Did I break my Paladin Code?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

251 to 300 of 466 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Malifice wrote:

As far away from the big scary steel wearing man and his creepy fire blasty friends as possible I would imagine.

They arent exactly the bravest of creatures.

So a coward is going to abandon everything they've ever known in life and try their luck in the wilderness alone, instead of going back to the support of their clan?

It seems I was mistaken. Good isn't the only stupid alignment; Evil is apparently incredibly stupid too.


bookrat wrote:
No. There are laws for such a thing. If were outside the town where the laws don't apply, then yes, they could have. In town, they would have to report them to the authorities. If it were a LG paladin, I might even require them to prove the individual has done something illegal in order to have them arrested, but the paladin in this discussion is not lawful. If the town was evil, and the paladin knew that he could not kill the evildoer or have him arrested, he might have to chalk it up to untouchable, or wait until he can have a legal advantage, or wait until the evildoer was outside the protection of the local law.

So Thuldrin Kreed (a NE 7th level Rogue) can expect to be attacked by random Paladins he meets as he travels from Town to Town?

And if he should surrender, he can expect to be killed out of hand (after being bound and disarmed) by same fanatics?

He 'pings' and all remember.

Also; never travel outside Cheliax (most of the citizens are LE) if youre over 5th level.

bookrat wrote:

The first responsibility of a paladin is to battle evil - that means killing them. Battle = combat, which leads to killing and death. It's what paladins do. And there is a definite difference between being in a town with law enforcement and being out in the wilderness where the paladin is the judge.

This is a situational exercise/debate, stop changing the situation to prove your point. What works in one situation is going to be different for what works in another situation. The situation we've been discussing is outside the bounds of the local law.

And lastly, stop calling it murder. In order for it to be murder, there has to be "malicious forethought" (yes, that's the legal definition of murder). Unless the paladin was malicious in the act (note one of my previous posts asking if the paladin was remorseful for having to execute the kobold or did in in glee) AND had previously planned on killing him, then it was not murder. It would be kobocide (as compared to homicide, which is the killing of a human). Unless there were laws in place by the society in charge about not killing kobolds, then it would not be unlawful (but that doesn't really matter, because our paladin is NG).

And in this battle against evil the Paladin must ensure that he does not intentionally commit an evil act himself.

It might be easier to commit the evil act; but that doesnt make it good.

And there does not have to me 'malicous forethought' for murder. Im a Lawyer IRL (ask Iced2K) all you need is a person, be killed by another person, with the intent to kill them (otherwise its generally manslaughter).

Google 'Mens Rea'.

Trust me, if you start a fight with me and pull a knife, and I kill you as a result in legitimate self defence, I get off.

If I subdue you, tie you up and then cut your f$*$ing throat anyway, im getting done for Murder.


Malifice wrote:
Where is the intentional act of evil here?

You let an unrepentant baby-kidnapper go scot free even though it was clear they would go back to their clan and warn the other baby-eaters. The paladin may not have slain the children with her own hand, but it was a foreseeable direct consequence of her actions.

The only way the paladin could prevent it being intentional would be by being too stupid to even consider the direct consequences of her own actions. Which might be in keeping with INT and WIS being common paladin dump stats, but it makes being incredibly stupid a job requirement, because if she can see the obvious effects of her actions then the paladin is left in places where both options - kill the prisoner or allow the children to be eaten - are "evil".

Unless, of course, the paladin reads the GM's mind and realizes that nobody in this world acts even remotely sensibly and the coward will flee the comfort of home and kin and instead run off into the wilderness full of monsters.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
3.5 Loyalist wrote:
redcelt32 wrote:

Sounds like leadership is a mandatory feat then, so the paladin has someone to babysit all the lying scheming NPCs who ask for mercy, waiting for the chance to stab the party in the back. Since they can't be killed and it would be foolish to release them before everything is over, you need someone to babysit them. The only thing worse than falling for killing a helpless victim would be falling because you left him tied up and something came along and ate him. After all, that would be a mark on him since he was reponsible for its safety.

How is it any worse to have given him a dagger and have him run off, only to get magic missiled in the back or run through from behind by the barbarian? Is it okay because the paladin's hands aren't the ones directly getting dirty? If so, fantastic, we have our preferred method of execution now.

Heres a test, what would the kobold do if it ran across a helpless human child after fleeing the party? If the paladin can't honestly answer "leave it alone or help it", then killing this destructive evil creature should be justified. Remember, the paladin in this example is chasing down child kidnapping kobolds, not some random one out in the woods foraging for his family.

If you want to follow these high paladin ideals, you have to give the paladin some parameters. Making the same standards apply to known evil races as you would apply to a neutral with evil tendencies human bandit is not fair to the paladin or his party. Is he going to bring back a troll who covers his face and cowers in the corner? Let it go so it can come up behind and eat the cleric in the next heated battle? What are his choices here really?

When I was playing a good knight character fighting in the elven wars and taking plenty of drow hostages, I found that K.O via subdual and roping them up worked well.

Leadership feat? Just hire some common camp guards, they are very poorly paid and need to unionise, but they can guard a bound prisoner.

You want the...

I think thats fantastic and it works great in some campaigns, especially in a war setting. In the Kingmaker game I am running now, the party has a whole kingdom of people they can direct to help them out.

However, a normal party, in the middle of a dungeon or adventure, way out in the boonies, this poses a far bigger challenge. When you are not the paladin in this situation, it gets old fast having to cart around redeemables and can be frustrating enough that out of game you start asking the PC to roll up a non-paladin.

I suggested cohorts becaues camp followers aren't going to go weeks out into the wilderness and stand outside the haunted cairn just to guard a few capture monsters.

We run a very roleplay heavy game so I understand the concept very well, I just don't feel that making a paladin fall so you can experience good roleplaying is necessary. The same great opportunities are there when the divine messenger for his god comes to him in his dreams and discusses his behavoir. This would be a more appropriate outcome for a low level paladin, imo.


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

An anti-paladin's only code is "don't act selflessly, unless there's an ulterior motive." Acts of selflessness shows that he's not truly evil. Other than that, an anti-paladin can act however he dang well pleases. That's the nature of CE.

Quote:
Also, explain Druids.

Druids are required to revere nature (it's the nature of the occupation), are not allowed to teach the druidic language to non-druids (that's part of the druidic society, back from early editions in which all druids belonged to a single druidic society that laid down the rules for being a druid (note that there is no such society for paladins), and have to remain partly neutral because that's how nature is.

That's a very loose "code" for druids to follow. Not quite as loose as the anti-paladin, but very loose. Compare and contrast that to the LG paladin, who has a very strict set of rules to follow and an actual "code of conduct."

Quote:
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).

CN is simply anti authority or self interest without being completely evil or good. There's nothing in there that says they can't perform evil or good acts. There's nothing in there that says they have to break the law (they probably just don't care about the law). There's no code for following an alignment. It's guidelines and suggestions for how to roleplay, with examples of how a person who fits that alignment might act. This attitude that it's the alignment that dictates a characters actions - rather than character actions dictating the alignment is one of the huge misconceptions about the alignment system.

Quote:
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.

Alignments do not have codes of conduct. They're guidelines and suggestions. Paladins have codes of conduct, and how strictly they're required to follow them dictates how lawful the paladin must be. If you're applying the rules for a paladin very strictly, then you must have the paladin be LG, regardless of the deity. Otherwise, you're setting them up for failure.

Quote:
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.

I would claim that LG paladins should be doing this as well. Part of LG is having benevolent societies to help the common man, not malevolent societies. This dictating that CG or NG paladins are required to do xyz is not conducive to the non-lawful alignments.

A lot of this talk of codes with alignments reminds me of 2nd edition, where alignments were thought of the absolute line for how characters act, rather than guidelines on how to roleplay characters. It ain't right.


Malifice wrote:
Where is the intentional act of evil here?

Let's be fair. Your code as supplied did not mention intentional but willing act of evil.

Spoiler:
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.


Roberta Yang wrote:
You let an unrepentant baby-kidnapper

What unrepentant 'baby kidnapper'?

He's a guard.

The only one unrepentant is the Paladin (for killing him).

Roberta Yang wrote:
even though it was clear they would go back to their clan and warn the other baby-eaters.

How is this 'clear'?

And how is this the Paladins intent?

If the Paladin released him knowing he was going to do that, then you may have a point.

Roberta Yang wrote:
The paladin may not have slain the children with her own hand, but it was a foreseeable direct consequence of her actions.

Stupid.

Even should the Kobold find the nerve and elect to return to the dungeon, and somehow sneak past the PC's, and warn the King (who would know already I would assume from the chaos of an invading bunch of PC's, unless you can prove to me that this was the Paladins intent and that this intent was evil then this is a moot point.

Roberta Yang wrote:
Unless, of course, the paladin reads the GM's mind and realizes that nobody in this world acts even remotely sensibly and the coward will flee the comfort of home and kin and instead run off into the wilderness full of monsters.

Maybe in your game world Kobolds are mercilesly fanatical and irrdemeably evil to the point that they must be slain out of hand or the consequences would be catastrophic, but not in my world.

You assume the Kobold betrays the Party. You assume treachery is a big part of Kobold culture.

Why would it not betray the tribe? What if it thought the whole idea of kidnapping humans was a freckin terrible idea, and that the King is an idiot who is calling the wrath of the humans down on the whole tribe?

Youre making a whole lot of assumptions, about events that have not (and may not) transpire, and states of mind that you do not (and can no) know, and then justifying the intentional killing of a defenceless and helpeless creature (an act of evil) on that basis.

Go for it; just dont expect to stay a paladin for very long.


Malifice wrote:
Trust me, if you start a fight with me and pull a knife, and I kill you as a result in legitimate self defence, I get off.

That's the limit of Good you aspire to? "A jury would probably not jail me" is really the only standard you hold for your paragons of virtue?

Why is carrying around a Merciful weapon instead of a Kills You Right Dead weapon such an unreasonable request? Any paladin who actually cared about saving people would take it in a heartbeat instead of doing their best to obliterate anyone who opposes them but maybe letting them go if they're lucky enough to survive the paladin's lethal blows.


Malifice wrote:
You assume the Kobold betrays the Party.

The kobold can't betray the party. The kobold isn't part of the party. The kobold's only interaction with the party was being beaten half to death and seeing his friends killed. The kobold is a member of its own clan.

Informing the other kobolds is loyalty, not treachery.


Jarl wrote:
Malifice wrote:
Where is the intentional act of evil here?

Let's be fair. Your code as supplied did not mention intentional but willing act of evil.

** spoiler omitted **

True. I take 'willing' to mean 'intent'.

The action needs to be a direct and obvious consequence of the act (or omission). You must have intended for the act (or omission) to have the consequences it did.

Take the hypothetical of tying him up and throwing him in a room, and then a bear comes and eats him later. This clearly does not qualify. Its unfortunate, but your intent was not for him to die when you put him in the room. Your intent was to spare his life, not end it. The bear is not at fault (its just doing what bears do - its N)

In fact if you came back to the room and saw a bear in there (and a live Kobold) if possible you probably try and save the Kobold from the bear.

Youd likely have one pretty indebted Kobold (aside from the fact youve probably destroyed his home, and he regards that as a bad thing).


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

how many paladins punish slavers? how many give alms to the poor beggars? I almost NEVER see paladins following this code. Paladins I have played with (with one exception-kudos to John here) are merely fighters with spells and smite.

the only time I see them follow the code is when they want to kill something and claim the code requires them to kill evil creatures (even if helpless) If I saw a paladin ALWAYS following the code and ALWAYS attacking evil (like slavers in a town) or ALWAYS helpign the poor and defenseless (like say by giving away some of his gold)---then I might buy Paladins having a code.

John, one of the people I play with DOES play his paladin that way. others are paladins (read fighters with spells) He is a PALADIN--he actually accepts the bad with the good--sacrificing some personal wealth and sometimes having to act against evil even when it is inconvenient. Yes our party groans sometimes--but in the end it is refreshing to play with someone who actually roleplays the WHOLE code.

LOL at him trying to free the slaves in absalom--to include buying them to free them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malifice wrote:

So Thuldrin Kreed (a NE 7th level Rogue) can expect to be attacked by random Paladins he meets as he travels from Town to Town?

And if he should surrender, he can expect to be killed out of hand (after being bound and disarmed) by same fanatics?

He 'pings' and all remember.

Yup, poor little evil rogue could easily be killed. That's one of the realities of living in a world where people can read the judgement of your past deeds at will. That rogue better find a way to conceal his alignment if he wishes to be ignored by people who claim to be the higher justice of the world where societal law has no might.

Quote:

And there does not have to me 'malicous forethought' for murder. Im a Lawyer IRL (ask Iced2K) all you need is a person, be killed by another person, with the intent to kill them (otherwise its generally manslaughter).

Google 'Mens Rea'.

Trust me, if you start a fight with me and pull a knife, and I kill you as a result in legitimate self defence, I get off.

If I subdue you, tie you up and then cut your f+@$ing throat anyway, im getting done for Murder.

Fair enough. I thought it would be homicide, not murder. I'm a forensic scientist, so deal a lot with the legal world, but am not a lawyer, so I bow to your knowledge on the subject.


Roberta Yang wrote:
Malifice wrote:
Trust me, if you start a fight with me and pull a knife, and I kill you as a result in legitimate self defence, I get off.

That's the limit of Good you aspire to? "A jury would probably not jail me" is really the only standard you hold for your paragons of virtue?

Why is carrying around a Merciful weapon instead of a Kills You Right Dead weapon such an unreasonable request? Any paladin who actually cared about saving people would take it in a heartbeat instead of doing their best to obliterate anyone who opposes them but maybe letting them go if they're lucky enough to survive the paladin's lethal blows.

What good is a merciful weapon on the undead (who are immune to non lethal damage)? What good is it to constructs and other foes immune? You going to subdue the Tarrasque? What good is it subduing Outsiders when you have to slay them anyways? How common are merciful weapons anyways?

If you bring lethal force, it is not an evil act to respond in kind, even if you have other means at your disposal.

Ask cops. Theyll shoot you dead if you pull a knife on them (despite having tazers).

Paladins must not engage in evil acts willingly. Thats what loses them their powers. Nothing evil in using lethal force to defend oneself from a lethally armed antagonist.

Not a hard and fast rule though; sometimes nonlethal may be the preferred option. Such as when an angry Kobold child attacks a 12th level paladin. Probablly the good thing to do would be disarm or subdue the little critter.

If you can resolve it without violence (and many times you cannot, which is why Paladins are Warriors first and foremoest - evil generally prefers the lethal option, and resorts to violence first and foremost) then great.


Malifice wrote:
How common are merciful weapons anyways?

Merciful weapons are easily enough made at the request of the customer, just like if the character were to have a magical weapon made.

Quote:

If you bring lethal force, it is not an evil act to respond in kind, even if you have other means at your disposal.

Ask cops. Theyll shoot you dead if you pull a knife on them (despite having tazers).

Paladins must not engage in evil acts willingly. Thats what loses them their powers. Nothing evil in using lethal force to defend oneself from a lethally armed antagonist.

Not a hard and fast rule though; sometimes nonlethal may be the preferred option. Such as when an angry Kobold child attacks a 12th level paladin. Probablly the good thing to do would be disarm or subdue the little critter.

If you can resolve it without violence (and many times you cannot, which is why Paladins are Warriors first and foremoest - evil generally prefers the lethal option, and resorts to violence first and foremost) then great.

The rest of this I agree to whole-heartedly. Except that cops are lawful, but not necessarily good. ;)


Still waiting for an explanation for why the paladin is supposed to jump through hoops to redeem anyone who happens to survive her attacks but need not lift a finger to make surviving her attacks more likely. If a paladin's serious about the redemption thing, they should be going out of their way to save everyone they can, not blithely slicing anyone who comes at them to pieces and only caring about her victims if the lethal damage they take knocks them out but doesn't kill them and they're able to stabilize.

A paladin proactively spreads good and redemption everywhere; she doesn't just sit back and oh I guess maybe do a bit of redemption when one creature's sheer luck drops a semi-convenient situation for redemption into her hands.

And buying a Merciful weapon is surely a much less dangerous proposal than letting opponents run off to potentially warn their fellow cultists that they'd better eat the kids now or the big heroes will steal them. You could do more good with less effort.

But somehow dealing unnecessary death to swathes of random guards - guards who, as you say, may know nothing about the child-stealing cult and may simply be protecting their homes against these foreign invaders - is A-OK, but this one individual guard absolutely must be offered unlimited chances for redemption even if it means putting the children at risk?

Your rules for when killing is and is not okay are inconsistent to the point where I wouldn't bother playing any sort of Good character, let alone a Paladin.


bookrat wrote:
That's the nature of CE.

No, its not.

Chaotic evil is not 'do as you want'.

Its take what you want (and when you want it) without regard to Laws or honor, and do so at the expense of others.

Chaotic evil people cannot run around doing Lawful or Good acts, without facing a change in alignment.

Quote:
That's a very loose "code" for druids to follow. Not quite as loose as the anti-paladin, but very loose. Compare and contrast that to the LG paladin, who has a very strict set of rules to follow and an actual "code of conduct."

Druids have a strict code on what they can wear, what alignment they can follow, who they can teach their language to, and what weapons they can use.

Quote:
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).
Quote:
CN is simply anti authority or self interest without being completely evil or good. There's nothing in there that says they can't perform evil or good acts.

Yes there is. If he repeatedly acts good, he risks an alignment shift to good; ditto evil.

My 'benchmark' for CN is Achillies from Troy. Hector is my benchmark for LG, Odyseus LN. Paris CG (maybe NG).

Im aware that there are more than 9 'mindsets' that match the individual alignments (and that there is considerable wiggle room within each).

My issue is that some classes have very specific rules for stuff that happens when they step outside those alignments; for the paladin its any willfully committed evil act.

A CN character could commit a willful evil act and remain CN (depending on the act). A Paladin could do so and remain LG (again depending on the act). But he couldnt remain a Paladin.


Malifice wrote:
What good is a merciful weapon on the undead (who are immune to non lethal damage)? What good is it to constructs and other foes immune? You going to subdue the Tarrasque? What good is it subduing Outsiders when you have to slay them anyways? How common are merciful weapons anyways?

Oh, man, carrying around two different weapons for different occasions? Way too hard! Screw it, butcher everyone you meet.

And a paladin with a bonded weapon can spontaneously make her weapon Merciful if she wants to - so even if you're in such a low-magic campaign that a simple Merciful weapon is somehow impossible to acquire, she can just make a normal weapon Merciful on her own.

Malifice wrote:
If you bring lethal force, it is not an evil act to respond in kind, even if you have other means at your disposal.

Killing people you can just as easily subdue harmlessly sure sounds evil to me.

Malifice wrote:
Ask cops.

And again, your divinely-ordained paragons of virtue who can fall for a single morally questionable act... are, in a different situation, now being held to a no higher standard than, "Eh, you won't go to jail for it".

Also, real-life cops don't have magical nonlethal weapons that are exactly as effective in every way as lethal weapons. Paladins do.


bookrat wrote:
Yup, poor little evil rogue could easily be killed. That's one of the realities of living in a world where people can read the judgement of your past deeds at will. That rogue better find a way to conceal his alignment if he wishes to be ignored by people who claim to be the higher justice of the world where societal law has no might.

Then Im sorry, but I find your gameworld absurd.

Paladins running around like Lancelot in Monty Pythons Holy Grail hacking at anything in the countryside that 'Pings' (assuming they can get away with it), and then running it through after it surrenders.

Evil people (many of whom are just callous bastards who dont care about peoples welfare one iota, and are not psychopaths or mass killers) dont deserve such a fate.

In fact should a Paladin pull that s%$* in my campaign he would find him pinging himself before long!

Quote:
Fair enough. I thought it would be homicide, not murder. I'm a forensic scientist, so deal a lot with the legal world, but am not a lawyer, so I bow to your knowledge on the subject.

Its alright bro, I probably came across a bit of a t~$+ there.

Ive tried to explain what I mean by 'intent' above.


Malifice wrote:

True. I take 'willing' to mean 'intent'.

The action needs to be a direct and obvious consequence of the act (or omission). You must have intended for the act (or omission) to have the consequences it did.

Except they are in no way related or synonymous. This goes back to defining terms if they are going to impact your players.


Roberta Yang wrote:
Oh, man, carrying around two different weapons for different occasions? Way too hard! Screw it, butcher everyone you meet.

Cops carry a Tazer and a Pistol.

Pull a knife on them and see how far it gets you. They could just as easily subdue them with the taser, but why dont they?

Are they evil for resorting to lethal force in this instane to protect the lives of innocents?

Quote:
Also, real-life cops don't have magical nonlethal weapons that are exactly as effective in every way as lethal weapons. Paladins do.

Also in real life Good and Evil are subjectivly determined concepts* and not real objective facts as laid down by an omnipotent DM (in this case, me).

Checkmate.

(Apologies to Christians, Jews, Muslisms and all other religious people who think this is not true)


Jarl wrote:
Malifice wrote:

True. I take 'willing' to mean 'intent'.

The action needs to be a direct and obvious consequence of the act (or omission). You must have intended for the act (or omission) to have the consequences it did.

Except they are in no way related or synonymous. This goes back to defining terms if they are going to impact your players.

will·ing (wlng)

adj.
1. Disposed or inclined; prepared: I am willing to overlook your mistakes.
2. Acting or ready to act gladly; eagerly compliant: "The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak" (Matthew 26:41).
3. Done, given, accepted, or borne voluntarily or ungrudgingly. See Synonyms at voluntary.
4. Of or relating to exercise of the will; volitional.

in·tent (n-tnt)
n.
1. Something that is intended; an aim or purpose. See Synonyms at intention.
2. Law The state of one's mind at the time one carries out an action.
3. Meaning; purport.

Is there a meaningful difference here beyond splitting hairs?


Malifice wrote:
Jarl wrote:
Malifice wrote:

True. I take 'willing' to mean 'intent'.

The action needs to be a direct and obvious consequence of the act (or omission). You must have intended for the act (or omission) to have the consequences it did.

Except they are in no way related or synonymous. This goes back to defining terms if they are going to impact your players.

will·ing (wlng)

adj.
1. Disposed or inclined; prepared: I am willing to overlook your mistakes.
2. Acting or ready to act gladly; eagerly compliant: "The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak" (Matthew 26:41).
3. Done, given, accepted, or borne voluntarily or ungrudgingly. See Synonyms at voluntary.
4. Of or relating to exercise of the will; volitional.

in·tent (n-tnt)
n.
1. Something that is intended; an aim or purpose. See Synonyms at intention.
2. Law The state of one's mind at the time one carries out an action.
3. Meaning; purport.

Is there a meaningful difference here beyond splitting hairs?

Yes. There is a HUGE difference.


Jubal Breakbottle wrote:
Quote:
The Kobold was evil
Still an assumption.

I think this is the root of the problem. Pathfinder is not Eberron. There are not good happy orcs as well as kill everyone orcs. kobolds are evil. Not differently motivated, EVIL.

But here's what get's me about the GM, he claims that he wasn't out to make the Paladin fall, but despite everything the Paladin did to do the right thing, one mistake (which I don't believe was a mistake) and it's instant fall? The GM even said that if the Barbarian or Wizard did it, their alignment would get closer to shifting, but a Paladin's shift is instant? Sure seems like he was looking for a fall to me.

And no one has answered my question: What was the way out for the Paladin in this case? How could he have resolved the issue? Did the Paladin know the Koblold couldn't get away and warn others? Did the Paladin know if the kobold would be missed by others? If there was no way for the Paladin to know this, then the only option for the greater good is to kill the kobold. Remember Neutral Good goes for the greater good without regard to order or chaos.


Malifice wrote:
bookrat wrote:
That's the nature of CE.

No, its not.

Chaotic evil is not 'do as you want'.

Its take what you want (and when you want it) without regard to Laws or honor, and do so at the expense of others.

Chaotic evil people cannot run around doing Lawful or Good acts, without facing a change in alignment.

Why would they want to? There's probably an ulterior motive if they are. CE characters might follow the laws to get what they want, and then disregard the laws when it no longer benefits them. They don't *have* to break every law in order to remain chaotic. They don't *have* to do so at the expense of others, but they certainly don't care (or might even derive pleasure from it) if it does happen. You're getting back to this whole "alignment dictates action" thing I was talking about.

Quote:
Quote:
That's a very loose "code" for druids to follow. Not quite as loose as the anti-paladin, but very loose. Compare and contrast that to the LG paladin, who has a very strict set of rules to follow and an actual "code of conduct."
Druids have a strict code on what they can wear, what alignment they can follow, who they can teach their language to, and what weapons they can use.

Which all goes back to the whole "sticking to nature" thing.

Here's the ex-druid quote from the CRB: "A druid who ceases to revere nature, changes to a prohibited alignment, or teaches the Druidic language to a nondruid loses all spells and druid abilities (including her animal companion, but not including weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She cannot thereafter gain levels as a druid until she atones (see the atonement spell description)."

They only lose supernatural abilities for24 hours for using non-nature-like weapons and armor.

But it's still very loose. Revere nature can have so many different meanings to it, and there are tons of different "natures" to revere, depending on how one thinks of nature. Weapons and armor simply have to be nature-like. It's very different from the strict code of conduct for a paladin (and it being strict is why paladins have to be LG, not the other way around).

Quote:
Quote:
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).
Quote:
CN is simply anti authority or self interest without being completely evil or good. There's nothing in there that says they can't perform evil or good acts.

Yes there is. If he repeatedly acts good, he risks an alignment shift to good; ditto evil.

My 'benchmark' for CN is Achillies from Troy. Hector is my benchmark for LG, Odyseus LN. Paris CG (maybe NG).

Im aware that there are more than 9 'mindsets' that match the individual alignments (and that there is considerable wiggle room within each).

My issue is that some classes have very specific rules for stuff that happens when they step outside those alignments; for the paladin its any willfully committed evil act.

A CN character could commit a willful evil act and remain CN (depending on the act). A Paladin could do so and remain LG (again depending on the act). But he couldnt remain a Paladin.

Now we're getting back to what I'm trying to say. It's the code that matters for a paladin, not the alignment. Alignments don't restrict characters on how they act; instead, how they act determines their alignment. Alignments are supposed to be roleplaying tools to help a player determine how their character might act, not strict rules dictating how their character must act.


Back to the OP: if you have to ask the question, then probably yes.


Jarl wrote:
Malifice wrote:
Jarl wrote:
Malifice wrote:

True. I take 'willing' to mean 'intent'.

The action needs to be a direct and obvious consequence of the act (or omission). You must have intended for the act (or omission) to have the consequences it did.

Except they are in no way related or synonymous. This goes back to defining terms if they are going to impact your players.

will·ing (wlng)

adj.
1. Disposed or inclined; prepared: I am willing to overlook your mistakes.
2. Acting or ready to act gladly; eagerly compliant: "The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak" (Matthew 26:41).
3. Done, given, accepted, or borne voluntarily or ungrudgingly. See Synonyms at voluntary.
4. Of or relating to exercise of the will; volitional.

in·tent (n-tnt)
n.
1. Something that is intended; an aim or purpose. See Synonyms at intention.
2. Law The state of one's mind at the time one carries out an action.
3. Meaning; purport.

Is there a meaningful difference here beyond splitting hairs?

Yes. There is a HUGE difference.

Such as?

State of mind. Done voluntarily. Intended aim or purpose. Of or relating to the exerise of the will, violitional.

Im certainly not going to split hairs over it, and Im a lawyer!


Jodokai wrote:
Jubal Breakbottle wrote:
Quote:
The Kobold was evil
Still an assumption.

I think this is the root of the problem. Pathfinder is not Eberron. There are not good happy orcs as well as kill everyone orcs. kobolds are evil. Not differently motivated, EVIL.

But here's what get's me about the GM, he claims that he wasn't out to make the Paladin fall, but despite everything the Paladin did to do the right thing, one mistake (which I don't believe was a mistake) and it's instant fall? The GM even said that if the Barbarian or Wizard did it, their alignment would get closer to shifting, but a Paladin's shift is instant? Sure seems like he was looking for a fall to me.

And no one has answered my question: What was the way out for the Paladin in this case? How could he have resolved the issue? Did the Paladin know the Koblold couldn't get away and warn others? Did the Paladin know if the kobold would be missed by others? If there was no way for the Paladin to know this, then the only option for the greater good is to kill the kobold. Remember Neutral Good goes for the greater good without regard to order or chaos.

Teach those kobolds a trade! Make use of their skill with machinery/traps.


Malifice

since sarenrae is all about redemption. Why take his power right away?

send him nasty little nightmares about his action for a week, resulting in fatique the next day he cant cure (why would she let her power be used to cure something she sent?)

She would give him a chance to rethink his actions also.


I did like the nightmare idea. I have also warned a Callistrian cleric through dreams and bee stings.


bookrat wrote:
Now we're getting back to what I'm trying to say. It's the code that matters for a paladin, not the alignment. Alignments don't restrict characters on how they act; instead, how they act determines their alignment. Alignments are supposed to be roleplaying tools to help a player determine how their character might act, not strict rules dictating how their character must act.

I actually agree with this.

We have a CG character in the party whose actions so far have involved slaying 2 cowering Kobold slaves (who were trying to escape from their Kobold masters) and actually wanted to help the party, and also got kissed by a Vargoile (sp?) and is more worried about saving his own skin than the welfare of the children.

I warned him that should he continue down that path, I would consider changing his alignment to CN.

To be fair to the player, he volunteered to rescue the kids without any payment which is a plainly good act.

He's probably still 'in' CG lands - although the slaying of escaping kobolds didnt help him (his justification was pretty flimsy, but to be fair in the hurly burly of combat I could give him some leeway).

Alignment changes are not something I take lightly; but part of the gameworld is that people go to the corresponding outer plane that matches thier aligment after death. Alignments are real things, with a real in game effect, and they are to be determined objectively (which is a fallacy really - the DM determines them according to his own subjective values).

My players are pretty clear on it; Morality is defined by way of emapthy - Evil = lack of emapthy for fellow creatures, Good = high empathy for fellow creatures to the point of tending to put them before yourself. Neutral = selfishness, or neither putting first nor disregarding the feelings and welfare of others.

Law/ Chaos is more orientated towards a sense of honor, keeping ones word, respect for tradition and a strong state etc vs individualism, anarchy, liberty and a lack of honor.

I tend to find with more than a few players that despite what alignment they say they are, they always end up playing the same alignment. I have a NG cleric of Ragathiel and im struggling to see the difference bewteen it and the players NE Ranger he played in the last campaign.

That said, that partiuclar player is 100% Gamist.

He once tried attacking an Elk for the xp. After he got hit with the powerfull charge (4d6) for no xp (it wasnt a threat till he attacked it) he stopped picking fights with random fauna.

The Elk steaks were tasty though.


Hakken wrote:

Malifice

since sarenrae is all about redemption. Why take his power right away?

send him nasty little nightmares about his action for a week, resulting in fatique the next day he cant cure (why would she let her power be used to cure something she sent?)

She would give him a chance to rethink his actions also.

He can be redeemed. Via attonement.

FWIW, I was going to provide him with an in game RP oportunity to do so.

Im not a bastard, I just hold paladins to not unreasonably high standards.

Its not like his character is gimped forever FFS.


Jodokai wrote:
Jubal Breakbottle wrote:
Quote:
The Kobold was evil
Still an assumption.

I think this is the root of the problem. Pathfinder is not Eberron. There are not good happy orcs as well as kill everyone orcs. kobolds are evil. Not differently motivated, EVIL.

But here's what get's me about the GM, he claims that he wasn't out to make the Paladin fall, but despite everything the Paladin did to do the right thing, one mistake (which I don't believe was a mistake) and it's instant fall? The GM even said that if the Barbarian or Wizard did it, their alignment would get closer to shifting, but a Paladin's shift is instant? Sure seems like he was looking for a fall to me.

And no one has answered my question: What was the way out for the Paladin in this case? How could he have resolved the issue? Did the Paladin know the Koblold couldn't get away and warn others? Did the Paladin know if the kobold would be missed by others? If there was no way for the Paladin to know this, then the only option for the greater good is to kill the kobold. Remember Neutral Good goes for the greater good without regard to order or chaos.

The Paladin didnt change alignment.

It was an isloted evil act carried out willingly.

The players at the table knew it, and (importantly) the GM knew it.

The Kobold knew it too (but he expected it; its what he's used to and accustomed to being raised in an evil and cruel society - hence all the crying and so forth)

He would have been shocked to have been let go.

His name was Teego. He was 24 years old and the proud father of two hatchlings. His brother was the finest trapmaker in the clan untill he was killed. He hoped one day to make enough money guarding stupid dungeon entrances in the bright painful sunlight to get paybacks on his Captain who whipped him often while taunting him about his brother (to remind him of who was in charge). Maybe if he could get some poison from the Bloodcales, he could take down that bastard of a Captain, and the Captains family (so they couldnt get him).

He was thinking about this (and his tasty breakfast of Dire rat he had that morning) when the next thing you know 4 heavily armed giant Humans burst in and start speaking funny things in that weird monkey talk they use. Then they left and he was feeling much happier. Perhaps it was his impressive spear pointing that frightened them off?

After another whipping that night, he awoke the next day and assumed guard, and low and behold the same big humans with the axes and the swords came back shouting in that strange guttural language they use.

He pointed his spear at them again, knowing this would work, and feeling a lot more confident, but before he knew what was going on, the humans barged into the room and ran through his stepbrother. Not that he minded, he never really liked his stepbrother. Before long the one with the mace had clobbered him good, and he woke shortly after to find himself bound and the macey one and the big scimitar stabby one yelling at him in monkey talk.

Maybe this was about those little humans the King decided to take as prizes the other night? They sure looked mean, and were clearly here for paybacks. Either way he was scared; the big stabby one looked real angry and the macey one was looking at him real close.

He glanced at his dead friends and family around him. At least the Captain wouldnt be bothering him anymore.

His joy was short lived however when he realised he wasnt going to be around for the hatching of his third child. The thought made him start to cry. He knew he wasnt going to see his family again, the spikey one meant business. He begged for his life, but een though it looked like the macey one could understand him somehow, the big spikey one kept screaming at him. Now the spikey one was chanting... 'one' 'two' ... maybe he's casting a magic spell like the shaman does? "Three' 'four'... it sounds like he may be counting... yes counting. To what though. To his death? Why count to his death? How mean were these humans?

He cried harder. And begged louder.

But still the spikey man came.


There was a part in the anime Jormungand that reminded me of this issue. The mercs are killers, no doubt, but one wants to take an enemy hostage and torture for intel. Old merc (very much a level 9 fighter) ask, "what are we, back alley thugs? Let's move."

So they killed armed opponents without mercy, but were above doing absolutely anaything to get intel. Their warrior spirit kept them away from torturing or killing an opponent that was down and defeated.

I think for a pal to defeat enemies, then give them a sympathetic lecture could always work. If they swear vengeance, give them a weapon and let this be finished. Another way of doing this.

Or, could spare their life but sign them up for indentured servitude to work off their evil deeds. Rapist eh? 20 years service to the church helping the weak, injured and infirm. Brigand and thief? Work the lands of the church as a peasant, and bring in as many harvests as people you have robbed.

Thus endeth the lesson from the book of irony.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
redcelt32 wrote:


You know what really happens when the paladin isn't allowed to kill the helpless kobold? The barbarian or fighter in the party does it, out of sensible expediency.

This isn't really about the paladin, per se, it's about the alignment system. Personally I don't think that any good character can just kill a helpless, tied up captive without violating his alignment. A good cleric doing the same thing would lose his class abilities just as fast as the paladin in this case.

If it absolutely has to be done, then you can roleplay your way around it. Pray for a sign from your god, and then kill him because the first thing you saw was a black crow. Or if you really want to get fancy, offer the kobald a chance to prove his innocence with a trial by combat (IE: make sure he can't escape, hand him a short sword, and THEN kill him. ;) ) That kind of thing is totally in flavor of the class Knights of the Round Table-style holy knight that the paladin is based on. Be creative. In this case, though, it didn't really need to be done at all.


Scaevola77 wrote:


Some thoughts:
LG kingdom is besieged by an enemy force who is clearly evil. The have seen the enemy force round up innocents from neighboring villages and slaughter them right in front of them. The LG forces decide to break the siege with a daring nighttime attack. They send Sir Pally to lead the attack, as he is a clear leader and his paladin powers will no doubt be necessary. They successfully sneak out past the sentries, but on the way to their target, the core of the enemy army, they pass a sleeping group of soldiers. Now, to leave them alive means that their stealth could be blown and the attack will fail, or their exit path after the strike will be cut off. Capturing them is not feasible, nor is leaving them alive and behind the strike force.

This is basically a clash between what is good and what is lawful. In that case, I think you have to go with good.

The Paladin, by definition, is willing to kill in order to protect innocents. If this is the best way to do that, and there aren't other good choices, then it is not a violation of the Paladin code, and he should not be punished for it.

That being said, even though you and I think that it is acceptable, and even his god probably thinks that he didn't do anything wrong, the Paladin himself may feel somewhat guilty about acting in a dishonorable way, depending on the exact details of the character and what he believes.


Iced2k wrote:

Malafice has let me retcon my character post 'Paladin Code' shenanigans.

I will likely be statting up a Ranger of Sarenrae or an Inquisitor and continuing as normal with the character.

I'm sure you'll all agree this is very generous of Malafice and a suitable compromise.

Just because you broke the code (whether you did or not is besides the point) you can still be a paladin.

A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features (including the service of the paladin's mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any further in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see atonement), as appropriate.

The rule that once fallen you permanently loose all your powers is from previous editions not Pathfinder. Just pay for the atonement spell and get on with life.


His name was Teego. He was 24 years old and the proud father of two hatchlings. His brother was the finest trapmaker in the clan untill he was killed by the mean old Captain. He hoped one day to make enough money guarding stupid dungeon entrances in the bright painful sunlight to get paybacks on his Captain who whipped him often while taunting him about his brother (to remind him of who was in charge). Maybe if he could get some poison from the Bloodcales, he could take down that bastard of a Captain, and the Captains family (so they couldnt get him).

He was thinking about this (and his tasty breakfast of Dire rat he had that morning) when the next thing you know 4 heavily armed giant Humans burst in and start speaking funny things in that weird monkey talk they use. Then they left and he was feeling much happier. Perhaps it was his impressive spear pointing that frightened them off?

After another whipping that night, he awoke the next day and assumed guard, and low and behold the same big humans with the axes and the swords came back shouting in that strange guttural language they use.

He pointed his spear at them again, knowing this would work, and feeling a lot more confident, but before he knew what was going on, the humans barged into the room and ran through his stepbrother. Not that he minded, he never really liked his stepbrother. Before long the one with the mace had clobbered him good, and he woke shortly after to find himself bound and the macey one and the big scimitar stabby one yelling at him in monkey talk.

Maybe this was about those little humans the King decided to take as prizes the other night? They sure looked mean, and were clearly here for paybacks. Either way he was scared; the big stabby one looked real angry and the macey one was looking at him real close.

He glanced at his dead friends and family around him. At least the Captain wouldnt be bothering him anymore.

His joy was short lived however when he realised he wasnt going to be around for the hatching of his third child. The thought made him start to cry. He knew he wasnt going to see his family again, the spikey one meant business. He begged for his life, but een though it looked like the macey one could understand him somehow, the big spikey one kept screaming at him. Now the spikey one was chanting... 'one' 'two' ... maybe he's casting a magic spell like the shaman does? "Three' 'four'... it sounds like he may be counting... yes counting. To what though. To his death? Why count to his death? How mean were these humans?

He cried harder. And begged louder.

But still the spikey man came.


Malifice wrote:

His name was Teego. He was 24 years old and the proud father of two hatchlings. His brother was the finest trapmaker in the clan untill he was killed by the mean old Captain. He hoped one day to make enough money guarding stupid dungeon entrances in the bright painful sunlight to get paybacks on his Captain who whipped him often while taunting him about his brother (to remind him of who was in charge). Maybe if he could get some poison from the Bloodcales, he could take down that bastard of a Captain, and the Captains family (so they couldnt get him).

He was thinking about this (and his tasty breakfast of Dire rat he had that morning) when the next thing you know 4 heavily armed giant Humans burst in and start speaking funny things in that weird monkey talk they use. Then they left and he was feeling much happier. Perhaps it was his impressive spear pointing that frightened them off?

After another whipping that night, he awoke the next day and assumed guard, and low and behold the same big humans with the axes and the swords came back shouting in that strange guttural language they use.

He pointed his spear at them again, knowing this would work, and feeling a lot more confident, but before he knew what was going on, the humans barged into the room and ran through his stepbrother. Not that he minded, he never really liked his stepbrother. Before long the one with the mace had clobbered him good, and he woke shortly after to find himself bound and the macey one and the big scimitar stabby one yelling at him in monkey talk.

Maybe this was about those little humans the King decided to take as prizes the other night? They sure looked mean, and were clearly here for paybacks. Either way he was scared; the big stabby one looked real angry and the macey one was looking at him real close.

He glanced at his dead friends and family around him. At least the Captain wouldnt be bothering him anymore.

His joy was short lived however when he realised he wasnt going to be around for the hatching of his third...

This is actually the story of the executed kobold's fellow guard who was sliced open with a non-Merciful weapon by an uncaring paladin for the crime of protecting his home against foreign invaders.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Invaders who were morally justified to be there, and to their credit attempted a non violent means of resolving the situation (before the language barrier got in the way).

Evil? No.

No more evil than any soldier fighting a just cause against an evil enemy.

When the executions began, things changed. The moral high ground was lost, and they became little better than those they fought.


OK, this conversation has been seriously derailed over the issue of always-LE-kobolds.

First off, that's just flat out wrong. Alignment listings in Pathfinder are for typical members of a given race. If you meet a random kobold, it is more likely to be LE than it is to be any alignment, but this is not something magically hardwired into the brain of every kobold. Any given kobold has exactly the same potential range of alignment, personality, and capacity for change as any human. While you don't have to give every single kobold you meet the benefit of the doubt (i.e. if you're fighting your way through a cave full of kobolds that are attacking you, nobody should object to you killing any you get the drop on), to completely dismiss the possibility that one single kobold might not be a complete monster who must be killed for the good of the world is straight-up racist.

It's possible for a game to house rule otherwise, although in my opinion, this is a terrible idea. All it does is make your world a less interesting place. If you're inclined to just have a group of straight-up irredeemably evil monster-men, you can still do that without mandatory black and white morality. All that happens with it is the concept of exceptions and redemption goes out the window, and you have a party that has no reason not to kill first ask questions never in any situation. I suppose if all but one player is inclined to be kill-happy and you want a good way to shut down the token chatty player I could see doing it, but otherwise, really not a fan.

Second, in this case, it doesn't matter at all whether kobolds are irredeemably evil or not, because it was made extremely clear in the opening post that nobody in the party considered them to be. You can't judge someone's actions as evil or not without looking at the information available to them. If you pass someone on the street, and then later it turns out that they were a vampire or something off to murder some innocent folks, that's not on your head, because you had no way of knowing. If you're completely convinced that the local butcher is going to murder a bunch of kids because she's secretly a monstrously evil hag in disguise, and only realize you were tricked after killing her, nobody's going to call you evil for doing so (unless maybe you show absolutely no remorse over it after the fact).

So, let's drop any personal kobold related baggage you might have going into this. Our captive kobold, in the minds of the party, has been humanized, and should be considered so by anyone examining the incident here. That being said, as a refresher, the incident:

The party is trying to establish whether it's true that people from the next town over kidnapped some kids, by attempting to talk to them. If they were willing to take this at face value, not give them the benefit of the doubt, and just blindly charge in attacking anyone in their way, our paladin would be OK in my book. Usually, if scaly weirdos are abducting children, it's safe to assume they're just monsters. Again though, we are not making that assumption. They are, in the minds of the PCs, people whose side is worth hearing.

We hit a language barrier on approaching, and fighting breaks out. OK, so we're dealing with hostile neighbors. Lethal force is perfectly reasonable, the party is in their rights to kill everyone involved in the fight. However, either out of mercy or, more likely, a desire to get some information through interrogation, we take someone prisoner to question. So far so good. For what it's worth, it would also be fine by me if some of these kobolds got hit with a sleep spell, and someone were to coup de grace them before they woke up. If we're abandoning any attempt at talking things out, and taking this show of force as condemning evidence that these people have nabbed some kids and their lives are in danger, executing them on the spot as quickly and painlessly as possible and continuing to rush forward flies with me. But again, we're still all giving them the benefit of the doubt here, questioning whether they have the kids. Now we get to this bit:

Malifice wrote:

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.

That's totally indefensible. Screaming at a captive in a language you know they don't understand, in what was specifically mentioned as an attempt to intimidate them (the OP said as much) serves no purpose whatsoever other than to scare the @#$% of them. That is just pure sadism, i.e. evil.

When dealing with someone who is scared of you, and who you are hoping to deal with in some civil capacity, the reasonable thing to do is to attempt to calm them down, and show them you mean no harm. Actively scaring them further is the last thing you want to do. Again, unless you get a kick out of the tears, you are acting against both common decency here, and against getting the information you hope to get.

At this point, the unarmed, fearful captive is, as I understand it, untied, which, given the language barrier, would have to be read by him as a gesture of good faith, or confusing.

What the captive is being told while this is going on is that he is being given a head start before he is killed, by someone who knows darn well that this isn't enough of a head start that he could actually get away. If he understood what was being said, this would be another example of just toying with him to no benefit but getting a kick out of watching him panic. As is, we also have the layer of making a cruel mockery of fairness by putting on a show of mercy while you know damn well the person you're talking to doesn't know what you're saying, and is probably wasting what time you're giving him trying to figure it out. This is therefore something we can label as both evil (watching him squirm before you kill him) and chaotic (insincerely offering a "sporting" chance).

On top of that, killing him at all fails to benefit the party in any way, and frankly hinders them. They could have kept him as a captive to negotiate a hostage exchange, or set him free as a gesture of good faith. They could have taken a moment, calmed down, and tried to legitimately overcome the language barrier by making crude sketches in the dirt. Worst case scenario, they could have given up and if they really insist, execute him properly, with a nice clean coup de grace instead of... running him down? Arrow to the back?

So yeah. I'd totally have you fall over that. I mean, basically what you did here was recreate the stuttering scene from Pan's Labyrinth. This isn't a grey area. This was full on evil behavior. Personally, I always warn players when they're about to cross the line on things like this, but the impression I get is that the GM did heavily hint that you were going down a bad road with this.

It's also one of those cases where it's really really abundantly clear if you look at it from the other side.


Subjectively both sides can justify their actions.

Objective good and evil, and righteousness or otherwise is left for the GM to determine.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh, I see, I'm only supposed to weep for the sob story when it's convenient. Or maybe only randomly-selected NPCs have secret sympathetic redeemable cuddly backstories (while killing the others without a second thought is A-OK) and the only way to play a paladin is to guess which is which.

Also, apparently the language barrier was just too hard when facing the team of guards to resolve in any way other than slaughter but should have been circumvented in the case of the last kobold.


Malifice wrote:
It was an isloted evil act carried out willingly

In a medieval world he captured and killed an evil creature to save children. You and I have very different definitions of an "evil act", but you still haven't answered my two very important questions:

1. Did the paladin know any of that?
2. What was the Paladin's way out? What possible way could he have gotten out of it with the knowledge that he had?

Sure you could say "let the kobold go" because you have the luxury of knowing what the thing will do, the Paladin doesn't. Letting it go could spell the deaths of the children. Taking it back to town for trial (seriously?) could spell deaths of the children, leaving it tied up where it might get away could spell the deaths of the children. In this situation, which does the most good (I can't stress enough that Neutral Good is all about doing the greatest good), giving the known innocent children a chance to live, or giving the known evil, maybe innocent, but probably not, Kobold the chance to live?

If you want to talk about 'intent' it was the Paladin's intent to save the children, if that meant he had to kill an evil kidnapping creature to do it, well that's what being a Neutral Good Paladin is all about, making hard choices for the greater good.


First of all... I'm glad to see Malifice in the thread!!! With as many alignment threads of Paladins complaining about their DMs... it's just AWESOME to see the DM give his point of view!!!! ^_^

Also... WOW... 245 posts since Bedtime this morning!!! Got some catching up to do!!! :)

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?

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 Paladin did not do any of those actions. He did not summon a bear. He did not let it go to warn the nest... and he did not kill his allies. The Kobold did that.

The paladin is only responsible for HIS actions. If he gives someone a chance to be better... it’s not his responsibility to MAKE them better. He can only lead by example. The kobold is still the only one responsible for his actions.

Faiths of purity wrote:

While you are a strong believer in free will, you understand that sometimes mortals require an additional push toward the good without their consent.

By helping others, you guide them into the light and help justify your own existence.

Unless someone has shown himself to be irretrievably evil, your faith demands that you treat him with the kindness you would show to anyone who had lost his way. Redemption is rarely a swift process, and your faith demands the patience to hold your temper and help others to walk the righteous path. Only the followers of Rovagug are denied a chance at salvation, for to entertain the Rough Beast is to display a total rejection of righteousness.

The question is was a Kobold irredemable? It seems that Sarenraens tend to err on the side of mercy.


Roberta Yang wrote:

So, suppose the paladin did release the kobold. Where would the kobold go then?

Does the kobold wander around in the woods on its own? Does the kobold head off to the nearest human settlement and hope to be accepted there? No, of course not; the kobold goes back to its clan. That's where it's always lived; that's its home; that's what it relies on for basic survival. Isn't the main argument in favor of the kobold being redeemable that it only became evil because that was its clan's culture and it had nowhere else to go and what it did was necessary for its clan's survival. Of course it goes home. That's beyond question.

So, when it reaches home bruised, covered in blood, and without its fellow guards, do you think the other kobolds won't want to know what happened? And do you think think that kobold will lie to its kin to make things easier for the incomprehensible brutes that slaughtered its comrades?

Sending the kobold on its merry way clearly leads to it alerting the others. There's no other logical way for events to play out, and anyone can see that. Asking the paladin to let it go and alert the baby-eating cultists is stupid.

And it would likely get the children killed.

Which would be the paladin's fault. And cause her to fall.

Maybe he’s more confused... scared... Wondering WHY he lived??! WHO was this strange man who laid waste to those who fought him, but showed ‘mercy’ to him...

What should he do with this new chance?

Back to what the clan has always done?? That didn’t get them very far... some ‘chosen ones of Dragon spawn’ they turned out to be... Maybe a different path....

Maybe it preaches this tale of ‘mercy’... a concept foreign to the scaly little dragon spawn. They start to rethink their own philosophies...After all Muck muck would have killed the HUMANS had the tables been turned... Why didn’t THEY?!?

And the world is a better place.

That’s the thought process behind mercy. If my actions cause you to rethink your evil lifestyle and become curious about ‘other’ alignments,gods,and lifestyles.

It may only work in 1 out of 50... but that’s 1 that you saved!!!

REGARDLESS.... the creature is tied, gagged, and/or knocked out till after the kids are rescued... I don’t think ANYONE suggested interrogating a guard, giving him a pat on the rump and sending him back down the hole O.o


Iced2k wrote:

Interesting question:

Do we think that an Inquisitor of Sarenrae would have been punished for this same act using Malifice's standard as the benchmark not our own ideas of following Sarenrae.

I see it as the difference of a Col. In the army.... and Captain America. Different classes are held to different standards... Honestly, that’s the REASON for the LG alignment. A cleric or Inquisitor can get away with the N, CG, NG attitudes and actions... but the PALADIN is restricted to LG.

If you multiclassed 3rd level Paladin, 2nd level Inquisitor... and broke your code... you’d be essentially a 2nd level Inquistor. :-/ They’re allowed more wiggle room.

In house ruled games? I don’t know... it kind of mixes things up a bit.

redcelt32 wrote:


True, but recall that the only reason Luke attempted to redeem him was that he sensed the good in him through his link to the Force. Otherwise Sith were considered the embodiment of evil and I doubt he would have tried if he had not sensed this.

Bull.

Luke LIED. Same as when Obi wan told him Vader killed his father... Luke had NO qualms about killing him in ESB... It was only AFTER he found out that Vader was actually his DAD... THEN he brought out the ‘I don’t want to fight, You can be saved’ card ;)

I was also a fan of the D6 west end games version of Star wars RPG... They had a section in there about how ALL Jedi Hate killing... it weakens the force as life creates it, and sustains it... Hence all the 'hand chopping' rules and bionic attachments in the series ;)


Roberta Yang wrote:
Not if it's unnecessary. Nonlethal damage will subdue a foe just as easily as lethal damage. A paladin who decides it's worth butchering opponents when they could just as easily be safely made a non-threat is refusing to do everything she can to offer redemption.

Not even a little!!

I had a ‘monkish’ character who was VERY big on redemption. He was half-elf and realized that what someone did TODAY... was in no way indicitive of the things they could do in the far FUTURE...

A bandit today... 30 years from now could be doctor who saved a small village from a plague...

Unless he KILLED him today. So he tried his hardest to save as many people as possible. HOWEVER.... 30 years from now that doctor may well be walking with a limp!!!

He had ZERO issue with the occasional broken legs and arms. Whatever ended the combat fastest regardless of ‘Hit Points’. It may take 6 months for that collarbone to heal.... plenty of time to think about your actions ;)


phantom1592 wrote:

Not even a little!!

I had a ‘monkish’ character who was VERY big on redemption. He was half-elf and realized that what someone did TODAY... was in no way indicitive of the things they could do in the far FUTURE...

A bandit today... 30 years from now could be doctor who saved a small village from a plague...

Unless he KILLED him today. So he tried his hardest to save as many people as possible. HOWEVER.... 30 years from now that doctor may well be walking with a limp!!!

He had ZERO issue with the occasional broken legs and arms. Whatever ended the combat fastest regardless of ‘Hit Points’. It may take 6 months for that collarbone to heal.... plenty of time to think about your actions ;)

No amount of time to heal will suffice if that last attack knocks you down to -CON.


One simple suggestion is, if you're considering doing an act but aren't sure if your god (and/or DM) would consider it evil and/or a violation of the paladin's code, take a knowledge-religion check. Or have your cleric do it. It should be a pretty low DC, since this is defiantly the kind of thing that your character should know.


Roberta Yang wrote:
No amount of time to heal will suffice if that last attack knocks you down to -CON.

True!

But you have to get a pretty good hit to wipe out all the HP AND all the Con in one swing... Unless your high level... and/or the ranger Barbarian in our serpent skull game... Seriously... She did over 360 points in one round O.o

But sometimes that -4 means your not gonna hit at all... so I can't fault people for using a weapon the way they were intended... What's the earliest level a character can reasonably expect to get a 'merciful' weapon?

At low levels and low HP... Even the smite ability isn't gonna make up for those penalties...

On a similair note... Sarenrae DOES have the 'blade of Mercy' trait that lets you attack with a slashing weapon 'non-lethaly' without the penalty...

and YES my upcoming Paladin has it ;)

1 to 50 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