The Culling of Stratholme in the game itself is even worse as you kill the citizen AFTER they turn into zombies. You just destroy their houses to bring them out. The real start of darkness began when he betrayed his mercenaries after burning the ships an then pretending that muradin died by accident and tol the captain to not think too hard about it.Actually, if you play that episode on Hard Mode (as opposed to Normal), and you DON'T kill the villagers after destroying the houses but before they turn into Zombies, you run a high risk of losing to the Dread Lord Mal'Ganis, because you are explicitly put in a race against him to kill villagers not only before they spontaneously turn into Zombies (although thanks to the way the game triggers work this atually happens only after you destroy a house), but also before he accumulates a critial mass of Zombies by way of his own killing. I've tried that mission on Hard Mode both with and without doing this.
Yet again Paladins work differently in the Warcraft universe than in D&D. Their magical powers come from the Light, that is bestowed to good belivers, but losing its power is less obvious, as there are some characters empowered by the light that do not lose their powers immediately after turning bad.We should probably call it a different but recognizably related mechanism, since Paladin powers depend upon Outsider-equivalent beings that are indiidually well above mortals but well short of truly awesome divinity.
Also historically there have been also EVIL Paladins, that forcibly siphoned the Light from the Naaru the get their powers.Yes, the Blood Elves managed to imprison one of the Naaru and force it to give them Paladin powers. Very cinematic concept. Not totally alien to D&D/Pathfinder, but to pull this off in D&D/Pathfinder, you would have to capture a deity (in a campaign setting where Paladins are deity-dependent) or hack the Multiverse (in a...
UN-smurf my face!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Moreover, Paladin status is determined by the deity. You cannot lose Paladin status if you are following the dictates of your deity. A paladin is first and foremost a warrior of his deity.That's a houserule. A common houserule, but a houserule nonetheless.
Clerics gain spell power from deities or from divine forces. The divine force of nature powers druid and ranger spells, and the divine forces of law and good power paladin spells.In Golarion, most paladins worship a deity but they don't have to. Their powers are "fueled" by their faith, and that doesn't have to be faith in a deity. It could be faith in an idea, a philosophy, a cause, or whatever. They need something to believe in. And if that belief isn't lawful good, it'd better be lawful neutral for the paladin to focus harder on the law than the good, or neutral good for the paladin to focus harder on the good instead of the law. The paladin herself remains lawful good, so in a way, its her ALIGNMENT that is the source of her power.
I'm not a big fan of the "philosophical" paladin idea. If this were actually the case, there is no sentience behind the power of the paladin, it's just his ego. You could have divine spells powered by "faith in self" and as long as said paladin didn't have any fleeting moment of self-doubt, it's impossible for him to actually fall, as as we know with extreme narcissists, any act can be justified by self-delusion.
The whole "divine power of law and good" came about due to peoples desire not to have to declare that they worship a deity (as I recall my D&D history).
If there is a "divine power of law and good", why isn't there a divine power of "neutral and evil" and why aren't there any paladins of those alignments? Why is law and good so special.
IMO, it's a ludicrous idea.
Besides, the OP states that we are talking about a Paladin with a deity.
ow for the debate between Quintain and the other whose name I didn't nother remembering. Quintain is not a troll, otherwise the whole thread is a troll thread, since he A) answered what he believed would happen and B) try and help define a bit more what was going on, because indeed the original premise is kinda iffy. And the other, well I think he flunked philosophy. Because instead of debatting the question at hand he kept b+&#+ing about said question making no sense within a set of strict parameters. (Make sure he doesn't watch Death Battles or I think he will die of yelling at the screen too much).
No, actually, I aced philosophy. I just have a love of debate. What people on this "general discussion" forum are trying to do is fall back on the "rules forum" paradigm of quoting game material and shutting down the discussion instead of actually debating the idea -- mainly because they don't like the question.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, actually, I aced philosophy. I just have a love of debate. What people on this "general discussion" forum are trying to do is fall back on the "rules forum" paradigm of quoting game material and shutting down the discussion instead of actually debating the idea -- mainly because they don't like the question.
I am curious. What do you want us to discuss?
Your OP deviates in numerous ways from Golarion lore and the rules(both RAI and RAW), but you in no way indicated as such . The responses you have gotten amount to "according to how the rules and the default setting work, your premise is complete nonsense". For there to be any actual discussion in another direction you need to clearly indicate how your scenario deviates in an internally consistent matter, because at the moment the only thing we can assume is that the GM in this scenario is making it all up themselves, and all the reasonable responses boil down to "since the GM is changing how everything works, everything that happens goes according to how the GM feels about it, however insane their feelings may be" and thus there isn't really any discussion value. If you want people to discuss what you want them to discuss, a good start would be to include all the pertinent facts and understand that if the premise of the discussion is bizarre or apparently self-contradictory then you are going to get called on it repeatedly.
Quintain, you raise a valid point. I'm gonna actually answer your questions one by one rather than criticize stuff:
1. How should paladins of that deity react?
2. Accepting the order, would paladins keep their status and alignment?
3. If some paladins refuse, can they still be paladin?
4. If paladins refusing loose their status, what should be their new alignment?
1.With horror and disgust that a formerly Lawful Good god would ask such a thing. No quest to prevent the apocalypse? No escape for anyone on the plane?
2. Absolutely not, they would become evil and no longer be Paladins. Mass murder is evil and illegal.
3. Sure, but they would need to worship a Good god, not an insane/evil one.
4. Lawful Good. Mass murder is wrong AND illegal. Most lawful good characters would refuse an order like this.
I might be willing to debate number 4, if your setting has murder as not being illegal.
Sorry.
MASS murder.
I might be willing to debate number 4, if your setting has murder as not being illegal.
Law Is Not Legal. Just pointing that out. That's why a paladin can oppose unjust laws, or break just ones that are being applied wrongly (if the only way to save an innocent man from being executed is to break him out, for instance, though the paladin should try every other option first).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your OP deviates in numerous ways from Golarion lore and the rules(both RAI and RAW), but you in no way indicated as such .
My questions were generic with the presumption of a paladin getting his power from a deity (which in my curmudgeonly self is how I believe they should be played -- always), I was simply using terms and characters common to Golarion for flavor -- not as any sort of restriction on "how it should be played" -- this is the general discussion forum, not the rules forum.
It's a standard apocalyptic scenario -- it happens a lot in things like "The Walking dead" wherein everyone is infected, there is no possibility of alternative action due to time constraints (everyone is going to die and soon) -- or lack of capacity, and after they die, they become part of the problem (feeding of the "elder evil/rovagug) which allows for the further spread of evil.
Would you kill someone before they died if they would turn into a zombie. What if they wanted you to do it? What if they didn't...does that distinction matter. If so, why? The end result is the same.
Quintain, you raise a valid point. I'm gonna actually answer your questions one by one rather than criticize stuff:1. How should paladins of that deity react?
-- They should obey their deity. He's the bloke in charge -- when one has faith in a deity enough to be a paladin, then one does what one is tasked to do, without question. See Abraham.
2. Accepting the order, would paladins keep their status and alignment?
Given the Paladin worships a deity and not a "philosophy", yes, they should maintain their paladinhood.
Alignment is a different sort of question, and that entirely depends on how you play alignment. Personally, I believe he would maintain both Lawful and Good alignment -- he is being lawful -- following the dictates of his deity...and a regardless of mortal law, a deity's dictates are to be followed -- see above. Good, well, therein lies much of the rub. And how the details of the scenario flesh out. The Why of the "end of the world" was never determined.
3. If some paladins refuse, can they still be paladin?
No. They refused the dictates of their deity. At the very least, they would temporarily lose their paladinhood until they atoned -- which may never have the possibility of happening depending on the timescale of the apocalypse. The best they could do would be to lose their paladinhood, switch to a new deity and then possibly regain their status under the strictures of the new deity...but that would take a monumental effort given the level of faith needed to be a paladin in the first place.
4. If paladins refusing loose their status, what should be their new alignment?
Still Lawful Good, I would suspect. It takes a lot more consistency of action to change alignment than to lose paladinhood. Generically speaking.
1. ...No quest to prevent the apocalypse? No escape for anyone on the plane?
The death prior to the end of the world *is* their escape from the plane, it's also the most expedient method. That's the odd thing that I'm seeing from people on this forum. Individuals of strong faith do not mourn (or minimizing the mourning) of loved ones when they pass -- they are being rewarded for living their faith. They are now co-existing with the being that they loved above all others even those left behind. This is a good thing in the eyes of the faithful not evil. Normally this is a natural passing, but in the case of an Apocalypse...as they say...desperate times come desperate measures.
Here's the thing..maybe there is no quest to prevent the apocalypse. It very well could be that this deity searched the future and found that this timeline is doomed and attempted to reduce as much "collateral damage" as possible by giving the dictates that he did. We don't really know.
2. Absolutely not, they would become evil and no longer be Paladins. Mass murder is evil and illegal.
I believe you are defining murder overly broadly.
3. Sure, but they would need to worship a Good god, not an insane/evil one.
See above. We agree here. Lost of status, switching deities, then regaining of status.
4. Lawful Good. Mass murder is wrong AND illegal. Most lawful good characters would refuse an order like this.
I might be willing to debate number 4, if your setting has murder as not being illegal.
Sorry.
MASS murder.
Here are my questions for you when it comes to murder: who establishes what is defined as murder? If it is some mortal agent, it is meaningless in this context -- as a god just passed down direction -- mortals < deities in legal standing.
@ KC - While the question's clearly rhetorical, witches patrons are so vague that there's really nothing to conflict with unless the GM makes the patron someone in specific.
Really?
This patron is a vague and mysterious force, granting the witch power for reasons that she might not entirely understand. While these forces need not be named, they typically hold influence over one of the following forces.
I always interpreted this to indicate an unknown but specific entity. Something that easily could come up, but very rarely does because the Patron's goals are unknowable.
But it's up to interpretation, of course.
@ KC - While the question's clearly rhetorical, witches patrons are so vague that there's really nothing to conflict with unless the GM makes the patron someone in specific.Really?
This patron is a vague and mysterious force, granting the witch power for reasons that she might not entirely understand. While these forces need not be named, they typically hold influence over one of the following forces.I always interpreted this to indicate an unknown but specific entity. Something that easily could come up, but very rarely does because the Patron's goals are unknowable.
But it's up to interpretation, of course.
Could a witch's patron have paladins?
By the way, there's an error I've seen a lot of people making lately.
A paladin does not rely on her god for her powers.
Now, the flavor text does mention gods and deities occasionally, it's true. But so does the flavor text for clerics, and they're explicitly able to derive power from her "spiritual inclinations and abilities". So what about a paladin who does worship a god, not a cause? Does she lose her powers if she turns on them?
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features (including the service of the paladin's mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies).
Code of Conduct: 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.
It is never mentioned. Ctrl-F on "god" and "deities" on the paladin page. Three total matches, all from flavor. In stark contrast to the cleric:
A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. She cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until she atones for her deeds (see the atonement spell description).
"A cleric of that god". If the cleric starts worshiping a new god, she can arguably regain her powers immediately as long as she matches that new god. Gray area, and maybe not intended, but beside the point.
But paladins? Nope. Because a paladin does not rely on her god for her powers. If a paladin turns on her god but stays Lawful Good and doesn't break her code...that's it. She's now a rebel, deriving powers from a cause. Or she's gonna start serving a less totally insane deity.
Leaving her god does nothing to a paladin's statistics. Period.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The following is a combination of stuff that is true by RAW and my personal opinion.
A paladin's ultimate devotion is to Good - everything else is second. This is reflected in their ability to act in opposition to their deity's dogma without punishment, yet if they ever willfully commit evil, they are stripped of their divine power.
A paladin of Iomedae is someone Iomedae trusts to go to war against her, should she ever turn from grace. Because a paladin's ultimate devotion must not be to the god, but to Good itself. And Good is not a concept that bends or warps at the whims of mortal(or divine) cultures, societies, or religions, but a cosmic concept, one of five, that are absolute.
If the world's end is inevitable, Good doesn't change. Good remains the same. While the clerics, inquisitors, and general servants of a Good aligned deity may wish to reap the souls of the living, in order to prevent their destruction, that is not Good. It is killing of the innocent and it will tarnish the conciousness and purity of all involved - that doesn't mean the decision is wrong, it doesn't mean it isn't right, only that it is not Good.
Needless to say, not all paladins ARE blindly devoted to Good, like some weird form of cosmically driven construct. Paladins are people, they have doubts, they feel love, hate, and other feelings that can lead to their falling from grace, or otherwise question their code and actions. But these things are ultimately part of the Paladin's never-ending test of devotion - those who maintain adherence to Good will be out there, trying to prevent the end of the world, rather than serve a deity who has given up and wish to reap the innocent.
-Nearyn
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's kind of scary that there are people who would consider omnicide to be a potentially Good act.
I would think that a true Paladin would refuse his god's order to commit said omnicide regardless of whether he would fall or not. A true Paladin wouldn't care if he fell for refusing, because executing that order would be an atrocity, and obeying just for the purpose of keeping his status and power would be selfish. It would be against the code he swore to uphold. He would instead find out what happened to corrupt his deity to desire such a thing and put a stop to it, lest it corrupt further and cause more evil. THAT is a Paladin.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I might be willing to debate number 4, if your setting has murder as not being illegal.Law Is Not Legal. Just pointing that out. That's why a paladin can oppose unjust laws, or break just ones that are being applied wrongly (if the only way to save an innocent man from being executed is to break him out, for instance, though the paladin should try every other option first).
Good point, thanks for that.
Question 4 is no longer subject to debate.
Seriously though, in this bizarre scenario that is suggested, why can't the god help people escape? Why do they have to DIE?
Also, it seems like a "your paladin is gonna fall, do you wanna lose your powers because you're an obedient murderer, or do you wanna lose your powers because you tried to save lives like a paladin would?"
Ick.
Would not play.
As for the mass murder thing... "MURDER IS EVIL!!! *goes and takes out a drow camp*
By their very nature adventuring parties are generally mass murderers... unless you have a party of non lethal damagers i guess... but barring the cornor case, the kill count of the average adventurer is enough to make Manson or Gacy jealous.
Of course this is often justified by "well they are monsters!" But you think a drow doesnt have aspirations and desires, dreams and family? Or how about that raging barbarian? Maybe he is sinply a follower of natures most primal code (survival of the fittest, cull the weak so the strong can survive to ensure the species/clan... worked well for ghe spartans for a while). Just because he does not "fit" with civilized society he is killed of by mr paladin man. Still murder right? Oops paladin falls...
To say ALL murder is evil pretty much stops anything but a non lethal paladin to be in a party against anyting other than evil outsiders or something.
|
To say ALL murder is evil pretty much stops anything but a non lethal paladin to be in a party against anyting other than evil outsiders or something.
You're confusing murder and killing.
Admittedly - where the line is drawn on whether any given kill is a murder is a bit fuzzy. But not all killing is murder.
Murder is inherently evil.
Killing is not.
It's kind of scary that there are people who would consider omnicide to be a potentially Good act.
I would think that a true Paladin would refuse his god's order to commit said omnicide regardless of whether he would fall or not. A true Paladin wouldn't care if he fell for refusing, because executing that order would be an atrocity, and obeying just for the purpose of keeping his status and power would be selfish. It would be against the code he swore to uphold. He would instead find out what happened to corrupt his deity to desire such a thing and put a stop to it, lest it corrupt further and cause more evil. THAT is a Paladin.
Omnicide in the face of an apocalyptic event where having live victims be eaten by an escaped God that would use their souls to power his freedom from the planet to threaten the greater multiverse is a mercy. The same can be said for killing someone who is infected with a zombie virus that is about to die themselves.
Everyone seems to be balking at the act of killing someone (which is interesting given the game that is being played and how experience points are awarded), whereas they are all ok with something like Rapture. The end result is really the same -- the soul travels to the afterlife.
So, as an alternative, could the paladin's god alter one of his mercy abilities to be a "Rapture" mercy that would kill a willing subject similar to a coup de grace with a voluntarily waived saving throw?
To say ALL murder is evil pretty much stops anything but a non lethal paladin to be in a party against anything other than evil outsiders or something.
Yep.
Omnicide in the face of an apocalyptic event where having live victims be eaten by an escaped God that would use their souls to power his freedom from the planet to threaten the greater multiverse is a mercy.
The word 'god' should only be capitalized when referencing a monotheistic religion as in that case it is then interchangeable with their name.
I know it's a common mistake - but it's a pet peeve of mine.
As for the mass murder thing... "MURDER IS EVIL!!! *goes and takes out a drow camp*
By their very nature adventuring parties are generally mass murderers... unless you have a party of non lethal damagers i guess... but barring the cornor case, the kill count of the average adventurer is enough to make Manson or Gacy jealous.
Of course this is often justified by "well they are monsters!" But you think a drow doesnt have aspirations and desires, dreams and family? Or how about that raging barbarian? Maybe he is sinply a follower of natures most primal code (survival of the fittest, cull the weak so the strong can survive to ensure the species/clan... worked well for ghe spartans for a while). Just because he does not "fit" with civilized society he is killed of by mr paladin man. Still murder right? Oops paladin falls...
To say ALL murder is evil pretty much stops anything but a non lethal paladin to be in a party against anyting other than evil outsiders or something.
In the context of the game, killing evil creature isn't evil.
It's a bit simplistic, but that's more or less how it is.Obviously, capturing and torturing them to death would be wrong, but destroying a Drow city basically is ok.
I play with a non-lethal thug build, it's annoying... he keeps calling all of us murderers. I'm just gonna stop defending him if he keeps it up.
To say ALL murder is evil pretty much stops anything but a non lethal paladin to be in a party against anyting other than evil outsiders or something.You're confusing murder and killing.
Admittedly - where the line is drawn on whether any given kill is a murder is a bit fuzzy. But not all killing is murder.
The line is drawn on viewpoint. For instance, war. A soldier killed a enemy soldier from his view point. But from the other side, he murdered a comrade.
All killing is technically murder. It just depends if society considers it "justified" or not.
After all, most religions tend to say "thou shalt not kill" not "thou shalt not murder".... any killing is tended to view as evil
Omnicide in the face of an apocalyptic event where having live victims be eaten by an escaped God that would use their souls to power his freedom from the planet to threaten the greater multiverse is a mercy.The word 'god' should only be capitalized when referencing a monotheistic religion as in that case it is then interchangeable with their name.
I know it's a common mistake - but it's a pet peeve of mine.
Yeah, I usually use the term deity, but my muscle memory failed me.
To say ALL murder is evil pretty much stops anything but a non lethal paladin to be in a party against anyting other than evil outsiders or something.You're confusing murder and killing.
Admittedly - where the line is drawn on whether any given kill is a murder is a bit fuzzy. But not all killing is murder.
The line is drawn on viewpoint. For instance, war. A soldier killed a enemy soldier from his view point. But from the other side, he murdered a comrade.
All killing is technically murder. It just depends if society considers it "justified" or not.
After all, most religions tend to say "thou shalt not kill" not "thou shalt not murder".... any killing is tended to view as evil
In real life, absolutely. This is a game where you literally get rewarded for killing things.
I wouldn't try to apply real world morality to the game, it's... not going to mesh well.
In Pathfinder murder isn't intrinsically actually Evil. Its Chaotic.
Murder committed for a good cause would lean chaotic good for example. An example would be a assassin killing a corrupt official in his sleep.
To say ALL murder is evil pretty much stops anything but a non lethal paladin to be in a party against anyting other than evil outsiders or something.You're confusing murder and killing.
Admittedly - where the line is drawn on whether any given kill is a murder is a bit fuzzy. But not all killing is murder.
The line is drawn on viewpoint. For instance, war. A soldier killed a enemy soldier from his view point. But from the other side, he murdered a comrade.
All killing is technically murder. It just depends if society considers it "justified" or not.
After all, most religions tend to say "thou shalt not kill" not "thou shalt not murder".... any killing is tended to view as evil
In real life, absolutely. This is a game where you literally get rewarded for killing things.
I wouldn't try to apply real world morality to the game, it's... not going to mesh well.
The thing is though.. the paladin specifically calls out that if he ever does ANY evil act he loses his powers. Murder has been called out as an evil act, but just WHAT murder is is up for debate since it is simply killing that you can use reasoning and local culture to justify. This makes it REALLY HARD to play anything other than the Tranquil Guardian archetype for aasimars.
In Pathfinder murder isn't intrinsically actually Evil. Its Chaotic.
Murder committed for a good cause would lean chaotic good for example. An example would be a assassin killing a corrupt official in his sleep.
But again, that hoses the pally since he needs to be good AND lawful. If he strays in either direction he is done.
Do you consider executions to be murder?
Do you consider executions to be murder?
As long as the execution was carried out by the law it cant possibly be by definition.
|
|
The line is drawn on viewpoint. For instance, war. A soldier killed a enemy soldier from his view point. But from the other side, he murdered a comrade.
To say ALL murder is evil pretty much stops anything but a non lethal paladin to be in a party against anyting other than evil outsiders or something.You're confusing murder and killing.
Admittedly - where the line is drawn on whether any given kill is a murder is a bit fuzzy. But not all killing is murder.
No - that's simply not true by any rules of war. If that were the case they would simply execute all captured enemies for being murderers.
All killing is technically murder. It just depends if society considers it "justified" or not.
Nope. Not by any definition - unless you just decided to make a new one.
After all, most religions tend to say "thou shalt not kill" not "thou shalt not murder".... any killing is tended to view as evil
That's just comes from bad translations. In the Bible - it actually says "Thou shalt not murder" in the 10 commandments - it's just that some early English translations screwed up and had it be "Thou shalt not kill" - which is wrong entirely.
|
This is thread with horrifying subject and paladin fall thread, so thats double on horrifying-ness
But I'm kinda wondering why OP had to went with so extreme example? Couldn't they just have asked "Can paladin perform mercy kill on innocents without falling if their god calls for that?" without going into scenario about end of world and everyone living going to hell and god telling paladins to go mass murder everyone? ._.; Wouldn't that have served same point without going to as horrific extremes?
|
|
Do you consider executions to be murder?It's murder sanctioned by the State.
I'd argue that it should be a bit more specific - and say that it's justified killing which has been sanctioned by the state.
Now - I will give you that a government can certainly sanction killings which ARE murder. (Nazis being the most blatant modern example.) But I don't think any would consider the death camps to be defined as a series of executions.
But admittedly - at a certain point it gets to be semantics - and people start talking past each-other on such topics because of having somewhat different baselines.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, murder means unlawful and/or unjust killing.
You can argue about whether the States laws are just, but any execution is not inherently murder without said context.
Really, this conversation is lost in the details and specifics. People talking past one another and vehemently denying any similarity between positions. I bet most people are MUCH closer to agreeing on this than we are to disagreeing, except for a few minor details.
I think the real question is this:
Can you design a situation where a paladin should punch a baby?
With enough specifics and context, yes, but generally they shouldn't.
Edited to add some things.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, murder means unlawful and/or unjust killing.
You can argue about whether the States laws are just, but any execution is not inherently murder without said context.
I'm with you. It's the whole dog-poodle logic thing. All poodles are dogs, but that doesn't mean that all dogs are poodles.
In the same way - all murders are killing, but that doesn't mean that all killing is murder. Not even a hardcore pacifist would think that - as they wouldn't consider an accidental killing to be murder.
It's just that the line is a bit more blurry on where murder starts & ends than it is on a particular type of dog.
Again, murder means unlawful and/or unjust killing.
You can argue about whether the States laws are just, but any execution is not inherently murder without said context.
Really, this conversation is lost in the details and specifics. People talking past one another and vehemently denying any similarity between positions. I bet most people are MUCH closer to agreeing on this than we are to disagreeing, except for a few minor details.
I think the real question is this:
Can you design a situation where a paladin should punch a baby?
With enough specifics and context, yes, but generally they shouldn't.Edited to add some things.
If the baby is evil, no problem.
What if it's a goblin baby? ;)
Pathfinder also has a lawful good empyreal lord of executions.
There's a difference between a tragic hero and a sympathetic villain. Arthas was a Paladin when that meant something. The heroic choice would be to try to save the people. Find a way to use the power granted to a champion of the Light to overcome that evil. It might be difficult, and it might be a doomed effort, but that's what a hero does.He chose the expedient way, the way that can be justified with enough rationalization and self-deceit, the way that required the mass murder of innocent individuals, the way that saved no one. That's what a villain does.
Voluntary mass murder of the innocent is a clear marker that a choice is not heroic (and good), but rather it is villainous (and evil).
Eh, I wouldn't say the expedient way.
There is literally no cure for the Plague of Undeath. Even the avatar/gods of the Holy Light, the Naaru, the power that Arthas draws from is unable to cure a man who was ailing from it. They could only make sure he doesn't rise again as the undead.
Wiping the town out was probably the best option. Otherwise their souls would be trapped in undead bodies, tormented for an eternity whilst watching third person as they ripped their loved ones apart.
But NAH, he was being totally villainous.
A better man could have come out of the Culling of Stratholme distraught at what he had done but Arthas was not a better man. He continued to take the most evil possible means of fighting the Scourge, right up until he takes Frostmourne without even checking to see if Muradin still had a pulse.
I don't think Arthas was too far gone at Stratholme but it was certainly the beginning of the end.
|
Quintain - I understand the reasoning behind deity-dependent paladins. I also houserule how they work. However when you're arguing from different priors it is difficult to have a productive debate.
I wasn't thinking this thread only as a paladin one, I used paladin as someone strongly linked to a specific good deity's faith. I think the clerics, inquisitors, oracles, etc... would react the same way(s) described by the various contributors of this thread.
Not really - not all divine classes have the same relationship with their deities. If we're using the default setting where paladins are empowered by alignment/code rather than the deity they'd be less likely to obey the deity than clerics would be. Inquisitors would probably be similar to clerics, though their rules for conduct are a little fuzzier. Oracles are even less deity-focused than paladins in that they are given power without seeking it and the source of their power is usually more mysterious, so they'd be the least likely to be affected by the deity's dictates.
Paladins also come with a lot of specific baggage that doesn't necessarily reflect how moral dilemmas affect the larger game. For example, many people when talking about paladins use more deontological reasoning (acts are absolutely good or evil regardless of context).
This wasn't planned for Golarion but for a campaign I'm developing. I want to fill players with doubt without breaking the alignment system. Are they embracing evil or failing good? Can they question they deity's word or will? Can they, as faithful followers, consider their deity is betraying his ethos? Could mortals find answers/solutions the gods couldn't? If they can, should mortals still worship the gods?
From the answers here I can see such command should divide the cult and considering the importance of the situation this division should quickly end as a religious/civil war.
As a paladin, it's one thing to kill an "evil by birth" orcish warlord who slaughtered a village; it's another to kill a paladin brother in arms (you know and consider for years) who faithfully follows your deity's command.
It should be a campaign filled with doubts.
I would recommend starting a new thread that asks how to raise these questions in a game, rather than a thread that invites people to answer them.
My suggestions for the campaign:
- Make sure everyone's on board. Some people really don't like moral ambiguity in their games and trying to force this on people isn't going to end well - see this thread. You'll also want to consider what the party's general response will be to all this. It could be very disruptive if half the players go along with the command and the other half are adamantly against it. War between party members is generally not as fun as war within the larger setting. My gut says that most players will prefer to try to stop the apocalypse, rather than run around killing innocents.
- Obfuscate or re-frame alignment. If the Good action is always the right action, and it's easy to tell if an action or person is Evil, then there's no question about what the right action is in-world. One way to do this is remove alignment entirely. Another is to keep it, but make it clear that it doesn't correlate perfectly with actual morality. For example, devs have stated that casting an (Evil) spell is an Evil act even if it's used to save an orphanage. Under this interpretation, Evil is an energy that tends to attach to people who perform certain actions, and most of these actions are morally wrong, but it's certainly possible to do or be Evil without being morally wrong.
- Consider revising how a paladin's fall works - especially if you have paladin PCs. You don't want people to be able to tell what's morally right based on whether the paladin falls (see above) and you definitely don't want paladin players to feel as if they're being punished or placed in a no-win situation.
The line is drawn on viewpoint. For instance, war. A soldier killed a enemy soldier from his view point. But from the other side, he murdered a comrade.
To say ALL murder is evil pretty much stops anything but a non lethal paladin to be in a party against anyting other than evil outsiders or something.You're confusing murder and killing.
Admittedly - where the line is drawn on whether any given kill is a murder is a bit fuzzy. But not all killing is murder.
No - that's simply not true by any rules of war. If that were the case they would simply execute all captured enemies for being murderers.
All killing is technically murder. It just depends if society considers it "justified" or not.Nope. Not by any definition - unless you just decided to make a new one.
After all, most religions tend to say "thou shalt not kill" not "thou shalt not murder".... any killing is tended to view as evilThat's just comes from bad translations. In the Bible - it actually says "Thou shalt not murder" in the 10 commandments - it's just that some early English translations screwed up and had it be "Thou shalt not kill" - which is wrong entirely.Isn't that the same book that says if a woman's husband dies, the brother of the husband gets to marry her?
Weird stuff in that book, weird stuff...
Story about a UFO, talking vegetation... I try not to quote stuff from it.
I said RELIGIONS. Buddhism and Islam are thebsame way. They are (supposed to be anyway) pacifists. In many religion the act of killing is often frowned upon.
I said RELIGIONS. Buddhism and Islam are thebsame way. They are (supposed to be anyway) pacifists. In many religion the act of killing is often frowned upon.The line is drawn on viewpoint. For instance, war. A soldier killed a enemy soldier from his view point. But from the other side, he murdered a comrade.
To say ALL murder is evil pretty much stops anything but a non lethal paladin to be in a party against anyting other than evil outsiders or something.You're confusing murder and killing.
Admittedly - where the line is drawn on whether any given kill is a murder is a bit fuzzy. But not all killing is murder.
No - that's simply not true by any rules of war. If that were the case they would simply execute all captured enemies for being murderers.
All killing is technically murder. It just depends if society considers it "justified" or not.Nope. Not by any definition - unless you just decided to make a new one.
After all, most religions tend to say "thou shalt not kill" not "thou shalt not murder".... any killing is tended to view as evilThat's just comes from bad translations. In the Bible - it actually says "Thou shalt not murder" in the 10 commandments - it's just that some early English translations screwed up and had it be "Thou shalt not kill" - which is wrong entirely.Isn't that the same book that says if a woman's husband dies, the brother of the husband gets to marry her?
Weird stuff in that book, weird stuff...
Story about a UFO, talking vegetation... I try not to quote stuff from it.
In the real world, yes.
Playing Pathfinder without killing stuff is... very limiting.
We put our real morals on the backburner, and pretend to be sword-swinging, spell-slinging "heroes".
Really just psychotic and overpowered murderhobos a lot of the time, but it sure is fun.
Murder
noun
1.
Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder) and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder)
verb (used with object)
4.
Law. to kill by an act constituting murder.
5.
to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.
So again, murder is simply a legal definition. What is Murder is a definition established by the state.
Aso for the soldier thing, you know why they DONT just executed war prisoners? Simple, politicS. Most civilized countries have agreed to certain rules with which to operate. Same reason the US doesnt just nuke something, Sure WE COULD. The political ramifications are too steep for the country to risk. Same thing. Most countries dont treat soldiers as murderers because they were under the order of thoer state. Now if they went beyond their orders then they become war criminals.
|
Aso for the soldier thing, you know why they DONT just executed war prisoners? Simple, politicS. Most civilized countries have agreed to certain rules with which to operate. Same reason the US doesnt just nuke something, Sure WE COULD. The political ramifications are too steep for the country to risk. Same thing. Most countries dont treat soldiers as murderers because they were under the order of thoer state. Now if they went beyond their orders then they become war criminals.
"I was just following orders" hasn't been a valid excuse since the 40s. Orders have to be lawful to be followed and, if not, you can be a war criminal even if you followed your orders to the letter. Of course, just because you've committed war crimes, doesn't mean you'll actually be prosecuted. Neither of which is a place where an un-fallen Paladin should find themselves.
It's been awhile since I read it but I seem to recall that this is more or less the basic premise of the Pathfinder novel "The Redemption Engine"--capital G Good creatures killing a bunch of innocents for their own good although I'm not certain there is an actual paladin involved. Still, it's a decent exploration of the moral quandary presented and the protagonist, Salim, is one of my more favourite characters from the books.
Again, murder means unlawful and/or unjust killing.
You can argue about whether the States laws are just, but any execution is not inherently murder without said context.
Really, this conversation is lost in the details and specifics. People talking past one another and vehemently denying any similarity between positions. I bet most people are MUCH closer to agreeing on this than we are to disagreeing, except for a few minor details.
I think the real question is this:
Can you design a situation where a paladin should punch a baby?
With enough specifics and context, yes, but generally they shouldn't.Edited to add some things.
If the baby is evil, no problem.
What if it's a goblin baby? ;)
See, you're adding specifics and context, which was entirely my point.
Since we're also talking about Earth history, I'll mention with respect to the death by mass poison idea several posts back that this is reminiscent of a certain cult's actions in the late 1970s . . . .
Since we're also talking about Earth history, I'll mention with respect to the death by mass poison idea several posts back that this is reminiscent of a certain cult's actions in the late 1970s . . . .
That's what I was going for! :D
Since we're also talking about Earth history, I'll mention with respect to the death by mass poison idea several posts back that this is reminiscent of a certain cult's actions in the late 1970s . . . .
It also causes all of the Paladins to fall, since the code explicitly forbids use of poison.
It also causes all of the Paladins to fall, since the code explicitly forbids use of poison.Since we're also talking about Earth history, I'll mention with respect to the death by mass poison idea several posts back that this is reminiscent of a certain cult's actions in the late 1970s . . . .
Well dang.
Mass slaughter by sword it is.
No, wait, lock them in a barn and burn it down! That's not a violation of their code is it?
Well dang.
Mass slaughter by sword it is.
No, wait, lock them in a barn and burn it down! That's not a violation of their code is it?
Hm. You could make a case for that counting as failing to act with honor... But based on the explicit examples, as long as you don't lie to them about what you're doing, it could be okay?
In either case, Paladins must also "punish those who harm or threaten innocents". So, all of the Paladins will probably need to punish each other (and the deity that gave the order) at the end of it all.