Except that is not how it works, really. Any adult can give consent, no matter who the other party might be. It becomes a problem only if the propositionee is in some sort of FORMAL position of dependency on the propositioner. Which of course a paladin or cleric would be in relation to their own deity, but without such a relationship between a level 1 commoner and a level 20 wizard, there is no problem. Of course, if the commoner knows the wizard could squish him instantly, it may still be too uncomfortable for him, but those are the breaks.
It is not really a problem that the paladin won't be around to raise the child, so long as this is communicated beforehand and provisions are taken to give the child a good upbringing. I would guess temples would have provision for this if they have paladins. Simply put, the paladin is out there to fight and die in service to the god in question and for Good. The paladin has other duties than raising a child. I doubt this would be seen as a problem by the church. And of course, the child might not like the idea, but that is not going to be first on the priorities of the other people involved.
I disagree. One duty does not override the other, exactly why I think a paladin would have difficulties with this 'father a child' proposition. Of course, knowing that the baby would have great care is a mitigating circumstance and the demigod might convince the pally that this is the best thing to happen on Golarion since the invention of holy water... But can you really expect a LG character to not have a pang in his heart about not knowing his child? The demigod might tell him how she will talk of him, of his mighty deeds and great character, but is it truly the same?
It is not a problem in the sense that the paladin won't be a 'provider' for the child, as you say, a demigod or an orphanage might be just as adept at taking care of a child's needs and upbringing. The hiccup that I think the majority of paladins would run into is taking on another duty that they know clashes with ones already upon his shoulders. In my opinion fathering a child at the drop of a metaphorical hat would be about as paladinic as making a promise that is not congruent with ones duties. Sure, the other person might say that it's not big thing and you can forget about it, but it doesn't mean that you will.
I'm not saying that it is something the paladin would fall for or just flat out refuse upon hearing it. But depending on the actual situation he might ask for some way to visit the child, if ever so often, or for some kind of contact. Or, he could thank the demigodess for considering him worthy of respect and hero's name, but admit that the preposition, however kind and well-intended, does not sit well with him. There are other party members the half deity could offer this to, this is not a crucial matter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Huh? That makes sense, except for the first sentence.Jack the ripper was working within the law.
I'm pretty sure I know the law that Yellowdingo is referring to, the 1885 Criminal Law Ammendment Act, but yeah, the killings themselves were still most definitely crimes. Also of note, it wasn't the act of prostitution itself that was illegal, it was specifically soliciting for it. Police also ignored the bloody hell out of that law, since it was remarkably difficult to prove charges of solicitation (they could prove prostitution quite easily, but like I said, that wasn't actually illegal). As far as I understand it, the Act also didn't make it treason. So I'm not really sure where that's coming from.
This off topic British Legal History lesson was brought to you by your friendly neighbourhood Tinkergoth.
Except that is not how it works, really. Any adult can give consent, no matter who the other party might be. It becomes a problem only if the propositionee is in some sort of FORMAL position of dependency on the propositioner. Which of course a paladin or cleric would be in relation to their own deity, but without such a relationship between a level 1 commoner and a level 20 wizard, there is no problem. Of course, if the commoner knows the wizard could squish him instantly, it may still be too uncomfortable for him, but those are the breaks.
There's also the flip-side of it; the level one commoner propositioning the level 20 wizard, because hey, power is sexy. I wouldn't say that the wizard is under any moral obligation to turn down the commoner so long as said commoner was an adult and not being chemically or magically manipulated.
One-night stands, as typically defined (i.e., outside of existing long-term friendships), are fairly antithetical to a Lawful ethos (no consideration of consequences or the effect on the community) and can easily start trending toward Evil (self-gratification with no consideration toward others, or even abusive behaviors toward the "partner"). Paladins don't need to be prudes, but they would tend to frown on such acts in general (although be supportive of specific cases where the "right" reasons are met).I disagree. A lawful character can perfectly well have a one night stand. It would only be non-lawful if they didn't take adequate precautions (in a D&D realm I would say that means magical precautions) or didn't make it clear that it's only going to be a one night stand.
It may be lawful, if there is a specific verbal (or written, if you want to go that far) agreement before the event, but it would not be good. The character is still placing their immediate personal gratification (OK, and potentially their partner's) above the possible consequences of their actions. See my first sentence, that you omitted:
Count me in with those who believe it would be OK, as long as it's for the "right" reasons: cherishing, love, respect, and a willingness to meet all of the obligations as a partner/parent (to the best of your ability).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I belong to the school of thought that alignment shouldn't encompass literally everything you do, and sex is not covered under alignment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The sex isn't the (primary) issue in this context. The relationship with (or lack thereof) and treatment of the partner is.
A paladin must be staunchly Lawful Good to remain a paladin. A LG cleric, depending on the deity and belief system, may have to follow almost as strict (or possibly even more strict) a code (although differing in some aspects, to account for the differing role a cleric holds in the deity's church) or lose access to spellcasting. A LG arcane spellcaster doesn't gain spells through a divine patron (although GMs may expand on the relationships between summoners/eidolons and witches/patrons to include some elements of divine worship, if they wish).
In all cases, the treatment of others has alignment implications. Sex in a relationship without "cherishing, love, respect, and a willingness to meet all of the obligations of a partner/parent (to the best of your ability)" would be either non-Lawful or non-Good. Whether or not the GM actually enforces the alignment system on characters other than paladins is, frankly, irrelevant to the alignment system itself.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But guys, didn't you know? Lawful good isn't allowed to have fun. Fun is non-lawful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let me restate this, since some people are missing the point (or trying to ignore it):
Paladins don't need to be prudes, but they would tend to frown on [one night stands] in general (although be supportive of specific cases where the "right" reasons are met).
Paladins who pull the "Hey, baby... You're hot! Let's have some fun..." card are not displaying much respect to that person as a person (after all, that attitude indicates that just about any attractive person would serve to slake their immediate desire). Again, they are placing satisfaction of personal desires higher than the possible consequences (since even magic contraception can fail) or even placing themselves in a situation where their impartiality/sense of justice could be called into question. In addition, the typical attitude of one-night stands is effectively shirking the obligations of a relationship with a partner (as the "relationship" is basically hollow/meaningless).
Now, in specific circumstances where the "right" reasons (the aforementioned "cherishing, love, respect, and a willingness to meet all the obligations" involved in an actual relationship) are met, then a paladin would be allowed a "one-night stand."
This isn't something that lends itself to an "always OK or always not-OK" dogmatic ruling, but rather (like many alignment-related issues, once you start moving beyond the simplistic generalities) one that requires a consideration of the particular details, intentions, and other contextual considerations involved in that instance.
Devil's advocate: unless the spell or magic states that it can break magic in a vast radius on accident, then no, it can't fa-...
... oh, wait, it can in-world.
While the rules are excellent to run as a basic simulation, and most people will accept the "it can't fail ever" as a valid argument, it certainly can. There have been numerous stories or ideas built around the idea of diseases that remove disease can't cure (despite by RAW nothing like that being the case) or places where magic breaks because it's used too much (*cough-the mana wastes-cough*) even though that is found nowhere in the rules.
Sometimes the rules are later provided in-world (the problem with excessive wishcraft in Legacy of Fire, for example), but these don't cover the broad array of elements found within a world (like Golarion) that don't perfectly 100% align with a strict RAW interpretation.
That is not to say "you are wrong", but it is to say that in many world "you would be wrong in that world" even if the worlds are (as Golarion is) effectively built to cater to the rules set itself.
I say this as a fan of using the rules in world-building as much as possible.
Also, it doesn't matter how effective <thing X> is, if it's not done properly, it won't work. And there are lots of reasons it might not be done properly: purchasing the incorrect thing (how much does your 10 INT, no-ranks paladin really know?), purchasing a fake (paladins don't need wisdom any more...), forgetting, or taking a different substance that interferes with the "proper" substance or spell (which would be one of the unspoken rider clauses to those without high enough ranks/checks to know).
In this case?
- is the half-god good: y/n?
- - - if no: is the half-god non-evil: y/n?
- does the GM say the paladin has genuine reason to believe wouldn't fall: y/n?
- - - if no: consider it an evil act and bow out gracefully
- is the cause good: y/n?
If the answer to these are "yes", than have at it.
If the answer to these are "no" or "maybe" than more caution is required.
A lot of the proper answer relies on what the in-world thoughts are, as known by the player to inform the decision of their character. This ultimately boils down to, "talk to your GM."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, it is difficult to say that a lawful alignment requires commitment. All it reasonably requires is a sincere and honest discussion of terms beforehand. Depending on alignment along the good/evil axis, this might not even brush on things like various forms of coercion, intimidation, unreciprocated feelings or the like, but of course a paladin would make sure nothing such entered into it. That would be the entirety of what is necessary to my thoughts, though.
It is easy to assume current standards of morality and sexuality are what is good in a fantasy world, and perhaps american culture on the subject is alien enough, but what we have seen of Golarion at least doesn't confirm this in any way.
Only if it's rape or they're evil. If the half god is a child of an opposing god though, your deity might smite you out of pure pettiness. Unless it's Cayden, then you're likely just to get a thumbs up. He's cool like that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's ultimately going to depend on how alignment is defined by the table, the GM, and the setting you're playing in. We forum folks could debate the alignment of such an action until the cows come home, but all we'd really do is show how undefinitive the alignment system is for characterizing the morality of one's actions.
All I can say is...I hope your Paladin enjoys their trip to the Boneyard.
Oh, you're talking to me! How nice!
.
.
In addition to the mana wastes, there are:
- wish craft gone wrong
- failed wards
- degenerated magic items
- malfunctioning or cursed magic items
- primal magic surges
... and that's just in Pathfinder, off the top of my head. Throughout the history of the game, despite the fact that in-rules there is little to indicate this, in-literature based off of the game, there are plenty of times magic fails.
If you craft a specific setting in which magic cannot fail, that's great! I love stuff like that!
That's not the official setting canon, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dang, I was hoping this would be a thread comparable with the eidolon/summoner relations and succubus/druid grappling threads. Looks like another "Is it necrophilia?"-style disappointment.
Hm. So what you're saying is, "Even though specific trumps general, and we're talking about the specific, I'mma stick with the general crunch, despite the specific proof that there are plenty of places where magic fails in many settings."
Cool. Cool. :)
(Also the more mutable one is the mechanics, right? I mean, that's what you mean, right? That's why we have FAQ and Errata, after all. On the other hand, I've never actually seen any instance of magic being warped, weakened, prone to failure, or other such issues ever being retconned. At least none to my knowledge, though links to the contrary are always welcome!)
So... by deliberately altering the nature of the setting, then yes, you can be correct!
This is... exactly what I said.
You can make setting presumptions only based on the local setting.
It certainly matters whether or not you're wielding a bow. A number of feats require a bow. If it's lasers, those feats no longer apply.
EDIT: unless, of course, you're changing the mechanics such that, whenever it says "bow" it applies to "lasers from finger tips" instead. Which is creating new feats and new mechanics. Which is why we have feats that are different between crossbows and bows.
Like potions of poison that are too old?
(Or was that exclusively older editions?)