| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or if a paladin were truly selfless he would take the fall, murder everyone on earth so they can enjoy their eternity in exchange for one soul burning.
A paladin cannot place her morality above her code.
Even if the code requires doing something evil. But then you are breaking the code by doing something evil, so you fall anyways.
There are many cases where a Paladin MUST fall.
No sane GM would take the Paladin's code at legalistic face value. It's unplayable.
By that logic, everyone should murder their children at birth because it will send them somewhere better. Further if you do it at birth they're as innocent and pure as fresh snow. More you let them age, the less likely they are to go there.Or we could reject the ridiculous notion and accept that murder is bad and that we're inherently trying to keep people from dying. It's not bad for them to pass, but we're certainly going to slow the process as much as we can.
No, murdering is Evil. If you do that you don't go to the happy place. Religions specifically had to put rules in place to stop people from cheating to try to get to heaven sooner.
"Heaven sounds great! I think I'll go there now!"
"Oh! No no no. If you kill yourself you don't get to go."
"Awww! Shucks!"
Nope. No cheating. You have to live the best life you can first. And you can't seek out your own death. That's cheating! But if some Evil guy kills you, you are good to go!
Why would it be an evil act if you were just helping people get to heaven sooner?
YOU'RE EVIL FOR MAKING PEOPLE'S LIVES (EXISTENCES) BETTER. TO HELL WITH YOU!
See how ridiculous that is?
Or if a paladin were truly selfless he would take the fall, murder everyone on earth so they can enjoy their eternity in exchange for one soul burning.
Ah, I see. So a Paladin must murder everyone on Earth, to send them to heaven, which is a better place. If they are not doing so, then they are failing to make people's existences better and must therefore fall.
By that logic, everyone should murder their children at birth because it will send them somewhere better. Further if you do it at birth they're as innocent and pure as fresh snow. More you let them age, the less likely they are to go there.
Nah, in Pathfinder alignment is driven by actions. Innocent and not having done good or evil means neutral, not afterlife heaven-bound good.
Your babies are not angels. More like elementals or something.
Is there a plane of pure chaos?
By that logic, everyone should murder their children at birth because it will send them somewhere better. Further if you do it at birth they're as innocent and pure as fresh snow. More you let them age, the less likely they are to go there.
Nah, in Pathfinder alignment is driven by actions. Innocent and not having done good or evil means neutral, not afterlife heaven-bound good.
Your babies are not angels. More like elementals or something.
Proteans live there.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
By that logic, everyone should murder their children at birth because it will send them somewhere better. Further if you do it at birth they're as innocent and pure as fresh snow. More you let them age, the less likely they are to go there.
Nah, in Pathfinder alignment is driven by actions. Innocent and not having done good or evil means neutral, not afterlife heaven-bound good.
Your babies are not angels. More like elementals or something.
That just makes it worse!
That means that the best good that a Paladin can do is murder good people, since it sends them to heaven.
Most people hate the Paladin because a good chunk of their peers deal with alignment like buttlords.
I hate the Paladin because I made one recently and I feel like I don't DO anything. Sure if it's a single target and evil I can smite but I only get so many smites, I'm full BAB and feat starved, most of my abilities are dedicated to not dying. I just feel like the Paladin is one of those classes that NEEDS a 15min workday or he's stuck healing, after two evil creatures I'm mostly done. Cant wait til 5th level when I get my once a day magus ability. I am very close to getting my Paladin killed heroically so I can roll up a Fighter.
that's what Oath of vengeance is for :P Level 5 you can easily have 6+ smites/day :PMost people hate the Paladin because a good chunk of their peers deal with alignment like buttlords.
I hate the Paladin because I made one recently and I feel like I don't DO anything. Sure if it's a single target and evil I can smite but I only get so many smites, I'm full BAB and feat starved, most of my abilities are dedicated to not dying. I just feel like the Paladin is one of those classes that NEEDS a 15min workday or he's stuck healing, after two evil creatures I'm mostly done. Cant wait til 5th level when I get my once a day magus ability. I am very close to getting my Paladin killed heroically so I can roll up a Fighter.
Unfortunately I cant use oaths in the game I'm playing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In a group that is focused more on the character and roleplaying then rules tweaks, playing a paladin can be a very rich experience.
Usually it's just my husband and myself doing our own games, and we love, love, love RPing paladins. We're more on the RP/lax side of things, but still enforce that a paladin is being lawful and good. Sometimes this takes a moment of thought before doing something (ie. trying to rescue somebody who was taken by the law... but in a corrupt, tyrannical town where they just abused their power and made up some false claim to torture the man)... my paladin had to do that brief self-affirmation before breaking in the door to the guard station to rescue this person. She stopped to think that this would actually be breaking the law, a false law that was set up more so that bullies could make up whatever rules they wanted to terrorize the people. She thought of how this innocent and good man would be tortured to death if she didn't intervene, and that goodness, and doing what was right trumped trying to play within a corrupt and evil law. So she broke the door down and rescued the man, even if it was literally breaking the law, but still a very good action, and one that in a non-evil town wouldn't have been necessary anyhow.
We very rarely have paladins break their codes, and there are some traps that are frustrating.
The topic of 'what is good' and 'what makes a good action' are frequently things that we wind up philosophizing in and out of character. (We have a Dragonstar/plane-hopping/dimension-skipping RPG going where the captain of the ship is a cowboy, marshal paladin.) The paladin leader of the ship (more like huge adventuring company) has things like 'philosophy club' where people get together to discuss these things.
We finally came to an epiphany during one hard choice in a game that included all good characters to what we believed made an action 'good' (at least for our games and philosophies)
Basically it came down to a game where the characters were killing evil, evil giants who were kidnapping people, eating people from the nearby town who they kept in prisons for their chopping blocks, etc. It wasn't just a group of adult giants though, they were a whole tribe, with families, children.. and a nursery.
So with the evil, horrible, baby eating adult giants killed, the characters stood around not sure what to do about the giant children. Killing them felt, well, rather evil. They were innocents. But would letting them live on with nobody to take care of them and letting them slowly die be better then a merciful death? What if they were left and grew up to start another tribe of baby eating giants, with their leanings to become evil?
Would it be a good action for the good characters to kill the evil infants of the evil child eating giants so that you stopped the menace from occuring again? Would it be a good act to leave them alone? Would they need to find a way to take care of the orphaned giant infants? The characters weren't set up for the option to take them in, and who knows what the locals would do to the children of the monsters who killed their loved ones.
What we finally came to, for our conclusion, is that some varying characters may argue that another one wasn't being 'good' for not taking on their side of what should be done... but that all of the options were basically still in the way of goodness. The BIG difference between if it was an evil action or not was that the characters themselves were actually bothered by this, trying to think of a solution, and it wasn't just a callous/cold killing without thought, empathy or care for the situation.
We decided that what made their final decision good was that they were actually troubled over it, fretting over what the 'good' way to do things was for quite a bit of time (both in game time and out of game time), and actually tried to make the best out of the situation for the infants. (They had decided to kill the infants in a mercy killing rather then let them slowly die, they didn't have the means to take care of them and handing them over to the locals would mean death anyhow.)
It was decided with our roleplays that a big part of goodness (and good intent) is not doing things to be selfish, or to be cruel, but actually trying to do what is right, for that time, and situation, with the knowledge that you have at hand. If it was the wrong decision, but you did spend time fretting over it, and really trying to do what was best and right, it's usually going to be a good action.
Mind you this is just more on the side of 'good' actions, but not 'lawful' actions which is another pitfall for the paladin.
Most people hate the Paladin because a good chunk of their peers deal with alignment like buttlords.
I hate the Paladin because I made one recently and I feel like I don't DO anything. Sure if it's a single target and evil I can smite but I only get so many smites, I'm full BAB and feat starved, most of my abilities are dedicated to not dying. I just feel like the Paladin is one of those classes that NEEDS a 15min workday or he's stuck healing, after two evil creatures I'm mostly done. Cant wait til 5th level when I get my once a day magus ability. I am very close to getting my Paladin killed heroically so I can roll up a Fighter.
I am so confused by this. Paladins have more things to do than quite a few martials. They can be more ballsy because of Lay on Hands, spend less time CC'd because of their saves. At 4th level you get access to spells which do things like allow you to move through spaces without provoking attacks, and at 5th level you get your weapon bond.
I'm just kind of flabbergasted. All fighters do is swing a sword. >_>
I am being something of a devil's advocate, but not entirely. In the Book of Exalted Deeds (for 3.5 admittedly) it makes the same argument that I am presenting. A paladin failing to follow his code decreases the net Good in the universe and increases the net Evil. If he remains pure, even at the cost of his own or others' lives then it is a net gain for Good. It is a sacrifice. And sacrificing for the greater Good is Good.
Oh, and the story of a "Good" fanatic going around and killing people to "save" them is something that has been done many times before. Usually the fanatic is proved to be wrong and realizes with horror his mistake shortly before he is destroyed by the true heroes.
A little bit of both. I simply enjoy the logical fallacy of extending someone's argument to extreme proportions to show them the ridiculousness that they get.Not surprised when the Devil's advocates show up in a Paladin discussion thread...
"Well if the paladin really believed in X them he would Y."
The real question is do they take themselves seriously or just having a great time RPing devil's advocate?
And this is the problems with alignment threads. No one is trying to reach a consensus. Few people are trying to make a point. Most just want to prove everyone/anyone wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Notes that is the basic storyline of the second book of the Pharasman atheist inquisitor. Except the perpetrators are angels, not paladins.
==Aelryinth
Not surprised when the Devil's advocates show up in a Paladin discussion thread...
"Well if the paladin really believed in X them he would Y."
The real question is do they take themselves seriously or just having a great time RPing devil's advocate?
A little bit of both. I simply enjoy the logical fallacy of extending someone's argument to extreme proportions to show them the ridiculousness that they get.
Honestly, as far as the situation he presented, I argue with 100% certainty that any real life human that was willing to let people die for some stupid oath he took to not lie would not be classified as good. They would be 100%, without a doubt, lawful neutral. The idiotic statement that there is an afterlife somehow mitigates allowing innocents to die is pure nonsense that I wanted to show him by extending the argument.
Because you and I both know if I had simply said that the existence of an afterlife being confirmed didn't make it any less evil, he would try to argue the point, so I showed him how idiotic that logic was.
There are real life humans that are willing to let people die for an afterlife there is no proof of. There are people that use innocents as human shields to protect their weapons. There was a lady in Africa that refused to lie to save her own life and possibly the lives of her husband and children. Thankfully she was saved by external powers.
I am trying to avoid too much real-life examples. I really wanted to focus on Pathfinder where Good and Evil are measurable forces that can be proved one way or another and an afterlife is a known truth. This does change things.
I am being something of a devil's advocate, but not entirely. In the Book of Exalted Deeds (for 3.5 admittedly)
3.0 actually, not 3.5. Likewise, the Book of Exalted Deeds is one of the worst books ever published. It constantly contradicts itself, and it doesn't fit with D&D morality at all. It and its sister, the Book of Vile Darkness are both pretty terrible to anyone capable of following logic trails, but at least the BoVD is honest about its evil, even if it is quick to brand way too much stuff as evil.
it makes the same argument that I am presenting.
I'd had that fact if I were you. Surely, don't admit to it. >_>
A paladin failing to follow his code decreases the net Good in the universe and increases the net Evil. If he remains pure, even at the cost of his own or others' lives then it is a net gain for Good. It is a sacrifice. And sacrificing for the greater Good is Good.
Oh, and the story of a "Good" fanatic going around and killing people to "save" them is something that has been done many times before. Usually the fanatic is proved to be wrong and realizes with horror his mistake shortly before he is destroyed by the true heroes.
The funny thing is, D&D/PF morality is pretty clear about it. It would be Lawful Neutral to act like that. See, good means...
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
I don't even know why you're arguing this. -_-
There are real life humans that are willing to let people die for an afterlife there is no proof of. There are people that use innocents as human shields to protect their weapons. There was a lady in Africa that refused to lie to save her own life and possibly the lives of her husband and children. Thankfully she was saved by external powers.
And in D&D/PF, those people are not good. There's a reason most people in the world are neutral. It takes being able to put others before yourself, your needs, your interests, to be good. If a Paladin is going to put his code before the safety of others, then the Paladin will not be a Paladin for very long.
There are real life humans that are willing to let people die for an afterlife there is no proof of. There are people that use innocents as human shields to protect their weapons. There was a lady in Africa that refused to lie to save her own life and possibly the lives of her husband and children. Thankfully she was saved by external powers.And in D&D/PF, those people are not good. There's a reason most people in the world are neutral. It takes being able to put others before yourself, your needs, your interests, to be good. If a Paladin is going to put his code before the safety of others, then the Paladin will not be a Paladin for very long.
Which is also to say why I wouldn't want most characters sporting "Vows" from the Book of Exalted Deeds. Virtually all of them are punished for being good, and I sure as hell wouldn't want to have someone in the party who refused to carry a potion of stabilize to heal a downed ally.
By that logic, he's not going to be a Paladin for long no matter which road he chooses.There are real life humans that are willing to let people die for an afterlife there is no proof of. There are people that use innocents as human shields to protect their weapons. There was a lady in Africa that refused to lie to save her own life and possibly the lives of her husband and children. Thankfully she was saved by external powers.And in D&D/PF, those people are not good. There's a reason most people in the world are neutral. It takes being able to put others before yourself, your needs, your interests, to be good. If a Paladin is going to put his code before the safety of others, then the Paladin will not be a Paladin for very long.
Now you're getting it Lazar, now you're getting it. That's the problem. See, in 3.5, the Paladin's code itself allowed you to make exceptions. You could follow the spirit of the Paladin code, and if something conflicted between your alignment needs, the paladin code, or the paladin code itself, you could bend a little to do what was needed. You were a paragon of goodness, but not stupidly so.
Pathfinder took out the clause about "grossly violating the code of conduct" as a thing that makes you fall, and just made it "violating the code". Before, Paladins fell for intentionally doing evil, but had some wiggle room on the code. So yes, if the Paladin needed to lie to save the life of someone, he could do that, though he wouldn't typically lie. If the Paladin needed to cheat at dice to have a tortured slave released from a crimelord's possession, the Paladin could do that, even though the Paladin would never cheat for her own benefit. If the Paladin had to choose between her code and doing what was right, the code could be bent.
By that logic, he's not going to be a Paladin for long no matter which road he chooses.There are real life humans that are willing to let people die for an afterlife there is no proof of. There are people that use innocents as human shields to protect their weapons. There was a lady in Africa that refused to lie to save her own life and possibly the lives of her husband and children. Thankfully she was saved by external powers.And in D&D/PF, those people are not good. There's a reason most people in the world are neutral. It takes being able to put others before yourself, your needs, your interests, to be good. If a Paladin is going to put his code before the safety of others, then the Paladin will not be a Paladin for very long.Which is why the book is ridiculous, but the idea that a lie, even a white lie, the breaking of one's oath is somehow worse than letting even one innocent die is blatantly ridiculous.
Not one person would face someone like that outside of these forums and brand the actions of such a person "good."
I'm pretty sure I'd consider them not only something other than a good person, I'd also be pretty sure that they were insane.
You guys are just bashing Kantian ethics, which does state you should not lie to save others and has no premise involving the existence of an afterlife.
Ethical stances that doing something that is wrong is wrong regardless of the circumstances are quite common. People around the world believe that violence is inherently evil regardless of circumstance, even when used in self defense or to destroy evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am being something of a devil's advocate, but not entirely. In the Book of Exalted Deeds (for 3.5 admittedly)3.0 actually, not 3.5. Likewise, the Book of Exalted Deeds is one of the worst books ever published. ... It and its sister, the Book of Vile Darkness
You have it backwards. BoED is 3.5 BoVD is 3.0 - but supposedly compatible.
And, personally, I like the BoED.
You guys are just bashing Kantian ethics, which does state you should not lie to save others and has no premise involving the existence of an afterlife.
Ethical stances that doing something that is wrong is wrong regardless of the circumstances are quite common. People around the world believe that violence is inherently evil regardless of circumstance, even when used in self defense or to destroy evil.
According to D&D it is evil in fact. I'm the first person to admit that killing the orc is evil. The D&D alignment rules says that killing is evil. But altruism, concern for life, respecting the dignity of sentient beings, and making personal sacrifices to help others is good. As a result, most heroic killing is neutral.
According to D&D it is evil in fact. I'm the first person to admit that killing the orc is evil. The D&D alignment rules says that killing is evil. But altruism, concern for life, respecting the dignity of sentient beings, and making personal sacrifices to help others is good. As a result, most heroic killing is neutral.You guys are just bashing Kantian ethics, which does state you should not lie to save others and has no premise involving the existence of an afterlife.
Ethical stances that doing something that is wrong is wrong regardless of the circumstances are quite common. People around the world believe that violence is inherently evil regardless of circumstance, even when used in self defense or to destroy evil.
That is only if you interpret the alignment chart as one of action and not essence.
To me looking at it as virtues and motives is far more sensical and lines up with the Lore concerning outsiders. Evil or Good is just something they are. It has little to do with action.
The whole alignment system falls apart under close examination though. There is no such thing as evil, chaotic, or lawful in actual moral theory. There is only "the good" and "not good". Even Christian philosophy falls under that principle, except that "the good" is a state of perfection, the default, and it is sin or "evil" that makes one not perfect.
The dichotomies the alignment system tries to show is of little actual use. There is no grand alignment point scale that causes you to shift alignment. GM alignment shifts to PCs is always an application of rule zero for extreme circumstances. For the most part alignment is a role-playing device and it is up to the player to express that.
The paladin's code is just added restrictions. The price for power. It's clunky and is something the GM has to hand-wave to make the class remotely playable.
That is only if you interpret the alignment chart as one of action and not essence.
To me looking at it as virtues and motives is far more sensical and lines up with the Lore concerning outsiders. Evil or Good is just something they are. It has little to do with action.
What do you mean?
The whole alignment system falls apart under close examination though. There is no such thing as evil, chaotic, or lawful in actual moral theory. There is only "the good" and "not good". Even Christian philosophy falls under that principle, except that "the good" is a state of perfection, the default, and it is sin or "evil" that makes one not perfect.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. There are most definitely things that are considered good, and evil, and stuff that's pretty irrelevant, even in Christian belief. Not that I think Christian belief should be the measure of good and evil in D&D/PF (and I say that as a Christian, religion has no place here).
The dichotomies the alignment system tries to show is of little actual use. There is no grand alignment point scale that causes you to shift alignment. GM alignment shifts to PCs is always an application of rule zero for extreme circumstances. For the most part alignment is a role-playing device and it is up to the player to express that.
I agree that the alignment shift mechanics are essentially nonexistant.
The paladin's code is just added restrictions. The price for power. It's clunky and is something the GM has to hand-wave to make the class remotely playable.
It's not a price for power. Paladins aren't that powerful. No more powerful than Rangers or Barbarians.
You guys are just bashing Kantian ethics, which does state you should not lie to save others and has no premise involving the existence of an afterlife.
Ethical stances that doing something that is wrong is wrong regardless of the circumstances are quite common. People around the world believe that violence is inherently evil regardless of circumstance, even when used in self defense or to destroy evil.
Its a good thing Kant lived over 200 years ago and we've grown as a society and a species since then.
Besides the only reason Kant argued against lying was that it was impossible to know the outcome of such an action. Aka, we didn't know that lying would avoid the murder or not, but we did know lying was wrong. Therefore we should avoid the known wrong even if it allowed the potential wrong to pass.
But here, Kant was wrong. He's judging all wrongs to be equal, which is an idiotic statement to say the least. It is most definitely more wrong to murder than to lie. Therefore to choose whether to lie should be made on the basis of (The level of evil of murder X the decreased chance of the murder taking place due to the lie)> the evil of the lie itself.
Aka, does it produce a statistical likelihood with the known information of producing less evil in the world to lie and reduce the chance of the murder? If yes, then lie.
Saying something is always wrong because you don't know it will not stop something that is more wrong is ridiculous. Its an absolute statement that leads to ridiculous results and thus should be rejected.
Then again I lean heavily against absolute moralities because they produce both harmful and laughable results.
Your dismissals are circular. Kant is not wrong because he is wrong.
Kant's logic is valid within itself like any great philosopher. Those who don't agree with him for a logical reason do so because they don't agree with his premises.
You don't know the consequences of your actions. This is why "ends justify the means" methods are so abhorrent. There is nothing wrong for a paladin or any LG character to ignore evil ultimatums. You can't know that the evil will follow through on their deal. If the demon is trying to set up a situation where you must lie. You can ignore the demon and just try to kill it.
Of course this doesn't mean that the code works. If your GM considered not engaging in proper discourse as dishonorable(which it could be in an English Victorian sense), then the Paladin falls.
That is only if you interpret the alignment chart as one of action and not essence.
To me looking at it as virtues and motives is far more sensical and lines up with the Lore concerning outsiders. Evil or Good is just something they are. It has little to do with action.
What do you mean?
Actions don't define your alignment. You do. Your motives and what your character is trying to achieve are far more important in determining their alignment than the actions they take.
By that logic, everyone should murder their children at birth because it will send them somewhere better. Further if you do it at birth they're as innocent and pure as fresh snow. More you let them age, the less likely they are to go there.
Nah, in Pathfinder alignment is driven by actions. Innocent and not having done good or evil means neutral, not afterlife heaven-bound good.
Your babies are not angels. More like elementals or something.
neutrals tend to stay in the boneyard
You just have to accept that there are different philosophical ideals and in an RPG you can choose which of them is true. If you think that it is better to lie than let someone die, you can make that true in your world.
However, someone else can decide that it is Evil to ever willingly compromise your morals even to save others and it can be true in their world. In this second world a paladin would be objectively right not to lie and let the innocent die. This would be absolutely without a doubt more Good than lying to save the person. Because that is the law of that universe.
You don't have to like gravity for it to be true. It is the same with an objective morality system, which is what Pathfinder and it's precursors employ.
Is there a plane of pure chaos?
By that logic, everyone should murder their children at birth because it will send them somewhere better. Further if you do it at birth they're as innocent and pure as fresh snow. More you let them age, the less likely they are to go there.
Nah, in Pathfinder alignment is driven by actions. Innocent and not having done good or evil means neutral, not afterlife heaven-bound good.
Your babies are not angels. More like elementals or something.
It's called the Maelstrom
http://www.pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Maelstrom
pathfinderwiki is your friend
That is only if you interpret the alignment chart as one of action and not essence.
To me looking at it as virtues and motives is far more sensical and lines up with the Lore concerning outsiders. Evil or Good is just something they are. It has little to do with action.
What do you mean?
Actions don't define your alignment. You do. Your motives and what your character is trying to achieve are far more important in determining their alignment than the actions they take.
Not in D&D/PF. If you do evil things you will become evil. That's pretty much just how it is. Do good things and you'll become good. Do a mixture, and you're Neutral. Do a lot of neither, and you're Neutral. Most people are Neutral.
That doesn't mean that you even care. It's entirely possible for an Evil guy to see himself as the good guy.
Actions don't define your alignment. You do. Your motives and what your character is trying to achieve are far more important in determining their alignment than the actions they take.
I was going to argue this by pointing out the PRD definitions of good and evil, lawful and chaotic characters and how they all have statements of what actions they do.
But the first sentence of the alignment rules agree with you about alignment as being attitude focused.
As does the changing alignment sectionAlignment
A creature's general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment
Alignment is a tool, a convenient shorthand you can use to summarize the general attitude of an NPC, region, religion, organization, monster, or even magic item.
The evil, good, law, and chaos descriptions as well as the individual alignment descriptions though are all a mix of attitudes and actions.
Whether attitudes or actions are more important in the end from how it is written is certainly debatable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
True, but you don't know which morality they employ. As demonstrated by the definition of good, your definition of what's "right" would actually lead to an alignment shift to true neutral. He's putting his own code of honor before the lives of others which is outside the very definition of good as given in the core rule book.You just have to accept that there are different philosophical ideals and in an RPG you can choose which of them is true. If you think that it is better to lie than let someone die, you can make that true in your world.
However, someone else can decide that it is Evil to ever willingly compromise your morals even to save others and it can be true in their world. In this second world a paladin would be objectively right not to lie and let the innocent die. This would be absolutely without a doubt more Good than lying to save the person. Because that is the law of that universe.
You don't have to like gravity for it to be true. It is the same with an objective morality system, which is what Pathfinder and it's precursors employ.
This has been said several times, but is not the case. The paladin is not letting someone die just so he doesn't break his code. He is letting them die because to break his code to save them would be more Evil. Basically it is impossible for a paladin to break his code for the greater Good because breaking the code would be worse than any Good it would create. This is the idea that "No Good can come from Evil actions."
Now you might decide that is not true in your world. But it could be true in others. And may, in fact, be true in default Pathfinder.
I was going to argue this by pointing out the PRD definitions of good and evil, lawful and chaotic characters and how they all have statements of what actions they do.
But the first sentence of the alignment rules agree with you about alignment as being attitude focused.
Alignment
A creature's general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment
The evil, good, law, and chaos descriptions as well as the individual alignment descriptions are all a mix of attitudes and actions.
Whether attitudes or actions are more important from how it is written is very debatable
They're not entirely separate. For example, I used an example of why Paladins don't fall for slaying enemies. Killing is evil, but most good people are going to be killing for altruism, protecting others, or out of the concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Most of said good characters are likely making personal sacrifices for others in doing so.
These things work in tandem. Having only one or the other will inevitably result in foolishness.
This has been said several times, but is not the case. The paladin is not letting someone die just so he doesn't break his code. He is letting them die because to break his code to save them would be more Evil. Basically it is impossible for a paladin to break his code for the greater Good because breaking the code would be worse than any Good it would create. This is the idea that "No Good can come from Evil actions."
Now you might decide that is not true in your world. But it could be true in others. And may, in fact, be true in default Pathfinder.
Breaking the code is not evil under the definitions I see in the CRB.
You could make a world where a paladin following the code is a ritual purity thing that creates a constant fountain generating [GOOD] in the cosmic balance and that a paladin breaking the code causes [EVIL] even though violating the code is not morally evil of itself. But that is not the stated case under the default rules and there is no reason to suspect that to be the case.
This wouldn't be "no good from evil" but "do the greater good."
That logic chain works for Aztec human sacrifice mythology as well. If sacrificing humans prevents the apocalypse then doing so is net good in the big picture and not the apparent evil it appears.
That is only if you interpret the alignment chart as one of action and not essence.
To me looking at it as virtues and motives is far more sensical and lines up with the Lore concerning outsiders. Evil or Good is just something they are. It has little to do with action.
What do you mean?
Actions don't define your alignment. You do. Your motives and what your character is trying to achieve are far more important in determining their alignment than the actions they take.
Actually no, actions define it in pathfinder, not motives. Otherwise a paladin couldn't fall for committing an evil act while being mind controlled.
But they can.
Paladin's have a code. That is why they fall. It has nothing to do with alignment.