You have heard of executive orders? They are law till congress disagrees and votes to block them.Weirdly the President can't order civilians around like he is their God-King. Lex would need a court order before Superman would need to follow that order to respect authority. At which point a paladin would have to figure out whether or not that government was a legitimate authority. Superman is not a paladin though and does not risk losing his powers over such a matter.On a slightly more serious note... When Luthor was President of the United States, he gave MANY orders that Superman simply would not do. He trusted the legal system to take of itself, but he refused to be manipulated by it.
When the law was evil, He broke a lot more laws. And he did so without any angsty guilt over a code. He does HAVE a code... but opposing evil authority is NOT a violation of it.
Do cite all the court cases where people were sentenced to prison for disobeying an executive order.
Regardless Superman is not a Paladin. Paladins do have to respect the words of a "legitimate authority" king. Superman will not lose his powers if he breaks the paladin's code. Especially considering that the paladin's code is not Superman's. For example Paladins can kill. Superman does not. Paladins respect legitimate authority. Superman respects democracies when they coincide with his personal code.
No.
Weirdly the President can't order civilians around like he is their God-King. Lex would need a court order before Superman would need to follow that order to respect authority. At which point a paladin would have to figure out whether or not that government was a legitimate authority. Superman is not a paladin though and does not risk losing his powers over such a matter.I'm very disappointed in myself. I tried to find a clip from Hitchhiker's guide dealing with the overbearing inane bureacrats and the endless forms (in triplicate)... but my search-fu is weak today.
However, The president has a MASSIVE amount of power that does not need to go through the system. Lex may have tried to use more than his due... but as President he was a serious threat.
Also, Vigilantism has always been against the law in DC... most cops are happy for the help and look away, but everytime the government gets involved there is chest thumping an finger pointing.
Superman did not NEED to wrap that lightpole around the bad guy who was knocked out... He did not NEED to interfere with due process... and some comics like to point out that superman (and other heroes) can't really testify in court against criminals because their identity isn't public record.
He breaks laws all the time... he just does it because its the right thing to do.
Ironically, Clark Kent did not renounce his citizenship... Which technically means 'superman' and 'Kal-el' were never actually citizens with paperwork anyway...
Actually very recently Superman renounced his US citizenship in the comic books. A very paladin move. If you no longer approve of what a country is doing, you don't claim to be a part of it.
Ok you got me. Superman is not a paladin. He's close, but still not a paladin.
Superman would not respect Lex's orders if he felt they undermined democracy. Because Superman has shown no loyalty to any other kind of government.
No.You have heard of executive orders? They are law till congress disagrees and votes to block them.Weirdly the President can't order civilians around like he is their God-King. Lex would need a court order before Superman would need to follow that order to respect authority. At which point a paladin would have to figure out whether or not that government was a legitimate authority. Superman is not a paladin though and does not risk losing his powers over such a matter.On a slightly more serious note... When Luthor was President of the United States, he gave MANY orders that Superman simply would not do. He trusted the legal system to take of itself, but he refused to be manipulated by it.
When the law was evil, He broke a lot more laws. And he did so without any angsty guilt over a code. He does HAVE a code... but opposing evil authority is NOT a violation of it.
Do cite all the court cases where people were sentenced to prison for disobeying an executive order.
Regardless Superman is not a Paladin. Paladins do have to respect the words of a "legitimate authority" king. Superman will not lose his powers if he breaks the paladin's code. Especially considering that the paladin's code is not Superman's. For example Paladins can kill. Superman does not. Paladins respect legitimate authority. Superman respects democracies when they coincide with his personal code.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umDr0mPuyQc
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
From 21:07 for about a minute is where I got the inspiration for this thread's antics. Also the bits comparing this to DC characters makes it even more appropriate.
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.
That is a great thread!
|
Use it. If it offends your character so, then learn a little in game about Torag to help you "understand" his motives (maybe a couple ranks in knowledge religion). Then being CN use it to your benefit, as befits a CN, sneaky ninja. As a CN you could now accept the paladins actions as legitimizing yours - a license to assassinate that helpless guard or bystander to ensure success, threaten a prisoner for info etc., steal and thieve. You act according to your whim, to your mind I'm sure the paladin has simply acted in a similar manner, even though he is bound by a strange code that limits and restricts the freedom of his actions.
If it offends you say so and let the game continue, he's playing his character. Sometimes your actions at the table will offend others - in the end this just needs some communication and move on. In fact if your playing a character in role then I'm certain offence will result at least once especially with extremes.
Seriously guys
Ooh! Ooh! I love that song! :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok you got me. Superman is not a paladin. He's close, but still not a paladin.
Then I would highly recommend tempering you expectations. Pathfinder is RIFE with Classes and archtypes specifically tailored to match a players desire to play his favorite literary, comic, media character.
Paladins have a code of conduct. Some people believe it is a strict Code of Conduct... You claim that neither Captain America nor Superman are 'Good Enough' to have been Paladins.
And in all of literature and media, superman is the closest you can think of...
Therefore I suggest you're reading the code WAY to strict...
Ok you got me. Superman is not a paladin. He's close, but still not a paladin.
Then I would highly recommend tempering you expectations. Pathfinder is RIFE with Classes and archtypes specifically tailored to match a players desire to play his favorite literary, comic, media character.
Paladins have a code of conduct. Some people believe it is a strict Code of Conduct... You claim that neither Captain America nor Superman are 'Good Enough' to have been Paladins.
And in all of literature and media, superman is the closest you can think of...
Therefore I suggest you're reading the code WAY to strict...
Or maybe paladins have a lot more restrictions than people give them credit for? They are exemplars of Law and Good matched only by Archons in conduct.
Maybe paladins are not "I am the LAW!" Psychopaths bent on the destruction of all evil regardless of the cost. Just maybe paladins are not WarHammer 40K inquisitors bent on purging the non-believers. MAYBE if you want to play the "above the law" character, there are vastly more appropriate options than a paladin.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins are striving to be like Archons (maybe), but Archons are made from the essence of law and good. Paladins are still mere mortals striving for an ideal.
Edit: I redact my statement and submit you are right. Paladins are exactly like Archons.
And Hound Archons say this:
Disciplined soldiers and vigilant sentinels, hound archons are valiant defenders of all that is good and holy. They value movement and swift yet thoughtful action, and delight in crushing evil; therefore, the best sacrifices when summoning a hound archon are magical shields imbued with holy power, ensorcelled rings or boots that grant swift or unfettered movement, or weaponry of great power.
Not only are paladins like archons, apparently the very nature of archons is delight at CRUSHING evil. Killing evil makes Archons incredible happy, and they are the essence of good and law. If something is so lawful and good it has those subtypes, and is made from the essence, the ideal of these things, and they are by nature delighted by killing evil. I think its fair game for the paladin too.
Paladins are striving to be like Archons (maybe), but Archons are made from the essence of law and good. Paladins are still mere mortals striving for an ideal.
Edit: I redact my statement and submit you are right. Paladins are exactly like Archons.
And Hound Archons say this:
Disciplined soldiers and vigilant sentinels, hound archons are valiant defenders of all that is good and holy. They value movement and swift yet thoughtful action, and delight in crushing evil; therefore, the best sacrifices when summoning a hound archon are magical shields imbued with holy power, ensorcelled rings or boots that grant swift or unfettered movement, or weaponry of great power.Not only are paladins like archons, apparently the very nature of archons is delight at CRUSHING evil. Killing evil makes Archons incredible happy, and they are the essence of good and law. If something is so lawful and good it has those subtypes, and is made from the essence, the ideal of these things, and they are by nature delighted by killing evil. I think its fair game for the paladin too.
Yes but killing helpless prisoners is not allowed. You can like killing goblin babies all you want, that doesn't mean that it is ok and allowed by the paladins code.
Archons love crushing evil, the right way. They rarely support rebellions and have been known to fight Azatas to maintain order.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins are striving to be like Archons (maybe), but Archons are made from the essence of law and good. Paladins are still mere mortals striving for an ideal.
Edit: I redact my statement and submit you are right. Paladins are exactly like Archons.
And Hound Archons say this:
Disciplined soldiers and vigilant sentinels, hound archons are valiant defenders of all that is good and holy. They value movement and swift yet thoughtful action, and delight in crushing evil; therefore, the best sacrifices when summoning a hound archon are magical shields imbued with holy power, ensorcelled rings or boots that grant swift or unfettered movement, or weaponry of great power.Not only are paladins like archons, apparently the very nature of archons is delight at CRUSHING evil. Killing evil makes Archons incredible happy, and they are the essence of good and law. If something is so lawful and good it has those subtypes, and is made from the essence, the ideal of these things, and they are by nature delighted by killing evil. I think its fair game for the paladin too.Yes but killing helpless prisoners is not allowed. You can like killing goblin babies all you want, that doesn't mean that it is ok and allowed by the paladins code.
Archons love crushing evil, the right way. They rarely support rebellions and have been known to fight Azatas to maintain order.
...except that it's right there, in print...by Paizo. Sorry, you lose. Bigtime. Enjoy your consolation prize, and have a great day. :p
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
[Maybe paladins are not "I am the LAW!" Psychopaths bent on the destruction of all evil regardless of the cost. Just maybe paladins are not WarHammer 40K inquisitors bent on purging the non-believers. MAYBE if you want to play the "above the law" character, there are vastly more appropriate options than a paladin.
Ummmm.. I'm curious where you got 'are exemplars of Law and Good matched only by Archons in conduct.' They are still mortal after all... not outsiders formed of the stuff of 'goodness and law'...
In fact according ot the wiki. 'Archons often disguise themselves as goodly knights, of the sort legends are written about, in order to inspire those around them.'
I'm not sure Paladins are big on the 'disguising/misleading/lying' without falling.
....
My examples have been Superman and Captain America. The shining beacons of heroic ideals that all other heroes in their respective univerese respect and hope to emulate....
Cap once disbanded the avengers because some wanted to kill in a war...
Yet you seem to want to lump them in with Judge Dredd???
The key to remember is Paladins are a PLAYER class. Which means they are meant to be PLAYABLE. Your version does not sound like it is. Have you ever seen a paladin played to your high standards?
Honestly, I'd love to see a youtube video or something on that... I think either A) The game would completely derail from the paladin being incapable of doing... Anything. B) it being very... very boring... If not for the Paladin... then probably for the OTHER players. Even if they were ALSO LG, then they still couldn't do anything...
Paladins should be restricted... and difficult... but still very much playable.
|
|
[Maybe paladins are not "I am the LAW!" Psychopaths bent on the destruction of all evil regardless of the cost. Just maybe paladins are not WarHammer 40K inquisitors bent on purging the non-believers. MAYBE if you want to play the "above the law" character, there are vastly more appropriate options than a paladin.Ummmm.. I'm curious where you got 'are exemplars of Law and Good matched only by Archons in conduct.' They are still mortal after all... not outsiders formed of the stuff of 'goodness and law'...
In fact according ot the wiki. 'Archons often disguise themselves as goodly knights, of the sort legends are written about, in order to inspire those around them.'
I'm not sure Paladins are big on the 'disguising/misleading/lying' without falling.
....
My examples have been Superman and Captain America. The shining beacons of heroic ideals that all other heroes in their respective univerese respect and hope to emulate....
Cap once disbanded the avengers because some wanted to kill in a war...
Yet you seem to want to lump them in with Judge Dredd???
The key to remember is Paladins are a PLAYER class. Which means they are meant to be PLAYABLE. Your version does not sound like it is. Have you ever seen a paladin played to your high standards?
Honestly, I'd love to see a youtube video or something on that... I think either A) The game would completely derail from the paladin being incapable of doing... Anything. B) it being very... very boring... If not for the Paladin... then probably for the OTHER players. Even if they were ALSO LG, then they still couldn't do anything...
Paladins should be restricted... and difficult... but still very much playable.
I would argue that his standards aren't really high...they're sideways.
Thanks to how twisted they are, I'd say they can be both.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With a happy beat, maybe a drum and
Let's hear a tale of pious [name] a paladin brave and pure
He will be sure to tell you that out for all to hear
His honor stood against amubshes so he would shout out loud
Bringing down upon his friends a very angry crowd
Three cheers for [name] a man who's true and quick
He's never-yealding against the weak and sick
A man of honor never backs down from any kind of fight
But even honor knows the weak sometimes won't act right
Three cheers for [name] a man who knows what's true
He'll send his minions right in first cuz that's just what you do
And so on, just adjust the words for actions and keep alternating between the verse and Three cheers chorus. Pay a bard to write it and a couple to preform it in another part of the land, wait a few months and see if it memes over to where you are.
[Maybe paladins are not "I am the LAW!" Psychopaths bent on the destruction of all evil regardless of the cost. Just maybe paladins are not WarHammer 40K inquisitors bent on purging the non-believers. MAYBE if you want to play the "above the law" character, there are vastly more appropriate options than a paladin.Ummmm.. I'm curious where you got 'are exemplars of Law and Good matched only by Archons in conduct.' They are still mortal after all... not outsiders formed of the stuff of 'goodness and law'...
In fact according ot the wiki. 'Archons often disguise themselves as goodly knights, of the sort legends are written about, in order to inspire those around them.'
I'm not sure Paladins are big on the 'disguising/misleading/lying' without falling.
....
My examples have been Superman and Captain America. The shining beacons of heroic ideals that all other heroes in their respective univerese respect and hope to emulate....
Cap once disbanded the avengers because some wanted to kill in a war...
Yet you seem to want to lump them in with Judge Dredd???
The key to remember is Paladins are a PLAYER class. Which means they are meant to be PLAYABLE. Your version does not sound like it is. Have you ever seen a paladin played to your high standards?
Honestly, I'd love to see a youtube video or something on that... I think either A) The game would completely derail from the paladin being incapable of doing... Anything. B) it being very... very boring... If not for the Paladin... then probably for the OTHER players. Even if they were ALSO LG, then they still couldn't do anything...
Paladins should be restricted... and difficult... but still very much playable.
So back to the topic. Can a non-court appointed paladin kill helpless prisoners and still be within their paladin code?
Or better yet. Can Superman break into a foreign prison and kill the inmates? Could any hero? Could anyone who calls themselves LG do such an act of senseless butchery?
OP's paladin is Judge Dredd. We have 15 or so pages of people saying that is OK. Tell me that there is nothing wrong with that.
His honor stood against amubshes so he would shout out loudBringing down upon his friends a very angry crowd
Three cheers for [name] a man who's true and quick
He's never-yealding against the weak and sick
I think we have another one of those "you're both wrong" people in the thread. That's the closest I'm getting to someone agreeing with me. Woo!
Thanks to how twisted they are, I'd say they can be both.
Thank you.
I like how, no matter what, Marthkus just refuses to acknowledge that morlocks are not a monstrous race, but a monster. XD
I think we have another one of those "you're both wrong" people in the thread. That's the closest I'm getting to someone agreeing with me. Woo!
Uh, I know this can be hard to believe, Marthkus, but this argument you're waging? It's not the topic of this thread. The guy ain't talking about your claim that paladins gotta be robots, he's talking about the OP. XD
I like how, no matter what, Marthkus just refuses to acknowledge that morlocks are not a monstrous race, but a monster. XD
He does seem to come from the "I've already made up my mind, so stop trying to confuse me with facts!" school of debating.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So wait . . . if I am a paladin I may be required to eat goblin babies, but have it be breaking my code.
I need someone else who is appointed by a governing body to tell me it's ok for me to kill someone, unless they were conscious up to the last time I hit them. In no way, shape or form am I qualified to judge them, divine powers stemming from the forces of Good and Law notwithstanding. Even if I have an ability specifically built to be more just and fair than any other mortal person or governing body because I chose to specialize in making sure justice is carried out, I should not use that ability unless someone else gives me the ok first. In fact, having that ability makes my job more dangerous, because I might think it will actually protect me from making mistakes. Not only that, but I can't intentionally strike at a weak spot, as it is dishonorable to attack someone where they are weak.
If I don't want to overthrow the entire government of a nation, I am not allowed to quibble about any of their laws. It is all or nothing, either the government must go completely, or I must comply with every law they have. For me to want to overthrow the government of an entire nation, it must first be in complete anarchy. Even if it means I need to volunteer to get tortured to death by devils due to the laws. It is better that I submit to death by torture than break a law of a government that is in a state of less than complete anarchy.
Killing myself by repeatedly attempting to hug a ghoul is far preferable than killing it to make sure the farmers nearby that it has been attacking remain safe. The safety of innocents is far less important than my honor, and it would be very dishonorable to do anything but hug a bloodthirsty killing machine.
I am so confused right now. I thought I knew how to play a paladin. It seems I was very wrong.
|
|
So wait . . . if I am a paladin I may be required to eat goblin babies, but have it be breaking my code.
I need someone else who is appointed by a governing body to tell me it's ok for me to kill someone, unless they were conscious up to the last time I hit them. In no way, shape or form am I qualified to judge them, divine powers stemming from the forces of Good and Law notwithstanding. Even if I have an ability specifically built to be more just and fair than any other mortal person or governing body because I chose to specialize in making sure justice is carried out, I should not use that ability unless someone else gives me the ok first. In fact, having that ability makes my job more dangerous, because I might think it will actually protect me from making mistakes. Not only that, but I can't intentionally strike at a weak spot, as it is dishonorable to attack someone where they are weak.
If I don't want to overthrow the entire government of a nation, I am not allowed to quibble about any of their laws. It is all or nothing, either the government must go completely, or I must comply with every law they have. For me to want to overthrow the government of an entire nation, it must first be in complete anarchy. Even if it means I need to volunteer to get tortured to death by devils due to the laws. It is better that I submit to death by torture than break a law of a government that is in a state of less than complete anarchy.
Killing myself by repeatedly attempting to hug a ghoul is far preferable than killing it to make sure the farmers nearby that it has been attacking remain safe. The safety of innocents is far less important than my honor, and it would be very dishonorable to do anything but hug a bloodthirsty killing machine.
I am so confused right now. I thought I knew how to play a paladin. It seems I was very wrong.
lol!
I like how, no matter what, Marthkus just refuses to acknowledge that morlocks are not a monstrous race, but a monster. XDHe does seem to come from the "I've already made up my mind, so stop trying to confuse me with facts!" school of debating.
Yes because this thread is rampant with facts.
So wait . . . if I am a paladin I may be required to eat goblin babies, but have it be breaking my code.
I need someone else who is appointed by a governing body to tell me it's ok for me to kill someone, unless they were conscious up to the last time I hit them. In no way, shape or form am I qualified to judge them, divine powers stemming from the forces of Good and Law notwithstanding. Even if I have an ability specifically built to be more just and fair than any other mortal person or governing body because I chose to specialize in making sure justice is carried out, I should not use that ability unless someone else gives me the ok first. In fact, having that ability makes my job more dangerous, because I might think it will actually protect me from making mistakes. Not only that, but I can't intentionally strike at a weak spot, as it is dishonorable to attack someone where they are weak.
If I don't want to overthrow the entire government of a nation, I am not allowed to quibble about any of their laws. It is all or nothing, either the government must go completely, or I must comply with every law they have. For me to want to overthrow the government of an entire nation, it must first be in complete anarchy. Even if it means I need to volunteer to get tortured to death by devils due to the laws. It is better that I submit to death by torture than break a law of a government that is in a state of less than complete anarchy.
Killing myself by repeatedly attempting to hug a ghoul is far preferable than killing it to make sure the farmers nearby that it has been attacking remain safe. The safety of innocents is far less important than my honor, and it would be very dishonorable to do anything but hug a bloodthirsty killing machine.
I am so confused right now. I thought I knew how to play a paladin. It seems I was very wrong.
Well you're getting closer now. Petty Alchemist brought up a point that changes most of that.
Also I love the example of a ghoul hugging a post pleading for its un-life. Because that happens...
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
OP's paladin is Judge Dredd. We have 15 or so pages of people saying that is OK. Tell me that there is nothing wrong with that.
Normally, yes, it could be an issue. In the situation the party was in - there is nothing wrong with what he did.
I've kept up with this thread and I'm familiar with the part of the adventure path they are in. To fill in the picture a little better (keeping it general to avoid spoilers):
1. The party is deep in the underdark and far from any legitimate lawful authority.
2. They are trying to rescue someone important who has been kidnapped by a very evil group. The longer the rescue takes, the worse it could be for the victim.
3. The very evil group is holed up somewhere in a large underdark cavern, complete with ancient ruined city.
4. The cavern is currently being contested by several evil factions (including the drow and the morlocks) in what has become all out war.
5. The only way to reach the very evil group with the kidnap victim is to go search through a warzone where everyone considers the party enemy combatants.
6. The can get information and aid from one faction or another, but run the risk of being backstabbed by the group they work with as soon as their usefulness wanes. Or their "allies" get bored. Some are rather chaotic evil.
Hope that helps. Please continue.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So back to the topic. Can a non-court appointed paladin kill helpless prisoners and still be within their paladin code?
Or better yet. Can Superman break into a foreign prison and kill the inmates? Could any hero? Could anyone who calls themselves LG do such an act of senseless butchery?
OP's paladin is Judge Dredd. We have 15 or so pages of people saying that is OK. Tell me that there is nothing wrong with that.
Fallacies:
1: You assume the paladin has no right to judge evil without appointment of a court, even in the savage wilds where no bureaucratic body holds any power.2: You assume that all things are equal, and should be held to the same standard. Basically, you demand that Satan and Saint Theresa are the same.
3: You give excessive weight to YOUR interpretation of a vaguely worded part of the code, while ignoring a clearly written one completely. Nowhere does it say he needs to spare evil prisoners, but it does say he needs to punish evil.
4: You assume superman, which was created to be a pro-American propaganda tool, is an appropriate representation of a paladin, and again suppose the killing of humans = killing of evil monsters. A more fitting comparison would be "Would <paladin equivalent> kill a helpless xenomorph from Alien?" or some other creature without capacity for good.
5: Again with the comic book comparison where the protagonist is held to a completely different set of circumstances and ideals.
6: OPs paladin is backed by his specific code, which is catered to fit the setting with situation-specific commandments. This involves the killing of enemies of his people, which is implied to be the innately evil humanoids towards which dwarves have the "hatred" or "defensive training" racial traits. He is NOT given free reign to dispense punishment to lawbreakers, nor slaughter prisoners wholesale when there is any question if they are damned.
In the end, your inability to consider anything but your binary take on the lawful alignment makes paladins a non-viable option if you ever were to GM, which is something I hope you warn your players about, so they do not go in under the false pretense that they will get to play an actual paladin.
|
|
OP's paladin is Judge Dredd. We have 15 or so pages of people saying that is OK. Tell me that there is nothing wrong with that.
Normally, yes, it could be an issue. In the situation the party was in - there is nothing wrong with what he did.
I've kept up with this thread and I'm familiar with the part of the adventure path they are in. To fill in the picture a little better (keeping it general to avoid spoilers):
1. The party is deep in the underdark and far from any legitimate lawful authority.
2. They are trying to rescue someone important who has been kidnapped by a very evil group. The longer the rescue takes, the worse it could be for the victim.
3. The very evil group is holed up somewhere in a large underdark cavern, complete with ancient ruined city.
4. The cavern is currently being contested by several evil factions (including the drow and the morlocks) in what has become all out war.
5. The only way to reach the very evil group with the kidnap victim is to go search through a warzone where everyone considers the party enemy combatants.
6. The can get information and aid from one faction or another, but run the risk of being backstabbed by the group they work with as soon as their usefulness wanes. Or their "allies" get bored. Some are rather chaotic evil.Hope that helps. Please continue.
Well, obviously they should turn themselves in to the proper authorities, there...or the paladin should turn them in. They're there illegally. :p
OP's paladin is Judge Dredd. We have 15 or so pages of people saying that is OK. Tell me that there is nothing wrong with that.
Normally, yes, it could be an issue. In the situation the party was in - there is nothing wrong with what he did.
I've kept up with this thread and I'm familiar with the part of the adventure path they are in. To fill in the picture a little better (keeping it general to avoid spoilers):
1. The party is deep in the underdark and far from any legitimate lawful authority.
2. They are trying to rescue someone important who has been kidnapped by a very evil group. The longer the rescue takes, the worse it could be for the victim.
3. The very evil group is holed up somewhere in a large underdark cavern, complete with ancient ruined city.
4. The cavern is currently being contested by several evil factions (including the drow and the morlocks) in what has become all out war.
5. The only way to reach the very evil group with the kidnap victim is to go search through a warzone where everyone considers the party enemy combatants.
6. The can get information and aid from one faction or another, but run the risk of being backstabbed by the group they work with as soon as their usefulness wanes. Or their "allies" get bored. Some are rather chaotic evil.Hope that helps. Please continue.
"Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil."
We're already in a dangerous area associating with evil. Releasing helpless prisoners doesn't seem to put any innocents in danger. Killing them isn't protecting anyone. You're just killing helpless creatures for the fun of it. Fall
Thanks for the concise update and background.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well you're getting closer now. Petty Alchemist brought up a point that changes most of that.
Also I love the example of a ghoul hugging a post pleading for its un-life. Because that happens...
You realize that the point Petty Alchemist brought up was one that you were arguing against for roughly 2 pages? It is why Kobold Cleaver brought up the baby-eating town. It is why I referenced Cheliax and Council of Thieves.
I am now thoroughly convinced you are a troll. Quite an entertaining one, and one I would bait again. But I find it nearly impossible to believe that my ludicrous post was "getting closer".
|
|
Well you're getting closer now. Petty Alchemist brought up a point that changes most of that.
Also I love the example of a ghoul hugging a post pleading for its un-life. Because that happens...
You realize that the point Petty Alchemist brought up was one that you were arguing against for roughly 2 pages? It is why Kobold Cleaver brought up the baby-eating town. It is why I referenced Cheliax and Council of Thieves.
I am now thoroughly convinced you are a troll. Quite an entertaining one, and one I would bait again. But I find it nearly impossible to believe that my ludicrous post was "getting closer".
Use fire...or acid. :p
So back to the topic. Can a non-court appointed paladin kill helpless prisoners and still be within their paladin code?
Or better yet. Can Superman break into a foreign prison and kill the inmates? Could any hero? Could anyone who calls themselves LG do such an act of senseless butchery?
OP's paladin is Judge Dredd. We have 15 or so pages of people saying that is OK. Tell me that there is nothing wrong with that.
Fallacies:
1: You assume the paladin has no right to judge evil without appointment of a court, even in the savage wilds where no bureaucratic body holds any power.2: You assume that all things are equal, and should be held to the same standard. Basically, you demand that Satan and Saint Theresa are the same.
3: You give excessive weight to YOUR interpretation of a vaguely worded part of the code, while ignoring a clearly written one completely. Nowhere does it say he needs to spare evil prisoners, but it does say he needs to punish evil.
4: You assume superman, which was created to be a pro-American propaganda tool, is an appropriate representation of a paladin, and again suppose the killing of humans = killing of evil monsters. A more fitting comparison would be "Would <paladin equivalent> kill a helpless xenomorph from Alien?" or some other creature without capacity for good.
5: Again with the comic book comparison where the protagonist is held to a completely different set of circumstances and ideals.
6: OPs paladin is backed by his specific code, which is catered to fit the setting with situation-specific commandments. This involves the killing of enemies of his people, which is implied to be the innately evil humanoids towards which dwarves have the "hatred" or "defensive training" racial traits. He is NOT given free reign to dispense punishment to lawbreakers, nor slaughter prisoners wholesale when there is any question if they are damned.
In the end, your inability to consider anything but your binary take on the lawful alignment makes...
1) Yep, no killing helpless creatures because you detected their evil.
2) No, I have no idea where you got this.3) Yes, you have to follow all of the code, not parts of it.
4) I did not. I said he was close to a paladin. What makes a monster? Racist.
5) Yes? What is your point here.
6) Unless OP's group has that one non-PRD rule book or some way to aces those rules, then he is breaking the unaltered paladin's code.
[
So back to the topic. Can a non-court appointed paladin kill helpless prisoners and still be within their paladin code?Or better yet. Can Superman break into a foreign prison and kill the inmates? Could any hero? Could anyone who calls themselves LG do...
Good heaven... I barely remember the original Topic... :D
In this example... He was caught between two warring nations of evil people. While sneaking into a temple of Evil guys he's at war with #1... He came across Evil group #2 being captured and used for food.
Quite honestly, Superman would have not have gone into a foreign prison and ripped the doors off the hinges and set everyone free... He would probably have completed the rescue mission he was THERE for... and did as much damage to his enemies as he could...
Taking the prisoners to a 'legal authority' is not an option. There isn't one. Anywhere. Its the middle of a jungle in between two warring tribes.
Theres NOTHING he can do with the prisoners without chosing one side of their war. Choices are A)Free Evil group #2, B)Kill Evil Group #2 saving the pain of torture and being devoured alive by Evil Group #1... or C) Leave Evil Group #2 to their own fate.
Our group chose A and sided with the morlocks against the common enemy. Theirs chose B
Quite honestly the way 'Comic Heroes' probably would have handled it, would be to leave them to rot there... My biggest problem with this situation, is that YES, they were helpless prisoners. So what??
Evil people in jail.... PROBABLY deserve to be there, and THESE kind of creatures PROBABLY deserve to be executed.
However, they were not HIS prisoners, and frankly didn't know much about who they were, and how they ended up there...
Where they a group of terrorists who were attacking and got caught? Did they sneak in to kill the king/queen/children. WEre they freedom fighters? Just picked off the street?
Paladin didn't know... If YES, they were evil and 'deserved' execution, then he was justified and divinely allowed to do it. If not, then he could be in trouble.
As this was Paladin of Torag... I doubt there would be an issue.
Well you're getting closer now. Petty Alchemist brought up a point that changes most of that.
Also I love the example of a ghoul hugging a post pleading for its un-life. Because that happens...
You realize that the point Petty Alchemist brought up was one that you were arguing against for roughly 2 pages? It is why Kobold Cleaver brought up the baby-eating town. It is why I referenced Cheliax and Council of Thieves.
I am now thoroughly convinced you are a troll. Quite an entertaining one, and one I would bait again. But I find it nearly impossible to believe that my ludicrous post was "getting closer".
He brought up a point I hadn't considered and phrased it in a way that was not "paladins can ignore laws they don't like"
I then CHANGED MY MIND. I know it's an amazing concept on the internet.
|
|
Well you're getting closer now. Petty Alchemist brought up a point that changes most of that.
Also I love the example of a ghoul hugging a post pleading for its un-life. Because that happens...
You realize that the point Petty Alchemist brought up was one that you were arguing against for roughly 2 pages? It is why Kobold Cleaver brought up the baby-eating town. It is why I referenced Cheliax and Council of Thieves.
I am now thoroughly convinced you are a troll. Quite an entertaining one, and one I would bait again. But I find it nearly impossible to believe that my ludicrous post was "getting closer".
He brought up a point I hadn't considered and phrased it in a way that was not "paladins can ignore laws they don't like"
I then CHANGED MY MIND. I know it's an amazing concept on the internet.
It's an amazing feat for a troll. :p
Paladin didn't know... If YES, they were evil and 'deserved' execution, then he was...
Then he should have just left them their after re-securing there cell. He is not the law and cannot punish them for being in prison. He can't slay helpless creatures, unless it is lawful punishment. Since his kills were not lawful punishment or honorable, he falls.
"Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil."
On a serious note pertaining to Paladin codes, I (and the groups that I play with) generally feel that whatever the "campaign's plot" is that we are undergoing into ultimately satisfies the exceptional circumstances in pretty much all cases. Remember you aren't some run of the mill walking stat block paladin, you are a PC and the stuff you do is important and the plots pertaining to you are exceptional, that's why you (your character) are the one in this story that is being told (or in this case, played through).
This mindset generally satisfies all of our players in that, in all cases, no one has to worry about playing a paladin in a campaign where someone else might play... idk a Chaotic Neutral character who sterotypically uses their chaotic neutralyness to justify doing things that are actually evil but by pretending that they don't care it means they get to just do whatever they want, and it works out pretty well.I honestly believe that most people on these boards take that particular rule about paladin's falling a bit too seriously. And I got bashed once for making a wizard have to use his old memorizations because he didn't get enough sleep like I was some awful super nazi DM, and yet it is perfectly acceptable to make a paladin who was RP'ing his zealous dwarf who hates monsters and believes that "being evil is a choice and that choice is not okay," and uses it to justify killing monsters fall as if he committed some evil act.
Then we get some lecture from internet trolls about arbitrary personal construment and how that should be what judges another player's character and takes away their abilities. This thread has just been.... wow...
It's an amazing feat for a troll. :pWell you're getting closer now. Petty Alchemist brought up a point that changes most of that.
Also I love the example of a ghoul hugging a post pleading for its un-life. Because that happens...
You realize that the point Petty Alchemist brought up was one that you were arguing against for roughly 2 pages? It is why Kobold Cleaver brought up the baby-eating town. It is why I referenced Cheliax and Council of Thieves.
I am now thoroughly convinced you are a troll. Quite an entertaining one, and one I would bait again. But I find it nearly impossible to believe that my ludicrous post was "getting closer".
He brought up a point I hadn't considered and phrased it in a way that was not "paladins can ignore laws they don't like"
I then CHANGED MY MIND. I know it's an amazing concept on the internet.
If I was a good troll, I would appear to be reasonable.
Generally I find I'm a "troll" whenever my opinion disagrees with forum wisdom. Like how I don't think paladins can eat goblin babies just because their race is evil.
Also I love the example of a ghoul hugging a...
Ghouls are intelligent and will do whatever it takes to prolong their existence. If they realize a dangerous paladin won't hurt them if they just lie still, they will lie still and wait for the paladin to collapse. :)
I like how Marthkus keeps saying "Racist" about morlocks. That, more than anything else, makes me think he's a troll. At least he's not saying "Dasracist", though. XD
"Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil."On a serious note pertaining to Paladin codes, I (and the groups that I play with) generally feel that whatever the "campaign's plot" is that we are undergoing into ultimately satisfies the exceptional circumstances in pretty much all cases. Remember you aren't some run of the mill walking stat block paladin, you are a PC and the stuff you do is important and the plots pertaining to you are exceptional, that's why you (your character) are the one in this story that is being told (or in this case, played through).
This mindset generally satisfies all of our players in that, in all cases, no one has to worry about playing a paladin in a campaign where someone else might play... idk a Chaotic Neutral character who sterotypically uses their chaotic neutralyness to justify doing things that are actually evil but by pretending that they don't care it means they get to just do whatever they want, and it works out pretty well.I honestly believe that most people on these boards take that particular rule about paladin's falling a bit too seriously. And I got bashed once for making a wizard have to use his old memorizations because he didn't get enough sleep like I was some awful super nazi DM, and yet it is perfectly acceptable to make a paladin who was RP'ing his zealous dwarf who hates monsters and believes that "being evil is a choice and that choice is not okay," and uses it to justify killing monsters fall as if he committed some evil act.
Then we get some lecture from internet trolls about arbitrary personal construment and how that should be what judges another player's character and takes away their abilities. This thread has just been.... wow...
Which part of all that do I not agree with? It's the last part right? People seem to be calling me the troll. Yeah I don't think you can kill helpless creatures honorably without the law to back you and still be a paladin. So sue me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think Marthkus is ignoring something very important.
Goblin babies taste disgusting.
I would argue that by eating them, the paladin is sparing other paladins from being forced to eat the babies at a later date.
Also I love the example of a ghoul hugging a...
Ghouls are intelligent and will do whatever it takes to prolong their existence. If they realize a dangerous paladin won't hurt them if they just lie still, they will lie still and wait for the paladin to collapse. :)
I like how Marthkus keeps saying "Racist" about morlocks. That, more than anything else, makes me think he's a troll. At least he's not saying "Dasracist", though. XD
Ghouls probably won't throw themselves at a paladins mercy, since apparently most paladins would just kill them anyways out of spite chanting "I AM THE LAW!".
Well you're getting closer now. Petty Alchemist brought up a point that changes most of that.
Also I love the example of a ghoul hugging a post pleading for its un-life. Because that happens...
You realize that the point Petty Alchemist brought up was one that you were arguing against for roughly 2 pages? It is why Kobold Cleaver brought up the baby-eating town. It is why I referenced Cheliax and Council of Thieves.
I am now thoroughly convinced you are a troll. Quite an entertaining one, and one I would bait again. But I find it nearly impossible to believe that my ludicrous post was "getting closer".
He brought up a point I hadn't considered and phrased it in a way that was not "paladins can ignore laws they don't like"
I then CHANGED MY MIND. I know it's an amazing concept on the internet.
Silly us, for expecting you to have actually read the part of the rulebook that you kept quoting to us as justification we were wrong.
So with the minor alteration of "government must be in complete anarchy, or instituted by something clearly and irredeemably evil like demon princes, devils, undead lichs", I am in line with how a paladin should be? Well damn . . . as Cheliax is ruled by humans my CoT paladin is probably still out of luck.
This entire diversion reminds me a lot of this thread and its parody.
Paladin didn't know... If YES, they were evil and 'deserved' execution, then he was...Then he should have just left them their after re-securing there cell. He is not the law and cannot punish them for being in prison. He can't slay helpless creatures, unless it is lawful punishment. Since his kills were not lawful punishment or honorable, he falls.
Oh... mine wouldn't have.
If the choice is... Kill them now, or leave them to be horribly tortured and eaten alive?? My paladin would have taken the 'merciful' route...
Though that's not what OP's guy did, I acknowledge that ;)
Ehhhhh.. ACTUALLY... Thaddeus would have redeemed them all. He's a redeeming MACHINE in Kingmaker...
Many of his redeemed still die righting their wrongs... but he's had a few surviving converts ^_^
Ghouls probably won't throw themselves at a paladins mercy, since apparently most paladins would just kill them anyways out of spite chanting "I AM THE LAW!".
Yeah, I can see how horrible it must be for a paladin to think he has a right to murder poor, sweet, innocent abominations. Such racism!