Did I break my Paladin Code?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

351 to 400 of 466 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Jubal Breakbottle wrote:

Pathfinder is a game. There are rules that define what detects as evil. Yes, there are ways to obfuscate the detection, but that is an exception and additional challenge.

The paladin gets the abilities to Detect Evil and Smite Evil. Anything that are truly affected by those two abilities can be killed by a paladin without losing his divine abilities.

Please point out the rules of the game that specifiy this exeption to the RULE that 'A Paladin that willfully commits an Evil act loses his Paladinhood'.

You cant detect evil on a helpless prisoner, then use your smite evil ability, then proceed to effectively murder it.

PF might be a game, but its a roleplaying game.

Quote:
There are enough moral challenges beyond that brightly lit line, e.g. evil creatures less than 5th level who don't detect as evil and being ordered by your Lawful Good authority to kill another Lawful Good creature for whatever reason.

A Paladin can kill another LG creature.

As long as it presents a direct threat to him (usually by a mistake etc) and not lose his paladin status. He can do this (as a last resort) even if he knows it is LG. (A hungry blink dog defending its lair in the mistaken beleif that the Paladin is there to take the pups) He is not WILLFULLY committing an evil act by doing so (although he should try and use whatever means at his disposal to resolve the conflict with nonviolence if he is aware the creature is Good aligned).

Such situations are thankfully rare.

Quote:
The GM admitted to making a mistake: the kobold detected as evil. If it was evil, it can be killed by the paladin.

No it cant. Not in the absenence of the evil creature presenting a direct and clear threat to the Paladin or other innocents.

Quote:
If it wasn't evil, the kobold was a helpless sentient that shouldn't be killed.

The Kobold was a helpless sentient that shouldn't be killed. It was also 'evil' by virtue of its upbringing.

{quote]If paladins go to Cheliax, Falcon's Hallow, etc, they can kill anyone that truly detects as evil (man, woman and child) without losing their divine powers.

Not in my games they cant.

Can you point out an incident of this happeneing in any Golarion canon for me?

Hint: You cant.

The only place Paladins slaughter evil will is the Worldwound (and thats against irredemable evil creatures in Demons).


Dreihaddar wrote:
We have spells and magic items that can ward a character about unknowing breaches of his deities codes or things that'll affect his alignment.

I know.

Sadly he didnt have one.

Quote:
Obvious things should be made obvious to the player

Murder of a helpless terrified sentient is fairly obvious I would have thought. At the very least (as this thread shows), it should have raised a massive question mark in his mind.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I figured it out - Malifice is copying his paladin's code to be exactly that of an average 21st century American police officer. Anyone who doesn't guess this and roleplay their fantasy world paladin in exactly that way is a bad roleplayer.


Iced2k wrote:

Sometimes I think you are unable to read.

'Sarenrae begs to differ'

Yes, the Sarenrae of your imagination begs to differ. I concede that.

But the Sarenrae as interpreted by me and a majority of people on this thread does not.

Thats because you (and others in this thread) have a fairly twisted opinion on what consitutes 'good' (some even advocate the wanton massacre of evil sentients, including prisoners, and for no other reason than detecting as 'evil'), and a rather conflicting view (to say the least) on what consitutes 'mercy' 'compassion' and 'redemption'.

You got frustrated after trying to do the 'right thing', and you lashed out at a helpless and frightened sentient that was entirely at your mercy (Sarenraes greatest virtue).

And to be honest, I think you regretted it not long afterwards.

But thats just my subjective view.

Grand Lodge

Malifice wrote:
People agree that Paladins are divine holy warriors, dedicated and entrusted by their dieties to upholding the highest principles of Good.

Depends on the deity

Some uphold Justice as the highest good

You're attempt to make a blanket statement to prove your point fails. It is your game and you can do what you want but I'd steer clear of players in your world playing alignments

OBTW, CE can do ANYTHING THEY WANT. They have a pang of conscious? NP, give a few alms to the poor, help an old farmer cross the stream, hug a baby

Who knows, you might be able to use that later

Sometimes the "greatest good" is to literally slaughter a tribe of NE humans/Orc/kobolds/whatever as they have strong familial ties, religious indoctrinations, whatever to save those that live around them.

You don't like it? great, we have serious disagreement on what is good and evil

Good strives to help others, sometimes the best good you can do is removing (ie killing quickly and if possible mercifully) a group that is evil. How many more lives are going to be hurt, killed or worse?

I'm not suggesting genocide, so no strawmen

As I said, play with moral ambiguity at your own risk but remember that if you don't have it down pat, nobody else can


Roberta Yang wrote:
I figured it out - Malifice is copying his paladin's code to be exactly that of an average 21st century American police officer. Anyone who doesn't guess this and roleplay their fantasy world paladin in exactly that way is a bad roleplayer.

No, I use the context of 'good' and 'evil' from the perspective of the 20th and 21st century game designers and writers who placed the conceps (and rules around them) in the books to begin with.

Such as:

Good Versus Evil

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

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

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

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


Malifice wrote:
Iced2k wrote:

Sometimes I think you are unable to read.

'Sarenrae begs to differ'

Yes, the Sarenrae of your imagination begs to differ. I concede that.

But the Sarenrae as interpreted by me and a majority of people on this thread does not.

Thats because you (and others in this thread) have a fairly twisted opinion on what consitutes 'good' (some even advocate the wanton massacre of evil sentients, including prisoners, and for no other reason than detecting as 'evil'), and a rather conflicting view (to say the least) on what consitutes 'mercy' 'compassion' and 'redemption'.

You got frustrated after trying to do the 'right thing', and you lashed out at a helpless and frightened sentient that was entirely at your mercy (Sarenraes greatest virtue).

And to be honest, I think you regretted it not long afterwards.

But thats just my subjective view.

How I felt about it is clearly documented right here.


BB36 wrote:
OBTW, CE can do ANYTHING THEY WANT. They have a pang of conscious? NP, give a few alms to the poor, help an old farmer cross the stream, hug a baby

Bullshit.

Chaotic Evil: A chaotic evil character does what his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are likely to be poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.

Chaotic evil represents the destruction not only of beauty and life, but also of the order on which beauty and life depend

A Chaotic evil character that gives to charity, starts trying to prevent the suffering of others, works well with others, keeps his word, etc etc etc is not Chaotic evil.

Ergo he cannot just 'do what he wants'.


@Malifice

My most important point is this:

Quote:
The paladin gets the abilities to Detect Evil and Smite Evil. Anything that are truly affected by those two abilities can be killed by a paladin without losing his divine abilities. This is the one game mechanic bright line that clearly delineates for the GM and player. Playing without that bright line overly burdens the player to understand what the GM, acting as the arbiter of the paladin's god, wants.

I would suggest that if you deviate from playing with this bright line of game mechanics, you deviate from the general population of Pathfinder games. And if you do, you should clearly articulate how you plan to run your games. Because as many posters have already suggested to you, players do not have the benefits of years of paladin indoctrination of their character's lives nor any specific foresight of the interpretation that you, the GM, will make as the arbiter of the paladin's god.

From Iced2k's posts, it is clear that you and your player were not on the same page on the paladin's code of conduct. The responsibility to be mutually aligned belongs to both the GM and player. However, I would suggest that the majority of that responsibility belongs to the GM as the creator and arbiter of the world.


Iced2k wrote:
How I felt about it is clearly documented right here.

I'll take your word for it.

Still, hammering the cold blooded execution of a helpless cowering and bound foe (who posed you no direct harm) into a Paladins code, Sarenraes dogma, and the NG alignment is a stretch.

Ive told you before that I consider (as DM) the execution of a helpless foe to fall on the side of evil.

Shit we've argued about it before.

I was also clear in providing your code, and specifying that mercy, charity and compassion (for you) supersceded the LG Paladins reliance on honor, chivalry and justice.

Grand Lodge

Malifice wrote:
Iced2k wrote:

Sometimes I think you are unable to read.

'Sarenrae begs to differ'

Yes, the Sarenrae of your imagination begs to differ. I concede that.

But the Sarenrae as interpreted by me and a majority of people on this thread does not.

Thats because you (and others in this thread) have a fairly twisted opinion on what consitutes 'good' (some even advocate the wanton massacre of evil sentients, including prisoners, and for no other reason than detecting as 'evil'), and a rather conflicting view (to say the least) on what consitutes 'mercy' 'compassion' and 'redemption'.

You got frustrated after trying to do the 'right thing', and you lashed out at a helpless and frightened sentient that was entirely at your mercy (Sarenraes greatest virtue).

And to be honest, I think you regretted it not long afterwards.

But thats just my subjective view.

Wow, full of yourself aren't you. Self righteous too. Your definition of good is the end all. Well in your game it is

Nobody here is suggesting wanton destruction of anything. Nice strawman. As with everything, it really depends on the circumstance

If I say, man #1 killed man #2, the first instinct is to say "Bad Man #1"

If I add "Man #2 was trying to kill kid #1", one should say, "Good Man #1, bad Man #2"

The death of an Evil Kobold (was this Kobold trying to do good or did it think that by killing the "lesser races" it and its people will become the chosen race as their religion holds?) is not the best way, but when it comes to saving a bunch of kidnapped innocents, it is certainly not bad

Your idea of the goddess and what she demands (yes a demanding, punitive and stern goddess of redemption anyone else smell oxymoron here?) is fine, but not for having Paladins

Her Paladins will almost always fall, often and get sick of her bovine scatological predictions very quickly


Malifice wrote:
A N nation doesnt have all its laws orinetated towards N.

Why do you think the above is true....

Quote:
Your paladins would simply storm into Cheliax, Falcons Hollow etc slaughter anyone and everything they come acroos thats 'evil' as in the majority of the citizenry (no mercy, no surrender) women, kids the lot of them.

...while at the same time believe that the alignment of the nation is reflected in nearly every citizen, including kids?

So the laws can differ from the alignment of the country, but the people cannot.

But even if the majority of the people are the same alignment as the nation, as I (and others) have stated before, Detect Evil only pings if one of the following are true:

Evil Creature of 5 HD or more
Evil Undead
Evil Outsider
Cleric of at least 1st level of an evil deity

Here's a link to Detect Evil

So in your world, the majority of the people of Cheliax fall into one of those categories. We can presume that none of the mortals (read: normal PF playable races) are undead or outsiders, which only leaves the idea that all the women and children in Cheliax are either clerics of Asmodeus (or some other evil deity) or another class that's at least 5th level. Those are some very powerful children.

See, in order for someone to ping as evil, they have to be actively worshiping an evil deity enough so that they get spells, domain powers, and the ability to control undead...

OR

...they have to be at least 5th level, which requires a lot of active work on their part, AND be evil themselves. We're talking about someone who has gained 15,000 XP and still maintained an evil alignment.

The majority of citizens would not have more than one or two class levels in an NPC class, much less be 5th level or a cleric. I doubt the children would even have a level in anything, yet.


Jubal Breakbottle wrote:
I would suggest that if you deviate from playing with this bright line of game mechanics, you deviate from the general population of Pathfinder games.

I have cited the Game mechanics for you.

Rule: A Paladin who willingly commits at evil act loses Paladinhood.

Definition of Evil/ Good (from the CRB):

Good Versus Evil

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

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

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

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


Malifice wrote:
Dreihaddar wrote:
We have spells and magic items that can ward a character about unknowing breaches of his deities codes or things that'll affect his alignment.

I know.

Sadly he didnt have one.

Quote:
Obvious things should be made obvious to the player

Murder of a helpless terrified sentient is fairly obvious I would have thought. At the very least (as this thread shows), it should have raised a massive question mark in his mind.

Highlighted the operative word there, unknowing breaches (as opposed to unknowing breeches) require an item or magic for the GM to chime in with a 'you realize you'll forsake your paladin code by this action?'. For more common sense things (from a characters perspective) this should be the default.

Its a scaly monster that as far as the player knew had been eating children, what's that stuck in its teeth? Is it childflesh? You monster! Taste my blade!. It comes down to you, as a storyteller, to convey why killing it, begging for its life or no, is a breach of his code.

A paladin that knowingly commits an act that is in opposition to his code should fall. Hell, I've even done such an act because I felt that strongly about something and I gladly took the fall (and it was a great time all around).

A "lol u lose all class abilities!" move is not cool and MOST importantly hardly serves the story.


BB36 wrote:
Your definition of good is the end all

From the CRB:

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

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

Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures... kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

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

Again, checkmate.


Dreihaddar wrote:
A "lol u lose all class abilities!" move is not cool and MOST importantly hardly serves the story.

Rubbish.

Many an awesome story has featured (and even revolved around) falling from grace, redemption, bad choices for good reasons, and attonement.

In fact, its a ridiculously common theme in fantasy literature.

Grand Lodge

Malifice wrote:
Iced2k wrote:
How I felt about it is clearly documented right here.

I'll take your word for it.

Still, hammering the cold blooded execution of a helpless cowering and bound foe (who posed you no direct harm) into a Paladins code, Sarenraes dogma, and the NG alignment is a stretch.

You mean a being that is a willing participant in ritualistic torture and consumption of other sentient being, especially if they're young and tasty?
Malifice wrote:
Ive told you before that I consider (as DM) the execution of a helpless foe to fall on the side of evil.

And if that really were the case, good has absolutely no chance. You want a world of the "DM's Paladin"

Where they will garner their self-righteous attitude, join hands with Asmodeus and Demorgorgon and sing loud and proud "Kum by yah!"

Malifice wrote:
S*$! we've argued about it before.
And you need to rethink Paladins. Make them NPCs, wise, understanding, impotent
Malifice wrote:
I was also clear in providing your code, and specifying that mercy, charity and compassion (for you) supersceded the LG Paladins reliance on honor, chivalry and justice.

Where does it say "Chivalry"? As for Mercy, he was merciful, the Kobold died quickly and at the hands of a foe that will make him worthy to stand before his god


2 people marked this as a favorite.

@Malifice

At the risk of continuing this apparently pointless argument. Are you suggesting that a paladin who kills someone that truly detects as evil while respecting the local legitimate authority (however in the case of Neutral Good; local authority should not apply) could lose their divine powers?

If you are, you are in the extreme minority as the posters here represent.


Jubal Breakbottle wrote:
At the risk of continuing this apparently pointless argument. Are you suggesting that a paladin who kills someone that truly detects as evil while respecting the local legitimate authority (however in the case of Neutral Good; local authority should not apply) could lose their divine powers?

Why are they killing this evil person?

Have they been attacked by this evil person? Do they have a choice other than to kill them?

Is killing them necessary?

Need more information before I can answer.

Liberty's Edge

The GM made a mistake by allowing a house rule without making the player firmly define the expectations.

A paladin is not a fighter or barbarian. They get great powers in exchange for strict adherence to a code. If I have a paladin in my group, I always make sure the players defines that code with me before we start, and then I hold them to what we agreed on.

Killing an unarmed prisoner...yeah that isn't gonna fly.


BB36 wrote:
]You mean a being that is a willing participant in ritualistic torture and consumption of other sentient being, especially if they're young and tasty?

Where is your proof of this?

This kobold hadnt ritualistically tortured anyone.

And even if he had done so, to a GOOD person, that doesnt justify that he himself should be ritualistically tortured, put to the sword, or thrown in a fire in retaliation.

Good people show mercy and compassion; they dont repay evil with more evil.

Paladins especially so.

Malifice wrote:

And if that really were the case, good has absolutely no chance. You want a world of the "DM's Paladin"

Where they will garner their self-righteous attitude, join hands with Asmodeus and Demorgorgon and sing loud and proud "Kum by yah!

Ive played Paladins (and GM'd them) to high levels in the past in alliterations of the rules for over 25 years using this exact same definition.

And not a single campfire song, and a ton of smitten enemies along the way.

Where does it say "Chivalry"? As for Mercy, he was merciful, the Kobold died quickly and at the hands of a foe that will make him worthy to stand before his god

Fight fire with fire eh?

Not in my world.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malifice wrote:
Dreihaddar wrote:
A "lol u lose all class abilities!" move is not cool and MOST importantly hardly serves the story.

Rubbish.

Many an awesome story has featured (and even revolved around) falling from grace, redemption, bad choices for good reasons, and attonement.

In fact, its a ridiculously common theme in fantasy literature.

I may have to start prefacing all my comments with 'Read the reply'.

Does it serve YOUR STORY that the Paladin falls from grace for something as trivial as killing a child eating Kobold?

No?
Yes?

Many an awesome story feature an AWESOME FALL FROM GRACE. Not acts taken by characters thinking they were justified when clearly (according to you) they were not. As even the player himself has stated, he didn't know it wasn't entirely in line with his code to shank the beast right there.

Its a child eating and sadistic lizard man, not an innocent bystander.


ciretose wrote:
The GM made a mistake by allowing a house rule without making the player firmly define the expectations.

Ah no, I did that.

I went over it with him in some detail, and the player is well aware of my views on alignment in real life (weve been playing together regularly for 12 months, with me DMing most of the time).

The player (at best) made a false assumption based on his interpretaion of those rules.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malifice wrote:
Jubal Breakbottle wrote:
At the risk of continuing this apparently pointless argument. Are you suggesting that a paladin who kills someone that truly detects as evil while respecting the local legitimate authority (however in the case of Neutral Good; local authority should not apply) could lose their divine powers?

Why are they killing this evil person?

Have they been attacked by this evil person? Do they have a choice other than to kill them?

Is killing them necessary?

Need more information before I can answer.

Then paladins in your world are unplayable.


Jubal Breakbottle wrote:
Then playing paladins in your world are unplayable.

Weirdly many players have succesfully played Paladins in dozens of campaigns of mine over 25 years of roleplaying.

And risen to quite high levels.

Give me a scenario and I'll tell you what I would rule.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Malifice wrote:

Ive played Paladins (and GM'd them) to high levels in the past in alliterations of the rules for over 25 years using this exact same definition.

And here my friend, in one succinct sentence, you undo your whole reasoning and show the rigidity, closed mindedness and inflexibility of your argument.

You define the Paladin in Paizo's Pathfinder by the definitions you created for Paladins 25 years ago in a different system, with different rules, in a different world in a different game.


Dreihaddar wrote:
Does it serve YOUR STORY that the Paladin falls from grace for something as trivial as killing a child eating Kobold?

As discussed, I do not consider this is not a 'trivial' infraction.

Dreihaddar wrote:
Its a child eating and sadistic lizard man, not an innocent bystander.

For the upteenth zillionth time, NO IT WASNT.

It was cruel and sneaky (thanks to its upbringing) but it wasnt a baby eating irredemable monster FFS.

Grand Lodge

Malifice wrote:
BB36 wrote:
]You mean a being that is a willing participant in ritualistic torture and consumption of other sentient being, especially if they're young and tasty?

Where is your proof of this?

This kobold hadnt ritualistically tortured anyone.

Hey, it's your game and you can say anything you want but you did say the Kobold was evil

How did it get that way?

Foul language?


Iced2k wrote:
You define the Paladin in Paizo's Pathfinder by the definitions you created for Paladins 25 years ago in a different system, with different rules, in a different world in a different game.

No, I have exclusivey been using the PF definition of Good, Evil, Sarenraes dogma, the NG alignment, and what causes a fall from grace in this thread.

You want me to apply the AD&D code to your paladin?

You dont want that, trust me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malifice wrote:

Weirdly many players have succesfully played Paladins in dozens of campaigns of mine over 25 years of roleplaying.

And risen to quite high levels.

Give me a scenario and I'll tell you what I would rule.

Two things:

1. I suggest you reflect on what are the characteristics of players who can successfully play paladins for you, and clearly articulate those characteristics to potential paladin players to avoid these situations.

2. Many of us have over 25 years of role-playing game experience.


BB36 wrote:

you did say the Kobold was evil. How did it get that way?

By being raised in a selfish and cruel society, with little to no contact with the outside world (aside from big scary monsters trying to kill it, and steel clad adventurers trying to kill it, and its own tribesmen trying to kill it) and as a result generally not having any empathy for other living creatures, and flocking to the most biggest baddest dude it can find, while picking on and taking advantage of anyone smaller than it (LE).


Jubal Breakbottle wrote:

1. I suggest you reflect on what are the characteristics of players who can successfully play paladins for you, and clearly articulate those characteristics to potential paladin players to avoid these situations.

2. Many of us have over 25 years of role-playing game experience.

1. Did that.

2. Sweet bro. If your campaigns feature paladins ruthlessly hacking at any NPC they happen to stroll past that 'ping' as evil (no mercy, no prisoners) more luck to you.


They didn't read his mind.

They had fair expectation that these kobolds (despite being unsure why they might've done so) were responsible for kidnapping the kids. Using player knowledge of kobolds, that alone would've given them fair expectation that he was a sadistic lizard man.

That he was the one kobold in a 1000 that just wants fair treatment, a spot by the fire and a chance to show off his tap dancing routine doesn't make their reaction to it unjustified. I can show you any number of monster tropes and most RPGers would be able to give me a rough estimation of what they're like.

Orc: Violent
Giant: Lumbering and stupid
Squid headed man: Sinister
Gnoll: Violent
etc etc.

That you choose to change them into beings as diverse as humans is great, I like that. That you don't inform your players (it seems) is not so cool. And that you then assume they must have knowledge of things they clearly don't and THEN punish them (him) for it?

Not cool at all.


Malifice wrote:
Iced2k wrote:
You define the Paladin in Paizo's Pathfinder by the definitions you created for Paladins 25 years ago in a different system, with different rules, in a different world in a different game.

No, I have exclusivey been using the PF definition of Good, Evil, Sarenraes dogma, the NG alignment, and what causes a fall from grace in this thread.

Impossible. These things didn't exist 25 years ago. Unless you believe yourself to be some sort of prophet these two posts within 20 minutes of eachother are mutually exclusive.

Either a) 'Ive played Paladins (and GM'd them) to high levels in the past in all iterations of the rules for over 25 years using this exact same definition.'

or b) 'I have exclusivey been using the PF definition of Good, Evil, Sarenraes dogma, the NG alignment, and what causes a fall from grace in this thread.'


Dreihaddar wrote:

They didn't read his mind.

They had fair expectation that these kobolds (despite being unsure why they might've done so) were responsible for kidnapping the kids. Using player knowledge of kobolds, that alone would've given them fair expectation that he was a sadistic lizard man.

That he was the one kobold in a 1000 that just wants fair treatment, a spot by the fire and a chance to show off his tap dancing routine doesn't make their reaction to it unjustified. I can show you any number of monster tropes and most RPGers would be able to give me a rough estimation of what they're like.

Orc: Violent
Giant: Lumbering and stupid
Squid headed man: Sinister
Gnoll: Violent
etc etc.

That you choose to change them into beings as diverse as humans is great, I like that. That you don't inform your players (it seems) is not so cool. And that you then assume they must have knowledge of things they clearly don't and THEN punish them (him) for it?

Not cool at all.

Infact not all Malifice's monsters are redeemable. Unfortunately for my Paladin Kobolds are.

Goblins are according to Malifice 'Iredeemably evil', so much so that they are a banned PC race in his campaigns.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malifice wrote:
BB36 wrote:
you did say the Kobold was evil. How did it get that way?
By being raised in a selfish and cruel society,
So evil "just rubs off"? Is it just some sort of social disease? I guess your anti-paladin just needs to hang out with other bad guys and they stay evil?
Malifice wrote:
with little to no contact with the outside world (aside from big scary monsters trying to kill it, and steel clad adventurers trying to kill it, and its own tribesmen trying to kill it)

That makes it a xenophobic victim, not evil. How, what did it do to be called evil?

Being a victim is not evil

Being afraid of big bad things is not evil

Being worried what your relatives and neighbors are going to do to you is not evil

Congrats! Every abused child, battered housewife, picked on kid in school is EVIL in your world!

Malifice wrote:
and as a result generally not having any empathy for other living creatures, and flocking to the most biggest baddest dude it can find, while picking on and taking advantage of anyone smaller than it (LE).

Wow, your definition of what makes evil is er, weak

Seeking protection is not evil. Taking part in actively hurting others is.

You need to work on what alignments are


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malifice wrote:
No, I have exclusivey been using the PF definition of Good, Evil, Sarenraes dogma, the NG alignment, and what causes a fall from grace in this thread.

If this is true, then please tell me where in the PF rules you got the following (from page 4 of this thread):

Malifice wrote:

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

Additionally, you said that the kobold detected as Evil from the Detect Evil spell. That means the kobold was either a cleric of an evil deity (with full casting capabilities) or at least 5th level and has done one or more of the following: Slavery, Murder, Torture, Killing of a defenseless sentient, Rape, Causing unnecessary harm, Genocide.

That also reminds me: women and children in Cheliax and Falcon's Hollow must have also been committing slavery, murder, torture, killing of a defenseless sentient, rape, causing unnecessary harm, and genocide, and all must be of at least 5th level or a cleric of an evil deity in your world. Wow! Those kids have done a lot in their life, no wonder they've earned their 15,000 XP!

I find it really odd that your kobolds detect as evil when they're just little innocent critters begging for their life. It's almost as if you have double standards in your game.

No, wait. You do have double standards.

Checkmate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In Malifice's world, Evil is defined as this to the players:

Malifice wrote:

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 behind the curtains, the kobolds are Evil because of this:

Malifice wrote:
BB36 wrote:

you did say the Kobold was evil. How did it get that way?

By being raised in a selfish and cruel society, with little to no contact with the outside world (aside from big scary monsters trying to kill it, and steel clad adventurers trying to kill it, and its own tribesmen trying to kill it) and as a result generally not having any empathy for other living creatures, and flocking to the most biggest baddest dude it can find, while picking on and taking advantage of anyone smaller than it (LE).

Definitely a double standard. Setting the paladin up for failure.

Btw, what you describe here is usually defined as CE, not LE. In a society where the biggest baddest dude is the leader is a society where might makes right, not a society where laws dictate what one can and cannot do and weaker creatures are able to manipulate the law in order to gain power.

From Pathfinder Wiki: "Chaotic evil characters are ruled by their basest, most evil urges and rarely see much need to exercise self restraint. Most often they are simply out to get whatever they want at that moment however some are more insidious devoting themselves to spread of some insidious evil. Chaotic evil can be charming and urbane, but brooks no resistance to its goals except those imposed by a stronger force. Even then, it schemes to remove the obstruction without any personal sacrifice. Typically chaotic evil people can only be kept in line by a stronger force above them, this leads to societies of chaotic evil creatures like Drow and Gnolls to be brutal and normally ruled by the most powerful individual. Religion is often a uniting factor with chaotic evil people as what more powerful force is there than a god. "

Whereas LE reads: "Lawful evil is the realm of the individual who knows what they want and will manipulate the system (legal, cultural, and so forth) to achieve those ends, no matter the consequence. This can be for personal gain (for example, the traditional evil vizier who seeks to claim the kingdom for himself) or to better society at all costs - the "I know what's best for everyone else"-attitude without any of the compassionate limits to action found in lawful good (an excellant example is Cardinal Richelieu of Three Musketeers fame)."

Grand Lodge

bookrat wrote:
In Malifice's world, Evil is defined as this to the players:
Malifice wrote:

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 behind the curtains, the kobolds are Evil because of this:
Malifice wrote:
BB36 wrote:
you did say the Kobold was evil. How did it get that way?
By being raised in a selfish and cruel society, with little to no contact with the outside world (aside from big scary monsters trying to kill it, and steel clad adventurers trying to kill it, and its own tribesmen trying to kill it) and as a result generally not having any empathy for other living creatures, and flocking to the most biggest baddest dude it can find, while picking on and taking advantage of anyone smaller than it (LE).
Definitely a double standard. Setting the paladin up for failure.

Good catch

Nice to actually see it in action but I thought he didn't think this through at all.


If a Red Dragon or a vampire Surrenders to the paladin what does the paladin do with it? If I was the paladin I'd kill the kobold to instead of giving it the chance to kill and endanger more lives. I wouldn't take the paladins powers away, and this just seems like another DM rushing to take a paladins powers away. That's almost seems to be DM goals to often in games.


LazarX wrote:
bookrat wrote:
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?

I don't buy that at all. If he does not have an inherent sense of Good and Evil in a world where the two aren't just philosophical constructs, then he was never a Paladin to begin with. Because that's what being a Paladin is it's a calling to serve Good. Such a calling comes from awareness of good and evil.

So while you might be able to trick a Paladin for the short term, only one that's already fallen from the path will be convinced for any length of time.

True. However, in this scenario, we are talking about a paladin falling for committing a single action, so your scenario of it not lasting for any length of time does not apply (although I do agree with you).

The player feels he is not committing an evil act, because he gave the kobold the opportunity to redeem itself, and when it didn't, he "redeemed it by the sword" and executed his prisoner. Remember, this prisoner was detecting as evil, so by the PF rules it was either a cleric of an evil god or 5th level and has committed one or more of the following actions: slavery, murder, torture, killing of a defenseless sentient, rape, causing unnecessary harm, or genocide (The GM's definition of evil that he told to the player).

Conversely, the GM believes the paladin committed a willful/intentional evil action by murdering the defenseless sentient being who was only evil (and detects as evil, contrary to PF rules and unknown to the players) because he was raised in a cruel society and he picks on and takes advantage of those weaker than him (The GM's definition of evil that he kept from the players).

Edit: In addition, the GM also believes that a paladin is committing an evil action if he kills (or captures and executes) an evil creature (which detects as evil) if the paladin does not have evidence of the creature performing said evil actions beyond the Detect Evil spell/ability. What level of evidence is required is not known at this point, but we do know that it must be better than the local townsfolk claiming the kobolds kidnapped their children.


Malifice wrote:
2. Sweet bro....etc etc etc...

FORUM RULE: The most important rule: Don't be a jerk. We want our messageboards

to be a fun and friendly place.

Looks like you're breaking a rule here...


Iced2k wrote:

Infact not all Malifice's monsters are redeemable. Unfortunately for my Paladin Kobolds are.

Goblins are according to Malifice 'Iredeemably evil', so much so that they are a banned PC race in his campaigns.

Does this mean that your next character can be a kobold?


bookrat wrote:

Additionally, you said that the kobold detected as Evil from the Detect Evil spell. That means the kobold was either a cleric of an evil deity (with full casting capabilities)

Actually, now that I think about it, this is even more problematic.

Under pathfinder rules, you can be a neutral cleric and follow an evil deity. According to the wording of "detect evil", any cleric that worships an evil deity shows up as evil to detect evil. So if you're going around splattering everyone who shows up as detect evil, you could very well be walking around murdering neutral clerics who have done absolutely nothing wrong.


I'm playing a trump card in favor of Iced2k:

Smite is a divine power granted by his god. As a LE creature this Kobold is subject to Smite. If he had used Smite before killing the Kobold his god would grant him the Smite, but take away his powers because killing the Kobold is an action that would make him fall? That doesn't make any kind of logical sense. If your god will give you divine power to kill something you should never be punished for killing it.


Pugwampi wrote:

I'm playing a trump card in favor of Iced2k:

Smite is a divine power granted by his god. As a LE creature this Kobold is subject to Smite. If he had used Smite before killing the Kobold his god would grant him the Smite, but take away his powers because killing the Kobold is an action that would make him fall? That doesn't make any kind of logical sense. If your god will give you divine power to kill something you should never be punished for killing it.

Eh. If you follow that logic, then smite should just randomly fail sometimes because your god doesn't feel like smiting that one specific enemy today.

Pathfinder/D&D style gods aren't omnipotent; they don't know everything, their power is finite, and they are willing to lend some small portion of their power to great mortal champions of their cause, trusting them to use it well. I don't get the impression they spot-check every single cleric spell or paladin ability to make sure that it's actually advancing their cause in the mortal relm. However, if you use the power they give you in a way that they really disprove of, they tend to notice that and get pretty mad afterwards. If a druid decides to use flame strike to burn down a forest, it will work, he'll just lose his divine favor and powers afterwards.

Grand Lodge

Yosarian wrote:
bookrat wrote:
Additionally, you said that the kobold detected as Evil from the Detect Evil spell. That means the kobold was either a cleric of an evil deity (with full casting capabilities)

Actually, now that I think about it, this is even more problematic.

Under pathfinder rules, you can be a neutral cleric and follow an evil deity. According to the wording of "detect evil", any cleric that worships an evil deity shows up as evil to detect evil. So if you're going around splattering everyone who shows up as detect evil, you could very well be walking around murdering neutral clerics who have done absolutely nothing wrong.

Uh, is it just me or is that a stretch? What's a cleric's job if it isn't to "spread the faith"?

Worshiping, doing the rituals for, bringing active converts to and such, how one can be a non-evil follower of an evil god is hard to imagine. Being a cleric of one seems to be, er, WTF?

In any case, getting rid of a Cleric of an Evil god doesn't seem ever to be a bad idea from the POV of good. After all, where does the soul/spirit of a neutral cleric of an evil god expect to go?

One can only be willfully ignorant about the Temple rites for only so long

Caveat: I have NPCs who are DUPED into believing they follow "good gods" when the gods are actually evil. The clerics do radiate evil and the party killed a few before being ran out of town by the enraged townsfolk who wondered why these "filthy 8@$+@^D$" killed the "good clerics"

The clerics were truly doing good works (though they couldn't understand why they could just cast cures) and wanted to help everyone. The problem is when they sent some to pilgrimage, some just didn't return. After all willing sacrificial victims who are pure are so much more tastier

Not one of them changed alignment. Had there been a Paladin they wouldn't have lost their Paladinhood. However it did make for several great games trying to figure out just what was going on


Yosarian wrote:

[snip]

If a druid decides to use flame strike to burn down a forest, it will work, he'll just lose his divine favor and powers afterwards.

Weeeelll....

Wildfires are a natural occurrance and serve important ecosystem functions. Forest landscapes are dynamic and change in response to variations in climate and to disturbances from natural sources, such as fires caused by lightning strikes. Many tree species have evolved to take advantage of fire, and periodic burns can contribute to overall forest health. Fires typically move through burning lower branches and clearing dead wood from the forest floor which kick-starts regeneration by providing ideal growing conditions. It also improves floor habitat for many species that prefer relatively open spaces.

After a fire burns down a swath of woodland, a sequence of ecological responses, or succession, begins. Amid the charred forest remains, a flourishing of pioneer species begins, usually quick-growing grasses and weeds, followed by a steady advance of slower-growing, taller species of plants. The first trees to emerge are often small pines, followed by larger pines and finally by hardwood species, including oak and hickory. The succession process begins quickly but can take decades or even hundreds of years to move from early 'pioneer' to a 'climax' stage.

Depends on how much the nature spirits/gods know about ecological cycles I guess =D


BB36 wrote:
Yosarian wrote:
bookrat wrote:
Additionally, you said that the kobold detected as Evil from the Detect Evil spell. That means the kobold was either a cleric of an evil deity (with full casting capabilities)

Actually, now that I think about it, this is even more problematic.

Under pathfinder rules, you can be a neutral cleric and follow an evil deity. According to the wording of "detect evil", any cleric that worships an evil deity shows up as evil to detect evil. So if you're going around splattering everyone who shows up as detect evil, you could very well be walking around murdering neutral clerics who have done absolutely nothing wrong.

Uh, is it just me or is that a stretch? What's a cleric's job if it isn't to "spread the faith"?

Worshiping, doing the rituals for, bringing active converts to and such, how one can be a non-evil follower of an evil god is hard to imagine. Being a cleric of one seems to be, er, WTF?

(shrug) If you're a kobald, and the god of kobalds is lawful evil, and that's the god of your tribe and your family, you probably don't think there's anything wrong with following that god. In your day-to-day life you're probably doing the kinds of things that clerics do in any other group; healing the sick, mediating conflicts, ect. It actually makes perfect sense for a character like that to be LN in a LE society.

Anyway, I don't think paladins are really supposed to going around killing everyone that's evil. I mean, if you're walking down the street and meet a lawful evil lawyer, who's a greedy dishonest bastard, but who's never actually killed anyone or broken any laws, do you get to just kill him on the spot? (Yeah, he'd have to be a level 5 evil lawyer to radiate evil, but you get the point.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

What's the point of a Detect Evil that also picks up poor helpless victims who are just minding their own business and are actually good?

Malifice wrote:

Pity about him retiring the Paladin; I was going to have a monologing villian attempt to seduce him fully to 'the dark side'.

The penalty for refusal would have been a clear and unambiguous certain death .

Think Sidious/ Luke scenario.

** spoiler omitted **

Now thats a roleplaying opportunity right there.

Wait.

Wait, wait, wait.

If this was your intent, then what were you so upset about? If you want to tempt the paladin away to the dark side, then if the paladin commits a couple of morally questionable - and yes, executing prisoners is at worst morally questionable - acts in advance, then that sets up your scene perfectly!

Without that sort of setup - if the paladin were being played as a pure robotic hero, who never kills poor innocent evil-detecting kobolds (except in combat where he slaughters them) and just releases anyone he captures and in doing so magically fills their hearts with redemption and puppies, then a single speech by the bad guy has no chance of converting him. That's not a serious roleplay opportunity, that's an asinine waste of time.

You can't have a proper falling story if the first time the paladin even glances away from being the absolute most charitable person ever (outside of combat because in combat those kobolds spontaneously lose their sympathetic backstories and suddenly deserve death), then you can't have a story like that. It doesn't work. There's no buildup, there's no logic, there's no consistency. At no point would the paladin be in the process of falling - one instant he's good, the next he's evil. And without a process of falling, any story about falling is hollow and empty. If the paladin has been a robot up until the offer is made, then the offer is laughable, not dramatic.

But your player offered you a way out. And instead of taking it and using the opportunity to tell a good story, you tore the script in half.

If you were writing Star Wars, there would be no Darth Vader. The first time Anakin tried going after the sand people who killed his family, he would have lost his jedi powers and that would have been the end of it. Great storytelling there.

Brox RedGloves wrote:
Looks like you're breaking a rule here...

Malifice automatically loses Lawful alignment and all class features.

351 to 400 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