|
Curious
Which setting books do you refer to?
The Guide To Korvosa has some nasty punishments listed for certain crimes and discusses a variety of people's...idiosyncrasies.
Rule of Fear (the Ustalav book) obviously dabbles in a variety of horror tropes.
Inner Sea Gods details some...unpleasant practices of Zon Kuthon and Lamashtu's worshipers, as well as those of several other evil Gods. As does Faiths of Corruption and similar books. Including the Chronicles of the Damned books.
There are several other instances I'm sure, those are just the ones that leap to mind immediately.
|
|
I still consider C evil. Just because something isn't directly your problem doesn't mean it's not worth solving. You can't call yourself good or neutral while allowing hundreds of innocents to die because "I thought they were a jerk."
I'd agree with this.
To chime in on this discussion with my own opinion:
Whatever method you use to determine what actions are Evil (or Good) in your world is fine as long as it is both consistent, and the PCs are clear on your definitions.
The ones in the book? Fine.
The ones in the book plus logical extrapolations? Sure.
Your own moral code? Maybe a bit limited (though the GM's moral code having an impact is almost inevitable), but fine, as long as the players are aware their characters are living in a world where your morals are objectively correct, and are fine with that.
There's another issue that pops up, though only with NPCs that have crazy high int (22+) like archmages. I'm not sure how to run them being that smart without them metagaming. Am I supposed to give them standard genre savviness or go above that? I'd go with experience or just copy what I see in media but from my experience nobody carries that high of an int stat that isn't The Doctor from Doctor Who.
The default for GM's and players playing characters smarter then themselves IS to metagame.
Assume you can deduce instantly from a glance, have boatloads of experience, and can make 100% accurate snap judgements about the powers and abilities of the foes facing you.
BUT..remember something. Intelligence is NOT BATTLE SAVVY. it doesn't mean they are calm in a fight, level-headed, and with the neccessary aggressiveness on attack and defense as their lives are at risk.
High stats mean NONE of those things.
Albert Einstein was a genius. He didn't direct strategy in Europe during WW I or II. Put him on a battlefield and he is completely at a loss.
Stephen Hawking is a genius in certain fields, and knows absolutely crap about other things.
I.e. Just because you are smart doesn't mean you are good at leadership, nor does it mean you always make the right decision (that's a Wisdom trait). It means you learn fast and retain knowledge. Decision-making is something else.
The Doctor is both incredibly smart and incredibly OLD. He has seen it all thousands of times. He has experience, he's seen all manner of wars and fighting...and yeah, he's got genre-savvy down to an artform. I would so definitely metagame with him!
So if you go up against someone who is incredibly smart AND Wise ... metagame away! Assume he's pulling off a Sherlock Holmes virtual fight before the fight, or he's been attacked dozens of times before, and simply knows what to do.
But Int 30 CAN just mean he knows the ins and outs of magic really, really well...he's a genius magic guy, like Hawking is a genius physics guy. It doesn't mean squat for combat brains. A tactically trained grunt can beat him in combat manuvers and teamwork.
==Aelryinth
Racism, sexism and homophobia are considered traits of evil, and for the most part are institutionalized in Lawful Evil (Hell is blatantly misogynistic due to Asmodeus, among other things.)
Racial enmity is not racism. You can completely respect the power and skill of an enemy while wanting them very dead...dragon slayers and undead hunters effectively have racial hatred against their foes, but they aren't 'racist'.
Racism implies that, for no reason whatsoever, the object of discrimination is considered lesser and inferior. It has nothing to do with reason, hatred or enmity...they are just 'lesser things' and treated accordingly. That is why it is Evil...it does not even have hatred or revenge backing it.
Ditto homophobia, and aggressive sexism.
==Aelryinth
I still consider C evil. Just because something isn't directly your problem doesn't mean it's not worth solving. You can't call yourself good or neutral while allowing hundreds of innocents to die because "I thought they were a jerk."I'd agree with this.
To chime in on this discussion with my own opinion:
Whatever method you use to determine what actions are Evil (or Good) in your world is fine as long as it is both consistent, and the PCs are clear on your definitions.
The ones in the book? Fine.
The ones in the book plus logical extrapolations? Sure.
Your own moral code? Maybe a bit limited (though the GM's moral code having an impact is almost inevitable), but fine, as long as the players are aware their characters are living in a world where your morals are objectively correct, and are fine with that.
I would also call C evil.
You are making a decision knowing that it will lead to harm to others. Inaction as well as action can be evil, and this crosses the line. While you may not be obligated to SOLVE the problem for them, not warning/telling them is you choosing to kill lots of people because they were unfriendly to you.
Evil, no question.
==Aelryinth
I still consider C evil. Just because something isn't directly your problem doesn't mean it's not worth solving. You can't call yourself good or neutral while allowing hundreds of innocents to die because "I thought they were a jerk."I'd agree with this.
To chime in on this discussion with my own opinion:
Whatever method you use to determine what actions are Evil (or Good) in your world is fine as long as it is both consistent, and the PCs are clear on your definitions.
The ones in the book? Fine.
The ones in the book plus logical extrapolations? Sure.
Your own moral code? Maybe a bit limited (though the GM's moral code having an impact is almost inevitable), but fine, as long as the players are aware their characters are living in a world where your morals are objectively correct, and are fine with that.
I would also call C evil.
You are making a decision knowing that it will lead to harm to others. Inaction as well as action can be evil, and this crosses the line. While you may not be obligated to SOLVE the problem for them, not warning/telling them is you choosing to kill lots of people because they were unfriendly to you.
Evil, no question.
==Aelryinth
But Neutral says you shouldn't care about non-friends. If they aren't your friends, why should you tell them.
"A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn't feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos (and thus neutral is sometimes called “true neutral”). Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character probably thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she's not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.
Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.
"
You can lack a conviction to helping if they are a jerk. Also not helping is the "middle balanced path".
Curious
Which setting books do you refer to?The Guide To Korvosa has some nasty punishments listed for certain crimes and discusses a variety of people's...idiosyncrasies.
Rule of Fear (the Ustalav book) obviously dabbles in a variety of horror tropes.
Inner Sea Gods details some...unpleasant practices of Zon Kuthon and Lamashtu's worshipers, as well as those of several other evil Gods. As does Faiths of Corruption and similar books. Including the Chronicles of the Damned books.
There are several other instances I'm sure, those are just the ones that leap to mind immediately.
Lot of those I see in the same light as I see things like stickdeath.com
Violence in general is a funny thing because it is teenage boys that love it to excess. But it is always a certain kind of violence, violence that is almost gag-comedy. Excessive, but not terrifying.Personally I find all enemies with implant (su) disgusting and icky. Not to mention that one lamashtu monster that teleports inside its babies.
Braindead might be totally not for kids, but kids watched nonetheless and loved it. For all the bad reasons.
It is lot different if sinspawn of lust actually forced you to, you know, cross the boundary. Different kind of darkness to just "evil people kill you in brutal ways", the kind that would actually make everyone feel uncomfortable.
Now lust sinspawns just make you so horny you become unable to fight.
I still consider C evil. Just because something isn't directly your problem doesn't mean it's not worth solving. You can't call yourself good or neutral while allowing hundreds of innocents to die because "I thought they were a jerk."I'd agree with this.
To chime in on this discussion with my own opinion:
Whatever method you use to determine what actions are Evil (or Good) in your world is fine as long as it is both consistent, and the PCs are clear on your definitions.
The ones in the book? Fine.
The ones in the book plus logical extrapolations? Sure.
Your own moral code? Maybe a bit limited (though the GM's moral code having an impact is almost inevitable), but fine, as long as the players are aware their characters are living in a world where your morals are objectively correct, and are fine with that.
I would also call C evil.
You are making a decision knowing that it will lead to harm to others. Inaction as well as action can be evil, and this crosses the line. While you may not be obligated to SOLVE the problem for them, not warning/telling them is you choosing to kill lots of people because they were unfriendly to you.
Evil, no question.
==Aelryinth
But Neutral says you shouldn't care about non-friends. If they aren't your friends, why should you tell them.
"A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn't feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos (and thus neutral is sometimes called “true neutral”). Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character probably thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she's not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.
Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to...
Big difference between 'not helping' and 'inaction dooming people to a slow, lingering death.' If you can't see the difference, well, that's another problem.
Also, the 'middle balanced path' is 'nothing to gain'. yOu definitely have something to gain by telling them of the source of the problem...goodwill and possibly a reward. You are making the choice to eschew such as a form of retribution against people who were unfriendly to you. That's not neutrality, it's revenge, however you want to spin it.
==Aelryinth
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remember that Pathfinder marks the threshold between neutral and good by pointing out that good will make personal sacrifices to help others. Simply helping someone conveniently isn't automatically a "good" action; when it comes at personal cost, then it becomes a good-aligned act.
That means that helping someone in a way that doesn't require personal sacrifice is either neutral or evil. Whichever of the two is left is going to be the alignment for "not helping even if it's easy".
Remember that Pathfinder marks the threshold between neutral and good by pointing out that good will make personal sacrifices to help others. Simply helping someone conveniently isn't automatically a "good" action; when it comes at personal cost, then it becomes a good-aligned act.
That means that helping someone in a way that doesn't require personal sacrifice is either neutral or evil.
Actually, what it means is that if it requires personal sacrifice and you do it, it IS a good action.
It certainly does NOT mean that helping people without personal sacrifice is not also good. But helping people because you might personally profit from it is pretty definitely Neutral, and dives into Evil rather easily if you take undue advantage of the situation.
==Aelryinth
I was talking about this in another thread.. To me it seems like in most D&D clones good and evil are both objective and subjective... I mean yeah paladins can detect it but thankfully not every bad guy walks around twirling his mustache and tieing nice girls to railroad tracks. Evil when it knows it's evil and goes along wallowing in it's own crapulence is just boring and tacky. For some people it's a fun form of escapism to kill the bad guy and take his loot and XPs guilt free, for other people we just roll our eyes and violently sigh at the genre trope before murder hoboing it for a gear upgrade.
Evil often doesn't know or believe when it's being evil. That's subject to perception. They like to use terms like 'pragmatic', 'efficient', 'benefit', and 'following procedure/obeying orders.'
Oppressing the peasants so they keep working and know their place, putting down rebelliions, obedience to king and country and advancing through the heirarchy in proper fashion...all 'good' things if you've been raised in an LE society.
Not Good in the slightest.
It's when people think that what their character believes defines the alignments, instead of the other way around, that they get confused. Just because they think they're in the right doesn't mean they are Good.
==Aelryinth
On the other hand, Lawful Good does not oppose serfdom.
Servitude to your betters is pretty Law and as long as it feeds everyone, it is Good.
|
On the other hand, Lawful Good does not oppose serfdom.
Servitude to your betters is pretty Law and as long as it feeds everyone, it is Good.
I do not think it's good, but it may not be inherently evil either. Just lawful. (Though - I'm not sure if Golarion has true serfs outside of the evil nations - I was thinking they were just peasants.)
|
|
On the other hand, Lawful Good does not oppose serfdom.
Servitude to your betters is pretty Law and as long as it feeds everyone, it is Good.
This is a load of crap.
LN is cool with serfdom for the reasons you list.
But serfdom is the next thing to slavery with people not really allowed to pursue other work and not given choice about being part of the system. There are lots of societal systems that get everyone fed without being nearly as unpleasant.
LG would advocate a change to the system to one of those, since that just flat-out makes people's lives better. They might or might not support extra-legal means of getting there, but supporting legal reforms at the very least is almost inevitable.
Now, supporting a class system with an aristocracy and commoners is very possible for LG, but serfdom? No.
Taldor has serfs I believe. It's listed as True neutral.
Ok, here is a simple question that solves this argument.
Is there a lawful good kingdom in golarion, where all farmers are landowners of their own farm?
Peasantry under feudalism takes it for GRANTED that there is a serfdom or such system in place, because the whole point of peasantry is that you do not own your land. The monarch owns it. You are not a free man.
Also it would make a funny plot hook to have Archons sweep down from Heaven to force communism on a monarchy to help its poor peasants.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, of course communism is Good. :-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
First, what does Golarion have to do with basic descriptions of alignments saying "hey, maybe good people don't make a regular habit of oppressing others"? Second, that's an odd question considering Golarion has lots and lots and lots of countries, and only a teeny tiny number of them are actually kingdoms.
First, what does Golarion have to do with basic descriptions of alignments saying "hey, maybe good people don't make a regular habit of oppressing others"? Second, that's an odd question considering Golarion has lots and lots and lots of countries, and only a teeny tiny number of them are actually kingdoms.
Oh fine, let's slap a big "pathfinder alignment in context of the setting the rules were made for" sticker on my posts if you want that. Because you know, there are not hundreds of pages of religions and outer sphere outsiders that are directly connected to the alignment system. Ignore all of them if you want, but at that point the whole discussion goes out of the window because it is like free jazz at that point because we bring all of d&d to the mix too.
Also of course it has to be a kingdom, or an empire or other forms if you wanna be strict about the word. It is hard to have feudalism without lords and vassals.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, here is a simple question that solves this argument.
Is there a lawful good kingdom in golarion, where all farmers are landowners of their own farm?
Peasantry under feudalism takes it for GRANTED that there is a serfdom or such system in place, because the whole point of peasantry is that you do not own your land. The monarch owns it. You are not a free man.
I don't mean this as an insult, but you apparently don't actually know the meaning of the word serfdom.
A serf is actually legally bound to the land they work and legally prohibited from leaving and getting another job.
This is not true of non-serf peasants in feudal societies. They don't own their own land, but nothing legally prevents them from leaving and finding other work (assuming they've paid their debts). This is particularly relevant since serfdom is often generational, while nothing prevents a peasant's children from leaving to become merchants and the like.
A LG land could have peasants, but not serfs. And, indeed, no Good countries on Golarion have serfs. I believe it's been stated that not even Taldor does.
Also it would make a funny plot hook to have Archons sweep down from Heaven to force communism on a monarchy to help its poor peasants.
Celestials don't generally do that sort of thing. They either can't, or doing so allows demons to do the same.
Ok it has been many years since we were made to take the history lessons on medieval Europe so I talked from memory, even then I got closest idea of the caste system of my own country, can't talk for others.
When I said serfdom, I mean the general idea of the poorest selling their service to a higher power to stay alive basically. Different countries in Europe had different rules, but I am talking about the general idea of poor working for the nobles. I know Russia had the slave serfs while some countries had no serfdom, but still. The serfs outnumbered the freemen 9:1 if I correctly recall anyway. I don't want to go digging wikipedia either.
Feudal society needs them in the end. Vassal owns the land through his lord and both need someone to till it. If the lands were fairly distributed, it would erode the absolute power of the monarch. Without one absolute leader, you might be in danger of fragmenting and becoming like the River Kingdoms.
Lawful Good is kinda like an ant colony, if you accept my tortured metaphor. The monarch and workers both serve each other, but the worker still has absolute obedience to the monarch.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
NOthing absolute about that obedience. If the monarch deviates, the workers have the right to walk, and the monarch can't say jack about it.
LG is about rights, loyalty, and duty. Everyone has them. If the workers give loyalty, the monarch has the duty to provide, and everyone has the right to tell the other party to get lost.
You are confusing LG with the 'divine right of kings', where all authority and power flowed from the gods through the kings and down, and people on the scale only had the rights the monarchs deigned to give them (which were few). A very LN/LE system of government, where the give and take did not exist.
A serf is the result of the divine right of kings...no rights, just a peice of property. Peasants at least were not property, and had the right to leave. Freemen had the right to own their land and rights all of their own, that no king could take away (save by force).
LG societies do NOT support serfdom...it is oppressive and classist.
Selling your services to someone who can protect you is basically taxation. The right to LEAVE and go to someone else who can protect you is a defining element. If you're not allowed to leave, ain't nothing Good about it, and if the loyalty demanded is absolute while the duty to provide is next to nil, it's not Good, either.
==Aelryinth
|
|
When I said serfdom, I mean the general idea of the poorest selling their service to a higher power to stay alive basically. Different countries in Europe had different rules, but I am talking about the general idea of poor working for the nobles. I know Russia had the slave serfs while some countries had no serfdom, but still. The serfs outnumbered the freemen 9:1 if I correctly recall anyway.
Pretty much everywhere in Europe had serfs at some point in the middle ages, more and more of their populations shifting to freemen as the years went by. Russia was basically the last country to have serfs.
Basically - serfs are a half step above slaves, while peasants could go where they wanted (in theory) and got paid. The biggest shift from serfs to peasants was after the black death caused a major labor shortage throughout Europe. (I've heard an argument that it was also a major cause of the industrial revolution as they needed to become more efficient.)
Feudalism without serfs is basically like having a warrior caste which is also in charge of taxes/roads etc., only with the major advantage of governing being primarily done at the local level.
LG is about rights, loyalty, and duty. Everyone has them. If the workers give loyalty, the monarch has the duty to provide, and everyone has the right to tell the other party to get lost.==Aelryinth
Except the whole point of duty is that you have to do it. Duty is not a choice, it is obligation. I mean, good rulers have "divine right", they have a whole empyreal lord of their own to follow for boons. The very idea of rulership implies a class society, that is the only way for rulers to have power.
A ruler without subjects is not a ruler after all. So LG has vested interested in having subjects for rulers, not equals. Wasn't Lastwall basically a LG military dictatorship?
Let's not get stuck in the slavery kind of serfdom that only benefits the ruler, that is selfish and obviously Evil.
|
|
Except the whole point of duty is that you have to do it. Duty is not a choice, it is obligation. I mean, good rulers have "divine right", they have a whole empyreal lord of their own to follow for boons. The very idea of rulership implies a class society, that is the only way for rulers to have power.
But the subjects have no obligation to a ruler that is not meeting his obligations. So it is not an absolute obediance.
|
|
Ok it has been many years since we were made to take the history lessons on medieval Europe so I talked from memory, even then I got closest idea of the caste system of my own country, can't talk for others.
Sure. I'm just noting that my comments were specifically about, y'know, actual serfdom. Not all forms of feudalism.
When I said serfdom, I mean the general idea of the poorest selling their service to a higher power to stay alive basically. Different countries in Europe had different rules, but I am talking about the general idea of poor working for the nobles. I know Russia had the slave serfs while some countries had no serfdom, but still. The serfs outnumbered the freemen 9:1 if I correctly recall anyway. I don't want to go digging wikipedia either.
Where did the serfs outnumber freedmen 9 to 1? Because that was certainly true some places (Russia, as you note, for example) and some times, but by no means true everywhere and every time feudalism existed.
Though I'm not sure how this is relevant to how things work on Golarion.
Feudal society needs them in the end. Vassal owns the land through his lord and both need someone to till it. If the lands were fairly distributed, it would erode the absolute power of the monarch. Without one absolute leader, you might be in danger of fragmenting and becoming like the River Kingdoms.
Feudal societies do indeed need great land ownership disparity to work. That doesn't necessitate peasants being forbidden to leave or take other work, though. Or for rents and/or wages for working the land to be particularly bad. It's entirely possible for a society to have all land owned by the King and nobility, but the standard rents and taxes to be quite reasonable, in no way forcing the commoners to live in poverty.
Now, how likely that is in real life is debatable, but it's possible. And besides, there are almost no feudal countries in the Inner Sea.and those that are aren't Good.
Look over the regions. There's precisely one that's actually feudal. Brevoy. Brevoy is CN, not Good.
One could also argue that Cheliax, Taldor, Geb, and Numeria have feudal elements. None are Good aligned.
Of Good aligned monarchies, there are only two: The Elven nation of Kyonin and the crusader nation of Mendev. Neither is feudal in any meaningful sense.
Lawful Good is kinda like an ant colony, if you accept my tortured metaphor. The monarch and workers both serve each other, but the worker still has absolute obedience to the monarch.
No. Ant colonies are the stereotype of LN. LG tries to make people's lives actually better, rather than simply make the society work. It can be every bit as rigid as LN, but not generally in quite the same ways.
But the subjects have no obligation to a ruler that is not meeting his obligations. So it is not an absolute obediance.
But WHO decides what is just?
The gods? Possibly. The Heavens are not going to automatically side with the whining peasants if they are merely not content with their role in life. It is all interesting cosmic game.Freedom to decide how do you help others is not in the realms of the Law.
What does that have to do with anything? I spoke of obligations. Heaven will certainly recognize a ruler that does not meet his obligations.But WHO decides what is just?
But the subjects have no obligation to a ruler that is not meeting his obligations. So it is not an absolute obediance.
Justice has everything to do with obligations.
Heaven will also recognize subjects who do not meet their obligations.Because Heaven knows what is just and fair, what both parties need to be content with.
And Heaven will side with a peasant who has met his obligations while his ruler has not.
And in a setting where the gods are not merely a matter of faith but empirical fact you can in fact have such guidance.
The old kings of earth may have ruled through a suspect divine mandate.
But the kings of Golarion may have the blessing directly handed through them either through divine favor, straightforward sponsorship, or in the case of Asmodeans a carefully thought out bargain.
Well we will have to wait for the "Bureaucracy of Heaven" companion book until we get the exact rules how the court comes to its conclusion.
Aye, and you're making the ancient argument that 'lawful' is 'good', Envall, which is definitely the view of LE and LN, but not intrinsically of LG...because LG knows that Law can be uncaring and even evil, and Law is best when it works with Good, not when it is some inflexible, uncaring edifice.
LG says the order of things must be lawful AND good. That means preservation of the rights of all involved. And one of those rights is the ability to say "you aren't my boss anymore."
Forcing people to stay against their will is pure LN/LE behavior.
==Aelryinth
Lawful is another way of saying that predictability is better than case by case. Policy. Inertia. Planning. Structures. Systems. Written laws. Security. Control. Centralization.
Lawful is certainly not good. Many do like predictable, though. They are Lawful.
Look, my problem with that is that LG cannot compromise Good OR Law for the sake of the 'nother.
You know, the sentence in beastiary where Archons do not approve freedom fighting against tyrants because they do not accept the means? Civil disobedience is not the key to making the world better. Maybe the LG outsiders trust that system itself will sort it out.
I refuse to accept the view that Lawful Good is 90% Good and 10% Law which is something that lot of people want to establish.
Lawful is not Good, Lawful is not Evil, Lawful is Lawful.
Altruism does not need traditions or order.
Selfishness does not need change or chaos.
Hierarchy can be both Good or Evil, all that matters is its motivation.
Look, my problem with that is that LG cannot compromise Good OR Law for the sake of the 'nother.
The problem with that is that not every LG creature is 100% Lawful and 100% Good 100% of the time. That's pretty much impossible (same goes for every other alignment).
Archons and other outsiders are almost an exception to the rule because they are not just LG, but also physical manifestations of those alignments! And even, then, they can act out-of-alignment, so much in fact, that they can change alignments and even [b]become a physical manifestation of the opposite alignment![/i]
Check the Bestiary, APs and Pathfinder Tales novels and you'll see plenty of fallen celestial and ascended fiends to prove my point.
All that said, I do agree that Law/Chaos is completely independent from Good/Evil.
LG Incarnates cannot compromise Law or Good. Both most exist in harmony. Rebelling against a Tyrant is unthinkable to them because they are not underneath a Tyrant, and would not agree to serve one. They would leave his service or die, find another LG master...and probably come back to make war in service to LG. They DO fight, you know.
HUmans don't take the step to find another LG ruler to justify their fighting back. They go right to fighting and bringing down the tyrant, invalidating his laws and assuming they can build something new on the ashes of the old. Isn't it nice they are mortals with free will and not Incarnates of Law and Good?
So, trying to hold humans to personifications of Law and Good is as ridiculous as trying to hold them to Chaos and Goodness. Incarnates are waaaaaaaay too extreme to be mortals.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually LG characters are specifically allowed to disregard "law" in order to produce good.
Paladin code specifically mentions "legitimate authority" and would consider an oppressive leadership illigitimate.
Laeful in LG generally represents a personal code or a organization code that the character cannot compromise on, not the laws of the land. Unless the laws of the land are Lawful Good themself.
Look, my problem with that is that LG cannot compromise Good OR Law for the sake of the 'nother.
Actually one example is the Paladin who sees that the Law is more harmful than good will totally try to change the law for the better going through the challenges that that entails. Being Good is all about self sacrificing things for the sake of others.
And if the character still respects tradition, holds fast to their moral code and believes that the Law will be changed for the better then I find it difficult to believe that they won't still be considered Lawful.
LG Incarnates cannot compromise Law or Good.
They obviously can, since we have fallen celestials and ascended fiends... It's rare, difficult, possibly even painful... But not impossible.
And Paladins, while LG, should be far more dedicated to Good. The whole class is dedicated to fighting Evil! They have barely any ability, class feature or restriction when it comes to chaos... As long as they don't act Chaotic often enough to change alignment, they are gold. However, doing a single Evil deed is enough to make them fall.
I never said it myself, but I always did consider that humans cannot truly follow alignments in their pure form.
Mortal life is too situational for strict rules, but that is the part of the attraction of the alignment system.
How mortals cheat it and how outsiders respond to mortals cheating the cosmic rules.
Who actually MADE the paladin code?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Who actually MADE the paladin code?
A designer who really didn't think it through... :P
|
|
Who actually MADE the paladin code?A designer who really didn't think it through... :P
In-world, nobody in particular. It's an example rather than the only one (as deity specific codes demonstrate). Really, all Paladins likely have their own personal codes or use those of a deity. That's a little hard to codify into the rules, though.
This is wild card argument I know, but what if paladin code is not actually lawful good?
I mean it is. Everyone has moved past enforcing paladins to be Lawful Stupid, but still.
That line between being humanly lawful good and being outsider lawful good.
Where does that line go? What is the uncomfortable line where even paladin has to shake his head at the Archon and be like "dude no thats not cool".
LG Incarnates cannot compromise Law or Good.They obviously can, since we have fallen celestials and ascended fiends... It's rare, difficult, possibly even painful... But not impossible.
And Paladins, while LG, should be far more dedicated to Good. The whole class is dedicated to fighting Evil! They have barely any ability, class feature or restriction when it comes to chaos... As long as they don't act Chaotic often enough to change alignment, they are gold. However, doing a single Evil deed is enough to make them fall.
At which point they are no longer LG Incarnates and have changed alignment ;) So, the statement holds true. Compromising is a bad thing for Incarnations of alignments.
==Aelryinth
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |