First: Pathfinder's not really a medieval setting. It's more of a renaissance setting.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.
Which part of the renaissance had elves, dragons, and vampires?
Second: Don't confuse the propaganda of who these men were with the reality.
Same question. Which part of the historical knights had them facing down dragons and vampires?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Analogy:
"Of course the world used to be flat. Everybody thought it was."
I think it's pretty clear when people are saying that it's medieval or renaissance, it's implied that we're talking about the technology base used during world design, as per the DM Guide's rules for world creation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.
Alignment really isn't the problem. (Though I still think it's an albatross.)
The problem, if it can really be considered such, is that players (and DM's) don't agree on what it represents, or how it should be applied. That's by design. It's inherent in a world with a pantheon of gods who embody good/evil...If there was an objective 'good' then we'd only need two gods, and there'd be no such thing as Neutral.
The cleric and the paladin bring this issue to the surface most often, as both are classes that require the DM and the player to treat fluff as if it were crunch. That process can be messy, or elegant, but turning it into something other than a caricature depends entirely on the people around the table.
If complicated ethics that challenge a character's concept or force her to make difficult moral decisions is an element of play you would rather avoid, discussing this with your GM is important.
If you (as a DM or Player) feel that this sentence applies to you, then think twice about allowing clerics, paladins, and deities into your story.
|
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. =(
Let's take a step back: "The people at Paizo." didn't write that. One person, probably a freelancer, did. And, as Mikaze mentions, probably as a sop to a certain gaming style. It is not necessarily agreed upon by, oh, anyone else at Paizo. So chill.
Unfortunately, the game treats alignment as a total straitjacket, with alignment affecting your access to classes, feats, spells, etc.
Unfortunately, the game treats alignment as a total straitjacket, with alignment affecting your access to classes, feats, spells, etc.
Yup. Hence; albatross.
Unfortunately, the game treats alignment as a total straitjacket, with alignment affecting your access to classes, feats, spells, etc.Yup. Hence; albatross.
Wot flavor is it?
Neutral flavor. Season to taste. ;)
Unfortunately, the game treats alignment as a total straitjacket, with alignment affecting your access to classes, feats, spells, etc.Yup. Hence; albatross.
This is a feature, not a bug. Granted, it presents certain challenges to play that not every player is comfortable with or competent to play, but every game (RPG, tactical simulation, arcade, etc...) comes with certain challenges.
If you're not really all that comfortable with the "straitjacket", change it out for one you're more comfortable with. Without changing a single rule, you can home-brew a god that lets your alignment/behavior-dependent class behave exactly as the player wishes to behave. To believe that alignment really is a straitjacket is a rather narrow perspective, given that you can easily sidestep or eliminate potential problems with a little forethought and GM cooperation. It's not the albatross you believe it to be, although I will grant you that it can easily be perceived as such.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that you can houserule things away doesn't change the fact that the rules as written say I can't multiclass Monk/Barbarian.
You see 'challenge', I see 'pointless restriction'.
The restriction against acting in a fashion that your god (not some imaginary faceless being in this world-setting) would find unacceptable is completely dissimilar to the restriction against multiclassing Monk/Barbarian due to alignment restrictions. It's an apples to oranges comparison, which you already knew.
You see "pointless restriction". I see completely appropriate thematic element that capitalizes on existing structures (that needs some more comprehensive rules).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The restriction against acting in a fashion that your god (not some imaginary faceless being in this world-setting)
But not EVERY world-setting.
This stuff belongs in campaign setting books.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately, codifying the alignment system would probably lead to adding a section to the book that is almost as large as the magic section.
The restriction against acting in a fashion that your god (not some imaginary faceless being in this world-setting)But not EVERY world-setting.
This stuff belongs in campaign setting books.
It is in campaign setting books. The campaign setting is called "Golarion". There's no Toril, Oerth, Athas, Mystara, etc... distinctions. If you want to play on a different world with different gods that have different rules, you have a tool-kit that you've been provided with to craft them.
Unfortunately, codifying the alignment system would probably lead to adding a section to the book that is almost as large as the magic section.
I don't know that I'd go that far, but it would take a good 50,000+ words to form some basic social structures from which you can modify according to any individual gods' specific needs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately, the game treats alignment as a total straitjacket, with alignment affecting your access to classes, feats, spells, etc.Yup. Hence; albatross.This is a feature, not a bug. Granted, it presents certain challenges to play that not every player is comfortable with or competent to play, but every game (RPG, tactical simulation, arcade, etc...) comes with certain challenges.
If you're not really all that comfortable with the "straitjacket", change it out for one you're more comfortable with. Without changing a single rule, you can home-brew a god that lets your alignment/behavior-dependent class behave exactly as the player wishes to behave. To believe that alignment really is a straitjacket is a rather narrow perspective, given that you can easily sidestep or eliminate potential problems with a little forethought and GM cooperation.
Agreed. I consider it an albatross in the sense that it's a feature until you start messing with it too deeply, at which point it becomes a bug. The crunchy bit of alignment (objective) and the fluffy bits (subjective) require quite a bit of effort to reconcile.
It's also much like Coleridges eponymous avian in that if you suggest doing away with it, many people who assert that alignment is a purely objective mechanical concept are likely to throw you off the ship.
If people want to tell stories about a paladin who follows the CG patron god of no-quarter-for-evil-ever-murderhobos I'm all for it. Get subjective, people. It's way more interesting, in my opinion.
And don't forget that Clerics fall too!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's pretty clear when people are saying that it's medieval or renaissance, it's implied that we're talking about the technology base used during world design, as per the DM Guide's rules for world creation.
I also find it weird when we talk about the renaissance and medieval ages as if they're vastly different time periods, or as if the renaissance was a thing that actually happened. The fact is, for most people, the two time periods would appear to be the exact same. Peasants/common folk probably wouldn't tell you all about the new ideas and learning that they were experiencing. It's not as if the world suddenly changed from being flat tapestries to being the Da Vinci oil paintings and Durer woodcuts.
Unfortunately, codifying the alignment system would probably lead to adding a section to the book that is almost as large as the magic section.
If there is a cardinal sin of D&D/Pathfinder, it's that the rulebooks spend so little time on roleplaying mechanics/rules/guidelines compared to combat mechanics.
Neutral flavor. Season to taste. ;)
No, the response is "It's bloody albatross flavored! It's bloody seabird bloody flavorted!" ;)
I still think of it more like an appendix. You can completely ignore it until it flares up and becomes a major pain. Then it should be removed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Viewing history from a vulgar perspective is a relatively new approach. It was usually viewed from the perspective of high society.
Neutral flavor. Season to taste. ;)No, the response is "It's bloody albatross flavored! It's bloody seabird bloody flavorted!" ;)
Ah, another pythonite. I was going more for the Drury Lane synergy:
"It's an albatross mate. It's a bloody sea bird. It's not any bloody flavor."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed. I consider it an albatross in the sense that it's a feature until you start messing with it. The crunchy bit of alignment (objective) and the fluffy bits (subjective) require quite a bit of effort to reconcile.
It's also much like Coleridges eponymous avian in that if you suggest doing away with it, many people who assert that alignment is a purely objective mechanical concept are likely to throw you off the ship.
If people want to tell stories about a paladin who follows the CG patron god of no-quarter-for-evil-ever-murderhobos I'm all for it. Get subjective, people. It's way more interesting, in my opinion.
And don't forget that Clerics fall too!
Frankly, there's a reason that much of it is subjective, and that's so that it doesn't act as an iron coffin to GMs and players. However, it does mean that there is not consistency from table to table, which is why we have these sorts of questions crop up. The existing alignment framework is intended as a toolbox for GMs to craft living, breathing worlds that allow players to roughly sequence their moral guidelines without having to rely upon existing religious structures that they may or may not fully understand, believe in or find appropriate to the world-setting.
In any case, it's an area that needs polishing not only for use in role-playing games that utilize the alignment system, but it's my personal belief that people (in general) should seek to understand their own moral/ethical beliefs (independent of religion, though the two concepts are not mutually exclusive) in order to advance both social order and interpersonal understanding.
I find it fun to talk about. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's a mistake to treat the renaissance as something that didn't really happen. Of course it's difficult to define when one era transitions into another, but the emergence of the humanism had a profound impact on the development of Western society. This is what the renaissance was.
Woah, dude, you edited. I thought the crying was a joke on your part. you ok?
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. =(
It was. It was just 5 AM and I really needed some sleep before I started spouting more nonsense.
Let's take a step back: "The people at Paizo." didn't write that. One person, probably a freelancer, did. And, as Mikaze mentions, probably as a sop to a certain gaming style. It is not necessarily agreed upon by, oh, anyone else at Paizo. So chill.
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. =(
Well I guess technically SKR will be a freelancer SOON, but he wasn't when he wrote what I was referring to.
There's been quotes from other devs leading into this last little bit. I'm a bit of a masochist so I follow alignment stuff even though I despise pretty much everything to do with alignment.
But the one that keeps sticking out to me, and is always my go-to example of "Weird alignment stuff" is SKR saying it should be "obvious" to everyone why a Dhampir with the Blood Drinker drinking the blood of his enemies when he attacks them is evil (when biting them isn't evil, and drinking their blood if you DON"T have the Feat isn't evil, and the list of horribly painful ways you can kill someone that AREN'T evil is longer than my arm).
And either JJ or JB have backed him up on stuff like this elsewhere. So it kinda implies that A.) They all believe in objective morality, and B.) Their values are a mite skewed in some places.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's pretty clear when people are saying that it's medieval or renaissance, it's implied that we're talking about the technology base used during world design, as per the DM Guide's rules for world creation.I also find it weird when we talk about the renaissance and medieval ages as if they're vastly different time periods, or as if the renaissance was a thing that actually happened. The fact is, for most people, the two time periods would appear to be the exact same. Peasants/common folk probably wouldn't tell you all about the new ideas and learning that they were experiencing. It's not as if the world suddenly changed from being flat tapestries to being the Da Vinci oil paintings and Durer woodcuts.
Unfortunately, codifying the alignment system would probably lead to adding a section to the book that is almost as large as the magic section.If there is a cardinal sin of D&D/Pathfinder, it's that the rulebooks spend so little time on roleplaying mechanics/rules/guidelines compared to combat mechanics.
That's because you don't need mechanics for roleplaying. I personally go so far as to say they are an impediment to roleplaying, ESPECIALLY alignment.
And either JJ or JB have backed him up on stuff like this elsewhere. So it kinda...
Or, they could simply be choosing to present a united front, despite what they actually believe.
Or, they could simply be choosing to present a united front, despite what they actually believe.And either JJ or JB have backed him up on stuff like this elsewhere. So it kinda...
I don't believe that mostly because they haven't done it for more important things. If someone's wrong or speaks for the whole company when they really don't, others are quick to point out that this is not the case.
I don't believe that mostly because they haven't done it for more important things. If someone's wrong or speaks for the whole company when they really don't, others are quick to point out that this is not the case.Or, they could simply be choosing to present a united front, despite what they actually believe.And either JJ or JB have backed him up on stuff like this elsewhere. So it kinda...
Fair enough.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the issue of smite on sight that, what would happen for a NE petty thief who was caught and arrested and thrown in jail fowhr some amount of years. He wasn't necessarily repentant, so he's still NE, but he had paid for his crimes. When the paladin comes in, and spies him, with detect evil, he sees the thief is evil, and smites on sight. This action would be in direct opposition with the Paladin's purpose for being. He had already been cleared by the law as having paid for his crimes, so this action is chaotic, and breaks the part of a paladin's code saying he must respect legitimate authority. The thief, also, was not a particular threat to innocent life or well-being. True, he was a thief, but that's not to say that he would steal again. As such, the act is evil, and breaks the part of the paladin's code which says the paladin falls if he ever willingly commits an evil act.
As for the Devs' opinions on alignment, I fail to see how that has any merit on this discussion. The Devs aren't the DMs; they have no power to be the moral arbiters on the game. Their job is solely to provide the mechanics for the game, and on occasion modify these mechanics with errata, where needed. Outside of that, is the DM's purview.
As for the Devs' opinions on alignment, I fail to see how that has any merit on this discussion. The Devs aren't the DMs; they have no power to be the moral arbiters on the game. Their job is solely to provide the mechanics for the game, and on occasion modify these mechanics with errata, where needed.
I love you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why does there NEED to be a mechanical benefit to roleplaying?
The mechanics are there to provide a game. The roleplaying is what the PLAYERS do. There doesn't need to be built-in mechanical benefits for RP.
I think it's a mistake to treat the renaissance as something that didn't really happen. Of course it's difficult to define when one era transitions into another, but the emergence of the humanism had a profound impact on the development of Western society. This is what the renaissance was.
If the renaissance was only humanism, we'd only be talking about humanism. The renaissance is also thought to be a period of reborn western culture, increased secular learning, and quality of life. Except that for the vast majority of european people, this wasn't the case.
- Education didn't become significantly widespread, staying in the hands of the wealthy and the nobility
- Most humanists were not truly secular thinkers, and many were even members of the clergy.
- The term implies that the medieval age was a period of non-learning, stuck between the Romans and the Renaissance. This isn't the case.
- Most people still lived rurally and worked agriculturally. It wasn't as if this was a period of technological revolution.
- Mortality rates increased in some areas of Europe, so it wasn't as if increases in quality of life were universal
Even if we were to say it was something that happened, "The Renaissance" is a laughably Eurocentric view to apply to a setting like Golarion or any that stretches beyond the typically Western trappings of fantasy. The far East and most of the Islamic world were either not influenced by Aristotle, or had already been studying Greek and Roman philosophy for centuries.
If there is a cardinal sin of D&D/Pathfinder, it's that the rulebooks spend so little time on roleplaying mechanics/rules/guidelines compared to combat mechanics.That's because you don't need mechanics for roleplaying. I personally go so far as to say they are an impediment to roleplaying, ESPECIALLY alignment.
Which again, would probably be far less confusing, if more than 8 paragraphs were spent trying to explain morality of a game system.
The fact is, there is almost no mechanical benefit to a player e saying anything more than "I roll diplomacy, using class ability X, to do Y." Their roleplaying is as mechanically effective as the thespian player who effortlessly gets into character, and the awkward player that is at least always trying. To me, that's a shame in a roleplaying game.
That's it. Time for me to homebrew a "Paladin" class that actually has to use the alignment and portfolio of the god they follow as the basis for creating a code of conduct. This ersatz-chivlary restriction is silly. The lawful good restriction is silly.
A whole pantheon of deities with their own personal agendas and the class that's designed to act as their mortal champions is crippled and interchangeable.
Wut hoppen there
Why is the person I replied to's post beneath me now?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's it. Time for me to homebrew a "Paladin" class that actually has to use the alignment and portfolio of the god they follow as the basis for creating a code of conduct. This ersatz-chivlary restriction is silly. The lawful good restriction is silly.
A whole pantheon of deities with their own personal agendas and the class that's designed to act as their mortal champions is crippled and interchangeable.
Bingo.
Though, ultimately, I think Paladin should just be a cleric archetype with thicker armor, bigger sticks, and less casting. If someone thinks Paladins should just be LG, that should be decided at the table/setting level, not in the rulebooks.
That's it. Time for me to homebrew a "Paladin" class that actually has to use the alignment and portfolio of the god they follow as the basis for creating a code of conduct. This ersatz-chivlary restriction is silly. The lawful good restriction is silly.
A whole pantheon of deities with their own personal agendas and the class that's designed to act as their mortal champions is crippled and interchangeable.
Bingo.
Though, ultimately, I think Paladin should just be a cleric archetype with thicker armor, bigger sticks, and less casting.
Fair point. I'll look at doing it that way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's a mistake to treat the renaissance as something that didn't really happen. Of course it's difficult to define when one era transitions into another, but the emergence of the humanism had a profound impact on the development of Western society. This is what the renaissance was.If the renaissance was only humanism, we'd only be talking about humanism. The renaissance is also thought to be a period of reborn western culture, increased secular learning, and quality of life. Except that for the vast majority of european people, this wasn't the case.
- Education didn't become significantly widespread, staying in the hands of the wealthy and the nobility
- Most humanists were not truly secular thinkers, and many were even members of the clergy.
- The term implies that the medieval age was a period of non-learning, stuck between the Romans and the Renaissance. This isn't the case.
- Most people still lived rurally and worked agriculturally. It wasn't as if this was a period of technological revolution.
- Mortality rates increased in some areas of Europe, so it wasn't as if increases in quality of life were universal
Even if we were to say it was something that happened, "The Renaissance" is a laughably Eurocentric view to apply to a setting like Golarion or any that stretches beyond the typically Western trappings of fantasy. The far East and most of the Islamic world were either not influenced by Aristotle, or had already been studying Greek and Roman philosophy for centuries.
I never made the claim that no learning occurred during the medieval period. Nor have I claimed that everyone's life was enriched during this time.
Humanism was not a secular movement, it was a religious one. It was a revival of Greek/Hellenistic methods of thought in the process of learning, which had formally been based pretty much on interpreting scripture. It also saw the application of these methods (primarily Platonic and Aristotelian thought) to interpreting scripture. This was a significant departure from the vast majority of medieval learning and that distinction is important.
As far as applying the renaissance to Golarion, I've already stated that I was referring to it in the same way that the DM's Guide uses the ter renaissance as a demarcation of technological development. I make no assertion that our world and Golarion are analogous in any way. So everyone can stop trying to set this straw man argument on fire.
As an historian, I have never in my life heard a single historian assert that the Renaissance not happen. You're going to need a lot of supporting evidence to change my mind on this.
I never made the claim that no learning occurred during the medieval period. Nor have I claimed that everyone's life was enriched during this time.
Humanism was not a secular movement, it was a religious one. It was a revival of Greek/Hellenistic methods of thought in the process of learning, which had formally been based pretty much on interpreting scripture. It also saw the application of these methods (primarily Platonic and Aristotelian thought) to interpreting scripture. This was a significant departure from the vast majority of medieval learning and that distinction is important.
As far as applying the renaissance to Golarion, I've already stated that I was referring to it in the same way that the DM's Guide uses the ter renaissance as a demarcation of technological development. I make no assertion that our world and Golarion are analogous in any way. So everyone can stop trying to set this straw man argument on fire.
I'm probably going to come off as needless condescending here, and I don't mean to, but let me just reitterate the arguments, as I understand them.
Myself: The renaissance didn't really happen because the advancements were not well enough spread for almost all people to see a difference in their daily lives.
Yourself:
I think it's a mistake to treat the renaissance as something that didn't really happen. Of course it's difficult to define when one era transitions into another, but the emergence of the humanism had a profound impact on the development of Western society. This is what the renaissance was.
Myself: The renaissance is more than just humanism. It is typically associated with things X, Y, Z. List: X, Y, Z did not happen. The renaissance did not happen. To use the term renaissance to describe the fantasy world is overly Eurocentric and mostly inaccurate.
Yourself: I was using renaissance do demarcate the change in technology (as noted by the DM's Guide), and that's a straw man.
Am I missing something (save for perhaps a bit of important nuance).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Separating one historical era from another is highly problematic. Historians usually do so by selecting a significant development that was instrumental in the transition of one era to another, in this case the development was humanism. It seems to be an artificial distinction to draw, and it is. Historians debate when eras begin or end all of the time. I assert that humanism was an important element in the establishing the Renaissance era.
Again, humanism has little to nothing to do with secular humanism in this context.
To state that the Renaissance didn't happen because it wasn't ubiquitous in Western society is akin to stating that plate armor never developed because foot soldiers didn't get access to it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, the definition trap.
Renaissance; Specific historical event with defined temporal boundaries: No.
Renaissance; Term applied to encapsulate various historical trends: Yes.
Sure, it's a convenient label. Did it start on a Tuesday at 11:34? Not so much.
Ah, the definition trap.
Renaissance; Specific historical event with defined temporal boundaries: No.
Renaissance; Term applied to encapsulate various historical trends: Yes.
Sure, it's a convenient label. Did it start on a Tuesday at 11:34? Not so much.
This does seem to be where colemcm and I are at an impass. I'm taking issue with the idea of the renaissance (or perhaps the mythologized renaissance), and not the development of humanism. The development of humanism clearly happened, it just didn't create a new age of learning for the vast majority of the European population, and certainly not for the global population.
That was my issue with using the term renaissance to describe the Pathfinder setting, as if it was opposed to a medieval setting. For almost all people in a setting, it would be the same world that they experienced. Technologically, there may be some slight changes, but societal structure wouldn't be radically different. Though, honestly, both are too large of segments of time to really get a good idea for what a setting would be like.
I would however make a specific change to the second definition abonik uses, which I mostly agree with.
Renaissance; Term applied to encapsulate various European historical trends: Yes.
The Renaissance didn't happen in the same way that the Dark Ages didn't happen. They're constructs created and used by historians to make subjects easier to digest, but they weren't singular events that the larger population watched begin and end.
Edit: The Dark Ages is probably better stated as something that was used by historians. It's pretty widely accepted as something that didn't happen.
Too look at history as a seamless string of dates and factoids is to make history unmanageable. Whether you like it or not, history is, at its base, story-telling. All stories must have a beginning and an end. Does this create an artificial break in the series of events? Yes. It also makes it manageable because it groups events that are relevant to each other to show how they interacted in the world in a significant way. Even these artificially defined eras are broken up into sub-eras and specific topics.
The idea of a Medieval era is used in exactly the same way that the idea of a Renaissance era was, yet you seem to take no issue with it. Would you have us believe that there were no period of significant change between the Medieval era and the Age of Enlightenment? Did the Enlightenment spring whole-cloth from the Medieval era without causation? This makes no sense to me.
That a movement does not affect a significant portion of society has no bearing on whether it can be considered a movement or not. I'm unsure why you maintain that it is otherwise. Regardless, during the Renaissance larger society WAS changing. The Black Death had killed millions of people. Those that survived began moving into cities to replace those that had died and began replacing them in the cottage industries. This produced a significant change in the social mobility of the average person. When you have a period of large social mobility and combine it with a re-emergence of classical Greek and Hellinistic thought (with notions like democracy and republics), you can see where historians may look at this time period and say, "Something started here."
P.S.: Altering people's quotes and then responding to them is uncool.
|
|
There's been quotes from other devs leading into this last little bit. I'm a bit of a masochist so I follow alignment stuff even though I despise pretty much everything to do with alignment.
But the one that keeps sticking out to me, and is always my go-to example of "Weird alignment stuff" is SKR saying it should be "obvious" to everyone why a Dhampir with the Blood Drinker drinking the blood of his enemies when he attacks them is evil (when biting them isn't evil, and drinking their blood if you DON"T have the Feat isn't evil, and the list of horribly painful ways you can kill someone that AREN'T evil is longer than my arm).
So it kinda implies that A.) They all believe in objective morality, and B.) Their values are a mite skewed in some places.
I'm just gonna link a thing...
For those who don't follow the link...that's James Jacobs answering my question on the subject of that line in Chronicles of the Righteous. And not the way Rynjin seems to expect/fear. At least I don't think so.
There's quite a difference between defining what you (and maybe I) believe is probably Neutral behavior as Evil, and defining clearly Evil behavior as Good.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Been awhile since I played a Paladin.
But I been playing and having a Lawful good inquisitor
And while I have no problem burning some one evil at the stake, I have to find them doing a deed that calls for capital punishment first before I break out the barbeque. if I find out some one is evil I first have to try to redeem them and have them repent their ways and its hard to redeem some one after you cut off their head, unless you want to waste a rez spell. and being evil is in itself not illegal in most good area. its evil acts that are illegal.
If I detect evil on some one , I going to keep an eye on them, I might even let them know I am keeping eye on them, but until I catch them performing an illegal act I am not going to act
Another problem is many evils are lawful evils and for the most part you cannot kill them for just being evil.For example you could have a lawful evil merchant. He obeys the law but has no problem tossing a widow with 6 children out of their home in the middle of winter with not a bite to eat.. And while a chaotic good could play Robin Hood and rob him and hand the gold over to the widow, a Paladin going to have to sit back and fume .
Is there anything worse then a lawful evil with a good lawyer?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We seem to be all over the place here.
Trying to discuss both the "problem" and its "fix."
Only to further complicate the issue with niche scenarios.
This issue has come up many times before in the last 40 years.
So many times that I think it has actually taken on a life of its own at this point. (pretty much due to the same tangent offshoot discussions no less.)
I use the following as the only code required for Paladins.
It seems to solve the "problem" nicely.
The Paladinic Code
A Paladin:
Always Keeps his word
Always Helps Others
Always Respects Authority
Always Respects Honor
Always Respects Law
Always Respects Self-discipline
Avoids Lies
Avoids Cheating
Never Kills or Attacks an Unarmed Foe
Never Charges an Unhorsed Opponent
Never Attacks from behind
Never Harms an Innocent
Never Tortures for any reason
Never Kills for Pleasure
Never Betrays a Friend
Never Breaks the Law unless circumstances leave no other choice.
Violating any one of these once will not result in a Fall, Censure at the most: a single ability may fail him for a short time (length of time depending on which tenet was violated).
Three violations of the same tenet may result in a visit from a High Priest, Inquisitor, or Fellow Paladin of his faith demanding atonement. (refusing atonement will result in a Fall and excommunication. see below)
Repeated willful violation of any number or all of the tenets will result in a Fall as well as a Bounty placed upon his head by his faith.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It works, of course, and it fits the trope quite nicely, but that's pretty much the embodiment of what I don't like about paladins as they appear in D&D and its ilk.
It's essentially an interchangeable code for interchangeable gods, in a world with gods that aren't actually interchangeable. I wouldn't let a player bring that code to the table unless they could make a solid case that all those strictures made sense in light of the deity they pick.
I'd allow a paladin of any alignment though, as long as it was identical to the deity they choose, and their code reflected the portfolio and domains that apply.
This is not to say you're paladining wrong, I just feel that the trope doesn't wear particularly well in a pantheon of more than two gods.