@Rynjin: I direct your attention to the quoted segment from the alignment section of the CRB.
I literally just explained to you why that doesn't hold up.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've backed up my claim Charon's Little Helper. Now I'm waiting for you to prove that you're not "ignoring every part of the game system".
It says it's evil to "debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit"
and
"Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master."
Nowhere in there does it say that killing is evil.
It says killing innocents for fun or profit is.
It says hurting, oppressing, and killing others is evil. (Note - 'and' - not 'or'.)
It says killing for mere convenience is evil. Killing for sport or solely for a duty to an evil deity/master is evil.
Killing in general? Not evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll note that in Naeryn's quoted text, killing is clearly in the context of "killing the innocent."
A evil character may have no problems with killing the innocent - or have issues, but shrug and do it anyways because the boss said so.
A neutral character would have qualms about killing an innocent, but may look the other way while the evil character kills an innocent.
A good character will actively oppose killing the innocent.
Killing an innocent person is an evil act.
Edit: Ninja'd by Charon's Little Helper.
So Nearyn's philosophy is thus:
Government institutionalized genocide (let’s use the extreme... Hitler) - Evil
Ignoring this genocide even if one has the means to easily stop it - Neutral
Executing the dictator who allows such genocide to take place - Lawful EvilWell, to be precise, that may or may not be my philosophy, I've not bothered to talk about my philosophy.
But that is the letter of the pathfinder rules, as far as I am able to tell.
-Nearyn
If you insist on using RAW instead of RAI, then I believe I have found a retcon to what you quoted, in that there is a Lawful Good Empyreal Lord of Executions Constantly committing Lawful Evil actions, by the very nature of the alignment 'rules' will push you into Lawful Evil. Thus, neither this Empyreal Lord nor its worshippers should be your reasoning stay LG for long.
Hell, Ragathiel's (Lawful Good) Obedience REQUIRES you to slay a person who committed evil deeds. This can be done once per day and he will reward you for being such a good... Lawful Good follower.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll note that in Naeryn's quoted text, killing is clearly in the context of "killing the innocent."
A evil character may have no problems with killing the innocent - or have issues, but shrug and do it anyways because the boss said so.
A neutral character would have qualms about killing an innocent, but may look the other way while the evil character kills an innocent.
A good character will actively oppose killing the innocent.
Killing an innocent person is an evil act.
Edit: Ninja'd by Charon's Little Helper.
Trick with this is it means that totally innocuous accidents now ping as evil acts on you.
You tripped and accidentally stabbed the most Innocent man in Magnimar, BAM! EVIL!
I still hold to my belief that the 'official alignment' descriptions are dosh and the DM should have final say (or use earlier descriptions of them from other editions).
Hooray. I don't have to worry about having to argue real life morality and getting everyone angry if we keep on this track. :D
I'm sad that I'm not well-schooled enough in the technical terms of english grammar and the english language, that I can properly express why I disagree with Charon's Little Helper and Zhangar.
That will have to be a weakness in my argument.
I do not agree. I do not agree that the "killing" part is supposed to mean "killing innocents".
I also do not agree with the validity of Charon's Little Helper's take on the rules text.
Now if only I knew the terms with which to explain why.
-Nearyn
I'm sad that I'm not well-schooled enough in the technical terms of english grammar and the english language, that I can properly express why I disagree with Charon's Little Helper and Zhangar.
That will have to be a weakness in my argument.
I do not agree. I do not agree that the "killing" part is supposed to mean "killing innocents".
I also do not agree with the validity of Charon's Little Helper's take on the rules text.
Now if only I knew the terms with which to explain why.
-Nearyn
There are no terms which explain away context and logical flow.
There are no terms which explain away context and logical flow.I'm sad that I'm not well-schooled enough in the technical terms of english grammar and the english language, that I can properly express why I disagree with Charon's Little Helper and Zhangar.
That will have to be a weakness in my argument.
I do not agree. I do not agree that the "killing" part is supposed to mean "killing innocents".
I also do not agree with the validity of Charon's Little Helper's take on the rules text.
Now if only I knew the terms with which to explain why.
-Nearyn
Fekk off Rynjin xD
Just told you that I don't know the terminology and that I cannot explain this. Don't hit me while I'm down :P
-Nearyn
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My foot slipped! I promise!
*Kicks*
*Falls*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Zova Lex: Are you implying that the existence of an aligned divine creature tied to a certain aspect or concept, makes that concept inherently of the divine creature's alignment?
Because it seems silly to me to suggest that Virginity is lawful good, as is War, and Suffering for that matter.
Or are you making a different point?
-Nearyn
@Zova Lex: Are you implying that the existence of an aligned divine creature tied to a certain aspect or concept, makes that concept inherently of the divine creature's alignment?
Because it seems silly to me to suggest that Virginity is lawful good, as is War and Suffering.
Or are you making a different point?
-Nearyn
What I am saying is that due to the fact that it is tied to such a divine being that is not within the mechanics of the game an evil act. By their very nature, a Lawful Good divine creature will NOT take up an evil practice as one of the main parts of their portfolio. I am not saying that these things are Lawful Good. I am saying that from a PURELY RAW POINT OF VIEW that they are not necessarily evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, pertinent question, what God does this Paladin follow? Because at this point, both the "he's a criminal caught doing horrible things, kill him" and the "he's helpless and surrendering, don't kill him" camps are legitimate interpretations of Lawful Good. In this case it really depends on if the Paladin follows a God with a greater emphasis on punishing evil, or redeeming evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Zova Lex: Are you implying that the existence of an aligned divine creature tied to a certain aspect or concept, makes that concept inherently of the divine creature's alignment?
Because it seems silly to me to suggest that Virginity is lawful good, as is War, and Suffering for that matter.
I would say that "If a deity has something within their portfolio, and they posses a given alignment, they represent the aspect of that thing, which, by definition, can fall under their same alignment, due to them having both that area of concern and their alignment, as-published."
This, of course, says nothing about whether or not said element can be of a different alignment as well - only that it can, in fact, fit into the alignment of the deity in question.
Beyond that, it also doesn't tell us if it fits in with whatever closest "real life equivalent" to alignment anyone uses (many things in-game don't mesh up with mine). :)
EDIT: In other words, if a god is <X> alignment and has <Y> portfolio, then <Y> can be <X>, by default. However <Y> may also be something other than <X>: we have no proof one way or the other.
Also, apparently ninja'd. :)
I'll note that in Naeryn's quoted text, killing is clearly in the context of "killing the innocent."
A evil character may have no problems with killing the innocent - or have issues, but shrug and do it anyways because the boss said so.
A neutral character would have qualms about killing an innocent, but may look the other way while the evil character kills an innocent.
A good character will actively oppose killing the innocent.
Killing an innocent person is an evil act.
Edit: Ninja'd by Charon's Little Helper.
Trick with this is it means that totally innocuous accidents now ping as evil acts on you.
You tripped and accidentally stabbed the most Innocent man in Magnimar, BAM! EVIL!
I still hold to my belief that the 'official alignment' descriptions are dosh and the DM should have final say (or use earlier descriptions of them from other editions).
Hooray. I don't have to worry about having to argue real life morality and getting everyone angry if we keep on this track. :D
*Blinks*
Are you saying there's no difference between intentional acts and accidents?
Do I seriously need to write out "Deliberately killing an innocent person is an evil act."
I guess I do?
Sigh.
I would argue that neutrality are against killing innocents, good are against killing, and evil don't give a flying proverbial who dies.
None of this has any bearing whatsoever on the character's decision to kill.
A good person can kill. We know this. They just need a Good (capital G) reason to do it, and protecting others from harm (whether protecting people in the future from being hurt by a proven criminal, or protecting them from the knowledge that their assailant is still out there) is a valid choice.
A paladin's entire existence is to kill evil. They make the choice to act as judge, jury, and executioner. It's the job. Whether they have the legal authority to behave that way is completely beside the point. A paladin is a weapon whose purpose is to kill evil.
Saying that a paladin should not kill an evil being he witnesses performing an evil act is like saying that a wizard shouldn't cast arcane spells. It's what they are for.
There may be in character consequences for the act, but anyone who thinks that a paladin should not behave like a weapon designed to slay evil is missing the point of the class.
A good person can kill. We know this.
Not everyone feels that way.
In Pathfinder? So every good character needs to go nonlethal all the time?A good person can kill. We know this.Not everyone feels that way.
GMs can totally run a game like that.
If your GM requires that you do nonlethal damage to undead or evil outsiders, your GM may be a little bonkers.
(Also, I'm suddenly very curious as to what that GM makes of good aligned dragons and celestials. I guess they're just gone? Those ain't exactly pacifists...)
If your GM requires that you do nonlethal damage to undead or evil outsiders, your GM may be a little bonkers.
(Also, I'm suddenly very curious as to what that GM makes of good aligned dragons and celestials. I guess they're just gone? Those ain't exactly pacifists...)
Maybe they are in that GMs world.
Nobody particularly cares about random corner cases a hypothetical DM might come up with.
Or rather, only interesting in an academic and/or watch-the-train-wreck sense.
Someone COULD run a game where there's horrible repercussions for using lethal force when fighting back against the forces of voracious, implacable evil.
You'd probably want something like a CoC-style sanity score mechanic for alignment, in that case.
I wouldn't have any interest in running OR playing in that game (being able to rather violently and thoroughly oppose horrible stuff is part of the fun of escapist fantasy), but it could be run.
But yeah, default assumption in Pathfinder is that good aligned characters can kill their foes, and are fully expected to do so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BAM.
Multiverse saved, and it only cost one soul: mine.
I feel like the unnamed operative.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or rather, only interesting in an academic and/or watch-the-train-wreck sense.
Someone COULD run a game where there's horrible repercussions for using lethal force when fighting back against the forces of voracious, implacable evil.
You'd probably want something like a CoC-style sanity score mechanic for alignment, in that case.
I wouldn't have any interest in running OR playing in that game (being able to rather violently and thoroughly oppose horrible stuff is part of the fun of escapist fantasy), but it could be run.
But yeah, default assumption in Pathfinder is that good aligned characters can kill their foes, and are fully expected to do so.
Indeed. There's a reason Paladins get weapon proficiency and Smite Evil as class features, rather than the ability to blast bad guys with the Rainbow of Friendship.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Choosing to do nothing IS the neutral choice, and unfortunately it's what normal human beings do when confronted when something terrible.
However, a paladin actually has a duty to act to help those in need.
Otherwise, I'd say Rynjin nailed it way up in the thread - Mr. "I'm taking advantage of being in a War Zone to Commit Terrible Deeds" is almost certainly a bandit, and as such would have forfeited any protections under the law a normal person would be entitled to.
VRMH's post is actually pretty on-point, though depending on the code, the Paladin may be able to refuse. (For example, a paladin of Torag could most certainly refuse to accept surrender.)
"I saved you because I'm the good twin, not the neutral twin."
rather than the ability to blast bad guys with the Rainbow of Friendship.
But... that sounds so cool! I want one, now!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **
I have -four- words for ya!
Priest king of Istar!
A good person can kill. We know this.Not everyone feels that way.
Then, pray tell, what are all those weapon proficiencies doing on the paladin class? Or, to put it another way, if you think killing is automatically evil, please ban the paladin class. In my games, my paladins are going to be kicking ass and taking names.
Then, pray tell, what are all those weapon proficiencies doing on the paladin class? Or, to put it another way, if you think killing is automatically evil, please ban the paladin class. In my games, my paladins are going to be kicking ass and taking names.A good person can kill. We know this.Not everyone feels that way.
I didn't say I thought that way.
I did say it is a valid way to view the world and it is even intuitive. Nearly all people have problems killing a person regardless of how evil they may be.
** spoiler omitted **I have -four- words for ya!
I'll buy that for a dollar my soul!
- "Meh, the guy set his sights too low - underachiever, amirite?!"
- "Baka! He didn't want to pay the price!"
- "Hahah, he thought he could become a god! What a rube!"
Then, pray tell, what are all those weapon proficiencies doing on the paladin class? Or, to put it another way, if you think killing is automatically evil, please ban the paladin class. In my games, my paladins are going to be kicking ass and taking names.A good person can kill. We know this.Not everyone feels that way.I didn't say I thought that way.
I did say it is a valid way to view the world and it is even intuitive. Nearly all people have problems killing a person regardless of how evil they may be.
Excuse me? Did I miss something in the last 10.000 years of history. We as human race are quite GOOD at killing each other!
Exactly the opposite is true!
HAY! HAY, YUZE! I FLAGGED A POST! YEAH! WHAT'CHOO'GONNA DO?!
*grumbles about lousy double-posters who he hates because, clearly, it's entirely their own fault and he has no forgiveness whatsoever*
|
|
I'll note that in Naeryn's quoted text, killing is clearly in the context of "killing the innocent."
A evil character may have no problems with killing the innocent - or have issues, but shrug and do it anyways because the boss said so.
A neutral character would have qualms about killing an innocent, but may look the other way while the evil character kills an innocent.
A good character will actively oppose killing the innocent.
Killing an innocent person is an evil act.
Edit: Ninja'd by Charon's Little Helper.
Trick with this is it means that totally innocuous accidents now ping as evil acts on you.
You tripped and accidentally stabbed the most Innocent man in Magnimar, BAM! EVIL!
I still hold to my belief that the 'official alignment' descriptions are dosh and the DM should have final say (or use earlier descriptions of them from other editions).
Hooray. I don't have to worry about having to argue real life morality and getting everyone angry if we keep on this track. :D
*Blinks*
Are you saying there's no difference between intentional acts and accidents?
Do I seriously need to write out "Deliberately killing an innocent person is an evil act."
I guess I do?
Sigh.
I'm pointing out the absurdity of the alignment definitions we were provided. Of course deliberate as opposed to accidental actions differ.
Fear not. :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah silly me, expecting my players to consider things such as imprisonment or lawfully rendered judgement, when in fact they should just be frenzying through the countryside, horrifically murdering everything that dares look at them cross. That is, after all, what we associate with gallant heroes and shining knights.
That is, in fact, exactly what we associate with gallant heroes and shining knights. The knight slices the dragon's head off, he doesn't cuff him and bring him to stand in front of a jury of his peers.
I will say that I am very uncomfortable with the fact that you are equating "looking at me funny" with "just raped this person in front of me". Surely someone with the capacity to string words together to create sentences would know that these are two separate things with two separate appropriate reactions.
I've backed up my claim Charon's Little Helper. Now I'm waiting for you to prove that you're not "ignoring every part of the game system".It says it's evil to "debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit"
and
"Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master."
Nowhere in there does it say that killing is evil.
It says killing innocents for fun or profit is.
It says hurting, oppressing, and killing others is evil. (Note - 'and' - not 'or'.)
It says killing for mere convenience is evil. Killing for sport or solely for a duty to an evil deity/master is evil.
Killing in general? Not evil.
So just to be clear - your position is that...
It is not good to be altruistic, it is not good to show respect for life, and it is not good to be concerned for the dignity of sentient beings.
For it to be good, you must be altruistially protecting innocents whose dignity you are concerned about.
And an act is not good if it is merely atrustic or or shows respect for life or concern for the dignity of sentient beings, it must do all of these, else it doesn't count?
It says concern for the dignity of sentient beings is good, only when you sacrifice something for your concerns.
Exhibiting these things, without expressly protecting innocent life, - not good, right?
I'm just trying to see if that is indeed what you think the alignment rules are saying.
-Nearyn
• Bandits are a plague. Under my will they come to justice. If they will not come willingly before the law, where they can protest for justice in the courts, they will come under the power of my sword.
So, there's a precedent for field justice being applied, at least for some paladins. It's not much of a stretch for it to include surrendered individuals with significant enough crimes, if there's no legitimate authority to turn them over to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
rather than the ability to blast bad guys with the Rainbow of Friendship.But... that sounds so cool! I want one, now!
I would probably play one too, come to think of it. Though it might work better to play it as a Cleric or Inquisitor with the Friendship domain.
I will say that I am very uncomfortable with the fact that you are equating "looking at me funny" with "just raped this person in front of me". Surely someone with the capacity to string words together to create sentences would know that these are two separate things with two separate appropriate reactions.
Yes Arachnofiend, because that is what I was talking about. My secret agenda to equate cross glances with rape, of course. And yes, you are of course well within your rights to condemn me for it, having seen through my ruse. Because, when you read what I write, I am obviously NOT commenting on the issue of "heroes" wantonly murdering everyone in the name of good, but rather drawing a sneaky parallel between that post, and my post from earlier. As opposed to just making an unrelated comment in a post where I do not even touch on the topic of rape.
Well done, you solved the crime.
Now, if you're done passing the sentence, could you please execute me in a battlefield somewhere(preferably without a trial, and in the name of good, please), so I can reincarnate into a creature who can write "I'm not including my own opinion in this discussion" without people misreading it as "everything I write is my deep-seeded personal opinion, and you should all feel extremely uncomfortable while we calmly discuss an interesting topic on the hobby we share". I'd like that.
.....
I'm sorry for the snark, but for goodness' sake....
-Nearyn
If you're set on not including your opinion STOP POSTING, because everything you write is your opinion on this subject.
If you're set on not including your opinion STOP POSTING, because everything you write is your opinion on this subject.
Step back Rynjin. I've not included my opinion on the subject of rape, anywhere in this thread. All I've done is use the text from the alignment segment of the rules, to comment on whether or not the paladin could execute his prisoner without it conflicting with him being a paladin.
-Nearyn
Which is your opinion/interpretation of the semi-rules text on this subject.
Which is your opinion/interpretation of the semi-rules text on this subject.
True, but I was talking about not including my personal opinion on the topic of rape.
-Nearyn
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which is your opinion/interpretation of the semi-rules text on this subject.
True, but I was talking about not including my personal opinion on the topic of rape.
-Nearyn
Then perhaps a thread where the topic of discussion is "What do you do with someone caught raping a woman on a battlefield" is a bad place to be?