Liberator paladins are problematic, and also, Channel Life is one of the strongest feats ever for paladins and paladin-multiclassers


Classes

51 to 100 of 103 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

thejeff wrote:

I don't even think you'd actually be prevented from using Intimidate to Coerce or Enchantment spells, as long as you're using them to further one of the higher tenets: to prevent someone from harming an innocent, for example.

The idea that you can kill someone to stop them, but aren't allowed to threaten them is nonsense. You just wouldn't be able to coerce them in a lesser cause - just like you couldn't attack them.

Yeah, that matches up with my thoughts on the matter. It's all well and good until you use it in a situation where it isn't in service of a higher tenant. Trying to stop a crime on progress? Coerce is a valid tactic. Interrogating a criminal? If there's a clear and present threat to innocents (ie "My friend is poisoned and I need the antidote now") you're good, but otherwise it may not fly (ie "We've captured a thief and want to interrogate them for information").


Trying to express a compromise:

Does the liberator code actually forbid them from being cops and telling people what to do? No, of course not. But then again, a lot of GMs have the habit of reading the LG paladin code overly strictly. Does the 1e Paladin code actually say you fall if you wind up in a lose-lose situation? No, of course not.

I think the real concern is that the current liberator code is even easier to misinterpret than the existing paladin code.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I can think of literally no occupation more inappropriate for a Liberator CG Exemplar than "you are a constable, officer of the law, etc."

If you want to be a cop, LG and NG are right there.

Dark Archive

Deadmanwalking wrote:
LuniasM wrote:
However, I personally read Tenet 2 as allowing the Liberator to prevent someone from taking an action that would cause them immediate harm even if they chose to take that action themselves. Whether they can stop someone from doing something that harms themselves in the future, however, is probably going to fall under Tenet 3 since there is no longer an immediate threat. YMMV.
I agree they can prevent immediate harm (keeping someone from taking tainted drugs, or getting a lethal STD, or getting eaten by the abominations that come out after curfew, to continue with the examples), but I don't think merely consuming drugs of most sorts or having recreational sex would usually fall under Tenet #2.

The issue with drugs in this setting is that, per PF1 drug rules, almost all drugs have a chance to cause addiction and deal minor to severe ability score damage when used. This includes stuff like CON damage, which is seriously harmful short-term and can be deadly if overused. Pretty much any drug that can cause Moderate or Severe Addiction would qualify as immediately harmful, imo. Now, how dangerous they are may shift in the PF2 rules, but until then I think they should qualify.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I can think of literally no occupation more inappropriate for a Liberator CG Exemplar than "you are a constable, officer of the law, etc."

If you want to be a cop, LG and NG are right there.

You might be able to swing it, in a sufficiently loose and chaotic (but Good) society. Where the things you'd be enforcing match the Code closely enough.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I could see that. I imagine a Liberator would be fine in a position like Lucas Simms from Fallout 3. "I keep the town running, but I don't love doing it. You can do whatever you want as long as it don't cause work for me." :P

Exo-Guardians

2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I can think of literally no occupation more inappropriate for a Liberator CG Exemplar than "you are a constable, officer of the law, etc."

If you want to be a cop, LG and NG are right there.

You might be able to swing it, in a sufficiently loose and chaotic (but Good) society. Where the things you'd be enforcing match the Code closely enough.

LG Paladin is the By the Book cop, no nonsense sticks to the rules.

NG Paladin is the friendly cop you meet at the market while he's out getting his favorite pastry, also found in schools and other places educating people.

CG Paladin, Private Investigator/Inspector, is more than willing to go under cover and expose evils and crimes, and use a little more questionable methods to keep the peace.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I can think of literally no occupation more inappropriate for a Liberator CG Exemplar than "you are a constable, officer of the law, etc."

If you want to be a cop, LG and NG are right there.

I definitely agree that a CG person isn't very likely to be a good fit for an officer of the law, at least in more Lawful-aligned societies. However, in some cases it could work - I'm thinking a small-town sheriff who mostly just keeps the peace and doesn't care much for regulations could fit just fine. Not a great cop, but still.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I can think of literally no occupation more inappropriate for a Liberator CG Exemplar than "you are a constable, officer of the law, etc."

If you want to be a cop, LG and NG are right there.

For a CG Liberator to be a cop, the society in question would have to have a very simple code of law that basically boils down to not harming innocents. In a more typical society, he would soon get into trouble for failing to enforce laws in regard to such things as "victimless crimes".

On the other hand, no paladin of good alignment would work well as a cop in a typical drow city, as their likely law codes are completely antithetical to any paladin's code of conduct.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You know, I know that they were trying to fix the Paladin Code to make it understood better, but at the same time I think there's going to be more Paladin threads about what counts for what going forward.

Like this thread.


MER-c wrote:
thejeff wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I can think of literally no occupation more inappropriate for a Liberator CG Exemplar than "you are a constable, officer of the law, etc."

If you want to be a cop, LG and NG are right there.

You might be able to swing it, in a sufficiently loose and chaotic (but Good) society. Where the things you'd be enforcing match the Code closely enough.

LG Paladin is the By the Book cop, no nonsense sticks to the rules.

NG Paladin is the friendly cop you meet at the market while he's out getting his favorite pastry, also found in schools and other places educating people.

CG Paladin, Private Investigator/Inspector, is more than willing to go under cover and expose evils and crimes, and use a little more questionable methods to keep the peace.

In all but the most Good of societies, even the LG paladin is going to run into conflicts between Good and the laws they're supposed to enforce. Strictly By the Book is going to lead to problems.

Dark Archive

5 people marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:

You know, I know that they were trying to fix the Paladin Code to make it understood better, but at the same time I think there's going to be more Paladin threads about what counts for what going forward.

Like this thread.

I actually feel like a lot of good discussion is going on here though, and thanks to the tenet hierarchy the code presents far fewer issues than it ever used to. The fact that I can actually look at the code and have a specific ruling on which parts supersede the others makes it a significant improvement over the PF1 code.

Plus, at least for me personally, finding and trying to answer these exceptions and moral quandaries is part of the fun!

Exo-Guardians

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
In all but the most Good of societies, even the LG paladin is going to run into conflicts between Good and the laws they're supposed to enforce. Strictly By the Book is going to lead to problems.

And that's a good thing. Having conflict due to your own choices is a part of life, and a part of what made the Paladin unique, they are often brought into conflict because they strive to follow their code.

In the context of cops, the By the Book officer strives to be even handed and fair while he does his job, but not every situation is the same and navigating that is often a story in unto itself. Finding a way to do your job, the right way, is a solid ideal that can really expand a character beyond just a collection of numbers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

In general, how well a paladin functions as a cop would really depend on the overall alignment of that society -- and he would run into the fewest problems in a society whose mores come close to matching his code.


LuniasM wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

You know, I know that they were trying to fix the Paladin Code to make it understood better, but at the same time I think there's going to be more Paladin threads about what counts for what going forward.

Like this thread.

I actually feel like a lot of good discussion is going on here though, and thanks to the tenet hierarchy the code presents far fewer issues than it ever used to. The fact that I can actually look at the code and have a specific ruling on which parts supersede the others makes it a significant improvement over the PF1 code.

Plus, at least for me personally, finding and trying to answer these exceptions and moral quandaries is part of the fun!

I can see conflicts between 3 and 4 going astray: I must oppose slavery and tyranny, but that doesn't supersede my need to respect the choices of slavers and tyrants or use force or threats against them.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
LuniasM wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

You know, I know that they were trying to fix the Paladin Code to make it understood better, but at the same time I think there's going to be more Paladin threads about what counts for what going forward.

Like this thread.

I actually feel like a lot of good discussion is going on here though, and thanks to the tenet hierarchy the code presents far fewer issues than it ever used to. The fact that I can actually look at the code and have a specific ruling on which parts supersede the others makes it a significant improvement over the PF1 code.

Plus, at least for me personally, finding and trying to answer these exceptions and moral quandaries is part of the fun!

I can see conflicts between 3 and 4 going astray: I must oppose slavery and tyranny, but that doesn't supersede my need to respect the choices of slavers and tyrants or use force or threats against them.

Except Tenant 3 explicitly only applies to choices made for one's own life - it does not force you to respect the choices they make for others, such as in the cases you provided. As Tenant 3 does not apply, the Liberator would default to Tenant 4 in those cases.


thejeff wrote:
LuniasM wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

You know, I know that they were trying to fix the Paladin Code to make it understood better, but at the same time I think there's going to be more Paladin threads about what counts for what going forward.

Like this thread.

I actually feel like a lot of good discussion is going on here though, and thanks to the tenet hierarchy the code presents far fewer issues than it ever used to. The fact that I can actually look at the code and have a specific ruling on which parts supersede the others makes it a significant improvement over the PF1 code.

Plus, at least for me personally, finding and trying to answer these exceptions and moral quandaries is part of the fun!

I can see conflicts between 3 and 4 going astray: I must oppose slavery and tyranny, but that doesn't supersede my need to respect the choices of slavers and tyrants or use force or threats against them.

The real kicker comes if someone wants to sell themselves into slavery willingly. Double trouble points if the person that buys them actually treats them well.

The latter is what would cause the most problems, if we're being honest. And it wouldn't be a super rare thing either.


MerlinCross wrote:

You know, I know that they were trying to fix the Paladin Code to make it understood better, but at the same time I think there's going to be more Paladin threads about what counts for what going forward.

Like this thread.

Some thoughts:

1. The Champion having two layers of anathema (Alignment Code and Religious) can make the class less approachable to new players. It would be simpler to go with one or the other: it's easier to "just play" and lowers the learning curve--which occurs before getting into the mechanics, themselves.

2. If the game wants to reduce the impact of alignment in the game, then making Alignment Champions may entrench it.

However:

3. If Champions are Champions of Alignment, players will look to them to see how alignment will be interpreted. This brings us back to some problematic tropes, as well as re-entrenching alignment rather than loosening it. Yes, there are descriptions of alignment in the front of the book, but these are /mechanics/, and therefore more "impactful/meaningful."

4. A focus on Religious Champion instead of Alignment Champion would make the class less portable to other settings.

5. A focus on Religious Champion instead of Alignment Champion risks stepping on the cleric's toes. Religious-based powers would need generalized to be portable to other settings (ala domains).

Mind, this is more a thought exercise for me rather than anything else.


TheFinish wrote:
thejeff wrote:
LuniasM wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

You know, I know that they were trying to fix the Paladin Code to make it understood better, but at the same time I think there's going to be more Paladin threads about what counts for what going forward.

Like this thread.

I actually feel like a lot of good discussion is going on here though, and thanks to the tenet hierarchy the code presents far fewer issues than it ever used to. The fact that I can actually look at the code and have a specific ruling on which parts supersede the others makes it a significant improvement over the PF1 code.

Plus, at least for me personally, finding and trying to answer these exceptions and moral quandaries is part of the fun!

I can see conflicts between 3 and 4 going astray: I must oppose slavery and tyranny, but that doesn't supersede my need to respect the choices of slavers and tyrants or use force or threats against them.

The real kicker comes if someone wants to sell themselves into slavery willingly. Double trouble points if the person that buys them actually treats them well.

The latter is what would cause the most problems, if we're being honest. And it wouldn't be a super rare thing either.

In a society that any paladin could tolerate, it would be a pretty damn rare thing.

And I don't think even a lawful paladin would have to respect the original choice if the person later changes their mind.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
TheFinish wrote:
thejeff wrote:
LuniasM wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

You know, I know that they were trying to fix the Paladin Code to make it understood better, but at the same time I think there's going to be more Paladin threads about what counts for what going forward.

Like this thread.

I actually feel like a lot of good discussion is going on here though, and thanks to the tenet hierarchy the code presents far fewer issues than it ever used to. The fact that I can actually look at the code and have a specific ruling on which parts supersede the others makes it a significant improvement over the PF1 code.

Plus, at least for me personally, finding and trying to answer these exceptions and moral quandaries is part of the fun!

I can see conflicts between 3 and 4 going astray: I must oppose slavery and tyranny, but that doesn't supersede my need to respect the choices of slavers and tyrants or use force or threats against them.

The real kicker comes if someone wants to sell themselves into slavery willingly. Double trouble points if the person that buys them actually treats them well.

The latter is what would cause the most problems, if we're being honest. And it wouldn't be a super rare thing either.

I'm sorry but I don't really see this being a problem. First of all I don't think it's not a "super rare" thing to see a slave being treated well in an TTRPG game. Specifically in Golarion lore I think it's quite rare. IMO as soon as a slave is completely happy and treated well in their environment they aren't really a slave. They are essentially just working for their boarding and food.


MaxAstro wrote:

Glad to see there are some reasonable people here when it comes to interpreting the paladin codes.

Always shake my head when people interpret the code like it's lines in a computer program and start looking for the parse errors.

Well, since its explicitly written that way now, it makes perfect sense to look at it that way.

On any 'questionable action' (or inaction) you must parse through each line to see if a higher line gives you a pass on that action. That's simply how it works.

The issue is paladins don't behave like people, not that people are reading the rules incorrectly.


thejeff wrote:


In a society that any paladin could tolerate, it would be a pretty damn rare thing.

And I don't think even a lawful paladin would have to respect the original choice if the person later changes their mind.

So Paladins can't tolerate Absalom, or Cheliax? Even though there's Paladins in both of those places?

Also the problem arises if the person doesn't change their mind. In which case your Liberator is screwed. But the LG Paladin is peachy.

Dire Ursus wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
thejeff wrote:
LuniasM wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

You know, I know that they were trying to fix the Paladin Code to make it understood better, but at the same time I think there's going to be more Paladin threads about what counts for what going forward.

Like this thread.

I actually feel like a lot of good discussion is going on here though, and thanks to the tenet hierarchy the code presents far fewer issues than it ever used to. The fact that I can actually look at the code and have a specific ruling on which parts supersede the others makes it a significant improvement over the PF1 code.

Plus, at least for me personally, finding and trying to answer these exceptions and moral quandaries is part of the fun!

I can see conflicts between 3 and 4 going astray: I must oppose slavery and tyranny, but that doesn't supersede my need to respect the choices of slavers and tyrants or use force or threats against them.

The real kicker comes if someone wants to sell themselves into slavery willingly. Double trouble points if the person that buys them actually treats them well.

The latter is what would cause the most problems, if we're being honest. And it wouldn't be a super rare thing either.

I'm sorry but I don't really see this being a problem. First of all I don't think it's not a "super rare" thing to see a slave being treated well in an TTRPG game. Specifically in Golarion lore I think it's quite rare. IMO as soon as a slave is completely happy and treated well in their environment they aren't really a slave. They are essentially just working for their boarding and food.

So every slave everywhere in Golarion is treated like crap? The easiest place to point to where they aren't (or at the very least, it's not been consistently shown) is Absalom; but even in places like Cheliax, not everyone is going to treat them like dirt.

There's a big difference between a slave trader and a slave owner. If you have a society with normalised slavery, then most likely everyone who can afford slaves has at least one, if not more. And considering most people are Neutral, chances are good the vast majority of people treat their slaves as well as they'd treat other property, or even better (since a happy slave works better). This is however, only really applicable to personal slaves, and not those used in any kind of industry. But even then, the Liberator doesn't differentiate. Musch like a spade is a spade, a slave is a slave.

That you think a slave that's well treated and content in his position isn't a slave doesn't make it so. They're still a slave. And the Liberator can't abide slavery. And in that particular situation he can't fall on other tenets to weasel out. Much like how the LG Paladin can't avoid interfering if a slave owner is beating his slave to death (even though the slave owner might be perfectly within the law), a CG Liberator can't ignore someone being a slave, even if they have it pretty good. Two sides of the same coin.

Which basically boils down to Paladins can't operate in societies with slavery unless they're willing to become outlaws. Which is fine, I suppose.

Exo-Guardians

As long as attempting to free slaves doesn't inherently put them at greater risk, then yes our seemingly brain dead liberator is screwed, however since going about declaring everyone free will not only get you killed, but probably get everyone else you're trying to free killed, I'm pretty sure they can exist in that situation so long as they try to advocate and work toward the eventual abolishing of slavery, which does not have to come at the point of the sword.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm gonna respect the slaver's choice to get sugar in their tea or not. I'm not gonna respect the slaver's choice to treat people like things.

It's not the terrible aesthetic sense the tyrant has which I have an issue with, it's the tyranny (which is generally frowned upon.)

If you want to play someone who will make allowances for slavers or tyrants from time to time, play one of the other two champions.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I'm gonna respect the slaver's choice to get sugar in their tea or not. I'm not gonna respect the slaver's choice to treat people like things.

It's not the terrible aesthetic sense the tyrant has which I have an issue with, it's the tyranny (which is generally frowned upon.)

If you want to play someone who will make allowances for slavers or tyrants from time to time, play one of the other two champions.

I'm not sure 'can't function at all in the societies of the setting the game is created for' is a selling point for a sub-class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's not like PF1 Paladins had an easy time in Geb, or Galt, or Razmiran, or the Worldwound, or Irrisen, or the Shackles. If you want to do "I'm deep in enemy territory and want to play it cool" you can make an archetype for that (PF1 had a couple.)

I mean, "Do not tolerate slavery or tyranny" is a really easy ask for someone who represents benevolence and freedom. I don't know why people are trying to weasel their way out of *that*. Cheliax is the bad guys, folks.

Exo-Guardians

PossibleCabbage wrote:

It's not like PF1 Paladins had an easy time in Geb, or Galt, or Razmiran, or the Worldwound, or Irrisen, or the Shackles. If you want to do "I'm deep in enemy territory and want to play it cool" you can make an archetype for that (PF1 had a couple.)

I mean, "Do not tolerate slavery or tyranny" is a really easy ask for someone who represents benevolence and freedom. I don't know why people are trying to weasel their way out of *that*. Cheliax is the bad guys, folks.

People are naturally antagonistic towards paladins it seems.

Also the idea that a bunch of Chaotic Good Liberators run an underground organization inside Cheliax is now a thing in my games. :)


MER-c wrote:
People are naturally antagonistic towards paladins it seems.

Not at all. Just trying to figure out how and why they fit into a setting that loves slavery and considers it a norm.

It isn't just 'Cheliax is bad.' Walking around Absalom hits up numerous little slave markets.


MER-c wrote:
Also the idea that a bunch of Chaotic Good Liberators run an underground organization inside Cheliax is now a thing in my games. :)

At the very least a liberator in Cheliax should be in with the Bellflower network (or the church of Milani if appropriate) and the other people in that organization should help to keep you sane and directed in order to do the most good, since a Liberator in Cheliax should be angry down to their very soul basically all of the time.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

By the way -- you should be talking about "tenets", not "tenants" -- unless of course your paladins are landlords.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Guys can we please agree that slavery is always capital 'E' Evil? That doesn't seem like it should be a contentious topic. The fact that certain governments tolerate or endorse it in the setting doesn't make it less evil. Absalom is Lawful Neutral, not Lawful Good.

Nor does it seem contentious that Paladins, Redeemers, AND Liberators should all be opposing Evil wherever they find it, with every waking breathe if need be.


David knott 242 wrote:

By the way -- you should be talking about "tenets", not "tenants" -- unless of course your paladins are landlords.

Liberators should not be cops or landlords, IMO.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

...All this does have me thinking that I kinda want to play a Liberator that's basically Jeff Bridges. Most of the time he's The Dude and is just kinda... chill with whatever, y'know? Like, you wouldn't really think he'd go out of his way for much of anything.

But then when the chips fall he goes full on Kevin Flynn and reminds you that some things are worth fighting for, man.

Dark Archive

David knott 242 wrote:

By the way -- you should be talking about "tenets", not "tenants" -- unless of course your paladins are landlords.

...whoops


TheFinish wrote:
thejeff wrote:


In a society that any paladin could tolerate, it would be a pretty damn rare thing.

And I don't think even a lawful paladin would have to respect the original choice if the person later changes their mind.

So Paladins can't tolerate Absalom, or Cheliax? Even though there's Paladins in both of those places?

Also the problem arises if the person doesn't change their mind. In which case your Liberator is screwed. But the LG Paladin is peachy.

The point being that people don't just sell themselves into slavery unless the alternatives are pretty awful and those awful alternatives aren't something any paladins are going to be okay with.

Sure, you'll get some good masters and slaves who don't want to be free - but that's more because of their fears of what happens once they're free, not because they just really like being a slave.
Paladins won't approve of societies where peasants sell themselves into slavery because the free peasants are starving to death, for example.


Colette Brunel wrote:
I disagree. At the moment, Channel Life is essentially a must-have significantly above the power curve, and any character who can spare the Charisma would do well to multiclass into paladin just for Channel Life.

It is a 4 feat investment to get channel life isn't it? I mean if someone want to multiclass 4 feats to get it, i say let them have it xD


MaxAstro wrote:
Guys can we please agree that slavery is always capital 'E' Evil? That doesn't seem like it should be a contentious topic. The fact that certain governments tolerate or endorse it in the setting doesn't make it less evil. Absalom is Lawful Neutral, not Lawful Good.

Right.. LN, not Evil. If Absalom (and lots of other states) tolerates slavery and is LN, slavery _can't_ fall under always capital 'E' Evil.

Slavery in Golarion is a widespread social norm. And lots of capital 'G' Good characters in setting just accept it.

It's a tricky thing to discuss because as a 2018 Earth society we don't accept it, but in this particular fantasy setting it's as normal as trees and dirt, and the people who oppose it are few and far between (and often oddball anachronisms).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Lawful Neutral implies that good and evil things are accepted. A Lawful Neutral society will accept the evil of slavery, while a Lawful Good society won't.

But it should be noted that Iomedae was unable to get her followers to abolish slavery in Cheliax, either while the Lawful Neutral Aroden was still alive or during the following period from the death of Aroden until she lost the country to Asmodeus.


I feel like LN inherently tolerates a certain amount of evil because it helps keep order.

So Absalom (the political entity) itself is not evil because it has slavery, but every single citizen who owns or deals in slaves is Evil, without exception. It's one of those things that makes you evil, like murder. Don't worry, you can redeem yourself and do better and become not evil, but that requires "no longer owning slaves" (and most likely considerable reparations to the slaves you previously kept.)

But an LE person shouldn't be more out of place in a LN place than a LG person would be.


MaxAstro wrote:
Guys can we please agree that slavery is always capital 'E' Evil?

No. There's a clause in the 13th amendment that you might find educational.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Voss, it's a little odd to suggest that a Lawful Neutral society must have zero tolerance for evil actions to avoid becoming Lawful Evil. Must they also have zero tolerance for good actions or risk becoming Lawful Good?

Also, people who oppose slavery are not few and far between. The nation most known for employing slaves (Cheliax) is literally riddled with dissidents opposing the practice.


Xenocrat wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
Guys can we please agree that slavery is always capital 'E' Evil?
No. There's a clause in the 13th amendment that you might find educational.

I'm pretty sure the 13th Amendment (to the US Constitution, I assume) doesn't actually define Evil, so it's not really relevant.

Even if it would theoretically be constitutional to sell convicted criminals into literal chattel slavery, I'm going to say that would still be Evil.


Prisoners forced to clean their cells are slaves. Is this evil?

You appear to be operating some limited definition of slavery. Without spelling out what that word means, we can’t say slavery is always evil.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:


So Absalom (the political entity) itself is not evil because it has slavery, but every single citizen who owns or deals in slaves is Evil, without exception. It's one of those things that makes you evil, like murder. Don't worry, you can redeem yourself and do better and become not evil, but that requires "no longer owning slaves" (and most likely considerable reparations to the slaves you previously kept.)

This is demonstrably not true by the very fact that there's canonical slave owners/dealers that aren't Evil, such as Satrap Xerbystes II of Katheer (True Neutral) or Venigo Palpathe of Raketooth (Chaotic Neutral) . Ditto for those that don't expressly own slaves but work to mantain slavery as an institution; such as Lictor Udo Adom, LN commander of the Order of the Chain, who specialise in hunting down criminals and escaped slaves.

And, you know, Katapesh is a True Neutral city even though it's population is literally 25% permanent slaves and 5% temporary slaves. Katheer is also True Neutral and heavily involved in slavery. So is Absalom

Which all basically points to slavery not actually being capital E Evil in-setting. It's certainly not Good though.


Xenocrat wrote:
Prisoners forced to clean their cells are slaves. Is this evil?

Prisoners forced to clean their cells are prisoners. Prisoners put on chain gangs and sent to work for profit are closer.

Yes, there are gray areas of things that resemble slavery, but aren't quite slavery that are commonly used to argue that slavery isn't really that bad, because it's like this other thing that isn't that bad.
I don't have a lot of patience for those arguments.


Xenocrat wrote:
Prisoners forced to clean their cells are slaves. Is this evil?

Unequivocally yes. Prison labor is slavery and therefore evil.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Prisoners forced to clean their cells are slaves. Is this evil?
Unequivocally yes. Prison labor is slavery and therefore evil.

Why is slavery evil in this context? Why is (or isn’t) kidnapping and imprisonment of criminals evil? Why is (or isn’t) assaulting a criminal in order to subdue him evil? Is passive surrender to evil the only possible good response to evil?


MaxAstro wrote:
Voss, it's a little odd to suggest that a Lawful Neutral society must have zero tolerance for evil actions to avoid becoming Lawful Evil. Must they also have zero tolerance for good actions or risk becoming Lawful Good?

What? That makes zero sense (though from alignment purist perspective, actually yes, that is what it means. But that perspective is nonsense).

The society of Absalom (and many others) is LN AND has slavery. The government, and particularly the queen, of Cheliax is evil because devil pacts and their methods of enforcement. The countries use of slaves predates that, even with LN and LG patron gods.

I'm pointing out that your definition of 'always capital E evil' doesn't mesh with the _setting material_. TheFinish points out more examples.

That makes the liberator problematic. Just taking them to Absalom or elsewhere is a problem for the subclass, that can derail the game/adventure.

Exo-Guardians

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Prisoners forced to clean their cells are slaves. Is this evil?
Unequivocally yes. Prison labor is slavery and therefore evil.
Why is slavery evil in this context? Why is (or isn’t) kidnapping and imprisonment of criminals evil? Why is (or isn’t) assaulting a criminal in order to subdue him evil? Is passive surrender to evil the only possible good response to evil?

OK people let's all calm down a bit, we're not here to debate ethical validity of the US prison system and define good and evil, that's for another thread.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
So Absalom (the political entity) itself is not evil because it has slavery, but every single citizen who owns or deals in slaves is Evil, without exception. It's one of those things that makes you evil, like murder. Don't worry, you can redeem yourself and do better and become not evil, but that requires "no longer owning slaves" (and most likely considerable reparations to the slaves you previously kept.)

Also, Absalom is a free city now. Huzzah!

Voss wrote:
That makes the liberator problematic. Just taking them to Absalom or elsewhere is a problem for the subclass, that can derail the game/adventure.

Not a problem any more. (See above)

51 to 100 of 103 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Player Rules / Classes / Liberator paladins are problematic, and also, Channel Life is one of the strongest feats ever for paladins and paladin-multiclassers All Messageboards