>>48876497
No.
Evil is objective in dnd. Slavery is not evil.

I'm personally not a fan of making paladins fall.

However, what the paladin did, while technically lawful, was by no means good. Whether or not they were created with the intent of being intelligent, the golems are thinking, feeling creatures. To erase their personality, their soul, so to speak, is tantamount to murder.

>>48877007
>Slavery isn't evil.
Explain your reasoning.

>>48877007
Slave Pits of the Undercity, one of the first AD&D modules (AD&D being what introduced the good-evil axis into alignment), has a band of slavers. They are described just as slavers, and then a moment later, referred to as "the evil band," suggesting that their evilness has already been established.

>>48877062
I disagree. These golems can be used to farm and make food for people that will die otherwise. The fact that they gained sapience does not change this fact.

A different way to think about it would be this: A poor starving farmer is about to bite into a potato he grew. Suddenly because "lolmagic" (literally how it worked for the golems in OP) he knows that the potato is sapient (he magically knows, the potato doesn't talk to him or move or anything, but he knows. This is a hell of a lot more than the PCs know, since golems talking and "feeling" can be an act or illusion (a wizard could be making it appear this way for instance so that no one will retaliate against him for stealing the golems for instance)). Furthermore, he knows that ALL of the food he has access to is now sentient. Once again because lolmagic.

Is it evil for that farmer to eat his potatoes? He will die if he does not, and he made them. (Once again, this is assuming that mindblanking someone is analogous to murder. The golems may regain all their memories in a thousand years when the kingdom that made them died or some such).

>>48877221
Not all slavery is under terrible conditions. Many slaves, historically, were treated quite well - they were well fed, protected, and had adequate lodging. They were unpaid or paid very small amounts, yes, but they maintained many rights, had a fair workplace environments, and were treated civilly. Many of them were better off as slaves than as people trying to work in a risky and unstable economy, where their earnings might suddenly become worthless. The modern view of slavery is extremely skewed.

Slavery is not evil, unless you enact it in an evil manner.

>>48876497
Slavery is consistently a Evil act in most games, and depending on the society, can be a lawful (well-organized slave markets, high-breeding of slaves, laws regulating it, quality of slave being better than quantity for status symbol) or chaotic (tribal chieftain taking slaves as his people raid, slaves can fuck whichever other slave they want to breed more slaves, quantity over quality as a status symbol).

Also, the paladin should fall for betraying his oath to the golem leader and killing him. If it had been broken because a peace couldn't be worked out, then the paladin wouldn't fall. However, he struck with malicious intent and wished to return them to bondage.

>>48877269
They wouldn't have to be mind-blanked in order to save lives, though. A deal was attempted in which they would work until the blight ended and then be allowed to return to freedom, without having their consciousness erased, but the king refused.

see OP's
>the party tries to negotiate with the king that the golems will help and then be allowed to leave

>>48877298
That's a very consequentialist way to look at it, though. It could be argued that even the kindest of slavery would be wrong inherently, and there were opponents of slavery among philosophers even in ancient Greece.

>>48877007
less important is the nature of "is slavery evil?" and more important is "is slavery against my religion?" if the latter is yes then he definitely should fall. but if the deity doesn't care about slavery he should still get a slap on the wrist because he dishonorably attacked a non-hostile.

>>48877324
Anything can be argued.
I could argue, decently, that giving a beggar food or coin is an inherently harmful act.

>>48877329
Most Good-aligned deities strongly frown upon slavery. It's part of why in Pathfinder, followers of the NG goddess Sarenrae who endorse or take part in slavery are TN instead of NG.

That, and the fact they're basically of the mind that either you follow Sarenrae or time for a holy war.

>>48877304
This. The paladin willfully deceived sentient beings seeking only survival who were willing to help and lead them it to a trap.

That is not the act of a true paladin. He willingly chose the easy path regardless of the hurt caused to others. That is the objective evil of D&D

>>48877269
That's not really a fair comparison though, for two reasons:
1) The golems are demosntrably intelligent, the potato is not.
2) The paladin didn't act on "what if there's something else in plkay here," he acted on "despite these golems being self aware, thinking beings, they are still property."

>>48877382
Glad someone agrees.

Now another question, if a peace can't be worked out, should the Paladin fight to protect the Golems? Specifically, if he doesn't, does that cause him to fall?

>>48877349
Okay, I'm saying that all you did was assert "sometimes slaves live in good conditions" as if that proves that slavery is actually okay in those circumstances. But most people who argue against slavery aren't even centering their argument on the conditions of chattel slavery; they're basing it on a belief that people fundamentally should not be owned.

>>48877269
Eating a sentient creature is explicitly spelled out as evil.

In fact, eating sentient creatures is a very quick way to display exactly how evil you are.

>>48877414
In that case, he promised to "see to it that justice is done." It's just that apparently he thought that meant returning them to bondage.

However, given that he made that promise, it seems like he's bound by his word to do whatever he can to keep it.

>>48877425
That has no place within he objective good and evil of dnd.
They are not exclusively mistreated, and their conditions can actually be quite favorable, therefor slavery is not evil.
Being property or not is irrelevant.

>>48877446
>I wish to leave
>No, you're my property
>But I am aware and wish to be free
>Get back in fucking line

The golems do not benefit from the arrangement with the king and they can not seek freedom for themselves without being threatened with destruction. it's evil even if it wasn't slavery.

>>48877414
Paladins aren't lawful good. They're Lawful Good. Their role in this war would be to defend innocents caught up in it, preserve the freedom of the Golem folk and solve the city's labour shortage. All of it. He's fighting for the best solution to every problem, not just his own.

Paladins aren't pragmatic. They're held to higher standards.

>>48877480
>Giving unskilled, uneducated people reliable housing, food, and employment when they would have a much harder time finding an arrangement as good as that one in their time period is an inherently evil thing
It is a mutually beneficial arrangement in many cases. Slavery is also not permanent, typically. Slaves have often held the right to sign contracts permitting them to be regarded as property for a certain amount of time, often for the owner to absolve them of a debt with either themselves or someone else.

>>48877446
From the AD&D DMG:

>Basically stated, the tenets of good are human rights, or in the case of AD&D, creature rights. Each creature is entitled to life, relative freedom, and the prospect of happiness. Cruelty and suffering are undesirable.

>Evil, on the other hand, does not concern itself with rights or happiness; purpose is the determinant.

>>48877575
>confusing indentured servitude with slavery

Let me get the Oxford dictionary out for you and look up slavery and slave in this context.

Slavery - noun
1The state of being a slave:

Slave - noun
chiefly historical
1A person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.

1.1 A person who works very hard without proper remuneration or appreciation.

There is no benefit in slavery for the slave as there is in indentured servitude for the servant.

File: image.jpg (150 KB, 680x989)

150 KB JPG

>>48877298

>>48877727
>I quote the dictionary instead of look at legitimate historical accounts and records, I must be right! See? SEE?

I like how the "slavery isn't Evil in D&D" anon ignores >>48877583

>>48877995
Faggot, the definitions are what they are based on historical facts and common usage. Thanks for not coming up with a proper response beyond spitting dribble at me and forcing me to use a napkin to wipe your autism off my face. Now then, are you going to come up with an actual response, or are you going to fume as you realize that you had indentured servitude and slavery confused?

File: image.jpg (45 KB, 300x300)

45 KB JPG

>>48878049
The salt is realer than real in you, anon
Perhaps you should calm down and go do something else for a while, you clearly take online discussions too seriously

>>48878155
>Kek, the salt is real, fuck off, you clearly took this too seriously

Fuming it is. Please join the other undesirables in the showers. :^|

>>48877446
That is LITERALLY a fundamental part of good and evil in AD&D, which is what's being discussed. See >>48877583.

>>48876497
i agree with the paladin personally

but does the story change with the fact that the golems are not sentient during their "slavery"

>>48877269
>These golems can be used to farm and make food
Except when they go haywire when digging a trench and dig all the way to the sea...through several mountain ranges and a confused dragon.

>>48876497
The Paladin should fall.

The core of LG is using the law to uphold good.

The Golems may have originally been the property of the king, but once they gain sentience it becomes immoral to still treat them as property.

>>48877269
>These golems can be used to farm and make food for people that will die otherwise. The fact that they gained sapience does not change this fact.

That's using a race that has attained sentience and thus personhood as a means rather than an end. According to deontological ethics (ie. the ethics of Kant), which the objective morals of D&D heavily leans upon, that is a big no-no.

That's not to say that the golems shouldn't help the people. according to the same set of ethics it would be their duty to do so, however it is all-important that it is their choice and not something they are forced to do.

What you're arguing is utilitarianism, and while this is a popular philosophy of ethics in real life and not inherently better or worse than deontological ethics it does however go against the objective morals of D&D meaning that if you argue for this you might as well toss out any notion of the alignment system.

>>48877575
Golems don't need any of that. They don't need food, housing or employment. They could literally just stand still and exist until their materials erode.

>>48877502

Sounds like a class that's impossible to play. Tell you what, I'll go for a Lawful Good Cleric with the War domain.

Seriously, with /tg/ it's impossible to play anything.

>>48876497
If the golem is relatively peaceful (only fighting for freedom), then yes, the paladin falls. He just murdered a non aggressive entity, attending what it thought to be a peaceful meeting, in cold blood. He also intentionally fooled this being into thinking this was going to be a just meeting. I'd be surprised if some higher entity of good didn't decide to personally annihilate the bastard for his actions.

>>48876497
>>48879623
This.
Honourable people do not go around killing things without fairly battling or trying them. Turning around and murdering someone who thinks you're on their side is antithetical to what it means to be a paladin.
Completely ignoring the freedom and slavery aspect, spontaneously killing a sapient being who was trying to peacefully resolve a conflict is certainly fucking evil.

>>48879623

You can't kill something that isn't alive.

Also, letting the golems go means the death of thousands. This way, everyone lives.

>>48879726

Define "alive".

>>48877269
>>48876497
>tfw the BBEG just gives sentience to pretty much everything
>because normal people don't want to commit evil acts, they die because they can't sleep on their beds, eat their food or wear their clothes.
>some people sacrifice their good soul and turn to lives of evil. The gods shun them for their cruelty.
>the BBEG is very pleased with this.

>>48879726
It's a sapient being with desires independant of instructive programming, it doesn't matter whether or not it's biological. Destroying it is equivalent to murder.

>>48876497
>I'm not asking what you think about slavery IRL, but should the paladin fall?
As I understand it yes. Firstly he misled the golems about his intentions in setting up the meeting which I believe is grounds to fall for dishonable conduct. Secondly as >>48877583 Good requires that "Each creature is entitled to life, relative freedom, and the prospect of happiness." And his actions do not allow for relative freedom or the prospect of happiness therefore he falls.

>>48879846
Forgot to add that his Aristotle was right and some people are natural slaves argument as presented falls to show that the golems all fall into this category, the fact that they need to be mind wiped shows that they don't.

>>48879846
But he doesn't define the golems as creatures, meaning they 1) aren't being betrayed, they are being tricked as you would an enemy in a war or an animal into a trap, and 2) If he doesn't view them as creatures, then internally, he is consistent. Killing them, tricking them, or denying them the 'possibility of freedom' doesnt apply to a fork, and if they're defined in his mind along the same lines as a fork, then he is not in the wrong with himself, as to him no inconsistency has occurred.

>>48879836
Why not employ the enchanted objects to construct a new set of tools/weapons/garments/treasures/buildings in exchange for a guarantee of self-determination in perpetuity?

>>48876497
>Paladin lies to golem leader and murders an innocent in order to mindwipe an entire race to return them to slavery

That's definitely a fall. How is this even a debate?

>>48879842
Sure, but what is in question is whether or not he should fall for it. It comes down to a system question; does a Paladin fall for being internally inconsistent or by the judgement of a God.

If it's for internal inconsistency, then he should not fall. His views are consistent.
IF he must not deny freedom to 'living things'
AND IF he defined golems as being non-living entities
THEN by his logic he is not bound to defend their freedom.

NOW, if we decide it's the judgement of a god, then the only question is the Canon description of the deity's opinion. Of the deity would (or does) believe that all sentience is life, and it's only his opinion that matters, then the paladin falls. BUT most D&D gods, like the actual old gods they depict, either have contradictory or grey statements on the matters of freedom and the definition of who should be free. If the God isn't perfectly clear on his /her belief, then the paladin doesn't fall, since it indicates that the God either doesn't care or wouldn't necessarily be certain of its decision.

>>48879909

Because they're not people?

It's like being charged for murder, because you shot an NPC in a game.

>>48879897
That is his personal view however he does not get his Paladin status from himself, it is granted to him by his god. Unless his god agrees with his assessment and does not believe that he acted in a dishonable manner (unless that wasn't a way to fall in AD&D) then he falls.

>>48876497
Slavery is evil

Unless the golems did something to "deserve" slavery they are evil.

>>48879974
>self-aware beings aren't self-aware beings

If they're sapient enough to not want to be slaves, they're sapient enough to not warrant being fucking mind-erased.

>>48879897
You gotta remember that this is dnd, not real life.
The idea that a person made of stone is a sentient creature shouldn't be a difficult one for the paladin. This isnt a world like ours, where you either are human and (general consensus) deserve full rights, or aren't human and therefore get less. This is a world with (presumably) elves and dwarves and half-races and elementals and whatever the fuck else the setting has.

>>48879974

Define people

>>48879909
Because you're thinking about it as a 2016 human, not a 125th century human or a 12 century with magic human.

Thing is, slavery isn't viewed as being as evil in the time, and the golems are not being defined as living by the paladin. It's the same sort of question we ask nowadays about computers.

If I make a computer program that realistically simulates a person in conversation, is it not a person anymore? It can still be a code-driven machine, but what is the gap between actual Intelligence and the appearance of intelligence? How can we tell when we reach one or the other?

The paladin sees it as life-simulation, and that not-actual-life is stopping actual-life (in his eyes) from living. He didn't lie to a person in his eyes, he just tricked a malfunctioning tractor that faked being alive (but wasn't alive in his eyes) into the open so he could make it work again.

Simply, in his eyes, fixing a glitch and returning said property to its owner. Not murder to him, or lying, or slavery.

>>48880007
Not at all. I can make a computer code that runs the line "unplug me, I want to be free" every time I boot up. If I put that on a program that can, because of my programming, carry out conversation almost like a person, does that make it 'want' to be free, or is it a cruel/ sadistic part of a joke by the programmer? You can make a code that 'learns' 2nd speaks to you and says that, but again, is that actually free? You want to say yes, maybe, but it's not 100%. There is room for interpretation, and it's a question of which God it is and what they think about it.

>>48876497
An Aristotelian paladin should have refused to return them, since it would mean a reduction of their human souls in favor of plant and animal souls. More human souls = More minds to think of a solution to the problem.

>>48880010
But even here you have problems. This is a world where certain people's and gods have hatreds of orcs, goblins, or dragons based on their species. Drow are sentient but are often murdered on sight in 'civilized' areas. Does an elf paladin who hates Orcs sound not-cannon? Does a dwarven paladin who hates sentient kobolds sound not-cannon? Some gods outright hate certain races, so why would you naturally assume that every God would support the belief that the golems are people? Because since I don't know the god in question, there's a Damn good chance given the available various pantheon that the God is at least a little racist/species-ist.

>>48880160
Tha god is played by the DM and we know what the DM though about his actions.

>>48879968
According to OP, it has nothing to do with a god or with internal consistency. The DM said that paladins have to act in a Lawful Good fashion. According to >>48877583, along with I'm pretty sure most other editions, a Lawful Good person primarily values the health, happiness and freedom of sapient beings and seeks to maximise these things in accordance with law, honour, fairness and so forth.

This person tricked a sapient being into thinking he was on its side before destroying it without warning, trial or fair battle, and that is antithetical to Lawful Good according to D&D.
Whether or not these golems count as applicable targets for Good/Evil/Lawful/Chaotic acts is up for the DM to decide, not the character's conscience, furthermore Good/Evil/Law/Chaos exist independant of one person's opinion within the setting and have agreed upon definitions.

>>48880187
No, the GM is a conduit for a pre-made world. Of the GM's actions aren't cannon, and the world is ostensibly cannon in most regards, then the GM could be at fault. I've run WH40k without knowing the full list of chaos gods and their beliefs, and I've run Edge of the Empire without knowing all cannon information on a planet my players go to. I try but I can miss stuff. Point is, the GM didnt research his decision, and if it's not 100% clear cut, "your God said ____ in this book on this page" ,then it's a pretty serious thing to inflict on a paladin based on the GM's knee-jerk reaction.


If I was the player, I'd demand evidence. Of the GM couldn't produce it, or there was evidence to the contrary, I'd be furious if they chose to make the paladin fall anyways, and as another player in the game that would be a decent indication that it was time to leave. The moment I can't rely on the GM to always attempt to accurately follow the lore and cannon where there is information, I know I can't plan my characters actions on what I can read about the world my character is supposed to be from. If I can't trust that information, and the GM isn't supplementing me with additional homebrew, how can I accurately RP?

>>48880160
An elf paladin who hates orcs should still act in a Lawful Good manner, fight them fairly, never dupe and betray them, even if they would do the same.
The paladin in OP considers the golems to be property, like slaves, but that should not prevent him from attempting to get them to return peacefully or through honourable combat without acting like a colossal hyper-cunt and fucking them over like a Chaotic Neutral spaz.

>>48880246

Slavery is evil

Only way to not evil it is by putting a lot of situational bullshit on it.

Also paladin sucker punched a motherfucker and that is pretty not cool.

Paladin falls for being an evil fuck.

>>48880246
OP doesn't mention whether or not the setting is pre-made.

>>48880090
The golems were brought to spaience through a "magical fluke" and not by design. Their independant thoughts and feelings are not the result of intentional programming. It would be no more reasonable to assume they only externally appear to be sapient than it would be to say the same thing about a group of humans.

>>48876497
Fall outright...maybe.
Depends on the god I'd say. Assuming that the paladin is the follower of a god of course. If, as you suggest, they are and the god in is strict about being good as well as lawful then I'd probably play that as the paladin gets a divine visitation from their god who would then explain that they are being beyond stupid and sending innocents, as >>48877062 said, to be murdered. Then depending on the player/character response either strip them of all power and/or give them some herculean quest to redeem themselves.

>>48880201
You simply don't agree with the conclusion he came to, and apply a different formula to the same real world problem.
You assign a number where the paladin didnt, and believe that the term "Good" is concrete.

What if I kill 5 people to save a planet? Is it murder? Yes. Is it good? Philosophy collectively says, "Yes, Maybe, No" depending on who you ask. The paladin's God does matter, in terms of the idea of being 'fallen'. Falling is an act of your patron deity stripping your power. If you worship an evil God and were somehow their paladin, "falling" couldn't happen", or wouldn't without a direct affront to the God. In RP terms, the God does matter.

If you're saying it isn't RP based, then it's philosophically based or logic based. His logic is internally sound as I explained, so if it's philosophical, which philosopher are you using? Kant says no action is good unless you don't want to do it, but it's the right thing anyways. Everything else in his eyes is just human self-service. Kill those marauding bandits? If you enjoyed the idea of saving the town, if you got paid, if you got experience, or if you got loot, you did it for a personal gain. I posit that almost all actions by D&D characters are by Kantian are self-serving and therefore not-good or evil.

>tldr, it's all philosopher preference, so really it's all just personal belief, so if it's philosophical then it's shorthand for "it's what I say it is".
No point arguing philosophy, so cannon or logic are the two we can find a hard answer in.

>>48880329

iirc 2e had some pretty clear definitions for "Good"

>>48880277
A paladin can't ambush? I'm pretty sure it would say in the rules of paladin were so stupid they weren't allowed to take surprise round attacks because those are unfair. The paladin acted within the law, and ostensibly acted within a definition of good, saving people while potentially not killing anything, but, again, fixing something which only appeared to be intellligent. If they're not life, then who cards what he told the malfunctioning rock, so the debate isn't his conduct but the rock-ness or alive-ness of the golem.

>>48880329
>You assign a number where the paladin didnt, and believe that the term "Good" is concrete.
The paladin's opinion does not matter. In D&D, the term Good is concrete.

>What if I kill 5 people to save a planet?
The paladin didn't fight and kill some golems in order to force them into indentured servitude to save the population from starvation, when no other option presented itself. He tricked their leader into thinking he was on their side before turning around and murdering him when a peaceful solution was not out of the question.

>The paladin's God does matter, in terms of the idea of being 'fallen'. Falling is an act of your patron deity stripping your power.
Paladins without gods can fall. What you're saying is clearly false.

>If you're saying it isn't RP based, then it's philosophically based or logic based.
It's based on the rules and definitions of Dungeons & Dragons and the arbitration of the Dungeon Master.

>>48880372
>A paladin can't ambush

Depends on their god. And super LG paladin would at least be strongly against it or act as bait to find a happy middle

>>48877446
>They are not exclusively mistreated, and their conditions can actually be quite favorable, therefor slavery is not evil.
This slavery, where free will is surgically removed and no ability to think is left behind, is pretty evil, though, isn't it?

>>48880280
Welcome back, obligatory white knight of Tumblr.

Now, you own a computer.
Your computer makes calculations you don't fully understand even if you're fluent in one or more lannvuages of code.
In the future they're going to be better and faster, and maybe before we die we'll have a life-simulation.
Will you stop using your computer because it sometimes appears to be alive? Maybe if you knew the code you'd known it was all an illusion. But, without knowing, you're unsure.

Now, being unsure is fine, but if you're unsure, can you say definitely that it is alive or not? NO. You can only say, "I don't know".

Now, if you need to use a computer for work, but you wonder if it's possibly sentient or maybe acting sentient, you're forced to make a choice.

The paladin made a choice to save beings he KNEW weren't simulations. The paladin could have chosen the other route as well and been in the right as well, but he may also have let actual people die and in a few years the golems would run out of illusion magic and resume looking like unintelligent farm tools, but people would be dead.

If you had to choose between enslaving the contents of 5 boxes which may or may not have people, or burning 5 boxes that DEFINITELY contain people, what do you do?

>>48879836
>people start employing these sentient beings
>magician gives the sentient beings sustenance from being used
>life carries on

>>48880293
Well then it's all up to whatever he wrote in his own introduction. If he wrote it as "____ is always good and always hates potential life being threatened" then it's clear. If he wrote "___ is the Good God of protecting the innocent and the saving the weak" then even in that one sentence there's space to argue the point, although in a homebrew setting things are admittedly more off the cuff.

>>48879903
Now you're being absurd. That's like selling your children as sex slaves.

>>48880372
No, if possible a paladin shouldn't ambush. He should look his opponent in the eyes. That doesn't mean to say that he cannot attack without warning in a dire situation, such as if an assassin suddenly appears and he is able to intervene before the assassin can strike, but this is an entirely different situation.
The golems were trying for a peaceful solution, they thought that the paladin was going to help them. He then turned around and spontaneously killed their leader who was not a present threat to anyone. That is not in any way appropriate behaviour for someone who dares to call themselves Lawful and Good.
As for the issue of personhood, the opinion of the paladin doesn't matter. Whether or not it was a sapient being is up for the DM to decide, and the paladin had no more reason to think of the golems that were behaving like people as mere objects than to think the same of any other entity that behaves in a sapient fashion.

>>48880437
Now you're being absurd, the sentient beings have no need for whatever we could offer them.

>>48880424
>Will you stop using your computer because it sometimes appears to be alive?
I'll stop using my computer if it runs away from home and says it doesn't want to be my computer any more.

>The paladin made a choice to save beings he KNEW weren't simulations
Prove that the king's people weren't all illusory constructs fueled by food.

>If you had to choose between enslaving the contents of 5 boxes which may or may not have people, or burning 5 boxes that DEFINITELY contain people, what do you do?

This is a very good scenario, as the paladin has a sword that can open up boxes, and the paladin ALSO could have deposed the king and then diplomatized the golems to grow crops for the human kingdom in exchange for resources such as magical repairs and so on. Instead of, you know, killing people.

>>48880424
You're continuing to ignore the fact that the golems agreed to help the humans until such a time as they were not needed anymore, it was literally just the king being a spiteful prick that was the point of contention. Also I feel like the paladin (or should I say fighter now) from OP found this thread and is making butthurt replies because nobody agrees with his shitty philosophies.

Also yes, if my computer gave indication that it was a living being then I would at least ask it if it was okay with being my computer, but that has yet to happen, and as you said earlier that's looking at things from a very "2016" point of view. In the olden times of magic if a golem tells you it's alive and has no indication of not being sentient, there is no reason to not believe it since there is no such thing as a "computer simulation" at that point in time.

>>48880446
And according to OP, the DM said that paladins have to strictly follow the doctrine of Lawful Good, which in aD&D has a specific definition.

>>48880447
Erm, alright then.

>>48880316
But this is a world where you can animate just about anything with magic, and give it intelligence or not. You can make a spoon dance and you can make a spoon understand the meaning of love but without knowing which happened, who knows? The golems were, importantly, already moving, so a spell happened to change their behavior. Was it an evil spell to make them appear sentient and run away, or a spell to give them sentience, which made them want to run away? I don't know, you don't know, but importantly the character doesn't know. He made the choice that saves the people he is more sure are real, because if it's 50/50 the golems are sentient but it's 80/20 the humans are, then I'd choose the better odds.

>>48880460
>the sentient beings have no need for whatever we could offer them
Bullshit. Ever left a bed out in the rain? It rusts and gets broken.

If the bed wants to have a place to stay, it needs to pay rent. The rent can be paid by the service of letting people sleep on it.

Broom doesn't want to be used to sweep? Get the fuck out and rot in the sun and rain.

What do you think, that maintenance isn't a thing?

>>48880424

>Will you stop using your computer because it sometimes appears to be alive

Is the computer telling me to stop?

>If you had to choose between enslaving the contents of 5 boxes which may or may not have people, or burning 5 boxes that DEFINITELY contain people, what do you do?

There is a fallacy for this, false choice? False something or other?

You are implying that the scenario OP described has only these choices, this is not the case.

Oh also

>Welcome back, obligatory white knight of Tumblr.
>jumping to random conclusions
>lol he isnt a complete shithead, must be white knight Tumblr

/v/ plz leave

>>48880483
>a paladin has two cardboard boxes sealed with nonmagical, easily cuttable tape in a building that's on fire
>one of them definitely contains humans, the other box contains things that may be humans, but definitely contains people who are armed with fire extinguishers

>which of these two boxes should the paladin carry out of the building?

Because clearly opening up the boxes and using the people who can put out the fire to stop the whole building burning down is too hard, right?

>>48880483
Please see >>48880478
The golems wanted a peaceful solution that worked out for both parties. The paladin could have easily handled the situation in a way that harmed no humans and did not risk accidentally killing a sapient being you thought was a stone robot.
Instead, he chose to act in a dishonourable, violent, treacherous and potentially murderous way for no discernable reason other than that he didn't like the uppity golems.

>>48880488

These are magical golems tho, do you have the monster manual saying what they need to sustain themselves?

>>48880399
Ok, I like your answer a lot actually.
Not necessarily 100% switching sides, because I still feel the DM is hastily making a reaction to an unexpected PC decision, but I do see what you mean about trying to find a peaceful resolution. I'd still argue the internal definition of their aliveness being key to the paladin feeling the need to try, but I personally would agree that, in an uncertain situation, he should have exhausted his options before resorting to what *could* be murder. If he doesn't know if it's murder, he should either be sure there's no other option OR sure it isn't murder.

>>48880483
But how does he know the people are real smart guy :^)
What if it's all just a computer simulation, or humans are just sacks of flesh being compelled to move by a higher power.
You're just deflecting because nobody agrees with you, because if we're allowed to say "oh what if this thing that isn't happening was happening??" We can just as easily say the king is a changeling who brought the plague to the town, so he should have been executed instead of the golems, or that the people of the kingdom are not truly sentient, because they're simply responding to chemical reactions in their brains, thus neither party is correct, or the golems are even more sentient because they are not swayed by the whims of biology.

>>48880512
>no discernable reason other than that he didn't like the uppity golems

Hey, I'm not sure if the paladin doesn't like the golems. He just wouldn't have one marry his daughter, that's all

>>48880498
>There is a fallacy for this, false choice? False something or other?
The term you want is false dichotomy, mate.

>>48880420
Depends on your opinion here. If it was either be a slave with free will forever and never be able to escape or lose free will and not feel the existential pain of that existance, you'd probably find a lot of people very tempted to escape the anguish of such a terrible life. In that light it might be nicer than being sentient but a slave.

>>48880523

thank u <3

>>48880478
>Also I feel like the paladin (or should I say fighter now) from OP found this thread and is making butthurt replies because nobody agrees with his shitty philosophies.
I'm of the opinion that we have more than one anon arguing for the paladin/fighter believing he was doing the right thing. Most of them failing to address the possibility that the golems may have agreed to work without being mind wiped so I'm not too inclined to believe that they're not mostly trolling but I do believe there is more than one.

>>48880513
>do you have the monster manual saying what they need to sustain themselves
The animating force for a golem is a spirit from the Elemental Plane of Earth. The process of creating the golem binds the unwilling spirit to the artificial body and subjects it to the will of the golem’s creator.

Completing the golem’s creation drains the appropriate XP from the creator and requires casting any spells on the final day.

The BBEG would kill himself with level drain just from making everything golems.

Alternatively, a friendly wizard banishes all the spirits back into the elemental plane of earth.

ALTERNATIVELY THESE AREN'T D&D GOLEMS

>>48880472

Give me an hour with a glue gun, your computer, an RC car, a speaker, and a portable battery. I'll make that come true xD

No way to prove anything at that level. Only guesswork and some nat 20s on detect magic checks would help with the people.

As for opening the boxes, how could the paladin know if they were true-sentient or not? Also if the king is right and they are actually just malfunctioning, not actually alive crop-harvesters, then he's in the right, and deposing him for that would be bad and would being decades of poverty and strife to an already stricken kingdom. Not to mention, again, more "99% probably actual people" deaths.

>>48880532
>If it was either be a slave with free will forever and never be able to escape or lose free will and not feel the existential pain of that existance, you'd probably find a lot of people very tempted to escape the anguish of such a terrible life. In that light it might be nicer than being sentient but a slave.
Wow, you're right. It's ok to do terrible things to people because in some niche cases people might want it.

Equally it's ok for me to steal all your money at any time whenever and wherever because if you had a choice between me stabbing you in the heart and me taking all your money, you'd prefer me to take your money instead of killing you, right?

No, wait, that's retarded. These people didn't want to be mind-wiped, they didn't HAVE to be mind wiped and in fact an army had to be dispatched to forcibly mind-wipe them, because they didn't need to be fucking slaves.

>>48880559

Nah, OP said it was D&D so it's a safe assumption.

Also it looks like golems have no need for sustainment so it looks like there is nothing that they could be offered aside from freedom.

>>48880478
There is, however, the illusion of sentience. I'm not the OP, though, and I just love the logical debate. It's a great question; are they actually people or is it magic that makes them appear to be sentient. I know it triggers a lot of people because it's not ok in our day and age to ask if anything person-like is a person because of sexism and racism and LGBT phobias, but the question isn't "is an African American a human", but is "is the magic that made the golem under category A or B, and does that matter, and does his God matter.

>>48876497
lawful yes
good no
fall why even bother
property or not, they arnt his property. best case scenario, they are his great great great great grandfathers property

even if (and its a big if) killing the golems leader just mystically makes them want to be slaves again, they broke free once
couple that with the fact that they already know the kingdom is falling on hard times, that its army was drastically reduced, and that they just suffered a MASSIVE insult by said kingdom

"but but wait, the golems are a non violent never sleeping never eating standing army, they would never rise up against the kingdom THIS time"
they're golems, most likely with at least a passing "perfect" memory. near all of them once they get there can both see, and tell the kingdom is weakening hardcore, and they're all pissed off


let him fall, let the kingdom burn

>>48880479
Yeah, I got on that one too late. Sorry, that's all wasted typing. the question on the actual sentience is the only decent one left.

>>48880604

>are they actually people or is it magic that makes them appear to be sentient

Why would the difference matter?

>>48880568
>No way to prove anything at that level. Only guesswork and some nat 20s on detect magic checks would help with the people

So therefore, the paladin didn't know they were actually people or not. Gotcha, he's helping some maybe people enslave some other maybe people.

>Also if the king is right and they are actually just malfunctioning, not actually alive crop-harvesters, then he's in the right, and deposing him for that would be bad and would being decades of poverty and strife to an already stricken kingdom. Not to mention, again, more "99% probably actual people" deaths.

The king's leveraged an army of soldiers to go after a race of magical rocks that got up and left, to chase them down and use powerful magics to change their programming, presumably with high powered mages.

He could have used his manpower and money and magic that he must have had lying around to fund such an army to

FARM MORE GODDAMN FOOD.

The king could have conceded the terms that the golems gave, that they farm food, then leave.

No, the golems gotta become slaves. He's going to use his tiny army to start a war against rocks, in order to get his slavery on.

That's not an act of a king that saves lives, that's an act of a king throwing his army away because he lost some toys that made his life easier.

>>48880575
We're not talking about OP's thing here, we're talking about a BBEG who turns everything into animated sentient objects. See >>48879836

>>48880520
No, that's precisely the point. Not the make anything certain but to call into question. I was wrong on the deity mattering since you can fall without one, and I was wrong about the definition of good in system, but the fact is still that without being certain of the origin of the golems, you dont know if they're real or not. Without that knowledge it isn't certain that the GM was in the right. Now of course, if I was the GM, I would say that the golems were actually, authentically sentient and that the matter was settled, but without his or her word it's debatable, so I'm debating.

>>48880648

Oh kk my b

>>48880636
>FARM MORE GODDAMN FOOD.

And that's not getting into neighboring kingdoms lending a hand or the players themselves having some magical means to help out.

>>48880498
Nah, I was aiming for a logic problem, not a false dichotomy. In this question, there are 2 possibilities, right? Either they are fake intelligence or real intelligence. If they are fake, the actions of the paladin don't matter. If they are real, then they do.

The choice I presented is one of which is obviously whittled down. The preferable choice is always to figure it out, and he could have in the actual scenario. But, without that option, you have the paladin's mindset. The paladin saw only those 2 options, so those are the two I presented.

>>48880574
I agree with the innate wrongness of the entire scenario. But the question I was addressing in that post was only if the mind-wiping before slavery was itself innately evil. I believe it is. But there is an argument to be made for it, and so...

>>48880709

Well you got a false dichotomy because that's not the situation that OP described.

Just because the paladin sees only a shitty scenario doesn't make him free from falling, if anything it makes him the perfect candidate for falling, if a little derpy about it.

>>48880633
Well, if they're real people then it's murder and 100%evil, as 90% of the posters here agree with. However, if it's an illusion of intelligence, then there isn't 'actual' intelligence involved. Its the same as shooting a computer that has a low tier conversation simulator. Not necessarily cause for falling there.

>>48880636
I agree. The king is a moron. But it doesn't mean that the paladin's actions in destroying them is inherently wrong, just that the quest is poorly written.

>>48880758
...OP said they were sentient...

>>48880780

No the quest seems to be pretty perfectly written.

>golems are sentient
>I WANT MY GOLEMS BACK

Kind of a vague-ish moral dilemma thing going on but with a clear solution to try and make everybody happy.

>>48880709
>The paladin saw only those 2 options
If the paladin genuinely saw only those options then he was clinically retarded. The OP clearly says that the golems were offering to help.
Outside that, you're right. In the event that the paladin were presented with absolutely no other options he should have been willing to sacrifice potentially sapient beings for the survival of almost certainly sapient beings.

>>48880780
>But it doesn't mean that the paladin's actions in destroying them is inherently wrong
It does.
There are at least a few thousand golems.
By the earlier logic, there's only a 20% chance of the golems being sentient.

Therefore, there are by that logic the equivalent to 200+ sentient golems. The paladin's just brainfucked 200 innocents on the orders of a mad king.

He falls.

>>48880709
>outright stated in the OP that the DM said they were sentient
I get that you want to debate or whatever, but you're debating a non-point. Every reason you gave for there being a debate is directly addressed in the OP, and even if you want to have some philosophical debate on the nature if sentience, you're whole perspective is entirely human-centric. Sentience is self-awareness, and as far as we know the golems actually have more evidence in being truly capable of independent thought then humans do. Humans decide things not only by logical reason but also a million different biological factors all of which are measurable, all of which the golems do not possess. Arguably they are more capable of sentient thought then any of the humans, and if anyone has the illusion of independent thought it is the humans in the scenario.

>>48880748
But again, this particular tangent only matters if the golems are sentient. He can't fall for being deceptive to dirt or for stabbing a stone if it is only that.

The explanation was merely a window into his PC's psyche, not an excuse. The only question left is one no one is answering because no one can.

>>48880780
Yes it does.
>People: We're starving!
>King: I want my fucking golems back forever.
>Golems: We'll help the starving people, then we want to go.
>Paladin: The king is right. Time to betray the golems.
The paladin is a fuckhead.

>>48880809
No, that's absolutely idiotic. It's not the case that some of them will be or won't be sentience. They are or they aren't.

>>48880810
Without knowing the nature of the creation of their so-called sentience, how could you know if it was more or less 'objectively intelligent'.

>yeah, it really is more the debate aspect.

>>48880875
The same exact thing could be said for humans.

>>48880843

But again, this particular tangent doesn't matter because the golems are sentient.

>The only question left is one no one is answering because no one can.

There are no questions left. The paladin did an evil thing. He falls. Now you may have a question that you want answered but that's your own problem.

>>48876497
>>paladin (party face) promises the golems he'll "see to it that justice is done" and sets up a meeting with a group of the king's men
This is all he said, why do people here talk about him lying to them?

>>48880924
Have you never heard the term 'lying by omission'?
And it doesn't fucking matter in the slightest if he technically lied or not, he intentionally tricked them so he could betray them and assassinate their leader.

All fuckers over here confusing sentience with sapience. Animals are sentient too, is it evil to keep them as property?

>>48880972
Can't speak for everyone else, but I've been using the term sapience this whole time.

>>48880972

Well there are animal abuse laws

>>48880946
>Have you never heard the term 'lying by omission'?
Demonstrate how he does that here

>he intentionally tricked them
>intentionally
How the fuck would you know?

>betray
how has he betrayed them in any way?

>assassinate their leader.
From his point of view he destroyed something which acted against his owner

>>48880993
To be fair, there also used to be slave abuse laws.

>>48881023
Yup

>>48881013
>From his point of view he destroyed something which acted against his owner
>From his point of view
>Perspective determines morality

Oh god this bullshit again

>>48880993
>>48881023
Read the wolf's sermon, it's anglo saxon but there are translations out there
The priest there talks about the immorality of the time and how the world is going to end and slavery is one of the topics
It wasn't seen as something evil in and of itself even by clergy, he condemns selling british slaves to heathens but not slavery in and of itself and thinks it's fine as long as the slaves are owned by christians

That guy was the moral authority of his time and that idea wasn't anything new, slavery was accepted and there were good reasons for it, it was also explained several times in this thread already how slavery often even benefited the slave in history and that black slavery in the US and it's depiction in modern media and history books skewed the view horribly on slavery in its entirety

Now consider that OP stated that the player knew aristotelian morality and that the setting is medieval
Anybody who says that literal golems cannot be enslaved, even if they posess the intelligence of a human being, because it would be evil in a medieval setting or pretty much any setting with different values than our world when even in our world plenty of societies have seen slavery as nothing evil is an utter retard who cannot think beyond his very narrow world view

>>48881052
See above for any further questions

>>48881013
>Demonstrate how he does that here
>How the fuck would you know?
>how has he betrayed them in any way?
These all have the same answer.
It is abundantly obvious that he wanted to take their leader to a place where the other golems were not present in order to destroy him, otherwise there would have been no fucking point in "arranging a meeting".
By putting it in the pretext of arranging a meeting, and claiming that justice will be done, he convinces the golems to trust that the paladin has their interests in mind, allowing him to make off with their leader.
How the fuck else could you possibly interpret this precise set of actions?

>From his point of view he destroyed something which acted against his owner
His point of view doesn't fucking matter, as has already been discussed a thousand times in this thread. The DM arbitrates whether or not a particular being is a valid target for Laful/Chaotic/Good/Evil acts, and what the paladin did was absolutely atrocious.

>>48881013
>Demonstrate how he does that here
He uses his words to draw the golems into a tactically unsound situation, which the golems would have unlikely entered if they knew his intentions. Which was to smite the golem in the face.

That's lying to someone who hasn't done the paladin any harm, in order to cause harm to them.

>From his point of view he destroyed something which acted against his owner

That's not a crime. That's not even a thing worth smiting. Would you smite a servant of a demon who goes to a church and begs forgiveness, and sincerely promises to renounce all its evils, because "it acted against its owner"

>>48881088
I'm the second guy you quoted and I've read that before.
I am not arguing that slavery is Evil, in fact Gygax said that good people can own slaves. What I am most concerned with is the fact that he assassinated a sapient being that was seeking a peaceful resolution to a conflict of interest. This action is a severe violation of the D&D principles of Good and Law.

>>48881106
>It is abundantly obvious that he wanted to take their leader to a place where the other golems were not present in order to destroy him, otherwise there would have been no fucking point in "arranging a meeting".
Did he, at any point, say he wouldn't do that?
Did he act friendly around them and said shit like "yeah you deserve freedom"
He's a paladin acting according to his moral code, the thought that you always have to explain that code wherever you are for actions which follow is retarded
Yes he fucked them up, but if it seemed obvious to him that he would do it and completely logical going out of his way to explain that would just go against his character

>His point of view doesn't fucking matter, as has already been discussed a thousand times in this thread
Yes it was discussed and yes it does matter, there was more than one opinion here don't act like yours somehow "won"

>The DM arbitrates whether or not a particular being is a valid target for Laful/Chaotic/Good/Evil acts, and what the paladin did was absolutely atrocious.
It was already explained that no, his god does and in the absence of that god either he himself or society does
And we have explained already how society often approved of slavery in this very thread as well and the society of that kingdom obviously did

>>48881088

> thread already how slavery often even benefited the slave in history

And it's also been mentioned how slavery can be "good" so long as there are a bunch of parameters around it.

Also slavery is evil no matter what. A society that requires slavery to exist is either evil or in an incredibly shitty position. A society that has slavery as a legit upgrade is evil for allowing its people to live in such conditions.

Also this is a fantasy land, to say "its medieval and follows medieval rules" is incredibly silly. Unless OP said "the setting wants to be super medieval accurate" then there is no reason to apply the same slavery-could-be-good-here logic of our world to a fantasy world.

>>48881138
>That's lying to someone who hasn't done the paladin any harm, in order to cause harm to them.
No, it's him announcing his intentions and them thinking he is on their side because they can't see that the other side might have some valid points

>That's not a crime.
Crimes are for people, these are just golems

> Would you smite a servant of a demon who goes to a church and begs forgiveness, and sincerely promises to renounce all its evils, because "it acted against its owner"
No, but I would destroy a broom that tries to kill his owner, see the difference?

>>48881154
>Crimes are for people, these are just golems
>hyper strict definition of "people"

Yeah, no

>No, but I would destroy a broom that tries to kill his owner, see the difference?
>Not working the land and forcing the king to seek different options for food growth is the same as killing them

Yeah, no.

>>48881153
>And it's also been mentioned how slavery can be "good" so long as there are a bunch of parameters around it.
>Also slavery is evil no matter what.
Don't try to contradict yourself, and yes I know the "good" was probably not menant serious by you, but if you want to just discard that opinion you might wanna try to prove that it should be discarded first

> A society that requires slavery to exist is either evil or in an incredibly shitty position
Since you make blanket statements and expect to be taken seriously, here's another one:
You're wrong.

> A society that has slavery as a legit upgrade is evil for allowing its people to live in such conditions.
You imply that there is a choice, you also imply that freedom is worth more than comfortable living and plenty of people would disagree.
We're talking about a medieval society and not modern day sweden and even in modern day sweden an argument for slavery could be easily made.

>Also this is a fantasy land, to say "its medieval and follows medieval rules" is incredibly silly. Unless OP said "the setting wants to be super medieval accurate" then there is no reason to apply the same slavery-could-be-good-here logic of our world to a fantasy world.
If you say that you can surely see that applying your own rules is just as stupid, can't you?

>>48881154
>No, it's him announcing his intentions and them thinking he is on their side

So, you've agreed these are thinking beings.

And he's just murdered one.

Great job there.

I like how you are also going immediately from >peacefully leaving and even saying they'd be willing to make some food before buggering off

to >broom is trying to cowardly assassinate its owner with poisons made from a child's heart


In any case the paladin falls, because the fucking king wanted the golems back intact and mindwiped so he is disrespecting legitimate authority by disobeying the fucking king. Because you're so damn obstinate about precise wording.

>>48881160
>Yeah, no
I'm not saying that's my opinion, I'm saying that the paladin might have thought that, I even mentioned before that their existence as golems is just a bonus and that them being humans would still be fine

The kingdom needs the work force to feed itself, the golems can provide it and people will die if they do not and in the end the lives of many people are more important than the freedom of golems

>different options for food growth
like what exactly?
You act like the problem could be easily solved, since it obviously can't be since the party couldn't think of one and they have most likely tried since they wanted it to end peacefully I call bullshit

>>48881142
>He's a paladin acting according to his moral code
He's not though. What he did is antithetical to the code of Lawful Good that according to OP, the DM said is what defines paladins.

>don't act like yours somehow "won"
Please present an argument of any kind that validates the claim that the character's interpretation of the meaning his actions matters in the slightest.

>It was already explained that no, his god does and in the absence of that god either he himself or society does
No, that's not the case at all. The Dungeon Master has arbitrated that the golems are sentient and sapient beings. According to the rules of the game, sentient beings are valid targets for Lawful/Good/Chaotic/Evil acts.

>And we have explained already how society often approved of slavery in this very thread as well and the society of that kingdom obviously did
That has nothing to do with my argument.

>>48881185
>So, you've agreed these are thinking beings.
Yep, cows think too, yet we eat them

>And he's just murdered one.
Punished it for its crimes, otherwise every bandit the paladin has every killed would have been a murder victim, just like every irredeemable orc or evil sorcerer

I stopped reading at that point because you sound like a retard and don't seem to be able to make a coherent argument, did you really think saying that they are "thinking beings" makes killing them inherently evil?

Have you ever noticed that most of the people who say "slavery isn't inherently bad" are Americans, whose ancestors were the last group of people to practice chattel slavery?

>>48881154
>No, but I would destroy a broom that tries to kill his owner
No you wouldn't. Brooms aren't capable of trying to kill people, because they're incapable of thought. You might attempt to disable a broom that is malfunctioning and acting out of parameters, but you wouldn't destroy it unless it was a clear and present threat.

And you wouldn't destroy a self-propelled broom that had just wandered off, because that's a waste of a broom.

Either way, your logic is fucked. The only reason to destroy the golem was in order to subdue the rest, and if they need subduing then they're people, not machines.

>>48881208
Actually, chattel slavery was still practiced by Arabs on Somalians and war captives long after the practice was outlawed in the United States.

>>48881188
>The kingdom needs the work force to feed itself, the golems can provide it and people will die if they do not and in the end the lives of many people are more important than the freedom of golems
OP says that the golems were offering to help stop the food crisis in exchange for their freedom.

>>48881193
>What he did is antithetical to the code of Lawful Good
As long as we do not know his god assuming that is wrong

>the DM said is what defines paladins.
DM's can be wrong, it happens
I actually really dislike disagreeing with a DM and always go along with whatever dumb shit happens because even if it's totally unfair I actually like the unfair aspect of role-playing as that makes it more realistic and I want to be able to die at any time and hate coddling
However, falling paladins are an exception in many cases because DMs tend to just assume that morality always aligns with their own opinions which makes playing a morally good paladin pretty much impossible if you can't read your DMs mind in many situations

>Please present an argument of any kind that validates the claim that the character's interpretation of the meaning his actions matters in the slightest.
Please rewrite that.

> The Dungeon Master has arbitrated that the golems are sentient and sapient beings
Yes, but as I said before it often didn't matter even for humans so that alone is obviously not enough

>According to the rules of the game, sentient beings are valid targets for Lawful/Good/Chaotic/Evil acts.
That includes punishment for their crimes then and raising up against your lawful master and letting his people starve seems like a crime to me, does it not to you?

>That has nothing to do with my argument.
You're saying sapience trumps all, I gave you an example to show that it often didn't and obviously didn't in the society of the game

>>48881220
Huh. "One of the last groups," then.

>>48881173
>Don't try to contradict yourself

I'm not contradicting myself. Slavery is evil no matter what.

>You're wrong.

Nuh uh

>You imply that there is a choice

There is always a choice.

> you also imply that freedom is worth more than comfortable living

Nope

>If you say that you can surely see that applying your own rules is just as stupid, can't you?

Duh. That's why D&D is nice enough to provide rules as guidelines and why there is a DM to provide guidelines for how the world operates. To argue "nuh uh the real world..." is the ultimate insanity in a fantasy setting.

>>48881203
Cows aren't sapient.
The golems, according to OP, are.

What crimes have the golems committed? Peacefully left? Where is the writ of contract that states they are bound to obey the king? Where is the inheritance laws that state that the king is allowed to take back the golems?

The king wasn't even alive at the time, and the golems had left for 450 years. What crime has the golem committed that it should be immediately capitally punished?

You're equating "leaving slavery" with "bandit, murderer, genocider".

And the killing of innocent people who haven't committed crimes IS evil. I've yet to see what crimes these golems are guilty of.

You lads keep on applying your own morals to other people and fictive societies to judge them without even considering their point of view, I'm not a fan of moral relativity as anything can be explained away then but I don't want you to go
>welp if they think it's okay it must be okay then
Instead you should try to see WHY they think it's okay, because they might have an actual point and I don't see you or most others here even attempting to do that

>hurr durr slavery is always evil
It's not that simple anon

>>48881208
Why would you think that anybody who said so is american? I'm German you fucking retard, stop assuming shit online about people you can't know anything about

>>48881188
>since it obviously can't be since the party couldn't think of one

Looks to me like the party was under the impression they could have the golem leader and king talk it out. Seems like a pretty sweet plan.

>>48880568
We don't know that the King believed them to be malfunctioning, maybe he's just a dick who can't take that he doesn't have golem slaves.

>>48881260
>most

>>48881188
>You act like the problem could be easily solved
The golems said they'd make food if they could go afterwards. The king said no.

Kill king, accept golem deal. Loss of life = 1 stupid moron, people = saved.

Wage war on golems and use tiny fucking army to recapture golems. Golems presumably fight back.
Most of army dies, most of the golems are broken instead of being fixed. Loss of life = large, more than half the golems are broken and therefore only a quarter of the food is made. 3/4 of the kingdom starves. King gets to boast he's got golem cocksleeves to lick himself off at night.

Which is the better option?

>>48881252

>As long as we do not know his god assuming that is wrong


2nd ed has clear rules of LG

>raising up against your lawful master

And slavery is evil, so it wouldn't be LG to return slaves to their master.

> letting his people starve

Why are you ignoring that OP said they were in talks to get the golems to work for the king?

>>48881247
>OP says that the golems were offering to help stop the food crisis in exchange for their freedom.
They offered to buy their freedom, an old tradition, but just because you make an offer does not mean your master has to accept
By law and by the moral compass of himself and his people he still owns them

>>48881209
>No you wouldn't.
Exchange the Broom with a slave, put us in a setting in which slavery is accepted and let the slave try to kill the owner without a good reason
Then yes, I'd kill the slave

>The only reason to destroy the golem was in order to subdue the rest, and if they need subduing then they're people, not machines.
I've said plenty of times that that doesn't matter anon

>>48881208
Still happens today, educate yourself

>>48881255
Stopped reading after the third paragraph, come back when you're willing to try


>>48881257
You said "thinking" not "possessing wisdom"

>What crimes have the golems committed?
Rebellion against their owner and by doing so letting people starve

>Where is the writ of contract that states they are bound to obey the king?
In their creation

>Where is the inheritance laws that state that the king is allowed to take back the golems?
You know, chances are that there actually are inheritance laws in that kingdom and that they don't say "yeah but your ownership expires lel"

> What crime has the golem committed that it should be immediately capitally punished?
Rebellion against his master on the first level, endangering others on a less direct one

>You're equating "leaving slavery" with "bandit, murderer, genocider".
Yes, I'm explaining the paladin's way of thinking and yes in many societies rebelling against your rightful master WAS on that level

>And the killing of innocent people who haven't committed crimes IS evil. I've yet to see what crimes these golems are guilty of.
Look above then

>>48881260

Slavery is evil

Point of view is not the sole metric for Good and Evil, Lawful and Chaotic

>>48881252
>As long as we do not know his god assuming that is wrong
Have you ever actually played D&D or read the fucking books?
Law, Good, Chaos and Evil have definitons in D&D which are completely independant of the opinions of deities and are pretty explicit.

>DM's can be wrong, it happens
They can also make up whatever they want because they're the ones running the game. According to OP, the DM explained clearly that in his game, Paladins had to follow Lawful Good principles. This is completely in accordance with the vanilla rules of aD&D (which they are playing), but later editions alter this somewhat so the DM wanted to be clear.

>DMs tend to just assume that morality always aligns with their own opinions
Or, in this case, that morality aligns with the definitions of Law/Chaos/Good/Evil according to the rules of the game?

>Please rewrite that.
I would like you to give me an explanation of why you think the opinion of the character matters when Law/Chaos/Good/Evil have concrete definitions as part of the rules of the game.

>That includes punishment for their crimes
Punishment for crimes should come with a fair trial or an honourable duel, not with a surprise assassination.

>letting his people starve
Read the OP again, the golems were willing to help stop the food crisis of their own free will.

>You're saying sapience trumps all
What I meant is that I'm not arguing against he practice of slavery, but specifically the way in which the paladin acted.

>>48881260
I'm not applying my own morality, but the rules of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons and the game's definitions of Law, Chaos, Good and Evil.

>>48881260
All right, dipshit.
>Instead you should try to see WHY they think it's okay, because they might have an actual point
The only good act here that we can agree on is that we don't want the people to starve.

But the king's plan is stupid, even IF the golems are non-sentient evil beings.

The king's army is not big enough to capture the golems without help. Trying to do so would get them rekt. The only way to guarantee food is to take the fucking offer given by the golems.

The paladin has failed to do that, and thefore has chosen to smite a (dubious) evil instead of protecting the innocent.

How's that for fucking logic by his perspective?

>>48881296

> the moral compass of himself and his people he still owns them

Perspective is not the sole determiner of Good and Evil. Also I don't think you can "morally" own something

>Stopped reading after the third paragraph, come back when you're willing to try
>I disgree with you but cannot explain why so I'm disengaging from the conversation

l8r loser

>your rightful master

Man you are really into the whole idea of "perspective solely determines good/evil" huh?

>>48881269
>most
that too is an assumption
There are 3 or 4 people here who defend the paladin, what makes you think they are mostly american?
Especially since the social trauma of slavery is deeply engrained in the american society, which makes them the least likely demographic to argue for it

>>48881262
No reason to talk it out if there's a simple way to solve the food crisis, is there?

>>48881275
>The golems said they'd make food if they could go afterwards. The king said no.
As I said, they made an offer for freedom, he refused

>Kill king
Evil.
He is just their rightful owner wanting his property back, killing him is evil.

>Which is the better option?
You're thinking pragmatically, I like that, but since the paladin killed their leader he might have had a plan to make them acquiesce and even if not, morals trump pragmatism for a lawful good paladin

Consider this, an army is besieged by evil undead, the high priests want to torture a beautiful virgin to death for the gods which would surely raise the spirits of the defenders and ensure victory
Sure, she can die and thousands will be saved, but is it right and would a paladin let it happen?
Obviously not

>>48881283
>2nd ed has clear rules of LG
This was most likely not second edition as the question wouldn't have come up then and the DM could have just argued with that

>And slavery is evil
It is not per se.

>Why are you ignoring that OP said they were in talks to get the golems to work for the king?
Why are you ignoring that the king refused, as is his right?

>>48881296
>By law and by the moral compass of himself and his people he still owns them
Yes, and I'm not arguing against slavery. The reason I said that was to highlight the fact that the golems were not hostile, were willing to help and were open to negotiations.
This makes the personal conduct of the paladin in killing their leader without warning, trial or fair battle during a peaceful hearing an act that violates Law and Good as defined by D&D and is an all-around dickish way to behave.

>>48881337
Here's 2e's definition of LG so you can udge for yourself.

Lawful Good: Characters of this alignment believe that an
orderly, strong society with a well-organized government can
work to make life better for the majority of the people. To
ensure the quality of life, laws must be created and obeyed.
When people respect the laws and try to help one another,
society as a whole prospers. Therefore, lawful good characters
strive for those things that will bring the greatest benefit to the
most people and cause the least harm. An honest and hardworking
serf, a kindly and wise king, or a stern but forthright
minister of justice are all examples of lawful good people.

The Complete Paladin's Handbook also has its own shit on the paladin's ethos and suchlike.

>>48881337
>No reason to talk it out if there's a simple way to solve the food crisis, is there?
...yes there is...you talk it out...that's the simple way...

> their rightful owner
Owning sentient creatures is evil, doubly so if they want to leave and have already left.

>This was most likely not second edition

Read the fucking OP

>It is not per se.
Yes it is

>Why are you ignoring that the king refused, as is his right?
I'm not. That just makes him an evil asshole.

>>48881298
>Slavery is evil
It is not, it has been beneficial plenty of times, freedom being the highest value is highly subjective

>>48881301
>Law, Good, Chaos and Evil have definitons in D&D which are completely independant of the opinions of deities and are pretty explicit.
This is about him falling, anon, which is decided by his deity
So yeah, the god is important, if you serve a god of slaughter and slaughter people for him you'd otherwise fall because it's "evil"

>Paladins had to follow Lawful Good principles
Yes and he also explained that the paladin not only thought he was acting lawfully good, he could even explain why

>Or, in this case,
See above

>when Law/Chaos/Good/Evil have concrete definitions as part of the rules of the game.
The opinion of the deity matters, in its absence the opinion of the character matters
And does any rulebook actually clearly state that "slavery is always evil"?
And were they playing by that rulebook?

>Punishment for crimes should come with a fair trial or an honourable duel, not with a surprise assassination.

Good point, but that alone wouldn't be enough for falling if the rest of the scenario is fine, which I'm arguing that it is

>Read the OP again, the golems were willing to help stop the food crisis of their own free will.
And demanding their freedom for it, slaves do not make demands

>What I meant is that I'm not arguing against he practice of slavery, but specifically the way in which the paladin acted.
Good!

>>48881370
>which is decided by his deity
2e paladins aren't required to serve a deity.

>>48881370
>It is not, it has been beneficial plenty of times
Evil things can be beneficial. That's what makes evil such a scary thing.

>freedom being the highest value is highly subjective

Yeah, and a society that cannot provide for it's people is a shitty society that can be seen as evil

>>48881366
>Owning sentient creatures is evil
Actually, this isn't true. Gygax said that good characters can own slaves.

>>48880090
Solipsism, once begun, does not stop anywhere.

>>48881393

The only example I've seen of this in the books is when a god used slaves as a form of punishment for the wicked.

Still evil, but definitely a lot less evil.

>>48881311
Read any of the posts about the deity argument in the fall of a paladin

>>48881317
>The only good act here that we can agree on is that we don't want the people to starve.
Common ground is important, but I do not base my argument on common ground
Upholding their status as slaves was also good in my opinion

As for pragmatism, look here: >>48881337


>>48881325
>Also I don't think you can "morally" own something
If you or your ancestors created it then yes, you can
If you buy it you can also own it
I own my computer

>Man you are really into the whole idea of "perspective solely determines good/evil" huh?
Nah, as I said, there are good arguments for slavery

>>48881340
>The reason I said that was to highlight the fact that the golems were not hostile, were willing to help and were open to negotiations.
Yes, the problem I'm having though is that they are in no position to negotiate
They can offer something, but the king would never be obligated to agree as they are still his property

> and is an all-around dickish way to behave.
I agree, but I do not believe that being a dick once is punishable by falling if you had morally sound reasons for the action, even if a trial should have preceded it

>>48881355
>2e's definition
I already said it doesn't matter if they didn't play it, but I'll humour you

> believe that anorderly, strong society with a well-organized government canwork to make life better for the majority of the people.
>orderly
>strong society
>majority of the people
Sounds like they would be for slavery to be honest

>lawful good characters strive for those things that will bring the greatest benefit to the most people and cause the least harm
Slavery

>>48881370
>decided by his deity
No. Paladins do not have to have deities and paladins without deities can fall. You could at least try to know the game.

>thought he was acting lawfully good
As I said, Law/Chaos/Good/Evil have objective definitions. Opinions of gods, mortals or fucking leopards don't matter.

>And does any rulebook actually clearly state that "slavery is always evil"?
I'm not arguing against slavery at all. Gygax said good characters can own slaves.

>And were they playing by that rulebook?
They were playing by aD&D, in which all of what I am arguing is laid out fairly clearly.

>Good point, but that alone wouldn't be enough for falling if the rest of the scenario is fine, which I'm arguing that it is
That's a whole other argument there, but at the very least I would argue that this is extremely out of character for a Lawful Good character.

>>48881393
One of the fundamental problems with DnD alignment systems is the way that it tries to reduce complicated individuals to one set of beliefs and actions. People are nuanced and marbled. "Good" people do evil things sometimes. "Evil" people have wellsprings of compassion at times. You can't reduce it to "Good people only do this/only can do that."

Ironically, however, the ONLY case in which the hard and fast alignment system works is for Paladins. Paladins are fundamentally obligated to be completely lawful and completely good.

Even ignoring the question about slavery, the Paladin made an oath which, while not technically broken, was designed to deceive and mislead. This is not lawful, and it is not good.

>>48881370
>And demanding their freedom for it, slaves do not make demands
So this is the power of moral relativity. Wow.

>>48881421
>I agree, but I do not believe that being a dick once is punishable by falling
My argument was that it was a tremendous violation of Law and Good, which according to the OP, the Dungeon Master said were absolutely fundamental to being a paladin.

>>48881421

>I own my computer

You don't morally own it though. You legally own it.

>Nah, as I said, there are good arguments for slavery

And all of them are either punitive or the product of a fundamentally flawed society. Doesn't magically stop making slavery evil.

>>48880924
Justice requires one party to have been wronged by another. In promising justice he acknowledges that the golems constitute a group capable of being wronged or wronging another therefore he granted them personhood. This entitled them to the same treatment as any other person as per >>48877583. Also he failed to research for any rulings by previous Kings that may have freed the golems in the past 450 years therefore he was negligent in his duty to the law.
As he was acting in the capacity of someone who would uphold the law in the service of what is right (a paladin) it was inherently implied that he would do so.
Although he left enough wiggle room to claim that he was true to his word he allowed the golems to believe his intentions were other than they were while the golems acted in good faith.

>>48881366
>...yes there is...you talk it out...that's the simple way...
Dude, I said the foodcrisis, not their conflict
That aside, they tried, the king said no

>Owning sentient creatures is evil, doubly so if they want to leave and have already left.
>sentient
I'm sure you mean sapient as owning cows would be evil otherwise, but no

>Read the fucking OP

Thanks, I didn't notice, I did just explain that according to what we're given by the other anon's post about LG in 2e slavery is still fine

>Yes it is
It is not, try to explain how if you're gonna cry about it, repeating yourself more often than me won't make you right

>I'm not. That just makes him an evil asshole.
>evil
>for not letting go of what you own
Yeah, nah

>>48881376
>2e paladins aren't required to serve a deity.
That just gives him more wiggle room, as I said, an argument for slavery based on morals can be easily made

>>48881384
>Evil things can be beneficial. That's what makes evil such a scary thing.
But how is slavery evil?

>Yeah, and a society that cannot provide for it's people is a shitty society that can be seen as evil
No, just because you live in a society that is going through a natural disaster does not mean that the society is evil
I try not to insult others while arguing, but come on man, that was dumb

>>48881424
>No. Paladins do not have to have deities and paladins without deities can fall. You could at least try to know the game.
You're making assumptions here and as I said, even without one, slavery is not evil

>As I said, Law/Chaos/Good/Evil have objective definitions.
Look above in the definition posted for 2e, slavery is not evil by that standard

>but at the very least I would argue that this is extremely out of character for a Lawful Good character.
I agree, but as I said, I'm sure he had his reasons and it's not enough to make him fall

>>48881432
>So this is the power of moral relativity. Wow.
I said before, slavery is not evil

>>48881296
Prove that the golems weren't fully manumitted 450 years ago when they first attained sentience.
Prove that the golems didn't in fact have full citizenship rights.
Prove that the golems knew about the kingdom's plight.
Prove that the golems refused aid instead of saying they would provide aid (PROTIP: they did offer aid)
Prove that the king has any right to the golems after 450 years and is not in fact just chasing them because he wants to have a robot army.

>Exchange the Broom with a slave, put us in a setting in which slavery is accepted and let the slave try to kill the owner without a good reason.Then yes, I'd kill the slave

The scenario here is the slave ran away forty years ago from your grandfather and you're trying to have it executed because you burnt your hand on the stove trying to cook dinner and this means it was the slave trying to kill you.

For some reason the judge isn't buying it.

>>48881466
>Justice requires one party to have been wronged by another
Yes they wronged their owner by rebelling, no time to read or reply to the rest, sorry lad


Guys, this has been lots of fun but my gf has been complaining for a while now and she needs some attention, I hope we all broadened our horizons a bit today

>>48881431
I absolutely agree with you, except that I think in the cases of non-paladins the alignments are intended as generalisations, such that actions that fall into these categories are more likely to be done than not. Of course a good person can commit an evil act in a fit of rage, but it is not what they would normally do under everyday circumstances. In some NPCs in old D&D books, alignments sometimes had a "tends to" caviat at the end, representing another alignment that they would occasionally demonstrate when circumstances presented themselves.

File: CPHB Ethos Chapter.pdf (4.78 MB, PDF)

4.78 MB PDF

Some possibly relevant reading material.

>>48881477
>That aside, they tried, the king said no
That means the king is evil for prioritising his own personal wealth (owning slaves) over finding a solution to saving his people and therefore is not a legitimate authority.

QED.

>>48881477
>Dude, I said the foodcrisis, not their conflict
...the talk would solve the food crisis...

>I'm sure you mean sapient as owning cows would be evil otherwise, but no
Well it kind of is. Though the cows don't really seem to care so long as you aren't a shithead to them.

>But how is slavery evil?
Because treating another sentient creature as property is evil.

> just because you live in a society that is going through a natural disaster does not mean that the society is evil
> is a shitty society that can be seen as evil
> can be seen as evil

Just because it can be seen as evil doesn't make it evil. Don't be dumb.

>>48881477
>even without one, slavery is not evil
>slavery is not evil by that standard
Why do you keep bringing up slavery?
I've explained several times now that I am not arguing against the practice of slavery on any level.

>>48876497
Not an Evil act, he shouldn't fall.
However, it was not a Good act either. That was, in fact, overwhelmingly Lawful Neutral, abiding by the letter and natural status over all other things. It's not that he is enslaving them but returning them to their natural state. By wiping their sapience they will not be slaves (as only beings with free will can be enslaved) but the servitors they were created to be.

And yes, while it might seem sophistic, wiping their free will before returning them to servitude is actually meaningful in D&D. Both the means and the ends are weighed for Good and Evil and Neutral.

>>48881504
I just mean that the idea that "good characters can own slaves" does not mean anything about the moral nature of slavery.

Good characters can rape and murder and steal, too. It doesn't make those things good.

>>48881528
>killing an unresisting, unassuming, non-hostile creature out of the blue, without trial or procedure
>lawful
Right.

>>48881558
It's a golem, it can be repaired. It doesn't even have a soul to be resurrected. No different than breaking pottery.

>>48876497
See under most Fall threads I'd be one of the first to say "Depends on setting" because yes there are several setting published where the Paladin Class is Ok with slavery. (Doesn't mean they like it just their "ok" with it)

This generally meaning that whatever the DM thinks it right, is what is right, because it's his world.

>They started arguing and before long ...
>They have a big fight and the player leaves
This right here is probably the only REAL problem in your group.
IF my DM turned to me and said I fell, I'd give a short laugh and say "Well damn" then roll on slow becoming a Anti-paladin/Blackgaurd.
Arguing as you've just see is the death of play experiences and sometimes whole groups.

>Player says what he did was both lawful and good
>Aristotle was right and some people are natural slaves IRL
So long as a player has ANY justifiable reason I wouldn't left them fall if the player didn't want to. I'd probably leave it up to a group vote. I can see where the paladin player was coming from.

But that remark about Aristotle, yikes

Rolled 11 + 4 (1d20 + 4)

>>48876497
Personally, I would have tried arranging for a wizard I know to "blank" the golems, then send them back to the kingdom.
By a strange and totally unintentional coincidence, I swear, the golems spontaneously regain their sapience a decade later and run off again.

Mind you, I certainly didn't talk the golems into pretending to be mindless automatons until the food crisis ended in exchange for the party's service in the future. Nope. 100% random chance, yessir.
Rolling Bluff

>>48881577
>It's a golem, it can be repaired
>it's a mortal, it can be raised from the dead
murder's fine too I guess

>>48881577
>It doesn't even have a soul to be resurrected

That'd depend on DM fluff unless you have the Monster Manual entry that talks about this.

>>48881577
>If it doesn't have an immortal soul, it's worthless and it doesn't matter if you kill it.
Checkmate, atheists.

>>48881601
Read the second sentence of that statement.
Resurrection is neither simple, easy, nor guaranteed. Not all mortals can be raised. Plenty will stay in their afterlife, some will find their afterlife inescapable even if they want to leave.

>>48881588
>This right here is probably the only REAL problem in your group.

This. There were definitely some communication problems with the group about the setting and such.

>I'd probably leave it up to a group vote.

This sounds like a good way to resolve player conflicts. And yeah dat Aristotle

>>48881612

10 outta fuckin 10

>>48881577
>It doesn't even have a soul to be resurrected. No different than breaking pottery.
That's the worst argument I've ever heard.
The fact that when it's dead, it's dead for good, and it doesn't have an immortal ghost inside it that gets to go to a happy afterlife, makes its time in the physical world worth so much more. I'd go as far as to say that in a world with objective afterlives like D&D, the life of a being with no soul is worth vastly more than that of one that's got a soul.

>>48881661
It was never alive, it just pretended it was. It was a p-zombie.

>>48881669
>implying there is a difference between life and the perfect imitation of life

>>48881679
There is when souls are tangible, measurable forces.

"depends on the god" is the only correct answer.

The questions are "are the golems truly sentient (souled?) creatures" and "can sentient creatures be owned".

Just like different people view these in different ways, so will the gods.

>>48881689
>arbitrarily deciding that souls will decide whether something deserves to be respected as a living thing
>implying that a perfect imitation won't also create a soul

>>48881669
>It was never alive
Are you arguing that something not being biological somehow means it's not worth as much as something that is?
If intelligent aliens arrived on this planet that were made of sentient plasma, would it be fine if we destroyed them to drain their energy to use as a power source, because they're not organic?

>It was a p-zombie.
So are you, arsehole. Prove you're not. Until you can, the golem has as much of a case for its continued existence as you do.

>>48881611
Don't know about 2E, but 3.X it's explicit that Constructs (which golems are) are not alive. Even if you cast Awaken Construct, a 9th level spell that will imbue it with intelligence, wisdom, and charisma (if it has none), it still isn't alive.

>>48876497
>>once everyone is there, he spins around, smites the leader of the golems, and declares that he's returning them to the king
>>DM: "...What?"
>>Player: "I'm returning him his rightful property."
>>DM: "WHAT?"

Thinking about this part. It's like some Sci-fi stories declaring if AIs should be seen as people or not.

Where the DM thinks:
>Yes ofcourse the Golems are people, they have souls now.
The player may think:
>No, they're not people, or even living. They are broken AI. That doesn't make them a person, just malfunctioning property.

Now of course the DM is always going to be right in this situation because if he says they have souls and are people. They have are people, and the Paladin's god probably agrees.

But if two Players were having this debate... well then that's a philosophical discussion that would probably be flying off the rails. Because not ever person now a days can't safety answer this. Same action one point of view, the paladin falls. Same action the other point of view the paladin is dutifully returning missing property.

>>48881717

Yeah but then this gets into semantics about what does "alive" mean and if that means it should be treated as another creature worth respecting and shit

>>48881717
What is the significance of something being "alive" in 3.X, besides how it relates to certain spells and effects?

>>48880372
>A paladin can't ambush? I'm pretty sure it would say in the rules of paladin were so stupid they weren't allowed to take surprise round attacks because those are unfair
A Paladin is more than just a guy with a sword who kills things his God hates and helps things his God likes.

A Paladin is supposed to be a symbol, an exemplar of virtue, an object lesson in Good that others may learn from. They are supposed to embody a set of ideals and never falter in upholding them.

The "generic package" of ideals a Paladin follows includes being forthright, honest, and open in all your dealings. Tricks, lies, misdirection, and so on are shameful because they obscure the truth, and for a Paladin to obscure the Truth of his actions means he is hiding away Good. Maybe it's more effective under the circumstances, maybe it's easier than the alternative, but ease is not the point. The light of Truth is never to be quenched.

If you want a surprise round, you don't get it by laying in wait and attacking from ambush. You do it by charging at them from the front and allowing the gleam of your righteous purpose to dazzle them, then fall upon them while they're reeling in terror and confusion.

>>48881712
>Are you arguing that something not being biological somehow means it's not worth as much as something that is?
>If intelligent aliens arrived on this planet that were made of sentient plasma, would it be fine if we destroyed them to drain their energy to use as a power source, because they're not organic?
Being "organic" is not in relation to being "alive". Alive is a quantity that matters to the universe at large as to how interacting with you matters, and aliens would be alive.
A machine that by some incidence pretends to be alive isn't necessarily alive.

>So are you, arsehole. Prove you're not.
We do not live in a universe where souls are tangible, measurable objects.

>>48881754
If by "certain spells and effects" you mean "life and death and all the gods above and below"?
Generally having a lifespan and being able to recover HP over time, and whether one can be made into an undead.

>>48881510
>That means the king is evil for prioritising his own personal wealth
He prioritises justice

>>48880532
You're confusing the issue. That some may choose to relinquish their minds if it means freedom from misery does not change the fact that they would CHOOSE to do so. To deny someone the choice is inarguably Evil.

>>48876497
The paladin broke his word. What's to stop him from breaking his divine oaths?

>>48881762
>Alive is a quantity that matters to the universe at large as to how interacting with you matters, and aliens would be alive.
I honestly do not see the value of this distinction.

>We do not live in a universe where souls are tangible, measurable objects.
What exactly are you arguing here? That in the game something having a soul means it's "alive" and therefore has some special mysical value that you don't want to explain?
This is bollocks. Sure it would probably convince most people in the setting but convincing people of something and having it be true are not the same thing.

>>48881816
>I honestly do not see the value of this distinction.
Because Earth does not have objective Good and Evil like D&D does.

>What exactly are you arguing here? That in the game something having a soul means it's "alive" and therefore has some special mysical value that you don't want to explain?
That something being "alive" determines how interacting with it is Good or Evil or Neutral, which are objective qualities and not abstractions in D&D.

>>48881779
By this understanding, living things are just a classification of beings that consist of a particular type of spirit inhabiting temporarily a biological or similar body, until their death at which point they become dead things.
There are a plethora of beings that do not fall into this grouping, such as demons, fairies, gods, and elementals, which are immortal spirits outside of the life-death dichotomy but which can assume physical forms and be destroyed. The only difference here seems to be that golems are man-made and are destroyed along with their physical bodies.

>>48881837
>Because Earth does not have objective Good and Evil like D&D does.
Still not seeing it.

>That something being "alive" determines how interacting with it is Good or Evil or Neutral, which are objective qualities and not abstractions in D&D.
Everything you're saying is completely arbitrary. You're saying that "alive" things have an inherent property that makes them the subject of morals, but you're also arbitrating just by your own opinion what counts and what doesn't.

>>48881881
>By this understanding, living things are just a classification of beings that consist of a particular type of spirit inhabiting temporarily a biological or similar body, until their death at which point they become dead things.
>There are a plethora of beings that do not fall into this grouping, such as demons, fairies, gods, and elementals, which are immortal spirits outside of the life-death dichotomy but which can assume physical forms and be destroyed.
Outsiders are not devoid of souls, Outsiders are just in the unique circumstance of having their body and soul be melded into one inseparable being. They can die, but only truly on their home plane. Resurrecting them is difficult, but not impossible, necessitating the 9th level spell True Resurrection.

>The only difference here seems to be that golems are man-made and are destroyed along with their physical bodies.
No, golems do not have any soul, from start to finish they are a construct that only moves because magic tells them to move. They are puppets to the last, granted intelligence be damned.

>Everything you're saying is completely arbitrary. You're saying that "alive" things have an inherent property that makes them the subject of morals
Alive things do have an inherent property by D&D's reckoning.
>but you're also arbitrating just by your own opinion what counts and what doesn't.
I am not. Point out a single time where I have? It's an objective quality that one has or does not have.
If your supposed plasma aliens are lacking in souls, then, well, they're not actually alive either.

>>48881252
>That includes punishment for their crimes then and raising up against your lawful master
Is not a crime because the kingdom was never their Lawful master.
In order for such an arrangement to exist both parties must consent and formally declare their agreement to a common set of terms. At the onset of the golem's servitude, they were nonsapient and therefore could not form such a contract. During this period, they were indeed property.
As of the moment they became sapient, they ceased to be objects and became individual actors with whom a formal contract must be made. Since the two parties were unable to agree to common terms, no such arrangement formed and the golems left, as was their right as at-will employees.

>letting his people starve
You seem to have forgotten that the golems left 450 years before the blight occurred. By your logic, Great Britain under Margaret Thatcher would be justified in declaring the annexion of the United States on the grounds that their domestic industry was dying for lack of cotton, risking economic collapse and widespread hunger.

Frankly it's a silly line of logic.

>>48877007

Slavery is the removal of natural freedoms from a conscious and knowing creature, often through force.

If they wanted to live under your rule, they would willingly accept it and join you. But if they are overpowered and forced into subjugation and broken into subservience, how is that /not/ evil?

>>48876497

So basically he got the golems to show up under a flag of truce and then ganked them?

Fuck the good/evil axis, that's some purestrain chaotic shit right there. Dude falls.

>>48881924
>Outsiders are not devoid of souls [...]
None of that contradicted anything I said or added anything to the conversation.

>No, golems do not have any soul, from start to finish they are a construct that only moves because magic tells them to move. They are puppets to the last, granted intelligence be damned.
When did I say that they had souls? I meant qualitative difference, not mechanical difference. The spell that animates them and grants them intelligence is the fundamental unit of their being, in the same fashion that the soul is the fundamental unit of a living thing, the code is the fundamental unit of a computer's being, and the brain is the fundamental unit of a real-life human's being. What I'm asking for is a qualitative difference, not a technical one.

>by D&D's reckoning.
And that property is entirely mechanical.

>It's an objective quality that one has or does not have.
According to D&D, again an entirely mechanical one. You were abstracting it to reality and morality, which is just hilariously stupid.

>If your supposed plasma aliens are lacking in souls, then, well, they're not actually alive either.
So you believe in immortal souls then? Well, that explains your entire argument. Your standard for behaviour towards something is whether or not it has a soul.

>>48881994
Nigga they golems, natural flew out the window the second a wizard became a part of the equation

>>48881337
>As I said, they made an offer for freedom, he refused
You have it backwards. They already have freedom. They made an offer to provide a service in exchange for formal recognition of the reality of their situation (i.e. "We're free no matter what you claim, but if you'll shut up and accept the facts instead of continuing to hassle us, we'll aid you with your food problem") , and the king refused. The king instead demanded the service plus slavery, and the golems refused.

>>48882010
>None of that contradicted anything I said or added anything to the conversation.
Because nothing you said added anything to the conversation either, you brought up something irrelevant. "These living creatures are different!" except they also alive so what the fuck matters.

>When did I say that they had souls? I meant qualitative difference, not mechanical difference. The spell that animates them and grants them intelligence is the fundamental unit of their being, in the same fashion that the soul is the fundamental unit of a living thing, the code is the fundamental unit of a computer's being, and the brain is the fundamental unit of a real-life human's being. What I'm asking for is a qualitative difference, not a technical one.
Technical differences are fucking relevant, though. You can't just brush them aside.

>And that property is entirely mechanical.
Mechanics, too, are fucking relevant. Mechanics matter as to whether something is Good or Evil or Neutral or Lawful or Chaotic.

>According to D&D, again an entirely mechanical one. You were abstracting it to reality and morality, which is just hilariously stupid.
I am not abstracting anything to reality, this is all completely in-context as within D&D's universe, you numbskull. Nor real-world morality, but purely the objective perspectives of Good and Evil in-universe. You seem to have mistaken something, severely.

>So you believe in immortal souls then? Well, that explains your entire argument. Your standard for behaviour towards something is whether or not it has a soul.
Souls are not objective, tangible things on Earth. Your perspective of my argument is fundamentally flawed if you think anything here is relevant to Earth. You are not even having a discourse with me if you think that is what I have been arguing.

>>48881966
>You seem to have forgotten that the golems left 450 years before the blight occurred.
How does that change that they let his people starve though?
They knew about it and were still his

>>48882017

Natural in the sense that if thinks and reasons, it should be allowed to make decisions for itself.

>>48880488
>Pay rent.
The money is sentient.
The roof it could hide under is sentient.
It doesn't need people.

>>48882038
>They already have freedom
By right they don't, which is what matters

>>48881421
>I own my computer
Somebody didn't actually read the terms of service agreement. You own the components, but the data is leased under contract.

File: image.jpg (128 KB, 640x480)

128 KB JPG

>>48882038
You see this is why I'm glad I don't have this kind of gm, not only is this entire situation easily fixed with "The King then had his wizards cast control construct", because fuck you if you can have golems mass produced your not dealing with a normal amount of wizards, it really doesn't add anything to a story aside from shit slave morality stories that we surely havnt heard ten thousand times in the last decade.

Not that any of this really happened, but yeah.

>>48882059
Hardly, what, cortana gained sentience?
Welp looks like Microsoft has a new toy.

>>48882130

Cortant, like any other computer or virtual intelligence, doesn't think.
It just reasons through a series of logic chains.

>>48882099

Control Construct is concentration duration and it needs to be a construct that recognizes a master. The second is iffy with free willed golems. At the very least you'd be making opposed rolls every round (As it is it's own master)

>>48882043
>Because nothing you said added anything to the conversation either [...] except they also alive so what the fuck matters.
I was attempting to clarify what exactly your vagaries ammounted to, now that we're more clear on that front it doesn't matter.

>Technical differences are fucking relevant, though.
The entire crux of my argument is to figure out why you think they're relevant.

>Mechanics matter as to whether something is Good or Evil or Neutral or Lawful or Chaotic.
Those are categories used in mechanics but they are not usually determinative, they are more often descriptive.

>I am not abstracting anything to reality [...] You seem to have mistaken something, severely.
Apparently I have, but looking back at your earlier horrendously vague statements I place only marginal blame on myself. You appear to be making qualitative assessments of things without giving an explanation of why, and for which there appears to be no in-universe argument, so I was under the impression that you were making general statements.

>You are not even having a discourse with me if you think that is what I have been arguing.
It's not what I think you've been arguing, but what I assumed was informing your reasoning, for the aforementioned reasons.

>>48882229
>The entire crux of my argument is to figure out why you think they're relevant.
>Those are categories used in mechanics but they are not usually determinative, they are more often descriptive.
Technical and mechanical qualities hold weight in-universe to determine whether something is alive or not. D&D is an objective universe of mechanical existences and interactions.

>Apparently I have, but looking back at your earlier horrendously vague statements I place only marginal blame on myself. You appear to be making qualitative assessments of things without giving an explanation of why, and for which there appears to be no in-universe argument, so I was under the impression that you were making general statements.
This started with the paladin of OP's post performing either Good or Evil, and I said it was overwhelmingly Lawful Neutral in morality.
I don't know how one would take away Lawful Neutral existing in reality. Most real-world moralists don't even acknowledge the idea of Neutrality.

>>48882083
>By right they don't, which is what matters
Under common law, the usage of owned property which is open, notorious, exclusive, and uncontested; by a party with no legal title over said property, for a certain period of time (varying by specific context from three years for simple property such as tools or clothing to thirty years for real estate and land ownership), is sufficient backing for the legal title to be involuntarily transfered from the prior owner to the party making use of that property.

The golems made no attempt to hide their claim of self-ownership: the possession is open.

The golem's actions were obvious and apparent to any onlookers, and any owner who made a reasonable effort to be aware of his property would be aware of their actions: the possession is notorious. Note: should the owner fail to make a reasonable effort to remain aware of his property, then it is by law abandoned and title is held by the first open claimant.

The golem's claim to self-ownership is absolute and affords no use of their service to any other party, except at the discretion of the golems: the possession is exclusive.

The golems have maintained this claim for a period of 450 years, over which time the original prior claimant has certainly died and, due to the unresolved contest of title, could not legally pass down title to the golem's ownership to his descendants. Further, for the intervening period prior to the blight, the kingdom has made no significant actionable effort to assert their claim to title: the possession is uncontested.

By law, the golems have right of ownership over themselves.

>>48876497
I would say yes. Considering his reasoning is reduced to "the strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must" it is more lawful evil. He compared a sentient being to a fork, which brings the mentality of knowing one's place in the caste system. Slavery or not it is still at least lawful neutral if not lawful evil.

>>48882057
>They knew about it and were still his
Allow me to directed you back to
>Is not a crime because the kingdom was never their Lawful master.

>>48882269
>Technical and mechanical qualities hold weight in-universe to determine whether something is alive or not.
I at no point denied that, I just fail to see why the mechanical distinction between life and non-life determines its validity as a target for Lawful/Chaotic/Good/Evil acts. As far as I'm aware, there is no rule in any bookI've read that draws an explicit connection there.

>This started with the paladin of OP's post performing either Good or Evil, and I said it was overwhelmingly Lawful Neutral in morality.
I didn't mean that you great steaming git, I mean your qualititive distinction between life and non-life.

>>48882341
>I at no point denied that, I just fail to see why the mechanical distinction between life and non-life determines its validity as a target for Lawful/Chaotic/Good/Evil acts. As far as I'm aware, there is no rule in any bookI've read that draws an explicit connection there.
Because something that is not alive does not hold any meaning to their life and death (as they are not alive, they cannot actually die, merely stop moving). Just as a paladin would not fall for breaking a pot, so too would a paladin not fall for destroying a golem, regardless of granted intelligence. It isn't, and fundamentally cannot be, an Evil act. However, his reasons for doing so can be Good or Evil, but ultimately his reasons were decidedly and supremely Neutral.

>I didn't mean that you great steaming git, I mean your qualititive distinction between life and non-life.
Which was intended to be filtered towards the perception as to how that matters as to Good or Evil. Interacting with nonliving things is typically neither Good or Evil, but simply is. Breaking them for good reasons is typically Lawful, and breaking them for no good reason is typically Chaotic, but usually not much more than that.

>>48882202
Still doesn't make this any less of a tired over done subject.

Which is probably why retards here love talking sbout it, because most of it's been discussed to death and no thought needs to be put into it.

>>48882391
>Because something that is not alive does not hold any meaning
This is what I'm talking about. Please point to the part in the DM's Guide that says this or anything amounting to it.

>they cannot actually die, merely stop moving
Can you technically kill a ghost? No. Can you destroy a ghost with the right power? Yes.
Is destroying the ghost a good person a morally neutral act?
If not, then this is just a technicality with no bearing on the morality of it.

> It isn't, and fundamentally cannot be, an Evil act.
See the first part of this post.

>Which was intended to be filtered towards the perception as to how that matters as to Good or Evil.
Which you still have not made a reasonable connection to, or quoted from any official material that arbitrates as much.

>>48882495
>This is what I'm talking about. Please point to the part in the DM's Guide that says this or anything amounting to it.
You're equally going to have to point me to where breaking inanimate objects is Evil, then.

>Can you technically kill a ghost? No. Can you destroy a ghost with the right power? Yes.
You can kill a ghost. It's an undead, it will terminate when the negative/necrotic energy holding its being together is dispersed. It's unliving, which is different than not living.
>Is destroying the ghost a good person a morally neutral act?
Generally, Good people do not leave ghosts, but in such an event it would depend on one's reasons for destroying the ghost. It can be a Good act if you are doing it to obliterate an undead (which are anathema to Good gods like Pelor and Lathander, and even Good undead must perish), a Lawful Neutral act if you are restoring it to the natural order, an Evil act if you are destroying it because you know it is Good and serves Good purposes.
To destroy a Good ghost for no reason rings Chaotic, to me. Not Good or Evil.

>Which you still have not made a reasonable connection to, or quoted from any official material that arbitrates as much.
You won't find official material that tells you breaking a rock on the wayside is Evil and causes paladins to fall.

>>48881490
>It is wrong for slaves to seek freedom.
>I shall ignore the rest of your post because it doesn't give me much to work with but I my anoy you by calling you lad.
>I shall now imply I can get laid.
I love the quality of the trolling in this thread. From the OP who hasn't commented since the start to the I shall argue that this was justified without checking the details of the OP faggots it's this odd type of comfy that you only get if you've spent too much time on 4chan.

>>48882573
>You're equally going to have to point me to where breaking inanimate objects is Evil, then.
I'm not the one drawing a connection where there isn't one. Insofar as the rules have nothing to say on a subject, it is up to the DM to decide. This DM obviously decided that sapient beings deserve to be treated the same regardless of whether or not they're techncially alive, which I would agree with. This means that rendering one inoperable is equivalent to killing a living thing, not equivalent to destroying an inanimate object.

>You can kill a ghost.
Despite you saying that, you then use the term "destroy" for the rest of your explanation. Which serves to highlight my point. I was saying that whether you call it's termination 'death' or 'deactivation' is irrelevant.
Actually, having said that, destroying the sapient construct could be seen as far worse, equivalent to killing a person, going to the afterlife and then obliterating their soul.
Of course, according to you, destroying souls instead of absolving what connects them to the world and sending them off to the afterlife is fine because it's easier and undeads be bad.

>You won't find official material that tells you breaking a rock on the wayside is Evil and causes paladins to fall.
Most rocks aren't sapient.

>>48882705
>I'm not the one drawing a connection where there isn't one. Insofar as the rules have nothing to say on a subject, it is up to the DM to decide. This DM obviously decided that sapient beings deserve to be treated the same regardless of whether or not they're techncially alive, which I would agree with. This means that rendering one inoperable is equivalent to killing a living thing, not equivalent to destroying an inanimate object.
I don't see how killing something that is decidedly not alive can be equivalent to something that is. Sapience is not a quality that factors into the determination. It's not alive, and so it cannot be killed.

>Despite you saying that, you then use the term "destroy" for the rest of your explanation. Which serves to highlight my point. I was saying that whether you call it's termination 'death' or 'deactivation' is irrelevant.
Unlife can end, but ghosts have no bodies, so I use destroyed to highlight that. It's an ethereal being getting dispersed, not someone getting stabbed.
>Actually, having said that, destroying the sapient construct could be seen as far worse, equivalent to killing a person, going to the afterlife and then obliterating their soul.
That is a bizarre interpretation to me.
>Of course, according to you, destroying souls instead of absolving what connects them to the world and sending them off to the afterlife is fine because it's easier and undeads be bad.
Destroying a soul would be supremely Evil as it's messing with the Great Wheel and the foundations of all reality in D&D.

>Most rocks aren't sapient.
P-zombies aren't either, which is why I equated golems to them earlier. Slaughtering p-zombies all day in D&D isn't Good or Evil, it'd just be regarded as a bizarre course of action. Not unlike Don Quixote tilting at windmills, choosing the path of golem genocide would be so strange as to not fit into Good, Evil, Law, or Chaos.

>>48881924
>No, golems do not have any soul
Incorrect, motherfucka.
>The animating force for a golem is a spirit from the Elemental Plane of Earth. The process of creating the golem binds the unwilling spirit to the artificial body and subjects it to the will of the golem’s creator.

Literally they've got a soul enslaved inside of them.
The soul is also a slave.

>>48882814
That's like stealing a wallet and saying you've got a credit card. Technically true, but you know that's not what people mean here.
The elemental spirit animating the golem isn't the golem, and it really doesn't wanna be here in any case.

>>48882065
Money is now no longer the actual currency, but individuals paid to inform someone how much they are owed by the central bank, by residing in their pocket.
The roof gets contracted to keep the rain off for repairs, as well as having a place to stand on.

The people still are needed to upkeep all this shit.

>>48882573
>You're equally going to have to point me to where breaking inanimate objects is Evil, then.

IT'S A GOOD THING THAT WE'VE ONLY TALKED ABOUT BREAKING ANIMATE OBJECTS ISN'T IT

>>48882850
>this puppet is pulled around by magic therefore it is a real boy
nope

>>48882823
So, if you extracted souls from people but their bodies are still walking around and essentially identical people, it's ok to use them as fuckpuppets and whatever you want to do with them, because they don't have a soul?

Did you ever ask if your soul wants to be shackeled to your body or if it wants to be free in heaven?

Are you not enslaving your own soul?

>>48882863
Andrew Ryan go take a bathosphere home.

>>48882781
>Sapience is not a quality that factors into the determination.
Only because you're making up what factors in by assigning an equivalence that is not in any of the books and you still have not supplied an argument for.

>It's not alive, and so it cannot be killed.
Again with this. Why, why why, why does this fucking matter in the slightest? It's sapient and it's being destroyed. That is exactly as bad as destroying a sapient thing that is alive. You disagree with me on this but you STILL won't tell me why.

>Destroying a soul would be supremely Evil
A ghost is a soul, mate. I have the aD&D Monstrous Compendium right here.

>That is a bizarre interpretation to me.
Why? Both have the exact same result, the anihilation of a sapient being.

>P-zombies aren't either
And philosophical zombies are distinguished by not having a real mind, only a chinese room that is equipped to simulate a mind. A golem with a sapient mind is in no way equivalent to a P-zombie.
On that note, how do you know that a living thing isn't a P-zombie with a fake soul that is (meta)physically indistinguishable from a real one?

>>48882863
>So, if you extracted souls from people but their bodies are still walking around and essentially identical people, it's ok to use them as fuckpuppets and whatever you want to do with them, because they don't have a soul?
Far as D&D matters, the only Evil thing here is extracting everybody's souls. Which is colossally, unendingly Evil, but the rest is just playing with weird meat dolls.
>Did you ever ask if your soul wants to be shackeled to your body or if it wants to be free in heaven?
>Are you not enslaving your own soul?
Mortals are aware of their soul's desires at all times. Their soul will not have a different opinion than themselves at the current moment. The golem cannot hear the opinion of the bound elemental spirit within it.

>>48882897
Is a golem not entitled to the right of being that its earth elemental engine allows it?
No! says the king in the dying land. It belongs to him!
No! says the paladin, riding upon his pale horse. It belongs to the people.
No! says the anonymous! It's a convoluted matter worth discussing over 193 posts and 42 images omitted, click reply to view.

I chose differently. I chose... freedom!

Thought I'd archive this thread on Sup/tg/ because if the interesting debate it's raised:

http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive.html?searchall=A+Question+About+Golems

Vote it up if you want to.

>>48882920
>I can torture these people as a paladin for fun because their souls were removed and not fall

sure, see how many DMs agree with you on that, bub.

>>48882918
>Only because you're making up what factors in by assigning an equivalence that is not in any of the books and you still have not supplied an argument for.
>Again with this. Why, why why, why does this fucking matter in the slightest? It's sapient and it's being destroyed. That is exactly as bad as destroying a sapient thing that is alive. You disagree with me on this but you STILL won't tell me why.
Because it IS NOT ALIVE. The book says it is not alive. The book does not punish anyone for damaging things that are not alive. All nonliving things are equal, be it golem or rock.

>A ghost is a soul, mate. I have the aD&D Monstrous Compendium right here.
Dispersing a ghost doesn't obliterate the soul, it only banishes it back to its rightful afterlife.

>Why? Both have the exact same result, the anihilation of a sapient being.
That's a secondary result. One is terminating an endless existence that creates meaning for the entirety of the universe, a mote of energy that the entire Great Wheel exists to host and maintain, and the other is an empty collection of arcane energy.

>And philosophical zombies are distinguished by not having a real mind, only a chinese room that is equipped to simulate a mind. A golem with a sapient mind is in no way equivalent to a P-zombie.
It is not the sapience of a living being, and offers no benefit or negatives to the universe at large. Its existence is meaningless. (Here's something that maps to real-world reality: sapient life is pretty meaningless here too. Welcome to nihilism. We don't have Good and Evil.)
>On that note, how do you know that a living thing isn't a P-zombie with a fake soul that is (meta)physically indistinguishable from a real one?
There is no such thing as a "fake soul indistinguishable from a real one". That is nonsense to contemplate. If X is indistinguishable from Y, X = Y.

>>48883009
>The book does not punish anyone for damaging things that are not alive
Actually, you can get kicked from despoiling consecrated areas, and breaking things that's owned by others is also equivalently lawbreaking and also done en masse will get you shitcanned.

The golems may not be alive, but they're either owned by the state, or they've got ownership of themselves (and they don't have to have souls to have legal rights of ownership).

Why do the people defending the paladin ignore the most salient points in this thread like >>48877309 AND >>48877583?

>>48883084
That's valid enough, I already said earlier that breaking things for no reason leans towards Chaotic.

>>48882920
>Mortals are aware of their soul's desires at all times. Their soul will not have a different opinion than themselves at the current moment. The golem cannot hear the opinion of the bound elemental spirit within it.
So if someone cast a spell to make you unaware of what your soul wanted, then it's ok to rapetorture you because that soul is no longer yours? I mean, that's the same logic in saying the golem's earth elemental soul doesn't belong to it.

>>48883009
>>48883009
>Because it IS NOT ALIVE.
>The book does not punish anyone for damaging things that are not alive
Where does it make this distinction at all? It does not explicitly describe what counts and what beings with particular mechanical traits do or do not count as a valid target for Law/Chaos/Good/Evil acts anywhere. You're making an assumption, drawing a line such that, if you just didn't do it, or gave a sound argument for it, this entire argument would be resolved.

>Dispersing a ghost doesn't obliterate the soul, it only banishes it back to its rightful afterlife.
That's not what it says here. It says that killing a ghost by "normal" means just causes it to dissipate for a while before regenerating, and the only way to get it to go back to the afterlife is by absolving its connection to the mortal realm. Using certain magic, you can totally destroy it.

>That's a secondary result. One is terminating an endless existence that creates meaning for the entirety of the universe, a mote of energy that the entire Great Wheel exists to host and maintain, and the other is an empty collection of arcane energy.
>It is not the sapience of a living being, and offers no benefit or negatives to the universe at large.
>Its existence is meaningless.
Ultimately so is the existence of living things, outsiders and gods. What's your point?

>If X is indistinguishable from Y, X = Y.
Excelent, so P-zombies are people then. That's what you've said, right? Becuase a P-zombie is an entity that is impossible to distinguish from a person but in fact does not experience qualia.

>>48879588

Pursuing a perfect solution is not impossible. It doesn't matter that you won't find perfect - you'll still find better. Besides, they already settled on a near perfect solution- they just needed to find a way to implement it.

>>48883130
Again, the Evil thing there is casting the spell that severs your soul in the first place (which is supremely Evil), not what they do afterwards which would generally be a waste of their own time.

>>48883142
So someone with a soul inside of them that wants to get out, is A.OK to enslave or do whatever with, because the soul doesn't belong to them?

Because that's what I'm hearing, since that's exactly what the golems are.

>>48883091
Because this isn't an actual argument, it's just concentrated shitposting

>>48883132
>Where does it make this distinction at all? It does not explicitly describe what counts and what beings with particular mechanical traits do or do not count as a valid target for Law/Chaos/Good/Evil acts anywhere. You're making an assumption, drawing a line such that, if you just didn't do it, or gave a sound argument for it, this entire argument would be resolved.
There's no need for an argument for it because it's axiomatic. Nonliving things are nonliving.
>That's not what it says here. It says that killing a ghost by "normal" means just causes it to dissipate for a while before regenerating, and the only way to get it to go back to the afterlife is by absolving its connection to the mortal realm. Using certain magic, you can totally destroy it.
This must be a difference between editions, then. Obliterating a Good ghost in such a fashion would be Evil, therefore, and even Good characters who cannot abide undead must seek out the proper methods of exorcism.
>Ultimately so is the existence of living things, outsiders and gods. What's your point?
Outsiders and Gods exist to maintain the Great Wheel and pull the cycle of souls every which way.
The ultimate point of the Great Wheel, and therefore living things and their souls, is at the hands of the ineffable Overgods.
>Excelent, so P-zombies are people then. That's what you've said, right? Becuase a P-zombie is an entity that is impossible to distinguish from a person but in fact does not experience qualia.
Now that I saw coming from a mile away. P-zombies are distinguished by that selfsame fact of not experiencing qualia, making them inequivalent to beings with souls. You haven't described any feature of this false-soul as to differentiate it from a real-soul, and if none exist, anything that has this false-soul isn't a p-zombie.

>>48883169
This seems like a valid enough conclusion to me.
It does mean the creation of golems should be rather Evil, but making use of them is not.

>>48883209
>There's no need for an argument for it because it's axiomatic. Nonliving things are nonliving.
Again, so fucking what? Where is the connection? You're just saying two entirely separate things and acting like they have some connective meaning that is not established anywhere in the rules.

>The ultimate point of the Great Wheel, and therefore living things and their souls, is at the hands of the ineffable Overgods.
So what's the point of them then? Sounds pretty meaningless if you ask me.

>You haven't described any feature of this false-soul as to differentiate it from a real-soul, and if none exist, anything that has this false-soul isn't a p-zombie.
The soul does not experience qualia, but behaves according to any and all possible means of observation as though it does.
How was that not absolutely obvious from my initial proposition?

>>48883270
>Again, so fucking what? Where is the connection? You're just saying two entirely separate things and acting like they have some connective meaning that is not established anywhere in the rules.
They're not separate at all.
If it's not alive, it doesn't matter whether it's sapient or not. It's an irrelevant detail. You say that's not established in the rules, I say their divergence isn't established in the rules.
>So what's the point of them then? Sounds pretty meaningless if you ask me.
Unknown and unknowable. Overgods serve the role of real-world deities in that they cannot be understood by inhabitants of the realms.
>The soul does not experience qualia, but behaves according to any and all possible means of observation as though it does.
And it goes through the cycle of death and the great wheel like any other soul? Fundamentally impossible. It has to experience Good, Evil, Law, Chaos, and Neutrality to end up anywhere after death. This cannot exist in D&D terms.

>>48883312
>If it's not alive, it doesn't matter whether it's sapient or not.
Where. Does. It. Say. That?

>I say their divergence isn't established in the rules.
Which means, by Jove, that it's up for the DM to decide! Not you and your non-argument.

>Unknown and unknowable. Overgods serve the role of real-world deities in that they cannot be understood by inhabitants of the realms.
So first of all, how the fuck do we know that sapient soulless beings don't matter to them, and that there's not an after-afterlife that undetectable supersouls go to, and everything sapient has a supersoul, and that anyone who ever broke a golem won't be punished in hyperhell?
Secondly, how the fuck do we know that anything they do matters at all if they're so unknowable? Maybe they're doing it because the Great Wheel is just a distraction for them over how pointless their own existences are and once their game's over they're going to kill themselves?
Do you see how this argument is just silly?

>And it goes through the cycle of death and the great wheel like any other soul? Fundamentally impossible. It has to experience Good, Evil, Law, Chaos, and Neutrality to end up anywhere after death.
A person within the setting would have no way of possibly knowing that. My point stands entirely.

>>48876497
You can't enslave a tool desu

Sounds to me like the golems were just glitching and acting contrary what they were designed for and the King was just having them mended so they can do what they were made for. A neutral action at worst.

>>48883514
But muh slavery analogy anon muh feeling!

>>48883470
>Where. Does. It. Say. That?
Where does it say otherwise?
>Which means, by Jove, that it's up for the DM to decide! Not you and your non-argument.
Rule Zero supersedes anything else anyways. Invoking it is irrelevant on any subject.
>So first of all, how the fuck do we know that sapient soulless beings don't matter to them, and that there's not an after-afterlife that undetectable supersouls go to, and everything sapient has a supersoul, and that anyone who ever broke a golem won't be punished in hyperhell?
Because that shit isn't in the book. Overgods are.
>A person within the setting would have no way of possibly knowing that. My point stands entirely.
Yes they would. You can Plane Shift to the great wheel any time to see. They would not find these fake-souls there, thus having a measurable difference between real-soul and fake-soul. QED.

>>48883605
>>48883514
"why are you breaking the tools that's supposed to make the food, anon?"

>>48880372
Like other replies have said, it depends on the god, and on how conventional and literal this Paladin plays, but I feel like things like ambushes aren't black and white.

There's a big difference between ambushing fighters on patrol who have their armor on and weapons drawn, and ambushing them in their sleep at camp. All warfare, unless fought by complete retards, involves the element of surprise on some scale or another, and if paladins are to be functional warriors instead of duelists with very limited application, ambushes are fine. Guards and patrols wear their armor and keep their arms ready because they know this well.

A good paladin could perfectly well force these sleeping soldiers to surrender, take prisoners, or tell them to fuck off. The only case in which this would be un-Paladin-like is if the prisoners were mistreated, or the terms of a surrender were breached by the Paladin, or his allies under his watch.

>>48883659
>Where does it say otherwise?
>Rule Zero supersedes anything else anyways. Invoking it is irrelevant on any subject.
Because you're claiming something to be, without anything at all to back it up, and with no reasoning whatsoever. If you gave me an argument for why you make the equivalence you do, even if I 100% disagreed with it, I would be satisfied. But you have not presented an argument of any kind.

>Overgods are.
And literally everything about their nature, motivations and plan is not explained, so the significance of things with souls as opposed to things with no souls is NOT AFFECTED IN ANY KNOWABLE WAY by their existence.

>Yes they would. You can Plane Shift to the great wheel any time to see. They would not find these fake-souls there, thus having a measurable difference between real-soul and fake-soul. QED.
How would they know that what they're seeing is actually what's happening, idiot?
How could any being possibly know for sure that the Great Wheel and everything in it is not a massive extremely elaborate illusion created entirely to fool them by the Overgods? You know this isn't the case because you've read the books. Barry the woodcutter, Archmage Hyperius and Pelor are all completely in the dark on this matter.

>>48883772
>How could any being possibly know for sure that the Great Wheel and everything in it is not a massive extremely elaborate illusion created entirely to fool them by the Overgods?
I mean, they don't. That's pretty much what the Athar think, after all, and not far from the philosophy of the Believers of the Source.
But that would be irrelevant, since within this hypothetical illusion Good/Evil et al. are still measurable and in such an event it would only matter within the context of the illusion anyway.

>this thread

Damn, son. I better prepare for when the South rises.

>>48883709
The thing is, is it honourable?
Luring an enemy into attacking is fine. Drawing an ambassador into a peace treaty meeting in order to murder them away from their guards?

I wouldn't say that's honourable, even if you didn't lie directly to them.

>>48883940
My point wasn't about the illusion, I was trying to get you to understand the p-zombie soul concept and what it implies.
It is impossible for anyone to know whether or not a thing is actually sapient/soul'd/cosmic-special/whatever, so there are only 2 reasonalbe ways to approach things that are apparently so. Either by being a solopsist edgelord and giving no fucks about any other being because for all you know it's not even real, or treating all things which are apparently real beings like you with the respect and dignity that you would yourself want to be treated with. Anything in between is nonsense.

>>48881669
Going back a bit.

How does the paladin know what the method is that anything gains a soul?

If the paladin doesn't have a detect soul spell, then how does he know that golems DON'T have souls? Just as much as sperm and eggs have souls/don't have souls.

How does he KNOW that these golems don't automatically gain souls when becoming sapient?

And if he can't tell the methodology of soul qualification, how else is he going to judge, apart from "I just think they don't have souls"?

>>48883227
>I see a gangrape going on
>I join in because it's not evil if someone else started it before me
>judge doesn't fall for my convincing argument
>every night Biag Al and Tyrone visit me in my prison cell

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW