| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paladin says it is execution and is totally in his rights to do without issues to his alignment or Paladinness.A paladin of Torag can only fall if he spares them. Give no quarter to evil and take no prisoners of war."Son, I saw you take those cookies from Grandma Wilson's cookie jar.
*Lifts up warhammer* I'm afraid you know Torag commands me to do."
'But Pa!"
A Paladin of Sarenrae would give their kid one chance... one.
"I told you to turn to the light!"
@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
I wonder what pleasure do you get from being so very stubbornly wrong on this topic?
You're even wrong on the "I'm not giving my opinion" front.
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.@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
The moment I see anything resembling proof, that by the core rules, straight up killing others is not an evil act, I will take it into careful consideration and see if I mean to maintain my present position, or change it based on the new information.
What you've presented me with is setting specific observations and lots and lots of conjecture. Do not mistake it for proof, because I certainly won't.
-Nearyn
@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
Try this sentence in for size.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
I get it. You're taking this as a list of individual items. When actually you should be reading it as a single sentence.
So answer me this: if you are not hurting, oppressing, and killing others, are you implied to be evil?
Bear in mind that neutrality only has a problem with killing innocent people (making the guilty fair game). And that good have respect for life (which is incredibly open-ended in scope, but respect does not equal will not kill).
There, core rules.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
THERE ARE NO ALIGNMENT RULES
ALIGNMENT IS BY ITS NATURE A SUBJECTIVE THING THAT CAN CHANGE FROM GAME TO GAME
THAT IS BY DESIGN
THE TEXT IN THE ALIGNMENT SECTION OF THE CRB IS NOT F!&%ING "RULES"
Maybe if I write it big enough you can't conveniently ignore it like literally everything else that has disagreed with you so far. The only concrete rules for alignment were presented in Champions of Purity, and that IS Setting Specific.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Rynjin: I respectfully disagree, what with the alignment section of the core rulebook being found under "additional rules".
Alignment in the real world, that is to say morality in the real world, is very much a subjective thing. Alignment in pathfinder is objective. And THAT is by design, because there are classes and game-mechanics that tie into alignment, necessitating an objective alignment system.
More importantly, by being objective it ignores issues of cultural, tradition-based or religious biases.
Introducing subjectivity means not using the alignment system.
-Nearyn
Even if you were correct (and I disagree), you have yet to provide anything that proves your point except "I can take two words out of context and ignore the rest".
Even if you were correct (and I disagree), you have yet to provide anything that proves your point except "I can take two words out of context and ignore the rest".
Nearyn's claim: the alignment section of the core rulebook constitutes rules.
Nearyn's proof:
1)the alignment section can be found under "additional rules" in the core rulebook.
2)the alignment section does not specify that the text contained within is not rules. It talks about alignment not being a straightjacket, which is not the same as "this chapter does not contain rules".
It also talks about the descriptions of the individual 9 alignment combinations, and mentions that those 9 descriptions are only guidelines, not scripts. This is, again, not the same as saying that "this chapter does not contain rules".
Nearyn's second claim:by the core rules, killing others is considered evil.
Nearyn's proof:
1)the alignment chapter subsection Good Versus Evil contains the following text:
"Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others." Full text provided below:
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
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.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
-Nearyn
If it said "evil implies hurting, oppressing, or killing others", I would agree with Nearyn.
I don't, because it doesn't say that. The "and" is a conjunction, linking all three behaviours.
Even if you were correct (and I disagree), you have yet to provide anything that proves your point except "I can take two words out of context and ignore the rest".Nearyn's claim: the alignment section of the core rulebook constitutes rules.
Nearyn's proof:
1)the alignment section can be found under "additional rules" in the core rulebook.2)the alignment section does not specify that the text contained within is not rules. It talks about alignment not being a straightjacket, which is not the same as "this chapter does not contain rules".
It also talks about the descriptions of the individual 9 alignment combinations, and mentions that those 9 descriptions are only guidelines, not scripts. This is, again, not the same as saying that "this chapter does not contain rules".
Nearyn's second claim:by the core rules, killing others is considered evil.
Nearyn's proof:
1)the alignment chapter subsection Good Versus Evil contains the following text:"Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others." Full text provided below:
-NearynGood characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
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.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
This is not proof of what you are saying.
"Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit."
The term innocent is clearly used.
"Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others."
Punishment of any kind can be implied to hurt, oppress or cause the death of others. To use this a way to say Killing is evil, is to imply (notice I use the same phrasing...) that hurting or oppressing people is inherently evil as well. So now not only can paladins not kill, but they cant hurt or oppress others. They can't even do nonlethal anymore.....
-OWWWWWW you hurt me while trying to stop me from eating a baby, who are you A LAWFUL GOOD CHARACTER to tell me that eating babies is wrong, stop oppressing me!
You effectively think the rules require a Paladin to sit in a corner praying, while running away from any confrontation. Lest they hurt an evil doer, or oppress them. Since Smite Evil exist, since they got other combat abilities I would say once again that this is absurd. Take to the logical conclusion; using your reading of the rules, A paladin can fall, if they fall over and land on someones toe. They can FALL FOR FALLING DOWN!
Let me guess, the weapon proficiencies and combat abilities only exist to tempt them into falling. Well played Pazio, well played
"People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others."
This does not mean only neutral people can kill the guilty, it just states that while neutral people don't kill the innocent, they may not make sacrifices to save them.
You are being ridiculous, and are effectively saying that paladins can't even hurt people without being evil, nor can they oppress them by idk...placing them under arrest. You can lie to yourself and say that is not what you mean but it is. You are saying to hurt, oppress, or to kill is evil. And that is not what it says. It says that evil implies those things, it specifically in every other instance says innocent people.
I'm sorry. Paladin-kun isnt as adorable and innocent as you thought, or are trying so desperately to believe.
|
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
Nope - you're wrong. I never said that.
Again - you're straw-manning me.
Stop it.
|
|
... 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."
Ah - 'turn the other cheek' - One of the Bible verses which is most quoted... out of context.
The context of the slaps isn't violence. It doesn't say 'if anyone stabs you with a sword'.
In the time period/area of the world - slapping someone back-handed was a grave insult done to an inferior.
A slap with the open hand was done to an equal one disagreed with.
By turning the other cheek - you're forcing them to slap you with their open hand - and therefore respect you even as they disagree.
In modern terminology it's saying - in a nutshell - "Don't be a jerk when someone's a jerk to you. In fact - take their insult and make them respect you for it."
The shirt thing had to due with the fact that Christians couldn't use the Roman court system as it required giving homage to Roman gods - so people abused them in the justice system. It was basically saying to eat the cost of that so that you don't have to go to court and give homage to the Roman gods.
The mile thing was that Roman soldiers were allowed to make non-citizens carry their pack for a mile down the road if they were already going in the same direction.
Here's one for you - Romans 13:3-5 - (in reference to justice systems etc - the type of people who punish criminals)
"3For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. 5Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake"
|
... 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."
Ah - 'turn the other cheek' - One of the Bible verses which is most quoted... out of context.
The context of the slaps isn't violence. It doesn't say 'if anyone stabs you with a sword'.
In the time period/area of the world - slapping someone back-handed was a grave insult done to an inferior.
A slap with the open hand was done to an equal one disagreed with.
By turning the other cheek - you're forcing them to slap you with their open hand - and therefore respect you even as they
...
Yes, yes. I've heard all of those things. I wouldn't be so self-righteous to think I could reference scripture without understanding the context of it.
However, the Word of God himself says: "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." There's no middle ground there. There's no working around that fundamental statement. Plus, the verse you quoted specifically pertains to authority figures, and it does not dictate the actions authority figures should take, but those UNDER such authority.
|
|
Yes, yes. I've heard all of those things. I wouldn't be so self-righteous to think I could reference scripture without understanding the context of it.
However, the Word of God himself says: "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." There's no middle ground there. There's no working around that fundamental statement. Plus, the verse you quoted specifically pertains to authority figures, and it does not dictate the actions authority figures should take, but those UNDER such authority.
It's good to know you do know the context. (I've heard that quoted so many times by those who have no clue.) I don't want to get into too much of a religious discussion on Pathfinder boards though. :P
However - who says that this Paladin can't still love the bandit while he chops his head off?
If someone's child misbehaves - their parent doesn't stop loving them when they put them in a time-out, or even if they spank them. (whatever protective services seems to think these days :P)
Why should this Paladin be any different. It's just that the punishment he's dishing out is proportionately harsher due to the nature of the crime he's punishing.
(And I did mention that the Romans verse is in reference to justice systems etc.)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, yes. I've heard all of those things. I wouldn't be so self-righteous to think I could reference scripture without understanding the context of it.
However, the Word of God himself says: "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." There's no middle ground there. There's no working around that fundamental statement. Plus, the verse you quoted specifically pertains to authority figures, and it does not dictate the actions authority figures should take, but those UNDER such authority.
It's good to know you do know the context. (I've heard that quoted so many times by those who have no clue.) I don't want to get into too much of a religious discussion on Pathfinder boards though. :P
However - who says that this Paladin can't still love the bandit while he chops his head off?
If someone's child misbehaves - their parent doesn't stop loving them when they put them in a time-out, or even if they spank them. (whatever protective services seems to think these days :P)
Why should this Paladin be any different. It's just that the punishment he's dishing out is proportionately harsher due to the nature of the crime he's punishing.
(And I did mention that the Romans verse is in reference to justice systems etc.)
Fair enough. Thanks for keeping things civil. :D
There is a difference between punishment and "justice". Punishment serves as a means to correct behavior. We don't punish children because they deserve to be punished; we do so to teach them not to engage in the actions that brought about punishment. It's the reasons I'm totally behind something like life imprisonment.
Death isn't a punishment; at least, not one by human standards. A death sentence is brought about by an attempt to bring about balance. I could TOTALLY see a vengeful warrior who slaughters the person that murdered his family. It seems reasonable, it makes for dramatic storytelling, but it's still evil. It's simply justifiable.
Now, you COULD make the argument that, IF the afterlife of the slain is known to the Paladin, and IF the Paladin has a way to ensure the soul of the slain is cared for mercifully and justly, THEN he could reasonably keep his powers when doling out deathly judgment. If those conditions are not met, however, then the Paladin is performing an evil act.
Then, to be consistent, by your second claim, a paladin falls whenever he commits the evil act of killing another.
If that isn't true, then there are cases and conditions when killing others isn't evil. Which was the original debate and really remains the debate: Is this particular case a case where killing is an evil act?
I agree, and as you've correctly mentioned, I have said that not all killing is evil. I used the example that if you were to commit an evil act, such as killing, but at the same time was doing a good act, such as protecting innocents, then your action would be both good and evil. Since a good evil act, seems like a really awful way to induce alot of migraine, I'd argue that it falls in the spectrum between good and evil, which would be neutral.
True I think alot of adventurers are doing evil when they murder-hobo their way through the countryside, but as opposed to many other people on this board, I don't consider that a bad thing about the game. I don't mind evil acts, or evil PCs for that matter. Most of the time my players will fall into the category of neutral killings, or they will have one or two evil ones, which is then buried beneath a mountain of good acts that they perform out of combat.
I recently had a paladin in my RotR group. Never, not even once, did I, or anyone else around the table raise question about his alignment. He played it flawlessly. He didn't start fights, but he wasn't a pushover. He would stand between the party and oncoming danger, selflessly and vigilantly, and he would be a dear friend to all the party. His exemplary and helpful behavior, friendly and chill attitude, and relentlessness in the struggle to protect Varisia led to the Chaotic Neutral (borderline evil) rogue, shifting on the alignment scale, over the course of the campaign, to become Chaotic Good.
Also: Alignment is objective within the world. The game system rules governing it however are subjective enough that each group has to work out the corner cases themselves.
I completely agree. That is the case many places in the game. The game can't do -all- the work for you. Yet, it is rare that you need to think that long about most cases. Usually you just need to quickly compare what was going on to the Good Versus Evil, Law Versus Chaos segments, and it works itself out pretty easily.
-Nearyn
If it said "evil implies hurting, oppressing, or killing others", I would agree with Nearyn.
I don't, because it doesn't say that. The "and" is a conjunction, linking all three behaviours.
I'm sorry I haven't answered your last post Chemlak, I'll see if I can get around to it, but the wording confuses me somewhat. Sorry :(
On the topic of the post I'm quoting: Would you then argue that Altruism, Respect for life, and Concern for the dignity of sentient beings are not, on their own, good virtues, but only when all 3 are combined?
-Nearyn
Nope - you're wrong. I never said that.
What exactly is it you claim to have never said?
Because what I'm talking about it this
Nowhere in there does it say that killing is evil.
It says killing innocents for fun or profit is.
In this quote, it seems to me that you are taking the first line of Good Versus Evil, that says "evil characters destroy or debase innocent life, whether for fun or profit", and tie the wording of that line to the line further down, where it says that "evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others". Leading to:
It says killing innocents for fun or profit is[evil]
Because to me, this is a 2-way street. If you take the first line:
Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
and slap it onto the next line about evil:
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
... for it to be evil, then the same must hold true for the rest of the text in the Good Versus Evil segment. So you must take:
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life
And use as a requirement for any of...
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.
To actually be good.
I'm not saying that you have said that last part about the Good text. What I am saying that, if I follow your logic correctly in the evil example, then I believe, in order for that argument to hold any real value, the same logic must hold true for the good example - leading to the requirement for all would-be good acts, to be done in order to protect innocent life.
-Nearyn
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ill just post this again since you seem to be trying to ignore it. I am starting to think you must be a troll, or just really really thick. I don't want to be insulting, but your premise is flawed; and your ignorance seems to be willful.
This is not proof of what you are saying.
"Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit."
The term innocent is clearly used.
"Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others."
Punishment of any kind can be implied to hurt, oppress or cause the death of others. To use this a way to say Killing is evil, is to imply (notice I use the same phrasing...) that hurting or oppressing people is inherently evil as well. So now not only can paladins not kill, but they cant hurt or oppress others. They can't even do nonlethal anymore.....
-OWWWWWW you hurt me while trying to stop me from eating a baby, who are you A LAWFUL GOOD CHARACTER to tell me that eating babies is wrong, stop oppressing me!
You effectively think the rules require a Paladin to sit in a corner praying, while running away from any confrontation. Lest they hurt an evil doer, or oppress them. Since Smite Evil exist, since they got other combat abilities I would say once again that this is absurd. Take to the logical conclusion; using your reading of the rules, A paladin can fall, if they fall over and land on someones toe. They can FALL FOR FALLING DOWN!
Let me guess, the weapon proficiencies and combat abilities only exist to tempt them into falling. Well played Pazio, well played
"People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others."
This does not mean only neutral people can kill the guilty, it just states that while neutral people don't kill the innocent, they may not make sacrifices to save them.
You are being ridiculous, and are effectively saying that paladins can't even hurt people without being evil, nor can they oppress them by idk...placing them under arrest. You can lie to yourself and say that is not what you mean but it is. You are saying to hurt, oppress, or to kill is evil. And that is not what it says. It says that evil implies those things, it specifically in every other instance says innocent people.
I'm sorry. Paladin-kun isnt as adorable and innocent as you thought, or are trying so desperately to believe.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is not proof of what you are saying.
"Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit."
The term innocent is clearly used.
What point are you bringing up? I'm not denying that word is being used. I am, however, denying that that line has any relevance to the further elaboration of evil, that follows.
-OWWWWWW you hurt me while trying to stop me from eating a baby, who are you A LAWFUL GOOD CHARACTER to tell me that eating babies is wrong, stop oppressing me!
At my table, this would be referred to as "trying to game the system", and neither players, nor my GMs from other groups, are douchy enough to try it. I should probably consider what I'd ever do if someone tried that. Maybe a public spanking, and bringing drinks to the next session would fit the crime. Or I could just execute them ;)
You effectively think the rules require a Paladin to sit in a corner praying, while running away from any confrontation.
Have I ever mentioned how immensely grateful I am, that I have you to tell me what I think? I don't know what I'd do without someone else to tell me what I'm thinking, - I'd probably be so confused I started resorting to sarcasm.
if they fall over and land on someones toe. They can FALL FOR FALLING DOWN!
I don't believe I have ever stated that I support alignment impacts based on accidents. Perhaps I've thought it. Can you please tell me if I'm thinking it right now?
Let me guess, the weapon proficiencies and combat abilities only exist to tempt them into falling.
Your guess is as good as mine. But I've always guessed it represented training in the use of martial weapons. You know... to defend yourself, to defend the innocent and to be able to properly match an evil-doer, should he not surrender peacefully. It's just a guess though.
This does not mean only neutral people can kill the guilty
And who exactly are you claiming was making that point? Because it wasn't me, I can promise you that. Everyone can kill, Good characters, chaotic characters, evil characters, all of them. Everyone can kill, everyone can do most everything, that does not require an ability they do not posses.
You can lie to yourself and say that is not what you mean but it is.
Again, thank you so very much. It really is helpful, and not at all collosally conceited, arrogant and annoying. I really do appreciate it. It adds alot of the conversation, you know.
On a more serious note, if you can please stop trying to make permanent residents in my deepest, darkest thoughts, then perhaps I'll bother reading and responding to your future posts. If you are incapable of that, and instead insist of showcasing what I humbly consider to be an exquisite lack of basic manners, then I'm afraid this will be my last post to you for awhile.
Godspeed
-Nearyn
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would appear that I am in fact so tired, that I cannot help but ask the paizo staff to respond to whether or not I am dumb or a troll. So much for reading before you click. Oh well. To whomever it may concern, kindly ignore my FAQ request of the above post.
-Nearyn
I'm cracking up myself. Dunno if it's legit funny or I'm tired, either way it's good for the ticker :D
-Nearyn
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
No. Rape is one of those sins you commit that pushes you past the moral event horizon. You receive no mercy for it. At the very least, the Paladin should be expected to chop the guy's balls off if for some reason he can't kill him.Yes. The Paladin falls. No one ever said being good was easy, or fun. Sometimes being good means letting a murderer/rapist live. Sometimes it even means helping them overcome the urge to do evil. That's what good is. Murdering someone due to their actions is still murder. It's just socially acceptable.
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.
I think I'm the minority in that if it came down to someone raping me or murdering me, I'd prefer the former to the latter (the former hurts and damages my dignity, the latter steals my entire life from me and my loved ones). I think I may also be the minority in thinking that should I be murdered, that the answer may not be to slay my murderer.
In any case, I see no problem with the Paladin whackin' the badguys.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't realize someone had turned on the Ashiel-signal?!
Anyway, welcome to the party. We have cake and copious amounts of mental exhaustion. =)
-Nearyn
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't realize someone had turned on the Ashiel-signal?!
Anyway, welcome to the party. We have cake and copious amounts of mental exhaustion. =)
-Nearyn
Well I'm about to head out for work, but I'll be back tomorrow. :P
(Also, since I saw Icehawk just favorited a post, if you're reading this IH, I got the vampire template you wanted up in the other thread.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No. Rape is one of those sins you commit that pushes you past the moral event horizon. You receive no mercy for it. At the very least, the Paladin should be expected to chop the guy's balls off if for some reason he can't kill him.Yes. The Paladin falls. No one ever said being good was easy, or fun. Sometimes being good means letting a murderer/rapist live. Sometimes it even means helping them overcome the urge to do evil. That's what good is. Murdering someone due to their actions is still murder. It's just socially acceptable.
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.
I think I'm the minority in that if it came down to someone raping me or murdering me, I'd prefer the former to the latter (the former hurts and damages my dignity, the latter steals my entire life from me and my loved ones). I think I may also be the minority in thinking that should I be murdered, that the answer may not be to slay my murderer.
In any case, I see no problem with the Paladin whackin' the badguys.
I'd say I'm with you in that minority who thinks murder is worse. Of course I've never been raped, but on the other hand I've also never experienced being brutally murdered, so what do I know? :)
|
Three evil doers caught in the act of Rape and pillage in a Warzone.
Party happens upon them and immediately blind them all. Two bads slaughtered in round one. Third bad falls to his knees Blind,Weaponless,Pants around his ankles. Surrendering and begging for Mercy. 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.
Depends on his deity, Sarenrae offers redemption to those who would take it, so if the villain was begging for mercy, and the paladin just lopped his head off then it was against his creed and he would lose his powers.
|
|
... 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."
Two things wrong with this response.
1) Tell that to ISIS or Boko Haram and see how far it gets you. A Paladin, such as you describe, would be totally gimp in the face of a determined and clever enemy. They could burn the world down around him and he wouldn't lift a finger to stop them, let alone draw his sword... and never mind he would be out of cheeks after dealing with only the second perp.
2) Maybe Gygax was citing Moses and not Jesus.
Jesus statement is a clarification of the law of Moses, not an alteration. Also, the whole point is that being good is hard. Being good means looking your aggressor in the eye, and showing him love and compassion. ISIS has already decided to ignore the teachings of Jesus (despite his presence in their holy texts), but that doesn't mean I need to respond in kind.
Fortunately, when we play Pathfinder, the IDEA of the Paladin is that he smites evil, and against a large number of foes (Undead, Constructs, Evil Outsiders, and other fantastical creatures) he does pretty darn well, and I have no qualms about them doing their Paladin schtick. That's part of the fun of fantasy: you get to live out the combative hero fantasy. You get to slay dragons, confront demons, and obliterate undead hordes, and still feel good about yourself. They're literary devices which allow you to revel in combat. However, when it comes to people, you have to be better than a murderhobo.
Again, it's why I run lots of abominations, demons, and undead in my games. Nobody has any qualms about them.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
No. Rape is one of those sins you commit that pushes you past the moral event horizon. You receive no mercy for it. At the very least, the Paladin should be expected to chop the guy's balls off if for some reason he can't kill him.
Doesn't seem like it actually pushes you past the moral event horizon in Paizo's game, if indeed such a thing as a moral event horizon actually exists for them. And that's a damned demon queen with countless victims to her name, not just some evil guy.
That said, to the original topic, it depends on this paladin's code and relates to his deity's values. I suspect there are plenty of deities and a number of codes where he would be within rights to kill the person, but also some where he would not. Just because something might not be past a (questionably extant) moral event horizon doesn't mean no paladin can ever mete out lethal justice for it; not every conceivably redeemable creature is going to be redeemed, and not every code or god is going to require you to try this or that long shot.
Like most other paladin alignment questions ever written, the answer is to talk to your GM and/or consult the code you worked out by talking to your GM beforehand.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jesus statement is a clarification of the law of Moses, not an alteration.Tell that to the Canaanites.
Also, the whole point is that being good is hard. Being good means looking your aggressor in the eye, and showing him love and compassion. ISIS has already decided to ignore the teachings of Jesus (despite his presence in their holy texts), but that doesn't mean I need to respond in kind.If you don't respond in kind to ISIS and Boko Haram they will ROFLSTOMP you.
You can warm their smores if you want with your flaming dead body but I'll pass on that response and still call myself good thanks.
Jesus did.
Also, yup. That's part of being good. We can call ourselves whatever we want, but that doesn't make it so.
But now I'm getting off-topic. Religious debate /ended.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So if killing is an evil act, can a paladin eat meat? Disinfect his countertops? Swat a mosquito? Chop down a tree? Note it doesn't specify which creatures/species.
I'm of the mind the description of evil in the alignment section is more like the MS office paper clip. "It looks like you're trying to RP an evil character, have you considered hurting, oppressing, or killing others?"
Hmmm... Oppressing others is evil, perhaps your paladin should always use gender neutral languages.
I'm more of the mind that intent is the determination of good or evil.
Ex1) My party member lays dying on the ground, he has two vials, one is a potion of cure light wounds, the other is a vial of poison. I guess incorrectly, and pour the poison down his throat. Do I fall?
Ex2) I stop by an orphanage daily and bring cake, candy, and desserts. They love me for it I'm trying to fatten them up for delicious orphan veal, but I get called away to adventure before I harm a single orphan. Have I done an evil act?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a paladin falls, and there is no DM to enjoy the Catch-22 or Kobyrashi Maru situation the paladin was put in, does he still scream???
And yes, it becomes an alignment thread. Having dealt with alignment for many years since Gary created them, I find it is the lack of understanding of alignment that causes many problems. Forced change of alignment used to have consequences -- now, with PFS, everyone pretty much ignores alignment except for targeting paladins.
Just buy the phylactery if the DM is out to get you. Hopefully it doesn't whisper - I am the DM that likes to make paladins fall.
Guys, I've seen, met and dealt with people like Nearyn before, and I can personally testify that this conversation is no longer worth our collective time.
Cheers to that. It took me a little while to realize this, but I finally figured it out, which is why I pulled out a while ago. If someone doesn't want to change their viewpoint on something, then no amount of rational discussion in the world can change that.
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.
So just to be clear you think that if a dev were to wander into this thread, and give an "official(not setting based)" declaration they would say that all killing, even killing of evil creatures caught committing evil acts is in itself an evil act.
Would you also say that all surrenders must be accepted or an evil act has taken place of the person/creature is still killed anyway? Let's also assume you are looking it from the position of someone such as a dev just like the previous question.
Feel free to expand on this as needed, but still provide a hard yes or no.
@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...
That is not still not an answer as I wanted it, but maybe I am not being clear. For the purpose of not falling do you think he has to accept the surrender and turn the person in every time?<--This assumes that the person surrenders(drops all of his weapon, if any, and removes armor etc etc) every time the paladin shows up.