|
I really don't see what Law and Chaos has to do with killing someone to save the many. I don't think that someone who is NG would make that choice just because they are NG and the same can be said about CG. Either may try to save everyone and die trying and maybe a million people will die. I am assuming this is an innocent person you are talking about and not the threat itself in which case and good aligned person would be ok will killing the bad guy trying to kill 1 million people. CG people don't don't acts of evil any more often than LG people and killing an innocent is an evil act.
For the purposes of the excercise (and historical argument), assume that you are trapped in a dead magic zone within a cube of force. You only have the options of choosing a sacrificial victim or not choosing one.
The lawful versus chaos ties into whether morality is absolute (lawful), flexible, having exceptions, etc (neutral), or relatively fluid (chaos). The example is indeed that you must kill x innocent person/people to save quantity y (which is grossly greater than x) innocent people.
LG: Killing an innocent is evil in all circumstances and I cannot bend the rules. That means millions may die, but that is not on my conscience, but rather the individual who created the circumstance.
NG: Killing innocents is always wrong, but if one can save millions, maybe this is the exception.
CG: If killing one innocent will save millions, that's an acceptable loss.
Lies:
LG: Lying is wrong, no matter what.
NG: Lying is bad, but there are exceptions to the rule.
CG: So long as nobody gets hurt, lying is fine.
Getting rid of a LE dictator:
LG: Work within the system (like a lawyer) to get him deposed. If that fails, and you have the resources, declare war. War is a perfectly lawful choice.
NG: Whatever is necessary, within reason.
CG: Whatever is necessary, period. (A very dangerous line to walk)
Morality as a whole:
LG: Don't do x as it is evil.
NG: Don't do x, unless doing so will achieve a greater good.
CG: So long as nobody is hurt, x is fine.
Thank you for helping me review for my Philosophy exam this morning. :)
If we're going to require a Paladin be Lawful because of his code, let's make the CODE Lawful, okay?
Well, someone might as well benefit from my otherwise useless philosophy minor. :-)
Also, I absolutely agree. The paladin code could be much more lawfully inclined. I have a feeling part of the reason it wasn't was for space requirements.
LG and LN are not the same thing. LG does not mean MUST FOLLOW EVERY LAW EVER. No it means he sticks to his code without bending, without braking his code.+50. Thank you, was going to make the point myself, because I'm *soo* sick of hearing that argument. Lawful doesn't mean "follows every law that's written for the place he's in", or else paladins raiding the LE Hells would be in violation.
Agreed. Lawful does NOT mean "must follow every law ever"
Just like neutral does NOT mean "cannot have a code that he isn't willing to break when convenient"
Weird how the same poster made the first point, but said that a character following a strict code was lawful by definition because a neutral character wouldn't keep a personal code if it wasn't convenient to do so.
Sorry man but a NG pc could back his code often with little effect on his AL where as a LG pc that did that would have his AL slip toward N
Lets see what the rules have to say about AL shall we?
Lawful Good: A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
Lawful good combines honor with compassion.
Neutral Good: A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them.
Neutral good means doing what is good and right without bias for or against order.
Now lets look at the paladins code shall we?
a paladin's code requires that she
*respect legitimate authority,
*act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)
*help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends),
* Punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Now if we look at what the rules say about AL, the code is LG not NG kinda that simple. The code is the base for what LG is even if most LG folks can't match it, but always strive for it.
I never said NG or hell any AL could not have some kind of code, however that code is clearly a LG code. And that is THE paladin code and simply put a NG pc using that code would brake it often or become LG.
If anybody wants to run an Alignment-less game, more power to them.
The core rules do assume that there is a difference between alignments,
even if in some situations and for some durations they don't NEED to conflict.
But saying one is replaceable for another is against the concept of alignment.
In any case, saying "a NG character COULD live by the Paladin's code" is irrelevant.
If they have enough differences to merit a non-LG alignment, then their soul isn't enough into it to merit being a Paladin. That's the core reason behind the Alignment restriction as I see it. People mentioning the Code are not mentioning because that itself JUSTIFIES the Alignment restriction, but that it EXEMPLIFIES it. If you start out as a Neutral Good character but find that you more and more find LG in accordance with your personality, then your Aligment will tend to shift to LG, at which point you can be a Paladin. This is a thing discussing between player and GM is a good idea for, i.e. if the GM will want specific 'tests' or a specific period before the Alignment "flips". But it is that 'higher standard' of the "judgement of one's soul" required to manifest the powers of Paladin-hood that is why there is an Alignment restriction, and not just any obedient dude who doesn't violate the Code for a period of time.