Alot of people think of chaotic evil as insane or chaotic neutral.
Leaving that aside for a sec what about a lawful good character who is insane ? is it even possible in your eyes ?
For example
Character I'm currently toying with.
Oracle/Paladin Lawful Good
Rock Throwing (Ex)
Character believe the rocks speak to him and have made him the champion of the lost rock empire, and empire of stability law and order. However his loyalty lies with the rocks and helping them return to power.
he carries a sack of carved rocks with him that he believe are his elite guard which he launches into battle as well as other rocks which might be on the ground, liberating them from their curse of immobility.
however with his warped mind he might try saving the rock in front of the child thats about to die, his mind interpreting that its the rock that needs saving not the child. but is that an evil act for a paladin ?
On the other hand he may defend a castle full of people not for the people but for the rocks making up the buildings within the castle.
Siege engines are basically equivalent to human sacrifice to him and would be destroyed with all the fury a paladin would destroy and unholy alter
However in his eyes stone crafters are more like clerics who mould and shape civilians giving them purpose and making them the best they can be
Seeing recently shattered rocks as dead people, rocks with sharp edges as warriors and smooth rocks as civilians. smooth stones in the river are the afterlife
Thoughts ?
Yep, that is inane. You don't have to be chaotic to be a little loopy, OCD anyone.
It is possible since insanity shouldn't be alignment-based. Anyone of any alignment might succumb to an insanity. Insanity is a catch-all from developmentally disabled, ocd, up to schizophrenia.
Insanity in and of itself act without morality. Someone under the influence might be treated as if charmed. If charmed to slay an innocent, would the Gm feel the Paladin would still need to atone to keep paladin status? Now, swap "insanity" with charmed. I think it's more of a GM-group discussion and how everyone in your group will have fun rather than how the forum feels. You might get a ton of heated opinions, but your group should place "fun" at the most important part of your decision.
Yep, that is inane. You don't have to be chaotic to be a little loopy, OCD anyone.
actually OCD is very lawful when you think about it, same repetitive task over and over , and must be done in exactly the same way each time
Amazing idea. I might change my name to Copy cat on these forums now.
While I agree that perhaps insanity has nothing to do with alignment, personally I would say that the results of your acts also matter.
So if your character has the best interest of his 'rock people' at heart but lets innocents and such get harmed through his acts, even if he is devoid of any animosity or ill feelings, am not sure I'd allow him to be lawful good.
But then again if he IS LG, I suppose he should help humanoids and get them out of harms' way in general (even though his loyalty lies with the poor, dethroned rocks) much like a human paladin should, in my humble opinion, help some random goblin child or non-evil creature if it's for the greater good.
The problem might arise then when he has to chose between life of rel innocent people and the greater good os his fellow rocks.
But there are many ways to seeing this problem, ultimately you should check with your DM and group.
I'd say he could certainly be lawful, but most likely not good if he leaves a child to die to save the rock. In this case insnaity interferes with his paladin code and good alignment and to make things worse he won't feel regret for his actions.
Perhaps if his priorities change, like people before rocks, then yes it can be done.
Sometimes insanity is the one thing twisting a lawgul good king into a chaotic evil mad tyrant, just about everyone in our world that could be described as evil would prolly be said to be mentally unstable if not downright insane.
We had a paladin who was enrolled as a paladin because the courts believed the strict of conduct/training/conditioning would help him control THE VOICES..
..
Out of combat he was a man in constant battle with his self - he'd clutch his holy symbol and mutter recite his oath to stay strong..
..and in combat he'd unleash all his pent up aggression/rage in combat, swinging his great flail and cursing/shouting/letting the voices free. It was.. awesome.
"TAKE THAT YOU FOUL SPAWN OF DARKNESS!''
*BAM*
''I'LL RIP OUT YOUR HEART AND SANCTIFY YOUR SOUL!!''
*BAM*
''RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!!!!!!''
*BAM*
One of the greatest characters I ever gamed with at the table. Utterly Insane.
We've made a holy order who's membership can freely mutliclass with barbarian in our new campaign world in his honour.
Lawful Good, Insane Paladin?
Can you say "Don Quixote"?
Sure, it's doable. As noted above, you'll still have to keep up the code of a Paladin, so you'll likely save the child, as he is weaker than the morally perfect (and therefore physically mightier) 'people of the earth'.
The biggest concern involved is to make sure you don't end up as really annoying and disruptive to the game. What you described could be played as a a complete whackjob who is likeable and effective ("yeah, he's a flake, but he's *our* flake") or as someone who will shortly be abandoned by the party, who will be doing so in order to avoid pushing him off a cliff.
If you do go ahead with this, it is a moral imperative that you find some way to work in a line from Babylon 5: "The avalanche has begun. It is too late for the pebbles to vote."
This is why I hate alignment, too many generalizations. Sure, of course LG can be insane. It's possible to follow rules (maybe your rules) and be insane. It's possible to have good intentions and be insane.
However, you're a (PF) Paladin and I'd rule that if you act "too unpaladin like" (saving a rock but not a child, child gets smushed), I'd strip you of your paladinhood. After all, what are you protecting, rocks? Does your diety really want to be sharing his divine power with a paladin that doesn't even help people (depends on diety I know). Every DM is different, that's just my opinion.
Yeah, I also agree with Ram, that character could be highly annoying.
I don't think of alignment linking to insanity, although a lawful good would view a chaotic evil or neutral as insane or worse, while a chaotic evil might view lawfuls as insane for adhering to a strict code or law. Insanity is independent of alignment IMO, as you've shown in your character, he can be lawful good and insane as long as he uphholds the definitions of that alignment. Lots of crazies uphold the law! :)
I do like the concept though, its very different.
When saw the thread, the first example that popped into my head was how George A. Custer was portrayed in "Little Big Man".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XCSmRgq18s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFjdz2bRHRg
To paraphrase G. K. Chesterton, the problem with a lunatic isn't that he's illogical; it's that he's nothing but logical.
This raises a Animal Farm question, who is the most equal?
A Paladin has to choose between a burning building containing Elven children and one containing Human children? Would it be Evil to only try to save the Elven children because they are most worthwhile to save in the big picture? Would it be Evil to NOT try to save them and just try to save the Human children for the same reason? Does it matter if you are an Elven or Human Paladin?
You can get into all sorts of crap without being "My Paladin is insane and only respects rocks."
This raises a Animal Farm question, who is the most equal?
A Paladin has to choose between a burning building containing Elven children and one containing Human children? Would it be Evil to only try to save the Elven children because they are most worthwhile to save in the big picture? Would it be Evil to NOT try to save them and just try to save the Human children for the same reason? Does it matter if you are an Elven or Human Paladin?
You can get into all sorts of crap without being "My Paladin is insane and only respects rocks."
Which building are you closer to? Thats the one you save, as fast as you can, then you run to the other one, as fast as you can. Any you can't save, you help recover the bodies, attend the funeral, console the families, and if the fire was arson, bring the arsonist to justice.
Paladins are easy to play. They only become difficult when the DM wants the Paladin to fall and decides they must be Superman and have a perfect win-loss record.
Know your limits.
Do your best within them.
If you fail, accept it and grow from it.
If you make a mistake, fix it, as best you can.
If your character has this attitude and follows his Paladin code, he should never fall unless the DM forces the issue.
The buildings are equally distant away from you and you have to make a judgment call on what lives are more worth saving.
It's the same thing as the OP's "child v rock" scenario, just less obvious.
The buildings are equally distant away from you and you have to make a judgment call on what lives are more worth saving.
It's the same thing as the OP's "child v rock" scenario, just less obvious.
Then the decision needs to be made taking into account his morality and the tenets of his god. If both are equidistant then you go to the one where you can save more, simply because saving more lives is better than saving less.
Just like a rescue diver in the Coast Guard has to decide who to save, it is not a matter of who's life is more valuable, it is a matter of how many can you save the quickest.
Go to the closest one, save them as fast as you can, go to the next closest one, save them as fast as you can, repeat.
Will their be angst over the ones not saveable? Of course, no one wants to fail and see innocents die but the fact is Paladins are not deities and not perfect and can only do the best they can, like rest of us. They are merely held to a higher moral standard than the rest of us and must act in that accordance at all times.
The odds of the two buildings being "equally distant" are ridiculously low, concerning even a glance will tell you state of fire, distance to the door or window, terrain impediments in the way, etc.
But I'll play along. They are equally distant? Pick one. It doesn't matter which. The time you waste deliberating is time you could spend saving lives. Often we forget that while we can spend half an hour resolving one round of combat at the table, that one round is six seconds, a sliver of time. If you want to spend a full six seconds thinking about what to do, go ahead, loose your first rounds actions.
Better to make an instant decision and spend that first round getting something done. Again, if you can't save everyone, you help pick up the peices afterwards. If greiving mothers pound on your chest screaming "Why didn't you save my baby!?!" you tell them the truth.
"I tried my best, but I wasn't fast or strong enough to save them all. I'm sorry." And you use that failure as the fuel that drives you to do better the next time.
This is of course assuming that in our world of equally distant homes full of racially segregated and advertised children that no one else has even the slightest desire to assist in rescuing children or putting out blazing fires in their own city. If the paladin is the only person doing anything about two houses on fire, he may be sticking around a while to figure out why nobody else came to help.
The buildings are equally distant away from you and you have to make a judgment call on what lives are more worth saving.
It's the same thing as the OP's "child v rock" scenario, just less obvious.Then the decision needs to be made taking into account his morality and the tenets of his god. If both are equidistant then you go to the one where you can save more, simply because saving more lives is better than saving less.
Just like a rescue diver in the Coast Guard has to decide who to save, it is not a matter of who's life is more valuable, it is a matter of how many can you save the quickest.
Go to the closest one, save them as fast as you can, go to the next closest one, save them as fast as you can, repeat.
Will their be angst over the ones not saveable? Of course, no one wants to fail and see innocents die but the fact is Paladins are not deities and not perfect and can only do the best they can, like rest of us. They are merely held to a higher moral standard than the rest of us and must act in that accordance at all times.
The real world examples are not relevant. Would you save an Orc child or Human child first? What about an Elf child?
The odds of the two buildings being "equally distant" are ridiculously low,
Read this then maybe we can continue
The real world examples are not relevant. Would you save an Orc child or Human child first? What about an Elf child?The buildings are equally distant away from you and you have to make a judgment call on what lives are more worth saving.
It's the same thing as the OP's "child v rock" scenario, just less obvious.Then the decision needs to be made taking into account his morality and the tenets of his god. If both are equidistant then you go to the one where you can save more, simply because saving more lives is better than saving less.
Just like a rescue diver in the Coast Guard has to decide who to save, it is not a matter of who's life is more valuable, it is a matter of how many can you save the quickest.
Go to the closest one, save them as fast as you can, go to the next closest one, save them as fast as you can, repeat.
Will their be angst over the ones not saveable? Of course, no one wants to fail and see innocents die but the fact is Paladins are not deities and not perfect and can only do the best they can, like rest of us. They are merely held to a higher moral standard than the rest of us and must act in that accordance at all times.
I'd save the one with the richest parents.
The real world examples are not relevant. Would you save an Orc child or Human child first? What about an Elf child?
Tell you what, you give full details on our Paladins history, personality, faith, deity, oaths and order (if any) and the racial views of all races and wether their world is ruled by moral absolutes or gray shades and I will do my best to reply.
But what the paldain does requires more information than your supplying in your question. And real world examples are relevant because while the game is fantastic, it's core basis comes from the real world.
|
Talk to your DM and find out his views on good and evil, especially regarding insanity, curses, etc. From all that I have read in 3.5 and Pathfinder (don't ask me to quote pages, etc), even though a person might be insane or cursed, if they behave in a way that is regarded as cruel or evil by the culture at large (ie-choosing to protect a rock and letting a child die in the process), they still wear the evil alignment. Interesting that this issue came up today since I was reading Champions of Ruin the other day, and the opening chapter has a long discussion about ways that characters/NPCs are evil. In other words, just because they are LG in their mind, doesn't mean that they are LG in the minds of their order or their god. And, thats sort of why the atonement spell exists, to fix things when a character has a different view of whats appropriate behavior than their god/goddess. If you picked a class that did not require you to be a specific alignment, then this whole concept might work better.
From a devil's advocate perspective, if a player were to take this concept with the idea that he starts out seeing things from this perspective and realizes his error and focuses on living beings, then I might let him slide for a bit as a somewhat less that good character. Think of it as a "grace period" to figure things out granted by the paladin's deity. But that is about as far as I would be willing as a GM to stretch the LG thing to accomodate a player with a conflicted build like this.
Alot of people think of chaotic evil as insane or chaotic neutral.
Leaving that aside for a sec what about a lawful good character who is insane ? is it even possible in your eyes ?
For example
Character I'm currently toying with.
Oracle/Paladin Lawful Good
Rock Throwing (Ex)…
Thoughts ?
I'd say that it is possible to have an insane PC who is LG. As far as your concept goes, I'd say that as long as long as it's acceptable with the pantheon in your game world, then it should be fine. For instance, if the paladin worships a deity with strong ties to earth or architecture or anything otherwise related to stone, I can see it working. In fact, perhaps this particular PC has been intentionally made "insane" by the particular deity.
EDIT: Having said that, if you presented this concept for my campaign, I'd say that as presented, it wouldn't fly as a paladin. None of the deities that accept paladins as followers would be patron to a follower who chooses rocks over living beings and would lose their paladin status if they already had one. Your PC could "think" he's a paladin of X, but would not in effect be one. On the other hand, perhaps one of the nature deities would take notice… and as player and GM, we could work out something for your concept through that avenue. Don't know enough about the oracle class to comment on that.
The real world examples are not relevant. Would you save an Orc child or Human child first? What about an Elf child?Tell you what, you give full details on our Paladins history, personality, faith, deity, oaths and order (if any) and the racial views of all races and wether their world is ruled by moral absolutes or gray shades and I will do my best to reply.
Fine, since we have to be absurd.
The Paladin decides to save rocks instead of a Human child in a fire.This is obviously not going to net him approval from any other standard PC race. Has he violated his code?
Seems to me the Kobayashi Maru scenario is already a bit absurd.
|
Forget the insane Paladin -- the Thread itself has become insane.
Not that it matters but the argument of good and evil alignment in a case where a PC rescues a rock instead of a child (you know, cuz rocks will burn in a housefire, too) is "evil," regardless of the Paladin's Code.
It's a problem of Relativism.
Fine, since we have to be absurd.
Is it really necessary to be so condescending?
The Paladin decides to save rocks instead of a Human child in a fire.
This is obviously not going to net him approval from any other standard PC race. Has he violated his code?
See your asking two questions here: Has he violated HIS CODE? Seems not but the original poster has said he is insane, so as such his code is not within the limits of sanity and accepted morality. He is, by definition, abberant.
Has he vilated morality as defined by the common definition of his society? Probably yes.
See good and evil in FRPG's are usually dependant on the game style of the table. Most fantasy games have good and evil as absolutes. Orcs are born evil, good values all life, etc.
Some folks prefer a gritier and more realistic RP morality that is more akin to our world where some good and evil is glaringly clear but the vast majority is shades of moral and ethical grey.
So really wether he can save rocks and not people is totally dependend no how his GM and group see their game world.
If your asking is it moral or not, independant of setting, then the answers HAVE to be predicated on real world morality, since that is the only basis we have independent of the game world and setting.
Cartigan wrote:
"Fine, since we have to be absurd.
The Paladin decides to save rocks instead of a Human child in a fire.
This is obviously not going to net him approval from any other standard PC race. Has he violated his code?"
Not to start any moral or racial debates here but if the character is a Paladin in PF then race doesn't matter- Racism is evil so choosing who to save based upon race would automatically violate the Paladin's oath. Paladin's should not be allowed to be racist... note yes they hate evil outsiders yada yada but that is not racism but a battle vs. evil if we found a good devil/demon then this gets more complicated. So it doesn't matter who the diety is or what race the Paladin is- they would attempt to save everyone to the best of their ability- much like the previous mention of Superman... sometimes he isn't fast/strong/or smart enough but every failure fuels his drive to continue to help people.
To the OP's question is the above mentioned Paladin is crazy and saves the rock and so the child gets squished he has violated his oath because he let an innocent die. Anytime the Paladin allows innocents to die because of his actions or inactions he will have to atone. The above burning house example he would not violate his oath should some children not make because he is still "trying" to save them... If the crazy Paladin believes that all rock's are sentient and therfore he merely saved a rock because he thought it would be destroyed/killed and then the above mentioned child died... you could argue he was "trying" to save both... but this is a game should you allow a player to use insanity as an excuse to not follow the specific tenents of the class they are using? And even if rocks are sentient and have souls... they are also alot, alot tougher than people and as such I think he should know that and help the squishable child first.
Just my two cents - no matter what you decide gamewise, morally or otherwise as long as you are having fun then you are doing it right... when it stops being fun for you or your fellow players then you may want to re-think it. ;-)
For roleplaying purposes being insane is an intersting twist, but in order to maintain lawful good (within society) there has to be moments of clarity and morality. Therefore any act you perform "while insane" can be reflected upon later and affect your alignment. With this check in place, it is less likely the concept would be meta-gamed to some advantage, or deed a paladin would not normally consider. You are still part of society and can work with others, but perhaps your god appears to you via a rock avatar because of some related event on the material plane.
Not to start any moral or racial debates here but if the character is a Paladin in PF then race doesn't matter- Racism is evil so choosing who to save based upon race would automatically violate the Paladin's oath. Paladin's should not be allowed to be racist...
My point wasn't exactly racism. Elves live longer and thus are likely to reproduce slower than Humans. An Elven child's loss is more significant than that of a Human child.
|
My point wasn't exactly racism. Elves live longer and thus are likely to reproduce slower than Humans. An Elven child's loss is more significant than that of a Human child.
Not to start any moral or racial debates here but if the character is a Paladin in PF then race doesn't matter- Racism is evil so choosing who to save based upon race would automatically violate the Paladin's oath. Paladin's should not be allowed to be racist...
]
but humans breed quicker, so saving 1 human saves generations
My point wasn't exactly racism. Elves live longer and thus are likely to reproduce slower than Humans. An Elven child's loss is more significant than that of a Human child.
Not to start any moral or racial debates here but if the character is a Paladin in PF then race doesn't matter- Racism is evil so choosing who to save based upon race would automatically violate the Paladin's oath. Paladin's should not be allowed to be racist...
I think there is a difference between racism and racial preference. Also, I would like to see where in the rules it says that racism is Evil.
Assume my paladin is Human.
In the fire example of "save the humans or elves" I would save the one on the right. It doesn't matter. It is a snap decision and I would not pause to weigh which children might be more valuable.
For the 3 children, Human, Elf, and Orc, assuming that absolutely everything was identical, they even occupy the same space so that one isn't to the left or right, I would save the Human first. Why? Because I am Human and I need to chose one. It is not Evil to choose your own race. It would not be Evil to chose the Orc child either, he is exactly as good as the human child because they are all exactly the same except for race.
Again, in a life or death situation you rarely have time to consider which is the best choice. You make a snap decision that you believe will have the best result and go with it. It is no different if you are a paladin.
Tilting at windmills....
This thread is Don Qixote in the making.....
I think the delusional belief system kinda hangs there in a vacuum; if he's actually schizophrenic there might be a lot more going on there.
Hallucinations,....voices,.....little rocks with mouths going "help me! help me!" I've heard of a man (IIRC) who due to some brain trauma thought his wife was a hat, and experienced this through garbled sensory input/processing, but I think the one delusional belief makes the whole thing sound rather "hypothetical," though...
What is the source of the paladin's miraculous abilities? Does a deity grant them, or the sheer power of zeal? If the former, wouldn't deity take them away until such a time as the paladin could go get a "cure disease" cast upon him?
If he's not evil, doesn't know right from wrong, i.e. he's criminally insane,.....then I think deity would gank his miracle power anyway to keep him from perpetrating heinous and weirdful harmfulness in deity's name. i.e. "your firde!!!" until such a time as he gets some help.
|
This character sounds like fun to play! As for the choice between rock people and humanoid children, I think that insanity or no, he would be able to do effective "triage" and realize that the humanoids were in more immediate peril. Even though his first duty and loyalty are to the rocks, he would save the humanoids first because their need is greater.
At least that's what I think.
I wonder if a rock getting broken would even be interpreted as "killing" it. I'd say that's how they reproduce. :)
heheh is that meiosis or meitosis ?