|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The code can just as easily be read to imply that any enemy of the dwarves should be dealt with swiftly, harshly, and with extreme prejudice no matter where you encounter them.
Assuming you do so in a way that "Yet even in the struggle against our enemies, I will act in a way that brings honor to Torag."
And Torag is a Lawful Good deity. So "harshly, and with extreme prejudice" may be pushing it.
Torag is the god of people whose culture was founded in the Darklands. Dwarves were basically the only inhabitants of their ancestral homeland who weren't evil rampaging, civilization crushing monsters OR fiendish masterminds of darkness.
So Torag's caution about accepting surrender and showing mercy is probably based on some very old and very well established experience of his people being attacked by monsters who are basically irredeemable alien. No matter how much the Intellect Devourer begs for mercy, you know it's just going to turn on you when your back is turned. Taking the time to try and redeem an enemy who wants to eat you, turn you into a slave, or wear your skin as a suit would be foolish from his perspective, especially since everyone involved has very long lifespans where a mistake can come back and haunt you decades later. High cost, high risk, low potential of success, and low reward. Plus, Torag is all about community, not the individual. The only way the dwarves could compete against the horrors of the darklands were to wrap themselves in steel and work together. An individual trying to make their way in the world is fine, so long as they fulfill their duty to the rest of society. Everyone rows or we all sink kind of mentality. Which fits his Lawful Good alignment.
Sarenrae, by comparison, is an ascended angel who apparently played a big role in the aftermath of mortals being granted free will. She's more concerned about individual choices (not to the same level as, say, Desna). She's Neutral good. So while she's pretty freaking harsh to people who won't repent, she's definitely willing to take the time to give them a chance. And, unlike Torag, she isn't a racial god. Torag has "his" people. Sarenrae has everyone. So she'd naturally be more tolerant and accepting since "her people" is a pretty inclusive group.
So it makes sense that Torag would look pragmatically at the risks and rewards of showing mercy to an enemy. And considering the overall history of orcs and goblins, it's probably wise to assume that the orc is a rampaging monster hell bent on killing you and not a tragic figure attempting to overcome his nature and society.
But Torag is a very defensive deity who focuses on the long term and the larger community. Not a crusading, bloodthirsty killer deity who actively sends out paladins to murder families.
I always sort of figured that Torag's priests would have a variation of The Scorpion and the Frog as a major religious parable. While Sarenrae's priests would be all about The Lion and the Mouse
Sarenrae, by comparison, is an ascended angel who apparently played a big role in the aftermath of mortals being granted free will. She's more concerned about individual choices (not to the same level as, say, Desna). She's Neutral good. So while she's pretty freaking harsh to...
I remember reading something about Sarenrae being all about redemption with the caveat that you get one more chance and if you backslide into evil again the gloves come off and you are toast (probably literally given her domains). Was this something like the misogynistic Erastil which was airbrushed out later?
But Torag is a very defensive deity who focuses on the long term and the larger community. Not a crusading, bloodthirsty killer deity who actively sends out paladins to murder families.
You are right that Traog would not be very offensively minded, but my interpretation of the code was that if a tribe of an evil race were to attack the Dwarves, Torag is completely fine with fighting them all the way back to their homes, then torching those homes and making sure that the attackers are destroyed as a distinct group so that they can never threaten the Dwarves again. And Torag would expect him paladins to be leading that strike back and not taking half measures in the defense of their home. This is probably conditioned, as you said, from the beginnings of Dwarven civilization being besieged on all sides in the Darklands.
Torag also is a wise and cunning battle leader, who would know that one of the most excellent systems of defense is a really cranking offense.
He would also know that the best way to stop a war from trashing your countryside and burning down your homes is to make sure it instead trashes the enemy's countryside and burns down their homes.
So, 'defending dwarven homes' can very, very easily be used as justification to smite the evil before it rises again and brings its wrongbadness here. If you can see it coming, it's best to chop it off before it grows.
Saranrae would give them the chance to grow and prove themselves NOT evil, and take the shots that result stoically before burning them all to ash. Sorrowfully, of course.
==Aelryinth
|
|
I remember reading something about Sarenrae being all about redemption with the caveat that you get one more chance and if you backslide into evil again the gloves come off and you are toast (probably literally given her domains). Was this something like the misogynistic Erastil which was airbrushed out later?
Well, Sarenrae has been fairly consistently a bad#$$ when it comes to fighting evil. There's that whole balance she has between being a fiery sun angel and a also a goddess of mercy and redemption.
I don't know if it was ever qualified as "you get one chance only" in the sense that she'd snuff you out if you did any backsliding. Redemption is such an individualistic, case-by-case thing that putting a numerical value on how long it takes doesn't seem realistic. It struck me more as "you'll get as long as you need so long as you are sincere in your attempt ... within reason".
You are right that Traog would not be very offensively minded, but my interpretation of the code was that if a tribe of an evil race were to attack the Dwarves, Torag is completely fine with fighting them all the way back to their homes, then torching those homes and making sure that the attackers are destroyed as a distinct group so that they can never threaten the Dwarves again. And Torag would expect him paladins to be leading that strike back and not taking half measures in the defense of their home. This is probably conditioned, as you said, from the beginnings of Dwarven civilization being besieged on all sides in the Darklands.
I think that seems fair, but I'd also say that it is less of the "torching the homes" aspect and more of the "making sure the attackers are defeated so we don't have to do this again" aspect. It strikes me more of a general philosophy than a strict divine order.
Which fits with Torag being such a community-minded deity. If a tribe of orcs moves into the valley and threatens the dwarven village, then it's not just a question of killing the orc raiders that attack. Even if you beat them, another group will just come later. As long as that community of orcs is there, they are a threat. And even if you "make peace" with them, that peace will only last until a new warchief comes into power. So the best way to protect your community long term is to defeat the rival tribe. Kill their warriors and scatter the non-combatants. As a community, they're a threat. As a scattered group of individuals, they're an annoyance. And paladins should be in the front, leading the way, because they are strong and it is their duty to protect the weaker members of the community.
This, of course, assumes the tribe is hostile. If you have, say, a tribe of goblins living in the nearby woods who aren't attacking the dwarven village, Torag probably wouldn't encourage his paladins to go wipe them out. Watch them, sure. Be prepared in case they attack, sure. If the goblins get a crazy war chief and start attacking the dwarves, sure. Always make sure you finish your fights. But there's no reason to provoke a fight if you don't have to.
Destroying their culture, maybe. Butchering down to the last child, no.So ethnic cleansing is ok, just not full blown genocide? The point is that there are lots of things that paladins do that is completely LG but that they would be invited to see the inside of the Hague for if they were on Earth.
Depends what you consider 'ethnic cleansing.' Destroying their culture is justified if their culture is a threat. Every war ever ends with the winner trying to make sure that the loser isn't a threat anymore.
Evil people go the 'kill all the menfolk' route, while good people go the more 'take all their weapons' route.
Both are a detriment to the 'culture'
Depends what you consider 'ethnic cleansing.' Destroying their culture is justified if their culture is a threat. Every war ever ends with the winner trying to make sure that the loser isn't a threat anymore.
Evil people go the 'kill all the menfolk' route, while good people go the more 'take all their weapons' route.
Both are a detriment to the 'culture'
I think that "take their weapons" is the epitome of the kind of half measure solution that Torag would not approve of. When you do that they just make more weapons and you have to fight them again month after month. Sarenrae probably would do something along those lines, along with breaking out the helm of alignment change.
1. The paladin is supposed to be disruptive. If the group cannot work with the paladin's limitations, the paladin shouldn't be in the party. Otherwise, you're neutering the paladin and giving away the class' powers for free - the code of conduct is part of the balance for how the class works. If the paladin's code ruins the party's fun, the paladin should not be in that
...While this might be the case from a strict in-world logic perspective, there are times when that has to break in a metagame way to hold together the conceit that all the characters have to work together, since they represent the players who are playing together. Writing the paladin off as intended to disrupt parties is really irresponsible as a DM because it basically gives the player of a paladin carte blanche to be a dick to everyone else.
If you feel this way about paladins, and you are not necessarily wrong, they should not be an allowed PC class in your games, otherwise you are just asking for all the butthurt that was mentioned earlier upthread.
Perhaps my re-use of your original wording was too easily misinterpreted or you did not thoroughly read my whole post. My intention was not that paladins or their players were to be deliberately disruptive, but rather their very presence forces some hard choices for the entire group. If the group does not want to deal with the limits a paladin's presence forces on them, there shouldn't be a paladin in the party. (And there's nothing wrong with that choice.) But if there is, then it strikes me as feeble or cheating for a paladin (paladin's player) to ignore his code (and the DM to stand idly by) simply for meta-game "cohesion," or to just "get along."
In the situation originally described the paladin and his group have several options including interrogating the prisoner for information. If he is not cooperative, he doesn't seem too interested in redemption, making his fate dubious at best. The paladin does not have to be foolish - if the surrender appears to be a ruse or an effort to thwart the paladin's goals, he can strip and bind the prisoner and leave him in a closet. If the fey's allies are so feckless as to abandon him, it's not the paladin's look-out. If these alternatives are unworkable for any number of logistical reasons, the paladin is not obligated to accept the surrender at all. "Sorry Mr. Evil Fey, surrender is not an option for you. Pick up your weapons and die in combat."
I'm not even saying the gunslinger shouldn't have shot the fey, I'm really challenging the fact that the paladin gave tacit approval of it without protest or suggesting an alternative. Should he have physically assaulted the gunslinger to stop it? No. But he at a minimum needs to say, "No, that's not the right thing for us to do."
Heck, it might be interesting to have player tension over these issues and have the gunslinger and paladin at odds over methodology. But that should be something everyone buy's into and even then, the paladin should stand up for his code.
I think that "take their weapons" is the epitome of the kind of half measure solution that Torag would not approve of. When you do that they just make more weapons and you have to fight them again month after month. Sarenrae probably would do something along those lines, along with breaking out the helm of alignment change.Depends what you consider 'ethnic cleansing.' Destroying their culture is justified if their culture is a threat. Every war ever ends with the winner trying to make sure that the loser isn't a threat anymore.
Evil people go the 'kill all the menfolk' route, while good people go the more 'take all their weapons' route.
Both are a detriment to the 'culture'
/shrug
Didn't work so great after World War I... However in WWII we broke Germany into 4 parts. They haven't started another war. We had/have a military presence in Japan since then too... same thing.
There will always be a line where you are 'tough' enough to stop the threat and 'humane' enough to still be 'good'.
Paladins... even Torag's are the ones who can find the line.
|
It didnt work so great after ww1 because we disarmed then, then tried to utterly destroy their economy which left them desperate, and desperate people do desperate things like oh, turn to a meglomaniac who promises to get them normal things like food. We broke Germany into 4 parts in ww2 cause all the allies wanted a peice of the pie, and oh wait we supported them in the rebuild effort, same thing with Japan. Destroying the enemy is one thing, destroying the enemy then showing the compassion to help them back up from after being knocked down and showing them that we are not the enemy they thought was another.
|
I interpret 'scatter their families' as to actually mean *scatter their families,* not 'kill alla greenies.' No reason to make up a definition for 'scatter their families' that's any more or less than what the words the writer chose actually mean, IMO.
No mercy for the ones fighting you, but the families? Drive them from your lands. Don't leave them there to potentially be a threat to your people in another 25 years (which is not that long a time in the life of a dwarf). Don't try to redeem or incorporate them, and create competition for your own people's resources.
Scatter them. Not 'scatter their bloody gibbets after chopping them to tiny bits and saving the best bits to eat.'
A paladin of Torag would probably view Sherman's March to the Sea to be an example of good tactics. Or rather, Torag himself probably would, since the window of opportunity for a paladin to Torag to ever learn about the march is very, very limited.
"Scatter their families" doesn't require xenocide. It just requires giving the enemy a very, very good incentive to pack up, leave, and never come back.
"Scatter their families" doesn't require xenocide. It just requires giving the enemy a very, very good incentive to pack up, leave, and never come back.
Well that would be things like destroying their homes, executing all those who are combatants (basically anyone with levels other than commoner) and probably moving dwarven garrisons onto any resources that they were exploiting. Which is all basically the definition of ethnic cleansing.
And I cannot see Torag as the kind of god who would appreciate his paladins being too pansy with their scruples and making the clerics and inquisitors finish the job. Although when the inquisitors and clerics are in charge there is probably more genocide rather than other war crimes going on.
My point is that paladins of Torag and paladins of many other gods are completely fine with committing war crimes as long as it is against evil things, since within the alignment system the genocide of Evil is a Good act.
It's not comparable to WWII or anything else in Earth history ... since there are no orcs or other inherently-evil species on Earth.
But people inevitably conflate Good and Lawful alignment with acceptable behavior in the 21st century, especially when talking about paladins.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
My point is that paladins of Torag and paladins of many other gods are completely fine with committing war crimes as long as it is against evil things, since within the alignment system the genocide of Evil is a Good act.
I strongly disagree with this conclusion, and would HATE to be stuck in a game where this assumption was applied. It's one of those things that turns Good and Evil into nothing more than two similar teams in different jerseys.
There are angels of execution and bloody vengeance, but none whatsoever for the unforgivable sin of genocide. They have daemons for that.
My point is that paladins of Torag and paladins of many other gods are completely fine with committing war crimes as long as it is against evil things, since within the alignment system the genocide of Evil is a Good act.I strongly disagree with this conclusion, and would HATE to be stuck in a game where this assumption was applied. It's one of those things that turns Good and Evil into nothing more than two similar teams in different jerseys.
There are angels of execution and bloody vengeance, but none whatsoever for the unforgivable sin of genocide. They have daemons for that.
I obviously have a far greater tolerance for cynicism in my campaign worlds. That is probably why Eberron remains among my favorite published campaign settings and also why I think paladins make such great antagonists.
The way I see it, the alignment system as presented by basically every edition has some really disturbing implications which are fairly difficult to just sweep under the rug unless really deconstructing the idea of alignment. Paladins and other divine characters tend to expose them more than others. Go find the helm of alignment change thread for an illustration of a case where both Good and especially Lawful fail to live up to modern standards of moral behavior.
Alignment system is very much not in line with normal acceptable behavior. . .
As far as having characters with radically different beliefs in the same party, it can easily be done-- even with characters more extremely different than LG "lets get them to repent" and LG "no chance for repentance lets kill them".
I ran a successful game with a NE lich and a Druid as two of the main characters, so you just have to get the characters to find their common interests (or enemies).
|
Torag's Paladin code is not to murder families, it is to scatter them. Scattering is not the same thing as slaughtering. To scatter is to spread the family to the four corners of the world, separate them from each other, which considering how family oriented dwarven society is is a tough punishment, however it is NOT genocide.
Nah, it's just that orcs and drow in Golarion are way better at killing those morally misguided kin before they become too much of a problem.
OK, so consensus is the families are just scattered, but Sarenrite Pally's are Smited to kingdom come?
Torag is a lightweight. If you think he's bad I'd love to see the reaction a paladin of Sarenrae would have to a paladin of Ragathiel.
Sorry guys, but where can you find all the gods' paladins' codes? Google failed me. xD
http://www.archivesofnethys.com/DeitiesByGroup.aspx
That link will show what book each of the gods are in.
Faiths of Purity and Faiths of Balance contain Paladin codes for some LG, NG, and LN Deities.
(Iomedae, Sarenrae, Abadar, Torag?)
There isn't a published code for every Deity, and some Deities are inappropriate for a Paladin to worship.
Thank you, really cool read!