Did I break my Paladin Code?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 466 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

BB36 wrote:
Jubal Breakbottle wrote:
There are neutral kobolds in Golorian. Therefore, an evil kobold is an assumption. Quoting SRD will not make it a fact.
Did the TN Kobolds go out and eat kids after they kidnapped them? I rest my case

Actually, we don't know. Last I heard, the OP didn't know if the kobolds actually captured the kids are not, which is why he was delaying for so long.

Grand Lodge

Davor wrote:
Killing an unarmed, helpless prisoner is evil. That's all there is to it. Precedent does not make an action good. What is good is offering the creature the chance to live and make amends on its own. If it doesn't, and you are forced to stop it again, then you stop it again, for as long as you need to. If you need to imprison it, then do so, but do not be so eager to hand out death and judgment.

That's not LG, that's Lawful Stupid

So the way to stop a 20th level Paladin is to place a Goblin surrender, be babysat by the Paladin, let him go have the goblin do evil again, babysit them, let them go and do it over and over and over, wow

I'll play evil in your games. Good is so stupid if that is what they do. When I run out of money, I'll surrender to some good guys, get my daily dose of morality with 3 hots and a cot and when I'm feeling better, declare I've "seen the light" then relapse over and over again

What you stated is for a 21st Century Morality in a non-magical world, and not one with vile mages, evil priests, hungry dragons, and insidious outsiders


Quote:
What do you say about someone who willingly stays around and is a GUARD of a place where kids are tortured and butchered?

I answered that already. Point #2 about 3 hours ago.

Quote:
I did detect. I detected evil.

I don't believe you ever specified doing that. For me, that changes everything. Helpless truly evil sentients can be killed by paladins without breach of code for two primary reasons.

1. The ability to Detect Evil enables paladins to be shown by their divine patron who is the enemy. Sometimes twisted villains can cause good sentients to detect as evil causing the paladin problems, but that is the exception to the rule. If you can smite them, you should be able to kill them without regret.

2. Characters that detect as evil are intrinsically evil. They have performed so many evil acts as to outweigh any good acts to be measured as neutral. Good, evil and neutral are characteristics defined by the game. Yes, truly evil characters can atone, but it requires sufficient acts that would switch their alignments to neutral. Insert Star Wars anecdotes here.

Quote:
Are you just arguing to argue?

No

cheers


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Through a select, worthy few shines the power of the divine. Called paladins, these noble souls dedicate their swords and lives to the battle against evil. Knights, crusaders, and lawbringers, paladins seek not just to spread divine justice but to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve. In pursuit of their lofty goals, they adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline. As reward for their righteousness, these holy champions are blessed with boons to aid them in their quests: powers to banish evil, heal the innocent, and inspire the faithful. Although their convictions might lead them into conflict with the very souls they would save, paladins weather endless challenges of faith and dark temptations, risking their lives to do right and fighting to bring about a brighter future."

That's straight from the CRB. Very first paragraph.

Notice a few things:

They dedicate their lives to battle against evil. Battle. That's combat. That's killing. The very first thing mentioned about paladins is that they kill evil.

THEN it is mentioned that they seek to spread divine justice. Spreading divine justice means giving rewards when it is justly due and applying punishment where it is due - in accordance to the religious law. At the same time, they have to embody the virtuous teachings of the deity they serve. This could mean that wile the paladin has to give punishment for wrong doings, they may lighten the sentence if redemption is possible or apologize to a prisoner for having to execute him - then proceeding with the execution.

For the case of the OP; how did the paladin feel about executing the prisoner? Was he genuinely saddened at having to kill him after the little guy refused to redeem himself? If so, he was acting in accordance to his faith (redemption by sword), and in accordance with a good alignment. Or was he taking glee in the act of killing a prisoner - that would be more evil, with the paladin getting warnings from his god, and an additional act would require a quest for redemption himself.

At no point with this deity would I ever make a paladin an "ex-paladin" without the opportunity for redemption. After all, it is the god of redemption he worships. And I would never take away paladin abilities for a first time offense, unless the offense was truly horrific, such as sacrificing children to an evil god or going on a murder spree throughout a village. Borderline issues like this one - killing a tied prisoner (could be seen as murder or seen as an execution of an enemy) - might require a few days of prayer after it's all said and done.

Grand Lodge

Wander Weir wrote:
BB36 wrote:
Jubal Breakbottle wrote:
There are neutral kobolds in Golorian. Therefore, an evil kobold is an assumption. Quoting SRD will not make it a fact.
Did the TN Kobolds go out and eat kids after they kidnapped them? I rest my case
Actually, we don't know. Last I heard, the OP didn't know if the kobolds actually captured the kids are not, which is why he was delaying for so long.

Well the thing still was evil. As a Paladin gets "Smite Evil" at 1st level, that is still okay.

This is not a real world exercise where "good vs evil" is a philosophical construct. Evil is real and the actions of a person leave indelible marks on the psyche.

Being evil means you do real damage, not just beat up one or two people you don't like, but kill, maim, crush for fun, profit and or pleasure

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I recommend you take zero points in perception and sense motive, dump your wisdom, and have whoever in your party does the dirty work take max ranks of bluff. You can now do the just and honorable thing as a paladin and practice proper "catch and release" techniques, safe in the knowledge that you have shown mercy. Luckily, you won't notice the rogue wiping the blood of his blade with the corner of his shirt or the mage stowing his wand of scorching ray.

~~No paladins were made to fall from grace during the recording of this message~~


redcelt32 wrote:
First off Malifice, my arguments on this thread are not directed at you or any specific GM.

Thats cool mate; these discussions are often heated (why some DM's do away with alignment entirely).

redcelt32 wrote:
My experience with paladins playing under GMs ( from hearsay and direct experience) is that the game starts with GMs watching for reasons to have the paladin fall. If there is a strong valid reason, fantastic. If it is over a goblin children, a captured kobold or the like, thats a strong penalty for a minor transgression. Thats my issue, all sins seem to be cardinal and not venal.

Why is a Goblin child, or a Kobold Child any different from say.. a (Chelaxian) Human Child?

Killing one is still an evil act. And doing so intentionally, for a Paladin, leads to an atonement.

redcelt32 wrote:
If you enforce the same strictures of alignment on all your players, forcing them all to make the same sort of choices to stay non-evil, then good on you, you make it possible to play a paladin in your group. That however, almost never happens. The paladin is almost always singled out as the target for all alignment issues and is usually the only one to pay the price.

Im not 'singling out Paladins'. I would penalise Druids for acting non Neutral, or Monks non-Lawful. But both of those classes require an alignment change for loss of powers (or loss of advancament potential).

The Paladin (and Antipaladin) only requires a single intentional act of Evil to 'fall'.

Its part of the fun (and challenge) of being a Paladin.

redcelt32 wrote:
Obviously there needs to be a long discussion at character creation about expectations, and if that happened and wasn't conveyed here, I'm suprised at the OP for posting in the first place.

Here is the Code for the NG Paladin, as shown to the player prior to the first session:

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

Additionally, the paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority but only as long as that authority is not used for evil ends, strive to act benevolently at all times (showing kindness, charity, mercy and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents

I define 'Evil' as; A lack of empathy for other beings.

Evil includes:

* Slavery
* Murder
* Torture
* Killing of a defenceless sentient
* Rape
* Causing unecessary harm
* Genocide

And so on.

The Paladin would have been perfectly fine to demand the release of the children, and if the Kobold guard stood in his way, perfectly within his rights to use whatever force is needed to achieve his mission (saving the lives of innocents).

Should the Kobold tribe surrender and return the children, the Paladin couldnt exactly then proceed to slaughter them anyway.

He needs to carry himself as an example for others to follow; not just as a weapon against evil, but also as an example of mercy, grace, kindness and charity.

By doing so, he renounces the tools of evil (murder, savagery, torture, etc) and inspires others to turn from evil - which is every Paladins real goal.

redcelt32 wrote:
My experience has been that the nitpickingly high standard that GMs tend to hold paladins to makes adventuring so incredibly dangerous that he becomes a liability. I mean things like taking prisoners and having to guard them, releasing bad guys (at high levels, this=asking to be TPKed), not allowing sentient beings to be charmed or mind controlled, and in general exposing the other party members to a long more danger than they would normally face. My other earlier comments hopefully give some context to the most recent ones since you joined the discussion. .

The youve had some poor GM's.

A GM whose monsters NEVER surrender (unless there is a Paladin in the party) is.. well a poor DM. Same with a DM that likes to taunt his Paladins with wave after wave of monsters that surrender, only to turn on the Paladin and the party later on.

The code isnt meant to exist for the GM to 'take advantage of' but to provide for roleplaying opportunities (for both the GM and the Player).

When the Paladin lets prisoners 'go' a good GM has one of those prisoners return to visit the Paladin in town later on as a chaged man, to thank him for helping him see the error of his ways.

All good literature has being 'good' rewarding the Hero, not punishing him.

Of course sometimes its a liability having to be good all the time. But thats part of the challenge of a Paladin; dont play one if being an example to fellow man isnt your cup of tea.

redcelt32 wrote:
There are whole races of treacherous, cowardly, vicious creatures out there, in fact most of the small humanoids tend to be that way in the face of stronger opponents.

This isnt due to Race (with the exception of Evil outsiders); its due to culture and upbringing.

A Kobold can be redeemed. It has free choice. It isnt evil because it was born evil; its evil because it has to be to survive.

redcelt32 wrote:
Wow, seriously?? evil for killing a threat to their safety and the children? If I was a chaotic neutral or even chaotic good barbarian, I think I would be rather unhappy with this judgment. Unless it was perfectly clear that this kobold would not return to his tribe and potentially risk the lives of the other children, I don't see how you could let him go, fanatic, coward, scared little rabbit, however you classify him..

Yes, seriously. Killing defenceless things as they flee for their lives (after surrendering and being told they can go free) when they pose you no likely threat is evil.

Do it enough times and I would change your alignment (after a warning) first to Neutral, then to Evil.

redcelt32 wrote:
Umm, no. If a serial killer begged for his life and was set free, do you really think he isn't going to continue his evil ways? .

Yet criminals are released from prison all the time after being 'rehabilitated', Darth Vader turned from the Dark side and was redeemed by his son (and he committed mass genocide by blowing up Alderran FFS!), and most major faiths beleive in redemtion and absolution.

Paladins dont just destroy evil with the sword; they defeat it by example and by rising above it.

redcelt32 wrote:
True, however paladins should be able to go around killing known evil creatures that pose a threat to the nearby communities for evil stuff they have already done and might (or might not) do in the future. .

True, they can do that. But its not absolute. Its not just because the nearby creatures villiage is evil, so I had better ride out and smite it. If they can resolve the problem without violence, so much the better.

Hypothetical for you:

A villiage of Orcs (mostly NE) live nearby a Human town (mostly NG). The towns live in relative peace, however there is the occasional flare up of violence over the local mine that the Orcs claim the rights too. A nearby Paladin hears about this situation, rides into the Orc villiage and slays most of the villiagers thus driving off the threat.

Who is 'evil' here? The Orcs or the Paladin?

Firstly try and look at it from the Orcs perspective. If an Orc Champion rode into the Human town and started slaughtering villiagers left right and centre you wouldnt hesitate to call his actions 'evil'.

Also before you answer this question, remember the current party live in Falcons Hollow (most of the residents/ the villiage is/are NE). The local Fey cretures (mostly NG) are currently having thier home deforested by these villiagers.

Is it a 'good' act for these Fey to slaughter everyone in town?

What about the children of Falcons Hollow? If they dont kill the kids, they'll grow up 'evil' and surely come looking for vengance, and keep deforesting the area.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BB36 wrote:

That's not LG, that's Lawful Stupid

So the way to stop a 20th level Paladin is to place a Goblin surrender, be babysat by the Paladin, let him go have the goblin do evil again, babysit them, let them go and do it over and over and over, wow

I'll play evil in your games. Good is so stupid if that is what they do. When I run out of money, I'll surrender to some good guys, get my daily dose of morality with 3 hots and a cot and when I'm feeling better, declare I've "seen the light" then relapse over and over again

What you stated is for a 21st Century Morality in a non-magical world, and not one with vile mages, evil priests, hungry dragons, and insidious outsiders

A good being understands that evil has a chance at redemption. Are all evil beings redeemable? No. Just look at devils, demons, and daemons. However, creatures on the material plane can be redeemed, and as such deserve that chance at redemption.

1) I mentioned imprisonment as an option. I never said a creature needed to be baby-sat. It's the most efficient way to stop evil from spreading while simultaneously granting the wicked a chance at repentance.

2) There is no such thing as "21st Century Morality". There is right, and there is wrong; there is Good, and there is Evil. We may disagree on what is Good or what is Evil, but that doesn't mean that neither of us is wrong.

If a villain constantly escapes from prison, only to be sent back there again, then the goal of the hero is to make a better prison to hold the villain. A good creature knows that death is not something to be taken lightly, even in the face of evil.

Oh, and I forgot to mention: I'm talking about idealistic good. Feel free to be evil in one of my games. The paladin may accept your surrender, but the CN fighter might just collect that bounty on your head :P


Pugwampi wrote:


It was crying and pleading for it's life? Wow... that's... Yeah, good call, man.

No, it was growling like a dog. Remember the Paladin doesn't understand Draconic, he didn't know it was pleading.


redcelt32 wrote:

I recommend you take zero points in perception and sense motive, dump your wisdom, and have whoever in your party does the dirty work take max ranks of bluff. You can now do the just and honorable thing as a paladin and practice proper "catch and release" techniques, safe in the knowledge that you have shown mercy. Luckily, you won't notice the rogue wiping the blood of his blade with the corner of his shirt or the mage stowing his wand of scorching ray.

~~No paladins were made to fall from grace during the recording of this message~~

No need to be a dick about it.

Obviously your DM is the kind of guy that likes to mess with you by throwing random surrender bots at you just to screw you over.


Starbuck_II wrote:
Pugwampi wrote:


It was crying and pleading for it's life? Wow... that's... Yeah, good call, man.

No, it was growling like a dog. Remember the Paladin doesn't understand Draconic, he didn't know it was pleading.

The Cleric had Comprehend Languages up.

He told the Paladin that it didnt understand and was pleading for its life.

And it was obvious it was crying. And shaken.

I told the Paladin as much.


BB36 wrote:
So the way to stop a 20th level Paladin is to place a Goblin surrender, be babysat by the Paladin, let him go have the goblin do evil again, babysit them, let them go and do it over and over and over, wow

A) What Paladin would be that stupid?

B) What GM would be that much of a dick?

BB36 wrote:
I'll play evil in your games. Good is so stupid if that is what they do.

Cool Brah.

When the Paladin comes a smiting (and you surrender) he'll knock you out, truss you up and bring you back to his church for an attonement/ lengthy stay in prison.

You can whine about how stupid he is from your cell.


LazarX wrote:
Paladins aren't the only characters I watch. I recently changed a NG Druid's alignment after his actions and statements showed quite clearly that "Good" was not part of his outlook or modus operandi.

I do the exact same.

Had a Monk once that insisted on playing an antagonistic lone wolf.

Always doing his own thing, ignoring the rest of the party, stealing and so forth. 'LN' apparently yet had no discernable honor, respect for authoity, code; nada.

Warned him I was going to shift his alignment if he didnt change.

He didnt change.

CN Monk = no more Monk levels till you do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malifice wrote:
A paladin must be of neutral good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

So what do you do when the paladin thinks he following the edicts of his religion and honestly believes he's doing the right thing, but it's technically "an evil act" according to your rules?

Also, why are the rules for a NG the same for all paladins when they could be worshiping different gods? The same question can apply if you have rules for LG paladins.


Icyshadow wrote:
The law in one Kingmaker text (check the first book of the AP) clearly states that the PCs have the right to take matters into their own hands, and that the judgement passed for banditry is death, by hanging or by the blade. THERE ARE NO OTHER OPTIONS.

And if a Paladin did that, he would likely suffer loss of Paladinhood.

An evil Law is still evil (even though its certainly Lawfull).

Same deal with (legal) Slavery.

Paladin goes and buys himself a harem of slaves, he's in trouble.

Icyshadow wrote:
Also, I have seen that it's more an exception than the norm to have DMs who let typically evil beings (such as orcs, kobolds, goblins and whatnot) to have that change of heart. It's much more likely that it will backstab you after pretending to play along.

OR the evil guy just.. you know.. leaves like he says he would. Why put himself at risk against the scary Paladin that just kicked his ass in order to come back and help his friends?

He's... evil remember. Self preservation at the expense of his friends is how he rolls.

Also, Kobolds are Lawful; they tend to keep their words.


BB36 wrote:

From the SRD on Kobolds:

"Kobolds are creatures of the dark, found most commonly in enormous underground warrens or the dark corners of the forest where the sun is unable to reach. Due to their physical similarities, kobolds loudly proclaim themselves the scions of dragonkind, destined to rule the earth beneath the wings of their great god-cousins, but most dragons have little use for the obnoxious pests.

While they may speak loudly of divine right and manifest destiny, kobolds are keenly aware of their own weakness. Cowards and schemers, they never fight fair if they can help it, instead setting up ambushes and double-crosses, holing up in their warrens behind countless crude but ingenious traps, or rolling over the enemy in vast, yipping hordes."

They live in a LE nest and they do to other Kobolds as well as others outside

I'd say you're reaching

Im sorry; are all elves 'good and frivolous' and all drow 'cruel and treacherous'?

And can they not change their ways? Are evil elves and good drow not possible?

They are not evil by nature (only outsiders and undead lay claim to that). They are evil because they are raised in a society whereby cruelty is the accepted means of survival, and the weak are taken advantage of.

The kobold was crying because he expected death - its what the exact treatment he would have received should he be captured by another Kobold (LE).

Its the Paladins duty to rise above that, and for that exact reason.


bookrat wrote:

So what do you do when the paladin thinks he following the edicts of his religion and honestly believes he's doing the right thing, but it's technically "an evil act" according to your rules?

Also, why are the rules for a NG the same for all paladins when they could be worshiping different gods? The same question can apply if you have rules for LG paladins.

Sarenae doesnt advocate killing defenceless and helpless creatures.

Even she imprisoned Rovagug when he was at her mercy.

The Paladins code is absolute.

A (LG) Paladin of Torag is not required to accept a surrender from his racial enemies, but should he do so, he is honor bound to honor it.

He also cant kill defenceless women, kids and the infirm no matter how 'evil' he thinks they may be.

(Outsiders and undead exepted of course)


if the kobold detected as evil than it would have been more than 4HD, an evil cleric or an evil outsider or undead, yes?

and to the OP... this code, was it something that you and your GM worked on in advance of play or has it just been sprung on you?

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malifice wrote:


Sarenae doesnt advocate killing defenceless and helpless creatures.

Even she imprisoned Rovagug when he was at her mercy.

Actually, Rovagug was only imprisoned through an unfortunate pact made with Asmodeus because he was so powerful that the combined might of the gods COULDN'T DESTROY HIM.

/bardic knowledge


Spacelard wrote:

if the kobold detected as evil than it would have been more than 4HD, an evil cleric or an evil outsider or undead, yes?

and to the OP... this code, was it something that you and your GM worked on in advance of play or has it just been sprung on you?

I worked on it in advance (note the changes from the LG Paladin code - note NG paladins can Lie, can ignore authority for good ends, use poison and so on - but must strive al all times to act benevolently, showing mercy and kindness etc).

It was sent to the player via email pre the 1st session, and discussed with him DM to Player before the first session commenced.

Also, Ive been DMing him for nearly a year now - he knows my stance on alignment.


Davor wrote:
Malifice wrote:


Sarenae doesnt advocate killing defenceless and helpless creatures.

Even she imprisoned Rovagug when he was at her mercy.

Actually, Rovagug was only imprisoned through an unfortunate pact made with Asmodeus because he was so powerful that the combined might of the gods COULDN'T DESTROY HIM.

/bardic knowledge

'I will seek out and destroy the spawn of the Rough

Beast. If I cannot defeat them, I will give my life trying.
If my life would be wasted in the attempt, I will find
allies. If any fall because of my inaction, their deaths
lie upon my soul, and I will atone for each.'


Davor wrote:

Actually, Rovagug was only imprisoned through an unfortunate pact made with Asmodeus because he was so powerful that the combined might of the gods COULDN'T DESTROY HIM.

/bardic knowledge

From PfWIki:

Known to her faithful as the Dawnflower, the Healing Flame, and the Everlight, Sarenrae (pronounced SAER-en-ray) teaches temperance and patience in all things. Compassion and peace are her greatest virtues, and if enemies of the faith can be redeemed, they should be. Yet there are those who have no interest in redemption, who glory in slaughter and death. From the remorseless evil of the undead and fiends to the cruelties born in the hearts of mortals, Sarenrae's doctrines preach swift justice delivered by the scimitar's edge. To this end, she expects her faithful to be skilled at swordplay, both as a form of martial art promoting centering of mind and body, and so that when they do enter battle, their foes do not suffer any longer than necessary


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Malifice wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
Also, I have seen that it's more an exception than the norm to have DMs who let typically evil beings (such as orcs, kobolds, goblins and whatnot) to have that change of heart. It's much more likely that it will backstab you after pretending to play along.

OR the evil guy just.. you know.. leaves like he says he would. Why put himself at risk against the scary Paladin that just kicked his ass in order to come back and help his friends?

He's... evil remember. Self preservation at the expense of his friends is how he rolls.

Also, Kobolds are Lawful; they tend to keep their words.

The question is, how is the kobold punished for his evil doings if the paladin just lets him go? He really isn't other than being scared for a while and a bit bruised up. For kidnapping and potential murder that is incredibly light (assuming he committed said crimes and the paladin has good reason to believe that). Just letting the kobold go means that he was not punished, therefore the paladin was negligent in following his code to punish evildoers and could fall.

Arguable, if the kobold doesn't redeem himself and goes off to kill other people, and the paladin had good reason to believe this will happen, releasing him does more evil than killing him.

The big issue with paladin codes is that many GMs tend to think that there is one way to be a paladin. For any given situation, there is only one correct paladin way, and this is wrong. Without any special agreement on the paladin code content, the "I will slay all evil" paladin is as valid as the "I need to redeem all evil". Now, unless you come to an agreement beforehand (and it sounds like you did that, so kudos), this means that if there is a situation where the is only one right way to handle it while adhering to the codes and not horrendously derailing the campaign (i.e. we need to take the prisoner to Absalom even though we are in the middle of a dungeon on Leng where someone is sacrificing babies), that is bad GMing and being extremely unfair to the paladin. Having to be able to figure out the one right answer to a situation the paladin is in or he loses his powers is something that likely no other class will have to deal with.

Don't get me wrong, I think it is perfectly fine to test the paladin on occasion, as it can promote a lot of interesting character growth. But too often paladins end up in what seems like a no-win situation where they have to be able to guess what the GM is thinking they should do or lose all their class features.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malifice wrote:
bookrat wrote:

So what do you do when the paladin thinks he following the edicts of his religion and honestly believes he's doing the right thing, but it's technically "an evil act" according to your rules?

Also, why are the rules for a NG the same for all paladins when they could be worshiping different gods? The same question can apply if you have rules for LG paladins.

Sarenae doesnt advocate killing defenceless and helpless creatures.

Even she imprisoned Rovagug when he was at her mercy.

The Paladins code is absolute.

A (LG) Paladin of Torag is not required to accept a surrender from his racial enemies, but should he do so, he is honor bound to honor it.

He also cant kill defenceless women, kids and the infirm no matter how 'evil' he thinks they may be.

(Outsiders and undead exepted of course)

Yet she teaches redemption by the sword. "From the remorseless evil of the undead and fiends to the cruelties born in the hearts of mortals, Sarenrae's doctrines preach swift justice delivered by the scimitar's edge." He executed a prisoner; the kobold would likely die anyways in battle - it's just that his way gave the kobold a chance at redemption before death. The kobold refused to accept it, so death it is. Another evil creature gone from the world, as paladins are required to do (it's the very first thing mentioned in the paladin section of the CRB: battle evil).

And if the detect evil showed up with that kobold, that means the kobold was a powerful evil entity, such as at least 4th level with an evil alignment (or 4HD with an evil alignment), an evil cleric, an undead, or an outsider. The kobold was absolutely not an innocent little dude along for the ride; if he was, then he would never have detected as evil and the paladin would have never been in that situation.

Of course the paladin's code should be absolute - to the religion. There isn't an order of paladins that dictate what the paladin code shall be, regardless of the religion. That simply does not exist in Golarion. It's the deity that dictates what their paladins shall do. Being a paladin is being a part of a religious order. Having a code that ALL paladins follow regardless of the god seems silly; why do the gods have no say in how their followers act?


Iced2k wrote:

'I will seek out and destroy the spawn of the Rough

Beast. If I cannot defeat them, I will give my life trying.
If my life would be wasted in the attempt, I will find
allies. If any fall because of my inaction, their deaths
lie upon my soul, and I will atone for each.'

Fine; should the Tarresque (or any other Spawn of Rovagug) surrender to you, we can talk.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Malifice wrote:
Davor wrote:

Actually, Rovagug was only imprisoned through an unfortunate pact made with Asmodeus because he was so powerful that the combined might of the gods COULDN'T DESTROY HIM.

/bardic knowledge

From PfWIki:

Known to her faithful as the Dawnflower, the Healing Flame, and the Everlight, Sarenrae (pronounced SAER-en-ray) teaches temperance and patience in all things. Compassion and peace are her greatest virtues, and if enemies of the faith can be redeemed, they should be. Yet there are those who have no interest in redemption, who glory in slaughter and death. From the remorseless evil of the undead and fiends to the cruelties born in the hearts of mortals, Sarenrae's doctrines preach swift justice delivered by the scimitar's edge. To this end, she expects her faithful to be skilled at swordplay, both as a form of martial art promoting centering of mind and body, and so that when they do enter battle, their foes do not suffer any longer than necessary

Bolded another portion: the next 2 sentences, which is where the issue comes in. IF the enemy is irredeemable, Sarenrae is perfectly fine with killing them. The question then becomes: how do you determine if the enemy is irredeemable. From your other posts, the answer seems to be all beings where being evil is not an innate descriptor (not undead, evil outsider, etc) are redeemable, so that kind of hurts.

Scarab Sages

@Malifice: Oh, I agree with you that Sarenrae absolutely advocates taking prisoners and being patient. But against the might of Rovagug, there is no room for patience. He is destruction incarnate, and the only means by which he could be stopped was imprisonment, and even then he might break free. He could not be destroyed, and hence was sealed away.


bookrat wrote:
Yet she teaches redemption by the sword. "From the remorseless evil of the undead and fiends to the cruelties born in the hearts of mortals, Sarenrae's doctrines preach swift justice delivered by the scimitar's edge."

She preaches teaches temperance and patience in all things.

Compassion and peace are her greatest virtues and if enemies of the faith can be redeemed, they should be.

It then goes on to allow swift and merciful death to outsiders (irredeemably evil) undead (irredeemably evil) and 'cruelties in the hearts of mortals'

bookrat wrote:
He executed a prisoner; the kobold would likely die anyways in battle - it's just that his way gave the kobold a chance at redemption before death. The kobold refused to accept it, so death it is. Another evil creature gone from the world, as paladins are required to do (it's the very first thing mentioned in the paladin section of the CRB: battle evil).

Battle evil foes; not murder thier children as they sleep, or ruthlessly slay them as they lie there helpless begging for mercy.

He must fight evil with good, not more evil.

bookrat wrote:
And if the detect evil showed up with that kobold, that means the kobold was a powerful evil entity, such as at least 4th level with an evil alignment (or 4HD with an evil alignment), an evil cleric, an undead, or an outsider. The kobold was absolutely not an innocent little dude along for the ride; if he was, then he would never have detected as evil and the paladin would have never been in that situation...

Indeed, my bad - I was using an earlier interpretation of DE.

I should have looked the spell up - 1-5 HD creatures dont 'ping' as evil (barring being undead, outsiders or evil clerics antipaladins)

bookrat wrote:
Of course the paladin's code should be absolute - to the religion. There isn't an order of paladins that dictate what the paladin code shall be, regardless of the religion. That...

...is the Deities role. Good and Evil are objective absolutes in Golarion remember.

In my campaign, Good deities dont advocate the slaughter of helpless and defenceless foes.


Davor wrote:
@Malifice: Oh, I agree with you that Sarenrae absolutely advocates taking prisoners and being patient. But against the might of Rovagug, there is no room for patience. He is destruction incarnate, and the only means by which he could be stopped was imprisonment, and even then he might break free. He could not be destroyed, and hence was sealed away.

Not much chance of the Tarresque dropping to its knees and begging for mercy.

Although a priest of Rovagug may very well repent (although he is almost certainly lying). Thats a a subjective call for the Paladin to make; if there is any chance he is telling the truth, she should (if possible) give him the opportunity to so so.

Killing him just sends his soul to the lower planes and strengthens Rovagug anyways.


Scaevola77 wrote:
Bolded another portion: the next 2 sentences, which is where the issue comes in. IF the enemy is irredeemable, Sarenrae is perfectly fine with killing them. The question then becomes: how do you determine if the enemy is irredeemable. From your other posts, the answer seems to be all beings where being evil is not an innate descriptor (not undead, evil outsider, etc) are redeemable, so that kind of hurts.

The text kind of implies undead and outsiders are iredeemable and should be put to death.

Since when have we considered Kobolds 'irredeemable'?

Theyre a playable PC race FFS.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Malifice,

I'm glad you admit that you made an error in the use of Detect Evil. The paladin was given bad information, and I am sure that he would not have executed this very not-evil prisoner if he had not been given the bad information.

You should apologize for giving him bad information, and allow that scene to be replayed to give the player the opportunity to do what he would do with appropriate information.

If you still insist on taking away paladin abilities because you - the DM - gave the player wrong information, then you are being unfair to both the character and to the player.

Edited.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malifice wrote:
The Paladins code is absolute.

I just thought of something else.

The reason a paladin has to be LG is because their code is absolute. That's what the lawful part of the alignment represents.

As soon as you allow for non lawful paladins, then the code becomes less absolute and more flexible. Otherwise, you're just setting them up for failure.


bookrat wrote:

Malifice,

I'm glad you admit that you made an error in the use of Detect Evil. The paladin was given bad information, and I am sure that he would not have executed this very not-evil prisoner if he had not been given the bad information.

You should apologize for giving him bad information, and allow that scene to be replayed to give the player the opportunity to do what he would do with appropriate information.

If you still insist on taking away paladin abilities because you - the DM - gave the player wrong information, then you are being unfair to both the character and to the player.

Edited.

Although the Kobold WAS evil. And its a fairly well known fact kobolds are generally raised in a cruel and brutal society.

The information wasnt wrong (unless my player assumed that the Kobold had a 5+HD, and even then that doesnt justify the killing).

Detect evil 'pings' the weight of the scanned creatures 'sins'; the acts it has done to date out of cruelty, or sans empathy or compassion for those it harms - its overall lack of empathy if you will.

It might give an indication of what the creature is likely to do in the future, but in no way does it green light the creatures unqualified murder.

Can a Paladin who 'pings' a kobold adventurer wandering through town as evil charge up and smite it? What about an evil dwarf? Or an evil Orc (or half orc)?

Even before you consider that killing things is rarely lawful (aside from in self defence, or the defence of others when unavoidable) he'd want to get out of town pretty quickly before he gets arrested for murder.

But sherrif, he detected as evil! If I didnt kill him, Iomodae knows what he would have gotten up to!


Comprehend languages

You can understand the spoken words of creatures or read otherwise incomprehensible written messages. The ability to read does not necessarily impart insight into the material, merely its literal meaning. The spell enables you to understand or read an unknown language, not speak or write it.

so the cleric could understand the kobold and realize it was begging for it's life. Did the cleric pass that on to the Paladin? Did the Paladin understand that the Kobold in return could not understand a single question asked of it? The cleric could understand it but not speak to it. It really did not have a chance to repent since it could not understand.

Now an interesting twist on this would be--the children are not in the kobold village. Instead a cult in the town has captured them and is sacrificing them. Now the Paladin has to go back to town---does he slit the throat of the town guard (who may or may not know of the cult)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Being captured, defeated, and/or unarmed does not inherently absolve a creature of wrongdoing. (Whether sufficient wrongdoing has been committed to warrant execution would be dependent on the story, but having been repeatedly attacked - at least barring heretofore uncommunicated provocation on the part of the OP's paladin or their party - should at the very least be sufficient to prevent the paladin in question from falling).

Scarab Sages

As a side note, I'd like to point out that you didn't necessarily use the Paladin "Detect Evil" ability incorrectly. There has been some debate as to the usage of the ability, as well as the wording, and it's up to your perception of the ability as to whether or not it worked as intended.

As there has been no FAQ that I am aware of regarding the wording, it is still up to debate.


Roberta Yang wrote:
phantom1592 wrote:

1) Not MY god... Kinda sucks for EVERYONE to be held to Torag's divine Justice... Especially if your a Paladin of ANOTHER god. I can see Torag and Sarenra getting QUITE annoyed with each other on philosphy...

And on SOME of these threads.. Sarenrae's quest to lead to redemption... would be considered 'evil' by Torag's followers...

And dragging the kobold back to town is kidnapping, which is evil and sucks for the poor kobold, so we'd better not try that either. In fact, until the paladin receives notarized missives of approval signed by the highest possible representatives of 25 different deities, the paladin should just sit in her home city arresting common pickpockets and debtors.

Hakken wrote:
What you get by not slitting the throat of a helpless prisoner is more kind of a respect from your party
You must play with a very unusual group if statements like "No need to prioritize our urgent rescue mission, let's take random unrepentant kobolds alive and drag them back to the nearest village for trial" are met with respect rather than disbelief.

because our paladin did not act like an assassin? and instead acted like a paladin? That is what rope or manacles are for. We tie up human guards and gag them and leave them for later--do the same here. They probably made manacles and handcuffs and stuff like that for a reason--to offer a third choice between 1. let them go and 2. slit their throat.

Play decline of glory sometime---after the first encounter--tell me what you did? We are often faced with prisoners--of the human kind. We could use the same reasoning to slit their throats.


bookrat wrote:
Malifice wrote:
The Paladins code is absolute.

I just thought of something else.

The reason a paladin has to be LG is because their code is absolute. That's what the lawful part of the alignment represents.

As soon as you allow for non lawful paladins, then the code becomes less absolute and more flexible. Otherwise, you're just setting them up for failure.

So by this logic Anti paladins (who are Chaotic and Evil by the book) can disregard their code at will?

Also, explain Druids.

A Chaotic Neutral person is as 'restricted' as a Lawful Good person; they shouldnt act evil, or good (self intrest is the name of the game) and they shouldnt act Lawfully (lying, stealing and cheating when they can get away with it).

Its a code of conduct. Being Neutral Good frees the Paladin from some of the restrictions on LG Paladins (they can lie, cheat and disrespect authority - even good authority figures - when doing so is for the pursuit of good, unlike a Lawful Paladin who must keep his word, repsect legititmate authority when such authority is good etc). But it more closely ties them to the 'Good' side; they must act benevolently, and with mercy, charity and kindness whenever possible.

CG Paladins must strive to protect liberty and freedom, and they must actively oppose tyrants and those who harm or take advantage of innocents. They are encouraged to act outside the law in the pursuit of this goal, to highlight to the common man the greatness of the individual in the fight against evil and tyranny.


Like I said--I would not take powers.

But when Paladins come up and their Players try to say "oh we have this code that makes our character harder to play?"

I laugh my ass off. If anything Paladins use their code to make it EASIER to play.

paladin--would it be easier if I did not have to deal with this guy? yeah---ok----my code requires me to protect innocents and kill evil----CHOP!!!

then in town with slavers or some other time when actually living up to that code is inconvenient? Silence and crickets chirping.

Here is a hint---If you only use your code when it is convenient--it is not a disadvantage, it is an advantage. It lets you justify taking action when you want to murder someone but is conveniently ignored if it would be inconvenient for you.

So just dont preach to the rest of us about your code. YOu are merely a fighter with spells.

To those who actually DO follow the code and not just when it is convenient? To those I say HUZZAAHH.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Malifice wrote:
Scaevola77 wrote:
Bolded another portion: the next 2 sentences, which is where the issue comes in. IF the enemy is irredeemable, Sarenrae is perfectly fine with killing them. The question then becomes: how do you determine if the enemy is irredeemable. From your other posts, the answer seems to be all beings where being evil is not an innate descriptor (not undead, evil outsider, etc) are redeemable, so that kind of hurts.

The text kind of implies undead and outsiders are iredeemable and should be put to death.

Since when have we considered Kobolds 'irredeemable'?

Theyre a playable PC race FFS.

Here, I will bold the more specific part:

PFWiki wrote:
Known to her faithful as the Dawnflower, the Healing Flame, and the Everlight, Sarenrae (pronounced SAER-en-ray) teaches temperance and patience in all things. Compassion and peace are her greatest virtues, and if enemies of the faith can be redeemed, they should be. Yet there are those who have no interest in redemption, who glory in slaughter and death. From the remorseless evil of the undead and fiends to the cruelties born in the hearts of mortals, Sarenrae's doctrines preach swift justice delivered by the scimitar's edge. To this end, she expects her faithful to be skilled at swordplay, both as a form of martial art promoting centering of mind and body, and so that when they do enter battle, their foes do not suffer any longer than necessary

Are kobolds mortal? Yes

Can there be cruelties born in their hearts? Yes
Can evil mortals be completely unrepentant? Yes
Can an evil, unrepentant kobold be judged as irredeemable by Sarenrae? Yes
What does Sarenrae say to do with said irredeemable kobold? Swift justice delivered by the scimitar's edge (aka, kill them swiftly and mercifully)


redcelt32 wrote:

The way I understood the 5HD/lvls or more requirement for DE was that if the creature was lower level than that, the intensity of its evil was less. In other words a 1st level CE character has not done enough vile deeds to register, whereas by 5th lvl his heart is quite black. Same with creatures, the higher level ones being more capable of larger vile deeds.

While it is true that none of this makes them candidates for insta-smite or killing, it does put them in a different category that a low level CE orc that doesn't "ping" as evil. It sounds like the PC and DM both thought it worked the old way, so its sort of a moot point in the case of the kobold. However, an NPC detecting as evil would mean that it is more likely to be unrepentant, since usually by 5th level, there are opportunities to change your ways and it is less likely you got trapped/fooled/brought up incorrectly and that is how you ended up being evil.

A good point.

As a Paladin, you would certainly be a lot more wary of a something that 'pings' as strong or overwhelming evil.

But even then, what do you reckon Vader would have pinged?

He committed genocide to the nth degree. Killed millions (billions) of people. Sometimes just to prove a point.

He was redeemed.

Made a good story too.

;)


Scaevola77 wrote:
Malifice wrote:
Scaevola77 wrote:
Bolded another portion: the next 2 sentences, which is where the issue comes in. IF the enemy is irredeemable, Sarenrae is perfectly fine with killing them. The question then becomes: how do you determine if the enemy is irredeemable. From your other posts, the answer seems to be all beings where being evil is not an innate descriptor (not undead, evil outsider, etc) are redeemable, so that kind of hurts.

The text kind of implies undead and outsiders are iredeemable and should be put to death.

Since when have we considered Kobolds 'irredeemable'?

Theyre a playable PC race FFS.

Here, I will bold the more specific part:

PFWiki wrote:
Known to her faithful as the Dawnflower, the Healing Flame, and the Everlight, Sarenrae (pronounced SAER-en-ray) teaches temperance and patience in all things. Compassion and peace are her greatest virtues, and if enemies of the faith can be redeemed, they should be. Yet there are those who have no interest in redemption, who glory in slaughter and death. From the remorseless evil of the undead and fiends to the cruelties born in the hearts of mortals, Sarenrae's doctrines preach swift justice delivered by the scimitar's edge. To this end, she expects her faithful to be skilled at swordplay, both as a form of martial art promoting centering of mind and body, and so that when they do enter battle, their foes do not suffer any longer than necessary

Are kobolds mortal? Yes

Can there be cruelties born in their hearts? Yes
Can evil mortals be completely unrepentant? Yes
Can an evil, unrepentant kobold be judged as irredeemable by Sarenrae? Yes
What does Sarenrae say to do with said irredeemable kobold? Swift justice delivered by the scimitar's edge (aka, kill them swiftly and mercifully)

Compassion and peace are her greatest virtues.

Checkmate.

Evil can be redeemed. Particularly a 1st level Kobold Warrior.

You reckon he's 'too far gone'?

Who on earth can be redeemed, and who exactly should we show comapassion too if not a pathetic defensless Kobold?

Grand Lodge

Malifice wrote:

Battle evil foes; not murder thier children as they sleep, or ruthlessly slay them as they lie there helpless begging for mercy.

He must fight evil with good, not more evil.

I'll bite: Define "fighting evil with good"

Be specific

Malifice wrote:

The text kind of implies undead and outsiders are iredeemable and should be put to death.

Since when have we considered Kobolds 'irredeemable'?

Actually it doesn't just state just Undead and Outsiders but mortals can be as well. Read it again.

But back to the Kobold. So it didn't register as being evil, too low a level, but it was evil. How did it get that way? Torturing a few prisoners before eating them or making them watch as they ate/tortured a loved one?

Redeeming is great and a Paladin should give the Kobold a chance, but it DIDN't take up the offer. Granted the Paladin didn't give them a lot of time BUT THE PALADIN and the party really didn't have a lot of time?

What would've happened had the Paladin just had the Kobold tied up and:

1: A bear comes by and eats it?
2: It gets loose and warns the nest?
3: It gets loose at night and slits a few throats?

Would the Paladin be punished for letting any of that happen? If the Kobold cuts a few throats, who in their right mind would be tied to a Paladin as they're obviously STOOPID?

The Kobold religion teaches them they are the chosen, they are the dragon spawn, etc. As this seems to be an evil nest, I would say they agree with that?

Malifice wrote:
Im sorry; are all elves 'good and frivolous' and all drow 'cruel and treacherous'?
Nope but it is obvious your group of Kobolds are pretty darn nasty
Malifice wrote:
And can they not change their ways? Are evil elves and good drow not possible?

Oh, it is possible but the probability of the Paladin doing it in sufficient time, especially after, even if the Kobold survives and remains trussed up, the Kobold will hate the Paladin for going in and slaughtering its clan don't you think?

You really haven't thought this through have you?

Malifice wrote:

The kobold was crying because he expected death - its what the exact treatment he would have received should he be captured by another Kobold (LE).

Its the Paladins duty to rise above that, and for that exact reason.

Three things:

1: The Paladin is not a Kobold and I truly doubt he used the same methods of extracting information as another group of Kobolds would, did he? The Kobold was scared, intimidated but not being tortured was he?

2: The Paladin did rise above it. He stopped and actually asked questions despite having a time constraint about how many kids would be left alive and "Not, what's for dinner"

3: That you again lead on with how cruel Kobolds can be yet deflect with "Are all elves X...." to me shows that you have one standard for Paladins and a completely different standard for everyone else.

One of my points was if you're going to expect the Paladin not just be a Tank that "Detects Evil" and "Paladin Smash, er SMITE!" give him the Mercy Feats, Vows, etc you want him to have so those go away

All I see is the Paladin having so many restrictions on actions yet nothing to compensate for having the restrictions in the Feats of Mercy, et al while having NONE of the bonuses.

Paladins as written are not as armored Social Workers but "Knights Templar" that kills evil

Grand Lodge

Malifice wrote:

Compassion and peace are her [b]greatest virtues.

Checkmate.

Evil can be redeemed. Particularly a 1st level Kobold Warrior.

You reckon he's 'too far gone'?

Reckon you're not reading the whole thing?

Sorry, but I am doubting that you should have Paladins in your game. You want them played as stoopid patsies

More of what is really stated is "Compassion and peace are her greatest virtues, and if enemies of the faith can be redeemed, they should be. Yet there are those who have no interest in redemption, who glory in slaughter and death"

Had the Paladin caught this guy out in the field, where there was no reason to go to the nest, there wasn't kids about to be BBQ, ie the PALADIN HAD TIME, you would be correct in the Paladin needing to give the Kobold more time

Tell me, if the Paladin would have let kids die trying to redeem this creature, would he lose his powers?

You're long on punishment and out of context gotchas but very short on specifics

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malifice wrote:

Compassion and peace are her greatest virtues.

Checkmate.

Evil can be redeemed. Particularly a 1st level Kobold Warrior.

You reckon he's 'too far gone'?

I did step a bit far into the snark range earlier, for that you have my apology, but the question I raised before has merit.

If killing a helpless prisoner is always black and white, how can being evil not be the same?

I would argue from the same perspective on the other side of the fence:

Does Sarenrae hold a 10th level paladin to the same standards she would a 1st level paladin with far less experience and training, who is more likely to mis-step? I would argue that punishments and transgressions should be strict with a higher level paladin who is expected to live at a higher standard vs a lower level paladin.

Should there really be a zero tolerance policy on paladin vows, where any transgression is a loss of powers or is there a middle ground for younger paladins who are still grappling with the code of justice and morality? We aren't talking about a strict and harsh god who demands perfection, quite the contrary. Where is Sarenrae's mercy for her own follower??


BB36 wrote:
Malifice wrote:

Battle evil foes; not murder thier children as they sleep, or ruthlessly slay them as they lie there helpless begging for mercy.

He must fight evil with good, not more evil.

I'll bite: Define "fighting evil with good"

Be specific

Malifice wrote:

The text kind of implies undead and outsiders are iredeemable and should be put to death.

Since when have we considered Kobolds 'irredeemable'?

Actually it doesn't just state just Undead and Outsiders but mortals can be as well. Read it again.

But back to the Kobold. So it didn't register as being evil, too low a level, but it was evil. How did it get that way? Torturing a few prisoners before eating them or making them watch as they ate/tortured a loved one?

Redeeming is great and a Paladin should give the Kobold a chance, but it DIDN't take up the offer. Granted the Paladin didn't give them a lot of time BUT THE PALADIN and the party really didn't have a lot of time?

What would've happened had the Paladin just had the Kobold tied up and:

1: A bear comes by and eats it?
2: It gets loose and warns the nest?
3: It gets loose at night and slits a few throats?

Would the Paladin be punished for letting any of that happen? If the Kobold cuts a few throats, who in their right mind would be tied to a Paladin as they're obviously STOOPID?

The Kobold religion teaches them they are the chosen, they are the dragon spawn, etc. As this seems to be an evil nest, I would say they agree with that?

Malifice wrote:
Im sorry; are all elves 'good and frivolous' and all drow 'cruel and treacherous'?
Nope but it is obvious your group of Kobolds are pretty darn nasty
Malifice wrote:
And can they not change their ways? Are evil elves and good drow not possible?

Oh, it is possible but the probability of the Paladin doing it in sufficient time, especially after, even if the Kobold survives and remains trussed up, the Kobold will hate the Paladin for going in and slaughtering its clan don't you think?

You really...

actually the Paladin nor the cleric said a single word to the Kobold that the Kobold could understand. they could understand it, but it could not understand a word they said. so as for it DIDN'T take up the offer---it COULDN'T take up the offer. An offer was never made to it that it could understand.


BB36 wrote:
Malifice wrote:

Compassion and peace are her [b]greatest virtues.

Checkmate.

Evil can be redeemed. Particularly a 1st level Kobold Warrior.

You reckon he's 'too far gone'?

Reckon you're not reading the whole thing?

Sorry, but I am doubting that you should have Paladins in your game. You want them played as stoopid patsies

More of what is really stated is "Compassion and peace are her greatest virtues, and if enemies of the faith can be redeemed, they should be. Yet there are those who have no interest in redemption, who glory in slaughter and death"

Had the Paladin caught this guy out in the field, where there was no reason to go to the nest, there wasn't kids about to be BBQ, ie the PALADIN HAD TIME, you would be correct in the Paladin needing to give the Kobold more time

Tell me, if the Paladin would have let kids die trying to redeem this creature, would he lose his powers?

You're long on punishment and out of context gotchas but very short on specifics

BB36

what happens if the party finds out the kobolds dont have the children? What if the children are being kidnapped by cultist from the town? Does the paladin now slit the throat of the town militia? and how does he attone for murdering kobolds who did not kidnap the children now?

so you now have a village of kobolds minding their own business, while the village of humans is harboring teh cultist. Remember you all believe that the kobolds would all be held reliable if there were cultist in their ranks even if they themself did not partake---so same goes for human village?

so now the party goes out and slaughters the kobold village--when they did nothing. Who are the real "bad guys" here if it turns out that cultist in the human village are responsible and you just slaughtered the kobolds?


BB36 wrote:
Actually it doesn't just state just Undead and Outsiders but mortals can be as well. Read it again.

Firstly nice way to ignore the entire context of the proceeding passage (some creatures cannot be redeemed, and thus worshippers of Sarenrae must be skilled with a sword, and compassiona and mercy are her greatest virtues).

Some mortals might be beyond redemption.

This Kobold wasnt one of them.

BB36 wrote:
But back to the Kobold. So it didn't register as being evil, too low a level, but it was evil. How did it get that way? .

By being raised in a society whereby prisoners are executed out of hand, mercy is for the weak and the strong rule because they can.

Get it yet?

BB36 wrote:
Redeeming is great and a Paladin should give the Kobold a chance, but it DIDN't take up the offer

Firstly it didnt understand the offer.

It doesnt speak Common and the PC's dont speak Draconic.

Secondly, it was s%~+ting itself expecting (as it would being from an evil culture) that it was going to be killed.

Letting it go would have been a pleasant surprise.

BB36 wrote:
Granted the Paladin didn't give them a lot of time BUT THE PALADIN and the party really didn't have a lot of time?

How long does it take to place a tied up kobold in a room? Or to untie it and tell it to flee (with an intimidate check with a significant circumstance bonus)?

BB36 wrote:

What would've happened had the Paladin just had the Kobold tied up and:

1: A bear comes by and eats it?
2: It gets loose and warns the nest?
3: It gets loose at night and slits a few throats?

1) Not the Paladins fault. Importantly not an intentional act on the part of the Paladin.

2) A risk the Paladin must take, lest he become like the foes he fights.
3) Its far more likely to run away should it get loose.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Malifice wrote:

Compassion and peace are her greatest virtues.

Checkmate.

Evil can be redeemed. Particularly a 1st level Kobold Warrior.

You reckon he's 'too far gone'?

Who...

Again, it right after saying she is compassionate it basically says that if she feels you are not worthy of compassion, she kills you. No checkmate.

Evil can be redeemed, if it wants to be. The question I posed before stands, how would the paladin know if the evil kobold is irredeemable. Reading the text, it is clear that Sarenrae accepts at some point this will happen. How is he supposed to know? Having someone ping as evil, be known to have just committed evil acts and being unrepentant indicates that if redemption is going to happen, it is extremely unlikely to happen. So again, how can the paladin know when a mortal is too far gone? If there is no mechanic for that, the paladin is just getting screwed over.

Also, you've used Vader as an example. And rightly so, people love a good redemption story. But you know what would have likely happened afterwards if Vader had lived? He would have been tried as a war criminal and executed. He still needs to be punished for his crimes, even Sarenrae would recognize this, though her punishment would be less severe than Iomedae or Torag's. If the rebels had a chance to capture and kill him immediately post-Alderaan, and there was no sign he would have ever repented, would they have been in the wrong for killing a genocidal agent of an evil empire? Just because someday he might redeem himself?

Grand Lodge

Hakken wrote:
actually the Paladin nor the cleric said a single word to the Kobold that the Kobold could understand. they could understand it, but it could not understand a word they said. so as for it DIDN'T take up the offer---it COULDN'T take up the offer. An offer was never made to it that it could understand.

I was under the impression the Paladin waited a day so the Cleric could get "Comprehend Languages"

Another poster who believes the Paladin was wrong chided him for "Waiting that extra day" instead of running off to find the kids

Like I said, the Paladin is "damned if he didn't, damned if he did, damned if he moved to the left, damned if he moved to the right, etc"

151 to 200 of 466 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Did I break my Paladin Code? All Messageboards