Paladin= game ruiners


Advice

201 to 250 of 335 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Which were believed real in historical settings. Sorry, you're wrong.
The game is not a historical setting. You'll have to define 'medieval' better than that if you want to prove your point. And let me go dig up a particular quote while you do...

Ah, here we go.

Luminiere Solas wrote:

i don't get why people see D&D or it's derivatives as medieval european.

you have medieval knights wearing rennaiscane era armor, wielding roman era falcatas, worshipping greek gods, traveling with native american shamans wearing the hides of saharan beasts, who transform into prehistoric dinosaurs who are accompanied by modern japanese schoolgirls wielding Tokugawa Era Daisho and Wearing black pajamas, and old men wearing robes and pointed hats who chant mathematical equations to control reality, on a journey to kill brain eating space aliens, giant sentient firebreathing spellcasting reptiles and sentient jello.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Which were believed real in historical settings. Sorry, you're wrong.
The game is not a historical setting. You'll have to define 'medieval' better than that if you want to prove your point. And let me go dig up a particular quote while you do...

I'm sorry, the basis of golorian medieval. All of its roots are set in late medieval (though i will admit with the advent of guns to the system and such they seem to be moving later and later. At this point they're incorporating bronze age, 600 some odd bc all the way up to 1850's or so.)

Its funny toz, usually i agree hardcore with you, but this is something i'm strong on.

Edit: Can identify everything but the japanese school girl right off the top of my head :P


Thomas Long 175 wrote:

Once again, relating this because it was ignored.

Pathfinder is medieval setting. MEDIEVAL SETTINGS IT IS COMPLETELY CANON AND WITHIN THE REALM OF GOOD TO KILL EVIL SIMPLY FOR BEING EVIL.

90% of your paladins from stereotypical fables and such dating back more than 50 years did not fall for murdering the evil person without trying to save them! That is a completely modern squeamishness that we share based on our society. It in no way represents the morality of a classic fantasy setting, literary or otherwise, and to treat it otherwise is squeamish shenanigans on the part of GM's involved.

Killing evil for being evil traditionally is well within the setting and the role of a paladin, no questions asked.

Edit: To enumerate:

We may not consider a lot of historical actions good nowadays, the inquisitions, the witch trials, etc. But guess what? By code of religious conduct at the time, they were good. By code of religious organization, they were good. By rule of law, they were good.

A ton of actions seemed horrifying and barbaric, BUT BY EVERY STANDARD AT THE TIME FROM RELIGIOUS DOWN TO LAW, THEY WERE GOOD.

Eh... no... This is more arguably based on the Arthurian legends than actual historical fact, and even THAT is pushing it. And don't even get me started on the morality of the crusades. You can either believe that it was done with the best of intentions, or you can believe it was a political war (like any other) under the guise of divine mandate.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
All of its roots are set in late medieval

Define your terms sir!

What does 'medieval' mean?

What is medieval about Pathfinder?

When robots and spaceships are a part of your setting, and technocratic societies thrive, you're losing ground.

Your fireball spells involve throwing gunpowder at your foes!


TOZ wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
All of its roots are set in late medieval

Define your terms sir!

What does 'medieval' mean?

What is medieval about Pathfinder?

When robots and spaceships are a part of your setting, and technocratic societies thrive, you're losing ground.

Generally, I call medieval to be the collapse of the western half of the roman era (eastern half lasted another 5-600 years but thats a whole nother thing). Somewhere in the realm of 800 AD, if I recall correctly and lasting until about 1400 AD, though this is off the top of my head.

On the other hand, what is medieval?

Its roots. Pathfinder 100% is traced as a direct descendant of medieval style wargaming. Before the advent of all the new weapons and classes, it was 100% medieval steretypical european weapons with proper stats and abilities, generally heavily researched.

There were no wizards, no dragons, no rogues or clerics. It was fighting men (the origins of the fighter) employing different weapons and styles of combat on the field of battle. It was 100% no guns, no magic, no eastern flavors, no martial arts, etc. It was European warfare, and that is the setting pathfinder and indeed all of d&d derived from, even if they have continuously attached more along the way.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Your statement is so ridiculous, I'm not even sure where to start.

The fact that you automatically equate 'religious' to 'good' is enough of a logic hole that everything else falls apart around it.


Thomas Long 175 wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
All of its roots are set in late medieval

Define your terms sir!

What does 'medieval' mean?

What is medieval about Pathfinder?

When robots and spaceships are a part of your setting, and technocratic societies thrive, you're losing ground.

Generally, I call medieval to be the collapse of the western half of the roman era (eastern half lasted another 5-600 years but thats a whole nother thing). Somewhere in the realm of 800 AD, if I recall correctly and lasting until about 1400 AD, though this is off the top of my head.

On the other hand, what is medieval?

Its roots. Pathfinder 100% is traced as a direct descendant of medieval style wargaming. Before the advent of all the new weapons and classes, it was 100% medieval steretypical european weapons with proper stats and abilities, generally heavily researched.

There were no wizards, no dragons, no rogues or clerics. It was fighting men (the origins of the fighter) employing different weapons and styles of combat on the field of battle. It was 100% no guns, no magic, no eastern flavors, no martial arts, etc. It was European warfare, and that is the setting pathfinder and indeed all of d&d derived from, even if they have continuously attached more along the way.

So, how's that model T you're cruising around in holding up?


I don't understand.

How is DnD and most of it's iterations not Medieval Fantasy at it's core with a bunch of other themes tacked on?


Scavion wrote:

I don't understand.

How is DnD and most of it's iterations not Medieval Fantasy at it's core with a bunch of other themes tacked on?

I imagine the "bunch of other themes" is precisely what makes it not medieval.


Zhayne wrote:

Your statement is so ridiculous, I'm not even sure where to start.

The fact that you automatically equate 'religious' to 'good' is enough of a logic hole that everything else falls apart around it.

Funny enough, I'm blatantly anti religious, love the idea of monks, have only been playing for 7 years, and have no problems with wizards. lol

However you have a pocket knife. You throw a bunch of extra items on and call it a swiss army knife and say it is in fact no longer a pocket knife because a bunch of extra crap is there. Thats wrong. Thats blatantly wrong. At its core, it is still a pocket knife, no matter how many extras you throw on. The same is said of d&d.

As for religiousness as a measure of good. I don't care if thats how i measure good. Its not how i measure good or how you measure good. What we think is good matters NOT ONE WIT. This is a medieval setting and good is measured with said standard. Their standard was patriotism, nationalism, and religiousness. That is the standard that I use in this setting because that is the standard that they used.


'They'? They who?

The NPCs in the setting react like you want them to.

As hard as this seems for you to believe, D&D does not take place in any point in RL history, so what RL history says about anything is totally irrelevant. Golarion's history is nothing like real world history, so why you think they would be remotely parallel is beyond me.

You also fail to consider that not everybody plays Golarion, so ranting on about how things work in Golarion doesn't affect a lot of us. Honestly, I couldn't care what 'Golarion' considers good; I don't run games there.

And, frankly, compared to original D&D? The pocket knife has been removed and replaced with a lightsaber.


You think i run anything in Golarion? Not a chance. But D&D is still based off medieval time period as I just showed, and which you still have yet to make a counterpoint for.

This isn't a matter of belief. This is a matter of proper argumentation and fact. Fact is that this game was built off of war gaming based in medieval time sets, and when faced with that all you do is sling insults with no real counter point.

Fact is, based on that setting, medieval timelines, everyone in that particular time period was held to a morality base where church rules came first, then nationality rules. The only people who could escape this had armies at their backs.

That is the rule that I apply to D&D and ergo, pathfinder.

Now, reply without insults please, and make actual counterpoints.

Edit: And no you haven't removed the pocket knife. The core of original d&d is still there. Its been heavily modified but its there. Sorry to tell you, but it still applies to this.


Lyra Amary wrote:
Scavion wrote:

I don't understand.

How is DnD and most of it's iterations not Medieval Fantasy at it's core with a bunch of other themes tacked on?

I imagine the "bunch of other themes" is precisely what makes it not medieval.

Tacked on. As in, not amazingly well implemented. That ultimately Medieval Fantasy remains the strongest theme. I don't see an argument on how it's NOT medieval fantasy when that remains it's strongest theme.

I don't tell my friends it's about Alien Mummy Squid Monsters. I tell em it's about Wizards, Dragons, and Knights.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Even if it was medieval fantasy (and it's not, truly, Golarion seems closer to a Renaissance era setting with some vestigial Medieval trappings than anything else), why does that matter?

I'll be honest, I haven't been following this thread, but I caught the tail end of "It's medieval, therefore it's okay to kill evil people for being evil even if they're not actually being evil" which makes no logical sense whatsoever.

Last I checked people in the Middle Ages didn't have an "Evil Radar" to go pinging people with, so the only way they'd know if someone was evil is if they were actually doing, or had previously been CAUGHT doing something evil.

So saying "Because medieval, therefore it's okay" is nonsensical because it draws parallels to something that has no basis in that period of time at all because it's fictional.


Rynjin wrote:

Even if it was medieval fantasy (and it's not, truly, Golarion seems closer to a Renaissance era setting with some vestigial Medieval trappings than anything else), why does that matter?

I'll be honest, I haven't been following this thread, but I caught the tail end of "It's medieval, therefore it's okay to kill evil people for being evil even if they're not actually being evil" which makes no logical sense whatsoever.

Fortunately, the full argument being made isn't quite this (unless you're just having fun with the verb being). That argument would be silly.

The argument, as far as I can tell is that:

A: If a Paladin killed any person just because they had the evil alignment, the Paladin should fall.
B: They wouldn't. It's medieval therefore it's okay to just kill and evil person, even if they're not doing anything evil at the moment.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
aboniks wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
At some point, did people take "evil" to mean petty criminal?
The problem ... well, one of the many problems ... with Detect Evil is that it's binary. Yes or no. No gradients. Crazy psycho baby eater registers the same as makes babies cry for fun.
The icing on that particular piece of the alignment fruitcake is that a guy who stoically smashes baby goblins heads against the cave wall after killing their parents...he's just being merciful, and pings Capital-G Good.

eyes widen in horror

Charge and smite him immediately. No time to hesitate. The lives of children are at stake.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
aboniks wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
At some point, did people take "evil" to mean petty criminal?
The problem ... well, one of the many problems ... with Detect Evil is that it's binary. Yes or no. No gradients. Crazy psycho baby eater registers the same as makes babies cry for fun.
The icing on that particular piece of the alignment fruitcake is that a guy who stoically smashes baby goblins heads against the cave wall after killing their parents...he's just being merciful, and pings Capital-G Good.

TEAR THAT BABY MURDERER'S GODS DAMNED HEAD OFF


2 people marked this as a favorite.
aboniks wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
At some point, did people take "evil" to mean petty criminal?
The problem ... well, one of the many problems ... with Detect Evil is that it's binary. Yes or no. No gradients. Crazy psycho baby eater registers the same as makes babies cry for fun.
The icing on that particular piece of the alignment fruitcake is that a guy who stoically smashes baby goblins heads against the cave wall after killing their parents...he's just being merciful, and pings Capital-G Good.

>:(

Flesh to stone the bastard.


And...Paizo says you're all Evil now. Unless you're not.

Wheeeee! So much for objectivism.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
aboniks wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
At some point, did people take "evil" to mean petty criminal?
The problem ... well, one of the many problems ... with Detect Evil is that it's binary. Yes or no. No gradients. Crazy psycho baby eater registers the same as makes babies cry for fun.
The icing on that particular piece of the alignment fruitcake is that a guy who stoically smashes baby goblins heads against the cave wall after killing their parents...he's just being merciful, and pings Capital-G Good.

Ugh. I take the man's skull as a trophy of little value and mark him as eternal prey. There is no sport in butchering the helpless. And there is no sense in depleting the stock for the hunt in the years to come.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
aboniks wrote:

And...Paizo says you're all Evil now. Unless you're not.

Wheeeee! So much for objectivism.

Well, Kassa is. But dammit, he still has standards. ;)


aboniks wrote:

And...Paizo says you're all Evil now. Unless you're not.

Wheeeee! So much for objectivism.

Again, the bolded part is the only one that confuses me, going back to the previous anecdote about smashing goblins infants. Can you link/reference/cite this stated stance on alignment?

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Pathfinder is medieval setting.
No, it's really really not.
Pathfinder came off D&D 3.X, which traces back to basic, which was based off medieval wargaming. So yeah, it really is, hate to burst your bubble.

The game kind of evolved and grew along the way.

Historic reenactment, Pathfinder is not.


Actually, the full argument has not been clarified, but if you'd like me to specify:

1: If you're evil you have to have done evil. Not just evil, but significant evil. Enough evil that it outweighs all the good you've done and you're no longer even neutral, you're flat evil.

2: This makes you evil. YOU ARE EVIL. Evil is a status you can obtain or rid yourself of, but obtaining it means that you have done significant amounts of horrible things.

3: As for medieval settings. Its based on medieval settings. It traces its roots to medieval warfare games. In medieval times you didn't have evil radar. You had "the church or the law says you're evil" and that was enough to justify your death. We may state it as wrong but last i checked the notions of our justice system didn't come around until the magna carta in 1360 something or so, around the closing of the period i specified. (Even for then i believe it only applied to lords)

4: So you're now evil as defined by a third party organization, either religion or law, but as the same in medieval times, religion trumped laws (ergo you had evil corrupt governments. You have evil deities too but they're flat evil and outright pretty much admit as such. They're not subtly flavored).

5: As per medieval justification, you are evil, ergo you deserve death. You've committed evil in the past, whether they have proof or you're doing it now, you're evil. Instead of having government officials, religious figures, or angry mobs decide it now, we just have this handy little evil radar. Because honestly, who wants to wait for the next angry mob to form?


Squirrel_Dude wrote:
Again, the bolded part is the only one that confuses me, going back to the previous anecdote about smashing goblins infants. Can you link/reference/cite this stated stance on alignment?

You're entirely forgiven for missing the re-post I posted to you before the rest of the thread went medieval on us. ;)

Originally from Paths of Purity. Linked in the SRD, under the "Good" Alignments section.

Ethics for Adventurers wrote:
One of the many quandaries good-aligned characters face during their adventuring careers is what to do about the progeny of evil humanoids. For example, shortly into their adventures, an adventuring party encounters a group of goblins who have been raiding a village, leaving a swath of death and destruction in their wake. The PCs track them to some caves and kill them—but the dead goblins leave behind babies. What should the PCs do with those? Kill them? Leave them be? What is the best and most appropriate thing for a good character to do in this situation? Just as there are varying good alignments, there are different solutions to this problem. One good character might believe the children are not inherently evil, that their behavior is learned, and round up the young ones to take them to a higher power like a church, a monastery, or an orphanage set up to deal with the issue of raising humanoid children. Alternatively, he might decide to raise them himself! This could be viewed as the most saintly thing to do. Another character might decide not to do anything, leaving the children to the whims of nature—either the children will survive in the wild on their own, or they will not. Lastly, a good character who believes the younglings can never overcome their innate evil might kill them all outright, viewing the action as good, just, and the most merciful option.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mikaze wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Pathfinder is medieval setting.
No, it's really really not.
Pathfinder came off D&D 3.X, which traces back to basic, which was based off medieval wargaming. So yeah, it really is, hate to burst your bubble.

The game kind of evolved and grew along the way.

Historic reenactment, Pathfinder is not.

And as I said, the core is still there. This game was about fighting men fighting. The fighting man became the fighter. *checks core* well he aint in npc classes yet, though its getting close :P

Edit: Hey i like going medieval :P

Scarab Sages

aboniks wrote:
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
Again, the bolded part is the only one that confuses me, going back to the previous anecdote about smashing goblins infants. Can you link/reference/cite this stated stance on alignment?

You're entirely forgiven for missing the re-post I posted to you before the rest of the thread went medieval on us. ;)

Originally from Paths of Purity. Linked in the SRD, under the "Good" Alignments section.

Ethics for Adventurers wrote:
One of the many quandaries good-aligned characters face during their adventuring careers is what to do about the progeny of evil humanoids. For example, shortly into their adventures, an adventuring party encounters a group of goblins who have been raiding a village, leaving a swath of death and destruction in their wake. The PCs track them to some caves and kill them—but the dead goblins leave behind babies. What should the PCs do with those? Kill them? Leave them be? What is the best and most appropriate thing for a good character to do in this situation? Just as there are varying good alignments, there are different solutions to this problem. One good character might believe the children are not inherently evil, that their behavior is learned, and round up the young ones to take them to a higher power like a church, a monastery, or an orphanage set up to deal with the issue of raising humanoid children. Alternatively, he might decide to raise them himself! This could be viewed as the most saintly thing to do. Another character might decide not to do anything, leaving the children to the whims of nature—either the children will survive in the wild on their own, or they will not. Lastly, a good character who believes the younglings can never overcome their innate evil might kill them all outright, viewing the action as good, just, and the most merciful option.

What does the word Might mean again? in this context i mean?


aboniks wrote:

You're entirely forgiven for missing the reply I posted to you before the rest of the thread went medieval on us. ;)

Originally from Paths of Purity. Linked in the SRD, under the "Good" Alignments section.

Ethics for Adventurers wrote:
One of the many quandaries good-aligned characters face during their adventuring careers is what to do about the progeny of evil humanoids. For example, shortly into their adventures, an adventuring party encounters a group of goblins who have been raiding a village, leaving a swath of death and destruction in their wake. The PCs track them to some caves and kill them—but the dead goblins leave behind babies. What should the PCs do with those? Kill them? Leave them be? What is the best and most appropriate thing for a good character to do in this situation? Just as there are varying good alignments, there are different solutions to this problem. One good character might believe the children are not inherently evil, that their behavior is learned, and round up the young ones to take them to a higher power like a church, a monastery, or an orphanage set up to deal with the issue of raising humanoid children. Alternatively, he might decide to raise them himself! This could be viewed as the most saintly thing to do. Another character might decide not to do anything, leaving the children to the whims of nature—either the children will survive in the wild on their own, or they will not. Lastly, a good character who believes the younglings can never overcome their innate evil might kill them all outright, viewing the action as good, just, and the most merciful option.

Ugh. That bolded sentence has a paragraph of stupid in it.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.

That bolded line is something I mentally scratch out of that book. I love Champions of Purity, but that bit is a really ugly blemish.

Personally, I figure it was a practical concession to groups that go be the Always Evil/"kill things and take their stuff" mode of play. Basically trying to support mutually exclusive playstyles.

It's especially notable that that line doesn't mesh with all the other material in the book, such as the text on being evil not calling for a death sentence and a whole chapter on redemption.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mikaze wrote:
That bolded line is something I mentally scratch out of that book. I love Champions of Purity, but that bit is a really ugly blemish.

Champions of Purity, yes. Apologies for letting my alliteration elope unattended.

Silver Crusade

Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Pathfinder is medieval setting.
No, it's really really not.
Pathfinder came off D&D 3.X, which traces back to basic, which was based off medieval wargaming. So yeah, it really is, hate to burst your bubble.

The game kind of evolved and grew along the way.

Historic reenactment, Pathfinder is not.

And as I said, the core is still there. This game was about fighting men fighting. The fighting man became the fighter. *checks core* well he aint in npc classes yet, though its getting close :P

Edit: Hey i like going medieval :P

That core isn't really as important as that. Atrocities that may have been passed off as good in some medieval periods are called out as evil throughout PF material. It's more informed by modern morality than medieval.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Long 175 wrote:

Actually, the full argument has not been clarified, but if you'd like me to specify:

1: If you're evil you have to have done evil. Not just evil, but significant evil. Enough evil that it outweighs all the good you've done and you're no longer even neutral, you're flat evil.

2: This makes you evil. YOU ARE EVIL. Evil is a status you can obtain or rid yourself of, but obtaining it means that you have done significant amounts of horrible things.

The problem with this is that this is kinda where it breaks down.

Evil in this setting can just as easily be someone who is a ruthless businessman (ala Ebenezer Scrooge). He has no regard for the suffering left in his wake, and will do whatever it takes to earn profit, but if he's not done anything illegal, he's quite Lawful Evil.

Granted, you need to be at least level 4 to ping as evil, so the likelihood that your hands are clean is increasingly slim past about 6th or 7th especially, but still.

Or, you know, you're Evil because you use Animate Dead to build orphanages and save lives or something because objective morality.

Thomas Long 175 wrote:
3: As for medieval settings. Its based on medieval settings. It traces its roots to medieval warfare games.

Traces its roots? Perhaps.

But "It used to be that" and "It is that" are two very different things. The world of Golarion lacks a great many things that defined the Middle Ages and possesses a great many things that defined another age that came soon afterward.

Thomas Long 175 wrote:

In medieval times you didn't have evil radar. You had "the church or the law says you're evil" and that was enough to justify your death. We may state it as wrong but last i checked the notions of our justice system didn't come around until the magna carta in 1360 something or so, around the closing of the period i specified. (Even for then i believe it only applied to lords)

4: So you're now evil as defined by a third party organization, either religion or law, but as the same in medieval times, religion trumped laws (ergo you had evil corrupt governments. You have evil deities too but they're flat evil and outright pretty much admit as such. They're not subtly flavored).

5: As per medieval justification, you are evil, ergo you deserve death. You've committed evil in the past, whether they have proof or you're doing it now, you're evil. Instead of having government officials, religious figures, or angry mobs decide it now, we just have this handy little evil radar. Because honestly, who wants to wait for the next angry mob to form?

But that's not how it works in Pathfinder either. The gods don't determine if you're evil, the Law CERTAINLY doesn't do so.

The universe itself applies some weird cosmic scale to you based on actions.

But being evil does not automatically mark you for death in any way. It simply does not. It goes against the description of the Good alignment in such a drastic way that that's an untenable position.

I honestly don't know where you got that idea from, medieval setting or no.

Golarion, even if it's based on the Middle Ages in some superficial sense, is not the middle Ages. It's Golarion. It has its own rules and its own values.

And trying to say it is by your logic leads to a very silly setting where a Paladin is perfectly within his right to walk into a law abiding merchant's house and stab him to death because he doesn't tithe enough or whatever.


Mikaze wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Pathfinder is medieval setting.
No, it's really really not.
Pathfinder came off D&D 3.X, which traces back to basic, which was based off medieval wargaming. So yeah, it really is, hate to burst your bubble.

The game kind of evolved and grew along the way.

Historic reenactment, Pathfinder is not.

And as I said, the core is still there. This game was about fighting men fighting. The fighting man became the fighter. *checks core* well he aint in npc classes yet, though its getting close :P

Edit: Hey i like going medieval :P

That core isn't really as important as that. Atrocities that may have been passed off as good in some medieval periods are called out as evil throughout PF material. It's more informed by modern morality than medieval.

Says the person who just looked at a quote from the morality book saying murdering infants was ok :P

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I can spot a murderhobo concession when I see it.


Rynjin wrote:
...

Once again. 2 Posts above you. It is alright by canon to murder the infants of a baby evil race for no other reason than you think they couldn't overcome their evil.

It is a good, merciful act, as determined by pathfinder canon, to murder goblin infants, who have done literally not one thing wrong. I'm sorry but the books themselves are outright stating you're wrong here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Thomas Long 175 wrote:

Once again, relating this because it was ignored.

Pathfinder is medieval setting. MEDIEVAL SETTINGS IT IS COMPLETELY CANON AND WITHIN THE REALM OF GOOD TO KILL EVIL SIMPLY FOR BEING EVIL.

Pathfinder is not a "medieval times simulator". Unless you can point me at the history books describing the literal demons and dragons walking around during that time, not even to mention real-life wizards and elves. It borrows some tropes from it, some from the renaissance and a lot of tropes from other non-european cultures. If the designers even tried to simulate an accurate medieval times simulator, it would be completely unplayable to our modern sensibilities.

What's more, medieval times were quite a bit more complex than "it's evil, kill it!". While religious persecution was a thing, it became only so pronounced that mass witch burnings were a thing around the corner of the renaissance and Enlightment. Even in medieval times, societies had complex legal codes. Sure, a lot of the laws were still heavily influenced by superstition (see: laws concerning the use of body parts of executed people for medicinal purposes) and trial by combat was a thing which only gradually got excised, but it was definitely way more complex than "smite evil on sight!".

Which, btw., is unworthy of any Paladin and is extremely chaotic in my view. Pathfinder is a game which views a mixture of fantasy and medieval/renaissance/steampunk/wuxia/samurai film elements through a lense of modern sensibilities. Including modern moral behaviour.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Their standard was patriotism, nationalism, and religiousness.

You got exactly one out of three right there.

Nationalism didn't even exist during that time period. It's a phenomenom which only began to exist when nation states began to arise, which is during the 19th century.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
...

Once again. 2 Posts above you. It is alright by canon to murder the infants of a baby evil race for no other reason than you think they couldn't overcome their evil.

It is a good, merciful act, as determined by pathfinder canon, to murder goblin infants, who have done literally not one thing wrong. I'm sorry but the books themselves are outright stating you're wrong here.

They're not stating any such thing. It states that a Good character might THINK that was the Good thing to do.

It never says he's right.

I have that tiniest scrap of faith left in Paizo that they have enough of a grip on relatable morals. Because they've gone on record saying morals like this should be "obvious" to normal people, implying they actually believe this stuff.

Because seriously if killing babies is Good, but healing the sick with Infernal Healing is evil?

I can't even that. There are not enough evens.


Rynjin wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
...

Once again. 2 Posts above you. It is alright by canon to murder the infants of a baby evil race for no other reason than you think they couldn't overcome their evil.

It is a good, merciful act, as determined by pathfinder canon, to murder goblin infants, who have done literally not one thing wrong. I'm sorry but the books themselves are outright stating you're wrong here.

They're not stating any such thing. It states that a Good character might THINK that was the Good thing to do.

It never says he's right.

I have that tiniest scrap of faith left in Paizo that they have enough of a grip on relatable morals. Because they've gone on record saying morals like this should be "obvious" to normal people, implying they actually believe this stuff.

Because seriously if killing babies is Good, but healing the sick with Infernal Healing is evil?

I can't even that. There are not enough evens.

Now whose straining the basis of the english language to make a sentence fit what they want. It says believes in reference to them thinking the babies can't overcome their inherent evil, not in reference to the morality of the action and you know it :P

Just give into the dark side. You know you want to.


Thomas Long 175 wrote:


Now whose straining the basis of the english language to make a sentence fit what they want.

Me dammit because I want to believe the people who work at Paizo are good people and not sick deranged sociopaths. *cries*

I'm going to sleep. Maybe tomorrow will be a better day. =(


Rynjin wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:


Now whose straining the basis of the english language to make a sentence fit what they want.

Me dammit because I want to believe the people who work at Paizo are good people and not sick deranged sociopaths. *cries*

You have admitted your own bias. Now the healing can begin. THEN YOUR PLUNGE INTO DARKNESS! MWAHAHAHAHA. Oh did i say that out loud?


Rynjin wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:


Now whose straining the basis of the english language to make a sentence fit what they want.

Me dammit because I want to believe the people who work at Paizo are good people and not sick deranged sociopaths. *cries*

I'm going to sleep. Maybe tomorrow will be a better day. =(

Woah, dude, you edited. I thought the crying was a joke on your part. you ok?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
sword n' board wrote:
In my group, one of the pcs is a paladin who uses detect evil constantly. my problem with this is that i cant have anybody to be evil without him knowing and killing him. so is there a way that i can prevent the paladin from ruining every quest with an evil person.

Easy, you can use this to push along the plot in the direction you want. Predictability means you can easily take control as the dm.

So have him find an evil person and kill them in public without too much of a fight, but this drags the party and the whole country into a really major struggle of importance that helps the game proceed into "great game" territory. Make it crazy circumstance, they weren't really meant to cross paths, and only because the paladin has detect evil on at all times (and has to kill any evil person he encounters) did this random encounter with a stranger mean anything at all. Maybe the dead fool wandered away from his bodyguards, maybe he needed to go to the toilet or a spot to eat. This is someone of great importance that really shouldn't have been killed, and while they weren't an end boss, their departure has major importance for this realm and the realms beyond.

Maybe they were a certain Archduke Ferdinand (google if you don't get the reference). This death could lead to war declarations, the monarchy turning against the paladins and the church the paladin comes from (of course the powerful family of the murdered noble will not believe it wasn't a deliberate hit by the church, they have to be paranoid about these things). Then have the consequences flow on and play out how you see fit. This one death is just the beginning of a series of explosions and the popping of a powder keg that has been building long before the players were even born.

You can have the paladin punished, thrown into a dungeon, rescued by another faction that hates the evil noble's family and maybe he becomes a freedom fighter, a revolutionary or a saint of fighting evil, or you could have the noble be promoted and receive accolades by those in the court that wanted Ferdinand dead and war to come. Perhaps a range of evil dukes congratulate the paladin on his fine work (that should set off major alarms for him, and what is going to happen next, oh and ensure he isn't armed when he is congratulated by the coterie of evil dukes).

Now maybe the players leave the paladin to their fate, maybe they stick with him in his new time of popularity. Perhaps they uncover part of what is really going on and what this all means, be sure to keep them involved! Whatever you do, make sure this has grand implications of major importance--a lot of civilians are going to die because of this, the church may be annihilated, other paladins may die to mobs, soldiers or be besieged and humiliated. The paladin needs to learn their lesson, but make it interesting, don't just be pernicious.

All you have to do is set it up as the dm, as you know how this character is going to act. Good luck!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mikaze wrote:
I can spot a murderhobo concession when I see it.

One murderhobo in the right place, with detect evil on at the wrong time can shake the foundations of the world.


sword n' board wrote:
In my group, one of the pcs is a paladin who uses detect evil constantly. my problem with this is that i cant have anybody to be evil without him knowing and killing him. so is there a way that i can prevent the paladin from ruining every quest with an evil person.

This really sounds more like a player problem than anything else. Although, I want to ask one thing. Have friendly NPC's that turn out to be evil and stab the party in the back been a problem for them lately? If so, then this might be more player reaction to try and protect themselves. I have seen that one happen too much, sadly enough. My group had a GM (not anymore, thankfully) who had pretty much every single NPC we worked with was put there to turn on us later. Those that weren't were there to grab the spotlight away from the players. I don't miss those days, not even the tiniest little bit.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
You think i run anything in Golarion? Not a chance. But D&D is still based off medieval time period as I just showed, and which you still have yet to make a counterpoint for.

Yes, I did counterpoint that, you're just choosing to ignore it.

D&D is based off whatever you want it to be based off of. No rule says my game world has to be a feudal society with kings and castles and ignorant superstitious peasants. A particular game setting may be, but the game as a whole can be ANYTHING. Just look at the plethora of classic settings. Is Dark Sun a 'medieval Europe' setting? Kara-Tur? Maztica? Al-Qadim? More recently, how about Eberron? And let us not forget the Barrier Peaks, the 1e adventure with lasers and aliens.

I have this argument a lot in RL. One player got up in arms because the general populace was literate.
"But the church wanted to horde all knowledge for itself!"
"What church? The church of Pelor?"
"No, the Roman Catholic Church!"
"There's no Rome and no Catholics in this game world, and thus no Roman Catholic Church. What are you on about?"

RL history is the way it was because of RL history. Unless you're running a historically accurate game, how things were in real life is completely irrelevant to a game setting. If you were being historically accurate, your game would be:
"Okay, roll your profession (dirt farmer) then make a Fort save not to get the plague. You passed? Good game, see you next week."

If that's how you run it in your games, that's fine, but saying it's a universal game rule that fits every game and setting is bull. What a particular setting determines is evil depends on that setting's history, sociology, and so forth.

And, of course, that doesn't even consider the fact that their concept of good and evil could be completely wrong. I'm going to be honest, your concept of 'it's good if enough people think it's good' is flatly offensive and disgusting. Insert thread Godwinning here.


I think that this entire thread is proof positive that paladins and alignment are not the problem; players and GMs are. We should ban them from every table.


aboniks wrote:


From the SRD, under the "Good" Alignments section.

Ethics for Adventurers wrote:
One of the many quandaries good-aligned characters face during their adventuring careers is what to do about the progeny of evil humanoids. For example, shortly into their adventures, an adventuring party encounters a group of goblins who have been raiding a village, leaving a swath of death and destruction in their wake. The PCs track them to some caves and kill them—but the dead goblins leave behind babies. What should the PCs do with those? Kill them? Leave them be? What is the best and most appropriate thing for a good character to do in this situation? Just as there are varying good alignments, there are different solutions to this problem. One good character might believe the children are not inherently evil, that their behavior is learned, and round up the young ones to take them to a higher power like a church, a monastery, or an orphanage set up to deal with the issue of raising humanoid children. Alternatively, he might decide to raise them himself! This could be viewed as the most saintly thing to do. Another character might decide not to do anything, leaving the children to the whims of nature—either the children will survive in the wild on their own, or they will not. Lastly, a good character who believes the younglings can never overcome their innate evil might kill them all outright, viewing the action as good, just, and the most merciful option.
...

Here's the deal: At the end of the day, it falls to the GM to make the call. As a GM, in the games I run, if a good aligned character starts smashing baby heads, while the character might see his actions as 'Good' his LG god (played by the GM) will not see it that way. So, if a paladin did this in my game, the paladin would fall. If the character disagrees, then it is time for the character to re-evaluate his god's position on murdering helpless infants and whether or not the character can work within those constraints.

The only way a paladin can 'ruin' a game is if the GM gives him carte blanche to do so. If he figures out who the villain is through proper use of detect evil, then that is a challenge for the GM to work out in the adventure. As noted in many places in this thread, non-evil opponents or remotely intelligent and properly prepared evil opponents will not be ruined in the slightest by detect evil.

And a really clever villain hires non-evil underlings to perform tasks under the guise of some other cause. In my current game, I have an evil demon trying to break the rule of the LG king and bring an entire continent into chaos. To do so, he is co-opting a bunch of CG folk who are opposed to some of the stricter laws and has organized them into a rebellion to overthrow the king.

99% of the rebels do not detect as evil because the are not. They are simply misled CG folks. And the ringleader has stayed hidden in the background for over a year now; no where near authorities of any sort.

Good luck with that there detect evil, Mr. Paladin!

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Thomas Long 175 wrote:

On the other hand, what is medieval?

Its roots. Pathfinder 100% is traced as a direct descendant of medieval style wargaming.

Roots have nothing to do with what the game is. Chain Mail was a medieval game. Pathfinder is not.

Quote:
There were no wizards, no dragons, no rogues or clerics. It was fighting men (the origins of the fighter) employing different weapons and styles of combat on the field of battle. It was 100% no guns, no magic, no eastern flavors, no martial arts, etc. It was European warfare...

...that involved elves and ghouls, if I recall correctly. How medieval.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Long 175 wrote:

Once again, relating this because it was ignored.

Pathfinder is medieval setting. MEDIEVAL SETTINGS IT IS COMPLETELY CANON AND WITHIN THE REALM OF GOOD TO KILL EVIL SIMPLY FOR BEING EVIL.

First: Pathfinder's not really a medieval setting. It's more of a renaissance setting.

Second: Don't confuse the propaganda of who these men were with the reality. These knights were not paladins as the game describes them. Giving them holy titles had more to do with the exercise of political power on the part of the church. The church described them as good because they served the church. Much like terrorist organizations describe suicide bombers as good. This is not a matter of morality (which alignment is), it's a matter of political power.

Propaganda of what is good is not the same as the reality of what is good.

201 to 250 of 335 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Paladin= game ruiners All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.