I am going to go into bit of a rant here, hopefully I'll manage to keep my arguments cohesive and understandable.
Paladins aren't always nice. Sure, you can play a merciful, kindly, gentle, and profoundly spiritual individual, but I would make the argument your PC would be better off as a cleric then, or a non-paladin class. Sure, you can play a tolerant, accepting, and open-minded paladin, but again, I'd make the argument you're better off as a non-paladin.
Why?
Paladins are lawful good. Their inherent enlignment and -faith- tends to make them believe they are -right- in all situations, those that disagree with them are wrong, and would be serving the interests of some evil malefactor. They believe they are the epitomy of what their deity represents they are not a divine champion, but their grueling indoctrination of their faith forces them to view the world through a very narrow lense. The prejudice and stereotypes of their peers, and what their culture believes will also influence their moral code. A mulhorandi paladin would own slaves, conversely, a Cormyrian one would abhor the practice.
This is not universal, but this is how I interpret the class.
The Dichotomy here implies two things. Lawful in that he accepts (to some extent) the status quo, adheres to oaths, and values what his society believes.
He is good in that he fights evil, willing to sacrifice himself for the sake of others, and will never commit an evil deed.
A paladin is there to fight CHAOS AND EVIL. It does not mean he cannot conflict with another paladin or good or neutral power. Simply because you do not DETECT EVIL in them, does not mean they cannot be serving an evil power or shrouding themselves from your divine sight. THE PALADIN MUST BE CAUTIOUS OF INADVERDENTLY SERVING EVIL OR CHAOS! He can and will be faulted for the mistakes he made. A CHAOTIC INDIVIDUAL IN THE MIND OF A PALADIN IS ALMOST AS BAD AS AN EVIL ONE. They can be CHAOTIC GOOD, but they SHOULD be brought before the ironhand of law if they break the dictates of society or act in a chaotic manner.
"I didn't sense evil!" is not good enough! The Detect Evil is there to HELP the paladin, but when it gets down to it, he must use his own wit and ability to serve the interests of his code and god, the detect evil skill Is not to be used as a crutch. If the Paladin thinks something is wrong, he must -act- to remove the influence!
Some food for thought I suppose.
I disagree.
Some people say that paladins can't be bastards and they are wrong, but saying that being not nice is their default state is not accurate.
Paladins are nothing less than the mortal embodiment of hope and goodness, the final spark of light to fight on when all else is extinguished. The paladin code is filled with examples of "nice" things a paladin should do, like protecting the weak and seeking justice.
A paladin does not have to be nice but I do not think it is accurate to say that their default state is not being nice. FR canon is loaded with tons of examples of "nice" paladins, though there are not-nice paladins too, they seem a minority.
Of course on EFU we like conflict so it is good for paladins to stir the pot but they do not HAVE to be bastards.
A good few points!
All right, I'll change the topic to, "Paladins aren't always nice."
But I just wanted to point, the paladin class is very open to interpretation even within the narrow confines of their oaths!
Thomas,
The need for Iron clad justice, is only in certain paladins. And your making it sound as if it is required in all. Chaos is no where near as high of an priority as evil, for example a Lathanderite priest can be Chaotic good while their paladin is lawful good and I can be sure that the paladin will not smite his own priest for his free thoughts. I don't know what brought you on to make this thread, but your expectations on paladins is a tad off, if you think they will now crusade against chaos, which they can not tell nor detect in a place like EFU where there is plenty of more important evils to combat.
If you are attempting to make more conflict on an individual paladin, then you can seek out Chaos, but the point of a paladin is not to start battles he is there to end them. The battle against evil and darkness is constant, paladins are the knights of their gods whom move in to push agendas in other areas.
A paladin in EFU, is swamped with things to do from limiting the evil influence in the village to that on the general scale, to say a paladin is bound only to the lawful side of everything is to say, that your turning paladins into now, the good version of Banites which they are not.
There are as many paladins as there are religions and each will be diffrent in his deployment, from being critical of law as well as good, or more so in one direction a Paladin of Helm would make sense in the direction your pushing, one of Lathander not so much.
Paladins can be only a shade of white in EFU, which is evil against good, Chaos against order, Light against dark. A paladin can be mean, and "Not nice" but that is a faster way into the coldness that brings a paladin to neutrality rather then good. To be a Paragon of Good, You must be Good. There is no, "Badass cold hero type" with paladins, because that will eventually lead to your failing as a paladin, you wish that, play a fighter priest of your religion.
It is much more important to stay good then to fall into evil, then it is to be lawful and stay away from chaos.
QuoteIf you are playing a paladin/cleric/druid, there are RP elements involved such as oaths, and dogmas, to follow. These classes are reliant on deities for the source of their powers, and if they betray the deity, or fail to earn their powers, they can lose them.
This is generally well known, but for the sake of clarity, here is a brief explanation of some of the elements involved!
Paladins
Paladins are possibly the most demanding class. They not only have to answer to their deity's dogmatic needs, but also uphold their oaths of paladin conduct.
Fealty
Paladins must uphold the teachings of their deity. This does not mean street preaching, but they must live their lives and exhibit themselves in their deities image. They must obey the tenets of their god. They must strive to act in a manner that is in the interest of their god.
For example, a paladin of Lathander who is miserable and hopeless will no longer be a paladin of Lathander. A paladin of Torm who is reluctant to combat evil will no longer be a paladin of Torm, etc.
Courtesy
A paladin must conduct themselves with a modicum of proper behavior. They are expected to be respectful of others. A paladin who routinely spreads slander and speaks ill of others behind their backs could lose powers. A paladin who engages in street brawls could lose their powers.
This does not mean a paladin has to be a nicey nicey patsy, they just must behave with a semblance of dignity. They are the 'elite' representatives of their faith and are expected to act as such.
For example, a paladin of Torm who spreads words around town about how much he hates a local Banite, and spreads tales about his ill behavior without proof, could lose powers.
On the other hand, if the same paladin openly speaks plainly of foul deeds comitted by the Banite, and urges others to be cautious against, or take actions against, the Banite, is fine.
Basically, confrontation is ok, but shit-talking is not. Likewise, a paladin who gets in arguments and fisticuffs with local thugs could lose power, but one who engages in honorable duals or fights to defend themselves is fine.
Honesty
A paladin is expected to be honest in words and deeds. Paladins can not lie under any circumstances. They may choose to not speak at all, as opposed to lying. They also can not practice deceit. Disguising themselves in order to sow discontent among their rivals is dishonest.
A paladin may 'disguise' themselves so as not to be seen immediately for who they are, but they may not use this to their advantage, by pretending to be someone else when confronted, or to perform actions in the guise of another, or an unknown.
For example, a paladin, if captured, and asked by the enemy where to find the undefended leader of the paladin's group, can not lie, but may refuse to answer.
A paladin may wear a large cloak over his head to pass through an unfriendly town unmolested, but they may not wear the cloak in order to hand out notices signed by a false name, or to spread word about their rivals crimes while pretending to be a local thug.
Valor
A paladin is expected to be courageous, both in battle and out. While retreat is, at times, the only sensible option, if a paladin routinely flees prematurely, or flees in a manner that endangers his companions, he could lose his paladinhood. Likewise, a paladin is expected to be brave in representing his faith, and standing up against his enemies out of battle as well.
For example, a paladin who flees a powerful orc once he takes a solid blow, and thus allows the orc to slay his companions, could lose powers. If a paladin finds himself surrounded by powerful orcs, with no hope for victory, he may retreat honorably, but still must take care to see that his retreat does not cause loss of innocent lives.
Likewise, a paladin who becomes meek and timid when confronted by representatives of rival faiths, could lose powers.
Honor
Honor is everyting to a paladin, at times almost to a fault. He is expected to be respectful to all, even his enemies. No pissing on their corpses for the paladin. He is also expected to be willing to go all the way to see that his honor is maintained. He will always keep his word once given, or die trying.
For example, if an enemy he has defeated behaved courageously in his own way, a paladin might even adhere to his dying wish, or see a proper burial performed. A paladin will never desecrate the dead.
If a paladin is challenged to a duel by someone of similar ability, he must accept. If, say, a drunken commoner well beneath him challenges him, he may turn away, as this shows greater honor than beating the man.
Some more specific examples things a paladin will and will not do...
- Will not work alongside evil people, in any way. A paladin may meet with them, or have conversations, but nothing that remotely benefits the evil one is allowed, including plotting, questing, giving them gold, etc.
- Will not break his word without giving full effort to uphold it.
- Will not lie or deceive.
- Will not attack, or harm in any way, an innocent.
- Will not torture in any way, for any reason.
- Will not break the law, unless the law is unjust or in conflict with their deity's dogma. Even then, they will strive to see it overturned without breaking it.
- Will never betray a friend, ever.
- Will never take dirty money or items, or otherwise enrich themselves off the misdeeds of others.
- Will not desecrate the dead in any manner.
- Will not attack or kill an unarmed, and/or unaware foe.
- Will not use poisons to defeat an enemy.
- Will obviously not steal, murder, etc.
go go copy paste
http://www.escapefromundeath.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32474
...What, is that character actually a paladin? I thought she was a cleric and that was just a spell she got.
Yeah could've swore she was LE. Sorry.
Just be mindful that you don't take IC criticisms and interpret them as OOC criticisms.
Thomas is just a bastard.
But, yeah. Paladins should be completely intolerant of evil and chaos; even if they observe non-evil and chaotic individuals tolerating such actions and philosophies. Joe Paladin might have a Neutral Good friend that he's chummy with, but if Neutral Good friend starts hanging out with the wrong crowd or committing borderline acts - there's nothing wrong with Joe being a staunch bastard to his friend when he refuses to see reason (or in some cases out right punishing him).
Paladins don't have to have mercy. Though it depends on how you want to play it. With all the blatant evil on EFU, I usually lean towards favoring the antagonistic paladin who shows little leeway when another antagonistic evil or chaotic character is at their mercy. Though such a paladin usually has a very brief life span and a less-than- liked reputation amongst other players all across the alignment board.
And another thing that gets me, is that being Lawful Good doesn't necessarily meaning that a paladin must abide to the Letter of the Law in a legal Dominion if they are unsuitable to their code. For example, the recent Summerset Act which led to the starvation of the impoverished and had no legal or noble authority to back it up (A mayor, deputy mayor, someone of noble birth) - if a paladin were to disregard this law; I would see no reason why it would shift their alignment due to its insidious and illegitimate nature.
Law when talking of character alignment, doesn't mean "law-abiding" in the legal sense, it means abiding to a set of codes or having a structural life-style. For paladins to be more effective in game, I think the DM-team as a whole need to come together to a consensus on what Law and Chaos are universally so that alignment shifts are made with accuracy.
Yeah I agree Thomas paladins are dicks. Why try to hide it with a smile?
I think your paladin is neat and never thought for a second that paladins can't be jerks!
Your PC is fun to interact with.
Paladins do not get smite chaos. They should certainly work against chaos in large scale, but going around beating the crap out of Tymorans because they're chaotic individuals is just not something a paladin will do. Period.
Paladins are PRIMARILY there to hunt evil. Not chaos.
Ultimately it depends on the paladin, and simply put, I agree with Gotham that your paladin is acting lawful evil, or a harsh lawful neutral at best. I would personally base some of my Banites off of your current character's mindset, from what I've seen. What you said you were trying to do in the Order to me in a tell only solidifies that belief. There's a difference between simply being a bastard and being a murderous bastard, but that's between you and the DM's, and if the DM's are fine with your recent actions and plans, and you're having fun, and you're spreading conflict in the server, then whatever.
If people think Thomas's paladin is a jerk, they didn't know BOM's paladin. Haha.
I don't think people should use these forums to criticize each others characters. Nor do I think they should be used to justify your current characters actions ooc'ly. If there are problems with the way a specific character is being played it's best to just leave the matter to a DM. The paladin debate is one for DM's not for players in my opinion.
Ignore the haters, Thomas! Just do what you wanna do and the fact that you haven't earned spellfailure by now proves you are right anyway.
Now let's cheer and party up!
Quote from: HungeringShadows;283990I don't think people should use these forums to criticize each others characters. Nor do I think they should be used to justify your current characters actions ooc'ly. If there are problems with the way a specific character is being played it's best to just leave the matter to a DM. The paladin debate is one for DM's not for players in my opinion.
^This^
Settle this crap IG, IC, where it belongs.
what this stupid discussion again
Everyone who associates with another individual who is remotely evil should be summarily stricken down by a paladin, without mercy, particularly if it can be done as they are walking away after making an attempt to protect the well-being of other individuals who were dangerously close to finding a quick end at the ends of an undead hoard. It is also required that afterwards a paladin show aberrants mercy for the sake of their own life.
[/unwarranted salt]
I do feel there's a very explicit difference between a Lawful Good paladin who is stalwart in his beliefs and adherence to society and a Lawful Neutral, Neutral Good, or even Lawful Good zealot who does not uphold the same oaths. And for every bland goody-two-shoes paladin I feel like there is an equal amount of paladins who are being played simply for the sake of having paladin abilities rather than the relevance of the oaths to a character concept, and even more paladins who take the privilege of Detect Evil and the opportunity as an opportunity to run around spouting EEVVVVILLLL with FD on under the misconception that it is good conflict.
Paladins are hugely interpretive. So much, in fact, that I would go so far as to argue that a paladin that didn't push the boundaries of the standard oath in favor of their deity's dogma or some other factor, such as societal beliefs, would be a poor paladin. But that doesn't change the fact that they are very honor-bound and are perhaps the handful of individuals in this setting who are subject to the scrutinizing eye of the divine. Clerics have a ton of leeway and don't necessarily have to represent the good or even lawful side of a LG deity's beliefs, but paladins are upheld to a different level of expectations. They represent the good of their faith. They represent the lawful of their faith. And I would even argue that the lawful hinderance has more to do with their oaths and an association with a civilized lifestyle than necessarily an adherence to established law, because the law can be written by evil beings just as easily as good ones.
I think you're overestimating the importance of alignments to a certain degree. You're acting as if chaos means a discordant, anarchistic lifestyle that has no love for laws and seeks to disrupt them and that anybody under such an alignment wants to destroy society. The law versus chaos spectrum, I feel, is much more interpretive than the good versus evil one, especially to a paladin, whose oaths rely on differentiating between what is, at its core, evil, what is redeemable, and what is simply misguided, misinformed, or misunderstood. Chaos is not what a paladin fights. Chaos is something that a paladin disagrees with; a paladin will likely be at odds with a ranger because of the differing lifestyles and perspectives on life, but that does not necessarily mean that a paladin needs to hunt a ranger without mercy or should even consider such.
I would not bring this up as I have no right to criticize another player's PC, but since you seem to be basing this topic off the disputed actions of your latest paladin PC, I would throw out there that i definitely think Alura is sitting on Lawful Neutral, if not dangerously on the borderline of leaping towards the side of evil. And that, of course, is the issue with paladins on a multiplayer server like this -- one DM is going to have a different perspective than another one, and perhaps a wildly different perspective from the playerbase as well. It's really difficult to deal with the issue of fallen paladins and oaths because of how interpretive one can be with them and I genuinely think that a paladin should be forced to fall only if she has gone leaps and bounds explicitly outside the range of her oaths.
To clarify, I'm mostly giving Thomas a hard time about Alura rather than trying to bitch about my PC's death -- I really don't hold any animosity towards him and I'm usually just yanking his chain. But with all honesty, and for a variety of reasons that I'll probably continue harassing Thomas about privately, I definitely feel like Alura's nearly dived headlong outside of the standard oaths, particularly in the fact that she was inclined to swear an oath not to strike against a clearly evil entity in order to save her own life.
But, it's all up for interpretation, and I certainly don't want to tarnish a PC if everyone is enjoying her presence, and etc. etc. etc., that's all just my two cents.
EDIT: of course, I post this just after everyone decides that the discussion is pointless. score. 8D
Keep in mind that paladins are holy warriors.
They have armor and weapons for a reason.
That doesn't mean they should massacre anyone with a hint of evil, but that does mean showing mercy to depraved monsters is pretty much out of the question!
Paladins are not by their code against violence and killing.
I've been inspired to roll up another batman paladin. Good job guys.
Paladins, good over lawful. Evil gods do not have paladins, but there are chaotic gods who have paladins. Corellon, and sune to name a few off the top of my head.
QuoteA mulhorandi paladin would own slaves
Forgive me, but this is so blatantly wrong that I don't really know what to say. I mean, slavery is EVIL no matter how you look at it.
Quote from: Calixto;289802Forgive me, but this is so blatantly wrong that I don't really know what to say. I mean, slavery is EVIL no matter how you look at it.
lol
Slavery in FR depends on the system it involves. Slavery in the Dominion, for example, was strongly LN with property given some manner of recourse if they were mistreated (Barring monster slaves and stargazers, ofc.)
Quote from: Porkolt;283996what this stupid discussion again
Quote from: Big Orc Man;284051Keep in mind that paladins are holy warriors.
They have armor and weapons for a reason.
That doesn't mean they should massacre anyone with a hint of evil, but that does mean showing mercy to depraved monsters is pretty much out of the question!
Paladins are not by their code against violence and killing.
As an old EfU vet; this.
There are a few types of good; I'll look at two.
First is the good old hugs and love. Everyone has a shot at redemption, and everyone deserves a chance to be talked down. A messiah, if you will.
Then there's the avenger, the one who is no less good but is much more militant. This is where the Paladin generally falls; they are supposed to be the heroic swordarm against evil, those who will stand as a beacon even in the darkest midnight for what is right. They hold high moral principles, but unlike the above 'messiah' (for want of better term), they know that sometimes evil cannot be redeemed in life.
This is not to say that they will go about killing everyone with a slight hint of Evil; absolutely not. In fact, in the case of mild evil-doers most paladins should at least try to give them a chance to submit to the law and hopefully be reformed, and if a situation is not required to be lethal, the Paladin may attempt less lethal methods.
Lets look at an example of a young street tough. Young, a newb to the lifestyle, and probably short on wisdom. A lawful evil Banite would probably go straight to killing when accosted by this tough, claiming they were against the law. A Paladin, however, would not attack outright unless they were attacked. And if they subdue the street tough rather than killing him, the paladin would not outright kill them. The paladin would be more likely to bring them before the local watch so they could be brought to justice.
However, if said street tough attempts to murder an innocent old man, then all bets are off. The Paladin should use full force to prevent the murder once attacks are underway or being attempted. Before any blows are struck, paladins should at least attempt to disarm the situation peacefully and convince the tough to at least submit to the law (who knows, maybe because he was talked down he will be found innocent and he will realize the error of his ways), but if blows are struck the Paladin does not fool around, especially when innocent lives are at stake.
All in all, the paladin should generally be a nice guy/gal, but when innocent lives are in danger or the enemy is here, they should be warriors with a resolve of the strongest steel who are not afraid to kill an enemy. They are specifically the sword of their faith, they must live that.
Generally, Paladins should see Evil as worse than chaos. Chaotic Good forces, at least, you can work with and make uneasy relationships with. A Paladin probably would not outright assist Robin Hood, but they would at least understand where he comes from and recognize that he at least has some sense of morals... though the paladin would probably try to convince him to use less unlawful methods of dealing with the Sherriff of Nottingham. However, they should also guard against chaotic actions and remember that they are also servants of law.
IIRC, when DM's (not on EfU, in pen and paper) started giving pallies law-or-good situations a lot, a revision to the D&D ruleset basically told Paladins this:
"If it is a choice between an action that is Lawful and an action that is Good, the paladin will
ALWAYS[/i] choose the option that is Good."
Good is not neccesarily nice, no, but a good paladin is supposed to be a symbol of a goodly life. They should be courteous, honorable, etc. They can have their flaws, as all do, but they must be able to confront their flaws and overcome them in order to serve their faith and goodly causes.
Paladins are cool in pnp because they are utterly rare, blessed and precious, much less so in a video game.
There's supposed to be some god having an eye on them, rewarding their faith with luck, blessing, happy coincidences, good karma coming back to them, etc... which doesn't happen IG unless there's a DM or unless they are high lvl enough to represent that.
When in doubt, why not just make a LG warrior or priest (or both)?
A good paladin is sort of an A-hole...
Quote from: Spiffy Has;289803lol
Slavery in FR depends on the system it involves. Slavery in the Dominion, for example, was strongly LN with property given some manner of recourse if they were mistreated (Barring monster slaves and stargazers, ofc.)
It doesn't matter what kind of slavery it is. Slavery represents
owning someone against their will, wich is evil. lol. The question should be obvious.
Altough a paladin could certainly buy slaves to free them afterwards if he is not able to confront the slaver.
Slavery isn't evil in Forgotten Realms, lol. Mulhorand has a large slave caste and is considered a primarily Lawful Good country.
Quote from: Calixto;289865It doesn't matter what kind of slavery it is. Slavery represents owning someone against their will, wich is evil. lol. The question should be obvious.
Altough a paladin could certainly buy slaves to free them afterwards if he is not able to confront the slaver.
Laws against murder also involved forcing people to do (or not do) things against their will.
The application of behaviour on another entity falls on the lawful-chaotic slider.
My Paladin recently was actually a slave herself and championed the enslavement of Half-Orcs, I did not receive a single evil point even when the DMs were present for such discussions.
The Numinous Order is not opposed to the enslavement of Savages (though this is individualized between each PC in question, of course)
Even Mistlocke law is not opposed to slavery, only the enslavement of Humans.
Slavery, as stated by the DMs, is a LAWFUL institution, it isn't inherently EVIL, or GOOD.
The very basis of LAW is to have those who do not adhere to societal norms (like murdering people, stealing from people, etc...) punished AGAINST THEIR WILL. Is this evil? No.
Edited: Not going to speak of RL slavery.
However! This is off topic, and I believe that the productivity of this discussion has exhausted itself.
Quote from: MistBringsTheDarkness;289869Laws against murder also involved forcing people to do (or not do) things against their will.
A poor comparison. Laws against murder target, well, murderers, while slavery targets, mostly, innocent people.
I still find that, just as murdering innocents is as evil in FR as it is in RL, so should slavery be as evil in FR as in RL, for common sense's sake. Unless we are making a difference between forced slavery of non-evil creatures and those cases where, for example, someone sells himself as a slave, but I guess no difference is being made here.
But that's just my opinion, and if the DMs said that slavery is never evil in the setting, then I'm fine with it. Altough I think of some funny, absurd situations that could arise because of it. For example, a paladin slaver and a banite arguing:
- You banites are evil!!!! You want to force everyone to do the bidding of your god!!
- Err... You own slaves, chump. I guess they aren't doing your bidding, eh?
- ...
I would love to play the banite :)
Quote from: Calixto;289875A poor comparison. Laws against murder target, well, murderers, while slavery targets, mostly, innocent people.
It's not about who the laws target, it's about who the laws apply to and whether or not the law is applied as it should be.
QuoteI still find that, just as murdering innocents is as evil in FR as it is in RL, so should slavery be as evil in FR as in RL, for common sense's sake. Unless we are making a difference between forced slavery of non-evil creatures and those cases where, for example, someone sells himself as a slave, but I guess no difference is being made here.
You won't get any evil points for murdering an innocent goblin.
QuoteBut that's just my opinion, and if the DMs said that slavery is never evil in the setting, then I'm fine with it. Altough I think of some funny, absurd situations that could arise because of it. For example, a paladin slaver and a banite arguing:
- You banites are evil!!!! You want to force everyone to do the bidding of your god!!
- Err... You own slaves, chump. I guess they aren't doing your bidding, eh?
- ...
I would love to play the banite :)
I'd gladly play the paladin and I think I could easily take you on :)
Paladins are LG.
Not CG.
They do not value freedom very highly. <.<
QuoteIt's not about who the laws target, it's about who the laws apply to and whether or not the law is applied as it should be.
I have no idea of what you mean. I said slavery should be evil, becauses it forces people to servitude against their will, wich even in FR, should be considered bad. You implied that, since laws against murder also force people not to act against their will, slavery cannot be considered any worse. Which is obviously wrong. But then this discussion is useless, since, as I just found out, slavery in FR is absurd.
QuoteYou won't get any evil points for murdering an innocent goblin.
When did I mention goblins? What does this have to do with what I wrote?
QuoteI'd gladly play the paladin and I think I could easily take you on :)
I frankly doubt you could take me or anyone else on, but you are welcome to tell us how you would do it.
That would be a rather whiny and weak sounding Banite.
So what if a person is poor, homeless and starving. In return they become your slave. You shelter them, give them food and purpose. Now they can work under you to better themselves yet are treated well. Is that evil? It's still slavery.
Quote from: Calixto;289865Slavery represents owning someone against their will
Circumstantial to the extreme.
Quote from: Calixto;289890I have no idea of what you mean. I said slavery should be evil, becauses it forces people to servitude against their will, wich even in FR, should be considered bad. You implied that, since laws against murder also force people not to act against their will, slavery cannot be considered any worse. Which is obviously wrong. But then this discussion is useless, since, as I just found out, slavery in FR is absurd.
My point is pressure upon's one will is not inherently evil. Whether one bends or resists outside forces is a factor of order-chaos, not good-evil.
QuoteWhen did I mention goblins? What does this have to do with what I wrote?
You mentioned innocence. This was a point about relativity. The evil or good inherit in a creature (goblin, human, celestial) is a variable that affects whether or not the murder/killing was a good or evil act. "Murdering innocents" does not explain enough about to make it worthy of judging it good or evil. Essentially, yes there are differences that are made and need to be taken into account.
QuoteI frankly doubt you could take me or anyone else on, but you are welcome to tell us how you would do it.
I'd rather save it for a more IC/IG situation, frankly.
Lets be 100% frank since this IS still a RL issue in many parts of the world, and obviously a sensitive one.
Slavery, in real life, is 100% evil all day every day. Particularly MODERN slavery, which is illegal, heinous, and generally targets women and children.
Slavery in FANTASY LIFE is a grey area as defined by the Forgotten Realms source materials and rule books.
Fantasy is not real life, real life is not fantasy, the Forgotten Realms is not earth. Let us maintain this distinction and our cool, because our attitudes about issues in one will not necessarily reflect the other.
PS: Paladins aren't always nice, but they are required to be courteous
Quote from: putrid_plum;289897So what if a person is poor, homeless and starving. In return they become your slave. You shelter them, give them food and purpose. Now they can work under you to better themselves yet are treated well. Is that evil? It's still slavery.
Read again what I wrote. I stated there were several kinds of slavery, and this kind, a paladin could, imo, be relatively okay with.
Quote from: Porkolt;289898Circumstantial to the extreme.
Excuse me? I don't understand what you mean.
Quote from: MistBringsTheDarkness;289906My point is pressure upon's one will is not inherently evil. Whether one bends or resists outside forces is a factor of order-chaos, not good-evil.
Of course. Such is the way it is in FR apparently. Which is complete nonsense. According to this, if a paladin owns a kid who was stolen away from his home, he is not evil. If he beats the kid for trying to escape or if he has , he is not evil, since the law allows him to keep the kid, who is nothing but a stupid brat who is unable to understand the laws of society and must be showed his place.
Because of this principle, if the paladin was, let's say, in a Banite-ruled land, and there was a law who allowed banites to sacrifice random people, the paladin couldn't intervene, because it would be against the law.
I already said there would be no point in arguing about that, since this is absurd. If the dms want it that way, this is fine. They have their reasons. The problem is, as I stated above, the absurd situations that could arise from it. Because, to put another example, if I play a paladin and I encounter another paladin who supports enslavement of half-orcs, the first reaction my character will have is to deny the other is a paladin, refuse to work with him, and possibly try to stop him by any means necessary, since he would believe he is evil. Another absurd situation. And there are countless more:
- The paladin loses his status when he commits one evil act, yet does not lose his status for benefitting evil-doers (the slavers / slave traders)
- The paladin could lose his status for being discourteous to a half-orc, but not for advocating the enslavement of said half-orc. (Excuse me dear sir, I must tell you, very politely, that your kind is repugnant and should be enslaved)
- The paladins, afaik, are supposed to do their best to behave like their patron would behave if they were mortal, yet I don't see Tyr, Ilmater, or Torm as slave owners, whether slavery is considered evil or not.
- Etc.
I will repeat that I am right now not concerned about how slavery is seen in FR, but rather about how my characters should behave according to this point of view towards a paladin.
Quote from: MistBringsTheDarkness;289906I'd rather save it for a more IC/IG situation, frankly.
You couldn't. This wouldn't hold water. Honestly.
I fail to see how anyone can consider forced servitude to not be an act that is inherently evil, no matter who you're enslaving. It's not relevant, as it's an act that the enslaver is committing against someone(thing) else.
And don't give me that it's circumstantial. One can always choose to be the bigger, better person and not force another being to work for them without pay.
QuoteBecause of this principle, if the paladin was, let's say, in a Banite-ruled land, and there was a law who allowed banites to sacrifice random people, the paladin couldn't intervene, because it would be against the law.
I am not even going to justify that with a response.
Quote- The paladin could lose his status for being discourteous to a half-orc, but not for advocating the enslavement of said half-orc. (Excuse me dear sir, I must tell you, very politely, that your kind is repugnant and should be enslaved)
It depends on how the Paladin views half orcs. The Paladin in question viewed them as beasts and on par as goblins. Would she be courteous to a goblin? No. If a DM disagreed, she could lose powers. However, she did not, which means it is perfectly okay. Paladins are flawed and the gods understand this, and I would believe that even the gods would not mind a few discrepancies and double standards when it comes to a clearly bigoted world.
Quote- The paladins, afaik, are supposed to do their best to behave like their patron would behave if they were mortal, yet I don't see Tyr, Ilmater, or Torm as slave owners, whether slavery is considered evil or not.
These deities are very open to interpretation and Tyr would infact support slavery if the enslaved were criminals and were given a recourse in forced labor.
Jergal, on another hand, is an LN deity who is ultra-conservative and often uses undead himself, but has paladins. These paladins are extremely draconian, and solely concern themselves with the destruction of necromancers and those who upset the balance between the forces of life and death. They will not make themselves a target for any government by actively pursuing slavers or evil villains not relevant to their jurisdiction and oaths to pursue undeath. They would own slaves if it supported their cause.
A paladin does not need to oppose ALL evil, he simply cannot or he is in for a short life. In my opinion, a paladin can be themed against certain evils of the world, like we see paladin orders that hunt down criminals, infernalists and devils, and more, we even had a Paladin organization known as the "Pallid Mask" who battled undeath more than any other evil, truthfully.
It is clear you have very strong feelings about the issue, and you're correct, a PALADIN would more than likely see Slavery as an EVIL institution and abuse of law.
However, a paladin who GREW UP with it, such as one in THAY, or MULHORAND, would see it as a part of life. However, they would more than likely see the OLD PORT version of slavery is villainous, where pirates raid the coastline for victims. This is not the version of slavery we are discussing, that is clearly evil.
We are discussing a slave caste, where one is born into that state, or did some wrong against society and was demoted to it. As well, if you read the Dominion Charter, children BORN to slaves were allowed to become full citizens, clearly, slavery in the Dominion was merely a form of PUNISHMENT in most cases.
Slavery is a moral grey area.
It is widely interpreted and can be both supported and opposed depending on the paladin.
Not all paladins are the same.
Given the deity, a Paladins views, interests, and pursuits may well change.
A paladin would oppose ANY wrong if it occurs in front of them, but as mortals, they simply cannot pursue every minor in fraction and petty criminal or slaver, they simply have GREATER things to worry about (like, the Zulkir of Necromancy in Thay being a Lich, or a rampaging horde of goblins in the countryside...)
If you're paladin wants to pursue, end, and kill slavers, he is more than welcome to, and is more than likely doing a GOOD thing. However, it does not mean he is doing a LAWFUL deed (however, he may be following his own code of conduct, which is another matter entirely).
You are welcome to play a paladin as you are want, and what you consider is amazing conflict between the same classes of the same alignment, which is something rarely seen, however, keep in mind, that on an OOC level, the DMs ultimately hand out the judgment on who keeps their paladin status and who does not.
Quote from: Calixto;289979Of course. Such is the way it is in FR apparently. Which is complete nonsense. According to this, if a paladin owns a kid who was stolen away from his home, he is not evil. If he beats the kid for trying to escape or if he has , he is not evil, since the law allows him to keep the kid, who is nothing but a stupid brat who is unable to understand the laws of society and must be showed his place.
There are laws (both secular and religious) that govern how slaves should be treated.
QuoteBecause of this principle, if the paladin was, let's say, in a Banite-ruled land, and there was a law who allowed banites to sacrifice random people, the paladin couldn't intervene, because it would be against the law.
The paladin could still work against the law in other means however.
QuoteI already said there would be no point in arguing about that, since this is absurd. If the dms want it that way, this is fine. They have their reasons. The problem is, as I stated above, the absurd situations that could arise from it. Because, to put another example, if I play a paladin and I encounter another paladin who supports enslavement of half-orcs, the first reaction my character will have is to deny the other is a paladin, refuse to work with him, and possibly try to stop him by any means necessary, since he would believe he is evil. Another absurd situation. And there are countless more:
Just because two PCs are of the same class and alignment doesn't mean they have to agree on everything. Differences in faiths is just as important to giving a character individuality.
Quote- The paladin loses his status when he commits one evil act, yet does not lose his status for benefitting evil-doers (the slavers / slave traders)
Benefiting evil-doers how? Owning a slave in a region that is predominately evil doesn't necessarily benefit the slave trade.
Quote- The paladin could lose his status for being discourteous to a half-orc, but not for advocating the enslavement of said half-orc. (Excuse me dear sir, I must tell you, very politely, that your kind is repugnant and should be enslaved)
There's a difference between spitting on someone and discussing legal issues in a civil manner.
Quote- The paladins, afaik, are supposed to do their best to behave like their patron would behave if they were mortal, yet I don't see Tyr, Ilmater, or Torm as slave owners, whether slavery is considered evil or not.
Paladins of Tyr and Torm I could see as slave-owners as they're more lawful than good. Hoar is another example that comes to mind. Paladins of Lathander, Sune, and Ilmater would be examples, I think, of paladins who wouldn't be pro-slavery.
Quote- Etc.
Etc.
QuoteI will repeat that I am right now not concerned about how slavery is seen in FR, but rather about how my characters should behave according to this point of view towards a paladin.
Well if you're just going to go with "eh, my PC aint' gonna char and will do what s/he wants", then why bother with this thread necromancy? >_>
QuoteYou couldn't. This wouldn't hold water. Honestly.
Fortunately for you I'm not playing a paladin. I just provided some examples above on how the "absurd situations" can be rationalized.
As some would say:
JUST GO WITH IT! Do what your character would believe right. Sure there are some weird circumstances but don't overcomplicate. Giving me a damn headache.
This is how I look at it to take slavery out of RL context and put it in game terms. Yes, though slavery in itself is evil, in D&D (and EFU:m), in some areas of the game world, it is no different than in RL owning a pet. If you look at it IG, in this manner it lets you take the RL drama out of the act. Do we enslave pets by owning them? (If you dont think we do then open your door and let your pet out. If it comes back willingly it's your friend. If it doesn't, that does NOT make you evil!) Should we run around dealing drama to all pet owners? ("You are a cat owner! I will smite thee!") If so, where do we draw the line? Is it okay to let people own fish and birds but not cats and dogs? Basically, I try to keep this sort of perspective and look at it like this IG. It helps me to avoid this debate...
([COLOR="Teal"]Home is where your pet is.[/COLOR] :) )
Oh, and lawfull/good does not mean lawfull/stupid. You do not have to run around challenging and killing everybody you think or know to be evil. True good would try to help them see the error of their ways and only as a last resort kill those that they think will never be converted. This does not mean befriend, travel and adventure with known evil showing them how to be "good". It means watch them, talk to them, show them through your actions what is good and just. Some people may actually be saved, and change their ways. What kind of "good points" do you think that would get you... ;)
_
As some would say:
JUST GO WITH IT! Do what your character would believe right. Sure there are some weird circumstances but don't overcomplicate. Giving me a damn headache.
Quote from: Spiffy Has;289986I am not even going to justify that with a response.
That would be because you don't have one. But, frankly, was it really necessary to answer that you weren't going to give an answer? :D
QuoteIt depends on how the Paladin views half orcs. The Paladin in question viewed them as beasts and on par as goblins. Would she be courteous to a goblin? No. If a DM disagreed, she could lose powers. However, she did not, which means it is perfectly okay. Paladins are flawed and the gods understand this, and I would believe that even the gods would not mind a few discrepancies and double standards when it comes to a clearly bigoted world.
Except all goblins are evil, and half-orcs are not. And surely the paladin's obligation of courtesy does not apply to creatures who are blatantly evil. But this is pointless and I think I am failing to express myself: I said that the dms can treat slavery as they want, but that I was concerned about the absurd situations that could arise from it, and that I was not sure about how my char should react to such situations. But I guess the answer is "Do what you want and then we will see". Which is fine for me.
QuoteWe are discussing a slave caste, where one is born into that state, or did some wrong against society and was demoted to it. As well, if you read the Dominion Charter, children BORN to slaves were allowed to become full citizens, clearly, slavery in the Dominion was merely a form of PUNISHMENT in most cases.
Which, as I said, is a kind of slavery a paladin could agree with imo.
QuoteWell if you're just going to go with "eh, my PC aint' gonna char and will do what s/he wants", then why bother with this thread necromancy? >_>
Why do you bother repeating your arguments again and don't read what I write? Just in case it isn't clear yet, I will repeat:
- Slavery in RL is evil
- Slavery in FR, apparently, is not
- Is it absurd? Yes, completely. Like many other things in FR, but that's another story. And you face this kind of absurd situation, you must do what you think your char do and let the dms judge.
QuoteJust because two PCs are of the same class and alignment doesn't mean they have to agree on everything. Differences in faiths is just as important to giving a character individuality.
Disagreeing with someone you know is like you is decidely different from believing the other is an impostor because his actions directly contradicts the tenets he is supposed to hold.
QuoteBenefiting evil-doers how? Owning a slave in a region that is predominately evil doesn't necessarily benefit the slave trade.
Buying a slave to a slaver or slave trader doesn't benefit the slave trade?
QuoteThere's a difference between spitting on someone and discussing legal issues in a civil manner.
I wouldn't say that telling someone he should be enslaved is very civil.
QuotePaladins of Tyr and Torm I could see as slave-owners as they're more lawful than good
Excuse me, where do you take that from?
You did not rationalize anything. You simply said I was fortunate that you did not play a paladin because you would take me on. Which I doubt. Because there is simply no way a paladin could keep someone enslaved against his will (I repeat, other forms of slavery are a different matter entirely) and blame banites for being tyrants.
Paladins are lawful good theocratic tyrants.
What is so hard to understand about that? :mad:
In actual truth, the extent of the paladin's oaths results in unavoidable contradictions and hypocrisy.
That's part of the fun.
All paladins in EfU are expected to create liberal democracies with universal suffrage and fair, equitable social programs for all citizens, monstrous or non-monstrous. Any other behavior on their part runs the risk of causing their fall from grace.
Quote from: Iron Oligarch;290037All paladins in EfU are expected to create liberal democracies with universal suffrage and fair, equitable social programs for all citizens, monstrous or non-monstrous. Any other behavior on their part runs the risk of causing their fall from grace.
I'll admit.
I laughed.
Quote from: Iron Oligarch;290037All paladins in EfU are expected to create liberal democracies with universal suffrage and fair, equitable social programs for all citizens, monstrous or non-monstrous. Any other behavior on their part runs the risk of causing their fall from grace.
They must also rule with absolutist lawful authority, and make sure evil individuals do not benefit from their programs.
This is the ideal paladin. (//%22http://static.fjcdn.com/comments/All+_59d555911d229043496f97077ef68c0f.png%22)
Quote from: Calixto;290028Why do you bother repeating your arguments again and don't read what I write? Just in case it isn't clear yet, I will repeat:
That was actually the first time I pointed out your needless thread necromancy.
Quote- Slavery in RL is evil
- Slavery in FR, apparently, is not
- Is it absurd? Yes, completely. Like many other things in FR, but that's another story. And you face this kind of absurd situation, you must do what you think your char do and let the dms judge.
It's only absurd if you presume the first is supposed to have bearing on the second.
QuoteDisagreeing with someone you know is like you is decidely different from believing the other is an impostor because his actions directly contradicts the tenets he is supposed to hold.
Tenants of a paladin of Jergal are different than those of a paladin of Tyr, Torm, Sune, Lathander, etc.
Why would a paladin of Jergal call a paladin of Sune an imposter when the two are supposed to be fairly different?
QuoteBuying a slave to a slaver or slave trader doesn't benefit the slave trade?
A cruel, mean Banite who beats his slaves has two slaves.
A bandit attacks a paladin of Tyr. The paladin of Tyr defeats the bandit, forcing him into indentured servitude (to himself, the Paladin of Tyr) for his crimes. Later on, the Tyrran trades his slave to a farmer who requires more farm hands to help with the harvest.
The cruel, mean Banite who beats his slaves still has two slaves.
QuoteI wouldn't say that telling someone he should be enslaved is very civil.
What about telling someone s/he should be jailed? Fined? Forced to work community service? Punished?
QuoteExcuse me, where do you take that from?
Tyr's portfolio is justice. Torm is Duty, Loyalty, Obedience.
QuoteYou did not rationalize anything.
I consider the following as rationalizing:
Quote from: MistBringsTheDarknessThere are laws (both secular and religious) that govern how slaves should be treated.
The paladin could still work against the law in other means however.
Just because two PCs are of the same class and alignment doesn't mean they have to agree on everything. Differences in faiths is just as important to giving a character individuality.
Benefiting evil-doers how? Owning a slave in a region that is predominately evil doesn't necessarily benefit the slave trade.
There's a difference between spitting on someone and discussing legal issues in a civil manner.
Paladins of Tyr and Torm I could see as slave-owners as they're more lawful than good. Hoar is another example that comes to mind. Paladins of Lathander, Sune, and Ilmater would be examples, I think, of paladins who wouldn't be pro-slavery.
QuoteYou simply said I was fortunate that you did not play a paladin because you would take me on. Which I doubt. Because there is simply no way a paladin could keep someone enslaved against his will (I repeat, other forms of slavery are a different matter entirely) and blame banites for being tyrants.
Why bother with this if you're going specifically note that there is "slavery" and "other forms of slavery" that paladins are okay with?
Quote from: MistBringsTheDarkness;290041That was actually the first time I pointed out your needless thread necromancy.
If I am a thread necromancer, why do you bother answering the posts?
QuoteIt's only absurd if you presume the first is supposed to have bearing on the second.
No, it's absurd. Why? Because it would be simplier to treat slavery in FR as in RL. The people who created FR did not, for their own reasons. Reasons which I would have liked to know. Really, as another poster said:
QuoteI fail to see how anyone can consider forced servitude to not be an act that is inherently evil, no matter who you're enslaving. It's not relevant, as it's an act that the enslaver is committing against someone(thing) else.
And don't give me that it's circumstantial. One can always choose to be the bigger, better person and not force another being to work for them without pay.
Wouldn't it have been simplier to be that way in FR?
But really, this discussion is useless, since we are simply running in circles. However, I would still be interested in discussing the following:
QuoteA cruel, mean Banite who beats his slaves has two slaves.
A bandit attacks a paladin of Tyr. The paladin of Tyr defeats the bandit, forcing him into indentured servitude (to himself, the Paladin of Tyr) for his crimes. Later on, the Tyrran trades his slave to a farmer who requires more farm hands to help with the harvest.
The cruel, mean Banite who beats his slaves still has two slaves.
I have no idea what this story has to do with my question. Which was:
QuoteBuying a slave to a slaver or slave trader doesn't benefit the slave trade?
And I'm talking about any kind of slave, not just the ones who did something to desserve it.
QuoteTyr's portfolio is justice. Torm is Duty, Loyalty, Obedience.
Which have nothing to do with paladins being more lawful than good. Look at this:
QuoteKnights of Holy Judgement
The Order of the Knights of Holy Judgement tends to attract the paladins who emphasize the "lawful" part of their dedication to Tyr.
Knights of the Merciful Sword
The Order of the Knights of the Merciful Sword tends to attract the paladins who emphasize the "good" part of their dedication to Tyr.
QuoteWhy bother with this if you're going specifically note that there is "slavery" and "other forms of slavery" that paladins are okay with?
No, I didn't say that. But why bother if you said you would keep it for an ig situation anyway?
What I think we're trying to say here, Calixto, that slavery is not evil in the forgotten realms.
The moral standards, actions, and consequences are analogous to real life, but they are NOT real life.
You are trying to say paladins would UNIVERSALLY be opposed to slavery.
This is clearly wrong.
Freedom is more in line with the CHAOS end of the spectrum, a paladin is an inherently LAWFUL class.
Even your cited GOOD ORIENTED paladins, a paladin should still favor a structured and lawful society he would not promote Free Will to the extent where people can do as they please. Consequences follow every action.
Paladins are a diverse class. Which was the entire point of this thread.
If all paladins behaved the same way, then they would be an extremely -boring- class.
Slavery is just an example out of numerous possibly evil actions.
I can see a Priest of Cyric opposing slavery on the grounds it promotes law and order and thus OPPOSES his will.
A Paladin of Ilmater would be drastically different than a Paladin of Sune.
I want people to EXPERIMENT with morally questionable deeds a Paladin could theoretically commit and not loose his Paladinhood.
A paladin could beat his child if the child, allowed the fox into the chicken coup and let it kill all the chickens and thus deprived the farmer of a steady food source. This is a legitimate punishment.
A paladin is not adverse to violence, or forcing people to do what ~they~ think needs to be done.
They are inherently charismatic and forceful, and their feats, bonuses, ENCOURAGE a leaderlike quality.
However, when a PALADIN DOES ERR, he DOES HAVE RECOURSE.
HE CAN REGAIN HIS POWERS THROUGH PENANCE, CONFESSION, SELF-FLAGELLATION, performing GOODLY deeds, etc...
Ideal paladins are boring. PLAY LOOSE with the oaths and pursue your goals as a player you think are interesting!
Quote from: Calixto;290064If I am a thread necromancer, why do you bother answering the posts?
Because I wanted to point out that you're making a post bemoaning slavery from a paladin's perspective while already acknowledging that slavery can be okay from a paladin's perspective.
QuoteNo, it's absurd. Why? Because it would be simplier to treat slavery in FR as in RL. The people who created FR did not, for their own reasons. Reasons which I would have liked to know. Really, as another poster said:
QuoteI fail to see how anyone can consider forced servitude to not be an act that is inherently evil, no matter who you're enslaving. It's not relevant, as it's an act that the enslaver is committing against someone(thing) else.
And don't give me that it's circumstantial. One can always choose to be the bigger, better person and not force another being to work for them without pay.
Committing an act against someone else is not evil. Nearly all interactions in human society are "against someone else". Loans, (lawful) imprisonment, employment. Is forcing someone to pay for food evil? Is giving someone a gift which is rejected evil?
Rather ironically, FR is a setting where the four alignments are objectified. They are not relative. This, however, means the actions of characters are relative to the objects and thus why different paladins can have different perspectives of slavery.
QuoteWouldn't it have been simplier to be that way in FR?
No, it wouldn't be that much simpler in a fantasy setting where a huge multitude of Gods, their dogmas, and their philosophies leads to the legitimization of everything from the animation of undead to slavery.
QuoteBut really, this discussion is useless, since we are simply running in circles.
Frankly, I don't see the circle. I do believe I've responded to every point you've made while you haven't done the same to my arguments.
QuoteI have no idea what this story has to do with my question. Which was:
And I'm talking about any kind of slave, not just the ones who did something to desserve it.
So, you meant "slavery in general" and not "slave trade", the latter implying people profiting from slaves in a financial and hedonistic way?
QuoteWhich have nothing to do with paladins being more lawful than good. Look at this:
Sorry, I meant paladins could be more lawful than good (e.g., Knights of Holy Judgement). Depends on the character and as others have said, it's up to the player to individualize the character.
QuoteNo, I didn't say that. But why bother if you said you would keep it for an ig situation anyway?
There are some aspects of this the issue of slavery that would be more enjoyable to approach from an IG situation. But I don't plan on creating a new character so soon just to have this discussion.
As someone currently playing a paladin, I think your all over-thinking it.
I decidely must have failed to express my points correctly. Anyway, there is no point anymore in this discussion, so I will explain myself again and let it drop:
I am no expert in FR. Before seeing this thread, I thought slavery was as evil in FR as in real life, and that a paladin couldn't condone it, except if it was a punishment type of slavery. I was proved wrong. Slavery in FR is not evil. I think it shouldn't be that way but this is fine by me. I simply find it absurd. Laughable.
A paladin can not only condone but also support the forced slavery of non-evil creatures. He can buy slaves and have them punished when they find slavery is not cool and try to escape (stupid chaotic law breakers). This is perfectly acceptable. However, being often discourteous, drunk, lying, striking their ennemies in the back, using poison, peeing in the street, etc. are horrendous crimes, unacceptable transgressions, really really nasty things that ashame their patron god because of the bad image it gives, and desserve an immediate fall from grace.
THIS IS PERFECTLY FINE! am simply bothered by what would happen if this issue arose while rping. But that's only me. It doesn't matter! I will see when it happens. This is all.
The point where this entire discussion goes wrong is at the premise it bases itself on.
Slavery is not inherently evil.
No, not even in real life.
Evil as a concept in the real world is defined by an extremely subjective moral code. The fact that what is evil and what is not is an extremely gray spectrum in the real world is demonstrated by the dozens of big moral issues that plague modern times and spark not only debate but even war.
Ethics, as this particular brand of philosophy is known, is an extremely conceptual field of study that tries to analyze patterns and fixed standpoints in public morals in an effort to find an absolute truth from which to extrapolate a universal moral code.
Suffice to say, they have yet to find this truth, or at least to agree on it.
And then there's FR, where good and evil are cosmic forces that each have supernatural proponents in the forms of gods and other extraplanar entities.
Do you think slavery, being an almost globally (at least in the west) accepted practice up to the 19th century, was considered justifiable because people didn't really care about evil back then? Or do you simply think it was abandoned because mankind 'got smarter' and suddenly realized it was actually wrong? Both sentiments are entirely dismissable.
Quote from: Porkolt;290201The point where this entire discussion goes wrong is at the premise it bases itself on.
Slavery is not inherently evil.
No, not even in real life.
Evil as a concept in the real world is defined by an extremely subjective moral code. The fact that what is evil and what is not is an extremely gray spectrum in the real world is demonstrated by the dozens of big moral issues that plague modern times and spark not only debate but even war.
Ethics, as this particular brand of philosophy is known, is an extremely concept field of study that tries to analyze patterns and fixed standpoints in public morals in an effort to find an absolute truth from which to extrapolate a universal moral code.
Suffice to say, they have yet to find this truth, or at least to agree on it.
And then there's FR, where good and evil are cosmic forces that each have supernatural proponents in the forms of gods and other extraplanar entities.
Do you think slavery, being an almost globally (at least in the west) accepted practice up to the 19th century, was considered justifiable because people didn't really care about evil back then? Or do you simply think it was abandoned because mankind 'got smarter' and suddenly realized it was actually wrong? Both sentiments are entirely dismissable.
This ^^
We have a tendency to bring our RL bias/ethics/what-have-yous into our games. And as in any global community, you have people from an extremely diverse pool of cultures and backgrounds. That in and of itself is going to create conflicts on what "should" or "should not" be allowed and acceptable.
Whether slavery itself is inherently evil is subjective. You could spend all day coming up with examples and reasons for and against it. It's a circular debate. One that is loaded with personal feelings and beliefs.
At the end of the day, as it relates to EFU, we have chosen to play a game that is loosely set in FR and highly modified by both our DMs and players. Little of that relates to RL, nor should it. It is a game. A game we choose to play. The short version being ... "It's their world, we just come visit and play in it." If we like nothing about it, or think it utterly ridiculous, we have the option to either attempt to change it through wholly IG/IC means, or not play here. No one forces us to stay. And it's no failure on anyone's part if someone chooses not to. Not all servers are a fit for all players.
However, one of the beauties of EFU is that we do have the option of creating fairly dynamic PCs that can and have made a difference. Not all places give you that freedom. I'm not going to even pretend it's an easy thing to do, but it is in fact doable.
Obviously this person cannot see any reason. Their mind is set, nothgin anyone says no matter what will alter what they think. They alone are right and everyone else is wrong no matter how logical you present it or how many examples or sources you quote. So just stop trying and let them have the closed mind about it and believe whatever, even if they are 100% wrong. Thread solved.
I'm still trying to figure out how this went from "Paladins are not always nice" to "Slavery is evil / good / neutral". Maybe once I figure that out I'll have something to add... maybe not.
The problem is, that we can't really argue much for moral relativity in FR, because it's a DnD setting - which means it features actual personifications of moral absolutes, and in fact, those moral absolutes - gods, demons, devils, celestials, etc. etc. - are the driving power of the (multi)universe. Slavery may not be at all times despicably evil - let's face it - Roman slaves, outside the sentenced prisoners, had much better lives usually, and chances to free themselves, than feudal serfs - and feudal contract is something widely accepted in FR.
While slavery may -not- be evil, it is certainly not good - and a paladin should, in my opinion, not partake in the acts, if he does not condemn it. In fact, I'd say that the fact that Mulhorand (sp?) is supposedly LG, while a nation with completely legal slavery, is an omission and a mistake on part of the FR's design. A culture openly partaking in evil/neutral acts, should be evil/neutral.
I had decided not to reply in the thread anymore, but your statement about slavery not being inherently evil in RL greatly puzzles me, and I would like to know your reasons to believe that slavery is not what 99,9% people thinks it is - evil.
Yes, we have today debates about moral issues. But we speak of issues that people is divided upon. Abortion, death penalty. No one is debating whether slavery is wrong or not because, well, it is and always was. And evil in real life is not subjectively, but objectively defined, and pretty much the great majority of people has the same opinion, at last as far as slavery is concerned. That is because, well, you will hardly find anyone who thinks slavery is anything else than evil.
Quote from: Porkolt;290201Do you think slavery, being an almost globally (at least in the west) accepted practice up to the 19th century, was considered justifiable because people didn't really care about evil back then? Or do you simply think it was abandoned because mankind 'got smarter' and suddenly realized it was actually wrong? Both sentiments are entirely dismissable.
Oh no, they cared about evil, only not a great deal. Slavery was either seen as a necessary evil, for example to sustain societies, or something that, altough evil, was the right thing to do, for example the enslavements of people after a battle, since the victors desserved the spoils.
Did slavers often try to justify themselves thinking that they did their victims more good than harm, for example because their conditions of living would improve? Yes. But all of them were aware that enslaving was wrong. Because the basis of enslavement is the reduction of someone to something lesser. How could that not be inherently evil?
If only such conflicts raged IG...
Locking.