pick the least sucky one" scenario either.
I haven't read all of the APs closely, but it seems that it might be more a reflection of how the GM chooses to run it than an inherent part of the APs themselves.
My players actually started griping about this in my home campaign, and I understood their point - if the lower planes are the only ones that seem like they're willing to help, then that's the path they'll take.
Feeling like everyone is against you is not very fun. After all, the game is for everyone to enjoy, and if the players are not enjoying it, it's kind of pointless.
Same goes for me, of course - I told them I had zero interest in running an evil campaign, regardless of their personal feelings on the matter :)
Yeah, I'm not a big fan of the whole "no good choice so you get to just pick the least sucky one" scenario either.
I haven't read all of the APs closely, but it seems that it might be more a reflection of how the GM chooses to run it than an inherent part of the APs themselves.
My players actually started griping about this in my home campaign, and I understood their point - if the lower planes are the only ones that seem like they're willing to help, then that's the path they'll take.
Feeling like everyone is against you is not very fun. After all, the game is for everyone to enjoy, and if the players are not enjoying it, it's kind of pointless.
Same goes for me, of course - I told them I had zero interest in running an evil campaign, regardless of their personal feelings on the matter :)
I would guess a bigger issue than just what choices are detailed out, is also the fact that every "good" NPC (or NPCs that should be good) is described as an utter douche-bag. As someone point out, look at the guy who raised Nualia, she has a celestial bloodline, he was a priest of a good deity (I think, I don't have the module in front of me at the moment), and yet he acts like a total douche-bag towards her.
A paladin would never committ an evil act for the greater good.
1. paladins are not pragmatists, the end result is not what is imporatant to the paladin
2. paladins are not utilitarains- there is no measurement for the good.
3.paladins are not humians, feelings and goodness are not the same nor is it subjective
4. paladins are not artistolians goodness is more than virtue to them
5. paladins are in fact kantantians, there is objective right and wrong, moreover the only justification is the good itself. the good does not need to be reference to any result. a goodness is equal to ever other goodness.
Creative Director
|
I would guess a bigger issue than just what choices are detailed out, is also the fact that every "good" NPC (or NPCs that should be good) is described as an utter douche-bag. As someone point out, look at the guy who raised Nualia, she has a celestial bloodline, he was a priest of a good deity (I think, I don't have the module in front of me at the moment), and yet he acts like a total douche-bag towards her.
This is, of course, a gross overgeneralization. We've certainly included good guys who are jerks (such as the above-mentioned priest), but we've also certainly included friendly bad guys (such as the elven priest of Zon-Kuthon in Crimson Throne). Having good guys act like jerks or evil guys be helpful is a fun and interesting way to make characters memorable and unique.
That said... we've got examples of good guys who DON'T act like jerks and who are, in fact, kind and helpful in pretty much every single AP adventure. In the case of the aforementioned priest of Sandpoint, his successor is one such good guy. So is most of the town of Sandpoint.
It's easy to get distracted by the unusual cases, I guess. But that doesn't mean that they're the ONLY cases.
Red Hand of Doom 2: The OTHER Hand!
Actually, the campaign title is Revenge of the Giants -- which WotC turned around and used for a book of their own! Go fig. (I guess in retrospect it was kinda obvious.)
Oh well, it gives me a new source to plunder mercilessly for encounters!
-The Gneech
I always propose that people who put up situations that say things like "What if the paladin had to sacrifice 1 innocent to save 100 lives?" aren't seeing the big picture. The paladin would sacrifice the one innocent, save the one-hundred lives, and then go save the one innocent. It's been happening for years in superhero comics: Save the girl or save these innocents! And the hero just saves both.
If you're a paladin and you're faced with a lose/lose situation, choose the third option and save both.
Blue Hand of Mood?
Green Tentacle of Unease?
-The Gneech
I always propose that people who put up situations that say things like "What if the paladin had to sacrifice 1 innocent to save 100 lives?" aren't seeing the big picture. The paladin would sacrifice the one innocent, save the one-hundred lives, and then go save the one innocent. It's been happening for years in superhero comics: Save the girl or save these innocents! And the hero just saves both.
If you're a paladin and you're faced with a lose/lose situation, choose the third option and save both.
this is a cheat situation. Personally it's not that difficult a choice for the paladin, because there is no greater good. and it is not evil to let the 100 die, if the cost is the murder of 100. you try to save the 100, and if you fail, so be it.
... and it is not evil to let the 100 die, ...
To some, it is in fact evil to allow them to die. I wouldn't agree, I think it would be neutral, and when faced with a decision between an evil act and a neutral act, irregardless of the consequences, I believe a paladin should always choose the neutral act over the evil one (though of course if there is a good choice, that is the one that should be choosen over the others). But when you can't get people to agree on if doing nothing is neutral or evil, well, where can you really go from there.
... and it is not evil to let the 100 die, ...To some, it is in fact evil to allow them to die. I wouldn't agree, I think it would be neutral, and when faced with a decision between an evil act and a neutral act, irregardless of the consequences, I believe a paladin should always choose the neutral act over the evil one (though of course if there is a good choice, that is the one that should be choosen over the others). But when you can't get people to agree on if doing nothing is neutral or evil, well, where can you really go from there.
I'm not sure if i agree its neutral or not but i do think in this case it's not evil not to save them
Whether one agrees that doing nothing is evil or neutral is based upon whether or not one believes there is such a thing as the greater good.
clearly if you belive in the concept of the greater good, you might be inclined sacrafice the 1 innocent to save the 100. of course this is why many people find ulitiarianism concepts of the good unacceptable, of course for others, they argue that people are just being too squimish. however in any case, Paladins would not subcribe to this theory of the good. However it would certainly pose a diffult test for a traditional hero.
there are times when letting someone die is an evil and selfish act. if you see a man dying on the street and you simple walk by and take no action, when doing so hampers you in no way, that is most certianly an evil act.
however in this case, saving the 100 requires an evil act, which in my views, makes it not-evil act when you choose not to save them.
|
|
My suggestion to any player that is put in the situation where you have to kill the innocent to save the world by their DM, they should:
1)kill the innocent.
2)have their character commit seppuku, to regain their honor and pay for their transgression.
3)smack the DM over the head with the game book. (figuratively, mostly)
4)leave and find a group without a moron running it.
As if it can´t happen in real life. Of course a DM that do that only to annoy the Paladin player is a jerk, but it can happen naturally in a campaing without the DM planning for it.
I have been talking with my therapist about this paladin issue. She says that the problem of good and evil its in really about ethics and thats a lot subjetive, as what is ethical for one society is not necessarily the same for other society.
A paladin can not do evil acts. But he can kill, he can drink alcohol, he can smoke, he can enter armed inside churchs, a male paladin can attack womans (and kill evil womans on sight), many things who many think as evil but are not in Golarion. So the one size fits all is really frustrating for me.
|
|
My suggestion to any player that is put in the situation where you have to kill the innocent to save the world by their DM, they should:
1)kill the innocent.
2)have their character commit seppuku, to regain their honor and pay for their transgression.
3)smack the DM over the head with the game book. (figuratively, mostly)
4)leave and find a group without a moron running it.As if it can´t happen in real life. Of course a DM that do that only to annoy the Paladin player is a jerk, but it can happen naturally in a campaing without the DM planning for it.
I have been talking with my therapist about this paladin issue. She says that the problem of good and evil its in really about ethics and thats a lot subjetive, as what is ethical for one society is not necessarily the same for other society.
A paladin can not do evil acts. But he can kill, he can drink alcohol, he can smoke, he can enter armed inside churchs, a male paladin can attack womans (and kill evil womans on sight), many things who many think as evil but are not in Golarion. So the one size fits all is really frustrating for me.
There are a lot of people on the interweb who think that reality is objective, their morality is pure, just and true, and you can draw simple lines under all moral situations.
There are a lot of people on the interweb who think that reality is objective, their morality is pure, just and true, and you can draw simple lines under all moral situations.
My suggestion to any player that is put in the situation where you have to kill the innocent to save the world by their DM, they should:
1)kill the innocent.
2)have their character commit seppuku, to regain their honor and pay for their transgression.
3)smack the DM over the head with the game book. (figuratively, mostly)
4)leave and find a group without a moron running it.As if it can´t happen in real life. Of course a DM that do that only to annoy the Paladin player is a jerk, but it can happen naturally in a campaing without the DM planning for it.
I have been talking with my therapist about this paladin issue. She says that the problem of good and evil its in really about ethics and thats a lot subjetive, as what is ethical for one society is not necessarily the same for other society.
A paladin can not do evil acts. But he can kill, he can drink alcohol, he can smoke, he can enter armed inside churchs, a male paladin can attack womans (and kill evil womans on sight), many things who many think as evil but are not in Golarion. So the one size fits all is really frustrating for me.
none of the things you listed is an evil act.
killing is not an evil act in and of itself. killing an innocent and offending person is an evil act.
drinking not an evil act- see the last super
smoking not an evil act- not healthy but certainly not evil
being armed in a church not an evil act- not sure why you would think it is?
again killing a woman not an evil act in and of itself.
none of these things are evil in our world.
Paladins are special because they believe goodness to be objective and by neccassity MUST be universal or it would not mean anything.
Relativism is great danger for the paladin not evil.
Relativism is how even a great and moral man like aristole could think slavery justified.
Your therapist is confusing ethics with the GOOD, which is very common and many philosophers made it. The danger of confusing the two is relativism.
These books by Kant provide an excellent source for understanding Ojective morality.
The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals ,The Critique of Practical Reason, The Metaphysics of Morals, Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View and Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason
1)Paladin's do not get the abilities from a deity, therefore a deity has no say on whether a paladin loses her abilities. A deity could act through a cleric to return them, but not stop them from being lost in the first place.
Could you let me know how you came to the conclusion that Paladins don't get their powers from a deity?
2)If you are using PF rules and not 3.5 rules then it is even worse, in 3.5 you fell for "grossly" violating your code of conduct, which gave you a little wiggle room. In PF, the "grossly" has been removed and so any violation, even a small one, even for the greater good, will still cause a paladin to fall.
How does the code conflict with infiltrating an evil city?
If the Paladin refuses to talk, or states something like "I'd rather kill you than do anything else right at the moment" to an evil inhabitant of that city (as this wouldn't be a lie, and could give the paladin a nice modifier on their intimidate check), that paladin wouldn't be lying.
I agree with those that have stated that the Paladin wouldn't be compelled by their code to attack every being that threatens or harms an innocent. That type of approach may be what caused the creation of "Lawful Stupid", well that along with cannot retreat.
As well, in such an evil city, would there be any innocents?
Maybe the kill one innocent to save many debate is too polarizing.My suggestion to any player that is put in the situation where you have to kill the innocent to save the world by their DM, they should:
1)kill the innocent.
2)have their character commit seppuku, to regain their honor and pay for their transgression.
3)smack the DM over the head with the game book. (figuratively, mostly)
4)leave and find a group without a moron running it.
Of course the most famous and important homicide case in the western tradition of law, comes very close to this situtaion.
|
|
none of the things you listed is an evil act.killing is not an evil act in and of itself. killing an innocent and offending person is an evil act.
drinking not an evil act- see the last super
smoking not an evil act- not healthy but certainly not evil
being armed in a church not an evil act- not sure why you would think it is?
again killing a woman not an evil act in and of itself.none of these things are evil in our world.
Paladins are special because they believe goodness to be objective and by neccassity MUST be universal or it would not mean anything.
Relativism is great danger for the paladin not evil....
Maybe in your world, but in my world those things are pretty evil (i live in Brazil [in truth smoking is evil only for me as i am lethally allergic to the smoking)])
Relativism is not subjective, it is true. In some countries a male beating a woman its a heinous act, in others its daily happening.
There is a lot of "worst case scenario" flying around regarding what a paladin could and couldn't do. I'm not sure that I could make a sweeping statement that would elucidate anyone on the "problems" of the paladin, but I know what I would do as a GM specifically in the case of Second Darkness
On Disguises
The party accepts the creepy disguise spell as a good idea to spy on drow in their own city. The paladin isn't in charge of the plan, and goes along with it.
On Lying
In the city itself, the paladin looks like a drow. If someone asks them if they are (insert proper name of drow they are impersonating), the paladin would indeed be screwed. However, I think this is one of those "don't go out of your way to screw the paladin" situations. Unless someone really has a reason to ask a specific question, the paladin should be fine.
"Who are you?"
"It is none of your concern" (Glower, possibly intimidate check)
No loss of paladin abilities there. No line, just a refusal to answer.
Yes, if the paladin says "I'm Wazzik Nu'durkin," they would be violating their code. The above works just fine.
On Torture in the Streets
Now let's follow our paladin through other evil acts in the drow city. The paladin sees a poor goblin slave being beaten in the streets. This is horrible.
Now, the paladin notices that the goblin, itself, is evil. The act is still wrong. Perhaps an act of kindness could turn this creature to the light. Unfortunately, the slight chance of saving one darkened soul versus finding out what great evil is being done by a city of demon worshiping drow means that someone already lost to darkness may not be worth the lives of thousands and thousands.
Sure, the paladin is going to be depressed at witnessing this act, but in this case, the paladin isn't actually saving an innocent being. This is saving a lesser evil from a greater evil at the possible cost of letting the greatest evil happen.
Now, could the paladin try to find some way to get the torturer into a dark alley and challenge them to a fair fight away from prying eyes? Sure, if they are creative.
If said torturer were torturing a non-evil halfling/human child/cute blink dog puppy/(insert non-evil slave here), the paladin would, indeed, be screwed if they let this act continue. Again, this kind of falls under the GM's, don't intentionally try to screw your paladins admonishment.
Then again, a shrewd paladin might still be able to figure out a way to end the torture and get said torturer into a dark alleyway to deal with them . . . fairly of course.
On Demonic Sacrifices
Yes, there may be demonic sacrifices and rituals going on. Again, unless the GM declares that the drow just wrangled up a host of sentient celestial puppies to be sacrificed, its unfortunately "evil on evil" crime. Not wonderful to be a witness to, but again, "evil on evil" still lets the paladin opt out of the "protecting innocents" clause.
Enough Rope
I guess the point of all of this is, I'm not sure how handy it is to try and make too much of a broad statement about "all paladins do this" or "paladins should never do that."
A really gung-ho, break in the door player that doesn't want to think carefully can walk right into a minefield, but even a somewhat philosophical or careful player should be able to walk the line and avoid some of the biggest problems that could blow up.
Sometimes I think we just go out of our way to come up with a thousand what if statements instead of dealing with what players actually end up doing.
There is a lot of "worst case scenario" flying around regarding what a paladin could and couldn't do. I'm not sure that I could make a sweeping statement that would elucidate anyone on the "problems" of the paladin, but I know what I would do as a GM specifically in the case of Second Darkness
** spoiler omitted **...
I would have to disagree with most of those statments. A Paladin who watches the goblin slave get beaten has failed.
Being a paladin is hard, being Kant was hard, if you are not up to the task do it.
Nor do i think it is GM cruely. If you are a paladin you either choose to go into the drow city and act according to your beliefs, and you realize that you going there would compramise the mission and you don't go.
Being a paragon of Justice is a hard thing, and doing all these cheats to wiggle out of the consquences, cheapens the difficulty of taking on the mantle of justice.
I disagree. I think in the situations that I pointed out, the paladin still followers their code. Its not a matter of "my code is on hold," its a matter of what the code really means in a practical sense.
Anyway, I was just giving an example of how I would rule it, specifically, in the campaign mentioned. Others would likely rule in other ways.
|
Creative Director
|
If I were running a game in which a paladin was working undercover in an evil society and he avoided saving a creature getting beaten, I would certainly NOT strip the paladin of his paladinhood. I would expect the player to roleplay some guilt and angst and torment, and would expect the player, once the undercover assignment were over, to seek out atonement (or even earlier) from an allied cleric. And if the end result of the undercover assignment results in a step forward for good (such as discovering where the MAIN bad guy is shacked up and what she's up to), then while the paladin had a long dark night of the soul during the assignment I would rule that it was for the greater good and, especially if the paladin came out the other side with atonements and a greater appreciation for society, would see the paladin as having grown better for the ordeal.
Had the paladin stepped forward to save the goblin, and in so doing done so wihtout blowing his cover, I would give the group extra XP points. If the paladin steps forward to save the goblin and in so doing blows his cover and gets the PCs either driven out of town or TPKed or otherwise prevented from finding the key info they were after... that'd be not really an EVIL act but it would certainly be a CHAOTIC act. This situation would likely result, in my game, in the paladin losing his paladinhood just as surely as if he'd stepped in to help torture the goblin.
And finally, in a move that I"m sure will rile things up here even more... I see Jack Bauer of "24" almost as a paladin. He's an intrinsically good and lawful man who's constantly put into impossible situations where he has to make choices for the lesser chaos or the lesser evil, but in the end he manages to save a LOT of people. Yet he's incredibly psychologically damaged and tormented and wracked with guilt and shame over what he's had to do... but I wouldn't take away his paladin powers. Perhaps being wracked with guilt and shame is part of what being a paladin is.
