They are related in that they promote order, either personally or for society as a whole.Circular reasoning -- first define "Lawful" as traits X, Y, and Z, and then claim that XYZ are all related because they're all Lawful.
I didn't do this. I stated that they promote order. For example, the code of chivalry promotes order by placing a restriction a powerful group of people, preveneting them from running amok. As a result of promoting order, it is lawful. I didn't have to define it as lawful in order to demonstrate that it promotes order.
For example, the code of chivalry promotes order by placing a restriction a powerful group of people, preveneting them from running amok. As a result of promoting order, it is lawful. I didn't have to define it as lawful in order to demonstrate that it promotes order.
...and being self-disciplined makes me less reliant on the established order to take care of me, and also enables me to work harder at subverting traditional authority -- and therefore promotes disorder. But it gets defined it as "lawful" anyway.
For example, the code of chivalry promotes order by placing a restriction a powerful group of people, preveneting them from running amok. As a result of promoting order, it is lawful. I didn't have to define it as lawful in order to demonstrate that it promotes order....and being self-disciplined makes me less reliant on the established order to take care of me, and also enables me to work harder at subverting traditional authority -- and therefore promotes disorder. But it gets defined it as "lawful" anyway.
Being self disciplined means that you have the capacity to control your own behavior and impulses, therefore making you more ordered, therefore promoting order. The fact that this order is subsequently used to create an instability elselwhere doesn't nullify the order it initially created that established it as a lawful characterisitic.
The latter fact mearly demonstrate that neutral characters can exist. Persons with lawful characteristics that promote chaotic ends are a good example of neutrality.
I would further argue that the traditional authority that is being opposed in the example provided may not even be an issue of law vs. chaos. It may be a question of where that scale intersects with good vs. evil. A lwaful person can oppose tradditions and established orders in order to promote good if necessary. It can be argued that evil traditions create disorder by creating restrictions to which people instinctively rebel. As a result, both good and law can be best served by opposing order in the short term.
@ashiel
you still refuse to understand that a code of conduct and a morality are not the same thing
noun
1. personal behavior; way of acting; bearing or deportment.
2. direction or management; execution: the conduct of a business.
3. the act of conducting; guidance; escort: The curator's conduct through the museum was informative.
4. Obsolete . a guide; an escort.
verb (used with object)
5. to behave or manage (oneself): He conducted himself well.
6. to direct in action or course; manage; carry on: to conduct a meeting; to conduct a test.
7. to direct (an orchestra, chorus, etc.) as leader.
8. to lead or guide; escort: to conduct a tour.
9. to serve as a channel or medium for (heat, electricity, sound, etc.): Copper conducts electricity.
verb (used without object)
10. to lead.
11. to act as conductor, especially of a musical group.
code of conduct can also be refered to as Etiquette
noun
1. conventional requirements as to social behavior; proprieties of conduct as established in any class or community or for any occasion.
2. a prescribed or accepted code of usage in matters of ceremony, as at a court or in official or other formal observances.
3. the code of ethical behavior regarding professional practice or action among the members of a profession in their dealings with each other: medical etiquette.
adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
5. conforming to the rules of right conduct ( opposed to immoral): a moral man.
6. virtuous in sexual matters; chaste.
7. of, pertaining to, or acting on the mind, feelings, will, or character: moral support.
8. resting upon convincing grounds of probability; virtual: a moral certainty.
noun
9. the moral teaching or practical lesson contained in a fable, tale, experience, etc.
10. the embodiment or type of something.
11. morals, principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct.
Code of conduct are the rules of how you live you life
Morality or your moral code are what you consider right and wrong
As i said before your job cant legaly fire you because you spent your lunch break pounding hookers(probably considered moraly wrong in most societies)
but they can fire you because you were consistantly late returning from your afternoon delight every day.
You know what? I'm going to skip the thing where I read ten pages of stuff to comment here. I usually do it, heck, I've read (at least) dozens of pages, but I'm just going to point out something here that (on the first page, at least) wasn't addressed:
So, I should either not get to play the character I want (a Paladin), or someone else should not get to play the character they want (a chaotic character)? I don't line that. I'd rather have an NG or CG Paladin that doesn't have much of a problem with the chaotic characters. Then we can all have fun instead of arguing over who is allowed to play what.
No. This is, in fact, the opposite of what people are telling you (and all others that complain about this, I'm not just pointing at you, MM).
HOUSE RULES: USE THEM.
There. Problem solved.
Oh, wait. You have a group that hates "house rules"?
They're behaving stupidly and also stupidly. Tell them.
Oh, wait. You have a group that's insulted by that?
To bad. I'm not saying they are stupid, but rather their behavior is that of a stupid person in this instance. HOUSE RULES ARE WRITTEN INTO THE RULES. PEOPLE CAN USE THEM. THIS IS FINE. I'm sorry their feelings are hurt, or whatever, but if they can't except the existence of house rules, than oops.
I'm not against changing the RAW. But, as Jiggy said on page one, changing the rules to match people's ignorance is only a win for ignorance... let's try educating ourselves, instead, shall we?
I'll read the rest later, but... eh, I figured I'm tired, I've got a baby to feed, and I don't have the time now, but this was pretty important.
Removed two posts. Slights at peoples intelligence are rude.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't make players follow any alignment based conduct codes for classes. Otherwise those classes always result in a headache for a player(s) or a DM.
It's an outdated concept to begin with. If someone wants to play that way because they want to, that's fine, but all i ever see it as is an excuse for a character to act that way.
Read the rest. What I said was basically covered by others. I remain by it. Some nifty stuff in here, though.
The "damned rules" are open to interpretation, much like every other form of communication other than mathematics, and until you get a dev to comment every interpretation is as valid as yours happens to be.
You cannot prove interpretation without a statement of intent. Which we don't seem to have.
If you want to cite your "interpretation of the rules" as empirical fact get some evidence other than "It means this because I think that it means this."
The inability to sufficiently argue a point, and therefore reasonably prove it to be true, and the inability of someone to accept the truth are two different things. I am not taking sides, but I fundamentally disagree with your statement.
I have pointed out rules text that is pretty straight forward only to have the words twisted to what the other posted wanted to see.In short not every interpretation is valid.
Okay I just have to take objection to that, a paladin is not the bedrock of a lawful society. I feel that your more likely to find them in a non-lawful one. Afterall if I caught one of my paladins lounging around in a lawful society which could presumably handle its own problems perfectly well since its lawful rather than off in the wilderness battling evil and protecting the innocent I'd be having some harsh words with them.
I see your point.
I do see Paladins going wherever civilization is needed but the lawful society will remain lawful b/c of the Paladins presence. Not so eloquent but you get my point.
|
@Ashiel
Forgive my brevity, skipping the inline replies, but:
If you summed up the total at-the-table minutes lost globally to the 15 minute adventuring day and compared it to time lost via Lawful Stupid, I think you'd understand my point. And claiming that rest-equals-regeneration is NOT a function of RAW is absurd. Of course it is. Just as one wouldn't want to play a fallen Paladin (who in no way would be required to be an NPC, AFAIK), one doesn't want to play a caster with no spells. RAW v RAW, there are 'flavor' items within the other classes with mechanical impact on what others at the table may or may not enjoy doing.
Limits are the essence of the game, and they are all by design. Par for this course, if you will.
I apologize if I am prematurely discounting your opinion on alignment, and will endeavor to remember what your actual position is. Still, for the opinions of those out there that 'never used it, never will', I will continue to apply ample salt.
As for 'context', I do not recall whether the OP has weighed in on the matter of a Paladin's relative power, but I believe the assumption of 'balance by code' still stands in the eyes of the topic. That's all I intended to say and of course understand the nature of tangents, such as the one we're currently on...
As the nature of good and evil are inherently wrapped up in the culture from whence the literature that inspired this game originated, I fear I cannot ever separate such to your satisfaction. I assert that things generally considered evil by the majority of humanity ARE EVIL in D&D, and will require authoritative word on the matter to ever assume otherwise. Few acts will ever be considered universally evil, but some are and I can cite examples but we'd need to go down a path that is generally unacceptable for a PG13 audience. But if you were to take a survey of all actions, with complete understanding of their proper context, some would fall on the 'always good' list, some 'always evil', and some 'sometimes both'. Killing, as you cite on the evil list, is a fine example of the latter. Killing your grandma is often thought to be 'always evil' - unless, e.g., she was trying to kill you first.
Anyway, I'll just have to sum up by citing the fact that corpse abuse is widely known to be wrong by the vast majority of cultures on this planet, and while it would certainly fall on the 'sometimes' list, the non-evil cases of such are few and far between.
Again, I'm not specifying a single culture that may or may not be represented in Golarion, but the vast majority of humanity on earth, from whence Golarion's world is derived.
And that's all the time I can spare. Thanks for the fun discussion!
Sooo...do we have a winner yet? As long as we're still playing PF, and for that matter Paladins, we're ALL winners!
My Chaotic Paladin is winning. Does that count?
Not in my game. :)
See you Sunday.
@Ashiel
Forgive my brevity, skipping the inline replies, but:
If you summed up the total at-the-table minutes lost globally to the 15 minute adventuring day and compared it to time lost via Lawful Stupid, I think you'd understand my point. And claiming that rest-equals-regeneration is NOT a function of RAW is absurd. Of course it is. Just as one wouldn't want to play a fallen Paladin (who in no way would be required to be an NPC, AFAIK), one doesn't want to play a caster with no spells. RAW v RAW, there are 'flavor' items within the other classes with mechanical impact on what others at the table may or may not enjoy doing.
I'm still confused as to what you mean. I did note that rest equals regeneration. In fact, I noted that it means Fighter-types get to recover hit points (and a noticeable amount if someone in the party makes a DC 15 heal check, since in that case they recover HD * 4 HP). Likewise, it's not about the Paladin's losing their powers, it's about the RAW that says they cannot remain with the group. As to if you submit to the 15 minute work day depends on the group, their priorities, and their own pacing.
I'm sorry, but I just don't see the connection with nova tactics versus a class feature that says you must leave your party if they aren't following your code.
I apologize if I am prematurely discounting your opinion on alignment, and will endeavor to remember what your actual position is. Still, for the opinions of those out there that 'never used it, never will', I will continue to apply ample salt.
Accepted.
As the nature of good and evil are inherently wrapped up in the culture from whence the literature that inspired this game originated, I fear I cannot ever separate such to your satisfaction. I assert that things generally considered evil by the majority of humanity ARE EVIL in D&D, and will require authoritative word on the matter to ever assume otherwise.
Ah, I agree, but not for the reasons one might think. The majority of things that people of multiple societies see as wrong and evil fall back to those core definitions of D&D evil. Evil things imply hurting, oppressing, or killing others. That includes:
And probably a few other things. All of these things are based on the fundamental concepts of wronging others, as opposed to aiding them. Core D&D alignment defines evil in very broad but strangely accurate and specific terms. As I noted before, you are not oppressing, hurting, or killing anyone by tearing up a body. While it may be a social or religious taboo, it is not innately good or evil.
To illustrate the difference between social or religious taboos or standards, and those that are innately good or evil, let us look at a few examples from our own world.
Now most modern philosophy looks at good and evil like D&D looks at good and evil. Generally on a principle of altruism vs selfishness, harm vs help, etc. Not surprising since D&D was crafted by very Intelligent people in the 70s, during a period where people were reflecting on philosophy that carries on today as modern morality. The morality in D&D is both simple enough that you can define good and evil within the game by tracing it back to these basic concepts, while being encompassing enough that you could actually follow the guidelines for D&D good vs evil to determine your good and evil traits and adjust your own actions to be a good person without religious or social laws (some of which are by D&D definitions quite evil).
Now some people wish to argue that we can't use modern understanding of morality to determine what is good and evil in a D&D setting, because that's not the morality that existed during the middle ages or some other historically noted time. Well this is rather foolish, as D&D is loosely based off our histories and mythologies, and never has or was about being our history, nor is there any call to not use modern understanding to reason things. That makes about as much sense as saying you can't use paper and mechanical pencils, or computer dice rollers, or any other modern invention while plying D&D. It also opens a can of worms, and would require you to re-learn whether stoning someone to death for adultery was a good thing in the world you're playing in, or if it meant marriage counseling.
So if alignment is going to work at all, — once again — it all falls down to the basic principles of altruism vs selfishness.
As the nature of good and evil are inherently wrapped up in the culture from whence the literature that inspired this game originated, I fear I cannot ever separate such to your satisfaction. I assert that things generally considered evil by the majority of humanity ARE EVIL in D&D, and will require authoritative word on the matter to ever assume otherwise. Few acts will ever be considered universally evil, but some are and I can cite examples but we'd need to go down a path that is generally unacceptable for a PG13 audience. But if you were to take a survey of all actions, with complete understanding of their proper context, some would fall on the 'always good' list, some 'always evil', and some 'sometimes both'. Killing, as you cite on the evil list, is a fine example of the latter. Killing your grandma is often thought to be 'always evil' - unless, e.g., she was trying to kill you first.
D&D morality as presented in the D&D books I have in my house (barring the horrible Bo*Ds) is very modern in outlook, so I'm not sure what literature you are talking about. Again, I agree that the majority of things seen as evil by most of humanity are evil, but not all. By looking at the circumstances, motives, and root qualities (is it altruistic or selfish), you can generally decide if something is or is not evil in D&D terms.
In the case of chopping up a dead body, the actual act of tearing up that body is not evil. It may be really gross, but it's not evil. Circumstances surrounding you chopping up that dead body, however, can definitely be evil (did you murder? Are you chopping up the body to torture their onlooking loved ones? Etc).
|
Authority is legitimate if it establishes order to the benefit of the general good. A paladin doesn't have to follow orders from policemen in Mordor.That said, there will be grey areas. Innocent persons arrested erroneously, draconian punishments, etc. In the event that the society in question is legitimate, the paladin will generally confront such issues within the scope of the legal system. Paladins recognize the great importance that law and order have in safeguarding the well-being of people, and seldom are willing to destabalize it.
Legitimate authority includes societies laws, the laws of the paladin's deity, and should the paladin belong to an order, that order's laws. The paladin must respect them all, provided they remain legitimate.
Daroob-- good points.
Those are the basic principles I've always thought applied, regarding Paladins (or any other LG characters, for that matter), the legitimacy of authority, and potential problems within a legitimate system of authority-- phrased more clearly than my efforts at explaining them have been lately.
|
My Chaotic Paladin is winning. Does that count?Not in my game. :)
See you Sunday.
Kurik is almost done. Got to give the wife the rest of the rules so she can start. Figure we can knock it out tonight. Also, let me know if their are specific dwarven clan names. He won't be claiming it, being an exile, but it will be in the background.
Kurik is almost done. Got to give the wife the rest of the rules so she can start. Figure we can knock it out tonight. Also, let me know if their are specific dwarven clan names. He won't be claiming it, being an exile, but it will be in the background.
So when's the next Kirthfinder game?
Clearly the class is just too difficult for some people that can't align the Int 'requirements' and the Wis 'requirements' of the class.
It seems the arguments are being presented strictly from a sheer Int perspective with little to no Wis temperance; they are being stated by the "Pallies are disruptive" crowd as black and white, binary, hardline fundamentalism and there is not even the suggestion that the Paladin might be running that code in any sort of real-world practical way.
So quote all the RAW you guys want, you are only demonstrating the flaws in your own 'reasoning'.
The Paladin used to be high on CHA too, I think that should be mandated back again into the character... might go some way to re-illustrate that the Paladin isn't really some gormless boor.
Geez TOZ, are you trying to say how much you love me? Thats totally ok. I love me too.
|
|
To illustrate the difference between social or religious taboos or standards, and those that are innately good or evil, let us look at a few examples from our own world.
Some tribes of cannibals killed their enemies and ate them. One could call this evil, but it would be the killing, not the eating, that made it so; as there is at least one tribe of cannibals which eat people as a form of love and respect during their funeral rites. Cannibalism is almost universally condemned because it is innately frightening or gross to most of us.
We Christians worship someone who we believe came back from the dead, and Catholic rituals profess ingesting the flesh and blood of our savior; which makes us sound a little bit like zombie-cannibals or something.
Islamic tradition dictates that the punishment for apostasy is death. If you decide to leave the religion or renounce your faith, you must be killed. This rule is enforced in Islamic-controlled countries.Now most modern philosophy looks at good and evil like D&D looks at good and evil. Generally on a principle of altruism vs selfishness, harm vs help, etc. Not surprising since D&D was crafted by very Intelligent people in the 70s, during a period where people were reflecting on philosophy that carries on today as modern morality. The morality in D&D is both simple enough that you can define good and evil within the game by tracing it back to these basic concepts, while being encompassing enough that you could actually follow the guidelines for D&D good vs evil to determine your good and evil traits and adjust your own actions to be a good person without religious or social laws (some of which are by D&D definitions quite evil).
Ah, these points. The cannibals... yeah, interesting-- to me, comes back to motivation/intent being more important in determining whether an act is good or evil, than the act itself (in most, not necessarily all, cases).
Yes, the Catholic version of the ritual does sound a little bit cannibalistic to outsiders. It's worth noting, as an exercise in understanding others' perceptions of one's point of view, that if an Anthropologist studied Christianity AND applied the same evaluative standards that he/she DOES apply to any other so-called "primitive belief system" (or non-Christian/"Pre-Christian" religion), he/she would conclude that Christianity was some sort of Death Cult (not saying that's good or bad-- not all other "death cults" were in any way bad).
But, while I mean no offense to people who happen to follow the Islamic faith-- I DO think that particular religious "commandment" of Islam IS evil. In our world, and in any fantasy world-- the idea that you would be entitled to kill someone else, just for believing in God in a different way than you do... for coming to a new understanding about the nature of God that (if one is to be honest with one's self and others) requires a change of faith.... that should NOT be used to justify a death sentence, yet in strictly observant Muslim countries, it does. I will observe that a great many Muslim countries recognize that human rights ought to be respected to at least some extent and do NOT practice, nor allow to be practiced, that particular part of Shari'a law; the countries which still practice strict Shari'a *including* that provision are mostly in the area of the Middle East (the majority of people who follow the Islamic faith actually live in countries which don't allow that provision to be enforced).
Regarding the developers of the game: your point on the early history of the game (this one) is largely correct. All of the original developers (as far as I know-- certainly Gygax and Arneson among them) were college-educated, and I understand there were at least a few philosophy majors among the early gaming groups... so it's not just principles arrived at or spoken about in the '70s, but there were a lot of thoughtful people involved thinking about the nature of right and wrong. However, as others have pointed out-- Michael Moorcock's novels (especially the 'Elric' books) had a lot to do with D&D's original alignment system. Something that has entirely expired along the way is that, in Moorcock's books (and the original D&D), while there was only Law and Chaos (no separate Good-Evil axis) the assumption was made that Law = Good and Chaos = Evil (not as an absolute, but close to it). I think it's a good thing that that association has gone away...
To everyone who's been discussing the treatment of corpses:
If one wants to bring "ancient morality" into it-- one should remember that as recently as the 18th century in Britain, the heads of traitors were placed on pikes before the city gates, and the bodies and/or body parts of criminals used to be hung up in various places on public display for extended periods, as a dual reminder to the public: on the positive side, that justice had been done; on the negative side, this is your fate if you commit a major crime.
Most of the populace at the time thought that treatment of criminal's bodies was entirely appropriate. I think Ashiel and others have a bit of a point here-- WHY you are mutilating the body, and the effect that mutilation is intended/likely to have on others, is a little more important than the mutilation itself (IMO).
|
|
Ashiel--
On the RAW discussion, here's why I think my interpretation of the restrictions/code issues on Paladins is a reasonable interpretation of the Rules As Written.Firstly, before I go further - thank you Finn. Thank you for discussing this with me. I appreciate your patience, and your courtesy. Thank you, for discussing it with me, like people.
I will continue to discuss it like people, or at least I'll try to do my best. I have to run now, got a musical/play to see tonight (Cats)-- so, I'm going to post a reply to this post of yours when I get back from that-- look for it late tonight.
(BTW, Ashiel-- although it seems like I've apparently 'killed' the "Good vs Evil characters" thread-- if you get a chance, after all the alignment discussions here, I'd be kind of interested in what you think of my evil character who is still a team player' example over at the, as of this posting, 2nd to last post on that thread)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Islamic tradition dictates that the punishment for apostasy is death. If you decide to leave the religion or renounce your faith, you must be killed. This rule is enforced in Islamic-controlled countries.
...except there are 'only a couple' of million Muslims who would argue that this is not the tradition at all, and claim that this is a later 'interpretation' brought about by certain cultural groups.
Bangladesh, for example, is a country of 142,000,000 - 90% Islamic, and they happily denounce the traditions you speak of as being 'garbage' that other 'evil men' came up with and twisted the words to justify grabs for power.
Thats the first country off the top of my head.
Its a bit like the Burqu and Hijab being worn by women; thats not a religious demand, its a cultural one.
I'm incapable of such love.
Medical science now has a few cures for that.
|
Having just finished slogging through this morass of contradictory opinion, I foolishly decided to add my own two drachmas to the mix. So here goes. Please don't kill me.
The way paladins work in my campaign is less about pure alignment and more about the edicts the paladins are sworn under. These edicts include all commands, instructions, and traditions the paladin has sworn to obey, and are usually imposed by his patron. These edicts will always be of a general Lawful Good nature (and here we are defining Lawful Good as "that which brings the greatest good to the greatest amount of people", thus allowing for those circumstances where someone might get hurt and removing most of the opportunities for those pesky "law or good" quandries). Rather than his alignment (which still must be Lawful Good), the paladin is expected to follow these edicts to the letter if he wants to keep his paladinhood, and he takes them as seriously as he does any other moral decision.
He doesn't get to pick and choose the edicts he follows; if the patron commands that he do something that he personally doesn't want to do, tough luck. He has sworn to follow any and all edicts issued by this specific source, chosen at the beginning of his adventuring career.
You may have noticed that this means that the patron can add edicts later in the paladin's career. If you have, you have noticed correctly.
Possible sources of edicts include Religion, a Mentor, the paladin's home culture, a knightly order to which the paladin belongs, or even his family.
In addition to the edicts, a paladin must maintain a personal code based on the virtues of Fealty (the sworn obedience to his patron), Courtesy (following the rules of etiquette, carrying himself proudly and cleanly, maintaining self-control, and accepting rude behavior with grace), Honesty (this should be self-explanatory), Valor (also self-explanatory... but remember that "Valor" does not mean "suicidal stupidity"), Honor (which basically boils down to "act with integrity at all times"), Humility (rejecting rewards and adulation, not bragging, putting the actions of others before his own, and so on), Generosity (self-explanatory), Chastity (the old "pure in thought and deed" ideal), and lastly Industry (the paladin never slacks off; even when he's not engaged in some mission, he's exercising, training, repairing his equipment, tending to repairs of his home, helping a neighbor with chores, and so on; he is never lazy).
Any way, we use this "code" to avoid the problems most people have with paladins, and they work for us. Your mileage may vary.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thats a very 2nd ed view of the Paladin, and well supported by the excellent Paladins Handbook - a great resource for Paladins in any edition :)
Indeed, some were downright horrid books when they got towards the end; the original splat-book creep.
Pally handbook though was a standout, and really covered off the ethos and core beliefs of Paladins, provided a range of options for Codes, service etc... as well as a few interesting 'kits' for Paladins.
The inability to sufficiently argue a point, and therefore reasonably prove it to be true, and the inability of someone to accept the truth are two different things. I am not taking sides, but I fundamentally disagree with your statement.
I have pointed out rules text that is pretty straight forward only to have the words twisted to what the other posted wanted to see.
In short not every interpretation is valid.
I said every interpretation is valid. I said absolutely nothing about reasonable. The difference is a matter of definition.
Since this universe tends to be experience based the man in the park screaming that the sky is falling is perfectly correct until either we get some commentary from a theoretical god or he perceives that it is not falling. Whether or not he is right is completely irrelevant as long as we're not living in his head. I will boldly state that in my reality I will not wear aluminum foil on my head or prepare for death due to the Mayan calendar ending no matter what my next door neighbor says. I believe his belief is valid, not reasonable.
We are assuming here that the person believes that their interpretation is correct, therefore they cannot consciously be aware of altering the information they perceive to cause it to be true. If the person is consciously aware that they are altering said information as per your example then their interpretation isn't really an interpretation of their own, or rather a belief of their own, merely a fabrication they are using to justify their actions, i.e. you don't have to believe your bs to sell it. I think it is why salesmen exist.
Edit for relevance: From my perspective Ashiel is the person next door who is telling me about the apocalypse.(Please do not take any offense absolutely nothing negative is intended with this statement. Everyone is a little crazy, at least from my perspective, about something.) I can see the information that is pulling her conclusion from. I can see how she is constructing it in her head. She has been very adroit is clarifying that. The problem with my perspective is that I don't tend to deconstruct information in a vacuum. I make it a point to draw correlation from other points of data so as to support the premise of the given data.
"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."
This analysis on a strict matter of definition yields that a paladin cannot tolerate the belief structure or actions of others that vary from her own.
1. This statement is inherently vague as a far a matter of mechanics is concerned.
*A definitive statement, or rather one with a mathematical equivalent, would be more precise as to the nature of execution. I.E. Divine Grace At 2nd level, a paladin gains a bonus equal to her Charisma bonus (if any) on all Saving Throws. This statement is an obvious if then sequence. If a paladin is second level then she gains a bonus to all saving throws based off of her charisma bonus(if any). It goes so far as to express that it requires a charisma bonus to function effectively.
*The above statement does not allow a method of mechanics. It states that she avoids working with evil characters or anyone who consistently offends her moral code after which it delineates a mechanism for her to work with evil characters and a necessary course of action for it; however, it does not specify a course of action if she decides or is forced to work with someone who violates her own code that is not or does not do actions which are decidedly evil. I.E. using poison isn't necessarily evil. It is not honorable and using such would violate a paladin's code although it may not affect her alignment on a good evil axis. Hence a Chaotic Good Alchemist is free to poison his blade all he likes to kill the wicked bandits more expediently without worry to the state of his alignment. This is oddly specific. It states that she avoids it. Avoid is a passive voice which is to say that it can have any number of meanings. It can, in function, mean anything from killing something with fire to stay away from it to casually walking away from an ex at a dinner party of a mutual friend. I.E. I'm avoiding my ex boyfriend he's such a pain, but I saw him last night because jessica just had to invite him luckily I had some other friends with me to act as a buffer, sorry I don't know the appropriate term blockade, wing woman, ..., I don't know, or I'm avoiding it like the plague.
2. Taken from a perfectly literal mechanics standpoint as Ashiel seems to be postulating every paladin must be female. This is patently untrue because we know that there are not gender restrictions on classes... yet. However, every example and statement of rules refers to her as being female under the paladin heading, that I could find in three seconds on pfsrd.
*We also know that writing he/she is somewhat cumbersome and that they're and their is non specific and poor word choice so we can reasonably conclude that they choose one for the entire article so that it flows better.
3. We know from a broader standpoint that Paizo approves of editing your games at home and flat out encourages you to define your own world. We can conclude this, because they have stated it and moreover to delineate specificity would be to define and limit the imagination of those participating in a game that is played primarily in the mind. To do such an act would limit their audience, at least from a sales perspective. On the other hand we know that their creative group loves a good story often more than mechanics as such the mechanics often reflect the idea and not necessarily a perfect mechanical function. I.E. See two bladed swords or the falchion.
I postulate that the statement is inherently vague and probably will not change because on a paizo standpoint both interpretations are valid. By not defining the situation further than specifying the actions that must be taken, except for in regards to evil, they allow a broader range of actions to be acceptable within their idea of the theme. The character theme is holy warrior to associate with evil without cause would break the theme. As long as the action does not break the theme, even if it causes the supporting evidence for the ideal to weaken, then I suspect that they do not mind. Hence in paizo lore story comes before mechanics except for where it would break story. If the actions are unrealistic then the participant tends to lose submersion and the artistry of it loses cohesion. I.E. Munchkin players who think that they have to win as opposed to play.
*If the dm and players determine that a paladin must in accordance with that vague statement act in aversion to anyone that violates his code must leave then it is perfectly valid as it does not break the necessitating theme.
*If a dm concludes that a paladin must take measures to not associate, without justification, with a bard who frequently lies without cause and defines these actions as avoiding him during downtime between missions or not chumming with him at the tavern after the big battle then that interpretation is as well perfectly valid. It keeps with the holy warrior theme and the bard is not evil therefore he can associate with him with justification or need which could range anywhere between hey we're going to slay these ogres to save the town's elder who was kidnapped or hey perhaps I can talk the bard around and get him to believe that his lies hurt him as well as others.
Islamic tradition dictates that the punishment for apostasy is death. If you decide to leave the religion or renounce your faith, you must be killed. This rule is enforced in Islamic-controlled countries.
...except there are 'only a couple' of million Muslims who would argue that this is not the tradition at all, and claim that this is a later 'interpretation' brought about by certain cultural groups.
Bangladesh, for example, is a country of 142,000,000 - 90% Islamic, and they happily denounce the traditions you speak of as being 'garbage' that other 'evil men' came up with and twisted the words to justify grabs for power.
This discussion with Richard Dawkins is, I feel, a pretty good explanation for this sort of phenomena. For example, most modern believers in the Christian Bible, or the Torah, do not follow all of the old laws. For example, in Deuteronomy, it describes that if a man rapes an engaged woman and she doesn't cry out for help, you stone both of them to death. If she does cry out for help, then you stone the man. If the woman wasn't engaged, and is raped, the rapist must pay her father 50 silver and marry her.
As a Christian, I will be the first to openly admit "Wow, that sounds ****ed up". It's not being unfair to say that religious law and what we consider to be good and evil morality is not connected, and is a social thing. I mean, you yourself point out that not even Islamics can agree with each other on these sorts of things, just like we have about a half-million (exaggeration in action) branches of Christianity.
Hence my point. D&D morality is not based on religious or social morality because it is religious and socially neutral, and defines good and evil in very basic but very recognizable concepts. I just don't think it would work in any other way. Religious and social norms as morality just hold no water when based in a modern or D&D concept of good and evil that looks at the beneficial vs destructive tendencies.
Clearly the class is just too difficult for some people that can't align the Int 'requirements' and the Wis 'requirements' of the class.
It seems the arguments are being presented strictly from a sheer Int perspective with little to no Wis temperance; they are being stated by the "Pallies are disruptive" crowd as black and white, binary, hardline fundamentalism and there is not even the suggestion that the Paladin might be running that code in any sort of real-world practical way.
So quote all the RAW you guys want, you are only demonstrating the flaws in your own 'reasoning'.
The Paladin used to be high on CHA too, I think that should be mandated back again into the character... might go some way to re-illustrate that the Paladin isn't really some gormless boor.
You say a lot about the Int requirements and Wis requirements, but that doesn't mean much. I realize you're trying to be cute, but basically if Int = RAW and Wis = RAI, then we are actually on the same page:
Which is not contrary to what I've been saying at all, beyond the fact it has been delivered in what must be one of the most belligerent packages I've seen in a while. Maybe a FedEx guy threw the package over the fence or something. :P
The inability to sufficiently argue a point, and therefore reasonably prove it to be true, and the inability of someone to accept the truth are two different things. I am not taking sides, but I fundamentally disagree with your statement.
I have pointed out rules text that is pretty straight forward only to have the words twisted to what the other posted wanted to see.
In short not every interpretation is valid.
I said every interpretation is valid. I said absolutely nothing about reasonable. The difference is a matter of definition.
Since this universe tends to be experience based the man in the park screaming that the sky is falling is perfectly correct until either we get some commentary from a theoretical god or he perceives that it is not falling. Whether or not he is right is completely irrelevant as long as we're not living in his head. I will boldly state that in my reality I will not wear aluminum foil on my head or prepare for death due to the Mayan calendar ending no matter what my next door neighbor says. I believe his belief is valid, not reasonable.
Actually, it's not valid at all.
valid
[val-id] Origin
val·id
[val-id] Show IPA
adjective
1. sound; just; well-founded: a valid reason.
2. producing the desired result; effective: a valid antidote for gloom.
3. having force, weight, or cogency; authoritative.
4. legally sound, effective, or binding; having legal force: a valid contract.
5. Logic . (of an argument) so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction.
In short, it's not valid because it's not reasonable.
|
|
Worldmaker - I would submit that Fidelity could be substituted for Chastity.
I'd include that under Fealty or Integrity, but its a good point. Promises made are promises kept, and one's word, once given, is strong as oak.
There was a comment about Barbarians resembling Samurai. What?!? Samurai follow a code of conduct that makes western knights (of which paladins are the paragons)seem like drunken frat boys. If ever there was a example of Lawful Stupid it would be a group who must commit ritual suicide for failure, instead of just rededicating themselves to making it up.
Given what I know about real world samurai culture, I'd say they'd make a great example of a Lawful Evil paladin.
I support every god having its own divine champions. My first RPG, I was the "paladin" of the goddess of thieves - in other words I was a thief, with all the abilities therein. Another party member was a Paladin of the head of the pantheon, a god of law and justice, etc. His Class was Paladin.
I'll give you one that's just as oddball. One of the most fondly remembered PCs in the history of my gameworld was a paladin of Mourne, God of Legends, Songs, Stories, Epic Poetry, and Tall Tales. Hardly what you'd expect from a martial champion, but it worked.
As written, the Paladin is innately the most disruptive class when you follow the rules as they are presented.
Let me make this even more direct then...
As written and interpreted by you.
I maintain that you have elected (for whatever reason) to simply assert that there is only one hardline way to read the RAW, and then you appear to tell anyone who challenges this that they are doing it wrong; I just choose not to accept your Taliban Paladins as the 'one and only true word as written'.
No thanks, it doesn't say anywhere in RAW that the Paladin MUST BE a hardline fundamentalist, and short of that, there is very little disruption to the party any more tahn anyone else disrupts the party.
I'd also like to know where it is written that the Party is a special and sacred cow that must not be disrupted in any way shape or form, or that all players can choose to just do what they want with complete freedom from being pulled up by other party members due to their behaviour.
As written, the Paladin is innately the most disruptive class when you follow the rules as they are presented.Let me make this even more direct then...
As written and interpreted by you.
I maintain that you have elected (for whatever reason) to simply assert that there is only one hardline way to read the RAW, and then you appear to tell anyone who challenges this that they are doing it wrong; I just choose not to accept your Taliban Paladins as the 'one and only true word as written'.
No thanks, it doesn't say anywhere in RAW that the Paladin MUST BE a hardline fundamentalist, and short of that, there is very little disruption to the party any more tahn anyone else disrupts the party.
I'd also like to know where it is written that the Party is a special and sacred cow that must not be disrupted in any way shape or form, or that all players can choose to just do what they want with complete freedom from being pulled up by other party members due to their behaviour.
Man you're hostile. So very, very hostile. But ok, you say and interpreted by you. I asked for another interpretation of the RAW that doesn't bend, twist, add, or remove anything from the RAW. The closest anyone has come to doing so is Finn K, who has respectfully suggested that "moral code" doesn't mean the Paladin's code.
A conversation he and I shall be continuing when he arrives again, I imagine. However, if you have nothing better to share, you are just spitting in the wind.
If I make a character (of any class) that wants to do social interaction and urban adventures, and the rest of the party is all dungeon-crawlers, who is being disruptive?
If the DM is planning to run primarily dungeon crawls, that would be me. If he intends to do a urban campaign, its everyone else in the party. That is the player(s) and not the rules.
You are trying to draw a parallel to something similar but different, and suggest that it is not different. If the GM explains he is playing a dungeon crawl, and yet you make someone who cannot fight and has nothing except social encounters (which would make them pretty useless in most urban games too, by the urban games I've seen), then obviously that guy. But at least he'll make for a nice distraction while the monsters are eating him while the rest of the party beats on the monsters. :3
However, there is a big difference from intentionally making characters that don't fit in parties, and a class that does it for you. See, as written (since at the moment I'm still waiting for Finn K to bring up some fair contesting on the subject), if you want to play a Paladin, you need to know the following:
EDIT: And just so that we're clear, it's not a roleplaying issue. It's a mechanical one. The Paladin rules are very strict on not only themselves, but who they can associate with. I gave an example of a Paladin that I actually played in a group. Real lead by example sort, who was both fun to play and followed her code to the letter (though she rarely spoke of her code).
But I noted that she wouldn't have been able to function in the game she was in, if we had not ignored part of the rules for playing a Paladin (specifically the Associates clause).
Actually, it's not valid at all.valid
[val-id] Origin
val·id
[val-id] Show IPA
adjective
1. sound; just; well-founded: a valid reason.
2. producing the desired result; effective: a valid antidote for gloom.
3. having force, weight, or cogency; authoritative.
4. legally sound, effective, or binding; having legal force: a valid contract.
5. Logic . (of an argument) so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction.In short, it's not valid because it's not reasonable.
Define valid, using definition number 3, as possible as drawn from their perspective which would include evidence that they perceive, but necessarily that others could perceive. We are all authorities on our own perceptions. If they did not perceive it then they would not be believing it. Telling a crazy person that the snake that they feel biting their leg is not there does not work unless they can draw further supporting evidence from their own perspective.
And to head you off.
rea·son·a·ble
adjective /ˈrēz(ə)nəbəl/
(of a person) Having sound judgment; fair and sensible
- no reasonable person could have objected
Based on good sense
- it seems a reasonable enough request
- the guilt of a person on trial must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
(of a person or animal) Able to think, understand, or form judgments by a logical process
- man is by nature reasonable
As much as is appropriate or fair; moderate
- a police officer may use reasonable force to gain entry
Fairly good; average
- the carpet is in reasonable condition
(of a price or product) Not too expensive
- a restaurant serving excellent food at reasonable prices
- they are lovely shoes and very reasonable
Define reasonable in my statement as based on good sense but in reference to the mass majority. I.E. the rest of the neighborhood.
It was a valid supposition that heavier than air flight was possible according the wright brothers, but it was not reasonable for everyone in the neighborhood to act on since they did not have the perspective to allow for such a possibility until after evidence was presented that they could perceive without presumption of failure due to previous bias stemming from hundreds of years on common sense and the observation that they, the wright brothers, kept crashing supporting the supposition.
I don't mind stretching it out if you don't mind me repeating myself and being long winded. I've got nothing else to do tonight except for read my book.
Or, the other players, upon learning there is a paladin pc, have to decide that their neutral and chaotic characters will tone down the 'offensive' behavior - when the paladin is watching.
Hence why I compared it to being like a druid who required her allies to not wear metal armor, even though her code only applies to herself. The Paladin's code applies to their allies as well, to a lesser extent, or else the Paladin cannot remain with them. Hence, playing a Paladin is innately selfish and disruptive to your friends if you are following the RAW.
If someone announces they are making a character who comes from country A, that has been at war with country B since time immemorial, and hates all B-ians with a passion, then making a character from B is being disruptive.
Again you are mistaking this for a roleplaying issue rather than a mechanical one. You are suggesting roleplaying fixes for mechanical issues. Likewise, who decides who is being disruptive? The guy who is playing the guy with the social hangup that says he hates *insert all people from this country* or the guy who just wants to play somebody from that country?
If player 2 intended to be from B before he knew player 1 was making a character from A, then the next step is for the players to talk to each other. If the players discuss the subject in advance, it solves a lot of problems.
So it depends on who was making their character first? So do you draw straws to decide whose character, backstory, and classes take priority? Oddly specific. It also has nil to do with the Paladin issue being discussed.
Example:
Player 1 wants to play a Paladin of [god]. Player 2wants to play an Alchemist. Player 3 wants to play a Rogue.
If the players and DM talk about it, they can decide a few things. Such as whether a "poison" that causes penalties but doesn't kill, is somehow more objectionable than a spell that causes penalties but doesn't kill for the paladin.
Except this goes outside the RAW. Which is what I'm advocating. The RAW doesn't care what the poison does, it just cares that it's a poison. Hitting someone with a blade coated in spider-poison to deal strength damage, and hitting them with ray of enfeeblement are two very different things going by the Paladin rules.
Having everyone talk about how far you are going to hold the Paladin to his class rules (and by proxy how far you will stray from the RAW for sake of gameplay) is a good idea, and something I've advocated for during this thread.
Or, they can decide that the rogue will do a lot of "scouting" and lie to people for information, sell stolen goods for the party treasury, etc. out of player 1's character's eyes. Player 1 more than likely doesn't have a problem with these acts - just his character.
If you do so, then you may have found a temporary fix. Until the Paladin gets suspicious, catches the rogue, senses that the rogue is lying to him, etc.
So it depends on who was making their character first? So do you draw straws to decide whose character, backstory, and classes take priority? Oddly specific. It also has nil to do with the Paladin issue being discussed.The point is, If neither player intends to be a problem, then the players (and DM) may well be able to find an answer that will satisfy everyone.
If you do so, then you may have found a temporary fix. Until the Paladin gets suspicious, catches the rogue, senses that the rogue is lying to him, etc.If the Paladin's player isn't out to be disruptive, then he will be amenable to looking the other way.
A lot of that depends on the roleplaying and verisimilitude. If you have to actively try and make sure that your Paladin doesn't catch on, you are essentially metagaming to try and work around the RAW issues. If you're going to metagame, why not just work out a non-RAW solution which would be less offensive to gameplay?