|
On the other hand, those folks can't revoke the paladin's powers. The deity who can revoke his powers isn't going to do so because the paladin violated some local mortal statute in the course of upholding the things his powers are contingent upon him upholding.
Thats very circular, since the argument here is that the paladin DOES have to respect those local laws and they will revoke his powers if he does not... unless it was absolutely necessary to choose between being lawful or being good.
More often its a case of not bothering to care about what the local authority thinks as long as you think you're doing the right thing: thats how chaotic good works.
|
How is it a strawman?! You keep making real world analogies that don't work.You're accusing me of requiring real life MODERN analogies. I keep telling you that authorities not liking interference from private citizens that think they know better is 1) timeless 2) specifically in at least one mod and 3) inevitable given that most of golarion is NOT lawful good. Its a rather dark and gritty world where the people in power get rich off of doing bad things to people and want to keep it that way: hence the need for heroes.
But you are using modern analogies. You are saying there is jurisdiction. Jurisdiction also had an entirely different meaning in the historical world than it does today.
There isn't any Jurisdiction on a Paladin's spirituality.
Rahadoum, Cheliax, and Taldor cannot take away his divinely granted powers.
A paladin is not beholden by individual Nation's or City-States laws. They are beholden by the code and their God. If they break a nation's law to uphold their code and rightness and goodness, then they haven't done anything requiring an atonement, whether then end up in jail or not.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
More often its a case of not bothering to care about what the local authority thinks as long as you think you're doing the right thing: thats how chaotic good works.
If players are "not bothering to care", that's their fault for playing the paladin wrong.
The paladin sees the situation, and when push comes to shove, he decides whether his code's requirement to punish evildoers overrides his code's requirement to respect legitimate authority. He will not make the same decision every time.
|
|
But the point is, that the PALADIN would feel that way. depending on his church, right?
It might not work to get him out of the local lock-up (unless they like him here), but he's still likely to try it. He'd kick in the door, because he believes he has the right to do so... right? And not need an atonement, because it wasn't an alignment infraction.
Doing things that get you in the local lock up usually goes against the lawful part of his alignment and goes against the part of his code to respect the local authorities.
He cannot do it any time he thinks its the right thing to do. That's chaotic good.
If he thinks it is absolutely necessary to kick in the door NOW to save a life/prevent the apocalypse he can: because a paladin is good first and lawful second... but he's still lawful.
If a paladin can he SHOULD try to get a warrant/commission/the local authorities to do it for him first.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If he thinks it is absolutely necessary to kick in the door NOW to save a life/prevent the apocalypse he can: because a paladin is good first and lawful second... but he's still lawful.
Ah. This stance was not part of the impression I was getting from you. What I (and others, I suspect) have been arguing is that being a paladin gives him the authority to make the call you describe in this quote.
|
|
But you are using modern analogies. You are saying there is jurisdiction. Jurisdiction also had an entirely different meaning in the historical world than it does today.
Entomological fallacy.
There isn't any Jurisdiction on a Paladin's spirituality.
A paladin is not a supercop that all nations recognize.
A paladin is obligated to respect local authority. Rules lawyer it any way you want, that means respecting local laws and customs. They cannot run around cheliax or absolom breaking every slave free just because its the right thing to do. They draw strength from and are constrained by their code that says that its better to worth IN the system.
A paladin is not beholden by individual Nation's or City-States laws. They are beholden by the code and their God.
The code says they have to follow the laws. Unless that leads to an outright contradiction between their two natures the paladin is stuck.
If they break a nation's law to uphold their code and rightness and goodness, then they haven't done anything requiring an atonement, whether then end up in jail or not.
Then how does a paladin act ANY differently from a chaotic good character.. at all? Whats the difference?
|
|
This is the fallacy of your argument. Paladins don't have to adhere to every local law. Respecting authority and respecting local laws are different animals.
since the argument here is that the paladin DOES have to respect those local laws and they will revoke his powers if he does not...
What do you think respecting authority means?
|
|
But you are using modern analogies. You are saying there is jurisdiction. Jurisdiction also had an entirely different meaning in the historical world than it does today.
Entomological fallacy.
There isn't any Jurisdiction on a Paladin's spirituality.A paladin is not a supercop that all nations recognize.
A paladin is obligated to respect local authority. Rules lawyer it any way you want, that means respecting local laws and customs. They cannot run around cheliax or absolom breaking every slave free just because its the right thing to do. They draw strength from and are constrained by their code that says that its better to worth IN the system.
A paladin is not beholden by individual Nation's or City-States laws. They are beholden by the code and their God.The code says they have to follow the laws. Unless that leads to an outright contradiction between their two natures the paladin is stuck.
If they break a nation's law to uphold their code and rightness and goodness, then they haven't done anything requiring an atonement, whether then end up in jail or not.Then how does a paladin act ANY differently from a chaotic good character.. at all? Whats the difference?
Another fallacy you are working under. That in Golarion slavery is wrong. Just because our modern world recognizes that slavery is wrong (evil) does not mean that in Golarion such is so.
A Paladin of Abadar, for instance, would probably not care two wits about slaves, and may even own some himself.
A Paladin of Iomedae wouldn't care either, unless the slaves were being treated unjustly.
And respecting authority doesn't mean following laws necessarily. He can certainly be respectful of the leaders of a nation while dealing with them face to face, while also breaking into a warehouse should the situation warrant it.
|
|
What do you think respecting authority means?This is the fallacy of your argument. Paladins don't have to adhere to every local law. Respecting authority and respecting local laws are different animals.
since the argument here is that the paladin DOES have to respect those local laws and they will revoke his powers if he does not...
The law is not an authority. an Authority is a person.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
On a funny note I GM'd a table where the CN rouge coupe de grad the NPC the Neutral Good Cleric was supposed to speak with to complete her faction mission. The Cleric secretly deemed the Rouge as Evil since he did this without provocation and really had no reason for this other than he was.... whatever. So the cleric decided to never heal the rouge and even used her selective channel to exclude him, once even healing an enemy. The player who was the rouge died in the scenario and did not have enough gold or prestige to raise himself. He said this was equivelent to PVP and thus illegal, and I asked him if he had knowledge religeon, he said no to which I said, then you have no idea what channeling is and thus too bad. I don't think he is coming back.Frankly, I don't find this to be very funny. If the rogue didn't act in an evil manner, then the cleric was completely out of line. Unless the cleric said, "Don't kill that person", the Rogue was just downing another enemy. Even so, intentionally healing an enemy is *way* out of line. I also feel that this was honestly handled rather poorly if you flippantly told him that he had no idea what channeling was.
Either way, a story that ends in a player not coming back to PFS is not a funny one, unless the player did something really nasty.
This kind of conversation isn't headed to good territory. Permit me to try and clear the water.
Why does a cleric *have* to heal the rogue, why do they *have* to exclude enemies? A bard doesn't have to perform, a druid doesn't have to cast barkskin -- especially if it goes against the politics of that character.
In a situation where another player does something that really goes against a character's morals -- which could be something like executing a NG cleric that has surrendered -- you shouldn't be expected to treat their character with any more respect than a working relationship. If it benefits the group, you'll work together, but you are not expected to expend your resources to assist someone that doesn't respect you. IRL or in a game, e.g I'm not helping some bro move if he punches me in the face.
Now, that's one side of the coin. The other is this: explore, cooperate, report. The cleric in question is forgetting #2. That said, so was the rogue. If both players were really wanting to cooperate, the rogue shouldn't have executed the NG cleric, and the party cleric should have tried to prevent his demise in game. This is assuming everything is black and white. Unfortunately, it never is.
PFS loves the gray, it's like a Pathfinder version of Shadowrun some games, what with the missions and side quests they have you do. At the end of it all, anything all the characters have is each other. Players should realize that and start working together more. It would eliminate a lot of the heavy handedness that ends up happening as a result of "PVP" at tables.
Or maybe that's just the Shadow Lodge in me...
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
Stuff.Stuff.This kind of conversation isn't headed to good territory. Permit me to try and clear the water.
Why does a cleric *have* to heal the rogue, why do they *have* to exclude enemies? A bard doesn't have to perform, a druid doesn't have to cast barkskin -- especially if it goes against the politics of that character.
In a situation where another player does something that really goes against a character's morals -- which could be something like executing a NG cleric that has surrendered -- you shouldn't be expected to treat their character with any more respect than a working relationship. If it benefits the group, you'll...
Well, in regards to the first point, if the cleric is healing everybody else in the party and is actively taking steps towards ensuring the rogue character dies, I would personally consider that to be a little bit beyond the pale. You say that the cleric has no obligation to heal. This is true in general, but if they are healing the rest of the party, then specifically excluding the rogue seems really...off, I don't know.
I could see not expending a charge of a wand of CLW; I have a harder time seeing somebody refusing to grant a renewable resource.
More importantly, though, I consider it a matter of trust. PFS has a social contract by which we agree to help each other out. If this sort of thing were the norm - or even occurred with mild infrequency - it would behoove everybody to take a level of a divine caster class so that they could heal themselves. That's not ideal for a lot of builds, but it's the upshot of what would happen.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Stuff.Stuff.This kind of conversation isn't headed to good territory. Permit me to try and clear the water.
Why does a cleric *have* to heal the rogue, why do they *have* to exclude enemies? A bard doesn't have to perform, a druid doesn't have to cast barkskin -- especially if it goes against the politics of that character.
In a situation where another player does something that really goes against a character's morals -- which could be something like executing a NG cleric that has surrendered -- you shouldn't be expected to treat their character with any more respect than a working relationship. If it benefits the group, you'll...
Well, in regards to the first point, if the cleric is healing everybody else in the party and is actively taking steps towards ensuring the rogue character dies, I would personally consider that to be a little bit beyond the pale. You say that the cleric has no obligation to heal. This is true in general, but if they are healing the rest of the party, then specifically excluding the rogue seems really...off, I don't know.
I could see not expending a charge of a wand of CLW; I have a harder time seeing somebody refusing to grant a renewable resource.
More importantly, though, I consider it a matter of trust. PFS has a social contract by which we agree to help each other out. If this sort of thing were the norm - or even occurred with mild infrequency - it would behoove everybody to take a level of a divine caster class so that they could heal themselves. That's not ideal for a lot of builds, but it's the upshot of what would happen.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
The cleric trusts that others respect that they don't wish surrendered foes, especially those of good alignment, killed without discussion among the group. And the rogue trusts he will be healed by the class with the ability. When the trust is broken, by either side, both have forgotten what cooperation is.
Two wrongs, in this case, don't make a right. IMO.
|
|
Another fallacy you are working under. That in Golarion slavery is wrong. Just because our modern world recognizes that slavery is wrong (evil) does not mean that in Golarion such is so.
You realize you just shot your own argument to pieces right?
You said recognize: not considers. By recognizing slavery is wrong, you realize an independent, objective fact. It is not something you consider: ie an opinion.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Altruism is giving to others. Slavery is taking their labor from them.
A slave owner is more concerned with profit than the dignity of people they OWN.
A slave owner expects the slaves to sacrifice their entire lives for his well being.
Your good is no different than neutral...or worse. Your lawful is no different than chaotic.
|
|
The law is not an authority. an Authority is a person.
The law is what the people in charge have said they don't want you doing.
If you're not supposed to be breaking into the building while the sheriff is looking at you, then you're not supposed to be breaking into the building at all.
You cannot respect a government and not respect their laws. It one or the other as goverment largely just makes and enforces laws.
|
|
Most of your definitions of slavery are defined by a modern viewpoint which colors your opinions
No, they're defined by what slavery is.
The only thing modern about my definition is slavery being something other than what you sell yourself into. This isn't a problem with the argument here because that's also not how slavery works in golarion: it is something you're largely sold into by someone else or born into. Golarion slavery is by and large chattle slavery, not the slavery light the greeks had.
slavery in the middle ages was never considered evil
Which shows some messed up sensibilities, not that slavery wasn't evil. They considered a lot of blatantly evil acts (rape, genocide, slaughtering people for having a different religion than you) not evil or even a virtue.
A paladin if he wishes could own slaves (assuming he hails from a country where slave ownership is legal), the requirement of course would be that he treats them well (making sure they are well fed, clothed and cared for), in which case his actions are not only lawful (following the laws of the land), but also good (protecting these innocents from other slave owners who wouldnt be kind).
And what would he do if one of those slaves tried to escape? Catching him would be (morally) no different than kidnapping.
Sometimes Freeing the slaves is not actually in their best interest turning a well fed and cared for slave into an impoverished freeman with no money or ability to obtain employment is what I would consider an evil act on behalf of the Paladin
Then I suppose the good thing to do would be to leave enough gold for a few acres and a mule where he could stumble accross it on his way out.
|
|
Sheesh, yet another pointless alignment (law vs. chaos, good vs. evil) discussion.
When are we all going to just face the fact that everyone has their own interpretation of what defines the various alignments and there is nothing, anyone can say to sway that position. Fantasy gaming has spent the better part of 40 years arguing about this with virtually zero resolution.
Alignment is the epitome of table variation. If you don't want your character to potentially have alignment-based complications, then don't play one with alignment requirements, and if you do, be prepared for the times when the GM has a different perspective than yours and either accept it, play a different character, or find a different GM.
|
|
Whoah, I guess I should have kept my mouth shut about that aasimar paladin. :)
Regardless, I'll reiterate the setting there and try to explain my point of view. The paladin willingly followed the guards to the watch station to be questioned and so forth. In the eyes of the watch, they broke into a warehouse, killed several people, and looted the place. AFAIK in the scenario the ulfen warriors have legitimately rented the warehouse. And I did give them a forewarning about breaking inside. Daylight, crowds, such.
Let's keep in mind I didn't make the paladin have an atonement or any of that. I merely pointed out that some GMs might see the paladin's actions as a breach to his code and thus force an atonement. It is, as many have said, under GM's discretion whether or not breaking into a legally loaned warehouse is against the code. Many have pointed out that they have orders from the venture-captain, and they have good reasons to believe these ulfen people are responsible for an associate ill-being. Thus the entrance is justified, no code breaking there.
As long as threads like this keep it civil, I enjoy them, really. Walter Sheppard has brought many points I've given some thinking about. Thing is I almost never obey the abstract rules of alignment, whereas I prefer to use the, err, 'observant law'. If no one catches you breaking inside a house and copying a piece of paper, in the eyes of the law you didn't do anything. Alignment-wise you would have done a chaotic act. Paladin's code would have said tsk-tsk as well.
As I might have said, I give very little thought to alignment in my game tables. The whole concept of alignment is outdated and should be defenestrated (awesome word btw).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For what it’s worth, I have no dog in this fight. I haven’t played a Paladin in over 20 years.
It isn’t worth it to me to have this kind of argument at the table because some GM wants to instill their own sense of modern morals to an ancient fantasy world.
Reading BNW and you, I think your missing one nuance of BNW's argument. He is not arguing for a modern sensiblity I think as so much as a universal definition of good that applies as much in 2013 as it did in 1300, 600 BC or whatever, even if the society as a whole doesn't (and this why IRL, I find Lawful Good to be the rarest of alignments; because Laws are written by the strong too often, to exploit the weak).
Basically he's saying rape, torture, murder etc are wrong, even if say, in 1300, lawful knights got away with it whenever they choose. One case, a serial rapist/knight made point of paying for his victim's entry fees to the Paris whore's guild to make sure he was alright with Jesus. We find this behavior disgusting (i.e. Lawful Evil). But at that time he was a man of wealth and taste. But I'm sure even then some people probably, behind his back, thought of him as an evil bastard, because what he did was evil, even if it was socially accepted.
The point is, societies are blind. Our society certainly has some sins that are sins against the the greater 'good' that you and I engage in every day. I have my suspicions of what they are, however if I were to name them, I'd start another cycle of recriminations and back and forth, which, as Bob pointed out, is pointless.
At the same time, throughout history, there have been people offended at the exploitation of others and have, either through the courts of kings or the legislatures or at gunpoint/swordpoint/spearpoint, or just by caring for others and setting a good example. Good, might best be described as the triumph of your empathy for your fellow living being over the temptation to exploit your fellow living being.
Lawful Good, is to work within societies structures and traditions, interpreting them broadly in respect to your fellow being. It does not, for example, mean blinking an eye to slavery and thinking it's okay. It does mean recognising it is an evil and doing what you can, be it treating your slaves kindly and freeing them when it makes sense (i.e. not, your free, go beg in the streets). It is the cop who testifies against his fellow cop when he beats up a suspect, even though it it will probably earn him the contempt of many of his fellow officers and the suspect, after all, is just a goblin.
It is, basically hard as heck.
All the Best,
Kerney
P.S.
|
|
At the same time, throughout history, there have been people offended at the exploitation of others and have, either through the courts of kings or the legislatures or at gunpoint/swordpoint/spearpoint, or just by caring for others and setting a good example. Good, might best be described as the triumph of your empathy for your fellow living being over the temptation to exploit your fellow living being.Lawful Good, is to work...
No one is arguing what is good in some objective sense. It is the lawful part in a thoroughly imperfect society that is being debated. It is the parts of the paladin code that state that they should be honorable and respect authorities. It's the lawful part that says they should respect tradition instead of simply following their consciences. Chaotic characters follow their consciences, so clearly paladins cannot simply do that.
The devs have stated that slavery is apparently one of the moral blindnesses at this point in Golarion. It is more a lawful issue than a good/evil issue.
For example, a paladin catches a mugger in Absalom. If he hands them to the watch, the mugger will be executed or more likely sold into slavery, as per the information on laws we have on Absalom. If he finds a bunch of slaves in Absalom, at least some of which are likely to be criminals serving their sentence, who aren't being treated in an inappropriate manner as per Absalom law, then should he a) free them or b) find out who now owns them. If he sets them free, is he helping criminals avoid their sentences?
In this sense, walking around freeing whatever slaves you find is clearly a thing a good character might do. But it also breaks laws in virtually every country in Golarion. Hence, why Andora is classified as a chaotic good faction, and not a neutral good or lawful good faction. They follow their conscience, not the law of the land.
While I am not happy about potentially losing a PFS player, I consider how many would leave if he continues his ways. bad players can make others leave. Hopefully he learns how to play with others and changes his RP style, if not I can only do so much.
Jason is correct about this. Since I am a player who has not returned to play a PFS game due to a few bad players. (Well, time constraints are the biggest issue, but my fear of running into another nightmare group keeps me from going when I do have free time.) I doubt they are there still but, Man! That game was a nightmare!