Execution or Murder ?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

301 to 346 of 346 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ms. Pleiades wrote:
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.

I've seen and met Nearyn before, and I can testify that he's not trolling, but actually arguing for what he sees written in the rules and it just so happens that none of you have found an argument that will sway him.

He is not an unreasonable man. He will admit defeat when he sees it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My face is an unreasonable man!

...

... that's actually really weird, and I should probably have that looked at by a doctor.


Thymus Vulgaris wrote:
Ms. Pleiades wrote:
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.

I've seen and met Nearyn before, and I can testify that he's not trolling, but actually arguing for what he sees written in the rules and it just so happens that none of you have found an argument that will sway him.

He is not an unreasonable man. He will admit defeat when he sees it.

I don't think he is trolling either, but it will likely take dev intervention before he admits he is wrong.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's something I once wrote in a different thread, arguing the same thing as Nearyn. Difference is I used no claims of rules being on my side, and chalked it all up to my own subjective view of how alignment works.

Thymus Vulgaris wrote:
Killing a sentient being who doesn't want to die is an inherently evil act. In my view of alignment, the goodness of the intent and consequences will hardly ever, if at all, swing the resulting alignment of the act further than neutral.
Thymus Vulgaris wrote:
As a standard, killing a sentient being is evil. Circumstantial modifiers may apply and change the final alignment of the act, but without any such modifiers present it will always be evil. (positive circumstantial modifiers include, but are not limited to, self-defense, protection of others, mercy-killing of a consenting being)

So let's use this to answer some questions:

B. A. Robards-Debardot wrote:
So if killing is an evil act, can a paladin eat meat?

Sure, eating is not killing. Animals aren't truly sentient (at least that's popular belief, but we might be wrong on that?), so he can kill them for their meat.

Quote:
Disinfect his countertops?

If the bacteria on your countertop have evolved sentience, I am concerned for you.

Quote:
Swat a mosquito?

Not sentient.

Quote:
Chop down a tree?

Does the tree house a dryad?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Good morning everyone. Alright, let the conversation continue.

B. A. Robards-Debardot wrote:
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.

No it does not. It would seem that if I want to stick by my own reading, I have a choice to make. Let's see, I can either have my Paladin fall for having his immune-system fight off infection. Or I can elect to not be a pettifogging jerk to my players, and instead behave as if the system is supposed to work.

Incidentally, I tend to feel bad about killing insects, EXCEPT mosquitos... because f**k mosquitos. Disturb my sleep at your own peril.

B. A. Robards-Debardot wrote:
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?

Since you'll only fall when you commit a willful act of evil, it would seem to me that you're pretty much in the clear here, no matter the outcome. Even then, you're attempting to save your friend's life to the best of your abilities (I'm assuming you're out of Lay on Hands, since you're taking this chance?).

B. A. Robards-Debardot wrote:
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?

You have evil intent, which is not evil in of itself evil. A disgruntled worker who gets embarrassed in front of his coworkers by his ass of a chief, may fantasize about dropping a toolcase on him from great height, but has not done anything evil until he actually does it.

All you're doing is feeding the kids. It seems very likely to me that you're already evil, but as to the alignment of your act, you're just feeding kids. If you return after your adventuring days and eat them, then yes, of course you're doing evil.

-Nearyn


Thymus Vulgaris wrote:
Ms. Pleiades wrote:
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.

I've seen and met Nearyn before, and I can testify that he's not trolling, but actually arguing for what he sees written in the rules and it just so happens that none of you have found an argument that will sway him.

He is not an unreasonable man. He will admit defeat when he sees it.

If he truly sees the rules on Alignment to work the way he says, fine, more power to him. The fact that it's somehow up to interpretation in a world with objective morality despite having mechanical ramifications is stupid beyond belief in my opinion, but this thread is about interpretation, not replacement, of the alignment system.

The way I have to assume he runs Paladins from what I've read in this thread, they're exactly the kind of stick in the mud, PvP-waiting-to-happen boy scouts that people cry all day about. Completely adventure-incapable unless the whole party is Paladins.

Those sorts of Paladins are going to be fighting to defend this guy from the rest of the party. I can't imagine even most Good people going along with the idea of taking party time and resources to get this guy to the 'proper' authority. That is to say, an authority that doesn't execute a rapist/murderer (Good luck). Especially when they witnessed the crime, he attempted to murder them shortly after, and they're in a warzone.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
DominusMegadeus wrote:
Thymus Vulgaris wrote:
Ms. Pleiades wrote:
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.

I've seen and met Nearyn before, and I can testify that he's not trolling, but actually arguing for what he sees written in the rules and it just so happens that none of you have found an argument that will sway him.

He is not an unreasonable man. He will admit defeat when he sees it.

If he truly sees the rules on Alignment to work the way he says, fine, more power to him. The fact that it's somehow up to interpretation in a world with objective morality despite having mechanical ramifications is stupid beyond belief in my opinion, but this thread is about interpretation, not replacement, of the alignment system.

The way I have to assume he runs Paladins from what I've read in this thread, they're exactly the kind of stick in the mud, PvP-waiting-to-happen boy scouts that people cry all day about. Completely adventure-incapable unless the whole party is Paladins.

Those sorts of Paladins are going to be fighting to defend this guy from the rest of the party. I can't imagine even most Good people going along with the idea of taking party time and resources to get this guy to the 'proper' authority. That is to say, an authority that doesn't execute a rapist/murderer (Good luck). Especially when they witnessed the crime, he attempted to murder them shortly after, and they're in a warzone.

We had a paladin. Nearyn mentioned him. This paladin saw the rogue steal some coins, but didn't say a word to her about it. He willingly made a deal with a pit fiend that involved its release, and he kept to his word. He was not a pacifist. He was Iomedaean, and many foes felt his sword as the very last thing that touched them before they died in battle. He even drew first blood when a Succubus tried to make him choose who got to live between a mother and her son.

This paladin never fell from grace. He did get bullrushed off a cliff once, but that's a different kind of falling.


@Wraithstrike:

A dev statement is not going to change what the book actually says. I tend to read dev statements with great interest, but the book is the book. The devs have varying opinions on certain topics, and them "clarifying something", while interesting, does not make me unable to read for myself.

Official Errata is different.

wraithstrike wrote:
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.

Accept the surrender, yes.

Turn the person in every time, no. I can imagine cases where turning the person in is not possible, or taking the time out to do so would entail greater harm coming to others. I don't mind a paladin passing judgement on evil-doers either, as they're supposed to punish those who harm the innocent. But that does not excuse them for willfully committing evil acts. Turning the guy in is preferable, although it is not necessarily smart, satisfying or convenient.

Sorry I didn't answer your question before, it appears I misunderstood it.

-Nearyn


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Thymus Vulgaris wrote:

We had a paladin

This paladin never fell from grace. He did get bullrushed off a cliff once, but that's a different kind of falling.

200ft drop, lived on 1 hp. The Inheritor really wanted her champion to survive, that day :). A shame that protection didn't extend to the fight with the ghost :( Rest in peace Jeffrey Starkmourne, you were a great character

Yep, quite correct. The only person at the table who ever touched on the subject of falling, was the player of the Paladin, himself. Noone else, players or GM, even mentioned it the entire campaign. It wasn't necessary, because Jeffrey was an amazing paladin.

-Nearyn


Here we go Chemlak, I got around to it:

Chemlak wrote:

Try this sentence in for size.

Quote:
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?

Ummm, I'm not sure I understand the question correctly, but I'll try.

If I am not hurting, oppressing or killing others, I'd say I am not implied to be evil.

Then again, I could be evil for other reasons, of course.

Chemlak wrote:
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).

I'm not making the claim that neutral- or good-aligned people cannot kill. It happens quite often in my games. But just because neutrals may have compunctions against killing innocents, that does not mean they get a free pass on the guilty. They are still killing someone.

-Nearyn


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm bringing up an old point. Not to defend anyone, but because it seems nobody ever understood what exactly what Nearyn was trying to say, and maybe another person's take will be helpful.

Nearyn wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:


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

What seems to me to be Nearyn's point is:

If it holds true that when "It says hurting, oppressing, and killing others is evil. (Note - 'and' - not 'or'.)" it means that it's not Evil unless you're both "hurting, oppressing, and killing others," then it should also hold true that whatever you're doing isn't Good, unless there's both "altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings." If it fails on just one of these criteria, it fails to be Good.

If this is not the case, the question is what makes the word "and" take on a different meaning in this sentence:
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.
than it does in this:
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If killing is an evil act, then paladins cannot kill. Circumstances and reasons do not matter. If the act of killing is evil, then there are no possible justifications a paladin can present in which killing is not evil, which means that the first time a paladin swings his sword, he falls.

The exception that proves the rule is actually the paladin class itself: a martial class which is granted a whole slew of abilities based around killing evil creatures that is expected to be able to use those abilities.

So, what conclusion should we reach, really?

Edit: I'm getting a little tired of this discussion. Unless someone presents something particularly interesting, my only future responses to this thread will be "but you said killing is evil. Paladin falls".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Are you still arguing the toss about this ?
Just agree to disagree


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Chemlak wrote:

If killing is an evil act, then paladins cannot kill. Circumstances and reasons do not matter. If the act of killing is evil, then there are no possible justifications a paladin can present in which killing is not evil, which means that the first time a paladin swings his sword, he falls.

The exception that proves the rule is actually the paladin class itself: a martial class which is granted a whole slew of abilities based around killing evil creatures that is expected to be able to use those abilities.

So, what conclusion should we reach, really?

Edit: I'm getting a little tired of this discussion. Unless someone presents something particularly interesting, my only future responses to this thread will be "but you said killing is evil. Paladin falls".

Well no act is inherently X/Y from the start. It matters what it more closely relates to. Otherwise the game simply cannot function because you would need to map out the alignment of every possible thing you could do, which would be dumb.

Hurting, oppressing, killing? Evil.
Altruism, protecting life, respecting sentient beings? Good.

An act that falls into both of these categories would be Neutral. Which is why I said before, and will say so again. If a Paladin is killing the orc for a literally good reason such as to protect someone, the act is both good and evil and thus Neutral. If the Paladin is killing the orc to take his stuff, the act lacks good but has evil and is thus evil (bad Paladin, bad!).

Neutral is a thing. Generally speaking, everytime a Paladin kills something it should probably be Neutral. But killing badguys doesn't make you good, but Paladins probably do a lot of stuff that doesn't directly involve swinging their sword that'll keep them on the bright-side of the gradient.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
DominusMegadeus wrote:

The way I have to assume he runs Paladins from what I've read in this thread, they're exactly the kind of stick in the mud, PvP-waiting-to-happen boy scouts that people cry all day about. Completely adventure-incapable unless the whole party is Paladins.

Assume no longer.

Having played a paladin in a Nearyn-run game, I can say that is not the case.

Scarab Sages

Chemlak wrote:

If killing is an evil act, then paladins cannot kill. Circumstances and reasons do not matter. If the act of killing is evil, then there are no possible justifications a paladin can present in which killing is not evil, which means that the first time a paladin swings his sword, he falls.

The exception that proves the rule is actually the paladin class itself: a martial class which is granted a whole slew of abilities based around killing evil creatures that is expected to be able to use those abilities.

So, what conclusion should we reach, really?

Edit: I'm getting a little tired of this discussion. Unless someone presents something particularly interesting, my only future responses to this thread will be "but you said killing is evil. Paladin falls".

You seem to be under the impression that wielding a weapon and killing are the same thing. Not only are there plenty of ways in which a Paladin can use his martial proficiencies to subdue his enemies (Merciful is a GREAT weapon enhancement, btw), but there are still plenty of creatures that are pure evil that can be the target of his righteous fury. You're acting like a Paladin can't harm undead, but considering they're predominantly mindless abominations (as are a lot of the creatures adventurers face), there is PLENTY of reason for a Paladin to be trained in combat. Undead, aberrations, evil outsiders, evil dragons, and other evil fantastic creatures might all feel the sting of justice (though even then, the Paladin should exercise caution with sentient creatures). As I've mentioned before, these kinds of creatures serve a distinct purpose: not only as clear enemies, but as literary fodder for our heroic cannons.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nearyn wrote:

@Wraithstrike:

A dev statement is not going to change what the book actually says. I tend to read dev statements with great interest, but the book is the book. The devs have varying opinions on certain topics, and them "clarifying something", while interesting, does not make me unable to read for myself.

Official Errata is different.

wraithstrike wrote:
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.

Accept the surrender, yes.

Turn the person in every time, no. I can imagine cases where turning the person in is not possible, or taking the time out to do so would entail greater harm coming to others. I don't mind a paladin passing judgement on evil-doers either, as they're supposed to punish those who harm the innocent. But that does not excuse them for willfully committing evil acts. Turning the guy in is preferable, although it is not necessarily smart, satisfying or convenient.

Sorry I didn't answer your question before, it appears I misunderstood it.

-Nearyn

It is fine. I figured that was the case since you were making an effort to give an answer.

While I see your answer I still disagree. At some point a person/creature is nothing but a disease(for lack of a better term) that has to be dealt with because nothing good can be gained from keeping them around. Making the world a better place by removing this "disease" is not an evil act IMO.

As for not agreeing with the devs I don't know if you are disagreeing with their intentions(for what is evil), assuming they chimed in, or would be saying their words(written in the book) does not match their intent?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
Chemlak wrote:

If killing is an evil act, then paladins cannot kill. Circumstances and reasons do not matter. If the act of killing is evil, then there are no possible justifications a paladin can present in which killing is not evil, which means that the first time a paladin swings his sword, he falls.

The exception that proves the rule is actually the paladin class itself: a martial class which is granted a whole slew of abilities based around killing evil creatures that is expected to be able to use those abilities.

So, what conclusion should we reach, really?

Edit: I'm getting a little tired of this discussion. Unless someone presents something particularly interesting, my only future responses to this thread will be "but you said killing is evil. Paladin falls".

Well no act is inherently X/Y from the start. It matters what it more closely relates to. Otherwise the game simply cannot function because you would need to map out the alignment of every possible thing you could do, which would be dumb.

Hurting, oppressing, killing? Evil.
Altruism, protecting life, respecting sentient beings? Good.

An act that falls into both of these categories would be Neutral. Which is why I said before, and will say so again. If a Paladin is killing the orc for a literally good reason such as to protect someone, the act is both good and evil and thus Neutral. If the Paladin is killing the orc to take his stuff, the act lacks good but has evil and is thus evil (bad Paladin, bad!).

Neutral is a thing. Generally speaking, everytime a Paladin kills something it should probably be Neutral. But killing badguys doesn't make you good, but Paladins probably do a lot of stuff that doesn't directly involve swinging their sword that'll keep them on the bright-side of the gradient.

No act should be evil from the start, but the game's alignment system does not really work that well. Otherwise creating undead to farm a field to feed a village would not be an evil act. I know you are going to say the devs are wrong, but for the purpose of intent they would say it is still evil.

Because of this I think people should differentiate between "What makes sense", and what Paizo intended to be evil so nobody is taking past another person.

PS: For my own games I give more leeway, but that is different than what is intended to be evil.
In an actual game I agree with you Ashiel that every action has to be judged according to the circumstances in which it is committed. <---It just makes more sense to run the game that way.

Scarab Sages

Nearyn wrote:
Incidentally, I tend to feel bad about killing insects, EXCEPT mosquitos... because f**k mosquitos. Disturb my sleep at your own peril.

Nobody ever has sympathy for mosquitoes. :(

Sure they're the deadliest creatures known to man, but mosquitoes are very important pollinators. And it's not their fault their so deadly, they have parasites.


Ashiel wrote:
Neutral is a thing. Generally speaking, everytime a Paladin kills something it should probably be Neutral. But killing badguys doesn't make you good, but Paladins probably do a lot of stuff that doesn't directly involve swinging their sword that'll keep them on the bright-side of the gradient.

Except killing pure evil (Evil outsiders, Evil aberrations, Evil Undead) is a definitively good act because the solar's say so. Angels wage war on these creatures and are physically incapable of remaining angels if they commit evil acts. Therefor we can conclude that pure evil exists and killing them is a good act.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Undone wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Neutral is a thing. Generally speaking, everytime a Paladin kills something it should probably be Neutral. But killing badguys doesn't make you good, but Paladins probably do a lot of stuff that doesn't directly involve swinging their sword that'll keep them on the bright-side of the gradient.
Except killing pure evil (Evil outsiders, Evil aberrations, Evil Undead) is a definitively good act because the solar's say so. Angels wage war on these creatures and are physically incapable of remaining angels if they commit evil acts. Therefor we can conclude that pure evil exists and killing them is a good act.

Not sure what you're talking about exactly. Creatures with alignment subtypes can in fact switch entire alignments without jumping ship (fallen angels, risen demons, etc). I'm not sure if you're talking about something Golarion specific, but nothing you've said is contrary to what I said (angels trying to make the multiverse a safer place by risking not only their lives but their souls themselves is far beyond angels killing evil monsters to take their stuff).

And I'm pretty sure few would agree killing some of the fiends in Wrath of the Righteous would at the very least be tragically ignorant if not outright evil.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
And I'm pretty sure few would agree killing some of the fiends in Wrath of the Righteous would at the very least be tragically ignorant if not outright evil.

To be completely honest the whole redeeming evil outsiders is mostly fan service considering that the method of creating an evil outsider is the coalescence of evil souls they are literally evil incarnate. Pathfinder has a very white and black morality when it comes to Evil vs Good in terms of outsiders.

Killing evil outsiders is according to the gods intrinsically good based on the gods themselves.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:

No act should be evil from the start, but the game's alignment system does not really work that well. Otherwise creating undead to farm a field to feed a village would not be an evil act. I know you are going to say the devs are wrong, but for the purpose of intent they would say it is still evil.

Because of this I think people should differentiate between "What makes sense", and what Paizo intended to be evil so nobody is taking past another person.

Wraithstrike...I had a conversation on these very boards with Sean K. Reynolds and James Jacobs a few years ago. During this conversation, SKR laid out a scenario. In this scenario the following things were true.

1. There is a spell that is a panacea (cures anything) but requires you to sacrifice an innocent life to cast (think death knell or something).
2. There is an evil villain who created a scroll of said spell, presumably requiring him to off a kid in the creation process (not actually how item creation works either but I'll roll with the hypothetical).
3. There is a child that is unassociated with these events. This child is dying (of Lukemia or something), and the PCs know of this child in town and for whatever reason cannot cure him themselves.
4. The PCs defeat the evil villain and loot his stuff. In said stuff they find the already created scroll and one of the PCs in the party can cast it.

SKR said that to do anything other than destroy the scroll would be evil, including curing the child, even though that factually the scroll would be destroyed in the process of casting it (that's how magic scrolls work. Thus preventing anyone from scribing said scroll while also saving the life of a child and at least allowing the sacrificed child's death to have some meaning rather than being a total waste).

I have given 0 shits as to what the devs have to say about "intent" since then. Especially since prior to 3.5 all of that stuff was nonsense anyway (mindless creatures like undead were neutral; even JJ said that if they're mindless they should be neutral and said he petitioned to either have them returned to Neutral or given an Int score in PF, but backwards compatibility).

Like Nearyn, the rules do not say X and so X is not true within the rules. I also find it hilariously tragic that the people who frequently say "alignment doesn't work" are also the ones who add to what is not already there in the rules and they themselves fabricate the very problems that they care complaining about.

Why is it that you say "No act should be evil from the start, but the game's alignment system does not really work that well", which is not supported by the rules of the game (the only rules otherwise are Golarion-specific), when both Nearyn and I simply go by what the rules actually say and no more and we find the system works well and we have none of these issues that people are claiming with the alignment system.

Quote:

PS: For my own games I give more leeway, but that is different than what is intended to be evil.

In an actual game I agree with you Ashiel that every action has to be judged according to the circumstances in which it is committed. <---It just makes more sense to run the game that way.

And that's why this argument is so bizarre in the first place. You have to deviate from the rules for this nonsense to happen. What you are saying is literally what is in the core rules. The alignment section of the core rules ever once ascribes an alignment to any action but goes into great detail talking about acting in accordance with alignments and defines what is associated with those alignments.

The rules do not say that casting summon monster [Good] is actually being good. What it does entail is that all mechanical effects of that spell are as if they were good-aligned (which means you sense the spell with detect good, can be protected from it with magic circle against good, can dispel it with dispel good, it bypasses DR/good, etc).

What the rules say is that acting in accordance with goodness (altruism, protecting life, etc) is in keeping with goodness, while hurting, oppressing, or killing others is in keeping with evil. So if a neutral summoner calls a creature from a [Good] plane to shake down some dude for his wallet, you know exactly what alignment he is in keeping with doing so (and if he makes a trend of it, he'll match that alignment more fully).

In the same vein, if you animated a bunch of mindless skeletons to help villagers plow fields and do farmwork, you're going to have a lot of magic running about that pings on the Paladin's radar but alignment only cares about how you are acting.

The rules don't even imply that this isn't expected because the rules literally say that you can be an alignment while being treated mechanically as a different alignment, such as with creatures with aligned subtypes which are explicitly allowed to be an alignment other than their subtype, but they are still treated mechanically as their subtype alignment(s).

So the rules make 0% statements that X is true, and have examples in the rules that would imply that X being false would be more consistent with the rules.

But we can take "dev intent" and try to pretend that's the rules, and we can have all these stupid problems, and we can go back to arguing over whether or not Paladins fall for killing orcs and which acts in the virtually infinite possible acts in a roleplaying game are evil or not, etc.

Or we could just play the damn game as written and ignore the commentary of people who have effectively disqualified themselves as someone that even grasps good and evil conceptually (and possibly disqualified themselves for sanity, but that's just my opinion, not an demonstrable fact. Merely that anyone who would insist that SKR's example makes sense is someone I want to stay the hell away from, keep children from, not interact with unless I have the protection of a weapon and/or bullet glass, and generally hope never makes any decisions that influence the quality of my life or anyone elses).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Undone wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
And I'm pretty sure few would agree killing some of the fiends in Wrath of the Righteous would at the very least be tragically ignorant if not outright evil.
To be completely honest the whole redeeming evil outsiders is mostly fan service considering that the method of creating an evil outsider is the coalescence of evil souls they are literally evil incarnate. Pathfinder has a very white and black morality when it comes to Evil vs Good in terms of outsiders.

If souls weren't capable of changing their alignments they wouldn't be in hell (or the abyss, or abaddon) in the first place. Any sentient creature is capable of changing alignment (the rules even said so).

Just as a being of good-incarnate can become evil, so too can a creature of evil-incarnate become good. That's the epic right there, where the lesson is learned. No creature or being is outside of good and evil and the choices you make are important. It by nature is a word of warning to the good to not get too comfortable and a promise that there is always hope.

Quote:
Killing evil outsiders is according to the gods intrinsically good based on the gods themselves.

Gods do not determine alignment, they are subjected to it. Also, if you're talking Golarion-specific, I've got bad news for you...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Davor wrote:
You seem to be under the impression that wielding a weapon and killing are the same thing. Not only are there plenty of ways in which a Paladin can use his martial proficiencies to subdue his enemies (Merciful is a GREAT weapon enhancement, btw)

Dear god it is such a great enhancement. It's just strait up better than all the elemental weapon enhancements almost all of the time and even has the side benefit of letting you go nuts during combat and not worry about slaying your foes' charmed/dominated minions and such. You even get to skip the "speak with dead" phase of interrogation and go strait to the "charm person/monster" phase instead!


So in summary.

If you choose to play a paladin in a game with N., you must play lawful stupid, as that is the one and only "way" accepted by N when he DMs.

By the way many different and equally valid other ways exist to play a paladin....


5 people marked this as a favorite.
KenderKin wrote:

So in summary.

If you choose to play a paladin in a game with N., you must play lawful stupid, as that is the one and only "way" accepted by N when he DMs.

By the way many different and equally valid other ways exist to play a paladin....

*woosh*


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@KenderKin

Yes. This is the case. Definitely. No doubt. Never mind the player accounts from myself and the one guy who actually played a paladin in Nearyn's campaign. You are infinitely right, and we are stupid to even think that our actual experience over years of gaming would hold any significance.

Why yes, many ways exist to play paladins. They can do morally grey things like releasing pit fiends in return for information that'll save a village, they can buy sexual services, they can turn a blind eye on petty theft. They can certainly spend 24 hours in an efreeti's palace on the elemental plane of fire because the party bard had a gig there, and not attack any of the numerous evil creatures present until a succubus starts threatening with harming innocent slaves. They can make rowdy jokes when one female party member is making suggestive eyebrows at another female party member at the morning table. They can even trash lovingly crafted snowmen...


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Thymus Vulgaris wrote:

@KenderKin

Yes. This is the case. Definitely. No doubt. Never mind the player accounts from myself and the one guy who actually played a paladin in Nearyn's campaign. You are infinitely right, and we are stupid to even think that our actual experience over years of gaming would hold any significance.

Why yes, many ways exist to play paladins. They can do morally grey things like releasing pit fiends in return for information that'll save a village, they can buy sexual services, they can turn a blind eye on petty theft. They can certainly spend 24 hours in an efreeti's palace on the elemental plane of fire because the party bard had a gig there, and not attack any of the numerous evil creatures present until a succubus starts threatening with harming innocent slaves. They can make rowdy jokes when one female party member is making suggestive eyebrows at another female party member at the morning table. They can even trash lovingly crafted snowmen...

But if Hitler surrenders, they can't kill him.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
DominusMegadeus wrote:
Thymus Vulgaris wrote:

@KenderKin

Yes. This is the case. Definitely. No doubt. Never mind the player accounts from myself and the one guy who actually played a paladin in Nearyn's campaign. You are infinitely right, and we are stupid to even think that our actual experience over years of gaming would hold any significance.

Why yes, many ways exist to play paladins. They can do morally grey things like releasing pit fiends in return for information that'll save a village, they can buy sexual services, they can turn a blind eye on petty theft. They can certainly spend 24 hours in an efreeti's palace on the elemental plane of fire because the party bard had a gig there, and not attack any of the numerous evil creatures present until a succubus starts threatening with harming innocent slaves. They can make rowdy jokes when one female party member is making suggestive eyebrows at another female party member at the morning table. They can even trash lovingly crafted snowmen...

But if Hitler surrenders, they can't kill him.

*nyoom*


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

No act should be evil from the start, but the game's alignment system does not really work that well. Otherwise creating undead to farm a field to feed a village would not be an evil act. I know you are going to say the devs are wrong, but for the purpose of intent they would say it is still evil.

Because of this I think people should differentiate between "What makes sense", and what Paizo intended to be evil so nobody is taking past another person.

Wraithstrike...I had a conversation on these very boards with Sean K. Reynolds and James Jacobs a few years ago. During this conversation, SKR laid out a scenario. In this scenario the following things were true.

1. There is a spell that is a panacea (cures anything) but requires you to sacrifice an innocent life to cast (think death knell or something).
2. There is an evil villain who created a scroll of said spell, presumably requiring him to off a kid in the creation process (not actually how item creation works either but I'll roll with the hypothetical).
3. There is a child that is unassociated with these events. This child is dying (of Lukemia or something), and the PCs know of this child in town and for whatever reason cannot cure him themselves.
4. The PCs defeat the evil villain and loot his stuff. In said stuff they find the already created scroll and one of the PCs in the party can cast it.

SKR said that to do anything other than destroy the scroll would be evil, including curing the child, even though that factually the scroll would be destroyed in the process of casting it (that's how magic scrolls work. Thus preventing anyone from scribing said scroll while also saving the life of a child and at least allowing the sacrificed child's death to have some meaning rather than being a total waste).

I have given 0 s%%%s as to what the devs have to say about "intent" since then. Especially since prior to 3.5 all of that stuff was nonsense anyway (mindless creatures like undead were neutral; even JJ said that if...

Unless I am mistaken you just said the same thing that I did. As an example the paladin using that scroll because it is an evil act would fall, but in either of our games we would likely not make him fall for it.


Davor wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Davor wrote:
Jesus statement is a clarification of the law of Moses, not an alteration.

Tell that to the Canaanites.

Davor wrote:
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.

So bringing this back closer to the OP:

If a paladin is confronting something ISIS-like, he's to let them roast him alive rather put them to the sword lest he fall from grace?

It really sounds to me like that's what you're saying. But don't let me put words in your mouth.

Is that what you're saying?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
Unless I am mistaken you just said the same thing that I did. As an example the paladin using that scroll because it is an evil act would fall, but in either of our games we would likely not make him fall for it.

Oh yes, we certainly agree. I wasn't implying otherwise. But you mentioned that some devs chimed in with "intent" and I explained why I don't give a dire rat's backside as to what the intent of some of the devs were.

1. The rules say X, not Y. The rules produce usable results.
2. Dev says Y, not X. His intent produces insanity.

WTF would anyone in their right minds choose to think that 2 is correct but then promptly ignore it because it is insane, when RAW it doesn't work that way (so it's not even a case of insane RAW being ignored).

Heck, the devs that worked on PF didn't even have anything to do with alignment. It's lifted whole-cart from 3.5, and I'm not aware of Skip Williams, Monte Cook, or Jonathan Tweet being on the Paizo development team during Pathfinder's creation, so one cannot even argue word of god.

This isn't targeted at anyone specifically. More of a rant about watching something that seems completely irrational unfolding before my eyes and I cannot fathom the line of reasoning that it takes to reach this conclusion as it requires one to A) ignore the rules, B) forget the original designers, C) accept it without just cause and then complain about it because it doesn't work.

Mind = blown.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.

This week's paladin alignment thread folks. Enjoy!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Unless I am mistaken you just said the same thing that I did. As an example the paladin using that scroll because it is an evil act would fall, but in either of our games we would likely not make him fall for it.

Oh yes, we certainly agree. I wasn't implying otherwise. But you mentioned that some devs chimed in with "intent" and I explained why I don't give a dire rat's backside as to what the intent of some of the devs were.

1. The rules say X, not Y. The rules produce usable results.
2. Dev says Y, not X. His intent produces insanity.

<2 thumbs up> :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
As for not agreeing with the devs I don't know if you are disagreeing with their intentions(for what is evil), assuming they chimed in, or would be saying their words(written in the book) does not match their intent?

Ah! let me clarify.

What I mean to say, is that if a dev was to drop into this thread and say "No Nearyn, I'm afraid you've misunderstood - our intent was that <explanation>" then I'd say "Okay, thank you for clarifying that. That is not what the book says though. I will consider whether running things by your clarification would improve the game for my players. If not, I'll just continue to run it as written".

Do you feel you got your question answered, wraithstrike?

-Nearyn


To be fair with the scroll example I would only fall the paladin if he personally administered it. If anyone else did I would not fall him. He's not responsible for stopping all evil. Especially evil which has a good end.


Undone wrote:
To be fair with the scroll example I would only fall the paladin if he personally administered it. If anyone else did I would not fall him. He's not responsible for stopping all evil. Especially evil which has a good end.

Personally, I'm kind of fond of the idea that some kinds of magic are inherently evil or corrupting - necromancy, demon/devil summoning, etc. If I was using that concept in the scroll example, I would have the paladin, but I'd describe it that way "You feel the evil magic tainting you as a read the words and your connection to the goddess fading." Atonement would be more of a ritual cleansing in this case.

Mostly though, I'd avoid setting up nasty traps like that without warning the players up front that it was that kind of game. :)
I'm also kind of fond of the trope of the hero damning themselves to save others, but that's not a good game for simplistic paladins.

Scarab Sages

Quark Blast wrote:
Davor wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Davor wrote:
Jesus statement is a clarification of the law of Moses, not an alteration.

Tell that to the Canaanites.

Davor wrote:
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.

So bringing this back closer to the OP:

If a paladin is confronting something ISIS-like, he's to let them roast him alive rather put them to the sword lest he fall from grace?

It really sounds to me like that's what you're saying. But don't let me put words in your mouth.

Is that what you're saying?

lol. No, it's not what I'm saying. The entire point of the teaching is that retributive "justice" is not good. Claiming the life of a murderer is equal, but not righteous. A Paladin, someone whose powers have been granted to him as a Paragon of Goodness, in the event that he needed to stop them, or protect others, could use non-lethal damage to subdue his attackers, or combat maneuvers to prevent them from harming innocents. Against humanoid enemies, nonlethal damage is just as good (and sometimes better) than lethal damage, assuming you have a means to deal it effectively.

I say that, however, because this is a fantasy world, and there are aspects of the world that are different than that of the real world. It's clear, in this world, that one can be good, and take good action, by defending others with physical force. However, as a Paragon of Goodness, the Paladin must always strive to uphold the inherent value of life.

Also... why couldn't the Paladin just run from his assailants? Or use one of his many spells to temporarily blind or subdue them while he makes his getaway. There's no reason he should just needlessly fall on his own sword, as it were.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel like these need reposting

Good is not Soft
Good is not Nice


The Witch wrote:

You're so nice

You're not Good
You're not Bad
You're just nice
I'm not Good
I'm not nice
I'm just right.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:

I feel like these need reposting

Good is not Soft
Good is not Nice

Posting links to TVTropes is an evil act. You fall.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

But TV tropes is the most valid source of information on the internet!
What shall we do without TV Tropes? If TV Tropes is evil, then I shall become a priest of TV Tropian belief.
Clearly Nearyn is Four Eyes No Soul and Beard Of Evil.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Undone wrote:
To be fair with the scroll example I would only fall the paladin if he personally administered it. If anyone else did I would not fall him. He's not responsible for stopping all evil. Especially evil which has a good end.

I wouldn't even do that. I'll go you one better. If a Paladin used the resolution path Jack Harkness at the end of the Torchwood series "Children of Earth", I still wouldn't fall him. Living with the consequences of his actions, the scorn he'd get from those closest to him, and his failure to save the one life would be punishment enough.

Can you folks even comprehend the idea that there may be more than on way to deal with a Paladin either than praise or fall him? Even if the bloody rulebook doesn't hold you by the hand and lead you to it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Undone wrote:
Claxon wrote:

I feel like these need reposting

Good is not Soft
Good is not Nice

Posting links to TVTropes is an evil act. You fall.

But I'm a barbarian

Paizo Glitterati Robot

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Locking. We seriously don't need another toxic insult laden alignment thread, and some of posters in this thread know better.

301 to 346 of 346 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Execution or Murder ? All Messageboards
Recent threads in General Discussion