Paladins aren't always nice

[Spiffy Has]

Paladins are lawful good theocratic tyrants.

What is so hard to understand about that? :mad:

[Big Orc Man]

In actual truth, the extent of the paladin's oaths results in unavoidable contradictions and hypocrisy.

That's part of the fun.

[Iron Oligarch]

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.

[Spiffy Has]

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.

I'll admit.

I laughed.

[Gotham]

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.

They must also rule with absolutist lawful authority, and make sure evil individuals do not benefit from their programs.

This is the ideal paladin.

[MistBringsTheDarkness]

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:

That was actually the first time I pointed out your needless thread necromancy.

- 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.

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.

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?

Buying 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.

I 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?

Excuse me, where do you take that from?

Tyr's portfolio is justice. Torm is Duty, Loyalty, Obedience.

You did not rationalize anything.

I consider the following as rationalizing:

There 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.

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.

Why bother with this if you're going specifically note that there is "slavery" and "other forms of slavery" that paladins are okay with?

[Calixto]

That 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?

It'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:

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.

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:

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.

I have no idea what this story has to do with my question. Which was:

Buying 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.

Tyr's portfolio is justice. Torm is Duty, Loyalty, Obedience.

Which have nothing to do with paladins being more lawful than good. Look at this:

Knights 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.

Why 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?

[Spiffy Has]

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!

[MistBringsTheDarkness]

If 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.

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:

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.                      

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.

Wouldn'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.

But 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.

I 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?

Which 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.

No, 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.

[Gotham]

As someone currently playing a paladin, I think your all over-thinking it.

[Calixto]

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.

[Porkolt]

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.

[xxWhisperingWindsxx]

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 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.

[putrid_plum]

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.

[sylvyrdragon]

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.