| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lancelot was a French addition to the Arthurian mythline.
Whether his puissance is holy or natural is not constant among the tellings, nor his his lust. He always falls with Guinevere.
The Pure Knight is Galahad, who succeeds in retrieving the Graelle. In some tellings he redeems Lancelot.
Lancelot, may be a fallen paladin.
Galahad would be the Paladin.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Could you see DC redeeming the Joker character?Pretty sure they have. I recall one story being about Batman apparently dying, and the Joker ceasing his life of crime and becoming a normal citizen until Batman resurfaced.
I don't think that is a good example, as the Joker being irredeemable could have less to do with him being irredeemable evil than with being an impopular decision which will probably cause a negative reaction among fans.
I've always thought that everyone is potentially redeemable, but some creatures would take so much effort and pain to redeem that redemption is not a viable option. If it takes a thousand years of effort, plus some epic level revelations to redeem a creature it's probably not in your hands doing it. That's what one could call irredeemable.
Of course I'm not talking about non intelligent creatures. Redemption requires taking decissions and that's something that a mindless creature cannot do. An item or mindless creature could be purified anyway.
In the real world (non-fiction for anyone confused) even people that most of us are like yeah hes evil wouldn't cal themselves evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think a lot of people think of themselves as evil. And probably thinking of oneself as evil has more to do with a low self esteem than with being a bad person.
People tend to have excuses for their behaviour so whatever they are doing is not evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Harder? yes. Impossible? probably not. Worth the effort? That's up to you.
Lancelot didn't heal someone; he resurrected someone. That said, IMO he was never a paladin; he was simply an honorable knight with, err, a failing that he and the court believed condemned him, and so he surrendered his place and became a hermit - and, consequently, went mad with longing, only to redeem himself by returning to fight Mordred. Galahad, on the other hand, was the purest knight, and may well have been a paladin - or, alternately, just the purest and most virtuous knight, because 'paladin' wasn't really something you found in those sorts of legends.
And Paksennarion didn't fall; she'd never been a paladin in the first place, and instead of being turned to evil, she was forcibly infused with it - an evil which stayed inside her until the druid could draw it out.
----------------------------
I personally think that people who start throwing around words like 'always' and 'never' in regards to morality need to take a sociology course; what is sacred in one religion (according to the god themselves) is blasphemous in another; what is unthinkable in one society is required for daily survival in the next. This sort of things are what monstrosities like the Crusades and the Inquisition (Spanish, French, and otherwise) were committed over.
However, if you're going to use an alignment system, you do need to establish 'what is X' and 'what is Y', what makes you shift in one direction or another, and what makes your sacred warriors lose their gods-given power. Torture, murder, rape, these are all good first-tier candidates. In fact, I would say that those three are the three - to commit, or to willingly permit to be committed.
Of course, how you define these things is where the argument lies, doesn't it?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well that's sort of the crux, isn't it? I mean I personally believe that a Paladin wouldn't fall if they were torturing an evil entity such as a Demon or Devil to obtain information. I mean these being are, cosmically speaking, born of pure evil essence. The reasoning behind the act, to me specifically, is the driving force behind the alignment of an act.
For example we know killing someone is wrong, ultimately. We have strict laws forbidding it. We, as a society, know that this cannot be undone and it changes everyone: the killer, the death of the person, the families of all involved a considerable amount pain and anger. But we also accept that in some dire circumstances it's necessary due to intent. The intent (motive) is the sole reason that needs to be established to assign any punishment if at all. And that's Death! That person will forever cease to be.
So, like I said, in this particular game where there is everything from black and white to shades of gray, putting a hard-line as "this is and will always irrevocably be" (insert position here) you will have a dozen reason why it could, in dire circumstances, be deemed necessary.
Being forced to torture the fiend out of necessity is basically BS. Any necessity argument is ten times weaker in Pathfinder even than it is in real life (and in real life it's pretty bogus to begin with).
In this particular game you're armed with a dozen alternative routes to finding any particular piece of information you want, the mechanics of which generally make them more effective than any kind of real-life information gathering. You've got divination spells. Diplomancy. Charm spells. Intimidate. Bluff + Sense Motive to trick info out of someone. Compulsion spells. Etc.
Any level where you can plausibly safely restrain and torture a relevant fiend, you've got access to at least some of those tools. It's hard to imagine shutting all of those down without getting so contrived that the discussion becomes useless.
If you're shutting down all of those alternatives yet also somehow ruling that torture is a great way to interrogate a creature for whom a few decades of horrific torture might be a promotion requirement, the only thing beyond redemption might be your railroad-to-torture-town campaign.
Being forced to torture the fiend out of necessity is basically BS. Any necessity argument is ten times weaker in Pathfinder even than it is in real life (and in real life it's pretty bogus to begin with).
Ok? What you call BS is me calling it pragmatism.
In this particular game you're armed with a dozen alternative routes to finding any particular piece of information you want, the mechanics of which generally make them more effective than any kind of real-life information gathering. You've got divination spells. Diplomancy. Charm spells. Intimidate. Bluff + Sense Motive to trick info out of someone. Compulsion spells. Etc.
Any level where you can plausibly safely restrain and torture a relevant fiend, you've got access to at least some of those tools. It's hard to imagine shutting all of those down without getting so contrived that the discussion becomes useless.
If you're shutting down all of those alternatives yet also somehow ruling that torture is a great way to interrogate a creature for whom a few decades of horrific torture might be a promotion requirement, the only thing beyond redemption might be your railroad-to-torture-town campaign
Like I said you can run your games anyway you like. Sometimes you dont have the luxury or ability to charm, intimidate, trick, compulse, divine, etc when the option to have the info right there.
You might not have the luxury to have the right tools to extract information, but there is always an option to avoid torturing a prisoner: not torturing him.
Choosing the lesser evil is still choosing evil.
There are so many alternative ways to torture for people willing to search for creative solutions.
Torture is just the easy solution, but morality wise it doesn't qualify as good (or neutral) by any means. Torture is causing avoidable pain to a sentient creature just to fulfill your goals. To me, it qualifies as evil.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Being forced to torture the fiend out of necessity is basically BS. Any necessity argument is ten times weaker in Pathfinder even than it is in real life (and in real life it's pretty bogus to begin with).
Ok? What you call BS is me calling it pragmatism.
Like I said you can run your games anyway you like. Sometimes you dont have the luxury or ability to charm, intimidate, trick, compulse, divine, etc when the option to have the info right there.In this particular game you're armed with a dozen alternative routes to finding any particular piece of information you want, the mechanics of which generally make them more effective than any kind of real-life information gathering. You've got divination spells. Diplomancy. Charm spells. Intimidate. Bluff + Sense Motive to trick info out of someone. Compulsion spells. Etc.
Any level where you can plausibly safely restrain and torture a relevant fiend, you've got access to at least some of those tools. It's hard to imagine shutting all of those down without getting so contrived that the discussion becomes useless.
If you're shutting down all of those alternatives yet also somehow ruling that torture is a great way to interrogate a creature for whom a few decades of horrific torture might be a promotion requirement, the only thing beyond redemption might be your railroad-to-torture-town campaign
You don't have the luxury or ability to try a different way? Come on. The party might or might not have charm spells, but show me the Pathfinder party that doesn't have the ability to roll a skill check. And what exactly do you mean by "luxury"? What, is time so tight that you can't spare a minute for Diplomacy, but so loose that you can spare however long it takes to stretch them on the rack till they can't take any more?
To be clear, I'm not claiming that you couldn't perhaps, if you strained hard enough, construct some sort of scenario where there was truly no alternative way to get whatever information you're after. I'm saying that any such scenario would be impossibly contrived, to the point where it's more likely to be "the DM is trying to railroad the paladin into torturing someone for whatever reason" than "this scenario arose organically and reasonably out of the campaign situation."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
^Exactly this.
|
I dont think its very contrived or uncommon at all. Take a place like the front lines of Mendev, where its pretty common knowledge that Demons are 1.) not stupid, 2.) resistant to magic, 3.) notable able to easily make saves, and 4.) familiar with fighting holy warriors.
When things like Zone of Truth fail or can not reasonably be trusted, which I would say is 95% of the time, a paladin should not have an issue torturing Demons for information to save innocents.
It might be dark, but, for the right reasons, not doing what you can to help or save others is the Evil choice here, after other options have failed. Its not the easy path.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You said it. It is dark. Choosing the lesser evil is still choosing evil.
I'm not saying that the Paladin shouldn't choose not to help innocents. He should keep trying to find a different way to do it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dont think its very contrived or uncommon at all. Take a place like the front lines of Mendev, where its pretty common knowledge that Demons are 1.) not stupid, 2.) resistant to magic, 3.) notable able to easily make saves, and 4.) familiar with fighting holy warriors.
A demon that is easily able to make a Will save against Zone of Truth is probably easily able to make a Fortitude save against torture.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When things like Zone of Truth fail or can not reasonably be trusted, which I would say is 95% of the time, a paladin should not have an issue torturing Demons for information to save innocents.
A paladin should be the FIRST to have an issue torturing ANYONE for ANY reason.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Listen, the majority here do not buy the idea the Paladin isn't going to fall here. Further, that there is no way that torture in and of itself is anything but evil, no matter how you try to justify it, whether pragmatism or devaluing the victim. Some of us even believe that trying to justify is adding to the evil.
We also recognize that, for whatever reason, some of you are just unable to allow that we might be right, and driven to prove that you are right. If your GM made your Paladin fall, we agree with him. If you have a table that wants to play it your way, cool for you, but if you want to bully people into agreeing with you, can't and won't help you there.
There really has been some good discussion here, and good work clarifying the issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Listen, the majority here do not buy the idea the Paladin isn't going to fall here. Further, that there is no way that torture in and of itself is anything but evil, no matter how you try to justify it, whether pragmatism or devaluing the victim. Some of us even believe that trying to justify is adding to the evil.
We also recognize that, for whatever reason, some of you are just unable to allow that we might be right, and driven to prove that you are right. If your GM made your Paladin fall, we agree with him. If you have a table that wants to play it your way, cool for you, but if you want to bully people into agreeing with you, can't and won't help you there.
There really has been some good discussion here, and good work clarifying the issue.
"And in conclusion, I'm absolutely right, and you should stop having a conversation about this."
I'm crying tears of gratitude at having such a perfect example of projection to save and use as a future example when explaining the concept.
Heck, up thread we even have plenty of examples of "torture is ALWAYS evil" vs. the opposing view of "well, maybe in some circumstances it's not" and yet somehow that's supposed to be the extreme bullying position? Those mean minorities, always walking into a majority and bullying them by questioning their absolute position. LOL.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No PP,
You can believe it any way you want, but you can't force people to agree with you.
Certainly your tendency to rely on ridicule and unreasoned denial isn't going to make you more convincing. You really haven't held the debates high ground yourself.
Your table can play it anyway you want, but your philosophy has led to some really awful things, and draws strong disagreement.
No PP,
You can believe it any way you want, but you can't force people to agree with you.
I haven't tried to force anyone to agree with me. I pointed out the premises and linkages of one person's own arguments. Anything that followed was forced only by logic.
No PP,
Your table can play it anyway you want, but your philosophy has led to some really awful things, and draws strong disagreement.
How swiftly we move from projection to nonsequitors and total abandonment of the original argument. Half progress!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Settle down PP and you too Daw.
No one here is forcing anyone to do anything.
Daw has clearly stated his/hers? position on the matter and has given his reasons, some very personal, for his position.
Now PP has also given his/hers?, and even if I don't agree with the position, it doesn't really matter to me if their group thinks torture is an Evil act or not. As long as PP and his/her? group has a fun interesting time rping, I don't really see why they shouldn't keep doing things as they have. In other words they have just as much right, to play the game as they want to, as anyone else.
That said, I would be very up front with things like this, especially to anyone new joining the group. As this thread shows, it is one of those subjects that rub people the wrong way, when it isn't handled with proper care and respect.
|
|
Listen, the majority here do not buy the idea the Paladin isn't going to fall here.
That doesn't mean anything whatsoever. I'm not particularly keen on Paladin's torturing, but I think it's even worse to say that it's 100% evil in all cases, and even to try to present any opposition as "fringe cases" or "contrived".
It's a tool, with proper and inproper uses. A Paladin should be <one of> the last people to suggest or allow it, but when they and the Good Cleric both agree it's the last option, . . .
A paladin should be the FIRST to have an issue torturing ANYONE for ANY reason.
I disagree. I would argue that the Paladin, and ANY other Good character would be the first to try everything else first. But, if and when that all failed, (or presented untrustworthy results), as it likely will, saving lives, and more importantly, saving souls may require a NOT NICE touch. Again, Nice is not the same thing as Good and Dark is not the same thing as Evil. Sometimes Good has to walk the even harder path, but that's what makes them Good and not Neutral or Evil. They do it as a last resort, and they don't take pleasure in it, but do it for the sake of others.
Unless of course, you are trying to suggest that Neutral is actually the best force for Good in existence, and Good is actually sort of stupid and ineffective.
|
|
If the good cleric says torture is the last option, the paladin refuses anyway. The code is not flexible. You don't get to use poison or lie if its "the last option" and by the same measure you don't get to perform an evil act because there's (seemingly) no other way.
Their code is actually extremely flexible. So while Shelyn's might suggest this, others such as Erastil, Torag, Sarenrae, and Damerich probably do not.
|
|
Paladins work better in "noblebright" campaigns than "grimdark" ones. That's the whole point of the class. They do the right thing and make it work. They're not about justifications and treading close to the line. They don't work so well in a "no good deed goes unpunished" sort of world. Unless the player is actually looking for the challenge of finding a way to stay pure in such a game, in which case letting them push the boundaries too far would defeat the purpose.
So your suggestion is to rewrite the game around the Paladin? Or are you trying to suggest that your particular version of "purity" is high than the lives/souls of others?
I dont think its very contrived or uncommon at all. Take a place like the front lines of Mendev, where its pretty common knowledge that Demons are 1.) not stupid, 2.) resistant to magic, 3.) notable able to easily make saves, and 4.) familiar with fighting holy warriors.
When things like Zone of Truth fail or can not reasonably be trusted, which I would say is 95% of the time, a paladin should not have an issue torturing Demons for information to save innocents.
It might be dark, but, for the right reasons, not doing what you can to help or save others is the Evil choice here, after other options have failed. Its not the easy path.
Fine. Take, say, the iconics (12th level is strong enough to reasonably capture a demon with truly important information, so we'll go with their 12th level stats).
Let's say they are the iconic Paladin (ofc) and... *rolls dice* fighter, barbarian, and sorcerer? OK. I guess it's a martially inclined party.
What's the reasonable, non-contrived scenario where they have to get information from a demon and torture is the only option with a chance of working?
Because even with this randomly constituted, utterly non-optimized (everyone knows the iconics suck) party, I'm seeing +15 intimidate on the barbarian, +13 intimidate on the fighter, Diplomacy +19 and Zone of Truth 1/day with a DC 16 Will save for the paladin, and... Charm Monster up to 7/day with DC 21 Will save (or 17/day with higher level slots) from the sorcerer. The sorcerer also has +22 Bluff if she wants to try to trick the information out of the demon.
That'll do, pig, that'll do. A randomly rolled party not only has a non-torturous way, they have five non-torturous ways of getting information - Diplomacy, Intimidate, Bluff, Zone of Truth, and Charm Monster. One of the ways has two tries (Intimidate on two characters) and one of them has up to 17. The skill check modifiers (+13, +15, +19, and +22) range from decent to excellent chances of succeeding against any demon the party could plausibly restrain and torture. The Zone of Truth Will save is iffy but the Charm Monster is solid and repeatable.
What's your scenario where none of the above options can be tried and the party's only options are to torture the demon or fail, but it's not contrived or railroady? Doesn't even have to be the above party, I just grab them as the iconics provide a random sample of what Pathfinder characters might be bringing to the table, without any bias towards a particular situation.
Like I said before, no.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dark is NOT the same thing as Evil.You said it. It is dark. Choosing the lesser evil is still choosing evil.
I'm not saying that the Paladin shouldn't choose not to help innocents. He should keep trying to find a different way to do it.
Not, but it seems like you said «dark» as an euphemism to lessen the impact of your words.
You are doing it a lot. You say «dark», «not nice». Like «it's not evil, just not nice». That's a poor excuse. «Not nice» and «dark» in your context mean Evil.
If I see you at the street and you don't say «hi» to me, you're being not nice. If I was deprived of my freedom and tortured, I wouldn't dare to describe what happened there as «not nice», more as something terrible. We are talking about deliberately inflicting enough pain to break the resolution and the psyche of a creature. So please stop using euphemisms to make a terrible act look like it was almost irrelevant.
I don't deny that you could be willing to choose doing an evil act for a greater good. Maybe your alignment wouldn't change the first time you do it. But it's still an evil act.
Do you want to torture a prisoner with a paladin? OK, do it. Atonement exists.
Being a paladin is not easy. A Paladin doesn't have to be just good, a paladin must epitomize good.
And as you said that torture is not the easy path, I must ask: which option here is easier than torturing the prisoner? Because I cannot think of an easier way of getting the information you want.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
And as you said that torture is not the easy path, I must ask: which option here is easier than torturing the prisoner? Because I cannot think of an easier way of getting the information you want.
Does torture count as the hard path if basically everything else works better?
Torture isn't an easy and pragmatic act of cruelty. It is hard to get information out of torture. Almost impossible, in fact. You could almost call it a pointless and ineffective act of cruelty. Easy to get information from, it is not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't mean easy like it is an easy way of getting information. I mean it as the easiest decision to take. You're not looking for alternatives, different ways to get the information. You're just taking the obvious resolution, causing a creature unnecesary suffering. That's the easy path.
Does torture count as the hard path if basically everything else works better?
And why, if everything else works better, would you take the worse option that causes a creature unnecesary pain and suffering? What justification do you have for torturing someone if it's not a good way for getting information. If it's the worse option and you still choose to take it, it's plain sadism, causing pain for the sake of causing pain.
|
I don't mean easy like it is an easy way of getting information. I mean it as the easiest decision to take. You're not looking for alternatives, different ways to get the information. You're just taking the obvious resolution, causing a creature unnecesary suffering. That's the easy path.
Does torture count as the hard path if basically everything else works better?And why, if everything else works better, would you take the worse option that causes a creature unnecesary pain and suffering? What justification do you have for torturing someone if it's not a good way for getting information. If it's the worse option and you still choose to take it, it's plain sadism, causing pain for the sake of causing pain.
I believe that is his point!
I do think that, with Zone of Truth/etc, torture is a little more effective in Golarion, but it's still going to be slow, costly and decidedly evil act.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, I'm seeing two main arguments here. "Torture is unquestionably evil, paladins would never torture even fiends", and "torture is effective and practical which makes it the sensible thing to do, so paladins wouldn't fall."
It's always interesting, the tendency people have to equate whether torture works with whether it's morally acceptable. I see absolutely no reason to doubt that it can be effective in some situations, from what I've read on the subject. (Please note that I am not saying there aren't often potentially (but not always necessarily) better methods, or that it's any kind of instant "apply pain, receive secrets" button... just that it isn't completely useless and I don't agree with blackbloodtroll either.) That doesn't make it okay.
Is it okay for paladins to torture fiends? No. Yes, they're effectively pure 100% concentrated evil. Is it okay to hurt somebody just because they're evil? I don't mean killing someone in defense of oneself or others, I don't mean executing someone to prevent harm; those are acceptable for practical reasons, imo, not because "they deserve it so it's okay". Paladins should be above just doling out whatever misery is "deserved". Minimizing harm is always a moral imperative; the only disagreement is how to weigh harm done in order to prevent potential future harm.
Does this mean anything done in the name of preventing future harm is okay? Obviously not, or else, say, it could be perfectly justifiable to murder any children who exhibited sociopathic traits. And I'd like to hope we all agree on that being a bad thing, Goblin Baby Dilemma or not. Torture firmly falls under this category. Because if most of the civilized world agrees something needs to be absolutely forbidden, you really shouldn't be trying to say it's fine, you know?
If a paladin really considers it necessary to torture demons, they can do so. Atonement exists for a reason. I'd personally find a paladin who decides on the lesser evil for the greater good and pays the price and owns up to it way more interesting of a character than a paladin who does the exact same things but insists they're all justified so it's fine, and is allowed to get away with it. Still, if you want to play Jack Bauer with no repercussions, really why not just be an inquisitor instead of a paladin in the first place.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd personally find a paladin who decides on the lesser evil for the greater good and pays the price and owns up to it way more interesting of a character than a paladin who does the exact same things but insists they're all justified so it's fine, and is allowed to get away with it.
Actually, I find the first to be an awesome concept for a character, a hero who falls not because he has evil tendencies but because he chooses to, thinking that it's the best he can do.
I am exploring that concept right now with a NPC. He was the knight in bright armor for many years of setting. Now he has accepted to be branded as a traitor and is risking his purity for greater good. I still don't know what will come out from it (it depends a lot on the PCs) but I always found the concept fascinating.
I was never against evil people doing good things from time to time or or good people having to do something evil. I don't believe in absolutes. But I'm completely against trying to justify evil practices as «if a good character does it then it's not evil». Committing an evil act might not make you immediately evil, but it's still an evil act.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paladin's don't torture people. That's what Inquisitors are for.
Grim and determined, the inquisitor roots out enemies of the faith, using trickery and guile when righteousness and purity is not enough. Although inquisitors are dedicated to a deity, they are above many of the normal rules and conventions of the church. They answer to their deity and their own sense of justice alone, and are willing to take extreme measures to meet their goals.
Pretty much says it in the job description.
Paladin questions villain to no avail. Offers one more chance. Villian spits in Paladin's face.
Paladin sighs. "I tried"
Leaves the room, noting the Inquisitor on his way out.
There are many who serve. Each is called differently
Leaves the area.
2ndly I repeat, demons are irredeemable rules as written,
unique ones are the exception to that rule.... but should not be the norm.
Even if I don't fully agree with you here, I'll take it as it is like you're saying.
How does your character know if the fiend he has in front of him is not one of the few exceptions? What can completely assure you that the specific fiend you are facing is not redeemable too?If there are exceptions a character who is fully devoted to good should at least think of it. I'm not saying he should not be fighting evil or killing evil creatures in combat, that happens. I'm saying that if those precedents exist a good character should act in consequence.
2ndly I repeat, demons are irredeemable rules as written,
unique ones are the exception to that rule.... but should not be the norm.
Like I've said before: Exception does NOT prove the rule. If there is an exception, the rule is invalidated.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paladin's don't torture people. That's what Inquisitors are for.
Paladin questions villain to no avail. Offers one more chance. Villian spits in Paladin's face.
Paladin sighs. "I tried"
Leaves the room, noting the Inquisitor on his way out.
There are many who serve. Each is called differently
Leaves the area.
While I actually agree with both the sentiment and idea here. I just feel that...well I'm not really sure what's bugging me about but it, but I think it just seems to easy to twist...
Paladin's don't murder people. That's what Slayers are for.
Paladin watches the incompetent and vile city official intently. Offers one more chance to better his ways. The city official laughs in Paladin's face.
Paladin sighs. "I tried"
Leaves the room, noting the Slayer on his way out.
There are many who serve. Each is called differently
Leaves the Town Hall.