I think "a paladin must not lie" and "a paladin must behave honorably" are two different, largely unrelated criteria. If you tell your players "you are not capable of lying" you will essentially train them to be master equivocators and/or pedants.
"Officer I would be incredibly surprised if you were able to locate any fugitives hiding in my attic" is not, strictly speaking, a lie if you intend to use physical force to prevent the officer from actually going into your attic assuming he doesn't buy your line.
I think putting the emphasis on "truth-telling" rather than "honorable behavior" skews things. Personally I've always believed in just asking any Paladin player to justify anything they do that's potentially dishonorable, and if they can't justify it then they shouldn't do it. Having to think about the justifications for your actions is a good way to avoid falling into a lot of the classic lawful stupid tropes. The Paladin, ideally, is a thinking-person's martial class.
Have to agree on this point. I don't really like the idea that Paladins have to work around their code by finding ways to use weasel words, half-truths, and careful omissions for deception. I would think the expectation is that Paladins should be honest, not that they should be rules-lawyers about never telling an outright lie.
That said, I think a more context-sensitive code would be a good idea. I'd be more comfortable with the idea of a paladin code that allows lies in certain extreme circumstances than I would with Paladins needing to find loopholes in their moral codes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Engineer Choice:
Built well / Built on time / Built affordably
Pick two.
Paladin Choice:
Goodness / Law / Honor
Pick two.
Dang it! I saw this thread and I was all like, "Oh wow! There's a whole thread about me!" But then, after reading it several times, I was all like, "Oh, wait, no, it's Awful Good and Lawful Stupid." C'mon guys, when can the Awful Stupid alignment get love?
The not lying is good, the being dogmatic about not lying is lawful.Correction: that description of paladins is made of straw. They are not lawful neutral, they are lawful good, and the good is of equal or even greater import to the lawful.Indeed there is a range, I simply made that inquiry because describing Kant as made of straw was rather similar to how Nietzsche described him.So if you don't like Kantian ethics you have to go straight to Nietzsche? There are many other schools of deontological thought ..No. It doesn't mean that to those who prefer lawful good paladins. That isn't a lawful good paladin, that's an idiot. Also rather completely made of straw.If striving always to do what is right is idiocy, then I can scarcely imagine your view of the Paladin. Also, Immanuel Kant is a straw man? That's a new one. I guess you're a Nietzsche fan?Lawful and dogmatic are not the same thing.
Adhering firmly to a code or belief system is lawful.
|
Adhering so firmly to a code that you defeat the purpose for which the code has been put in place is not only monolithic, it's asinine.
"The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."
You'd never guess from my posts, but that's exactly why I think that Paladins make terrible paladins. Their power, that is their ability to defend the righteous and absolve the wicked, is dependent entirely upon their adherence to an incredibly strict code that, if broken, causes them to lose so much of their ability to be a paladin that they're useless.
That's why Fighters and Rogues (and Martial Artist monks)are the best paladins. 100% effective, 100% of the time, and if they make a mistake or slip up they don't get crippled.
It does seem a shame that Ultimate Campaign introduced detailed honor rules, with explicit examples of different honor codes for Arthurian knights, criminals, politicians, samurai, and nomadic tribes--but not Paladins.
Perhaps we should start from a "The Paladin code of Golarion does work" mindset. For example, clearly a white lie is sometimes the only Good option, so it must not be considered a real lie, and is not dishonorable.
The result is no stranger than the idea prevalent in parts of America that oral sex is not real sex and is often not dishonorable in circumstances when "real sex" would be dishonorable.
Huge difference between 'firmly' and 'without reason'. Your version is lawful neutral, which is not what a paladin is. He is lawful good.Adhering firmly to a code or belief system is lawful.The not lying is good, the being dogmatic about not lying is lawful.Correction: that description of paladins is made of straw. They are not lawful neutral, they are lawful good, and the good is of equal or even greater import to the lawful.Indeed there is a range, I simply made that inquiry because describing Kant as made of straw was rather similar to how Nietzsche described him.
So if you don't like Kantian ethics you have to go straight to Nietzsche? There are many other schools of deontological thought ..Lawful and dogmatic are not the same thing.
Dogmatically refusing to do a bad act (lie) is neutral? Interesting.
As for a reason, how about "Because you should never lie", which seems to be a part of the Paladin code.
Adhering so firmly to a code that you defeat the purpose for which the code has been put in place is not only monolithic, it's asinine.
"The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."
I would hazard to guess that if one who ignored the Sabbath were struck blind until clergy could formally apologize on their behalf, the Sabbath would be adhered to quite firmly as well.
For a class that will lose all of their defining features if they violate a code, strict observance of said code must, by necessity, be practiced.
I personally think it's foolish, and ridiculous, and don't use it as written in my games, but that is how it is written.
|
Boy, that adds horror to attempting to Treat Deadly Wounds on a monk or druid, doesn't it? ;)
Since poison-immune characters can still use alchemical remedies like antiplague, their bodies can't reject all drugs as poison. I'd imagine minor painkillers and maybe even local anesthesia wouldn't trigger their poison-defenses. They'd certainly be immune to general anesthesia - but plenty of people in history have done without and a high-level character is probably pretty tough.
Adhering so firmly to a code that you defeat the purpose for which the code has been put in place is not only monolithic, it's asinine.
"The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."
I really doubt Jesus was LG. He was a "compassion comes first" kind of guy, and that says NG to me. Not to mention such not-really-lawful sentiments as "Judge not lest ye be judged."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You absolute literalists of the paladin code realize that your interpretation of the code prevents a paladin from buying his friends a beer. Alcohol is a mild poison after all.
Boy, that adds horror to attempting to Treat Deadly Wounds on a monk or druid, doesn't it? ;)Since poison-immune characters can still use alchemical remedies like antiplague, their bodies can't reject all drugs as poison. I'd imagine minor painkillers and maybe even local anesthesia wouldn't trigger their poison-defenses. They'd certainly be immune to general anesthesia - but plenty of people in history have done without and a high-level character is probably pretty tough.
I really doubt Jesus was LG. He was a "compassion comes first" kind of guy, and that says NG to me. Not to mention such not-really-lawful sentiments as "Judge not lest ye be judged."Adhering so firmly to a code that you defeat the purpose for which the code has been put in place is not only monolithic, it's asinine.
"The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."
Arthurian knights are the definition of LG. And they are supposed to be emulating Jesus, so I would say that Jesus would then be LG.
Arthurian knights are the definition of LG. And they are supposed to be emulating Jesus, so I would say that Jesus would then be LG.I really doubt Jesus was LG. He was a "compassion comes first" kind of guy, and that says NG to me. Not to mention such not-really-lawful sentiments as "Judge not lest ye be judged."Adhering so firmly to a code that you defeat the purpose for which the code has been put in place is not only monolithic, it's asinine.
"The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."
That is ridiculous. They emulated the then current interpretation of what Jesus did, removed from the man himself by over a millennium not to mention a vast gap of cultural context.
Jesus actually came from a tradition of apocalyptic preachers and prophets. He associated himself with marginalized members of society and turned aspects of traditional social order upside down. That sounds to me like a chaotic good attitude of being perfectly fine with tossing out rules which contribute to marginalizing certain members of society while still being fine with the rules which constructively add to society.
Now something on topic though. Being able to toss out rules which do not serve their purpose or are otherwise objectionable with no compunctions is the essence of a chaotic alignment. Civil disobedience is a quintessentially chaotic act because it revolves around purposefully disobeying the law to make a point. The difference between CG, CN and CE is why they each would find a law objectionable. CG would find a law or custom objectionable if it is unjust. CN would think something is objectionable if it were unjust, but also if it were just out of keeping with contemporary attitudes or even if it benefits a group of people they don't like. CE would find something objectionable because f%%& you is why.
Lawful alignments would not be ok with tossing out a law entirely. They would instead try to amend or repeal it through the accepted process. A lawful person would rather write a letter to their congressman than protest something. LG wants the same standards of justice that CG does, they just think that CG cases too much collateral grief to society in the process of attaining that justice.
The one thing which LG heroes have trouble fighting is entrenched and unjust social mores and laws, such as those in a LE but stable and functional society.
|
For people going with the absolutist version of the following text:
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)...
How do you interpret the 'and so forth'? How do you stick to exact wording with that part of the code? I'm honestly curious.
Arthurian knights are the definition of LG. And they are supposed to be emulating Jesus, so I would say that Jesus would then be LG.I really doubt Jesus was LG. He was a "compassion comes first" kind of guy, and that says NG to me. Not to mention such not-really-lawful sentiments as "Judge not lest ye be judged."Adhering so firmly to a code that you defeat the purpose for which the code has been put in place is not only monolithic, it's asinine.
"The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."
That is ridiculous. They emulated the then current interpretation of what Jesus did, removed from the man himself by over a millennium not to mention a vast gap of cultural context.
Jesus actually came from a tradition of apocalyptic preachers and prophets. He associated himself with marginalized members of society and turned aspects of traditional social order upside down. That sounds to me like a chaotic good attitude of being perfectly fine with tossing out rules which contribute to marginalizing certain members of society while still being fine with the rules which constructively add to society.
Now something on topic though. Being able to toss out rules which do not serve their purpose or are otherwise objectionable with no compunctions is the essence of a chaotic alignment. Civil disobedience is a quintessentially chaotic act because it revolves around purposefully disobeying the law to make a point. The difference between CG, CN and CE is why they each would find a law objectionable. CG would find a law or custom objectionable if it is unjust. CN would think something is objectionable if it were unjust, but also if it were just out of keeping with contemporary attitudes or even if it benefits a group of people they don't like. CE would find something objectionable because f@@$ you is why.
Lawful alignments would not be ok with tossing out a law entirely. They would instead try to amend or repeal it through the accepted process. A lawful person would rather write a letter to their congressman than protest something. LG wants the same standards of justice that CG does, they just think that CG cases too much collateral grief to society in the process of attaining that justice.
The one thing which LG heroes have trouble fighting is entrenched and unjust social mores and laws, such as those in a LE but stable and functional society.
On the iPad so apologies for awkward formats.
This is a very fascinating conversation. If I may, however, Jesus was not overturning the law nor even all of the traditions. In fact, He encourages people to obey the priests and their onerous burdens (while condemning the priests for placing such burdens), and directly stating that He was here to accomplish or finish the law - not to abolish it. He brings Freedom... through Obedience.
While he does overturn social mores, he overturns wicked, self-serving, dehumanizing social mores.
I feel very strongly that these are all elements that point toward Lawful over Chaotic behavior. That said, I can see argumentation being built towards different elements. One supposes this leans most strongly toward Neutral Good in this case (which, I suppose, makes some amount of sense), but I certainly see Him as Lawfully, "obedient, even unto death on the cross."
It should be noted that the second part of the paladin's code seems to focus on the Lawful aspect of Lawful Good:
Acting with honor is a Lawful act.
Lying is a chaotic act.
Cheating is a chaotic act.
Using poison could arguably be a good, evil or a chaotic act depending on the nature and use of the poison.
Lying and Cheating in particular could be the bread and butter of a chaotic good character.
For people going with the absolutist version of the following text:
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)...How do you interpret the 'and so forth'? How do you stick to exact wording with that part of the code? I'm honestly curious.
I would suggest that "and so forth" is taken up by table variation, while those explicitly stated are... well, explicitly stated, and this RAW.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would suggest that "and so forth" is taken up by table variation, while those explicitly stated are... well, explicitly stated, and this RAW.
I suppose that works...I just feel like, while lying, cheating, and the use of poison are listed, the 'and so forth' strongly implies they're merely examples of dishonorable behavior, and should thus only be violations when they are actually dishonorable (which is the vast majority of the time, don't get me wrong).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In other words, Jesus had a more evolved and mature understanding of the Law and its purpose than did the Pharisees—who many in this thread have been echoing for some time.
Must die, must die, this Jaelithe must die. For the sake of our forum, this Jaelithe must die.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's all good and well, guys, but comparing literal interpretation of the Paladin Code to Judaic Law is really, REALLY wrong on multiple levels, mostly because the Paladin code is designed with a different goal in mind:
The Paladin code exists not as a path to righteousness, salvation, or atonement, but rather as a strict set of rules which reward the paladin with supernatural, awesome power. This isn't some form of making the Paladin a better person (though, to be fair, following the code would set some of the habits of good people), it's a trade of sacrificing certain behaviors and practices and receiving power for your sacrifice. The Paladin code isn't a moral code, it's a code signifying when he does and does not receive his power, and the cost for it.
While he does overturn social mores, he overturns wicked, self-serving, dehumanizing social mores.
That sounds awfully Chaotic Good to me. I definitely accept the interpretation of NG on the basis of having both distinct Lawful and Chaotic traits.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's all good and well, guys, but comparing literal interpretation of the Paladin Code to Judaic Law is really, REALLY wrong on multiple levels, mostly because the Paladin code is designed with a different goal in mind...
While I'd agree it's a poor comparison, it's actually very relevant to this thread's actual question, namely to what extent can a LG character (not just a paladin) act against the law, religious or otherwise?
(Lawful Good) characters sometimes have problems defying laws, even when the laws are unjust. Instead of disobeying or protesting against such laws, they work within the provided structure or system to change those laws, and they implore others to do so as well.
Neutral good characters support laws that benefit all, but have no qualms about ignoring unjust laws or tyrannical rulers.
These descriptions suggest that for a LG character, ignoring or breaking an unjust law is a last resort only to be taken if it is not possible to amend the law by working within the existing system. Lawful characters respect the order itself, not just the end result of that order, so they don't disrupt order unless pressed. That is what makes them Lawful. The extent to which they desire order and resist disrupting it describes how Lawful they are. A character who has no qualms about disobeying an unjust law or authority is not LG, they are NG.
The above assumes that the system is one the LG character recognizes - their own kingdom, religion, professional code, personal calendar, etc. A religious character doesn't necessarily give two monkey farts about the king's law, though many lawful characters will default to abiding by any orderly system because it's comfortable, or because their personal code calls requires some consideration for others'.
This is a very fascinating conversation. If I may, however, Jesus was not overturning the law nor even all of the traditions. In fact, He encourages people to obey the priests and their onerous burdens (while condemning the priests for placing such burdens), and directly stating that He was here to accomplish or finish the law - not to abolish it. He brings Freedom... through Obedience.
I submit that the bible verse cited is from Matthew, which had the target audience of "Jews who need to be convinced that Jesus is the messiah." Thus it has a bias towards portraying him as the fulfillment / embodiment of Jewish law and prophecy.
Compare the Sermon on the Mount and surrounding passages in Matthew with Luke, and you can see the difference in focus.
There's also a huge difference between Jesus being obedient to God (omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent) and advocating obedience to a formal hierarchy or government. Obedience to God isn't about order, it's about the fact that God is pure Good and if you want to be/do good, you need to act in accord with the will of Pure Good - to disobey God in that understanding isn't being non-lawful, it's being Evil. As far as I'm aware Jesus only requires that people obey God and Himself as the Son of God, not that they obey priests. The only references to worldly obedience I've seen in the bible are in the Letters (eg Hebrews and Colossians) which are a step or two removed from Jesus Himself.
In other words, Jesus had a more evolved and mature understanding of the Law and its purpose than did the Pharisees—who many in this thread have been echoing for some time.
...
Jesus understood that so long as the Law served its purpose, which was to promote the good, it should be adhered to—that its spirit could always be obeyed, so long as one didn't become a slave to its technicalities, such as, "You can't heal someone on the Sabbath."
I submit that His "mature understanding of the law" represented an understanding that the Law was not in fact Lawful in the PF sense. The Law does not serve Order (see Law is not Legal), it serves human welfare as a set of guidelines where the direct harm caused by one's actions may not be obvious, such as ritual cleanliness as a form of sanitation before germ theory. If the Law does not serve the good, it is not to be amended but ignored (see the above Champions of Purity quote). Like it or not, feeling beholden to technicalities and the letter of the law for the sake of maintaining Order is a Lawful trait, while a character who breaks the letter of the law to obey the spirit even when it defies social convention is nonlawful.
For comparison, the teachings of Sarenrae are the most similar to those of Jesus among Golarion deities with an emphasis on forgiveness, redemption, and healing (but still allowing for swift justice for the truly unrepentant). Three NG empyreal lords also have themes recalling Jesus' ministry: Korada (foresight, forgiveness, peace), Lorris (charity, the disadvantaged, volunteering), and Ondisso (Elevation, incorruptibility, resisting temptation). On the LG side we only have Erastil, maybe, for having community values, and Videlis and maybe Nenshen for martyrdom. And martyrdom isn't exactly a LG-exclusive since CG Milani is also associated with it.
I don't think Jesus actively opposed the principle of Law, thus not CG, but He is certainly a better fit for NG than LG.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Weirdo, fair enough, though I disagree, I respect your view
I've really gotta start paying attention to people's usernames in long conversations. I thought you were calling him a weirdo which would be really strange because the conversation you guys had was intelligent and respectful.