| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And then leave. Because you don't endorse their acts by profiting from them after a limp-wristed attempt at stopping them.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is one of those things that sounds great in theory, but in practice is nonsense. There's a reason the law doesn't obligate you to render aid to someone in mortal peril (outside a handful of exceptions).
Your quoting modern american law to handle a situation where a beings mandate IS to "render aid to someone in mortal peril" and that mandate is given and enforced by that beings GOD/GODDESS. Something that in no way happens in the real world.
A paladin acts. It is the reason they exist. They cannot blow smoke up their deities ass because the situation makes the player uncomfortable or they player wants to take the expedient way out.
Their deity will know the truth and will strip them of their powers for trying to b*~%%%@% them and for not doing their job and for knowingly allow evil acts that they can prevent to occur.
That said, GM's should not really be putting paladin players into no win situations. It is not fun or fair and this game is designed in most senses to be both.
Unless the campaign has been specified from the start to have the possibility and then that player knew what he was in for.
But walking away is not the answer in character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Forcing a paladin to act when it is clearly not in the greater interest of Good to do so is Lawful Stupid, and is textbook DM railroading of a paladin. He may as well just hand you his character sheet and let you play him if you're going to be that dumb about a paladin's code, while he makes up a Neutral Good ranger who can actually play like a hero.
Eesh.
==Aelryinth
This is one of those things that sounds great in theory, but in practice is nonsense. There's a reason the law doesn't obligate you to render aid to someone in mortal peril (outside a handful of exceptions).Your quoting modern american law to handle a situation where a beings mandate IS to "render aid to someone in mortal peril" and that mandate is given and enforced by that beings GOD/GODDESS. Something that in no way happens in the real world.
A paladin acts. It is the reason they exist. They cannot blow smoke up their deities ass because the situation makes the player uncomfortable or they player wants to take the expedient way out.
Their deity will know the truth and will strip them of their powers for trying to b+#*!~~+ them and for not doing their job and for knowingly allow evil acts that they can prevent to occur.
That said, GM's should not really be putting paladin players into no win situations. It is not fun or fair and this game is designed in most senses to be both.
Unless the campaign has been specified from the start to have the possibility and then that player knew what he was in for.
But walking away is not the answer in character.
Nothing in your argument is actually in the code. And you do know that Paladins don't have to have deities right? I will await a better argument since this one isn't valid.
And then leave. Because you don't endorse their acts by profiting from them after a limp-wristed attempt at stopping them.
==Aelryinth
Electing to not profit from past evils isn't the good thing to do. It's the stupid thing to do.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is one of those things that sounds great in theory, but in practice is nonsense. There's a reason the law doesn't obligate you to render aid to someone in mortal peril (outside a handful of exceptions). If you were to try to apply that statement, practically everyone is on the side of the oppressors and the greatest tyranny of all would be that thought process forcing people to always side against oppressors or be labeled one themselves.
You're entirely ignoring context here. You're right, random people aren't obligated to risk their life for others. Hell, making a law that forces all people to aid others is a terrible idea on a dozen levels. But even legally, some people (mostly health care professionals) in some places (several US states, for example) are, in fact, obligated to help others in need.
But more importantly, morality and law don't operate by exactly the same principles. Someone can have a moral responsibility to do something they do not and should not have a legal responsibility to do.
And I find, in real life mind you, the idea that, when it costs you nothing and risks nothing to stop it, if you allow some atrocity to occur, that your hands are somehow morally clean because you didn't do it yourself to be so utterly morally abhorrent I have no words.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder how a paladin that is quickly ready to dampen his beliefs in goodness and justice buy turning eyes away was bestowed magical powers by the deities of good.
The paladin is all about the right choice, not the easy one
Nothing in your argument is actually in the code. And you do know that Paladins don't have to have deities right? I will await a better argument since this one isn't valid.
I would say the summary of the Paladin class would support my statements. Whilst I made the mistake of posting gods/godesses and not including "general good" as well, there are MANY game settings where deity worship IS required (I am not 100% sure but I think Golarion is even one of them).
Through a select, worthy few shines the power of the divine. Called paladins, these noble souls dedicate their swords and lives to the battle against evil. Knights, crusaders, and law-bringers, paladins seek not just to spread divine justice but to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve. In pursuit of their lofty goals, they adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline. As reward for their righteousness, these holy champions are blessed with boons to aid them in their quests: powers to banish evil, heal the innocent, and inspire the faithful. Although their convictions might lead them into conflict with the very souls they would save, paladins weather endless challenges of faith and dark temptations, risking their lives to do right and fighting to bring about a brighter future.
Now I totally agree that forcing players into stupid no win situations is uncool, especially if they chose to play a paladin who has such a strict code to follow. Then again most players can follow that code easily with proper RP if given a chance. But moral quandaries are part and parcel of RPing anything, let alone a Paladin, IMO and one of the things that makes them cool to play.
But again, if you have a Paladin-griefing GM then your getting treated unfairly.
(I am not 100% sure but I think Golarion is even one of them).Just for the record, it is not. Most Paladins in Golarion have a deity, but only Clerics (of all Classes) are actually required to.
Thank you Deadmanwalking. I believe my argument still holds water though. :)
Paladins are paragons of good, justice, honesty and fairness. Twisting the moral code in order to accomplish questionable actions without breaking the letter defeats the entire purpose. And this is without bringing deities in the fray. Still they get divine powers that by definition are bestowed.
|
|
Still they get divine powers that by definition are bestowed.
This is true, but per Golarion at least, they get them more like Druids than like Clerics.
Druids gain their power from the impersonal force of nature itself rather than a discrete being like Clerics do. Paladins are more like the Druid, gaining their power from the impersonal force that governs alignment. They're primarily powered by their own righteousness.
Which make it all the more important that they not commit moral wrongdoing, actually.
Paladins are paragons of good, justice, honesty and fairness. Twisting the moral code in order to accomplish questionable actions without breaking the letter defeats the entire purpose. And this is without bringing deities in the fray. Still they get divine powers that by definition are bestowed.
Agreed. I would go so far as to state that Anzyr's examples are definitively amoral, something I believe simply does not work for Paladins.
Paladins are not stupid but they also are not ones to take the easy road instead of the right one. That means they oppose what they can oppose with a chance of winning and work towards opposing what they cannot yet win against to perhaps make it right when they can.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is one of those things that sounds great in theory, but in practice is nonsense. There's a reason the law doesn't obligate you to render aid to someone in mortal peril (outside a handful of exceptions).
A paladin would fall into those exceptions, just like a police officer cannot continue on his way and ignore violent crime or a traffic collision he sees, even when off duty. He would not be criminally liable, but he could be suspended, which is the equivalent of a Paladin having to atone.
If you were to try to apply that statement, practically everyone is on the side of the oppressors and the greatest tyranny of all would be that thought process forcing people to always side against oppressors or be labeled one themselves.
Yes. In fact many people feel this way in real life as well. It is a perfectly valid moral viewpoint. And most heroes from Andoran probably subscribe to this viewpoint.
People who hold this belief think: since most laws are made by the powerful to benefit themselves, and violence is used to enforce those laws. Therefore living your life for yourself or just your children is, in effect, turning a blind eye to the suffering around you. And just as bad as the Paladin who turns a blind eye when he knows his party is going to do something evil. Therefore civil disobedience is good, and even violence is not automatically evil because violence is already used daily to maintain the status quo, so it would be hypocritical to denounce violence used to fight the status quo. As an Andoran-style activist recently said "I don't have to condone it to understand it"
A paladin might subscribe to keeping the status quo, however. It is a balance of Order vs Justice (Good). Andorans would think Paladins care about Order more than Good, saying "can't you see the harm you cause by letting the status quo stand?" and the Paladin would say "I think greater good is served by not starting revolutions everywhere"
And I suspect in the Hell's Rebels AP we will see Paladins on both sides.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Reading through this thread I'm convinced that Anzyr has completely missed the point of being a paladin. It's like what my GM told me when I first rolled one up.
You aren't good because you are a Paladin, you are a Paladin because you are good.
What he was saying was that just because someone is a paladin doesn't make everything they do right, they don't have the code because they are a paladin. They don't go charging into hell, fighting slavery and injustice because they are a paladin. They do it because they are a good person, they're the kind of people who would do it even if they weren't a paladin. Which is why they are.
A paladin can be an a@+@$*#, they can be jerks and dicks, they can be as arrogant and stuck up as anyone. But at the heart of it you would be hard pressed to find another soul who cares as deeply about their fellow man than a paladin.
Can a paladin fall for the acts of others? Only if he/she knowingly can act but chose not to. They don't have to resort to violence, they can talk people over after all. But in the example that the party blows the paladin off and continues to torture someone they have to intervene. Not because their code magically compels them or because they have a god watching them with an itchy trigger finger. But because they could not live with themselves if they let it happen, because they are a good person.
Oh, a Paladin thread. I'll just take a seat.
Yeah, there's currently at least three active right now. What a week.
Eh...if the GM gives a choice like "Kill this baby or the entire nation (and millions of babies) will die!" that's not a real choice, it's a scenario designed to make the players do something Evil. And that's generally what binary choices like this are set up as, and how they play out.
I have literally played in that style of campaign. Big evil demon was plotting to overthrow the world with a legend that one person was destined to stop it. Turned out that the one person was an infant. In order to stop the demon, we had to feed the infant to it - this diminished its power enough to where our characters could defeat it.
And this style of game wasn't known to us untill we got to around 4th level.
There's a reason no one ever played Paladins at that table. The GM loved putting Paladins in situations where they would be forced to fall no matter what decision they made.
There's also a reason why I don't play at that table anymore.
Through a select, worthy few shines the power of the divine. Called paladins, these noble souls dedicate their swords and lives to the battle against evil. Knights, crusaders, and law-bringers, paladins seek not just to spread divine justice but to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve. In pursuit of their lofty goals, they adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline. As reward for their righteousness, these holy champions are blessed with boons to aid them in their quests: powers to banish evil, heal the innocent, and inspire the faithful. Although their convictions might lead them into conflict with the very souls they would save, paladins weather endless challenges of faith and dark temptations, risking their lives to do right and fighting to bring about a brighter future.
Uh... none of that is rules text. Let me get the right list for you:
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.
I don't see anything there that says a Paladin cannot associate with Good/Neutral people who perform Evil acts (provided it isn't "consistent"). I see nothing that requires a Paladin to physically fight every evil they encounter (at best you can say "help those in need", but by trying to talk to their allies the Paladin meets this part of the code).
You're entirely ignoring context here. You're right, random people aren't obligated to risk their life for others. Hell, making a law that forces all people to aid others is a terrible idea on a dozen levels. But even legally, some people (mostly health care professionals) in some places (several US states, for example) are, in fact, obligated to help others in need.
But more importantly, morality and law don't operate by exactly the same principles. Someone can have a moral responsibility to do something they do not and should not have a legal responsibility to do.
I'm not ignoring the context. Those people that are legally required to act have a duty to do so. But the Paladin's code provides no such duty. Therefore, unlike those professionals a Paladin is not obligated to act. Someone can have moral responsibility, but not a legal one, however based on the Paladin's code they have neither.
Seriously lay off Paladins. Don't go adding your feelings to the code.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thread #987664209 that should be titles "Why I'll never play a Paladin with a GM I haven't personally known for years. Specially not in an online game.".
Now, back to the old routine of hiding all alignment/Paladin threads and moving on...
Actually #987664210 but who's counting
|
|
Uh... none of that is rules text. Let me get the right list for you:
Okay, let's examine the rules text.
I don't see anything there that says a Paladin cannot associate with Good/Neutral people who perform Evil acts (provided it isn't "consistent").
You don't, huh?
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.
The bolded sections seem to strongly disagree with you. Besides which, you're trying to weasel around the Code's clear intent with exact wording issues. And that's just about the most inappropriate thing ever to do with a Paladin's Code.
I see nothing that requires a Paladin to physically fight every evil they encounter (at best you can say "help those in need", but by trying to talk to their allies the Paladin meets this part of the code).
There isn't anything that requires that. But nobody's saying that. They're saying that you have to do so when doing so risks nothing.
I'm not ignoring the context. Those people that are legally required to act have a duty to do so. But the Paladin's code provides no such duty. Therefore, unlike those professionals a Paladin is not obligated to act. Someone can have moral responsibility, but not a legal one, however based on the Paladin's code they have neither.
Actually, they do. By being Lawful Good. Let me quote the Alignment rules at you, since you demand rules text:
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
So, yeah, doing this is a strong moral obligation of Good characters in general. The Paladin, needing to be Good, has a stronger obligation than many, and can easily have his Class Abilities effected negatively by this behavior.
Act with honor? There's nothing dishonorable here.
I actually mentioned that they can unless the evil acts are "consistent". One torture session is not "consistent". And I covered that the Paladin has in fact rendered aid to "those in need". Please fully read the posts your responding to.
The bolded sections do not even in a very broad interpretation require the Paladin to physically fight evil or fight every evil they encounter. Full stop. Until you can find some evidence that shows otherwise I would discontinue this line of argument.
The Paladin does risk something in this situation. They risk conflict with their party members, which means loss of help to fight Evil and if they physically conflict with party members they risk not being able to fight Evil later. Seems risky. And stupid.
Good characters do make personal sacrifices to help others. But they are not required to do that all the time. Because again, good should not have to be stupid.
|
|
Act with honor? There's nothing dishonorable here.
You don't consider torture, or allowing it, dishonorable? Because I do, and you almost certainly should.
I actually mentioned that they can unless the evil acts are "consistent". One torture session is not "consistent". And I covered that the Paladin has in fact rendered aid to "those in need". Please fully read the posts your responding to.
I did. I disagree with your interpretations. As mentioned they're legalistic and based on loopholes in specific wording. which is pretty much b~~#%#*@ as applied to a Paladin's Code.
The bolded sections do not even in a very broad interpretation require the Paladin to physically fight evil or fight every evil they encounter. Full stop. Until you can find some evidence that shows otherwise I would discontinue this line of argument.
Why don't you actually read the posts you respond to? Nobody is saying this.
The Paladin does risk something in this situation. They risk conflict with their party members, which means loss of help to fight Evil
If the party refuse to work with people who won't let them commit war crimes, these are not people who a Paladin should be working with.
and if they physically conflict with party members they risk not being able to fight Evil later.
If they're people who will commit murder in order to protect their 'right' to commit war crimes they're even more people the Paladin shouldn't be working with. And barring being killed, the Paladin will be fine almost immediately after the fight (self-healing is amazing).
Seems risky. And stupid.
It risks nothing unless the Paladin is working with people who should have 'Evil' listed under their Alignment, because people who refuse to work with someone or attack them over not being allowed to commit war crimes? Those people are Evil.
Good characters do make personal sacrifices to help others. But they are not required to do that all the time. Because again, good should not have to be stupid.
Actually having to put effort into not being an accomplice to war crimes is not unnecessarily restrictive or requiring of stupidity.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code
Being married to a criminal defense attorney, and my father being one too (well he switched to be a prosecutor eventually) I have heard all these moral codes and procedures for what to do my whole life. I would expect most Paladin orders have their rules just as nailed down precisely to avoid confusion about what to do.
Again in modern times we can look at police and attorneys: they may not really care if you use drugs, but they don't want you to do it in front of them, nor do they want you to commit other serious crimes in front of them. Because if they don't report you then they could lose their jobs, or for attorneys be disbarred and not practice law again.
The easiest way for them to avoid that is to avoid friends or family who are involved in illegal activities. That way they only run into them at family gatherings, and ignore them the rest of the year. They won't be forced to choose between the code they swore an oath to and their family.
Now, they won't go out of their way to track you and find out what illegal activity you are up to, but you also cannot tell them you are planning a future crime either. This is an important difference that I think applies to Paladins as well. If you go looking for trouble you will find it and drive yourself crazy. But that is not what is required.
For Paladins it is almost exactly the same. Part of the reason to avoid evil people is not only because Paladins may hate evil, but also for self-preservation. If you were constantly forced into ethical conflicts to choose between your friends and family or your oaths and code you've dedicated your life to, that would be an awful circumstance to be in. It would not be "looking the other way" for a Paladin to say "I'm not associating with these people anymore, it is too difficult for me to live up to my code around them due to my conflicts of interest". That is not an evil act if a. you don't know of a specific evil plan for the future and b. there are other moral authorities who are on the lookout for evil and stop it. Which is what we assume of most towns
This is even a very common plot for movies, the brother of a mobster who becomes a police officer and is not corrupted, but eventually must choose. It's so common it boggles the mind someone thinks otherwise and you don't have to choose. Either that or they have no police or attorney relatives.
After all, we are not talking about good, evil, order, chaos, but Paladin codes. And heck even Hellknight codes, and possibly some Cavalier codes. They are all the same: all have committed themselves to an ideal, and will avoid others who don't subscribe at least generally to the majority of those ideals.
The Paladin did not torture. Therefore not dishonorable. The Paladin attempted to prevent the torture, via talking. Therefore not dishonorable. You keep saying I'm making up "the paladin must physically stop evil", but that continues to be what you seem to require of them. Please show where it says this.
Of course they are legalistic. A Paladin is *lawful* good after all. And technically correct is the *best* kind of correct. Ask any lawful person.
You really are saying that Paladins must physically fight evil they encounter implicitly, otherwise the Paladin trying and failing to talk down their allies should count as "rendering aid". Not the Paladins fault it didn't work out.
War crimes? I'm sorry I can't think of a single published campaign that has those.
The Paladin is working with Good people who have made a hard choice. Not Evil people. Remember a Chaotic Good character can intentionally commit genocide without necessarily changing alignments. For proof please see "The Dresden Files".
Again, what are these "War Crimes" you speak of? (And lets be honest, even in our world generally speaking "war crimes" is something only the losing side has to answer for.)
]Torture is a war crime. Though you're right that generally only the losers are punished.
If you're seeing torture as a "hard choice", that's probably the root of the disagreement. Torture is evil. It's the easy choice. Once, you might be able to remain good, if you're exemplary everywhere else. More than that and you're on a fast track to evil. Especially, as Deadmanwalking said, if you're willing to fight and kill your ally the paladin to do so.
Note: Why does making "hard choices" always seem to involve being willing to hurt other people?
Torture is war crime in our world. That is not the case in any published setting. You are imposing our values on a setting that much like early iterations of our own world, does not share those values. Again it's easy for the Paladin to remain Lawful Good, because they 1. Did not torture; and 2. Attempted to prevent it (just not physically).
If the Paladin is willing to fight or kill their allies to stop them, instead of talking, I think the Paladin while not in danger of an alignment change is in danger of being stupid. And it would not be evil for the other PCs to defend themselves (lethally if required) from the Paladin attacking them.
Answer: Because choices where no one needs to get hurt are by definition not hard.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Paladin did not torture. Therefore not dishonorable. The Paladin attempted to prevent the torture, via talking. Therefore not dishonorable. You keep saying I'm making up "the paladin must physically stop evil", but that continues to be what you seem to require of them. Please show where it says this.
I require them to do something meaningful to attempt to stop Evil when they can. Because standing by while Evil is done is not Good.
And again, my point is that, if the Paladin merely threatens to leave permanently or make it a physical confrontation, then, unless the other PCs are Evil, it will never actually become a physical confrontation at all. All the Paladin has to do is say a few words regarding what they'd do, and the confrontation ends with them stopping the torture from happening.
Of course they are legalistic. A Paladin is *lawful* good after all. And technically correct is the *best* kind of correct. Ask any lawful person.
No. They are explicitly Good over being Lawful, as is demonstrated by their Smite Evil and Detect Evil powers, as opposed to Smite chaos and Detect Chaos. And falling for Evil acts but not Chaotic ones.
You really are saying that Paladins must physically fight evil they encounter implicitly, otherwise the Paladin trying and failing to talk down their allies should count as "rendering aid". Not the Paladins fault it didn't work out.
I'm saying that simply saying "No, don't do that." and nothing else does not constitute a meaningful attempt to stop a damn thing. Impassioned pleas followed by standing between the party and their captive and saying "If you do this, our partnership is severed." or "I will die before I see this happen." is also purely social encounter (unless, again, the other PCs are complete bastards a Paladin shouldn't work with anyway), but it's also actually putting something on the line and constitutes a meaningful attempt to stop such a thing from occurring.
War crimes? I'm sorry I can't think of a single published campaign that has those.
In-world? No. I'm mostly talking about things that would be considered war crimes in the real world.
The Paladin is working with Good people who have made a hard choice. Not Evil people.
Torture is almost never a 'hard choice'. It's a terrible way to get information, and thus basically pointless cruelty. There are occasional exceptions, but they're rare as hell and still an Evil act.
Remember a Chaotic Good character can intentionally commit genocide without necessarily changing alignments. For proof please see "The Dresden Files".
I'm pretty sure 'killing all of a universally, provably, evil supernatural monster type' does not morally constitute genocide, and that's basically what went down in the Dresden Files.
I'd allow a Paladin to commit that kind of 'genocide' on, say, all Demons currently alive and not Fall (if they did it the way Harry did, with a ritual sacrifice, they'd fall...but it'd be the method, not the act).
Again, what are these "War Crimes" you speak of?
Torture is the most obvious example...
(And lets be honest, even in our world generally speaking "war crimes" is something only the losing side has to answer for.)
Yeah, but that's a matter of expedience, not morality.
I require them to do what is necessary to stop Evil. Because standing by while Evil is done is not Good.
And again, my point is that, if the Paladin merely threatens to leave permanently or make it a physical confrontation, then, unless the other PCs are Evil, it will never actually become a physical confrontation at all. All the Paladin has to do is say a few words regarding what they'd do, and the confrontation ends with them stopping the torture from happening.
Or the other PCs say "No, we need to do this." Then if the Paladin goes to a physical confrontation, it is not Evil for the other PCs to stop the Paladin (lethally if required). And you basically just admitted you require Paladins to physically stop evil even though that is not required by the code. You have no evidence supporting this assertion.
A single evil act, does not an alignment change make.
And again, most settings don't have war crimes, so bringing them is pretty useless. You might as well apply some other historical value set to them which will result in some humorous situations. Make sure your Paladin's stone adulterers to death!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Electing to not profit from past evils isn't the good thing to do. It's the stupid thing to do.And then leave. Because you don't endorse their acts by profiting from them after a limp-wristed attempt at stopping them.
==Aelryinth
As Evil would loudly have you believe!
==Aelryinth
Disagreed. Your actions in capturing the person were (presumably) not Evil. So if after that some Evil actions happen as a result of that, you are not "abetting" the Evil. Unless you actually assist in the torture. I mean we're talking about campaign setting where medieval stasis has set in. Torture is like a Tuesday there. What do you think all those racks are for?
Note: Why does making "hard choices" always seem to involve being willing to hurt other people?Answer: Because choices where no one needs to get hurt are by definition not hard.It's the "other people" that puzzles me.
Not torturing someone isn't considered a hard choice, even if it puts you more at risk. It's always sacrificing someone else, never the people making the hard choices.
Good is easy. You can fail to protect people and claim "It wouldn't have moral to do X, Y, or Z." Evil can't. If Evil wants to protect people it will succeed at any cost.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While in general I do agree that a single evil action (even torture if the situation is dire enough) don't make alignment changes, and that a paladin should not be punished in a no win situation, I would like to add that twisting the letter of the law and finding loopholes in one's benefit is not LG but LE. Balancer's post above basically nailed the whole issue.
Rule quote?
A single evil act, does not an alignment change make.
Characters also risk having their alignment changed if they continually act in accordance with an alignment other than the one they chose.
Torture is defined IN THE GAME as evil.
'Modern' moral code has nothing to do with it, nor context. Absolutely, torture is an Evil thing to do. It is an Absolute Fact in the game. Arguing moral relativity with the real world is pointless. Good is what it is, and Evil has happily claimed torture as its own. 'Different perspectives' mean NOTHING to the absolutes that are alignments in the game.
Watching your friends and allies commit an Evil action in the face of your objections is going to be a clear indication to ANY paladin that these are not people he should be associating with. Letting them do it and then taking advantage of them doing it is effectively encouraging them to do it again, not providing an example to STOP them.
Eesh.
==Aelryinth
Disagreed. Your actions in capturing the person were (presumably) not Evil. So if after that some Evil actions happen as a result of that, you are not "abetting" the Evil. Unless you actually assist in the torture. I mean we're talking about campaign setting where medieval stasis has set in. Torture is like a Tuesday there. What do you think all those racks are for?If torture isn't evil, then you're obviously right. If torture is evil, then my argument stands.
By your argument the paladin could be capturing enemies and directly turning them over to his allies to torture to get information. As long as he isn't personally doing the torture he's fine.
No, it would be abetting Evil if the Paladin helped capture the person *knowing* their party members planned to torture them. Then yes, the Paladin would be in violation of their code. However, if after the successful capture the other party members agree that torture is required, then the Paladin is not violation of their code. They should as I have stated attempt to render aid by trying to convince the other party members to not torture the captured person, but there is no requirement they physically lend aid to the captured person. Paladin is in adherence to code.
Good is easy. You can fail to protect people and claim "It wouldn't have moral to do X, Y, or Z." Evil can't. If Evil wants to protect people it will succeed at any cost.Note: Why does making "hard choices" always seem to involve being willing to hurt other people?Answer: Because choices where no one needs to get hurt are by definition not hard.It's the "other people" that puzzles me.
Not torturing someone isn't considered a hard choice, even if it puts you more at risk. It's always sacrificing someone else, never the people making the hard choices.
Wow, is this wrong or what?
Good is HARD. Good involves NOT taking the easy way.
Evil involves whatever is most pragmatic and efficient, without caring of the cost to others. Stop a disease by slaughtering the sick? Yeah, that is MUCH easier then caring for them, risk contracting the disease and spreading it, and searching for a cure, spending time, money and people to do so.
Being Good is hard, much harder then being evil. Being Good is 'easy' only if everyone else around you is also good...because if they aren't, they will shamelessly take advantage of you, and you will have to back off being Good just to get by.
That's why Good people flock together...they help one another, everyone profits, hugs and kisses. Introduce one bad apple into that mix, and the paradigm shifts FAST.
Evil is easy, has always been easy. Caring enough to do the right thing? That's hard.
==Aelryinth
Torture is defined IN THE GAME as evil.
'Modern' moral code has nothing to do with it, nor context. Absolutely, torture is an Evil thing to do. It is an Absolute Fact in the game. Arguing moral relativity with the real world is pointless. Good is what it is, and Evil has happily claimed torture as its own. 'Different perspectives' mean NOTHING to the absolutes that are alignments in the game.
Watching your friends and allies commit an Evil action in the face of your objections is going to be a clear indication to ANY paladin that these are not people he should be associating with. Letting them do it and then taking advantage of them doing it is effectively encouraging them to do it again, not providing an example to STOP them.
Eesh.
==Aelryinth
Look over the ultimate campaign rules. Torturing a hostage for information is only a 2 step change on the 9 step system. Which means a Good character who does this would not even change alignments to neutral. And remember, the Good characters who did the torturing can always get an atonement spell later, no muss no fuss.
Good is easy. You can fail to protect people and claim "It wouldn't have moral to do X, Y, or Z." Evil can't. If Evil wants to protect people it will succeed at any cost.Note: Why does making "hard choices" always seem to involve being willing to hurt other people?Answer: Because choices where no one needs to get hurt are by definition not hard.It's the "other people" that puzzles me.
Not torturing someone isn't considered a hard choice, even if it puts you more at risk. It's always sacrificing someone else, never the people making the hard choices.
Wow, is this wrong or what?
Good is HARD. Good involves NOT taking the easy way.
Evil involves whatever is most pragmatic and efficient, without caring of the cost to others. Stop a disease by slaughtering the sick? Yeah, that is MUCH easier then caring for them, risk contracting the disease and spreading it, and searching for a cure, spending time, money and people to do so.
Being Good is hard, much harder then being evil. Being Good is 'easy' only if everyone else around you is also good...because if they aren't, they will shamelessly take advantage of you, and you will have to back off being Good just to get by.
That's why Good people flock together...they help one another, everyone profits, hugs and kisses. Introduce one bad apple into that mix, and the paradigm shifts FAST.
Evil is easy, has always been easy. Caring enough to do the right thing? That's hard.
==Aelryinth
Tell that to all the people who end up dying from the disease that didn't have to, if you'd made the hard choice. But no, Good gets to get away with letting people die that didn't have to, because it can hide behind it's "moral" shield. That seems much easier to me. Just hide behind morality and never make hard choices.
No, it would be abetting Evil if the Paladin helped capture the person *knowing* their party members planned to torture them. Then yes, the Paladin would be in violation of their code. However, if after the successful capture the other party members agree that torture is required, then the Paladin is not violation of their code. They should as I have stated attempt to render aid by trying to convince the other party members to not torture the captured person, but there is no requirement they physically lend aid to the captured person. Paladin is in adherence to code.Disagreed. Your actions in capturing the person were (presumably) not Evil. So if after that some Evil actions happen as a result of that, you are not "abetting" the Evil. Unless you actually assist in the torture. I mean we're talking about campaign setting where medieval stasis has set in. Torture is like a Tuesday there. What do you think all those racks are for?If torture isn't evil, then you're obviously right. If torture is evil, then my argument stands.
By your argument the paladin could be capturing enemies and directly turning them over to his allies to torture to get information. As long as he isn't personally doing the torture he's fine.
This is a Lawful Stupid interpretation of the code. In short, you are subverting the spirit by trying to adhere to the letter.
Pretty sure nobody here agrees that standing by while a person you captured, who is helpless to defy it, is delivered into torture, is a Good thing. Furthermore, that the allies who would do this are people you should be hanging around, knowingly and willingly committing evil actions when it is convenient for them to do so.
Paladins adhere to the spirit and the letter of the code. Trying to weasel around the spirit is LN/LE behavior, and would do diabolics proud.
==Aelryinth
No, it would be abetting Evil if the Paladin helped capture the person *knowing* their party members planned to torture them. Then yes, the Paladin would be in violation of their code. However, if after the successful capture the other party members agree that torture is required, then the Paladin is not violation of their code. They should as I have stated attempt to render aid by trying to convince the other party members to not torture the captured person, but there is no requirement they physically lend aid to the captured person. Paladin is in adherence to code.Disagreed. Your actions in capturing the person were (presumably) not Evil. So if after that some Evil actions happen as a result of that, you are not "abetting" the Evil. Unless you actually assist in the torture. I mean we're talking about campaign setting where medieval stasis has set in. Torture is like a Tuesday there. What do you think all those racks are for?If torture isn't evil, then you're obviously right. If torture is evil, then my argument stands.
By your argument the paladin could be capturing enemies and directly turning them over to his allies to torture to get information. As long as he isn't personally doing the torture he's fine.
This is a Lawful Stupid interpretation of the code. In short, you are subverting the spirit by trying to adhere to the letter.
Pretty sure nobody here agrees that standing by while a person you captured, who is helpless to defy it, is delivered into torture, is a Good thing. Furthermore, that the allies who would do this are people you should be hanging around, knowingly and willingly committing evil actions when it is convenient for them to do so.
Paladins adhere to the spirit and the letter of the code. Trying to weasel around the spirit is LN/LE behavior, and would do diabolics proud.
==Aelryinth
Again, the Paladin did attempt to render aid. The Paladin is not trying to weasel out of the code. They have met their obligations.