Of course deliberately infecting someone with a disease is poisoning them. But there are objective differences between poison and disease which are much vaster than the difference between lying and misleading.
You can try to argue that. (difficult to do. Its a fairly ubiquitous thing with paladins to give the exact truth when pressed)
You absolutely, 100%, CANNOT argue that I believe that, and then read that belief into my statements to twist them. No.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Loopholes in the laws of a country you don't hold in very high esteem in the first place - maybe.
Looking for loopholes in the paladin code, that's acting in bad faith.
Never said anything about loopholes in a Paladin code. It's about the laws of the land, and whether a Paladin has to uphold those laws properly or not. Paladin code loopholes should probably get their own thread.
...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.
In other words, unless he finds the authority of said laws legitimate, he doesn't have to adhere to them.
A lot of people can argue selling out innocent lives simply because a law (that is probably not legitimate) allows slavery isn't exactly acting with honor any more than simply saying "I'm not sure" or "They probably went to X for Y, and then maybe go to Z," nor does giving an accurate answer help those who are in need (the slaves). If anything, the Paladin would be required to punish the slavers, since slavery is usually harmful to innocent people who should be considered equals in the case of what many Paladins would consider a legitimate authority.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't blame the player or necessarily the GM. That was a rather poorly written encounter. I played a LG monk in that scenario and had the exact same reaction. The scenario was written to force the players to kill a captive.
I think more recent rules have been written for redemption though I'm not familiar with them. There ought to have been a diplomacy check offered to put her off. I guess one option in game mentioned earlier was to barrel her and ship her to proper authorities.
I still fail to see what is evil about killing an unrepentant evil enemy in a merciful fashion that is admittedly torturing an innocent.
I still fail to see what is evil about killing an unrepentant evil enemy in a merciful fashion that is admittedly torturing an innocent.
1) the whole murder is bad thing that a lot of humans seem hung up on
2) she wasn't torturing. It was more lex luthor level of evil than the joker.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still fail to see what is evil about killing an unrepentant evil enemy in a merciful fashion that is admittedly torturing an innocent.
1) the whole murder is bad thing that a lot of humans seem hung up on
2) she wasn't torturing. It was more lex luthor level of evil than the joker.
The thing of it is, it's not even murder. Killing, yes, execution, yes. Not murder.
I'd disagree on the torturing part. Deliberately withholding medicine to a child (no less) that has a disease (debilitating? -- must be -- the kid can't get away while sick -- Painful? -- likely) qualifies as torture, imo.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not saying that you *believe* that diseasing someone is different than poisoning someone. I *am* saying that is a logical extension of finding a meaningful distinction between an outright lie and a deliberate omission or 'speaking from a certain point of view', to borrow Obi-Wan's tortured justification for saying Darth Vader murdered Anakin. If not technically a lie, those are certainly dishonest, and I have always seen semantic tricks and technicalities portrayed as the domain of trickster archetypes, if not outright slimeballs, not the domain of the Knight in Shining Armor. Someone who says 'technically, I didn't *lie*' is almost always portrayed as someone who doesn't really care about telling the truth.
Stepping back, I think we agree that a paladin can and in some cases must mislead someone, and should not fall for convincing a slaver that the Bellflower Network was leading slaves out or the opposite end of the city than try actually are. Do you understand why it seems absurd that they do fall after all because of minor wording differences in how they say so?
Bottom line, there's a big difference between execution and murder, even in the eyes of the Lawful Good.
I do not hold that all deception is lying.
What are you claiming is the difference here? Are you saying that paladins aren't allowed to lie with spoken words, but anything else is fair game?
Cause you're right, not all deception is lying, though all lying is deception. Just like not all fish are salmon, but all salmon are fish.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that a broad code allow doesn't represent the entirety of being lawful alone. However, the paladin code does specifically mention punishing those who would harm innocents. You're argument here carries no water because he completely comply with this part of code. Even if the code is more complex then the few lines we are given, that part is something that the paladin should explicitly do. Again, not punishing the NPC would actually be against his code.Absolutely not. Its not my argument that doesn't hold water it's your assumption that the paladin code cannot hand you contradictions and it certainly can.
It's not an assumption. The paladin code shouldn't create impossible contradictions. It's s*&+ty GMing. There is always at least one correct answer or else you're just being a dick. You can't let the NPC go, he'll murder innocents. You can't turn him in to local authorities, they'll let him go.
You mention the paladin taking the law into his own hands? It's because the local laws are in contention with the paladins own law and code.So if they were in contention with the chaotic good ranger's code he's perfectly lawful in running around killing people?
What are you even talking about?
But in this case there aren't any other real options available other than to execute the prisoner for the crimes they've committed.objectively false.
When you have two parts of something that contradict you cannot arbitrarily pick one of them, say that this must be true, therefore everything else is wrong, and only go with the first one. You can run the exact same logic the other way and get the opposite conclussion.
And look what would have happened in this case. The paladin THOUGHT that the lady was poisoning the kid and she wasn't.
It's not arbitrary, and you must pick one or what? Do nothing. That's stupid. If you answer here is the "the paladin is screwed no matter" then you've reached a conclusion that is simply ludicrous in the context of what is supposed to be a game.
But again, this isn't a situation where the NPC can be extradited to another country for a proper trial. This just isn't an option. It's not chaos.That IS an option. The problem is that it's a HARDER option to do, and it seems like any imposition on the paladin is unsolvable dilema's out to screw him over.
It's not. Being a paladin is hard. If it was easy, everyone would do it. It is going to make your life difficult sometimes. Not impossible. If you don't want the occasional challenge, a paladin...
So you're proposal is to extradite the prisoner to another country to be judged so that they can be executed or imprisoned? Because for some reason the paladin doesn't have the authority to do so? But a judge from another country does?
Even if that is true, it would be 1 chaotic act, which is not grounds for falling. The original question here is "Is it evil for the paladin to do this, thus causing the paladin to fall?"
The answer is no. At best your argument is that it's a chaotic act because he's taking the law into his own hands.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you answer here is the "the paladin is screwed no matter" then you've reached a conclusion that is simply ludicrous in the context of what is supposed to be a game.
To add on to this, this is precisely the biggest difference between, for example, this game and a Call of Cthulhu-based game.
In this sort of game, you strive to succeed and win, conquering challenges to reach greater heights and provide an interesting story that (usually) has a happy ending, despite any dramatic uncoverings.
In a game like Call of Cthulhu, it doesn't particularly matter what it is that you do, because in the end, you always lose/die/go insane/whatever.
So, for all those Paladin-hating GMs, I would suggest playing a game like Call of Cthulhu if you get off on putting your players in impossible situations, and watching them squirm in futility as to find a means of victory.
It's not an assumption.
It very much is an assumption. What if a paladin of torag promised to attempt to take a womans husband alive to find out where he was, only to get there and realize, whoops, her husband is an orc?
These things happen.
What you are assuming then is that the only outcome is that the paladin falls, and that's not the case.
The paladin code shouldn't create impossible contradictions. It's s!@#ty GMing. There is always at least one correct answer or else you're just being a dick. You can't let the NPC go, he'll murder innocents.
This is the problem. You are insulting me. You are insulting my dming. Worse for your argument you are basing your argument on a largely circular hypothetical about what has to happen the way i run things when experimentally that is NOT what happens.
You can't turn him in to local authorities, they'll let him go.
Investigate her further. find something she's done that the local authorities wouldn't like. (like making money and not paying the government her cut) Stir up local sentiment against her so that the government has to act: Bloodcove is corrupt. Not barbaric. Get her in front of a jurty and perry mason the jury/judge to convicting her.
Nothing in the paladin code requires that you SUCCEED. Just that you try. The chances of succes don't seem so low in this case that it's not a good faith effort.
What are you even talking about?
What you are describing, when any hand with a heart that thinks it is just can pick up a sword and mete out the ultimate penalty is a state of chaos. It's galt on steroids. Their trials may not care that you're innocent but at least they take the time to form them...
But in this case there aren't any other real options available other than to execute the prisoner for the crimes they've committed.
objectively false. There are pages detailing other alternatives. The party found one of them. You keep saying this, you keep basing your argument on it, and it's wrong.
It's not arbitrary, and you must pick one or what? Do nothing. That's stupid. If you answer here is the "the paladin is screwed no matter"...
A paladin must do x
A paladin must do yX and y are contradictory.
You can argue
a paladin must do x
Therefore a paladin can't do y, so x is okay.
but you can just as easily argue
a paladin must do y
Therefore a paladin can't do x, so Y is okay.
Which one of those you do is entirely arbitrary. The logic falls out of which one you pick. Thats the problem with binary, logic based thinking. Instead you should try to find Z, or compare X and Y on their own merits.
Do nothing. That's stupid.
You are giving your answer, pretending it's mine, and calling it stupid.
You can take a third alternative: lots of those have been listed. Call being beaten half to death justice, take the family and run. Sure, to a player being "just" at negative hit points is no big deal but I'm pretty sure its a traumatic experience to the character.
Half the fun of a role playing game is that you're not limited to a drop down menu of choices, you can try to do anything you can think of.
If you answer here is the "the paladin is screwed no matter" then you've reached a conclusion that is simply ludicrous in the context of what is supposed to be a game.
You keep trying to put that forward as the consequence of what i'm saying, and yet it objectively isn't what happens. You find a third option. You bend (but not break) on one of your desired goals: which is what happens any time you want more than one thing.
Even if that is true, it would be 1 chaotic act, which is not grounds for falling.
A paladin does not fall for one chaotic act unless it's a doozy that knocks them over to NG in one shot. Kidnapings/weekend at bernies extradition's probably on some pretty shaky ethical ground but its a few protean tails down from murder.
he answer is no. At best your argument is that it's a chaotic act because he's taking the law into his own hands.
I have said repeatedly that is is not evil. I even pointed out that there is a LG god of executions. My argument has always been that it is chaotic, dishonorable, disrespectful to authorities and thus unworthy of a paladin. While "no" is the mathematicians one word answer, the very important "no but..." is that the paladin doesn't want to do this because they'd probably need an atonement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not an assumption.It very much is an assumption. What if a paladin of torag promised to attempt to take a womans husband alive to find out where he was, only to get there and realize, whoops, her husband is an orc?
These things happen.
Well, assuming that the woman was of sound mind, her love for her husband genuine, herself good-hearted, etc., than that would indicate that the orc is good-aligned and not a dangerous marauder, so...he brings the orc back to his wife. Torag is the epitome of 'Lawful Good, not Lawful Nice', clearly, but if the code actually required the hatred of orcs to be wholly indiscrimnate, than Torag wouldn't get to have Paladins in the first place.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cause you're right, not all deception is lying, though all lying is deception. Just like not all fish are salmon, but all salmon are fish.
Unless that Salmon was a color. It isn't a fish.
A "legitimate authority" is one that conforms to the paladin's own code. Period.
That is absolutely nonsensical. Any authority the paladin agrees with is one the paladin agrees with. It wouldn't be a code at all. Robin Hood agrees with authorities that conform to his code. LE hellknights agree with authorities that conform to their code. NE people agree with authorities follow order that conform to their code.
If cheliax says you wear a chicken hat, then you wear a chicken hat.
If cheliax says you swear allegiance to asmodeuous, you mumble something in the crowd, rules lawyer "I swear to bring you into the light of saranrae," mayHAIL strike Asmodeuous or get whipped for remaining silent in a stoic show of defiance.
If they're sacrificing a girl on the altar..okay, NOW you kill them. Because that's when you're driven to the point of not having another alternative. The code WILL contradict itself when pushed to a certain point under the wrong circumstances. Then you are down to competing ideals, and for a paladin good wins.
To the degree that an authority/government/mayor departs from Lawful Goodness, the paladin is authorized to disobey, circumvent, or even overthrow the authority to that same degree.
There is more than one way to overthrow a government. Some of them are lawful (voting, becoming the tutor to the heir and teaching him that slavery is wrong, move to andor , start a war, turn yourself in for trial and use your impending execution as a platform for freedom) . Most of them aren't nearly as fun and the gaming system doesn't handle them as well as going john brown though.
Most of them are harder. Many of them are awesome when they work out. It's not that I hate paladins, it's that I think they're so awesome that the title shouldn't just be handed out as a participation trophy. It is supposed to be hard without being impossible. It is supposed to make your life difficult. Rising above that and overcoming the challenge is part of the class. Making the -its the right thing to do because it's what I"M doing- tautology "lawful" cheapens the class.
"So tell us: Would a paladin be violating his code to invade Hell and topple Asmodeus from his throne, because he's the Legitimate Authority?" When it's stated that baldly, the GM is trapped into admitting he's just being a dick.
Nope. Sign declaration of war form HERO Dash 666 left conveniently at the edge of every dimensional rift to the abyss and have at it.
|
The issue here is simple in Pathfinder, Killing an evil creature is not an evil act, no matter what the circumstances are, you are not performing evil by ridding the world of evil creatures.Well, no. You could still commit an evil act by killing an evil creature. It's not like you can simply murder them walking down the street. However, this situation isn't that. It's an enemy they've been fighting and who is psycho enough to imply she's going to continue to do exactly what brought them into conflict in the first place. That threat alone plus her previous actions should be enough to leave her assuming room temperature on the floor with clear conscience.
No, you would be committing a chaotic act walking down the street and killing a random passerby just because they are evil. That is Murder, Murder, you are violating a LAW. We tend to view Murder as evil because we tend to view the victim as good/neutral.
If someone were to walk down the streets and Kill a LE Vampire, That would be a Good act, and likely noone would question it. But it would also be against the Law, barring specific laws permitting the killing of Vampires.
The fact that this person isn't a "Monster" doesn't change the circumstances.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A "legitimate authority" is one that conforms to the paladin's own code. Period.
That is absolutely nonsensical. Any authority the paladin agrees with is one the paladin agrees with. It wouldn't be a code at all. Robin Hood agrees with authorities that conform to his code. LE hellknights agree with authorities that conform to their code. NE people agree with authorities follow order that conform to their code.
If cheliax says you wear a chicken hat, then you wear a chicken hat.
If cheliax says you swear allegiance to asmodeuous, you mumble something in the crowd, rules lawyer "I swear to bring you into the light of saranrae," mayHAIL strike Asmodeuous or get whipped for remaining silent in a stoic show of defiance.
If they're sacrificing a girl on the altar..okay, NOW you kill them. Because that's when you're driven to the point of not having another alternative. The code WILL contradict itself when pushed to a certain point under the wrong circumstances. Then you are down to competing ideals, and for a paladin good wins.
'Getting whipped for remaining silent in a stoic set of defiance' is, as a matter of fact, breaking the law, an act of protest and civil disobedience that *disrespects authority*. Which a Paladin can do, to say nothing of smiting those inquisitors, because Thrune's authority is illegitimate, generally because it is founded and derives its authority from gross violation of most every ideal the Paladin holds dear, and specifically in this instance because no one has the legitimate authority to compel someone to swear allegiance to Asmodeus.
No ones claiming "it's the right thing to do because it's the Paladin that does it," we're saying "It's the right thing to do so the Paladin does it."
Then why isn't a paladin neutral good? Because that's what you're describing. Its right so i can do it without any other consideration at all is not lawful good it's extra good. They're not the same thing.
Neutral good exists. Genuine Chaotic good (not just violent good)exists. A paladin is lawful. Good. Being good is not in and of itself enough.
Out and out murder in the middle of a city, executing a prisoner, so tosses out the norms of society, law, and honorable conduct, that it's a boot over* to NG.
*note that i keep using over for this. Not down. In most paladin threads there's the expectation that lawful good is gooder than good, double plus good and that double plus good is paladin. They're not. All of the other goods are equally good as lawful good. Neutral good could, if anything, be considered better because it IS just good without any other considerations. Chaotic good is a better good for the types of situations adventurers deal with because if the government solved the problem or worse, wasn't the problem in the first place, you wouldn't be there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reven has already said it, but to reiterate:
If cheliax says you wear a chicken hat, then you wear a chicken hat.
If cheliax says you swear allegiance to asmodeuous, you mumble something in the crowd, rules lawyer "I swear to bring you into the light of saranrae," mayHAIL strike Asmodeuous or get whipped for remaining silent in a stoic show of defiance.
What's the difference between those two orders? They both come from "legitimate authority" and a paladin is required to respect legitimate authority. The code specifically says that, and doesn't even mention the god they worship at all.
You agree that a paladin can disregard orders from authority, we just disagree on which orders.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BNW, they're Disciplined Good, not "I have to follow all the laws everywhere" Good.
By that reasoning it would be insane to play a Paladin as what they're allowed to do and how they act would completely change from country to country, city to city, as local laws override what they are capable of, to the point of being completely at odds from one place to the next. That's not "Lawful", that's madness.
A Paladin runs off of their tempered LG view of a Legitimate Authority, not all authority everywhere. They run off of a Code, not whatever local law is closet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I got Ninja'd, but I want to address this:
"Out and out murder in the middle of a city, executing a prisoner, so tosses out the norms of society, law, and honorable conduct, that it's a boot over* to NG."
Again what "norms of society" are you talking about? 21st century Earth or Golarion? You're basing your opinion on what the norms are here on earth in modern times, not what they would be in a medieval-ish setting like Golarion. You're also bypassing the part of the code that says "punish those that threaten innocents".
Reven has already said it, but to reiterate:
You are going to have to make your points stand on their own.
You agree that a paladin can disregard orders from authority, we just disagree on which orders.
Which orders under which circumstances.
Even for a paladin the code is a weight of competing, different, contradictory interests, not a binary "it says this so i must that". The deity driven codes give different weights to those interests, but still work similarly for all paladins. Justice and mercy for example are two things a paladin should strive for, but you need to strike a balance between the two. Saying "i must be merciful" precludes justice, and saying "i must be just" precludes mercy. Which one you pick to binarily follow is an arbitrary choice , and leads to contradictory results. It also leads you to evil.
The difference is that there is no moral quandary about wearing a chicken hat. His ethics (law vs chaos) say to wear the chicken hat. His morals have no opinion on the matter as chicken hats are neither good nor evil. (baring the DM getting into the good drugs when they made the campaign)
Swearing allegiance to an evil god has... some moral implications in a pathfinder system and the paladin should really try to avoid it.
Letting an individual be sacrificed to an evil god is so evil that it vastly outweighs the ethical considerations of the system.
A .. poisoner? Chemical assaulter? Not quite attempted murderer as the player saw it ... the big bad of the scenario that was just beaten within an inch of their life, does not need further punishment so badly that it overrides all other ethical concerns, and "no murder (illegal killing)" is a pretty big ethical concern.
You're basing your opinion on what the norms are here on earth in modern times, not what they would be in a medieval-ish setting like Golarion.
No murdering people is literally the oldest law on the books. It predates books. Right back to stone tablets. The idea that people not liking outright strangers showing up and ganking people in the middle of their town is a modern invention is inane. A paladin especially draws on the codes of chivalry, in which killing a prisoner under your care is a HUGE no.
Does the Paladin's code and dedication to Law allow them to enter the house of a suspected murderer or poisoner or arsonist or what have you and look for evidence, despite not being a duly appointed member of the local judiciary? Is the paladin allowed to engage in a physical confrontation with such a villain, despite again having no legal authority to make an arrest? And if the local law does not hold the objectively despicable act to be a crime, or it was committed on government orders, or is otherwise uninterested in prosecuting? Having confronted the villain, and a combat ensuing, does the Paladin fall if they do not take the villain prisoner? Does the Paladin, as you have suggested, have the authority to apprehend the villain and take them to be tried elsewhere, although the local laws would consider this kidnapping?
In all of these actions, implicit to many an urban adventure, and to being in the general position the OP found themselves in (if admittedly, not in all the specifics, but I am after a broader point here), the Paladin is breaking the law and/or taking it into his own hands.
BNW, they're Disciplined Good, not "I have to follow all the laws everywhere" Good.
Show me what they do differently than a neutral good character. This is a sticking point. The vauge responses you're giving are ignoring that.
By that reasoning it would be insane to play a Paladin as what they're allowed to do and how they act would completely change from country to country, city to city, as local laws override what they are capable of, to the point of being completely at odds from one place to the next. That's not "Lawful", that's madness.
Only if you view it as a binary absolute.
And yes, when you travel around the world you change your behavior or you run into problems. Their house their rules.
A Paladin runs off of their tempered LG view of a Legitimate Authority, not all authority everywhere. They run off of a Code, not whatever local law is closet.
A code that apparently has no meaning, never comes up in a meaningful fashion, doesn't do anything.
In short a code that isn't a code, at all.
|
|
Show me what they do differently than a neutral good character. This is a sticking point. The vauge responses you're giving are ignoring that.NG would be less disciplined.
... this is completely and utterly nonsensical.Only if you view it as a binary absolute.
And yes, when you travel around the world you change your behavior or you run into problems. Their house their rules.
A code that apparently has no meaning, never comes up in a meaningful fashion, doesn't do anything.
In short a code that isn't a code, at all.
Um no, we're the ones operating off of the code, you're the one making it meaningless by saying that local laws supersede the Paladin's code.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BNW, they're Disciplined Good, not "I have to follow all the laws everywhere" Good.Show me what they do differently than a neutral good character. This is a sticking point. The vauge responses you're giving are ignoring that.
By that reasoning it would be insane to play a Paladin as what they're allowed to do and how they act would completely change from country to country, city to city, as local laws override what they are capable of, to the point of being completely at odds from one place to the next. That's not "Lawful", that's madness.Only if you view it as a binary absolute.
And yes, when you travel around the world you change your behavior or you run into problems.
A Paladin runs off of their tempered LG view of a Legitimate Authority, not all authority everywhere. They run off of a Code, not whatever local law is closet.A code that apparently has no meaning, never comes up in a meaningful fashion, doesn't do anything.
In short a code that isn't a code, at all.
It is not required that two alignments behave differently in every situation to be different. So for an actual answer--the Neutral or Chaotic Good character might still murder the villain even if the government and judiciary weren't corrupt, which would not be an option for the Paladin at that point.
As to a paladin's opinion on local laws and societal mores that contravene the code...
"Doesn't matter what the press says. Doesn't matter what the politicians or the mobs say. Doesn't matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right.
This nation was founded on one principle above all else: The requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world -- 'No, YOU move.'"
NG would be less disciplined.
Off screen brushing your teeth at 10pm does not make an alignment.
... this is completely and utterly nonsensical.
No. It makes a lot of sense. You can light up in amsterdam. Wouldn't try it in singapore.
even within the same country. Take off your shirt, paint yourself blue and red and scream? Great day at the football game. At the opera? Not so much.
Um no, we're the ones operating off of the code,
You are not operating on any kind of code. It is not influencing behavior one whit. You think they should die, so code says they die. The code doesn't need to be there at all to reach that conclusion. Its not influencing the conclusion.
you're the one making it meaningless by saying that local laws supersede the Paladin's code.
I said there were circumstances where you could hack up the chelaxian guards. Pretty sure there's a law against that, so you are missing something in my position. A lot of it.
What I'm not doing is treating it as an absolute "it says this you must do this" 100% at all times. Thats how you get judge dread, not a paladin.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Off screen brushing your teeth at 10pm does not make an alignment.
Meant less disciplined in the way that a Barbarian is less Disciplined than a Monk. Alignments aren't cookie-cutter where everyone of a certain alignment have to react the exact same way to the same situation.
No. It makes a lot of sense. You can light up in amsterdam. Wouldn't try it in singapore.
even within the same country. Take off your shirt, paint yourself blue and red and scream? Great day at the football game. At the opera? Not so much.
We're not talking about recreational activities, we're talking about executing someone who threatens kids.
You are not operating on any kind of code. It is not influencing behavior one whit. You think they should die, so code says they die. The code doesn't need to be there at all to reach that conclusion. Its not influencing the conclusion.
If they're threatening kids they get to die, that's backed up by the code, laws of the land be damned.
I said there were circumstances where you could hack up the chelaxian guards. Pretty sure there's a law against that, so you are missing something in my position. A lot of it.
What I'm not doing is treating it as an absolute "it says this you must do this" 100% at all times. Thats how you get judge dread, not a paladin.
We're NOT saying that, we're saying the Paladin has to be GOOD, not Good as it's convenient to them or the laws.
Meant less disciplined in the way that a Barbarian is less Disciplined than a Monk.
"the way" is incredibly vague. It says absolutely nothing. It shows absolutely nothing. It does absolutely nothing for a character.
Alignments aren't cookie-cutter where everyone of a certain alignment have to react the exact same way to the same situation.
I have been saying the exact opposite. At length. For pages. Strawmanning my position into that is not honest.
We're not talking about recreational activities, we're talking about executing someone who threatens kids.
You're talking about taking someone's life, in the middle of a city. someone bound at at your mercy. There's NO consideration being given, at all, to how problematic that is.
If they're threatening kids they get to die, that's backed up by the code, laws of the land be damned.
It's also prohibited by some parts of the code. Or did you think that game designers could write a completely non contradictory guide to whats right when 4,000 years of scholors and priests couldn't?
We're NOT saying that, we're saying the Paladin has to be GOOD, not Good as it's convenient to them or the laws.
and killing her is the ONLY good option?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I think both sides have some good and bad points, and I usually stay out of Paladin threads, I would be remiss if I did not make one point. There is a group that includes paladins in Cheliax that are actively fighting in an underground resistance to the fully legitimate authority of the Thrunes. There is an entire AP about it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have been saying the exact opposite. At length. For pages. Strawmanning my position into that is not honest.It's felt like you're doing the opposite though, with saying that people with an L in their alignment have to follow all the laws all the time.
You're talking about taking someone's life, in the middle of a city. someone bound at at your mercy. There's NO consideration being given, at all, to how problematic that is.The only reason she's bound and not dead is because someone else in the party resuscitated her, otherwise she'd already be dead. And any consideration goes out the window when she starts to threaten innocents.
It's also prohibited by some parts of the code. Or did you think that game designers could write a completely non contradictory guide to whats right when 4,000 years of scholors and priests couldn't?Not really, and I don't really know what the last part of your statement has to do with this. I'm not seeing any contradiction in the code.
and killing her is the ONLY good option?
If it's kill her or let her go then yes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What part of "That can't be Lawful Good because a Chaotic Good person might do the same thing!" suggests a nuanced view of alignment?
It's felt like you're doing the opposite though, with saying that people with an L in their alignment have to follow all the laws all the time
I am not saying that. At all. that does not follow from the quoted section, either. Giving something consideration does not mean that it immediately wins the argument or tips the scale.
A LE mantis assassin for example could kill the alchemist. There was a process, a ceremony, a rigamarole, and an order given from a superior in the organization.
A LG soldier from andor acting under orders could kill the alchemist. They're acting under orders and its a good thing to do.
A LG paladin Can kill the guards and save the sacrifice.
part of the reason that paladins can act in areas that they otherwise couldn't (cheliax has a number of paladins) is that they DON"T go full murderhobo on a moments notice.
The onyl reason she's bound and not dead is because someone else in the party resuscitated her, otherwise she'd already be dead.
That really would have solved their problem. before they did that, they were resisting attempts to stop her and after they were mostly punishing her.
Not really, and I don't really know what the last part of your statement has to do with this. I'm not seeing any contradictions in the code.
You don't see any possibility, at all, for whatever it is you see as lawful to conflict with whats good?
You don't see any possibility for when poisoning your weapons might be a good thing? If dishonorable and good never conflict, why mention it? Why is honor even a thing if it is just good?*
If it's kill her or let her go then yes.
those are NOT the only options. That's the entire point. Yes, that is a good option. That is not a lawful option in any sense of the word. IF you had to choose one or the other you would pick the good option (see the girl about to be sacrified in cheliax for example)
but you don't. This isn't a video game where you press A or B and thats all that can happen. You can save the family and not execute them. (the party managed it, by taking the family with them). Part of the wish fulfillment in role playing is having the power you need to do that sort of thing (and adventurers have the GDP of a small country at their disposal) the ready availability of less chaotic actions means you really, really want to take that chaotic action.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am not saying that. At all. that does not follow from the quoted section, either. Giving something consideration does not mean that it immediately wins the argument or tips the scale.Um you were though, with saying that Paladins have to follow allthe laws of the land no matter what the laws were.
You don't see any possibility, at all, for whatever it is you see as lawful to conflict with whats good?
You don't see any possibility for when poisoning your weapons might be a good thing? If dishonorable and good never conflict, why mention it? Why is honor even a thing if it is just good?
There isn't a conflict in this case though.
... Paladins don't use Poisons because it might be Chaotic or Evil, they just can't use Poisons, that's a Paladin thing. Same with Druids not wearing metal armor.
those are NOT the only options. Thats the entire point. Yes, that is a good option. That is not a lawful option in any sense of the word. IF you had to choose one or the other you would pick the good option (see the girl about to be sacrified in cheliax for example)
but you don't. This isn't a video game where you press A or B and thats all that can happen. You can save the family and not execute them. (the party managed it, by taking the family with them). Part of the wish fullfilment in role playing is having the power you need to do that sort of thing (and adventurers have the GDP of a small country at their disposal) the ready availability of less chaotic actions means you really, really want to take that chaotic action.
In that situation that is the Good option, what if she goes after the family afterwards like she said she would, what if the family can't leave? Executing her after she threatens the family is not Chaotic, especially if just a few minutes ago you were trying to kill her. Nothing has changed, just because she's tied up and not currently trying to murder you doesn't make it horribly Chaotic or Evil.
Um you were though, with saying that Paladins have to follow all the laws of the land no matter what the laws were.
I did not say this.
I said the EXACT opposite of this.
If the law says chicken hat, you put on the chicken hat
The law says heil asmodeuous, you try to work around it
The law says let the sacrifice happen, you hack the guards down toss the priest in the fire throw the sacrafice over your shoulder swing out on the chains get on your horse and make a run for the border cutting down anyone that opposes you.
How are you getting must always follow the law out of that?
There isn't a conflict in this case though.
If you don't think that there is dishonor in killing a prisoner i think your definition of honor is a null set, or just a synonym for good.
... Paladins don't use Poisons because it might be Chaotic or Evil, they just can't use Poisons, that's a Paladin thing.
Just like respecting legitimate authority is a paladin thing.
A paladin thing can easily get in the way of being good. trying to do paladin things while being good is part of the role play of the class. I respect authorities i agree with is a tautology.In that situation that is the Good option, what if she goes after the family afterwards like she said she would, what if the family can't leave?
Find another solution. Worse comes to worse, the paladin can leave the room to go to the bathroom. Second easiest solution, I like the other options a lot better.
Executing her after she threatens the family is not Chaotic, especially if just a few minutes ago you were trying to kill her. Nothing has changed, just because she's tied up and not currently trying to murder you doesn't make it horribly Chaotic or Evil.
It makes it incredibly chaotic. It is a straight out illegal killing in the middle of a city. It violates norms, customs, legality, and places the decision in the hand of an individual with no qualifications beyond might makes right. It disrupts the fabric of society and leads to anarchy.
it is also incredibly dishonorable to kill your prisoner. Dishonor on your cow level of dishonorable.
it is also incredibly dishonorable to kill your prisoner. Dishonor on your cow level of dishonorable.Does that mean executing a murderer (aka killing a prisoner) is always dishonorable?
No. They had a trial, a chance to explain their side, some higher organizational hoopla, fanfare, and ceremony, and someone with the hierarchical authority to order condemned them to death. And THEN you can kill them with honor.
Because lawful is weird.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So...a paladin should displace an innocent family to cater to the whims of an evil madwoman.
Heh--that shows why you should always choose to be a pirate! ;)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking as a GM, I'd say a warning or atonement would be the most I'd do for a paladin in a PFS game. It could be argued depending on the god that the paladin worships cracking her head open would be a good final option after both diplomacy and intimidate checks were made.
You're a paladin of say..Torag , you present options. She tells you point blank she going to kill the family as soon as she can. Cut and dried, I'll take my warning and/or atonement Mr GM ..
Saying that encounter was grounds for the paladin falling without any other instances?
Nope.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Game has objective alignment. Game is about killing things. Killing things of an objectively evil alignment is not an evil act.
More Nuanced justification. The Aspis agent was the Law/Authority around those parts as far as I understand. The Paladin just exercised their judgement and authority and deposed of a tyrant.
If the GM's going to make the Paladin fall for killing evil creatures who commit evil acts then the GM is an ass. And they should probably tell people not to play Paladins at all as ~90% of the game is about killing things, usually evil things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I think both sides have some good and bad points, and I usually stay out of Paladin threads, I would be remiss if I did not make one point. There is a group that includes paladins in Cheliax that are actively fighting in an underground resistance to the fully legitimate authority of the Thrunes. There is an entire AP about it.
That is correct. The Paladins in question would have to have allegiance to a different legitimate authority that gave them permission to perform said resistance actions.
The basic idea is this: The local governing authority is the legitimate one unless your allegiance is to another governing authority and that other governing authority has given you permission to perform whatever heinous acts you deem proper.
In the absence of permission from your governing authority (church, kingdom, whatever), you must obey the local governing authority as much as your code allows.