Let's Start An Argument About Alignment! We'll start with Lawful Good.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 164 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Golarion is DND dude. Pathfinder IS DND.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Spastic Puma wrote:
Baval wrote:
Spastic Puma wrote:
Baval wrote:
Spastic Puma wrote:
Baval wrote:


But yes, in an extremely strict interpretation context does matter, because of course it does or literally nothing is evil. "kill" is not evil all by itself without saying what youre killing. However the kind of context you want to imply is "evil actions can become good if theyre done for good reasons" and that kind of context does NOT exist in objective morality.

Yay, progress. You've admitted context matters. Now show me where it says that about "objective morality" in the literature. (I've put this term in quotation marks because you're still applying the term incorrectly, despite me explaining it to you.)

No, no I did not. Not in the way you want me to.

so youre still ignoring what i say and choosing to read only what you want into it. K.

Can you even read? Half the time you responded to the exact opposite of what I actually said.

I do agree with one thing you said here, thats your simile: being in a campaign you DM'd would really be annoying to try and be a Paladin.

later.

I'm still waiting for that pathfinder official source that describes "objective morality" in your terms. Feel free to quote some text, put some page numbers, etc.

likewise

I could point out an easy 3.5 source, seeing as Pathfinder uses 3.5s exact morality system, but im sure youd just say it doesnt count.

That's enough dodging around my request. Please show me an official pathfinder source/quote that backs up your claims. If you don't have one, show me a source/quote from 3.5 and then show me a source/quote from pathfinder that says golarion follows that same interpretation of morality that you so adamantly declare is "objective morality" within pathfinder.

i don't have specific pages but the fact that there are alignment subtypes for spells and creatures says that objective morality is a thing. There are certain actions that aren't always evil and always good.


Spastic Puma wrote:
Baval wrote:
Spastic Puma wrote:
Baval wrote:
Spastic Puma wrote:
Baval wrote:


But yes, in an extremely strict interpretation context does matter, because of course it does or literally nothing is evil. "kill" is not evil all by itself without saying what youre killing. However the kind of context you want to imply is "evil actions can become good if theyre done for good reasons" and that kind of context does NOT exist in objective morality.

Yay, progress. You've admitted context matters. Now show me where it says that about "objective morality" in the literature. (I've put this term in quotation marks because you're still applying the term incorrectly, despite me explaining it to you.)

No, no I did not. Not in the way you want me to.

so youre still ignoring what i say and choosing to read only what you want into it. K.

Can you even read? Half the time you responded to the exact opposite of what I actually said.

I do agree with one thing you said here, thats your simile: being in a campaign you DM'd would really be annoying to try and be a Paladin.

later.

I'm still waiting for that pathfinder official source that describes "objective morality" in your terms. Feel free to quote some text, put some page numbers, etc.

likewise

I could point out an easy 3.5 source, seeing as Pathfinder uses 3.5s exact morality system, but im sure youd just say it doesnt count.

That's enough dodging around my request. Please show me an official pathfinder source/quote that backs up your claims. If you don't have one, show me a source/quote from 3.5 and then show me a source/quote from pathfinder that says golarion follows that same interpretation of morality that you so adamantly declare is "objective morality" within pathfinder.

Tell you what, Ill stop dodging your "question" when you stop dodging mine above about the Paladin in a similar but more advantageous situation. Deal?

Oh and you also have to give me the page number and quote that says Pathfinder follows the interpretation of "objective morality changes based on context" that you so adamantly declare is somehow objective.


KujakuDM wrote:

In taking to the player she said in her context there were two options. Make sure the other pc she didn't like survived (she could have at least tried to diplomacy or intimidate or something to the cleric more concrete than just leaving) or charge at a minor villain knowing that the cleric would not even bother with an minor healing spell to stabilize. She prioritized someone's life as NOT IMPORTANT enough to actually save because of her personal dislike. She instead chose to charge into melee. She chose her own wrath towards a bad guy to overtake her compassion towards others.

In both my and her opinion. The good thing to do. The objectively good thing to do was to do something more concrete to save a life she knew was going to end. It was not lose lose.

In another more serious situation (world ending, genocide, etc) yeah leaving someone's behind mind be objectively good. But in this situation it wasn't. I assumed the term MINOR villain would say that.

I'm glad everything in your game worked out. Also, the term minor villain doesn't (by itself) absolve this hypothetical situation from leading to more deaths.That has been my stance in this debate the entire time and if newly provided information about your game table no longer fits my original interpretation I can accept that. However, Baval has (personally) attacked me on my stance that allowing a villain to escape and end lives is the only paladin-worthy form of action in that situation. For Baval, even if the whispering tyrant is on his way out to eradicate an entire metropolis, using lay on hands on your party member is the only action that follows the paladin code of conduct. That's honestly ridiculous so I'm waiting for Baval to provide some actual proof to back up their claims that there is a clear answer in (now just my) hypothetical scenario.


Spastic Puma wrote:
For Baval, even if the whispering tyrant is on his way out to eradicate an entire metropolis, using lay on hands on your party member is the only action that follows the paladin code of conduct. That's honestly ridiculous so I'm waiting for Baval to provide some actual proof to back up their claims that there is a clear answer in (now just my) hypothetical scenario.

And once again you read the exact opposite of what i actually said. Remember when I said this?

Baval wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
I think there's probably more to this story than we're hearing, because I don't see how wrath ties into it at all. For instance, was the villain the paladin's personal nemesis? Because then, okay, I can see the logic in that case. The paladin is choosing her own, possibly petty revenge over helping her fellow party member, and I can understand why they'd fall over that. But without being there, it's hard for me to say who did right. But it turned out alright in the end with your players, and that's all that's important.
I'd say what sort of villain the Paladin was after is also a pretty important factor. Big difference between leaving a wounded party member behind to go after a mass-murderer who was planning to burn down an orphanage as soon as he gets away from the party, versus a pickpocket who tried to steal a couple gold from the PCs.
I agree. If the villain was an immediate threat and the time taken to heal the downed comrade would have led to more deaths the Paladin was correct. However the story doesnt imply that to me, nor does the justification the DM provided

No, of course you dont, you just ignore what I write and argue with what you think I should have said to make you feel superior. This is why I called you an idiot. Stop acting like one.

Youre another one of those "either the Paladin is a bloodthirsty avenger of all things evil or hes the biggest idiot ever who will let evil get away with anything, no in between" people I despise so much, which is why youre exhausting to talk to.


Baval wrote:
Spastic Puma wrote:
Baval wrote:
Spastic Puma wrote:
Baval wrote:
Spastic Puma wrote:
Baval wrote:


But yes, in an extremely strict interpretation context does matter, because of course it does or literally nothing is evil. "kill" is not evil all by itself without saying what youre killing. However the kind of context you want to imply is "evil actions can become good if theyre done for good reasons" and that kind of context does NOT exist in objective morality.

Yay, progress. You've admitted context matters. Now show me where it says that about "objective morality" in the literature. (I've put this term in quotation marks because you're still applying the term incorrectly, despite me explaining it to you.)

No, no I did not. Not in the way you want me to.

so youre still ignoring what i say and choosing to read only what you want into it. K.

Can you even read? Half the time you responded to the exact opposite of what I actually said.

I do agree with one thing you said here, thats your simile: being in a campaign you DM'd would really be annoying to try and be a Paladin.

later.

I'm still waiting for that pathfinder official source that describes "objective morality" in your terms. Feel free to quote some text, put some page numbers, etc.

likewise

I could point out an easy 3.5 source, seeing as Pathfinder uses 3.5s exact morality system, but im sure youd just say it doesnt count.

That's enough dodging around my request. Please show me an official pathfinder source/quote that backs up your claims. If you don't have one, show me a source/quote from 3.5 and then show me a source/quote from pathfinder that says golarion follows that same interpretation of morality that you so adamantly declare is "objective morality" within pathfinder.
Tell you what, Ill stop dodging your "question" when you stop dodging mine above about the Paladin in a similar but more advantageous situation. Deal?

Which question? The eye one? Sure. If letting the villain go would result in more loss of life, than that decision is a difficult one. If the paladin is confident said villain will kill (or blind) many more people if they let them get away, than they are in a situation where whatever decision they make will lead to the blinding/killing of SOMEONE. Therefore, there is a weighing of options. I think it's a character defining situation but the paladin should not fall for either decision (given they are reasonably confident that letting the villain go will lead to further loss of life).

Now please provide a source in the literature that backs up your claims.


Ok. So youre saying a Paladin is ok to allow people to be tortured for the greater good. Because thats what having your eyes torn out is. Directly conflicting with written guidlines on what a Paladin can do.

Checkmate.


KujakuDM wrote:
Spastic Puma wrote:
Baval wrote:
Spastic Puma wrote:
Baval wrote:
Spastic Puma wrote:
Baval wrote:


But yes, in an extremely strict interpretation context does matter, because of course it does or literally nothing is evil. "kill" is not evil all by itself without saying what youre killing. However the kind of context you want to imply is "evil actions can become good if theyre done for good reasons" and that kind of context does NOT exist in objective morality.

Yay, progress. You've admitted context matters. Now show me where it says that about "objective morality" in the literature. (I've put this term in quotation marks because you're still applying the term incorrectly, despite me explaining it to you.)

No, no I did not. Not in the way you want me to.

so youre still ignoring what i say and choosing to read only what you want into it. K.

Can you even read? Half the time you responded to the exact opposite of what I actually said.

I do agree with one thing you said here, thats your simile: being in a campaign you DM'd would really be annoying to try and be a Paladin.

later.

I'm still waiting for that pathfinder official source that describes "objective morality" in your terms. Feel free to quote some text, put some page numbers, etc.

likewise

I could point out an easy 3.5 source, seeing as Pathfinder uses 3.5s exact morality system, but im sure youd just say it doesnt count.

That's enough dodging around my request. Please show me an official pathfinder source/quote that backs up your claims. If you don't have one, show me a source/quote from 3.5 and then show me a source/quote from pathfinder that says golarion follows that same interpretation of morality that you so adamantly declare is "objective morality" within pathfinder.
i don't have specific pages but the fact that there are alignment subtypes for spells and creatures says that objective morality is a thing. There are certain actions that aren't...

As I went over earlier, objective morality is the idea that there are universal goods and evils in a universe, and in this case, literal embodiments of them roaming around. That does not mean that context is stripped from action because context can be objective and inform decisions about morality in golarion.


Baval wrote:

Ok. So youre saying a Paladin is ok to allow people to be tortured for the greater good. Because thats what having your eyes torn out is. Directly conflicting with written guidlines on what a Paladin can do.

Checkmate.

What written guidelines show that there are no greater good dilemmas for paladin's in pathfinder? Don't be so quick to call checkmate without proof.


Greater Good is nothing but rhetoric
And nobody is responsible to act upon every possible good deed available.
Good intentions in alignment do not actually lead to hell in this case. Good intentions are Good.


Spastic Puma wrote:
Baval wrote:

Ok. So youre saying a Paladin is ok to allow people to be tortured for the greater good. Because thats what having your eyes torn out is. Directly conflicting with written guidlines on what a Paladin can do.

Checkmate.

What written guidelines show that there are no greater good dilemmas for paladin's in pathfinder? Don't be so quick to call checkmate without proof.

You said it yourself, a Paladin is never allowed to hand someone over to be tortured. By giving his blessing for the minion to tear out his companions eyes, he is doing just that.

Youre so eager to prove your stance right you cant even use critical thinking to understand when im laying a trap for you. That or you recognized it and hoped sticking to your guns would work out.

But, by your logic like you said this is perfectly fine for the Paladin to do. After all, its the "greater good" situation. That justifies it right? Torture is the lesser evil than what the villain would do. Same goes for poison I assume? How about lying? These are all far lesser evils than what the villain would do and could save hundreds or thousands of lives. Paladins are cool to do them right?


Envall wrote:

Greater Good is nothing but rhetoric

And nobody is responsible to act upon every possible good deed available.
Good intentions in alignment do not actually lead to hell in this case. Good intentions are Good.

Agreed, for the most part. Paladins are however responsible for more than just good intentions. Thats why a Paladin can fall and still be LG. Its possible to be overall good but still not good enough to be a Paladin


Let's look at sarenrae's paladin code and contrast it with this hypothetical scenario. "I will protect my allies with my life". That seems like saving your buddy is the only option. " If any fall because of my inaction, their deaths lie upon my soul, and I will atone for each." Here, letting the villain escape to end more lives will lay upon ones soul and require atonement. Seems like a lose-lose. Or maybe Sarenrae would be understanding? Surely she knows the best decision but would she bestow such divine calculus of greater goods to ber follower?


Spastic Puma wrote:
Let's look at sarenrae's paladin code and contrast it with this hypothetical scenario. "I will protect my allies with my life". That seems like saving your buddy is the only option. " If any fall because of my inaction, their deaths lie upon my soul, and I will atone for each." Here, letting the villain escape to end more lives will lay upon ones soul and require atonement. Seems like a lose-lose. Or maybe Sarenrae would be understanding? Surely she knows the best decision but would she bestow such divine calculus of greater goods to ber follower?

They are not dying because of his inaction. Two reasons for that.

First, you consistently act like im advocating sticking around and giving the downed ally long term care. Im advocating taking a single round to stabilize them and THEN chasing the bad guy. Thats not inaction.

Second, even if the situation demanded the Paladin give the comrade long term care which allowed the villain to get away, his inaction only resulted in "a bad guy got away". What the bad guy does afterwards is not directly his responsibility. Otherwise the Paladin is required to constantly detect evil and detain anyone that pings when going anywhere, because after all if hes NOT doing that some of them might go on to hurt someone and that would be due to the Paladins inaction.

So Sarenraes code is clear. If you let the villain kill someone (which you are by not healing them when you could) you fall. That is a direct result of your inaction. The direct result of letting the villain get away is he gets away. Anything he does after that is no longer the direct result.

That said, I fully believe a Paladin should feel remorse and probably seek (the free version) of atonement if he wasnt able to save people, even if he tried his hardest and did everything he possibly could. He shouldnt fall though.


Baval wrote:
Spastic Puma wrote:
Baval wrote:

Ok. So youre saying a Paladin is ok to allow people to be tortured for the greater good. Because thats what having your eyes torn out is. Directly conflicting with written guidlines on what a Paladin can do.

Checkmate.

What written guidelines show that there are no greater good dilemmas for paladin's in pathfinder? Don't be so quick to call checkmate without proof.

You said it yourself, a Paladin is never allowed to hand someone over to be tortured. By giving his blessing for the minion to tear out his companions eyes, he is doing just that.

Youre so eager to prove your stance right you cant even use critical thinking to understand when im laying a trap for you. That or you recognized it and hoped sticking to your guns would work out.

But, by your logic like you said this is perfectly fine for the Paladin to do. After all, its the "greater good" situation. That justifies it right? Torture is the lesser evil than what the villain would do. Same goes for poison I assume? How about lying? These are all far lesser evils than what the villain would do and could save hundreds or thousands of lives. Paladins are cool to do them right?

It was your example, if you would recall correctly. And it did not involve multiple lives at stake. The villain will kill/torture more if said ally is not handed over. That is the situation at hand. I'm still waiting on those mythical sources too. I still don't think you have them. Otherwise you would be quick to provide some links/page numbers.


Baval wrote:
Spastic Puma wrote:
Let's look at sarenrae's paladin code and contrast it with this hypothetical scenario. "I will protect my allies with my life". That seems like saving your buddy is the only option. " If any fall because of my inaction, their deaths lie upon my soul, and I will atone for each." Here, letting the villain escape to end more lives will lay upon ones soul and require atonement. Seems like a lose-lose. Or maybe Sarenrae would be understanding? Surely she knows the best decision but would she bestow such divine calculus of greater goods to ber follower?

They are not dying because of his inaction. Two reasons for that.

First, you consistently act like im advocating sticking around and giving the downed ally long term care. Im advocating taking a single round to stabilize them and THEN chasing the bad guy. Thats not inaction.

Second, even if the situation demanded the Paladin give the comrade long term care which allowed the villain to get away, his inaction only resulted in "a bad guy got away". What the bad guy does afterwards is not directly his responsibility. Otherwise the Paladin is required to constantly detect evil and detain anyone that pings when going anywhere, because after all if hes NOT doing that some of them might go on to hurt someone and that would be due to the Paladins inaction.

So Sarenraes code is clear. If you let the villain kill someone (which you are by not healing them when you could) you fall. That is a direct result of your inaction. The direct result of letting the villain get away is he gets away. Anything he does after that is no longer the direct result.

That said, I fully believe a Paladin should feel remorse and probably seek (the free version) of atonement if he wasnt able to save people, even if he tried his hardest and did everything he possibly could. He shouldnt fall though.

If the paladin was able to stop the villain and did not, then that is allowing suffering to continue because of their inaction. That's quite clear.


Spastic Puma wrote:
Baval wrote:
Spastic Puma wrote:
Let's look at sarenrae's paladin code and contrast it with this hypothetical scenario. "I will protect my allies with my life". That seems like saving your buddy is the only option. " If any fall because of my inaction, their deaths lie upon my soul, and I will atone for each." Here, letting the villain escape to end more lives will lay upon ones soul and require atonement. Seems like a lose-lose. Or maybe Sarenrae would be understanding? Surely she knows the best decision but would she bestow such divine calculus of greater goods to ber follower?

They are not dying because of his inaction. Two reasons for that.

First, you consistently act like im advocating sticking around and giving the downed ally long term care. Im advocating taking a single round to stabilize them and THEN chasing the bad guy. Thats not inaction.

Second, even if the situation demanded the Paladin give the comrade long term care which allowed the villain to get away, his inaction only resulted in "a bad guy got away". What the bad guy does afterwards is not directly his responsibility. Otherwise the Paladin is required to constantly detect evil and detain anyone that pings when going anywhere, because after all if hes NOT doing that some of them might go on to hurt someone and that would be due to the Paladins inaction.

So Sarenraes code is clear. If you let the villain kill someone (which you are by not healing them when you could) you fall. That is a direct result of your inaction. The direct result of letting the villain get away is he gets away. Anything he does after that is no longer the direct result.

That said, I fully believe a Paladin should feel remorse and probably seek (the free version) of atonement if he wasnt able to save people, even if he tried his hardest and did everything he possibly could. He shouldnt fall though.

If the paladin was able to stop the villain and did not, then that is allowing suffering to continue because of their inaction. That's...

100%.

Unluckily for the Paladin, he wasnt able to immediately chase after the villain, because one of his comrades desperately needed his aid so he had more urgent matters. Its a shame that the villain got a one round headstart that might have let him get away, but the paladin is no more responsible for what he does after getting away than he is for failing to detect evil in the crowded marketplace.


Spastic Puma wrote:
Baval wrote:
Spastic Puma wrote:
Baval wrote:

Ok. So youre saying a Paladin is ok to allow people to be tortured for the greater good. Because thats what having your eyes torn out is. Directly conflicting with written guidlines on what a Paladin can do.

Checkmate.

What written guidelines show that there are no greater good dilemmas for paladin's in pathfinder? Don't be so quick to call checkmate without proof.

You said it yourself, a Paladin is never allowed to hand someone over to be tortured. By giving his blessing for the minion to tear out his companions eyes, he is doing just that.

Youre so eager to prove your stance right you cant even use critical thinking to understand when im laying a trap for you. That or you recognized it and hoped sticking to your guns would work out.

But, by your logic like you said this is perfectly fine for the Paladin to do. After all, its the "greater good" situation. That justifies it right? Torture is the lesser evil than what the villain would do. Same goes for poison I assume? How about lying? These are all far lesser evils than what the villain would do and could save hundreds or thousands of lives. Paladins are cool to do them right?

It was your example, if you would recall correctly. And it did not involve multiple lives at stake. The villain will kill/torture more if said ally is not handed over. That is the situation at hand. I'm still waiting on those mythical sources too. I still don't think you have them. Otherwise you would be quick to provide some links/page numbers.

Oh I do recall, and my example was "A paladin cannot torture to save the world" which involves EVERY life at stake. So once again, you fail to read what I actually said and instead decide what you think I should have said to make you right.

Im not going to provide any sources, because we both know that unless the source literally says word for word what I said you will simply dismiss it. If you cant use critical thinking to extrapolate meaning from clear examples thats not really my problem. Even after the DM involved clarified multiple times that you were wrong on all your premises youre still arguing it. even after saying youd accept if you were misunderstanding.


Baval wrote:
Spastic Puma wrote:
Baval wrote:
Spastic Puma wrote:
Let's look at sarenrae's paladin code and contrast it with this hypothetical scenario. "I will protect my allies with my life". That seems like saving your buddy is the only option. " If any fall because of my inaction, their deaths lie upon my soul, and I will atone for each." Here, letting the villain escape to end more lives will lay upon ones soul and require atonement. Seems like a lose-lose. Or maybe Sarenrae would be understanding? Surely she knows the best decision but would she bestow such divine calculus of greater goods to ber follower?

They are not dying because of his inaction. Two reasons for that.

First, you consistently act like im advocating sticking around and giving the downed ally long term care. Im advocating taking a single round to stabilize them and THEN chasing the bad guy. Thats not inaction.

Second, even if the situation demanded the Paladin give the comrade long term care which allowed the villain to get away, his inaction only resulted in "a bad guy got away". What the bad guy does afterwards is not directly his responsibility. Otherwise the Paladin is required to constantly detect evil and detain anyone that pings when going anywhere, because after all if hes NOT doing that some of them might go on to hurt someone and that would be due to the Paladins inaction.

So Sarenraes code is clear. If you let the villain kill someone (which you are by not healing them when you could) you fall. That is a direct result of your inaction. The direct result of letting the villain get away is he gets away. Anything he does after that is no longer the direct result.

That said, I fully believe a Paladin should feel remorse and probably seek (the free version) of atonement if he wasnt able to save people, even if he tried his hardest and did everything he possibly could. He shouldnt fall though.

If the paladin was able to stop the villain and did not, then that is allowing suffering to continue
...

And thus, is a direct violation of the code, much like not protecting your friend. Lose-lose.


Baval wrote:
Spastic Puma wrote:
Baval wrote:
Spastic Puma wrote:
Baval wrote:

Ok. So youre saying a Paladin is ok to allow people to be tortured for the greater good. Because thats what having your eyes torn out is. Directly conflicting with written guidlines on what a Paladin can do.

Checkmate.

What written guidelines show that there are no greater good dilemmas for paladin's in pathfinder? Don't be so quick to call checkmate without proof.

You said it yourself, a Paladin is never allowed to hand someone over to be tortured. By giving his blessing for the minion to tear out his companions eyes, he is doing just that.

Youre so eager to prove your stance right you cant even use critical thinking to understand when im laying a trap for you. That or you recognized it and hoped sticking to your guns would work out.

But, by your logic like you said this is perfectly fine for the Paladin to do. After all, its the "greater good" situation. That justifies it right? Torture is the lesser evil than what the villain would do. Same goes for poison I assume? How about lying? These are all far lesser evils than what the villain would do and could save hundreds or thousands of lives. Paladins are cool to do them right?

It was your example, if you would recall correctly. And it did not involve multiple lives at stake. The villain will kill/torture more if said ally is not handed over. That is the situation at hand. I'm still waiting on those mythical sources too. I still don't think you have them. Otherwise you would be quick to provide some links/page numbers.
Oh I do recall, and my example was "A paladin cannot torture to save the world" which involves EVERY live at stake. So once again, you fail to read what I actually said and instead decide what you think I should have said to make you right.

Your example was "a paladin cannot knowingly hand over prisoners to be tortured." Not only have you refused to provide any sources to back up your claims about golarions morality and paladinhood but you have incorrectly cited yourself.


No, it is not a direct violation of the code, and i already explained why. At best, to an extremely strict judge, its an indirect violation. To anyone even the slightest bit reasonable, its not a violation at all.

Your campaigns must really suck.

"The Barbarians axe falls on the Lichs skull. He disapears in a blast of dark energy. You get the loot, but cannot locate his phylactery. *1 week later* The lich you guys couldnt stop last week just killed someone. Bob your Paladin falls."


Baval wrote:

No, it is not a direct violation of the code, and i already explained why. At best, to an extremely strict judge, its an indirect violation. To anyone even the slightest bit reasonable, its not a violation at all.

Your campaigns must really suck.

"The Barbarians axe falls on the Lichs skull. He disapears in a blast of dark energy. You get the loot, but cannot locate his phylactery. *1 week later* The lich you guys couldnt stop last week just killed someone. Bob your Paladin falls."

Once again, personal attacks. Not an effective means of arguing, nor is it one permissible on these boards.


Actually, while I did say it first, in this case im citing you:

Spastic Puma wrote:
A paladin handing over prisoners while they KNOW they are going to be tortured is very different and problematic.


Spastic Puma wrote:
Baval wrote:

No, it is not a direct violation of the code, and i already explained why. At best, to an extremely strict judge, its an indirect violation. To anyone even the slightest bit reasonable, its not a violation at all.

Your campaigns must really suck.

"The Barbarians axe falls on the Lichs skull. He disapears in a blast of dark energy. You get the loot, but cannot locate his phylactery. *1 week later* The lich you guys couldnt stop last week just killed someone. Bob your Paladin falls."

Once again, personal attacks. Not an effective means of arguing, nor is it one permissible on these boards.

Oh im sorry, its ok when you talk about what my campaigns must be like but not when I do the same?

Soooo very sorry.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Am I the only one who thinks that the GM and a player in question should at least discuss any morally questionnable action a paladin would commit?

This whole "BAM! Surprise, you've fallen!" method doesn't feel constructive to me.

Sure, sometimes it could be warranted, but often, the root is just a disagreement between two persons about what the code stands for and how much justifies a fall. It's very much GM fiat territory and it's only fair for the player to be given an idea about how the GM is likely to use that fiat.

Is "doing X" enough to make a paladin fall is also often very much setting-dependant, which again, is another aspect of GM fiat. Should the bad guys be brought into custody? Well, what happens to bad guys in custody? If they are systematically put into an iron bull without a trial, and the PCs don't really have any idea of what the bad guy did wrong (other than resist the party), then handing them over might not be the most moral thing to do and a swift execution might be preferable (if warranted).

For (monstrous) humanoids, again, depends on the GM's stance on alignments. If 100% of goblins are evil baby-eating fiends, then you *know* what that goblin will do if released. That's like finding a venomous snake in a school, but it's fleeing you. Are you just gonna let it slither away to bite a kid? The goblin might be sentient but if the GM enforces a "100% of goblins are evil", it kinda takes away their free will and moral value. But if there are many goblins in the world who live honestly, perhaps some in human settlements, other in peaceful tribes, then maybe letting this one go might be fair. Or if the human nation treats its captives well, then maybe it'd be fair to send them there. That goblin might very well prefer working as a slave in some vineyard than being cleaved in half on the spot. Again: this assumes the goblin won't try to stab his master at the first opportunity, and thus this behavior is once more very much GM fiat.

TL;DR: Discussing the morality of actions on the forums is pointless, discuss it with your GM instead.


You lost. You argued yourself into a corner where you have to advocate that Paladins are allowed to torture people for the greater good, and you know theyre not. Just admit it.


Baval wrote:

Actually, while I did say it first, in this case im citing you:

Spastic Puma wrote:
A paladin handing over prisoners while they KNOW they are going to be tortured is very different and problematic.

Yes, but you have conveniently left out the rest of my post which contrasts that action with simply handing over prisoners. Neither example included that action being weighed against further loss of life. Still waiting on that official source.


Baval wrote:
You lost. You argued yourself into a corner where you have to advocate that Paladins are allowed to torture people for the greater good, and you know theyre not. Just admit it.

Where did I say paladins could torture someone? The example you gave was the villain torturing them.


Spastic Puma wrote:
Baval wrote:
You lost. You argued yourself into a corner where you have to advocate that Paladins are allowed to torture people for the greater good, and you know theyre not. Just admit it.
Where did I say paladins could torture someone? The example you gave was the villain torturing them.

Oh ok, so what youre advocating then is the Paladin cant personally do the torturing, but its perfectly fine for him to watch someone else do it. And even to hand them over to be tortured.

My bad. Thats completely different.

But wait! If there isnt anyone around to do the torturing and the Paladin refuses to do it and then the villain kills a bunch of people, doesnt that mean his inaction is directly responsible! Paladin falls in Pumas campaign yet again!

Man youre super good at these lose/loses

PS: pretty funny how you continue to use my example when I already said im citing what you said, not what I said. Anything to try and revive your side right?


Baval wrote:
Spastic Puma wrote:
Baval wrote:
You lost. You argued yourself into a corner where you have to advocate that Paladins are allowed to torture people for the greater good, and you know theyre not. Just admit it.
Where did I say paladins could torture someone? The example you gave was the villain torturing them.

Oh ok, so what youre advocating then is the Paladin cant personally do the torturing, but its perfectly fine for him to watch someone else do it.

My bad. Thats completely different.

Either decision is awful but the given hypothetical scenario means that the paladin's decision will lead to suffering. A lose-lose.


Baval wrote:
Spastic Puma wrote:
Baval wrote:
You lost. You argued yourself into a corner where you have to advocate that Paladins are allowed to torture people for the greater good, and you know theyre not. Just admit it.
Where did I say paladins could torture someone? The example you gave was the villain torturing them.

Oh ok, so what youre advocating then is the Paladin cant personally do the torturing, but its perfectly fine for him to watch someone else do it. And even to hand them over to be tortured.

My bad. Thats completely different.

But wait! If there isnt anyone around to do the torturing and the Paladin refuses to do it and then the villain kills a bunch of people, doesnt that mean his inaction is directly responsible! Paladin falls in Pumas campaign yet again!

Man youre super good at these lose/loses

PS: pretty funny how you continue to use my example when I already said im citing what you said, not what I said. Anything to try and revive your side right?

I never said the paladin would fall for that. I said it was a lose-lose and I didn't think paladin should fall for either. Check my post.


Spastic Puma wrote:
Baval wrote:
Spastic Puma wrote:
Baval wrote:
You lost. You argued yourself into a corner where you have to advocate that Paladins are allowed to torture people for the greater good, and you know theyre not. Just admit it.
Where did I say paladins could torture someone? The example you gave was the villain torturing them.

Oh ok, so what youre advocating then is the Paladin cant personally do the torturing, but its perfectly fine for him to watch someone else do it.

My bad. Thats completely different.

Either decision is awful but the given hypothetical scenario means that the paladin's decision will lead to suffering. A lose-lose.

it is a lose/lose in terms of the fact that the Paladin ccannot make everything right in the world. It is not however a fall/fall, which is what was originally the context of lose/lose. The Paladin has a clear choice, and even though its a crap one and doesnt make the world a perfect place, its the one he has to make if he wants to keep his Paladin levels. And thats accept that he cannot hold himself responsible for the actions of others, but he does have a commitment to his own actions.


Also, you said you would show me these sources if I answered your question. Still waiting.


Baval wrote:
Spastic Puma wrote:
Baval wrote:
Spastic Puma wrote:
Baval wrote:
You lost. You argued yourself into a corner where you have to advocate that Paladins are allowed to torture people for the greater good, and you know theyre not. Just admit it.
Where did I say paladins could torture someone? The example you gave was the villain torturing them.

Oh ok, so what youre advocating then is the Paladin cant personally do the torturing, but its perfectly fine for him to watch someone else do it.

My bad. Thats completely different.

Either decision is awful but the given hypothetical scenario means that the paladin's decision will lead to suffering. A lose-lose.
it is a lose/lose in terms of the fact that the Paladin ccannot make everything right in the world. It is not however a fall/fall, which is what was originally the context of lose/lose. The Paladin has a clear choice, and even though its a crap one and doesnt make the world a perfect place, its the one he has to make if he wants to keep his Paladin levels. And thats accept that he cannot hold himself responsible for the actions of others, but he does have a commitment to his own actions.

In your opinion.


Spastic Puma wrote:
Baval wrote:
Spastic Puma wrote:
Baval wrote:
You lost. You argued yourself into a corner where you have to advocate that Paladins are allowed to torture people for the greater good, and you know theyre not. Just admit it.
Where did I say paladins could torture someone? The example you gave was the villain torturing them.

Oh ok, so what youre advocating then is the Paladin cant personally do the torturing, but its perfectly fine for him to watch someone else do it. And even to hand them over to be tortured.

My bad. Thats completely different.

But wait! If there isnt anyone around to do the torturing and the Paladin refuses to do it and then the villain kills a bunch of people, doesnt that mean his inaction is directly responsible! Paladin falls in Pumas campaign yet again!

Man youre super good at these lose/loses

PS: pretty funny how you continue to use my example when I already said im citing what you said, not what I said. Anything to try and revive your side right?

I never said the paladin would fall for that. I said it was a lose-lose and I didn't think paladin should fall for either. Check my post.

yes you did, you said that the Paladins inactions leading to death, even indirectly, is a violation of Sarenraes code. If that Paladin happens to be one of Sarenrae, that means he violated his code. Violating his code is a falling offense. Therefore, even though you did not say the exact words "A Paladin who lets people die because of his inaction falls" you did say that.


Spastic Puma wrote:
Also, you said you would show me these sources if I answered your question. Still waiting.

I never said id show you those sources. I said id stop dodging the question. I already answered that question. read up.

Spastic Puma wrote:
Baval wrote:
Spastic Puma wrote:
Baval wrote:
Spastic Puma wrote:
Baval wrote:
You lost. You argued yourself into a corner where you have to advocate that Paladins are allowed to torture people for the greater good, and you know theyre not. Just admit it.
Where did I say paladins could torture someone? The example you gave was the villain torturing them.

Oh ok, so what youre advocating then is the Paladin cant personally do the torturing, but its perfectly fine for him to watch someone else do it.

My bad. Thats completely different.

Either decision is awful but the given hypothetical scenario means that the paladin's decision will lead to suffering. A lose-lose.
it is a lose/lose in terms of the fact that the Paladin ccannot make everything right in the world. It is not however a fall/fall, which is what was originally the context of lose/lose. The Paladin has a clear choice, and even though its a crap one and doesnt make the world a perfect place, its the one he has to make if he wants to keep his Paladin levels. And thats accept that he cannot hold himself responsible for the actions of others, but he does have a commitment to his own actions.
In your opinion.

So once again in Puma-Land a Paladin can be held responsible and fall for other peoples actions. Because not holding the Paladin responsible for things other people do is just my opinion.


Baval wrote:
Spastic Puma wrote:
Baval wrote:
Spastic Puma wrote:
Baval wrote:
You lost. You argued yourself into a corner where you have to advocate that Paladins are allowed to torture people for the greater good, and you know theyre not. Just admit it.
Where did I say paladins could torture someone? The example you gave was the villain torturing them.

Oh ok, so what youre advocating then is the Paladin cant personally do the torturing, but its perfectly fine for him to watch someone else do it. And even to hand them over to be tortured.

My bad. Thats completely different.

But wait! If there isnt anyone around to do the torturing and the Paladin refuses to do it and then the villain kills a bunch of people, doesnt that mean his inaction is directly responsible! Paladin falls in Pumas campaign yet again!

Man youre super good at these lose/loses

PS: pretty funny how you continue to use my example when I already said im citing what you said, not what I said. Anything to try and revive your side right?

I never said the paladin would fall for that. I said it was a lose-lose and I didn't think paladin should fall for either. Check my post.
yes you did, you said that the Paladins inactions leading to death is a violation of Sarenraes code. If that Paladin happens to be one of Sarenrae, that means he violated his code. Violating his code is a falling offense. Therefore, even though you did not say the exact words "A Paladin who lets people die because of his inaction falls" you did say that.

I did quote sarenrae's code. But I presented it in a situation where either decision would violate it. Does a a paladin of Sarenrae automatically fall if put in a certain situation? Does choice matter if the only options one has is to violate the code one way or another? Hence my question about Sarenrae herself and her divine wisdom.


"Tell you what, Ill stop dodging your "question" when you stop dodging mine above about the Paladin in a similar but more advantageous situation. Deal?"
I answered your question about the hypothetical scenario. You did not answer mine where I asked you to show me sources backing up your claims. You did not uphold your end of the bargain.


No, he does not, because he is not responsible for other peoples actions he is unable to stop. When the villain is escaping, the only action he is doing is escaping: this is not inherently evil. After the villain escapes, the Paladin is not present to do anything to stop whatever he does: this is not inaction.

So it is not a lose/lose. If he can, he should stop the Villain because doing so is likely something good to do. If there are other more urgent matters he has to take care of, he is free to allow them to escape without violating his code, because doing a definite good takes priority over doing a likely good, no matter how likely.


Baval wrote:

No, he does not, because he is not responsible for other peoples actions he is unable to stop. When the villain is escaping, the only action he is doing is escaping: this is not inherently evil. After the villain escapes, the Paladin is not present to do anything to stop whatever he does: this is not inaction.

So it is not a lose/lose. If he can, he should stop the Villain because doing so is likely something good to do. If there are other more urgent matters he has to take care of, he is free to allow them to escape without violating his code, because doing a definite good takes priority over doing a likely good, no matter how likely.

The paladin was able to stop the action.


Spastic Puma wrote:

"Tell you what, Ill stop dodging your "question" when you stop dodging mine above about the Paladin in a similar but more advantageous situation. Deal?"

I answered your question about the hypothetical scenario. You did not answer mine where I asked you to show me sources backing up your claims. You did not uphold your end of the bargain.

I did answer yours, but since you apparently cant read what I say unless i type it at least three times, Ill type it again here.

Im not going to bother to find any printed sources because unless it says word for word what I said we both know youll say it doesnt count. Youve already used that trick.

Is that the answer you wanted? No. Is it an answer? yes.

Doesnt matter anyway. The conversation is over. Youve already said you approve of Paladins handing over their best friend to be tortured for the greater good. Its pretty clear where your logic is flawed now.


Spastic Puma wrote:
Baval wrote:

No, he does not, because he is not responsible for other peoples actions he is unable to stop. When the villain is escaping, the only action he is doing is escaping: this is not inherently evil. After the villain escapes, the Paladin is not present to do anything to stop whatever he does: this is not inaction.

So it is not a lose/lose. If he can, he should stop the Villain because doing so is likely something good to do. If there are other more urgent matters he has to take care of, he is free to allow them to escape without violating his code, because doing a definite good takes priority over doing a likely good, no matter how likely.

The paladin was able to stop the action.

No, he wasnt, because he cant be in two places at once and had something more important to do.

he was only able to do that if you ignore his other obligations and cling to your murder pally justification. Which you want to do. So no biggy, youre not playing in any of my campaigns anyway so you can have your "greater good" pallys.


Baval wrote:
Spastic Puma wrote:

"Tell you what, Ill stop dodging your "question" when you stop dodging mine above about the Paladin in a similar but more advantageous situation. Deal?"

I answered your question about the hypothetical scenario. You did not answer mine where I asked you to show me sources backing up your claims. You did not uphold your end of the bargain.

I did answer yours, but since you apparently cant read what I say unless i type it at least three times, Ill type it again here.

Im not going to bother to find any printed sources because unless it says word for word what I said we both know youll say it doesnt count. Youve already used that trick.

Is that the answer you wanted? No. Is it an answer? yes.

Doesnt matter anyway. The conversation is over. Youve already said you approve of Paladins handing over their best friend to be tortured for the greater good. Its pretty clear where your logic is flawed now.

You don't have sources. Otherwise you would present them. It's pretty obvious.


W/e helps you sleep at night.


Baval wrote:
Spastic Puma wrote:
Baval wrote:

No, he does not, because he is not responsible for other peoples actions he is unable to stop. When the villain is escaping, the only action he is doing is escaping: this is not inherently evil. After the villain escapes, the Paladin is not present to do anything to stop whatever he does: this is not inaction.

So it is not a lose/lose. If he can, he should stop the Villain because doing so is likely something good to do. If there are other more urgent matters he has to take care of, he is free to allow them to escape without violating his code, because doing a definite good takes priority over doing a likely good, no matter how likely.

The paladin was able to stop the action.

No, he wasnt, because he cant be in two places at once and had something more important to do.

he was only able to do that if you ignore his other obligations and cling to your murder pally justification. Which you want to do. So no biggy, youre not playing in any of my campaigns anyway so you can have your "greater good" pallys.

The paladin could stop the villain from causing further loss of life or save the party member. I never said they could do both so I'm not sure why you are implying I did. My point is the paladin has the obligation to stop the loss of life at the hands of evil. No matter their decision, that happens.


Baval wrote:
W/e helps you sleep at night.

It's pretty simple. You claim that literature about Golarion supports your view on greater good morality. Show me where. Otherwise, your claim is just opinion. And that's okay! But don't pass it off as canon.


I'm pretty sure a Paladin should never fall from a "tough call, incomplete information, multiple defensible actions" perspective (assuming they don't do anything especially unexpected).

Your deity (or whoever is granting you these powers) isn't going to expect omniscience or perfect forethought for you, so if it's a "Why did you do X and not Y" then "I thought Y was the right thing to do in the moment" is probably fine. There is, after all, no reason a Paladin cannot feel bad about any number of things that do not cause him or her to fall.


No, he did not have an obligation to stop the loss of life at the hands of evil. He had the obligation to try.

He could easily have healed his ally and then given chase. That would maximise the chances to save the most amount of people. Hes guarenteed one life save, and has a nearly as good a chance of saving the rest.

He chose to let his ally die. This guarantees one life lost and doesnt significantly increase his chances of saving the others.

The Paladin decided the one persons life was not worth the 6 seconds. Thats evil. Thats why he should and did fall.


Spastic Puma wrote:
Baval wrote:
W/e helps you sleep at night.
It's pretty simple. You claim that literature about Golarion supports your view on greater good morality. Show me where. Otherwise, your claim is just opinion. And that's okay! But don't pass it off as canon.

w/e helps you sleep at night.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I'm pretty sure a Paladin should never fall from a "tough call, incomplete information, multiple defensible actions" perspective (assuming they don't do anything especially unexpected).

Your deity (or whoever is granting you these powers) isn't going to expect omniscience or perfect forethought for you, so if it's a "Why did you do X and not Y" then "I thought Y was the right thing to do in the moment" is probably fine. There is, after all, no reason a Paladin cannot feel bad about any number of things that do not cause him or her to fall.

This.

101 to 150 of 164 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Let's Start An Argument About Alignment! We'll start with Lawful Good. All Messageboards