Different philosophical code paladins would be kind of interesting.
Something something paladins?
Hedonistic Paladins going around fighting Villains because it provides the greatest pain-aversion.Different philosophical code paladins would be kind of interesting.
Different explicit real world philosophical paladin codes.It's literally how 5e (and 4e) works. The Oath of the Crown is not at all the Oath of Glory
I don't think this claim is true. It is certainly not a very good account of how moral philosophers pursue their inquiries.This is why I said that moral philosophy systems were a lot like formal logic - they also have axioms. These are assumed to be true. You cannot use your axioms to prove that another's are false - the logic of moral philosophy only works internally. What you consider to be "good" or "evil" or "harm" depends on your axioms, your base definitions of morality. And yours may be different someone else's, and they lead you to different results. But, yours doesn't disprove theirs logically. The logical statements we'd use for falsifiability depend on the axioms, they don't apply to the axioms.
Like... Homeric Hero is just a template upon which you apply Medieval Romance from the Renaissance and Later periods in which knights were retroactively made into noble heroes rather than just wealthy well armed folks who were mostly bullies and brutes.Paladins come from an actual context in real-world history. The notion of a Homeric paladin, or a Benthamite paladin, makes no sense.
A Homeric hero may, from time-to-time, be divinely inspired, but that character is not going to have the sort of attitude of chivalry towards the "innocent", or of mercy towards the "guilty", that are part of the distinct moral orientation of paladins.
I don't think this claim is true. It is certainly not a very good account of how moral philosophers pursue their inquiries.
The values of a Homeric hero are different from, and in many ways incompatible with, the values of a chivalric knight.Like... Homeric Hero is just a template upon which you apply Medieval Romance from the Renaissance and Later periods in which knights were retroactively made into noble heroes rather than just wealthy well armed folks who were mostly bullies and brutes.
Plus, y'know, Arthurian Fantasy.
Newtonian or relativistic physics can be presented as axiomatic systems. But they have empirical warrants: typically when presented as axiomatic systems it is various theorems of the system that correspond to the empirical evidence.How they pursue their inquiries, or their intent in writing books, is not the determiner here.
Logic can not determine the absolute truth value of a statement without axioms assumed to be true. That's how formal logic works. Period. End of discussion. Similarly, the axioms of one system do not speak to the axioms of another, because they are both assumptions.
If your philosophical system is fundamentally logical, there are only two choices then - either there are axioms, which are assumptions, or there are not. If there are not axioms, then either the system is flawed, containing a logic error or fallacy that conceals the lack, or the system is circular, an Ouroboros of thought. This latter can be a highly valuable exercise in thought. It can teach you how to turn the wheels, so to speak, but it cannot come to a conclusion.
If your philosophical system is not fundamentally logical, then it amounts to an opinion, which, again, rests on something the person feels is correct - effectively an assumption.
Ergo - moral philosophy systems are belief systems.
... yes... and..?The values of a Homeric hero are different from, and in many ways incompatible with, the values of a chivalric knight.
Greg Stafford gestures towards this in Pendragon with his contrast between the virtues of a Pagan, a British Christian and a Roman Christian knight.
I have a similar feeling. Paladins - chivalric knights of the Arthurian or similar romance genre - are not the same as Homeric heroes. Nor does a Benthamite paladin make sense - a Benthamite character, besides being quite anachronistic in a FRPG, would not play much like a knight.... yes... and..?
Homeric Heroes are the same as Cardassian ones. They live a life devoted to the State and the Status Quo, they do their duty nobly, and then they die.I have a similar feeling. Paladins - chivalric knights of the Arthurian or similar romance genre - are not the same as Homeric heroes. Nor does a Benthamite paladin make sense - a Benthamite character, besides being quite anachronistic in a FRPG, would not play much like a knight.
I'm not sure what your disagreement is with this.
Pragmatism isn't a moral philosophy, and is just a way to figure out the shortest path. That said: You're right. Murderhobos could be Pragmatists.I don't see pragmatist murderhobo. They aren't really hedonists, either.
I don't think subjective morality really fits, either, because of all the ways the game system(s) code "killable" others.
On the contrary, I think prioritizing efficiency above all else is a moral philosophy; it's a top level governing value.Pragmatism isn't a moral philosophy, and is just a way to figure out the shortest path.
... they almost invariably aren't 'cause they're not actually a serious thing but instead a Flanderization of D&D players and a few individuals influenced by that meme making them think that's how D&D is "Really" played...
Murderhobos don't just kill the questionably evil NPC.On the contrary, I think prioritizing efficiency above all else is a moral philosophy; it's a top level governing value.
Or, as a pragmatist, it's close enough to get things done. (ha ha).
I see it pretty often, though - is this band of [intelligent race] really evil or is there some other sort of... oh, wait, Sir Murder of Hobo has already beheaded one of them.
And we can't really call this pointless in-game violence because violence is one solution to the group raiding the village story arc/problem. It has a very neat and clean efficiency to it - a quick resolution to the problem (for the characters) and a quick dose of loot and experience (for the players). Pick whichever intelligent beings you like and replace village with, well, anything. Loads and loads of official and partnered 3rd party modules have setups like this, and the "kill the stuff in front of us" solution is usually the one taken and expected by the module designers, no matter the party makeup.
As someone who is quite happy to play as Sir Murder of Hobo from time to time I am often shocked by how quickly others jump right to the beheading. I don't think there is any other coherent moral philosophy in-game that would explain this sort of behavior, unless it is some bizarre form of subjective morality stacked with a an 80's era Forgotten Realms-esque moral valuation of various intelligent races. When the LG paladin butchers all the [race] in the cave but leaves the nursery unharmed (so the infants later starve, because - hey - every member of [race] is evil!) I think this is also murderhobo pragmatism in play. The pre-existing code marks certain races and occupations as killable, and thus killing those persons is the shortest path to solution.
Thus, for members of the Knightly Order of Homicidium Hobia, their in-game moral philosophy is necessarily disjointed (as tends to be the case in real people, too) as they seek efficiency in gameplay.
I don't think that's accurate or fair. There are different working definitions of murderhobo, and they don't all necessarily include killing everything that breathes.Murderhobos don't just kill the questionably evil NPC.
They also kill the Tavernkeeper. And the King's Guards. And the Shopkeeper. And the Beggar on the corner. And then they loot all the bodies. And possibly set fire to them.