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.
This seems to be a FAQ waiting to happen.
The devs got us into this mess with contradicting rules; they should clarify Paladins.
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).
The misleading never really bothered me. All paladins have had free reign to 'mislead' people. It's what they do when they 'don't speak at all' instead of lying. Let the opponent make assumptions and not correct them.
Torags BIGGEST WTH moment for me was reading THIS part...
Against my people's enemies I will show no mercy. I will
not allow their surrender, except to extract information.
I will defeat them, and I will scatter their families. Yet
even in the struggle against our enemies, I will act in a
way that brings honor to Torag.
A palsdin code that says No mercy and no surrender?? Are these dwarves or Kobra Kai's?
|
Torags BIGGEST WTH moment for me was reading THIS part...
A palsdin code that says No mercy and no surrender?? Are these dwarves or Kobra Kai's?
Against my people's enemies I will show no mercy. I will
not allow their surrender, except to extract information.
I will defeat them, and I will scatter their families. Yet
even in the struggle against our enemies, I will act in a
way that brings honor to Torag.
Yeah, that part really had me questioning Torag's place with the Good crew.
Even then, it's not the all-clear for genocide that some have interpreted it to be, what with "scatter their families" rather than "wipe them out, all of them".
But damn if it isn't close.
Really not a Torag fan.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Considering that mortals are capable of change and choosing their own destiny, I really can't agree with that.
Torag isn't above Good and doesn't dictate what Good is. And campaigns of genocide fall far short of what Good is all about.
It hasn't been "our people or theirs" for a long time now. And I find it hard to believe it was so stark a choice during the Quest for Sky either. Especially when the orcs were sending their weakest ahead of them to the surface while the strongest held the dwarves off(not exactly the mark of a race comprised entirely of Complete Monsters down to the last noncombatant).
And even when it's "them or us", choosing "us" is the Neutral path. Finding another way and telling the false dilemma to go @#$% itself is the path of Good.
Good doesn't play the monkeysphere game.
If Torag were more open to methods beyond "cull their numbers and scatter them", maybe some other solutions beyond "us or them" would present themselves.
Admittedly frustration over PCs playing race-hate based racial features to a murderous and absolutist degree while claiming that they're good, no matter what the target of their hatred has done, plays into that frustration.
Well it's their fault for existing.
If the damned sub-dwarves would stop breeding and kill themselves for me, I wouldn't have to dirty my hands.
Selfish bastards.
|
The misleading never really bothered me. All paladins have had free reign to 'mislead' people. It's what they do when they 'don't speak at all' instead of lying. Let the opponent make assumptions and not correct them.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).
It requires no small measure of cunning to make sure the opponent draws the right conclusions without any outright lies. The misleading paladin would probably:
1) Occasionally make true but misleading statements to point others in the wrong direction ("Do I look like the kind of traitorous idiot to harbour fugitives?")
and/or:
2) Make a habit of staying silent in situations in which it would be harmless to tell the truth, so that in situations where they need to keep mum their failure to confirm or deny won't be suspicious.
|
Yeah, Torag's code essentially requires genocide against orcs.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).
The misleading never really bothered me. All paladins have had free reign to 'mislead' people. It's what they do when they 'don't speak at all' instead of lying. Let the opponent make assumptions and not correct them.
Torags BIGGEST WTH moment for me was reading THIS part...
A palsdin code that says No mercy and no surrender?? Are these dwarves or Kobra Kai's?
Against my people's enemies I will show no mercy. I will
not allow their surrender, except to extract information.
I will defeat them, and I will scatter their families. Yet
even in the struggle against our enemies, I will act in a
way that brings honor to Torag.
Since Torag's code mentions differences in treatment between "my people's enemies" and "their families", it definitely does not apply "No mercy and no surrender" to the families of his people's enemies. So, no it does not REQUIRE, or even encourage, genocide against orcs.
My take on it is that the "enemies" are combatants and "their families" are non-combatants. Torag does endorse a harsh view of "punishing the guilty" and a rather wide view of who "the guilty" are, but I can still see a Paladin of Torag being LG and faithful to both the core code and Torag's teachings.
I am more disturbed by the "extract information" bit as this could be translated to "torture is OK in Torag's book", which runs a bit contrary to the "respect the dignity of life" precept of Good.
As always, Torag's truth lies in the hands of both the players of Torag's followers and the hands of the GM.
|
|
Maybe they are, but again as a dwarven protector, I'm going to put my race over the perhaps five or ten total potential converts out of an enemy that numbers in the hundreds of thousands. When you have a race that's devoted to the extermination of your kind, you really don't have the luxury to allow for the half dozen that MIGHT repent of their ways.Considering that mortals are capable of change and choosing their own destiny, I really can't agree with that.
So what we really need at this point is the orcish version of Torag (also LG and with the same code) so that we can finally have Paladins fighting no holds barred on both sides of the conflict.
|
|
Or just play Arcanis. Paladins of different nations fighting each other is far from unheard in the World of Shattered Empires.
Where the Gods do not have alignement (truly a pesky thing for mere mortals) and are opened to any alignment in their Clerics and worshippers ;-)
The authors did a great number on Religion in this setting (though consequently a bit too hostile to arcane magic for my taste).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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...
I disagree. I think you are just allowing them more leeway because they are Druids not Paladins. The paladin's "I lose" button is committing evil, a Druid's is "stop revering nature". You say that a Druid can damage nature and still revere it, I say, no they can't. They should be held to the exact same level of committment as a Paladin. If a Cleric, even a Chaotic Evil cleric, ever goes against their gods tennets, they just hit the "I lose" button, again, same standard as a Paladin.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This seems to be a FAQ waiting to happen.
The devs got us into this mess with contradicting rules; they should clarify Paladins.
Have we really become so rules-needy that we need the Devs to tell us how to Role-Play? People the GM really is there for a reason. Trust them or get out of the game.
|
|
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...I disagree. I think you are just allowing them more leeway because they are Druids not Paladins. The paladin's "I lose" button is committing evil, a Druid's is "stop revering nature". You say that a Druid can damage nature and still revere it, I say, no they can't.
Does a doctor who prescribes chemotherapy not respect life? He's causing quite a lot of damage to his patient. What about a surgeon who amputates a gangrenous limb?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe they are, but again as a dwarven protector, I'm going to put my race over the perhaps five or ten total potential converts out of an enemy that numbers in the hundreds of thousands. When you have a race that's devoted to the extermination of your kind, you really don't have the luxury to allow for the half dozen that MIGHT repent of their ways.Considering that mortals are capable of change and choosing their own destiny, I really can't agree with that.
But no race is devoted, down to the last individual, to the destruction of dwarvenkind.
As soon as one commits to the act of murdering every member of a race down to the last child(who don't even have any ways to repent!), it's squarely in evil territory. As soon as an allegedly good dwarf takes an axe to an infant, he cannot truthfully claim to be on the side of angels*.
Good finds another way. It doesn't take the easy way out.
And personally I'd put that ratio of converts at a much less steep number. Those races my be largely stuck with crap cultures, but they're hardly going to be indoctrinated completely to that great a percentage.
*Excepting those angels possessing a forceful downward inertia.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
No. Not trying would be a violation. If he tries and fails - even if he doesn't pick the option that the omniscient DM has decided is the most optimal, such as if he chooses to fight evil instead of kowtowing to evil's ridiculously contrived torture-a-baby-for-survival schemes - that's not fall-worthy.
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.
Since when did taking the easy, evil way out of alignment dilemmas become "making the 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.
Kill them all, and God will know his own?
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...I disagree. I think you are just allowing them more leeway because they are Druids not Paladins. The paladin's "I lose" button is committing evil, a Druid's is "stop revering nature". You say that a Druid can damage nature and still revere it, I say, no they can't. They should be held to the exact same level of committment as a Paladin. If a Cleric, even a Chaotic Evil cleric, ever goes against their gods tennets, they just hit the "I lose" button, again, same standard as a Paladin.
Nature is all about 'circle of life.' Fires start, new growth comes from it... Could a druid Salt the earth so nothing could grow?? Not a chance. Could a druid start a fire or Kill some animals?? Absolutely.
Druid =/= tree-hugging hippy
What if it was wipe them out, all of them to the last one? Look at it from the dwarven god's point of view. The goblinoids out breed the dwarves six ways from Sunday. The dwarves combat them every time they lash out on the dwarven holds. They beat them back at cost to their numbers, but even if they kill six goblinoids for every dwarf that falls, they never get them all. The enemies replace their losses far faster than the dwarves do. The inevitable happens, the dwarves lose their overall population and another mountain hall falls to goblinoid hands.Maybe when faced with the reality that it's your people or theirs, maybe you wouldn't be so quick to condemn Torag's view.
Genocide is an excellent point of view for an Evil or possibly neutral Character. But never a Good one.
The Doctor showed mercy to the Daleks when given a once in a lifetime opportunity to eradicate the beginning of thier race, to remove them from all space and time. He choose mercy and at the end, it cost him his home planet and his people. He's been regretting that early choice he made lifetimes ago ever since.
Disagree.
The Fourth doctor had the chance to save billions of lives by stopping them from existing in the first place... Five incarnations later... and the ninth STILL wouldn't go for genecide. Season 1 finale had him back away from throwing the switch... Because it would have made him too much like THEM...
And most importantly, The doctor isn't even a Paladin. ;)
|
|
No. Not trying would be a violation. If he tries and fails - even if he doesn't pick the option that the omniscient DM has decided is the most optimal, such as if he chooses to fight evil instead of kowtowing to evil's ridiculously contrived torture-a-baby-for-survival schemes - that's not fall-worthy.
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.
I agree with you. My comment was not intended to say that you fall for trying and failing - that's why I added "if it is within your power." If you tried and failed to protect the innocents, it obviously wasn't within your power to do so.
The comment was made not in the context of the contrived torture-a-baby scheme, but in the context of whether it's OK to lie to protect innocents.
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.
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.
He falls for violating the part of his code about protecting others.
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.
Starbuck_II suggested that a paladin who chooses to stand aside and let innocents be killed rather than tell a lie that would protect them has done the right thing, because that paladin has not performed an evil act. However, I am of the opinion that by failing to protect the innocents (or at least attempt to protect them in any manner whatsoever) in this case the paladin has committed a sin of omission and doesn't get off the hook because he didn't personally do anything evil.
Sounds like we would be in agreement then! It's not always easy to follow the conversations through a long thread like this, even though I did read the dang thing.
And yeah, lying doesn't have to be the option he chooses (it is likely not, given that he remains a paladin and his strengths lie in other areas) but effort of some sort is required.
Does a doctor who prescribes chemotherapy not respect life? He's causing quite a lot of damage to his patient. What about a surgeon who amputates a gangrenous limb?
What if the doctor was a Paladin, would he fall for doing those things? The answer should be the same for both.
Nature is all about 'circle of life.' Fires start, new growth comes from it... Could a druid Salt the earth so nothing could grow?? Not a chance. Could a druid start a fire or Kill some animals?? Absolutely.
Druid =/= tree-hugging hippy
Who said it did?
I think people are missing the point, which is if a Paladin does ANYTHING that could even been slightly construed as outside the code, GM's make him fall, if a druid salts the earth, as you say, GM's won't bat an eye.
No. Not trying would be a violation. If he tries and fails - even if he doesn't pick the option that the omniscient DM has decided is the most optimal, such as if he chooses to fight evil instead of kowtowing to evil's ridiculously contrived torture-a-baby-for-survival schemes - that's not fall-worthy.
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.
And this is where the Lawful Stupid stereotype comes into play, where the paladin knows what the only chance is and decides to take the (utterly hopeless and pointless in this scenario) "Durrr I hit it wit mah sward!" option.
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 the hard decisions.Since when did taking the easy, evil way out of alignment dilemmas become "making the hard decisions"?
How is that the easy way out? The easy way out would be to not do anything and then die along with the rest of everyone else.
A quote from another piece of literature I find applicable here "Death is lighter than a feather; Duty is heavier than a mountain."
Your duty is to serve the overall Good, that good is not served by you pussying out at the last second because you can't bear to kill that one innocent to save millions more.
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.Kill them all, and God will know his own?
Did you not read the rest of the thread or are you just f@*!ing with me?
The scenario is as cut and dried as it possibly could be: Kill one baby, save everyone else on the planet, don't kill the baby, everyone dies.
Not doing anything would be the "Kill 'em all" scenario. You had the power to stop it and chose not to; Therefore their blood (and your own for that matter) is on your hands. By not killing that child you have indirectly murdered everyone else on the planet and committed suicide in the process. I fail to see how that is the Good option.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, that's depressingly moronic.
Rynjin, you are assuming the Paladin is a moral pragmatist. If the Paladin is a moral absolutist, then no the blood isn't on his hands. He followed his moral code. And with how the code is written, I think most Paladins are not pragmatists. If they are, they would have to be naive to agree to the code.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism
Edit: and morality in Pathfinder points to absolutism being correct. For instance, see the discussion on drinking blood from an unwilling target. According to Paizo, its always an evil act regardless of context. They have similar lines for a few other abilities.
I think I made my opinion on that little bit of WTF perfectly clear in its respective thread.
I'm still waiting for a "Why?" on that one beyond "It should be obvious."
|
|
Lets have a look at the code shall we?
alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies
if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect
legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in
need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic
ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Associates : While she may adventure with good or
neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters
or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code.
Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally
with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes
to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement
spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and
should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is
doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only
henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good
Paladin code has always seemed pretty cut and dry to me as a GM, yet with enough room to create a unique PC/NPC that may or may not fit any number of archetypical roles which of course leads to how the DM views good alignment, the code and paladins is of great importance to determining the code and its role in play.
Lets see what Alignment has to say
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil
characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life,
whether for fun or profit.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern
for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make
personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others
and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others
actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some
evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have
compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the
commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
Law Versus Chaos
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect
authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short
of their duties. Chaotic characters follow their consciences,
resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition,
and do what they promise if they feel like it.
Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to
authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness
can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence
to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability.
Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can
depend on each other and make the right decisions in full
confidence that others will act as they should.
Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility.
On the downside, chaos can include recklessness,
resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary
actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic
behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom
allows people to express themselves fully and lets
society benefit it from the potential that its individuals
have within them.Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has some respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to
obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is generally honest, but
can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.
Lastly lets take a peep at lawful good itself
person is expected or required to act. She combines a
commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight
relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps
those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful
good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
Lawful good combines honor with compassion.
Now in all fairness when personal opinion varies during gaming my solution as a DM/GM is to look at the rules with a measure of cold detachment, fairness and a appreciation for broad terminology and definitions. Something that in my opinion (and once more it is just an opinion) is a good practice for any DM.
When considering what a paladin can and can not do without risking falling from grace perhaps the best method is to look at the situation and these elements that comprise so very much of the class. If said action violates any of the above strictures or in the case of some gods and settings their additional paladin codes then clearly a fall from grace is required even if the paladin did what they had to for what they felt were correct reasons.
On that same note if an act doesn't clearly fall in line with an evil act or break the paladins code then while the paladin may or may not feel good about what they did the powers of Law & Good are clearly not going to cast the paladin down.
All of which can create truly epic stories, paladins who feel they deserve to be punished by the gods for an ideal the paladin only holds themselves to, fallen knights whose path to evil was paved with good intentions, the possibilities are endless and the ultimate rule of any game is that everyone, DM and players alike, should be having fun.
Because the druid code allows for leeway. Paladin code as written does done. A Paladin who violates the code falls. Thats straight from the CRB. The code describes specific actions that are considered violations(lying for instance).
Revering nature is much more vague. And its much less likely to come up. If it said "A druid who harms nature loses her class abilities" then that would be a better comparison to the Paladin Code.
You are doing what most people do, reading the same situation two different ways. Let's take a closer look at the Paladin's code entry:
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
A Paladin only falls if he willingly commits an Evil Act. In order for it to be comitted willingly, a Paladin has to know it's evil and do it anyway. That's the ONLY thing that auto-falls a Paladin. As you can see there is A LOT of leeway in there... Just like a Druid's code.
A druid could revere nature by admiring its indestructibility every-time you kill something something invariably ends up growing to replace it.
And a Paladin could say killing babies is honorable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, I mean the ends never justify the means. There is no circumstance in which the ends justify the means. You don't have to like my answer, but it is my answer and I did not mistype.The ends never justify the means.This makes no sense.
Perhaps you mean that the means must justify themselves, or that the ends do not always justify the means.
So using your hands to drink a cup of water is not justified?
So using your hands to drink a cup of water is not justified?No, I mean the ends never justify the means. There is no circumstance in which the ends justify the means. You don't have to like my answer, but it is my answer and I did not mistype.The ends never justify the means.This makes no sense.
Perhaps you mean that the means must justify themselves, or that the ends do not always justify the means.
Nope, it isn't. The means must justify the ends not the other way around.
The ends using your hands to drink water isn't justified to kill that man.
But the ends quenching your thirst, by drinking water is justified.
|
|
So using your hands to drink a cup of water is not justified?No, I mean the ends never justify the means. There is no circumstance in which the ends justify the means. You don't have to like my answer, but it is my answer and I did not mistype.The ends never justify the means.This makes no sense.
Perhaps you mean that the means must justify themselves, or that the ends do not always justify the means.
Cheers, Captain! This is what I meant!
|
|
So using your hands to drink a cup of water is not justified?No, I mean the ends never justify the means. There is no circumstance in which the ends justify the means. You don't have to like my answer, but it is my answer and I did not mistype.The ends never justify the means.This makes no sense.
Perhaps you mean that the means must justify themselves, or that the ends do not always justify the means.
Nope, it isn't. The means must justify the ends not the other way around.
The ends using your hands to drink water isn't justified to kill that man.
But the ends quenching your thirst, by drinking water is justified.
The 'ends' in this case means 'drinking water'. Does 'drinking water' justify the 'means' of 'using your hands as an improvised drinking vessel'?
If the answer is 'yes', then the statement 'The ends never justify the means' is false.
Who said anything about killing anyone?
So using your hands to drink a cup of water is not justified?No, I mean the ends never justify the means. There is no circumstance in which the ends justify the means. You don't have to like my answer, but it is my answer and I did not mistype.The ends never justify the means.This makes no sense.
Perhaps you mean that the means must justify themselves, or that the ends do not always justify the means.
Nope, it isn't. The means must justify the ends not the other way around.
The ends using your hands to drink water isn't justified to kill that man.
But the ends quenching your thirst, by drinking water is justified.
The 'ends' in this case means 'drinking water'. Does 'drinking water' justify the 'means' of 'using your hands as an improvised drinking vessel'?
If the answer is 'yes', then the statement 'The ends never justify the means' is false.
Who said anything about killing anyone?
If you aren't doing an aligned act then you didn't need to justify the end.
So I mentioned killing a man as you wouldn't need to justify otherwise.So the statement remains true.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So using your hands to drink a cup of water is not justified?No, I mean the ends never justify the means. There is no circumstance in which the ends justify the means. You don't have to like my answer, but it is my answer and I did not mistype.The ends never justify the means.This makes no sense.
Perhaps you mean that the means must justify themselves, or that the ends do not always justify the means.
Nope, it isn't. The means must justify the ends not the other way around.
The ends using your hands to drink water isn't justified to kill that man.
But the ends quenching your thirst, by drinking water is justified.
The 'ends' in this case means 'drinking water'. Does 'drinking water' justify the 'means' of 'using your hands as an improvised drinking vessel'?
If the answer is 'yes', then the statement 'The ends never justify the means' is false.
Who said anything about killing anyone?
I've been out of this conversation for a while, but why the heck is drinking water with your hands being used as an example?
Drinking water with your hands is not a moral phenomenon. There is nothing to justify in the moral realm. We could talk about the efficacy of different methods of drinking water... but that is a different beast/
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. If the Paladin had to kill an infant to save the world, the Paladin would do it.
He would also fall like stone and get the breath knocked out of him when he hits, but he'd also feel like he deserved it. That's basically what a Paladin is, they can make the hard choices, but they'll also feel wretched about it afterwards.
A true paladin would find a way to sacrifice himself in the child's stead.
|
|
So using your hands to drink a cup of water is not justified?No, I mean the ends never justify the means. There is no circumstance in which the ends justify the means. You don't have to like my answer, but it is my answer and I did not mistype.The ends never justify the means.This makes no sense.
Perhaps you mean that the means must justify themselves, or that the ends do not always justify the means.
Nope, it isn't. The means must justify the ends not the other way around.
The ends using your hands to drink water isn't justified to kill that man.
But the ends quenching your thirst, by drinking water is justified.
The 'ends' in this case means 'drinking water'. Does 'drinking water' justify the 'means' of 'using your hands as an improvised drinking vessel'?
If the answer is 'yes', then the statement 'The ends never justify the means' is false.
Who said anything about killing anyone?
If you aren't doing an aligned act then you didn't need to justify the end.
So I mentioned killing a man as you wouldn't need to justify otherwise.So the statement remains true.
If the statement only applies when 'doing an aligned act', or 'when discussing morality', then the (unqualified) 'never' is inaccurate, therefore so is the statement!
If the phrase had been, 'When discussing morality, the ends never justify the means', I wouldn't have quibbled!
This is why I said the original statement made no sense, because it did not limit its scope to questions of morality, or even limit itself in any way. Thus it could be proved to be nonsense as soon as I went to the sink and couldn't find a cup!
|
|
I have a great idea for a business - a (paid) service where a team of people (preferably with some degrees in psychology, ethics and the like) would answer paladin-related questions and provide advice on The Code.
Also, you could ask for a detailed interview where specialists would award you "I can play a Paladin" and "I can GM a party with a Paladin" certificates.
Judging by these threads, it's a gold mine waiting to happen.