Paladin Killing Attackers


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 216 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

PRD wrote:

Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Quote:
Lawful Good: A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

Does this bind a Paladin to spare enemies whose alignment doesn't happen to be evil?

I am playing my first society Paladin and when I went to finish off a enemy my GM/Venture Captain told me I would loose my powers if I did because they where helpless and not evil. As my character is low level (and all the bad guys are as well), unless I am fighting a cleric or monster I can't tell if they are evil or not.

My character is a Oath of Vengeance Paladin but I want to know for all Paladins:
If a enemy combatant is helpless and not evil do I have a duty as a Paladin to spare/give to guards this person? What about in a lawless city where the person will go free?


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 4 people marked this as a favorite.

The basis of he Paladins code is roughly from the (idealized) rules of chivalry and about 30 years of gaming evolution. While exact rulings will change from GM to GM it is a safe rule of thumb that a Paladin will not kill ANYTHING (even evil creatures) while it is helpless without severe extenuating circumstances.

Now you said the creature was helpless. That means it is in some sort of situation where it can pose no threat to anyone. Killing the helpless (even evil) IS evil for the fun, wacky world of 3.P aligments.

Paladins are good. They are also held to more extreme standards of behavior but do not live in a moral vacuum and are not idiots. That said, they do not take the 'easy' way out of moral choices and should go to resonable lengths to preserve life, even evil life, if it can be done.

A great exeption to this would probably be things with the Evil descriptor or subtype (I forget what it is now). As creatures that are pure incarnations of irredemable evil, destroying these enemies should be fine, even if they are helpless, because (generally) in no way can they ever be 'saved' and will represent an eternal and unceasing threat to all good living things as long as they continue to exist.

In this particular case, the GM (I assume) was ruling that killing a helpless 'normal' creature was an evil act (and I agree). It was good that he gave you a warning and a chance to change your actions.

In the future, kill evil in combat. Avoid captives if at all possible as once you have them and they are helpless your usually duty bound to treat them well and fairly and to turn them over to regional authorities.

That last line is HEAVILY dependant on the GM, his style of game and the games setting, as is everything I wrote above in retrospect, but it is probably a safe starting point for PFS play where GM's change from game to game and from the intent (IMO) on how the Paladin is supposed to act.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

no.

Only truly repentant enemies must be spared. If they beg for mercy it should be given.

Enemies playing on the reputation of Paladins to surrender only to expect to escape or repeat offend should be put to death. Sense motive is your friend here.

If the enemy is not evil, under what pretense were they enemies?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One thing to keep in mind. Somebody who is well and truly helpless is NOT a combatant, whether they were a second previously or not.

Linguistics matter, especially when you are using them to characterize someone as a threat.

If you find an old man in bed, too weak to get up and move about, but you know he was responsible for the death of thousands, is he a viable target for you to kill out of hand? Is it GOOD to kill the helpless? Ever?

Turn him over to authorities for justice according to the appropriate system so that he can be punished for his previous crimes, certainly, but slaughter him because of what he used to be, because he used to be capable of being a threat?

What's next? Killing babies because they could become threats?


I have had opponents surrender to my Paladin with the idea of trying to escape and make my life difficult. Being noble is not the same as being stupid. It is also not about destroying everything that disagrees with you. The dead don't learn.


It would, in my opinion, depend entirely on the organization or god that the paladin works for.

LG can be very mutable depending on who's Law you're following.

Consider than an LG person could work for an LE organization.

As an LE person in an LG society manipulates that society to their gain, an LG person in an LE organization would manipulate it in the completely opposite way, but would still be acting within the laws of the organization, which could be based on really evil concepts.

So if the LG Paladin worked for a very zealous and crusading god or church, the slaying of his enemies could be considered a holy mission sent from the mouth of his god/the gods, and would be an LG act.

Who is he to argue with his god/church on the nature of good? Such would be very un-lawful of him, questioning orders and such.

It's like that saying:

Good men will do good things without religion
Evil men will do evil things without religion.
It takes religion to make good men do evil things.

You can replace religion with political organization or anything else that works for you.

An LG character can do some pretty nasty things while maintaining their LG alignment.

Shadow Lodge

For clarity, we were is combat and I knocked the enemy into negative. A round later I role heal and she is stabilized and I go to finish her. There wasn't a spell or being tied up or anything like that.

Edit: Poorly worded: I rolled Heal to notice that she stabilized. I did not stabilize her.


Seriphim84 wrote:
For clarity, we were is combat and I knocked the enemy out. A round later I role heal and she is stabilized and I go to finish her. There wasn't a spell or being tied up or anything like that.

Killing s helpless foe (and unconcious is helpless) is an evil act.

Again, ideally, if the situation had gotten to the point of combat, kill them. Don't knock them out. It is safer in the long run. If you only did enough damage to render her unconscious and she stabilized, then you can't just off her while she is down. Tie her up, shackle her, etc and take her to the authorities for the region.

But also remember that if they are down but not dead. Nothing forces you to STOP them from bleeding out if they are an actual enemy. The purpose of combat is to kill the other foe. your mistake was in stabilizing her. Once you did that you tool responsibility for her well being and she became your helpless prisoner.


Yeah if you took the time to stabilize and heal.. why would you want to kill?

Shadow Lodge

Gilfalas wrote:
Seriphim84 wrote:
For clarity, we were is combat and I knocked the enemy out. A round later I role heal and she is stabilized and I go to finish her. There wasn't a spell or being tied up or anything like that.

Killing s helpless foe (and unconcious is helpless) is an evil act.

Again, ideally, if the situation had gotten to the point of combat, kill them. Don't knock them out. It is safer in the long run. If you only did enough damage to render her unconscious and she stabilized, then you can't just off her while she is down. Tie her up, shackle her, etc and take her to the authorities for the region.

But also remember that if they are down but not dead. Nothing forces you to STOP them from bleeding out if they are an actual enemy. The purpose of combat is to kill the other foe. your mistake was in stabilizing her. Once you did that you tool responsibility for her well being and she became your helpless prisoner.

Sorry, she stabilized herself. I rolled heal to notice that she was no longer bleeding out.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Gilfalas wrote:
Killing s helpless foe (and unconcious is helpless) is an evil act.

If you're going to make such an absolute claim, in the Rules Questions forum, back it up with text. If you can't, it's your opinion and should be noted as such.


Seriphim84 wrote:
For clarity, we were is combat and I knocked the enemy into negative. A round later I role heal and she is stabilized and I go to finish her. There wasn't a spell or being tied up or anything like that.

Why you stabilized her and then kill her?


He didn't. She stabilized herself and he noticed.

Unless the law has somehow sent you with orders to execute her specifically, you probably shouldn't concern yourself with finishing off enemies, especially if the GM is going through stabilizing roles and such. I'd say that yes, this is an evil act.


For curiosity's sake, what god or church does the Paladin work for?

If it's not one I can find online, could you describe the organizations code of ethics.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

This is much easier to justify in a fantasy setting than most people think. The false assumption most people work from is that there are fair court systems all around with clearly drawn rules of jurisdiction. If you are in a city, you probably do need to turn them over to the local authority IF you deem them to be legitimate. That falls inside your Code. Outside a city? No laws. So who is the law? Why not a paladin? The charge attempted murder and banditry against yourself and other goodly folk (probably). The evidence overwhelming. The charge in a fantasy setting? Execution probably. You are judge, jury & executioner.

And why not you? Paladins are incorruptible and must act completely within the bounds of their code. They "punish those who harm or threaten innocents." Why did these people attack you to begin with? Usually, they are not nice. That does not necessarily entail evil. Even the Lawful Good descriptor says, "hates to see the guilty go unpunished." In most cases, surrender is not a reason a paladin cannot kill someone it just means you have to feel it an appropriate punishment. Surrender just means you bind them and hold a quick Judge-Dredd court.

Now I am working on the assumption that this was not a misunderstanding that your paladin was aware of (people thought you were the bad guy and you realize that). Also, I presume you are not in a city whose rules you recognize. Otherwise, kill them. You can wake them up to let them "testify," or if you are confident enough in your charge, kill them while they are still out as a mercy. That's my two copper.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think the GM was correct. I play my paladin of Abadar as a ruthless exterminator of evil and corruption, but I still make him lawful good.

However, in combat, if an enemy becomes helpless, my paladin will not hesitate to end his life rather than endanger his allies by letting a danger walk free. If he finds someone guilty of a crime against society, he has lawful authority to execute them. It will be as painless as possible, but I don't believe it's an evil act to perform an execution.

If the enemy has stabilized in combat and there's a chance that he will be healed and become a threat again, I see no problem with ending the threat. It's not evil, it's pragmatic. At worst, a neutral action.


Because the Paladin is required to put being Good above and before being Lawful.

The question is NOT does the Paladin have the lawful right to slaughter an unconcious person at his feet.

The question is: is slaughtering a helpless person at your feet a Good act, a Neutral act, or an Evil act?

It can quite frequently be a pragmatic act, but that is NOT the same as any of the above.

Things are a little more complicated than I'm listing below, but not lots, honestly. People WANT the system to have more gray in it because the world does, but the alignment system is really pretty clear on the whole Good/Evil thing.

Good acts involve accepting risk and burden without being externally forced to do so simply to benefit others who are not part of your "inner circle".

Evil acts involve doing harm to others (whether fiscal, physical, or otherwise) for no other reason than personal gain.

Neutral acts involve doing what you need to do for your self and those that you care about, doing nothing just to harm or benefit those outside your circle.

Picking pockets so that you can get the money to feed your child is Neutral.

Stealing a piece of art worth thousands of gold in order to make a big score is Evil.


Shalmdi wrote:
This is much easier to justify in a fantasy setting than most people think. ...

Totally agree, well formulated. I only wish to add that in most settings a quick death is more merciful than languishing in whatever torturous dungeon passes for the local prison.

Shadow Lodge

@FleshGrinder
My paladin does not belong to a specific religious group. He worships Irori and Iomedae though. He is a Warrior of Holy Light with a Oath of Vengeance.

@Shalmdi
In fact she attacked us because we were heading towards her boss (the BBEG of the scenario). And we were in a town that had no real laws. Just don't get got. Most people took the law into their own hands. I was going to kill her because we were in a time crunch and I didn't want her getting free while we where gone and causing more havoc.

But again I am hoping for a more universal answer according to the rules (so I can argue with Society GMs if they try to take my powers). Does finishing a foe who attacked you and you knocked to negative but didn't not successfully kill count as an evil act or otherwise break the Paladins Oath? Does actual alignment change that? Does the Oath of Vengeance change that?


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Seriphim84 wrote:
PRD wrote:
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she... punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Quote:
Lawful Good: A lawful good character... combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

If you let them go, you're not fighting relentlessly, you're relenting. You're not punishing the guilty, you're excusing them. And you're not helping those in need, you're harming them. (Specifically those who would be harmed by allowing the villain to live).


I would say grant mercy only once and tell them to leave.

I'd also tell them not to go spreading that around as My paladin respects onlt the tennants of her faith first and then respects the law of whatever country she or he is in. That said, my paladin would not help Galt hunt someone down for mob justice to end someone at the Final blades. MY palaldin would go after him sure, but I'd be more willing to have my paladin convince those with her to just leave Galt and take the hunted with them or help the hunted down and help them leave the country too.

that said its up to the gm, but if the target is helpless, aka knocked out yes, you would commit an evil act, if they surrender, you are responsible for them and killing them is unjustifyable unless of course they become a liability.

That all said, I'd kill them anyway, knock them out and take tehir stuff even undergarments. they die of embarrassment


I think for your specific Paladin, you're fine since you're an Oath of Vengeance Paladin and vengeance definitely means causing death and/or pain on the guilty.

For Paladins in general, it would depend entirely on their individual oath/church/god.

What is LG to an Oath of Vengeance Paladin may not be the same as what a an Oath of Charity Paladin sees as LG.

An OoV Paladin even gets the ability to eat a heal to use more smites. Literally trading help for harm, meaning an OoV Paladin is very different from most views of LG.

When an LG class can literally trade heal spells to hurt things more, they're view of LG is going to be a little atypical.


Seriphim84 wrote:
And we were in a town that had no real laws. Just don't get got. Most people took the law into their own hands. I was going to kill her because we were in a time crunch and I didn't want her getting free while we where gone and causing more havoc.

You shouldn't kill her because you were in a time crunch. You should kill her because she will harm innocents if you let her go. Punish the guilty, it is in your code.

Quote:
But again I am hoping for a more universal answer according to the rules (so I can argue with Society GMs if they try to take my powers). Does finishing a foe who attacked you and you knocked to negative but didn't not successfully kill count as an evil act or otherwise break the Paladins Oath? Does actual alignment change that? Does the Oath of Vengeance change that?

It does not necessarily break the oath. What motivated the attacker? That is the crucial question. I.e. if it was because said person colluded with the BBEG you are in your right to perform execution.


Seriphim84 wrote:
But again I am hoping for a more universal answer according to the rules

Good Versus Evil: "Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others."

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Hrm, next time instead of just finishing them off add a dash of roleplaying.
"On behalf of Irori and Iomedae you are guilty of evil deeds punishable by death. I now carry out your sentence, may you find peace in what comes after."
This makes it less killing the fallen enemy and more enacting justice.

You can even sell it as a good thing: "Rather than let you lay here helpless and suffer at the hands of the vermin, I grant you the mercy of a quick death."

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Grick wrote:
Seriphim84 wrote:
PRD wrote:
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she... punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Quote:
Lawful Good: A lawful good character... combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

If you let them go, you're not fighting relentlessly, you're relenting. You're not punishing the guilty, you're excusing them. And you're not helping those in need, you're harming them. (Specifically those who would be harmed by allowing the villain to live).

+1


Just another thread showing why no one should ever play a Paladin without having a very high degree of trust in their GM, going over how things like this work at that GM's table, and agreeing with the positions the GM takes on all of that... just saying.

People seem to have wildly varying opinions on what constitutes a Paladin's code, and what constitutes Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos too... it's way too subjective.

Paladins are a martial class with some supernatural power. They are expected to wield deadly weapons, and even to enhance their weapons further with deadly magic. If such a character isn't allowed to kill, it just makes no sense.

I'd have to agree it depends on the circumstance. If there isn't a better option in terms of a place to go and put them in jail to try to redeem them, then the Paladin can be the Law itself in that situation and judge and execute the offender in my view.

It really all depends on way too much, and one reason I'd probably just never play a Paladin period. Ridiculous.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Always nice to see that the aligment discussion is still a BIG HELL HOLE


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Seriphim84 wrote:
But again I am hoping for a more universal answer according to the rules (so I can argue with Society GMs if they try to take my powers). Does finishing a foe who attacked you and you knocked to negative but didn't not successfully kill count as an evil act or otherwise break the Paladins Oath? Does actual alignment change that? Does the Oath of Vengeance change that?

Then I fear you will not get a clear answer. To my knowledge this exact situation is not outlined, and Pathfinder Society rules read as follows:

Pathfinder Society, Page 35:
Pathfinder Society wrote:

Alignment infractions are a touchy subject. Ultimately, the GM is the final authority at the table, but she must warn any player whose character is deviating from his chosen alignment.

What you have above are a collection of opinions (including mine). Those opinions are as diverse as those will be of the Society DM's. Be prepared to argue this point, buckle to the GM or avoid the paladin. Sorry.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My 2 cents:

When a paladin fights Evil (Big E! such as demons, devils, daemons, evil clerics, etc) they are divinely powered to get rid of said Evil. Killing is the most expedient and efficient method of getting rid of Evil. There is lots of Evil in the world, and the Paladin's role is to fight it.

When a paladin fights evil (small e, such as corrupt mercenaries, thieves and murderers, highwaymen, maniacal politicians) they are NOT judge, jury and executioner. They work with the local laws to catch and control these evils. Paladins are NOT above the law. If local laws prohibit 'good' behaviour, or the system ties the paladins hands, the paladin has an uphill battle to fight that evil, but that does NOT give carte blanche for killing.

That's my big black and white. The fun with paladins, both as a player and as a GM, is the gray that winds through it all.

Cheers

Sovereign Court

The bright note of the PFS ruling is that the DM MUST warn you if you're deviating from your Alignment. While they don't actually have to tell you if you're going against your CODE, the alignment should be enough to guesstimate whether you're gonna fall or not.

Additionally, I want to point out that Paladins of Torag are NOT allowed to take "enemies of their people" prisoner (except to extract information.) This is a Paladin of a LG deity. A quick death seems to be the more honorable method of scattering their families.

Faiths of Purity, pg 27 wrote:
Against my people's enemies I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except to extract information. I will defeat them, and I will scatter their families. Yet even in the struggle against our enemies, I will act in a way that brings honor to Torag.

I am aware this isn't Society-legal (for obvious complications with faction missions) but is still a Campaign Setting-oriented bit of info.


Lopke wrote:

My 2 cents:

When a paladin fights Evil (Big E! such as demons, devils, daemons, evil clerics, etc) they are divinely powered to get rid of said Evil. Killing is the most expedient and efficient method of getting rid of Evil. There is lots of Evil in the world, and the Paladin's role is to fight it.

When a paladin fights evil (small e, such as corrupt mercenaries, thieves and murderers, highwaymen, maniacal politicians) they are NOT judge, jury and executioner. They work with the local laws to catch and control these evils. Paladins are NOT above the law. If local laws prohibit 'good' behaviour, or the system ties the paladins hands, the paladin has an uphill battle to fight that evil, but that does NOT give carte blanche for killing.

That's my big black and white. The fun with paladins, both as a player and as a GM, is the gray that winds through it all.

Cheers

It's that line between "little e" and "big E" that can become very distorted and ridiculous very easily though. The same with "little l" and "big L" too. If a place is truly without any legitamate laws, or where the laws promote evil deeds, you can look a the stat block for the people or the settlement/region and see things like LN, N, or CN and say... "Well, the stat block clearly says their law is not an evil law, so the Paladin must respect it".

I personally find that to be a poverty though, and would hate to play at such a table. If a law lacks justice, and innocents are harmed and abused by the implementation of that law... does it really conform to the "Law" the Paladin is the champion of? Just because a stat block says "N" does that mean a law that allows the nobility to murder and abuse the populace is not really evil/Evil enough to warrant the Paladin being its sworn foe even in relentless deadly opposition?

The whole thing is a quagmire, and trying to say that a Paladin has to follow all laws is impossible. Really, think about it. Hell is a LE place. Does the Paladin have to respect the laws of Hell if he invades it to make war in the name of his god against the Evil creatures therin? Nonsense.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For the paladin we have the next rule.

You are subject to your gods principals and your loaylity lies there and onley there. You are expeted to follow the local laws, but when the laws conflicht with your gods principals, your god always wins.


Lopke wrote:

My 2 cents:

When a paladin fights Evil (Big E! such as demons, devils, daemons, evil clerics, etc) they are divinely powered to get rid of said Evil. Killing is the most expedient and efficient method of getting rid of Evil. There is lots of Evil in the world, and the Paladin's role is to fight it.

When a paladin fights evil (small e, such as corrupt mercenaries, thieves and murderers, highwaymen, maniacal politicians) they are NOT judge, jury and executioner. They work with the local laws to catch and control these evils. Paladins are NOT above the law. If local laws prohibit 'good' behaviour, or the system ties the paladins hands, the paladin has an uphill battle to fight that evil, but that does NOT give carte blanche for killing.

That's my big black and white. The fun with paladins, both as a player and as a GM, is the gray that winds through it all.

Cheers

But the situation was there was no law. So he wasn't above the law.


O by the way, those aligmetn rules are just as dramatic for Clerics who has to follow teh gods prinipals.


Count Duck wrote:

For the paladin we have the next rule.

You are subject to your gods principals and your loaylity lies there and onley there. You are expeted to follow the local laws, but when the laws conflicht with your gods principals, your god always wins.

That would clear about 90% if not more of this stuff up for any reasonable GM. I'd call that a pretty (very) good house rule.

Liberty's Edge

As others have noted, IMO, this depends on the degree of existing law.

In a well ordered city where criminals of this sort are punished appropriately, such acts are both unnecessary and inappropriate.

On the other hand, in the midst of the wilderness, with nobody else as a legitimate authority, being that authority is actually a Paladin's duty, and so such actions are probably alright, though they'd be even better to wait till the fight is done and then awaken any unconcious foes and try them formally.

Liberty's Edge

Starbuck_II wrote:
Lopke wrote:

My 2 cents:

When a paladin fights Evil (Big E! such as demons, devils, daemons, evil clerics, etc) they are divinely powered to get rid of said Evil. Killing is the most expedient and efficient method of getting rid of Evil. There is lots of Evil in the world, and the Paladin's role is to fight it.

When a paladin fights evil (small e, such as corrupt mercenaries, thieves and murderers, highwaymen, maniacal politicians) they are NOT judge, jury and executioner. They work with the local laws to catch and control these evils. Paladins are NOT above the law. If local laws prohibit 'good' behaviour, or the system ties the paladins hands, the paladin has an uphill battle to fight that evil, but that does NOT give carte blanche for killing.

That's my big black and white. The fun with paladins, both as a player and as a GM, is the gray that winds through it all.

Cheers

But the situation was there was no law. So he wasn't above the law.

Starbuck, my response was not specific to the OP's situation. It was my general view of paladins.

In places where Evil is sanctioned or OK, the paladin is in the grey zone. Have a nice discussion with your deity, a herald, a representative of your deity (i.e. a cleric) and ask for advice. The GM can help guide your paladin to the right path.

A paladin is not an island.

Silver Crusade

As you can see from the above :

Opinions vary. Greatly. One GM will say that you can NOT kill the prisoner, another will say that you MUST, and another will let you make the decision.

In a regular campaign, sort it out with the GM (preferably ahead of time).

With players that I trust I almost completely let the player decide. Sometimes I'll ask a very leading question : "Are you sure that your character would kill the helpless victim?". Only under the most egregious circumstances would I intervene.

But one of the "joys" of playing a Paladin is intense ethical arguments between the players and GM :-).

In PFS you really have to just go with the flow. If the GM says its evil, argue your case briefly. If they still insist, just do what they say.


pauljathome wrote:

As you can see from the above :

In a regular campaign, sort it out with the GM (preferably ahead of time).

THis is very, very important. If the vision of the GM is not yours you can choose to take a other class.


and its also one of many reasons why they should remove the LAwful part of the paladin's required alignment.

or add that the paladin must follow the deity's rules should the region's laws and the deity's laws come into conflict.

Scarab Sages

The Paladin code is interpreted differently by different GMs. Since this is a PFS character, a good rule of thumb is to always consult with the GM briefly before the game. Ask him or her to please let you know if you're in danger of a code violation since it's such a subjective thing. Then do your best to follow your own interpretation of the code and make adjustments where necessary.

Shadow Lodge

Thanks everyone for you insights. I underestimated the size of the can of worms I was opening. You all have given me a lot to think about. Obviously Paladins in society are a difficult thing because they require a understanding between player and GM. Thats a Shame, I love Paladins but I am not sure that I can play one with a Sword of Damocles over my head. I can think of at least a dozen other situations in which a disagreement with a GM would render my character powerless.

Any recommendations for a good, melee oriented hunter of evil that preferably has some supernatural power but no spells?

Edit: If I keep him a paladin I will definitely follow everyone's advice and talk to every GM before game.


Mergy wrote:

I don't think the GM was correct. I play my paladin of Abadar as a ruthless exterminator of evil and corruption, but I still make him lawful good.

What do your paladin do about LE cleric of abadar?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Seriphim84 wrote:
Any recommendations for a good, melee oriented hunter of evil that preferably has some supernatural power but no spells?

Maybe a LG Skirmisher Ranger? Or an Inquisitor who simply pretends his spellcasting ability doesn't exist?


Jiggy wrote:
Seriphim84 wrote:
Any recommendations for a good, melee oriented hunter of evil that preferably has some supernatural power but no spells?
Maybe a LG Skirmisher Ranger? Or an Inquisitor who simply pretends his spellcasting ability doesn't exist?

Also

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/paladin/archetypes/paizo---pal adin-archetypes/warrior-of-the-holy-light

Dark Archive

Nicos wrote:
Mergy wrote:

I don't think the GM was correct. I play my paladin of Abadar as a ruthless exterminator of evil and corruption, but I still make him lawful good.

What do your paladin do about LE cleric of abadar?

He doesn't do anything about them. A ruthless exterminator of evil AND corruption, not a crazy person who detects evil and then smashes. He doesn't approve of evil clerics, and doesn't work with them directly if he can help it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actually specific religion is not relevant in the case of a paladin. Their powers are derived from a code that is more strict than the code of LG or any specific god or pantheon.

This IS an edge case. I would also stop you from killing a helpless opponent. It is your job to see justice done... sure. But doing evil is NOT doing justice. Killing a non-combatant is evil. If this place is truly lawless then I would allow her to wake up and I would leave her punishment in the hands of those she has committed evil against if there are NO such people then she probably isn't evil and simply a hired gun. A defeated hired gun is far more likely to seek employment elsewhere if defeated. They Aren't likely to seek vengeance since that's bad for business.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Frankly, the target wasn't even a noncombatant yet. One channel and he's back in the fight. Helpless isn't a moral status in a setting with magic unless it's something extreme like "tied up and strength and dexterity drained until they can't escape even on a 20 and in an antimagic field."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
Killing a non-combatant is evil.

Nonsense. The rules are pretty clear about this. Only killing innocents or killing for your personal gain is evil.

1 to 50 of 216 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Paladin Killing Attackers All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.