My question about paladins is from something i saw in game and in paladin code that i think colides. I don't know if i understand the issue right, or if it was brought before, so i'd just appreciate any opinions or facts you can give on this.

9. Respect the laws of the land and those who seek to enforce them.
11. Do not associate with the taint of evil, in any way.

This are the two parts of the code that i think colide when it comes to tribunal pallies. Tribunal has no interest in alignment, and an elf paladin can join it as much as a dark-elf ani-paladin. Does that not make the paladin associate with evil? Or is fighting that evil does not make a fortress paladin disrespect the law?

How is that worked Ic?

I think the Paladin Code IS a set of hard-and-fast rule. But the wording within it is often vague and explicitly allows for intrepretation. Some examples:

How do you show respect? (rule 9) I think it's easy to intrepret that meaning you can still disagree with their laws while being respectful. There just needs to be something to show that you are being respectful. Going on a bloody crusade and slaughtering every Tribunal you come across, wherever they are at and whatever the situation, would probably get a paladin in trouble. A paladin in Outlander wouldn't work, because Outlander requires that you disrespect the laws. But you can certainly get away with breaking the Tribunal laws, depending on how your character intreprets "the law."

What is a worthy cause? (rule 5) Obviously another rule that is open to broad intrepretation. What makes for a worthy cause? You can intrepret what constitutes worthy causes for your paladin, but then you have to fight for them.

What is a basic necessity? (rule 2) For some paladins a basic necessity might include four weapons to cover different vulns and resistences. For another it might mean he only carries a stick.

Number 8, however, is pretty clear. Don't lie.

As far as number 11 goes, I personally don't think a paladin can justify being empowered by an evil god. Gods have to roleplay too, and we have our own IC things going on that surface eventually (often in the form of gechos and/or quests). To get empowered by Eshval, you have to walk by the disembowled guy making his guts into balloon animals. Come on now.

Now however, I do think many evil gods can justify doing it, because to them you're just something they can manipulate in the long run. If you are a paladin empowered by an evil god, I think you (as a player) should expect to have to make a decision between your god and the light eventually. But when I'm personally roleplaying, any goodie following an evil god is immediately and permanantly suspect in my book. If you're a Grurk-following paladin in the Fort, and Grurk comes and attacks Aarn and tries to lay waste to the Fort, what are you going to do? Rule one says you have to be loyal to your god and your beliefs. It doesn't say "your religion and your beliefs." It specifically says "your god". If you believe in the goodie dogma while following an evil god, don't those conflict?

But then again I'm not an evil god, and that's just my opinion as an individual.

Anyhow, my point was that while the Paladin Code is NOT a bunch of "suggestions" that you can follow if you want to - or not if you don't - it is broadly worded and open to a lot of intrepretations, ideas, and roleplayed justifications. But you still have to follow it 100%, in your own way.

The Code as it stands is a guideline for behavior, it is not a rule. Each Immortal that empowers, views the Code within the confines of their religion...some parts apply, some othersn not so much.

In my case, the tenets of my faith trump those of mortal laws. As an example, if evil hides in the city, my paladins are more than welcome to go after them, even though the Tribual Laws views such actions as criminal. They are not, however, permitted to gack goodies, even mobs to get to them.

As with all religions, each immortal holds their own approach.

innis@carrionfields.com

>11. Do not associate with the taint of evil, in any way.

Now try to wrap your head around how paladins justify getting empowered by Zulghinlour

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

I've come to feel evil gods should never empower paladins as themselves. As 'an immortal' ruling over a sphere sure, as a red aura'd dark god?

Without getting TOO heavy into this.. some 'evil' imms view their
religions as not being inherently Good or Evil. Yes, Grurk is
evil, but you don't have to be evil to subscribe to his ideals
on Justice and Anger.

As for the code... I believe there is a school of thought that
the code was written as a guideline, and not a hard and fast
litmus of rules. I could be mistaken. Be that as it may, most
of my best empowerees and tat bearers have been Paladins.

G.

I know it is an extreme view, and not one I expect to be enforced, but on the rare occasion I play paladins, they shun anything with a red aura. Similarly they view slaying innocents (including neutrals) as abhorrent.

How could I as a holy warrior of the light justify the fact that the very source of my powers is completely corrupt and tainted with evil? Having an evil god empower me would be even worse than grabbing an evil weapon and using it to slay evil. Sure, the end result is good in that evil is slain, but I've corrupted myself by resorting to using the tools of darkness to accomplish my goals.

IMO, paladins are the one class where the ends never justify the means. If the means aren't pure, the result is foul.

>How could I as a holy warrior of the light justify the fact
>that the very source of my powers is completely corrupt and
>tainted with evil? Having an evil god empower me would be
>even worse than grabbing an evil weapon and using it to slay
>evil. Sure, the end result is good in that evil is slain, but
>I've corrupted myself by resorting to using the tools of
>darkness to accomplish my goals.
>
>IMO, paladins are the one class where the ends never justify
>the means. If the means aren't pure, the result is foul.


That is a perfectly valid role to play for the reasons you mentioned above. I had a Dawnie paladin who believed the same thing and berated a Zulg pally so much so often that a HeroImm pulled me aside to get me to stop.

All IC, of course.

I've also had a paladin of that old Empire god of war who worshipped the concept of what his faith represented under the sphere of Wisdom. He believed that it was best for the light that War should be waged wisely, not honorably.

Both were empowered, did well, and never lost their empowerment.

Some religions arn't really good or evil in and of themselves, but represent concepts or ideas or ways of accomplishing something. Anger, Justice, Victory, these things simply are.

One way of looking at it is these faiths are like a weapon, they can be used for good or evil.

However, if you char believes that something made by evil hands is evil itself and should not be used, that works also.

IC, I was asked this question all the time and argued with maran paladins upon this very subject, so I came up with this IC.

Mind you, my role was as a sphere Order paladin of Velkurah (old tribby IMM) who believed in Theocracy and the Law as "The Will of the Grand Master", basically that the Spire Law existed because a Lawful Good god that I followed decreed it to be so.




note read 67
< 67> Thu Jun 24 10:32:50 2004
From : Alarian
To : immortal Celebrimbor Yraen Brordaran Ryldain Elentari Amtheia Selreen Thaydan Audriel Markow Thenrek Menon Thaydan
Subject: An Epistle upon the necessity of Law.

*************************************
*IN THE NAME OF THE MASTERS OF LIGHT*
*************************************

Brothers and sisters,

For some time we have argued amongst ourselves concerning obedience to the Law.

It reflects badly on us when others see us arguing and fighting in this way. Therefore, I would like to submit to you all 5 reasons why all of us should obey the Law.

1. The 9th precept.

What better way to respect the Laws and those who enforce them by simply obeying them? Also, should we not have faith in the Immortals of Light who must have included this precept for a reason?

Who are we to question divine wisdom?

2. The benefits of civilization, which Law creates.

Despite such idiocies as the Empire and the thiefs guild, civilization has created a bastion against the capriciousness of nature which benefits common people who might starve to death without an agricultural system, or would be too weak to defend against theft and the ravages of wild beasts.

Should we live as animals?

3. Our image.

We are commanded to be the paragons of Light in Thera. How does it look to the people when a paladin walks into a bar in Tar Valon and crushes the skull or a misguided serving girl there, or kills a beggar who was just overwhelmed by despair?

How can we look noble as a criminal?

4. The harmfulness of murder and theft.

I myself have slain and taken from the corpses of evil men, despite knowing that murder and theft are inherently harmful. Why? To prevent greater acts of murder and theft by those who are evil, because we have to.

Under the Law, we dont have to do so to defend the innocent. How is that bad?

5. Peace.

A world without evil would be glorious, but perhaps unattainable. A land of peace, however, is attainable under the law if it is enforced with the threat of punishment forcing those who are evil to stop their evil acts.

How much evil has the Law prevented?

We are not shamans who can make food, brothers and sisters, we are shining beacons of hope, redemption, salvation, and faith to the cities and people of Thera.

In the name of The Grand Master,

Alarian

>This are the two parts of the code that i think colide when
>it comes to tribunal pallies. Tribunal has no interest in
>alignment, and an elf paladin can join it as much as a
>dark-elf ani-paladin. Does that not make the paladin associate
>with evil?

It's very possible for both to be a member of the same cabal without working together in any way. (In fact, the ideological differences between good/neutral/evil Tribunal is in my opinion one of the more interesting RP aspects of the cabal.)

>Or is fighting that evil does not make a fortress
>paladin disrespect the law?

You could be a Fortress paladin and never break the law. You could equally be a Fortress paladin who does break the law and shows his respect for the law in other ways, such as turning himself in upon committing a crime.

Evil Tribunal should be an interesting situation for any paladin, really. There isn't a single appropriate way to handle it for all paladins.

One of my personal pet-peeves, if you will, is when people toss out their alignment when it comes to cabal mates. You see it in Outlander, Tribunal and Battle. Elves sancing fire giants. Dwarves grouping with duergar! Even neutral dwarves... I hate this. There's this huge racial divide, you can't just ignore it. In all of these situations, I'm not saying you can't work toward the same end. If you need to recover an item with them, then do it if your character would. But there had damn well better be some constant recognition of the fact that you can't stand the other character.

If you play a good or an evil character like a neutral character, then expect to get made neutral eventually.

Aarn

My view is this.

As a duergar, I am free to get whatever help I can out of the goods in my cabal. I might hate the elf, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't travel with him, and use him.

As an elf, I should not be travelling with the duergar. It is my responsibility to refuse to endorse his way of life.

That said, as my last char (Hammond), I did clash with cabalmates for alignment reasons. One example being the withholding of the Justiciar's con quest item because it was obtained by the murder of an innocent man that abided by the law. But what if that fire giant is always being so damn nice to you? Taking Baalshiwaax or whatever his name is as an example, I was reluctant to use my spells on him. Then when he didn't trust me (despite having said he did), I was angry and mistrustful, withholding my spells for a bit. However, he was just so damn nice all the time. In the end I found it hard to find a justifiable reason to be against him, especially as a human raised to judge actions.

Wouldn't my character therefore start to see him as not being evil? I'm not sure it would have been such bad rp on my part if this had happened. Nor on his, for that matter, since I can't see why an evil wouldn't such up to someone useful to him, like a transmuter.

Wouldn't my character therefore start to see him as not being evil? I'm not sure it would have been such bad rp on my part if this had happened. Nor on his, for that matter, since I can't see why an evil wouldn't such up to someone useful to him, like a transmuter.

I would say that if it gets to the point where your good character doesn't see anything wrong with an evil character, then at least one of you isn't roleplaying. I would see the evil character USING a good character... but not showing him respect or returning any kindness. You're thinking too logically, from the standpoint of a neutral player. While it might be beneficial to suck up to a good healer, most evil characters are still going to have evil tendancies that are going to override the logic. Besides, if you follow the logic that being nice to people is more useful then using and abusing them, then aren't you already acting neutral? As the good person in this equation, you should be concerned about how the evil character is using you, questioning his intentions, etc.

> Besides, if you follow the logic
>that being nice to people is more useful then using and
>abusing them, then aren't you already acting neutral?

He would be acting neutral in that case but that wouldnt make him a neutral charakter. (Especially if he had a great time butchering Orphans and drinking Beer with Fred his Fire A-P buddy just the day before)
Am I right?

Doing it one time wouldn't. Doing it consistantly would.

And so long as I only did it once, I wouldn't be an evil guy? Just missunderstood?

Help me out here.

1) I wouldn't try and draw parallels between CF morality and RL morality. In CF killing somebody in cold blood doesn't make you "evil," in RL it probably would.

2) You're either being purposefully obtuse or are actually of dull mind, I can't decide which is better.

3) Isn't race your pet peeve area? Why would you disagree with somebody who's arguing in favor of more tension in race relations when you're also a huge proponent of this idea?

The tension existed between my char. My char really didn't like this guy at first, and even though I knew ooc that he'd just made a mistake with the trustall command, ic I had to act on his attack on me and trust him less than ever. To the extent that he no longer always provided spells at request, even for raids.

However, he was always nice to me and everyone else that I saw. He was one of the most dedicated tribs. The one that ran out and got killed (or screwed up) because of his dedication to the spire.

When this is what your char sees from someone all the time, it is not easy to continue to consider them evil. I put this to you...

A fire giant acts good all the time, what happens? Imms change his alignment to good.

Just before this happens, are you saying that my char should still be treating him as being as evil as any other fire giant? I would argue not, because his actions have shown otherwise. No reason a character closely involved with another won't spot this before an immortal makes the alignment change. It would be quite inconsistent to suddenly be best buddies just because the alignment has been toggled, whilst ignoring behavior.

>When this is what your char sees from someone all the time, it
>is not easy to continue to consider them evil. I put this to
>you...
>
>A fire giant acts good all the time, what happens? Imms
>change his alignment to good.
>
>Just before this happens, are you saying that my char should
>still be treating him as being as evil as any other fire
>giant? I would argue not, because his actions have shown
>otherwise. No reason a character closely involved with
>another won't spot this before an immortal makes the alignment
>change. It would be quite inconsistent to suddenly be best
>buddies just because the alignment has been toggled, whilst
>ignoring behavior.

You have to regard the matter from your character's point of view. Your character has to believe that the gods are omniscient and omnipresent. They're gods afterall. Therefore, your character has to believe that if the fire giant's acts are truly good then he would BE good, because the omnipresent and omniscient gods would make it so. Your character should be questioning his every action and wondering if the fire giant is just using acts of kindness to draw you into some sort of trap. The gods know better than your character and I would say that they absolutely have a better idea than your character does, regardless of how many good things your char has seen the fire giant do. I don't think suddenly becoming best buddies with the suddenly good fire giant would be inconsistent at all, because at that moment (when he becomes good) your character knows without question that the fire giant's actions were truly good and not some ploy.

Ah, no. We're talking about acting neutral, specifically showing an indifference to alignment. We're not talking about goodies commiting henious acts. I think the difference between the two is pretty clear, especially when taken in the context of this discussion.

CF world is much more violent. If you "go ranking" in RL, it's usually seen as pretty evil, as the people perceive you as a threat to them or their loved ones, which would make you evil in their eyes. Good and evil are relative concepts and there are no clear absolutes in real life. Good and evil depend of the standpoints of the person declaring something good or evil, and I would regard someone simply declaring something good or evil with suspicion, as the reasons behind that declaration would be the ones that are important.

>evil in their eyes. Good and evil are relative concepts and
>there are no clear absolutes in real life. Good and evil
>depend of the standpoints of the person declaring something
>good or evil,


So Chucky Manson is good because he says he is?

This is the central, fatal flaw of relative morality, IMHO. If the only thing you judge are judgements and standards, they cease to exist when these things are the 2 basics by which all morality is determined. Relative morality is oxymoronic because the former undermines the latter.

Ironically, though, that point of view would work very well for a neutral character, because you stop believing in traditional notions of good and evil but would work very badly for, say, a Maran. Again, in my opinion.

Anyhow, leaving that can of worms behind, I've viewed CF as more solidly twords the absolute side in notions of good and evil. Orcs are evil because they are made of whatever the "stuff of evil" is. Doesn't matter that they think hacking up orphans and elf children is good clean fun, they're still evil.

You can "try to understand his anger" all you want and an Orc will split your skull in two while you're navel-gazing. Offer him a "hand of peace" he'll laugh before biting it off because....he's just dag nasty evil.

There is still wiggle room, of course, and actions strongly play a part of this, as posted above and here's another example.

Minoutars.

There are some IMMs, I believe, that don't want paladins killing neutrals for gear or just for the heck of it. Minoutars can be neutral so it's not unreasonable to assume that if a paladin walked up and killed one, knowing he wasn't evil, they'd be punished for it.

However, I, as a mortal and probably when/if I get a religion, will *demand* that people kill Minoutars because of what it says in their help file:


" they cannot reproduce among their own kind; every minotaur is male and they can only further the race by polluting the wombs of human females during their violent rites of blood sacrifice and procreation which leads to their rarity in the realm."


Alarian never considered that their motivations for doing so might be neutral, simple bestial drives rather than evil ones. Rape is evil. Period. They're just like orcs, in his mind, twisted in their souls and born with the desire to do evil acts.

Your aura could be the grayest of grays, but if you violently rape human women, this human paladin is going to hunt you down and end your life, never travel with you, and treat you with total contempt.

Who's right? What if I had found a celibate Minoutar? Would I have treated him like a Orc who "claimed" to turn his back on violence when I *know* that doing that vicious act is as part of him as breathing?

This is the fun of RP, clashes like this amongst different viewpoints, IC. CF would be more boring if we didn't have these, I think.

You and I seem to share similar views. I believe you understood my point completely.

I would like to see some paladin's held to those standards as well.

>So Chucky Manson is good because he says he is?

According to Chucky Manson, this is so. The real question is: Do you trust Chucky Manson to make this evaluation of good and evil for you? Labeling someone with alignment is rather artificial, and should be regarded with suspicion in real world. In the case of Chucky Manson we may think along the lines: Chucky Manson kills people. Killing people is evil, and since Chucky Manson kills people, he is evil. This definition I can live with, since the reason is given why Chucky is evil.

But if I point my finger at you and simply declare "Alarian is evil!" is something that should be regarded with suspicion. If this declaration is taken as truth, then anything could be done to punish you for being evil. The real question is: Why would I declare you evil? If others just take my word for it and you are put to death in electric chair or something, just because I declared you evil. I'm not actually declaring you evil, though.

This is entirely different matter in real world as it is in CF, which I think was your main point. So, basically, you should consider the reasons why someone is deemed as evil before agreeing with the one doing the declaration and ponder whether you agree with him or not.

>This is the central, fatal flaw of relative morality, IMHO. If
>the only thing you judge are judgements and standards, they
>cease to exist when these things are the 2 basics by which all
>morality is determined. Relative morality is oxymoronic
>because the former undermines the latter.

In CF, this is accurate, but in real world, I wouldn't claim that there are clearly two basics that define which actions are evil and which are good. There are many factors that influence in such moral decicions in real life. There simply aren't people who are inherently good or evil in real life.

In my opinion, all of your arguments for real world relative morality are only valid IFF (IFF means if and only if, btw) The Athiests have it right and anyone who believes in a god is wrong.


Now, in Cf, this doesn't count, because it is fairly obvious that Dieties exist and that they set a definite morality of "this is good and this is evil".


but, in the real world, I would say it is only valid to say "Labeling someone with alignment is rather artificial, and should be regarded with suspicion in real world. " like you did, only if you believe that there is no God who has said "Doing this is good, doing that is evil, period".


Most people on planet earth, not being athiests, might disagree with you that it is invalid or artificial to call anyone "evil" or "good", but you're good to believe what you want on that score.

Even in your example, it comes down to "Why is killing evil" the athiestic view has something to do with the greater health and survivability of the species or something, the religious view is basically "Because God said so, that's why"


*disclaimer* I know there are some religions out there that DO hold the idea of relative morality, let's ignore those tiny factions for the sake of my argument *smile*

You don't need a god to have an absolute morality. I'd say it's pretty irrelevant, actually.

Let's assume there is a god, and that stealing is wrong.

Now, the question is

A) is stealing wrong because there's some absolute moral principle, a universal moral law not unlike the universal laws of physics or the like? In this case, your omniscient god is aware of these laws and might reveal them to mankind, but doesn't actually create them

or

B) stealing is wrong because god says it's wrong. There's no intrinsic value to it other than that.

The (B) choice actually eliminates absolute morality. It says something is right only because a tyrant-figure creates and enforces it. If that entity would decide that setting children on fire is the new moral right, so would it be. That's pretty subjective and relativistic.

I hate having to disagree with you.

but,in my opinion, if option A is true, your last stipulation of option A (god doesn't actually create the absolute moral principle) is invalid.

Why? Well, Let's say there are absolute moral principles, which are universal moral laws not unlike the Universal laws of Physics....for example Gravity or the speed of light.

Well, A good working defenition of "God", in my opinion, is an entity that created the universe, which would include the laws of physics (and by extension, in option A) the universal laws of Morality.

Sure, you can say god never had to "Reveal" the physical laws to mankind....but I can say that he did.

How? By giving us senses by which to observe them. We have mass and senses and can observe gravity at work. It can also be said that we have internal senses that can observe the universal "Moral" rules at work.


I understand your argument comes from my statement that the religious view is that "murder is wrong because God sais it's wrong, period."

And that lead to your option B. but I think it goes deeper than that.


Did God say it was wrong just because? or did God say it was wrong because he MADE it wrong, as in Option A.

Also, for many religious people, option B isn't valid for another reason. For a God that created the universe, and Time, he is also OUTSIDE of time. He is also perfect and flawless (there is a debate whether his omniscience springs from his being outside of time and perfect....or if his being outside of time and perfect springs from him being omniscient....or if such a causality relationship between these aspects of him is even valid to consider).

Meaning, he does not change. Yes, mortal PERCEPTION of him can change. And his specific rules for specific groups of people can change as those specific groups grow and change, but the basic MORALITY RULES, can't change. He can't change his mind and say that setting children on fire is Morally right....because that would mean he was Wrong before when he said that it was Morally wrong, And God, by the definition many religous people go by, can't be wrong.

We suddenly moved from CF to the real world.

I think it's clear that all of us "gods" on CF aren't super omnipotent world creaters, ala christianity. After all, CF gods get killed on a regular basis, new ones crop up, and we work against each other all the time. If one god could declare the Ultimate Truth on CF, then we wouldn't have any gods that were opposed to each other. Plus the fact that, on CF, characters DO have a hard and fast alignment that everyone else can detect (unlike the real world, obviously) changes this whole argument.

When I answered the original posters question, I was speaking only on how it works in the game. To recap, there is no hard and fast line that will get a neutral character turned evil. It varies depending on the circumstances, characters involved, and the way it was handled.

Odrirg was a perfect example. Odrirg started to draw the line that chaos=evil. He even attacked some chaotic goodies, if memory serves. It was a thin line, and Odrirg was on the edge of getting in trouble a few times, but he always handled it right, by combining it with preaching, roleplaying, and a solid role that explained why he believed and acted the way he did. So, while it was still frowned upon, it was excused to some extent because of the circumstances. If it had continued to happen, or changed circumstances, Odrirg probably would have become neutral. Another character wouldn't have gotten the same leeway. It's relative.

Aarn

With respect to paladins...

I will admit, I rolled a shaman instead of a Paladin partly *BECAUSE* I knew I was going to be walking that line of an anti-chaos rager-type mentality.


I fully understand that Odrirg as a paladin would have been un-empowered and turned neutral, probably before I hit rank 20, where as I thought I could make it stretch and work as a Shaman.


Personally, I don't think I could ever play a tribby Paladin. Because of what the original poster was asking about. In my own head, I like paladins to take *ALL* of the code as word for word gospel, and that whole "associating with evil" thing gets me every time.

Whenever a role for a law-character paladin pops into my head, I always stumble over dealing with that part of the Code in the Role in a way that doesn't make me sound like a rationalizing hypocrit to myself. heh.

(That said, I also don't think Paladins are right for Maran either....It is my own personal belief that if you combine Maran philosophy with a paladin.....and stir...you get a Goodie Shaman. I just see too much over-lap between Maran paladin and goodie shaman, and I would like those two roles and guilds to be more unique and seperate)

> That said, I also don't think Paladins are right for Maran
>either....It is my own personal belief that if you combine
>Maran philosophy with a paladin.....and stir...you get a
>Goodie Shaman. I just see too much over-lap between Maran
>paladin and goodie shaman, and I would like those two roles
>and guilds to be more unique and seperate)

First, I'll address the tribunal pally thoughts and move on to the Maran pally. If I were to personally play a hard-nosed paladin in tribunal, I would not hesitate to attack *any* evil outside of protected cities, fellow tribunal or not. I would not buddy up with them, I would not retrieve along side them. I would likely catch hell from the people running tribunal, but I'd deal with that then. I don't think you'd even need to go that far, just so long as you weren't friendly/helpful to them. Just because you both enforce the law, does not mean you are associating with evil. The law isn't evil, and if you aren't helping him, then neither are you. That'd be similar to saying, well, that fire giant over there favors swords, so from now on I will only use maces, because I don't want to be even remotely associated with evil.

As far as Maran or MARAN pallys go, you *don't* have to attack evils in town if your paladin thinks it would be wrong. For example, I could say I felt it would be doing a greater diservice to light to not have patience and simply wait for him to leave town and not cause the chaos of battle in the city streets, and I think you'd be fine. (I'm only addressing the 9th rule since I think that is the one you have a problem with concerning maran + pally) I think I could also get away with saying that I felt by eliminating the evil within the city walls, I would only be aiding the laws of that city and those imposing them, by removing the threat, and if a tribunal took offense, once my duty was done, I would turn myself in...to the first good aligned trib I saw.

Paladins, like every other class, are not meant to be all played the exact same. The way the code was explained to me when the changes first went in with paladins, was that a paladin wasn't expected to keep every tenant of the same level. Certain paladins would take certain parts to it to heart more than other aspects, while still adhereing to all of it. Different religions/races/spheres/dedications/cabals are going to invariably create a multitude of different paladin personalities.

******
Just because you both enforce the law, does not mean you are associating with evil. The law isn't evil, and if you aren't helping him, then neither are you. That'd be similar to saying, well, that fire giant over there favors swords, so from now on I will only use maces, because I don't want to be even remotely associated with evil.
*********

First, let's look at the defenition of "Associate"

as·so·ci·ate Audio pronunciation of "associate" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-ssh-t, -s-)
v. as·so·ci·at·ed, as·so·ci·at·ing, as·so·ci·ates
v. tr.

1. To join as a partner, ally, or friend.
2. To connect or join together; combine.

Or.....
To join in or form a league, union, or association


Now, in your first example, of both being Tribunals, I think you are completely wrong. yes, the Spire itself is not evil. Yes, the law itself is not evil. But it has an evil god, and an evil provost, and evil magistrates....so...to JOIN that ASSOCIATION, is, at least in my view ASSOCIATING with those evils who are members of that association. It doesn't matter if you don't like them, or don't help them...you are ASSOCIATED with them, by "joining together" with them.

Your second example, to say that consciously JOINING an ASSOCIATION that has evils in it, and is run by an evil god is morally (in cf terms) equivalent to using the same type of weapon as some evil ...is a specious argument at best.

>First, let's look at the defenition of "Associate"
>
>as·so·ci·ate Audio pronunciation of "associate" ( P )
>Pronunciation Key (-ssh-t, -s-)
>v. as·so·ci·at·ed, as·so·ci·at·ing, as·so·ci·ates
>v. tr.
>
> 1. To join as a partner, ally, or friend.
> 2. To connect or join together; combine.
>
>Or.....
> To join in or form a league, union, or association
>
>
So, Tribunal is not inherently evil. The only thing you are joining yourself with, or allying yourself with when you join Tribunal, is the Spire/Law. This isn't Empire. You don't "serve" the Trib imm or the Provost. You serve the cities that are protected.

Something you might be missing, there is play in the code for a reason. It is to allow for different interpretations, and I think you limiting yourself to one steadfast view of paladins is limiting the char possibilities you either find acceptable as a player or what you could be playing yourself.

My Shok pally isn't going to be just like your Grurk pally, nor are they going to hold the same aspects of the code in the same regard or perhaps even view them in the same way. I think Vlad did an excellent job of displaying a good example of creativity and paladins with his Eshval follower.

>So, Tribunal is not inherently evil. The only thing you are
>joining yourself with, or allying yourself with when you join
>Tribunal, is the Spire/Law. This isn't Empire. You don't
>"serve" the Trib imm or the Provost. You serve the cities
>that are protected.


That's the view I took as a mortal, but both of your views would work for a character for both of your reasons.

IC, this is the biggest "schism" within the paladin guild, I think. It also can lead to some conflict, cool RP, and difficult choices to make, all of which make the game more fun.

It would be more boaring if one way was set in stone and I'll leave it at that.

Yet, when I played Atohner, most of my Paladin groupmates were empowered by evil Grurk. The holy warriors sworn not to associate with evil who bow to evil lord of the Empire. I don't really see more problem with Tribunal paladins than with Grurk paladins. Your idea of Tribunal paladin seems like a good one to me.

People try to make RL morality and CF morality two differing things.

They are not.

Good and evil are pretty well defined. If you murder a child for personal gain. That' an Evil act.

If you murder Tarus for his bracers, that's an evil act. You can justify it all day long, but what you did is murder somebody for his possesions or for personal gain.

We can define these as evil simply by using a real world comparisson. It's not exclusive to CF. CF's notions of good and evil are rooted in RL.

Now for the Politics. An outlander can justify his reasons for doing it, because Tarus is a Dwarf, and feel completely at home with his reasoning. He may sleep well at night and go on to have fat babies.
That doesn't change the moral Implications of it.

Moral reletivism is a bunch of bunk.

CF skews the fact that in real life most people will not commit heinous crimes such as these. But we as CF players know right from wrong based on our real life assumptions and experiences.

I can give the Josiah defense all day, but the fact remains that Right and wrong are pretty well defined. So well in fact I as a good player will not forgive a Neutral for ranking in Balator.

People get confused with the concept of Neutral. For me it's simply. I have an ideology. I do not swing one way or th other as it benifits me, but I adhere to a mind set. I will fight dwarven guards as readily as Duergar guards, should it fit my cause. I will not murder children, but I may well not get involved with defending someone elses either.

There is no gray to it at all. We all are going to piss on each others boots once in a while, but justification is really nothing more th an RP angle. It doesn't change what's right from wrong.

People try to make RL morality and CF morality two differing things.

They are not.

Yes, yes they are. They have connections, surely. But they're quite different, on account of the fact that the entire WORLD is different. It naturally necessitates a different spin on morality. See my post in reply to Odrirg.

Heck, death is a perfect example. In the real world, death is absolute and it happens once. Murder is considered a terrible offense, and we often don't even execute the people who committed murders because many people don't believe it's just. In CF, every character you meet has blood on their hands. They've likely all died themselves too. There's no way you can say the characters walking around CF have the exact same morality as us people in the real world. The circumstances simply don't allow it.

Aarn

After my post getting nuked by expired session, I'll be brief.

In the fantasy world of CF, good and evil are well defined.

Right and wrong, however, aren't. Your character may define what is right and what is wrong himself. The way he defines what is right and what is wrong defines his alignment.

In many cases, what you say is correct.


However, I myself have played many evil characters who defined right and wrong exactly the same way as a Dawnie would, the difference was the willingness to CONSCIOUSLY choose to do wrong, for immediate personal benefit.

Seems ok to me.

>However, I myself have played many evil characters who defined
>right and wrong exactly the same way as a Dawnie would, the
>difference was the willingness to CONSCIOUSLY choose to do
>wrong, for immediate personal benefit.

In such cases, the guy would see himself as evil. I wouldn't use that approach with an orc though, but it can bring some interesting nuances to the character alignment when used with a suitable character. I'd think that a suitable character for your approach would not be of inherently evil race. In CF, we have external measures of good and evil, which somewhat correlate with the most common RL notions about good and evil.

However, all characters are played in the fashion of moral relativism, as the RP guidelines of good and evil are taken from the ones the player of the character possesses. However, there are external definitions of good and evil, which are dictated by Immortal staff. If your definitions do not match with the ones of alignment RP enforcing Immortal, you can find your character alignment changed.

So, good and evil in CF are more or less the Immortal consensus of good and evil. Your character may perceive good and evil however he pleases, but the alignment comes from the way the Imms perceive it. The best approximation for the external good and evil, which define the alignment, is probably the way the player sees good and evil OOC/RL, with some adaptations to the CF reality.

I must not have read what you said clearly.

We cool!

This is what i understand.
As a charecter from CF my alignment is only a starting point, as is my race. While playing that charecter i must endure those alignment and race (and class) 's ways of perception.

So if i am let's say an elf... A fire giant being nice to me won't ever make me see him good or as friend or anything.. At best i would come to mutual agreement with him, not being his enemy, but definitly not trusting him or being his friend. Mainly because of the race on the slignment, as elves should be kind of close minded in the racial area.

As a human of good alignment i'd start by mistrusting the fire giant, but if his acts are friendly and nice eventualy i can come see him as friend though it's a process.
More or less same for a human of no alignment.
For human of evil alignment i would start of by considering the giant as ally and with his acts of friendly helpfullness the evil human would see that as a weakness, but not one he'd strike again but one he can gain of.

As a dark-elf would consider a fire giant as a usefull ally of the start, seing him being nice and friendly to me i'd be taking that as a weakness and because dark-elves are like the worst arses out there, i'd try to take all i can from him and when he is useless to me get rid of him because leaving someone with such weakness next to me disgusts or puts me at risk.

That was for the first part.
For the second part i kind of totaly lost touch.
Morality of RL vs Morality of CF can't fully be the same, because CF is a fantasy world, not the real world.. in RL as a neutral, if i would kill another neutral for gear it'd immidietly mean i am evil.
And without that i don't know of a way to gear up really.
Though i would think that elf killing elf or dark elf killing darkelf is wrong no metter the alignment.. race comes into picture here.. such races as elves or darkelves don't kill their own too easily, even is sometime brough to it by wars.

So i think that i understand CF morality like this.
Evil alignment kills all others for personal gain all the same, with the exeption of racial belonging in specific cases.. darkelf wouldn't kill darkelf but duergar would surely kill Duergar.

Neutral charecters have a wider choice they can lean to the sides of good or evil and it is up to the player and their rp to decide who they do kill and who they don't.. the important thing here is racial consideration and consistancy of their acts. Although for me it's confusing how neutral charecters kill mobs of any alignment for gear.

Good charecters: Here i am at loss. Would a good charecter kill a neutral for gear?... i mean a paladin definitly shouldn't.. it is in their code in a way.. like don't be greedy, don't allow bloodshed and all such.. for me it is a clear indicator that a paladin shouldn't strike any good or neutral for gear.
But what about none paladin good charecters? a dwarf warrior? or just a good human/half-elf? they are not bound by code but how does their morality dictate?
Or can i base killing neutral mob to it's belonging to a larger frame that is not neutral? like a neutral guard who works for an evil lord... could say i don't care about killing him because of that?

I don't think if i tried to play a paladin i'd be able to find a way to gear myself. other than running all across the world and leaving good mobs naked by requesting their armor and stuff... and it'd probably still leave me half naked. :p

Also from my original question, though it was answered something i still have thoughts about...
An immaginerry scene: A tribunal paladin and a tribunal A-P are on at the same time, end up in once city... Some good align dwarf rager comes along jumped by guards, of course the tribunals should go after him, what does the paladin do? Jojn forces with A-P against a good outlaw? stay out of it altogether? waits for the A-P's attack to be over than than attacks? Or is this one of the things about tribunal rp that can't have a simple solution, leaving the paladin charecter the choice of what is more important to him based on religion?


If i got something in this post wrong sure would like advise, this is simply what i understood from looking over and reading stuff.

I'll concede that I shouldn't of tried to inadvertantly draw RL philosophy too much into this, but in any discussion of morality it's somewhat hard not do.

I had a nice, long complicated rebuttal to this, but I shouldn't get outside the game so....


>>This is the central, fatal flaw of relative morality, IMHO.
>If
>>the only thing you judge are judgements and standards, they
>>cease to exist when these things are the 2 basics by which
>all
>>morality is determined. Relative morality is oxymoronic
>>because the former undermines the latter.
>
>In CF, this is accurate, but in real world, I wouldn't claim
>that there are clearly two basics that define which actions
>are evil and which are good.


I agree with that, in reguards to CF, be a good IMM, and leave it at that.