| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Who said that? Paladins follow their god's tenets...and unless that god is LN, those tenets ARE good. If he's not following those tenets, he's in trouble with his god...and the LN god's tenets are not as good, but incredibly legalistic.What god has "kill unarmed prisoners" as a tenet? I can see Torag but I don't think any of the other's have.
Also, if the god's tenet is the only thing the paladin has to obey, why even write out "respects legitimate authority" in the CoC? Why not simply write "respects it's god"?
And what happens with paladins without gods? Because you know, paladins don't have to have gods. They may if they want to but it isn't a direct part of the class.
The reason "respect legitimate authority" is in there is for the lawful side of the alignment. You seem to be forgetting that there are two parts to this. There is lawful and good. A paladin will follow the laws of legitimate authorities, but he'll still follow his god's teachings while doing so. Paladins aren't perfect, they are fallible and they have to make decisions based on what the greater good is. They don't strictly adhere to all laws, especially if they go against what the paladin believes in.
An example is that a paladin may be forced to go to Cheliax where slavery is legal and out in the open, to the paladin this may be evil, but he has to respect the legitimate authority of their government and bite his tongue/sit on his hands. He can't fight the whole nation by himself to stop slavery no matter how much it burns. He will fight when and how he can to help innocents and to fight against evil, but he isn't stupid.
On the other hand if a paladin sees some innocent woman being beaten and shackled up by slavers, he will stop those slavers even if he is within Cheliax's borders. He knows that it's against their laws, but he'd feel obliged to rescue an innocent or else he'd violate this part of his code and allow an innocent to be harmed.
Now the way that the troll is putting it, he's playing a Paladin as the rule of law above all else. He's more along the lines of LN and he'd just ignore the slaves in both cases and abide by the rule of the land even if he finds it distasteful. You can play your paladin in that way if you want to, but that's toeing the line along the neutral side rather than the good side. See the difference?
Yeah, Marthkus's paladin is LN, and will eventually turn LE if exposed to a dilemma like the Baby-Eating Law.
|
He DOES have to respect legitimate authority. A paladin who kills for his god...because his god has indicated that someone must die...still has to answer to the legitimate law of the land. Yes, that paladin may go up for murder...but his powers WILL BE intact.
Who said that? Paladins follow their god's tenets...and unless that god is LN, those tenets ARE good. If he's not following those tenets, he's in trouble with his god...and the LN god's tenets are not as good, but incredibly legalistic.What god has "kill unarmed prisoners" as a tenet? I can see Torag but I don't think any of the other's have.
Also, if the god's tenet is the only thing the paladin has to obey, why even write out "respects legitimate authority" in the CoC? Why not simply write "respects it's god"?
And what happens with paladins without gods? Because you know, paladins don't have to have gods. They may if they want to but it isn't a direct part of the class.
Ah, I think I see your point of view. So if he kills someone who he isn't allowed to kill by the law of the land but that he thinks should die (like, extrajudically killing a murderer), he has to submit himself to the law of the land and accept the sentence?
That kind of paladin I can buy. I wouldn't use that interpretation for a paladin I'd play, but it doesn't seem bad, especially not compared to the interpretation of "he is the ultimate authority so he takes precedence over the laws of the land".
Ok...of course his authority does take precedence...it's just that he's still subject to man's laws...as long as they aren't evil. Want some good examples? I'm not a christian, but paladins were...in the real world...and if you look at some of the stories in the bible, there are great examples.
The heroes of that book followed god's law first and foremost...but were still subject to man's law...and didn't fight that, so long as the law was at all reasonable...by the standards of the day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed, but I wasn't the one who brought it up, note the quoted part from Kamelguru above. "higher standard than most REAL or fictional systems of government".
Now, it's hard to quantify fictional systems of government, but looking at the real world most countries have higher standards than appointing some people (or rather, having some people appoint themselves) to kill whoever they deem should be killed.
Paladins are automatically better than basically anybody in reality. Why? Because paladins are the only people who are, beyond a doubt, completely and utterly Good. The Real World has no such rules, and therefore cannot provide an authority figure who can out-good a paladin--just like it would struggle to provide a human who can out-evil a Blackguard. ;D
Being a Paladin has a "Only Lawful Good" restriction. Being on the Supreme Court has no such restriction.
Again, he brought RL up, not me.
And again, I think there's a severe issue if "paladins are always good" is used as an excuse for their actions - that way lies difining good as what a paladin does, and then a paladin can kick the puppy; since they are, beyound a doubt, completely and utterly good, then kicking the puppy must be good. And since kicking the puppy is good, they shouldn't fall for it!
You see where I'm going?
I think if someone is playing a paladin (or regardless, but especially in that case) the table should beforehand have a serious talk about alignment and what kind of alignment are tied to what kind of actions.
Establish that BEFORE, and then require the paladin to live up to it. If killing the defenseless is defined as evil or dishonorable, then the paladin should fall for doing that. If it's defined as neutral, it's fine. If it's defined as neutral under specific circumstances (it's evil unless the defenseless target is Always Evil or has the [evil] subtype or whathaveyou) then the paladin should play that way.
I think allowing the paladin to define what is good and not good, or what is just or lawful or whatever, is a Very Bad Idea (tm).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed, but I wasn't the one who brought it up, note the quoted part from Kamelguru above. "higher standard than most REAL or fictional systems of government".
Now, it's hard to quantify fictional systems of government, but looking at the real world most countries have higher standards than appointing some people (or rather, having some people appoint themselves) to kill whoever they deem should be killed.
Paladins are automatically better than basically anybody in reality. Why? Because paladins are the only people who are, beyond a doubt, completely and utterly Good. The Real World has no such rules, and therefore cannot provide an authority figure who can out-good a paladin--just like it would struggle to provide a human who can out-evil a Blackguard. ;D
Being a Paladin has a "Only Lawful Good" restriction. Being on the Supreme Court has no such restriction.
Again, he brought RL up, not me.
And again, I think there's a severe issue if "paladins are always good" is used as an excuse for their actions - that way lies difining good as what a paladin does, and then a paladin can kick the puppy; since they are, beyound a doubt, completely and utterly good, then kicking the puppy must be good. And since kicking the puppy is good, they shouldn't fall for it!
You see where I'm going?
I think if someone is playing a paladin (or regardless, but especially in that case) the table should beforehand have a serious talk about alignment and what kind of alignment are tied to what kind of actions.
Establish that BEFORE, and then require the paladin to live up to it. If killing the defenseless is defined as evil or dishonorable, then the paladin should fall for doing that. If it's defined as neutral, it's fine. If it's defined as neutral under specific circumstances (it's evil unless the defenseless target is Always Evil or has the [evil] subtype or whathaveyou) then the paladin...
A very bad idea indeed.
And again, I think there's a severe issue if "paladins are always good" is used as an excuse for their actions - that way lies difining good as what a paladin does, and then a paladin can kick the puppy; since they are, beyound a doubt, completely and utterly good, then kicking the puppy must be good. And since kicking the puppy is good, they shouldn't fall for it!You see where I'm going?
Yes, but as nobody is defining Good by the paladin, you're not going anywhere relevant. :P
I think if someone is playing a paladin (or regardless, but especially in that case) the table should beforehand have a serious talk about alignment and what kind of alignment are tied to what kind of actions.
Establish that BEFORE, and then require the paladin to live up to it. If killing the defenseless is defined as evil or dishonorable, then the paladin should fall for doing that. If it's defined as neutral, it's fine. If it's defined as neutral under specific circumstances (it's evil unless the defenseless target is Always Evil or has the [evil] subtype or whathaveyou) then the paladin...
We agree here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I say is that the ideals that a paladin MUST live up to has a higher standard than most real or fictional system of government.Uhhhhhmm... no. A paladin can do PLENTY of things that would get people jailed IRL, without any negative consequence. For example, at least in my country, ANY deliberate killing of a born human is against the law, except in extreme cases of self-defense (as in, if I point a gun to the head of a cop and he aims and shoots directly to kill me, that's illegal, but if he shoots me a few times in the legs and arms first and I still try to kill him then it might be legal).
How is a paladin that can kill almost anyone it wants, because whatever it says goes, living up to a higher authority?
First, real life does not translate to pathfinder. Real life laws vs Golarion laws have to deal with wildly different problems. Real life laws does not need to concern itself with demon summoners, undead, black magic and intellect devourers controlling politicians to manipulate the world for their evil ends. The real world laws deals with humans, and western law considers humans to be self-determined and responsible for their actions, and thus there is a whole lot more leeway when dealing with them.
And in response: Of course not. In a city, governed by a legitimate authority (non-evil), he is GIVEN the option to bring people in for trials, thus giving the legal system a chance to show its influence and gain further legitimacy.
A paladin does his best to further LG laws and LG ideals. He will go after a clearly evil baron that has people killed in the street for minor tax evasion, or the lord who enjoys trying out his brand new weapons on the children get in his way when he is out riding. There is no working from the inside with such evildoers, and the only way to rid the land of their poison is to remove it entirely, and replace them with better rulers.
My 2 cents on authority:
LG: Respect and follow, serve as example.
NG: Respect and follow, improve towards lawful when possible.
LN/N: Respect and follow when not in conflict, actively attempt to improve towards (lawful)good.
Lawful evil: Actively try to improve, overthrow if fruitless.
Neutral evil: Enemy; overthrow or oppose.
Chaotic Evil: Enemy; overthrow or oppose.
He DOES have to respect legitimate authority. A paladin who kills for his god...because his god has indicated that someone must die...still has to answer to the legitimate law of the land. Yes, that paladin may go up for murder...but his powers WILL BE intact.
Who said that? Paladins follow their god's tenets...and unless that god is LN, those tenets ARE good. If he's not following those tenets, he's in trouble with his god...and the LN god's tenets are not as good, but incredibly legalistic.What god has "kill unarmed prisoners" as a tenet? I can see Torag but I don't think any of the other's have.
Also, if the god's tenet is the only thing the paladin has to obey, why even write out "respects legitimate authority" in the CoC? Why not simply write "respects it's god"?
And what happens with paladins without gods? Because you know, paladins don't have to have gods. They may if they want to but it isn't a direct part of the class.
Ah, I think I see your point of view. So if he kills someone who he isn't allowed to kill by the law of the land but that he thinks should die (like, extrajudically killing a murderer), he has to submit himself to the law of the land and accept the sentence?
That kind of paladin I can buy. I wouldn't use that interpretation for a paladin I'd play, but it doesn't seem bad, especially not compared to the interpretation of "he is the ultimate authority so he takes precedence over the laws of the land".
I think the extra wrinkle gets in where many good nations may not prosecute a paladin for murder if he is still in full possession of his powers. There is an expectation that a paladin in possession of his divine powers is doing his gods work, and if his god okays his actions, who are the mortals to say otherwise? Not to say that the legitimate authority can't intervene, but when you have a person walking around imbued with powers of good and justice, kind of hard to prosecute without looking like a fool.
So I would extend it by saying that, while paladins are not innately above the law (unless the law is unjust), due to their status and reputation, they are generally accepted as being examples to follow. As such, the legitimate authorities might chose to defer to a paladin based upon their reputation. So I would say being above the law is not a class feature, but could end up being by-product of your reputation as a do-gooder and overall just conduct.
Sorry for your exaggerateing your stances earlier then - I misunderstood several statements that kind of implied the paladin could do basically whatever it wants. Now after your explanation I think we're pretty close in terms of how we view things.
However, wouldn't a paladin (in a society run by a legitimate authority) want to be subjected to the same laws as everyone else? Say she killed someone unlawfully, by the law of the land committing murder. And say people believed she did the right thing and just didn't persecute for it. If people neglected to persecute her, wouldn't she see that as corruption?
|
|
...and how do you do that? I need specifics here. How long do you waste?You attempt to redeem them at least once. Only followers of the Rough Beast get no chance to be redeemed.Counterpoint: Sarenrae, Goddess of Redemption. Her very existence in the Pathfinder setting demonstrates that "evil is evil by nature" is not 100% true.
I'm going to be playing a paladin of Sarenrae soon, here.
Let me give you a scenario. You're a paladin of Sarenrae. You've made the knowledge roll - these are morlocks. You understand their culture. Response?
None. If you regard attempts at redemption as a 'waste of time,' you don't get to be a paladin of Sarenrae; you're pre-fallen.
If your GM (who is, after all, the one playing Sarenrae) has decided that morlocks cannot be redeemed, he has an obligation to let you know so your paladin can act accordingly.
You fail. :p
You fail to understand what a morlock is. You fail to understand HOW to redeem. You fail to explain how that miracle can be produced.
It's funny.
A paladin would not kill someone who had not already committed crimes or done something foul. Some paladins might be bothered if, say, they killed an evil mayor and nobody cared. Others would be happy that the town prioritized Good over a flawed system. It depends on the player, the character, the GM and the world.
...and how do you do that? I need specifics here. How long do you waste?You attempt to redeem them at least once. Only followers of the Rough Beast get no chance to be redeemed.Counterpoint: Sarenrae, Goddess of Redemption. Her very existence in the Pathfinder setting demonstrates that "evil is evil by nature" is not 100% true.
I'm going to be playing a paladin of Sarenrae soon, here.
Let me give you a scenario. You're a paladin of Sarenrae. You've made the knowledge roll - these are morlocks. You understand their culture. Response?
None. If you regard attempts at redemption as a 'waste of time,' you don't get to be a paladin of Sarenrae; you're pre-fallen.
If your GM (who is, after all, the one playing Sarenrae) has decided that morlocks cannot be redeemed, he has an obligation to let you know so your paladin can act accordingly.
You can regard a particular attempt at redemption as a waste of time.
Not only can a GM determine a race categorically cannot be redeemed, but it can also be determined if an evil member of a not-always-evil race is irredeemably evil (some GMs are hardline "all members of a race are redeemable unless I definitively say the race isn't", I don't agree with that stance). In which case, the obligation is to kill the person.
In these fuzzy "not part of an always evil race but possibly irredeemably evil", either the GM should give a way for the paladin to know if they are right in thinking they are irredeemable, or they should allow the paladin to make a judgement call and accept that Sarenrae trusts the paladin's judgement (or else why would she make him a paladin?).
You fail. :pYou fail to understand what a morlock is. You fail to understand HOW to redeem. You fail to explain how that miracle can be produced.
It's funny.
Hey, now, this guy isn't Marthkus, he hasn't done anything to justify being so rude.
Calybos, morlocks are, by Golarion canon, about as bad as fiends. As infants, they must be prevented from killing each other, and they only get worse from there. I think even a paladin of Sarenrae would see the redemption effort as a futile formality. Gotta try, though.
That's what Sarenrae is about, really. Nobody is dumb enough to think they can redeem every monster, or even most monsters, but they have to try if they can.
|
|
Sorry for your exaggerateing your stances earlier then - I misunderstood several statements that kind of implied the paladin could do basically whatever it wants. Now after your explanation I think we're pretty close in terms of how we view things.
However, wouldn't a paladin (in a society run by a legitimate authority) want to be subjected to the same laws as everyone else? Say she killed someone unlawfully, by the law of the land committing murder. And say people believed she did the right thing and just didn't persecute for it. If people neglected to persecute her, wouldn't she see that as corruption?
Maybe...but maybe not. That's a tough one, and could make an interesting scenario. If it's clear that person had to die, and there was no good option for whatever the standard societal justice was, the paladin is likely not going to have a problem...but...if that's not so clear...it gets fun. :)
I LOVE the tortured hero...and that's a situation where the paladin stand at the window, speaking to the cleric as he looks out onto the city..."It's as if they think I'm a god. I wasn't meant to carry this burden...I don't decide what's right and what's wrong, I'm guided by HIS hand...but that's only partially true. He doesn't always speak to me directly, and I can make mistakes...my desires are right, but I'm human..."
|
|
If you regard attempts at redemption as a 'waste of time,' you don't get to be a paladin of Sarenrae; you're pre-fallen.
If your GM (who is, after all, the one playing Sarenrae) has decided that morlocks cannot be redeemed, he has an obligation to let you know so your paladin can act accordingly.
You fail. :p
You fail to understand what a morlock is. You fail to understand HOW to redeem. You fail to explain how that miracle can be produced.
It's funny.
Yes, it's funny that you don't understand how redemption works or what Sarenrae's about and yet you want to play a paladin who serves her. That will definitely go well.
The explanation of how to make a single attempt at redemption and then put them to the sword if it's hopeless if it fails has already been given... if you reject that as a 'waste of time,' you will never be able to play a paladin of Sarenrae, and the GM should penalize you accordingly. Consider a more militant god if you don't have time for redemption.
I asked a specific question, and either you avoided it, or...COULD NOT answer it. HOW do you redeem a morlock that has already pinged evil?
In my game, if a paladin of Sarenrae ignored a helpless morlock's plea for mercy, I would probably mark them for a Fall later if they don't show a whole lotta remorse. A fiend or undead, probably not. Not without reason. But morlocks are humanoid enough that, if it's feasible and won't endanger the innocent, y'gotta give their rehabilitation a shot.
So if the paladin had time and resources, I'd make sure he tried to help the morlocks. If not, though...well, a paladin has to prioritize, and morlocks are about as bad as it gets. If there's a risk that attempting their redemption will harm the innocent, and you have no proof they really want to be redeemed...
Sarenrae is about redemption, but she doesn't force her followers to be morons about it.
A paladin of Torag, on the other hand, would be bound by his god to ensure they could not harm the innocent. What that means is up to the GM.
Sorry for your exaggerateing your stances earlier then - I misunderstood several statements that kind of implied the paladin could do basically whatever it wants. Now after your explanation I think we're pretty close in terms of how we view things.
However, wouldn't a paladin (in a society run by a legitimate authority) want to be subjected to the same laws as everyone else? Say she killed someone unlawfully, by the law of the land committing murder. And say people believed she did the right thing and just didn't persecute for it. If people neglected to persecute her, wouldn't she see that as corruption?
Maybe...but maybe not. That's a tough one, and could make an interesting scenario. If it's clear that person had to die, and there was no good option for whatever the standard societal justice was, the paladin is likely not going to have a problem...but...if that's not so clear...it gets fun. :)
I LOVE the tortured hero...and that's a situation where the paladin stand at the window, speaking to the cleric as he looks out onto the city..."It's as if they think I'm a god. I wasn't meant to carry this burden...I don't decide what's right and what's wrong, I'm guided by HIS hand...but that's only partially true. He doesn't always speak to me directly, and I can make mistakes...my desires are right, but I'm human..."
Agreed. It is a great way to have an interesting tortured hero as EldonG suggests, or perhaps the power bestowed upon the paladin by the people makes him believe his is above them, and slowly leads to his corruption. Being placed above the law is probably something a paladin should be very wary of.
Sorry for your exaggerateing your stances earlier then - I misunderstood several statements that kind of implied the paladin could do basically whatever it wants. Now after your explanation I think we're pretty close in terms of how we view things.
However, wouldn't a paladin (in a society run by a legitimate authority) want to be subjected to the same laws as everyone else? Say she killed someone unlawfully, by the law of the land committing murder. And say people believed she did the right thing and just didn't persecute for it. If people neglected to persecute her, wouldn't she see that as corruption?
On a place with legitimate authority, this is relevant, yes. A paladin is burdened with being a spokesperson for the alignment and the ideals he or she embodies, and if the justice system is to be trusted, none should be above it. Because a justice system that sentences a PALADIN to death or similar is going to be sending out a very powerful message, and give the people a martyr.
A paladin should always strive to empower allies in justice, which includes legitimate authorities. Through such allies, more innocents can be protected, and more evildoers can be punished. All good. But corrupt authorities are not just bad for innocents and good for evildoers, it is a mockery of the ideals that the paladin is supposed to embody. In many ways, LE is the ultimate enemy of the paladin, as it corrupts and deludes the people, and destroy good far more effectively than CE can hope to.
|
|
You fail. :pYou fail to understand what a morlock is. You fail to understand HOW to redeem. You fail to explain how that miracle can be produced.
It's funny.
Hey, now, this guy isn't Marthkus, he hasn't done anything to justify being so rude.
Calybos, morlocks are, by Golarion canon, about as bad as fiends. As infants, they must be prevented from killing each other, and they only get worse from there. I think even a paladin of Sarenrae would see the redemption effort as a futile formality. Gotta try, though.
That's what Sarenrae is about, really. Nobody is dumb enough to think they can redeem every monster, or even most monsters, but they have to try if they can.
I apologize for coming off as rude...I'm laughing again, and just find it hilarious.
Your point is exactly where I'm coming from. They barely have the intelligence for me to even try...of course, if the concept can be even brought across (language), you try explaining, 'If you will but turn away from your ways, I will spare your life', but what's that going to mean? You know...bring it food (NOT their preferred, sentient being flesh!) and water...and try reasoning with it for a moment...but that will fail 99% of the time...and what next?
You do your duty, and give it a merciful death.
Yeah, Marthkus's paladin is LN, and will eventually turn LE if exposed to a dilemma like the Baby-Eating Law.
No.
A Paladin has to be good and lawful. If being good requires him to break the law, he can't kill all the guardsmen in the town "because the law is bad". He must turn himself over and await trial.
|
|
Page 9, two posts below your own question, Scaevola77 answered it.
I would say, you examine the morlock closely, ask them some questions, determine if you believe they seek redemption. If you are convinced that they do, you attempt to aid in their redemption. If you are not convinced that they seek redemption, you kill them swiftly and mercifully. Such is Sarenrae's creed. Any creature who truly seeks redemption should be given help in his quest. Any creature who remains unrepentant should be put to the sword. Now, within that you still have a lot of lee-way on how your paladin will decide if the creature is redeemable based on race, backstory, gullibility, and how far is "too far to be redeemed".
And I agreed back then. *shrug*
...so your point is?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, Marthkus's paladin is LN, and will eventually turn LE if exposed to a dilemma like the Baby-Eating Law.No.
Paladin has to be good and lawful. If being good requires him to break the law, he can't kill all the guardsmen in the town "because the law is bad". He must turn himself over and await trial.
Wrong again buddy, you are treading along the lines of LN and upholding the law of the land above all else even your own deity's commandments/codes/tenets. In my game, I'd sooner see your paladin fall for being lawful stupid than a dwarf stonelord paladin for "killing innocent" evil morlocks.
He is still choosing to break the law. Turning himself in does not mean the law is unbroken. :33
Wrong again buddy, you are treading along the lines of LN and upholding the law of the land above all else even your own deity's commandments/codes/tenets. In my game, I'd sooner see your paladin fall for being lawful stupid than a dwarf stonelord paladin for "killing innocent" evil morlocks.Yeah, Marthkus's paladin is LN, and will eventually turn LE if exposed to a dilemma like the Baby-Eating Law.No.
Paladin has to be good and lawful. If being good requires him to break the law, he can't kill all the guardsmen in the town "because the law is bad". He must turn himself over and await trial.
You can argue that a paladin does not have to submit to arrest from a non-legitimate governing body and can thus flee. He still can't slay all the LN guards in the town for doing their jobs. He falls.
He is still choosing to break the law. Turning himself in does not mean the law is unbroken. :33
No, but it does mean that he is respecting the law. That is all he is required to do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the whole redeeming the morlocks issue, while it doesn't mention morlocks specifically it got me thinking about this fantastic thread:
Monster orphanages and sanctuaries.
Though it might be an interesting read for those interested in playing faithful of saranrae, or good characters in general. There's some fantastic stuff in there.
So, by your rules, a paladin cannot enter an evil nation without having to turn himself in? Gotcha!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can argue that a paladin does not have to submit to arrest from a non-legitimate governing body and can thus flee. He still can't slay all the LN guards in the town for doing their jobs. He falls.Wrong again buddy, you are treading along the lines of LN and upholding the law of the land above all else even your own deity's commandments/codes/tenets. In my game, I'd sooner see your paladin fall for being lawful stupid than a dwarf stonelord paladin for "killing innocent" evil morlocks.Yeah, Marthkus's paladin is LN, and will eventually turn LE if exposed to a dilemma like the Baby-Eating Law.No.
Paladin has to be good and lawful. If being good requires him to break the law, he can't kill all the guardsmen in the town "because the law is bad". He must turn himself over and await trial.
Is anyone arguing that he should kill all the guards? Obviously, he needs to kill the psycho who MADE this law, or at least exorcise the fiend that clearly is possessing him if he is NOT a willing servant of darkness.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, Marthkus's paladin is LN, and will eventually turn LE if exposed to a dilemma like the Baby-Eating Law.No.
Paladin has to be good and lawful. If being good requires him to break the law, he can't kill all the guardsmen in the town "because the law is bad". He must turn himself over and await trial.
So how would your paladin attempt to change things. No doubt he (and his god) would want the city of baby-eaters to change their ways. Unfortunately, it is illegal for him to enter and attempt to enact any change, because he will immediately need to surrender and be jailed upon entry. Plus, he can't attempt to overthrown the baby-eating regime, as that is against the law. He can't even have agents enter the city and repeal the baby-eating law so he can come in and enact change, because he would be asking others to do evil for him.
You might say "that is an edge case" . . . but in Cheliax, worshipers of Iomedae are persecuted. No doubt there is some legislation regarding paladins of Iomedae not being allowed. So, immediately after entering Cheliax your paladin is required to turn himself in to the church of Asmodeus so he can be tortured to death? That really sucks . . .
In one of the Paizo adventure paths there is actually an example of a paladin (well, potential paladin) who is part of a rebel group (in Cheliax no less). Sclavo in Council of Thieves is intended to be a pre-paladin, and is a member of the rebel group that the lawful authorities are hunting. By your logic, he can never become a paladin, because he is breaking the law. Furthermore, Seelah, the iconic paladin, is one of the iconics for the adventure path. Paizo seems to have omitted the part where she either falls, or turns herself into the authorities for prosecution after she frees a prisoner and joins an illegal rebel operation.
Is anyone arguing that he should kill all the guards? Obviously, he needs to kill the psycho who MADE this law, or at least exorcise the fiend that clearly is possessing him if he is NOT a willing servant of darkness.You can argue that a paladin does not have to submit to arrest from a non-legitimate governing body and can thus flee. He still can't slay all the LN guards in the town for doing their jobs. He falls.Wrong again buddy, you are treading along the lines of LN and upholding the law of the land above all else even your own deity's commandments/codes/tenets. In my game, I'd sooner see your paladin fall for being lawful stupid than a dwarf stonelord paladin for "killing innocent" evil morlocks.Yeah, Marthkus's paladin is LN, and will eventually turn LE if exposed to a dilemma like the Baby-Eating Law.No.
Paladin has to be good and lawful. If being good requires him to break the law, he can't kill all the guardsmen in the town "because the law is bad". He must turn himself over and await trial.
After which, he must turn himself in and await judgement.
You would fall, but your mother paladin wouldn't :PHeck...I'd let a pally use poison. Those ants are a problem? I think the local alchemist has the right stuff... :pAre you KILLING defenseless and INNOCENT NON-EVIL creatures with POISON?! Immediate fall! You fall so hard your mother falls! Your fall is a fall that is heard around the world!
Sense Motive DC 5:** spoiler omitted **
No.
So, by your rules, a paladin cannot enter an evil nation without having to turn himself in? Gotcha!
If the evil nation bans paladins from entering, then he better enter only as an act of war against that nation from the authority of another nation.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
According to Marthkus, paladins are not allowed to combat evil regimes, no matter how nasty they get.
The King wants to destroy the world? Sorry, you'll have to send the CN ninja in to handle this one. The paladin's gotta stick to his principles!
You can argue that a paladin does not have to submit to arrest from a non-legitimate governing body and can thus flee. He still can't slay all the LN guards in the town for doing their jobs. He falls.Wrong again buddy, you are treading along the lines of LN and upholding the law of the land above all else even your own deity's commandments/codes/tenets. In my game, I'd sooner see your paladin fall for being lawful stupid than a dwarf stonelord paladin for "killing innocent" evil morlocks.Yeah, Marthkus's paladin is LN, and will eventually turn LE if exposed to a dilemma like the Baby-Eating Law.No.
Paladin has to be good and lawful. If being good requires him to break the law, he can't kill all the guardsmen in the town "because the law is bad". He must turn himself over and await trial.
It just boggles my mind that you just don't get it no matter how many of us show you valid examples and great well thought out arguments.
Not all paladins are the same and there is no one way to play them. I know I keep repeating it, but you seem to just straight up ignore it.
Open your eyes man, realize what you are saying is exactly what KC just said to you, the way you play that kind of LG paladin is actually more LN and seeing everything as so black and white in a world like Golarion so full of grey areas, it really puts you and your players at a distinct disadvantage.
If you were/are a GM I'd say with that kind of stance you are doing your players a disservice and if you play with that kind of attitude you are cheating yourself out of some fantastic role playing opportunities.
After which, he must turn himself in and await judgement.Is anyone arguing that he should kill all the guards? Obviously, he needs to kill the psycho who MADE this law, or at least exorcise the fiend that clearly is possessing him if he is NOT a willing servant of darkness.You can argue that a paladin does not have to submit to arrest from a non-legitimate governing body and can thus flee. He still can't slay all the LN guards in the town for doing their jobs. He falls.Wrong again buddy, you are treading along the lines of LN and upholding the law of the land above all else even your own deity's commandments/codes/tenets. In my game, I'd sooner see your paladin fall for being lawful stupid than a dwarf stonelord paladin for "killing innocent" evil morlocks.Yeah, Marthkus's paladin is LN, and will eventually turn LE if exposed to a dilemma like the Baby-Eating Law.No.
Paladin has to be good and lawful. If being good requires him to break the law, he can't kill all the guardsmen in the town "because the law is bad". He must turn himself over and await trial.
Don't you mean "After which, he must accept the lavishing of praise and love from the grateful citizens"?
So how would your paladin attempt to change things. No doubt he (and his god) would want the city of baby-eaters to change their ways. Unfortunately, it is illegal for him to enter and attempt to enact any change, because he will immediately need to surrender and be jailed upon entry. Plus, he can't attempt to overthrown the baby-eating regime, as that is against the law. He can't even have agents enter the city and repeal the baby-eating law so he can come in and enact change, because he would be asking others to do evil for him.
You might say "that is an edge case" . . . but in Cheliax, worshipers of Iomedae are persecuted. No doubt there is some legislation regarding paladins of Iomedae not being allowed. So, immediately after entering Cheliax your paladin is required to turn himself in to the church of Asmodeus so he can be tortured to death? That really sucks . . .
In one of the Paizo adventure paths there is actually an example of a paladin (well, potential paladin) who is part of a rebel group (in Cheliax no less). Sclavo in Council of Thieves is intended to be a pre-paladin, and is a member of the rebel group that the lawful authorities are hunting. By your logic, he can never become a paladin, because he is breaking the law. Furthermore, Seelah, the iconic paladin, is one of the iconics for the adventure path. Paizo seems to have omitted the part where she either falls, or turns herself into the authorities for prosecution after she frees a prisoner and joins an illegal rebel operation.
Scaevola wins the debate! I'm sure Marthkus will now apologize, realizing he was utterly wrong.
Haha, PSYCHE! I hope this debate never ends. Whoever says paladin falling threads need to be stopped is clearly nuts.
Don't you mean "After which, he must accept the lavishing of praise and love from the grateful citizens"?
If they praise him, they are breaking the law, and the paladin must immediately turn them all in to the proper authorities. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, Marthkus's paladin is LN, and will eventually turn LE if exposed to a dilemma like the Baby-Eating Law.No.
A Paladin has to be good and lawful. If being good requires him to break the law, he can't kill all the guardsmen in the town "because the law is bad". He must turn himself over and await trial.
No.
|
|
On the whole redeeming the morlocks issue, while it doesn't mention morlocks specifically it got me thinking about this fantastic thread:
Monster orphanages and sanctuaries.Though it might be an interesting read for those interested in playing faithful of saranrae, or good characters in general. There's some fantastic stuff in there.
I've seen that thread.
It rocks.
Hard. :)
Yeah, Marthkus's paladin is LN, and will eventually turn LE if exposed to a dilemma like the Baby-Eating Law.No.
Paladin has to be good and lawful. If being good requires him to break the law, he can't kill all the guardsmen in the town "because the law is bad". He must turn himself over and await trial.
So how would your paladin attempt to change things. No doubt he (and his god) would want the city of baby-eaters to change their ways. Unfortunately, it is illegal for him to enter and attempt to enact any change, because he will immediately need to surrender and be jailed upon entry. Plus, he can't attempt to overthrown the baby-eating regime, as that is against the law. He can't even have agents enter the city and repeal the baby-eating law so he can come in and enact change, because he would be asking others to do evil for him.
You might say "that is an edge case" . . . but in Cheliax, worshipers of Iomedae are persecuted. No doubt there is some legislation regarding paladins of Iomedae not being allowed. So, immediately after entering Cheliax your paladin is required to turn himself in to the church of Asmodeus so he can be tortured to death? That really sucks . . .
In one of the Paizo adventure paths there is actually an example of a paladin (well, potential paladin) who is part of a rebel group (in Cheliax no less). Sclavo in Council of Thieves is intended to be a pre-paladin, and is a member of the rebel group that the lawful authorities are hunting. By your logic, he can never become a paladin, because he is breaking the law. Furthermore, Seelah, the iconic paladin, is one of the iconics for the adventure path. Paizo seems to have omitted the part where she either falls, or turns herself into the authorities for prosecution after she frees a prisoner and joins an illegal rebel operation.
If paizo wants to write a story where that is somehow OK, then the government they are rebelling against must be some much worse than complete chaos to not even be considered a legitimate authority.
For a Paladin to support a rebellion, the government has to be worse than anarchy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So how would your paladin attempt to change things. No doubt he (and his god) would want the city of baby-eaters to change their ways. Unfortunately, it is illegal for him to enter and attempt to enact any change, because he will immediately need to surrender and be jailed upon entry. Plus, he can't attempt to overthrown the baby-eating regime, as that is against the law. He can't even have agents enter the city and repeal the baby-eating law so he can come in and enact change, because he would be asking others to do evil for him.
You might say "that is an edge case" . . . but in Cheliax, worshipers of Iomedae are persecuted. No doubt there is some legislation regarding paladins of Iomedae not being allowed. So, immediately after entering Cheliax your paladin is required to turn himself in to the church of Asmodeus so he can be tortured to death? That really sucks . . .
In one of the Paizo adventure paths there is actually an example of a paladin (well, potential paladin) who is part of a rebel group (in Cheliax no less). Sclavo in Council of Thieves is intended to be a pre-paladin, and is a member of the rebel group that the lawful authorities are hunting. By your logic, he can never become a paladin, because he is breaking the law. Furthermore, Seelah, the iconic paladin, is one of the iconics for the adventure path. Paizo seems to have omitted the part where she either falls, or turns herself into the authorities for prosecution after she frees a prisoner and joins an illegal rebel operation.
Scaevola wins the debate! I'm sure Marthkus will now apologize, realizing he was utterly wrong.
Haha, PSYCHE! I hope this debate never ends. Whoever says paladin falling threads need to be stopped is clearly nuts.
My point wasn't that strong. Like the omission of sneak attacks and coup de grace's being dishonorable, the fact that the adventure path does not instruct to GM to force paladins to turn themselves in and be tortured to death is probably an example of lazy writing.
Yup. Cheliax is basically an anarchy.
100%.
Eeeeeyup.
|
|
So how would your paladin attempt to change things. No doubt he (and his god) would want the city of baby-eaters to change their ways. Unfortunately, it is illegal for him to enter and attempt to enact any change, because he will immediately need to surrender and be jailed upon entry. Plus, he can't attempt to overthrown the baby-eating regime, as that is against the law. He can't even have agents enter the city and repeal the baby-eating law so he can come in and enact change, because he would be asking others to do evil for him.
You might say "that is an edge case" . . . but in Cheliax, worshipers of Iomedae are persecuted. No doubt there is some legislation regarding paladins of Iomedae not being allowed. So, immediately after entering Cheliax your paladin is required to turn himself in to the church of Asmodeus so he can be tortured to death? That really sucks . . .
In one of the Paizo adventure paths there is actually an example of a paladin (well, potential paladin) who is part of a rebel group (in Cheliax no less). Sclavo in Council of Thieves is intended to be a pre-paladin, and is a member of the rebel group that the lawful authorities are hunting. By your logic, he can never become a paladin, because he is breaking the law. Furthermore, Seelah, the iconic paladin, is one of the iconics for the adventure path. Paizo seems to have omitted the part where she either falls, or turns herself into the authorities for prosecution after she frees a prisoner and joins an illegal rebel operation.
Scaevola wins the debate! I'm sure Marthkus will now apologize, realizing he was utterly wrong.
Haha, PSYCHE! I hope this debate never ends. Whoever says paladin falling threads need to be stopped is clearly nuts.
They make for such wonderful comedy! :D
If paizo wants to write a story where that is somehow OK, then the government they are rebelling against must be some much worse than complete chaos to not even be considered a legitimate authority.For a Paladin to support a rebellion, the government has to be worse than anarchy.
Or, in the case of Cheliax, and evil oligarchy? Mired in excessive bureaucracy? Hooray anarchic bureaucratic oligarchies?
|
|
According to Marthkus, paladins are not allowed to combat evil regimes, no matter how nasty they get.
The King wants to destroy the world? Sorry, you'll have to send the CN ninja in to handle this one. The paladin's gotta stick to his principles!
This is probably the only reason why the Paladin has not yet killed the CN ninja in the OP's party ;-)
Heh. I can see it now. The GM introduces the paladin into the CoT game and immediately has the guy Fall. Just on the spot, no reason.
|
|
This is probably the only reason why the Paladin has not yet killed the CN ninja in the OP's party ;-)According to Marthkus, paladins are not allowed to combat evil regimes, no matter how nasty they get.
The King wants to destroy the world? Sorry, you'll have to send the CN ninja in to handle this one. The paladin's gotta stick to his principles!
LOL...could be. :p