|
It is fairly common for characters to be faced with no win moral scenarios and situations and for situations where the smart answer is the opposite of the moral answer. Now this goes doubly for paladins who are barred from taking the smart choice on pains of losing their class abilities.
This is not accurate, IME. It can certainly be made true by GMs...but I'd generally characterize those GMs as bad GMs.
Generally speaking, you can do stuff that's both smart and within a Paladin's Code most of the time, especially since large parts of the Code apply only to the Paladin himself and don't even imply he holds others to the same standards (he's allowed to hang out with CG people, after all).
But most Paladin's are surrounded by people that are less moral than them and this can cause inter party conflict, so if a paladin decides to walk way from the decisions/ busy himself elsewhere and his party decides to make the smart decision can he be held accountable for it? Can he fall for not stopping his companions committing a potentially evil act?
If he know about it? Absolutely. If he legitimately doesn't know? Then no, he can't...but he has to really not know, not just have plausible deniability.
Now, that's for Evil acts, not just acts the Paladin can't do. He can absolutely just stay quiet while the Rogue lies to people...but anything Evil? He can't just allow that s%~+.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
No. A paladin can not fall for what his buddies do. All he can do is try to convince them not to do it. He should however do the right thing, even if it is the more difficult option. That is the level of good he operates on. Turning a blind eye should require an atonement at the least.
That is not to say that the paladin should be lawful stupid. If a certain villain kills, goes to jail, escapes, kills, surrenders to the paladin, and becomes a repeat offender, I would look at it as he is not really surrendering, but just gaming the legal system. At some point he has to be put down. You can only do the fake surrender thing so many times.
Now some people are doing to argue that paladin has to accept the surrender every time, but at that point one can also say he is not protecting innocent lives by allowing this cycle to continue.
|
|
A DM shouldn't put their paladin in a lose-lose situation where any action would result in losing their class abilities, as such a situation requires staging. That's like stealing the wizard's spell book by just stating "it's gone and you can't get it back". There's always a way out otherwise.
Agreed.
If a DM holds the Paladin responsible for the actions of others, well that's a s@+%ty DM.
At least partially disagreed.
If the party is about to torture someone, and the Paladin both knows about it and can stop it and doesn't...he's definitely falling, IMO.
A DM shouldn't put their paladin in a lose-lose situation where any action would result in losing their class abilities, as such a situation requires staging. That's like stealing the wizard's spell book by just stating "it's gone and you can't get it back". There's always a way out otherwise.Agreed.
If a DM holds the Paladin responsible for the actions of others, well that's a s@+%ty DM.At least partially disagreed.
If the party is about to torture someone, and the Paladin both knows about it and can stop it and doesn't...he's definitely falling, IMO.
I think people are to hard on Paladins. Even allowing your allies to torture someone probably shouldn't be a falling offense. It's not like the Paladin has to fight all the evil in the world 24/7. That's beyond lawful good and into suicidally stupid. It's not like the Paladin Code demands they right every wrong they witness. That being said, if the Paladin witnesses their party members torturing someone, they should absolutely try to stop them in the best way possible; with words. And if that fails they should turn to the victim and say "I tried."
Playing a Paladin is pretty safe in my games.
Allowing your party members to torture is basically endorsing their commitment of evil actions, because torture is evil under the paladin code.
He cannot even associate with people who do evil. "ignoring them" is the same as saying "I leave the party permanently."
There are MANY non-evil ways to get people to talk in Pathfinder. I expect he should convince the casters to invest heavily in charm magic as options just so he isn't faced with these choices. There's a reason those spells can be used by Good people, and it is so you don't have to resort to means like those.
That being said, the 'lesser of two evils' being the only possible choices at the time, just means he has to go and address that lesser evil thereafter.
It's when the rest of the party doesn't want to address the lesser evil and move onto the next thing that conflicts start to happen.
==Aelryinth
Allowing your party members to torture is basically endorsing their commitment of evil actions, because torture is evil under the paladin code.
He cannot even associate with people who do evil. "ignoring them" is the same as saying "I leave the party permanently."
There are MANY non-evil ways to get people to talk in Pathfinder. I expect he should convince the casters to invest heavily in charm magic as options just so he isn't faced with these choices. There's a reason those spells can be used by Good people, and it is so you don't have to resort to means like those.
That being said, the 'lesser of two evils' being the only possible choices at the time, just means he has to go and address that lesser evil thereafter.
It's when the rest of the party doesn't want to address the lesser evil and move onto the next thing that conflicts start to happen.
==Aelryinth
No. A Paladin can't associate with Evil people. He can associate with Neutral People who perform Evil acts. While they may have to leave if the party consistently offends their moral code, as a one (or two or three...) time thing it should be fine. There is nothing in the Paladin Code that says the Paladin must prevent every act of evil they witness. And again, the Paladin should try to stop them by trying to talk them down Captain America style. If it fails though and they need the information, the Paladin can at least say they tried.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think people are to hard on Paladins. Even allowing your allies to torture someone probably shouldn't be a falling offense. It's not like the Paladin has to fight all the evil in the world 24/7. That's beyond lawful good and into suicidally stupid. It's not like the Paladin Code demands they right every wrong they witness. That being said, if the Paladin witnesses their party members torturing someone, they should absolutely try to stop them in the best way possible; with words. And if that fails they should turn to the victim and say "I tried."
Playing a Paladin is pretty safe in my games.
I have never actually caused a Paladin to fall. Y'know why? Because people actually play Paladins as good people who try to do the right thing in my games. As a rule, anyway.
And, as Aelrynith notes, allowing the party to torture someone without consequence or his own opposition is tacitly approving their action, which is pretty Evil. I would argue that standing by while people are tortured and doing nothing when you could stop it is, in fact, an Evil act in its own right.
Especially since there's almost literally no good reason to torture someone beyond your own sadism. Rules-wise, it's no more effective at gathering information than any other Intimidate check (maybe with a circumstance bonus), and in terms of how it works realism-wise, it basically doesn't. Not as an information gathering tool anyway.
I think people are to hard on Paladins. Even allowing your allies to torture someone probably shouldn't be a falling offense. It's not like the Paladin has to fight all the evil in the world 24/7. That's beyond lawful good and into suicidally stupid. It's not like the Paladin Code demands they right every wrong they witness. That being said, if the Paladin witnesses their party members torturing someone, they should absolutely try to stop them in the best way possible; with words. And if that fails they should turn to the victim and say "I tried."
Playing a Paladin is pretty safe in my games.
I have never actually caused a Paladin to fall. Y'know why? Because people actually play Paladins as good people who try to do the right thing in my games. As a rule, anyway.
And, as Aelrynith notes, allowing the party to torture someone without consequence or his own opposition is tacitly approving their action, which is pretty Evil.
Especially since there's almost literally no good reason to torture someone beyond your own sadism. Rules-wise, it's no more effective at gathering information than any other Intimidate check (maybe with a circumstance bonus), and in terms of how it works realism-wise, it basically doesn't. Not as an information gathering tool anyway.
It's not tacit approval. The Paladin tried to talk them down. That's like saying whenever the Paladin passes through a town where slavery is legal and doesn't start freeing the slaves they are "tacitly" approving of slavery. The Paladin is never required by the code to fight all evil they encounter. It's silly and mean to people who want to play Paladins to make them do so. It'd be hard for them to ever leave town without falling in that case.
|
|
It's not tacit approval. The Paladin tried to talk them down. That's like saying whenever the Paladin passes through a town where slavery is legal and doesn't start freeing the slaves they are "tacitly" approving of slavery. The Paladin is never required by the code to fight all evil they encounter. It's silly and mean to people who want to play Paladins to make them do so. It'd be hard for them to ever leave town without falling in that case.
They should be required to oppose anything they are actually capable of stopping casually. I'd certainly argue that not stopping Evil when it's not hard to do is Evil in its own right. If the can't stop it without risking death, that's one thing, but if they can stop it with almost no risk...then not stopping it is, indeed, Evil.
And unless the other PCs are willing to attack them, they can stop them from torturing prisoners pretty casually. And if the other people in the party are willing to fight and kill the Paladin in order to torture a prisoner, they're probably Evil already and thus fall under other provisions of his Code.
Oh, a Paladin thread. I'll just take a seat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're making a disturbing similarity between 'stopping my friends and allies from torturing people' and 'completely changing the socioeconomic, legal and religious ideals of this community I am travelling through from endorsing the ideals of torture."
Or, more directly, 'stopping my friends from enslaving someone' vs. 'stopping slavery in this town.'
Those are definitely NOT the same thing. You're endorsing Lawful Stupid, where the Big Thing is as easily cured as the Little Thing.
The paladin is under no compulsion to instantly attempt to change every society and wrong thing he sees.
He is compelled to stop the implementation of evil among those he chooses to associate with, because that is 'doing evil'. Turning a blind eye is the same thing as permitting it among his allies, and if so, he is forced to leave them behind. They may think they are being Neutral, but if they're Neutral and committing Evil, he's gone. It's not a game of balance for a paladin.
In short, paladins aren't stupid, they are heroic. And you're basically telling him to act like an idiot and compromise his moral beliefs. No, the paladin's job is to make you lift your beliefs, not compromise his own.
==Aelryinth
It's not tacit approval. The Paladin tried to talk them down. That's like saying whenever the Paladin passes through a town where slavery is legal and doesn't start freeing the slaves they are "tacitly" approving of slavery. The Paladin is never required by the code to fight all evil they encounter. It's silly and mean to people who want to play Paladins to make them do so. It'd be hard for them to ever leave town without falling in that case.They should be required to oppose anything they are actually capable of stopping casually. I'd certainly argue that not stopping Evil when it's not hard to do is Evil in its own right. If the can't stop it without risking death, that's one thing, but if they can stop it with almost no risk...then not stopping it is, indeed, Evil.
And unless the other PCs are willing to attack them, they can stop them from torturing prisoners pretty casually. And if the other people in the party are willing to fight and kill the Paladin in order to torture a prisoner, they're probably Evil already and thus fall under other provisions of his Code.
A Paladin doesn't have to fight their group to prevent them from torturing someone. That's not in the code. The Paladin can try to stop them by reasoning with them. But if that doesn't work there is nothing requiring them to physically stop them. That's pretty unreasonable to force a Paladin to physically stop acts of evil. It must be impossible for Paladins in your campaign to make it through areas where slavery is legal without falling, since they evidently must physically oppose all evil acts.
You're making a disturbing similarity between 'stopping my friends and allies from torturing people' and 'completely changing the socioeconomic, legal and religious ideals of this community I am travelling through from endorsing the ideals of torture."
Or, more directly, 'stopping my friends from enslaving someone' vs. 'stopping slavery in this town.'
Those are definitely NOT the same thing. You're endorsing Lawful Stupid, where the Big Thing is as easily cured as the Little Thing.
The paladin is under no compulsion to instantly attempt to change every society and wrong thing he sees.
He is compelled to stop the implementation of evil among those he chooses to associate with, because that is 'doing evil'. Turning a blind eye is the same thing as permitting it among his allies, and if so, he is forced to leave them behind. They may think they are being Neutral, but if they're Neutral and committing Evil, he's gone. It's not a game of balance for a paladin.
In short, paladins aren't stupid, they are heroic. And you're basically telling him to act like an idiot and compromise his moral beliefs. No, the paladin's job is to make you lift your beliefs, not compromise his own.
==Aelryinth
No blind eye turned here. The Paladin tried to stop their party members. They just did not do physically. And are you trying to say that "greater evils" are less important to deal with then "lesser evils"? That doesn't hold up logically. In this case, a Paladin who attacks their group is the stupid, not heroic one.
|
|
A Paladin doesn't have to fight their group to prevent them from torturing someone. That's not in the code. The Paladin can try to stop them by reasoning with them. But if that doesn't work there is nothing requiring them to physically stop them. That's pretty unreasonable to force a Paladin to physically stop acts of evil. It must be impossible for Paladins in your campaign to make it through areas where slavery is legal without falling, since they evidently must physically oppose all evil acts.
Uh...what Aelrynith said. You're equating acts that it doesn't make sense to equate.
A Paladin cannot, without huge risks, stop slavery in an entire area. Therefore, he is not obligated to. He might have other, more pressing, Evils to right.
A Paladin can, without meaningful risk, stop his traveling companions, who are unwilling to kill him, from torturing or enslaving anyone. Because he can simply say "I will not allow this. You'll have to kill me first." And then back it up. What risk is there to him in that? What other Evil will it stop him from defeating?
You're right, he doesn't 'have to physically stop them.'
however, they have committed an evil act. They've basically told the Paladin to go (&(& himself and his moral code.
So, the paladin, to stay true to his code, MUST leave. He cannot associate with them. He has the choices to a) stop them from doing it, b) or leaving them.
they, in turn, have the choice between chasing off the paladin or committing willfully evil actions.
Trying to pin the blame on the paladin for this is just wrong. His code is clear...it's the party's choice to do evil which is the deciding factor here, and if they know the paladin's code, they are deliberately chasing him away.
And to force a paladin to intervene in every act of evil that he says without keeping his eye on the greater goal is pretty much the definition of Lawful Stupid.
==Aelryinth
|
|
Exactly why?It is fairly common for characters to be faced with no win moral scenarios and situations and for situations where the smart answer is the opposite of the moral answer. Now this goes doubly for paladins who are barred from taking the smart choice on pains of losing their class abilities.This is not accurate, IME. It can certainly be made true by GMs...but I'd generally characterize those GMs as bad GMs.
Because it's lazy and railroad-y.
Very rarely in real life are there only two options of any sort, much less only a moral option and a 'smart' option, so making that sort of situation tends to necessitate some heavy-handed GM intervention to make all the other solutions to the problem except those two fail.
But choosing the smart choice instead the moral one is on the players.Allowing your party members to torture is basically endorsing their commitment of evil actions, because torture is evil under the paladin code.
He cannot even associate with people who do evil. "ignoring them" is the same as saying "I leave the party permanently."
There are MANY non-evil ways to get people to talk in Pathfinder. I expect he should convince the casters to invest heavily in charm magic as options just so he isn't faced with these choices. There's a reason those spells can be used by Good people, and it is so you don't have to resort to means like those.
That being said, the 'lesser of two evils' being the only possible choices at the time, just means he has to go and address that lesser evil thereafter.
It's when the rest of the party doesn't want to address the lesser evil and move onto the next thing that conflicts start to happen.
It's also when the GM makes torture the "smart choice". Or, going back to the original post - if the smart choice is the opposite of the moral choice, that's on the GM.
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.
And it's always interesting that the 'smart' option so often tends to be the 'evil' one. It's rather pragmatic that way. Evil does love that about itself.
==Aelryinth
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But they do happen fairly often especially in times of plague, siege, and war.
No, they really don't. Not unless you have a very specific (and probably unreasonable) definition of morality anyway.
Provide some examples of what you mean, and I'll bet that a Paladin has lots of options in them that are neither stupid, nor immoral.
|
|
I wouldn't always. It depends on what kind of game the players want. Now someone playing a paladin is at least a hint that they want to play the Hero wearing shiny armor and battling evil. Might not be. They might want to play someone trying to hold true to their honor in a grimdark world, guaranteed to either fall or fail due to their scruples.
I wouldn't always characterize it that way either (which is why I said usually), but I've rarely heard examples that aren't basically the GM being a dick and presenting highly contrived situations.
Survival themes are different from 'do Evil or bad things happen' scenarios.
The paladin is not required to be generous, forced to be merciful, or mandated to sacrifice. He is also not 'required' to be polite, courteous, or eternally accommodating.
A paladin can act like a complete a%~$%%&. However, he can't do Evil.
Does that mean he can leave people to starve, die of disease, or kill instead of accepting surrender?
Absolutely. Those are all options. He may TRY to give them help, and if he has the resources, acting heroically he may try to get back to them with aid...but he's under no obligation to give a starving man the last of his food and so starve himself. That's Stupid Good...being so good you basically kill yourself isn't Good, it's dumb.
It's this insistence on paladins being forced to make unreal choices in normal circumstances, while denying them the ability to make normal choices in unreal circumstances, that drive discussions like this.
A paladin who is unable to help others will probably feel very guilty about it...after all, he was given his powers to help others, right? However, a paladin's powers are there to raise a sword and martially fight evil, not to provide food, health care, or accumulate prisoners. Those are all things the Paladin might attempt in pursuit of the greater good, but technically, that's what government, churches, and armed forces are for, respectively.
==Aelryinth
| 2 people 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...
however, they have committed an evil act. They've basically told the Paladin to go (&(& himself and his moral code.
So, the paladin, to stay true to his code, MUST leave. He cannot associate with them. He has the choices to a) stop them from doing it, b) or leaving them.
they, in turn, have the choice between chasing off the paladin or committing willfully evil actions.
If the Paladin isn't allowed to associate with anyone who has ever committed an evil act, he's going to be a very lonely guy.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Torture basically never works outside of jingoistic media. It just gets the tortured person to say whatever they think you want to hear because they want the pain to stop. A GM who makes torture the "smart choice" is just trying to f+&* over the Paladin, not creating an interesting moral dilemma.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nah to be honest the thread was prompted by the my queen just told me to murder someone paladin thread. Which amused me because a Queen that would think that a paladin would be game for a bit of extra-curricular murder doesn't know him very well. But too be honest the easiest solution to said problem is too get the inevitable chaotic neutral other pc to do it that way keeping the paladin's hands clean and keeping the queen happy.
"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor."
I think we can all agree Pontius Pilate was not a Paladin, right?
Whether he was a real person or a literary figure isn't really relevant to the discussion. He's now the archetype of standing by and doing nothing in the face of evil in the western world, real or not.
If Archons and Azatas can kill each other without becoming evil, surely Paladin can also kill good men to preserve order.
Too often Lawful acts are taken for Evil acts.
In a thread going on in the advice forum, the situation was that the queen had captured the brother that tried to usurp her throne. The brother asked to be tried under the traditional system for royal trials (which involves the big wig nobles judging the case- nobles he may have in his pocket). The brother does not detect as evil. The queen asked the paladin to quietly execute the brother since there may be no way to have an impartial trial (if the prince is exiled rather than executed, he could raise another army and try again).
Now, lets ignore the alignment questions of that (is it good? is it lawful?), lets look at how the paladin could 'walk out'
The way I see it, the paladin could simply ask to be removed as the jailer and executioner. He is not the one responsible for that.
But this seems like it would remove the paladin from the campaign, and still make him complacent for not publicly calling her out on it, right?
My suggestion is that the paladin stays involved and on her side by switching from executioner to lobbyist/investigator- He could try to convince the big wig nobles that the brother should vote to execute the prince. He could also try to find dirt on the nobles in order to disqualify them from their position and right to vote on the trial.
Overall, there are options for this paladin to 'walk away' without breaking his morale code. In these circumstances, he is trying his best to make the proper trial a viable option. If he doesn't succeed in time to stop the guillotine... well, he tried his best, and he is not responsible for something he tried to prevent (the 'execution without trial' bit that is)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd argue that investigating the brother's crimes and ensuring the trial is fair is not "walking away" from the situation, and is one of the more favorable solutions to the issue. Binary choice is the realm of Lawful Evil, Paladins are better than that.
There are MANY alternatives to exile or murder in a magical world.
I'd personally petrify him, Stone Shape him into a smooth stone sphere, excavate a tunnel at least 10' deep into a mountainside, shove the ball in it, Shape the hole closed, grow lichen over it, and leave him that way until his supporters have all died off of old age, and her grandchildren are on the throne.
Or you can use a variant of petrify that has him age, and just keep him that way for forty years. When he comes back out, he's an old man, most of his support is dead, and he's not even going to have any children to contest her claim.
But that's me.
==Aelryinth
Where is this Paladin from? Different cultures and different religions have different views on morality.
Looking at the situation in its context can help you make the right decision.
If a Dwarven Paladin of Angradd was put in the situation of killing the orc king or showing him mercy he would kill the orc king, because part of Angradd's ethos is tradition, a tradition of fighting and hating goblins and orcs.
Paladin's are a mortal representative of a lawful/good divine power and they can differ considerably.
Where is this Paladin from? Different cultures and different religions have different views on morality.
Looking at the situation in its context can help you make the right decision.
If a Dwarven Paladin of Angradd was put in the situation of killing the orc king or showing him mercy he would kill the orc king, because part of Angradd's ethos is tradition, a tradition of fighting and hating goblins and orcs.
Paladin's are a mortal representative of a lawful/good divine power and they can differ considerably.
This appears to be a human Paladin deciding the fate of a human ruler of the country the Paladin is a citizen of. Definitely not the same situation as a dwarf fighting against a chaotic evil monstrous race.
Can he fall for not stopping his companions committing a potentially evil act?
As easily as failing to stop a stranger from committing evil acts.
The fact that your a Paladin means you do not walk away. You EXIST to make a difference and NOT walk away.
Just remember that killing is not always the only way to solve a problem in an RPG.
Nah to be honest the thread was prompted by the my queen just told me to murder someone paladin thread. Which amused me because a Queen that would think that a paladin would be game for a bit of extra-curricular murder doesn't know him very well. But too be honest the easiest solution to said problem is too get the inevitable chaotic neutral other pc to do it that way keeping the paladin's hands clean and keeping the queen happy."If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor."
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.
Can he fall for not stopping his companions committing a potentially evil act?As easily as failing to stop a stranger from committing evil acts.
The fact that your a Paladin means you do not walk away. You EXIST to make a difference and NOT walk away.
Just remember that killing is not always the only way to solve a problem in an RPG.
Ya, the Paladin can talk to their party members and say "I tried." if it doesn't work. See how easy that is?