| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT: please don't flame against others, this is about being a paladin act like one while responding.
So heres the thing. In my game there is a mimi paladin of sarenrae, they argue that invisibility is a reasonable tactic in certain circumstances because of the herald of sarenrae (sunlord thalachos) will use invisibility if the foe is clearly stronger than him. Is this reasonable? Does this conflict with the paladin code it seems ridiculous that sarenrae will say
"Oh you fought like my herald, I want my powers back, go atone for your misdeeds against my religion and then you can have them back. I don't care that my herald can act deceitful in fights you can't."
I restricted him to "you can use it if fighting honorably would endanger innocents or fighting deceptively would result in the redemption of someone evil. Never to be used against someone you can beat with relative ease."
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see it as fighting dishonorably. In fact, if they use it to escape from a battle with someone who is misguided and need not be fought, I would reward them for acting with mercy even though all others would think them cowardly. A paladin of Sarenrae avoids battle, and more importantly needless death, whenever possible. Death ends a being's potential for redemption. Imagine if they fought "someone they can beat with relative ease" and crit (he is using a scimitar, right?). Even he was dealing nonlethal damage, enough of that could still kill a weak target. I'd also probably let him use it to gain a tactical advantage when needed- after all, it's best to put that undead out of its misery as quickly as possible.
Also, what the heck is a "mimi paladin"? Some archetype I've never heard of?
I have a Paladin in the jade reagent adventure path, and it seems to me that as long as you are following the LG alignment and the tennents of your god, it doesnt really matter what tactics you use. There are, of course, exceptions (poison, or torture, for instance) but I have always found assigning morals to tactics is mostly a matter of perspective. Using invisibility in a tactical way when fighting against evil is perfectly acceptable. My Paladin follows the idea that you use any tool you can against evil, except those tools that turn you into what you are fighting against. You dont break laws or your oath (because you are lawful) and you don't commit evil acts (because you are good) you strive to further the tennants of the god you serve. I see no reason why Serenrae would strip a paladin of his/her powers for using Invisibility, unless the paladin were using the spell to commit an evil or unlawfull act.
I've heard paladins referenced as 'cops' due to how they both try to uphold morals within the party and in the campaign's society in general. This analogy makes sense thematically since both follow strict codes of conduct designed for the betterment of the community in general. I also find this an appropriate analogy for considering real world tactics within the game
In real life, police officers are generally expected to act with restraint when apprehending suspects, and can only use lethal force when it is apparent that their own or the life of others are at risk. While a paladin is expected to use lethal force to a much greater degree, the threats they face are similar on a much more lethal level and require such action. Similarly, they cannot use excessively cruel methods to gain compliance (striking an unarmed civilian. While pepper spray and tear gas are allowed under certain conditions, a police officer could not use harmful chemicals such as mustard gas, so that can be seen as analogous to the restriction on poisons for paladins. Finally, police officers are not allowed to use torture to gain confessions or other illegal means to gain evidence without it being thrown out of court. Paladins also face severe repercussions for such actions.
For the purposes of this conversation however, we must go beyond such shallow parallels to see how real world practices could be applied in an honorable manner worthy of paladins. One of the more interesting class combos I've seen is a paladin/shadowdancer. With this shift, the party's cop suddenly becomes the party's SWAT team member. If there is an innocent held hostage by an enemy, and you have the opportunity to take him out before he can try to threaten the hostage, than that would be an honorable act, no? Protecting the life of yourself and your team mates, while providing tactical advantage that could allow you to force the enemy to surrender would also be a good justification for stealth an ambushes to a paladin. As long as he does not abandon his duty, the protection of the innocent and attempts to redeem your enemies, then I would say that it would be an interesting new perspective for the class.
Sorry forget its not well known, Mimi is this old old fairy kind he remade.
And I find this reasonable, all the responses. The invisibility is something to be use limited though. What if he were fighting in a duel? Would it be okay then? What if his enemy cheats in the duel? I realize it's not so much the invisibility it's the attacking from shadows that has been so deeply ingrained into my subconscious as "dishonorable" fighting from whatever source. I'm fine but if he uses it to say... Win a duel where the guy had about a 50/50 then it's iffy. If its just a practice then ok. But if challenged to a duel by say a grey guard (CG paladin variant) what then I know it's weird but another thing I worry about is the other players who blindly look at Pallys as lawful stupid.
in all cases alignment should be as viewed by the deity a character worships
alignments that are subject to an "alignment system" forsake the need for deities in the first place in pathfinder
if sarenrae is okay with it, then its okay, if the paladin were worshiping iomedae or abadar you may have a different ruling
in all cases alignment should be as viewed by the deity a character worships
alignments that are subject to an "alignment system" forsake the need for deities in the first place in pathfinder
if sarenrae is okay with it, then its okay, if the paladin were worshiping iomedae or abadar you may have a different ruling
I'm half tempted to agree with you if they took the deities code.
However, judging it by basic paladin code doesn't consider deity at all. It judges alignment and nothing more.
in all cases alignment should be as viewed by the deity a character worships
their deity judges their alignment, to say that their alignment is judged by some entity other than their deity forsakes the pathfinder religion and establishes monotheism, which is not the religion in pathfinder
whether you call it God, or The Alignment System doesnt matter, thats what it really is
atheists are extremely difficult to do in pathdinder anyway, sicne the deities themselves are real characters, and to say that none of them exist makes a character seem crazy to the masses
but any character who is an 'atheist' IC would be true neutral, which is what OOC true atheists are
its quite simple, if nothing judges you or your actions (i.e. there is no god) then you have no reason to be convicted of a difference between right and wrong, and an insinuation of either is a philosophical insult to a true atheist in game or out of game
tackling atheism in pathfinder is more difficult than out of game, simply because a lot of people have a very thin and vain understanding of what atheism is
its quite simple, if the alignment system surpases the deities judgment, then the deities have no purpose existing beyond a cleric choosing domains, and if a cleric can just pick domains anyway then the deities have no need to exist
I don't think Invisibility is cheating or fighting dishonorably at all, and would never consider it against the Paladin's code. It's just fighting smart--that's not forbidden.
I think I'm going to say ok to it for now. If its iomedae's paladin, and they are the leader of a charge and then after the fighting stops they were to turn invisible and take pot shots at enemies I think I'd be stricter and make them fall with an atonement available just as a message and the penalty, if say a paladin of irori and they went about using drugs to better themselves temporarily (immune to disease can't be addicted) then they would e punished slightly, especially if they got prideful and said they were great and it was due to the substance that they succeeded and probably if they gave up self betterment for some other ideal (seems like a big thing to irori but it'd be case by case). I'm think era still if they were greedy and self centered, acting like an irori paladin putting self above community and the like. A paladin of ragathiel Fleeing from battle out of just wimping out not for a tactical retreat would be punished and if a trend fall. While using poisons and lying is out (unless lying is better for yor deity's wishes or the greater good, like liberating slaves that were being used illegally). Would a paladin of abadar fall if he bartered for an unfair deal, what if they performed an act that led to the wealth of an area being lowered severely or some other trade thing? And if it's an accident does it count?
atheists are extremely difficult to do in pathdinder anyway, sicne the deities themselves are real characters, and to say that none of them exist makes a character seem crazy to the masses
but any character who is an 'atheist' IC would be true neutral, which is what OOC true atheists are
its quite simple, if nothing judges you or your actions (i.e. there is no god) then you have no reason to be convicted of a difference between right and wrong, and an insinuation of either is a philosophical insult to a true atheist in game or out of game
tackling atheism in pathfinder is more difficult than out of game, simply because a lot of people have a very thin and vain understanding of what atheism is
its quite simple, if the alignment system surpases the deities judgment, then the deities have no purpose existing beyond a cleric choosing domains, and if a cleric can just pick domains anyway then the deities have no need to exist
Not an official source I assume the pathfinder wiki says aetheists in golarion just believe that you shouldn't worship the gods beaus they don't really deserve worship, and that ezren (that's the wizard right?) is aetheist.
I think I'm going to say ok to it for now. If its iomedae's paladin, and they are the leader of a charge and then after the fighting stops they were to turn invisible and take pot shots at enemies I think I'd be stricter and make them fall with an atonement available just as a message and the penalty, if say a paladin of irori and they went about using drugs to better themselves temporarily (immune to disease can't be addicted) then they would e punished slightly, especially if they got prideful and said they were great and it was due to the substance that they succeeded and probably if they gave up self betterment for some other ideal (seems like a big thing to irori but it'd be case by case). I'm think era still if they were greedy and self centered, acting like an irori paladin putting self above community and the like. A paladin of ragathiel Fleeing from battle out of just wimping out not for a tactical retreat would be punished and if a trend fall. While using poisons and lying is out (unless lying is better for yor deity's wishes or the greater good, like liberating slaves that were being used illegally). Would a paladin of abadar fall if he bartered for an unfair deal, what if they performed an act that led to the wealth of an area being lowered severely or some other trade thing? And if it's an accident does it count?
intention should always be the final deciding factor in judging a characters alignment
did he intend to break code, or was it an accident
did he know what he was doing was wrong?
mens rea is always in effect
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
but any character who is an 'atheist' IC would be true neutral, which is what OOC true atheists are
WTF????
its quite simple, if nothing judges you or your actions (i.e. there is no god) then you have no reason to be convicted of a difference between right and wrong, and an insinuation of either is a philosophical insult to a true atheist in game or out of game
This is an insult to a true atheist!
To imagine that humans can't be good or evil without a supernatural judge is absurd, and the idea that morality comes from a god is just the propaganda of the religious!
One of the things that makes me glad to be without the dogma of any religion is that when we atheists choose to be 'good' we do it freely, not because we are afraid of being judged and sent to hell! What kind of morality is it where the only reason you are 'good' is because you 'know' you'll be caught and punished for eternity if you do something bad!
Atheists do not fear all that. They choose to be good purely to make the world a better place!
I've poured enough scorn on the religious in my time not to get too precious about being the victim for a change, but I've never believed that 'all' religious people are bad (or good). There are good people and bad people spread evenly around the religious and irreligious alike.
I've heard the claim that 'morality comes from god' before (and disagreed, obviously), but this is the first time I've heard the claim that we literally cannot be good or evil. It took my breath away!
I suppose I better say something on topic.
A paladin could use stealth without any problem in action against the enemy. While on a mission behind enemy lines to rescue the children from a well guarded castle, he may certainly sneak up behind a guard and slit his throat so that he can't make a sound and alert the castle.
But context is important. If the paladin is fighting an honourable duel, he cannot turn invisible unless it was previously agreed that both duelists were allowed to do so (unlikely).
atheists are extremely difficult to do in pathdinder anyway, sicne the deities themselves are real characters, and to say that none of them exist makes a character seem crazy to the masses
but any character who is an 'atheist' IC would be true neutral, which is what OOC true atheists are
its quite simple, if nothing judges you or your actions (i.e. there is no god) then you have no reason to be convicted of a difference between right and wrong, and an insinuation of either is a philosophical insult to a true atheist in game or out of game
tackling atheism in pathfinder is more difficult than out of game, simply because a lot of people have a very thin and vain understanding of what atheism is
its quite simple, if the alignment system surpases the deities judgment, then the deities have no purpose existing beyond a cleric choosing domains, and if a cleric can just pick domains anyway then the deities have no need to exist
I do not know whether Paizo didn't look in a dictionary, or expected us to, but their form of Atheism is closer to Misotheism, or "Hatred of God". It goes a bit like this: "Gods exist, but why bother with them? They cause just as much trouble as fiends"
Interestingly, I'm pretty sure that paladins not associated with a specific deity get their power from the general universal LGness, much like an alignment based atheist cleric. So you could easily end up with an 'atheist' paladin it seems. Well, not easy, but it seems possible. It actually seems more like political philosophy rather than religious doctrine if you imagine it as "Creatures of this realm can solve their own problems, and Outsiders should generally try to stay uninvolved." If it was another country, it would sound like a reliable government policy. Things are a bit more complicated, with beings of near infinite wisdom originally coming from the souls of dead creatures of our realm, but it might actually be for the best.
With invisibility in a duel, I think that you could possibly do it if it is some kind of spell duel. A multiclass paladin/sorcerer might be tempted into something like that. But otherwise, no, I do not think a PC could do that in a duel at all without being rather Chaotic. Hence, it is a duel rather than just a simple one on one combat.
|
A paladin can use stealth but can not kill from stealth, it is dishonorable. It is like using knockout poison a paladin can not use poison so they can not use knockout poison. Going invisible to attack someone is definitely not honorable. Another example is a paladin would not be able to use a dirty trick as it is dishonorable.
I think there is some confusion between the way a paladin would act, and other classes would act, say a cavalier. The paladin's main goal is to defeat evil, and as long has he is not using evil himself, I believe in using whatever tactics that are available. Paladins can use stealth, attack from a distance, or use magic to bring a swift end to their foes. Meanwhile, that type of behaviour would go against some codes of chivalry, as it would not be considered to be "honorable". That sort of code is not about defeating evil, but for the personal glorification of the cavalier. And paladins should not be in it to glorify themselves, but to glorify their god and protect the innocent.
EDIT: please don't flame against others, this is about being a paladin act like one while responding.
So heres the thing. In my game there is a mimi paladin of sarenrae, they argue that invisibility is a reasonable tactic in certain circumstances because of the herald of sarenrae (sunlord thalachos) will use invisibility if the foe is clearly stronger than him. Is this reasonable? Does this conflict with the paladin code it seems ridiculous that sarenrae will say
"Oh you fought like my herald, I want my powers back, go atone for your misdeeds against my religion and then you can have them back. I don't care that my herald can act deceitful in fights you can't."I restricted him to "you can use it if fighting honorably would endanger innocents or fighting deceptively would result in the redemption of someone evil. Never to be used against someone you can beat with relative ease."
+1 not to flame others. . . . really police officers? Mmmm no paladins in my neighborhood!
Anyways, I think it is situational. I don't think INVIS or any other spell is an issue, its how you use it. Obviously, no animating the dead, but using INVIS to be wise and smart is a non issue. Paladins by thier nature would never endanger an innocent. My good characters would never do so and they are not religious knights. Well, the clerics might be competitive. Bishop of Turpin, etc.
The kind of paladin might dictate some situational responses. For instance, calling out a dragon that was polymorphed as the King's best friend. Its how you do it . . .
Saranae is a loose diety, meaning her cult tends to have a lot of different branches and sects. They are also persecuted in the Eastern Lands. Have fun with it. Have little kids come up and say, are you a knight of Saranae? Do you eat little children?
Oh, and ask for extra hot peppers, this food is never hot enough . . .
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT: please don't flame against others, this is about being a paladin act like one while responding.
So heres the thing. In my game there is a mimi paladin of sarenrae, they argue that invisibility is a reasonable tactic in certain circumstances because of the herald of sarenrae (sunlord thalachos) will use invisibility if the foe is clearly stronger than him. Is this reasonable? Does this conflict with the paladin code it seems ridiculous that sarenrae will say
"Oh you fought like my herald, I want my powers back, go atone for your misdeeds against my religion and then you can have them back. I don't care that my herald can act deceitful in fights you can't."I restricted him to "you can use it if fighting honorably would endanger innocents or fighting deceptively would result in the redemption of someone evil. Never to be used against someone you can beat with relative ease."
There is nothing in Sarenrae's code that expressly forbids using invisibility in combat. The only thing that comes close to forbidding it might be the following:
The best battle is a 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 without mercy when it is not.
If it's a fair fight without the invisibility, don't use it. If it's not a fair fight without the invisibility, use it.
Also, alignment is a constant in Pathfinder. What is lawful and what is good does not depend upon how it is viewed by the deity, though specific deities may shine their blessings because of certain acts, and they might forbid other acts that might otherwise be consistent with their alignment. Each god is unique and individual; they will have acts that they favor and acts that they do not. This does not alter the nature of alignment as respective to each god, but it does demonstrate that each god is an unique character whose personality affects how they view their universe; the same as any player.
Best wishes!
but any character who is an 'atheist' IC would be true neutral, which is what OOC true atheists are... yadda yadda yaddaDon't even go there. Atheism has absolutely nothing to do with morals or ethics. It's simply the belief that is opposite of 'theism'. Theism is the belief that a divine creator exists and interacts with what he has created. Atheism is the disbelief of that; in whole or in part. An atheist could believe in a divine creator that doesn't interact or that there is no divine creator at all.
"You don't need religion to be a good person. If you're unable to be good to others, you lack empathy, not religion."
if the alignment system supersedes the deities, then why do the deities need to exist?
atheism has everything to do with morals and ethics
|
|
but any character who is an 'atheist' IC would be true neutral, which is what OOC true atheists are... yadda yadda yaddaDon't even go there. Atheism has absolutely nothing to do with morals or ethics. It's simply the belief that is opposite of 'theism'. Theism is the belief that a divine creator exists and interacts with what he has created. Atheism is the disbelief of that; in whole or in part. An atheist could believe in a divine creator that doesn't interact or that there is no divine creator at all.
"You don't need religion to be a good person. If you're unable to be good to others, you lack empathy, not religion."
if the alignment system supersedes the deities, then why do the deities need to exist?
atheism has everything to do with morals and ethics
I would love to know where you're getting this from. Alignment is presented nowhere near anything about the gods in the CRB.
I would love to know where you're getting this from. Alignment is presented nowhere near anything about the gods in the CRB.but any character who is an 'atheist' IC would be true neutral, which is what OOC true atheists are... yadda yadda yaddaDon't even go there. Atheism has absolutely nothing to do with morals or ethics. It's simply the belief that is opposite of 'theism'. Theism is the belief that a divine creator exists and interacts with what he has created. Atheism is the disbelief of that; in whole or in part. An atheist could believe in a divine creator that doesn't interact or that there is no divine creator at all.
"You don't need religion to be a good person. If you're unable to be good to others, you lack empathy, not religion."
if the alignment system supersedes the deities, then why do the deities need to exist?
atheism has everything to do with morals and ethics
nothing really determines alignment in the CRB
its a combination of philosophy and common senselaw, and morality are axes determined by a flawed system in pathfinder simply because whatever system exists passes judgment on all things, it supersedes the deities judgment, only if the players allow it to
my experience is that, games like pathfinder allow us t look philosophically at things like religion while being able to detach ourselves from real world religion
by doing that, it becomes clear that there is really one religion in pathfinder and other variants of D&D and that is a polytheistic one, and in such a religion, if anything surpasses the judgment and powers of the gods, then the gods arent really gods
the existence of a judgment system that determines your alignment separate from the deity you worship reeks of interjecting a one-god, omnipotent superdeity that mirrors perfectly the one god complex of contemporary monotheistic religions
if thats how you want to play, fine, but you cant ignore that you are taking away the very purpose that the polythestic religion of pathfinder has by doing so
i will restate, if the alignment system supersedes the role of the gods, then the gods have no purpose existing
look into the pantheon, if it is so important to you that you allow characters to be atheists you have to realize what kind of culture you are putting them into in the game world, and have to see what gods would see them, as the gods in pathfinder are real characters that do exist
if you put monotheists into the game, you have to understand the impact that they will have on the game world, would the insurgence of a new religion cause a war on the world that reshapes what people believe, and is that not exactly how monotheistic religions became popular in the real world anyway?
the OP asked specifically about an alignment associated with a specific deity, and the answer was that the deity would pass judgment
if you are willing to have a genuine discussion and not flame away, its quite an interesting and insightful one to have
|
|
nothing really determines alignment in the CRB
its a combination of philosophy and common senselaw, and morality are axes determined by a flawed system in pathfinder simply because whatever system exists passes judgment on all things, it supersedes the deities judgment, only if the players allow it to
my experience is that, games like pathfinder allow us t look philosophically at things like religion while being able to detach ourselves from real world religion
by doing that, it becomes clear that there is really one religion in pathfinder and other variants of D&D and that is a polytheistic one, and in such a religion, if anything surpasses the judgment and powers of the gods, then the gods arent really gods
the existence of a judgment system that determines your alignment separate from the deity you worship reeks of interjecting a one-god, omnipotent superdeity that mirrors perfectly the one god complex of contemporary monotheistic religions
if thats how you want to play, fine, but you cant ignore that you are taking away the very purpose that the polythestic religion of pathfinder has by doing so
i will restate, if the alignment system supersedes the role of the gods, then the gods have no purpose existing
look into the pantheon, if it is so important to you that you allow characters to be atheists you have to realize what kind of culture you are putting them into in the game world, and have to see what gods would see them, as the gods in pathfinder are real characters that do exist
if you put monotheists into the game, you have to understand the impact that they will have on the game world, would the insurgence of a new religion cause a war on the world that reshapes what people believe, and is that not exactly how monotheistic religions became popular in the real world anyway?
the OP asked specifically about an alignment associated with a specific deity, and the answer was that the deity would pass judgment
if you are willing to have a genuine discussion and not flame away, its quite an interesting and insightful one to have
Well, for starters, here is the CRB on alignment.
Second, I was actually not trying to flame. I was sincerely curious where you deriving your opinion from, and generously assumed that perhaps you drew it from rules I was unaware of.
Third, deities have their own alignments, so who passes judgement on them? Sarenrae is NG, and believes herself to be so. In contrast, Asmodeus is LE, but on the whole regards himself (or at least, has regarded himself) as closer to LN. So who judges their alignments?
in 3.5 there existed overdeities that oversaw all things alignment related, and had no impact on PCs at all
and again, the alignment systems of pathfinder is flawed in that the deities themselves have their own alignments
looking at anthropology and the origin of the popularity of monotheistic religions, it clearly comes from the same philosophical discussion we are having right now
if gods exist with different alignments, then what determines their alignments?
if set is evil and ra is good, what force judges that?
when people started contemplating a force that judged the gods' behavior they stopped seeing the gods as gods, and thus was born the belief in one god overseeing all, and he judged one thing, good an evil
after that, the existence of lower deities became moot
people believed that the gods of old genuinely didnt exist anymore because the new idea of one god existing made more logical sense to them
for the purpose of pathfinder, you must accept that the deities exist with their predetermined alignments with respect to each other, and the populous of the pathfinder setting collectively has the same religion that believes that all of these gods exist, as they do in the setting as actual characters
essentially, the deities alignments come from their peers, the other deities, its the best answer i can come up with
if they do not, then there must exist an overdeity or superdeity that judges all things, if you wanna call it God, so be it, but it derails the setting of pathfinder as written
im waiting for someone to say "Oh my GOD" just to be ironic
or good and evil is judged by culture and not deities. Just saying that is possible. Is cannabalism evil if its an honor and the person is already dead?
thats the very subject matter at hand here
what judges it?i completely agree with the sentiment you present that entire cultures may find something acceptable that others do not
compare cultures that allow polygamy to cultures that do not, and it is the exact same conundrum
the fact of the matter is, in pathfinder, the deities should be the ones passing out judgment, and if your deity is okay with you eating people and still saying you are a good person, then the DM shouldnt be able to say you are evil and adjust your alignment according to his personal beliefs
|
|
In 3.5 there existed overdeities that oversaw all things alignment related, and had no impact on PCs at all.
And again, the alignment systems of pathfinder is flawed in that the deities themselves have their own alignments.
Looking at anthropology and the origin of the popularity of monotheistic religions, it clearly comes from the same philosophical discussion we are having right now.
If gods exist with different alignments, then what determines their alignments?
If set is evil and ra is good, what force judges that?
When people started contemplating a force that judged the gods' behavior they stopped seeing the gods as gods, and thus was born the belief in one god overseeing all, and he judged one thing, good and evil
after that, the existence of lower deities became moot.
People believed that the gods of old genuinely didn't exist anymore because the new idea of one god existing made more logical sense to them.For the purpose of pathfinder, you must accept that the deities exist with their predetermined alignments with respect to each other, and the populous of the pathfinder setting collectively has the same religion that believes that all of these gods exist, as they do in the setting as actual characters.
Essentially, the deities alignments come from their peers, the other deities, its the best answer i can come up with.
If they do not, then there must exist an overdeity or superdeity that judges all things, if you wanna call it God, so be it, but it derails the setting of pathfinder as written.
Your logic is becoming circular. I'm no longer certain what point you're trying to make, but let me take one last stab at this.
Alignment in Pathfinder is not some metaphysical judgement system established by the gods, it's simply a way of expressing a character or being's morality and ethics. Lawful Evil people don't always go to Hell, and Chaotic Good people don't always go to Elysium. Alignment is a snapshot of someone's personality, even if that someone is a god.
And with that, I'm out. As a parting gift, I cleaned up your last post.
In 3.5 there existed overdeities that oversaw all things alignment related, and had no impact on PCs at all.
And again, the alignment systems of pathfinder is flawed in that the deities themselves have their own alignments.
Looking at anthropology and the origin of the popularity of monotheistic religions, it clearly comes from the same philosophical discussion we are having right now.
If gods exist with different alignments, then what determines their alignments?
If set is evil and ra is good, what force judges that?
When people started contemplating a force that judged the gods' behavior they stopped seeing the gods as gods, and thus was born the belief in one god overseeing all, and he judged one thing, good and evil
after that, the existence of lower deities became moot.
People believed that the gods of old genuinely didn't exist anymore because the new idea of one god existing made more logical sense to them.For the purpose of pathfinder, you must accept that the deities exist with their predetermined alignments with respect to each other, and the populous of the pathfinder setting collectively has the same religion that believes that all of these gods exist, as they do in the setting as actual characters.
Essentially, the deities alignments come from their peers, the other deities, its the best answer i can come up with.
If they do not, then there must exist an overdeity or superdeity that judges all things, if you wanna call it God, so be it, but it derails the setting of pathfinder as written.
Your logic is becoming circular. I'm no longer certain what point you're trying to make, but let me take one last stab at this.
Alignment in Pathfinder is not some metaphysical judgement system established by the gods, it's simply a way of expressing a character or being's morality and ethics. Lawful Evil people don't always go to Hell, and Chaotic Good people don't always go to Elysium. Alignment is a snapshot of someone's personality,...
you must understand that the discussion itself is circular, we are basically arguing whether or not god exists
and part of that is in what form truly does god exist, in pathfinder there are several entities that take the form of deities
the point is we have to look at the pathfinder pantheon and accept that it is the ultimate judgment system as long as we are playing it
ethics and morality are metaphysical properties and thus can only be judged by something metaphysical, feelings and beliefs are also metaphysical
the ultimate point is that you shouldnt undermine the religion of pathfinders setting and judge characters based on your own culture and beliefs because in game, their culture may not match yours, and their definition of right and wrong may also be different
examples include the possibility of a deity existing thats okay with devouring the corpses of your enemies, or a deity that is okay with one having multiple lovers
such concepts are questionable in modern cultures, especially the western influenced ones that most of the player base is from, and my ultimate goal in this discussion is that people look at the in game anthropology with an open mind to what they might believe as opposed to assuming that the in game culture matches what they themselves have been institutionalized into accepting as the truth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
master_marshmallow:
I believe your commentary belongs more in General Discussion or Rules Questions. You are not advising the original poster and your commentary is not helpful at this time; it is arguable that it is somewhat inflammatory. Should you wish to engage in this discussion, I would advise you to seek out your discourse there.
Best wishes!
master_marshmallow:
I believe your commentary belongs more in General Discussion or Rules Questions. You are not advising the original poster and your commentary is not helpful at this time; it is arguable that it is somewhat inflammatory. Should you wish to engage in this discussion, I would advise you to seek out your discourse there.
Best wishes!
the thesis of my posts has been consistent
"the deity should be the one that judges the character"when asked to elaborate i gave my reasoning for it, i shouldnt be pointed out for derailing the thread for explaining something that someone asked me to explain
rather than weigh in on athiests, ill try to stick to the origional thread. I believe that in a duel, there is a degree of merit about not using stealth, but a duel is not combat, per se, it is a formalized contest, that may or may not be leathal, but follows a strict set of rules. Real combat is nothing like that, and real combat against evil is going to be 95% of what most paladins deal with. In real combat a Paladin must strike out against evil using every tool available to him/her. The only guide lines here should be the alignment of the Paladin , and the code that the paladin's god, seeks to advance.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's be careful not to insult real-life atheists by claiming they cannot be moral people -- don't turn this into a debate about real-world religions; there's the off-topic forum for that. Thanks!
Thinking about it, a duel would probably be defined as an interplay between who participates in it. Assuming this is a not a public event, where pure fighters and wizards would rule simply because it sends toward simple displays of strength, then it would probably reflect the skills of the participants.
If two ninjas were to duel, then it would be natural for them use stealth and sneak attacks, even if was a lawful duel over 'honor,' because it would be a measure of all their strength as ninjas. Similarly, depending on the attitude of everyone involved, even a straight fighter might accept a sneaky opponent since that is the opponent's focus in combat. The funny thing about 'fair fights' in this game is that classes are balanced with each other, so rogues and ninjas have less direct combat strength since they are expected to fight sneakily since the system heavily supports it through their abilities, rogue talents, and sneak attack. So technically, it would only be 'fair' to let them do so. I mean, it all relies upon them overcoming your perception check, right? Everyone has at least the one skill point to invest into that.