| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a paladin is on a train, and he has access to a lever that redirects the tracks, and on one track is a sleeping individual, and on the other is a whole crowd of people so caught up arguing about paladins that they don't notice the train coming...
What is this "train" thing?
I read a Pathfinder novel called The Master of Devils. In it, a character named Burning Cloud Devil wants to take revenge on a celestial dragon who bit off his arm and (I think) killed his lover. He has a method to kill the dragon, but he himself cannot use it because it requires two arms.
So he captures a tiefling named Radovan. He specifically captures Radovan because, as a tiefling, he has the combination of fiendish and mortal ki necessary to utilize BCD's dragon-killing method. So ki is not just incidental to the story; it's a plot point. And BCD trains Radovan to become a moderately high level Monk. For example, able to use both the Quivering Palm and Abundant Step. So no, he's not a Brawler, or an Unarmed archetype Fighter or a Martial Artist archetype Monk. Radovan is a ki using Monk.
And he remains Chaotic the whole time. Radovan does not care about self-discipline or deference to proper authority. He doesn't give a damn about the smooth functioning of society or reaching a state of self-perfection. He cares about "BCD could stop my heart and kill me so I better play along until I can get out from under his thumb".
He's even called out as CN in both the Pathfinder Wiki and Inner Sea Combat. So no, he isn't making use of the Idyllkin Aasimar racial trait that allows you to still take levels in Monk even if NG or TN.
Radovan is a Pathfinder character. In the setting of Golarion. So any given player should be able to see that, be inspired by that, and emulate that in a character of his own in any given Pathfinder game with a minimum of fuss (i.e., none whatsoever). Not just one set in Golarion (as that's where the inspiration for this character comes from), but any setting under the sun, at least by default, since Pathfinder is a setting neutral game and, by definition, should be open to any published or homebrewed setting imaginable. Nor should the player in question have to produce the credentials and pedigree of a character concept the way I just did.
Instead, we have...
I also have this story. You are leaving out several things.
One, Radovan has those monk levels IMPOSED on him. He has lost his original class levels and basically taken on the levels and abilities of the guy who trapped him in the devil body.
So, he's not a monk. He's had abilities by a spellcaster grafted onto them.
If you read the later books, he has none of the combat abilities or special powers of the monk class left behind.
So, he's NOT a monk, nor ever has been. He's been forcibly given the powers of a monk at cost of his own.
If some PC thinks he can wrangle a level 20 character playing god coming down on him to do this, like happened in this story, then we're playing wholy different campaigns.
And anyways, isn't there a martial artist archetype, where if all you want to do is fight, you can be any alignment?
Just don't be a monk if you don't want to be lawful. IUS combatants can be found in many locations.
==Aelryinth
HWalsh: The attack CDG for Nonlethal Damage isn't in the rules and even if you could, it's be at -4 to the attack. That puts the innocents in greater danger. You focused on the honor but what about the innocent protection? And the thing is, I don't see a list of what's honorable and dishonorable in the paladin codes.
You have respect legitimate authority
act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)
help those in need
SO we KNOW possibly allowing the guard to call out isn't going to "help those in need". SO where is this "no killing sleeping people" clause? The "and so forth" maybe?
If it's the code of Chivalry you're basing 'honor' on, then you're a bit mistaken on honor.
1 Thou shalt believe all that the Church teaches and thou shalt observe all its directions (Believe the Church's teachings and observe all the Church's directions).
2.Thou shalt defend the Church.
3.Thou shalt respect all weaknesses, and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them.
4.Thou shalt love the country in which thou wast born.
5.Thou shalt not recoil before thine enemy.
6.Thou shalt make war against the infidel without cessation and without mercy.
7.Thou shalt perform scrupulously thy feudal duties, if they be not contrary to the laws of God.
8.Thou shalt never lie, and shalt remain faithful to thy pledged word.
9.Thou shalt be generous, and give largesse to everyone.
10.Thou shalt be everywhere and always the champion of the Right and the Good against Injustice and Evil.
Note the section on WAR. the noble and just follower of Chivalry is meant to "war against the infidel without cessation and without mercy". This doesn't contradict "Thou shalt be everywhere and always the champion of the Right and the Good against Injustice and Evil" and "respect all weaknesses, and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them". People that are your foes and enemies of the church are to be fought with NO mercy and that was 100% honorable and expected.
I also have this story. You are leaving out several things.
One, Radovan has those monk levels IMPOSED on him. He has lost his original class levels and basically taken on the levels and abilities of the guy who trapped him in the devil body.
So, he's not a monk. He's had abilities by a spellcaster grafted onto them.
If you read the later books, he has none of the combat abilities or special powers of the monk class left behind.So, he's NOT a monk, nor ever has been. He's been forcibly given the powers of a monk at cost of his own.
If some PC thinks he can wrangle a level 20 character playing god coming down on him to do this, like happened in this story, then we're playing wholy different campaigns.
And anyways, isn't there a martial artist archetype, where if all you want to do is fight, you can be any alignment?
Just don't be a monk if you don't want to be lawful. IUS combatants can be found in many locations.==Aelryinth
In the next novel, Queen of Thorns, there's a scene where he and Count Jeggare begin the morning by going through their forms. And Inner Sea Combat page 7 calls him a CG (I called him CN, I was mistaken) male tiefling Rogue 5/Monk 2. So yes, he did keep some of what he learned, and yes, he was, is, and remains a Monk.
As for the Monk (the non-Martial Artist Monk, anyway) being synonymous with being Lawful, why? Why must this be the case on every world, in every universe, in every campaign setting, ever, ever, ever, that Monks have to choose between non-Lawful or using ki? Not just Golarion, but any other campaign setting you might use the Pathfinder game system for. Or does it make sense to peg Storm and Thor as evil just because they use lightning and Palpatine is also evil and happens to use lightning?
EDIT: More to the point, what is the benefit of a Sword of Damocles looming over players heads entirely dependent on what happens to catch their fancy as a means of realizing a character in this game? Specifically, what is the benefit of a knock-down, drag-out philosophical war in a Saturday afternoon diversion? I mean, who the heck do you think has kicked so many puppies that they deserve that?
And yes, BCD did impose some of Radovan's abilities on him, but he's still a character who has those abilities and acts that way and can inspire similar sorts of characters (maybe with backstories providing the same narrative element as BCD or maybe with entirely different backstories). So why should players have a default expectation of some things provoking a s+$%storm for being BadWrongFun?
"Oh, if only you'd been inspired by that Rogue with the Spiked Chain, instead. But no, you had to be inspired by that non-Lawful Monk with the ki abilities. You deserve all the flak you're getting."
How is that even a morally defensible position?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The GM works with the players. While you may not need their permission, if you go too many times to that well and play the GM IS GOD card you'll be lonely.
In case anybody's wondering why I don't index paladin threads like I index Caster/Martial threads: C/MD threads do, at least, occasionally tackle distinct points. Threads are created to explore different possibilities, or to create different solutions. There is variation. Occasional variation (I can't stress that enough), but variation.
Every single paladin thread would look identical:
"A paladin did this. Does he fall?"
"Yes."
"No."
"Yes."
"No."
"Yes!"
"NO!"
"F!&$ YOU!"
"F#@! YOU TOO!"
It's all philosophy past there. That's why "let people game as they wish" will never hold up as a resolution to these debates. People aren't just "gaming wrong", they're living wrong, morally. You end up with philosophical debates (Off-Topic Discussions) mixed with interpersonal communication arguments (Advice), with rules debates (General Discussions) sprinkled on the top. They don't belong anywhere.
If we called paladin threads what they really were, though—debates of competing moral outlook—there would only be one, it would be titled "A Civil Philosophy Discussion", and it would eventually close when some extreme and stubborn jerk would show up and send things spiraling out of control, and the locking mod would say something like,
Sadly, because the moral debate is interspersed with game rules, it's a lot harder to really put a stop to. But it doesn't need to be indexed. Frankly, "Religious/Political/Philosophical Discussions" probably just needs its own subforum!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is this "train" thing?
It's a philosophical construct. Like dramatic iron golems.
|
My take on if someone can be a true neutral paladin is not only "no", but "hell no".
Paladins are tireless champions of Good. They are so dedicated that a 'good' deity grants them holy powers. This is why they must have a "good" alignment.
To be a paladin is to live by a strict moral code. You can't deviate from that moral code either, or you lose your paladinhood. They have tenets that must be followed. They may not have many of them. It may be as simple as "Always remain honorable, always defend the helpless, and oppose Evil where ever it's found". But they MUST follow these tenets.
While a paladin may not be a nice person (many are jerks), they are always noble to a fault. They respect and admire order, in fact their entire life is dedicated to furthering the cause of order over chaos.
Someone who was true neutral would never make it through the training to become a paladin. They would wash out. They don't hold any beliefs strong enough to really side one way or the other. That's aside from the fact that true neutral is the hardest alignment to maintain after lawful good. Just as nobody who's Chaotic Good would make it through the training due to valuing personal freedom too much.
Beyond the RP aspect, the OP's idea of a "smite other" that affects anyone that's not true neutral? Not. Going. To. Happen.
A TN's "smite" power would have to be heavily altered. For instance, it could be changed to only be usable if the paladin wasn't first to strike (meaning she has to accept falling behind in initiative), or against alignment extremes. Alignment extremes would be interesting—although being able to hit CG/LG/CE/LE seems better than only being able to hit NE/CE/LE (since there's one more), it's actually significantly worse for most PCs. Most PCs will either fight mostly evil entities or (more rarely) mostly good entities, depending on the party and campaign tone. As such, you're unlikely to get to use half of your smiting for the majority of the time.
Yes, I think a TN paladin would probably be best off going in that direction. Barring more weird concepts like "must not initiate melee", it's probably the better bet.
|
|
Tie it a code or deity. In an ideal world powers of a particular paladin could be tied to that ideal if they so choose. It would also be nice if clerics could be developed on the lines of their deific devotions too. Mechanical that doesn't work on a broad set of rules. In a home game I would work the players to ensure the powers would be tailored to an appropriate devotion and work with them to develop an appropriate creed.
A paragon of a virtue is all I need in a paladin. The idea of a warrior devote to a cause is enough for me. As long as they stick to a code and show both devotion and sacrifice for their cause.
Now here's the thing. If your paladin needs to follow a code (and they aren't really a paladin if they don't) that means they have strict views of what is and isn't acceptable. To remain a paladin and retain their holy abilities they need to follow that code. Doesn't that sound like (gasp) someone of a lawful alignment? You're already no longer acting like someone who's true neutral. You care about a set of rules enough to follow them zealously.
But let's assume for a moment that somehow you have a paladin with a strict moral code who's true neutral. You're a zealous crusader of... what exactly? You don't care one way or another about law or chaos. Good and evil don't matter to you either. You just aren't invested enough in any of that to care. So what is your crusade about? You crusade for balance? But what sort of balance?
|
|
I'll give you two takes on what a paladin is: Paksenarrion Dorthansdotter and Bahzell Bahnakson.
See The Deed of Paksenarrion by Elizabeth Moon, and David Weber's "The War God" series: Oath of Swords, The War God's Own, Wind Rider's Oath. I figure both of these are LG.
Then there's "Paladin", Richard Boone's character in "Have Gun, Will Travel". Mercenary, gun for hire. Definitely not your classic paladin. Probably NG.
You want to have other than LG "paladins" in your campaign world, have at it. That's a non-starter for me. <shrug>
Love the War God's Own series. Very fun books.
And the Have Gun, Will Travel main character very much does come across as lawful good. Sure he's a merc, but that's cause he has to earn money to make his way. Quite regularly he does the honorable thing. He avoids conflict whenever he can. And prefers to give everyone a chance to back down. But when push comes to shove and the bullets start to fly, he WILL end the fight.
Strong moral code, works within the law whenever possible, and does his best to capture his enemies alive? Sounds like Lawful Good to me.
|
|
Stabbing someone to death in their sleep is, simply, dishonorable (if not evil) and is 100% always grounds for a fall.Certainly, in your games.
In any game I've played in too. When is it NOT evil to kill someone while they are sleeping? I've seen a paladin fall because the mage cast Sleep, and the paladin decided to slit the throats of the now sleeping orcs. Killing a helpless foe is an act of evil, and grounds for a paladin to fall. Do it too often, and your alignment starts to slip too.
But let's assume for a moment that somehow you have a paladin with a strict moral code who's true neutral. You're a zealous crusader of... what exactly? You don't care one way or another about law or chaos. Good and evil don't matter to you either. You just aren't invested enough in any of that to care.
Sure, but altruism and cruelty (and codes and freedom) aren't the only causes. You can crusade for yourself or those you care about (without resorting to evil acts). You can do what good you can (without making any major sacrifices). You can obstruct foul wars and just crusades because you think they'll damage your homeland—not out of a code or sense of altruism, but just because you happen to like the place.
Neutral people do have causes. They just aren't based on extreme morality or extreme wickedness.
They're just people with causes who don't really tend towards any single major spectrum.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In any game I've played in too. When is it NOT evil to kill someone while they are sleeping? I've seen a paladin fall because the mage cast Sleep, and the paladin decided to slit the throats of the now sleeping orcs. Killing a helpless foe is an act of evil, and grounds for a paladin to fall. Do it too often, and your alignment starts to slip too.Stabbing someone to death in their sleep is, simply, dishonorable (if not evil) and is 100% always grounds for a fall.Certainly, in your games.
Why? Why is it evil to kill someone when they're asleep and not when they're awake? Are sleeping people inherently innocent?
Why? Why is it evil to kill someone when they're asleep and not when they're awake? Are sleeping people inherently innocent?In any game I've played in too. When is it NOT evil to kill someone while they are sleeping? I've seen a paladin fall because the mage cast Sleep, and the paladin decided to slit the throats of the now sleeping orcs. Killing a helpless foe is an act of evil, and grounds for a paladin to fall. Do it too often, and your alignment starts to slip too.Stabbing someone to death in their sleep is, simply, dishonorable (if not evil) and is 100% always grounds for a fall.Certainly, in your games.
I'm missing this too. So it's totally good and honorable to stab someone in the front while awake but letting them fall asleep first changed all that to pure evil?
IMO it's the same level of good or evil for killing something no matter it's level of consciousness. It fact a case could be made for a merciful quick and silent death being kinder than a drawn out painful bleeding death. Maybe some games require a non-evil killing to involve suffering?
|
|
I think you're using an outdated book. The PRD says:
Ignore the PRD. Look instead in the Core Rule Book. I have the 2nd printing of it, and on page 64 it states quite clearly:
Ex-Paladins
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully
commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses
all paladin spells and class features (including the service
of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield
proficiencies). She may not progress any further in levels
as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement
potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement
spell description in Chapter 10), as appropriate.
There's no errata that I can find. I bolded part for emphasis.
As I already mentioned, no matter the justification killing a helpless foe is still an act of evil. For the paladin to willingly go along with this plan means they are willfully committing an act of evil. Thus no longer a paladin.
So, what violates the paladin code? To find that let's look at the full description of the code.
Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good
alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies
if she ever willingly commits an evil act.Additionally, 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), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.Associates: While she may adventure with good or
neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters
or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code.
Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally
with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes
to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement
spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and
should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is
doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only
henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.
Even if you argue that killing a sleeping foe isn't an act of evil, it's still dishonorable. Thus violates the code. You've now fallen. If the group is constantly advocating such tactics, the paladin would fall if they continue working with them without regular Atonements, even if said paladin doesn't help them in such dishonorable deeds.
In fact, if I was the GM and the party kept killing foes in their sleep on a regular basis I'd be having their alignments slip towards evil. "It's just smart tactics" being touted as why it's acceptable behavior would just cause the slide to go faster. The party clearly has degraded morally and no longer follows a "good" moral path.
For the "sneaking through enemy camp" example, I'd have to be asking first off "Why is the paladin the one sneaking through the camp?" I'd be asking this because paladins are typically not well suited to stealth missions. The ranger or rogue would usually be better suited to such a task.
Even if you argue that killing a sleeping foe isn't an act of evil, it's still dishonorable.
Is it? The Code of Chivalry says "Thou shalt make war against the infidel without cessation and without mercy". This doesn't violate "Thou shalt be generous, and give largesse to everyone", "Thou shalt respect all weaknesses, and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them" and "Thou shalt be everywhere and always the champion of the Right and the Good against Injustice and Evil".
Combat with an enemy isn't a duel with rules. It's war and in such cases the 'honorable' thing to do is "make war against the infidel without cessation and without mercy". Waking someone up sounds a lot like cessation/mercy.
You seem to be mixing up an honorable duel with fighting and making war. Your enemies don't get the same treatment as innocents.
Even if you argue that killing a sleeping foe isn't an act of evil, it's still dishonorable.
Ah, yes, the "sliding scale of good violence". A staple of the age when women could be burned alive for standing up for themselves and knights could literally own people.
Violence is not honorable, whether you stab them in the back or the front.
|
|
HWalsh: The attack CDG for Nonlethal Damage isn't in the rules and even if you could, it's be at -4 to the attack. That puts the innocents in greater danger. You focused on the honor but what about the innocent protection? And the thing is, I don't see a list of what's honorable and dishonorable in the paladin codes.
You have respect legitimate authority
act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)
help those in needSO we KNOW possibly allowing the guard to call out isn't going to "help those in need". SO where is this "no killing sleeping people" clause? The "and so forth" maybe?
Yet the hypothetical guard is sleeping. The enemy encampment doesn't know the paladin is here. They haven't realized he's rescued the captives. Yet again, the guard is sleeping. As in he's incapable of seeing the paladin leading the captives away. Why do you need to kill him again?
In addition, killing the guard creates new complications. You know there's going to be a change of guard at some point. What if it's within the next ten minutes? Twenty minutes? Hour? When that happens they will find a dead guard. Thus revealing that someone's entered the camp. Alarm gets raised, missing captives gets discovered sooner, and now those innocents are in more danger. You might be having to escort them to safety while now being hunted. How far do you have to escort the captives?
Okay, granted the fact the captives are missing will be discovered eventually. But killing the sleeping guard will probably move that time frame up. Yet still, the guard is sleeping. He's already taken himself out of the equation. You've managed to get past him once already without waking him. Surely you can do so again. At which point it may be eight hours, maybe a couple days before the bad guys realize you've rescued the captives.
Still the question must be asked... Why was the paladin the one sneaking into the camp Metal Gear Solid style?
|
|
Why? Why is it evil to kill someone when they're asleep and not when they're awake? Are sleeping people inherently innocent?In any game I've played in too. When is it NOT evil to kill someone while they are sleeping? I've seen a paladin fall because the mage cast Sleep, and the paladin decided to slit the throats of the now sleeping orcs. Killing a helpless foe is an act of evil, and grounds for a paladin to fall. Do it too often, and your alignment starts to slip too.Stabbing someone to death in their sleep is, simply, dishonorable (if not evil) and is 100% always grounds for a fall.Certainly, in your games.
Because you are killing a helpless foe. That is the evil act. They can't defend them self. Tying them up then slitting their throats would be equally evil. My Lawful Good monk for example would never dream of doing so. Knocking them out, sure. If they are evil. But killing a helpless foe is right out.
|
|
Even if you argue that killing a sleeping foe isn't an act of evil, it's still dishonorable.Is it? The Code of Chivalry says "Thou shalt make war against the infidel without cessation and without mercy". This doesn't violate "Thou shalt be generous, and give largesse to everyone", "Thou shalt respect all weaknesses, and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them" and "Thou shalt be everywhere and always the champion of the Right and the Good against Injustice and Evil".
Combat with an enemy isn't a duel with rules. It's war and in such cases the 'honorable' thing to do is "make war against the infidel without cessation and without mercy". Waking someone up sounds a lot like cessation/mercy.
You seem to be mixing up an honorable duel with fighting and making war. Your enemies don't get the same treatment as innocents.
You're applying real world morals as dictated by a church who was classifying the people living in them middle east as sub human and probably soulless. That same church was perfectly willing to sell salvation, grant sainthood if you bribe it, and so forth. The Roman Catholic Church's not really a good historical example of morality. Nobility at the time also considered commoners to be little better then animals. Point of fact, the rules of chivalry only applied to knights. And all knights were nobles.
In fact, a commoner soldier could be executed if he killed a knight in the opposing army, but knights weren't punished for killing the common soldiers who wore lesser armor and were not armed as well.
|
|
Killing a man is no less evil just because he can see it coming.
Which is why I have problems with the justification of the Crusades. The ten commandments clearly state "thou shall not kill", not "thou shall not kill, unless..."
Then again there seem to be quite a few catholic priests who think "thou shall not covet thy neighbor's wife" then has the additional line "but thy neighbor's son is okay".
Killing a man is no less evil just because he can see it coming.
Yep. Waking someone up doesn't change the act of killing. It's not a get out of jail free card...
Even if you argue that killing a sleeping foe isn't an act of evil, it's still dishonorable.Is it? The Code of Chivalry says "Thou shalt make war against the infidel without cessation and without mercy". This doesn't violate "Thou shalt be generous, and give largesse to everyone", "Thou shalt respect all weaknesses, and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them" and "Thou shalt be everywhere and always the champion of the Right and the Good against Injustice and Evil".
Combat with an enemy isn't a duel with rules. It's war and in such cases the 'honorable' thing to do is "make war against the infidel without cessation and without mercy". Waking someone up sounds a lot like cessation/mercy.
You seem to be mixing up an honorable duel with fighting and making war. Your enemies don't get the same treatment as innocents.
You're applying real world morals as dictated by a church who was classifying the people living in them middle east as sub human and probably soulless. That same church was perfectly willing to sell salvation, grant sainthood if you bribe it, and so forth. The Roman Catholic Church's not really a good historical example of morality. Nobility at the time also considered commoners to be little better then animals. Point of fact, the rules of chivalry only applied to knights. And all knights were nobles.
In fact, a commoner soldier could be executed if he killed a knight in the opposing army, but knights weren't punished for killing the common soldiers who wore lesser armor and were not armed as well.
The thing is, it's NOT real life. The code of chivalry is mostly a literary construct. No one can tell you when/where there was chivalry, just books that reference it in stories.
Secondly, it would be YOUR side that's looking to the real world for inspiration. Why would you assume they have the same sense of honor as we do? Why do they NOT see those not of their faith as sub human and probably soulless especially when they MIGHT just BE non-human and soulless?
The fact is that the paladin code follows the chivalry code pretty closely. THAT is the code of honor you're looking at. If you can do it at one, why are you shocked when someone looks at you strange when you can't do the same in the other...
|
|
Then I think you should be able to understand what I have been saying this entire thread.
Edit: Ever since it started back in 2010.
I do, but the game's setting is a lot more black and white. A paladin must be honorable, but the paladin code isn't identical to the code of chivalry. A better example might be to look at Japanese culture for what is honorable. Not perfect, but better. You could be a violent criminal, but still be honorable.
Paladins can't be criminals though. They MUST be lawful good. They can't use dirty tactics like using poison or killing a helpless or sleeping foe. Doing is dishonorable so causes them to fall. That doesn't mean they can't use dirty tricks. Throwing sand in your opponent's eyes to blind them is okay. But they need to be shining beacons of morality.
Killing someone in their sleep isn't being a shining beacon of morality.
Personally, I'd tell a player their paladin's fallen if they're waking up sleeping foes just so it's "okay" to kill them too. If the person is actively trying to attack you, defend yourself in an appropriate method. If they're trying to kill you, defending yourself with lethal force is usually acceptable. If they're not actually trying to kill you when they attack, do you really think it's a moral choice to escalate things to lethal force?
Sure there's a plethora of shades of gray. But a paladin can't be one of them. By their very nature a paladin or anti-paladin embody the extremes, Extreme Good or Extreme Evil.
These days making a paladin is EASY, but remaining one is the hard part. It use to be that you'd probably never roll good enough stats to make a paladin, so if you did qualify you struggled even harder to walk that thin narrow line.
|
|
The thing is, it's NOT real life. The code of chivalry is mostly a literary construct. No one can tell you when/where there was chivalry, just books that reference it in stories.
Secondly, it would be YOUR side that's looking to the real world for inspiration. Why would you assume they have the same sense of honor as we do? Why do they NOT see those not of their faith as sub human and probably soulless especially when they MIGHT just BE non-human and soulless?
The fact is that the paladin code follows the chivalry code pretty closely. THAT is the code of honor you're looking at. If you can do it at one, why are you shocked when someone looks at you strange when you can't do the same in the other...
The core rule book kinda does spell out what the code is. It gives clear examples of dishonorable tactics, and then tells you there's more beyond those examples. Based on the ones already mentioned, killing a sleeping or helpless foe would be classified as dishonorable.
AD&D 2nd edition listed the full code paladins had to follow tenant by tenant. At that time it did closely resemble the chivalry code of the middle ages. But it's important to note even then that in AD&D that code applied to everyone equally. In the middle ages the chivalry code only really applied when dealing with other nobles and wealthy merchants.
In the real world, it also had so many exceptions included that it only really meant "be polite to those of your social status or higher, anyone else is beneath your notice".
I actually do research the middle ages, both warfare tactics (especially siege tactics) and the culture, for fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A better example might be to look at Japanese culture for what is honorable.
I think you need to do a more thorough read on bushido and google the Nanking massacre before you try to use japans definition of 'honorable' as in any way better than the code of chivalry..
|
|
*snip*Killing isn't evil. It is neither good nor evil. Murder is evil, but murder isn't simply killing.
Which is part of the whole reason I'd rule killing the sleeping dragon or guard causes your paladin to fall. Yes, the dragon or guard is probably evil. The dragon may even have been terrorizing the countryside (hence why the party is tracking it down). The guard may be a vicious killer and serial rapist. Killing them overall is a good deed and prevents future atrocities.
Killing a helpless foe is an evil act.
That's the important part there. You may be doing a good deed, but you're doing it in an evil way. And the lesser evil is still evil. Joe Noble the paladin has just made a conscious choice to preform an evil act, regardless of if the end result is something good. That's why he falls. He's taken the first step on a very slippery slope.
It's not evil only if the target is an innocent victim. It's not subjective. It's flat out an evil act to kill a helpless being. It doesn't matter if they have a soul as black as midnight. If they are helpless, killing them is an act of evil.It's the same reason any well played paladin will feel uncomfortable staking a vampire in the middle of the day. Sure, it's the safest tactic, but deep in their heart the paladin realizes this isn't very honorable.
Although I probably wouldn't penalize a paladin for staking the sleeping vampire. One of the mandates of many paladin orders is to vanquish the undead. Were I playing the paladin in this situation, I'd be saying in-character "I'm not sure about this" and letting someone else do the actual staking, while being on hand if things go south.
|
|
A better example might be to look at Japanese culture for what is honorable.I think you need to do a more thorough read on bushido and google the Nanking massacre before you try to use japans definition of 'honorable' as in any way better than the code of chivalry..
Didn't say it was exact either, just that it may be better then the chivalry code, which only applied to nobility anyway. Both cultures have atrocities which their codes of honorable conduct condoned.
Although I probably wouldn't penalize a paladin for staking the sleeping vampire. One of the mandates of many paladin orders is to vanquish the undead. Were I playing the paladin in this situation, I'd be saying in-character "I'm not sure about this" and letting someone else do the actual staking, while being on hand if things go south.Preaching to the choir.
Though the Vampire's fine. It's not alive. You can't kill that which does not live.
A vampire is a self-realized creature who has sentience. And killing that while sleeping is ok cuz....undead? But dragons arent.
God I'm glad I generally stick with 4th edition
|
|
Although I probably wouldn't penalize a paladin for staking the sleeping vampire. One of the mandates of many paladin orders is to vanquish the undead. Were I playing the paladin in this situation, I'd be saying in-character "I'm not sure about this" and letting someone else do the actual staking, while being on hand if things go south.Preaching to the choir.
Though the Vampire's fine. It's not alive. You can't kill that which does not live.
A vampire is a self-realized creature who has sentience. And killing that while sleeping is ok cuz....undead? But dragons arent.
God I'm glad I generally stick with 4th edition
As I said, I probably wouldn't penalize them. But it'd depend heavily on how the player roleplays it. If they portray the character agonizing over the morality of the action vs their duty to destroy the undead, I'd be more inclined to give them a one time pass due to to good roleplay. Cheerfully staking the vampire without a second thought though, that's a lot more iffy.
If they flat out refuse to do the deed, but are willing to stand guard for when things inevitably go wrong... (and things always go wrong) Definitely they'd be okay to me.
You literally can't kill the Undead. They aren't alive. The best you can do is stop them from moving.
Although I probably wouldn't penalize a paladin for staking the sleeping vampire. One of the mandates of many paladin orders is to vanquish the undead. Were I playing the paladin in this situation, I'd be saying in-character "I'm not sure about this" and letting someone else do the actual staking, while being on hand if things go south.Preaching to the choir.
Though the Vampire's fine. It's not alive. You can't kill that which does not live.
A vampire is a self-realized creature who has sentience. And killing that while sleeping is ok cuz....undead? But dragons arent.
God I'm glad I generally stick with 4th edition
Kill....destroy
Semantics are real important here....
[/sarcasm ]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I said, I probably wouldn't penalize them. But it'd depend heavily on how the player roleplays it. If they portray the character agonizing over the morality of the action vs their duty to destroy the undead, I'd be more inclined to give them a one time pass due to to good roleplay. Cheerfully staking the vampire without a second thought though, that's a lot more iffy.
If they flat out refuse to do the deed, but are willing to stand guard for when things inevitably go wrong... (and things always go wrong) Definitely they'd be okay to me.
I really do TRY to stay out of these moral questions but this is an example of why I HATE Paladin discussions...
You are never JUST a Paladin... you are a Paladin of XXX and that XXX matters far more than Paladin does. Paladin of Pharasma? Yeah, your hand doesn't stay for longs than it takes you to curse the foul abomination. If a GM is going to come at me and say "well that Vampire was helpless" I'm going to fire right back with "Well so were it's damn victims and he deserves no better".
|
|
As I said, I probably wouldn't penalize them. But it'd depend heavily on how the player roleplays it. If they portray the character agonizing over the morality of the action vs their duty to destroy the undead, I'd be more inclined to give them a one time pass due to to good roleplay. Cheerfully staking the vampire without a second thought though, that's a lot more iffy.
If they flat out refuse to do the deed, but are willing to stand guard for when things inevitably go wrong... (and things always go wrong) Definitely they'd be okay to me.
I really do TRY to stay out of these moral questions but this is an example of why I HATE Paladin discussions...
You are never JUST a Paladin... you are a Paladin of XXX and that XXX matters far more than Paladin does. Paladin of Pharasma? Yeah, your hand doesn't stay for longs than it takes you to curse the foul abomination. If a GM is going to come at me and say "well that Vampire was helpless" I'm going to fire right back with "Well so were it's damn victims and he deserves no better".
That kinda really depends on if you've specified what order you belong to, or if you're just a general paladin. Most of the ones I've ended up gamemastering for were in 2nd edition, where there was no real difference between paladins of given orders. Course it was rare to see one, and rarer still for someone to remain a paladin past level 3.
|
Kill....destroySemantics are real important here....
[/sarcasm ]
I agree. It went from killing a sleeping creature is evil no matter the circumstances. To it's evil but "exceptions". Sorry no but you don't get to have it both ways. If killing the sleeping sentry and dragon is evil. Then so is the vampire. Undead or not. I'm in favor of disabling a sleeping enemy. When circumstances permit it.
Which is not always the case. It also assumes that the sentry is not going to yell a alarm. It also requires everyone in favor of subduing instead of killing the sleeping enemy. Which again is not always the case. I have to say I love the examples given in subduing a enemy.
Their always perfect ones imo. Is the Paladin still going to risk alerting the enemy if he has hostages he is liberating from camp. The sleeping Dragon if he has hostages is going to ignore them and attack the party. Let me tell you in my games if a enemy has hostages and close enough to them. They will be the first targets. I don't make my npcs/bbegs 80s saturday morning cartoon types.
Here a reason why for all the people saying the end does not justify the means in real life sometimes it does. In the link the officer in charge comes across a german position and surprise them. You think he gave them a chance to arm themselves first in a fair fight. No he shoot first and asked questions later. It's a scene from Band of Brothers.
Go to youtube.com
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do, but the game's setting is a lot more black and white.Then I think you should be able to understand what I have been saying this entire thread.
Edit: Ever since it started back in 2010.
If that's how you want it. The alignment rules are highly interpretive, and you can get multiple different viewpoints from them. I would think this thread is a perfect example.