Damaging nature to help nature is part of the way nature already works.
Well then that isn't really damaging is it? If you're doing what nature does anyway, you aren't causing damage, so obviously that's not what I'm talking about.
I can't think of any way to truly damage nature that is for nature's greater good (or at least any that would come up in gameplay).
Polluting a lake to kill all the fish that a tribe of Orcs was using to survive to make the Orcs move somewhere else.
If, for some reason, such a situation existed I think a druid would be fine with it. A druid doesn't have the strict lawful element which complicates the paladins moral universe.
Ah so it's the lawful aspect that makes it different. So if killing babies was legal, a Paladin could go slaughter the orphanage?
I am just amazed at how people stress the Paladin code but ignore all the others. The druid entry says a druid must revere nature, but no one bats an eye at making summoned animals commit suicide by making them trip known traps. How is that any different? Sure people justify it by saying that a summoned animal just goes back to whatever plane, but it is what it is. I just baffles me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Damaging nature to help nature is part of the way nature already works.Well then that isn't really damaging is it? If you're doing what nature does anyway, you aren't causing damage, so obviously that's not what I'm talking about.
This is semantics. You damage your muscle when working out to build them up bigger before. A wildfire is damage to elements of nature that helps a larger unit (the forest, in this case) of nature.
I can't think of any way to truly damage nature that is for nature's greater good (or at least any that would come up in gameplay).Polluting a lake to kill all the fish that a tribe of Orcs was using to survive to make the Orcs move somewhere else.
This seems obviously non-druidic. Am I missing something?
If, for some reason, such a situation existed I think a druid would be fine with it. A druid doesn't have the strict lawful element which complicates the paladins moral universe.Ah so it's the lawful aspect that makes it different. So if killing babies was legal, a Paladin could go slaughter the orphanage?
I am just amazed at how people stress the Paladin code but ignore all the others. The druid entry says a druid must revere nature, but no one bats an eye at making summoned animals commit suicide by making them trip known traps. How is that any different? Sure people justify it by saying that a summoned animal just goes back to whatever plane, but it is what it is. I just baffles me.
Not okay if it was legal, but it would be okay if the paladin code said it was ok to kill babies. He is bound to his code.
Summoned animals that die do not actually die, they return from whence they came (thus not 'suicide'). There is an argument to be made about the pain inflicted to such animals, however.
The summoning mechanic is one of those fridge horror moments. If you think about it, it is really messed up.
Then, if that's what is requested, I guess that my answer is:
The paladin can slightly break his/her code if this harms no other. If it does, then he/she can't, and must find another way to accomplish his/her goal.
Ok, but you haven't provided an argument for your position.
From the paladin: "In pursuit of their lofty goals, they adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline."
"Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."
Why can you 'slightly break' 'ironclad laws of morality and discipline'?
Doesn't Paladins have to be "LAWFUL-good"?, lawful meaning that they must adhere to their code?... So maybe a Paladin can justify the means and still be good, but certainly that would make them more "Chaotic" than "Lawful".
So by your logic, a Paladin choosing to let millions of people die because he's too selfish to break his Code and risk losing his powers is making the right choice?
Yep, not selfish though.
Goodness is no reward whatsoever, In fact, goodness is generally nothing but a never ending stream of sacrifice for the good individual.In this case, the Paladin is sacrificing his magic powers to save millions of people.
If he does not do so, he is not good. He's neutral at best, neutral evil at worst.
Why is he not good? Doing evil is not good. Thus to not do evil can't be a evil act.
So he may have committed a neutral act, but you don't fall for neutral acts.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The druid thing doesn't come up as often I wager because druids try to avoid moralizing. The entire druidic thing and its reliance on a neutral alignment posit that nature does not, cannot and should not have a moral push to it.
This ironically means that technically almost anything a druid does is kosher or ironically the druid should fall? deleaf? get a job? if he were to do things that are totally within the 'nature' of his own species.
Druids tend to be about 'living with nature,' but its the nature of species to modify their environment to their benefit. Why the druid is ok with ants pulling down plants, having rudimentary livestock and digging extensive tunnels through the earth and then getting down on the dwarves for the same thing always struck me as a bit two-faced and wrong headed.
The paladin is an exemplar of the lawful good alignment, but more then that he's the exemplar of Alignment. No other class relies as heavilly on the alignment system as he does. This is why the guy's always at the front lines on arguments of this sort.
Alignment, is a somwhat contentious issue, because morality is a somewhat contentious issue.
The paladin essentially represents OBJECTIVE TRUTH AND MORALITY in big, bolded capital letters in a campaign. For folks who don't ascribe to this, he creates lets say...tension. This is what resulted in the wrongheaded stuff like paladins of freedom or the chaotic evil paladin who had to go around being chaotic evil ALL THE TIME that we saw in the dying days of 3.5. Paladins aren't holy warriors. Paladins are exemplars of super-dogooder, they're the good guys, they're on the side of right, they do the right thing.
The problem of course is a lot of players like subjective morals, they like to be the ones who decide what 'the right thing' is, and not have the paladin be around reminding them there's something they're not living up to.
BUT.
Spook has gone really, really, really off topic. :/
I still think we should try to have people boil their arguments down to syllogism. It'll allow us to at lease examine the positions from a more rational position instead of getting gummed up on the details.
This is semantics. You damage your muscle when working out to build them up bigger before. A wildfire is damage to elements of nature that helps a larger unit (the forest, in this case) of nature.
You're proving my point, not arguing against it here.
This seems obviously non-druidic. Am I missing something?
I don't know you tell me, would you make the Druid become an ex-Druid? If not, why do you only enforce paladin codes? If so, then again, you're agreeing with me. What if the Orcs were causing massive deforestation and wrecking havoc on the ecosystem? That's what caused the Druid to use measures to get rid of them. Does that change your answer?
Not okay if it was legal, but it would be okay if the paladin code said it was ok to kill babies. He is bound to his code.
A Druid's code says that if a druid stops revering nature they become an ex-Druid regardless if they're Lawful or not. If a Chaotic Evil cleric stops doing what his god wants him to, he becomes an ex-cleric, even though he isn't Lawful.
Summoned animals that die do not actually die, they return from whence they came (thus not 'suicide'). There is an argument to be made about the pain inflicted to such animals, however.
The summoning mechanic is one of those fridge horror moments. If you think about it, it is really messed up.
I agree with everything here, however we never see threads about GM's making characters ex-Druids for abusing the summoned animals like this. Why are people only strict when analyzing a Paladin's actions and not a Druid's or a Cleric's?
Syllogism? Hm, maybe, but I think many people would argue regarding applicability.
There are two thing I'm a bit surprised have not come up yet. First, sacrificing a baby, were that the requirement to save the world, would most often involve sacrificing the baby's soul, as well as the baby's life. Certainly that would be true if it were a literal sacrifice to an evil power. Eternal damnation for an innocent child saves tens or hundreds of millions. Huzzah!
But let us assume instead for the sake of this thought experiment that the demon god in question doesn't really care about the world at all or even the baby and just wants to pose the cruelest possible dilemma to a paladin to see at what point a fall would occur. In that instance, sacrificing a baby's life and soul to save the world is not even close to the most extreme example possible. What if it were "merely" cutting off that baby's hand, leaving the baby alive? Or, as long as we're engaging in thought experiments, what if it were no more than requiring the paladin to slap an innocent child (we would assume for the sake of argument that the child was too young to understand or volunteer for this)? On the one hand, a deliberate and admittedly evil act, but one capable of remediation. On the other hand, destruction of the world. What does the paladin do? This question might actually test some paladins worthy of the name.
The fact is, as I have argued in previous posts, that any argument that applies the "lesser evil for the greater good" standard can be extended nearly indefinitely to include acts of horrific evil that every poster on this thread would (probably) agree should make a paladin fall. Let's see...okay, here's a sample:
An infernal/demonic horde that is believed to be utterly unstoppable by anything a PC (or PC's world) can do is only kept at bay by annual bribes to its immortal leader, Uwilhaytdisgaim. Said bribes could be one baby, or a hundred, or whatever number you like. The fiendish leader only accepts the annual bribe if it is delivered by a paladin. Now, the GM in this scenario is being unbelievably dickish unless there IS some Kobayashi Maru type of solution. However, even if there is not (in which case never play a paladin in that guy's game), committing evil acts to "save" the world is giving the continued existence of the world a higher value than doing what is right. Paladins don't think that way. Life is a generally desirable thing, something to be preserved. It is not more valuable than ideals (and keep in mind that paladins know that there is an afterlife, so a world that is killed is not equivalent to the end of all those in it. A paladin who stops believing in the primacy of good and starts sacrificing babies never held those ideals that strongly in the first place.
Finally, players may worry about paladin PCs falling and act accordingly, but for the paladin PCs themselves, their powers are not a reward. They are only tools to use in fighting evil. In character, retaining those powers shouldn't be a consideration in making moral choices, unless you are playing a reluctant paladin abiding by a divine code you do not actually understand or fully subscribe to.
..
This is semantics. You damage your muscle when working out to build them up bigger before. A wildfire is damage to elements of nature that helps a larger unit (the forest, in this case) of nature.You're proving my point, not arguing against it here.
I'm saying this point of our conversation is pointless as it is a semantic distinction only.
This seems obviously non-druidic. Am I missing something?I don't know you tell me, would you make the Druid become an ex-Druid? If not, why do you only enforce paladin codes? If so, then again, you're agreeing with me. What if the Orcs were causing massive deforestation and wrecking havoc on the ecosystem? That's what caused the Druid to use measures to get rid of them. Does that change your answer?
Why are you saying I only enforce the paladin code? If a druid opened a lumber mill to make money off clear cutting I would cut him off from his druid powers.
The druid should use an alternate method to deal with the orcs in your example. Even if, by utility, this may work out; there are better options (including guerilla warfare, to be frank).
Not okay if it was legal, but it would be okay if the paladin code said it was ok to kill babies. He is bound to his code.A Druid's code says that if a druid stops revering nature they become an ex-Druid regardless if they're Lawful or not. If a Chaotic Evil cleric stops doing what his god wants him to, he becomes an ex-cleric, even though he isn't Lawful.
I don't disagree with this. What is the point?
I agree with everything here, however we never see threads about GM's making characters ex-Druids for abusing the summoned animals like this. Why are people only strict when analyzing a Paladin's actions and not a Druid's or a Cleric's?Summoned animals that die do not actually die, they return from whence they came (thus not 'suicide'). There is an argument to be made about the pain inflicted to such animals, however.
The summoning mechanic is one of those fridge horror moments. If you think about it, it is really messed up.
I absolutely support rethinking the entire summon nature's ally mechanic. It should go back to the old 'call woodland animal' style (local animal comes in x rounds) and the druid should feel like the animal is not something they can just abuse. Rather, they should only risk the life of the animal if it is specifically for the good of nature.
I think that would be the proper way to play good or neutral druids.
I'll make a thread on this once I get together some appropriate links.
Really, what the Paladin code needs is either a less restrictive code or a hierarchy of goals.
The god specific write-ups on Paladins pretty much do this. 3.5 had them, Pathfinder has them (though they are setting specific, of course).
An infernal/demonic horde that is believed to be utterly unstoppable by anything a PC (or PC's world) can do is only kept at bay by annual bribes to its immortal leader, Uwilhaytdisgaim. Said bribes could be one baby, or a hundred, or whatever number you like. The fiendish leader only accepts the annual bribe if it is delivered by a paladin. Now, the GM in this scenario is being unbelievably dickish unless there IS some Kobayashi Maru type of solution. However, even if there is not (in which case never play a paladin in that guy's game), committing evil acts to "save" the world is giving the continued existence of the world a higher value than doing what is right. Paladins don't think that way. Life is a generally desirable thing, something to be preserved. It is not more valuable than ideals (and keep in mind that paladins know that there is an afterlife, so a world that is killed is not equivalent to the end of all those in it. A paladin who stops believing in the primacy of good and starts sacrificing babies never held those ideals that strongly in the first place.
Allow me to add a wrinkle to this scenario. It is possible that a paladin could refuse to submit the bribe and thus doom the world while still maintaining his code. Why? Because the world is being continually submitted to greater evil by remaining under control of an evil god that regularly demands the sacrifice of innocents. Clearly, this evil should not be allowed to continue. Here the end, maintaining a world controlled by evil, is not greater than the means, sacrificing innocents.
I don't disagree with this. What is the point?
I think I'm misunderstanding you, so let's go back a second. I took one of your comments to mean that a Paladin has to follow his code more zealously because he is Lawful where a Druid isn't. I was trying to point out that regardless of alignment, all "codes" have to be adhered to or those classes lose abilities. If that wasn't what you were saying, then it appears we agree on most counts.
The one thing I will say though is that I don't think a Paladin commits one improper act and boom immediate fall. The Faiths of X books all give examples of how the gods make their displeasure known, I feel the GM should start there giving hints that are less and less subtle as time goes on. You may also Atone BEFORE you fall. You've had to work with the evil Necromancer for a week, your god understood what you were trying to accomplish so didn't punish you, but now that that time is over, you better get an atonement or bad things start happening.
Why are people only strict when analyzing a Paladin's actions and not a Druid's or a Cleric's?
Honestly, because the game MAKES you. Clerics and druids... monks, barbarians... they get a lot more leeway. Most of them are based on alignment. But at the same time Alignment doesn't change frequently. Good people can do bad things and NOT INSTANTLY ping as Evil. It takes repetition to drop your actual alignment. And clerics and Druids are ALLOWED to change their alignment as long as it's either 'one step from their god's' or 'Any neutral'.
Druids could do bad things to nature... and still 'Revere' Nature. The neutrality of them almost DICTATES a 'For the greater good/Ras al Ghul' philosphy...
PALADINS on the other hand... get the 'Ever Willingly commit and Evil Act' as their 'you lose' button. Paladins get the most attention, because they have the strictest code. "If Evil, Then fall' Not just an alignment change... an ACT of evil...
And sadly, many people disagree what 'Evil' actually means.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
and keep in mind that paladins know that there is an afterlife, so a world that is killed is not equivalent to the end of all those in it.In pathfinder, the outer planes draw power from the material plane. Us going extinct would result in the good planes going extinct as well. However, thats unlikely. Demons don't want to wipe out humans(Daemons do though)
Most likely: Demons take over the world. They don't drive humans extinct. instead they set up human factories where new souls will be acquired. All souls(good, neutral and evil) are consumed by the demons to create new demons and empower the current ones. Eventually, the demons spread out to other planes. All life is driven extinct except for the chaotic evil.
Let's see if I've got this right:
***********
The GM tells me about a literally no win situation in which my paladin MUST fall or humanity goes extinct, the heavens are destroyed, the angels are eaten, and the gods are killed.
Me: Does my character have any in-game reason to doubt this is the certain outcome of not propitiating evil?
GM: No, none. Evil is too strong for Good, because Good kinda sucks, so that's what would happen, alright. Beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Me: Right then. See ya. Too bad about your campaign world, I guess.
***********
In a situation like that, the GM is just screwing over the player for playing a character with higher ideals than the GM has personally. "Wouldn't it be interesting and dramatic if the underlying premise of your character concept was completely trashed?"
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It has been (reasonably) suggested that the way forward is for player and DM to collaborate so that they can find common ground in how to interpret the paladin's code. All well and good.
Or is it?
In our hobby, each player plays (usually) one character, and the DM plays everyone else in the multiverse. Is this fair? Of course! This is the unspoken contract between player and DM: the DM gets to create the universe, has omnipotent power and what he says goes, if he says, 'rocks fall, everybody dies', then tough!
What does the player get? He gets to decide what his character chooses to do.
That's the unspoken contract.
So now we come to the (reasonable) DM. He wants his player to be able to play a paladin. He wants the player to play one properly, not just a pile of powers! But he doesn't want to trick the player into falling either. He is reasonable, after all!
So he coaches the paladin's player before the game, outlines how he sees the paladin's code, and gives comprehensive examples of what would make a paladin fall in his world!
We should all wish for such a reasonable DM! Right?
During the game the DM decides to do some 'proper role-playing! He decides to give the paladin a moral dilemma. Not to trick him into a fall, but to test the paladin and his player. The DM doesn't want the paladin to fall. The player doesn't want his character to fall.
From the player's perspective, how will he approach this test? He knows it's a test; he knows there is a possibility of falling, but trusts the DM not to make it a lose/lose scenario.
If the player just does what he thinks his PC thinks is right, he falls if the DM disagrees. The player doesn't want to fall, so he tries to predict what the DM would do if the DM were playing the paladin! Whenever some moral quandary turns up, he asks the DM about the correct paladin-like response, and the DM (being very reasonable indeed) is only to happy to tell him! So, the player knows what to do to avoid falling, and does it.
But what about the unspoken contract? It turns out that unspoken contracts are not worth the paper they're not written on! Paladins are effectively played by the DM, not the player, or the paladin stops being a paladin and starts being an inferior warrior.
Discuss.
I'm not sure how comfortable I am with a CG Paladin/Barbarian RageSmiting all over the place...
stuffThis is my issue with alignment restrictions in general. If the player wants to play the way the DM thinks is right, restrictions don't do anything. If the player wants to play differently, they are taking away choice from the player.
I understand wanting to maintain verisimilitude, but I felt like Pathfinder gave up on the medieval Europe feel when they introduced alchemists and gunslingers. I think a chaotic good paladin breaks suspension of disbelief far less than an alchemist with 3 arms and a tumor familiar.
+1
Most RPGs draw on various source material so that you know the 'feel' without them having to spend 100s of pages to convey said 'feel.'
AD&D gave us references in each class to tales from history or myth. The paladin was fairly easy to parse then.
3.0 and on introduced 'Dungeonpunk' and the flavor of the game has been all over the place since then. I hate 3 armed alchemist catfolk with katanas. Aroden save me.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I were a paladin/barbarian, the first thing I'd be doing is tracking down whatever sick bastard is setting up all of these baby-sacrifice situations and smite-earthbreakering his head into his abdomen.
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
He falls for violating the part of his code about protecting others.Why is he not good? Doing evil is not good. Thus to not do evil can't be a evil act.
So he may have committed a neutral act, but you don't fall for neutral acts.
Exactly. A sin of omission is still a sin. Failing to protect innocents when it is within your power to do so is a violation of the paladin's code.
The GM tells me about a literally no win situation in which my paladin MUST fall or humanity goes extinct, the heavens are destroyed, the angels are eaten, and the gods are killed.
...
In a situation like that, the GM is just screwing over the player for playing a character with higher ideals than the GM has personally. "Wouldn't it be interesting and dramatic if the underlying premise of your character concept was completely trashed?"
No reasonable GM would present such a situation - there would have to be some sort of out.
However, it's entirely reasonable for that situation to show up in a game world, at least in some sort of limited short term scenario. Or for some smaller-scale issue to come up where a minor transgression of the paladin (lying) will achieve some greater good (saving lives or even souls). So this is worth talking about. Yes, being honest is Doing The Right Thing, but so is saving lives or souls, so you can't just say "the paladin always wants to do the right thing." There's a conflict there sometimes. I appreciate that there's a bit of a slippery slope going on here, but if a paladin isn't allowed to prioritize at all between "minor evil" and "great good" then he/she isn't going to be viewed as a paragon of virtue, at least not to those who are harmed by the paladin's singleminded obsession with honour.
This seems obviously non-druidic. Am I missing something?I don't know you tell me, would you make the Druid become an ex-Druid? If not, why do you only enforce paladin codes? If so, then again, you're agreeing with me. What if the Orcs were causing massive deforestation and wrecking havoc on the ecosystem? That's what caused the Druid to use measures to get rid of them. Does that change your answer?
Came into a similar situation in a campaign in which I played a druid. One option is to poison the orcs more directly. A mid-level druid should easily be able to manage this. Another option is to play mental or political games - half-orcish member of the party may have a right to challenge orcish leadership.
If in the druid's opinion the only way to get rid of the orcs was to poison a lake, however, and the druid felt that the orcs would soon do more damage than simply poisoning the lake, then yes the druid would be justified in taking that action, though I would expect them to take measures after the fact to restore the ecosystem (for example, by using multiple castings of purify food and drink or neutralize poison to dilute out the poison in the water, restocking fish).
Not okay if it was legal, but it would be okay if the paladin code said it was ok to kill babies. He is bound to his code.A Druid's code says that if a druid stops revering nature they become an ex-Druid regardless if they're Lawful or not. If a Chaotic Evil cleric stops doing what his god wants him to, he becomes an ex-cleric, even though he isn't Lawful.
...however we never see threads about GM's making characters ex-Druids for abusing the summoned animals like this. Why are people only strict when analyzing a Paladin's actions and not a Druid's or a Cleric's?
The thing is that neither of these classes "fall" for a single violation. The rule for clerics still states that they lose their powers if they "grossly violate the code of conduct required by her god." - the sort of borderline case you usually see in these threads doesn't qualify. Likewise to become an ex-druid you need to "cease to revere nature" - a single act is usually not enough to judge that a druid has ceased to revere nature in general. There's at least a little room for "the end justifies the means" in both these classes. On the other hand, the paladin's code currently reads that a paladin "who violates" the code of conduct will fall. One violation, one minor violation, is by a strict reading enough, as is a single evil act.
This is why there are more paladin discussions than cleric or druid discussions (though the latter still exist). A cleric or druid usually has to perform the sort of gross violation of their principles that doesn't really need a discussion. Paladins, by a strict reading, don't have the same leeway.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yep, not selfish though.
So by your logic, a Paladin choosing to let millions of people die because he's too selfish to break his Code and risk losing his powers is making the right choice?
How is it not? He has no reason not to do so except fear of breaking his Code and falling, and some squeamishness about making teh hard decisions.
A Paladin's duty is to further the cause of Good, no matter the cost. The Code takes a back seat to that, the Paladin himself takes a back seat to that, and anything and everything that tries to get in his way while he's trying to do his god's will and further the cause of Good must be removed.
If the choice is between killing one child and sacrificing everything that makes him who he is, and letting the world be destroyed/millions of people be killed/a demon army be loosed on the world, a true Paladin would not hesitate.
A true Paladin would then get back up, powers or no, and continue to fight the Good fight as long as breath was left in his body, because that's what they are. Anyone not willing to make that kind of sacrifice would not be chosen to be a paragon of Good in the first place.
Why is he not good? Doing evil is not good. Thus to not do evil can't be a evil act.
So he may have committed a neutral act, but you don't fall for neutral acts.
Because to allow evil to further its goals without standing in its way IS an evil act. When your entire being is devoted to the cause of Good, choosing not to act against the forces of Evil is indirectly collaborating with them.
If a Paladin in my game refused to fight the forces of Evil because he was afraid of falling, I wouldn't shift his alignment or make him fall, I would make the god he is effectively an avatar of come down and smite his unworthy ass on the spot for betraying everything he promised to uphold.
Good is proactive. Once you've thrown in with the side of Good you've lost the luxury of standing aside and being neutral with regards to the overall struggle when it suits you. If you have a chance to stop it, you must take it. If it's something you can't change at all, like the government of Cheliax, then you can tolerate it...for now, because there are bigger fish to fry.
In this scenario, there are no bigger fish. This is THE fish, and stepping aside and letting it swim and lay its spawn where ever it wants is both an evil and traitorous action for a Paladin (and most other Lawful Good aligned characters).
Not true. Let’s take the opposite extreme.End: Saving million of lives
Means: Lying to someone.I would hope that a Paladin would lie in this instance, even if he had to atone later.
Btw, that’s why atonement is there, so that when a Paladin is faced with two bad choices, he can still save face by picking the best option that’s available (in his OPINION, which will vary from person to person and even from deity to deity).
This means the Paladin fell and made the wrong choice.
Just because he later atoned doesn't mean it was right choice.
The problem with a lot of the situations you’re putting the poor paladin, is that there is no “good” answer, the only answer the paladin can do is “less wrong”. And less wrong is based on opinion only, and it's like they say, just like a--holes, everyone's got one. So there's going to be a variety of responses, and none of them are wrong.No, less wrong is never the choice.
You tell the truth. Because goodness is its own reward.
Guess what? You don't instantly fall for telling a lie. You do fall for sitting back and watching millions of people die because you're a pompous ass.
Your version of the paladin is where people get the term "lawful stupid". Some perspective in needed.
This is not to say that SOME paladins might make this choice, but I don't think it's the "right" choice for a paladin to make imo. But that's all this is right, opinion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, it's entirely reasonable for that situation to show up in a game world, at least in some sort of limited short term scenario. Or for some smaller-scale issue to come up where a minor transgression of the paladin (lying) will achieve some greater good (saving lives or even souls). So this is worth talking about. Yes, being honest is Doing The Right Thing, but so is saving lives or souls, so you can't just say "the paladin always wants to do the right thing." There's a conflict there sometimes. I appreciate that there's a bit of a slippery slope going on here, but if a paladin isn't allowed to prioritize at all between "minor evil" and "great good" then he/she isn't going to be viewed as a paragon of virtue, at least not to those who are harmed by the paladin's singleminded obsession with honour.
Honor is one thing. Law is another, closely related concept. Good is yet another thing. Of the three, Paladins should have the least leeway when it comes to Good. But that is not the case. No, they cannot deliberately commit an Evil act, but they can be neutral when they should be good at least some of the time.
However, a single breach in the code of honor and that's it. Fallen paladin. That's crazy. It is also, so far as I know, unprecedented. Earlier editions of the game had considerably more leeway. See here, Chapter 3, for the old 2nd Ed requirements. There's a whole chapter laying out what they can and cannot do, rather than a couple blanket statements that leave no wiggle room at all.
I haven't played a PF paladin yet, but I've GMed for one and really like what Paizo did with their powers. They shouldn't have paid so little attention to the thing that truly sets them apart, though.
|
|
Yes, the paladin code could use some further definition. Faiths of Balance has some useful deity-specific codes (as I think has been mentioned on this thread), but other than that you really have to work out on a player-GM level what the fine points of your code of conduct are and how you go about prioritizing (assuming you're allowed to prioritize).
I actually think that would be an interesting archetype. I remember reading "A Wheel of Time" which had a female order that was physically incapable of lying. They were incredibly cunning and deceptive, but they never lied and everyone knew they couldn't lie. It gave them an edge.There's a conflict there sometimes. I appreciate that there's a bit of a slippery slope going on here, but if a paladin isn't allowed to prioritize at all between "minor evil" and "great good" then he/she isn't going to be viewed as a paragon of virtue, at least not to those who are harmed by the paladin's singleminded obsession with honour.
That would absolutely make a great archetype or piece of worldbuilding. But most people don't want all paladins in their campaign worlds to be looked down on for being Lawful Stupid (or having a quarterstaff up ye olde bottome) - which is what many people would think of a paladin who follows as strict an adherence to the paladin's code as some advocate. It's fine to say that a paladin follows an extreme and unusual standard of goodness, but many nonevil folk will in fact see it as immoral or at least wrong-headed. And that ought to be taken into account in worldbuilding when you insist that all paladins uniformly follow the strictest, most literal, utterly deontological standards.
If I played a good-aligned character alongside a paladin who refused to sacrifice the baby in one of these highly theoretical cases, and there wasn't a visible alternative, I'd step up and do the deed for him. Pally would probably hate me, and I wouldn't be too happy myself and would probably seek some form of atonement (not the spell), but I'd quite adamantly believe I'd done the right thing.
Then, if that's what is requested, I guess that my answer is:
The paladin can slightly break his/her code if this harms no other. If it does, then he/she can't, and must find another way to accomplish his/her goal.Ok, but you haven't provided an argument for your position.
From the paladin: "In pursuit of their lofty goals, they adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline."
"Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."
Why can you 'slightly break' 'ironclad laws of morality and discipline'?
This is my argument: ends SOMETIMES justify the means- for example, a paladin can temporary ally with an evil guy if it's for a good cause.
But a paladin, as is repeatedly been said, has to be Good more than Lawful.Is allying with an evil guy for a good cause a chaotic or evil deed? I'd say it's chaotic, since no harm comes to any creature from it.
Instead, causing harm to someone (either directly or indirectly) is an evil deed.
So I think that Chaotic deeds can sometimes be done when in dire necessity (atoning immediately), but Evil acts can never be committed without falling.
Killing the baby, or letting the baby die, is an evil act and should not be committed.
Then, if that's what is requested, I guess that my answer is:
The paladin can slightly break his/her code if this harms no other. If it does, then he/she can't, and must find another way to accomplish his/her goal.Ok, but you haven't provided an argument for your position.
From the paladin: "In pursuit of their lofty goals, they adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline."
"Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."
Why can you 'slightly break' 'ironclad laws of morality and discipline'?
This is my argument: ends SOMETIMES justify the means- for example, a paladin can temporary ally with an evil guy if it's for a good cause.
But a paladin, as is repeatedly been said, has to be Good more than Lawful.
Is allying with an evil guy for a good cause a chaotic or evil deed? I'd say it's chaotic, since no harm comes to any creature from it.
Instead, causing harm to someone (either directly or indirectly) is an evil deed.
So I think that Chaotic deeds can sometimes be done when in dire necessity (atoning immediately), but Evil acts can never be committed without falling.
Killing the baby, or letting the baby die, is an evil act and should not be committed.
The rules are already clear that you can break the code, fall, and then atone. However, if you fall, you are clearly violating the code. As far as the paladin code goes, the ends do not justify the means. An individual paladin may eschew his code for many reasons, much the same way any other character with an alignment or alignment based class feature may abandon their code, ethos, edict or the like.
The chaotic good and CE paladin were pretty cool. CG pal works for Andoran exceptionally well.
a paladin could even join up with an evil person as long as the goal doese more good than the evil he alows to happen. with letting the evil one live.
Guess what? You don't instantly fall for telling a lie. You do fall for sitting back and watching millions of people die because you're a pompous ass.Your version of the paladin is where people get the term "lawful stupid". Some perspective in needed.
This is not to say that SOME paladins might make this choice, but I don't think it's the "right" choice for a paladin to make imo. But that's all this is right, opinion.
Really, show me the execption to lying in the code? The part that says lying is being honorable and not fall worthy.
I'll wait... you can't because the code says the opposite?
Huh, so I was correct?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, the paladin code could use some further definition.The code itself needs no further definition. The "further definition" comes from you and your DM and how you two interpret it.
Ideally, yes, but we keep seeing these problems with paladins on the forums because people keep playing games where the paladin's player and the GM are not on the same page. Look at the amount of disagreement in this thread, and imagine two people on opposing sides of the argument getting together, both so sure that they're correct in their interpretation that they don't bother to have a more in-depth discussion than "You're OK with the code?" "Yep." Not to mention the fact that many people believe that the paladin's code is a balancing factor and that the paladin will by OP if the code is interpreted in a flexible manner (eg allowing the ends to justify the means in any situation).
Starbuck,
Faiths of Purity, page 27. Paladins of Torag. Anything else I can do for you?
Can you quote that page? Most of us do not have splatbooks beyond Core/mine RPG stuff.
|
Sure. This is part of the code for Torag's paladins
I am at all times truthful, honoureable and forthright, but my allegiance is to my people. I will do what is necessary to serve them, including misleading others.
Similarly for Saerenrae's paladins
The best battle isa battle I win. If I die, I can no longer fight. I will fight fairly when the fight is fair, and I will strike quickly and wuithout mercy when it is not.
which seems to me to say that Saerenraen paladins are not guaranteed to always fight honourably.
So there's a couple of canonical examples where paladins can have a smidgen of wriggle room as far as being honourable is concerned, although they're constricted in other ways by the codes to still be Lawful Good champions.
Yeeeep, it is why CG an even NG can so easily come into conflict with pallies or mighty churches.
CG freeman: f*ck off with your clerics, pallies and outlander faith.
LG cleric: we have been given dispensation to convert this region, our clerics will be guarded by our paladins so don't try and resist.
Ideally, yes, but we keep seeing these problems with paladins on the forums because people keep playing games where the paladin's player and the GM are not on the same page. Look at the amount of disagreement in this thread, and imagine two people on opposing sides of the argument getting together, both so sure that they're correct in their interpretation that they don't bother to have a more in-depth discussion than "You're OK with the code?" "Yep." Not to mention the fact that many people believe that the paladin's code is a balancing factor and that the paladin will by OP if the code is interpreted in a flexible manner (eg allowing the ends to justify the means in any situation).Yes, the paladin code could use some further definition.The code itself needs no further definition. The "further definition" comes from you and your DM and how you two interpret it.
Yeah, really spot on.
I think we can agree that looking to hard at the paladin code is silly.
Letter of the law vs spirit of the law and all that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Starbuck,
Faiths of Purity, page 27. Paladins of Torag. Anything else I can do for you?
Actually the Faiths of Purity states on page 26 that "paladins of individual faiths live by additional strictures, and draw on specific codes to seal their bonds with their gods— those who violate the codes of their faiths must atone for their deeds or lose their powers."
In other words the deity-specific codes are in addition to the Core code. They do not replace it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Starbuck,
Faiths of Purity, page 27. Paladins of Torag. Anything else I can do for you?Actually the Faiths of Purity states on page 26 that "paladins of individual faiths live by additional strictures, and draw on specific codes to seal their bonds with their gods— those who violate the codes of their faiths must atone for their deeds or lose their powers."
In other words the deity-specific codes are in addition to the Core code. They do not replace it.
If the deity-specific code says that you can lie to save life, then the deity-specific code and the normal code cannot simultaneously apply; the deity-specific code must modify/replace parts of the normal code.
|
|
If the deity-specific code says that you can lie to save life, then the deity-specific code and the normal code cannot simultaneously apply; the deity-specific code must modify/replace parts of the normal code.Starbuck,
Faiths of Purity, page 27. Paladins of Torag. Anything else I can do for you?Actually the Faiths of Purity states on page 26 that "paladins of individual faiths live by additional strictures, and draw on specific codes to seal their bonds with their gods— those who violate the codes of their faiths must atone for their deeds or lose their powers."
In other words the deity-specific codes are in addition to the Core code. They do not replace it.
Thankfully, no deity-specific code says that lying is OK (even under very specific circumstances).
The one that skirts the closest to this is Torag's code (quoted above) which states that you can "mislead" others when serving your people. "Mislead", not "Lie". And it also states the Torag's Paladin is ALWAYS truthful, honorable and forthright.
I believe that it is on purpose that no deity-specific code states that lying is OK in some circumstances (ie, would contradict the core code).