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!
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!".
Yes but where do you draw the line? Is anything that fails the detect evil check open season for the paladin? Fiends? Devils? Goblins? Goblin babies? Baby ANYTHING? Humans?
If the fine line is whether or not they are humanoid than that is racist. If paladins are racist then I guess they can be KKK members right?
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.
Exactly! Thanks to a well selected Mercy at level three, a paladin can even recover from the disgusting taste of goblin baby with only a swift action! Paladins are clearly the class best suited to eating goblin babies.
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.
1: So even demons would be safe from paladins in your setting.
2: From your response to 1). You insist on making comparisons between CE monsters and human prisoners in non-PF settings.
3: You are WILLFULLY disregarding large chunks of the code.
4: Being an evil monster in the bestiary, described as a horror that has no other purpose than to feed on those unfortunate enough to stray into its life. Not gonna report your slander, because I want people to see you for what you truly are.
5: My point is that comparison to comic-book characters under a different circumstance is pointless. Also, the setting does not have evil as a physical constant. Golarion has spells that use pure good to harm enemies of good. And vice versa. Judge Dredd has guns, mutants and tech.
6: That is wholly your opinion, based on your interpretation of the code, which is filled with fallacies that you willfully disregard.
1: So even demons would be safe from paladins in your setting.
2: From your response to 1). You insist on making comparisons between CE monsters and human prisoners in non-PF settings.
3: You are WILLFULLY disregarding large chunks of the code.
4: Being an evil monster in the bestiary, described as a horror that has no other purpose than to feed on those unfortunate enough to stray into its life. Not gonna report your slander, because I want people to see you for what you truly are.
5: My point is that comparison to comic-book characters under a different circumstance is pointless. Also, the setting does not have evil as a physical constant. Golarion has spells that use pure good to harm enemies of good. And vice versa. Judge Dredd has guns, mutants and tech.
6: That is wholly your opinion, based on your interpretation of the code, which is filled with fallacies that you willfully disregard.
1) What paladin turns down the chance to redeem a demon?
2) They are both helpless. Neither of them are your lawful right to punish. Your point?3) No I'm not you are. (Try examples next time)
4) Doesn't give you the right to break your paladin's code.
5) Someone else was trying to make a point about that. I disagreed. Comic book heros are not paladins. Someone else argued that my standard for paladin was too high. Thus that debate.
6) That's just your opinion. (again use examples)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey guys...I have this great idea when I last looked at this thread on Wed about 500+ posts have been added...anyway my idea is simple.
Agree to disagree. How alignment and the question if a given action will cause a Paladin to fall should be up to each invidual group. Let it go. No one is right or wrong here...move on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1: So even demons would be safe from paladins in your setting.
2: From your response to 1). You insist on making comparisons between CE monsters and human prisoners in non-PF settings.
3: You are WILLFULLY disregarding large chunks of the code.
4: Being an evil monster in the bestiary, described as a horror that has no other purpose than to feed on those unfortunate enough to stray into its life. Not gonna report your slander, because I want people to see you for what you truly are.
5: My point is that comparison to comic-book characters under a different circumstance is pointless. Also, the setting does not have evil as a physical constant. Golarion has spells that use pure good to harm enemies of good. And vice versa. Judge Dredd has guns, mutants and tech.
6: That is wholly your opinion, based on your interpretation of the code, which is filled with fallacies that you willfully disregard.
1) What paladin turns down the chance to redeem a demon?
2) They are both helpless. Neither of them are your lawful right to punish. Your point?
3) No I'm not you are. (Try examples next time)
4) Doesn't give you the right to break your paladin's code.
5) Someone else was trying to make a point about that. I disagreed. Comic book heros are not paladins. Someone else argued that my standard for paladin was too high. Thus that debate.
6) That's just your opinion. (again use examples)
1: A demon IS evil. He is not just of evil alignment. Consorting with them is basis to fall. It is on the checklist of "Yo dawg, I heard you like smiting, so we put twice the smite in your smite to smite demons, dragons and undead, so you can smite while you smite" for a REASON.
2:
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Emphasis mine. Not destroying teh satan himself given the opportunity is a complete fail of the whole last paragraph.
3: See above.
4: See above.
5: Then why use them so adamantly in further posts, if you disagree that they are valid representations?
6: My opinion is one forged from 20 years of GMing, extensive studies in the fields of ethics, reflection and legal legitimacy preparing me to work as a public servant, and one to which the bulk of the thread seem to agree. The "You cannot hurt me, I found a loophole" is a modern bureaucratic phenomenon, where the letter of the law is followed, while the spirit of the law is completely gone, in a corrupt world of manipulative lawyers, lobbying groups and redressing of once legitimate interest groups that long ago forgot their ideals.
So yes, it is my OPINION that a paladin is supposed to be a holy knight that crushes evil so the children can grow up to become something other than monster food, rather than a helpless parody that belongs in some modern drama like The Wire, who has to let killers and rapists go because "lol, you did not do the paperwork right".
Stop trying to encourage peace and civility. you're taking away my entertainment.Hey guys...I have this great idea when I last looked at this thread on Wed about 500+ posts have been added...anyway my idea is simple.
Agree to disagree. How alignment and the question if a given action will cause a Paladin to fall should be up to each invidual group. Let it go. No one is right or wrong here...move on.
But is that what a paladin would do?
|
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.
...and who are you disagreeing with there?
|
|
Hey guys...I have this great idea when I last looked at this thread on Wed about 500+ posts have been added...anyway my idea is simple.
Agree to disagree. How alignment and the question if a given action will cause a Paladin to fall should be up to each invidual group. Let it go. No one is right or wrong here...move on.
But...it's pure comedy gold. :p
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1: So even demons would be safe from paladins in your setting.
2: From your response to 1). You insist on making comparisons between CE monsters and human prisoners in non-PF settings.
3: You are WILLFULLY disregarding large chunks of the code.
4: Being an evil monster in the bestiary, described as a horror that has no other purpose than to feed on those unfortunate enough to stray into its life. Not gonna report your slander, because I want people to see you for what you truly are.
5: My point is that comparison to comic-book characters under a different circumstance is pointless. Also, the setting does not have evil as a physical constant. Golarion has spells that use pure good to harm enemies of good. And vice versa. Judge Dredd has guns, mutants and tech.
6: That is wholly your opinion, based on your interpretation of the code, which is filled with fallacies that you willfully disregard.
1) What paladin turns down the chance to redeem a demon?
2) They are both helpless. Neither of them are your lawful right to punish. Your point?
3) No I'm not you are. (Try examples next time)
4) Doesn't give you the right to break your paladin's code.
5) Someone else was trying to make a point about that. I disagreed. Comic book heros are not paladins. Someone else argued that my standard for paladin was too high. Thus that debate.
6) That's just your opinion. (again use examples)
No.
I was waiting for him to come in an activate my trap card, because due to my profession, I am a "legitimate authority" within my field of work. Thus, I am infallible by his own logic, with the power to command paladins. And if he protests to this logic, and my orders can be fallible, the paladin stands between choosing good or law, and as such, all it takes to make a paladin fall/put out of commission is ONE single corrupt official giving him an order that is not good.
I assume he thinks this is fine, and that is how the paladin should be, which makes the class completely unplayable, but it seems he is impervious to ethical or moral reflection beyond an immature grasp of categorical imperative, so it becomes somewhat amusing to troll the troll. Just gotta go deeper, like some parody of Inception.
Marthkus have you read any of Moorcock's work?
So, a legitimate authority is what a Paladin needs to respect?
* What is "legitimate"?
* If a paladin is the ruler of his own nation, can he then carry out executions?
* If a paladin is appointed by a governmental body to lawfully execute those who are actively or effectively fighting said governmental body, can he then carry out executions?
* Does the above answer hold whether or not the paladin himself is the ruler?
I mean, in the AP, depending on the situation, the PCs could easily find themselves working for the government of one country with rather explicit orders to invade and conquer what used to be a city eons ago, but is now effectively ungoverned wilderness. There are creatures living there, but they fall into the following camps:
1) Murder Cult
2) Cult of a non-sentient Monster who feed living sacrifices to it
3) Cult of a demon
4) Cult of a rakshasa (a kind of evil outsider, in case you don't know)
5) Non-evil hyper-violent plant-creatures who will kill you for accidentally trespassing on "their" land by infecting you with spores until you die and sprout more of them. There is no known way of communicating with them. They have no government.
6) A non-evil tribe of people governed by a literally (not figuratively, but literally) insane creature who's usually quite nice but may, at the slightest provocation, go into a blind murder rage.
(Later, a seventh group, with a king appointed so by a demon lord comes and claims the entire city as his own.)
All six (and eventually seven) groups are sitting on rather invaluable ancient resources that they neither understand or can readily use and only one will listen to reason. Those resources are necessary. What is a paladin - appointed by a legitimate mortal authority not in chaos - to do?
To add to this, the area of the campaign that puts them in a city in the Darklands with no one governing body (in complete anarchy) that currently in consists of:
1) an evil group that annihilates souls and will continue to do so. They delight in the annihilation of all things and making living sacrifices.
2) an evil group that engages in eating living sentient creatures and murder and will continue to do so. They are only just sentient enough to know that what they are doing is wrong, but they don't care. This is the most numerous, but weakest of the three groups.
3) an evil group that engages in murdering their own kind; in destroying the creatures in group "1" above; and in torturing, mutilating, enslaving, and eating (sometimes alive) the creatures in group "2" above (as well as anyone else they happen to come across). Also, these creatures want to use a MacGuffin to destroy humanity.
All three "governing bodies" are established by fiends or fiend-cults (exception: there is a single ancestor-cult, although said cult engages in the same practices as noted above) and recognizes nothing but their own (evil) race (as noted above) as a valid ruling body.
The PCs entered a fortress of group 3 to find a single prisoner (he belongs to none of the groups and is an anomaly - one of three* in the city besides the PCs themselves**). They found and rescued him and one other prisoner. The rest of the prisoners fall into an especially tortured and violent bunch from group 2 and all ping as evil. Also, said paladin has a divine mandate to destroy said creatures and a governmental mandate to conquer a city in complete chaos^.
So: what is the proper response, according to various people on this forum?
** They may only know of two at this time, one of which they likely brought with them.
^ This last element may or may not actually be true in the game. The Adventure Path doesn't care. The PCs could also be working against the government, and if I recall, it clarifies in the modules that this doesn't interfere with their class stuff, such as causing a paladin to fall.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
All paladins have to be played exactly like goku.
"Are you sorry?"
"Then there's nothing we can do guys, he said he's sorry."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Double Post: because a different Adventure Path (that I'm currently running). EDIT: Not a double post, 'cause, master_marshmellow posted!
Someone's already mentioned this, but it bears repeating.
Paizo codified all the rules we accept as rules. While they were adopting an older set of rules, they specifically changed large portions of them, and combed through all of them, including the Paladin code, with the intent to make it work for their games.
Council of Thieves is an Adventure Path published by Paizo, the group that, as has already been noted, created the game that we currently play.
It takes place almost entirely within Westcrown.
Within that, their suggested characters to play included a lawful good paladin (as well as a chaotic good bard, a lawful evil fighter/wizard, and a lawful neutral sorcerer). That means that they approve of you, as a player, playing in that adventure path with a paladin. They even take time to go over this issue. They clarify,
Paladins face many of the same challenges that clerics do in Cheliax. Worshipers of Asmodeus openly walk the streets, protected by the sadistic, but nonetheless legitimate House of Thrune. A paladin in Cheliax, particularly a major city like Westcrown or Egorian, must take care to reign in her righteous impulses and work with existing law rather than barge right through it. A well-intentioned strike against evil could result in a brutal government-sanctioned retaliation, and an imprisoned paladin combats evil far less effectively than a free one. Yet for all the corruption of the country's rulers, there are many more evils to face within the country, and a paladin might work great deeds in the eyes of Cheliax's people by combating subtler and potentially even more destructive evils. Paladins of Arabar, Iomedae, and Shelyn most often find their way to Cheliax, their devotion to order typically being well satisfied within the rigid society even as they crusade to make the land a better place for its people.
An interesting thing to note, here, is the fact that Cheliax's government is "legitimate". Why? What makes it so? Does that make the government of Sargava (a former Chelaxian colony that broke away) illegitimate? Not according to Serpent's Skull. Similarly, according to Curse of the Crimson Throne, those places that once declared their independence from Cheliax are not considered illegitimate either.
Another interesting thing to note is that it says that paladins need to follow the laws of Cheliax, working with existing law rather than "barge right through it." That it follows this up with why is equally interesting: "an imprisoned paladin combats evil far less effectively than a free one".
Both of these are especially fascinating statements when taken with...
- ... the very first thing you do in the Adventure Path: join an underground rebel group;
- ... and your very first mission of the Adventure Path: escape the attempted arrest of your character by legitimate authorities for legitimate reasons;
- ...and your very second mission of the Adventure Path: break a guy out of a prison transport that he was legally and legitimately placed into by the government of Westcrown, which is currently totally legitimate and not in anarchy.
(It's noted within the AP that killing those who seek to arrest you or those who hold the 'guy' captive, while discouraged, doesn't make a paladin fall.)
Also worth noting that the art in this section repeatedly shows the iconic Pathfinder Paladin - Seelah - involved up to her neck in all of this.
Seelah, for those who don't know, is a paladin of Iomadae, and the "Iconic" paladin for Pathfinder Roleplaying Game - she's the picture you see when you look at the Core Rulebook under "Paladin".
The art shows her escaping capture of the authorities, wandering underground, and participating in illegal missions.
At the back of each installment of the Adventure Path, there's an entry for Seelah (and the rest of the iconics I mentioned above) which explains what their level is presumed to be at the beginning of the installment. It's very telling that Seelah - the paladin who is supposed to be going through this AP - continues to level up as a paladin, no matter how often the AP has her undertake missions that are in direct contravention to the legitimate authority of Cheliax and Westcrown.
Other illegal missions include:[list]
- entering and exiting the city's "closed" quarter under false pretenses (in disguise and secretly; repeatedly)
- breaking the curfew (repeatedly)
- getting invited into a private manor in order to illicitly search and remove multiple items belonging to the owner
- breaking and entering a condemned, government-sealed building, and removing artifacts the government has previously claimed for itself
- entering a government-sealed hazard area (although they've hopefully gotten permission from a bureaucrat who abandoned his post)
- destroying a government-sanctioned private paramilitary force with extreme prejudice^ (which they don't have any government approval for).
And yet, for all this, for some reason, Seelah (who the art continues to show engaging in all of the above activities and who is literally the face you see when you look up "Paladin" in the Core Rulebook) continues to level up as a paladin throughout the adventure path.
That means the only way of taking the sentence that claims that paladins must cooperate with the government "or else" is to accept that the "or else" only pertains to being imprisoned, and thus unable to do the above.
This forces to one of two conclusions. Either:
1) Paizo, who codified the rules, and wrote down the Paladin's Code that we use does not know what they are doing, and thus the rules should be altered by GMs who do know what they're doing (making strict reliance on the RAW fallacious), or...
2) ... the hardline interpretation of Paladins being unable to kill unless approved by the government is false, as is the hardline interpretation of Paladins being unable to go against the government.
In either event, no one can maintain that Paladins absolutely cannot break the law or fall. EDIT: At least not in such a way that continues to insist that those who say otherwise are incorrect.
Also worth noting in that adventure path: the PCs (and thus the paladins) undertake missions based on stealth, deceit, setting ambushes, springing traps on unsuspecting foes, and are actually effectively required to kill a creature who honestly desires redemption but cannot (because of said creatures' type and situation^^^) receive it.
So, you know. There's that, too.
^^ Which would make it exterminating two government-sanctioned private paramilitary forces with extreme prejudice, if you count them as separate entities.
EDIT2: to refurbish tags again
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait,
did I saw paladin the guy was a dwarven bard not a paladin. stupid Auto correct. can we end the thread now?
Wait,
did I saw paladin the guy was a dwarven bard not a paladin. stupid Auto correct. can we end the thread now?
No.
The comedy must continue.
Agreed. This is almost as amazing as the Wyvern thread.
Wait,
did I saw paladin the guy was a dwarven bard not a paladin. stupid Auto correct. can we end the thread now?
The monster you loosed cannot be caged again. The Genie can't put back into it's bottle. The Dogs of War you've unleashed cannot be recaptured! !
... on second thought, sure, why not?
Oh, hey, a viable third conclusion that could be reached instead of only the two I mention: both of the above.
That means that both Paizo cannot be trusted with the rules that they made (and thus hardline RAW should be ignored) and that the hardline interpretation of paladin actions is incorrect. This third conclusion isn't required by the Council of Thieves AP, though, as it does not negate or shed any light on the other two... it's simply another possibility within the parameters established about the rules and the company that makes them.
So, Lobolusk, more on the original topic, what did your Chaotic Neutral character end up doing, if you've played since then?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... ton of Council of Thieves stuff that I alluded to but was unable to phrase nearly as well ...
Thank you for explaining the Council of Thieves paladin issues better than I did.
Also, reading through it, I realized a couple interesting things. First was that the Council of Thieves is a really good example of how paladins can have very differing codes. Why? Because there is Seelah, running around breaking the law for the greater good. One of the earliest enemies in the AP are the Hellknights, who are basically paladins that focus on Law vs. Chaos instead of Good vs. Evil. The thing is, it is perfectly reasonable for there to be a Paladin/Hellknight. Some of the Hellknight orders are more paladin-friendly than others, but there is no reason why the Order of the Rack Hellknights (who focus on limiting forbidden knowledge and are the ones present in CoT) could not have a paladin in their ranks. Thus you can end up with a situation of a lawful-oriented paladin hunting down a greater-good-oriented paladin.
The second thing I realized, is that that is pretty much what Marthkus is arguing in terms of a paladin following the law. His paladin is really more of a paladin that went into the Hellknight prestige class (at least in my opinion).
Wait,
did I saw paladin the guy was a dwarven bard not a paladin. stupid Auto correct. can we end the thread now?
No, yeah. I'm pretty much done with the paladin bickering unless someone says something truly earth-shattering that I must respond to. Sorry about the thread-jack. Hopefully you were able to get some useful advice/alternate perspectives before it got horribly de-railed.
I don't think this is ANYTHING like the Wyvern thread. I think there is a MILESWIDE gap between arguing that a paladin shouldn't be able to destroy always evil undead creatures and fiends, and that a paladin shouldn't kill neutral creatures in their sleep in the middle of nowhere.
I was referring to the ridiculous post-count and the rampant use of strawmen and other logical fallacies.
I got buttmad in the wyvern thread because I knew the scenario to every detail, and the "Paladin must fall!" crew was spewing false imaginary scenarios and disregarding the fact that this was an encounter in an AP, where the wyverns were scripted to attack and try to kill the PCs, as they were guarding the tomb of an evil lich necromancer.
Killing a neutral creature in its sleep at random is no bueno, but that was not the case. It was a paladin killing the guardians of an evil lich that recently committed genocide on an entire community.
This thread is getting cartoonish on several levels. Probably why so many cartoon and comic-book characters are used as examples.
|
|
Wow.
I had missed the wyvern thread.
Seriously...the guy says 'there are wyverns over there', and then has issues with the player...for 'metagaming'.
Wow.
I mean, his character lives in that world. If I'm told 'there's a wyvern over there', I immediately assume the DM has decided that I know what it is. *shrug*.
Thanks for the link. More comedy gold!
|
|
I was referring to the ridiculous post-count and the rampant use of strawmen and other logical fallacies.
I got buttmad in the wyvern thread because I knew the scenario to every detail, and the "Paladin must fall!" crew was spewing false imaginary scenarios and disregarding the fact that this was an encounter in an AP, where the wyverns were scripted to attack and try to kill the PCs, as they were guarding the tomb of an evil lich necromancer.
Killing a neutral creature in its sleep at random is no bueno, but that was not the case. It was a paladin killing the guardians of an evil lich that recently committed genocide on an entire community.
This thread is getting cartoonish on several levels. Probably why so many cartoon and comic-book characters are used as examples.
Erastil. *shrug*. No harm, no foul.
I don't think this is ANYTHING like the Wyvern thread. I think there is a MILESWIDE gap between arguing that a paladin shouldn't be able to destroy always evil undead creatures and fiends, and that a paladin shouldn't kill neutral creatures in their sleep in the middle of nowhere.
And yet killing evil creatures in their sleep is OK. Being both lawful and good.
By that logic, people on this very thread have said it's OK to kill "evil" babies.
... ton of Council of Thieves stuff that I alluded to but was unable to phrase nearly as well ...Thank you for explaining the Council of Thieves paladin issues better than I did.
Also, reading through it, I realized a couple interesting things. First was that the Council of Thieves is a really good example of how paladins can have very differing codes. Why? Because there is Seelah, running around breaking the law for the greater good. One of the earliest enemies in the AP are the Hellknights, who are basically paladins that focus on Law vs. Chaos instead of Good vs. Evil. The thing is, it is perfectly reasonable for there to be a Paladin/Hellknight. Some of the Hellknight orders are more paladin-friendly than others, but there is no reason why the Order of the Rack Hellknights (who focus on limiting forbidden knowledge and are the ones present in CoT) could not have a paladin in their ranks. Thus you can end up with a situation of a lawful-oriented paladin hunting down a greater-good-oriented paladin.
The second thing I realized, is that that is pretty much what Marthkus is arguing in terms of a paladin following the law. His paladin is really more of a paladin that went into the Hellknight prestige class (at least in my opinion).
Hey, actually, I owe your post for the creation of mine. I'm sorry I didn't credit you - I wasn't thinking of a way to find out who'd said it at the time (though now I've come up with several), and I wasn't planning on responding to your specific points so... sorry.
But yeah, before I'd seen you make your post, I was planning on making a practically identical one, then dropped it because, you know, you'd already covered it. Then when I noticed that yours was more or less ignored, I guessed that it might have been because of a lack of context or information, so I revamped my original idea for a more detailed look.
But if your post hadn't been there, I would've pretty much made it myself, first. So, thanks!
1: A demon IS evil. He is not just of evil alignment. Consorting with them is basis to fall. It is on the checklist of "Yo dawg, I heard you like smiting, so we put twice the smite in your smite to smite demons, dragons and undead, so you can smite while you smite" for a REASON.2:
Code of Conduct wrote:A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Emphasis mine. Not destroying teh satan himself given the opportunity is a complete fail of the whole last paragraph.
3: See above.
4: See above.
5: Then why use them so adamantly in further posts, if you disagree that they are valid representations?
6: My opinion is one forged from 20 years of GMing, extensive studies in the fields of ethics, reflection and legal legitimacy preparing me to work as a public servant, and one to which the bulk of the thread seem to agree. The "You cannot hurt me, I found a loophole" is a modern bureaucratic phenomenon, where the letter of the law is followed, while the spirit of the law is completely gone, in a corrupt world of manipulative lawyers, lobbying groups and redressing of once legitimate interest groups that long ago forgot their ideals.
So yes, it is my OPINION that a paladin is supposed to be a holy knight that crushes evil so the children can grow up to become something other than monster food, rather than a helpless parody that belongs in some modern drama like The Wire, who has to let killers and rapists go because "lol, you did not do the paperwork right".
1) So your paladin would not redeem a demon, if given the option to do so? Fall
2-4) Never have I said it's ok to just let them go. OP's paladin could have just left them in prison. He did not need to go murder crazy. He may be able to justify that act as good, But it was not lawful5) Someone else was comparing them. I used examples of how my standard was not too high.
6) I may be so alone because my friends who I got to read this thread rage-quit at the part where killing goblin babies is OK. They may represent the people who agree with me, since people of the mindset "Paladins follow their code and can't eat goblin babies" rage to hard to continue. Not a proper study surely.
Furthermore I have studied enough ethics to know that people who devote their whole lives to the topic can be full of poop.
|
|
1: A demon IS evil. He is not just of evil alignment. Consorting with them is basis to fall. It is on the checklist of "Yo dawg, I heard you like smiting, so we put twice the smite in your smite to smite demons, dragons and undead, so you can smite while you smite" for a REASON.2:
Code of Conduct wrote:A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Emphasis mine. Not destroying teh satan himself given the opportunity is a complete fail of the whole last paragraph.
3: See above.
4: See above.
5: Then why use them so adamantly in further posts, if you disagree that they are valid representations?
6: My opinion is one forged from 20 years of GMing, extensive studies in the fields of ethics, reflection and legal legitimacy preparing me to work as a public servant, and one to which the bulk of the thread seem to agree. The "You cannot hurt me, I found a loophole" is a modern bureaucratic phenomenon, where the letter of the law is followed, while the spirit of the law is completely gone, in a corrupt world of manipulative lawyers, lobbying groups and redressing of once legitimate interest groups that long ago forgot their ideals.
So yes, it is my OPINION that a paladin is supposed to be a holy knight that crushes evil so the children can grow up to become something other than monster food, rather than a helpless parody that belongs in some modern drama like The Wire, who has to let killers and rapists go because "lol, you did not do the paperwork right".
1) So your paladin would not redeem a demon, if given the option to do so? Fall
2-4) Never have I said it's ok to just let them go....
When does a paladin have the option to redeem a demon?
Maybe between the 'Repent, in the name of Iomedae, or I'll send you back to your masters in the Abyss!" and the final blow? Ummm...sure. If the demon repents, the blade is stayed...for the moment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, actually, I owe your post for the creation of mine. I'm sorry I didn't credit you - I wasn't thinking of a way to find out who'd said it at the time (though now I've come up with several), and I wasn't planning on responding to your specific points so... sorry.
But yeah, before I'd seen you make your post, I was planning on making a practically identical one, then dropped it because, you know, you'd already covered it. Then when I noticed that yours was more or less ignored, I guessed that it might have been because of a lack of context or information, so I revamped my original idea for a more detailed look.
But if your post hadn't been there,...
No worries about credit. As I said, you explained the details of the AP far better than I did, and in more depth. A wonderful thing about the forums, on occasion someone else manages to say what you are thinking far better than you. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think this is ANYTHING like the Wyvern thread. I think there is a MILESWIDE gap between arguing that a paladin shouldn't be able to destroy always evil undead creatures and fiends, and that a paladin shouldn't kill neutral creatures in their sleep in the middle of nowhere.And yet killing evil creatures in their sleep is OK. Being both lawful and good.
By that logic, people on this very thread have said it's OK to kill "evil" babies.
It isn't OK to kill evil babies, it's GOOD to kill evil babies. And the people saying it aren't just people in this thread, paizo has said it.
Ok, let us pretend for a second that a paladin I have played gets put in the scenario where a demon desires redemption. Which I find unlikely, so the first thing I would do is stop the game, look at the GM and ask "Seriously?", then try to tell if I have pissed him off IRL so he wants to get back at me through making a trap for my character. I generally do not play with immature, manipulative children, so this would likely never come up, unless it was part of a weird AP.
Then I would see if it was feasible. Can I indulge in this without risking the lives and souls of innocents? A demon seeking redemption is less important than the life of a single innocent.
Then I would have the cleric in the party cast Atonement on him, and if he afterwards detected as evil, I would smite him, as that would mean he was not sincere about his wish to reform. And he just wasted 2500gp.
And as for you defending evil babies; by the same extent, are these people villains?
Ripley in Aliens, for burning xenomorph pods
Billy in Gremlins 1 & 2 for eradicating the gremlin spawns
The list goes on, following the formula "<Protagonist> in <monster/horror films> when they destroy <the monster(s)>"
Because they are not PEOPLE. They are MONSTERS. There is a WORLD of difference between eradicating a host of make-believe monsters that walk on two legs and have language, and committing genocide motivated by racism in the real world.
That you refuse to acknowledge this is not MY problem. You are disregarding the source material, applying your own sense of morality, and giving the monsters traits they do not have, and in my opinion SHOULDN'T, so that the hero can be a hero. If you want to skirt angst and flimsy ethical questions, go play Vampire - The Masquerade, or some similar real-world based game, where evil is a choice rather than a force.
As for your poor attempts of character sniping; go ahead. I've worked for the CPS. I got called much worse on a day to day basis, by people worse than you.
No worries about credit. As I said, you explained the details of the AP far better than I did, and in more depth. A wonderful thing about the forums, on occasion someone else manages to say what you are thinking far better than you. :)Hey, actually, I owe your post for the creation of mine. I'm sorry I didn't credit you - I wasn't thinking of a way to find out who'd said it at the time (though now I've come up with several), and I wasn't planning on responding to your specific points so... sorry.
But yeah, before I'd seen you make your post, I was planning on making a practically identical one, then dropped it because, you know, you'd already covered it. Then when I noticed that yours was more or less ignored, I guessed that it might have been because of a lack of context or information, so I revamped my original idea for a more detailed look.
But if your post hadn't been there,...
Indeed! :)
Wait,
did I saw paladin the guy was a dwarven bard not a paladin. stupid Auto correct. can we end the thread now?
The monster you loosed cannot be caged again. The Genie can't put back into it's bottle. The Dogs of War you've unleashed cannot be recaptured! !
... on second thought, sure, why not?
Oh, hey, a viable third conclusion that could be reached instead of only the two I mention: both of the above.
That means that both Paizo cannot be trusted with the rules that they made (and thus hardline RAW should be ignored) and that the hardline interpretation of paladin actions is incorrect. This third conclusion isn't required by the Council of Thieves AP, though, as it does not negate or shed any light on the other two... it's simply another possibility within the parameters established about the rules and the company that makes them.
So, Lobolusk, more on the original topic, what did your Chaotic Neutral character end up doing, if you've played since then?
tomorrow hopefully, though the paladin wont be attending
I am torn between having my ninja wait until the paladin is weak then strike because he is fortified and has an elemental all non sneak attack stuff. or just being has evil has possible arounf him and every time he calls me on it "say o were these guys not starving and chained up enough for you you have no authority of me hypocrite"? regardless of whether it was okay by torags rules it was still not okay for my ninja.i wanted to address why I was going to write the letter. it was because my ninja doesnt know how paladins work but figures if this dude is going to be like him and kill like an assassin maybe he will be like him and write a letter. Thinking maybe that is what you are supposed to do? like trying to follow the rules when you dont know what they are.
wow that paladin Wyrvn thread was ........
So, hey, on this new topic of conversation, it's worth noting that my wife is currently playing a now-lawful-good reformed demon (reformed by way of a minor artifact that she was tricked into receiving).
Of the four demons* she's run into since then, she's insta-destroyed three without mercy or hesitation, and the fourth was saved because it knew information.
You see, she knows what it's like to be a demon.
Also worth noting, Kamelguru, that Atonement doesn't work on aligned outsiders, so you'd be wasting your funds regardless.
Also, I just realized your name was "Kamel Guru" or "Camel Guru" when said out loud. That's kind of cool.
* This is, I admit, only a partially true statement. The (rather staggeringly large) number of demons that she's not insta-destroyed are demons that are, themselves, in a state of flux on their way to not becoming abyssal creatures, and are this way entirely because she is reformed: they are bound and completely under her control anyway, have existed in that state for thousands of years before she changed, and have remained that way afterwords. Thus they not only don't count, they can't count, as they have no choice but to do as she commands (which, in this case, is seek out redemption and do non-evil things). To to make a more accurate statement, "Of the four completely free willed demons she's run into..." and it continues from there.
|
|
So, hey, on this new topic of conversation, it's worth noting that my wife is currently playing a now-lawful-good reformed demon (reformed by way of a minor artifact that she was tricked into receiving).
Of the four demons* she's run into since then, she's insta-destroyed three without mercy or hesitation, and the fourth was saved because it knew information.
You see, she knows what it's like to be a demon.
Also worth noting, Kamelguru, that Atonement doesn't work on aligned outsiders, so you'd be wasting your funds regardless.
Also, I just realized your name was "Kamel Guru" or "Camel Guru" when said out loud. That's kind of cool.
* This is, I admit, only a partially true statement. The (rather staggeringly large) number of demons that she's not insta-destroyed are demons that are, themselves, in a state of flux on their way to not becoming abyssal creatures, and are this way entirely because she is reformed: they are bound and completely under her control anyway, have existed in that state for thousands of years before she changed, and have remained that way afterwords. Thus they not only don't count, they can't count, as they have no choice but to do as she commands (which, in this case, is seek out redemption and do non-evil things). To to make a more accurate statement, "Of the four completely free willed demons she's run into..." and it continues from there.
Sounds like a friggin' fascinating game. :)
i wanted to address why I was going to write the letter. it was because my ninja doesnt know how paladins work but figures if this dude is going to be like him and kill like an assassin maybe he will be like him and write a letter. Thinking maybe that is what you are supposed to do? like trying to follow the rules when you dont know what they are.
Ah . . . that makes more sense then my original impression of "I disagree, and thus am going to write a sternly worded letter to your superiors because I know you should not be permitted to do such", which I had a hard time attributing to a chaotic character.
I think the interesting line to be wary of is what exactly it is that would vex you CN ninja. Was it the waste of life? Was it real hypocrisy? Was it perceived hypocrisy (you aren't acting anything like I think paladins should be)? What precisely about the event would have been the trigger(s) of your ninja's distaste. And make sure his reactions to the paladin are appropriate.
For example, if a trigger was the fact he killed helpless prisoners, but won't allow you to kill sleeping enemies, needle him with "What? You can kill helpless opponents with no problem, but when I do it it's "dishonorable"?" or "Would it be better if I chained them up for you first?" (heaping as much disdain as possible). Just being kind of evil all the time would be less poignant than focusing on countering him on a few specific things.
Oh, it's pretty great!
It's actually our version of Council of Thieves.
* For fun, we decided to roll up a random character that was a monster for my wife to play.
* Rolled up a CR 7. Rolling randomly on that chart, we got a succubus.
* My wife hated that idea (she hates evil creatures and loathes the idea of playing an evil thing), so I came up with a short adventure (really a refurbished pre-published short adventure) to explain how she ceased being evil (thus the minor artifact - a ring, which was her "payment" when a desperate, dwindling mage and father used a candle to summon her to save his daughter after divinations told him to).
* That guy actually has a super-complex back story, but it doesn't really matter here, except that as the campaign goes along she learned that she used to be really powerful and evil until he nearly killed her (which set him to a slow death that she no longer had the power to stop) and then unknowingly summoned her because divination reasons. Since he died, and she was lawful good, she decided to care for the girl as if it were own child.
* They eventually find Golarion through time/space shenanigans, and, forced to settle there instead of a home she was banished from, they did in Westcrown.
* Fastforward 900 years (or so) and a brief transfer to Absalom during the civil war (to protect some innocents she'd adopted), before going back to Westcrown after they grew up, and Council of Thieves happens.
It's a blast, really, exploring a formerly-devoted-to-Arazni living through that goddess' death, Iomadae's rise, and Aroden's fall, and Iomadae's subsequent rise further, and following her tenets.
All in a back drop of Council of Thieves.
I am torn between having my ninja wait until the paladin is weak then strike because he is fortified and has an elemental all non sneak attack stuff. or just being has evil has possible arounf him and every time he calls me on it "say o were these guys not starving and chained up enough for you you have no authority of me hypocrite"? regardless of whether it was okay by torags rules it was still not okay for my ninja.
i wanted to address why I was going to write the letter. it was because my ninja doesnt know how paladins work but figures if this dude is going to be like him and kill like an assassin maybe he will be like him and write a letter. Thinking maybe that is what you are supposed to do? like trying to follow the rules when you dont know what they are.
So he acts like you, and this reflection of your own actions angers you?
Wouldn't it be smarter and clearer to just ask why I can't kill sleeping people but you can kill prisoners?
This might open a dialogue.
I think a lot of people have trouble leaving real world ethics at the door when they come to game. The ninja CHARACTER may not have much reason to be offended, but the ninja PLAYER on the other hand, might have a big problem with the "killing of the helpless", unable to set aside the comparison to humans, even if the monsters in question only have the fact that they are bipedal in common with us.
I did this a lot too when I was younger. A few of my friends even disregarded alignments entirely, as they found the experience of cognitive dissonance too jarring to comply with them.
|
|
Paizo said killing evil babies was Good, except when it is Evil.
Forcing people (even demons) to act good does not make them good and is usually considered very close to evil by many Good people.
Protagonists facing monsters in movies may be good, but I would not say that they qualify as Paladins. Also these movies do not represent all the kind of movies that can be done with people facing monsters. Obviously, monsters in these movies are irredeemably evil. Such is not necessarily the case in PFRPG, even for Evil outsiders, who can be redeemed, at least according to Champions of Purity.
I don't think this is ANYTHING like the Wyvern thread. I think there is a MILESWIDE gap between arguing that a paladin shouldn't be able to destroy always evil undead creatures and fiends, and that a paladin shouldn't kill neutral creatures in their sleep in the middle of nowhere.And yet killing evil creatures in their sleep is OK. Being both lawful and good.
By that logic, people on this very thread have said it's OK to kill "evil" babies.
There is a difference between killing a sleeping sentient creature that - from what the characters know - hasn't done anything, and killing a creature which is either MADE UP OF PURE EVIL (like a fiend) or destroying an ANIMATED CORPSE which is uncontrollably evil.
Creatures with the [evil] tag or that are always evil in alignment is a different thing from other. They're not free-willed and cannot be assumed to be able to redeem.
There is also a big difference between killing something that is a direct threat to nearby innocents and killing something in the middle of nowhere.
It's not so much "they ping Evil" (I don't think that's reason enough), it's that some creatures are literally evil, as the noun, not the adjective.
I got buttmad in the wyvern thread because I knew the scenario to every detail, and the "Paladin must fall!" crew was spewing false imaginary scenarios and disregarding the fact that this was an encounter in an AP, where the wyverns were scripted to attack and try to kill the PCs, as they were guarding the tomb of an evil lich necromancer.
Killing a neutral creature in its sleep at random is no bueno, but that was not the case. It was a paladin killing the guardians of an evil lich that recently committed genocide on an entire community.
While I do agree there was some false imagery (on both sides) I think it's important to note that the _paladin_ did not know they where scripted to attack them, nor did it know they where conscious and willing guardians of the evil lich necromancer.
I think a lot of people have trouble leaving real world ethics at the door when they come to game. The ninja CHARACTER may not have much reason to be offended, but the ninja PLAYER on the other hand, might have a big problem with the "killing of the helpless", unable to set aside the comparison to humans, even if the monsters in question only have the fact that they are bipedal in common with us.
Sleeping people are helpless: the ninja was stopped from killing them earlier.
So the Ninja has no grounds for moral high ground on that subject. The Ninja is just upset he couldn't kill sleeping people.
|
|
So he acts like you, and this reflection of your own actions angers you?
I am torn between having my ninja wait until the paladin is weak then strike because he is fortified and has an elemental all non sneak attack stuff. or just being has evil has possible arounf him and every time he calls me on it "say o were these guys not starving and chained up enough for you you have no authority of me hypocrite"? regardless of whether it was okay by torags rules it was still not okay for my ninja.
i wanted to address why I was going to write the letter. it was because my ninja doesnt know how paladins work but figures if this dude is going to be like him and kill like an assassin maybe he will be like him and write a letter. Thinking maybe that is what you are supposed to do? like trying to follow the rules when you dont know what they are.
I believe that the anger comes from the Paladin being all high-and-mighty and holier-than-thou around the ninja, and then seemingly disregarding matters of honor and respect for life to indulge in the slaughter of helpless prisoners by his pet elemental.
IIRC, the OP stated that his ninja sees everybody as being selfish killers at heart and despise that the Paladin pretends to be otherwise when his actions scream "selfish killer, same as everyone else" to the ninja.
Firstly, @Tacticslion - You are my hero, I've read those long posts of yours and completely agree with everything you said. I was the one who pointed out that the newer stuff replaces or adds to the older stuff that Paizo publishes (i.e. errata and books like faiths of purity). Anyhow, great stuff you've been posting.
Now onto my turn to show Marthkus the error of his ways...
I don't think this is ANYTHING like the Wyvern thread. I think there is a MILESWIDE gap between arguing that a paladin shouldn't be able to destroy always evil undead creatures and fiends, and that a paladin shouldn't kill neutral creatures in their sleep in the middle of nowhere.And yet killing evil creatures in their sleep is OK. Being both lawful and good.
By that logic, people on this very thread have said it's OK to kill "evil" babies.
Let me post this question to you Marthkus:
If you aren't supposed to kill that undead ghoul, what would an Undead Scourge Paladin do? Would he fall for killing this unarmed undead creature "dishonorably"?
According to your interpretation, he'd fall it seems. But if you look at the archetype, he'd fall by not killing these undead abominations because he has dedicated his life to wiping them out, how could he let it live?
Open your eyes man, I've said it before multiple multiple times and I say it again: THERE IS NO ONE WAY TO PLAY A PALADIN, just because YOU think so, does not make it so. Each and every paladin has different codes based on his religion, archetype, race, personality, experiences, and where he's from.
Edit: I thought of some other stuff to say... go figure :P
By Marthkus' definition of a paladin - I figure I'd only be able to follow: Andoletta, Angradd, Apsu, Erastil, Folgrit, Grundinnar, Iomedae, Ragathiel, and Torag as these are the ONLY Lawful Good gods.
Also, I wouldn't be able to play any of the archetypes as they have different beliefs about what to do with certain creatures (i.e. undead scourge). I wouldn't be able to follow any of the good gods who aren't lawful (i.e. Sarenrae), because their teachings aren't all about the law, even though they are good. Basically there is ONLY ONE TRUE WAY to play a paladin. Am I missing something?
As an aside, LG Torag (as the Paladin in the OP's question states) is unmerciful against his enemies. I'm sorry that Marthkus hasn't had an opportunity to expand his knowledge and keeps it limited to the old core stuff.
While I do agree there was some false imagery (on both sides) I think it's important to note that the _paladin_ did not know they where scripted to attack them, nor did it know they where conscious and willing guardians of the evil lich necromancer.
It's been a while, so I cannot be certain, but I have played this AP, and it is possible that he does not know about the lich and such, but it is very unlikely. The scripted way to find the lair is by tracking the doomed villagers to his tomb. And the lair is nestled deep in the mountains, far off the beaten path. To randomly stumble upon it requires some serious Roronoa Zoro tier getting lost.
So, while it is possible, I doubt it. Unless the GM has altered the AP, of course.
Firstly, @Tacticslion - You are my hero, I've read those long posts of yours and completely agree with everything you said. I was the one who pointed out that the newer stuff replaces or adds to the older stuff that Paizo publishes (i.e. errata and books like faiths of purity). Anyhow, great stuff you've been posting.
Hey, thanks! I've got to put my motor-mouthing skills to good use somehow... :)