Search results

Most have laws "valuing life," but manage to justify killing under how you define the circumstances. in group-out group (tribalism) mechanics usually have clear rules about murder (in-group killing) that do not apply to others (out-group killing). Add to that complications on the meaning of life...

Not really. Not unless you turn to theology.

That seems untenable. you can't have a game devolve into an argument on moral philosophy every time a character exorcises agency (unless that is what your game is into). Almost any action a player takes can be justified moralistically in one way or another, so I don't see how that would work in...

That is your opinion, and you are allowed to have opinions, but it is not an objective criteria unfortunately. Moral philosophy abounds with debate over consequentialism. Are the results of an action what determine its morality, or the intentions of the actor? Is it a good action to save five...

Not sure if serious, but...I'm saying that saving one or five is simply an act. The good or evil of it is determined by those who interpret the results, and the particular moral philosophy they apply (along with how far down the chin of consequences they look). In the case of the Paladin, their...

A cleric has devotion, they can act on their own and so long as there alignment stays within range of their god they continue to be clerics. Even if they stray, they can just find another god more in line with their views. A paladin is beholden to a god to approve of their actions, and to strip...

Law and Good are only generally defined in Pathfinder. While they are defined independently of gods (in general), they are more specifically defined by gods for Paladins. The Paladin's code may be defined independently of the god they serve, but the interpretation of their fulfillment of that...

In Pathfinder it is a god. The God doesn't need to be Lawful or Good (which are subjective), it defines what Lawful and good are for a Paladin (who must be). Different Gods can embody Lawful and Good differently, and so their Paladins may differ. At the end of the day, their own god is the final...

I think that is reasonable for other classes, but my contention is that Paladin's are a special case. They literally have an objective definition of good (as they see it), provided by whoever provides their power (and can revoke it). A wizard, for example, gets their power from an amoral source...

A chaotic character wouldn't want to enslave themselves to a power that both dictates to them how they must act, and holds the cords to their class features as reward/punishment. Thy would obviously be free to follow whoever they like, but to allow another to subsume that much of their personal...

I contend that a chaotic paladin shouldn't even be possible. The Chaotic alignment is all about "unfettered personal freedom," which should make devotion to a set of rules defined by another more or less impossible.

There really can't be a purest good, as good is subjective. Shaped by cultural normatives and personal bias. Even in D&D/Pathfinder the guidelines are general, leaving the particulars of any situation highly subjective. That is the case for everyone except Paladins, because their class existence...

By the rules they do. You choose your god/patron/lord/lady/etc. when you create the character. That is your authority. They make the rules, and they are the only being that can punish you for disobeying by removing your power.

Paladins, being tied to alignment more so than other classes, CAN break the law while remaining lawful. The definition of lawful includes obedience to authority, not following every law. To a Paladin there can be no greater authority than whatever force defines their code. The only law they have...

I tend to agree with this, except in the case of the Paladin. A Paladin operating on a deontological framework isn't concerned with situational ethics. They have a job to do, and the person/god/organization/etc. that serves as their center defines those concepts for them in an operational...

I see Paladins as being different from the other classes in this case, due to the fact that both the concept and their powers are tied to a specific other's interpretation of their alignment.

You are correct. I forgot that officially they are divorced from such things, largely due to the fact that they make no sense without some form of divine patron being expressly stated (given that said unnamed force can remove their powers). Regardless, the definitions would then be set by...

The stat boost is due to removing the die rolling method as primary method for character building. Now your choices of race and background will determine your affinities, which is much more organic in my opinion.

Normally I would agree with you, but in the case of the Paladin I don't believe alignment is as subjective nor as dispensable as with other classes.

I don't think this is accurate. It depends on exactly who is defining Lawful, and who is defining Good. In this case, the god/religion a paladin follows defines these otherwise subjective cultural constructs. So it would be more like: A paladin who follows and enforces the law is lawful good...