| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know, Sarenrae seems a lot meaner than I gave her credit for,
"I will fight fairly when the fight is fair, and I will strike quickly and without mercy when it is not" seems like she wouldn't mind an assassination or two if the situation warranted it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Slaying enemies in their sleep, totally not evil, just good tactics
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sarenrae best waifu. <3
While it may not be evil to kill evil, it is a quick way to have a paladin fall on HOW you combat evil. Several examples of what makes for dishonorable combat are listed including poison, but it does go on to say "and so on".To a Paladin, yes. The code forces the Paladin to be Lawful Stupid.I've always thought that parts of the Paladin code (no lying/poison etc) weren't because Paladins were Lawful Stupid, nor because they think that such things are inherently wrong.
It's because everyone else knows the Paladin code too.
If some random self-proclaimed adventurer comes into the neighborhood and starts making crazy wild claims about evil plots - everyone is going to be suspicious. The nobles will be wary of them. After all - it's scary to have so much power concentrated in 4-6 individuals - and not all adventurers are such great people.
However - if it's a paladin making such claims - everyone immediately takes him at his word. After all - he's a paladin. The nobles are willing to sit down to a meal with him to discuss it since he'd never poison them. etc. Because of the reputation of paladins he's able to help more people much faster.
In a specific circumstance could a paladin achieve more through lying and/or poison etc? Sure. But it would sully the reputation of paladins everywhere into being just another 'self-proclaimed adventurer' who no one really trusts. (It's a similar reason that a single - albeit rare case - of major police misconduct hurts WAY more than the misconduct itself.)
Great post, to my mind you have dispelled the myth that Lawful Good = Lawful Stupid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know, Sarenrae seems a lot meaner than I gave her credit for,
"I will fight fairly when the fight is fair, and I will strike quickly and without mercy when it is not" seems like she wouldn't mind an assassination or two if the situation warranted it.
That one surprised me as well.
Slaying enemies in their sleep, totally not evil, just good tactics
I disagree, what assumptions are you basing your statement on?
|
That one surprised me as well.I don't know, Sarenrae seems a lot meaner than I gave her credit for,
"I will fight fairly when the fight is fair, and I will strike quickly and without mercy when it is not" seems like she wouldn't mind an assassination or two if the situation warranted it.
That is a fairly reasonable outlook on combat; it gives the Paladin some breathing room but stops short of outright saying ends justify means.
Slaying enemies in their sleep, totally not evil, just good tacticsI disagree, what assumptions are you basing your statement on?
Coup de Grace on sleeping opponents are not any more or less evil than straightforward combat against the same enemies. In fact they tend to be less painful, quicker, and "cleaner". The amount of suffering experienced by any of the slain dwarves was most likely much less than if they had engaged in fatal combat with the team.
So, the method here has no impact on the morality in this specific case. Thus the question is if it was evil to slay the dwarves in the first place. Which is no. They were Evil. They were followers of the stated enemy. They are applicable targets. Given that they were monks, they were also trained combatants, not civilians. If you need more of a reason to kill them then why are you taking this job in the first place?
Slaying enemies in their sleep, totally not evil, just good tacticsI disagree, what assumptions are you basing your statement on?Coup de Grace on sleeping opponents are not any more or less evil than straightforward combat against the same enemies. In fact they tend to be less painful, quicker, and "cleaner". The amount of suffering experienced by any of the slain dwarves was most likely much less than if they had engaged in fatal combat with the team.
So, the method here has no impact on the morality in this specific case. Thus the question is if it was evil to slay the dwarves in the first place. Which is no. They were Evil. They were followers of the stated enemy. They are applicable targets. Given that they were monks, they were also trained combatants, not civilians. If you need more of a reason to kill them then why are you taking this job in the first place?
also it is a good idea to kill sleeping enemies instead of letting them get a chance to set off an alarm
also it is a good idea to kill sleeping enemies instead of letting them get a chance to set off an alarmSlaying enemies in their sleep, totally not evil, just good tacticsI disagree, what assumptions are you basing your statement on?Coup de Grace on sleeping opponents are not any more or less evil than straightforward combat against the same enemies. In fact they tend to be less painful, quicker, and "cleaner". The amount of suffering experienced by any of the slain dwarves was most likely much less than if they had engaged in fatal combat with the team.
So, the method here has no impact on the morality in this specific case. Thus the question is if it was evil to slay the dwarves in the first place. Which is no. They were Evil. They were followers of the stated enemy. They are applicable targets. Given that they were monks, they were also trained combatants, not civilians. If you need more of a reason to kill them then why are you taking this job in the first place?
Wouldn't it be better to bind and gag the enemy? That solves the tactical and morale problem. If killing is your first impulse you are just as evil as those you condemn.
Wouldn't it be better to bind and gag the enemy? That solves the tactical and morale problem. If killing is your first impulse you are just as evil as those you condemn.also it is a good idea to kill sleeping enemies instead of letting them get a chance to set off an alarmSlaying enemies in their sleep, totally not evil, just good tacticsI disagree, what assumptions are you basing your statement on?Coup de Grace on sleeping opponents are not any more or less evil than straightforward combat against the same enemies. In fact they tend to be less painful, quicker, and "cleaner". The amount of suffering experienced by any of the slain dwarves was most likely much less than if they had engaged in fatal combat with the team.
So, the method here has no impact on the morality in this specific case. Thus the question is if it was evil to slay the dwarves in the first place. Which is no. They were Evil. They were followers of the stated enemy. They are applicable targets. Given that they were monks, they were also trained combatants, not civilians. If you need more of a reason to kill them then why are you taking this job in the first place?
why so he could have a chance to escape and set off the alarm while your back is turned?
Why do they detect as evil?
Maybe they infiltrated someone else's house and killed them in their sleep. If you respond in kind you are simply perpetuating evil.
Why do they detect as evil?
Maybe they infiltrated someone else's house and killed them in their sleep. If you respond in kind you are simply perpetuating evil.
Sounds more like karma to me.
why so he could have a chance to escape and set off the alarm while your back is turned?
Are you saying that your PCs dispense with their morale code as soon as it inconveniences them?
That sounds evil to me.
Are you saying that your PCs dispense with their morale code as soon as it inconveniences them?
That sounds evil to me.
Specific Individual's Morale code =! Good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
why so he could have a chance to escape and set off the alarm while your back is turned?
Are you saying that your PCs dispense with their morale code as soon as it inconveniences them?
That sounds evil to me.
Attitudes like this are why good guys often have a reputation for being f$**ing morons.
Attitudes like this are why good guys often have a reputation for being f$#*ing morons.
why so he could have a chance to escape and set off the alarm while your back is turned?
Are you saying that your PCs dispense with their morale code as soon as it inconveniences them?
That sounds evil to me.
It doesn't say much for your integrity if you would rather look clever than be a morale person.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't say much for your integrity if you would rather look clever than be a morale person.
It's not trying to look clever, it's trying to not be an idiot. Major difference.
That said theres a reason assassins require evil.
Considering you can accomplish all of the abilities of the assassin PrC without being evil I'd disagree with that.
not evil. not good but certainly not evil. Its dishonorable and doesnt give the enemy a chance to surrender, which the good should always try to do, but its not evil as long as youre sure of who youre killing.
I am curious, did you form your opinion after reading the entire thread? Or are you simply responding to the opening post?
It doesn't say much for your integrity if you would rather look clever than be a morale person.It's not trying to look clever, it's trying to not be an idiot. Major difference.
That said theres a reason assassins require evil.Considering you can accomplish all of the abilities of the assassin PrC without being evil I'd disagree with that.
So your justification for killing is so that you don't look like an idiot? Curious...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is a fairly reasonable outlook on combat; it gives the Paladin some breathing room but stops short of outright saying ends justify means.That one surprised me as well.I don't know, Sarenrae seems a lot meaner than I gave her credit for,
"I will fight fairly when the fight is fair, and I will strike quickly and without mercy when it is not" seems like she wouldn't mind an assassination or two if the situation warranted it.
The ends do justify the means though. If they don't you have chosen either the wrong ends or the wrong means.
So your justification for killing is so that you don't look like an idiot? Curious...
No. I said "It's not trying to look clever, it's trying to not be an idiot. Major difference."... did you even read what I said. I honestly don't know how you formed that interpretation....
That is a fairly reasonable outlook on combat; it gives the Paladin some breathing room but stops short of outright saying ends justify means.That one surprised me as well.I don't know, Sarenrae seems a lot meaner than I gave her credit for,
"I will fight fairly when the fight is fair, and I will strike quickly and without mercy when it is not" seems like she wouldn't mind an assassination or two if the situation warranted it.The ends do justify the means though. If they don't you have chosen either the wrong ends or the wrong means.
Can you please elaborate on your point and perhaps use an example?
So your justification for killing is so that you don't look like an idiot? Curious...No. I said "It's not trying to look clever, it's trying to not be an idiot. Major difference."... did you even read what I said. I honestly don't know how you formed that interpretation....
Sorry, I misread what you posted.
What I still don't understand though is how stupidity is important where morality is concerned. Perhaps you can explain?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can you please elaborate on your point and perhaps use an example?That is a fairly reasonable outlook on combat; it gives the Paladin some breathing room but stops short of outright saying ends justify means.That one surprised me as well.I don't know, Sarenrae seems a lot meaner than I gave her credit for,
"I will fight fairly when the fight is fair, and I will strike quickly and without mercy when it is not" seems like she wouldn't mind an assassination or two if the situation warranted it.The ends do justify the means though. If they don't you have chosen either the wrong ends or the wrong means.
Ends: Make a profit.
Means: Raise price of life saving medicine.Result: Evil
Ends: Ensure the human race survives extinction level epidemic.
Means: Restrict limited supply of life saving medicine to those most likely to pull through epidemic.
Result: Good
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Anzyr
I think I have a different understanding of what the expression: 'The ends justify the means' actually means.
My understanding is that it is when an evil deed is made to produce a good outcome and the morale dilemma is whether that is justified.
Is that what you mean?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So your justification for killing is so that you don't look like an idiot? Curious...No. I said "It's not trying to look clever, it's trying to not be an idiot. Major difference."... did you even read what I said. I honestly don't know how you formed that interpretation....Sorry, I misread what you posted.
What I still don't understand though is how stupidity is important where morality is concerned. Perhaps you can explain?
Because morality isn't determined in a vacuum. A noble gesture that is ultimately pointless means nothing. The effect, intent, method, and motive must all be considered.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean that "means" by themselves lack justification. Therefore, if one wishes to justify those means, it can only be with an "ends". You can justify plenty of terrible means like "letting 5% of the population die" if you have an appropriate "ends". Thus the "ends" should always justify the "means" and if they do not you have chosen one of them poorly.
I mean that "means" by themselves lack justification. Therefore, if one wishes to justify those means, it can only be with an "ends". You can justify plenty of terrible means like "letting 5% of the population die" if you have an appropriate "ends". Thus the "ends" should always justify the "means" and if they do not you have chosen one of them poorly.
Okay, I get it now, thanks for clarifying.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean that "means" by themselves lack justification. Therefore, if one wishes to justify those means, it can only be with an "ends". You can justify plenty of terrible means like "letting 5% of the population die" if you have an appropriate "ends". Thus the "ends" should always justify the "means" and if they do not you have chosen one of them poorly.
I don't think that "letting 5% of the population die" is a means at all - it's a passive result.
A means would be something that you actively do in order to accomplish your goals.
The phrase "The ends justify the means" is generally used in reference to mass killings of civilians to keep the rest in line & torture to find criminals etc.
Because morality isn't determined in a vacuum. A noble gesture that is ultimately pointless means nothing. The effect, intent, method, and motive must all be considered.
I agree that morality is complex, I often have to consider morale issues for some time before I can formulate an opinion. However, in saying that a morale code needs to be applied consistently otherwise it becomes worthless. It is the actions made under pressure that count, anybody can do good deeds when it is profitable to do so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, I misread what you posted.
What I still don't understand though is how stupidity is important where morality is concerned. Perhaps you can explain?
Basically, doing what is "good" 100% of the time, obviously means you limit your potential actions. Normally this is not an issue. But sometimes the issues posed by doing the "moral thing" are far greater than the reason to do the moral thing. In those cases, being effective at your objective can be deemed more important than doing the morale thing, thus doing the morale thing over attaining the objective is stupid. Also, what is moral is ridiculously subjective in the first place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Milo v3
I can accept that argument where a moral code conflicts with itself. For example if you don't lie and you don't kill then there may be situations where you have to lie to prevent someone's death.
If your moral code is overruled by other things (like mission objectives) then your moral code is worthless.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If your moral code is overruled by other things (like mission objectives) then your moral code is worthless.
That's like saying cars are worthless because a plane costs more. Just because somethings have higher worth than maintaining your morality 100% of the time doesn't mean morality is worthless. It just means it is worth less than the thing that over rules it.
For example, many would be willing to commit moraly wrong acts in the aim of their survival, but that doesn't make their morality worthless. It's like how if you fight and accidental kill someone in self defence it isn't evil, but if you attack and murder someone it is. Objectively it is the same action. Morality wise it is wrong to kill a person. But it would be stupid to not defend yourself.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Morality wise it is wrong to kill a person.
See - that's where you lost me.
I don't think that it's morally wrong at all to kill someone in the course of war, in self defense, or in the defense of others.
That's part of my moral code to begin with - so I wouldn't have to make an exception to said moral code to do any of those actions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In short, we snuck out of our rooms, and stabbed several acolytes in their sleep. Evil act? Or acceptable, as they are evil enemies in a rival order during possible war time?
If killing an evil person while they are sleeping is evil, then every state that uses lethal injection to execute capitol offenders is committing evil. Seeing as how they inject them with a sedative before stopping the heart with a separate mixture of drugs. A paladin has been given authority by his church to act as a means of justice in times of need, and killing a bad guy quickly and painlessly in the heat of a dangerous mission to kill an evil cult leader sounds like the right time to use such questionable tactics.
Now, there are a few gods that might balk at it (Iomedae, Sarenrae) but hardass gods like Torag or Erastil wouldn't bat an eye at such tactics if the opponent was truly despicable.
JM2C
I don't think that it's morally wrong at all to kill someone in the course of war, in self defense, or in the defense of others.
That's my point.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think that it's morally wrong at all to kill someone in the course of war, in self defense, or in the defense of others.That's my point.
I suppose it's a matter of perspective then.
You said above "many would be willing to commit moraly wrong acts in the aim of their survival, but that doesn't make their morality worthless." - I simply don't think that they're morally wrong at all, not merely situationally okay to do despite being morally wrong.
*shrug*
Perhaps somewhat a difference of semantics - but I wouldn't feel comfortable going with your version.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean that "means" by themselves lack justification. Therefore, if one wishes to justify those means, it can only be with an "ends". You can justify plenty of terrible means like "letting 5% of the population die" if you have an appropriate "ends". Thus the "ends" should always justify the "means" and if they do not you have chosen one of them poorly.I don't think that "letting 5% of the population die" is a means at all - it's a passive result.
A means would be something that you actively do in order to accomplish your goals.
The phrase "The ends justify the means" is generally used in reference to mass killings of civilians to keep the rest in line & torture to find criminals etc.
Your interpretation is the one I am familiar with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think that it's morally wrong at all to kill someone in the course of war, in self defense, or in the defense of others.That's my point.
I'm with Charon's Little Helper on this one.
If you believe killing is okay in self defence then your morale code should be: I don't kill, except in self defence. To say your moral code is: killing is evil; but self defence is an exception where my moral code does not apply, is confusing.
You know, the Iconic Slayer, works for the church of Sarenrae.
And he's Neutral, so not a good example.
In the end people are saying what they consider Evil, but always lack system evidence to show that it's correct. It's hard to have a discussion that way.
The amount of suffering experienced by any of the slain dwarves was most likely much less than if they had engaged in fatal combat with the team.
They were human acolytes. The dwarves appeared to be temple guards and/or thugs meant to keep the human acolytes in line.
You know, the Iconic Slayer, works for the church of Sarenrae.And he's Neutral, so not a good example.
In the end people are saying what they consider Evil, but always lack system evidence to show that it's correct. It's hard to have a discussion that way.
What is your opinion based on system evidence?