| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That tenet is further down the listFirst tenet is:
"Willingly commit an evil act, such as torture, murder or casting an evil spell".
Did you just edit the word order of that quoted sentence to try to make your point seem stronger, because on my page, murder came first.
Did you just edit the word order of that quoted sentence to try to make your point seem stronger, because on my page, murder came first.That tenet is further down the listFirst tenet is:
"Willingly commit an evil act, such as torture, murder or casting an evil spell".
I just wrote it down from memory. It still is the very same tenet, so the rest of my argument applies:
Torture and murder are equal in the hierarchy. I just picked parts of the lower tener to reinforce my point.
Also, at the point it becomes euthanasia it stops being murder. Granted, local laws disagree, but not doing it would still count as an evil act (because it would be torture under your pretenses) and not doing it would mean violating a higher priority tenet to uphold a lower priority one.
Still, "mercy killing" is a way older concept older than the laws that ban euthanasia and has been accepted forever even if it's illegal to do so nowadays, so trying to bring XXI century laws and definitions (that come from a moral starting point centered on specific religious beliefs that don't even exist in the same form in Pathfinder) into the game is a big stretch.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bring euthanasia into it just furthers my point that "murder" is a problem. There are too many cases were murder isn't murder, but is still murder.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's really not that hard to buy a sap for a character proficient in all martial weapons. So if you're in a situation where you don't want to kill your opponent, subdual damage is an easy option. You might not be specced for it, but taking pains to capture, not kill, when the situation warrants is part of being a Good person, let alone a paladin. All my Good-aligned characters have nonlethal means of resolving conflict - that's just how heroes roll, IMO.
This might be even easier if PF2e goes the Starfinder route where downed NPC enemies can just be chosen to not die after the fact.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bring euthanasia into it just furthers my point that "murder" is a problem.
You were the one to bring euthanasia into it. I just used the word. I could say "once you decide letting them live is torture killing them stops being unlawful (under your beliefs) and thus stops being murder" but would be harder to parse. As I said, "mercy killing" has been a thing forever and it hasn't been lumped with murder until relatively recently.
There are too many cases were murder isn't murder, but is still murder.
No there aren't. Murder is murder and has prerequisites. Take away "unlawful" or "premeditated" and it stops being murder.
On the other hand, lawyers make a living out of this so of course there's room for interpretation. Then again, once the jury rules whether it was murder or not, then that's what it was.
But I still fail to see a situation where it would be relevant in the course of a game unless it was a specifically and cautiously engineered scene to make the Paladin player fall, and that isn't any fault of the wording.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's really not that hard to buy a sap for a character proficient in all martial weapons.
We return to the running thief problem. The paladin is relatively slow and ranged weapons would be the only option.
It's really not that hard to buy a sap for a character proficient in all martial weapons.We return to the running thief problem. The paladin is relatively slow and ranged weapons would be the only option.
Arrows that deal nonlethal damage exist.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A: Paladin believes the act is murder. Local law does not allow it.
B: Paladin believes the act is murder. Local law allows it.
C: Paladin believes the act is not murder. Local law does not allow it.
D: Paladin believes the act is not murder. Local law allows it.
I'm more concerned about scenario F:
E: Paladin Player believes the act is murder. The GM does not.F: Paladin Player believes the act is not murder. The GM does.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bring euthanasia into it just furthers my point that "murder" is a problem. There are too many cases were murder isn't murder, but is still murder.
Murder is just an example of an evil act, not a definition of one. If, in context, killing someone would not be considered evil, it wouldn't violate the tenet. Whether or not that death would be considered murder in any legal framework.
F: Paladin Player believes the act is not murder. The GM does.
Once you bring the "GM has absolute authority and is evil" argument into the table then there's nothing anyone can do. The GM has absolute authority after all, so no rule written in the book will stop them from being evil.
And I'm assuming he's evil because if that's not the case there's no way they wouldn't either be open to discussion, give you warning beforehand or give you a second chance to redeem yourself without making you immediately fall for making a bad decision once.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Arrows that deal nonlethal damage exist.It's really not that hard to buy a sap for a character proficient in all martial weapons.We return to the running thief problem. The paladin is relatively slow and ranged weapons would be the only option.
Since, we're talking about PF2, they probably don't. At least not until ultimate equipment.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
A: Paladin believes the act is murder. Local law does not allow it.
B: Paladin believes the act is murder. Local law allows it.
C: Paladin believes the act is not murder. Local law does not allow it.
D: Paladin believes the act is not murder. Local law allows it.I'm more concerned about scenario F:
E: Paladin Player believes the act is murder. The GM does not.
F: Paladin Player believes the act is not murder. The GM does.
Jerk GMs can make the game terrible no matter what character you're playing. I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask the GM what their interpretation of the paladin code is before the session and go with that, especially in a PFS situation where you may not have prior knowledge or control over the GM's style.
If you really worry about it, buy the phylactery that forces the GM to warn you before you do anything that could violate your ethos.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Murder
1. the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.That's what Murder is defined as.
So, no. That is him trying to stop them, then if someone dies, they die.
That's the definition according to the Oxford Dictionary - a modern source. That isn't necessarily a modern legal definition, nor is your interpretation correct for a modern situation. In a modern society like the USA, you don't necessarily get to use lethal force to stop a robbery, even if you're part of the police. It depends on if there's a credible threat to somebody. If you do use lethal force, you may very well be charged with murder, as have some police in recent times.
But I'm not here to advocate for a definition within the rules, nor quibble over reality. Suffice it to say, the last thing we want is a DM and players parsing the nuances of modern law.
My opinion is that this issue, indeed the entire code/anathema issue, is best covered by the setting, not the rules for a class. I'd much rather have a church of NPCs convene a hearing and have some roleplay determine an in-game social outcome than have the DM strip a character of mechanical powers via the persona of some omnipotent deity.
Good point Chance. I guess we need to consider that our hope would be for PF2 to be printed in other languages. And in those languages "murder" could have a lot of different meanings. In some of those languages murder could be even more vague than it is in English.
Since, we're talking about PF2, they probably don't. At least not until ultimate equipment.
Blunt arrows were in Advanced Player's Guide (and also there was an arrow trap doing nonlethal damage using blunt arrows in the very first Adventure written for Pathfinder). Maybe they don't exist in PF2 first edition, but then again maybe there are rules for nonlethal ranged combat without specific ammo in PF2 first edition, so that's not a point.
In any case, resorting to outright killing the bandits then and there is still a conscious decision that can be avoided without outright ignoring the whole situation.
You can warn them and give them a chance to surrender and, if they don't, you can try to engage them in melee combat to knock them unconscious or use your divine powers (if you have any) to restrain them. If that doesn't work because you can't reach them, then you just proved that actions couldn't possibly have prevented the harm they did and you're covered by your Code. But even then, if that's not enough for your Paladin, you could later try to find their hideout to recover what they stole and bring them to justice. Or contact the local authorities and offer your help regarding the case.
I don't see why a Paladin would go "welp, they're fleeing and I'm slow, gotta kill them"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A: Paladin believes the act is murder. Local law does not allow it.
B: Paladin believes the act is murder. Local law allows it.
C: Paladin believes the act is not murder. Local law does not allow it.
D: Paladin believes the act is not murder. Local law allows it.I'm more concerned about scenario F:
E: Paladin Player believes the act is murder. The GM does not.
F: Paladin Player believes the act is not murder. The GM does.
Jerk GMs can make the game terrible no matter what character you're playing. I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask the GM what their interpretation of the paladin code is before the session and go with that, especially in a PFS situation where you may not have prior knowledge or control over the GM's style.
If you really worry about it, buy the phylactery that forces the GM to warn you before you do anything that could violate your ethos.
Gotcha GMs are a problem, but a well documented problem. Another problem is a GM with a very specific view of the Paladin Code, at that point it quickly feels like I'm playing the character as they instruct me instead of roleplaying my character and exploring how they view and interact with the world. No GM blinks an eye when I play a revolutionist swashbuckler that will rationalize his actions for the greater good; but I play a Paladin that believes that Justice is Retribution, not Rehabilitation and the table dissolves into an ethics argument.
IMO, Murder in this case is the premeditated and unprovoked ending of a sapient creatures life.
Paladin codes need to be discussed with the GM if you really care that much about it. Just ask the GM how a certain action might affect their code.
Right now a Paladin in my game is wondering how to react to another PC being cursed with the Sword of Kas.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, this is a question between a player and GM as to what is appropriate for a specific campaign.
If you define this too tightly you will either make the paladin unplayable or at least unplayable in some campaigns.
There are some campaigns where hand wringing over the morality of every little combat is a key point, and enjoyable for all parties. There are some where you just want to head to the dungeon beat up the bad guys and protect the innocent townsfolk without over-analysing it.
Talk it out with your GM make sure you are on the same page.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Talk it out with your GM make sure you are on the same page.
That's great advice for someone that can #1 meet the DM beforehand and #2 both the Dm and the player have time for a prolonged alignment talk.
For myself, getting both #1 and #2 is next to impossible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In addition, if the word is going to be there as loaded as it is, it does need to be defined so that there isn't the debate we're having now.
If it is clearly noted EXACTLY what that means, then there's no room for argument or wiggle.
Just like Innocent.
If we can get rid of 'loaded' morality terms, or define them well enough, we won't be hearing ten thousand 'I fell because' threads.
Because they'll Be Defined.
But if folks are NOT willing to have that step, then perhaps our community is not ready for the Paladin class?
It's really not that hard to buy a sap for a character proficient in all martial weapons.We return to the running thief problem. The paladin is relatively slow and ranged weapons would be the only option.
In the real world, I don't think most places look favorably on shooting someone in the back, if they are running away and unarmed. Nor is theft usually considered a capital crime most of the time, including in most Good or Neutral aligned Golarion societies. Seems pretty straight forward to me.
I'm pretty much in the "murder doesn't need to be defined, and jerk GMs will be a problem either way" camp. Most of the examples given here aren't even hard ones. Murder vs euthanasia is an easy distinction in this game. Murder vs execution may get a little trickier. But if a player actually isn't sure, it seems like the sort of thing they can ask their GMs opinion of, and the GM (or their diety) can give them an answer.
I will say it is weird that of the two Lawful required classes, it wasn't the LG one who can't murder who got the default non-lethal damage ability. But I think the consensus is that while the Paladin isn't about murder, they are all about Retribution, and smiting with a sword feels a lot more like judgement being dealt out.
|
The actual tenet is "You must never willingly commit an evil act,". This shouldn't depend on jurisdiction, or legal definitions of murder. An evil killing and murder have a lot of overlap, but murder is just the example; evil is the rule.
Technically true but it was the same in PF1 with acting honorably and not using poison (which was an example) and poison became its own topic
|
|
The actual tenet is "You must never willingly commit an evil act,". This shouldn't depend on jurisdiction, or legal definitions of murder. An evil killing and murder have a lot of overlap, but murder is just the example; evil is the rule.Technically true but it was the same in PF1 with acting honorably and not using poison (which was an example) and poison became its own topic
A similar situation, to be sure. But, poison use is much better defined in the game than murder is. It is easy to answer the question "Does this count as using poison?" and just stop there. If the question "Does this count as murder?" is just as easy to define, it will spawn similar problems to those poison use caused. If murder is left to be more vague, we are more likely to refer back to the wording in the actual tenet to solve disputes and judge actions based on whether they are evil.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking from experience here, Murder is way to vague. I mean I'm a proud adventurer and I get accused of being a "murder" hobo all the time. The only killing I'm guilty of is Profitable Homicide. And I think Profitable Homicide is a beat we can all dance to!
I think it sends a clear message. Perhaps passive aggressive post it notes are what you refer to.
Speaking from experience here, Murder is way to vague. I mean I'm a proud adventurer and I get accused of being a "murder" hobo all the time. The only killing I'm guilty of is Profitable Homicide. And I think Profitable Homicide is a beat we can all dance to!
While I can get behind that, if a player kills an NPC that is willingly giving you the thing you need/want at the time of the deed, well I'll jump for the murderhobo definition.
Maybe something else but this is a family forum so...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just got around to reading the paladin preview, and I saw the prohibition against murder. But is murder ever defined in game? Because it seems that's an incredibly grey area, especially in a game like this.
The first problem scenario that comes to mind is neutral creatures doing shenanigans. Like, if the paladin sees a bunch of neutral guys robbing a temple, would he be forced to use non-lethal damage to capture them, lest he be murdering them?
Yes. Of course, he could always kill them anyway and fall, but I'm of the opinion that 99% of Paladin players want to maintain being Paladins, so...yeah.
The fact that we've never had a Paladin archetype (or even build!) work around using non-lethal means of resolving "combat" (outside of Diplomancer which any sane GM would put a limit on for the good of his campaign) does make this difficult, and for good reason. Paladins aren't meant to be easy to play, and as such being forced to do difficult things like this is exactly what Paladins are all about.
I would suggest for those who think using weapons won't always be a viable tactic for a Paladin that they push towards non-weapon/non-lethal options being Paladin Class Feats (or even just non-lethal general feats that Paladins can take that aren't garbage or tied to things like Sneak Attack, which is clearly a Rogue feature).
Even without nonlethal damage, people don't instantly die once they're unconscious. You can actually still heal them later if resorting to lethal force is really definitely literally ultimately your only option to avoid falling. It's not murder if they don't die.
People were talking about using Nonlethal damage... but didn't that change in PF2, so basically someone could get outright murdered (word use intentional) despite any efforts by a paladin to use nonlethal?
Talk it out with your GM make sure you are on the same page.That's great advice for someone that can #1 meet the DM beforehand and #2 both the Dm and the player have time for a prolonged alignment talk.
For myself, getting both #1 and #2 is next to impossible.
Still your personal issue and not the developers or anyone else.
People were talking about using Nonlethal damage... but didn't that change in PF2, so basically someone could get outright murdered (word use intentional) despite any efforts by a paladin to use nonlethal?
How did it change? And how would it be murder if the paladin is actively trying not to kill?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The line about murder seems to make this Paladin code far stricter than the one in 1E. I mean, now a Paladin can't plan a raid on a base of Evil Cultists inside a major city, with the intention of putting an end to them, and then carry that plan out. Because then they've killed a cultist and it was premeditated.
And that's no contrived situation, that's Pathfinder 101. I think every AP has you going into some cultist base in an otherwise normal city where the law is well defined enough that vigilante killings are illegal.
So unlike Pathfinder 1E where the code was vague enough that you could make the first attack against a known evil foe without sweating too much, here you have to walk on eggshells just to follow the explicit tenet. But since your allies are not beholden to such stringent rules, the degree of contention between your Paladin and his allies is only going to be stronger in 2E.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gah, typo.
The line above 'despite not causing a point of damage to anyone under the rules' was supposed to be added to the Paladin jailbreak scenario not the sap bludgeoning.The felony murder Paladin has done no damage but is guilty of murder, the sap killer has (at least in PF1) accidentally done lethal HP damage after doing too much non-lethal damage.
Edit mistake...
I think the big fallacy in this entire conversation is conflating real world legal precedent with fantasy world definitions.
In this case, murder should be defined by the GM (most likely in dialogue and agreement with the players.) Its their world. Not the 21st Century 1st World.
In a game where killing is the typical modus operandi as a central conceit of the game system and world, it feels really strange to overlay real world legal stuff on top of that.
As such, any attempt to "define" words like that are going to create many more arguments between GMs and Players would disagree with things (too strict or too loose.) And I don't think getting rid of the term is a good idea either.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The line about murder seems to make this Paladin code far stricter than the one in 1E. I mean, now a Paladin can't plan a raid on a base of Evil Cultists inside a major city, with the intention of putting an end to them, and then carry that plan out. Because then they've killed a cultist and it was premeditated.
Except in a fantasy world, that isn't necessarily murder. That's heroic and right and good and what a Paladin should be doing.
Stopping a cult that has been proven to be dangerous to innocents and is implicated in murder and other heinous activities is certainly a place a Paladin should premeditate to raid. Of course, he should first give them a chance to exit their compound and surrender peaceably. But otherwise, any deaths pursuant really shouldn't be considered murder, especially if the Paladin has the local authority backing their play.
|
|
Obviously the examples given for doing Evil were purposefully chosen to clarify misunderstandings that appeared in many threads on the boards
Torture
Evil spell
Murder
The 2 formers seem rather clear since there are no threads debating them. If the devs feel murder is not clear enough based on this thread, they will clarify further in the CRB :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The line about murder seems to make this Paladin code far stricter than the one in 1E. I mean, now a Paladin can't plan a raid on a base of Evil Cultists inside a major city, with the intention of putting an end to them, and then carry that plan out. Because then they've killed a cultist and it was premeditated.
And that's no contrived situation, that's Pathfinder 101. I think every AP has you going into some cultist base in an otherwise normal city where the law is well defined enough that vigilante killings are illegal.
So unlike Pathfinder 1E where the code was vague enough that you could make the first attack against a known evil foe without sweating too much, here you have to walk on eggshells just to follow the explicit tenet. But since your allies are not beholden to such stringent rules, the degree of contention between your Paladin and his allies is only going to be stronger in 2E.
Too bad in a lot of those situations, the PCs have the authority's blessing to go in and stop the cult by any means available, which gives people the mental "green light" to set phasers on Kill.
Of course, the Paladin could just act on his own and kill the bad guys anyway, but then you'd stop being a Paladin on the grounds of you acting outside of legitimate authority.
Even then, you can still run into moral dilemmas of killing when you were simply told to "disrupt the ritual" by the authorities, which means you killed unrightfully (and unlawfully), which means you still fall.
On top of that, the example Shelyn Paladin would be nigh useless as a form of law enforcement since they can only act when lives are at stake or if they are attacked first, and really are only good at anti-murder. Robbers and thieves can run rampant around them and get away with it, while the Paladin can't do anything because if they act against the robbers and thieves without them attacking the Paladin or another innocent, they fall.
So yes, I agree, but I suspect a lot of people will think the majority of Paladin Codes are giant headaches which give tools for GMs to create "Gotcha!" Scenarios and decide to super-simplify or handwave a lot of the code rules.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you have trouble interpreting the meaning of murder, the issue is 100% with you.
I'm starting to suspect that Paizo could release an 800 page document laying down solutions to every single possible scenario involving potential ways to interpret the Paladin code and we'd still have a dozen stupid threads with people fighting over minutia of points that are actually resolved by having an adult conversation with everyone at the table.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On top of that, the example Shelyn Paladin would be nigh useless as a form of law enforcement since they can only act when lives are at stake or if they are attacked first, and really are only good at anti-murder. Robbers and thieves can run rampant around them and get away with it, while the Paladin can't do anything because if they act against the robbers and thieves without them attacking the Paladin or another innocent, they fall.
If your only example of effective action is to kill people, maybe you shouldn't be playing the paladin. Or any Good character, really.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Obviously the examples given for doing Evil were purposefully chosen to clarify misunderstandings that appeared in many threads on the boards
Torture
Evil spell
Murder
The 2 formers seem rather clear since there are no threads debating them. If the devs feel murder is not clear enough based on this thread, they will clarify further in the CRB :-)
The Evil Spell is obviously evil, because there is rules text saying whether it is or not. Torture "could" have a similar problem, but I feel we are more ok with the paladin getting by in life without needing to worry about "torture" than about needing to worry about "murder", because the game basically comes with a core assumption that you're supposed to kill some people sometimes.
But, I suppose you could begin to argue as to how unpleasant something is before it qualifies as torture. For example, holding a criminal against his will could be considered torture by the criminal, if he just wants to be free. Beating an enemy to unconsciousness with non-lethal damage could be considered torture to some.
I don't think we need special in-game definitions of real world terms, like "murder"I think we do, when there's no single interpretation of that word.
So, who's laws do you even need to reference? What if it's legal by my laws to kill someone, but not under the victim's laws?Definition of murder
1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice
I don't think "unlawfully" is needed in that definition. The act of killing someone is probably murder. There is such a thing as justifiable homicide. Self-defense, defense of innocent others, defense of your personal property would all be cases.
I thought you were going to give an example of a pally killing an intelligent monster.
The short answer is use the definition of murder that works for you and your group.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Still your personal issue and not the developers or anyone else.Talk it out with your GM make sure you are on the same page.That's great advice for someone that can #1 meet the DM beforehand and #2 both the Dm and the player have time for a prolonged alignment talk.
For myself, getting both #1 and #2 is next to impossible.
Well, considering that PFS is a big thing for them, I think it IS their problem/issue. If you have to make a sheet of undefined words and go over them with your DM, it defeats the idea you can port your character easily from one PFS table to another.