Why all the Paladin hate?

[Malefactor]

Ah yes, just what every paladin thread needs, real life politics and trying to assign alignment to historical figures!

*Watches burning dumpster fire of thread, making side bets on whether the mods will delete half the posts come Monday, or just lock it and be done*

[Faelyn]

Lady-J wrote:

Faelyn wrote:

Lady-J wrote:

any one in any war is arguably evil that goes for both sides war is an evil thing and causes many innocents to lose their lives however many actions that lead up to many wars are also evil but evil deeds done to evil people doesn't make them good and while the world is a better place for some of those deeds taking place it was still an evil act

Originally I was just going to leave this lay, but I just...

So, in your opinion anyone that involved in a war (in any way shape or form) should be considered an evil person. How do you feel about Draftees? Conscripts? People fighting against someone seeking to kill them and their families simply for being alive? You consider them to be evil?

War in of itself is not evil. Some of the things that can happen in a war can be evil; the Nazi Holocaust, the Armenian Holocaust, etc. I suggest you take a walk around in a different part of the world where you don't have "evil" people creating a barrier against the true evil in this world and then rethink your philosophy.

*EDIT*

Also, please use punctuation and proper grammar as it is difficult to understand what you are even trying to say in most of your posts...

killing people is evil no matter who is doing it however it is necessary in some cases but that's part of human nature every one is capable of great good but they are also capable of great evil

That's your opinion, it is not a universal fact. I would agree that murder is evil, but killing by default is not. These two things are not by any means the same thing.

[Zarongel's Poog!]

"FIYRRE??? WARRRRE?"

[Lady-J]

Faelyn wrote:

Lady-J wrote:

Faelyn wrote:

Lady-J wrote:

any one in any war is arguably evil that goes for both sides war is an evil thing and causes many innocents to lose their lives however many actions that lead up to many wars are also evil but evil deeds done to evil people doesn't make them good and while the world is a better place for some of those deeds taking place it was still an evil act

Originally I was just going to leave this lay, but I just...

So, in your opinion anyone that involved in a war (in any way shape or form) should be considered an evil person. How do you feel about Draftees? Conscripts? People fighting against someone seeking to kill them and their families simply for being alive? You consider them to be evil?

War in of itself is not evil. Some of the things that can happen in a war can be evil; the Nazi Holocaust, the Armenian Holocaust, etc. I suggest you take a walk around in a different part of the world where you don't have "evil" people creating a barrier against the true evil in this world and then rethink your philosophy.

*EDIT*

Also, please use punctuation and proper grammar as it is difficult to understand what you are even trying to say in most of your posts...

killing people is evil no matter who is doing it however it is necessary in some cases but that's part of human nature every one is capable of great good but they are also capable of great evil

That's your opinion, it is not a universal fact. I would agree that murder is evil, but killing by default is not. These two things are not by any means the same thing.

that's what murder is killing some one

[Malefactor]

Lady-J wrote:

Faelyn wrote:

Lady-J wrote:

Faelyn wrote:

Lady-J wrote:

any one in any war is arguably evil that goes for both sides war is an evil thing and causes many innocents to lose their lives however many actions that lead up to many wars are also evil but evil deeds done to evil people doesn't make them good and while the world is a better place for some of those deeds taking place it was still an evil act

Originally I was just going to leave this lay, but I just...

So, in your opinion anyone that involved in a war (in any way shape or form) should be considered an evil person. How do you feel about Draftees? Conscripts? People fighting against someone seeking to kill them and their families simply for being alive? You consider them to be evil?

War in of itself is not evil. Some of the things that can happen in a war can be evil; the Nazi Holocaust, the Armenian Holocaust, etc. I suggest you take a walk around in a different part of the world where you don't have "evil" people creating a barrier against the true evil in this world and then rethink your philosophy.

*EDIT*

Also, please use punctuation and proper grammar as it is difficult to understand what you are even trying to say in most of your posts...

killing people is evil no matter who is doing it however it is necessary in some cases but that's part of human nature every one is capable of great good but they are also capable of great evil

That's your opinion, it is not a universal fact. I would agree that murder is evil, but killing by default is not. These two things are not by any means the same thing.

that's what murder is killing some one

No, it isn't. Murder, as defined by the Oxford Dictionary is as follows

Oxford Dictionary wrote:

Murder

1. The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

Merely killing someone (i.e. homicide) could fall into numerous categories such as Manslaughter, in which you did not mean to kill anyone but ended up doing it anyway (either in the heat of the moment after adequate provocation or due to negligence or poor planning on your part) to the likes of completely legal self-defense and government allowed homicide such as in military engagements or for the execution of criminals.

[Jurassic Pratt]

Killing and murder are objectively different. Think of it like how all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. All murders are killings but not all killings are murders.

[Lady-J]

Malefactor wrote:

Quote:

Quote:

That's your opinion, it is not a universal fact. I would agree that murder is evil, but killing by default is not. These two things are not by any means the same thing.

that's what murder is killing some one

No, it isn't. Murder, as defined by the Oxford Dictionary is as follows

Oxford Dictionary wrote:

Murder

1. The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

Merely killing someone could fall into numerous categories such as Manslaughter, in which you did not mean to kill anyone but ended up doing it anyway (such as in voluntary manslaughter, where you in the heat of the moment killed someone without prior planning with a reasonable amount of provocation, and involuntary manslaughter, where you take an action that doesn't mean to kill or harm someone else but it does i.e. running a red light and causing fatal accident) to self-defense and government allowed homicide such as in military engagements or for the execution of criminals.

1st degree murder is premeditated, 2nd degree murder is not premeditated and 3rd degree murder is not meaning to kill some one but you did anyway, murder in self defense would be either classified as 2nd or 3rd degree murder depending on the circumstances, and military engagements would range anywere between 1st and 3rd degree murder depending on what happens and executing criminals would be 1st degree murder the only difference is the last two are government sanctioned murders

[master_marshmallow]

OHHHHH

So now defninitions matteR?

[Malefactor]

Lady-J wrote:

the only difference is the last two are government sanctioned murders

If the government sanctions the "murders" within a legal framework, they are by definition NOT MURDERS. Murders are when you kill someone ILLEGALLY. If the law has circumstances where you can kill people then that homicide Is. Not. Murder. This is not me redefining words on you, this is the LITERAL DICTIONARY DEFINITION of this word.

In the Immortal words of one Inigo Montoya "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means"

[Vidmaster7]

Kileanna wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

I called this btw.

But seriously You know their is people on the other side who would complain that the problem with the fighter is they didn't have fluff like the paladin. Their is people the want the exact opposite of what you do.

Paladin threads really express to me that old saying (shortened) you can't please all of the people all of the time.

You called?

I stepped out of my torpor because I felt that I was being somehow invoked xD

Called = Predicted in this case.

[BigNorseWolf]

Jurassic Pratt wrote:

Killing and murder are objectively different. Think of it like how all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. All murders are killings but not all killings are murders.

But the people with power decide which is which.

VIVA LA GALT!

[Wei Ji the Learner]

...the men of steel... the men of power... losing control by the hour...

[Lady-J]

Malefactor wrote:

Lady-J wrote:

the only difference is the last two are government sanctioned murders

If the government sanctions the "murders" within a legal framework, they are by definition NOT MURDERS. Murders are when you kill someone ILLEGALLY. If the law has circumstances where you can kill people then that homicide Is. Not. Murder. This is not me redefining words on you, this is the LITERAL DICTIONARY DEFINITION of this word.

not all government sanctioned activities are legal just because the government does something doesn't make it ok, of government wrote legislation to starve half the country they rule it would still be illegal as it would be a violation of their human rights

[Malefactor]

Lady-J wrote:

Malefactor wrote:

Lady-J wrote:

the only difference is the last two are government sanctioned murders

If the government sanctions the "murders" within a legal framework, they are by definition NOT MURDERS. Murders are when you kill someone ILLEGALLY. If the law has circumstances where you can kill people then that homicide Is. Not. Murder. This is not me redefining words on you, this is the LITERAL DICTIONARY DEFINITION of this word.

not all government sanctioned activities are legal just because the government does something doesn't make it ok, of government wrote legislation to starve half the country they rule it would still be illegal as it would be a violation of their human rights

Then, Lady-J, that would be a breach of international law, and as such still illegal, and as such, would be murder. It's not as hard of concept as you're making it out to be.

[Mark Thomas 66]

Lady-J wrote:

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:

Lady-J wrote:

don't get mad because we play paladins how paladins should be played like any other class in game however the player wants to

In which case, why do you want to call them paladins ? What makes a character a paladin, for you, if you are going to play them in ways that disregard so much of what makes a paladin distinct ?

full bab good will/fort, smite, lay on hands, buffing auras/imunities and a bonded weapon/item is what a paladin is, just like full bab good fort weapon and armor training and bonus feats is a fighter classes are there do give class features the flavor is what the player does with the character flavor should not be tied down to classes and while you can use the features of a class to improve opp on your flavor a class should not force any type of flavor onto the player

But it is. It is the core of the Paladin class. You want to play some random, Charisma based fighter with saves and buffing abilities at your table, great. But you're not playing a Paladin, and you aren't playing Pathfinder.

The benefits of the Paladin are balanced by the RP limitations. Not all players can handle that which is why Paladins are and Advanced RP class. Some people should just stick to playing Fighters.

[Ryan Freire]

Malefactor wrote:

Lady-J wrote:

Malefactor wrote:

Lady-J wrote:

the only difference is the last two are government sanctioned murders

If the government sanctions the "murders" within a legal framework, they are by definition NOT MURDERS. Murders are when you kill someone ILLEGALLY. If the law has circumstances where you can kill people then that homicide Is. Not. Murder. This is not me redefining words on you, this is the LITERAL DICTIONARY DEFINITION of this word.

not all government sanctioned activities are legal just because the government does something doesn't make it ok, of government wrote legislation to starve half the country they rule it would still be illegal as it would be a violation of their human rights

Then, Lady-J, that would be a breach of international law, and as such still illegal, and as such, would be murder. It's not as hard of concept as you're making it out to be.

Assuming of course the country is signatory to whatever agreement made it illegal via international law. International law basically can only be enforced if the people who want it enforced have the economic or military power to enforce it. It would be immoral, but not necessarily illegal, depending on the particulars of the hypothetical nation starving half its people and the world it existed in.

International law is where it becomes pretty clear that laws in general are only enforceable by implicit or explicit violence.

[Lady-J]

Mark Thomas 66 wrote:

Lady-J wrote:

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:

Lady-J wrote:

don't get mad because we play paladins how paladins should be played like any other class in game however the player wants to

In which case, why do you want to call them paladins ? What makes a character a paladin, for you, if you are going to play them in ways that disregard so much of what makes a paladin distinct ?

full bab good will/fort, smite, lay on hands, buffing auras/imunities and a bonded weapon/item is what a paladin is, just like full bab good fort weapon and armor training and bonus feats is a fighter classes are there do give class features the flavor is what the player does with the character flavor should not be tied down to classes and while you can use the features of a class to improve opp on your flavor a class should not force any type of flavor onto the player

The benefits of the Paladin are balanced by the RP limitations. Not all players can handle that which is why Paladins are and Advanced RP class. Some people should just stick to playing Fighters.

no they are really not and to say otherwise is a massive fallacy, now if paladins also got like +6 to all ability scores an extra 10 ac and attack passively then ya there would be merit to limit them with rp restrictions but they are strictly worse then at least 20 other classes which don't have those kinds of restrictions

[Malefactor]

Ryan Freire wrote:

Malefactor wrote:

Lady-J wrote:

Malefactor wrote:

Lady-J wrote:

the only difference is the last two are government sanctioned murders

If the government sanctions the "murders" within a legal framework, they are by definition NOT MURDERS. Murders are when you kill someone ILLEGALLY. If the law has circumstances where you can kill people then that homicide Is. Not. Murder. This is not me redefining words on you, this is the LITERAL DICTIONARY DEFINITION of this word.

not all government sanctioned activities are legal just because the government does something doesn't make it ok, of government wrote legislation to starve half the country they rule it would still be illegal as it would be a violation of their human rights

Then, Lady-J, that would be a breach of international law, and as such still illegal, and as such, would be murder. It's not as hard of concept as you're making it out to be.

Assuming of course the country is signatory to whatever agreement made it illegal via international law. International law basically can only be enforced if the people who want it enforced have the economic or military power to enforce it. It would be immoral, but not necessarily illegal, depending on the particulars of the hypothetical nation starving half its people and the world it existed in.

International law is where it becomes pretty clear that laws in general are only enforceable by implicit or explicit violence.

I never said just because killing someone is legal it is necessarily morally right to do it, only that it wasn't murder. Of course, just because something is illegal doesn't mean it is morally wrong, just as somethings legality doesn't make it right. All that being said Lady-J continues to be under the delusion that killing people is always EVIL!!!! , nevermind the fact that the literal Heavenly Host seems to have no problem using violence to defeat evil. Still, if nothing else this thread has shown the lengths people will go to to ignore evidence contrary to their own preconceptions.

[Lady-J]

Malefactor wrote:

I never said just because killing someone is legal it is necessarily morally right to do it, only that it wasn't murder. Of course, just because something is illegal doesn't mean it is morally wrong, just as somethings legality doesn't make it right. All that being said Lady-J continues to be under the delusion that killing people is always EVIL!!!! , nevermind the fact that the literal Heavenly Host seems to have no problem using violence to defeat evil. Still, if nothing else this thread has shown the lengths people will go to to ignore evidence contrary to their own preconceptions.

they are ok with it because they see it as a necessary evil that needs to be carried out but that doesn't change the fact that its still evil

[Kaladin_Stormblessed]

On the subject of the whole "paladins are troublesome because it's up to the whims of the GM if they fall"... if your GM is deciding breathing is dishonorable or the like, your problem is not paladins. No class is bad-GM-proof, and frankly I'd rather have the warning to get out of that game than find out later when I'm more invested. Sure, maybe they just hate paladins... but that's a GM who's totally fine with screwing you over based on, at best, a personal opinion of a class. In the long term, there's nothing you can play or do but "whatever they like" as a defense in a situation like that. Blaming that on paladins won't help you and won't help those games.

Second, in the absence of a bad GM, what Lawful Good is really is not generally that complicated. And playing a moral-dilemma-heavy campaign is something that should have player agreement just like playing an intrigue campaign or a murderhobo campaign or a horror campaign. Same with playing a morally gray or evil campaign. None of these should be blamed on options existing. Yes it's a core class but hard banning it is much more decent and reasonable than sabotaging it and as a very frequent paladin player (4 and counting), I wouldn't mind a GM doing so.

[Malefactor]

Lady-J wrote:

Malefactor wrote:

I never said just because killing someone is legal it is necessarily morally right to do it, only that it wasn't murder. Of course, just because something is illegal doesn't mean it is morally wrong, just as somethings legality doesn't make it right. All that being said Lady-J continues to be under the delusion that killing people is always EVIL!!!! , nevermind the fact that the literal Heavenly Host seems to have no problem using violence to defeat evil. Still, if nothing else this thread has shown the lengths people will go to to ignore evidence contrary to their own preconceptions.

they are ok with it because they see it as a necessary evil that needs to be carried out but that doesn't change the fact that its still evil

So let me get this straight. Archons, Azata, Agathions, Angels, & Manasputra, all of whom are literally made out of good, to the point they still radiant goodness even if they somehow become a different alignment, and whose likelihood of doing evil deeds is about the same as you finding an ice elemental on the sun, are willing to let go of their own principles the moment it is convenient? You live in a sad little world if you believe that to be an action a good person would take, let alone the actions of a paragon of righteousness. You have a grasp of morality fundamentally at odds with that of the Pathfinder Roleplaying System, which is fine, but it is of no great shock that when you try to apply them to a radically different moral system you will have issues. The problem you have with paladins isn't on the game's end. It's on yours.

Malefactor out.

[Ryan Freire]

Malefactor wrote:

Lady-J wrote:

Malefactor wrote:

I never said just because killing someone is legal it is necessarily morally right to do it, only that it wasn't murder. Of course, just because something is illegal doesn't mean it is morally wrong, just as somethings legality doesn't make it right. All that being said Lady-J continues to be under the delusion that killing people is always EVIL!!!! , nevermind the fact that the literal Heavenly Host seems to have no problem using violence to defeat evil. Still, if nothing else this thread has shown the lengths people will go to to ignore evidence contrary to their own preconceptions.

they are ok with it because they see it as a necessary evil that needs to be carried out but that doesn't change the fact that its still evil

So let me get this straight. Archons, Azata, Agathions, Angels, & Manasputra, all of whom are literally made out of good, to the point they still radiant goodness even if they somehow become a different alignment, and whose likelihood of doing evil deeds is about the same as you finding an ice elemental on the sun, are willing to let go of their own principles the moment it is convenient? You live in a sad little world if you believe that to be action not only a good person would take, let alone the actions of a paragon of righteousness. You have a grasp of morality fundamentally at odds with that of the Pathfinder Roleplaying System, which is fine, but it is of no great shock that when you try to apply them to a radically different moral system you will have issues. The problem you have with paladins isn't on the game's end. It's on yours.

Malefactor out.

Some rpg players really really want pathfinder/d+d to be white wolf and its just not. Alignment is far too ingrained in the system and alignment has its own rules...BROAD rules for the most part, but rules.

[Lady-J]

Malefactor wrote:

Lady-J wrote:

Malefactor wrote:

I never said just because killing someone is legal it is necessarily morally right to do it, only that it wasn't murder. Of course, just because something is illegal doesn't mean it is morally wrong, just as somethings legality doesn't make it right. All that being said Lady-J continues to be under the delusion that killing people is always EVIL!!!! , nevermind the fact that the literal Heavenly Host seems to have no problem using violence to defeat evil. Still, if nothing else this thread has shown the lengths people will go to to ignore evidence contrary to their own preconceptions.

they are ok with it because they see it as a necessary evil that needs to be carried out but that doesn't change the fact that its still evil

So let me get this straight. Archons, Azata, Agathions, Angels, & Manasputra, all of whom are literally made out of good, to the point they still radiant goodness even if they somehow become a different alignment, and whose likelihood of doing evil deeds is about the same as you finding an ice elemental on the sun, are willing to let go of their own principles the moment it is convenient? You live in a sad little world if you believe that to be an action a good person would take, let alone the actions of a paragon of righteousness. You have a grasp of morality fundamentally at odds with that of the Pathfinder Roleplaying System, which is fine, but it is of no great shock that when you try to apply them to a radically different moral system you will have issues. The problem you have with paladins isn't on the game's end. It's on yours.

Malefactor out.

every sentient being is capable of good and evil acts, its how those things can fall just like how evil outsiders can rise

[Mark Thomas 66]

Just because you put a shiny coat of silver paint on a sociopathic murderhobo, doesn't mean you've suddenly got a paladin.

[Faelyn]

Lady-J wrote:

Faelyn wrote:

Lady-J wrote:

Faelyn wrote:

Lady-J wrote:

any one in any war is arguably evil that goes for both sides war is an evil thing and causes many innocents to lose their lives however many actions that lead up to many wars are also evil but evil deeds done to evil people doesn't make them good and while the world is a better place for some of those deeds taking place it was still an evil act

Originally I was just going to leave this lay, but I just...

So, in your opinion anyone that involved in a war (in any way shape or form) should be considered an evil person. How do you feel about Draftees? Conscripts? People fighting against someone seeking to kill them and their families simply for being alive? You consider them to be evil?

War in of itself is not evil. Some of the things that can happen in a war can be evil; the Nazi Holocaust, the Armenian Holocaust, etc. I suggest you take a walk around in a different part of the world where you don't have "evil" people creating a barrier against the true evil in this world and then rethink your philosophy.

*EDIT*

Also, please use punctuation and proper grammar as it is difficult to understand what you are even trying to say in most of your posts...

killing people is evil no matter who is doing it however it is necessary in some cases but that's part of human nature every one is capable of great good but they are also capable of great evil

That's your opinion, it is not a universal fact. I would agree that murder is evil, but killing by default is not. These two things are not by any means the same thing.

that's what murder is killing some one

True murder is the act of killing a person, but while every murder involves killing... not every act of killing involves murder. Also...

Actually, nevermind it's not worth my time or energy. You have your world view and I have mine. You are entitled to yours as I am mine and I think we will just leave it at that.

[Wultram]

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:

Wultram wrote:

If you are not interested, then where in your mind it thought to be a good idea then to try to engage in a discussion.

Sorry, poor phrasing. I'm not getting it, I am interested, and I see my sentence is ambiguous on that front. Also sorry that quoting for what I thought was your important point came across dishonest.

I'm still interested in what about a paladin is less separable from its fluff than a barbarian or wizard, to your way of thinking.

Alright, seems I was mistaken. Let's just say that this board is home to some less than pleasant discussion partners. Excuse my assumptions.

So I make a distinction between class defining a characters personality and mechanics that determine how class interacts with the world. So ok this class doesn't get profiency in heavy armor so I shouldn't use it for a concept that requires that, unless I am willing to sacrifice feat(s).

In paladins case it is the magnitude of this limitation. To note on the classes you used. I hate barbarians alingment restriction as well, it makes even less sense than the paladins(due to the code that I would scrap as well but with it existing the limitation makes at least more sense.) Still I can use the barbarian class to create massive amount of different types of characters, Zen master swordsman, someone whose ancestory holds powerful beings(think sorceror without spells), elite infrantry, gladiator, shock cavalry. Basicly as long as concept that has the character cabable physical combatant it could probably be done with a barbarian.(however not all those concepts are best made with a barbarian, that is why it is good to have multiple classes). Wizard, well they cast spells, use spellbooks(and prepared casting) and use arcane magic. That is the extenct of your limitations, I don't think I need to explain how that allows lot of different character concepts.

Now paladin on the other hand is tied so firmly in the standard fluff that it is very difficult to use the class as anything else. And in my book that is just horrible game design. Especially in the personality department, first you are limited to a single alingment.(archtypes not counted) So if we assume that character concepts are divided evenly across alingments you just scrapped 89% of possible characters. Then you have the code that limits the characters ethics even further. So the character has to be someone who agrees with the code and thinks that it is better than anything they could have come up for themselves. This is before we even look into the class abilities and how that limits the possible concepts. If we take those assumptions as true, how big will that percentage of character concepts be, even if we only count the concepts that have merit? 5%? I don't think so 1%? Maybe but I think it is lot less than that. But if we took the alingment restriction away and had the code more mutable to fit specific characters what would that percentage be then?

As noted in the original post this is hardly my only issue with paladins but regarding this single point it should clarify things.

[RDM42]

If you kill someone in self defense you did not commit murder. That is pretty much inarguable. Right there 'all killing is murder' falls apart. After that point you are just arguing about where the line is.

Unless you go on to the conclusion that defending yourself from lethal force is evil.

[Senko]

Faelyn wrote:

Lady-J wrote:

Faelyn wrote:

Lady-J wrote:

Faelyn wrote:

Lady-J wrote:

any one in any war is arguably evil that goes for both sides war is an evil thing and causes many innocents to lose their lives however many actions that lead up to many wars are also evil but evil deeds done to evil people doesn't make them good and while the world is a better place for some of those deeds taking place it was still an evil act

Originally I was just going to leave this lay, but I just...

So, in your opinion anyone that involved in a war (in any way shape or form) should be considered an evil person. How do you feel about Draftees? Conscripts? People fighting against someone seeking to kill them and their families simply for being alive? You consider them to be evil?

War in of itself is not evil. Some of the things that can happen in a war can be evil; the Nazi Holocaust, the Armenian Holocaust, etc. I suggest you take a walk around in a different part of the world where you don't have "evil" people creating a barrier against the true evil in this world and then rethink your philosophy.

*EDIT*

Also, please use punctuation and proper grammar as it is difficult to understand what you are even trying to say in most of your posts...

killing people is evil no matter who is doing it however it is necessary in some cases but that's part of human nature every one is capable of great good but they are also capable of great evil

That's your opinion, it is not a universal fact. I would agree that murder is evil, but killing by default is not. These two things are not by any means the same thing.

that's what murder is killing some one

True murder is the act of killing a person, but while every murder involves killing... not every act of killing involves murder. Also...

Actually, nevermind it's not worth my time or energy. You have your world view and I have mine. You are entitled to yours as I am mine and I think we will just leave it at that.

If your willing to continue that a moment how would that apply to pathfinder races. Killing a human in the city is murder, killing a bandit in the woods is killing (they had a bounty posted on them), killing an orc of uknown facts beyond its an orc in the woods is?

@Gisher
Ah thanks don't know a lot about American history not being American. So Washington both led and put down a rebellion against the government hmmm given that all battles against governement are evil people (going by other posters) would that mean he was good till he rebelled against the legal government (Britain) and then became evil which is why he then put down the other evil rebellion group or he was evil when leading the rebellion then became good when putting it down?

[Jason Wedel]

Lady-J wrote:

Faelyn wrote:

Lady-J wrote:

Faelyn wrote:

Lady-J wrote:

any one in any war is arguably evil that goes for both sides war is an evil thing and causes many innocents to lose their lives however many actions that lead up to many wars are also evil but evil deeds done to evil people doesn't make them good and while the world is a better place for some of those deeds taking place it was still an evil act

Originally I was just going to leave this lay, but I just...

So, in your opinion anyone that involved in a war (in any way shape or form) should be considered an evil person. How do you feel about Draftees? Conscripts? People fighting against someone seeking to kill them and their families simply for being alive? You consider them to be evil?

War in of itself is not evil. Some of the things that can happen in a war can be evil; the Nazi Holocaust, the Armenian Holocaust, etc. I suggest you take a walk around in a different part of the world where you don't have "evil" people creating a barrier against the true evil in this world and then rethink your philosophy.

*EDIT*

Also, please use punctuation and proper grammar as it is difficult to understand what you are even trying to say in most of your posts...

killing people is evil no matter who is doing it however it is necessary in some cases but that's part of human nature every one is capable of great good but they are also capable of great evil

That's your opinion, it is not a universal fact. I would agree that murder is evil, but killing by default is not. These two things are not by any means the same thing.

that's what murder is killing some one

Murder is a SUBSET of killing. All murder is killing, but not all killing is murder (Just like my poodle is a dog, but not all dogs are poodles.)

[Jason Wedel]

---originally misquoted----

First let me say that I spend a lot of time thinking about the differences of good/evil, law/anarchy, Freedom/Safety, etc...

I can definitely respect what you are saying here (I think some of your assumptions about numbers are off, but that is minutia). I feel, after reading this monster of a thread, a few things: Paladin should replace the alignment restriction to "Must have the same alignment of the god they worship". Then a comment on the code that each god has a strict code that the Paladin must follow (to be established by the gameworld/GM/etc...).

Yes this "dips" into the Warpriest theme a bit. This also effectively removes Anti-paladin from the game (or merges it really with Paladin)

[the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh]

Lady-J wrote:

every sentient being is capable of good and evil acts, its how those things can fall just like how evil outsiders can rise

I have no problem at all with parsing the Golarion setting's outsiders as generally not sentient at that particular scale, given how extremely rare alignment changes are among them, and that the only example we have seen in any detail (in Wrath of the Righteous) required such exceptional circumstances to happen

Spoiler:

direct divine intervention makes that at least in part an act of Desna rather than a choice of the succubus in question

.

To my mind archons are generally no more capable of being Evil than demons are of getting themselves organised (a demon who could be that lawful would have become a devil to being with.)

[the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh]

Jason Wedel wrote:

I feel, after reading this monster of a thread, a few things: Paladin should replace the alignment restriction to "Must have the same alignment of the god they worship". Then a comment on the code that each god has a strict code that the Paladin must follow (to be established by the gameworld/GM/etc...).

Yes this "dips" into the Warpriest theme a bit. This also effectively removes Anti-paladin from the game (or merges it really with Paladin)

That would sound quite appealing to me, though I have never really got a handle flavourwise on how to keep warpriests reasonably distinct form inquisitors and paladins and clerics anyway.

[PossibleCabbage]

Jason Wedel wrote:

I feel, after reading this monster of a thread, a few things: Paladin should replace the alignment restriction to "Must have the same alignment of the god they worship".

As someone who has played a handful of atheist Paladins, I don't really like this idea.

I'd prefer the Warpriest stay as "Holy Warrior for a Deity" and the Paladin be "someone who is so very righteous that they get magic powers."

[BigNorseWolf]

A paladin is an iconic character. Other alignments simply don't fit the paragon of virtue, nor are they as hard to maintain for an adventurer. The paladins ideals are strong because they are so difficult to maintain. A chaotic or neutral good paladin would lose that completely.

[Kjeldorn]

Ryan Freire wrote:

Some rpg players really really want pathfinder/d+d to be white wolf and its just not. Alignment is far too ingrained in the system and alignment has its own rules...BROAD rules for the most part, but rules.

*Mutters* Can't believe I'm doing this...

So What do you mean by that? That White Wolf games have more grim-dark morality? Sure, a few of them have , *looks at Exalted* but telling a Vampire player that there no rules running the morality of their character would elicit a puzzled expression. Heck she/he'll probably have a good laugh, at how "Good", pure and righteous some of the paladin codes are...
Then again, they different games, with different internal logics.

Most systems do have robust "alignment" rules, they simply don't follow the Good-Evil + Law-Chaos...err...axes? axises? axis'?
And do you know what, most of them are pretty broad too.
Some of my favorites "alignment systems" out there are the different interpretations of the Corruption-Insanity mechanic (Probably gonna try reskinning the Good-Evil axis sometime, to some kind of corruption mechanic, just for funsies).

But as some have already mentioned else where in the thread, that very same broadness can lead to differences in interpretation and intent.
So my solution?
I simply trust my players, and don't enforce what rules are written with a heavy hand. Does that open up for the possibility of abuse? of a player deriving the Paladin from its concept and intet? Yes.
I simply don't see that as game-breaking problem. In return, my players tend to trust my GMing. They don't go up in arms, and scream "its a trap!", if a morally difficult situation presents itself in my games.

[Gisher]

Senko wrote:

@Gisher

Ah thanks don't know a lot about American history not being American. So Washington both led and put down a rebellion against the government hmmm given that all battles against governement are evil people (going by other posters) would that mean he was good till he rebelled against the legal government (Britain) and then became evil which is why he then put down the other evil rebellion group or he was evil when leading the rebellion then became good when putting it down?

I can't help you with this question because I don't agree with the premises.

[Ryan Freire]

You picked the single WW game with a morality scale. Good job you

[BigNorseWolf]

Senko wrote:

given that all battles against governement are evil people (going by other posters)

The other posters aren't saying that.

Way of the wicked apparently has you offing good members of a good government for personal gain. THATs what's evil about it. That does not extrapolate into all government overthrows being bad.

[Kjeldorn]

Ryan Freire wrote:

You picked the single WW game with a morality scale. Good job you

And Were Wolf...

Edit: Forum ate my first edit, so Kile got most of the rest.

[PossibleCabbage]

Ryan Freire wrote:

You picked the single WW game with a morality scale. Good job you

I feel like it's only Vampire that really has a "morality scale" (though I don't have a ton of experience with nWoD stuff.)

Like Werewolf had Rage and Gnosis, for "How angry you are" and "How spiritually awake you are". Being angry isn't bad in that game, it's the point of the game.

Wraith has Pathos, which is how much (positive) emotion you have sustaining your tether to the world. Its not morality, it's just thematic for ghosts.

Mage has Paradox which is "how much have you bent reality in ways it resists" which, sure, it punishes you but this is mostly in order to put a limit on how much people use their (considerable) powers.

Changeling had Banality, which is "how much you're affected by ambient cynicism" which hurts you, but it's not morality. The better Changeling had Clarity which is "how much you're able to keep a handle on things given your trauma and that the world is kind of horrifying" which isn't morality either.

Hunter had conviction which is "how much you're able to care about what you're doing" which is relevant to the question the game poses of "If you're just murdering people because you think they're monsters, what if you're wrong?" but it's not morality either.

I couldn't tell you the first thing about Demon or Mummy or any of the other ones, so maybe those have actual morality scales. All the games have some sort of statistic that goes up and down throughout play, but most of them were about central themes of the game not about actual morality. Like Vampire poses the "how do you retain your humanity despite being a monster" but Werewolf just makes the "You're a monster" part a given and asks you what you're gonna do about it.

[Kileanna]

Kjeldorn wrote:

Ryan Freire wrote:

You picked the single WW game with a morality scale. Good job you

And Were Wolf...

Vampire: Humanity/Enlightment paths

Werewolf: Renown
Demon: Torment
Orpheus: Spite

Not the only. Each one works on a slightly different way, but all of them are meant to cause issues if you act outside the code.

And the one without any moral code, Mage, has the most restrictive control system on players who want to go wild: Paradox.

[Lucy_Valentine]

Ryan Freire wrote:

You picked the single WW game with a morality scale. Good job you

Not that I'm even sure why White Wolf is relevant here, but in nWoD people by default have a morality scale. The core mechanic for humans is actually called "Morality". It's a number on a scale and you lose it by doing bad things. Meanwhile the splats have variant morality (vampires: humanity, changelings: clarity and so on), and their scales feature different acts in order to give them different flavour, but all the ones I remember have acts that relate specifically to morality. How well this works is off-topic, but the numbers are there.

PF-style Paladins being rebuilt under nWoD systems would probably need to maintain a morality-equivalent of 8+ on a scale from 1-10 where the default human is 7. In nWoD 8+ morality-equivalent usually has some advantage, but is also difficult to maintain. If you're determined to keep it that high, it alters how you play and occasionally requires infusions of XP.

---

Personally, I like Paladins because they're hard to play. Good (by definition) isn't the easy option, and neither is Lawful, especially when you're combining both and dealing with corrupt authorities. That difficulty is the draw, more so than the mechanical perks, though it's not a difficulty I want to face all the time. Obviously they're not compatible with a mandatory-evil railroad, but then I don't think I'm compatible with a mandatory-evil railroad.

[Ryan Freire]

A werewolf can be a hateful mass murderer and have high reknown, or he can be a saintly paladin and have it, its a measure of how well you behave according to what their society believes is right, not a commentary on your characters view of the world.

A changeling can do the same and have low or high banality

Wraith's morality scale is more punishment for botched rolls and a limiter on arcanos powers than it is an actual morality scale

Mage's "morality" scale has like nothing to do with morality and everything to do with providing an in game limiter on power use

Exalted could LOOSELY be related to an alignment system. High compassion can paralyze you with grief, or turn you into a mass murderer.

Its not at all just different flavors of alignment. Other than vampire there's no real parallel to alignment at all.

As for how its relevant. People really seem to want the same kind of moral flexibility in their pathfinder that you get in these systems, which the game is not at all designed for. Spells, monsters, subtypes, class abilites, class options are all so tightly bound to the 9 alignments disentangling them requires serious work and alteration of the game.

Cant get into NWOD without edition warring, but seems like it did a pretty good job of killing the company as it was.

[McBAMF]

After 8 pages of posts, I think it's pretty clear why a lot of people don't like Paladins: people can't decide on what's evil and what's lawful. Considering how much this class is inextricably linked to being both good and lawful, I don't see this changing very much.

[Daw]

Ryan,
Actually WoD difficulties are far more the same problems that Dark Fantasy story series have. It is nearly impossible to maintain and advance a dark story and setting without falling into Sleaze. Eventually you almost always start losing your "base" by exceeding their individual "Ick Factors". A factor I have noticed in long running healthy WoD games is their focus on playing up the goodly and heroic aspects, especially when these are in opposition to the characters' darkest aspects.

[Kjeldorn]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Hunter had conviction which is "how much you're able to care about what you're doing" which is relevant to the question the game poses of "If you're just murdering people because you think they're monsters, what if you're wrong?" but it's not morality either.

One could make an interest argument about Hunter.

Since it was pretty much WW version of "Paladin: The game" :p

Your morality was to a certain degree baked into your mechanical features. (sounds familiar?)
So if you are a hunter primarily motivated by Zeal, you where a Paladin of Ragathiel.
If you were a hunter primarily motivated by Mercy, you where a Paladin of Sarenrae.
If you were a hunter primarily motivated by Vision, you were...err...okay vision was a little weird but it could probably fit in somewhere ^^'.

[Senko]

Gisher wrote:

Senko wrote:

@Gisher

Ah thanks don't know a lot about American history not being American. So Washington both led and put down a rebellion against the government hmmm given that all battles against governement are evil people (going by other posters) would that mean he was good till he rebelled against the legal government (Britain) and then became evil which is why he then put down the other evil rebellion group or he was evil when leading the rebellion then became good when putting it down?

I can't help you with this question because I don't agree with the premises.

Sorry there was meant to be a space after that first sentence, also why I specified other posters on my tangent. The only part that actually was meant to apply to you there was the thanks.

[Lucy_Valentine]

Ryan Freire wrote:

A werewolf can be...

Well, that's OWoD. NWoD, rather different.

Ryan Freire wrote:

As for how its relevant. People really seem to want the same kind of moral flexibility in their pathfinder that you get in these systems, which the game is not at all designed for.

With the exception of "when I was playing a paladin" my experience of PF has not had any significant interaction with alignment as a mechanical construct at least in regards to my own character's alignment. Playing NG, CG, NN,and CN, it basically hasn't come up. I mean, the good characters are more likely to be generous, and the chaotic ones more likely to be annoyed by laws, but the mechanical consequences have been minimal enough that I don't remember any of them.

Maybe this is why people don't like paladins.

[Ryan Freire]

Lucy_Valentine wrote:

Ryan Freire wrote:

A werewolf can be...

Well, that's OWoD. NWoD, rather different.

Ryan Freire wrote:

As for how its relevant. People really seem to want the same kind of moral flexibility in their pathfinder that you get in these systems, which the game is not at all designed for.

With the exception of "when I was playing a paladin" my experience of PF has not had any significant interaction with alignment as a mechanical construct at least in regards to my own character's alignment. Playing NG, CG, NN,and CN, it basically hasn't come up. I mean, the good characters are more likely to be generous, and the chaotic ones more likely to be annoyed by laws, but the mechanical consequences have been minimal enough that I don't remember any of them.

Maybe this is why people don't like paladins.

Protection from evil/good/law/chaos, Anarchic/holy/axiomatic/unholy weapon groups. Good/evil/law/chaos domains/blessings. Clerical auras, sacred summons and divine casting restrictions based on alignment. Alignment ranges based on divine casting and deific worship. Choice of positive or negative channelling. Damage reductions on monsters, spells like forbiddance, hallow/unhallow. Numerous specific magic items. Prestige class choices available, innumerable plot points in printed adventure paths and modules.

Its far more likely that alignment is so ingrained you simply didn't notice when it came up.

Edit: and NWoD is a bad system, bad enough it got licensed out while the actual owners of the property expressed a desire to reboot the old game.