Mutilated bodies are not the sign of a Good person, Chaotic or not.
It's not Chaotic Paladins you're having trouble with there, mdt.
LOL
That was an example of something that came up in another thread that someone thought was proper for a paladin. :) Not in my games, thank goodness.
|
Mutilated bodies are not the sign of a Good person, Chaotic or not.
It's not Chaotic Paladins you're having trouble with there, mdt.
LOL
That was an example of something that came up in another thread that someone thought was proper for a paladin. :) Not in my games, thank goodness.
Indeed, I think I remember that thread...
I played a Paladin of Freedom once. I'd like to again some day...
Mutilated bodies are not the sign of a Good person, Chaotic or not.
It's not Chaotic Paladins you're having trouble with there, mdt.
LOL
That was an example of something that came up in another thread that someone thought was proper for a paladin. :) Not in my games, thank goodness.
Again, it was wrong and I atoned over it.
|
Still doesn't change my thought, that a Paladin is above all else, Good, and that obedience to principles of Law come after the overwhelming commitment to good, and it also does not change my contention that do not commit evil is more important than the rest of the code, although the rest of it isn't incompatible (especially since, on examination, the rest of the code is still more about "good" than "law"). Notably, there is NOWHERE in or out of the code in the official material where it says the Paladin is going to lose his/her powers if he/she ever commits a chaotic act-- that is explicitly stated about evil acts.I agree with you, Finn, from a practical standpoint. RAW, mistep on the code and you fall off the ship, but I do believe that Paladins are supposed to be champions of good. That's basically what their abilities are designed for, so I'm fine with that. I was just commenting that if people really insist that Paladin restrictions are a game-balancing feature, then Paladins should be cranked up in general. If it's merely flavor, then I agree with you that Paladins are all about the GOOD as presented in Pathfinder, and should probably be any good alignment.
Yeah, for me it is all about the flavor (not to mention the long heritage of Lawful Paladins dating back to their first appearance in the game (the 'Greyhawk' supplement, 1976-- back when 'Good' and 'Evil' weren't even clearly defined and the only alignments were Law, Chaos and Neutrality-- assumed to essentially mean 'unaligned'). I will not argue a defense of Paladin's alignment on the basis of game balance. I think Paladins should be lawful, as a reflection of their intense personal discipline and dedication, and their dedication to a code of honor; and because they do put the greater good ahead of individuals, are committed to supporting legitimate authority, good governance, and 'Rule of Law' (in the political science sense, not just the in-game alignment sense) as conducive to the greater good. I think the whole weight of all that means that Lawful alignment is required, without meaning that they have the kind of commitment to the lawful part (and the need to crack down in the service of the principle of law) that they have to Good. I disagree with Kelsey (among others) that one can have ALL of those traits, and still be neutral or chaotic and playing a character of those alignments properly.
In the section regarding associates, one can note that it says Paladins should not associate with Evil characters (and can only knowingly associate with them at all under highly unusual circumstances), but it doesn't lay out any restrictions on whom the Paladin can associate with on the Law-Chaos axis. That means to me that if one of the Paladin's companions is very very thoroughly individualistic, maybe a little reckless, really dislikes authority and only follows the laws when he's forced to (or it really makes sense, 'cause he's not just a rebel for the sake of rebelling), but that companion really cares about other people, about protecting and preserving the lives, well-being and freedom of others, etc. (in short, a Chaotic Good character-- very strong on both points of his alignment)-- the Paladin will have no qualms about associating with him. The Paladin may find himself having a lot of moral discussions with the Chaotic Good character, and may find himself constantly trying to reign in what the Paladin considers as the CG character's excesses... but if both characters are genuinely good, and the Paladin's association with the group is still leading to the greater good, I think the Paladin's still gonna be okay.
In fact (although some may feel I'm pushing/bending the RAW here), the CG character may lie-- a lot. The Paladin may be well aware that the CG character lies, a lot. Which is something that the Paladin does not like and that does go against the Paladin's moral code. However, the CG character also dives in the way of danger to pull children out of the way of arrows, gives the shirt off his back (sometimes literally) to clothe the poor, risks his life under all kinds of conditions to save the innocent, and in general, is serving the greater good his way every bit as effectively as the Paladin is. I feel that the Paladin in this case can associate freely with the CG character and the rest of the party without risking his Paladinhood (this is how I'd interpret RAW too), because although the CG character has some issues (the lying...) and the Paladin may constantly feel the need to lecture the CG character about those issues, the CG Character's other actions so completely outweigh his little moral flaws, that when you take the person as a whole-- no, he doesn't offend the Paladin's moral code, because the good he does saving lives is worth so much more than condemning him for his flaws.
As far as how a Paladin should be, and why someone should or should not play a Paladin, I'll say it again ('cause your post on it was so good)-- I thought your post about the 5-year old's LG Fighter, and the point about "play a Jedi because you're committed to the ideals, NOT because you like the cool powers" says everything necessary about what a Paladin should be in play, and why someone should or not play a Paladin.
I disagree, I think Paladin's have the Lawful requirement for the same reason that Monk's have it.
It's less about the lawful than it is about discipline. A Paladin wields a great deal of power, both martial and supernatural. A huge part of that Lawful is, I think, discipline not to misuse it.
Think of Spider Man's 'With great power comes great responsibility', every time he's misused his powers, it's ended up bad. I think that's for Paladin's on steroids. They have such power that if they misused it they'd fall hard all the time.
But there are lots of people that can be just as good and wield just as much or greater power. Paladins really aren't overflowing with awesome power. In fact, a lot of their abilities are sub-standard compared to other classes, and they really only excel at fighting evil. It's really hard to abuse that sort of power in a spiderman sort of way.
I mean, what are you going to do? Smite evil a non-evil guy? What makes you any different than a mundane warrior whacking them with a weapon if you do this? Is healing yourself for an average of 1.75 HP / level as a swift action really something that takes great wisdom to use responsibly?
I mean, Clerics fight almost as well as Paladins, and have far, far more power that could be abused if used irresponsibly. A cleric that utters a holy word in the middle of a town will slaughter everyone near them, not just evil guys. That cleric could be Any Good or any Neutral, and still wield that awesome power. What does the Paladin really have the cleric doesn't? Entirely defensive abilities, 5 BAB over 20 levels? Oh yeah, the Paladin can turn a stick into a +5 holy weapon at the levels a cleric is summoning celestial hordes.
Great power indeed. A true example of great power tempered with responsibility would be a Cleric of Helm, a servant of the Radiant Heart, or some similar thing. Lawful Neutral Cleric who has the power to do things that could be dangerous or selfish, but to wield them for the greater good. The Lawful Good Necromancer I was contrasting the Paladin with in my previous posts is another example. As a person, he is lawful good. He cares about people. He acts altruistically, and he weighs the considerations of his actions. He could be a terrible force of evil, but this power is tempered through his own code of conduct and his good desires.
Gandalf is another example. He refuses the ring noting that he would use it out of a desire to do good, but if the ring's will was to take hold, it would wield a force through Gandalf that was too great and terrible to imagine. Now imagine an evil ring took control over a Paladin...
Ring: "Aw crap! What the heck? All this guy has is the ability to smite evil and resist my influence better. How am I supposed to cause mayhem with this guy? Maybe I can influence him to give me to that nice looking ranger over there. Yeah, he looks dangerous. Or maybe that Ezren guy. I bet I could use him to burn down a whole city, or call up some fiends into the world for poops and giggles."
Imagine a CG Paladin that was fine with the ends justifying the means. As they say, the road to hell is paved in good intentions. He's going to do what is good, even if it's not nice, or even acceptable. Like beating the landlord up so the widow and orphans can live in their house, or leaving mutilated bodies hanging around town to scare people into doing what they want.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Not being non-lawful doesn't make you a thug. O_o
Beating up landlords mobster-style violates your good aspect pretty fiercely. I mean, the guy is probably an evil jerk, and maybe the family has no where else to go, but being evil to the landlord isn't going to do much good either. Finding them somewhere else to live would be more practical, since even if you're chaotic, it doesn't mean that you act without rational thought. You probably really despise that Lawful Evil landlord, but that doesn't mean you beat him up - any more than any other person just randomly beats up people.I mean, do you beat up people you don't like? Even if you don't like the established authority or traditions?
Hanging up mutilated bodies is probably overdoing it, but I could see it as a warning, since honestly bodies are just objects. Gross doesn't equate to evil. If a group of bandits attack your group, and are slain, hanging their already dead corpses up with a sign that banditry will not be tolerated...well, you're not actually doing anything evil (you killed them defending yourself, or others, not just to hang them up as a showpiece) and you just might scare some bandits into hesitating on their raids, for fear of ending up like their comrades.
It's a very short road from doing things like that to using those tactics to solving every issue, and then bang zoom you have an Anti-Paladin. This is why Jedi have such rigid structures and restrictions on them, they wield great power, and it's easy to keep making a little concession here, and another there. Just watch Anakin in the last 3 movies, compromising his principles one step at a time in the name of 'good' and ending up an Sith.
Sadly Anakin is probably the worst example of slow decline, if we go by the movies. He's kind of a little punk in the movies. He's actually much cooler and far more respectable in Star Wars: The Clone Wars, where he actually seems like a well-rounded and level headed (if a bit reckless), and is someone that you can respect. Movie Anakin, well he just whines a lot, and while I actually love Episode I-III, he's not really a good example of falling to the Dark Side.
There are much better examples of those who have fallen to the dark side in the expanded universe. On the other hand, there are excellent examples of people who balance light and dark without falling to the dark side. For example, Mace Windu practices Form VII of Lightsaber Combat, which requires you to give in to the dark side but with control and restraint. To literally ride the battle high without losing yourself. You must enjoy the fighting, and the power that it brings, but without losing yourself to it. It is noted as a very dangerous form because those who lack the discipline can fall into its temptation. One of Mace Windu's students did, because she couldn't handle it.
So if the Paladin actually had stuff that made them fit this sort of scenario, I'd totally agree. But they don't. Their discipline is obviously not because of their great power. For one, they immediately lose this great power if they act outside their discipline, which invalidates this view of it entirely. We would have to write "With great responsibility, comes great power" for it to fit Paladins, and even then the great part should probably be rewritten to say "some power".
The Necromancer I mentioned just above in this post? That's a great power. You can animate armies of unthinking soldiers who follow your every whim. Your spells and powers can snuff life or give it eternal. It's easy to get a god-complex when wielding such powers, lose respect for life, or decide that you want to rule others like you rule bags of bones. That power doesn't go away if you start sliding down that slippery slope, and as your power rises, the threat of your own corruption increases. When you're a 13th level Necromancer, it takes restraint to respect authority when you could remove that authority if you wanted to. It's harder to respect life when with but a word you can take it. That is power that must be tempered with responsibility, good morals, good ethics, and a personal code of restraint.
I pretty much agree with you Finn. And while I believe the position is defensible from a RAW standpoint, I think it makes even more sense when you look at it from a more holistic view.
I kinda look at it DC Comics style...they're pretty good with these types of questions.
Superman is lawful good, Batman is CG. Batman clearly goes around the law and does whatever he feels is necessary to protect the lives of innocents. If the police are after Batman for whatever reason, Batman doesn't just turn himself over. He keeps doing what he does. Superman, on the other hand, willingly turns himself over to authorities, even if he could be saving other people at that time.
They not only work with each other on occasion, they are really good friends. They know each other's secret identity, and that's OK.
Now, at some point, Lex Luthor went all LE. He decided the best way to get his goals was to work within the constraints of the law, not against it. IIRC, Lex got promoted to President, and Superman even did a few things he was told to by Lex out of respect for that position...but that only went so far.
While Superman may pair up with Lex from time to time to stop a world threat, they can never be permanent friends like Batman/Superman.
While the alignment grid makes the distance between alignments LOOK equal from one corner to another, the fact is, it's much harder for Lawful Good to hang around Lawful Evil than with Chaotic Good. It's harder for ANY brand of Good, generally speaking, to hang out with any brand of evil...than, let's say, for any brand of lawful to chaos. That's why, aside from a few very interesting settings and stories, the vast majority focus on Good vs. Evil rather than Law vs. Chaos.
I'm going to put out there that the code doesn't cover chaotic acts, the class doesn't have smite chaos, it seems a lot more dedicated with the good/evil axis, than anything else. Though technically they're lawful by default, by adhering (or at least attempting to adhere to) a rather restrictive code regarding their behavior.
I also find the concept of respecting a legitimate authority laughable, because not everyone, paladin or not, is going to respect an obstructive (even if he's just doing his job) bureaucrat, and it's more likely that no one will, not even the paladin. Even if the paladin still respects their position and the fact that they don't really get a choice in this matter.
@Ashiel
We have different takes on the power level of a Paladin then. It's the only D10 class with a good will save, get's every (non exotic) weapon and armor in the book, get's +2/2d6 vs a vast majority of the classic enemies in the system, can do that several times a day to the death, can heal themselves in combat without provoking an attack of opportunity, can channel magical power into a weapon without needing to spend money on it to get magical bonuses (or can enhance it's existing magical weapon!), immunity to fear (not resistance, flat out I never get afraid), immunity to all diseases, can remove status afflictions with a lay on hands, can still channel like a cleric, flat out immunity to charm spells, flat out immunity to compulsion spells, and finally as a capstone, every smite attack by a paladin can banish an evil outsider. That's 5 chances a round to banish, more if he's a TWF paladin.
Honestly, that's a massive amount of abilities. Oh yeah, and he get's limited spell casting too...
Wriggle all you want Ash, it is still a limitation imposed firstly by the PLAYER, and then subsequently re-inforced by the class.
You seem to want to apply black and white to the Paladin (and the strictest possible interpretations) and how they have to roll, and then go all shades of grey on the bad guys.
I just don't think the comment stands up, and nor have I seen mature sensible players struggle. In the hands of an idiot though, the Paladin class could be used as a great disruptive force within the party, but the same person could have chosen a whole range of vehicles to play that game with... it still lies with the player, not the class.
The classes can't play themselves, it takes a player to drive them.
Again, it was wrong and I atoned over it.Mutilated bodies are not the sign of a Good person, Chaotic or not.
It's not Chaotic Paladins you're having trouble with there, mdt.
LOL
That was an example of something that came up in another thread that someone thought was proper for a paladin. :) Not in my games, thank goodness.
As I pointed out in my previous post, mutilating or disfiguring an object is as morally reprehensible as mutilating or disfiguring any other object. Mutilating or disfiguring a living creature? Horribly evil. Breaking the arms off a statue? Not evil. One is a creature, the other is an object.
Putting a dead person's head on a pike might send a message to bandits that this junk will not be tolerated, and you may end up dead. You didn't hurt, oppress, or kill them when you were sticking the already dead head on a pike, so you are most definitely not evil for doing so. In fact, you might even be a good guy for the reason you're doing it.
Corpse mutilation is a religious taboo. What we do to corpses today before burial would be considered heinously evil by some religious taboos. Doctors had to exhume corpses to cut them open, and study their insides to better serve the living, and if they were caught they would have been in deep ship high in transition for their "evils"; whereas the Egyptians did this sort of mutilation as part of their sacred funeral rites.
Corpse mutilation is not evil. It may be a taboo, but it is not evil. Due to my religion I wish to be cremated because I believe my ashes should become ashes once more, and the dust I was created from return to the dust I was made from. I find the concept of filling a body full of chemicals to try and preserve it, stuffing it in a coffin, and then burying it in a way that it won't quickly return to the world, to be bizarre and unnatural; but evil? No, no, not at all.
Uhm, as to Superman, he's the most classic of Lawful Stupid.
Really, he barely understands tactics. He basically flies in, relies on his massive powers to overwhelm the enemy, and only falls back to trying to figure something out if the 'kick ass and chew bubble gum' approach doesn't work. And when he does try to figure things out, it's usually a lot of relying on his powers, not a lot of brain power. X-Ray vision to solve puzzles, super speed to go read every book in a library to see if he can find something about the current issue, and falling back on asking all the norms around him for input.
He's quite often confused by complex morality, he really does treat everything as black and white mostly. I don't think it was until he started hanging out with Batman that he kind of started understanding subtlety.
Corpse mutilation is a religious taboo. What we do to corpses today before burial would be considered heinously evil by some religious taboos. Doctors had to exhume corpses to cut them open, and study their insides to better serve the living, and if they were caught they would have been in deep ship high in transition for their "evils"; whereas the Egyptians did this sort of mutilation as part of their sacred funeral rites.Corpse mutilation is not evil. It may be a taboo, but it is not evil. Due to my religion I wish to be cremated because I believe my ashes should become ashes once more, and the dust I was created from return to the dust I was made from. I find the concept of filling a body full of chemicals to try and preserve it, stuffing it in a coffin, and then burying it in a way that it won't quickly return to the world, to be bizarre and unnatural; but evil? No, no, not at all.
The original action wasn't putting a criminal's head on a pike. It was a sexual mutilation with the corpse left in a public square fountain to terrorize a group of local thieves.
Putting a head on a pike after a public execution is what you're thinking of, and that's a lawful end after a fair trial. What was being discussed originally was killing a thief in an alley, in secret, and then mutilating it's genitals and leaving it in a public square to terrorize the thieves guild (an organization that was chatoic but not necessarily evil). Terrorism usually get's marked down as evil.
In other words, it wasn't the mutilation per se, it was the intended effect (terrorizing a group I don't agree with) that turned it evil.
Wrong. You get one Banishment attempt and then - succeed or fail - your Smite is over. The capstone actually kinda sucks.@Ashiel
and finally as a capstone, every smite attack by a paladin can banish an evil outsider. That's 5 chances a round to banish, more if he's a TWF paladin.
Hmm, ok, I missed that part. However, the whole maximum healing thing kind of makes up for it I think.
@Ashiel
We have different takes on the power level of a Paladin then. It's the only D10 class with a good will save, get's every (non exotic) weapon and armor in the book, get's +2/2d6 vs a vast majority of the classic enemies in the system, can do that several times a day to the death, can heal themselves in combat without provoking an attack of opportunity, can channel magical power into a weapon without needing to spend money on it to get magical bonuses (or can enhance it's existing magical weapon!), immunity to fear (not resistance, flat out I never get afraid), immunity to all diseases, can remove status afflictions with a lay on hands, can still channel like a cleric, flat out immunity to charm spells, flat out immunity to compulsion spells, and finally as a capstone, every smite attack by a paladin can banish an evil outsider. That's 5 chances a round to banish, more if he's a TWF paladin.Honestly, that's a massive amount of abilities. Oh yeah, and he get's limited spell casting too...
Sorry, there's enough people on this forum that clearly note the Paladin is not overpowered in any sense of the word. While they are extra effective against classical enemies, they are only extra effective up to 5 times per day. The rest of the time they are an NPC warrior with some healing, good saves, and nice immunities. Their channeling eats up their lay on hands, and requires them to burn 2 uses of LoH per use, making it kind of craptastic in most cases and you have to burn a feat to at make it effective for turning undead.
Also the banishment ability is pretty pointless. In fact, many people have commented that it is actually a nerf when you hit 20th level, because instead of dealing extra damage the fiend basically gets a save vs being banished. Either way your smite ends. Many people actively avoid taking Paladin 20, and instead go Paladin 19 / Anything else 1, so their smite doesn't become tragically risky against evil outsiders.
The nicest ability they have is definitely their Lay on Hands which heals an average of 1.75 damage per level, and recovers from status ailments. Paladins are arguably the best tanks in the game. But that's not really your "with great power comes great responsibility" kind of stuff.
Seriously, what is a Paladin going to do if he could go rogue? If none of his abilities stopped working but didn't change, well he's still just a nice tank. He's got some nice immunities, but most of those can be replicated with some simple magic items or low-level spells, but he's not really got a whole lot of room to abuse his power. I mean really, he can heal himself or heal others. It's kind of hard to use that power irresponsibly short of actively trying to heal muggers or something.
Rangers also have a d10 HD, perfect BAB, 2 good saves, spells, a companion, 6 + Int HD, the ability to rock socks on classical monsters and villains via Favored Enemy, and are generally more versatile than Paladins. Paladins are balanced pretty well against rangers.
Which is why, like I said, I don't see Paladins as being the dudes Uncle Ben was talking about with his speech, and its definitely not worth "balancing" with these odd restrictions which are entirely fluff-based.
Sorry, there's enough people on this forum that clearly note the Paladin is not overpowered in any sense of the word. While they are extra effective against classical enemies, they are only extra effective up to 5 times per day. The rest of the time they are an NPC warrior with some healing, good saves, and nice immunities. Their channeling eats up their lay on hands, and requires them to burn 2 uses of LoH per use, making it kind of craptastic in most cases and you have to burn a feat to at make it effective for turning undead.
Also the banishment ability is pretty pointless. In fact, many people have commented that it is actually a nerf when you hit 20th level, because instead of dealing extra damage the fiend basically gets a save vs being banished. Either way your smite ends. Many people actively avoid taking Paladin 20, and instead go Paladin 19 / Anything else 1, so their smite doesn't become tragically risky against evil outsiders.
The nicest ability they have is definitely their Lay on Hands which heals an average of 1.75 damage per level, and recovers from status ailments. Paladins are arguably the best tanks in the game. But that's not really your "with great power comes great responsibility" kind of stuff.
Seriously, what is a Paladin going to do if he could go rogue? If none of his abilities stopped working but didn't change, well he's still just a nice tank. He's got some nice immunities, but most of those can be replicated with some simple magic items or low-level spells, but he's not really got a whole lot of room to abuse his power. I mean really, he can heal himself or heal others. It's kind of hard to use that power irresponsibly short of actively trying to heal muggers or something.
Rangers also have a d10 HD, perfect BAB, 2 good saves, spells, a companion, 6 + Int HD, the ability to rock socks on classical monsters and villains via Favored Enemy, and are generally more versatile than Paladins. Paladins are balanced pretty well against rangers.
Which is why, like I said, I don't see Paladins as being the dudes Uncle Ben was talking about with his speech, and its definitely not worth "balancing" with these odd restrictions which are entirely fluff-based.
Your post is confusing. Are paladins glorified NPC warriors or equal to the ranger? Or are rangers just as bad as paladins? You praise the ranger so much and then compare paladins to them, I'm just not sure what side you're on.
You seem to want to apply black and white to the Paladin (and the strictest possible interpretations) and how they have to roll, and then go all shades of grey on the bad guys.
No, I'm discussing RAW and then I'm discussing how I'd play it, and if you actually read my posts, you'll notice I distinguish between the two. I actually agree with Finn K, as I noted to him, that while RAW Paladins do not work that way, I prefer his interpretation of it, and Paladins being primarily good and given a little wiggly room to have the Good path supersede the lawful path when there is a conflict.
RAW though, paladins are very much not party-friendly, and in a black & white morality, Paladins cannot kill things because if circumstances and motivations cannot affect if an action is evil or not (as in there are no shades of gray) then there is no difference between in how or why you kill, only that you kill. This is why Black & White morality does not work in your typical D&D game. As much as people like to try and say D&D is a black & white morality game where good and evil are physical things and so motivations and such don't play into what is good or evil, the designers of 3E most definitely did not design it this way.
Hmm, ok, I missed that part. However, the whole maximum healing thing kind of makes up for it I think.
Hardly. While the healing is nice, you just went from a guaranteed huge bonus to hit, auto-overcome damage reduction, +38 damage on your first attack, and +19 damage per attack on each additional, and the option to actually kill the evil outsider as opposed to merely return it to its plane, for a banishment spell which may actually save the demon or devil from retribution, and they can resist at the cost of your smite. And what do you get in return?
Your Lay on Hands are maximized (so you go from 1.75 healing per level to 3 healing per level) and your Channel Energy is maximized to 60 healing or damage with a Will save for half, meaning it's still pretty useless against level-appropriate undead, compared to a good ol' fashioned weapon-pounding.
That is horrible. It was one of the first things that we house ruled about the Paladin. In our games, you have the option of attempting the Banishment effect, but you can continue to pound the crap out of evil proper.
Putting a head on a pike or leaving a corpse with mutilated genitals in public view are both really doing the same thing. Both are intended to intimidate. If intimidation is evil, then the paladin has more problems.The original action wasn't putting a criminal's head on a pike. It was a sexual mutilation with the corpse left in a public square fountain to terrorize a group of local thieves.
Putting a head on a pike after a public execution is what you're thinking of, and that's a lawful end after a fair trial. What was being discussed originally was killing a thief in an alley, in secret, and then mutilating it's genitals and leaving it in a public square to terrorize the thieves guild (an organization that was chatoic but not necessarily evil). Terrorism usually get's marked down as evil.
In other words, it wasn't the mutilation per se, it was the intended effect (terrorizing a group I don't agree with) that turned it evil.
I must agree with HappyDaze. There is morally no reason one is evil and the other isn't. Only the the level of how disturbing it seems to people, and probably the enhanced social shock-value of the genitals. Gross, but still just an object.
The part that does seem evil, which mdt didn't mention, was the fact that it was apparently a surprise killing against a non-evil creature, for the sole purposes of terrorizing the thieves' guild. That sounds pretty evil to me. That is where the difference seems to come in.
In which case it's not a matter of mutilating corpses at all, it's a matter of killing people to get at other people. This is one of the problems with alignment issues in general. Notice that the corpse mutilation got painted evil, but it was the motivation behind that mutilation, what actions were taken for that mutilation to occur, and so forth, which is what made it into a very bad situation.
Going from the information I've been given, at least...
Corpse mutilation is a religious taboo. What we do to corpses today before burial would be considered heinously evil by some religious taboos. Doctors had to exhume corpses to cut them open, and study their insides to better serve the living, and if they were caught they would have been in deep ship high in transition for their "evils"; whereas the Egyptians did this sort of mutilation as part of their sacred funeral rites.Corpse mutilation is not evil. It may be a taboo, but it is not evil. Due to my religion I wish to be cremated because I believe my ashes should become ashes once more, and the dust I was created from return to the dust I was made from. I find the concept of filling a body full of chemicals to try and preserve it, stuffing it in a coffin, and then burying it in a way that it won't quickly return to the world, to be bizarre and unnatural; but evil? No, no, not at all.
The original action wasn't putting a criminal's head on a pike. It was a sexual mutilation with the corpse left in a public square fountain to terrorize a group of local thieves.
Putting a head on a pike after a public execution is what you're thinking of, and that's a lawful end after a fair trial. What was being discussed originally was killing a thief in an alley, in secret, and then mutilating it's genitals and leaving it in a public square to terrorize the thieves guild (an organization that was chatoic but not necessarily evil). Terrorism usually get's marked down as evil.
In other words, it wasn't the mutilation per se, it was the intended effect (terrorizing a group I don't agree with) that turned it evil.
Wait, are we talking about the same incident? The genital corpse mutilation incident I remember was the Paladin breaking into the house of two city guards who raped a woman, then beat her and left her for dead for reporting the crime to their captain. It had become clear that no legal charges were going to be filed do to their status as guards and the high level of law enforcement corruption in the area, so she killed them, castrated them, and put them on display as an example. I never heard of this thieves guild incident.
Having paladins restricted to a certain alignment isn't really that bad. Besides I don't really want champions of law and goodness going around eating babies and having their way with everything that moves.
I have always found paladins and anti-paladins to be formidable opponents myself even if they can't use all of their toys in every encounter.
Your post is confusing. Are paladins glorified NPC warriors or equal to the ranger? Or are rangers just as bad as paladins? You praise the ranger so much and then compare paladins to them, I'm just not sure what side you're on.Sorry, there's enough people on this forum that clearly note the Paladin is not overpowered in any sense of the word. While they are extra effective against classical enemies, they are only extra effective up to 5 times per day. The rest of the time they are an NPC warrior with some healing, good saves, and nice immunities. Their channeling eats up their lay on hands, and requires them to burn 2 uses of LoH per use, making it kind of craptastic in most cases and you have to burn a feat to at make it effective for turning undead.
Also the banishment ability is pretty pointless. In fact, many people have commented that it is actually a nerf when you hit 20th level, because instead of dealing extra damage the fiend basically gets a save vs being banished. Either way your smite ends. Many people actively avoid taking Paladin 20, and instead go Paladin 19 / Anything else 1, so their smite doesn't become tragically risky against evil outsiders.
The nicest ability they have is definitely their Lay on Hands which heals an average of 1.75 damage per level, and recovers from status ailments. Paladins are arguably the best tanks in the game. But that's not really your "with great power comes great responsibility" kind of stuff.
Seriously, what is a Paladin going to do if he could go rogue? If none of his abilities stopped working but didn't change, well he's still just a nice tank. He's got some nice immunities, but most of those can be replicated with some simple magic items or low-level spells, but he's not really got a whole lot of room to abuse his power. I mean really, he can heal himself or heal others. It's kind of hard to use that power irresponsibly short of actively trying to heal muggers or something.
Rangers also have a d10 HD, perfect BAB, 2 good saves, spells, a companion, 6 + Int HD, the ability to rock socks on classical monsters and villains via Favored Enemy, and are generally more versatile than Paladins. Paladins are balanced pretty well against rangers.
I'm on neither the Paladin nor the Ranger's side. I was merely commenting on both. The Paladin has some very nice abilities, but the one that really seem impressive and truly shine only do so in specific instances, and in limited frequency (first your foe must be evil, which basically makes it useless against most all animals, constructs, plants, oozes, many humanoids, elementals, etc; and then it's only usable a few times per day, to a maximum of 5 enemies per adventure). Their other abilities are akin to druid or monk type immunities, and are defensive in nature, which means the Paladin must be under attack by those things for them to matter. They are good abilities, but not overpowering, and are again situational.
They have no more of a "great power" that a Ranger doesn't. Rangers have a weaker offensive ability than smite, but it is more versatile and functions continuously. A 20th level Ranger gets 5 favored enemies, and by choosing groups like Aberration, Animal, Magical Beast, Outsider (Evil), and Undead mean they can apply the benefits pretty broadly against enemies, while the Paladin gets a powerful ability vs any evil creature but only 5 times per day. Paladins get some more defensive abilities, rangers are better skill monkies, etc, etc.
Rangers are better in more general cases. Paladins are better in more specific cases. Rangers are better skill users. Paladins are better tanks because of their Self-healing/status avoidance abilities. That's why I said that Paladins and Rangers are pretty well balanced, and why Paladin abilities do not warrant being "balanced" by alignment, nor are they good examples of "With great power" tropes, because they really aren't suited for such at all. No more so than a ranger.
Uhm, as to Superman, he's the most classic of Lawful Stupid.
Really, he barely understands tactics. He basically flies in, relies on his massive powers to overwhelm the enemy, and only falls back to trying to figure something out if the 'kick ass and chew bubble gum' approach doesn't work. And when he does try to figure things out, it's usually a lot of relying on his powers, not a lot of brain power. X-Ray vision to solve puzzles, super speed to go read every book in a library to see if he can find something about the current issue, and falling back on asking all the norms around him for input.
He's quite often confused by complex morality, he really does treat everything as black and white mostly. I don't think it was until he started hanging out with Batman that he kind of started understanding subtlety.
Depends on who's writing him. Let's be fair here, it's freaking hard to argue with a guy that has powers like Superman... at least Superman before the latest reboot anyway, the current one isn't that powerful.
That said, no he usually has a pretty firm grasp on morality, even if his moral standpoint is.... incredibly poor. Not killing bad guys, especially some of Batman's bad guys, is plain irresponsibility. The fact that Gotham even has crime in the same universe as Superman is sheer addle-brained lunacy.
|
|
I pretty much agree with you Finn.
I appreciate the support, and the further points you made.
Ashiel-- I'm a little disappointed you didn't take a stab at finding any flaws in my last post (unless you entirely agreed with it, in which case never mind) :) (Time-stamped roughly 2 hrs before this post-- seriously, I'm genuinely interested in whether you see a flaw in my interpretation of the acceptability of the Paladin hanging out with a CG companion-- and on the thought further elaborated on that, while I think Paladins have to be lawful for behavior reasons, it's the good/evil, not the law/chaos, axis that really matters.
|
|
Side thought-- I'm generally okay with the alignment system in game being as it is. IF, however, I were going to make changes to it...
I would do away with the Law/Neutral/Chaos axis of alignment, or at least seriously de-emphasize it-- I'd retain it for monsters, NPCs, and groups or organizations-- especially with regard to certain otherworldy and/or "outsider" types, and Deities and/or their followers. Included within this, I would do away with most if not all spells that affected people specifically based on lawful/neutral/chaotic alignment... this angle doesn't seem necessary to me, and for that matter, it seems to me like the whole Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic thing is a hangover from Moorcock's novels, and from the fact that original D&D only had Law and Chaos, NOT Good and Evil-- but seemed (back then) to make the assumption that law = good and chaos = evil. As an attitude indicator, it would be optional for PCs (Monks and Paladins and the like would still have to live by discipline and a code, and Clerics would still have to follow their Deities' precepts).
I would definitely retain the Good/Neutral/Evil axis of alignment, in fact that would be the entirety of alignment as far as game mechanics affecting powers, spells, abilities, etc, were concerned. And, this being a fantasy world, what you do and what your motivations are, matter-- not that the world is black-and-white, but still, depending on whether you're "naughty or nice", you can be objectively measured and affected by magic as Good, or Neutral, or Evil.
Not saying I'm actually going to this in a game any time soon... but if I were to change it, I don't see the law/chaos access as a good indicator of a character's morality or a meaningful line to draw to measure a character's personality. How much your character is about law and order, and how much about individuality and freedom, would be entirely up to you (so long as you weren't operating under a certain class or church code that requires a little more specific behavior from you).
Wait, are we talking about the same incident? The genital corpse mutilation incident I remember was the Paladin breaking into the house of two city guards who raped a woman, then beat her and left her for dead for reporting the crime to their captain. It had become clear that no legal charges were going to be filed do to their status as guards...
Yes, I got it mixed up with a couple of other similar posts I've seen. Sorry, I've been sick for two days, so the dayquil is making my memory a little fuzzy.
Either way, I still consider the intention to terrorize evil.
To me, putting a head on a pike after a trial and public execution is less about terrorizing the bad guys, and more about reassuring the population that there's due process and people will get punished for their actions, per the law. Every citizen can walk past that head and say 'That's the SOB that raped Willimina! They put that dog down, yessiree, I feel safer already!'.
If we're talking about a band of cut-throats putting heads on a pike to terrorize the populace into being sheep, I think we're agreeing that would be evil yes? It's the same act, but for two different reasons. One is to reassure the population that there is justice, and that people who break the law will get punished. The other is to scare people into doing what we want them to. The first is lawful and neutral. The second is neutral and evil.
Having paladins restricted to a certain alignment isn't really that bad. Besides I don't really want champions of law and goodness going around eating babies and having their way with everything that moves.
I have always found paladins and anti-paladins to be formidable opponents myself even if they can't use all of their toys in every encounter.
Paladins are formidable opponents, because they're still decent warriors. NPC warriors can kick some hind when leveled, geared, and with a decent feat or two. Their non-evil smiting abilities make them solid tanks, like I noted.
On a side note, you actually can have a Paladin who has their way with anything that moves as long as it's consenting without violating their codes. One of the best Paladins I ever played was a Paladin of Wee Jass (Lawful Neutral Goddess of Law, Magic, and Death) who looked like a Death Knight. She was amazingly good, and she didn't call herself a Paladin. In fact, she called herself a "Fool who cares too much, and will probably get herself killed one day". She was off the chain. She had a very strict code of conduct she held herself too - the one in the book in fact. She didn't steal, lie, torture, use poison, and she respected legitimate authority. She went out of her way to help people. In fact, she just wandered around from place to place as a drifter, with no organized order. Just a servant of the Witch Queen.
But, she was likewise not your run of the mill Paladin. She would cuss when she was angry, drink when she was happy, and screw whether the weather was fair or foul. One of the first adventures she was in, one of my fellow players got caught meta-gaming because she surprised him so much.
It went something like this...
The Scene: The party has stumbled across the Paladin of Wee Jass, who had gotten herself trapped inside a tunnel further inside a dungeon by the entrance caving in. She later met the party when they accidentally fell through the top of the dungeon, creating a new exit. The meeting went as follows. The Paladin shall henceforth be known as "Ashmae".
Ashmae: "Ah...another dead end...I think I finally may die here-"
*The Party Falls into the Dungeon filling the dank hallway with light from above*
Ashmae: "...I am always astounded by your sense of humor, oh Red Lady."
Party: "Who the heck are you?"
Ashmae: "A fool wandering in the dark. Yourselves?"
Party: "We're looking into a bounty on some cultists who are supposedly held up in the area, connected to some kidnappings."
Ashmae: "Still astounded..."
Party: "Pardon?"
Ashmae: "Oh, nothing. I'm here looking for a kidnapped kid as well. Heard this might be a good place to look, but I got trapped in when the entrance I came through collapsed."
Party: "Oh, are you here for the bounty too then?"
Ashmae: "Err, no. I didn't know there was a bounty. Just looking for the kid."
Party: "Oh, did you know them?"
Ashmae: "Can't say I do."
Party: "So you're doing it for free?"
Ashmae: "I believe I addressed the fool part a bit ago."
Party: "Hmmm..."
Ashmae: "Well you've rescued me, if accidentally. Maybe I can help you out, since I'm not doing anything else at the moment."
Party: "Well, we've already figured out our split of the reward."
Ashmae: "Yeah, yeah..."
Later the party is attacked by some bad guys and she is holding a torch. She pulls a partially charged wand she got with her starting cash and casts bless bless on the party, then later drops the torch on the ground, grabs a polearm on her back and melees with an opponent, but doesn't use her smite. Someone comments on her use of magic and her holy symbol of Wee Jass the Witch Queen, so they figure she might be a cleric or something.
Later still, the party encounters some sort of big bad evil thing with damage reduction, and she had already dropped her glaive when they were ambushed, so she declares her smite target and begins pummeling the heck out of it with her spiked gauntlets, until it falls down. She then heals it enough to stabilize it, ties it up, and then sits down on top of it. Having been wounded, used up her smites, and having few of her lay on hands left, she decides to call it quits for the day. The party offers her a share of their loot (and the bounty payment) since she helped them out so much, and rescued the kidnapped folks.
Ashmae: "Ugh, man, this big bastard just refused to let up." *leans against the ogre-sized body*
Party: "Hm, yeah, I thought it was going to kill you. Especially when you jumped on it with your fists. That was kind of ballsy."
Ashmae: "Yeah, but it's on the ground, and we're standing, so the goddess got us through another one."
Party: "You're pretty useful. What are you going to do now? If you want, you can come with us."
Ashmae: "Well, first I want to get back to town, relax, have a drink, and maybe get ****ed."
Random Member of the Party: *shocked expression* "What kind of Paladin are you!?"
Ashmae: "Paladin?" she responded confused. "Er, I guess you could call me that if you want to. I'm just a fool that is probably going to get herself killed one day, like I said."
She went on to become a beloved member of the party, a moral compass, and a good friend to everyone in the group. She was creepy, cooky, mysterious, and spooky. She had pale skin, didn't eat or sleep (a side effect of having the Fatigue mercy and self-healing) and worshipped the Goddess of Witches and Necromancers, but she was Paladin through and through. She had no patience for evil, disliked anyone who used undead for evil purposes, and literally punched fiends out cold on one or two occasions. She was the party's main tank, and eventually became a Lawful Good Archlich in the service of her goddess (she had caster levels so she could do it, and we were playing in a campaign where Archliches were legal).
I appreciate the support, and the further points you made.
Ashiel-- I'm a little disappointed you didn't take a stab at finding any flaws in my last post (unless you entirely agreed with it, in which case never mind) :) (Time-stamped roughly 2 hrs before this post-- seriously, I'm genuinely interested in whether you see a flaw in my interpretation of the acceptability of the Paladin hanging out with a CG companion-- and on the thought further elaborated on that, while I think Paladins have to be lawful for behavior reasons, it's the good/evil, not the law/chaos, axis that really matters.
Heh, sorry. ^-^
I'll re-read it in a bit and discuss my thoughts on it in more details. The short version was that I agreed with your interpretation that Paladins should be good first, lawful second, and that their mechanics (barring the overly restrictive nature of their code and such) reflected that.I was afraid of pointing out any holes in it, because just recently someone kind of upset me when they said I was only responding to their posts just to argue with them. It honestly angered me, but also made me extra concerned about making people feel like I was just trying to antagonize them; which is definitely not my intent.
I'll probably get a commentary on your post up in a bit. My brother and I are going to play Ultimate Marvel vs Capcom 3 for a bit. ^-^
Wait, are we talking about the same incident? The genital corpse mutilation incident I remember was the Paladin breaking into the house of two city guards who raped a woman, then beat her and left her for dead for reporting the crime to their captain. It had become clear that no legal charges were going to be filed do to their status as guards...Yes, I got it mixed up with a couple of other similar posts I've seen. Sorry, I've been sick for two days, so the dayquil is making my memory a little fuzzy.
Either way, I still consider the intention to terrorize evil.
To me, putting a head on a pike after a trial and public execution is less about terrorizing the bad guys, and more about reassuring the population that there's due process and people will get punished for their actions, per the law. Every citizen can walk past that head and say 'That's the SOB that raped Willimina! They put that dog down, yessiree, I feel safer already!'.
If we're talking about a band of cut-throats putting heads on a pike to terrorize the populace into being sheep, I think we're agreeing that would be evil yes? It's the same act, but for two different reasons. One is to reassure the population that there is justice, and that people who break the law will get punished. The other is to scare people into doing what we want them to. The first is lawful and neutral. The second is neutral and evil.
Well, she did accept that the mutilation and display was a bit too much and atoned with a priest, so we agree.
Yes, I got it mixed up with a couple of other similar posts I've seen. Sorry, I've been sick for two days, so the dayquil is making my memory a little fuzzy.Either way, I still consider the intention to terrorize evil.
To me, putting a head on a pike after a trial and public execution is less about terrorizing the bad guys, and more about reassuring the population that there's due process and people will get punished for their actions, per the law. Every citizen can walk past that head and say 'That's the SOB that raped Willimina! They put that dog down, yessiree, I feel safer already!'.
If we're talking about a band of cut-throats putting heads on a pike to terrorize the populace into being sheep, I think we're agreeing that would be evil yes? It's the same act, but for two different reasons. One is to reassure the population that there is justice, and that people who break the law will get punished. The other is to scare people into doing what we want them to. The first is lawful and neutral. The second is neutral and evil.
There's the problem. You're mistaking Law and Good. Neither make it evil. If the system of authority is evil and corrupt and they won't receive their just punishments, and the innocents aren't safe with them in power, then the Chaotic Good Paladin did exactly what you would expect them to do. They opposed tyranny, punished evil, and warned the rest of them that this would not be tolerated.
You are suggesting that it being a legal trial somehow makes it less evil to punish evil through death and then display them as a message, but that just makes it more lawful. Intent and reasoning is definitely the driving force behind it.
If it was cut-throats murdering innocents and cowing them into being sheep, that's definitely evil. But this Paladin delivers righteous punishment to those who corrupt the law, and displays their corpse to strike fear into their corrupt allies. "Don't you dare abuse your power, rape another woman, or hurt another innocent, because your abuse of authority shall not protect you." is the message I would imagine would be signaled here. This Chaotic Good Paladin is calling them out, legal or not, the citizens will know that someone is fighting for them.
EDIT: The only difference between the scenario that you condoned and the scenario you condemned was whether it was lawful or not. This was not a question of good vs evil, but law vs chaos; and is an excellent example of how, once again, the two can be confused for one another.
Ashiel,
You completely missed the point I was making. It doesn't have to be after a fair trial. It could just be that some random adventurer caught the guy raping the girl in an alleyway and killed him saving her. Then the watch came along and the guys head ended up on a pike. The reason they put them on the pike is not to terrorize rapists, they're already breaking the law, they're not going to stop just because someone else got caught. If you think it will, go look in the average jail sometime. It's filled with morons who thought they'd never get caught, even though they watched their friends get caught one by one.
The purpose of putting it up is the thing. If it is put up on the pike to reassure citizens that they are protected and the guilty will be taken off the streets, then that's neutral (not sure it's good, but it's not evil). There are two things that go into determining the alignment of an action, the intent and the action itself.
If the purpose is to terrorize people, then it's evil. Trying to terrorize anyone leads down a slippery slope and never ends well. Today we're terrorizing people over rape. Next year, it's over thievery. Next year it's lying on your taxes. Five years down the road it's for having more than 2 kids. Ten years down the road it's doing anything without permission from the people in charge.
If you're good, and you kill what you thought was an evil creature but it was actually good, you've committed an evil act. You didn't intend to, but you did. By the same token, you could have intended to kill a Solar but accidentally killed a disguised devil instead. You've done a good dead by accident, but you didn't intend to.
You can double up on those, intending to kill an evil creature to save someone, and actually killing one, which is good+. Or you can double dip the other way and murder a solar for cash which is evil+.
But you have to look at both intention and action, especially with things like a Paladin code.
|
|
Ashiel-- I'm a little disappointed you didn't take a stab at finding any flaws in my last post (unless you entirely agreed with it, in which case never mind) :) (Time-stamped roughly 2 hrs before this post-- seriously, I'm genuinely interested in whether you see a flaw in my interpretation of the acceptability of the Paladin hanging out with a CG companion-- and on the thought further elaborated on that, while I think Paladins have to be lawful for behavior reasons, it's the good/evil, not the law/chaos, axis that really matters.
Heh, sorry. ^-^
I'll re-read it in a bit and discuss my thoughts on it in more details. The short version was that I agreed with your interpretation that Paladins should be good first, lawful second, and that their mechanics (barring the overly restrictive nature of their code and such) reflected that.I was afraid of pointing out any holes in it, because just recently someone kind of upset me when they said I was only responding to their posts just to argue with them. It honestly angered me, but also made me extra concerned about making people feel like I was just trying to antagonize them; which is definitely not my intent.
'Sokay :) I appreciate the interim reply and will look forward to the longer posts, and I definitely appreciate the implied respect for others in your position.
So long as we're discussing ideas reasonably respectfully and we haven't just sunk in a rut, I'd like to continue, and although sometimes I can come off as a little harsh (I try not to) I'm really interested in the exchange of thoughts and the working through of concepts until we've all been able to refine and clarify our ideas about the game; for that, I like to have people point out any flaws, as well as strong points, in my statements (of course, I am going to do the same to their positions). I also enjoy open debate, wherein I try to convince others why I think my position is correct, and I keep an open-mind in reading their arguments because they might be right, and if so I should be changing my position more towards theirs-- and of course, debate often results in finding a good position that actually lies somewhere between where I started and the other person(s) involved started, rather than a "my position or your position but no middle ground". If I ever feel like you (or anyone else) is just nitpicking, or we're going around in circles and getting nowhere, I'll try to find a polite way to let you know.
(and if I ever say I disagree with some of your ideas-- as I've probably already done-- please don't take it personally: it means I disagree with some of your ideas, not that I think nasty things about you for holding those ideas) :) (same goes for anyone else reading my posts)
|
|
On a side note, you actually can have a Paladin who has their way with anything that moves as long as it's consenting without violating their codes. One of the best Paladins I ever played was a Paladin of Wee Jass (Lawful Neutral Goddess of Law, Magic, and Death) who looked like a Death Knight. She was amazingly good, and she didn't call herself a Paladin. In fact, she called herself a "Fool who cares too much, and will probably get herself killed one day". She was off the chain. She had a very strict code of conduct she held herself too - the one in the book in fact. She didn't steal, lie, torture, use poison, and she respected legitimate authority. She went out of her way to help people. In fact, she just wandered around from place to place as a drifter, with no organized order. Just a servant of the Witch Queen.
BTW-- I like this character you describe a lot... the sort of Paladin I'd like to see in more games.
The last Paladin (really a paladin-monk) I played was an 'exalted' character, with 'Vow of Poverty' and a lot of other exalted feats, and yet was irrepressibly mellow-- led by example and was never rubbing some kind of holier-than-thou attitude in her companion's faces (the character was quite humble, and not in an ostentatious, in-your-face way); was lawful enough to maintain her code and keep her paladin and monk-hood, but was very very VERY GOOD (so much so that she literally glowed with it -- 'Nimbus of Light' and 'Holy Radiance' feats; and that, while she couldn't wield any magic items and usually used her monk training, aka unarmed strike/flurry of blows-- she didn't need to wield holy weapons-- she was a holy weapon-- had all the innate abilities from classes, feats, and etc benefits to back up that claim-- by the player, mind you, the character would never be arrogant enough to mention it). And, did not take vow of chastity for a particular reason (throughout most of the campaign, through to the end, Shae was in a long-term relationship with a Dryad who was local to our home base-- had the extra benefit that she qualified for the Nymph's Kiss feat through that, but it was a character-story thing first).
Shae definitely fits the idea I've been stressing here, that Paladins are Good above all else, and lawful second.
|
|
If you're good, and you kill what you thought was an evil creature but it was actually good, you've committed an evil act. You didn't intend to, but you did. By the same token, you could have intended to kill a Solar but accidentally killed a disguised devil instead. You've done a good dead by accident, but you didn't intend to.You can double up on those, intending to kill an evil creature to save someone, and actually killing one, which is good+. Or you can double dip the other way and murder a solar for cash which is evil+.
But you have to look at both intention and action, especially with things like a Paladin code.
Now, here's someone who's been reading Aquinas. :D
Killing a good creature by accident, when you thought it was evil (so long as you had genuinely good reason to believe it was evil-- flimsy player and/or character rationalizations don't count)-- okay, that leads to evil ends whether you intended it or not; and according to some ethical theories, that's evil. No matter what. I'm not so sure about being that rigid when the intent was good, the chosen methods were as good as options allowed, and the ends were unforeseen (more on that below).
Still, because a good critter died, the Paladin needs to atone for it-- but at least the Paladin can atone for the killing, this is not unforgivable.
Intending to kill a good creature, and killing an evil one instead via misidentification-- still evil, according to Aquinas, because your intent, your means, and your results must ALL be good in order for it to be a good act-- if any of those three are evil, what you're doing is evil. In the case of a Paladin-- I say he's got to be held to Aquinas's standard (except that one cannot take Aquinas's rules as absolute and condemn a Paladin for choosing/committing a lesser evil when there was no way to avoid evil altogether; and one IMO cannot condemn a Paladin without possibility of absolution for an evil result when the intent and methods chosen were good and the end could not have been foreseen by the Paladin-- or foreseen as unlikely, but the Paladin had no choice about taking the risk)-- because the Paladin intentionally committed what he knew to be an evil act, of his own free will, when there were other options-- it doesn't matter that the outcome turned out to be good, the Paladin's still through. It'd really take a lot of effort and actions to make up for that before I'd let a Paladin successfully complete atonement and regain his powers (if I let it happen at all).
Ashiel,
You completely missed the point I was making. It doesn't have to be after a fair trial. It could just be that some random adventurer caught the guy raping the girl in an alleyway and killed him saving her. Then the watch came along and the guys head ended up on a pike. The reason they put them on the pike is not to terrorize rapists, they're already breaking the law, they're not going to stop just because someone else got caught. If you think it will, go look in the average jail sometime. It's filled with morons who thought they'd never get caught, even though they watched their friends get caught one by one.
Getting sent to jail isn't quite on the same level here. You might think twice about abusing the locals you are supposed to be protecting, when the last guy who was caught by the "White Knight" walls brought in with two shattered knees, two broken elbows, and a shattered jaw. Is that really worth what you're about to do to this poor commoner? Is bullying this commoner really worth the risk that you might get caught by that rebel Paladin? Do you really want to be the one hanging from the square missing your favorite body parts?
I agree that the purpose of putting the body up means a lot. Like it or not, most lawful organizations would have done so as a fear tactic. A Chaotic Good rebel that tears up the bodies of known abusers of their power and putting them up to see? That's a symbol. A symbol against tyranny. A symbol that there is someone ready to protect the people. A symbol that if you are caught using your law-given powers to rape a woman and get away with it, then it might be YOU hanging there one day. Fear is a weapon to be used against evil.
The purpose of putting it up is the thing. If it is put up on the pike to reassure citizens that they are protected and the guilty will be taken off the streets, then that's neutral (not sure it's good, but it's not evil). There are two things that go into determining the alignment of an action, the intent and the action itself.
If the purpose is to terrorize people, then it's evil. Trying to terrorize anyone leads down a slippery slope and never ends well. Today we're terrorizing people over rape. Next year, it's over thievery. Next year it's lying on your taxes. Five years down the road it's for having more than 2 kids. Ten years down the road it's doing anything without permission from the people in charge.
I think that's a bit extreme. Terror is fear. Striking fear into evil is not itself evil. Let the punishment fit the crime. You aren't being fair with your examples. You're not looking at what is being done, you're arguing it based on if they were doing evil, and then trying to link that evil with something else.
Well, look, two can play at that game. Paladins kill evil doers. Today it might be a murderer, tomorrow you're cutting down a thief, the next day somebody was jaywalking before you stuck your sword in their still-warm carcass.
I agree that intent means a lot. I've noted this repeatedly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, I'm discussing RAW and then I'm discussing how I'd play it, and if you actually read my posts, you'll notice I distinguish between the two.
Actually, it seems a lot more like you are dictating to us what the RAW says, interpreting the text in the most absolutist hardline fundamentalist way, and then telling us that your interpretation is the only one true interpretation and the fault lies with the class.
I think you seem to take a particular line with the Paladin code because you personally don't like it and so you cast it in the worst possible light to better decry its horrible limitations.
Its like the Bible, you can read it one way and find it an interesting and enlightening tome on loving thy neighbour and living and let living, or you could start the Westboro funtimes with the same book.
You seem to want to say we all have to be Westboro Paladins or else we are doing it wrong.
I completely disagree.
Ashiel,
On a side note, we disagree a lot (yes I know, understatement). However, I just wanted to add that your Paladin was a good example of how a Paladin can be played, still be LG, and still not be a jerk.
Back to the discussion, I agree with the last part you said, you can absolutely have the paladin falling by killing a rapist this week, a thief next year, and a jaywalker two years from now. Same steps to hell, all those darn good intentions.
|
Paladins should be any alignment and have no code except "to kick ass."
As long as there is a roleplay or morality restriction, our group can't have a DR-bypassing, BBEG-trivializing ranged smite-adin with free autoheals to compliment our Raistlins and Anakins, who clearly are playing a complex character and really aren't simply "dipping" into evil just far enough to avoid any alignment restrictions on gear and spells, or having to make diplomacy rolls ever.
>yawn<
No, I'm discussing RAW and then I'm discussing how I'd play it, and if you actually read my posts, you'll notice I distinguish between the two.Actually, it seems a lot more like you are dictating to us what the RAW says, interpreting the text in the most absolutist hardline fundamentalist way, and then telling us that your interpretation is the only one true interpretation and the fault lies with the class.
I think you seem to take a particular line with the Paladin code because you personally don't like it and so you cast it in the worst possible light to better decry its horrible limitations.
Its like the Bible, you can read it one way and find it an interesting and enlightening tome on loving thy neighbour and living and let living, or you could start the Westboro funtimes with the same book.
You seem to want to say we all have to be Westboro Paladins or else we are doing it wrong.
I completely disagree.
Who are you completely disagreeing with? Nothing you have said is accurate to what I have been discussing. I have noted the following.
Likewise, you must have missed post #428 where I not only mention a Paladin that follows the core code, but does so in a way that's not immediately expected.
So your accusations not only display an obvious ignorance of my actual conversational contributions to this thread, but really demonstrate that you have no clue as to what I've been talking about, or really care. Just because I point out the RAW for what it is, doesn't mean I'm hunting your group down and telling you that you're wrong for not following that RAW. If anything, I have noted that I agree and accept that people don't follow that RAW because it can indeed be very disruptive.
What, Ashiel is in the "I'm right, everybody else is wrong" mode? Yawn.
I guess it's nice to be remembered for...something. o.o"
Ashiel,
On a side note, we disagree a lot (yes I know, understatement). However, I just wanted to add that your Paladin was a good example of how a Paladin can be played, still be LG, and still not be a jerk.
Thank you mdt. I'd like to take this time to say despite our incessant arguments, I actually think you're a pretty cool guy. Good head on your shoulders for sure, and while there's a lot we disagree on sometimes, I think there's a lot more that we do agree on that often goes unsaid. For example, I think we both like Paladins, and I think we both think that acts don't exist in a vacuum.
Though I must admit to wanting to give that snarling kitty you use as your avatar a swirly once or twice during our more heated discussions. There it is again...just glaring... :P
But yeah. This is actually where I (and probably most groups) deviate from the RAW. The Paladin in my story was a real PC, and she stuck with the group even when the group had individuals who offended her code pretty frequently, because tolerance was a virtue that she was allowed to have despite the RAW. She knew that the rest of the world didn't share her values, and she didn't expect them to. It was personal, and even she herself said that logically she was a fool, but she felt it was right.
To show how far her tolerance went during the campaign, she actually ended up in a romantic relationship with another member of the party, who was a Lawful Evil Warblade/Hellknight who believed in absolute order. Despite their differences, the two managed to see eye to eye on more things than you'd expect, and he seemed to respect her, and made more concessions for her wishes than I would have expected from a metagame standpoint. Before the campaign ended, there was some talk about having her declared an honorary knight in his order due to the respect she earned, and his alignment shifting towards Lawful Neutral. Like I said, she ended up being something of a party conscience more than I expected, and her apparent openness earned her more respect and attitude changes than leaving the party would have (which I think is a good lesson for life as well).
Note: While the Hellknight class and some of its fluff, it was not Golarion that the campaign was set in, and there were some minor alterations. The order was still about cold hard law and order though, and was modeled after the hells. Just pointing this out so as not to spark any "Paladin of Asmodaeus" discussions. :P
On a bit of a tangential note, her life wasn't perfect either. She was born sick, was abused by her mother, and it was basically her faith and love for her goddess that kept her going. At one point in the campaign, she suffered an excessive amount of wisdom drain from a combination of poisonous traps and a battle with a Lamia shortly after. While we were using no rules for insanity (we didn't feel they were needed), I roleplayed this sudden shock to her mind as causing her to become deranged and delusional. She would begin to talk to people from her past who weren't there, suffer repressed memories which would rise up suddenly, and have occasional spouts of clear-cut sanity when her mind clicked again for short spurts. This went on for a couple of sessions until the wisdom drain was restored (and it was some hardcore drain, 'cause she went from like 14 Wisdom to like 2, and then back up to about 4 after the poison damage healed). At one point, the party was a little concerned as to how stable she might be, so they put a leash around her neck and were leading her around, and she didn't really object because the bizarre way her mind was working at the time didn't see much need to do so. This led to a rather colorful comment she made while climbing down a ladder with the leash on, where she goes "If I wasn't broken in the head, this would be very demeaning", before returning to her rambling. Later we got the drain healed, and she had to deal with some of her past she blabbered up to the party and to the forefront of her memory during her mind-break.
Back to the discussion, I agree with the last part you said, you can absolutely have the paladin falling by killing a rapist this week, a thief next year, and a jaywalker two years from now. Same steps to hell, all those darn good intentions.
Evil generally is a slippery slope indeed. Agreed in full. It's one of the reasons I think that while evil is something that can be done and remain good if it is tempered with restraint (such as a Paladin killing to defend someone versus killing a jaywalker), that you have to make sure not to get too comfortable with it. As they say, when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail. :P
While I don't believe that the case of the Paladin of Freedom delivering retribution to those guards in Kelsey's scenario was evil, the Paladin would need to take care that he didn't become over-zealous with his actions, lest he turn evil like his enemies as well.
I'm sure more than a few of us are familiar with this wise quote...
"Whoever battles with monsters had better see that it does not turn him into a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Ok, since I promised Finn K that I'd take a few stabs at his post further back with my trusty Intelligent blade "Stabby-Rip-Stab-Stab", here we go.
Yeah, for me it is all about the flavor (not to mention the long heritage of Lawful Paladins dating back to their first appearance in the game (the 'Greyhawk' supplement, 1976-- back when 'Good' and 'Evil' weren't even clearly defined and the only alignments were Law, Chaos and Neutrality-- assumed to essentially mean 'unaligned'). I will not argue a defense of Paladin's alignment on the basis of game balance. I think Paladins should be lawful, as a reflection of their intense personal discipline and dedication, and their dedication to a code of honor; and because they do put the greater good ahead of individuals, are committed to supporting legitimate authority, good governance, and 'Rule of Law' (in the political science sense, not just the in-game alignment sense) as conducive to the greater good. I think the whole weight of all that means that Lawful alignment is required, without meaning that they have the kind of commitment to the lawful part (and the need to crack down in the service of the principle of law) that they have to Good. I disagree with Kelsey (among others) that one can have ALL of those traits, and still be neutral or chaotic and playing a character of those alignments properly.
I can agree with this. Older editions placed little emphasis on good vs evil, and more on order vs anarchy. Over the years however, it seems that Paladins have been inched every closer and more firmly into the Good vs Evil shtick. In many ways, Paladins seem pretty screwed up, because by RAW they aren't really allowed to be holy warriors making the tough decisions and enacting righteous justice through their powerful blades, with their actions tempered and their souls pure by the grace of their rigorous and deep piousness. Instead, they are essentially pre-programmed by the game mechanics to fail. It's kind of sad.
For example, like I noted before, some people believe D&D alignment is black and white. I don't submit to this view, because that sort of view has always in my experiences caused more problems than it solved and cheapened the experienced gained through roleplaying (and I don't mean experience in the XP-sense).
In the section regarding associates, one can note that it says Paladins should not associate with Evil characters (and can only knowingly associate with them at all under highly unusual circumstances), but it doesn't lay out any restrictions on whom the Paladin can associate with on the Law-Chaos axis. That means to me that if one of the Paladin's companions is very very thoroughly individualistic, maybe a little reckless, really dislikes authority and only follows the laws when he's forced to (or it really makes sense, 'cause he's not just a rebel for the sake of rebelling), but that companion really cares about other people, about protecting and preserving the lives, well-being and freedom of others, etc. (in short, a Chaotic Good character-- very strong on both points of his alignment)-- the Paladin will have no qualms about associating with him.
I think this is how it probably should be. I have noted repeatedly that this is one of the instances of RAW I really think fails hard (and I'm a stickler for the RAW most of the time). The problem with the RAW is this isn't how it works at all. By the rules, a Paladin must avoid anyone who consistently offends their code, even if they aren't evil. They aren't allowed to associate with them, and that creates a problem. This is why I fully support talking with your GM and your group and really getting this portion of Paladins nailed down with some house rules before trouble emerges.
Being a very Lawful person myself, I think it's a good idea to lay down where the rules deviate from the RAW in your own games. I'm a big supporter of House Rules (if they're good ones), and this rule is one that - though easily ignored - probably should be adjusted for sake of party cohesion and good stories.
The Paladin may find himself having a lot of moral discussions with the Chaotic Good character, and may find himself constantly trying to reign in what the Paladin considers as the CG character's excesses... but if both characters are genuinely good, and the Paladin's association with the group is still leading to the greater good, I think the Paladin's still gonna be okay.
Again, I agree that this is a great way to let Paladins function. Like I noted in my Paladin example, we didn't follow the RAW as to whom the Paladin could associate with as long as she was serious about being good. This led to the same sorts of talk about philosophy between herself and a few of the party members from time to time. It often wasn't even drawn out, 'cause that wasn't her style. Stuff like: "Did you ever think that when you steal that coin, now they don't have it? Ever wonder if that was your dad, and he was going to use that coin to pay for your birthday present in a few days, or if stealing that gem means that person won't have the funds to buy an antitoxin when his wife is bitten by a viper? You mean more to this world than you realize. We're all connected somehow. If your positions were turned, would you want to be the victim of your theft?", or "Look man, I won't lie to you. Trust is something that's more precious than gold, more rare than adamantine, and harder to get back that the last drops of a downed potion. It can take a lifetime to build and a single word to bring shattering down.", or "Tell you what, let's stop arguing over who's right and wrong. We've got about three hours until the others get back, and my bedroll is unpacked. I can think of at least two thing either of us can do that's better than fighting about this".
In fact (although some may feel I'm pushing/bending the RAW here), the CG character may lie-- a lot. The Paladin may be well aware that the CG character lies, a lot. Which is something that the Paladin does not like and that does go against the Paladin's moral code. However, the CG character also dives in the way of danger to pull children out of the way of arrows, gives the shirt off his back (sometimes literally) to clothe the poor, risks his life under all kinds of conditions to save the innocent, and in general, is serving the greater good his way every bit as effectively as the Paladin is. I feel that the Paladin in this case can associate freely with the CG character and the rest of the party without risking his Paladinhood (this is how I'd interpret RAW too), because although the CG character has some issues (the lying...) and the Paladin may constantly feel the need to lecture the CG character about those issues, the CG Character's other actions so completely outweigh his little moral flaws, that when you take the person as a whole-- no, he doesn't offend the Paladin's moral code, because the good he does saving lives is worth so much more than condemning him for his flaws.
Yep, once again, I agree. I don't see it as RAW, but I do see it as Right, if that makes any sense. Which is something you will probably never hear me say again. :P
As far as how a Paladin should be, and why someone should or should not play a Paladin, I'll say it again ('cause your post on it was so good)-- I thought your post about the 5-year old's LG Fighter, and the point about "play a Jedi because you're committed to the ideals, NOT because you like the cool powers" says everything necessary about what a Paladin should be in play, and why someone should or not play a Paladin.
I'm glad you liked it. I was very proud of my little brother, and still am to this day. I've also seen quite a few poorly played Paladins (and Jedi) are as distressing to behold as my brother was joyous.
|
Not killing bad guys, especially some of Batman's bad guys, is plain irresponsibility. The fact that Gotham even has crime in the same universe as Superman is sheer addle-brained lunacy.
Agreed. I'm also of the opinion that it's long past the point where NOT killing the Joker if given the chance is itself an evil act.
Who are you completely disagreeing with? Nothing you have said is accurate to what I have been discussing. I have noted the following.
Oh ok, so now you are choosing to have a contradictory each-way bet.
Sensational.
On one hand you are now citing the 'rigidity' of the Code and implying it straightjackets the paladin and the party into some kind of Taliban doctrines (and by implication also suggesting that this is how everyone does/must play), yet then applauding some examples where people have actually applied some common sense and NOT ONLY stuck to the code and the spirit of the Paladin, but did so in a way not disrutpive to gameplay.
Don't get morally offended when people disagree with you, especially when you use sensationalist and misleading statements, which I pulled you up on, especially as you subsequently go on to recant.
Flip flop flip flop.
|
|
Ok, since I promised Finn K that I'd take a few stabs at his post further back with my trusty Intelligent blade "Stabby-Rip-Stab-Stab", here we go.
I can agree with this. Older editions placed little emphasis on good vs evil, and more on order vs anarchy. Over the years however, it seems that Paladins have been inched every closer and more firmly into the Good vs Evil shtick. In many ways, Paladins seem pretty screwed up, because by RAW they aren't really allowed to be holy warriors making the tough decisions and enacting righteous justice through their powerful blades, with their actions tempered and their souls pure by the grace of their rigorous and deep piousness. Instead, they are essentially pre-programmed by the game mechanics to fail. It's kind of sad.
For example, like I noted...
I appreciate the response. I'm gonna drop one more reply in here myself before I go off to grab some sleep.
On the History of the Paladin: since the very first appearance of the Paladin in the D&D game, in the little booklet supplement to the original 3 little booklets, 'Greyhawk', the Paladin actually was very much about the 'good vs evil' schtick. Even though in those original booklets, Good and Evil weren't part of the official alignment system at all (it was just Law and Chaos), Greyhawk STILL talked about the Paladin as a holy warrior fighting against evil (I actually started playing the game way back then-- but if you can find reprints of the books or loose PDF copies out there, it's worth a read to see where they started and how they evolved). By the time that AD&D (1st edition) hit the shelves, we had the same lovely Law/Chaos and Good/Evil Axes building the alignment system we know and (maybe) love today... and the Paladin was very much about Good vs Evil, although law was a little more important back then. You see, in AD&D (both editions), if a Paladin ever knowingly and willfully committed a chaotic act, he lost his Paladin status, and would have to seek out a high-level cleric and atone for his misdeed. However, in AD&D (both editions-- same rules sets) if a Paladin ever knowingly and willfully committed an evil act, he lost his Paladin status-- permanently, no atonement possible. That, plus every other bit of flavor text and power reference, gives me the distinct certainty that, as conceived, Paladins were always more about the Good than the Law, although the balance between the two has shifted a little bit from time to time. If you have the old books, you can check 'em out-- the flavor text and restrictions in every version of the game (up until the abomination that is 4E) emphasizes Good above all else.
Regarding Paladins in Pathfinder, and how they ought to be played: I still think my thoughts on how Paladins ought to be played do not violate the RAW, but I acknowledge that's my interpretation of RAW, and the way it's written, my interpretation is certainly not the only one possible-- though it clearly differs from what you perceive the RAW to mean, that doesn't mean either of us is necessarily wrong-- English is a notoriously flexible and not-always-precise language. On top of that, to be honest, although I've read up on Paladins in Pathfinder, I haven't played a Paladin *in* Pathfinder yet, nor are any of my fellow players running Paladins in the two Pathfinder campaigns I'm currently in-- I feel reasonably well-qualified to speak since Pathfinder is the descendant of 3.5 and the rules/issues are similar enough that I can read up on it and understand the difference (I did play a Paladin-- mentioned her in one of my earlier posts-- in 3.5, and I played Paladins in both versions of AD&D)-- this does mean my view of RAW may be a little skewed, if there are fine points to Pathfinder's treatment of Paladins that I haven't picked up on yet.
However, the way I've presented what should and should not be allowable for a Paladin is also the way most of the people I've gamed with (and all of the people I find reasonable and worth gaming with) have treated the alignment/code/morality issues involved with Paladins in the game-- if what we were doing is 'house-ruling' it, so be it-- guess we're going to continue doing that, because I don't think anyone I game with now is going to want to run it via the harsh RAW interpretations some folks have given for it.
I'm reasonably satisfied that we're in agreement with this being how things ought to be done in game... whether we agree on it being RAW isn't so important (unless you're planning on bringing a Paladin into official PFS play) :)
Ashiel I just didn't want to use a certain term for non consensual relations. It might take things further out of hand.
LazarX,
I'm surprised at you! Bringing up the RC word! In a forum?!?! Are you trying to start a flame war about roll vs role again?
:)