|
Also, I sincerely do not understand why killing someone in their sleep is more evil than killing someone while they are awake. Your killing them either way and with the same motivation either way, one is just less likely to risk other peoples lives and increases the chance for the person being killed to have a peaceful death rather than a drawn out combat where they suffer through pain. Killing someone in their sleep should be considered the more Good act.
Awake, sleeping, doesn't matter. If they are HELPLESS then killing them is considered an evil act according to the rules of pathfinder. Someone who is sleeping is helpless. Waking them up then immediately slitting their throat right after their eyes open, also evil. Killing that bound and gagged prisoner? Yup, that's evil too.
Doing so once, that's not going to change your alignment. Even 2 or 3 times isn't likely to change your alignment. But even one time is enough for a paladin to fall. And if you create a pattern of killing helpless people Well then you should expect consequences of some sort from any decent GM.
In a non PFS campaign then over time if you're continuously doing such things, the GM is well within their rights to shift your alignment. Yes, that means that if your lawful good character is always finishing off every KO'd enemy 'just to be sure' instead of binding them, the GM is within their rights to tell you eventually "No, you're now lawful neutral". Assuming that is that you've been acting lawful.
There's game masters who wont do this. There's also game masters who will.
In PFS play losing alignment is rather difficult. You'd have to be violating your alignment so often in one session (or with such a gross violation) that you'd qualify for an alignment shift during that session. Anything less, and it's assumed you managed to redeem yourself between sessions.
But again, as I've said multiple times. It's killing a helpless foe that's the evil act. Not killing a foe who's actively trying to kill you. That's actually expected to have happen. Especially when the raging barbarian power attacks. Once the foe is actually helpless though, congratulations. You've beaten them, at least for the moment. I've used Stunning Fist, then an ally quickly ties up the person I just stunned. That foe was now helpless and out of the fight unless someone else freed them.
If anyone in the party then decided to kill that tied up foe, evil act.
Are you understanding this concept yet?
For a TL:DR version...
In regards to Good vs Evil act sleeping, awake, DOES NOT matter. Helpless non-combatant vs active combatant DOES matter. Motive for fight DOES matter. In Pathfinder Good and Evil are not subjective, while there's shades of gray the lesser evil is still evil.
Awake, sleeping, doesn't matter. If they are HELPLESS then killing them is considered an evil act according to the rules of pathfinder. Someone who is sleeping is helpless. Waking them up then immediately slitting their throat right after their eyes open, also evil. Killing that bound and gagged prisoner? Yup, that's evil too.
Sincerely wondering, where is "Killing a helpless person is evil"? I have never seen that in the books. Morally, there is no real reason why killing someone who is helpless would be any more evil than killing them while they are active. One is just more efficient than the other. Them being conscious and helpless and killing them might be considered torture depending on how long it takes, so I can see that as potentially evil depending on what you do. But simply killing someone who is helpless does not make sense to be evil.
Not killing a foe who's actively trying to kill you.
Except the fact that most of the time, the person would kill you if they weren't helpless... So... they would actively try to kill you. It's like saying "It's evil to kill someone while your wearing armour so good they can't stab you.". Just because you aren't risking your life does not make an act evil.
Motive for fight DOES matter.
I never argued against that. My argument was that Murder =! Evil, because good PC's do premeditated murder all the time. Just because it might be for good motives and protecting people, and having good results, does not make it not premeditated murder.
Are you understanding this concept yet?
Please calm down. There is no reason to be rude simply because of a disagreement.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the record, Milo v3...
It's not evil per PF standards anymore than simply killing is. If they're doing it for altruistic, protective, concerned reasons, it's no worse than a Paladin killing an orc for the same reasons.
The method is pretty irrelevant. Slaying them in open combat, in their sleep, with a sword, spell, or poison, is entirely irrelevant.
So don't worry. The world still makes sense. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tammy can't believe this is still going around in circles.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tammy can't believe this is still going around in circles.
Just think, you're immortal. You'll get to watch this circle and die and revive to circle again forever and ever and ever.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tammy can't believe this is still going around in circles.Just think, you're immortal. You'll get to watch this circle and die and revive to circle again forever and ever and ever.
So strap in, little lich. We're going to talk about why you're evil until you decide that philosophical reasons don't actually matter and just decide to kill us all for a little peace and quiet.
For the record, Milo v3...
It's not evil per PF standards anymore than simply killing is. If they're doing it for altruistic, protective, concerned reasons, it's no worse than a Paladin killing an orc for the same reasons.
The method is pretty irrelevant. Slaying them in open combat, in their sleep, with a sword, spell, or poison, is entirely irrelevant.
So don't worry. The world still makes sense. :)
From my perspective, the reason killing someone in their sleep is more evil is you typically have more choices. Killing the orc is fine because it's the only effective way to stop them from killing the innocent villagers. If you come upon him in his sleep, you could probably capture him, which shows more respect for intelligent life, etc.
If other circumstances make that impossible, no problem. If you chose killing because it's more expedient, that's one of the ways the road to evil is paved.
Since Kahel brought up the helpless vs. not helpless debate, killing a prisoner that legitimately surrendered has a strong evil bent. This is in part because they're already at your mercy and in part because you're breaking your word (although that's more non-lawful than anything else).
Finally, there's a sense of what's "honorable". People who actually care about honor have a tendency to be LG (with an emphasis on the L), but I view that more as the other aspects informing what's considered honorable rather than honor being a direct source of what's good and evil.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just a question going back to an earlier part of the debate. If you can choose your acts freely even when turned into an Evil undead, how come that so many sentient undead are still Evil after all this time ? Or are undead mostly created from Evil mortals ?
I think the official paizo stance is "because".
Just a question going back to an earlier part of the debate. If you can choose your acts freely even when turned into an Evil undead, how come that so many sentient undead are still Evil after all this time ? Or are undead mostly created from Evil mortals ?I think the official paizo stance is "because".
and that doesn't stop an undead PC from becoming good with a little work
and that doesn't stop an undead PC from becoming good with a little workJust a question going back to an earlier part of the debate. If you can choose your acts freely even when turned into an Evil undead, how come that so many sentient undead are still Evil after all this time ? Or are undead mostly created from Evil mortals ?I think the official paizo stance is "because".
I think it's dependent on the undead. For example, liches are evil before they get there because that's what it takes to complete the rituals (combination of mostly from Evil mortals and twisted by the experience). Standard tropes for vampires seem to be either feeding on people makes you stop thinking of them as people, it's not really you in there, or Stockholm Syndrome while you're enslaved by your sire. Alternatively, the evil ones have a better survival rate. I don't know of Paizo taking a firm stance on this. Wights actually explicitly have a situation for "it's not really you" when an evil undead spirit binds to your corpse. Wraiths seem to be you, but warped by the experience to kind of not be you (lost much of their connection to their former lives).
Finally, there's a sense of what's "honorable". People who actually care about honor have a tendency to be LG (with an emphasis on the L), but I view that more as the other aspects informing what's considered honorable rather than honor being a direct source of what's good and evil.
Honour really has no ties to Good Evil axis. Lawful evil individuals are generally just as honourable as lawful good ones are.
Finally, there's a sense of what's "honorable". People who actually care about honor have a tendency to be LG (with an emphasis on the L), but I view that more as the other aspects informing what's considered honorable rather than honor being a direct source of what's good and evil.Honour really has no ties to Good Evil axis. Lawful evil individuals are generally just as honourable as lawful good ones are.
I should have been clearer. I think the "killing sleeping = evil" is from a conflation of honorable and good more than actual consideration of what's good.
I disagree about LE being just as honorable as LG since (at least in my head-version) LE is about the letter of the code while LG is also about the spirit.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honor doesn't even have many ties to the law/chaos axis. Characters like Robin Hood or the 3 Musketeers weren't dishonorable. They were just outlaws.
Honor is kind of a personal-scale z-axis to the alignment system. One that the gods don't really judge and the system doesn't recognize beyond some mentions in the Paladin code and a few Cavalier orders.
Honor doesn't even have many ties to the law/chaos axis. Characters like Robin Hood or the 3 Musketeers weren't dishonorable. They were just outlaws.
Honor is kind of a personal-scale z-axis to the alignment system. One that the gods don't really judge and the system doesn't recognize beyond some mentions in the Paladin code and a few Cavalier orders.
I disagree that there aren't many ties. Honor is a particular type of code. Characters of any alignment can have a code, but there's a stronger tendency toward it by lawful characters. It's not exclusive to them, just in the set of honorable characters, lawful characters are disproportionately represented.
|
I do think that players really tend to downplay the tragedy of undeath. Very rarely do creatures choose to be undead, and often they are risen just be slaves. Even free-willed undead rarely choose to be undead, and those that do tend to do so in fear of their own mortality.
Attacking them because they are undead strikes me as a sort of racism. Not really a race in the true sense of the word, but attacking them for being what they are does strike me as a immoral.
As a lawful neutral player, I'd live and live (or unlive) provided they remain non-disruptive to the order of the world. If they step out of line, I'd hack them down, but not because they are undead. Chaos is the enemy I seek, disruptive elements will be removed.
Incidentally every execution that takes place in the US is technically the killing of a helpless person. I'm personally not in favour of it, but i don't think it is evil.
Murder is the intentional killing of another person that isn't justified under law. There are lots of examples where I wouldn't consider killing someone evil. Killing in self defence, killing in battle, killing by accident (car crash), killing a highly abusive spouse, killing the person who raped your son/daughter. The last few may be unlawful but certainly not evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From my perspective, the reason killing someone in their sleep is more evil is you typically have more choices. Killing the orc is fine because it's the only effective way to stop them from killing the innocent villagers. If you come upon him in his sleep, you could probably capture him, which shows more respect for intelligent life, etc.For the record, Milo v3...
It's not evil per PF standards anymore than simply killing is. If they're doing it for altruistic, protective, concerned reasons, it's no worse than a Paladin killing an orc for the same reasons.
The method is pretty irrelevant. Slaying them in open combat, in their sleep, with a sword, spell, or poison, is entirely irrelevant.
So don't worry. The world still makes sense. :)
I'd like to reiterate once more that "not good" does not equate to evil, and "not evil" does not equate to good. Killing them in their sleep for the overall good is no more evil than killing them in open combat. Which is to say, it's Neutral.
Intending to capture them to avoid killing the in the first place would be the clearly good option (because you're skipping the killing part but you're still hitting all the good flags), so doing so would make you actively more good.
I'm just noting that doing Neutral things doesn't make people fall and if you're more commonly being good, you have no more risk of slipping down the alignment scale than any other character who slays an orc.
Murder is a legal term. The law of whichever country the person is accused. However murder is universally illegal and has typically been illegal in societies since there were codes of law. What is common is that some societies did (and do now) expand the list of justifications to areas that some would consider wrong. There are generally accepted exceptions across all societies e.g self defence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Incidentally every execution that takes place in the US is technically the killing of a helpless person. I'm personally not in favour of it, but i don't think it is evil.
It's definitely not good. However, there was a judge in Texas recently that sentenced a man to life in prison for his 10th DWI conviction. The reason he gave was that it was his job to do what was best for the safety of the people and this man was clearly not learning from his mistakes and to do any less would make him feel that he was putting others in danger.
Capital punishment is, theoretically, about removing the threat from the populace. Though it could very easily and in many cases end up being evil actions, especially if it's done merely as punishment, revenge, or some other motivations.
It's actually really simple. That's the beauty of it. Compare the Evil vs Good aspects, determine overall alignment of the action, strive to be consistent. It's simple enough to be functional as a game mechanic with a bit of help from the referee (the GM), yet efficient enough to cover virtually any situation.
It also results in there being far more neutral things than things that are clearly good or evil, which makes for good story telling since acts of good and evil shine more clearly. It also removes the silliness that people get into, such as whether or not the Paladin falls because he didn't knock on someone's door before trying to open it or something.
Murder is the intentional killing of another person that isn't justified under law. There are lots of examples where I wouldn't consider killing someone evil. Killing in self defence,
How many times do I have to repeat myself on the self defense thing? I already said it wasn't evil. It's Neutral.
killing in battle,
Depends entirely on the circumstances. A bunch of samurai massacring a bunch of peasants to oppress a potential rebellion is likely totes evil. Fighting off said samurai, depending on circumstances could be evil, Neutral, or even Good.
killing by accident (car crash),
We're discussing the alignment of actions. If your action wasn't to kill someone, then unforeseen consequences are outside the realm of consideration. For example, if an adventuring party finds a big boulder blocking their path, pushes the boulder, and the boulder rolls down a hill and takes out a Unicorn they didn't even know was there, nobody did any good or evil, they just pushed a boulder and somebody else got unlucky.
Now if you mean for the sort of killing the occurs from reckless endangerment, such as drunk driving, then yes that's generally evil because you're intentionally placing others in harms way and your killing them is a direct result of the choice you made to put them into danger for no good reasons.
killing a highly abusive spouse,
Protecting life and dignity. Neutral.
killing the person who raped your son/daughter.
Protecting life and dignity. Or it might just be pure vengeance and be evil ("Nobody defiles my son and gets away with it") but even good people can do evil things sometimes.
The last few may be unlawful but certainly not evil.
I never said those things were evil. You're the one that's making blanket judgments about a wide variety of things without context. I'm not. That's the beauty of the alignment system. Once you block out all the crap that isn't actually in the alignment system at all, it works very well for quickly determining how far something is matching or straying.
There are no actions that are innately aligned, but there are aspects of alignments that are found in actions, which allows the GM to (ideally consistently) judge whether an individual action is good or evil. What the rules give us is simple enough to actually make use of mid-game, rather than the game devolving into a 6-person philosophical and ethical debate over whether or not it's okay to eat the dragon you just killed.
Murder is a legal term. The law of whichever country the person is accused. However murder is universally illegal and has typically been illegal in societies since there were codes of law. What is common is that some societies did (and do now) expand the list of justifications to areas that some would consider wrong. There are generally accepted exceptions across all societies e.g self defence.
Please, for the love of Gygax, read my posts if you're going to argue them. :|
I've already covered killing in self defense. Whether a killing is lawful or unlawful has nothing at all to do with whether it's good, evil, or neutral. It has everything to do with the reasons, and I've already covered that self defense is not evil.
Your repeatedly arguing that self defense isn't evil is a pointless waste of time in what is already a conversation that could be defined as a pointless waste of time.
I was not responding to you Ashiel...
I was responding to TOZ question about murder under whose law.
Dial it down a notch and keep it civil.
I was not responding to you Ashiel...
I was responding to TOZ question about murder under whose law.
Dial it down a notch and keep it civil.
Noted.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's idiotic. Also please note Sneak Attacks are not evil in PF nor is poison.Paladins fall for violating the code. Two violations are, "Dishonorable actions" and "Using Poison" specifically.
Killing someone in their sleep is dishonorable as heck. Using poison is specifically called out as being objectively dishonorable.
But neither is evil.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But neither is evil.That's idiotic. Also please note Sneak Attacks are not evil in PF nor is poison.Paladins fall for violating the code. Two violations are, "Dishonorable actions" and "Using Poison" specifically.
Killing someone in their sleep is dishonorable as heck. Using poison is specifically called out as being objectively dishonorable.
I disagree with your position on that but regardless its something a Paladin cannot do.
You're free to disagree, but you would be wrong as far as Pathfinder's alignment system is concerned. In fact, the need to call out using poison as a thing that's against the Paladin's code in addition to committing evil acts is proof that it's a separate restriction and not restricted due to being evil.
From my perspective, the reason killing someone in their sleep is more evil is you typically have more choices. Killing the orc is fine because it's the only effective way to stop them from killing the innocent villagers. If you come upon him in his sleep, you could probably capture him, which shows more respect for intelligent life, etc.For the record, Milo v3...
It's not evil per PF standards anymore than simply killing is. If they're doing it for altruistic, protective, concerned reasons, it's no worse than a Paladin killing an orc for the same reasons.
The method is pretty irrelevant. Slaying them in open combat, in their sleep, with a sword, spell, or poison, is entirely irrelevant.
So don't worry. The world still makes sense. :)
I'd like to reiterate once more that "not good" does not equate to evil, and "not evil" does not equate to good. Killing them in their sleep for the overall good is no more evil than killing them in open combat. Which is to say, it's Neutral.
Intending to capture them to avoid killing the in the first place would be the clearly good option (because you're skipping the killing part but you're still hitting all the good flags), so doing so would make you actively more good.
I'm just noting that doing Neutral things doesn't make people fall and if you're more commonly being good, you have no more risk of slipping down the alignment scale than any other character who slays an orc.
I think we're disagreeing on a matter of scale. Just because an action has both good and evil components, doesn't mean it nets out to neutral. Murdering a petty evildoer prevents future evil (a good factor) but doesn't respect life (an evil factor). But it's still an evil action.
The nuance that saying there's no moral difference between killing an orc in battle and in his sleep misses is that actions don't exist in a vacuum. There are alternatives not taken. If an equally difficult alternative would be equally effective but not involve killing, the choice to kill is more evil/less good than if there's no such alternative.
Most of the time, PCs will exist in situations where the alternatives are ambiguous enough that these decisions are either neutral or even good if the averted negative combined with the risk they're taking is large enough. It's worth noting here that most characters are pragmatically or opportunistically evil rather than ideologically evil. So performing good actions aren't really out of character for them, even though they are clearly evil.
But neither is evil.That's idiotic. Also please note Sneak Attacks are not evil in PF nor is poison.Paladins fall for violating the code. Two violations are, "Dishonorable actions" and "Using Poison" specifically.
Killing someone in their sleep is dishonorable as heck. Using poison is specifically called out as being objectively dishonorable.
I disagree with your position on that but regardless its something a Paladin cannot do.
Cannot do in your game. Not everyone agrees. As always check with your table and GM on their position on this. YMMV, Not valid in Mordor or Cheliax.
Seriously, no blanket statements on this stuff.
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.
Using poison is explicitly forbidden in the rules. Every rule statement has an implicit "unless you house rule it" caveat and allowing paladins to use poison is a highly innocuous house rule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.Using poison is explicitly forbidden in the rules. Every rule statement has an implicit "unless you house rule it" caveat and allowing paladins to use poison is a highly innocuous house rule.
Exactly. Nobody is suggesting it's OK for Paladins to use poison. We're suggesting - nay explaining - that Paladins aren't forbidden from doing so because poisons are evil, because if that was the case then using poison would be evil regardless of being a Paladin or not and it would be covered under the evil acts part of the Paladin's code.
Specifically, the Paladin's code requires them to not do evil acts, and in addition to that they're not to do a few other things, one of which includes using poisons.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.Using poison is explicitly forbidden in the rules. Every rule statement has an implicit "unless you house rule it" caveat and allowing paladins to use poison is a highly innocuous house rule.
Which covers poison, which I wasn't talking about. I'm not seeing "cannot stab people who are sleeping" under the code. Further, the code is pretty nebulous about what cheating is, what is a lie, what is honorable -- which honor code for that matter -- and more. It's more of a "be good" in a sort of handwavy way that doesn't really explain much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which covers poison, which I wasn't talking about. I'm not seeing "cannot stab people who are sleeping" under the code. Further, the code is pretty nebulous about what cheating is, what is a lie, what is honorable -- which honor code for that matter -- and more. It's more of a "be good" in a sort of handwavy way that doesn't really explain much.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.Using poison is explicitly forbidden in the rules. Every rule statement has an implicit "unless you house rule it" caveat and allowing paladins to use poison is a highly innocuous house rule.
The code of conduct and how grossly vague it is can often be more contentious than anything involving alignment because of things that are completely outside the realm of alignment, such as the notion of "honor", because notions of what is and is not honorable can vary from person to person and group to group and tradition to tradition.
As written, the only things that Paladins can't do as part of their code aside from aligned restrictions is lie, cheat, and use poison.
Which covers poison, which I wasn't talking about. I'm not seeing "cannot stab people who are sleeping" under the code. Further, the code is pretty nebulous about what cheating is, what is a lie, what is honorable -- which honor code for that matter -- and more. It's more of a "be good" in a sort of handwavy way that doesn't really explain much.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.Using poison is explicitly forbidden in the rules. Every rule statement has an implicit "unless you house rule it" caveat and allowing paladins to use poison is a highly innocuous house rule.The code of conduct and how grossly vague it is can often be more contentious than anything involving alignment because of things that are completely outside the realm of alignment, such as the notion of "honor", because notions of what is and is not honorable can vary from person to person and group to group and tradition to tradition.
As written, the only things that Paladins can't do as part of their code aside from aligned restrictions is lie, cheat, and use poison.
That's pretty clearly written to be interpreted broadly ("and so forth"). It might not be the same for different paladins what exactly "dishonorable" means, but it clearly should mean something for each of them. Whether it's the paladin who makes that call when taking their oath, the deity when accepting that oath, or some honor spirit will help determine how much of those details is for the GM and how much for the player to sort out. If it's the player, though, they should be honest about whether something violates how they see their oath. If it's the GM, they should warn the player before they do anything that puts their powers in jeopardy.
That's pretty clearly written to be interpreted broadly ("and so forth"). It might not be the same for different paladins what exactly "dishonorable" means, but it clearly should mean something for each of them. Whether it's the paladin who makes that call when taking their oath, the deity when accepting that oath, or some honor spirit will help determine how much of those details is for the GM and how much for the player to sort out. If it's the player, though, they should be honest about whether something violates how they see their oath. If it's the GM, they should warn the player before they do anything that puts their powers in jeopardy.
Yes, and this is elaborated on here
=Individual paladins may vary somewhat in terms of which aspects of a god's tenets they prioritize highest, and two paladins of the same faith may still have differing interpretations on how to best implement a god's divine mandates.
If the gods are willing to allow their paladins to prioritize their tenets, which are close to them, then it would stand to reason they'd be allowed to do the same with the generic inherited codes from the Core book.
That's pretty clearly written to be interpreted broadly ("and so forth"). It might not be the same for different paladins what exactly "dishonorable" means, but it clearly should mean something for each of them. Whether it's the paladin who makes that call when taking their oath, the deity when accepting that oath, or some honor spirit will help determine how much of those details is for the GM and how much for the player to sort out. If it's the player, though, they should be honest about whether something violates how they see their oath. If it's the GM, they should warn the player before they do anything that puts their powers in jeopardy.Yes, and this is elaborated on here
=Individual paladins may vary somewhat in terms of which aspects of a god's tenets they prioritize highest, and two paladins of the same faith may still have differing interpretations on how to best implement a god's divine mandates.If the gods are willing to allow their paladins to prioritize their tenets, which are close to them, then it would stand to reason they'd be allowed to do the same with the generic inherited codes from the Core book.
I agree. I was disagreeing with Ashiel's claim that "As written, the only things that Paladins can't do as part of their code aside from aligned restrictions is lie, cheat, and use poison." Those are the only things the rules guarantee no paladins can do. Each paladin has an honor code that has additional forbidden actions. Being allowed to prioritize parts doesn't mean you can violate other parts.
I agree. I was disagreeing with Ashiel's claim that "As written, the only things that Paladins can't do as part of their code aside from aligned restrictions is lie, cheat, and use poison." Those are the only things the rules guarantee no paladins can do. Each paladin has an honor code that has additional forbidden actions. Being allowed to prioritize parts doesn't mean you can violate other parts.That's pretty clearly written to be interpreted broadly ("and so forth"). It might not be the same for different paladins what exactly "dishonorable" means, but it clearly should mean something for each of them. Whether it's the paladin who makes that call when taking their oath, the deity when accepting that oath, or some honor spirit will help determine how much of those details is for the GM and how much for the player to sort out. If it's the player, though, they should be honest about whether something violates how they see their oath. If it's the GM, they should warn the player before they do anything that puts their powers in jeopardy.Yes, and this is elaborated on here
=Individual paladins may vary somewhat in terms of which aspects of a god's tenets they prioritize highest, and two paladins of the same faith may still have differing interpretations on how to best implement a god's divine mandates.If the gods are willing to allow their paladins to prioritize their tenets, which are close to them, then it would stand to reason they'd be allowed to do the same with the generic inherited codes from the Core book.
Well, yes and no. As I pointed out on another thread, paladins of Torag, for an example, are allowed to mislead others for the good of their people. They will do whatever it takes as well, which seems to indicate that cheating (for whatever that may mean) isn't out of bounds as well.
The generic code was passed down from other generations of the game and acts as a basis of what you could design for paladins to follow. Individual games/GMs may tailor that code to add or remove (as we see in the Inner Sea Gods book) to customize paladins for their game.
Mislead =/= lie and "whatever it takes" could include evil actions which are pretty clearly not OK, but that's beside the point. You are correct that if the entity to whom a paladin swears their oath dictates a different oath and code of conduct, their allowable actions will be different. Golarion has a few ways that it canonically differs from the RAW for the Pathfinder RPG. The most obvious is the existence of free agent clerics, but this is another.
So yes, if you have a paladin that has different rules than the core rules, you might be able to do something forbidden to all vanilla core rules paladins.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I mean is, "and so forth" is not defined and thus is useless as a rules text. Because it's undefined, it creates a lot of contention, because you can fill it with most anything. This is why I said the Paladin code is even more contentious than alignment itself because it's supposed to be rules text but - unlike alignment - isn't even defined.
Alignment is defined. There is literally a right and wrong. It is objective. The Paladin's code isn't, so someone could decide that not throwing your cape on a puddle so a lady can step over it is dishonorable and BAM, instant code breakage.
I mean, your GM would have to be a huge failure to do something like that and should be shunned and scorned by the group and doomed to GM for a bunch of empty chairs until the second coming, but the fact it's even a thing is an issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In fact, when we're talking about things that have mechanical ramifications on a character such as complete loss of all their class features, things need to be well defined, not poorly defined. For example, as written, a Paladin can't engage in any form of lying, including a lie of omission. A Paladin can't use poison, for any reason, despite the fact there are in fact many poisons that have medicinal uses (such as the chinese red centipede's venom which is a powerful numbing agent that's been used to treat horrifically painful injuries such as burn wounds for ages) and/or can be used to spare lives (such as tranquilizers like drow poison).
You gotta be specific when we're talking about rules, especially rules that are going to strip someone of all their class features and turn them into a flat tire on the adventure van.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Further, because "and so forth" isn't defined, it also doesn't actually do anything. "And so forth" is not a thing. It doesn't do anything. Except start arguments or serve as fuel for bad GMs and worse forum threads. It's the reason we get stupid stuff like people asking if the party's Paladin should fall because their group outnumbered the badguys, or because the Paladin used a bow or x-bow instead of fighting in "honorable melee", or if the Paladin should fall because they didn't decide to stand and go toe to toe with the ancient wyrm and fled rather than commit suicide by dragonfire.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you would drop a Paladin that's gonna get 1-shot by a big wyrm and die or suddenly need atonement?
This is why we can't have nice things.
Further, because "and so forth" isn't defined, it also doesn't actually do anything. "And so forth" is not a thing. It doesn't do anything. Except start arguments or serve as fuel for bad GMs and worse forum threads. It's the reason we get stupid stuff like people asking if the party's Paladin should fall because their group outnumbered the badguys, or because the Paladin used a bow or x-bow instead of fighting in "honorable melee", or if the Paladin should fall because they didn't decide to stand and go toe to toe with the ancient wyrm and fled rather than commit suicide by dragonfire.
No, it being undefined means it's deliberately left to the GM or the group's social contract. Just because it isn't defined doesn't mean the rules would be identical if it had been left out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IN other words, the paladin code isn't a suicide pact, a set of check marks, its a set of weights and balances, and above all a Paladins(as written) is lawful GOOD not lawful neutral, or even LAWFUL good. If it comes to a conflict between law and good, good is going to be the winner. A paladin would prefer the company of a chaotic good rebel to a lawful evil beuraucrat who used the system and its loopholes to relentlessly crush the people under it.
I agree with all of that. What does that have to do with GMs randomly trying to make Paladins fall because they think running away from grossly overbearing obstacles isn't the "honorable" thing?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Further, because "and so forth" isn't defined, it also doesn't actually do anything. "And so forth" is not a thing. It doesn't do anything. Except start arguments or serve as fuel for bad GMs and worse forum threads. It's the reason we get stupid stuff like people asking if the party's Paladin should fall because their group outnumbered the badguys, or because the Paladin used a bow or x-bow instead of fighting in "honorable melee", or if the Paladin should fall because they didn't decide to stand and go toe to toe with the ancient wyrm and fled rather than commit suicide by dragonfire.No, it being undefined means it's deliberately left to the GM or the group's social contract. Just because it isn't defined doesn't mean the rules would be identical if it had been left out.
Like I said, a useless rule that only breeds discontent.
It's not useless, it just assumes the reader understands the idea of honorable behavior. It's also worth pointing out that the CRB says that a paladin falls for willing committing an evil act, not a dishonorable one.
That's why I let paladins at my table strangle puppies, but only if they eat the meat; sport puppy strangling is an auto-fall! :P