I guess Neutral is the new good.Personally, I'd argue that not using the scroll is a greater Evil act than using it could ever be. And that's defensible, per the rules. So not necessarily.Agreed 150% actually. That's what blew my mind about it. Here you have a magical doohicky that some poor kid died for, against his will even, but at least his soul could know that it saved someone else's life. I, personally, would be comforted by the idea that if I was going to be murdered, that it would at least have a silver lining like saving the life of some kid with leukemia.
If a GM told me my Paladin fell for using said scroll on said child, I'd walk out and never associate with him or her again. Not because of the game ruling, but because I would want to stay far, far away from that human being.
Mechanically I would agree.
Fluff? It could depend on some things...
If Killing the kid was spell component and they used that to make the scroll... what if all the damage isn't done yet? I could see an evil wizard coming up with this spell powered by the kid's soul... that is utterly destroyed when the spell is cast.
Does that change your opinion any? Is it worth destroying a kids eternal soul to cast the spell? Would burning it free him?
That would be an ethical dilemma. I could see that as an Evil act that requires some serious atonement for... at that point it really is YOU that's committing the sacrifice and not so much the guy who made the scroll...
Mechanically, yeah, its rubbish. But there are a lot of things going on behind the scenes with 'made up spells'
Mechanically I would agree.
Fluff? It could depend on some things...
If Killing the kid was spell component and they used that to make the scroll... what if all the damage isn't done yet? I could see an evil wizard coming up with this spell powered by the kid's soul... that is utterly destroyed when the spell is cast.
Does that change your opinion any? Is it worth destroying a kids eternal soul to cast the spell? Would burning it free him?
That would be an ethical dilemma. I could see that as an Evil act that requires some serious atonement for... at that point it really is YOU that's committing the sacrifice and not so much the guy who made the scroll...
Mechanically, yeah, its rubbish. But there are a lot of things going on behind the scenes with 'made up spells'
Well, a nicer way to put it is that you don't know what will happen with 'unknown dark arts spells'. I think knowledge:arcana check is not going to help to much with that (since where would you have learned about it from?). Maybe spellcraft? Yeah, that sounds good, since it is supposed to be about the 'technical art of casting a spell', and works on magic items with weird, randomly added rules that do not come from spells.
And even if it doesn't do any more damage to the sacrificed kid...well, what does it do to the kid being 'helped'? I mean, why would an evil spellcaster go to the trouble of making a spell like this when other options already exist (it is obvious part of the reason why some do gooders decided to divorce his head and body). I would be suspect of whether the sick kid would start growing tentacles.....
That is why you avoid the dark arts kids- no one wants to talk about them, so it can be hard to tell what you are signing up for.
Taboos against cannibilism are cultural, as the lizard folk example proves.. Some may see it as okay, others may condemn you to the Nine Hells or abyss.
In real life, yeah.
In Fantasy worlds like Golarion, it often carries the very real threat of turning into a Ghoul or similar creature/undead.
Still thinking Cannibalism is more Chaos/Law than Good/Evil myself.
That said....
Anyone up for some stew?... What do you mean? Oh, I cleaned up the assassin's bodies pretty quickly. Don't need their friends finding them and tracking us down... Unless they can scry them in our stomachs....
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a GM told me my Paladin fell for using said scroll on said child, I'd walk out and never associate with him or her again. Not because of the game ruling, but because I would want to stay far, far away from that human being.What if told your Paladin fell for lying if telling the truth meant a family of innocents dying? (Lets say for this example this is like Speed, but the bus explodes if the paladin doesn't tell at least 50 lies per hour.)
I'd lie my ass off (putting my power before the needs of others would kind of kill the whole point). I'd lose my powers, but if I did otherwise I wouldn't deserve them anyway.
C'mon, I just don't buy it. Even if you're chaotic neutral, dining on the dead is just plain evil.
Why should I believe you?
IMO, a paladin should face black and white moral situations. The right answer might be very hard to discover, but once discovered there shouldn't be any doubt that it is the right answer. The class doesn't really work very well with shades of gray. To me, paladins are the four-color superheroes of the fantasy genre and I would feel like I wasn't being fair to the player if I didn't give them the chance to act that way.
It's sad that there's even a base class that makes a GM feel like they have to dumb the game down for it to be enjoyable. -_-
Well, the right answer there is obvious, since making deals with fiends is historically a bad idea.In my world, there will never be a situation where the morally correct thing to do is follow the advice of a fiend.
...unless.... they give you perfectly legitimate advice based on the idea that you will never follow it, since they are so untrustworthy.
DOUBLE DEMON BLUFF!
This is exactly the sort of thing the devils (and occasional demon) actually would do in my games if they are corruption focused (which most devils in my games are). Because they usually will indeed help you, but it might come at some sort of price, even if that price has no apparent value.
You catch more flies with honey, after all.
I'd lie my ass off (putting my power before the needs of others would kind of kill the whole point). I'd lose my powers, but if I did otherwise I wouldn't deserve them anyway.If a GM told me my Paladin fell for using said scroll on said child, I'd walk out and never associate with him or her again. Not because of the game ruling, but because I would want to stay far, far away from that human being.What if told your Paladin fell for lying if telling the truth meant a family of innocents dying? (Lets say for this example this is like Speed, but the bus explodes if the paladin doesn't tell at least 50 lies per hour.)
...with all this argument about moral ambiguity, I began to make assumptions. I must say, that is a fantastically honorable answer. Thank you for the guidance and helping me to look past myself.
Well, the right answer there is obvious, since making deals with fiends is historically a bad idea.In my world, there will never be a situation where the morally correct thing to do is follow the advice of a fiend.
...unless.... they give you perfectly legitimate advice based on the idea that you will never follow it, since they are so untrustworthy.
DOUBLE DEMON BLUFF!
This is exactly the sort of thing the devils (and occasional demon) actually would do in my games if they are corruption focused (which most devils in my games are). Because they usually will indeed help you, but it might come at some sort of price, even if that price has no apparent value.
You catch more flies with honey, after all.
I think the problem with that approach in this context is that a Paladin has the absolute moral right to smite evil outsider (along with dragons and undead). It's one of those coveted black and white moral choices.
Do you think any paladin is going to give a fiend five seconds to speak when they realize, for once in their life, they have express permission from the creators of the world to smite something without falling?
Mechanically I would agree.
Fluff? It could depend on some things...
If Killing the kid was spell component and they used that to make the scroll... what if all the damage isn't done yet? I could see an evil wizard coming up with this spell powered by the kid's soul... that is utterly destroyed when the spell is cast.
Does that change your opinion any? Is it worth destroying a kids eternal soul to cast the spell? Would burning it free him?
Then we wouldn't use it, but such was not how it was presented. That would be an obviously terrible end to the action of using it, as opposed to an evil past-tense that was already said and done. Again, it comes down to what you do. If the kid's soul was destroyed (and I'm very much against the very idea of destroying souls) already, then we end up right back in the situation where some poor innocent was harmed with great cost, and now not using it to achieve some measure of good would be morally reprehensible.
That would be an ethical dilemma. I could see that as an Evil act that requires some serious atonement for... at that point it really is YOU that's committing the sacrifice and not so much the guy who made the scroll...
It's not really an ethical dilemma at all. I just wouldn't do it. In this case, I'd say it was more evil to use it to save a child's life, because the destruction of a soul would be even more horrible.
Mechanically, yeah, its rubbish. But there are a lot of things going on behind the scenes with 'made up spells'
I'm not following your reasoning here. Spells do what spells say that they do. When you cast death knell to finish off an enemy and power yourself up, the soul of the dead creature doesn't magically implode into nothingness.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the problem with that approach in this context is that a Paladin has the absolute moral right to smite evil outsider (along with dragons and undead). It's one of those coveted black and white moral choices.
Do you think any paladin is going to give a fiend five seconds to speak when they realize, for once in their life, they have express permission from the creators of the world to smite something without falling?
I would. Most of my Paladins aren't generally interested in starting fights (but they're usually damn good at finishing them). If anything, evil or not, wasn't being hostile I'm not going to immediately murder it on the spot. Two wrongs do not make a right.
(This would, however, be a point where I would be highly likely to drink my elixir of +10 to a skill (sense motive) to support my already maxed ranks in Sense Motive. >_>)
Fiends are sentient creatures too, and hurting, oppressing, and killing them without justification is just as evil as doing the same to an an elf. Since I don't believe in racist genocide, I'm generally willing to stay my blade long enough to hear them out. If you cannot trust a Paladin to at least hear you out, who could you trust?
...with all this argument about moral ambiguity, I began to make assumptions. I must say, that is a fantastically honorable answer. Thank you for the guidance and helping me to look past myself.I'd lie my ass off (putting my power before the needs of others would kind of kill the whole point). I'd lose my powers, but if I did otherwise I wouldn't deserve them anyway.If a GM told me my Paladin fell for using said scroll on said child, I'd walk out and never associate with him or her again. Not because of the game ruling, but because I would want to stay far, far away from that human being.What if told your Paladin fell for lying if telling the truth meant a family of innocents dying? (Lets say for this example this is like Speed, but the bus explodes if the paladin doesn't tell at least 50 lies per hour.)
Um, thank you. o_o
Are you...being sarcastic? :o
Well, a nicer way to put it is that you don't know what will happen with 'unknown dark arts spells'. I think knowledge:arcana check is not going to help to much with that (since where would you have learned about it from?). Maybe spellcraft? Yeah, that sounds good, since it is supposed to be about the 'technical art of casting a spell', and works on magic items with weird, randomly added rules that do not come from spells.
And even if it doesn't do any more damage to the sacrificed kid...well, what does it do to the kid being 'helped'? I mean, why would an evil spellcaster go to the trouble of making a spell like this when other options already exist (it is obvious part of the reason why some do gooders decided to divorce his head and body). I would be suspect of whether the sick kid would start growing tentacles.....
That is why you avoid the dark arts kids- no one wants to talk about them, so it can be hard to tell what you are signing up for.
Yeah, spellcraft, Knowledge Arcana, and all that sort of thing is really useful. I imagine that those skills aren't simply a matter of knowing every spell and/or magic item in existence, but instead the knowledge that is needed to examine and interpret what a spell does. Hence why a wizard can identify a druid's call lightning as it is being cast, even though he can never learn or cast that spell himself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...with all this argument about moral ambiguity, I began to make assumptions. I must say, that is a fantastically honorable answer. Thank you for the guidance and helping me to look past myself.Um, thank you. o_o
Are you...being sarcastic? :o
Nope.
..that is a legitimate, 'I'm not pulling a double bluff' nope. But this could be interpreted as sarcastic too... darn you limits of written media and our sarcasm obsessed generation!
It was an elegant argument that did in fact espouse the core ideals of a paladin (sacrifice of the self for the sake of others).
I am a person that is rather serious about paladin conduct. When I look at this class, and think 'this makes a great tank', my next question is 'could I possibly try negotiating with those hill giants rather than go in smiting?' since I can take a few hits if the answer is 'no'.
Admittedly, I would not go in without a plan either, since I have a party to worry about. Stealth and readied actions exist for good reasons, and 'blast the first thing that looks at good-two-shoes funny' seems like a reasonable way to use them.
|
No, but anyone that knew they were stolen and still let them get put in should be arrested. Because those are called accomplishes (or some other term; I am a lit major, not a lawyer; point is that I am fairly sure it is illegal, for good reason).
Accomplices. Accomplishes would be someone who is really good at stealing kidneys.
If you were high enough level, you could possibly even bring the dead person back to life, making most of the moral question moot. Actually, I am pretty certain they could even join in the eating if you used Reincarnte, which would make this all sorts of weird since I think a human might be able to just have enough meat so that the party eat and cast restoration on themselves indefinitely..... which is a whole lot of moral and ethical questions that really should never get an answer....
I've seriously considered a character with Regeneration feeding a Donner Party by chopping bits off of themselves and regrowing them.
The dying druid says to her paladin friend, "You must eat me. It is my way, that the dead pass their strength to the living. I honour your strength, and I ask that you honour mine. Take me into you, that I may go with you in your noble cause."
Yup. Or as my less flowery druid would have put it in that situation: "What, too good to be fed by my flesh? I have no more use for it. It's you or the worms, and you need it more."
Also reminds me of Cutter in Elfquest, cursing a bitter enemy: "You are meat to be wasted, your blood will fall on bare rock and nourish nothing."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, the right answer there is obvious, since making deals with fiends is historically a bad idea.In my world, there will never be a situation where the morally correct thing to do is follow the advice of a fiend.
...unless.... they give you perfectly legitimate advice based on the idea that you will never follow it, since they are so untrustworthy.
DOUBLE DEMON BLUFF!
This is exactly the sort of thing the devils (and occasional demon) actually would do in my games if they are corruption focused (which most devils in my games are). Because they usually will indeed help you, but it might come at some sort of price, even if that price has no apparent value.
You catch more flies with honey, after all.
I think the problem with that approach in this context is that a Paladin has the absolute moral right to smite evil outsider (along with dragons and undead). It's one of those coveted black and white moral choices.
Do you think any paladin is going to give a fiend five seconds to speak when they realize, for once in their life, they have express permission from the creators of the world to smite something without falling?
Only if they know that it's an evil outsider. This kind of deception usually works much better if the fiend is disguised as something more benevolent. A priest of the paladin's god, for example.
Succubi are pretty good at that. I've had campaigns where succubi have attempted to screw with Paladins for their own amusement, and sometimes get upset and in a huff when the Paladin doesn't falter from their attempts at upsetting him. In rare cases, the succubus may even appear before the Paladin and demand he explain himself because she wants to know why continues being a good guy when she's been shoveling loads of **** all in his face from behind the scenes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMO, a paladin should face black and white moral situations. The right answer might be very hard to discover, but once discovered there shouldn't be any doubt that it is the right answer. The class doesn't really work very well with shades of gray. To me, paladins are the four-color superheroes of the fantasy genre and I would feel like I wasn't being fair to the player if I didn't give them the chance to act that way.It's sad that there's even a base class that makes a GM feel like they have to dumb the game down for it to be enjoyable. -_-?? What do you mean? Playing within the rules of the genre isn't dumbing down anything.
I was referring to these sentences.
"IMO, a paladin should face black and white moral situations."
"The class doesn't really work very well with shades of gray."
I find it saddening to think that a class requires a GM to paint everything in black and white strokes, and yes I do see that as dumbing things down, because real adults, and real heroes, don't always have the luxury of a certain right or a certain wrong answer.
Further, it might be fine in one genre, but I also feel like core classes (if not any class) should be able to comfortably fit into many different genres without problems, especially if dealing with a campaign setting like Golarion which is generally as genre inclusive as possible.
...with all this argument about moral ambiguity, I began to make assumptions. I must say, that is a fantastically honorable answer. Thank you for the guidance and helping me to look past myself.Um, thank you. o_o
Are you...being sarcastic? :o
Nope.
..that is a legitimate, 'I'm not pulling a double bluff' nope. But this could be interpreted as sarcastic too... darn you limits of written media and our sarcasm obsessed generation!
It was an elegant argument that did in fact espouse the core ideals of a paladin (sacrifice of the self for the sake of others).
I am a person that is rather serious about paladin conduct. When I look at this class, and think 'this makes a great tank', my next question is 'could I possibly try negotiating with those hill giants rather than go in smiting?' since I can take a few hits if the answer is 'no'.
Admittedly, I would not go in without a plan either, since I have a party to worry about. Stealth and readied actions exist for good reasons, and 'blast the first thing that looks at good-two-shoes funny' seems like a reasonable way to use them.
Oh, well thank you then. ^_^
Out of curiosity...you said that you were making some assumptions (presumably about my posts/or mindset perhaps?) that my response kind of rebuked unintentionally. Would you mind if I asked what those assumptions were?
Oh, well thank you then. ^_^
Out of curiosity...you said that you were making some assumptions (presumably about my posts/or mindset perhaps?) that my response kind of rebuked unintentionally. Would you mind if I asked what those assumptions were?
Mostly going off of how a few of the arguments I was proud of were getting torn apart and this joke:
Did he give you the whole "You know why I'm right, this should be obvious to anyone with a moral compass, you morally bankrupt monster you" spiel?
I have little first hand knowledge of how the developers/former developers are in conversation/as GMs (are they that bad?). I mostly know them as the ones that make comments in the rule threads that banish silliness like "half orc raised catfolk barbarians with 4 claw attacks" who get dissed by the kind of people....with those catfolk barbarians.
Admittedly, I feel now that I was likely overly defensive (I think I have been making that a bad habit lately), and thus assumed you were just trolling. But that is again the danger of how we have limits on interpreting written statements, no? We end up painting more of ourselves onto it than the writer in our eyes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mostly going off of how a few of the arguments I was proud of were getting torn apart and this joke:
Did he give you the whole "You know why I'm right, this should be obvious to anyone with a moral compass, you morally bankrupt monster you" spiel?I have little first hand knowledge of how the developers/former developers are in conversation/as GMs (are they that bad?). I mostly know them as the ones that make comments in the rule threads that banish silliness like "half orc raised catfolk barbarians with 4 claw attacks" who get dissed by the kind of people....with those catfolk barbarians.
Ah, I see. :o
Admittedly, I feel now that I was likely overly defensive (I think I have been making that a bad habit lately), and thus assumed you were just trolling. But that is again the danger of how we have limits on interpreting written statements, no? We end up painting more of ourselves onto it than the writer in our eyes.
Indeed. It can be hard to tell online sometimes. No harm done. For the record, I'm not much for trolling, though I am much for a good argument. To me, a good argument is a mutual search for truth, where two individuals are not fighting one another but engaging in a series of reason-based points and counterpoints in a search for the truest of answers.
I realize this view, or ideal, is not shared by many a messageboard enthusiast, however. :\
Real adults and real heroes don't have magical powers, or have good and evil deities interfering with their everyday lives, or live in worlds where good and evil have the kind of objective reality that they do in Pathfinder. If somebody was playing Superman in a superhero game I wouldn't hit them with morally ambiguous situations that have no clear solution because that's not the kind of problem that's appropriate for Superman. That's not a weakness of the character, but a feature of the genre.
What's actually strikes me as funny in this case is superman during his heyday in the comics basically ended up in this exact thing. The writers had backed themselves into a wall with depictions of how grossly overpowered he was as a hero, and instead began focusing on his character development, personal life problems, and things you can't hit with your fist to solve, because everything else became quite boring.
Any class that casts spells or has magical abilities is going to be limited in what genre (or sub-genre if you prefer) of fantasy simply because they do have magical abilities that work in a way appropriate to some genres and not others.
Well, as long as the genre is fantasy or science fiction, which in the grand scheme of things are incredibly broad and tend to include almost every other genre that isn't specifically non-fiction; including (but not limited to) everything from gritty pulp action, noir, and horror to My Little Pony and romance novels about dragons porkin' fair maidens.
That's one area in which the non-casting classes are more flexible than the casters. For example, I wouldn't try using a Pathfinder druid as a player character in most kinds of horror (I wouldn't use a paladin either). Equally, the majority of Pathfinder classes are inappropriate for stories where magic is inherently corrupting or entails a risk of insanity. Or for stories where magic is subtle in its effects.
Dude, druids are kickass in horror games. o_o
Especially as villains. >:)
Horror games have gotten a thread or two as I remember, mostly ended up saying "you can't run horror in such a high-magic world unless you bend the rules and the players buy into it." They have to limit themselves, the world you play in, and actually want to be frightened for it to work.
I'm not saying that's impossible or bad, I'm just saying.
Dude, druids are kickass in horror games. o_o
Especially as villains. >:)
Even with beast shape I and II, they can do a lot when it comes to subtly. I mean....who suspects the little bird? And who thinks that the cat in your window is hiding a dagger INSIDE ITSELF and it is waiting for you to go to sleep.
Druids make fantastic assassins and thieves... Well, assuming you can play with tropes well; just mentioning that a cat is watching is a give away. Throwing in 3 different scene with cats at the houses of victims/future victims that you are guarding... that can throw people for a loop. Especially if the focus of those scenes are the 'people' around the cats.
I've also been in a conversation recently where I realized that earth elemental shaped, earth gliding, spring attacking druids could end up remaking classic scene from the Tremors movies. They can even produce legitimate siege situations (which is surprising, since the game is usually built around wars of attrition with a bit of battlefield control and artillery thrown in that make a battle lasting 2 minutes highly unusual). It might take a bit of meta-ing by the GM (since a wizard with the right spells can ruin it)...but if you write them off as a team of druid assassins that have been spying on you a while? Yeah, it could work.
I'd lie my ass off (putting my power before the needs of others would kind of kill the whole point). I'd lose my powers, but if I did otherwise I wouldn't deserve them anyway.If a GM told me my Paladin fell for using said scroll on said child, I'd walk out and never associate with him or her again. Not because of the game ruling, but because I would want to stay far, far away from that human being.What if told your Paladin fell for lying if telling the truth meant a family of innocents dying? (Lets say for this example this is like Speed, but the bus explodes if the paladin doesn't tell at least 50 lies per hour.)
That is very true and it is a very good-aligned paladin response.
I wasn't intending though to mean that the paladin was acting with honor meant that he was only doing so just to retain his powers. I meant that he was acting with honor because it is another important part of the code into him as part of his training and that for that character, acting with dishonor might have ramifications with him, but his paladin order.
What you suggest pushes away to lawful as it carries with it the feeling of, "if the rules are hurting people, then they should be ignored."
For the character that thinks that the rules of the order take precedence, then that would push them away from good as they see the rules as important if not more important than the health of others.
The paladin has several parts to uphold in his oath and it is up to the paladin to determine which is most important to himself and those around him. Else, it would work better as a straight list that said, "protect innocents, then act with honor, then punish evil, ..." rather than setting them all things that must be upheld at all times.
DOUBLE DEMON BLUFF!Thinking further about it, I don't believe that would happen. It's pretty much never a choice between only two possible courses of action. The fiend would try to make it appear that way, however, so whether you do what it suggests or do the opposite, you're still wrong.
Ah, the most devious move of all....the TRIPLE TRAITOROUS TRICK! Fooling you into believing that choices are ever just one of a few options, when the whole question is deceptive.
Actually, that is something people actually use publicly. Loaded questions ("Have you stopped beating you wife?") are an example. So, the thing you should tell fiends in this situation is "Mu".
Well, you can say that before or after you cut his head off. I am going for before, since the answer is confusing.
That is very true and it is a very good-aligned paladin response.
I wasn't intending though to mean that the paladin was acting with honor meant that he was only doing so just to retain his powers. I meant that he was acting with honor because it is another important part of the code into him as part of his training and that for that character, acting with dishonor might have ramifications with him, but his paladin order.
What you suggest pushes away to lawful as it carries with it the feeling of, "if the rules are hurting people, then they should be ignored."
Rules exist for a purpose. When rules no longer serve that purpose, it's time to get some new rules. Given that even the Paladin code cares more about good/evil than it does about law/chaos, I'm inclined to think that if a Paladin finds law in conflict with good, good takes priority, though I do accept with the dumb way the code is worded in PF (as opposed to 3.5) my Paladin would fall for doing the right thing.
For the character that thinks that the rules of the order take precedence, then that would push them away from good as they see the rules as important if not more important than the health of others.
The paladin has several parts to uphold in his oath and it is up to the paladin to determine which is most important to himself and those around him. Else, it would work better as a straight list that said, "protect innocents, then act with honor, then punish evil, ..." rather than setting them all things that must be upheld at all times.
I wish this were the case in a real sense. Unfortunately the mechanics don't support that. I would choose to lie because putting others before myself is good (altruism). However, I'd still fall for it because unlike in 3.5 where the Paladin was allowed a bit of interpretive freedom with their code, Pathfinder's Paladin code is just a big trap if you actually want to be a good guy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Succubi are pretty good at that. I've had campaigns where succubi have attempted to screw with Paladins for their own amusement, and sometimes get upset and in a huff when the Paladin doesn't falter from their attempts at upsetting him. In rare cases, the succubus may even appear before the Paladin and demand he explain himself because she wants to know why continues being a good guy when she's been shoveling loads of **** all in his face from behind the scenes.
And a really well played paladin can leave the succubus shuffling her feet and questioning her own life choices. I've seen it done, and it's really entertaining.
One of the cute things 4E did was have one of the familiars be a devil that a wizard of any alignment could have, with the assignment of corrupting the player character. My Lawful Good cleric who happened to have been born a wizard (and who was sure that all that dark magic could be turned to pure ends) had a familiar who had a number of intense conversations. she was getting more and more frustrated toward the end of the campaign that her offers of knowledge kept getting perverted to good.
Ahem... I posted this in the Paladin Hate thread before it got locked... But here y'all go.
I think it all boils down to the fact that, as written, the rules for the Pally's fall can be taken far too many different ways. In a system where even scratching your rump requires rules, you cannot be vague like the PF paladin is. Okay, so, you don't need rules to say "I'm scratching my tookus", but there have been several things that people were doing via house rules and handwave that suddenly cropped up as requiring feats to do. Unfortunately I cannot seem to recall them myself, but I know there was quite a big stink about it around here back at the time.
And I quote:
Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Ex Paladins: A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features (including the service of the paladin's mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any further in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description in Spell Lists), as appropriate.
See? VAGUE! "And so forth"? This stuff does NOT belong in a system that seems to be trying to take anything you can think of and slap a set of rules on it. The simple addition of "and so forth" means that they are open for interpretation, and as this thread has proven, everyone has their own interpretation.
So, while you certainly CAN run a Paladin via RAW, there will be conflict between the player and the GM unless specific code rules are written for use.
The "willful" part only applies to committing an evil act. If you help a peasant, who then uses the result of that help to go knife their ex husband in the back one day... That's an evil end, and pop, fallen. Even if you were not willfully committing the act yourself.
Sad fact is, they're poorly written. The simple addition of "and so forth" violates the basic understanding that RULES are RULES, and NOT to be 'interpreted', for that could lead to much abuse. With the Paladin, this abuse comes in many of the forms commented within this thread.
So, yes. By RAW for a Pathfinder pally, you pretty much have to toss the rules out if you don't want to fall by yawning during the Chieftain's dull speech, or accidentally insulting their wife. Acting with honor depends on what honor you're following! In Tian Xia with Samurai, you'd pretty much never be able to walk away, surrender, or lose, because that would count as 'dishonor' to PF's bushido code. See my example above for helping those in need. If you see someone so much as punish a house servant with a few lashes, you're to "Punish" them for the abuse, which could be read as anywhere from a stern talking to and a serious fine, to flat out smiting them from the face of the planet. Hell, even picking up one of the rogue's daggers and using it, only to be surprised it has poison, would, by RAW, zap you of all your powers.
There is no "willfully" in those parts of the code. People an argue to hog heaven about the intent of the code, but the fact of how the code and ex-paladin sections are written are staring you right in the bleedin' face.
Which is why, as much as I would want to play a Paladin in PF (Stone Lords sound awesome!)... There would have to be some serious fixing going on by the DM.
As to how this responds to cannibalism... Well, there ya go. If a DM wants, they can put it in the "And so forth" sections of the pally rules.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, taboos against cannibalism are linked to culture. But RPGs in general and Golarion in particular are based on our common Western culture, in which cannibalism is a particularly heinous taboo, universally recognized as evil. Yes, we can conceive of cultures where this is not true, and there *may* be actual or historical cultures where the taboo against canibalism is articulated differently (depending on how accurately informed we are, oh ye junior anthropologists). However, in the eyes of the dominant western culture, these hypothetical cannibalistic societies are also evil.
Firstly, as others mention, no, Pathfinder's morality isn't entirely and specifically Western, and secondly (also as mentioned) no, that's not a universal feature of Western culture. And thirdly, and most importantly, this is an awful basis for a moral system. Things aren't right and wrong because people have said they are, they're right and wrong because they vioate actual moral principles, like the aforementioned hurting, killing, or oppressing others. Frankly, if you ever think something is morally wrong you should ask yourself why, and if your answer is "Because it is." or "Because people say so." not anything more philosophical or well thought out, then it's probably not wrong.
A human (or by extension, any sentient being) does not simply "become" meat or protein that can then be consumed without guilt or remorse.
Who said anything about 'without guilt or remorse'? People often do (and even should) feel guilty about things that aren't actually wrong or Evil if those things violate their cultural taboos or are particularly bad situations (casual sex for example, or failing to save a friend's life...though neither of those should result in guilt).
C'mon, I just don't buy it. Even if you're chaotic neutral, dining on the dead is just plain evil.
As stated above, why?
Going purely on the storyline aspect, if the Paladin's religion had serious rules about defiling the dead, then I'd expect the Paladin to refuse to eat anyone, even when starvation set in, and for their god to notice this sacrifice and step in to ensure they didn't die.
If their religion didn't have those rules, I'd expect them to reluctantly eat anyone that's already dead, but not to kill or to knowingly allow another to sacrifice themselves.
|
|
Actually, the taboo against cannibalism is probably at least partially genetic. No other food is as likely to result in sickness due to diseases jumping between individuals of the same species more easily than between species, and can even result in the human version of mad cow disease if you eat the brains, which makes people and cultures that indulge in cannibalism less prone to survive and prosper.
Also, your 'good reasons' are pretty much the slippery slope and nothing else...which tends to be logically suspect.
Given the title of the thread I feel the need to quote scripture.
"Greather love hath no man than that he giveth his life that others may live."
I don't imagine a paladin consuming the flesh of others. He may, however, offer up his own life so that others would not fall victim to the knife. He would not condone the act of cannibalism and try to talk people out of it but if they were dead set on it and could not be disswayed then he might make the ultimate sacrifice to protect the innocent little cabbin boy.*
* Probably not that innocent actually.
That is noble...but what if he is 'needed'. Lets assume that he is the only character with a score over 10, and that he is the only one with skill points in profession(shipwright). Or if they are lost and adrift on a life raft, he is the only one left with ranks in profession (cartography) and knowledge (geography). I know, unlikely, but it would be justification as to why he was at sea in the first place, since he was the only one in the order with experience with the sailing.
That could put him in the position of the only person with the ability to save most of the survivors. But that is only if he has the strength to take action.
Actually, the taboo against cannibalism is probably at least partially genetic. No other food is as likely to result in sickness due to diseases jumping between individuals of the same species more easily than between species, and can even result in the human version of mad cow disease if you eat the brains, which makes people and cultures that indulge in cannibalism less prone to survive and prosper.
Also, your 'good reasons' are pretty much the slippery slope and nothing else...which tends to be logically suspect.
Sounds like cultural memetics might also play a role, since many people aren't aware of these complications. Rather than experience disease and madness themselves, they trust in the age-old traditions of their people (which tell them that eating the dead is taboo).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to agree with the consequentialists. An action (cannibalism) isn't wrong unless it causes harm to someone else. So, murdering someone to eat their corpse is evil, but eating the corpse after the person has already died is not.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like cultural memetics might also play a role, since many people aren't aware of these complications. Rather than experience disease and madness themselves, they trust in the age-old traditions of their people (which tell them that eating the dead is taboo).
Oh, absolutely.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, the most devious move of all....the TRIPLE TRAITOROUS TRICK! Fooling you into believing that choices are ever just one of a few options, when the whole question is deceptive.DOUBLE DEMON BLUFF!Thinking further about it, I don't believe that would happen. It's pretty much never a choice between only two possible courses of action. The fiend would try to make it appear that way, however, so whether you do what it suggests or do the opposite, you're still wrong.Exactly. The fiend, disguised as a priest of the paladin's god, might say something like, "I'm as horrified as you Sir Justin, but the fact is that we haven't been able to stop this disease and these children are going to die unless we sacrifice one of them so that we can use my scroll to locate the long lost healing spring of MadeUpName." (He's lying of course; the scroll really will locate the healing spring, but it doesn't require any sacrifice to work.)
Sir Justin:"No need to fear, Father Faithless, I can fix this""There, all better. Just call me if another thing like this happens again, I can heal disease by merely touching people thanks to the Joe, the Great and Holy One. Oh, you better let me burn that scroll. We certainly don't want to risk evildoers getting their hands on it and locating that healing spring and using it for evil purposes, after all."
Father Faithless:
Exactly. The fiend, disguised as a priest of the paladin's god, might say something like, "I'm as horrified as you Sir Justin, but the fact is that we haven't been able to stop this disease and these children are going to die unless we sacrifice one of them so that we can use my scroll to locate the long lost healing spring of MadeUpName." (He's lying of course; the scroll really will locate the healing spring, but it doesn't require any sacrifice to work.)
Sir Justin:"No need to fear, Father Faithless, I can fix this""There, all better. Just call me if another thing like this happens again, I can heal disease by merely touching people thanks to the Joe, the Great and Holy One. Oh, you better let me burn that scroll. We certainly don't want to risk evildoers getting their hands on it and locating that healing spring and using it for evil purposes, after all."
Father Faithless:
Father Faithless: ...oh, you hit level 6 since we last met?
*note to self: have accurate intel so you aren't too late for your plots to be effective. Never let goody two shoes get too strong before you break him*
|
|
It causes harm to the loved ones of the deceased, so its evil. I would be traumatized if something like that happened.
I wouldn't be that traumatized knowing it happened (though I might be if I saw it done). And besides, they're only traumatized if they find out, so you just don't tell them. Frankly, this logic makes telling them what happened Evil, not the eating itself.
When someone you loves dies you don't then see them as just a corpse.
No, you don't. But that makes eating them emotionally difficult, not Evil.