Palladia etymology

1st edition? 2nd edition? It doesnt matter! Let's just talk Palladium Fantasy.

Moderators: Immortals, Supreme Beings, Old Ones

User avatar
Tor
Palladin
Posts: 6975
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 2:37 pm
Comment: If you have something to say, back it up with thoughts and reasons. Simply posting to agree or disagree tends to be a waste.
Location: Pyramid

Palladia etymology

Unread post by Tor »

Noticed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palladium ... aying_Game that it says:
It is set in the Palladium world (use of the unofficial name "Palladia" is discouraged by the publisher)


I am wondering if anyone knows when this began to happen? I can see the term being used back in 2005. All I could figure, thumbing through Dragons and Gods, is perhaps it might be derived from the book called "Ta Palladia" referenced on page 106? Could the name of this book be derived from a reference to the Palladium of Desires I assume the world is named after?

Also, considering that the original PRPG said that it was Panath who slew Rurga's mortal lover (this bit never made it to Dragons and Gods, much like Rabdos being in love with Andras), is it possible that the Ta Palladia is actually corrupted and lying about what really happened? Panath's lies to make his mother-in-law look bad? This would fix a huge problem I've had with her being Principled considering what the Ta Palladia describes her doing (murdering a guy for telling a loving lie in ignorance).

Mark Hall wrote:A reference may have popped into Bill or Steve's books

Would anyone know if the Ta Palladia or the term 'Palladia' had ever existed prior to D&G's usage in the late 90s? I don't remember if I'd come across reference to the book or the word in any of the 1st edition books or even the PF2nd main book.

https://simple.wiktionary.org/wiki/palladia indicates it is plural so perhaps if there is only a single Palladium on the Palladium World, 'Ta Palladia' refers to multiple Palladiums spread across multiple worlds?

Perhaps each world in which Rurga's pantheon dominates there is each a Palladium on it?

In which case, aren't they all Palladium Worlds and the Palladium Fantasy world has no unique claim to the name, and they could collectively be called Palladia Worlds?

Has what the planet is called in-universe ever been referenced? Like on (and off) Wormwood they actually do call it Wormwood. Do we have specific references to inhabitants calling the Palladium World by that name? If so, has any book ever explained why? Are all inhabitants aware of any connection to the Palladium of Desires?

I think if a PoD exists on other worlds then PallWorld has no unique name to the claim. Perhaps the Palladia on other worlds are not "of Desires" but instead of other things? Like the 'Palladium of Dreams' or 'Palladium of Fears' or something like that?

If so perhaps the PF2ndRPG world could be called "Desire World"?

UR Leader Hobbes wrote:I thought it was called Kre Lok.. ;)
dragon_blaze_99 wrote:its Kreelock always has been always will be :D

how come people keep saying "Kreelock" in threads I read about this? I think I remember a monster with that name (though I forget which book) but I don't see the connection...
"1st edition? 2nd edition? It doesnt matter! Let's just talk" -Forums of the Megaverse
User avatar
Library Ogre
Palladium Books® Freelance Writer
Posts: 9801
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2001 1:01 am
Comment: My comments do not necessarily represent the views of Palladium Books.
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Palladia etymology

Unread post by Library Ogre »

IIRC, "Palladia" was an unofficial name that cropped up on a mailing list for Palladium Fantasy in the late 90s. Bill, Steve, myself, and others were on it, and we used it since it was shorter and sounded better to us. When a number of us moved over to a Onelist (and later Yahoogroup) called "The Tavern" (after some drama; one guy being creepy, people unable to post or unsubscribe because they had numbers in their email addresses, someone accusing Bill of stealing ideas), the usage continued.

My first contract for Mysteries of Magic is where it was spelled out that they didn't like the name Palladia, and when I did a major overhaul of the PFRPG Wiki, I inserted the clause above.
-overproduced by Martin Hannett

When I see someone "fisking" these days my first inclination is to think "That person doesn't have much to say, and says it in volume." -John Scalzi
Happiness is a long block list.
If you don't want to be vilified, don't act like a villain.
The Megaverse runs on vibes.
All Palladium Articles
Mutant Dawn for Savage Worlds!
User avatar
The Dark Elf
Rifter® Contributer
Posts: 3074
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 8:04 am
Comment: "So gentlemen, are you prepared to open your minds and travel to worlds hitherto undreamed of?"
Location: UK

Re: Palladia etymology

Unread post by The Dark Elf »

I HATE the name Palladia. Glad PBs does too.

I think that the Ta Palladia for the Rurga pantheon is written by people from the Palladium World so theyve named it an off shoot from the word Palladium. But I wouldnt have it that its used by Rurga.
Rifter 52 Cannibal Magic
Rifter 55 The Ancestral Mystic P.C.C.
Rifter 59 The Lopanic Games adventure "The Lion, the Ditch & the Warlock". Illustrations to this adventure can be found here.
Rifter 71 & 72 Double Issue Ninjas & Superspies adventure "On a Wing & a Prayer"
Rifter 80 Masters Unlimited
User avatar
pblackcrow
Champion
Posts: 2541
Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: On Earth
Contact:

Re: Palladia etymology

Unread post by pblackcrow »

Palladium is a metal. Also, this is just an opinion, but my groups has always called the world Palladia, the main continent Palladium or vice versia.
Ankh, udja, seneb.
User avatar
Cinos
Hero
Posts: 1466
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 9:43 pm
Location: Madsion, Wisconsin
Contact:

Re: Palladia etymology

Unread post by Cinos »

I've never understood the rabid hatred of calling the world Palladia. I'm not sure where I picked up on it, but it seems like a natural and elegant shorting from the unwieldy and unrealistic "Palladium World" or "World of Palladium". Though, I'm half tempted to use the name myself if I ever make a major setting, just as a playful troll.
Getting a mage to tell you where the hydra is...10,000 gold
Hiring a summoner... 40,000 gold
Hiring one hundred 10th level mercenaries... 98,567 gold
Giving a hydra skull to your necromancer... priceless

Board? Read bad fan fiction!
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=120575&p=2349744#p2349744
User avatar
Prysus
Champion
Posts: 2593
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Boise, ID (US)
Contact:

Re: Palladia etymology

Unread post by Prysus »

Cinos wrote:I've never understood the rabid hatred of calling the world Palladia.

Greetings and Salutations. First, I won't say I hate the name Palladia. If I'm in your game and you want the name to be Palladia, that is your right. However of you were in my game and used the term, people would treat you like you had an I.Q. of 3, and rightfully so.

I did (and still would), however, hate how some fans would argue that Palladia is the official name in the books. If called on it, they'd say they can't find it right now but it's there and want you to take their word for it. Then it would be argued that it was the 1st Edition name. When told I have 1st Edition and again asked for a page number, they still couldn't provide it. There's a reason for that, it doesn't exist in the Official books. So while I won't speak for others, I suspect the hatred of the term is not the term itself, but the inaccuracy (and sometimes idiocy) associated with it. Note: This isn't as common anymore and it's generally accepted Palladia is an alternate unofficial term. However when I first came to these boards, and more so the chats, this was a reoccurring problem.

As for it being more elegant, that's a matter of opinion. Palladium is indeed a metal. Earth is soil, but people don't argue Earia is more elegant and the actual name of the planet. If you had to argue consistently with people claiming we live on planet Earia and you don't know what you're talking about because you're stupid enough to think it's called Earth... you might come to hate the term Earia too (if you care at all about accuracy and people being smart enough to actually know what they're talking about).

Note: I once ran an alien game on Earth. One of my NPC hated it here and bad mouthed (saying it was stupid) and if they were going to call it that they should've just called it "dirtball."

Anyways, that's all for now. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys.
Living the Fantasy (fan website)

Rifter #45; Of Bows & Arrows (Archery; expanding rules and abilities)
Rifter #52; From Ruins to Runes (Living Rune Weapons; playable characters and NPC)
Rifter #55; Home Away From Home (Quorian Culture; expanded from PF Book 9: Baalgor Wastelands)

Official PDF versions of Rifter #45, #52, and #55 can be found at DriveThruRPG.
User avatar
Tor
Palladin
Posts: 6975
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 2:37 pm
Comment: If you have something to say, back it up with thoughts and reasons. Simply posting to agree or disagree tends to be a waste.
Location: Pyramid

Re: Palladia etymology

Unread post by Tor »

The Dark Elf wrote:I wouldnt have it that its used by Rurga.
I'm thinking perhaps Panath wrote the Ta Palladia to troll Rurga and make her lose worshippers (framing her for her husband's murder when he's the one who did it)

As for how he gets away with it... perhaps Rurga really did do the murder but Panath mind-controlled her somehow into doing it? That would explain why she doesn't object to the document and why her alignment hasn't dropped.
"1st edition? 2nd edition? It doesnt matter! Let's just talk" -Forums of the Megaverse
User avatar
The Dark Elf
Rifter® Contributer
Posts: 3074
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 8:04 am
Comment: "So gentlemen, are you prepared to open your minds and travel to worlds hitherto undreamed of?"
Location: UK

Re: Palladia etymology

Unread post by The Dark Elf »

Tor wrote:
The Dark Elf wrote:I wouldnt have it that its used by Rurga.
I'm thinking perhaps Panath wrote the Ta Palladia to troll Rurga and make her lose worshippers (framing her for her husband's murder when he's the one who did it)

As for how he gets away with it... perhaps Rurga really did do the murder but Panath mind-controlled her somehow into doing it? That would explain why she doesn't object to the document and why her alignment hasn't dropped.

Plausible good ideas.


BTW, I always thought a "likely" name for the Palladium World would just be people calling it Palladium. Like most people shorten Palladium Books to just Palladium.
Rifter 52 Cannibal Magic
Rifter 55 The Ancestral Mystic P.C.C.
Rifter 59 The Lopanic Games adventure "The Lion, the Ditch & the Warlock". Illustrations to this adventure can be found here.
Rifter 71 & 72 Double Issue Ninjas & Superspies adventure "On a Wing & a Prayer"
Rifter 80 Masters Unlimited
User avatar
Library Ogre
Palladium Books® Freelance Writer
Posts: 9801
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2001 1:01 am
Comment: My comments do not necessarily represent the views of Palladium Books.
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Palladia etymology

Unread post by Library Ogre »

Tor wrote:
The Dark Elf wrote:I wouldnt have it that its used by Rurga.
I'm thinking perhaps Panath wrote the Ta Palladia to troll Rurga and make her lose worshippers (framing her for her husband's murder when he's the one who did it)


You haven't heard my theory that Rurga's husband is Kalba?
-overproduced by Martin Hannett

When I see someone "fisking" these days my first inclination is to think "That person doesn't have much to say, and says it in volume." -John Scalzi
Happiness is a long block list.
If you don't want to be vilified, don't act like a villain.
The Megaverse runs on vibes.
All Palladium Articles
Mutant Dawn for Savage Worlds!
User avatar
Tor
Palladin
Posts: 6975
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 2:37 pm
Comment: If you have something to say, back it up with thoughts and reasons. Simply posting to agree or disagree tends to be a waste.
Location: Pyramid

Re: Palladia etymology

Unread post by Tor »

No... but I am intrigued. I'm not sure how he would've became a god. Rurga's mortal lover/husband (not sure if the PRPG and D+G mentions are the same guy, TBH) is kinda glossed over in the Ta Palladia it seems, not sure why people would worship him. Maybe Rurga worshippers have violent wives and commiserate with his victimhood (even if it was a Panath fiction) ?
"1st edition? 2nd edition? It doesnt matter! Let's just talk" -Forums of the Megaverse
User avatar
Library Ogre
Palladium Books® Freelance Writer
Posts: 9801
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2001 1:01 am
Comment: My comments do not necessarily represent the views of Palladium Books.
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Palladia etymology

Unread post by Library Ogre »

See, I never saw that he was a mortal. I saw him as a god of warrior-mages, deeply in love with his warrior wife (and with his unborn daughter). His death changed the aspect of his deity... killed by truth will change you a bit... and his proficiency with magic passed to his daughter (if not the portfolio).
-overproduced by Martin Hannett

When I see someone "fisking" these days my first inclination is to think "That person doesn't have much to say, and says it in volume." -John Scalzi
Happiness is a long block list.
If you don't want to be vilified, don't act like a villain.
The Megaverse runs on vibes.
All Palladium Articles
Mutant Dawn for Savage Worlds!
User avatar
Tor
Palladin
Posts: 6975
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 2:37 pm
Comment: If you have something to say, back it up with thoughts and reasons. Simply posting to agree or disagree tends to be a waste.
Location: Pyramid

Re: Palladia etymology

Unread post by Tor »

1988's PRPGp161 for Panath "it was he, through treachery and deceit, slew Rurga's mortal lover".
1998's D+gp106 "I was married and happy."

My interpretation was that Rurga married a mortal, and that there might be a demigod out there somewhere. If we interpret Rurga's husband to be a god, this means she had a separate mortal lover that Panath messed with, and begs the question about how her sword could off a god so casually. It's good, but not THAT good. I'm not thinking this was Lista inside her... but I guess it could've been, not totally sure. Hacking your mom hack open your dad's head could explain the rift.

Him being a mortal more easily explains how she could 1-hit kill him by a called shot to the head though. I don't think gods would die that easily. Lista could've easily started off as a Demigod and later been elevated to full godhood like with Herakles and Dionysus in Pantheons were.

I honestly think that if the events in the Ta Palladia actually happened, that Panath was involved in messing with Rurga's psyche. I don't think this is something a Principled alignment would allow. So either Rurga was not Principled at the time (perhaps her remorse led to an Aberrent>Principled shift?) or she was being mind-controlled by Panath. Odds are Panath knew Rurga's true name so she had little defense against his magic. The guy can go pretty much wherever he wants (unsurpassed Manifest) with unlimited invisible/morph. Him not knowing any magic doesn't really matter, the guy could've acquired scrolls or told a minion Rurga's name and had them cast the spells to mess with her on his behalf. His innocence aura would mean there's no ramifications. She probably doesn't know he (or his minion) were involved in compelling her to murder (if it happened) and probably blames herself for it.
"1st edition? 2nd edition? It doesnt matter! Let's just talk" -Forums of the Megaverse
User avatar
Library Ogre
Palladium Books® Freelance Writer
Posts: 9801
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2001 1:01 am
Comment: My comments do not necessarily represent the views of Palladium Books.
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Palladia etymology

Unread post by Library Ogre »

I think it's a stretch to attribute the death of Rurga's husband (in Ta Palladia) to Panath. After all, Rurga has been around a while, and may have had other mortal lovers... likely worthy paladins who might have needed killing, from Panath's POV.
-overproduced by Martin Hannett

When I see someone "fisking" these days my first inclination is to think "That person doesn't have much to say, and says it in volume." -John Scalzi
Happiness is a long block list.
If you don't want to be vilified, don't act like a villain.
The Megaverse runs on vibes.
All Palladium Articles
Mutant Dawn for Savage Worlds!
User avatar
Tor
Palladin
Posts: 6975
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 2:37 pm
Comment: If you have something to say, back it up with thoughts and reasons. Simply posting to agree or disagree tends to be a waste.
Location: Pyramid

Re: Palladia etymology

Unread post by Tor »

Well in that case, we have 1 mortal lover Panath killed, 1 probably mortal husband who she killed (but I still blame Panath because... Principled) and maybe that bearded ghost is Lista's father or something and she killed him too, even though there's not really any indication.
"1st edition? 2nd edition? It doesnt matter! Let's just talk" -Forums of the Megaverse
User avatar
Library Ogre
Palladium Books® Freelance Writer
Posts: 9801
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2001 1:01 am
Comment: My comments do not necessarily represent the views of Palladium Books.
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Palladia etymology

Unread post by Library Ogre »

Tor wrote:Well in that case, we have 1 mortal lover Panath killed, 1 probably mortal husband who she killed (but I still blame Panath because... Principled) and maybe that bearded ghost is Lista's father or something and she killed him too, even though there's not really any indication.


Principled, but crazy.

I mean, blame Panath all you like, but what's the means? Her story is pretty straightforward... filled with a homicidal devotion to the truth, but straightforward.
-overproduced by Martin Hannett

When I see someone "fisking" these days my first inclination is to think "That person doesn't have much to say, and says it in volume." -John Scalzi
Happiness is a long block list.
If you don't want to be vilified, don't act like a villain.
The Megaverse runs on vibes.
All Palladium Articles
Mutant Dawn for Savage Worlds!
User avatar
Svartalf
Champion
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 1:39 pm
Comment: Beware of the Friar Tuck type putting on the French Maid outfit!
Location: Paris, France
Contact:

Re: Palladia etymology

Unread post by Svartalf »

Mark Hall wrote:See, I never saw that he was a mortal. I saw him as a god of warrior-mages, deeply in love with his warrior wife (and with his unborn daughter). His death changed the aspect of his deity... killed by truth will change you a bit... and his proficiency with magic passed to his daughter (if not the portfolio).

Lista is a mid level warlock and half baked summoner, not the worthy daughter of a "god of warrior-mages"...
Image
Svartalf - Flamboyantly Fresh Franco of Freedom Freakin' Fries : Shadyslug
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug - Cherico
PC stands for "patronizing cretin" G'mo
I name you honorary American Subjugator & Ratbastard
User avatar
Tor
Palladin
Posts: 6975
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 2:37 pm
Comment: If you have something to say, back it up with thoughts and reasons. Simply posting to agree or disagree tends to be a waste.
Location: Pyramid

Re: Palladia etymology

Unread post by Tor »

Mark Hall wrote:Principled, but crazy. I mean, blame Panath all you like, but what's the means? Her story is pretty straightforward... filled with a homicidal devotion to the truth, but straightforward.

I used to think she was crazy too, but I realized that this conclusion was based on believing the story. If we look beyond it, is there anything in the rest of her description which implies she would go THAT far? I can accept that a principled character MIGHT do this, but usually we get a 'with twisted perceptions' (even for scrupulous) when someone deviates that much from our normal expectations of the alignment.

Prior to coming up with the Panath theory, I used to justify it with stuff like 'killing isn't killing if you're a god' since someone's soul survives the body's death so it isn't truly death to them, and thus doesn't violate the alignment to kill an innocent because you're not really KILLING them. Especially if you're a god with the ability to bring people back to life, which for all we know, Rurga did, assuming it happened at all, or if she used a Soul Drinker, and even those aren't irreversible these days.
"1st edition? 2nd edition? It doesnt matter! Let's just talk" -Forums of the Megaverse
User avatar
kiralon
Champion
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:05 pm
Comment: Kill it with Fire.

Re: Palladia etymology

Unread post by kiralon »

Rurga should be aberrant because principled people wont kill people for lying, especially one like she killed for. Its like saying superman killed lois lane because she lied to him, it just wouldn't happen unless superman was evil. Rurga lives by her own code which is mostly good except for a few evil exceptions, that makes her aberrant. I don't think scrupulous would either.
User avatar
Tor
Palladin
Posts: 6975
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 2:37 pm
Comment: If you have something to say, back it up with thoughts and reasons. Simply posting to agree or disagree tends to be a waste.
Location: Pyramid

Re: Palladia etymology

Unread post by Tor »

The problem though: we don't know if Rurga actually killed her husband the way the book says she did. If she did, we don't know if it was her free choice to do so.

It's highly possible for a Principled person to be mind-controlled into doing that and retain good alignment. Or conversely, to allow a lie to be spread about her to terrify liars.
"1st edition? 2nd edition? It doesnt matter! Let's just talk" -Forums of the Megaverse
User avatar
Library Ogre
Palladium Books® Freelance Writer
Posts: 9801
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2001 1:01 am
Comment: My comments do not necessarily represent the views of Palladium Books.
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Palladia etymology

Unread post by Library Ogre »

Yes, but you're constructing a theory on presumption. We know Panath would lie to us; it's his thing. But to assume that Rurga lies to us, in a story about how much she hates lies, more or less casts doubt on her entirely. She goes from "Principled to the point of insanity" to "completely delusional".
-overproduced by Martin Hannett

When I see someone "fisking" these days my first inclination is to think "That person doesn't have much to say, and says it in volume." -John Scalzi
Happiness is a long block list.
If you don't want to be vilified, don't act like a villain.
The Megaverse runs on vibes.
All Palladium Articles
Mutant Dawn for Savage Worlds!
User avatar
The Beast
Demon Lord Extraordinaire
Posts: 5956
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 3:28 pm
Comment: You probably think this comment is about you, don't you?
Location: Apocrypha

Re: Palladia etymology

Unread post by The Beast »

I think the author killed Rurga's husband...
User avatar
Tor
Palladin
Posts: 6975
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 2:37 pm
Comment: If you have something to say, back it up with thoughts and reasons. Simply posting to agree or disagree tends to be a waste.
Location: Pyramid

Re: Palladia etymology

Unread post by Tor »

Rurga being delusional wouldn't make COMPLETELY delusional. If she was mind-controlled, she may not have realized it, and could blame herself for it.

Even if she did realize it, she could be fully aware of the fact and simply hypocritical. Principled people can lie if they think it's for the greater good, and scaring her worshippers into being more honest is something she could perceive that way.
"1st edition? 2nd edition? It doesnt matter! Let's just talk" -Forums of the Megaverse
User avatar
kiralon
Champion
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:05 pm
Comment: Kill it with Fire.

Re: Palladia etymology

Unread post by kiralon »

but killing an unarmed husband by surprise after asking if he loves her, sounds pretty demonic
User avatar
Tor
Palladin
Posts: 6975
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 2:37 pm
Comment: If you have something to say, back it up with thoughts and reasons. Simply posting to agree or disagree tends to be a waste.
Location: Pyramid

Re: Palladia etymology

Unread post by Tor »

A lot of demons wouldn't even do that, it's pointless, they're all about manipulating people, not uselessly killing them, I figure.

It's just not something a Principled person would do... if it was actually death in any meaningful (permanent) sense. I mean, does it really violate alignment if you're just briefly killing them only to respawn them so that you can technically tell the truth about having killed them?

For all we know, even if Rurga did do this (and it's not pure fiction), even if she wasn't mind-controlled... she could have resurrected him within seconds at little cost to herself and been all "don't lie to me, LOL, you're not using your PPE anyway right Man-at-Arms?"

Perhaps she has her husband secretly alive out there in her personal pocket dimension, and the benefit of this story is that it makes everyone think he's gone, so that he's not a target for her enemies.
"1st edition? 2nd edition? It doesnt matter! Let's just talk" -Forums of the Megaverse
User avatar
Prysus
Champion
Posts: 2593
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Boise, ID (US)
Contact:

Re: Palladia etymology

Unread post by Prysus »

kiralon wrote:but killing an unarmed husband by surprise after asking if he loves her, sounds pretty demonic

Greetings and Salutations. Not sure I'd call that "surprise." She asked him more than once (and considering her husband should be smart enough to know she can sense lies ...), and she basically gave him a warning by picking up her sword.

As for insanity, I always figured it was part of their marriage vows, to never lie to each other. Rurga is a fanatic about truth, only seems natural such a thing would be included. He broke his vows to her (and there are no divorces, she vowed "'til death do we part," if she took any vows as we know them).

I don't personally see the issue of her killing her husband (other than maybe she takes truth WAY too seriously). I see it more like an executioner killing a condemned criminal. The husband knew the crime (in my opinion, because I can't imagine him marrying her and being totally clueless), and as such he suffered the penalty. While I may consider execution an extreme response to lying, Rurga holds truth very high and a betrayal from the one she loved (the one she gave up being a warrior for!) is a great act of betrayal.

Anyways, those are just my thoughts on the matter. Take them or leave them as you will. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys to all.
Living the Fantasy (fan website)

Rifter #45; Of Bows & Arrows (Archery; expanding rules and abilities)
Rifter #52; From Ruins to Runes (Living Rune Weapons; playable characters and NPC)
Rifter #55; Home Away From Home (Quorian Culture; expanded from PF Book 9: Baalgor Wastelands)

Official PDF versions of Rifter #45, #52, and #55 can be found at DriveThruRPG.
User avatar
kiralon
Champion
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:05 pm
Comment: Kill it with Fire.

Re: Palladia etymology

Unread post by kiralon »

Prysus wrote:
kiralon wrote:but killing an unarmed husband by surprise after asking if he loves her, sounds pretty demonic

Greetings and Salutations. Not sure I'd call that "surprise." She asked him more than once (and considering her husband should be smart enough to know she can sense lies ...), and she basically gave him a warning by picking up her sword.

As for insanity, I always figured it was part of their marriage vows, to never lie to each other. Rurga is a fanatic about truth, only seems natural such a thing would be included. He broke his vows to her (and there are no divorces, she vowed "'til death do we part," if she took any vows as we know them).

I don't personally see the issue of her killing her husband (other than maybe she takes truth WAY too seriously). I see it more like an executioner killing a condemned criminal. The husband knew the crime (in my opinion, because I can't imagine him marrying her and being totally clueless), and as such he suffered the penalty. While I may consider execution an extreme response to lying, Rurga holds truth very high and a betrayal from the one she loved (the one she gave up being a warrior for!) is a great act of betrayal.

Anyways, those are just my thoughts on the matter. Take them or leave them as you will. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys to all.


2 wrongs don't make a right, executing a condemned criminal without trial is evil, He didn't get a chance to defend himself, or even figure out if he was wrong in what he was saying. Taking the truth that seriously is evil, its like the inquisitors who thought they were doing gods work by torturing people to death, just because their twisted minds thinks its good doesn't mean it is.

Can you say that murdering your husband after a minute conversation is a good act, anything else and she shouldn't be a palladin or principled because someone being killed for lying is evil. (not to mention killing unarmed foes or killing good people, because she knew he was good because of the way her sword was acting, and the fact that she knew that her sword acted that way when she kills righteous people means she has done it before.

So if I said I hate liars, and you lied to me and I killed you (you're condemned to death in my mind) you would tell me that's not an evil action on my behalf, even with you knowing that I would try to kill you if you lied to me. Being a God doesn't make it right, it just means you can get away with it. All I can say is if someone I dm'd did the exact thing she did they would be neither principled nor paladins when they finished. Principled doesn't give room for crazy out of character outbursts, neither does being a Palladin.
User avatar
Prysus
Champion
Posts: 2593
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Boise, ID (US)
Contact:

Re: Palladia etymology

Unread post by Prysus »

kiralon wrote:2 wrongs don't make a right, executing a condemned criminal without trial is evil, He didn't get a chance to defend himself, or even figure out if he was wrong in what he was saying.
[snip]
So if I said I hate liars, and you lied to me and I killed you (you're condemned to death in my mind) you would tell me that's not an evil action on my behalf, even with you knowing that I would try to kill you if you lied to me.

Greetings and Salutations. I just quoted the parts I want to respond to (not trying to change your meaning).

1a: First, as near as I can tell, in Palladium terms you're wrong. Cyber-Knights (in Rifts) are "judge, jury, and executioner" (no alignment restrictions, just part of the O.C.C.). Cyber-Knights can also be principled. So they're allowed (by their write-up) to pass judgment on someone and execute them. Now the real question is how do you pass judgment? That's a matter of perspective. However, there's no requirement for any type of formal trial.

1b: Setting ability to pass judgment aside, who is allowed to set the laws and hold the trial then? I don't think the story tells where the events took place. Though since Rurga has a realm, if this happened within her realm she is the law. So does she have to obey the C.S. law? Western Empire law? Eastern Territory law? Wolfen Empire law?

1c: He was given a chance to determine if what he said wrong. He was asked three times, in fact. If she killed him on the first time, I'd agree he didn't have a chance. Maybe the second. The fact she's asked a second time suggests something's wrong. The fact she's ready to kill him should be a big red flag. "Hey, the answer I gave the first two times is going to get me killed. Should I try to figure out what is wrong? Naw ... third time's a charm!"

2: If you just hate liars and decide to kill me if you catch me in one, I'd say that's wrong. If we're best friends, and you tell me that if I ever lie to you that we will no longer be friends (may or may not include mention of killing me), then I agree to this and swear a sacred oath we will be friends until death ... well, you're not the one I'm blaming anymore. If I didn't agree to those terms (or felt that penalty was way too severe), I could say: "[Bleep] you, I'm out of here." That's not what happened here. Instead of just saying lies, let's look at it a different way ...

He gave an oath. He stalked his life to that oath. He did NOT honor that oath and betrayed the one he loved.
She gave an oath. She lived up to that oath. She followed through on that vow even though it pained her personally.

Now that probably looks like oversimplification, but I'm just stripping away the details to show the representation (at least the way I see it). We don't know what vows they took, and I could be making this all up (maybe she is just evil crazy), but this way always made more sense to me, personally. She didn't kill in cold blood, she upheld the oath she swore. If she didn't, she herself would've broken her word.

Note: I'm a big believer of personal responsibility. If you do something wrong, you get caught doing something wrong, don't blame someone else for your mistake. Example: My fiance told me that if I ever hit her, she'd leave me. I agreed (actually, I think I said something like: "Don't hit me first, and then we have nothing to worry about"). If for any reason I ever did hit her (even if I'm being blackmailed and I'm doing it to save her life), I should be prepared to deal with the consequences. Even if I did it for some noble reason, I'd have to accept she would leave me over it. If she said she'd kill me if I ever hit her I'd personally accept that as well (actually, I'd have probably said she's crazy and walked out). The law of the U.S. government might not accept that, but as far as I'm concerned the law between us she's well within her rights.

How about in the movie Thor 2. They show the scene in coming attractions where Thor tells Loki: "When you betray us, I will kill you" (that may not be the exact words, but should be close enough). Does everyone gasp and start calling Thor Diabolic? The impact of the line isn't how evil Thor is, but that he's now willing to kill his brother who he still loves (or is that just my take?).

And wow ... I responded here again. I have to stop doing that. :P I'm not really trying to convince anyone their perspective is wrong, I just wanted to provide a different view of it. If I was the G.M. and someone committed a crime and agreed to punishment (say death) for that crime, I wouldn't hold the Principled Palladin accountable for executing the sentence ... especially if the Palladin tried to avoid it (as Rurga did by giving 3 chances, which she'd have never done for anyone else).

Tired now. I should sleep. Farewell and safe journeys to all.
Living the Fantasy (fan website)

Rifter #45; Of Bows & Arrows (Archery; expanding rules and abilities)
Rifter #52; From Ruins to Runes (Living Rune Weapons; playable characters and NPC)
Rifter #55; Home Away From Home (Quorian Culture; expanded from PF Book 9: Baalgor Wastelands)

Official PDF versions of Rifter #45, #52, and #55 can be found at DriveThruRPG.
User avatar
kiralon
Champion
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:05 pm
Comment: Kill it with Fire.

Re: Palladia etymology

Unread post by kiralon »

Thanks for response

As there is no requirement for formal trial do you think the husband would have said what he did if she said" I detect you as lying, if you lie to me again I will kill you, coming from a god that is fair enough, but all she did was ask a question 3 times. The way the husband answers in the book makes me think he didn't know what was coming, you say it should have been a red flag but she didn't actually state her intentions, which a good (not lawful, but good person) would do. it could have been a plot, but she killed him without fair warning, killing someone without stating that in a timely manner before hand is not a warning, and the sword still detected him as righteous, so he was unarmed and good, but still died.
Im saying a principled person can't do that from the guidelines of principled. Palladins can't either, because if it depends on the law that means a principled palladin can go to a place where rape, maiming torture and killing innocents is legal and do it and still be good and a paladin.
Being lawful is not being good. She comes across as a crazy psycho, and the fact that she has killed other righteous people makes her more so.

I work principled (and alignments) in an easy way, what would superman do. (and remember, being a crazy psycho doesn't alter the answer because you are insane) So basically put superman, luke, and han in their places. Following the law is only a small part of being good.

Q. what would superman do if lois lane took an oath to be faithful forever and then slept with Darkseid .
A. Laser her her head off with heatbeams - lol
so not principled

Q. what would Luke Skywalker do if Mara Jade took an oath to be faithful forever and then slept with Dark Helmet man.
A. Behead her with a lightsaber - again lol
hmm not scrupulous

IQ. what would Han Solo do if Princess Leia took an oath to be faithful forever and then slept with chewbacca.
A. Blow her head off with blaster
Not unprincipled either

so that leaves anarchist, aberrant and diabolical. definitely not paladin material.

The bit about you leaving your fiancé if she said the bit about killing does show Rurga is bugnuts crazy, and crazy doesn't usually go hand in hand with being principled and being a paladin, it lends itself more to doing stuff that isn't good or palladanish.

Be Relaxed and Successful
42dragon
Explorer
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:54 am

Re: Palladia etymology

Unread post by 42dragon »

Now that we are on the topic of alignments. I can see both arguments here. I think I would lean toward Prysus view but just a slight lean. I have some other questions about this subject. One problem we have is we are viewing this from a human point of view.

Would you be considered an evil alignment for the whole sale slaughter of an entire colony? ............Before you answer.

What if that colony is a colony of ants, building a nest right outside your home and invading your kitchen? What if it is a colony of praire dogs that is bieng uprooted and killed to make room for your farm and crops? What if it is a colony of cows you are breeding and caring for until the time is right to slaughter them for food?

Your answer may be evil or not depending on your views, which is fine. You make take the approach that the examples above are not sentient life forms so it is not as big of a deal. Or you may still find it reprehensible. Or some of it not alignment affecting while others are. OK.

But look at this from another beings point of view. Say the war like Gromek who have completely conquered their home world. All other creatures on their home world could be considered lesser beings to them. Perhaps even humans on that world are raised and breed for food. From a human point of view of course they are all evil. But to the average Gromek who would be evil one, the Gromek raising humans as food for the populace and armies or the Gromek who is sabotaging operations and disrupting the food supply violently or not (i.e. terrorist)?

What about an even more extreme step in race like a Dragon. Most other species are significantly lesser beings to them. To most dragons humans are playthings. Something similar to a loved pet at best, or an invasive pest like ants to others. Applying human alignment (good, selfish, evil) to their actions only makes sense when looking at them from the outside human point of view. Would one dragon eating a dwarf because he looked and smelled tasty (i know a stretch) be cosidered evil to another dragon? Probably if that other dragon considered all lesser creatures as cherished pets, but not to the other dragon who in his experience has always been persecuted by knights trying to slay him even though he has never eaten one (considers lesser being pests).
User avatar
kiralon
Champion
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:05 pm
Comment: Kill it with Fire.

Re: Palladia etymology

Unread post by kiralon »

42dragon wrote:Now that we are on the topic of alignments. I can see both arguments here. I think I would lean toward Prysus view but just a slight lean. I have some other questions about this subject. One problem we have is we are viewing this from a human point of view.

Would you be considered an evil alignment for the whole sale slaughter of an entire colony? ............Before you answer.

What if that colony is a colony of ants, building a nest right outside your home and invading your kitchen? What if it is a colony of praire dogs that is bieng uprooted and killed to make room for your farm and crops? What if it is a colony of cows you are breeding and caring for until the time is right to slaughter them for food?

Your answer may be evil or not depending on your views, which is fine. You make take the approach that the examples above are not sentient life forms so it is not as big of a deal. Or you may still find it reprehensible. Or some of it not alignment affecting while others are. OK.

But look at this from another beings point of view. Say the war like Gromek who have completely conquered their home world. All other creatures on their home world could be considered lesser beings to them. Perhaps even humans on that world are raised and breed for food. From a human point of view of course they are all evil. But to the average Gromek who would be evil one, the Gromek raising humans as food for the populace and armies or the Gromek who is sabotaging operations and disrupting the food supply violently or not (i.e. terrorist)?

What about an even more extreme step in race like a Dragon. Most other species are significantly lesser beings to them. To most dragons humans are playthings. Something similar to a loved pet at best, or an invasive pest like ants to others. Applying human alignment (good, selfish, evil) to their actions only makes sense when looking at them from the outside human point of view. Would one dragon eating a dwarf because he looked and smelled tasty (i know a stretch) be cosidered evil to another dragon? Probably if that other dragon considered all lesser creatures as cherished pets, but not to the other dragon who in his experience has always been persecuted by knights trying to slay him even though he has never eaten one (considers lesser being pests).


Very good points, except that Rurga married her ant. I can understand a wife killing a husband in a rage, she just wouldn't still be principled and a paladin unless it was in self defense. If you look at the description neither paladins nor principled people kill unarmed foes, yet she is the epitome of palladinship by being a murderous b*^&h. Im not saying her oath would stop her from killing her husband, Im just saying she is a non-good shouldn't be paladin psycho hosebeast rather than the god of Paladins that they look up to for their good deeds.
User avatar
Tor
Palladin
Posts: 6975
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 2:37 pm
Comment: If you have something to say, back it up with thoughts and reasons. Simply posting to agree or disagree tends to be a waste.
Location: Pyramid

Re: Palladia etymology

Unread post by Tor »

Prysus wrote:She asked him more than once (and considering her husband should be smart enough to know she can sense lies ...), and she basically gave him a warning by picking up her sword.
I could allow for someone Principled to make a threatening gesture, but warning someone you'll kill them if they don't give an answer you like doesn't exactly justify murder.

If she actually did this of her own free will, the only way for this to satisfy a Principled alignment (if we are to think she had one at the time, and retained it without dropping from the act) is my 'death isn't death' argument.

Prysus wrote:As for insanity, I always figured it was part of their marriage vows, to never lie to each other. Rurga is a fanatic about truth, only seems natural such a thing would be included. He broke his vows to her (and there are no divorces, she vowed "'til death do we part," if she took any vows as we know them).
Principled characters don't kill unarmed foes or harm innocents. It seems pretty clear she did that.

Even if we suppose one of her wedding vows as "I give you my word I will kill you if you lie to me." and his wedding vow in return is "I give you full consent to kill me if I lie to you", it would not override the restriction...

Unless of course we interpret that alignment restrictions ARE overridable in cases where the preceding guidelines necessitate. In this case, RMB tells us that 'always keep word' is #1 for principled and 'never kill unarmed foe' is #3.

If this justifies her actions though, any Principled character could kill whomever they liked without alignment consequences so long as they first promise "I give my word I will kill you" first. Seems like a bit an unlikely out. In spite of numerical order I kinda got the impression that all the alignment guideliens were of equal worth and that they couldn't override each other like this.

In simultaneous consideration, I think it was more along the lines of principled characters taking into consideration all guidelines when taking actions. So, to prevent violating 1, a principled character would never promise to kill an unarmed foe, would never promise to harm an innocent, would never promise to torture, would never promise to betray a friend, etc. for the absolute restrictions.

If they made promises, they would always be in specific contexts that prohibit breaking them. For example, they would promise "I will kill this man, so long as I am convinced of his guilt, and he is armed and a threat to me". Or even without such disclaimers, they may not specify a timeframe and say "well yes, I WILL kill him... I'm just waiting for the right time, like when he picks up a sword or I think he burned down that orphanage. So until then..."

Prysus wrote:I don't personally see the issue of her killing her husband (other than maybe she takes truth WAY too seriously).

The issue is how it paints the flexibility of the Principled alignment for us. Essentially that 'innocent' doesn't cover very much (the guy is 'guilty' of lying without knowing that he is lying, because he subconsciously considers the baby a distinct entity from her, and did not consciously take that emotion into consideration when making a statement).

I mean, I guess we could consider that her husband might be a reformed mass murderer and that he is 'guilty' of that. But her decision to execute him clearly was not motivated by that, quite disconnected. We could assume he was 'armed' but there was no indication of that in the tale. Do people normally hold a blade in their hands while snuggling by the fire and telling each other how much they love them? Rurga was the only one described as having a blade in that story.

If Principled people can murder people for such a reason, it really calls into question the 'goodness' or moral limits of anyone with such alignments.

Consider how easily Rurga could have coached an answer. Like "honey, have you considered that you might also have some love for our baby-to-be that is still attached to my uterus?" and given him a chance to reconsider his answer with some aid. The guy in the story was murdered for a lack of contemplation.

It's really a lot easier to just assume the story as fiction propogated by Rurga, or take the "murder isn't murder if you're a respawning god" out.

Prysus wrote:I see it more like an executioner killing a condemned criminal. The husband knew the crime (in my opinion, because I can't imagine him marrying her and being totally clueless)
Him knowing that she considers lying criminal still doesn't mean he knew he loved the baby. We have no guarantee that the Ta'Palladia's story is actually a canonical event.

Being aware that someone thinks lying is criminal doesn't mean you're non-innocent if you do it though. If lying (even white lies like this) makes someone non-innocent, it still really paints Principled in a way most people would not contemplate. It gives very little weight to alignments and allows us to creatively interpert it (or 'rules lawyer' it, as some put) to justify pretty much any action.

For example, if I am a Principled Cyber-Knight, I could go up to a farmer and say "I would like to steal your apples without paying you. How many apples do you have?" If the farmer tells me 5 apples and he actually has 6, he is no longer innocent, for he is a horrible liar, and I can now murder him without dropping in my alignment, because I am not harming an innocent, right?

This is basically the behaviour-related problem it creates. Even if we can indeed creatively figure how such blatant murder doesn't violate the alignment by focusing on the looseness of words like 'innocent' or 'unarmed', it creates a basis of justification to avoid abiding by the spirit we tend to get from alignments, and really grimdarks all of Palladium...

Which I'm entirely for, btw, but it's really worth pointing out. This effectively justifies murdering all the principled Isises, Cosmo-Knights, angels and such in the Megaverse, because they're clearly not prohibited from doing anything bad at all, are they? They're just as much a risk to people as Diabolics, since all they need to do is figure out some obscure reason someone is 'guilty' of something to declassify them as innocents, allowing them to be murdered.

Prysus wrote:and as such he suffered the penalty. While I may consider execution an extreme response to lying, Rurga holds truth very high and a betrayal from the one she loved (the one she gave up being a warrior for!) is a great act of betrayal.
That's great justification for an Aberrent, just saying that if this is what one Principled can do, they can ALL do that. If "I define innocence" is the approach we're taking to alignment, then alignment means basically nothing.

Prysus wrote:1c: He was given a chance to determine if what he said wrong. He was asked three times, in fact. If she killed him on the first time, I'd agree he didn't have a chance. Maybe the second. The fact she's asked a second time suggests something's wrong. The fact she's ready to kill him should be a big red flag. "Hey, the answer I gave the first two times is going to get me killed. Should I try to figure out what is wrong? Naw ... third time's a charm!"
It doesn't really matter how many chances someone is given to change their behaviour, the question is whether or not lying is enough of a crime to declassify someone as 'innocent' and adequate reason to kill them.

What if a child was lying to Rurga about stealing a cookie? Could she still kill him without dropping? I can't argue it's impossible, alignment wording IS loose enough to allow it... but it just grimdarks the whole setting and just makes alignments not much of an impediment at all, we just must acknowledge that, if this is acceptable.

Prysus wrote:He gave an oath. He stalked his life to that oath. He did NOT honor that oath and betrayed the one he loved. She gave an oath. She lived up to that oath. She followed through on that vow even though it pained her personally.
Please see my above 'cyber-knight murders the farmer' example. If 'keep word' overrides 'spare innocents' then people can just intimidate others into lying for self-preservation and then murder them as punishment for doing so. Griiiiiim Daaaark.

Prysus wrote:I'm a big believer of personal responsibility. If you do something wrong, you get caught doing something wrong, don't blame someone else for your mistake. Example: My fiance told me that if I ever hit her, she'd leave me. I agreed (actually, I think I said something like: "Don't hit me first, and then we have nothing to worry about"). If for any reason I ever did hit her (even if I'm being blackmailed and I'm doing it to save her life), I should be prepared to deal with the consequences.
Your example deviates too much from the reality we're discussing here, Principled people can leave who they like, we're talking about someone who murdered.

Rurga's husband doesn't necessarily know his wife's alignment. For all he knows, she's a jealous god who may KILL him, if he doesn't say he loves her 100%. As such, he may lie to her to avoid incurring a jealous wrath. He is potentially being coerced into lying, even if she intended no coercion, simply by not knowing his wife well. It's still morally wrong to do, and he could well be innocent.

Rurga declaring that someone is lying doesn't mean that they are. Her deific power could have been deactivated by Aco, for example. :) Best prank evar.

Prysus wrote:How about in the movie Thor 2. They show the scene in coming attractions where Thor tells Loki: "When you betray us, I will kill you" (that may not be the exact words, but should be close enough). Does everyone gasp and start calling Thor Diabolic? The impact of the line isn't how evil Thor is, but that he's now willing to kill his brother who he still loves (or is that just my take?).
Loki's probably not going to inspire the same sense of innocence in us that Rurga's husband does, though. We KNOW he's done some harsh stuff. We don't know that Rurga's husband has. Also, there's a difference between threatening murder as a deterrent and actually carrying it out.

kiralon wrote:do you think the husband would have said what he did if she said" I detect you as lying, if you lie to me again I will kill you, coming from a god that is fair enough
Enough for what? Make lying a justification for murder? This would still allow Rurga to murder children who lied about stealing cookies or staying up past their bedtime. The problem here is we don't know anything about what Palladium means by 'innocent'. If it means whatever a character wants, then Principled people can kill whoever they want, whenever they want, for ANY reason, so long as they think the person is guilty of something (even a law the Principled came up with on their own) and are punishing the guilty.

Of course... in our modern world we might call that insanity... Palladium doesn't seem to though. =/

For example: the Mechanoids and Star Hunters can all be of principled alignment. Committing genocides against bipeds is fine, it doesn't cause them to lower in alignment, because bipeds are GUILTY (aka NOT innocent) of being bipeds. If they think it's impossible for a biped to be innocent, then it's okay to callously wipe them out and remain Principled.

It's a good thing breaking Cosmo-Knight guidelines will also cause drops and not only changing alignment, because otherwise we might see Star Hunter Cosmo-Knights committing genocide against bipeds without Falling.

kiralon wrote:I work principled (and alignments) in an easy way, what would superman do. (and remember, being a crazy psycho doesn't alter the answer because you are insane) So basically put superman, luke, and han in their places. Following the law is only a small part of being good.
Superman can't be principled. Part of being Principled is that you 'always help others'. He wasn't trying his best to do this in "Superman: Grounded" when he was just acting like some average joe. His turning a deaf ear to the whole Identity Crisis doesn't inspire me as Principled either.

If you want to apply that alignment to Golden or Silver-age versions, sure. But I dispute Bronze-age getting that benefit.

kiralon wrote:Q. what would superman do if lois lane took an oath to be faithful forever and then slept with Darkseid.Laser her her head off with heatbeams - lol so not principled
Ah, but she's GUILTY of infidelity, so she's not an innocent, so it's okay to murder her, per Principled guidelines.

kiralon wrote:Q. what would Luke Skywalker do if Mara Jade took an oath to be faithful forever and then slept with Dark Helmet man. A. Behead her with a lightsaber - again lol hmm not scrupulous
Ah, but what if he assumed for some reason she could Force Ghost and that death was helping her become better?

kiralon wrote:IQ. what would Han Solo do if Princess Leia took an oath to be faithful forever and then slept with chewbacca. A. Blow her head off with blaster. Not unprincipled either
Leia would be guilty of infidelity, so he'd toss her a blaster so she wasn't unarmed and then shoot her. Although I think Han might consider potentially joining in, instead. Chewie is his bro. Han-acca is an inseparable pair. Bros share.

kiralon wrote:The bit about you leaving your fiancé if she said the bit about killing does show Rurga is bugnuts crazy
She has no listed insanities. So rather than assuming she has an unmentioned insanity based on a BOOK, the more plausible solution is that the book isn't giving us a clear picture of events, if it relates to real events at all.
"1st edition? 2nd edition? It doesnt matter! Let's just talk" -Forums of the Megaverse
User avatar
kiralon
Champion
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:05 pm
Comment: Kill it with Fire.

Re: Palladia etymology

Unread post by kiralon »

I don't think Rurga would let a book with a story like that in it be a lie
42dragon
Explorer
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:54 am

Re: Palladia etymology

Unread post by 42dragon »

OK I get those points. But I was just trying to point out that the literal human deffinition of the alignment may not apply exactly the same way to other beings.

Rurga is the God of War and Honor (Truth). Truth is the aspect that is held above all others to this being, at least to the level of an insanity/obsession probably well beyond that. Due to this being's twisted views of extreme truthfullness, couldn't her husband have been considered armed with lies? Which would make him not unarmed from her obsessed point of view. I am not saying what she did was good or honorable in any way from a human point of view. But a point of view from her god like aspect of truth, this could be considered the most just and honorable thing to do. A god and aspect of Truth cannot be assosiacted with a liar, that could be considered corrupting of the aspect. We attempt to destroy tumors that are corrupting our bodies (even if we introduced them into our bodies, say smoking which is pleasurable to some). This aspect destroyed a man that could have been corrupting/damaging to the aspect like a tumor.
User avatar
kiralon
Champion
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:05 pm
Comment: Kill it with Fire.

Re: Palladia etymology

Unread post by kiralon »

That is a very good point, but she went about fixing the problem in an evil way. After this none of the Palladins I play will worship her because of her over reaction, she could have sent him away and called of the wedding, but decided to slay another righteous person. If any of my players did that as a principled Palladin at the end of it they would be neither, and If a priest of a good god did that that would lose their powers. Just because a God did it doesn't make it a good act, and as it was a defining moment for her she wouldn't be good anymore, she still could be a Palladin I guess because she could power herself, except that it would be a lie. In fact she is living a lie by being a principled god of paladins, the Irony is amusing, and the dark gods would be laughing.
User avatar
Prysus
Champion
Posts: 2593
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Boise, ID (US)
Contact:

Re: Palladia etymology

Unread post by Prysus »

kiralon wrote:Thanks for response

Greetings and Salutations. My pleasure, as I typically respect your opinion (even if not agreeing). As such, I'll take the time to address some of these points in more detail.

kiralon wrote:As there is no requirement for formal trial do you think the husband would have said what he did if she said" I detect you as lying, if you lie to me again I will kill you, coming from a god that is fair enough, but all she did was ask a question 3 times. The way the husband answers in the book makes me think he didn't know what was coming, you say it should have been a red flag but she didn't actually state her intentions, which a good (not lawful, but good person) would do. it could have been a plot, but she killed him without fair warning, killing someone without stating that in a timely manner before hand is not a warning, and the sword still detected him as righteous, so he was unarmed and good, but still died.

There's a little more to it than just asking the question. I'll recap events.

Year One:
Rurga: "Do you love me with all your heart?"
Husband: "Yes."
She puts away Ekenstall (her armor).

Year Two:
Rurga: "Do you love me with all your heart?"
Husband: "Yes."
She racks her weapons (except Vlaa apparently, but she has a lot so that's still saying something).

Year Three:
Rurga prepares to bury Vlaa and give up war and many other things.
Rurga: "Do you love me with all your heart?"*
Husband: "Yes."*
Rurga: Unsheathes Vlaa. "Husband, I must ask you again, do you love me with all your heart."
Husband: "Yes."*
Rurga: Holds Vlaa over her head as it wails (the sound it makes when it must kill righteous). "My name is Rurga, and I am war itself, and if I am to change from that, I must hear truth from you."
Husband: Wife, it is time for you to put Vlaa to sleep, for I do love you with all my heart."
She kills him.

* Indicates the comments are commented in the text, but those may not be the exact words. Only three quotes have those marks, and the other three are direct quotes from the book.

Let's also look at what her power to "Automatically Detect a Lie." A lie by the way implies intentional untruth with intent to deceive, though maybe Palladium used it wrong? Final lines says: "she will always be able to tell when someone is telling something they know to be untrue."

So if he thought it was true, she wouldn't have detected it. He was actually trying to deceive her (though I'm guessing with the purest of intentions). Her actions deviated from the previous times (when she simply put stuff away). Instead she drew her weapon and asked agian. He again lied. She raises it above her head (and the sword screams to indicate prepation of killing) and she asks for the truth. He continues to try and deceive her (because if he wasn't trying she wouldn't have detected it).

kiralon wrote:Im saying a principled person can't do that from the guidelines of principled. Palladins can't either, because if it depends on the law that means a principled palladin can go to a place where rape, maiming torture and killing innocents is legal and do it and still be good and a paladin.
Being lawful is not being good. She comes across as a crazy psycho, and the fact that she has killed other righteous people makes her more so.

I never said law was everything. You brought trials into this (an aspect of law), to which I addressed.

However, killing isn't everything either. There are other aspects such as keeping your word and avoiding lies. Palladins (if you're referring to the Code of Chivalry found under the Knight O.C.C.) also have "Honor" as part of their code, which breaking your word and disregarding your principles are also against. Note: There are more in alignment and the Code of Chivalry that cut both ways.

So her husband put her into a "no-win" situation, and she made the choice she felt best (a warrior of truth favoring killing and upholding truth ... this should surprise no one). If making a decision one way changes her alignment and O.C.C., making a decision the other way (and breaking different alignment and code restrictions) would have the same result. That means the moment her husband lied to her, her alignment dropped and her O.C.C. changed.

kiralon wrote:I work principled (and alignments) in an easy way, what would superman do. (and remember, being a crazy psycho doesn't alter the answer because you are insane) So basically put superman, luke, and han in their places.
[snip]
so that leaves anarchist, aberrant and diabolical. definitely not paladin material.

Our main contention doesn't seem to be if a Principled (or Palladin) can execute a person if warranted (the first part of your post I quoted suggests this to me, but I could be wrong), it's a matter if lying warrants execution. As an individual, I would normally say no. However, I do believe alignments cover far more than just my personal opinion on the world. Let's look at this a different way.

Is life or honor more important?

From the way this thread is going, people seem to be putting a much higher emphasis on life. I can understand that. However, let's consider something else: Seppuku, ritual suicide of samurai. They'd sacrifice their life for the sake of honor. Then there's the kaishakunin (his second), who'd behead the samurai after seppuku. All of this favoring honor over life. Are you saying all samurai are evil? Let's use your alignment system.

If Superman lost his honor, would he commit suicide to restore his honor?
Not Principled.

If Luke Skywalker lost his honor, would he commit suicide to restore his honor?
Not Scrupulous.

If Han Solo lost his honor, would he commit suicide to restore his honor?
Not Unprincipled.

According to your criteria that leaves anarchist, aberrant and diabolical. that leaves anarchist, aberrant and diabolical. Of course, Palladium doesn't agree with that (as can be seen in Ninjas & Superspies as well as Rifts Japan). While I understand your system, it's far too simplistic and doesn't take things like personality or individualism into account. I won't even get into the insanity of most superheroes (including Superman).

Note: These last two quotes weren't directly aimed at me, but I'll address them anyways.

kiralon wrote:she could have sent him away and called of the wedding

I'm guessing you meant "called off the wedding" which means it'll only work if you rule she's also the Goddess of Time, and can travel back in time three years (or more). I think this would be an odd ruling. I'd also feel it odd to erase from existence their unborn child, who they both loved and has yet to commit any crime of her own, and consider this more Principled. This would be an odd ruling in my opinion, but you are welcome to it.

I, on the other hand, figured that vows such as "until death do we part" signifies only one way out (one must be dead).

kiralon wrote:she still could be a Palladin I guess because she could power herself

Palladins do not receive their powers from a god (or goddess), except (at this time) Palladins of Rurga. However, Rurga is not listed as a Palladin of Rurga (that would be odd!), she's listed as a Palladin. That means no godly bestowed powers. Of course, Palladins (officially) can be of any alignment (even selfish or evil), so yes she could be a Palladin regardless of her alignment and actions.

Anyways, that's all for now. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys to all.
Living the Fantasy (fan website)

Rifter #45; Of Bows & Arrows (Archery; expanding rules and abilities)
Rifter #52; From Ruins to Runes (Living Rune Weapons; playable characters and NPC)
Rifter #55; Home Away From Home (Quorian Culture; expanded from PF Book 9: Baalgor Wastelands)

Official PDF versions of Rifter #45, #52, and #55 can be found at DriveThruRPG.
User avatar
Prysus
Champion
Posts: 2593
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Boise, ID (US)
Contact:

Re: Palladia etymology

Unread post by Prysus »

Tor wrote:Unless of course we interpret that alignment restrictions ARE overridable in cases where the preceding guidelines necessitate. In this case, RMB tells us that 'always keep word' is #1 for principled and 'never kill unarmed foe' is #3.
[snip]
In simultaneous consideration, I think it was more along the lines of principled characters taking into consideration all guidelines when taking actions.

Greetings and Salutations. I agree, you need to consider them all. While #1 and #2 don't necessarily override #3 and #4, #3 and #4 don't necessarily override #1 and #2 either.

Tor wrote:It doesn't really matter how many chances someone is given to change their behaviour, the question is whether or not lying is enough of a crime to declassify someone as 'innocent' and adequate reason to kill them.

That is indeed the question. If lying is against the law of the land (we don't know that it was, though if this took place in Rurga's realm, and we don't know that it did, then I personally find it probable that it would), then I wouldn't call a liar innocent. They are indeed guilty of a crime. Also a lot of the situation will bring up the topic of honor, and whether or not honor is more important than life. I think that's debatable, but debatable enough I'm not going to condemn someone who picks one over the other.

Tor wrote:Do people normally hold a blade in their hands while snuggling by the fire and telling each other how much they love them? Rurga was the only one described as having a blade in that story.

The scene doesn't say snuggling by a fire. She approached yearly and asked that question. As a Warrior Goddess, it even stands to reason her husband may have been a warrior and wore a weapon himself. He may have even been part of her army (which she had not yet disbanded), meaning he probably was armed. However, I will say that depending on the situation (if he was at peace and felt safe), it's equally likely he did NOT have a weapon.

Honestly, I'll admit I never imagined him having a weapon in that scene. I still don't think it matters. Because #3 is not the end all be all of Principled alignment. It's important, but so is #1.

Tor wrote:the guy is 'guilty' of lying without knowing that he is lying, because he subconsciously considers the baby a distinct entity from her, and did not consciously take that emotion into consideration when making a statement

Except her power only activates when it's intentional deceit. So if he didn't know, she wouldn't know.

Tor wrote:Consider how easily Rurga could have coached an answer. Like "honey, have you considered that you might also have some love for our baby-to-be that is still attached to my uterus?" and given him a chance to reconsider his answer with some aid. The guy in the story was murdered for a lack of contemplation.

The fact she knew he was lying implies he was aware of the truth. Telling him the answer cheapens the point of asking.

Tor wrote:For example, if I am a Principled Cyber-Knight, I could go up to a farmer and say "I would like to steal your apples without paying you. How many apples do you have?" If the farmer tells me 5 apples and he actually has 6, he is no longer innocent, for he is a horrible liar, and I can now murder him without dropping in my alignment, because I am not harming an innocent, right?

There's several factors in that scenario.

1: The Cyber-Knight is stealing in the first place (not good).
2: Is lying against the law of the land?
3: What aspect is counter-balancing the killing? Right now there's none.

Also keep in mind the scenario you presented is drastically different. Your example is of a bandit, claiming to be a Cyber-Knight. All you've presented is a character stealing, and killing. The farmer didn't agree to said conditions, so it's not some type of deal or contract, it's just the Bandit-Knight trying to bully others. Now, if you want me to add in potential scenarios where this would be in alignment, I totally could do that too. Since there's no much information in the scenario, there's lots of room to create additional scenarios where the situation is more acceptable (such as no one in the land can lie, physically incapable of doing so, but there's a demon running around, so if someone lies to you it must be the demon ... ergo the farmer must be the demon in disguise since a real farmer couldn't lie).

Tor wrote:What if a child was lying to Rurga about stealing a cookie? Could she still kill him without dropping? I can't argue it's impossible, alignment wording IS loose enough to allow it... but it just grimdarks the whole setting and just makes alignments not much of an impediment at all, we just must acknowledge that, if this is acceptable.

We actually don't know if Rurga kills everyone who lies to her. We know she killed one person for it, and the full details aren't given.

We do know she doesn't allow people to lie to her more than once (which given the story, does imply death, but not certain as she could take other actions). If it is the law of her land, standard punishment might be banishment. Or if it's punishable by death, she might just not have children in her realm. She might not even talk with children on general principle. We don't know.

Why kill her husband then? Vows such as "until death do we part" (you can't banish and never see him agian if you're vowing you'll be together until the day that you die) and/or if he vowed something such as "I swear I will never lie to you until the day that I die" (if he ever does lie to her then it must be the day that he dies, per his vow).

Tor wrote:I could allow for someone Principled to make a threatening gesture, but warning someone you'll kill them if they don't give an answer you like doesn't exactly justify murder.
[snip]
It's really a lot easier to just assume the story as fiction propogated by Rurga ...

So your stance at this point is that Rurga is just a compulsive liar, and her deceit goes so far she's even influenced the Palladium Staff to continue that lie (extending beyond the Ta'Palladia quote). An interesting take. Not one I agree with, but you are welcome to it.

Tor wrote:Him knowing that she considers lying criminal still doesn't mean he knew he loved the baby.
[snip]
Rurga's husband doesn't necessarily know his wife's alignment. For all he knows, she's a jealous god who may KILL him, if he doesn't say he loves her 100%. As such, he may lie to her to avoid incurring a jealous wrath.

So he thinks he doesn't love his unborn child and has been married to a woman for three years (probably known her longer) and knows nothing about her? At this point I'm not blaming Rurga for killing him, that sounds more like natural selection at work. :P
Living the Fantasy (fan website)

Rifter #45; Of Bows & Arrows (Archery; expanding rules and abilities)
Rifter #52; From Ruins to Runes (Living Rune Weapons; playable characters and NPC)
Rifter #55; Home Away From Home (Quorian Culture; expanded from PF Book 9: Baalgor Wastelands)

Official PDF versions of Rifter #45, #52, and #55 can be found at DriveThruRPG.
User avatar
Prysus
Champion
Posts: 2593
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Boise, ID (US)
Contact:

Re: Palladia etymology

Unread post by Prysus »

Greetings and Salutations. And, just for fun, as I read this thread this is how my mind started shaping the story ...

Panath: "You cannot marry a mortal."
Rurga: *Glare.* "I will do as I please. This is not your concern."
Panath: "You intend to lay down your blade, which in turn weakens the pantheon. That makes it my concern."
Rurga: "He is a righteous man and we are in love. That is all that matters."
Panath: "Mortals are fickle creatures. He says he loves you now, but his heart will change, and when he does he will lie to you about it."
Rurga: "He loves me with all his heart."
Panath: "Are you sure of that?"
Rurga: "I would stake my life on it."
Panath: "Ah ... but would you stake his on it?"
Rurga: *Glare!*
Panath: "All I ask is that you do not lay down your sword yet. Ask him each year if he loves you with all his heart. Every year he tells you the truth, you may lay down some of your arms and I will not oppose you. If you are truly in love, what can the harm be? Or do you fear the truth you may find?"
-----
Rurga: "If we are to be married, you mustn't ever lie to me. I am the Goddess of Truth, and I could not marry someone who would ever lie to me."
Mortal (betrothed): "I would never lie to you my love. We will marry, and I will love you until the day that I die."
Rurga: *Senses he's telling the truth and feels at ease in his warm embrace.*
-----
Enter scene between Panath and Mortal (husband). Haven't figured it out yet, but where Panath somehow encourages them having a child (knowing the results) and/or convinces the husband that he must always tell Rurga he loves her with all his heart or else ... she'll kill him or something else bad will happen. Like I said, haven't really worked out the details. But this sets up the scenario (orchestrated by Panath) of the lie and results.

Rurga may know (or at least suspect) Panath had a part in things (probably doesn't know the full extent though), but doens't blame him as she feels he just brought out the "truth" of the situation.

Sorry, would've probably typed out the scenes better, but I'm tired and need sleep. I'd do it tomorrow or another day, but I probably won't feel like it and would've lost motivation. Anyways, that's all for now. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys to all.
Living the Fantasy (fan website)

Rifter #45; Of Bows & Arrows (Archery; expanding rules and abilities)
Rifter #52; From Ruins to Runes (Living Rune Weapons; playable characters and NPC)
Rifter #55; Home Away From Home (Quorian Culture; expanded from PF Book 9: Baalgor Wastelands)

Official PDF versions of Rifter #45, #52, and #55 can be found at DriveThruRPG.
User avatar
kiralon
Champion
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:05 pm
Comment: Kill it with Fire.

Re: Palladia etymology

Unread post by kiralon »

You are right, I think that a Palladin is allowed to execute somebody after a trial and if its warranted (Death by Combat), I also allow that they can decide not to as well.

The automatically detect lie psionic power is pretty powerful, while a lie cant be told without knowledge, the power Rurga has specifically detects falsehoods, and falsehoods aren't exactly the same as lies as you can tell falsehoods without knowing it.
(which means Rurga could figure all the knowledge in the universe eventually) Even though they mix falsehoods with lies. (Its the downside to using a thesaurus, just because they have a similar meaning doesn't mean they are the same.
This is a good example, husband is digging a hole, wife comes up to him and says do you love me with all your heart, tell me what husband wouldn't automatically answer yes.
and the downside he could never answer yes to that question and it be true.
and yes I brought law into it because for it to be an execution it has to be based on law, otherwise its killing or murder. He didn't get a trial, so it wasn't.

and yes, I think using honour to get people to kill themselves is evil unless they were permanently suffering in some way.

"Because #3 is not the end all be all of Principled alignment. It's important, but so is #1."
But neither trumps the other, to be principled you have to tick both boxes, not ignore one because its inconvenient. To ignore one is not to be a Paladin, or be principled

and yes her husband put her in a no win situation, but she did it first by asking a question that was only ever going to get him in trouble.

And the thing with superman, han and luke, the pfrpg first ed book actually uses han and superman as examples for those alignments, and including personality, the book says these are the things that principled people will and won't do, and they are basically copied by the Code of Chivalry and she broke a few others

Show Mercy - Nope
Live ones life so it is worthy of respect by all - lol
exhibit self discipline - not so much there
Protect the innocent - kids tell little lies too
Respect Life - missed the mark
Avoid Deception - I this one applies because she didn't say she was going to kill him if he told a lie the third time, and that is a deception by omission, and an important one at that.
And after splitting his head in twain she then cut his heart out.

You are basically saying her oath overrides all those, I'm saying that none of them override any of the others, they are all checkboxes that have to be ticked to be either, and they have to be ticked twice if you are a principled paladin.

The Panath background does make sense, but to me the poor husband was in the middle of something and his wife came up to him and asked him for some words of encouragement, and not thinking that Rurga was anywhere near dangerous now that he had been married a few years answered without thinking (If you are married you know what I mean, and he was mortal), asking three times doesn't really make a difference because she was obviously hoping he was going to figure it out because he was still righteous and she loved, but he didn't so she shanked him with prejudice. If she had said that's a lie he might of had time to examine his thoughts, but as he would have still loved his parents, a particular pet or even himself a little he could never answer yes to that question.

The story just doesn't Gel porperly for a principled paladin, maybe for someone like Boadicea maybe but not Rurga, an epitome of all that is Principled and Palladin like. I think it was just a cool sounding story that a writer made up with out it being checked for discrepancies.


Would you let a Paladin of Rurga be able to get away with the same actions if you were d'ming him/her and still let them be principled (You can have diabolical paladins, not that makes a huge amount of sense given the description of what a paladin is)
User avatar
Tor
Palladin
Posts: 6975
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 2:37 pm
Comment: If you have something to say, back it up with thoughts and reasons. Simply posting to agree or disagree tends to be a waste.
Location: Pyramid

Re: Palladia etymology

Unread post by Tor »

kiralon wrote:I don't think Rurga would let a book with a story like that in it be a lie

Why not? Where is she restricted from propogating lies? Gods can be hypocrites.

42dragon wrote:was just trying to point out that the literal human deffinition of the alignment may not apply exactly the same way to other beings.
Not sure what you mean be literal human definition.. do you mean how Kevin defined alignments? If so, that is exactly how they apply to gods too.

The question is how the words apply though. What is "death" to a god may be something more extreme than what "death" is to an atheist mortal.

42dragon wrote:Rurga is the God of War and Honor (Truth). Truth is the aspect that is held above all others to this being, at least to the level of an insanity/obsession probably well beyond that. Due to this being's twisted views of extreme truthfullness, couldn't her husband have been considered armed with lies?
No, there is no indication of Rurga having an insanity or her viewing lies as weapons. If lies are dangerous, it is to others, not her, since she can detect them. I could see her worrying about her husband lying to others, but her husband lying to her would not be a threat to her.

42dragon wrote:I am not saying what she did was good or honorable in any way from a human point of view. But a point of view from her god like aspect of truth, this could be considered the most just and honorable thing to do.
There's no distinction between 'good to humans' and 'good to gods'. Alignments work the same way for mortals and gods in Palladium. All we can quabble over is how individuals interpret concepts discussed in them.

42dragon wrote:A god and aspect of Truth cannot be assosiacted with a liar, that could be considered corrupting of the aspect. We attempt to destroy tumors that are corrupting our bodies (even if we introduced them into our bodies, say smoking which is pleasurable to some). This aspect destroyed a man that could have been corrupting/damaging to the aspect like a tumor.
None of this allows a Principled to harm an unarmed innocent. Rurga is bound by her alignment like anyone else.

kiralon wrote:That is a very good point, but she went about fixing the problem in an evil way. After this none of the Palladins I play will worship her because of her over reaction, she could have sent him away and called of the wedding, but decided to slay another righteous person.
Do you mean get a divorce? The one killed in the story was a husband, not a fiance.

Anyway, that shows a serious lack of faith in such a Paladin. If they believe Rurga will provide them an afterlife, then why does it matter if you suffer a bodily death by her hand?

kiralon wrote:If any of my players did that as a principled Palladin at the end of it they would be neither, and If a priest of a good god did that that would lose their powers. Just because a God did it doesn't make it a good act
The question isn't so much 'is it a good act' so much as 'is it an act good people cannot do'.

Good people can do all sorts of non-good neutral things, like eating cheese or learning morse code. The question is if something violates the restrictions.

There are lots of explanations that work within the rules like...

1) the story is made-up, nothing like that happened, Rurga thinks it's funny to scare us so lets it slide
2) the story is true but Rurga got mind-controlled
3) the story is true, but Rurga doesn't think she really killed her husband by cutting his head in half, since she resurrected him afterward
4) the story is true, but Rurga was Aberrent at the time (or dropped to it) and only (re?)gained Principled alignment after years of feeling bad about the act, yet refuses to hide the story out of shame, feeling it would be immoral to cover up the brutality she regrets

Probably some others too.

Prysus wrote:Let's also look at what her power to "Automatically Detect a Lie." A lie by the way implies intentional untruth with intent to deceive, though maybe Palladium used it wrong? Final lines says: "she will always be able to tell when someone is telling something they know to be untrue."

So if he thought it was true, she wouldn't have detected it.
Ah, but did she have this deific power at the time? We don't know that. Assuming the story's true at all, it may have happened prior to her developing the ability.

We also don't know if the ability was working (Aco interference theory). We assume Aco hears warning-bells about lies, but what if she detects lies by their absence of jubilatory bells of truth?

Prysus wrote:He was actually trying to deceive her (though I'm guessing with the purest of intentions). Her actions deviated from the previous times (when she simply put stuff away). Instead she drew her weapon and asked agian. He again lied. She raises it above her head (and the sword screams to indicate prepation of killing) and she asks for the truth. He continues to try and deceive her (because if he wasn't trying she wouldn't have detected it).
Assuming she had the ability, assuming it still worked, there's nothing about the ability preventing her from being misled by false positives.

For example: if Panath knew how her truth-sense tingled when she heard a lie, and found a way to duplicate that sensation in her head every time her husband said those works, he could have misled her into thinking the husband was lying.

But hey, even if the husband wasn't lying... we're still talking about Principled wives being able to murder husbands without dropping alignment if they say "no those pants don't make you look fat". This isn't a comfortable place to define 'innocence' at.

Prysus wrote:So her husband put her into a "no-win" situation, and she made the choice she felt best (a warrior of truth favoring killing and upholding truth ... this should surprise no one).
No he didn't, that's some solid victim-blaming. Rurga was under no obligation to kill liars. If one opts to violate alignment for honor, that's great, enjoy being Aberrent, but it doesn't allow for it.

Prysus wrote:If making a decision one way changes her alignment and O.C.C., making a decision the other way (and breaking different alignment and code restrictions) would have the same result. That means the moment her husband lied to her, her alignment dropped and her O.C.C. changed.
How exactly would being lied to and not killing the liar make your alignment drop?

Prysus wrote:Our main contention doesn't seem to be if a Principled (or Palladin) can execute a person if warranted (the first part of your post I quoted suggests this to me, but I could be wrong), it's a matter if lying warrants execution. As an individual, I would normally say no. However, I do believe alignments cover far more than just my personal opinion on the world.
You're right, it's all how we define 'innocent'. But if our definition of innocent is 'has never told a white lie', I'm not sure how many innocents would exist in the Palladium world, or if anyone capable of language would be off-limits for the Principled to murder.

Prysus wrote:Let's look at this a different way. Is life or honor more important?
To someone of Principled alignment, life, since they have restrictions against killing.

Prysus wrote:From the way this thread is going, people seem to be putting a much higher emphasis on life. I can understand that. However, let's consider something else: Seppuku, ritual suicide of samurai. They'd sacrifice their life for the sake of honor. Then there's the kaishakunin (his second), who'd behead the samurai after seppuku. All of this favoring honor over life. Are you saying all samurai are evil? Let's use your alignment system.
Those examples don't work here. Both are consensual. Rurga's husband did not give his consent to be killed. He didn't ask for his head to be chopped like a seppuku guy does to his second. Entirely different.

Prysus wrote:that leaves anarchist, aberrant and diabolical. Of course, Palladium doesn't agree with that (as can be seen in Ninjas & Superspies as well as Rifts Japan).
Interesting, I will have to look into where these discuss Seppuku and principled alignments and get back about it.

Prysus wrote:it's far too simplistic and doesn't take things like personality or individualism into account
They generally are not. The only weight individuality and personality have is if they matter in determining innocence. If innocence is subjective then it's effectively meaningless. Yet that's all we really have to go with since Palladium hasn't objectively defined innocence in the Megaverse AFAIK.

Prysus wrote:I, on the other hand, figured that vows such as "until death do we part" signifies only one way out (one must be dead).
Making vows until death does not justify a principled person killing an innocent as a means to acquire divorce. The only issue here is whether or not the husband is subjectively innocent.

Prysus wrote:Rurga is not listed as a Palladin of Rurga (that would be odd!)
Not that odd... Aco's a priestess of light. I'm not sure to whom... perhaps her hubby? Makes me wonder... if you can channel Deific powers through worshippers, can Juggernaut lend his respawn power to any follower, including Aco?

Prysus wrote:If lying is against the law of the land (we don't know that it was, though if this took place in Rurga's realm, and we don't know that it did, then I personally find it probable that it would), then I wouldn't call a liar innocent. They are indeed guilty of a crime.

The problem with judging innocence or morality by LAW though, is that law can be anything. Is it justice to condemn people for a law you make yourself?

For example, if Rurga conquers and rules over a land, and declares it against the law to trip, would she remain Principled as she cleaves in half all the people who stumble and fall in her land? After all, clumsiness is against the law, so they are not innocent.

Prysus wrote:Also a lot of the situation will bring up the topic of honor, and whether or not honor is more important than life. I think that's debatable, but debatable enough I'm not going to condemn someone who picks one over the other.
The issue isn't whether or not we condemn Rurga, it's whether or not she killed an innocent or attacked an unarmed foe, essentially.

Prysus wrote:it even stands to reason her husband may have been a warrior and wore a weapon himself. He may have even been part of her army (which she had not yet disbanded), meaning he probably was armed. However, I will say that depending on the situation (if he was at peace and felt safe), it's equally likely he did NOT have a weapon.
Heck, even if he had one, someone could have a sweet 3d6 claymore and still be effectively 'unarmed' next to a being of her power. His sword would be less of a threat to her than a simple punch would be to a normal human who the honor code's written for.

Prysus wrote:#3 is not the end all be all of Principled alignment. It's important, but so is #1.
Yes, but #1's necessity would mean that Principleds would choose their promises carefully and avoid making ones that would commit them to break alignment. Rurga would not have made a promise to kill liars if killing liars meant potentially killing innocents.

Prysus wrote:Except her power only activates when it's intentional deceit. So if he didn't know, she wouldn't know.
To be clear though: we don't know if her power actually activated, we merely assume it did.

Prysus wrote:The fact she knew he was lying implies he was aware of the truth. Telling him the answer cheapens the point of asking.
We don't know Rurga KNEW he was lying. All the story conveys is that story-Rurga THOUGHT he was lying.

Prysus wrote:The Cyber-Knight is stealing in the first place (not good).
No he isn't. He is simply saying "I would like to steal". The farmer is merely assuming he wishes to act upon that desire.

Prysus wrote:Is lying against the law of the land?
This Cyber-Knight considers himself the one who determines the laws, just as Rurga determines the laws of the lands she claims as her own.

Prysus wrote:What aspect is counter-balancing the killing? Right now there's none.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you mean what propels it: the knight will first say offscreen to his horse "I will kill this farmer if he dares lie about his apple numbers." Therefore he would simply be keeping his word to his horse.

Prysus wrote:Your example is of a bandit, claiming to be a Cyber-Knight. All you've presented is a character stealing, and killing.
Nope, I was careful in the wording. No banditry occurred. The Cyber-Knight merely expressed a desire to steal. Admitted a desire to commit a crime is not the same as committing one. Although some take the expression of that desire as a threat, and may hide their assets through deception when confronted with it.

Prysus wrote:The farmer didn't agree to said conditions, so it's not some type of deal or contract, it's just the Bandit-Knight trying to bully others.

A person must agree to obey laws for a Principled person to punish them for breaking them?

So if a man invaded Rurga's land and started butchering her soldiers, he would be innocent, since he never broke his word to obey her laws against killing, right?

Prysus wrote:there's lots of room to create additional scenarios where the situation is more acceptable (such as no one in the land can lie, physically incapable of doing so, but there's a demon running around, so if someone lies to you it must be the demon ... ergo the farmer must be the demon in disguise since a real farmer couldn't lie).
This assumes that demons can't be innocent, that being a demon inherently makes it okay for good people to kill you simply for your race.

Prysus wrote:We actually don't know if Rurga kills everyone who lies to her. We know she killed one person for it, and the full details aren't given.
The general impression we get is that the lying is the reason she killed though, that lying is all the guilt you need. If Rurga can impose that morality on a place by fiat, then anyone can.

Prysus wrote:Why kill her husband then? Vows such as "until death do we part" (you can't banish and never see him agian if you're vowing you'll be together until the day that you die) and/or if he vowed something such as "I swear I will never lie to you until the day that I die" (if he ever does lie to her then it must be the day that he dies, per his vow).
Swearing you won't lie until you die doesn't justify killing a guy for lying, that's more just trying to prove him right or make a truth out of his lie.

Vows or no vows are irrelevant to the situation. If you swore you won't lie and then you lie, it just makes you a double-liar. The question still remains if lying alone is enough reason to de-innocent someone to death.

Prysus wrote:So your stance at this point is that Rurga is just a compulsive liar
No, not compulsive, I think she puts thought into it and does so selectively.

Prysus wrote:and her deceit goes so far she's even influenced the Palladium Staff to continue that lie (extending beyond the Ta'Palladia quote). An interesting take. Not one I agree with, but you are welcome to it.
Oh? Where in her section does it say she won't lie?

p107 mentions she's a 'stickler for the truth' and p108 says 'those around her are expected to speak without any trace of falsehood'. Her motto is "none can lie to ME and live".

Clearly this is just getting pissy about people lying to her, and doesn't prevent her from lying to others if she wishes it. She considers most of the gods in her pantheon liars, yet doesn't kill them. It's a leap to assume 'stickler for truth' means that she herself won't do it. It's all about wanting the truth from others. "as you can see" refers to the story, which is about someone lying to her. Nowhere is she mentioned as punishing herself for lying, or being unable to do it.

Prysus wrote:So he thinks he doesn't love his unborn child
Possibly, you can be out of touch with your feelings, or they can be very mixed up. I know I personally would be telling myself I felt nothing even if I did. Philosophy vs instinct.

Prysus wrote:has been married to a woman for three years (probably known her longer) and knows nothing about her?
I didn't say 'knows nothing'. Just that he doesn't know everything, and would be aware of his ignorance. You can know someone pretty well and still be scared of what they might do if they get emotional.

Prysus wrote:At this point I'm not blaming Rurga for killing him, that sounds more like natural selection at work. :P
Again, not about if we like what she did, but if what she did falls under Principled or not.

It can... but for it to do so, Principled is completely subjective and super-flexible and it makes goodness morally meaningless in Palladium. Goodness becomes a state of mind rather than a state of behaviour. How one views justice would dictate whether one falls into a realm of using certain tactics.

Basically... one guy could kill someone they thought was innocent, and be diabolic, and another guy could kill someone they thought was guilty, and be principled. Yet the diabolic person could be more logically grounded, and be correctly judging someone as innocent (by our standards) and the principled person could be incorrectly (by our standards) judging someone as guilty by twisted ones.
"1st edition? 2nd edition? It doesnt matter! Let's just talk" -Forums of the Megaverse
User avatar
The Dark Elf
Rifter® Contributer
Posts: 3074
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 8:04 am
Comment: "So gentlemen, are you prepared to open your minds and travel to worlds hitherto undreamed of?"
Location: UK

Re: Palladia etymology

Unread post by The Dark Elf »

So as I said I dont like the name Palladia.
Rifter 52 Cannibal Magic
Rifter 55 The Ancestral Mystic P.C.C.
Rifter 59 The Lopanic Games adventure "The Lion, the Ditch & the Warlock". Illustrations to this adventure can be found here.
Rifter 71 & 72 Double Issue Ninjas & Superspies adventure "On a Wing & a Prayer"
Rifter 80 Masters Unlimited
42dragon
Explorer
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:54 am

Re: Palladia etymology

Unread post by 42dragon »

kiralon wrote:Show Mercy - Nope
Live ones life so it is worthy of respect by all - lol
exhibit self discipline - not so much there
Protect the innocent - kids tell little lies too
Respect Life - missed the mark
Avoid Deception - I this one applies because she didn't say she was going to kill him if he told a lie the third time, and that is a deception by omission, and an important one at that.
And after splitting his head in twain she then cut his heart out.


Not saying I don't agree with your points from a human point of view. But from a god aspects of Honor (truth) point of view. Consider.

Show Mercy - yes, it was a quick clean death, no suffereing
Worthy of Respect - Held up her extremely high ideals of truth and honor by sacrificing her husband, even though she didn't want to. There is some respect there.
Exhibit Self Dicipline - yes, she gave hime 3 chances which is more than any one else would have got.
Protect the Innocent - She is a god her ideals are the closest thing to a law she would be bound to. If falsehoods and lies are against that, he is not innocent.
Respect Life - You can still kill while respecting life. You feel bad about having to take that life. It seems she struggled with the task and it affected her.
Avoid Deception - Drawing her sword and then raising it to attack seemed to be pretty clear what her intentions were, to me. Could she have been more clear? Possibly but she wasn't being deceptive.

kiralon wrote:"Because #3 is not the end all be all of Principled alignment. It's important, but so is #1."
But neither trumps the other, to be principled you have to tick both boxes, not ignore one because its inconvenient. To ignore one is not to be a Paladin, or be principled


That is one of the problems with the alignments, certain bullet points don't override any other bullet points. But it is possible to get into a situation where to uphold one ideal you would fail to uphold another. Once you are in that situation and everyone will be at some point, since you must break at least one of the ideals are you now forced down an alignment or many?

Always keep his word. Avoid lies. Always help others. for example
A child has run away from town due to a "monster", you find said child and promise to keep it safe and casually give your word to not reveal his location. You come across a search party from the town looking for the child. They ask for your help. Per the alignment you have to help them. You know where the child is, but you gave your word. But by not telling or showing the towns people you are not helping them, and you are not avoiding lies. But leading them to the child you are not keeping your word. The child wasn't very descriptive of the moster. Could it have been a townsperson, a real moster, a hallucination, a wild story becasue he didn't want to eay his vegetables? You casually got yourself into an alignment quandry. Now this is not as extreme as Rurga, but what makes any one alignment principle any more damning than any other?
User avatar
kiralon
Champion
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:05 pm
Comment: Kill it with Fire.

Re: Palladia etymology

Unread post by kiralon »

Rappanui wrote:
A) None of your answers are Correct
B) Why would any of them Kill their lovers?
c) You are throwing your own reaction. May you never get married.

Lol
You might want to read everything rather then just skimming,
I was showing the response Rurga had as superman, luke and han, (as superman and han are both put out there as examples, and I prefer luke over clint eastwood).

42Dragon, so the next time a party member draws a sword im allowed to kill them where they stand because they are obviously going to kill me. Over what would have been to the Husband (the mortal) a tiny matter, do you really think he thought he was going to get cut down by lying again. Im pretty sure he didn't want to commit suicide via Rurga so Im pretty sure he didn't think she was going to use it, She would have known that.

And the point about the checkboxes, yes, playing principled by the rules is very hard for players to stay there as no people I know are principled, and peoples own alignment usually comes out in play. So yes there are situations that you can get into that will mean death or loss of alignment as they are a major turning point to your life, like killing your husband. I do allow that small situations can be almost ignored if its not done all the time, but this is a major situation with the person she was going to spend the rest of his life with.
and you learn not to casually give your word, because it is a binding chain that can drag you over a cliff to your doom. In your case the Palladin wouldn't have left the child but taken him back to his parents as that is the right thing to do, and then he would investigate the monster.

Very good point dark elf, this is waaaay off topic
but

Tor
What stops her letting a lie go about her is her alignment and crazy need to kill people whom are close to her that lie. But mostly her alignment as it would mean she was actively supporting a lie. (its her book after all)
and I agree with the gods and alignments thing
and doh about the wedding timing
and the number list
1 wouldn't work as it would be a lie
2 Then she would have rezzed her hubby and went about her life
3 Possible as I think she is crazy, but the fact that she did it would mean she still would be aberrant, not principled no matter what she thought.
4 There is no mention of her being anything but a principled war goddess so it is possible but things like that usually would have come out, hell panath would be crowing something like that from the trees.


To me its more like a Greek tragedy story applied to a non-Greek god. The Greek gods were quite like that but non of them would be Principled. Principled is the hardest by far alignment someone can play, there are all sorts of things that can get you knocked off the pedestal, and the story is whether you try to get back up or embrace the new you. In fact I can't think of many stories where I would call the character principled, I think superman is about it.

and the fact that she has killed other righteous people as her sword only screams like that when it does so really makes me think she is aberrant.
Righteous means morally good and correct, she goes around killing morally good people. (1 kill of a righteous person is too many to be principled afterwards)
User avatar
kiralon
Champion
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:05 pm
Comment: Kill it with Fire.

Re: Palladia etymology

Unread post by kiralon »

Rappanui wrote:as for religion, there are plenty of reasons to kill a spouse, If you reach outside of christianity, there are tons of escape clauses for the virtuous.

such as.


Husband is a Aetheist
Husband violated cultural Taboo
Husband Violated the wife
Husband violated Ancestors
Husband Consorted with Opposing Faith
Husband Commited Egregrious Crime
Husband is a Pedophile.

Depending on the various Culture in place, All give the principled person a reason to kill their lover.

Superman, Luke, Han are NOT the type to do this. He would either accept it, Do something to reverse it, or beat up Darkseid

Unless he was under red kryptonite, or this was one of the Alternate supermen (like Superboy Prime pre infinte crisis)

Luke - while being played by Mark hamill who was the joker- IS NOT him. - He canonically never has children becoming obsessed with rebuilding the jedi order.

Han Solo - being basically a rogue - would Not go killing his ex, but would probably kill the ex's boyfriend, and retake his woman.

The problem with those outs is that her sword detects her husband as still being righteous when she cuts his head in half.
User avatar
kiralon
Champion
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:05 pm
Comment: Kill it with Fire.

Re: Palladia etymology

Unread post by kiralon »

Rappanui wrote:being righteous doesn't mean anything.
The king had the right to fornicate in the dark ages.


That is a confusing response, of course the King was allowed to have sex (everybody was, some had to get permission though). Righteous people can have sex, but only with their husband or wife.

Im guessing you are thinking of a particular king who was supposedly righteous.
anything said of Royalty back then was suspect because if they didn't like it they could cut of your head (i.e not righteous)
Righteous
adjective
1. Morally right or justifiable:
Synonyms
good, virtuous, upright, upstanding, decent, worthy; ethical, principled, moral, high-minded, law-abiding, just, honest, innocent, faultless, honourable, blameless, guiltless, irreproachable, sinless, uncorrupted, anti-corruption, saintly, angelic, pure, noble, noble-minded, pious, God-fearing
User avatar
Tor
Palladin
Posts: 6975
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 2:37 pm
Comment: If you have something to say, back it up with thoughts and reasons. Simply posting to agree or disagree tends to be a waste.
Location: Pyramid

Re: Palladia etymology

Unread post by Tor »

kiralon wrote:What stops her letting a lie go about her is her alignment
Nothing about the Principled alignment necessitates that you correct lies.
kiralon wrote:crazy need to kill people whom are close to her that lie.
That's not canon, we're basing this on what the Ta Palladia says, not the "word of god" so to speak about her personality. Furthermore, even if we take the story literally: she gets mad at people who intentionally lie to her. Getting mad at people lying to you does not mean you are morally against or angered by lying to them. Plus, if people BELIEVE the story, they won't think they're lying if they repeat it.

kiralon wrote:But mostly her alignment as it would mean she was actively supporting a lie. (its her book after all)
Where does it say Principled people can't lie or support lies? It only says they must keep their word of honor, there's a difference. It may mean that she won't come out and say "I give you my word of honor that this story is true", but rare would be the situation where a mortal worshipper demands Rurga give her word of honor about the Ta Palladia. She could easily sidestep such demands as rude.

kiralon wrote:1 wouldn't work as it would be a lie
Lies can work for her.

kiralon wrote:Then she would have rezzed her hubby and went about her life
We don't know she isn't secretly doing this, keeping him and the baby demigod safe in some pocket dimension away from her enemies.

kiralon wrote:There is no mention of her being anything but a principled war goddess so it is possible but things like that usually would have come out, hell panath would be crowing something like that from the trees.
On the off chance Panath's prime form gets killed (even if he will use his cheap Manifests to do most things) he wants his Pantheon to have his back and resurrect him. Lista's probably not going to be enthusiastic about that, Kalba isn't very reliable, and Cirga is probably going to follow Rurga's lead, so odds are, Panath will watch his step around her.

kiralon wrote:the fact that she has killed other righteous people as her sword only screams like that when it does so really makes me think she is aberrant.
Righteous means morally good and correct, she goes around killing morally good people. (1 kill of a righteous person is too many to be principled afterwards)
Killing someone righteous isn't necessarily evil, it's okay if they're trying to kill you or other good people (perhaps due to misunderstandings) and it's done to preserve life.

Plus, someone may have wielded Vlaa prior to her and she could know of it's scream due to lore rather than her own experience.

Rappanui wrote:Luke - while being played by Mark hamill who was the joker- IS NOT him. - He canonically never has children becoming obsessed with rebuilding the jedi order.
Some of us consider the Thrawn trilogy and subsequent novels to be canon. =/

kiralon wrote:The problem with those outs is that her sword detects her husband as still being righteous when she cuts his head in half.

I think the impression is that story-Rurga knew he was righteous already and was not surprised by the sword's scream, she just felt an obligation to do it.

Course I don't think this is guaranteed history for real-Rurga.
"1st edition? 2nd edition? It doesnt matter! Let's just talk" -Forums of the Megaverse
User avatar
kiralon
Champion
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:05 pm
Comment: Kill it with Fire.

Re: Palladia etymology

Unread post by kiralon »

"Killing someone righteous isn't necessarily evil, it's okay if they're trying to kill you or other good people (perhaps due to misunderstandings) and it's done to preserve life."
Yes, but it wasn't like that this time.

"Where does it say Principled people can't lie or support lies? It only says they must keep their word of honor, there's a difference. It may mean that she won't come out and say "I give you my word of honor that this story is true", but rare would be the situation where a mortal worshipper demands Rurga give her word of honor about the Ta Palladia. She could easily sidestep such demands as rude."
and if she is crazy enough to kill her husband for a tiny lie, do you think she would let her bible give out lies, and
and point 2 of principled says
2. avoid lies

and point 5 of code of chivalry
avoid deception

and its her book so she would be actively supporting a lie.
User avatar
Tor
Palladin
Posts: 6975
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 2:37 pm
Comment: If you have something to say, back it up with thoughts and reasons. Simply posting to agree or disagree tends to be a waste.
Location: Pyramid

Re: Palladia etymology

Unread post by Tor »

Wasn't saying it was in the husband instance, just contradicting the idea that it means she's bad news for knowing what the scream sounds like.

if she is crazy enough to kill her husband for a tiny lie, do you think she would let her bible give out lies

Dude, you're missing the point, if her bible is a lie then this means she may not have killed her husband. You're relying on some circular causality here.

principled says avoid lies
Yes, but 'avoid' is not 'never'. Plus she isn't lying if someone else wrote the book and it's other people circulating the lie.

code of chivalry avoid deception
All we know is that she's principled. Do we know she actually holds to all the codes of chivalry?

its her book so she would be actively supporting a lie
Not necessarily, it depends on how the book is promoted. If she went around telling people "read this book, it's 100% truth", then sure. If she merely encourages people to read it and try to learn from it, and hints that doing so may impart some understanding of the gods, then that is not supporting a lie since she's leaving it up to them which parts to believe.
"1st edition? 2nd edition? It doesnt matter! Let's just talk" -Forums of the Megaverse
User avatar
kiralon
Champion
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:05 pm
Comment: Kill it with Fire.

Re: Palladia etymology

Unread post by kiralon »

Tor wrote:Wasn't saying it was in the husband instance, just contradicting the idea that it means she's bad news for knowing what the scream sounds like.

if she is crazy enough to kill her husband for a tiny lie, do you think she would let her bible give out lies

Dude, you're missing the point, if her bible is a lie then this means she may not have killed her husband. You're relying on some circular causality here.

principled says avoid lies
Yes, but 'avoid' is not 'never'. Plus she isn't lying if someone else wrote the book and it's other people circulating the lie.

code of chivalry avoid deception
All we know is that she's principled. Do we know she actually holds to all the codes of chivalry?

its her book so she would be actively supporting a lie
Not necessarily, it depends on how the book is promoted. If she went around telling people "read this book, it's 100% truth", then sure. If she merely encourages people to read it and try to learn from it, and hints that doing so may impart some understanding of the gods, then that is not supporting a lie since she's leaving it up to them which parts to believe.



shes a paladin, and a god of paladins and truth, so the code of chivalry. Grab dragons and gods and give it a read. I feel like im arguing with someone who hasn't read the description..
User avatar
Svartalf
Champion
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 1:39 pm
Comment: Beware of the Friar Tuck type putting on the French Maid outfit!
Location: Paris, France
Contact:

Re: Palladia etymology

Unread post by Svartalf »

kiralon wrote:but killing an unarmed husband by surprise after asking if he loves her, sounds pretty demonic

It's not like the poor guy didn't know lying was out of bounds when he shacked up with her... he was delusional or making fibs, and paid the ultimate price from marrying a lady who thinks that lies are TEH EBILLL.
Image
Svartalf - Flamboyantly Fresh Franco of Freedom Freakin' Fries : Shadyslug
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug - Cherico
PC stands for "patronizing cretin" G'mo
I name you honorary American Subjugator & Ratbastard
User avatar
The Dark Elf
Rifter® Contributer
Posts: 3074
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 8:04 am
Comment: "So gentlemen, are you prepared to open your minds and travel to worlds hitherto undreamed of?"
Location: UK

Re: Palladia etymology

Unread post by The Dark Elf »

such things would only happen in Palladia and not the "the Palladium world".
Rifter 52 Cannibal Magic
Rifter 55 The Ancestral Mystic P.C.C.
Rifter 59 The Lopanic Games adventure "The Lion, the Ditch & the Warlock". Illustrations to this adventure can be found here.
Rifter 71 & 72 Double Issue Ninjas & Superspies adventure "On a Wing & a Prayer"
Rifter 80 Masters Unlimited
Post Reply

Return to “Palladium Fantasy RPG®”