Opinions on Paladins


Advice

151 to 200 of 235 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
MrSin wrote:
LazarX wrote:
*snip* It's the best alignment *snip*
At least in your opinion it is.
Yes it is. Chaotic Goods are generally too self absorbed, and Neutral Goods too passive.

This is some bullshit. I could just as easily argue that LG is too rigid and intolerant...but I wouldn't, because while all the listed traits are stereotypical of those alignments, they aren't built in at all.

And I'd argue that by the traditions of the time (which Lawful people care about), the Lawful thing for Washington to do was actually to accept the crown, while rejecting it was a Chaotic act.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
LazarX wrote:
MrSin wrote:
LazarX wrote:
*snip* It's the best alignment *snip*
At least in your opinion it is.
Yes it is. Chaotic Goods are generally too self absorbed, and Neutral Goods too passive.

This is some b+&*@+*@. I could just as easily argue that LG is too rigid and intolerant...but I wouldn't, because while all the listed traits are stereotypical of those alignments, they aren't built in at all.

And I'd argue that by the traditions of the time (which Lawful people care about), the Lawful thing for Washington to do was actually to accept the crown, while rejecting it was a Chaotic act.

Except someone chaotic would not want to help set up an orderly and established set of laws afterwards.

Revolution does not equal chaotic. It can, but it doesn't necessarily.


RDM42 wrote:
Except someone chaotic would not want to help set up an orderly and established set of laws afterwards.

What if they were laws about freedom and liberty and the rights of man, including his right to rebellion and defend himself?

Also, can we like... keep the real life stuff and veering into politics out of this?


RDM42 wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
LazarX wrote:
MrSin wrote:
LazarX wrote:
*snip* It's the best alignment *snip*
At least in your opinion it is.
Yes it is. Chaotic Goods are generally too self absorbed, and Neutral Goods too passive.

This is some b+&*@+*@. I could just as easily argue that LG is too rigid and intolerant...but I wouldn't, because while all the listed traits are stereotypical of those alignments, they aren't built in at all.

And I'd argue that by the traditions of the time (which Lawful people care about), the Lawful thing for Washington to do was actually to accept the crown, while rejecting it was a Chaotic act.

Except someone chaotic would not want to help set up an orderly and established set of laws afterwards.

Chaotic =/= Anarchist. Chaotic people can set up functional governments just fine.

It's just a Chaotic person wants as much personal freedom allowed within the laws as possible. Hence codified "No religious discrimination" laws and such.


MrSin wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Except someone chaotic would not want to help set up an orderly and established set of laws afterwards.

What if they were laws about freedom and liberty and the rights of man, including his right to rebellion and defend himself?

Also, can we like... keep the real life stuff and veering into politics out of this?

I mainly object to the idea that if someone leads a revolution their alignment is automatically chaotic because they are trying to overturn the existing government - entirely stripped of modern examples. You could have a lawful neutral revolution overthrowing a government and replacing it with another lawful government and it would be possible for not a single person involved on either side to be chaotic. And it would be possible for people who are chaotic to be the ones defending the existing power structure against lawful revolutionaries. Being on one side or the other of a revolution, by itself, has little bearing on the law/chaos axis of alignment without a ton of context.


Rynjin wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
LazarX wrote:
MrSin wrote:
LazarX wrote:
*snip* It's the best alignment *snip*
At least in your opinion it is.
Yes it is. Chaotic Goods are generally too self absorbed, and Neutral Goods too passive.

This is some b+&*@+*@. I could just as easily argue that LG is too rigid and intolerant...but I wouldn't, because while all the listed traits are stereotypical of those alignments, they aren't built in at all.

And I'd argue that by the traditions of the time (which Lawful people care about), the Lawful thing for Washington to do was actually to accept the crown, while rejecting it was a Chaotic act.

Except someone chaotic would not want to help set up an orderly and established set of laws afterwards.

Chaotic =/= Anarchist. Chaotic people can set up functional governments just fine.

It's just a Chaotic person wants as much personal freedom allowed within the laws as possible. Hence codified "No religious discrimination" laws and such.

One could argue that the American government in its original form (look at all these rights you have if you're an adult white male who owns his own land) was textbook Lawful Evil but this conversation is getting beyond silly.


RDM42 wrote:
Being on one side or the other of a revolution, by itself, has little bearing on the law/chaos axis of alignment without a ton of context.

Being on one faction in itself doesn't preclude your personality or alignment either, yet for some reason certain parts of pathfinder(prcs in particular) seems to think it controls that and should preclude your idealism, even if other alignments can have that idealisms. Its one of those weird disconnects. That's all before you consider things like humans are capable of duality and having traits that would come from both good and evil descriptions, or act differently based on stigma or bias and between situations, and that not everyone is from a Judeo-Christian culture or has the same ideas on how to handle the dead or worship.

Anyways, hey, paladins, where'd those guys go? Are we turning into an alignment thread instead? Because if so I think we should move to monks. Poor guys can't be chaotic.


Honestly aren't Paladin threads always about alignment? Nobody cares that the Paladin is a strong martial. People don't make threads with thousands of posts about the Ranger (people don't make threads about the Barbarian either, those are about Greater Beast Totem and its ability to break the rules that keep martials on the bottom).


What, your barbarian looked both ways before crossing the street at a crosswalk? He falls.


blahpers wrote:
What, your barbarian looked both ways before crossing the street at a crosswalk? He falls.

And takes no damage. Damage reduction is a beautiful thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MrSin wrote:

What is your name?

What is your quest?
What is your favorite color?

No one stopped to appreciate this? I will.

Glad to see there are people that actually enjoy and appreciate the class, and that it seems to be generally a fringe incident that someone absolutely despises them/actively tries to ruin one's fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:


Except someone chaotic would not want to help set up an orderly and established set of laws afterwards.

A chaotic person could well see the need for rules for the greater good. Just that you do not like something doesn't mean you can't do it or further it.

I don't like eating healthy stuff. But if I had children I could well do it despite disliking it because it is better for my children.


MrSin wrote:

What is your name?

What is your quest?
What is your favorite color?

Unknown Hero

Glory
Purple of course.

other acceptable trivia questions are:
whose spell protects the town?
Who do you seek?
What is the Baron's first name?
What is the password to the thieves guild?


MrSin wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Being on one side or the other of a revolution, by itself, has little bearing on the law/chaos axis of alignment without a ton of context.

Being on one faction in itself doesn't preclude your personality or alignment either, yet for some reason certain parts of pathfinder(prcs in particular) seems to think it controls that and should preclude your idealism, even if other alignments can have that idealisms. Its one of those weird disconnects. That's all before you consider things like humans are capable of duality and having traits that would come from both good and evil descriptions, or act differently based on stigma or bias and between situations, and that not everyone is from a Judeo-Christian culture or has the same ideas on how to handle the dead or worship.

Anyways, hey, paladins, where'd those guys go? Are we turning into an alignment thread instead? Because if so I think we should move to monks. Poor guys can't be chaotic.

Save part of the arguments people use is claiming how easy it is to fall and how limited they are ... showing that a paladin could indeed come into a land and be the charismatic leader of the revolution which topples the empire without losing his status or falling ...


MrSin wrote:


What is your name?
What is your quest?
What is your favorite color?

I am count Vlad Von FuelDrop, of the Sussex FuelDrops.

I seek nothing less than complete dominion over all beings in all worlds, both living and dead.

Black.


Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:


MrSin wrote:

What is your name?

What is your quest?
What is your favorite color?

other acceptable trivia questions are:

whose spell protects the town?
Who do you seek?
What is the Baron's first name?
What is the password to the thieves guild?

Mine.

the woman who cursed my junk to turn hot pink.
Red, of course.
The password is ALWAYS swordfish.

This game is WAY too easy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:

Paladins really are simple:


  • Uphold the good
  • Adhere to the law
  • If the two conflict, good always trumps law, because just law is in place for one reason—to preserve the good
And if this were the extent of it, Paladins would be perfect.

I'll take that as a rare compliment. Thank you.

Quote:

Unfortunately, they also have the Code. And the Code, by its very nature, tells the Paladin that in these specific circumstances (and other variable circumstances the GM could make up on the fly if he wanted), "Law" (the Code) trumps Good.

[Rynjin lists code.]

The Code contradicts your version of the Paladin, which I see as a much more elegant way to handle it.

Two compliments? My head is spinning. ;)

Quote:
[Rynjin explains, quite reasonably, why banditry is a state that allows for summary execution.]

I disagree with little of what you've said.

I don't think we're nearly as apart on this as perhaps you think or I implied with too brief and pithy a comment. I don't at all take issue with paladins killing bandits in many if not most circumstances. (Like you said, they're bandits, and by definition fall outside the protection of the law, if not always the Law or the Good, if you see the distinction.) Thus, you're right: Paladins who dispose of hard-core, long-time, desperate bandits who surrendered hoping for inappropriate clemency and instead receive a drumhead trial and summary execution have done nothing wrong.

On the other hand, I do think that a paladin who's saying, "I don't want to hear it!" [whack] when presented with a less than clear-cut situation—like, say (and this is clearly just an example for illustration), a young "bandit" clearly not truly lost to that life yet whom the bandits took in almost as a mascot—is violating the spirit of his behavioral strictures, if not the letter.

In short, you're obviously technically correct about The Code. It's undeniably there in black-and-white. But it's up to a good DM to employ the spirit of the code, not its letter. Examples follow.

Is it a technical violation of the code to use poison? Yes.

Is it a violation of its spirit to use a sleeping poison to bring down a monster the paladin learns is rampaging only because it's sick rather than simply killing it? No.

Is it a technical violation to lie under any circumstances? Yes.

Is is a violation of its spirit to lie when the paladin understands clearly that the consequences of revealing the truth or maintaining silence is evil resulting? No, it is not. (The example often employed is, "Are there any Jews hiding in that attic?" when the paladin knows Anne Frank is up there.)

This is why we have Dungeon Masters—to interpret the rules and make them a guide to enhanced enjoyment, not allow them to become a straitjacket via myopically literalistic readings of same.

Quote:
Paladins bring out the dick in people.

You can't "bring out" something that's not there in the first place.

I think you're just employing my comment as an example of dickish paladin behavior to illustrate your point here, which is just fine, but ... to clarify, that was supposed to be an in-character paladin responding to the CN rogue, not someone getting in another's face without cause.

Quote:
Not because of how they act, per se, but because their existence somehow implies there is a "right" way to do everything, and that way it the Lawful Good way.

I think there's an attempt to synonymize lawful and rigid when discussing paladins that serves no purpose other than to polarize the sides.

Quote:
Lawful Good is somehow implied to be the "best" alignment, which is simply not the case.

I could just as easily say, "Lawful good is, simply, the best alignment," with as much conversational weight as your above statement—that is to say, none at all.

Assertions are not facts, and they're certainly not truths.

Quote:
There is no "best" moral philosophy for how you live your life.

Well, since I'm not a relativist, theologically- or philosophically-speaking, and find it both logically flawed and morally questionable, we could likely debate this point until the heat death of the universe and not convince each other. I'll simply say, "I disagree for (from what my position are) extremely well-substantiated reasons" and leave it at that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There might not be a single "best" philosophy, but some are sure as heck demonstrably better than some others.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
There might not be a single "best" philosophy, but some are sure as heck demonstrably better than some others.

Yep. In Pathfinder, the better ones fall under the label of 'Good'. Often different kinds of Good.

And, for the record, I'm completely in agreement with pretty much the entirety of Jaelithe's last post.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
There might not be a single "best" philosophy, but some are sure as heck demonstrably better than some others.
Yep. In Pathfinder, the better ones fall under the label of 'Good'. Often different kinds of Good.

I do hold that lawful good is the objectively best alignment, but my definition of lawful (in which good trumps law when they're in conflict, and law is expressly in place to uphold the good) probably means it's a much less monolithic definition than many others employ, which may explain my stance in some measure. Some might even interpret it as lawful good bordering on neutral good, I suppose.

As for those who wish to argue that evil is as justifiable a life-guiding philosophy as good (in either the game or real life, though more the latter), well ... frankly, it's beneath my dignity to argue with them. As someone once said, everyone is entitled to their opinion (and to embrace evil, if they so wish). Not all opinions are of equal value.

Some, frankly, just suck.

Quote:
And, for the record, I'm completely in agreement with pretty much the entirety of Jaelithe's last post.

Cool. :)

Liberty's Edge

Jaelithe wrote:
I do hold that lawful good is the objectively best alignment, but my definition of lawful (in which good trumps law when they're in conflict, and law is expressly in place to uphold the good) probably means it's a much less monolithic definition than many others employ, which may explain my stance in some measure. Some might even interpret it as lawful good bordering on neutral good, I suppose.

Also for the record, this I highly disagree with. Though I have no real desire to actually debate regarding my position of "CG is just as Good as LG." At least not here and now.

Jaelithe wrote:

As for those who wish to argue that evil is as justifiable a life-guiding philosophy as good (in either the game or real life, though more the latter), well ... frankly, it's beneath my dignity to argue with them. As someone once said, everyone is entitled to their opinion (and to embrace evil, if they so wish). Not all opinions are of equal value.

Some, frankly, just suck.

This I'm pretty much back in agreement with, though. Some things are categorically wrong, dammit.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
This I'm pretty much back in agreement with, though. Some things are categorically wrong, dammit.

Facts are wrong, opinions can't be though. They can be disagreed with, argued, debated, and I don't exactly advise doing any of those, but they can't be wrong. What is best is going to be an opinion. You tend to get a bit of a disconnect when you tell someone their opinion is wrong.

Liberty's Edge

MrSin wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
This I'm pretty much back in agreement with, though. Some things are categorically wrong, dammit.
Facts are wrong, opinions can't be though. They can be disagreed with, argued, debated, and I don't exactly advise doing any of those, but they can't be wrong. What is best is going to be an opinion. You tend to get a bit of a disconnect when you tell someone their opinion is wrong.

I was referring to actions being categorically morally wrong, not opinions directly (though thinking the aforementioned actions are okay would qualify). Just to be clear.

I might've phrased it poorly, though.


From what I'm getting of this thread is that people dislike playing with paladins or even playing paladins because it interferes with what would otherwise be normal adventure party behavior. I remember being pissed my rogue couldn't loot a tomb the party was exploring because an NG Cleric said I couldn't. Sure my rogue was evil but looting tombs is half of every dungeon crawl. Most adventurers would not consider it to be evil in the slightest. The GM (who was clearly playing favorites in hindsight) was on his side but it made me feel like we were missing out on valuable gold and magic items that important people are often buried with.

A good example of how people think about paladins is in Order of the Stick when a LG or NG (not explicitly stated but probably the former) Sylph accompanies the CG Rogue and CE ranger for a short time. Her stance on murder even of LE Hobgoblins is so out-of-line with what the two adventurers think that it actively interferes with the quest they're on. The purpose of the Sylph being there was to underline how out-of-sync adventurer ethics are with normal ethics in the real world. It didn't stop the Sylph from being one of the most annoying characters in the whole comic so far because of her whining, undoing progress towards another subplot, being idiotic and out-of-sync herself with the world she's in, and being holier-than-thou. Those last two complaints are often the biggest two complaints lobbed at the paladin.

Other classes can force their alignment on others, particularly clerics as I mentioned before (What, me bitter?), but no class does it quite like the paladin. Really, it's that tricky code. The earlier suggestion of "lead by example, not by force" would be fine for a LG fighter but the paladin is unable to stand by while someone else does something morally questionable but necessary. People feel they can't do pragmatic things without having to worry about the paladin's reaction. Any argument with a paladin, in their minds, either ends with them losing or the paladin losing their powers.

Is this necessarily right? Of course not. But it is a potential pitfall that can't be ignored and isn't written into the very foundation of any other class.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Larkos wrote:
...the paladin is unable to stand by while someone else does something morally questionable but necessary.

Of course, the question arises: Why should the murder hobos be the arbiters of "necessary"?


Jaelithe wrote:
Larkos wrote:
...the paladin is unable to stand by while someone else does something morally questionable but necessary.

Of course, the question arises: Why should the murder hobos be the arbiters of "necessary"?

I didn't mean standing in the way of murderhoboing. I meant like the Joker question. You can beat him up and send him to prison but you know he'll escape and kill again. Do you kill him to prevent that or let him live because it's the right thing to do? Paladin has a hard line answer to this question of the code and can't stand by if the rest of the party outvotes him like any other LG character could.

Liberty's Edge

Larkos wrote:
I didn't mean standing in the way of murderhoboing. I meant like the Joker question. You can beat him up and send him to prison but you know he'll escape and kill again. Do you kill him to prevent that or let him live because it's the right thing to do? Paladin has a hard line answer to this question of the code and can't stand by if the rest of the party outvotes him like any other LG character could.

I can't think of any reason a Paladin couldn't summarily execute the Joker. Random thugs? Not generally after they're incapacitated (assuming no crimes worse than assault). Catwoman? Probably no, period. Killing non-violent thieves merely trying to escape seems...un-Good. Maybe you could execute Two-Face, depending on interpretation. The Joker? Yeah, him you can kill under pretty much any circumstances.

Nor is 'not allowed to stand aside while other people do Neutral or Chaotic things' part of the Paladin's code. Standing aside while other people do Evil things probably is, at least by implication...but what Evil things do the PCs ever really need to do? I'm certainly not thinking of any.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jaelithe wrote:


As for those who wish to argue that evil is as justifiable a life-guiding philosophy as good (in either the game or real life, though more the latter),

It is the American way...after all, didn't this country decide en masse, that Greed is Good? And the only real crime is getting caught?


Larkos wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:
Larkos wrote:
...the paladin is unable to stand by while someone else does something morally questionable but necessary.

Of course, the question arises: Why should the murder hobos be the arbiters of "necessary"?

I didn't mean standing in the way of murderhoboing. I meant like the Joker question. You can beat him up and send him to prison but you know he'll escape and kill again. Do you kill him to prevent that or let him live because it's the right thing to do? Paladin has a hard line answer to this question of the code and can't stand by if the rest of the party outvotes him like any other LG character could.

Ah. Very good, then. I see what you're saying, now.

Thanks for the clarification.


Jaelithe wrote:
Larkos wrote:
...the paladin is unable to stand by while someone else does something morally questionable but necessary.

Of course, the question arises: Why should the murder hobos be the arbiters of "necessary"?

Presumably, the paladin disagrees that it's necessary. I don't know... it's hard for me to say as I'm not a paladin. For all I know, "necessary evil" may be a contradiction in terms for a paladin.


LazarX wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:


As for those who wish to argue that evil is as justifiable a life-guiding philosophy as good (in either the game or real life, though more the latter),
It is the American way...after all, didn't this country decide en masse, that Greed is Good? And the only real crime is getting caught?

Heh.

Hard to argue with that logic, LazarX.

The Exchange

LazarX wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:


As for those who wish to argue that evil is as justifiable a life-guiding philosophy as good (in either the game or real life, though more the latter),
It is the American way...after all, didn't this country decide en masse, that Greed is Good? And the only real crime is getting caught?

Naaah. The well-to-do decided that greed was good, the Supreme Court was generously bribed to rule that getting caught is the only real crime, and the rest of us were thrown to the sharks. And we just sit here and take it. Because we got IPods out of it.

Wait, what were we talking about again?


did I miss the greed meeting because I do not remember being en that masse


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Larkos wrote:
I didn't mean standing in the way of murderhoboing. I meant like the Joker question. You can beat him up and send him to prison but you know he'll escape and kill again. Do you kill him to prevent that or let him live because it's the right thing to do? Paladin has a hard line answer to this question of the code and can't stand by if the rest of the party outvotes him like any other LG character could.

I can't think of any reason a Paladin couldn't summarily execute the Joker. Random thugs? No. Catwoman? No. Maybe Two-Face, depending on interpretation. The Joker? Yeah, him you can kill.

Nor is 'not allowed to stand aside while other people do Neutral or Chaotic things' part of the Paladin's code. Standing aside while other people do Evil things probably is, at least by implication...but what Evil things do the PCs ever really need to do? I'm certainly not thinking of any.

Well the reason is more the Death Penalty argument which I do not want to get into. Suffice to say that some people believe that executing a surrendered foe, no matter how evil, is wrong. Whether a paladin can stand by and let a BBEG be killed to potentially save future lives may be up to the player and GM but there are at least grounds for the paladin not being able to allow that to happen. Conflict then follows.


aegrisomnia wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:
Larkos wrote:
...the paladin is unable to stand by while someone else does something morally questionable but necessary.

Of course, the question arises: Why should the murder hobos be the arbiters of "necessary"?

Presumably, the paladin disagrees that it's necessary. I don't know... it's hard for me to say as I'm not a paladin. For all I know, "necessary evil" may be a contradiction in terms for a paladin.

Likely so.

There's the old axiom, "Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil."

Paladins are about having faith and finding another way.

The best is when a DM sets you up for a fall, and you find another way, anyway. So satisfying to watch the DM seethe at not having gotten mud on your halo. :D

Liberty's Edge

Larkos wrote:
Well the reason is more the Death Penalty argument which I do [/b]not[b] want to get into. Suffice to say that some people believe that executing a surrendered foe, no matter how evil, is wrong. Whether a paladin can stand by and let a BBEG be killed to potentially save future lives may be up to the player and GM but there are at least grounds for the paladin not being able to allow that to happen. Conflict then follows.

I suppose...though considering there's an official LG Empyreal Lord of Executioners, an anti-death penalty GM would need to House Rule a fair bit to make the default world follow that particular ideal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Wait, what were we talking about again?

Something something something, paladin falls, something, something something, paladin rules aren't fair, yadda yadda yadda, alignment shouldn't get in the way of optimizing my Smighter, etc.

That's the gist of it, as far as I can tell.


Maybe it's just me, but when I play a paladin (which is quite often under Pathfnder) I simply look at it as playing something akin to the ideal image of an Arthurian knight and the sort of code of chivalry that we expect them to have. I don't force things on my companions and I don't play them as lawful stupid or a pain in the backside.

The Exchange

aegrisomnia wrote:
Quote:
Wait, what were we talking about again?

Something something something, paladin falls, something, something something, paladin rules aren't fair, yadda yadda yadda, alignment shouldn't get in the way of optimizing my Smighter, etc.

That's the gist of it, as far as I can tell.

Didn't we already have that discussion before? My memory isn't what it used to be, but that sounds mighty familiar.


Lincoln Hills wrote:
aegrisomnia wrote:
Quote:
Wait, what were we talking about again?

Something something something, paladin falls, something, something something, paladin rules aren't fair, yadda yadda yadda, alignment shouldn't get in the way of optimizing my Smighter, etc.

That's the gist of it, as far as I can tell.

Didn't we already have that discussion before? My memory isn't what it used to be, but that sounds mighty familiar.

A quick search reveals over 82,000 posts with "paladin" in them. I suspect most of them are probably "contributing" to the same "discussion".

(alt: shouting in the same hole, beating the same horse, etc.)


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Larkos wrote:
Well the reason is more the Death Penalty argument which I do [/b]not[b] want to get into. Suffice to say that some people believe that executing a surrendered foe, no matter how evil, is wrong. Whether a paladin can stand by and let a BBEG be killed to potentially save future lives may be up to the player and GM but there are at least grounds for the paladin not being able to allow that to happen. Conflict then follows.
I suppose...though considering there's an official LG Empyreal Lord of Executioners, an anti-death penalty GM would need to House Rule a fair bit to make the default world follow that particular ideal.

I assume you mean Damerrich who has very little info, at least on the wiki. There is also a difference between an execution handed down by an appointed judge and carried out by an official executioner and an unofficial and unappointed group of people deciding that someone needs to die and then killing them. (I feel like that sentence had too many "ands.")

The Exchange

So it's not just me.

(The ones I feel bad for are the folks who have questions about paladins that do not relate in any way, shape, or form to alignment or to falling. Somehow those threads still manage to get sucked into the black hole.)


Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.

Liberty's Edge

Larkos wrote:
I assume you mean Damerrich who has very little info, at least on the wiki.

Yeah, he's who I meant. There's a full page write-up on him in Chronicles of the Righteous. He's pretty cool.

Larkos wrote:
There is also a difference between an execution handed down by an appointed judge and carried out by an official executioner and an unofficial and unappointed group of people deciding that someone needs to die and then killing them. (I feel like that sentence had too many "ands.")

This is true to some degree...but firstly, that's a difference between Law and Chaos (appointed authority vs. unappointed authority), not Good and Evil. Taking that approach means that a Paladin could 'fall' to NG for doing enough unsanctioned but justified executions...but one wouldn't be enough. Paladins are allowed individual Chaotic acts, after all, just not a full Alignment shift.

Secondly, Paladins can work for their Deity directly. Which means they have been given authority to make such decisions by a legitimate authority, at least to some degree. Certainly they can do so in areas where there are no legitimate authorities available, as their God's law is the only law there is (this includes a surprising percentage of the places most adventuring groups go).

Heck, Dammerich's agents are explicitly noted as showing up sometimes when someone deserving death is set free to carry out the execution personally (and chastise those who released them).

Now are most Paladins gonna want to take people in to face formal justice if possible, and within the jurisdiction of a legitimate authority? Yes. But not doing so is Chaotic...not Evil. Heck, I'm not sure looking the other way while the other PCs perform a Chaotic act is even Chaotic in and of itself...matter of opinion, that.

Oh, and just to be clear, all this is assuming a Joker situation (ie: indisputable proof of multiple crimes unambiguously warranting death). Less clear-cut guilt rapidly takes summary execution off the table as a Paladin-safe action. On the other hand...real villains, as opposed to random encounters, usually have a whole lot of that kind of evidence immediately on-hand.


RDM42 wrote:
There might not be a single "best" philosophy, but some are sure as heck demonstrably better than some others.

Which I can agree with, and most have the word "Good" in them.

But I don't think any of the Goods are objectively better than another. They're all the same amount of Good, it's just that their methods are different.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Larkos wrote:
I assume you mean Damerrich who has very little info, at least on the wiki.

Yeah, he's who I meant. There's a full page write-up on him in Chronicles of the Righteous. He's pretty cool.

Larkos wrote:
There is also a difference between an execution handed down by an appointed judge and carried out by an official executioner and an unofficial and unappointed group of people deciding that someone needs to die and then killing them. (I feel like that sentence had too many "ands.")

This is true to some degree...but firstly, that's a difference between Law and Chaos (appointed authority vs. unappointed authority), not Good and Evil. Taking that approach means that a Paladin could 'fall' to NG for doing enough unsanctioned but justified executions...but one wouldn't be enough. Paladins are allowed individual Chaotic acts, after all, just not a full Alignment shift.

Secondly, Paladins can work for their Deity directly. Which means they have been given authority to make such decisions by a legitimate authority, at least to some degree. Certainly they can do so in areas where there are no legitimate authorities available, as their God's law is the only law there is (this includes a surprising percentage of the places most adventuring groups go).

Heck, Dammerich's agents are explicitly noted as showing up sometimes when someone deserving death is set free to carry out the execution personally (and chastise those who released them).

Now are most Paladins gonna want to take people in to face formal justice if possible, and within the jurisdiction of a legitimate authority? Yes. But not doing so is Chaotic...not Evil. Heck, I'm not sure looking the other way while the other PCs perform a Chaotic act is even Chaotic in and of itself...matter of opinion, that.

Oh, and just to be clear, all this is assuming a Joker situation (ie: indisputable proof of multiple crimes unambiguously warranting death). Less clear-cut guilt rapidly takes summary execution off the table as...

I don't have that book and the wiki is failing me so I will take your word on how Dammerich's agents work. I just have a problem with the argument that paladins are a rightful judge, jury, and executioner because they're divine agents. Paladins are by nature good and just and therefore usually are trustworthy in cases of morality. However, they are still sentient beings with free will and can make mistakes. I don't know if a paladin code would allow too much of a "judgement call." I don't mean to say they shouldn't be given any leeway and not never make any judgement call on a tough issue. It's just hard to know where the line is sometimes.

The argument of the party in the Joker dilemma would be the paladin (and maybe some really nice guys)saying he needs to go to a place where he committed a crime and be judged there or failing that to the nearest paladin HQ while the party says he could escape before he gets there or from his holding cell while the trial is being arranged. Do what's right vs. he's too dangerous.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I always love how the "kill him now" players are essentially arguing against having an adventure. ;)


The argument with Joker is really a debate about the morality of in-action. Killing the Joker would be murder a crime but every time batman lets the joker go he knows the joker will get out and kill more people this is not a point in doubt it is almost a universal law. So is failure to act to prevent the inevitable death of dozens at jokers hands evil? Can in-action be evil and where should we draw the line.

Mind you if your GM has decided that inaction or failure to stop something from happening is evil then your paladins is doomed to fall because sooner or later your paladin is going to let someone go who he should have killed and have blood indirectly on his hands.

The Exchange

Or ride left at a crossroads instead of right, meaning he isn't at the village of Bumsquat when a flash-flood drowns a bunch of orphans he could have saved... if he hadn't turned left.


Lincoln Hills wrote:
Or ride left at a crossroads instead of right, meaning he isn't at the village of Bumsquat when a flash-flood drowns a bunch of orphans he could have saved... if he hadn't turned left.

A valid argument if it were something out of his control, but this is not. After the first time Joker escaped to kill hundreds more any sane person would have killed him to prevent the inevitable future tragedy. Certainly so now that he's escaped scores of times now. If Batman didn't any sane government would have executed him by now.

What we can conclude from this is that neither Batman nor Gotham's government are very sane.

151 to 200 of 235 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Opinions on Paladins All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.