| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except in a fantasy world, that isn't necessarily murder. That's heroic and right and good and what a Paladin should be doing.
That just brings you to the idea of murder needing to be defined in game then. Because, when we have a term in the game that isn't defined in the game, we need to use real world precedents to define the term. And then we get to legalities of different cultures.
Personally, I think it'd be better to just strike murder from evil actions and keep everything else the same. Torture will bring up similar issues, but probably not nearly as often.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The short answer is use the definition of murder that works for you and your group."Invent game elements to suit your group" is always an option.
It's not "invent a game element", it's "have an adult conversation if needed". If a player and a GM have a disagreement over what murder is, the problem isn't going to be solved by Paizo defining it- the use of the word murder would be considered definition enough for most people.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The short answer is use the definition of murder that works for you and your group."Invent game elements to suit your group" is always an option.
Paizo should rely on that answer as little as possible because letting customers avoid doing that work is literally the only thing they sell.
We're not talking about "saving throw" or "hit dice." Murder isn't a game term.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PFS already has rules for alignment infractions in the Guild Guide: if the player is about to do something that will get his character in trouble, the GM is supposed to warn him in advance. Paladin code infractions should work the same way.
That would be great if murder was an aligned action... Since it isn't and isn't defined, is a DM required to tell you a non-aligned action might make you fall? For instance, is the paladins code under that section? Would a DM HAVE to tell you that your paladin is going to lie?
EDIT: I'm asking because I don't play PFS: I play online which is much like PFS, in that I get new DMs/players often and wouldn't want to have to have a extended talk about a multitude of issues before the game even starts.
|
| 3 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 :-)
Torture is equally charged a word though. You'll get some folks who feel waterboarding is not considered Torture, just Enhanced Interrogation. Some folks will consider anything short of feeding someone gourmet, 7-course meals, 3 times a day would be considered torture.
Almost any term you put in that sentence could be considered to be charged with real world, 1st-world, 21st-century legal implications and you'll find players that are going to try and literally lawyer their way around those words to do some pretty heinous things despite being LG or a Paladin.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That would be great if murder was an aligned action
As of this Code it explicitly is an aligned action. An Evil one, specifically. It's in the first section of the Code as an example of an Evil action, not a later section.
Which, really, makes defining it even more vital if it's to remain in said Code, since it'll definitely effect people other than Paladins.
Torture is equally charged a word though. You'll get some folks who feel waterboarding is not considered Torture, just Enhanced Interrogation. Some folks will consider anything short of feeding someone gourmet, 7-course meals, 3 times a day would be considered torture.
Torture might set off a debate, it's true, but it comes up way less often than killing other creatures does in Pathfinder, making it a smaller issue than the term 'murder'.
We're not talking about "saving throw" or "hit dice." Murder isn't a game term.It is, however, a term with vastly different definitions depending on who you ask. Knowing which definition they intended is good and useful information.
Except that it isn't good or useful. What's good or useful is the prevailing definition at the table, like evilgm said.
|
|
I think the big fallacy in this entire conversation is conflating real world legal precedent with fantasy world definitions.I absolutely agree. The problem is that if the rules use real world legal terms then it is that much harder to keep those real world concepts out of the argument.
The top priority line should simply reference evil acts and be done with it. Including 'murder' as an example invites 100 arguments about whether a particular killing is a murder. I'd prefer to just have the arguments about what is evil without dragging legalities into it.
I feel like 'no torture' and 'no evil tagged spells' are useful specificity, but 'murder' risks importing legalities that will derail debates all the time. Even if we use fantasy legal codes (what if most of the PC's killings in Hell's Rebels for example are good aligned, within the genre expectations, but clearly illegal murders under Chelish law)?
Murder has been a word used since the dawn of language and killing another person. To separate that from the fantasy world game just because our legalistic 21st century brains can't separate that word into a different meaning in said fantasy world just seems wrong.
|
|
| 1 person 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.
Except I had to give a soft warning to a paladin player at Gen Con one year, because their Paladin was punching a prisoner to get information from them. So torture is equally as charged as murder is.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except that it isn't good or useful. What's good or useful is the prevailing definition at the table, like evilgm said.
Well yes, but with a definition in the book you at least have somewhere to start from for people playing their first ever RPG to use instead of getting into a huge moral argument your first time out. Which sounds deeply un-fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Suppose I beat someone about the head with a sap, intending them to fall unconscious but not die. Alas, beating someone about the head is a dicey business and they do die. I am, in most jurisdictions, guilty of some degree of murder despite not causing a point of damage to anyone under the rules.
At common law (which is the pre-colonial English shared basis of the criminal law of the various US states) you are presumed to intend the reasonably foreseeable consequences of your actions. "I only intended to bludgeon his brain, not kill him" is not going to fly.
This scenario you describe makes no sense in pathfinder. Hitting someone with a sap can't kill them unless you make a conscious effort to do so, that's a fact. A Paladin with a sap won't kill anyone unless the Paladin wants to kill them.
In the real world, yeah, a sap can kill and thus "hitting someone in the head with a sap until they're unconscious" is not an example of fighting non-lethally because, as you describe, it's reasonable to expect to kill someone that way. In that case, fighting non-lethally would be hitting them in their arms or legs where the damage you caused couldn't be life-threatening under normal circumstances.I mean, you just used an example of applying lethal force. That's exactly the opposite of what I asked about.
Also, I was using the proposed dictionary definiton of murder where murder has to be "premeditated" and "unlawful". I'm not using the current legal definition of "murder" (and never was), partly because I'm no lawyer, but mostly because we're not talking about current law and it's pretty obvious that the rules aren't either, in the same way that I'm not using the programming definition of "kill" because we're not talking about programming and the rules aren't either.
Just because a word has an over-specialized definition in a certain specific domain it doesn't mean that word is forever the property of that domain and can't be used outside it without invoking that definition.
| 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.
Who said anything about killing? I said that the Paladin can only act against them if the bad guys are harming innocents or attacking the Paladin (first). Act, not Kill.
Putting words in my mouth just to start an argument is a more accurate reason for me to not play a Paladin or Good aligned character than me (falsely) saying killing is the only answer.
Oh, okay, I somehow skipped that paragraph of the rules the last two times I checked nonlethal damage. So you're right about that and my point was moot.
|
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.Who said anything about killing? I said that the Paladin can only act against them if the bad guys are harming innocents or attacking the Paladin (first). Act, not Kill.
Putting words in my mouth just to start an argument is a more accurate reason for me to not play a Paladin or Good aligned character than me (falsely) saying killing is the only answer.
Yes. I read what you wrote. You conflated attacking/striking/lethal force with any form of action. You said that because a paladin of Shelyn couldn't make attacks, she couldn't do anything at all. Shelyn's anathema doesn't prevent action. She only prohibits striking first. Paladins of Shelyn have plenty they can do to robbers and thieves that don't involve attacking people. They might not make great law enforcement, but they can do things.
As of this Code it explicitly is an aligned action.
Yep, you are right. I misremembered what section it was in, so I guess PFS paladins get a pass.
Nope, murder is pretty simple to define and no problems should arise from it in relation to the paladin's code unless the GM is working against the paladin in order to make him fall (which is not what the GM should be doing) or the paladin's player is playing muderhobo style against anything that breathes.
If during the exploration of ancient subterranean ruins the paladin meets a group of goblin and they attack or has reason to believe they mean him and his friends harm (they threaten the group for example) he's not acting against his code by fighting them, depending on the deity the paladin worships he should probably show a bit of restraint in killing them if possible though (or not, some LG gods are not in the forgiveness business after all).
If the goblins try to parley, slaughtering them on the spot should probably be considered murder instead.
That said the preview says the player and the GM should work together to determine what would cause the paladin to fall beforehand so the "problem" is completely non-existent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. I read what you wrote. You conflated attacking/striking/lethal force with any form of action. You said that because a paladin of Shelyn couldn't make attacks, she couldn't do anything at all. Shelyn's anathema doesn't prevent action. She only prohibits striking first. Paladins of Shelyn have plenty they can do to robbers and thieves that don't involve attacking people. They might not make great law enforcement, but they can do things.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.Who said anything about killing? I said that the Paladin can only act against them if the bad guys are harming innocents or attacking the Paladin (first). Act, not Kill.
Putting words in my mouth just to start an argument is a more accurate reason for me to not play a Paladin or Good aligned character than me (falsely) saying killing is the only answer.
No, I did not, I mentioned that in cases where lethal options were taken into consideration, the Paladin can fall when he isn't given any sort of authority to use lethal force, even if they are given the authority to "stop a ritual" from some clandestine in-town cult, and brought up the Shelyn paladin more as a tangent. (It's actually technically off-topic, but not the point.) In those cases, lethal options were brought up and as such were considered (and thereby discarded due to lack of valid usage). Not once did I say that it was the only option (though I may have implied it was the only "reliable" option, due to how non-lethal was handled in PF1, and how Paladins have little to no support for utilizing non-lethal attacks effectively), nor would I imply that a Paladin can only kill. Diplomacy is certainly a great way to solve encounters without resorting to combat, and Paladins will more often than not have solid skills in that regard.
Heck, I'd even argue that if lethal force were brought in that a Paladin must pursue a non-lethal solution, and only use lethal force as a last resort to protecting innocents, barring no other viable options, simply because a Paladin is expected to be "the better man/woman/person" in every situation, which even means having to fight on an "uneven" footing, just so you can be "the better man/woman/person."
So yeah, I suppose I probably wouldn't want to play a Paladin, simply because I'd have to gimp myself just to maintain my character abilities, even though a lot of those "extra" abilities just compensate for having to always be the better person and making sacrifices just to uphold my class features, since that's effectively hard-baked into the class, even though in PF1, the Paladin was the strongest martial class in the game when against Evil enemies (which is 90% of fights in PF1).
And that's not even getting into the "Gotcha!" GMs or the Goblin Babies (which I'm surprised wasn't brought up in the blog post as one of the "impossible" scenarios) who purposefully rain on my pseudo-parade. At that point, I'd rather say "Give me a Core-only Rogue or Monk, because it's basically the same thing, except less hoop jumping."