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?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
The topic of this thread is "can this paladin player execute a surrendered criminal, without it affecting him as a paladin". I'm electing not to include my opinion on what exact crime was committed, because I find it irrelevant to the discussion, which I consider a simple matter of looking into the Alignment rules to check if said execution would be an evil act.
The topic was never "what do you do with this guy" or "what is appropriate punishment"... simply this:
Can the Paladin walk up and just kill him?
Paladin says it is execution and is totally in his rights to do without issues to his alignment or Paladinness.
-Nearyn
The Alignment rules say nothing about whether or not execution is evil, though. It says that the murder of innocents is evil, and the person in question is absolutely not innocent.
Besides, someone who decides that the crime in question isn't relevant wouldn't be a Paladin. They'd be Javert, treating people who stole some bread decades ago with the same severity as the people conspiring for treason.
Context is ALWAYS important. If the crime didn't matter relevant to the discussion thieves and mass murderers alike would receive the same penalty.
But see, this is where our opinions differ, and here I am talking strictly on the subject of alignment.
I think the alignment segment make it clear that killing is evil. We are in complete agreement that the NPC in question was guilty of the crime, but I disagree that the severity of the crime makes a difference in terms of alignment in this situation. When they are defeated, kneeling on the ground and begging, killing them outright is the same, no matter their crime. Not saying their crimes are equally severe - society and law judge crimes differently. What I'm saying is only that the alignment system doesn't differentiate based on the crime, and I've read nothing to indicate otherwise.
It's clear that you do not agree, but I've yet to see a compelling argument for why I should not maintain my position.
-Nearyn
Becacause you were given example of good aligned dieties who suggest and in some instances require execution to their LG, NG, and LN followers alike? Because you deliberately chose to quote only the part of the rules which (you mistakenly believed to) support your argument? Because in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you still decide that you are correct? Take your pick, my friend.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Alignment section is a very, very small part of the greater whole.
You have: Two words, out of context, supporting your position.
Everyone else has: Those same things, in context, plus myriad deities and published characters supporting the position that "Killing is not always evil".
Becacause you were given example of good aligned dieties who suggest and in some instances require execution to their LG, NG, and LN followers alike? Because you deliberately chose to quote only the part of the rules which (you mistakenly believed to) support your argument? Because in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you still decide that you are correct? Take your pick, my friend.
I defy you to point to a place where I've been selective in my quoting of the rules so as to support my own argument.
I've only quoted the same entire block from Alignment, that being the Good versus Evil segment, and the one exception to that, was when I only quoted the line about neutrality - which was specifically because we were discussing whether it was neutral to not intercede.
Everything else has been full quotation of Good versus Evil, and one full quotation from the Paladin Code of Conduct. Claiming that I've deliberately chosen to quote only part of the rules because they support my argument is insulting. I've offered you nothing but sincerity.
You claim there has been offered evidence to dispute my position. I say that I've seen no such thing, and not for a lack of reading the posts over.
-Nearyn
If the alignment segment makes it clear that killing is evil, then the paladin falls the first time he kills in a fight - he's committed an evil act.
Since that is obviously not how the game works, then there are cases where killing is not evil. This may be one of them.
It is not impossible at all.
Let's say you see an orc - you elect to attack it. You cut it down and the countryside has one less orc in it. You've just committed an evil act.
Let's say you see an orc attacking someone, you spring to their aid and in the battle you kill the orc. You've just put your own life on the line for the sake of someone else, protecting someone, killing someone, all motivated by altruism. You've just committed a good AND evil act... that sounds an awful lot like a neutral act to me.
So a paladin attacks an orc community because they are orc, and f**k orcs. Evil.
A paladin responds to an orc community sending out raiding parties, murdering, pillaging and enslaving their way through the countryside. He sticks his neck out for the local populace, and kicks some ass in the name of the light, and for the protection of the innocent, all while accepting honourable surrenders, and not harming non-combatants. Neutral act.
If a paladin does nothing but kill and kill and kill, in the name of his god, just a death-machine for the light, then eventually he'll slip into neutrality and no longer be a paladin. But killing is not what being a paladin is about. It's about doing good, holding yourself to that higher standard, being a shield for the innocent, and punish (not necessarily kill) those who would harm them. Charity, compassion, mercy, humility, honour. A paladin is liable to do ALOT of good between the times where he gets his sword wet.
-Nearyn
Do you, as GM, feel that this would be justice?
Does the Paladin have an explicit Code? Or is it the more common "just assumed" thing most people play by? If the former, your answer should be there. If the latter, it comes down to you - again - as GM: what is your opinion, and why?
There are too many variables. What deity are they serving? Are there "rules of engagement" during warfare? If there are rules that state: "If an enemy surrenders, you must take them into custody and turn them over to the proper authorities, etc., etc." then you have an answer. If the mere fact that he is a Paladin qualifies him as a proper authority, then you have an answer.
I tend to run my table such that a Paladin must accept the surrender, no matter their personal feelings about the act, and turn the individual over for justice. Someone who continues to fight you is one thing; surrender another. They are an instrument of the Law, not the Law itself.
Different campaign, I might rule differently.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lets start with alignment shall we?
Core Concepts: Duty, fairness, honor, property, responsibility, right, truth, virtue, worthiness
A lawful good character believes in honor. A code or faith that she has unshakable belief in likely guides her. She would rather die than betray that faith, and the most extreme followers of this alignment are willing (sometimes even happy) to become martyrs.
A lawful good character at the extreme end of the lawful-chaotic spectrum can seem pitiless. She may become obsessive about delivering justice, thinking nothing of dedicating herself to chasing a wicked dragon across the world or pursuing a devil into Hell. She can come across as a taskmaster, bent upon her aims without swerving, and may see others who are less committed as weak. Though she may seem austere, even harsh, she is always consistent, working from her doctrine or faith. Hers is a world of order, and she obeys superiors and finds it almost impossible to believe there's any bad in them. She may be more easily duped by such imposters, but in the end she will see justice is done—by her own hand if necessary.
Emphasis mine. Now imagine said paladin has a code that, I don't know, tells you outright to execute evil people (Empyreal Lord of Executions) or perhaps is completing a daily obedience (such as Ragathiel's). Well by golly she is going to go out and executr people according to her lawful GOOD code, now isn't she? I've noticed that you've failed ti continue discussion about Empyreal Lords who say execution is A-Okay. Why is this?
Now to get onto your comments concerning the nitpicking. Its wuite simple when you look at it really. The CRB gives you the quote you provided and though it puts protecting life and killing in the context of INNOCENT CREATURES your spoutings have conflated the word innocent with the word 'all'. That... is cherry picking.
Add to the fact that again, Lawful Good aligned gods are compltely fine with Paladins executing certain people and you run into what I like to call, compelling evidence that executions are not always evil. Now, how do I know this? Well I'm glad you asked. If a Paladin Were to commit such am evil act, they would immediatly fall. The fact that the divine beings who potentially could be the source of said Paladin's power is telling them that they not only could but in fact SHOULD do something just stands to cement the fact that such an action is not always evil.
But wait! There's more! With one easyliok at the alignments of such dieties you can see that execution simple cannot be always evil! The fact that they support, carry out, and tell theur followers to carry out executions is proof within itself! Lawful good beings are not prone to fita of Lawful Evil actions on a daily basis. That would shift them into Lawful Neutral territiry at the very least. The fact they are still lawful good while simultaniously supporting executions in certain instances just goes to show that executions at the very worst when attributed to these gods is a neutral action. Remember, your alignment is absed off your actions, NIT the other way around. And if the common every day actions if a lawful good divine beimg includes the execution of evil ones, then we have irrefutable RAW (this section is still mire like a set of guidelines though) that executions and paladins are indeed compatible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the alignment segment makes it clear that killing is evil, then the paladin falls the first time he kills in a fight - he's committed an evil act.
Since that is obviously not how the game works, then there are cases where killing is not evil. This may be one of them.
Let's say you see an orc attacking someone, you spring to their aid and in the battle you kill the orc. You've just put your own life on the line for the sake of someone else, protecting someone, killing someone, all motivated by altruism. You've just committed a good AND evil act... that sounds an awful lot like a neutral act to me.
Which undercuts your argument. Either the Paladin has committed an evil act because killing is always evil and falls, despite any good acts he may also be committing, or in that circumstance the two cancel out to be a neutral act and he doesn't. But in that case the same argument can be made for executing the rapist.
If the paladin can kill without falling, then you can't use the killing is evil part of the alignment section as an absolute.Mind you, I don't actually agree with that. I don't think killing is necessarily evil in the PF alignment system, but if it is, the paladin falls. They don't have leeway when it comes to evil. Might even stay LG if they do enough good, but one evil act is all it takes.
I think the disconnect between what the two of you are saying, is that Nearyn is looking at a different "check" point for "is the action evil" than you are.
For example, let's take the idea of "killing orcs" with the scenario "in battle protecting someone".
One turn's-worth of action(s) are as follows: the paladin rushes to save an innocent (A); makes an attack roll with intent to kill/save the innocent (B); the attack is a success and the paladin rolls damage (C); the orc dies (D); the paladin asks if the innocent is okay (F). Codifying things, "good" is "+1" or higher, "neutral" is "0", and "evil" is "-1" or lower.
With that in mind, one could read the code (and would not be wrong in doing so), thusly:
Is part A < 0 ? Part B? Part C? Part D? Part F? If the answer to any is "yes", the action is evil, and thus fall-worthy.
This is how you're looking at what he's describing.
However, Nearyn is looking at it like this:
A+B+C+D+F = ?; if and only if ? is < 0, the action is evil.
Thus two examinations of the same set of data applied differently to yield different results. Both can be correct.
English, amirite?!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lets start with alignment shall we?
** spoiler omitted **
Emphasis mine. Now imagine said paladin has a code that, I don't know, tells you outright to execute evil people (Empyreal Lord of Executions) or perhaps is completing a daily obedience (such as Ragathiel's). Well by golly she is going to go out and execute people according to her lawful GOOD code, now isn't she? I've noticed that you've failed ti continue discussion about Empyreal Lords who say execution is A-Okay. Why is this?
Now to get onto your comments concerning the nitpicking. Its quite simple when you look at it really. The CRB gives you the quote you provided and though it puts protecting...
This post is definitive. I have seen this ignored before so that the pointless argument could continue. This post must be addressed if the whole "killing evil, or executing criminals is evil" thing can continue.
Lawful Good Gods are not only telling but rewarding this behavior as a Lawful Good action. Lawful Good Gods kill evil, Lawful Good Outsiders kill evil, Lawful Good Paladins have Smite Evil....and are reward in some cases for executing or killing evil.All executions are against helpless creatures, that's why it is an execution. The Lawful Good Empyreal Lord of Execution....is well Lawful Good. Your opinion of whether killing is bad or not(you can try and say you dont have an opinion, but I dont buy it) is irrelevant.
By RAW you can kill helpless evil creatures and not only avoid falling, but actually gain boons from a Lawful Good Deity. How is this in question?
The Paladin's code has little to do with LG.
I personally find the code so abhorrent, that I am tempted to make Paladins auto-fall because bringing the code of conduct into a gaming group is most certainly a willful evil act. :P
That being said. Your LG deity could command you to do a LG act, but if that act violates the code of conduct you will still fall.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm only now realizing all the typos I had in my previous post... that's what I get for trying to type on a phone's keypad. :/
I'm only now realizing all the typos I had in my previous post... that's what I get for trying to type on a phone's keypad. :/
Man, especially when it's been juuuuuuuuuuust after an hour and you can't edit. So frustrating! :(
(Been there!)
The paladin is protecting other people from this man.Not really, since he's not a threat to anyone presently. You are not protecting anyone from this man. You are just killing an unarmed, blind criminal.
Did I really need to type the word "future" or did you not understand that is what I was getting at?
Also you need to remember that fantasyland does not use our modern code of justice. Now if a cop were to kill a rapist then I agree it would be murder by our law, but we are using fantasy land standards not modern ones.
Oh no, don't worry, I completely understood, and what I'm trying to get across is that the future doesn't matter. To think that you can predict whether this rapist is going to hurt someone again, and judge him because you are "protecting" people against his "future crimes" is the ultimate arrogance. Even Pharasma is not arrogant enough in her predictions to not weigh the soul again after death, despite it being said that she knows the final destination of every soul, at birth.
Judging a person because you're protecting innocents from his "future crimes" is beyond fascist. You may as well be killing a teenager who was found guilty of accidental manslaughter, because you've predicted there is a likelyhood he's going to accidentally kill again.
I say again, you are not protecting anyone from this man, because this man is not threatening anyone. If he was standing over his victim with a machettte, raised and ready to kill, then you're perfectly within your rights, as a paladin, to strike him down, because you're protecting his victim. But if he's disarmed and pleading, and you decide to kill him, you're not protecting anyone from him. You're just killing a dude.
-Nearyn
EDIT: On the topic of modern moral-code vs fantasy-land, I'm speaking strictly from an in-world perspective, which is why I quoted, and spoke from a position based on, the alignment rules in my first post in this...
So I ask again if this individual commits the same crime again and then surrenders is he to be allowed to live by the paladin every time?
What sort of madness is this?! Are people seriously arguing that it is ANYWHERE within either spirit, or letter, of the rules, to have a Paladin fall for the actions of a person he failed to stop?! Has everybody lost their mind???
-Nearyn
I don't know how long you have been here but it has seriously been suggested in other paladin threads. Even a paladin not giving up information has been called out as lying even if he simply says nothing. There are other very strict rulings suggested.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lets start with alignment shall we?
** spoiler omitted **
Emphasis mine. Now imagine said paladin has a code that, I don't know, tells you outright to execute evil people (Empyreal Lord of Executions) or perhaps is completing a daily obedience (such as Ragathiel's). Well by golly she is going to go out and execute people according to her lawful GOOD code, now isn't she? I've noticed that you've failed ti continue discussion about Empyreal Lords who say execution is A-Okay. Why is this?
Now to get onto your comments concerning the nitpicking. Its quite simple when you look at it really. The CRB gives you the quote you provided and though it puts protecting...
This post is definitive. I have seen this ignored before so that the pointless argument could continue. This post must be addressed if the whole "killing evil, or executing criminals is evil" thing can continue.
Lawful Good Gods are not only telling but rewarding this behavior as a Lawful Good action. Lawful Good Gods kill evil, Lawful Good Outsiders kill evil, Lawful Good Paladins have Smite Evil....and are reward in some cases for executing or killing evil.All executions are against helpless creatures, that's why it is an execution. The Lawful Good Empyreal Lord of Execution....is well Lawful Good. Your opinion of whether killing is bad or not(you can try and say you dont have an opinion, but I dont buy it) is irrelevant.
By RAW you can kill helpless evil creatures and not only avoid falling, but actually gain boons from a Lawful Good Deity. How is this in question?
And it is still being ignored. I will just bump it again if needed. Maybe the that post just pulled an /thread :)
Goodmorning everyone... well, good noon-ish everyone.
@Zova Lex: Writing on a phone can be such a b**ch. I've recently aquired a new laptop, and for some reason (I don't know if it's windows 8 or the new skype) it randomly capitalizes letters. If that happens with an actual keyboard under my fingers, I dare not imagine how it'd be to try to write a post on a phone :P
Anyhew
First - to address the idea of nitpicking: no. Just no. I cannot agree with you, that posting the entire Good versus Evil block, the segment of the alignment rules, relevant to what we were discussing, can be called nitpicking.
Nor do I agree that "hurting, oppressing and killing others" is in context of innocents. If it was, it would read "evil implies hurting, oppressing and killing the innocent". There. It would have been that easy, if that was the intent of the text, but I don't agree that it is. To me, it seems very obvious that the opening line is an "extreme examples" line. A line in sand if you will. Not all good creatures must protect innocent life in order to do good. If they did, then all non-combatants would be neutral.
Sandpoint - a village in the Rise of the Runelords AP, has a smattering of LG npcs who are just simple commoners living their day to day lives. Eventually, if they had to "protect innocent life", and had to "make personal sacrifices to help others" in order for their actions to not be neutral, all of them would be just be Lawful Neutral. They're not. And by the same token, I don't agree that the action is not evil unless done to innocents. I don't agree that is the intent of the text, I don't agree that I'm ignoring context, I think you are misinterpreting the intent of the opening line of Good Versus Evil.
On the topic of deities and the in-world justification for execution.
First of all, remember that I'm arguing strictly from a perspective of 'how am I presently reading the rules'. I am doing this, because I find it relevant that we seperate Core Rules from setting specific material.
My position is that of the Core Rules, I am sorry I did not clarify that. Setting specific material can (and often do) include material that differentiates from what is presented in Core RAW, or at least clashes a bit with it. This includes, but is not limited to certain paladin codes, as well as certain rulings on spell descriptors and so on.
In the end, I work with what I am given by the OP, and nowhere in his post am I seeing a reference to a certain named deity, a location or anything else that puts his gaming group in Golarion. Meaning the only thing I assume with a level of certainty is that his GM is using the core rules, everything else, from other material, does not factor into my considerations, because it muddies the issue, since we don't know if that material is relevant to the OP's question and setting.
As a person who argues from this position, I must inform you, that what you are quoting is not the core rules on alignment, and that text does not appear anywhere within the core rulebook. What the core rulebook has to say, specifically on the topic of the Lawful Good alignment, is as follows:
Lawful Good: A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
Lawful good combines honor with compassion.
As you can probably already tell, there is quite the distinction between what you posted, and what the Core Rules say. Two keywords that spring to mind for me is that yours contain the "can seem pitiless", whereas Core has "combines honour with compassion".
Now what you infer from the gods is a seperate thing from what the core rules has to say on Alignment, and for what it's worth, I like that the gods are so versatile in the Golarion setting, because I think it adds flavour. But some of their paladin codes (if there fx is a paladin code that says 'Kill me an evildoer each day for extra god-bucks') wind up conflicting with the alignment rules as presented by the core rulebook. That is unfortunate, but it also shows that the alignment system is an old, fallible construct, that nevertheless still made it into the core rules.
Your argument also seem to be based on the fallacy that a good diety can do no wrong, or perhaps would encourage no wrong. But that is something you take for granted, something you predicate based on conjecture. You tie the alignment of the god into their aspect somehow. Asmodeus is a god of fire, does that make fire Lawful? Does that make fire Evil? He is also a god of pride. Does that mean pride cannot be chaotic? Or simply that it can be lawful or evil?
You have a divine being, an empyreal, dedicated to vengeance - does that make vengeance good? or execution? or do you infer, from these being aspects of Empyreals, that execution CAN be good? that vengeance CAN be good? That is an interesting way to read into divine aspects - if so, can empty places be chaotic? Not "can something chaotic occur at an empty place", but can an empty place be cosmically tied, on a conceptual level, to chaos? Can Scars can be evil?
The Empyreals you present, Ragathiel and the other one, the execution one, both are Lawful Good. Well, is it possible that what Vengeance and Execution can tie into is Lawfulness, not goodness? It seems likely to me, and matches up with the alignment rules.
You say the gods would not make their followers do stuff that was opposed to their general principles. I say the gods are bigger than mortal comprehension, and what they would and would not do, can and cannot do, is entirely in the hands of the GM who reads their entries.
And since it is never actually mentioned in any rules that they could not encourage actions that did not fall within their own alignment, I don't agree that that argument is watertight. It is certainly not without merit, though.
-Nearyn
@Coltron: Can you quote me the place in the core rules where it says you can kill a helpless evildoer and not only avoid falling, but get a boon?
If it's not in Core, could you then quote that segment, and cite the source? Because it seems ... unlikely to me, that it has actually been expressly written that a paladin can avoid falling, and be rewarded, for killing someone who is helpless.
If you're reading over the piece I'm asking you to cite, and find that it does not expressly say that, but that you instead only infer it from the text, that is okay I'd still like to see the quote and know the source.
Thanks anyway.
@wraithstrike: I've already answered.
How many times would he have to escape prison and commit the same crime before it becomes "not evil" in your opinion?
If the man repeatedly escapes imprisonment and hurts others, that is not the paladin's fault. Killing a blind, relatively helpless, unarmed man who is begging for his life will not stop being evil. Naturally you can then ask the question, whether the paladin is being naive, or if killing him would be smart. But neither of those two, change the alignment of the act. Perhaps there will come a time, where the paladin decides that he can no longer personally justify this guy repeatedly escaping and hurting others, that would be understandable, the paladin is only mortal after all. If that happens, the paladin may decide to cut him down and kill him, and willingly take the fall, because he's mistaking his actions for protecting people against the evils he is convinced this man will commit. He can then seek atonement for his evil act.
Nobody is forcing the paladin to drag the criminal back every time, that is a concious choice the paladin makes, because that is the action that does not conflict with the code he holds himself to. If he decides that enough is enough, he may be willing to take the fall. Try googling "The Powder Keg of Justice". It does not deal specifically with killing someone, but it does deal with a paladin touching on subject of electing to fall.
And yes, I am quite sure that alot of people are arguing about Paladin related stuff, all the time. ... yeah...
Anyhew, no I've not left, I just needed some sleep :)
-Nearyn
If this continues, I may be slow to respond today and tomorrow - got some programming I need to catch up on.
-Nearyn
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just going to add this:
Lawful Good
Justice is all. Honor is my armor. He who commits a crime will pay. Without law and truth, there is only chaos. I am the light, I am the sword of righteousness. My enemy shall pay in the end. Right is might. My soul is pure. My word is truth.Core Concepts: Duty, fairness, honor, property, responsibility, right, truth, virtue, worthiness
A lawful good character believes in honor. A code or faith that she has unshakable belief in likely guides her. She would rather die than betray that faith, and the most extreme followers of this alignment are willing (sometimes even happy) to become martyrs.
A lawful good character at the extreme end of the lawful-chaotic spectrum can seem pitiless. She may become obsessive about delivering justice, thinking nothing of dedicating herself to chasing a wicked dragon across the world or pursuing a devil into Hell. She can come across as a taskmaster, bent upon her aims without swerving, and may see others who are less committed as weak. Though she may seem austere, even harsh, she is always consistent, working from her doctrine or faith. Hers is a world of order, and she obeys superiors and finds it almost impossible to believe there's any bad in them. She may be more easily duped by such imposters, but in the end she will see justice is done—by her own hand if necessary.
A paladin is an extension of the Law. What is the law in the area? What deity does the paladin serve? If the person was caught in the act and it's punishable by death then I see no reason why the paladin cannot carry the law out himself.
While, perhaps, it might be OK in a technical sense. It's frowned upon. Depending on the precise context, it can be downright chaotic even if justified and legal. A local magistrate will prefer to question and try an offender rather than proverbially just have a corpse dumped on their door.
|
| 1 person 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.
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
Please stop blatantly straw-manning me.
I never said any of those things.
I never limited what good was. All I did there was prove logically that - according to the Pathfinder alignment rules - killing in general is not inherently evil.
Nothing else.
Anything else you claim I said there is nothing but straw-manning.
Alright then, now that I have my laptop, actually responding should be much simpler. But allow me to attack your points once again, in chronological order. Please open each spoiler if you wish to progress to the next section. Warning... reading all of this can... take some time.
You may not consider posting one specific section of the thousands of pages worth of material that Paizo has written by now, not to be nitpicking, but clearly the vast majority here do not agree. But, let us take this from another perspective shall we?
When you are now doing is cherry picking my own argument and using only what you wish to make a point. But okay, let us assume that the first part of the Good Versus Evil section is indeed an extreme examples type of thing. Let us look at the next two sections not to replace my current idea of what good or evil characters do (protect and debase innocent life respectively) but to add onto what each set of characters do.
Good characters respect people and their dignity and make personal sacrifices to help others. This is to be expected as I only copied that one minute sentence from the CRB. But let us look at what evil characters do, shall we? They hurt, oppress, AND kill others... this is where you stopped explaining and left everything all hunky dory. However, if you were to read one more sentence, you can see that it elaborates further on this. They kill for without compassion and have no qualms doing so, some kill for sport... and some out of obligation for an EVIL master or god. That capitalized and bolded word is pretty important. It does not mention executions anywhere.
In fact, if we were to assume a Paladin to be Lawful Good, they would feel remorse about having to kill someone... but they would still complete their duty. And they would not fall for it, do you know why? Because they are the holy sword of their freaking gods designed to kill evil. They are not necessarily priests. A Cleric is a Priest. Paladins fight evil. They just do. That is what they do. Sure, yeah yeah, paragons of good and virtue, but when you look at their abilities and really make a value judgement as to what a Paladin's purpose is, it is to fight evil.
Minor tangent aside, let us continue with the nitpicking and as you suggested, ONLY use the CRB. Let us see, where can we go from here? Oh, I know! The part of the CRB which states what Lawful Good is!
Lawful Good: A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
Lawful good combines honor with compassion.
Emphasis mine. When you fight something, especially when its evil, you are expected to kill it at some point, especially if said fight is as relentless as described. Furthermore, the Paladin hates to see the guilty go unpunished, and in certain instances according to judiciary proceedings or field trials, the punishment will inevitably be death. What, are we supposed to make the paladin fall for obeying the law, her code, and her entire alignment now?
To continue on with your subject of nitpicking, let us go back to the line where you stated that not all good creatures must protect life, and then proceeded to say that all noncombatants must be neutral due to this line of reasoning. I of course, as with the rest of your post, disagree. If you want to go into RAW, and from your history of posts on this thread, I know you do, then it says nothing about protecting the innocent lives in combat. From a purely RAW perspective, the innocent lives can be protected from... shady business dealings, protected from the burden of having to face economic trials on their own, protected from the... well, you get the point. Again, purely RAW which is your own logic.
And I think perhaps the most egregious example of your nitpicking is when you decided to reference Sandpoint. I know that your are sadly mistaken here, as one must remember, that a person's alignment by its very definition is defined as the series of actions a person has taken up to that point of life boiled down into one of nine options. A chaotic evil person kills indiscriminately not because he is chaotic evil, rather, he is chaotic evil because he kills indiscriminately. Therefore, those lawful good citizens had to at some point in their lives perform enough lawful good actions that their alignments happened to shift in that direction.
But enough of your nitpicking. I think it time to go into the next section.
Alright, the title of this section states it all. You are simply moving the goalposts to your liking at this point. You asked myself and others to provide examples of good aligned executioners and we did. However once we did, you decided that it was not in your best interest to let that train of thought continue? Why is this? Well because at that point you would be wrong, and we cannot have that, now can we?
Now, I find it interesting that you would like to continue this Core only perspective, especially seeing as in the previous section, I dissected your argument using Core only resources. But perhaps I am being unfair as you have not yet had a chance to respond to it yet. So let me go onto more of an explanation.
Why in the world would you disallow the use of setting specific material, even though it is made by the very same people who wrote the Core rules in the first place the fact that there are Core Gods who
would applaud the execution of certain individuals. In fact, let us take a look at part of Sarenrae's Paladin Code shall we?
I will redeem the ignorant with my words and my actions. If they will not turn toward the light, I will redeem them by the sword.
I will not abide evil, and will combat it with steel when words are not enough. I do not flinch from my faith, and do not fear embarrassment. My soul cannot be bought for all the stars in the sky.
Whew. And this is coming from the goddess who has one of her main defining characteristics listed as "Mercy". If redemption by words is enough, her Paladins shall redeem by the sword. Looks like if Batman were a Paladin of the Goddess of Mercy, then he would have killed the Joker by now.
Needless to say that even if you do not believe that this specific material is relevant, to the OPs setting, it still exists and one cannot simply ignore it. That would be nitpicking . Needless to say, I have objectively proven that not all executions are evil due to this alone... but will go onto the next topic anyways because why not, I might as well go the full nine yards. Core rules, non core rules, I wonder what the next section will be!
Well, as for your first point on my 'fallacious argument' I have only this to say as I have said it before: alignment is based off actions, actions are not based off alignment. Read it once, read it again, imprint it into your mind. That is simply fact. A god that is good in some aspects and yet does/encourages wrong in others is by its very definition, not a Good god. That god would be neutral. This is especially true for non-mortal beings within Golarion as good, evil, law, and chaos are tangible forces that have actual defined qualities unlike in our world. A Divine being with the alignment Lawful Good (and all outsiders for that matter) are composed of the forces of good and law combined. They not only do and preach good, but are by their very essence Good. Therefore, it is not fallacious to believe that a Good aligned being or outsider would not do wrong, because they would cease to be Good anymore!
Even on the rare instance that an outsider performs actions that are not of their alignment, they shift away from said alignment. Why? Because they are no longer one with that essence.
An outsider is at least partially composed of the essence (but not necessarily the material) of some plane other than the Material Plane. Some creatures start out as some other type and become outsiders when they attain a higher (or lower) state of spiritual existence.
Take an Angel. It is LITERALLY MADE UP OF the essence of the plane it belongs to which would be... good aligned.
You then contradict your own reasoning with the statement that executions are evil aligned in nature, when you tie it into... LAW
Well, is it possible that what Vengeance and Execution can tie into is Lawfulness, not goodness? It seems likely to me, and matches up with the alignment rules.
Well then, if it is tied into the Law/Chaos Axis, and a Lawful Good divine could have such a portfolio, then it stands to reason that Executions are not evil in nature. It supports what you stated there after all, and does not break the alignment system. Lawful, not necessarily evil. This just goes to show that Ragathiel and Damerrich are most certainly lawful, leaving their good aligned nature to their other practices and teachings.
As for the gods being bigger than mortal comprehension... well, just no. There are direct ways to actually SPEAK with your god in the game. The spell Commune? Yup, you can ask them yes or no questions.
"Hey god, is this action something you really want me to do?"
"Yup."
"And are you sure that I won't fall for it?"
"Yup."
As for the argument being watertight, reference my presentation of divine beings and outsiders being literally composed of their alignment. There. Easy as cake.
Obedience:
Slay a proven wrongdoer in Ragathiel’s name. It is not enough for the sacrifice to have an evil heart or evil intentions; the sacrifice must have committed evil or unlawful deeds. Gain a +4 sacred bonus on saving throws against spells and effects cast by evil creatures.
Looks like the person need not even be evil. The person just had to commit petty theft in order to be killed. Now that... is harsh but still apparently within the purview of a Lolful Lawful Good god.
Mind you, this should be done once per day for maximum effectiveness (i.e you actually get to keep the boon) Admittedly it doesn't specify the person has to be executed, but we have already determined that Golarion Lawful good and Even Neutral Good gods are okay with it.
And if you read all of that, congratulations!
[/end]
Please stop blatantly straw-manning me.
I never said any of those things.
I never limited what good was. All I did there was prove logically that - according to the Pathfinder alignment rules - killing in general is not inherently evil.
Nothing else.
Anything else you claim I said there is nothing but straw-manning.
Call it an attempt to apply "proof" that you applied to the description of evil, to the description of good.
As far as I could tell, you made the claim that the sentence "evil implies hurting, oppressing and killing others." naturally derives from the higher point that "evil characters destroy or debase innocent life", and as such Hurting, Oppressing and Killing are not evil, unless done to innocents. Since you made that point, I was merely attempting to apply your very own "logic" to the description of good, which led me to the conclusion that Altruism, Respect for life and Concern for the dignity of sentient beings, is not good values unless they are expressly used to protect the innocent.
Also, depsite you saying so, I see no proof in your text, that killing is not evil.
-Nearyn
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Naeryn, in the face of all of this, I am wondering if despite looking proof in the face, you might be bringing peraonal opinions to the discussion and letting them cloud your own judgement. You have been shown up as far as RAW and RAI goes, so the only thing left is personal feelings. Why else would you look at proof in the face and ignore it?
@Zova Lex: I am not cherry-picking your argument, I am responding to accusation.
No, it does not mention execution anywhere in the evil description. Nor does it mention arson, drowning or defenestration. Lawful or unlawful execution or burning witches at the stake. Because if it was to explain its way around every societal and cultural assumption, then the abridged version of the alignment rules would take up a library.
So if I understand you correctly, you disregard the fact that killing is evil, because you infer from the example following that statement, that evil means you are either lacking in compassion, killing for sport or out of obligation to an evil master. So crimes of passion are just not evil? You trashtalks a guy for long enough, that he sees red, wheels around and beats your skull in with a smithing hammer – not evil? This guy was not lacking in compassion, not out to debase or destroy innocents, not doing it for sport or out of obligation to an evil master. He just lost his temper and offed you. Not evil? If he was a paladin, he would not fall?
And that's another thing. Paladins are designed by their gods to kill evil? Nowhere in the CRB does it say that, you are just pulling your opinion into it again. Paladins oppose evil, they fight to defeat evil. They don't fight to kill all evil. If they did, the text would contain that word. I completely agree they fight evil, but I don't know why the idea is so prevailing that a fight must result in someone dying. Fighting relentlessly != killing your enemies. Punish the guilty != killing your enemies. Using these to justify your reading of the alignment rules has no basis in logic. At best it makes your reading possibly true, nothing else.
A person's alignment is not defined as a series of actions. A persons alignment is defined as a creature's general moral and personal attitudes. It is the mentality of the character, or lapse in said mentality, that leads to action. Whether in accordance with, or opposed to, the character's alignment. Basically, it is possible to change alignment without performing any action whatsoever, all it requires is the moral capacity and philosophical inclination. This would mean that a player could have his character slip into all kinds of alignments as he pleased, were it not for the rules on alignment change, which state that a character's alignment is solely in the GMs control.
You claim I move the goalpost, but I've not yet argued from a position that moved outside the core rules. I recognized and lamented that I was not being clear about that, but since you insist that I am merely twisting the conversation to improve my own position, you're liable to believe whatever you want.
It is not a matter of whether I would disallow setting specific material. The pathfinder core rules system, as presented in the CRB is written so it can be used in many settings, homebrew or otherwise, at the many different tables that enjoy our hobby. Just because something is written by the same people, but for a specific setting, doesn't make it suitable to run in every other setting, or at every other table. And it doesn't mean it meshes perfectly with the core rules.
There are indeed gods mentioned in the Core Rulebook, and none of them are mentioned in anything but a cursory fashion, not touching on individual paladin codes and whatnot. They are provided in the book, just as deities have been provided, in the basic rulebooks, back in earlier D&D. Because having some basic gods, with prepacked domains to pick from, is easier than making up your own, if you're only just getting into the game and have only picked up the CRB.
Yes, I can ignore material about the gods, published in other books, as can everyone else. In fact, we SHOULD ignore it, if we're claiming to argue from a core rules only -perspective. Not saying we are, just saying -I- am, and I've explained why.
Your definitions of gods and morality are your own, and not representative of the system. It is mere opinion.
Such a god would be neutral, you say, but you base that on nothing. You just claim it is so, because a god can apparently not decree anything that falls anywhere outside his own immediate alignment. But then again, earlier you seemed willing to let someone's alignment be meaningfully impacted by not interceding, so I don't know what I'm expecting at this point. If someone stands, uninterrupted on a town-square and repeats the words ”kill your family” out loud, until someone does it, the murderer's alignment is affected, not the alignment of the man standing out in the square. By the same token a god should be able to say whatever he wants, preach whatever message he wants, without it affecting the god's alignment. You may not like that, but there is nothing in the rules that contradict it.
You are utterly missing my point on the gods. Either that or you're not addressing it. Damerrich is LG, but does that mean that his goodness is expressed through the killing of people who have been convicted in a trial of law? You can say yes, but the alignment system says no. Can his lawfulness be expressed through the killing of people who have been convicted in a trial of law? You can say yes, and the alignment system would agree, then I'm inclined to go with executions being more of a lawful aspect of Damerrich. But what then makes the execution lawful? Is it the killing? No, what can make an execution lawful, where a murder may be chaotic, is that an execution may be performed as law-ordered punishment for crimes committed. Goodie, but when you then take a look at the other axis to determine the implication on a scale of good and evil, killing is very soundly evil. At the very least, there is nothing to indicate that it is not.
And for all the talk of creatures being composed of the essence of their planes, for example angels being composed of law and goodness, they still fall. They remain fallible, their creature type does not change. A fallen angel remains a [good] and [law] creature, its alignment merely changes. Being composed of the essence of cosmic forces, apparently does not mean you are locked into, and cannot represent, a mindset that differs from that cosmic make-up. Chalk up one for free will, and the fallibilty of all. Asmodeus was right, Ihys ruined everything :P
Nice quote from ISG... now where is the aforementioned paladin code? Or part that says paladins can kill helpless victims without falling? I don't see it. Merely a boon for offering the god what he wants. Ragathiel offers you that, but that does not mean that killing the person was good or lawful, or that you won't fall. All it means is that Ragathiel approves, and being a creature that can be assumed to have at least enough capacity for personal complexity, as any given mortal, he could approve for a myriad of reasons.
But again, we're moving away from core. You've made it abundantly clear that there is alot of material in the peripheral books that contradict the letter of the alignment rules, but most of us knew that already.
That alignment is not a straightjacket is something we can agree on wholeheartedly.
Thanks, I enjoyed some of it :)
-Nearyn
Thh heh, yeah that'd suck.
-Nearyn
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
-Use Phylactery of Faithfulness to ask Lawful Good God Ragathiel if he will take away your Paladin powers for executing a guy
-Ragathiel says "no, in fact I kinda think its hawt"
-Execute said guy
-GM "you fall"
-But but "Muh God"
-GM "Show me where it says paladins can kill helpless victims without falling? I don't see it. Merely a boon for offering the god what he wants. Ragathiel offers you that, but that does not mean that killing the person was good or lawful, or that you won't fall. All it means is that Ragathiel approves, and being a creature that can be assumed to have at least enough capacity for personal complexity, as any given mortal, he could approve for a myriad of reasons."
-But my God wants me to and he grants me my powers, the code is vague and no one with a modicum of common sense would expect the Paladins of a God to have a code that expressively goes against said God.
-GM "The code grants you your powers, its not like it says anywhere that Paladins are gifted their blessing from their god. And the atonement spell you will now have to cast: it's not like it specifically says that you have to now ask your deity to forgive you for doing something he said was right...oh wait it does...and it does, well Rules are Rules, hate for this game to make sense"
-Use Phylactery of Faithfulness to ask Lawful Good God Ragathiel if he will take away your Paladin powers for executing a guy
-Ragathiel says "no, in fact I kinda think its hawt"
-Execute said guy
-GM "you fall"
-But but "Muh God"
-GM "Show me where it says paladins can kill helpless victims without falling? I don't see it. Merely a boon for offering the god what he wants. Ragathiel offers you that, but that does not mean that killing the person was good or lawful, or that you won't fall. All it means is that Ragathiel approves, and being a creature that can be assumed to have at least enough capacity for personal complexity, as any given mortal, he could approve for a myriad of reasons."
-But my God wants me to and he grants me my powers, the code is vague and no one with a modicum of common sense would expect the Paladins of a God to have a code that expressively goes against said God.
-GM "The code grants you your powers, its not like it says anywhere that Paladins are gifted there blessing from their god. And the atonement spell you will now have to cast: it's not like it specifically says that you have to now ask your deity to forgive you for doing something he said was right...oh wait it does...and it does, well Rules are Rules, hate for this game to make sense"
Or my preferred version:
"Hey boss, will you take away my powers if I kill this dude"
"Yeah, 'fraid so"
"Awww, but the priests keep doing it, and it seems like a really good bonding experience for them"
"Yeah, but you see... they're my clerics, you're not a cleric, you're a paladin. You are not just beholden to me, but to goodness in the very essence of the word. You know this kiddo, they taught you so in paladin basics 1"
"I know, but it gets hard, you know. Sometimes I look at all the evil in the world, and I wonder if I should just take matters into my own hands"
"So do all who want the best for everyone, but recognizing what is good, what is truly good, and seperating it from your own sense of moral outrage is what seperates you from those who are not fit to bear the mantle of paladin. You are paladin, not just because you have faith in me, but because I have faith in you. I trust you to be able to the right thing, not just work my will, but do THE.RIGHT.THING. And should the day come where the skies darken, the oceans burn, where all moral men and creatures are tempted to darkness and ruin, and I myself should turn from the light and succumb to the siren call of sin and tyranny - then I have faith that you will be there to stop me."
"But... but how can I... the mere thought... "
"You can, my child. Because you are Paladin."
...
...
"I understand my lord, I shall strive to be the best I can possibly be, for you and for everyone"
"Good man"
"...about the Torag Paladins thought..."
"oh don't even get me started on that clusterf**k!"
-Nearyn
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
-Use Phylactery of Faithfulness to ask Lawful Good God Ragathiel if he will take away your Paladin powers for executing a guy
-Ragathiel says "no, in fact I kinda think its hawt"
-Execute said guy
-GM "you fall"
-But but "Muh God"
-GM "Show me where it says paladins can kill helpless victims without falling? I don't see it. Merely a boon for offering the god what he wants. Ragathiel offers you that, but that does not mean that killing the person was good or lawful, or that you won't fall. All it means is that Ragathiel approves, and being a creature that can be assumed to have at least enough capacity for personal complexity, as any given mortal, he could approve for a myriad of reasons."
-But my God wants me to and he grants me my powers, the code is vague and no one with a modicum of common sense would expect the Paladins of a God to have a code that expressively goes against said God.
-GM "The code grants you your powers, its not like it says anywhere that Paladins are gifted there blessing from their god. And the atonement spell you will now have to cast: it's not like it specifically says that you have to now ask your deity to forgive you for doing something he said was right...oh wait it does...and it does, well Rules are Rules, hate for this game to make sense"
Or my preferred version:
"Hey boss, will you take away my powers if I kill this dude"
"Yeah, 'fraid so"
"Awww, but the priests keep doing it, and it seems like a really good bonding experience for them"
"Yeah, but you see... they're my clerics, you're not a cleric, you're a paladin. You are not just beholden to me, but to goodness in the very essence of the word. You know this kiddo, they taught you so in paladin basics 1"
"I know, but it gets hard, you know. Sometimes I look at all the evil in the world, and I wonder if I should just take matters into my own hands"
"So do all who want the best for everyone, but recognizing what is good, what is truly good, and seperating it...
If that is how you want to roleplay that cool man, but I was terrified....actually terrified that was about to become slash fiction. I get it, you think killing is bad, and you want a no killing strong loving (if homoerotic) relationship between Paladin and God thats fine but it is just that...your role play. A God that is Lawful Good, but doesn't consider its tenets and practices to be a high enough standard for a paladin is absurd.
You have a obvious bias against the death penalty being Good. That's fine, but neither you or any other should make a Paladin fall for following the tenets of his God. In your home games feel free to pull the teeth of your paladins so that are better at orally defusing situations without violence
|
... Also, Gygax kinda got the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" thing wrong. Not bashing him, a lot of us do, but it doesn't mean what you think it means.Considering that law was written to be read aloud to a largely illiterate bronze age society so that they might understand the law... and if you're saying that Gygax misunderstood its face value....
Could you please explain what it really means?
o_O
Matthew 5:38-48
"You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
"You can lay hands on me anyday."
"I don't know... Cure Light Wounds is still a touch spell..."
Alright, now I've got to write this.
@Coltron: My opinion does not factor into this. This is based on the observation from the alignment rules, that killing others is evil.
You are free to have your own opinion, can consider whatever you want, to be absurd. I've been working by the assumption that what the core rulebook has to say on alignment is how alignment actually works. If you disagree and want to run it differently, more power to you.
-Nearyn
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Coltron: My opinion does not factor into this. This is based on the observation from the alignment rules, that killing others is evil.
You are free to have your own opinion, can consider whatever you want, to be absurd. I've been working by the assumption that what the core rulebook has to say on alignment is how alignment actually works. If you disagree and want to run it differently, more power to you.
-Nearyn
Repeat it as many times as you like, it won't make it true.
Your stance is ridiculous even for the Rules forum. This is not that forum.
@Coltron: My opinion does not factor into this. This is based on the observation from the alignment rules, that killing others is evil.
You are free to have your own opinion, can consider whatever you want, to be absurd. I've been working by the assumption that what the core rulebook has to say on alignment is how alignment actually works. If you disagree and want to run it differently, more power to you.
-Nearyn
Repeat it as many times as you like, it won't make it true.
Your stance is ridiculous even for the Rules forum. This is not that forum.
Whatever makes you feel better, Rynjin. This may not be the rules board, but the OPs question regarded the rules. Make of that what you will.
-Nearyn
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Coltron: My opinion does not factor into this. This is based on the observation from the alignment rules, that killing others is evil.
You are free to have your own opinion, can consider whatever you want, to be absurd. I've been working by the assumption that what the core rulebook has to say on alignment is how alignment actually works. If you disagree and want to run it differently, more power to you.
-Nearyn
Repeat it as many times as you like, it won't make it true.
Your stance is ridiculous even for the Rules forum. This is not that forum.
Whatever makes you feel better, Rynjin. This may not be the rules board, but the OPs question regarded the rules. Make of that what you will.
-Nearyn
It does not befit a person who no one agrees with to be condescending. Especially when we are just piling on the proof against you.