| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mark, that is very accurate, in my opinion.
I don't like being told what to do. Period. I absolutely want the wiggle room to be selfish and cruel. I want the illusion of choice.
Also, I feel playing a Paladin is a commitment to a cause... that mindset is exhausting, even to roleplay. If I cannot do the concept justice, I won't even bother. Gotta be in the right mood to take on that role.
For as little as I care about religion, there's something about the Paladin class I madly respect. And I refuse to half-@$$ it just for some stupid mechanical reason like Smite or Divine Grace. There is a certain part of that unwaivering devotion that is intriguing, it is awe inspiring. Paladins are supposed to be these bastions of hope and goodness.
Me, personally, I am not that convicted in anything. I am fickle and wishy-washy by comparison, and there's that part of me that looks up to the steadfast nature of the Paladin. I wouldn't be able to forgive myself if I played a Paladin poorly. The concept, itself, deserves reverence in my opinion... and that is a lot of baggage to bring to a fantasy game. I refuse to be that last little glimmer of hope that flickers out in the darkness...
Seeing a Paladin fall should be terrifying and sad for everyone involved. You should feel betrayed and disappointed. It should be emotionally crushing to even witness. The infallible has fallen, everything you held dear is a lie, you should be mad that the Paladin tricked you into thinking they would do right at the end. You should feel like your best friend just revealed they are someone else entirely. The world should suddenly seem big and scary because things you held as fact became fiction before your eyes.
I don't think I am explaining myself correctly, so I am going to just stop.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But... that means that, on SOME level, you are CHOOSING to leave the door open to being cruel, and selfish, and prioritizing your own needs above others when its convenient. You might never ACT on that choice, but its there.
People like their ability to exercise free will, even if it is an illusion in some cases. I personally believe it is an inherent aspect of what makes us human beings, and gives actual weight to our choices, and value to our existence. It is one of the reasons I despise mind-altering effects (and the general school of Enchantment) to the degree that I do.
The greatest contrast to this is how much I actually like the Paladin, and the concepts built into it. Full submission of their own will, done willingly, to an objectively GOOD standard of morality and rejection of all those twisted desires that give you the freedom to commit Evil. Well, there is a freedom all its own in that kind of existence. But, it has to be chosen. It cannot be forced without destroying what it is.
The Paladin directly shatters the expectation of duality and fairness in representation of the alignment system. Most of us know what it represents and many of us what to smear its image with a bit more grey so that it isnt so blinding. The reflection of ourselves that we see in that shiny armor isn't pleasant to look at.
Just my opinion though.
Me, personally, I am not that convicted in anything. I am fickle and wishy-washy by comparison, and there's that part of me that looks up to the steadfast nature of the Paladin. I wouldn't be able to forgive myself if I played a Paladin poorly. The concept, itself, deserves reverence in my opinion... and that is a lot of baggage to bring to a fantasy game. I refuse to be that last little glimmer of hope that flickers out in the darkness...
Jump in, get your feet wet and fail. Paladins are never perfect. They are just as flawed and fallible as the rest of us. Don't let the armor fool you. They just try a LOT harder than the rest of us. They succeed more often too. But that is only because they keep on trying.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins are an amazing mix of DPR, tankyness and support, which only ranger get close to, but i feel like most people over here already made a serious case for paladin, so i won't argue further.
I want however to go over the code of conduct.
If your main villain puts a helpless NPC in jeopardy, you HAVE to save the NPC, even if this guarantees the villain escapes. Otherwise, mechanically, you lose all your powers.
I personally think that a DM that makes a paladin fall for choosing to pursue the villain instead of saving an innocent NPC is being way too harsh. Here's what the code of conduct mentions;
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
The code does encompass helping those in need, but it also encompass punishing those who harm or threaten innocents. If the Paladin acts with the greater good in mind, i would never make them fall.
Otherwise would the paladin also fail because they failed to catch the villain who then murdered bunch of other innocent helpless people?
Are paladins even that restricted by their code to begin with?
- They have to respect legitimate authority. This one could be problematic, but each time i've seen it matter, the paladin had an excuse to consider the authority unlegitimate. (The leader is evil, or is not considered legitimate by the Paladin's god)
- They can't lie. This one is kind of restrictive, but has a social character with very few skill points, this just saves paladins skill ranks they don't have to put in bluff. Beside, even if they can't lie, they can decide to keep their mouth shut.
-They can't cheat. So what? I've never seen cheating as a mandatory anywhere. Beside, what constitute cheating is not totally clear.
- Not using poison. Poisons are incredibly niche, so just don't build a poison based paladin.
- Help those in need. Isn't what all good character do anyway?
- Punish those who harm or threaten innocent. Again, this is just basic good adventurer stuff.
Paladin in 1e can even associate with evil character to fight off greater evil, so it's not even as restricted as it was in 3.5.
Their code of honor besically boils down to : Be good and honorable.
Honestly, the Antipaladin has a harsher code to follow and they are Chaotic, go figure.
My only grip with paladin is that their isn't a paladin of every alignement like in 3.5. Unless i missed some archetype i'm not aware of.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because with a paladin you HAVE to be. If your main villain puts a helpless NPC in jeopardy, you HAVE to save the NPC, even if this guarantees the villain escapes. Otherwise, mechanically, you lose all your powers. Your heroism is linked mechanically to the class, so any other choice but selflessness results in mechanical consequences.
This is the crux of the issue with Paladins. It's not about whether or not the actions of the Paladin are still Good, but whether you are obediently following the will of what your DM thinks you should do as a Paladin.
The obvious counter-argument is "...but what if catching the Villain now prevents more harm than a helpless NPC."
In setting, multiple Good deities(and in setting Paladins) are fine with:
Killing goblinoid children and women
Killing people who simply don't agree to do what you say
Death cults and assassins
Killing slavers on sight
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Very much so. Paladin is an ideal more than a class, and for people to treat it as nothing but a sum of its mechanics feels disingenuous, to me. I do, very much so, hate to see the class "abused".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no angst or regret on the part of the Paladin. The answer is no. Others might not like that the Paladin made that choice, but that is their issue to deal with.
It is generally easy to invent situations that test the conviction of PLAYERS that are acting the role of the Paladin, even if those situations are present in published adventure paths.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’ve not played a paladin in PFS but I did, briefly in a 5e Adventurer’s League special event. Twenty tables all playing the same pregens for prizes.
Long story short, three paladins each chained to a warlock end up in Hell, and have to do various tests to get out. (The non-5e players on our table aced the knowledge test on account of having read some terrible TSR novels years ago.)
At some point my paladin falls into a pit of lava and dies. The master referee overseeing the event walks over and says something along the lines of “Asmodeus appears and offers you a deal to restore you to life, but in exchange you have to give something up…” reaching for the character sheet to cross out an ability in exchange for the Res, which was something that he had been going round the room doing as each character died.
But I’m playing a paladin. So my response was “I will not do a deal with the forces of evil, my life is of no consequence, only my soul”, got up and walked out of the event.
The look of utter confusion on the master referee’s face was worth the entrance fee…
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’m a big fan of the Paladin.
It is very easy for GMs to write adventure hooks for Paladin characters. This is a HUGE plus whether you are the GM or one of the PCs because nothing kills a game faster than a frustrated or miserable GM. This fact alone makes Paladins awesome.
Paladins are usually at their strongest when it really matters. When you finally get through the dungeon and meet the final evil mastermind most other classes have often used up most of their precious resources. The Paladin can simply smite evil their way through the encounter. Easy.
It’s a good class for new players because the vanilla Paladin without much optimisation works just fine and is very resilient.
The role playing requirements are not nearly as restrictive as most people make out. A Paladin can do whatever they like, the catch is that there are consequences for their actions. Well, so what? There are always consequences for your actions. The only real issue is with jerk GMs who make Paladins fall at the drop of a hat, but I see two problems with that argument. 1) Why would a patron god who is the epitome of goodness, i.e. mercy, compassion and forgiveness punish their followers all the time? That makes zero sense. And 2) Why are you playing with a jerk GM anyway?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
<Character commits monsteous act "offscreen" in an awesome roleplay moment>
Yeah that sounds like an obviously and objectively evil act - even if we don't know what it was. It was a cool moment, and yes by the sounds of it that would have been the moment your Paladin fell . It was also entirely your choice, so there's nothing in that to really argue for or against playing a Paladin.
The role playing requirements are not nearly as restrictive as most people make out. A Paladin can do whatever they like, the catch is that there are consequences for their actions. Well, so what? There are always consequences for your actions. The only real issue is with jerk GMs who make Paladins fall at the drop of a hat, but I see two problems with that argument. 1) Why would a patron god who is the epitome of goodness, i.e. mercy, compassion and forgiveness punish their followers all the time? That makes zero sense. And 2) Why are you playing with a jerk GM anyway?
I think this is the problem people have.
Your Paladin doesn't fall just for committing a single non-lawful or non-good act. They fall if they continue to act in a way that doesn't align with their code, not just a single action. The exception to this is if your Paladin "ever willingly commits an evil act". So that story Mark Hoover 330 wrote would have made a Paladin fall, but what does that mean?
It means the Paladin loses most of their class features . But that's not the end of the character, a Paladin can still adventure as a Warrior, and can get those powers back "if she atones for her violations" ... ATTONEMENT.
So playing a Paladin restricts your playstyle, but if you weren't going to be playing a similar playstyle to that you wouldn't be playing a Paladin anyway. There might be some small things you wish you could do but can't , but if you get a little creative that's just another way to roleplay. Generally you just have to play a character who's honest and good.
And then if you have one of those roleplay moments where you want to unleash the beast and go on a murder-rampage ... you can. You just have to pay for an atonement afterwards .
The only problems I've seen with this are GMs who want to force a Paladin to fall, in a Player vs GM kinda game .
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ MrCharisma
Yes, exactly.
Sometimes I want to play the antihero or even the villain, that can be fun sometimes. For those times I want to play the hero, well, nothing really beats the Paladin. It is tailor made for the job.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM instead of making a paladin fall, i'm a fan of letting them keep their power through a trickery diety intervention. They get to keep their power for a while, thinking their God is fine with their actions until they realise that they have been working for a nefarious god for a while.
After the reveal, they have the choice to realise their mistake and fall, to then seek the path of atonement, or pursue the path of power because they are gone too far already.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the player should know fairly well if their actions displease their god. Basically unless your player has their holy bastion of righteous valor just go off the deep end unexpectedly one day you can give them hints before the fall.
Iomedae makes her favor known by reshaping ordinary objects into sword-like shapes, the appearance of gold or white light around a person or object, or the magnet-like pull of a longsword or other long metal weapon in a particular direction. Her anger is displayed through flickering lights, the breaking of weapons against formerly yielding material, and the tarnishing and increased weight of gold or silver.
If your Paladin is going down a dark path then let their deity tell them. Don't be subtle about it either ...
"Godwin Lightblade your sword strikes the beast's thick hide but your blow glancess off. You hear a crack and see that the blade has chipped , and your mind flashes back to the innocent man you failed to save the day before. "
It should never come as a surprise that your deity has forsaken you. Treat your player like a child and teach them which actions their deity approves of, and which actions they disapprove of.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mark, that is very accurate, in my opinion.
I don't like being told what to do. Period. I absolutely want the wiggle room to be selfish and cruel. I want the illusion of choice.
Also, I feel playing a Paladin is a commitment to a cause... that mindset is exhausting, even to roleplay. If I cannot do the concept justice, I won't even bother. Gotta be in the right mood to take on that role.
For as little as I care about religion, there's something about the Paladin class I madly respect. And I refuse to half-@$$ it just for some stupid mechanical reason like Smite or Divine Grace. There is a certain part of that unwaivering devotion that is intriguing, it is awe inspiring. Paladins are supposed to be these bastions of hope and goodness.
Me, personally, I am not that convicted in anything. I am fickle and wishy-washy by comparison, and there's that part of me that looks up to the steadfast nature of the Paladin. I wouldn't be able to forgive myself if I played a Paladin poorly. The concept, itself, deserves reverence in my opinion... and that is a lot of baggage to bring to a fantasy game. I refuse to be that last little glimmer of hope that flickers out in the darkness...
Seeing a Paladin fall should be terrifying and sad for everyone involved. You should feel betrayed and disappointed. It should be emotionally crushing to even witness. The infallible has fallen, everything you held dear is a lie, you should be mad that the Paladin tricked you into thinking they would do right at the end. You should feel like your best friend just revealed they are someone else entirely. The world should suddenly seem big and scary because things you held as fact became fiction before your eyes.
I don't think I am explaining myself correctly, so I am going to just stop.
I feel like I see fully eye-to-eye with you about 2% of the time, but that was an absolutely magnificent way to phrase those thoughts. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this post.
For myself, I like Paladins a great deal, though I don't view them in quite the same way. I do see them as the embodiment of ideals, but I have always house-ruled that Paladins are the highest calling of divine warriors to a particular deity, and must match the alignment of the deity they serve (which can be of any alignment). They can be of any alignment, and receive slightly different class features depending on what faith they serve. A Paladin, to me, is akin to a warrior-philosopher. They may uphold very different ideals, but a Paladin, above all, represents more than the fate of a single soul. They are as beacons. They might be beacons of righteousness and goodness, or they might embody the most terrifying fates imaginable given form through the mortal will to carry them out, but the presence of a Paladin is something that should always affect those around them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hard disagree. Sacrificing your soul for the benefit of others can be the most Paladin thing you can possibly do.
You are welcome to disagree. Unless you feel like expounding on the reasoning behind your statement, I can only assume that you view the value of the soul (and the entirety of what it represents) vastly different than I do, especially when compared with the transitory and temporary nature of life. The state of 'being alive' has no measurable comparison with the value of the existence of a soul. The destruction, or loss, of a single noble soul to the forces of darkness is a tragedy that defies measuring.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hard disagree. Sacrificing your soul for the benefit of others can be the most Paladin thing you can possibly do.You are welcome to disagree. Unless you feel like expounding on the reasoning behind your statement, I can only assume that you view the value of the soul (and the entirety of what it represents) vastly different than I do, especially when compared with the transitory and temporary nature of life. The state of 'being alive' has no measurable comparison with the value of the existence of a soul. The destruction, or loss, of a single noble soul to the forces of darkness is a tragedy that defies measuring.
As a Paladin, one must guarantee their soul never is added to Evil's ranks... souls are a source of power, the more souls you have, the more power you have.
To volunteer your soul to darkness is to aid the enemy, you are a traitor to the cause.
Asmodeus can suck it is the only answer a true Paladin can ever give.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a Paladin, one must guarantee their soul never is added to Evil's ranks... souls are a source of power, the more souls you have, the more power you have.
To volunteer your soul to darkness is to aid the enemy, you are a traitor to the cause.
Asmodeus can suck it is the only answer a true Paladin can ever give.
I agree entirely. Asmodeus is about to see that same Paladin rise in the ranks of the servants of their deity, emerge as a new Outsider in the service of Law and Good, and become an eternal pain in his side for all of eternity. All because Asmodeus DARED to tempt the Paladin from his path in life, his destination in the afterlife, and corrupt the one thing that shines brightest... that Paladin's SOUL.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, they got a point.
Acting out your martyr complex is a very Paladin thing to do!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We could imagine a scenario where Asmodeus could offer a Paladin a choice of sacrificing his soul in exhange for saving a greater number of soul. In which case the sacrifice would be noble.
However, the Paladin could simply refuse and still be ''good'' as if Asmodeus is offering a deal, there's most certainly a catch.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, if Asmodeus already has those souls, they are almost certainly damned to begin with. A Paladin does not trade his life, let alone his soul, in exchange for such souls. His soul is worth a great deal and he has all of eternity to find another way in order to redeem and save those souls while remaining on the straight and narrow path, if those souls can be redeemed. Normally, he is all about protecting the innocent and punishing those that prey on them.
Never take a deal from a devil, let alone the lord of them. Let us not forget that most of the original Devils were angels at one time that favored Law more than Good and eventually sought to make use of the forces of evil to bring order to the universe. Your creation myths might differ from the canon myth, but be very, very careful never to sacrifice eternal treasure for temporal victory. Also, remember that Good does not mean 'Nice' or 'Merciful' at all times.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not saying you're wrong DeathlessOne, but when i say ''We could imagine a scenario'' i mean that in the broadest sense, as ''it could be possible''.
For example: What if those soul were stolen by Abyssal force to use in a foul ritual and Asmodeus as a way of interviening if the Paladin agree to a deal?
A Paladin would have to be extremely cautious and incredibly courageous to volonteer for such a sacrifice.
Another example: What if containing a greater evil could be prevented by sacrificing one's soul?
If we're going by utilitarian ethics, which is ultimately what your argument looks to be leaning on, then there are some rare possibles scenarios in which a paladin can sacrifice their soul by working with devils to increase the ''general amount of happiness in the world''.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The ''general amount of happiness in the world'' has no real bearing to my argument. Happiness in the 'mortal realm' (as we know Golarion and other places in the Material Plane), is a transitory thing and quite subjective. You can be having a really bad day and yet increasing the overall influence of Good in the world. A Paladin's soul is NEVER worth sacrificing to bring about 'happiness'. That is my honest, blunt opinion on it. Then again, it is my opinion on just about ANY soul in question.
We can certainly imagine countless scenarios that people can argue sacrificing a Paladin's soul is the greatest good, to the greatest number of people. I can understand how they might see it that way too. But I'll never actually agree with it and am more than willing to play that Paladin that looks down on the entire universe screaming for someone to save them and tell them "No. Not at the cost of corrupting and destruction of my soul. May you find redemption in death, for it is not the end."
Now, there is ONE particular kind of situation that would influence my choice and sway it to actually offering up the soul of the Paladin. That is if the entirety of the universe, and every SOULS existence, depended on the outcome of a sacrifice. Saving innocent souls from utter destruction is a vastly different issue than saving innocent LIVES. Such an act would be worthy of such a sacrifice, but only if the Paladin's soul was consumed and destroyed without the chance of surviving to be used by the forces of Evil. I'd consider it an honor, even.
Last bit I forgot to add: I am aware that others may not share my same conviction or beliefs about the matter. That is fine. Not every Paladin is the same. Many lead lives of glory only to fall and become worse than what they were fighting against. They are unable to walk that thin line and avoid the razor's edge that nips at them every time they have to make a hard decision. That is why Paladins are mortal.
I'd honestly be terrified if I came across someone who literally represented the forces of Good and Law, and knew they were actively in the midst of dealing out Justice and Vengeance (not to confused with Revenge). When mercy is no longer an option for them... Good is the farthest thing from 'nice' as you can get.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd honestly be terrified if I came across someone who literally represented the forces of Good and Law, and knew they were actively in the midst of dealing out Justice and Vengeance (not to confused with Revenge). When mercy is no longer an option for them... Good is the farthest thing from 'nice' as you can get.
Yeah, Paladins aren't nice.
They aren't altruistic, kind, benevolent beings... the are the mortal weapons of immortal gods. Paladins are not here to spread joy to the masses, they exist solely to punish the wicked. Paladins aren't missionaries, they have no duty or interest in spreading the religion of their god. They show mercy to the innocent, which doesn't make them nice... they just aren't stepping on the backs of peasants like everyone else. Lol.
Find the Paladin(s) intent on killing an idea... the real terrors you call heroes. There's a 5e campaign where the BBEG will come keep coming back if anyone still believes in her... and that is how Paladins commit genocide in the name Law and Good. Lol.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They aren't altruistic, kind, benevolent beings... the are the mortal weapons of immortal gods. Paladins are not here to spread joy to the masses, they exist solely to punish the wicked. Paladins aren't missionaries, they have no duty or interest in spreading the religion of their god. They show mercy to the innocent, which doesn't make them nice... they just aren't stepping on the backs of peasants like everyone else. Lol.
Eh... I'd argue that a Paladin exists for a lot more than just to punish the wicked. I think you are blurring the lines between a Paladin and an Inquisitor here. Paladins usually serve a god, but they are empowered by the very forces of Law and Good, which is why their code is so strict. Some Paladins can derive their powers from deities, and have to follow additional codes lest their deity cease sponsoring them and supplying their powers.
Paladins are an idea, and an ideal. They exist to protect the innocent from the forces of Evil. That means they take up the hard choices, the hard work, and the sacrifices that others are simply unable or unwilling to make. And it wears on them. To walk that line and watch so many perish when all it would take to save them is to bend the knee just one time, but KNOWING that the real Evil behind those situations must be punished, and that you cannot act if you are to avenge that life and protect more beyond that one life.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The ''general amount of happiness in the world'' has no real bearing to my argument. Happiness in the 'mortal realm' (as we know Golarion and other places in the Material Plane), is a transitory thing and quite subjective. You can be having a really bad day and yet increasing the overall influence of Good in the world. A Paladin's soul is NEVER worth sacrificing to bring about 'happiness'. That is my honest, blunt opinion on it. Then again, it is my opinion on just about ANY soul in question.
Oh i never meant happiness restrained to the material world, i meant world as in universe, multiverse, call it however you want, i meant world as in ''the sums of things that exists''. I also meant happiness in the sense of utilitarian ethics, which means happiness = Good. If a soul can feel pain or pleasure, then it counts as a moral agent within utilitarian ethics. If your argument is not utilitarian it's at least consequentialist as you mentioned the ''worth'' of the paladin's soul as the argument for their sacrifice not being justified. Which is why i said ''we could immagine a scenario in which the sacrifice of a paladin's soul could be considered a worthy deal''.
According to me, the deal is a good decision for the Paladin only and only if it raise the sums of pleasure/happiness in all world combined. Even if the paladin's soul is used to nefarious ends eventually, as long as the sums stays positive, then its still a worthy deal.
If we go by a more deontological approach, ala Kant lets say, and we suggest that actions are good and bad in themselves, and we define that dealing with Evil is always an Evil act, then sure that type of deal can never be a good act.
However, it seems like the Paladin code, in Pathfinder, is a mix of deontological and consequentalist approach. Paladins seems to follow ''Rule utilitarianism'' which is basically following a set of rules that are trying to raise the amount of Good in the world until the point where breaking those rule is required to save a great amount of Evil. For example, allying yourself with evil is is prohibited, unless you fight a greater evil.
According to my view, being a good decision does not matter on the Paladin's moral character as what count is good intent. The action is aligned with Good if the Paladin intent was perform a ''good'' act.
Now should the Paladin fall if they ally themselves with Evil entities and fail to prevent greater Evil? Eh, i don't know, probably it's a classic case of playing with fire, but then it also depends on the scenario. If the Paladin got betrayed or failed due to means outside his own control, then probably not.
Finally, i don't wanna imply that your views are wrong or anything, i was merely sharing my point of view on the matter as i always enjoy debating on ethics.
The whole good=/=nice needs to die. Technically true but primarily used as a way of saying Good=A&!%*$~!, which is not at all the point of the alignment.
I totally agree with you, even though that's not how Paladins were originally thought of according to Gygax. I don't have the link, but according to him, killing unarmed, merciless Chaotic Evil prisoner is a Lawful Good act. Which seems to validate my views that alignement in D&D were more or less meant as factions with different flavors.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
According to me, the deal is a good decision for the Paladin only and only if it raise the sums of pleasure/happiness in all world combined. Even if the paladin's soul is used to nefarious ends eventually, as long as the sums stays positive, then its still a worthy deal.
I can't really express how fundamentally I disagree with this. I suppose it has to do with the use of the phrases pleasure/happiness. I am focused on Good vs Evil. Pleasure/happiness can be derived from the suffering of others, and as such, is merely a subjective term that needs an impartial, omniscient arbiter in order to measure and way properly. I do not pretend to be such and simply do not use such metrics in my assessment.
I think the issue is simply black and white with me. Good is superior and preferable to Evil, without exception. Good is difficult because it actively COSTS people something. Evil costs other people something. Most people exist in the middle ground, fooling themselves into thinking they are one (Good) and others are the other (Evil), while both go around with the same desires and choosing to feed those desires in different ways.
Let's just say that your understanding of paladins and LG is different than mine and my friends'. The whole good=/=nice needs to die. Technically true but primarily used as a way of saying Good=A%*!*!@#, which is not at all the point of the alignment.
I think the main problem with how people interpret how I see the Paladin is that they fail to understand that a Paladin can, and often is, both at the same time. Mercy has limits. Being Nice only goes so far. Eventually, you have to stop letting Evil hold innocents hostage with their cleverly crafted and manipulative traps. When I describe Paladins being 'not Nice, merely Good', this is merely the sum total, logical conclusion of what happens when all of their attempts to reason and turn you aside from your wickedness have failed.
People should realize that at the end of a Paladin's patience is Destruction, and it is all the more terrifying because when they have reached that point, they have already given you EVERY imaginable chance. When they have decided that your continued existence is a threat to innocent life, and they are absolutely sure you will harm another innocent person, you have been judge and are about to be processed by the universal powers that await on the other side of life. Many people have knee jerk reactions to that, because they perceive that as unfair or feel that one person should not have that kind of authority. I disagree with them because Paladins are LITERALLY empowered by the forces of the universe (Good and Law) and to a lesser extent directly from deities. If they make a mistake, they pay for it. There is no question that if they fall, they screwed up.
By all means, play your Paladins as amiable and likeable people. They can be like that. But remember, that at the core of what they represent (Good foremost and Law secondary), they are holy avengers and justice is blind.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really think there is any correct or incorrect views or opinions on what Paladins are, or are not. To each their own.
In my view, Paladins are tools for maintaining a delicate balance. Whether the Paladin is a scalpel or a hammer is irrelevant. When diplomacy fails, send in the Paladin. Paladins do not negotiate with Evil. In world of compromise, some don't.
Clerics deal with concepts. They woo crowds with their words. They preach sermons to the ignorant masses. They fill their churches the same way a greed fills a wallet. Like most organized religion, it is all BS posturing. It's just a numbers game to Clerics and clergy. They don't actually care. If someone chooses to join their church, good. If someone doesn't, it's whatever. Even if someone in the church sins or does something Evil, the Clerics are under no obligation to do literally anything about it.
Paladins are action. They are a dynamic force of will, a direct extension of both their god's desires and might. Step aside, Cleric, it's time for business. Paladins do care about the condition of every single soul and where it is headed in the afterlife. Every. Single. One. A Paladin will fight their way into and through Hell just to TRY redeem a single soul... a Cleric will skip a sermon if they simply don't feel up to it.
The death of one is a tradegy, the death of a million is just a statistic... Paladins deal with tradegy, Clerics deal with statistics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't really express how fundamentally I disagree with this. I suppose it has to do with the use of the phrases pleasure/happiness. I am focused on Good vs Evil. Pleasure/happiness can be derived from the suffering of others, and as such, is merely a subjective term that needs an impartial, omniscient arbiter in order to measure and way properly. I do not pretend to be such and simply do not use such metrics in my assessment.
Ah i see where the disagreement stems from then. In that case for me to understand your argument i would need to understand what you mean by ''Good'' and ''Evil''.
Also, just because pleasure and pain are subjective to each individual moral agent, it does not mean the concept as a whole is subjective. Within utilitarian ethics, what is ''good'' is what brings the maximum amount of happiness to the maximum number of moral agents(which are things that can feel pain and pleasure).
Sure utilitarian ethics has a few bugs and i'm not saying either that it's perfect. It just originally understood your argument as somewhat utilitarian, my mistake.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really think there is any correct or incorrect views or opinions on what Paladins are, or are not. To each their own.
Oh of course.
Clerics deal with concepts. They woo crowds with their words. They preach sermons to the ignorant masses. They fill their churches the same way a greed fills a wallet. Like most organized religion, it is all BS posturing. It's just a numbers game to Clerics and clergy. They don't actually care. If someone chooses to join their church, good. If someone doesn't, it's whatever. Even if someone in the church sins or does something Evil, the Clerics are under no obligation to do literally anything about it.
I think here you are mistaken. I think you're conflating priests and clerics.
Clerics are more than mere priests, though; these emissaries of the divine work the will of their deities through strength of arms and the magic of their gods.
Clerics are as much divine champion as Paladins are, they just differ in how they express their gift. Paladin are divine champion to the cause of Law and Good while clerics are divine champions of the dieties, which themselves are alignement with the cosmic axis of Evil, Chaos, Good and Law.
Can cleric be corrupted? Sure they can workship evil good, and are allowed more leniancy than Paladins are, however i very much disagree to the proposition that they are mere bureaucrats and preachers.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's fair. I didn't mean to distract the discussion by bringing Clerics into the mix.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
THAT, for ME personally, encapsulates the soul of how I would play a paladin. Honor with compassion. And its that second word that never ceases to confound EVERY player, anecdotally, in my games with the exception of ONE player I've had in the past 15 years.
I have the reverse problem. Myself and my fellow players generally have trouble with the Lawful part of the Paladin.
Almost any time there's a conflict between Law and Good, my players and I tend to gravitated toward Good instead of Lawful, which makes them feels very much like Neutral Good character.
I think that's because i personally view Paladin as champions of good first and champions of Law second. After all, they smite evil, not chaos.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah i see where the disagreement stems from then. In that case for me to understand your argument i would need to understand what you mean by ''Good'' and ''Evil''.
Ah, well, that is easily answered...
*glances at Mark Hoover 330's post*
Yep, that about sums it up. If you need to understand what I see as Good vs Evil, you simply need to go to the source book on it, the Core Rulebook. My description of Good vs Evil in the real world differs from the game setting but I am extremely capable of disassociating what I believe from something else, putting it aside and temporarily adopting that new belief system. I do not inject my own moral relativism into the game world.
Almost any time there's a conflict between Law and Good, my players and I tend to gravitated toward Good instead of Lawful, which makes them feels very much like Neutral Good character.
I think that's because i personally view Paladin as champions of good first and champions of Law second. After all, they smite evil, not chaos.
Paladins will ALWAYS choose Good over Law, because they fall if they commit the Evil act. It is written into their code. A Paladin SHOULD feel more like a Neutral Good character, instead of a Lawful Neutral character when it comes to the subject of Good vs Evil. The key difference is that Paladin are intrinsically Lawful and should experience a kind of dissonance when they are unable to choose a Lawful option, even if that is not roleplayed out.
I mean, its not hard to imagine what that feels like. We all have a sense of what is 'fair' or not that we experience in real life. When a Paladin has to choose between a Lawful or Chaotic act, I assume it feels very similar to that. Not Evil, but not quite 'right' either.
Lawful good combines honor with compassion.THAT, for ME personally, encapsulates the soul of how I would play a paladin. Honor with compassion. And its that second word that never ceases to confound EVERY player, anecdotally, in my games with the exception of ONE player I've had in the past 15 years.
Thank you for sharing that. It seems that players that can properly handle the Paladin are just about as rare as the characters that are called to actually be one. I haven't actually played a Paladin in a very long time (10+ years) but your posts makes me yearn to do so again.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are welcome to disagree. Unless you feel like expounding on the reasoning behind your statement, I can only assume that you view the value of the soul (and the entirety of what it represents) vastly different than I do, especially when compared with the transitory and temporary nature of life. The state of 'being alive' has no measurable comparison with the value of the existence of a soul. The destruction, or loss, of a single noble soul to the forces of darkness is a tragedy that defies measuring.
Good Sir,
While thee are wise to focus on what truely counts, souls, and not something as trival as happyness, I believe thy righteous self does not fully comprehend the magnitude of the offer.
Both our Illustrious Lady in Shadow, and that disgusting määähgpie who runs around as a goat and whose followers think is a mighty bull are present on many planes.
How many innocents will the servants of Goaty Mc Goatface be able to turn to the Abyss when our Ladies legions strike at them from shadow and midnight?
While it somewhat pains me to admit this, even our own soul recruitment efforts in the name of our Lady will suffer somewhat from our Ladies decreed change of focus to skewering goats, fun as that may be.
And what of the tantalizing option of truely killing the goat that steals? Or of liberating the myriad of souls, both living and death, that unjustly (meaning not by Pharasmas will, as Iomedae herself can attest) languish in his prisons?
Nothing in the Abyss is ever certain, but is the greatly increased possiblity of Baphomets final demise, the greatly increased possibility of releasing many unjustly held and tortured souls, backed by the lower numbers of souls to be corrupted by those serving the goat not worth a single, albeit mighty, soul?
Alas, even a degree of certainity could be given. Our Lady could certainly be convinced to release those crusader mortals currently held in Alushinnyra, in exchange for servants of our Lady held by Mendev, if the alliance is consumated, allies should not hold their respective personell prisoner should they not?
Is it not frequent, even amongst mortals, to exchange hostages in order to cement a truce or an alliance, especially one as unlikely and unusual as between the Kingdom of Mendev and the Midnight Isles?
It is not as if our Lady in Shadows has any intention of mistreating him, her gift will strengthen his ability to pursue our joint goals and also enable him to act as her ambassador. Who else could our Lady better chose to represent her benign intentions?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, well, that is easily answered...
*glances at Mark Hoover 330's post*
Yep, that about sums it up. If you need to understand what I see as Good vs Evil, you simply need to go to the source book on it, the Core Rulebook. My description of Good vs Evil in the real world differs from the game setting but I am extremely capable of disassociating what I believe from something else, putting it aside and temporarily adopting that new belief system. I do not inject my own moral relativism into the game world.
Am i mistaken if i read your last sentence as a critique of my position?Injecting seems to imply, forcing as vision and i somehow interpret that as a ''bad thing'' to do. English is my second language and i'm not sure if i'm missing something or reading too much into it.
I would defend myself by adding that, i do not infact inject moral relativism in pathfinder, as i'm not a moral relativist myself. However a definition of Good is needed to understand if an act is Good or Evil. The core rulebook is not very helpful unfortunately. It list some examples of aligned actions, but never define what good is.
Also, just as a side not utilitarianism is not relative in the sense of what Good and Evil is, it's pain and pleasure. Sure pain and pleasure is relative to each moral agent, but according to the theory, actions are mesurable by the amount of pleasure or pain they bring into the world.
I apologize if this comes out as rude it couldn't be furthest from my intention. I'm sure you're an intelligent person, but I also doubt you stricly adhere to the core definition of alignement as it's unplayable and contradicting with a lot of other sources. I'm fairly sure you apply reason and context to judge how an action align.
Simply because Paladins would be walking contradions.
Here's what the corerulebook mentions.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
If killing and hurting are evil acts, then Paladins would fall as soon as they kill their first ennemy by virtue of commiting and Evil act. Yet their code requires to '' punish those who harm or threaten innocents'', which is a pretty hard thing to do without killing. I guess they could go Superman still and avoid all killing at all time. It's a cool concept, but i'm also sure it's not how paladins were originaly envisioned.
Again, i do not meant this in a condescending way and i do not imply you follow pure RAW without judgement as your previous comment about the soul sacrifice indicates that you do in fact apply judgement.
I also apologize if my previous comment about framing your argument as utilitarian was offensive, never was my intention either.
Finally, i just want rehiterate that this is just my view on it and i'm not asking you to change your point of view or anything, i'm merely sharing.
Paladins will ALWAYS choose Good over Law, because they fall if they commit the Evil act. It is written into their code. A Paladin SHOULD feel more like a Neutral Good character, instead of a Lawful Neutral character when it comes to the subject of Good vs Evil. The key difference is that Paladin are intrinsically Lawful and should experience a kind of dissonance when they are unable to choose a Lawful option, even if that is not roleplayed out.
I mean, its not hard to imagine what that feels like. We all have a sense of what is 'fair' or not that we experience in real life. When a Paladin has to choose between a Lawful or Chaotic act, I assume it feels very similar to that. Not Evil, but not quite 'right' either.
I think i agree, because that's how i play most paladins. However the difficulty is not when having to choose between Neutral Good and Lawful Evil, but rather when choosing between Neutral Good and Lawful Neutral.
Lawful good combines honor with compassion.THAT, for ME personally, encapsulates the soul of how I would play a paladin. Honor with compassion. And its that second word that never ceases to confound EVERY player, anecdotally, in my games with the exception of ONE player I've had in the past 15 years.
There is however within the Lawful Good alignement the following passage:
A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
This is most certainly not a nice trait. I'd argue it's where the Loyal bleeds in and corrupt the Goodness of Lawful Good. There's something vindictive within it. As if the punishiment is more important that the reparation for an injustice.
However i still agreed with you and Deathless that those two value should define Paladin. Paladins are awesome.
Dang it all these talks about Paladin makes me wanna roll a Healadin! :(
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do not traffic nor bargain with the servants of Evil, especially with one so steeped and imbued with the vileness of corruption as yourself.
This is WOTR specific, but we are talking about a 1 mythic soul/service for a couple of 10K-ish souls by a fairly conservative estimate. Agonizing over it is completely the right role play step, although either decision, to accept or not to accept, is valid. There is also Nocticulas redemption arc in play. I am not disagreeing with you that "no" is a valid awnswer, but outright no without consideration?
Who said there is was no consideration? Such an offer is tempting, and might actually work on a weaker willed person, but the answer is "No" and it cannot be any other. Atonement might actually be an option if one is truly repentant of the act that was committed, but knowing going into the decision with the idea that you'll just 'atonement it all away like it never happened' is laughable. You are not truly sorry for what you did, because you've shown you'd do it once if you thought the result was worth the action.
There are reasons why there is an eternal war being fought over the souls of the mortals, and it isn't because everything is playing nice and only taking what is theirs by right. Evil corrupts, tempts, lies, steals, kills and does pretty much whatever it likes to win. That is why it is so successful. There can only be the silent embrace of non-existence for that kind of power. No compromise. No mutual pacts. No non-aggression pact. It is be corrupted by it or utterly destroy it.
Is redeeming Nocticulas as Good thing? Most certainly. The powers of the universe would rightly reflect such an event. But is it the role of a Paladin to intercede in the Realms of the Divine? No, it is not. A Paladin serves to protect the innocent mortals that inhabit the Material Realm. In the Outer Planes, there are no innocents. They have been judged and sent on their way.
So... to wrap back around to my initial statement. The answer is 'No'. And it was given with all kinds of consideration. It is just the argument, consequences, and decision was made a very, VERY long time ago. And it started with the simple oath to "Never willingly commit an Evil act." The strength of their conviction is tested all the time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Am i mistaken if i read your last sentence as a critique of my position?Injecting seems to imply, forcing as vision and i somehow interpret that as a ''bad thing'' to do. English is my second language and i'm not sure if i'm missing something or reading too much into it.
It was not my intention to come off as critiquing your position. My statement was a general one, meant to address an issue a lot of people have with alignment in games when it differs from reality. If it does not fit you, feel free to disregard it.
I apologize if this comes out as rude it couldn't be furthest from my intention. I'm sure you're an intelligent person, but I also doubt you stricly adhere to the core definition of alignement as it's unplayable and contradicting with a lot of other sources. I'm fairly sure you apply reason and context to judge how an action align.
I do, actually, adhere to the core definition of alignment in the game system. There are no contradictions in it unless you actually bring in real world moral frameworks (such as causing harm or killing to be inherently evil). Many people find it too simplistic or vacuous to adequately serve as a reliable form of moral structure, but after many such discussions over my very long stint of playing these games, I find it more often that the person simply does not like the implications such conclusion make when they view their own actions, behavior, desires or impulses in real life through the same lens. Real life is more morally grey and indistinct and the alignment system in D&D (and pathfinder) are more crystal clear and sharp.
I think i agree, because that's how i play most paladins. However the difficulty is not when having to choose between Neutral Good and Lawful Evil, but rather when choosing between Neutral Good and Lawful Neutral.
It comes down to what those decisions imply. There is no clear cut guideline for choosing between them. If the Lawful decision has no Good/Evil distinctions and the Good options actively seeks to undermine and destroy Lawful organizations or traditions, the Paladin might certainly be motivated to pick it over the Good action. A Paladin generally believes in order, organization, structure and traditions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All this Good vs Evil vs Law vs Chaos is the exact baggage I try avoid. I understand that, at its very core, the Paladin is the embodiment of this very struggle... and it is why I do not play Paladins. Lol.
I do madly respect them as an adversary, though. And, as such, I never toy with their duty when we inevitably meet... something about me being a Lich seems to really rub those guys the wrong way. I don't know what it is, maybe if they just got to know me...? Plus, hostages and Enchantment have never been "my thing" [excluding my quite liberal use of Command Undead, obviously]. I pride myself with besting them in combat outright, and have put away a decent stash to equip my new self with when they get best of me... which they have, it happens to best of us. I wonder how many of them have come back as easily as I have? Maybe their gods pulled through for them, yet didn't just help them win?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Deathless one
"There are no innocents in the outer planes". Your entire argument rests on this (and on the also questionable arguments that Paladins are not supposed to intervene in divine affairs, or that they are exclusively to protect mortal realms).
And it simply isnt the case.
My entire argument does NOT rest on this. This is merely one particular piece of data, applicable for this particular situation, that I have chosen to use as an example.
You can be a completely innocent person, and a Demon/Daemon/Devil can come, beat you unconcious and throw you to a portal to the Abyss/Hell/Abbadon. Congratulations, one innocent more on the outer planes. There are millions there. Why? Because they do this, all the damn time.
Yes, they can do that. That is why Evil is just so damned Evil. They pervert and manipulate the system in every way they can. And, they would incur the wrath of Pharasma for doing so, and any particular other deity that might actively be enjoying the worship of said creature.
Are you aware what a Malebranche is? It is a devil that conquered a material world, and annexed it to its hellish plane. Yes, this means that all of the mortals on this plane, including remaining resistance fighters, including prisoners, including barely born babies, are now in hell.
Being in Hell does not make anyone Evil. Becoming Evil, being changed by it or actively choosing it, has perverted the natural order of things and renders you no longer innocent. This is why people are so fervent in real life about protecting children from corruptible influences. Innocence is a fragile thing.
Furthermore, any evil outsider can condemn any mortal soul to his plane, utterly irrespective of the mortals actual alignment.
All he needs is an enslaved or willing CR2 Cacodaemon. The evil outsider can kill the mortal, have the CR2 Cacodaemon use its soul lock special ability Soul Lock (Su) and then eat the resulting soul gem.
That mortals soul, even if he was a pious righteous Paladin, is now consigned to the Abyss/Abbadon/Hell.
Any evil outsider (does not have to be a Daemon themselfs) can do this as often per day as he has Cacodaemon servants, and cacodaemons are the most common daemons, and get frequently and in numbers enslaved by either hell or the Abyss.
I refer you back to my first response about Evil acting Evil.
Pharasma gets no say in this. If a ressurection is attempted, that could save that soul, but ressurections are rare and sparse.
What protects the mortal realms from this? The inability of f.e. the Abyss to properly invade, characterized by their infighting, and the ability of material plans to materially defend themselfs. You pretend that there is no link between souls and material conditions. This is simply wrong. Evil outsiders can effectively condemn every single soul on a plane to their domain if they conquer it.
Pharasma is a god and her dominion includes that of death, life, rebirth, etc. She gets a say if she chooses to get a say, and it is GM fiat that either prevents that or allows it to happen (or even that allows this situation to happen at all). I don't tend to make assumptions about how such beings act in games that I am not in control of. If it were MY game, such actions by extraplanar creatures would be met with resistance by many forces, the forces of Law that wish to preserve the structure of the universe, Pharasma (and her minions) ensuring that the River of Souls and its purpose is not perverted, the forces of Good seeking to protect innocent life, rival forces of neutrality or evil also seeking to preserve the status quo.
The issue is not as simple as you seem to want to make it. There are a lot of moving pieces and I am very familiar with them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It was not my intention to come off as critiquing your position. My statement was a general one, meant to address an issue a lot of people have with alignment in games when it differs from reality. If it does not fit you, feel free to disregard it.
No worries! I was merely trying to access, it's hard to do over text.
I do, actually, adhere to the core definition of alignment in the game system. There are no contradictions in it unless you actually bring in real world moral frameworks (such as causing harm or killing to be inherently evil). Many people find it too simplistic or vacuous to adequately serve as a reliable form of moral structure, but after many such discussions over my very long stint of playing these games, I find it more often that the person simply does not like the implications such conclusion make when they view their own actions, behavior, desires or impulses in real life through the same lens. Real life is more morally grey and indistinct and the alignment system in D&D (and pathfinder) are more crystal clear and sharp.
Then i'm a bit at a loss here. I fear like there's something i'm missing to truly understand your position.
According to the core rulebook, killing and hurting are ''Evil'' act.
If we agree that the definition of Good and Evil, within Golarion, is defined by the description in the core rulebook, then there's no need to bring in real world ethics into it.
The Paladin code of honor is either self contradicting or way more restricting that it appears at first glance, because, still according to the alignement section, killing and hurting is an ''Evil'' act and yet Paladins are required to punish wrongdoers.
Are Paladins at your tables forbidden from killing or hurting ''Evil'' creature? (Not that there's anything wrong with that kind of play in itself.)
Or is alignement more of a cosmic force that inhabits each creature with alignement and thus removing them from the world/multiverse is in itself an act of the contrary alignement? For example, if killing an ''Evil'' creature is a ''Good'' act, is killing a ''Lawful'' creature a ''Chaotic'' act?
I'm really just trying to grasp how you view it, not judging.
All this Good vs Evil vs Law vs Chaos is the exact baggage I try avoid. I understand that, at its very core, the Paladin is the embodiment of this very struggle... and it is why I do not play Paladins. Lol.
I personally think it's fun. You just need to be clear on what alignement represent around your table so people can make choices with clear intent.
I do madly respect them as an adversary, though. And, as such, I never toy with their duty when we inevitably meet...
Paladins are cool adversary for Evil games, but i think my favorite type of villains are Lawful Evil. There's just something about a complete Jerk that clings to a code of honor that appeals to me. Like, you can respect their dedication even though you disagree with their ideals.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then i'm a bit at a loss here. I fear like there's something i'm missing to truly understand your position.
No worries. Glad to explain.
According to the core rulebook, killing and hurting are ''Evil'' act.
If we agree that the definition of Good and Evil, within Golarion, is defined by the description in the core rulebook, then there's no need to bring in real world ethics into it.
Actually, according to the rules, Evil implies "hurting, oppressing, and killing others." Those are not singular things. You can't just reach in a say "Evil is hurting ... others'. That is taking the issue out of context and creating a logical inconsitency. Hurting can mean very different things, from a tiny amount of pain to outright torture. Hurting AND oppressing AND killing, used together, imply something fairly specific. It goes on to say that some do these things out of a lack of compassion (ie, are willing to do it if it is convenient to do so) or that they actively enjoy doing it.
The same thing goes for 'oppressing others'. Laws oppress people all the time. It is the main thing driving the friction between Lawful and Chaotic alignments. Killing is more sticky but I address that below. Good is the HARDEST alignment to play when you actually fully understand what it means to be 'Good'. It is the most unfair because so much is expected of you, that you sacrifice freely of yourself, to better others and ease their suffering. People often think than a benevolent thought or desire every once in a while makes them a good person. I do not. Even Evil people are benevolent and kind to those they hold close. Even Evil people can love.
The Paladin code of honor is either self contradicting or way more restricting that it appears at first glance, because, still according to the alignement section, killing and hurting is an ''Evil'' act and yet Paladins are required to punish wrongdoers.
Are Paladins at your tables forbidden from killing or hurting ''Evil'' creature? (Not that there's anything wrong with that kind of play in itself.)
By no means are Paladins forbidden from hurting or killing Evil creatures. Killing is a neutral action in a vacuum. Animals hurt and kill each other without alignment issues. A Paladin using violence to subdue and apprehend (or execute) an evil criminal is certainly justified. How that Paladin goes about it, why they are going about it, determine whether the action is Lawful or Chaotic. The action is neither Good nor Evil. It is merely an action.
Or is alignement more of a cosmic force that inhabits each creature with alignement and thus removing them from the world/multiverse is in itself an act of the contrary alignement? For example, if killing an ''Evil'' creature is a ''Good'' act, is killing a ''Lawful'' creature a ''Chaotic'' act?
I'd point you more towards alignment being a specific kind of universal force that people align themselves with. Things can get a bit more sticky in the Outer Planes where being can be made up of these forces. But that is outside the discussion of Paladins and their role.
I'm really just trying to grasp how you view it, not judging.
Feel free to judge away! I won't take offense to what you say. This is just an free exchange of ideas and discussions of paradigms within a game system. It is not like its reflective of my real life worldview.