Ashiel wrote: Marroar Gellantara wrote: The star wars example is a great one. You control your actions and they control their actions. If they say they will do X if you do Y and you do Y you are not guilty of X. You're right. You're not guilty of murdering the hostages, but if you didn't try to protect them, you're sure as hell guilty of not trying to protect them. If you try to protect them and the BBEG murders them anyway, you're in the clear, but if you didn't, you broke your code, Paladin falls.
Protecting is not part of the Code. "and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."
Your also not reading what a "Lie of Omission" is by the defination. Hint- not saying anything at all, or giving a Platitude is not a "lie by omission" is saying something and omitting a critical part:
"Hows the drive train?" "The Engine is in great shape!" is a lie if the Transmission is shot. But "The car is sold as is" is not a lie.
So far you guys got nuttin.
A Paladin can also easily work with a Poisen user and a Lier and so on, it's in the code.
>a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code.
_Avoids_ and not "is required to avoid". The next sentence gives back up
>Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil.
So the Alchemist is throwing around poison and the Sorcerer is bluffing a lot? The Paladin sure as heaven doesn't like it, but he can see past these moral problems because the good they do together far outweighs the evil.
DrDeth wrote: Ashiel wrote: Marroar Gellantara wrote: The star wars example is a great one. You control your actions and they control their actions. If they say they will do X if you do Y and you do Y you are not guilty of X. You're right. You're not guilty of murdering the hostages, but if you didn't try to protect them, you're sure as hell guilty of not trying to protect them. If you try to protect them and the BBEG murders them anyway, you're in the clear, but if you didn't, you broke your code, Paladin falls.
Protecting is not part of the Code. "and punish those who harm or threaten innocents." Well excuse me Princess...
"help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends)", there. Sorry, trying to prevent someone from being murdered is pretty much help someone in need in spades.
Ashiel wrote: DrDeth wrote: Ashiel wrote: Marroar Gellantara wrote: The star wars example is a great one. You control your actions and they control their actions. If they say they will do X if you do Y and you do Y you are not guilty of X. You're right. You're not guilty of murdering the hostages, but if you didn't try to protect them, you're sure as hell guilty of not trying to protect them. If you try to protect them and the BBEG murders them anyway, you're in the clear, but if you didn't, you broke your code, Paladin falls.
Protecting is not part of the Code. "and punish those who harm or threaten innocents." Well excuse me Princess...
"help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends)", there. Sorry, trying to prevent someone from being murdered is pretty much help someone in need in spades. Hey, whose the one try to go ultra-literalist technical on the code, eh?
I guess you do hate the paladin class!
Problem is its not kind of built from gaming but from real events.
And yes what a lot of the class is built on is flawed but we play in a fantasy setting where we are judged by the actions to the specific deity we follow the GM decides if the paladin follows the code.
I guess I would prefer to find myself in Ravenloft without a paladin than with one !
Ultimately, the gm decides if they violate their code, just like they would decide if a Druid has 'stopped revering nature' or a cleric is violating his deities goals, or if a cavalier violates his edicts.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I actually can't bring myself to play a paladin because I don't like the idea that my class features are tied to my GM's perception of right and wrong, which he is not a "dick" for having a stong opinion about that.
I don't see why I should introduce potential conflict into the game when there are plenty of other classes to play.
Although all of my GMs just handwave the code and so do the paladin players, but I couldn't bring myself to do that. I prefer to play a class that works out-of-box.
So, you can't play a cleric, Druid or cavalier either, right?
Paladin works out of the box perfectly, unless your GM isn't playing Pathfinder. (by which I mean he isn't using the rules as written in the class)
If you use the rules as they are you will never fall because your GM is a dick, but because you made a mistake. You can not force a Paladin to fall, a Paladin can work perfectly fine with a group that has some morally gray characters in it.
RDM42 wrote: So, you can't play a cleric, Druid or cavalier either, right?
Don't know about cavalier but Druid is a non-issue. Any GM that wants to dictate how I role-play is not a GM I want to play with.
If I want role-play a paladin how I want, I would also have to enforce my view of right and wrong on the GM. There are plenty of GMs I would play under who don't agree with my views of right and wrong.
Marroar Gellantara wrote: RDM42 wrote: So, you can't play a cleric, Druid or cavalier either, right?
Don't know about cavalier but Druid is a non-issue. Any GM that wants to dictate how I role-play is not a GM I want to play with.
If I want role-play a paladin how I want, I would also have to enforce my view of right and wrong on the GM. There are plenty of GMs I would play under who don't agree with my views of right and wrong. Its right in the class write up. They can invalidate you. Your class abilities are directly tied to your gm's idea of "honoring nature" or the morals and ethics of the deity.
Heck, the cavaliers edicts are filled with the words must and always.
>f I want role-play a paladin how I want, I would also have to enforce my view of right and wrong on the GM.
Can you give an example?
If I fail to uphold the Gm's values and I lose my status then I have to either mend my ways or become another class really why is it a problem.
If I become so tainted as to fall and given the Star wars as an example it takes time to slip from light to dark and a strong influence at that.
Guy had to forge a war over many star systems to bend 1 young Jedi from light to dark errm take a lot to fall so takes a fair bit to really fail. I think Paladins are here to stay.
RDM42 wrote: Marroar Gellantara wrote: RDM42 wrote: So, you can't play a cleric, Druid or cavalier either, right?
Don't know about cavalier but Druid is a non-issue. Any GM that wants to dictate how I role-play is not a GM I want to play with.
If I want role-play a paladin how I want, I would also have to enforce my view of right and wrong on the GM. There are plenty of GMs I would play under who don't agree with my views of right and wrong. Its right in the class write up. They can invalidate you. Your class abilities are directly tied to your gm's idea of "honoring nature" or the morals and ethics of the deity.
Heck, the cavaliers edicts are filled with the words must and always. Yeah but how my GM defines "honoring nature" or fake diety ethics is not core to who he or she is. Definitions of right and wrong are.
A GM getting on a high house about honoring nature or fake diety ethics is not the kind of person I want to hang out with let alone play under.
Marroar Gellantara wrote: RDM42 wrote: Marroar Gellantara wrote: RDM42 wrote: So, you can't play a cleric, Druid or cavalier either, right?
Don't know about cavalier but Druid is a non-issue. Any GM that wants to dictate how I role-play is not a GM I want to play with.
If I want role-play a paladin how I want, I would also have to enforce my view of right and wrong on the GM. There are plenty of GMs I would play under who don't agree with my views of right and wrong. Its right in the class write up. They can invalidate you. Your class abilities are directly tied to your gm's idea of "honoring nature" or the morals and ethics of the deity.
Heck, the cavaliers edicts are filled with the words must and always. Yeah but how my GM defines "honoring nature" or fake diety ethics is not core to who he or she is. Definitions of right and wrong are.
A GM getting on a high house about honoring nature or fake diety ethics is not the kind of person I want to hang out with let alone play under. So a cleric of the Drunken God should act however he wants and pursue any goals whatsoever and suffer no consequences?
Cayden has no deity ethics?
Mavael wrote: >f I want role-play a paladin how I want, I would also have to enforce my view of right and wrong on the GM.
Can you give an example?
Paladins can never willfully commit an evil act. Doesn't matter how minor. That means if I do anything I think is fine but my GM thinks is evil I fall/have a long discussion about morals that probably ends up with me leaving the table(example in thread. I think it's fine not to listen to hostage takers. Plenty of people don't agree with that and think it is a reckless action to take with the lives of the hostages).
RDM42 wrote: Marroar Gellantara wrote: RDM42 wrote: Marroar Gellantara wrote: RDM42 wrote: So, you can't play a cleric, Druid or cavalier either, right?
Don't know about cavalier but Druid is a non-issue. Any GM that wants to dictate how I role-play is not a GM I want to play with.
If I want role-play a paladin how I want, I would also have to enforce my view of right and wrong on the GM. There are plenty of GMs I would play under who don't agree with my views of right and wrong. Its right in the class write up. They can invalidate you. Your class abilities are directly tied to your gm's idea of "honoring nature" or the morals and ethics of the deity.
Heck, the cavaliers edicts are filled with the words must and always. Yeah but how my GM defines "honoring nature" or fake diety ethics is not core to who he or she is. Definitions of right and wrong are.
A GM getting on a high house about honoring nature or fake diety ethics is not the kind of person I want to hang out with let alone play under. So a cleric of the Drunken God should act however he wants and pursue any goals whatsoever and suffer no consequences?
Cayden has no deity ethics?
I don't understand the cleric falling thing. When I had a cleric fall I just had them pick up a new diety. But that was an alignment shift thing. I expect the cleric to know more about their diety than I do.
Marroar Gellantara wrote: Mavael wrote: >f I want role-play a paladin how I want, I would also have to enforce my view of right and wrong on the GM.
Can you give an example?
Paladins can never willfully commit an evil act. Doesn't matter how minor. That means if I do anything I think is fine but my GM thinks is evil I fall/have a long discussion about morals that probably ends up with me leaving the table(example in thread. I think it's fine not to listen to hostage takers. Plenty of people don't agree with that and think it is a reckless action to take with the lives of the hostages). If the paladin doesn't know its an evil act, then they aren't willfully committing an evil act. Willfully committing implies that you know its evil but do it anyway.
Sorry guys, in the example I gave the paladin was clearly responsible if he did attack the orc and the peasants died.
Here's a hypothetical question.
Suppose I balanced a book on the very edge of a table. Even the slightest tap to the table would disturb it enough to make the book fall and left it in such a way the book could not be reached.
When it comes time that someone needs to get the book, it is on the far side of the table, impossible for them to reach. They attempt to move the table and the book falls.
I am not the person who did the action which caused the book to fall. Am I or the person who moves the table responsible for the book falling? They did the action, but I put it in the position where it would fall. Thus I would argue I am responsible for creating that situation.
Same with the orcs. You may not commit the act that murders the human populace, but you have the choice to not touch the table, per se. Except the paladin does not. The paladin has created the situation that caused the peasants to fall. Were he anyone else, he could simply make the promise and flat out lie, the situation itself would not occur. But this will result in a fall for a paladin. And if he does not lie, any action he does is "touching the table" aka disturbing the situation in such a way as to cause the immediate death of all of the peasants.
Thomas Long 175 wrote: Sorry guys, in the example I gave the paladin was clearly responsible if he did attack the orc and the peasants died.
Here's a hypothetical question.
Suppose I balanced a book on the very edge of a table. Even the slightest tap to the table would disturb it enough to make the book fall and left it in such a way the book could not be reached.
When it comes time that someone needs to get the book, it is on the far side of the table, impossible for them to reach. They attempt to move the table and the book falls.
I am not the person who did the action which caused the book to fall. Am I or the person who moves the table responsible for the book falling? They did the action, but I put it in the position where it would fall. Thus I would argue I am responsible for creating that situation.
Same with the orcs. You may not commit the act that murders the human populace, but you have the choice to not touch the table, per se. Except the paladin does not. The paladin has created the situation that caused the peasants to fall. Were he anyone else, he could simply make the promise and flat out lie, the situation itself would not occur. But this will result in a fall for a paladin. And if he does not lie, any action he does is "touching the table" aka disturbing the situation in such a way as to cause the immediate death of all of the peasants.
And if you are in a situation where there are no options but evil options, you are not "willfully doing evil" because it's not possible to do anything else, therefore you are not making a choice to 'do evil'. You don't get dinged for making the wrong choice if there is no right choice, including making no choice. If there is no possibility of a good outcome ... You didn't chose to do evil. Which is the answer to all of these extremely contrived situations.
RDM42 wrote: And if you are in a situation where there are no options but evil options, you are not "willfully doing evil" because it's not possible to do anything else, therefore you are not making a choice to 'do evil'. You don't get dinged for making the wrong choice if there is no right choice, including making no choice. If there is no possibility of a good outcome ... You didn't chose to do evil. Which is the answer to all of these extremely contrived situations. Are you willingly choosing to commit an act that causes evil? Yes.
You may have no other options but nowhere does it state "If the paladin has no non-evil options he may commit an evil act." You are still, of your own free will, committing an evil act. Or you are abandoning the innocents. Or you are lying.
There is no disclaimer ever that states, "If there are no better options you may do one of these." You still get dinged for it.
Edit: Which brings up the funny thought, if in one of these situations you could allow yourself to be mind controlled, which, if nothing else, cheapens the atonement.
Thomas Long 175 wrote: RDM42 wrote: And if you are in a situation where there are no options but evil options, you are not "willfully doing evil" because it's not possible to do anything else, therefore you are not making a choice to 'do evil'. You don't get dinged for making the wrong choice if there is no right choice, including making no choice. If there is no possibility of a good outcome ... You didn't chose to do evil. Which is the answer to all of these extremely contrived situations. Are you willingly choosing to commit an act that causes evil? Yes.
You may have no other options but nowhere does it state "If the paladin has no non-evil options he may commit an evil act." You are still, of your own free will, committing an evil act. Or you are abandoning the innocents. Or you are lying.
There is no disclaimer ever that states, "If there are no better options you may do one of these." You still get dinged for it. If you want to try to purposely cause a fall, sure. If you want to use the code as anything resembling realistic instead of creating an ultra literalist straw man, no.
Thomas Long 175 wrote: RDM42 wrote: And if you are in a situation where there are no options but evil options, you are not "willfully doing evil" because it's not possible to do anything else, therefore you are not making a choice to 'do evil'. You don't get dinged for making the wrong choice if there is no right choice, including making no choice. If there is no possibility of a good outcome ... You didn't chose to do evil. Which is the answer to all of these extremely contrived situations. Are you willingly choosing to commit an act that causes evil? Yes.
You may have no other options but nowhere does it state "If the paladin has no non-evil options he may commit an evil act." You are still, of your own free will, committing an evil act. Or you are abandoning the innocents. Or you are lying.
There is no disclaimer ever that states, "If there are no better options you may do one of these." You still get dinged for it.
Edit: Which brings up the funny thought, if in one of these situations you could allow yourself to be mind controlled, which, if nothing else, cheapens the atonement. You are falling into the trap of using a variant of this.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AnimalAthleteLoophole
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
RDM42 wrote: Thomas Long 175 wrote: RDM42 wrote: And if you are in a situation where there are no options but evil options, you are not "willfully doing evil" because it's not possible to do anything else, therefore you are not making a choice to 'do evil'. You don't get dinged for making the wrong choice if there is no right choice, including making no choice. If there is no possibility of a good outcome ... You didn't chose to do evil. Which is the answer to all of these extremely contrived situations. Are you willingly choosing to commit an act that causes evil? Yes.
You may have no other options but nowhere does it state "If the paladin has no non-evil options he may commit an evil act." You are still, of your own free will, committing an evil act. Or you are abandoning the innocents. Or you are lying.
There is no disclaimer ever that states, "If there are no better options you may do one of these." You still get dinged for it. If you want to try to purposely cause a fall, sure. If you want to use the code as anything resembling realistic instead of creating an ultra literalist straw man, no.
I'm sorry that an actual example from a game produced by wizards of the coast is a straw man. I'm also sorry that the paladin is not given any lee way in his code is a straw man. Apparently I should just make things up and pretend that he is allowed lee way when the code does not ever specify that he gets any in order to satisfy you.
But wait; that's not following the code in the book, that's just ignoring it when its convenient aka the problem we're pointing out in the first place.
Your answer to this boils down to "ignore the code when you don't think it fits," rather than actually admitting there's a problem because you have to ignore it in the first place!
Edit: Funny that trope suggests rules are ignored in order to allow it to come to pass. The only person I see here suggesting that rules be ignored for the purpose of their argument is you.
2nd Edit: Because Robert, if you read the original example its a village full of orcs that have a bunch of humans rounded up with barrels surrounded by blasting powder. The only variation from a published wizards of the coast game is the dialogue of the orc. One single shot from a flaming arrow kills everyone, and the paladin is informed of this. Thus anything he does other than walk away is certain death to the people inside.
How is attempting to save innocents from the depredations of a lunatic terrorist considered willfully committing an evil act?
Thomas Long 175 wrote: RDM42 wrote: Thomas Long 175 wrote: RDM42 wrote: And if you are in a situation where there are no options but evil options, you are not "willfully doing evil" because it's not possible to do anything else, therefore you are not making a choice to 'do evil'. You don't get dinged for making the wrong choice if there is no right choice, including making no choice. If there is no possibility of a good outcome ... You didn't chose to do evil. Which is the answer to all of these extremely contrived situations. Are you willingly choosing to commit an act that causes evil? Yes.
You may have no other options but nowhere does it state "If the paladin has no non-evil options he may commit an evil act." You are still, of your own free will, committing an evil act. Or you are abandoning the innocents. Or you are lying.
There is no disclaimer ever that states, "If there are no better options you may do one of these." You still get dinged for it. If you want to try to purposely cause a fall, sure. If you want to use the code as anything resembling realistic instead of creating an ultra literalist straw man, no.
I'm sorry that an actual example from a game produced by wizards of the coast is a straw man. I'm also sorry that the paladin is not given any lee way in his code is a straw man. Apparently I should just make things up and pretend that he is allowed lee way when the code does not ever specify that he gets any in order to satisfy you.
But wait; that's not following the code in the book, that's just ignoring it when its convenient aka the problem we're pointing out in the first place.
Your answer to this boils down to "ignore the code when you don't think it fits," rather than actually admitting there's a problem because you have to ignore it in the first place!
The code isn't actually written down though. It says things it does include. It doesn't say that these are the only things it includes. If it did, it wouldn't use phrase constructions like "and so forth".
Robert Young wrote: How is attempting to save innocents from the depredations of a lunatic terrorist considered willfully committing an evil act?
It's not. :P
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
RDM42 wrote: Thomas Long 175 wrote: RDM42 wrote: Thomas Long 175 wrote: RDM42 wrote: And if you are in a situation where there are no options but evil options, you are not "willfully doing evil" because it's not possible to do anything else, therefore you are not making a choice to 'do evil'. You don't get dinged for making the wrong choice if there is no right choice, including making no choice. If there is no possibility of a good outcome ... You didn't chose to do evil. Which is the answer to all of these extremely contrived situations. Are you willingly choosing to commit an act that causes evil? Yes.
You may have no other options but nowhere does it state "If the paladin has no non-evil options he may commit an evil act." You are still, of your own free will, committing an evil act. Or you are abandoning the innocents. Or you are lying.
There is no disclaimer ever that states, "If there are no better options you may do one of these." You still get dinged for it. If you want to try to purposely cause a fall, sure. If you want to use the code as anything resembling realistic instead of creating an ultra literalist straw man, no.
I'm sorry that an actual example from a game produced by wizards of the coast is a straw man. I'm also sorry that the paladin is not given any lee way in his code is a straw man. Apparently I should just make things up and pretend that he is allowed lee way when the code does not ever specify that he gets any in order to satisfy you.
But wait; that's not following the code in the book, that's just ignoring it when its convenient aka the problem we're pointing out in the first place.
Your answer to this boils down to "ignore the code when you don't think it fits," rather than actually admitting there's a problem because you have to ignore it in the first place!
The code isn't actually written down though. It says things it does include. It doesn't say that these are the only things it includes. If it did, it... True, it doesn't state all the things you can't do. It does however never make any suggestion that there is any allowance at all for mitigating factors. To include such things is a completely baseless supposition, with the exception of allowing evil allies.
Thomas Long 175 wrote: RDM42 wrote: Thomas Long 175 wrote: RDM42 wrote: Thomas Long 175 wrote: RDM42 wrote: And if you are in a situation where there are no options but evil options, you are not "willfully doing evil" because it's not possible to do anything else, therefore you are not making a choice to 'do evil'. You don't get dinged for making the wrong choice if there is no right choice, including making no choice. If there is no possibility of a good outcome ... You didn't chose to do evil. Which is the answer to all of these extremely contrived situations. Are you willingly choosing to commit an act that causes evil? Yes.
You may have no other options but nowhere does it state "If the paladin has no non-evil options he may commit an evil act." You are still, of your own free will, committing an evil act. Or you are abandoning the innocents. Or you are lying.
There is no disclaimer ever that states, "If there are no better options you may do one of these." You still get dinged for it. If you want to try to purposely cause a fall, sure. If you want to use the code as anything resembling realistic instead of creating an ultra literalist straw man, no.
I'm sorry that an actual example from a game produced by wizards of the coast is a straw man. I'm also sorry that the paladin is not given any lee way in his code is a straw man. Apparently I should just make things up and pretend that he is allowed lee way when the code does not ever specify that he gets any in order to satisfy you.
But wait; that's not following the code in the book, that's just ignoring it when its convenient aka the problem we're pointing out in the first place.
Your answer to this boils down to "ignore the code when you don't think it fits," rather than actually admitting there's a problem because you have to ignore it in the first place!
The code isn't actually written down though. It says things it does include. It doesn't say that these are the only things it ... It doesn't say there isn't either. And since those things not existing in there is stupid, it's probably most logical to presume that they aren't lawful stupid but instead lawful good writing the code for paragons of, you know, lawful good.
I guess a lot comes down to the Paladin asking the party here guys what should we do if we walk away they will kill the hostages anyway.
I have faith you can prevent this slaughter.
If you say we need to walk away then I will follow if you think we can take them then lets do so. And workout a plan to rescue them.
Remember they are all pathfinders!
Thomas Long 175 wrote: RDM42 wrote: Thomas Long 175 wrote: RDM42 wrote: Thomas Long 175 wrote: RDM42 wrote: And if you are in a situation where there are no options but evil options, you are not "willfully doing evil" because it's not possible to do anything else, therefore you are not making a choice to 'do evil'. You don't get dinged for making the wrong choice if there is no right choice, including making no choice. If there is no possibility of a good outcome ... You didn't chose to do evil. Which is the answer to all of these extremely contrived situations. Are you willingly choosing to commit an act that causes evil? Yes.
You may have no other options but nowhere does it state "If the paladin has no non-evil options he may commit an evil act." You are still, of your own free will, committing an evil act. Or you are abandoning the innocents. Or you are lying.
There is no disclaimer ever that states, "If there are no better options you may do one of these." You still get dinged for it. If you want to try to purposely cause a fall, sure. If you want to use the code as anything resembling realistic instead of creating an ultra literalist straw man, no.
I'm sorry that an actual example from a game produced by wizards of the coast is a straw man. I'm also sorry that the paladin is not given any lee way in his code is a straw man. Apparently I should just make things up and pretend that he is allowed lee way when the code does not ever specify that he gets any in order to satisfy you.
But wait; that's not following the code in the book, that's just ignoring it when its convenient aka the problem we're pointing out in the first place.
Your answer to this boils down to "ignore the code when you don't think it fits," rather than actually admitting there's a problem because you have to ignore it in the first place!
The code isn't actually written down though. It says things it does include. It doesn't say that these are the only things it ... If you tried your style of argument here in a court of law, you would get laughed out of court.
"Judge, the summary of the law written in the drivers ed book doesn't mention any mitigating factors, therefore they must not exist, therefore you are automatically guilty even if you aren't."
RDM42 wrote: Marroar Gellantara wrote: Mavael wrote: >f I want role-play a paladin how I want, I would also have to enforce my view of right and wrong on the GM.
Can you give an example?
Paladins can never willfully commit an evil act. Doesn't matter how minor. That means if I do anything I think is fine but my GM thinks is evil I fall/have a long discussion about morals that probably ends up with me leaving the table(example in thread. I think it's fine not to listen to hostage takers. Plenty of people don't agree with that and think it is a reckless action to take with the lives of the hostages). If the paladin doesn't know its an evil act, then they aren't willfully committing an evil act. Willfully committing implies that you know its evil but do it anyway. You're thinking of "knowingly". Willfully merely implies agency.
Thomas Long 175 wrote: RDM42 wrote: Thomas Long 175 wrote: RDM42 wrote: And if you are in a situation where there are no options but evil options, you are not "willfully doing evil" because it's not possible to do anything else, therefore you are not making a choice to 'do evil'. You don't get dinged for making the wrong choice if there is no right choice, including making no choice. If there is no possibility of a good outcome ... You didn't chose to do evil. Which is the answer to all of these extremely contrived situations. Are you willingly choosing to commit an act that causes evil? Yes.
You may have no other options but nowhere does it state "If the paladin has no non-evil options he may commit an evil act." You are still, of your own free will, committing an evil act. Or you are abandoning the innocents. Or you are lying.
There is no disclaimer ever that states, "If there are no better options you may do one of these." You still get dinged for it. If you want to try to purposely cause a fall, sure. If you want to use the code as anything resembling realistic instead of creating an ultra literalist straw man, no.
I'm sorry that an actual example from a game produced by wizards of the coast is a straw man. I'm also sorry that the paladin is not given any lee way in his code is a straw man. Apparently I should just make things up and pretend that he is allowed lee way when the code does not ever specify that he gets any in order to satisfy you.
But wait; that's not following the code in the book, that's just ignoring it when its convenient aka the problem we're pointing out in the first place.
Your answer to this boils down to "ignore the code when you don't think it fits," rather than actually admitting there's a problem because you have to ignore it in the first place!
Edit: Funny that trope suggests rules are ignored in order to allow it to come to pass. The only person I see here suggesting that rules be ignored for the purpose of their argument is you.... The point is that just because it doesn't explicitly say they exist in the very generic summary of what a code would include, doesn't mean those mitigators don't exist. The code isn't actually written out but generically summarized. You aren't reading the code. You are reading an entry in Wikipedia describing the code second hand, so to speak.
RDM42 wrote: Thomas Long 175 wrote: RDM42 wrote: Thomas Long 175 wrote: RDM42 wrote: And if you are in a situation where there are no options but evil options, you are not "willfully doing evil" because it's not possible to do anything else, therefore you are not making a choice to 'do evil'. You don't get dinged for making the wrong choice if there is no right choice, including making no choice. If there is no possibility of a good outcome ... You didn't chose to do evil. Which is the answer to all of these extremely contrived situations. Are you willingly choosing to commit an act that causes evil? Yes.
You may have no other options but nowhere does it state "If the paladin has no non-evil options he may commit an evil act." You are still, of your own free will, committing an evil act. Or you are abandoning the innocents. Or you are lying.
There is no disclaimer ever that states, "If there are no better options you may do one of these." You still get dinged for it. If you want to try to purposely cause a fall, sure. If you want to use the code as anything resembling realistic instead of creating an ultra literalist straw man, no.
I'm sorry that an actual example from a game produced by wizards of the coast is a straw man. I'm also sorry that the paladin is not given any lee way in his code is a straw man. Apparently I should just make things up and pretend that he is allowed lee way when the code does not ever specify that he gets any in order to satisfy you.
But wait; that's not following the code in the book, that's just ignoring it when its convenient aka the problem we're pointing out in the first place.
Your answer to this boils down to "ignore the code when you don't think it fits," rather than actually admitting there's a problem because you have to ignore it in the first place!
Edit: Funny that trope suggests rules are ignored in order to allow it to come to pass. The only person I see here suggesting that rules be ignored for the ... Which is more evidence that it's a bad rule.
Marroar Gellantara wrote: RDM42 wrote: Marroar Gellantara wrote: Mavael wrote: >f I want role-play a paladin how I want, I would also have to enforce my view of right and wrong on the GM.
Can you give an example?
Paladins can never willfully commit an evil act. Doesn't matter how minor. That means if I do anything I think is fine but my GM thinks is evil I fall/have a long discussion about morals that probably ends up with me leaving the table(example in thread. I think it's fine not to listen to hostage takers. Plenty of people don't agree with that and think it is a reckless action to take with the lives of the hostages). If the paladin doesn't know its an evil act, then they aren't willfully committing an evil act. Willfully committing implies that you know its evil but do it anyway. You're thinking of "knowingly". Willfully merely implies agency. No. I know exactly what I am saying, if you don't knowingly kill someone, you may be guilty of something, but it isn't murder. If you don't know its outcomes are going to be evil, then you are not willingly doing an evil act; you are not choosing to do something evil in full knowledge that is what you are doing.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
RDM42 wrote: Thomas Long 175 wrote: RDM42 wrote: Thomas Long 175 wrote: RDM42 wrote: And if you are in a situation where there are no options but evil options, you are not "willfully doing evil" because it's not possible to do anything else, therefore you are not making a choice to 'do evil'. You don't get dinged for making the wrong choice if there is no right choice, including making no choice. If there is no possibility of a good outcome ... You didn't chose to do evil. Which is the answer to all of these extremely contrived situations. Are you willingly choosing to commit an act that causes evil? Yes.
You may have no other options but nowhere does it state "If the paladin has no non-evil options he may commit an evil act." You are still, of your own free will, committing an evil act. Or you are abandoning the innocents. Or you are lying.
There is no disclaimer ever that states, "If there are no better options you may do one of these." You still get dinged for it. If you want to try to purposely cause a fall, sure. If you want to use the code as anything resembling realistic instead of creating an ultra literalist straw man, no.
I'm sorry that an actual example from a game produced by wizards of the coast is a straw man. I'm also sorry that the paladin is not given any lee way in his code is a straw man. Apparently I should just make things up and pretend that he is allowed lee way when the code does not ever specify that he gets any in order to satisfy you.
But wait; that's not following the code in the book, that's just ignoring it when its convenient aka the problem we're pointing out in the first place.
Your answer to this boils down to "ignore the code when you don't think it fits," rather than actually admitting there's a problem because you have to ignore it in the first place!
Edit: Funny that trope suggests rules are ignored in order to allow it to come to pass. The only person I see here suggesting that rules be ignored for the ... Except the rules for d&d don't work like courts of law. A court of law allows you to do whatever you want unless a law suggests otherwise. We're free because we can do what we want unless there is a law specifically forbidding it.
Pathfinder works the opposite way. You will never find a rule that you cannot have a 1st level human with 6 natural claw attacks. No you may not have one unless you find a feat combo that does say you can have one. Pathfinder gives permission. Here, pathfinder has specifically stated you cannot do these things. Unless it states somewhere that there are exceptions, then by the rules there are none.
Stop trying to compare pathfinder to a court of law. They use completely different systems to judge actions. One is permissive, the other restrictive. In pathfinder you can never do something unless there is something that allows you to do it. In court of law they have to prove that you shouldn't have done what you did, aka there was a reason you couldn't do it. Completely different.
Edit: One more emotional appeal based argument like you've been making (laughed out of court and such) and you'll get laughed out of here for such bad arguments. Just because you're trying to slip little emotional arguments in there to persuade other people doesn't mean I can't recognize them.
Ashiel wrote: RDM42 wrote: Thomas Long 175 wrote: RDM42 wrote: Thomas Long 175 wrote: RDM42 wrote: And if you are in a situation where there are no options but evil options, you are not "willfully doing evil" because it's not possible to do anything else, therefore you are not making a choice to 'do evil'. You don't get dinged for making the wrong choice if there is no right choice, including making no choice. If there is no possibility of a good outcome ... You didn't chose to do evil. Which is the answer to all of these extremely contrived situations. Are you willingly choosing to commit an act that causes evil? Yes.
You may have no other options but nowhere does it state "If the paladin has no non-evil options he may commit an evil act." You are still, of your own free will, committing an evil act. Or you are abandoning the innocents. Or you are lying.
There is no disclaimer ever that states, "If there are no better options you may do one of these." You still get dinged for it. If you want to try to purposely cause a fall, sure. If you want to use the code as anything resembling realistic instead of creating an ultra literalist straw man, no.
I'm sorry that an actual example from a game produced by wizards of the coast is a straw man. I'm also sorry that the paladin is not given any lee way in his code is a straw man. Apparently I should just make things up and pretend that he is allowed lee way when the code does not ever specify that he gets any in order to satisfy you.
But wait; that's not following the code in the book, that's just ignoring it when its convenient aka the problem we're pointing out in the first place.
Your answer to this boils down to "ignore the code when you don't think it fits," rather than actually admitting there's a problem because you have to ignore it in the first place!
Edit: Funny that trope suggests rules are ignored in order to allow it to come to pass. The only person I see here suggesting that rules ... No. It's only evidence that its a summary rather than an actual set of rules or a code and that a gm should round out the edges if you want an actual code.
Because no lawful code, as written, will contain the words "and so forth".
Thomas Long 175 wrote: Sorry guys, in the example I gave the paladin was clearly responsible if he did attack the orc and the peasants died.
Here's a hypothetical question.
Suppose I balanced a book on the very edge of a table. Even the slightest tap to the table would disturb it enough to make the book fall and left it in such a way the book could not be reached.
When it comes time that someone needs to get the book, it is on the far side of the table, impossible for them to reach. They attempt to move the table and the book falls.
I am not the person who did the action which caused the book to fall. Am I or the person who moves the table responsible for the book falling? They did the action, but I put it in the position where it would fall. Thus I would argue I am responsible for creating that situation.
Same with the orcs. You may not commit the act that murders the human populace, but you have the choice to not touch the table, per se. Except the paladin does not. The paladin has created the situation that caused the peasants to fall. Were he anyone else, he could simply make the promise and flat out lie, the situation itself would not occur. But this will result in a fall for a paladin. And if he does not lie, any action he does is "touching the table" aka disturbing the situation in such a way as to cause the immediate death of all of the peasants.
These are not comparable. One is a physics problem, the other is thinking that your physical actions produce a magical compulsion effect on a bunch of bad guys.
It's like thinking that waving your arms causes lightning storms because that is what happens normally after you wave your armns. There is no actual connection between these things.
Thomas Long 175 wrote: RDM42 wrote: Thomas Long 175 wrote: RDM42 wrote: Thomas Long 175 wrote: RDM42 wrote: And if you are in a situation where there are no options but evil options, you are not "willfully doing evil" because it's not possible to do anything else, therefore you are not making a choice to 'do evil'. You don't get dinged for making the wrong choice if there is no right choice, including making no choice. If there is no possibility of a good outcome ... You didn't chose to do evil. Which is the answer to all of these extremely contrived situations. Are you willingly choosing to commit an act that causes evil? Yes.
You may have no other options but nowhere does it state "If the paladin has no non-evil options he may commit an evil act." You are still, of your own free will, committing an evil act. Or you are abandoning the innocents. Or you are lying.
There is no disclaimer ever that states, "If there are no better options you may do one of these." You still get dinged for it. If you want to try to purposely cause a fall, sure. If you want to use the code as anything resembling realistic instead of creating an ultra literalist straw man, no.
I'm sorry that an actual example from a game produced by wizards of the coast is a straw man. I'm also sorry that the paladin is not given any lee way in his code is a straw man. Apparently I should just make things up and pretend that he is allowed lee way when the code does not ever specify that he gets any in order to satisfy you.
But wait; that's not following the code in the book, that's just ignoring it when its convenient aka the problem we're pointing out in the first place.
Your answer to this boils down to "ignore the code when you don't think it fits," rather than actually admitting there's a problem because you have to ignore it in the first place!
Edit: Funny that trope suggests rules are ignored in order to allow it to come to pass. The only person I see here suggesting that rules ... Ah, the old "strictly permissive rules" saw again.
Marroar Gellantara wrote: Thomas Long 175 wrote: Sorry guys, in the example I gave the paladin was clearly responsible if he did attack the orc and the peasants died.
Here's a hypothetical question.
Suppose I balanced a book on the very edge of a table. Even the slightest tap to the table would disturb it enough to make the book fall and left it in such a way the book could not be reached.
When it comes time that someone needs to get the book, it is on the far side of the table, impossible for them to reach. They attempt to move the table and the book falls.
I am not the person who did the action which caused the book to fall. Am I or the person who moves the table responsible for the book falling? They did the action, but I put it in the position where it would fall. Thus I would argue I am responsible for creating that situation.
Same with the orcs. You may not commit the act that murders the human populace, but you have the choice to not touch the table, per se. Except the paladin does not. The paladin has created the situation that caused the peasants to fall. Were he anyone else, he could simply make the promise and flat out lie, the situation itself would not occur. But this will result in a fall for a paladin. And if he does not lie, any action he does is "touching the table" aka disturbing the situation in such a way as to cause the immediate death of all of the peasants.
These are not comparable. One is a physics problem, the other is thinking that your physical actions produce a magical compulsion effect on a bunch of bad guys.
It's like thinking that waving your arms causes lightning storms because that is what happens normally after you wave your armns. There is no actual connection between these things. Talk to clerics.
Thomas Long 175 wrote: RDM42 wrote: Thomas Long 175 wrote: RDM42 wrote: Thomas Long 175 wrote: RDM42 wrote: And if you are in a situation where there are no options but evil options, you are not "willfully doing evil" because it's not possible to do anything else, therefore you are not making a choice to 'do evil'. You don't get dinged for making the wrong choice if there is no right choice, including making no choice. If there is no possibility of a good outcome ... You didn't chose to do evil. Which is the answer to all of these extremely contrived situations. Are you willingly choosing to commit an act that causes evil? Yes.
You may have no other options but nowhere does it state "If the paladin has no non-evil options he may commit an evil act." You are still, of your own free will, committing an evil act. Or you are abandoning the innocents. Or you are lying.
There is no disclaimer ever that states, "If there are no better options you may do one of these." You still get dinged for it. If you want to try to purposely cause a fall, sure. If you want to use the code as anything resembling realistic instead of creating an ultra literalist straw man, no.
I'm sorry that an actual example from a game produced by wizards of the coast is a straw man. I'm also sorry that the paladin is not given any lee way in his code is a straw man. Apparently I should just make things up and pretend that he is allowed lee way when the code does not ever specify that he gets any in order to satisfy you.
But wait; that's not following the code in the book, that's just ignoring it when its convenient aka the problem we're pointing out in the first place.
Your answer to this boils down to "ignore the code when you don't think it fits," rather than actually admitting there's a problem because you have to ignore it in the first place!
Edit: Funny that trope suggests rules are ignored in order to allow it to come to pass. The only person I see here suggesting that rules ... Says the person trying to treat a summary as a full code.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
RDM42 wrote: Marroar Gellantara wrote: RDM42 wrote: Marroar Gellantara wrote: Mavael wrote: >f I want role-play a paladin how I want, I would also have to enforce my view of right and wrong on the GM.
Can you give an example?
Paladins can never willfully commit an evil act. Doesn't matter how minor. That means if I do anything I think is fine but my GM thinks is evil I fall/have a long discussion about morals that probably ends up with me leaving the table(example in thread. I think it's fine not to listen to hostage takers. Plenty of people don't agree with that and think it is a reckless action to take with the lives of the hostages). If the paladin doesn't know its an evil act, then they aren't willfully committing an evil act. Willfully committing implies that you know its evil but do it anyway. You're thinking of "knowingly". Willfully merely implies agency. No. I know exactly what I am saying, if you don't knowingly kill someone, you may be guilty of something, but it isn't murder. If you don't know its outcomes are going to be evil, then you are not willingly doing an evil act; you are not choosing to do something evil in full knowledge that is what you are doing. You did choose to do the act that happened to be evil. You willfully did the act. You did not willfully commit evil, but the act you did do was evil. Therefore you willfully commited an evil act even though you did not willfuly commit evil.
The paladin's code has little to do with actual morality or alignment. That is one of its problems.
Marroar Gellantara wrote: RDM42 wrote: Marroar Gellantara wrote: RDM42 wrote: Marroar Gellantara wrote: Mavael wrote: >f I want role-play a paladin how I want, I would also have to enforce my view of right and wrong on the GM.
Can you give an example?
Paladins can never willfully commit an evil act. Doesn't matter how minor. That means if I do anything I think is fine but my GM thinks is evil I fall/have a long discussion about morals that probably ends up with me leaving the table(example in thread. I think it's fine not to listen to hostage takers. Plenty of people don't agree with that and think it is a reckless action to take with the lives of the hostages). If the paladin doesn't know its an evil act, then they aren't willfully committing an evil act. Willfully committing implies that you know its evil but do it anyway. You're thinking of "knowingly". Willfully merely implies agency. No. I know exactly what I am saying, if you don't knowingly kill someone, you may be guilty of something, but it isn't murder. If you don't know its outcomes are going to be evil, then you are not willingly doing an evil act; you are not choosing to do something evil in full knowledge that is what you are doing. You did choose to do the act that happened to be evil. You willfully did the act. You did not willfully commit evil, but the act you did do was evil. Therefore you willfully commited an evil act even though you did not willfuly commit evil.
The paladin's code has little to do with actual morality or alignment. That is one of its problems. Except for the fact that the paladins code as a whole entity doesn't exist.
All that exists is a broad summary of things it contains.
RDM42 wrote: Except for the fact that the paladins code as a whole entity doesn't exist.
All that exists is a broad summary of things it contains.
I do not follow. There appears to me a section in the paladin's rules called "Code of Conduct".
RDM42 wrote: Considering the rules are strictly permissive, you don't have a leg to stand on here.
I don't consider the code to be a full code. I do believe it specifically gives examples of things you may never do and does not give so much as an implication in your favor that mitigating factors are allowed to allow them. As such, seeing as how the code does specifically say these things aren't allowed and gives not even the slightest suggestion that they ever could become allowed for any reason, I'm gonna say you're wrong.
Thomas Long 175 wrote: Marroar Gellantara wrote: Ashiel wrote: DrDeth wrote: Ashiel wrote: In one of the most basic examples the Paladin is if the Paladin has to choose between protecting innocent lives or lying. He's damned either way.
There is never that choice. He just says nothing. Or a platitude. Or lets the Bard lie. So many wonderful excuses that require you to either A) ignore the scenario, or B) assume you have someone that may or may not be going to bail you out. To be fair, whenever a demon or something makes up these situations, I almost expect good characters to the take the "we don't negotiate with terrorist" approach.
If a bad guy says he will kill hostages unless you lie to him, as a paladin or a LG fighter you are well within your rights to just start attacking him instead.
I also don't see it as wrong to not believe the words of a hostage taker. If they die because you attack him you have failed in the "protect the innocents" clause. You have done something that you knew would harm innocent people.
Ok, icewind dale 2 example. Actual example from a game based off of 2e. Orc chieftain takes over a human village and has put the entire populace into a little circle surrounded by barrels full of blasting powder. There are scouts all along the wall as well as several mages in the encampment.
The first time in the game you approach he orders you to leave or they all die. One flaming arrow is all it takes to kill every single human in there.
Lets alter that slightly. Your paladin is recognizably a paladin, and its known in this world paladin's cant lie. Orc orders him to promise to leave, not engage in any hostile actions against them, or tell anyone else about the encampment of orcs and humans.
Using this example, only a slight deviation off of something that actually exists in a published game, if your paladin does not agree on the spot hundreds of people will die. If he attacks, well I don't think you can kill an entire village full of orcs before... So a scenario from a video game, specifically altered to screw over the paladin, who is once again alone...
Considering that you consider the rules to be strictly permissive. They are where mechanics are concerned, more or less. This is not mechanics. This is not the bonus you add to a to hit roll, or what feat must come before another feat.
And you are welcome to say I'm wrong. You will be wrong about that, but you are welcome to say it.
|
