|
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.)
Which goes back to the real point of all of this
In a dungeon crawl where towns are stop overs to drink ale, sell the goods and find willing women (you know the finer things in life) Dungeons generally had 1 thing in them - BAD GUYS
They were always evil, hungry and they just got done eating the poor hapless farmer and his dog. No real thinking needed
But when one expands the game where PCs are to interact, not just kill the bad things and loot the treasure, far more care has to be put into the game.
If you're going to have Black and Grey morality the VERY first thing one must be determined is "Just what makes a person evil to begin with?"
The "evil lawyer", I know redundant, is pinging "EVIL" why? Uncouth, greedy, nasty, lewd, what?
If you want your evil to be banal and trite, yeah, the mean landlord is "evil"
What you get then is a watering down of the alignments where "evil=not nice" and "good=Dudley Do Right". The Paladin becomes a truly useless class as their greatest strengths become their most glaring weakness and a one way ticket to being a Fighter with no fighter feats nor abilities
Make evil EVIL dripping with vile hate and murderous rage. Make the lawyer evil not because he's a Republican but because he enjoys finding orphans for the evil cult to sacrifice, throwing old women out into the cold so he can watch them in glee freezing to death and really getting off on their last breath
That means they're EVIL and a Paladin SMITES AWAY
Another thing, Paladins are the weapon of the gods, the clerics are the redeemers. Paladins while they should go good, are the Holy Warriors, not the day care personnel for various miscreants
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.
And following that logic means it's even more absurd that the gods are watching their Paladins like hawks if they step out of line. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, you want to know a good way to get paladins to actually turn evil?
Show them that gods of Good are petty and capricious.
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.)
Overall, I'd agree on that point. Killing anyone who detects as evil wouldn't really fit with the whole idea of being Lawful Good.
However, the wrinkle comes in once you start dealing with non-Lawful Paladins. I could see them justifying the removal of the evil lawyer on the grounds of it advancing the Greater Good. LG Paladins care about things like honor and preserving public order. NG/CG Paladins don't.
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.
Ironically, if he'd killed him in combat it would have been fine. It's the whole wait till he's tied up and slit his throat bit that's the issue.
It's no so much the VALIDITY of the target... it's the METHOD. By your 'if smite works, it means its ok' philosophy... a Paladin can drug an evil target.... wait till he passes out, Sneak into his bedroom and SMITE his unconscious body to death.
Is that a good action? Maybe in the grand scheme of things... but it is NOT 'Paladin' behavior.
Really... the sticking point for ME on this bit... is they ALREADY had him tied up!! What else did they NEED to do with him??
Tie him up... leave him in the corner... rescue the kids. People keep talking like there was some grand necessity that needed dealing with here...
Keep him from warning others is about all you need to do. Whether he's dead or captured is just as good there. If Kobolds are as sneaky and cowardly as advertised... it's REALLY unlikely this little guy planned on swearing blood vengence against the village. Most likely he's counting himself the luckiest Kobold who ever lived!!
[
Overall, I'd agree on that point. Killing anyone who detects as evil wouldn't really fit with the whole idea of being Lawful Good.However, the wrinkle comes in once you start dealing with non-Lawful Paladins. I could see them justifying the removal of the evil lawyer on the grounds of it advancing the Greater Good. LG Paladins care about things like honor and preserving public order. NG/CG Paladins don't.
True, it might be breaking a law but he can't fall for breaking a law.
He only falls for evil acts.
So how many times are we going to post the definition of good alignment and ignore that it says INNOCENT life? not all life, not evil monster baby killer. INNOCENT.
Hopefully just once more ;)
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
The way I read it... they PROTECT 'innocent' life... However they RESPECT 'ALL' Life. And have a concern for the dignity of ALL sentient beings...
doesn't add 'innocent' into that second paragraph.
|
So how many times are we going to post the definition of good alignment and ignore that it says INNOCENT life? not all life, not evil monster baby killer. INNOCENT.Hopefully just once more ;)
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
The way I read it... they PROTECT 'innocent' life... However they RESPECT 'ALL' Life. And have a concern for the dignity of ALL sentient beings...
doesn't add 'innocent' into that second paragraph.
Yup, respect it but sometimes still can (and sometimes have to) end it. Putting down a threat to the innocent or killing Old Yeller can VERY much be an act of respecting life. dignity too
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a paladin acts in a chaotic enough way to change his alignment to NG or CG, he falls (loses all class skills).
True, but barring very extreme examples a single non-Lawful act isn't going to shift a Paladin's alignment, whereas a single evil act will make a Paladin fall.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another thing, Paladins are the weapon of the gods, the clerics are the redeemers. Paladins while they should go good, are the Holy Warriors, not the day care personnel for various miscreants
Personally, the "Detect Evil Smite Evil" mode of play is what "waters down" good and evil into nothing more than team jerseys. Good needs to operate differently from evil if it wants to have any right to call itself good.
Regarding this particular situation though, player could have tried any number of things. GM could have used a more subtle touch.
Not that that matters since this thread seems to have devolved into extreme camps talking past each other.
|
|
Another thing, Paladins are the weapon of the gods, the clerics are the redeemers. Paladins while they should go good, are the Holy Warriors, not the day care personnel for various miscreantsPersonally, the "Detect Evil Smite Evil" mode of play is what "waters down" good and evil into nothing more than team jerseys. Good needs to operate differently from evil if it wants to have any right to call itself good.
And would say that is a gross simplification.
I fully agree that unless you do nothing but dungeon crawls (in a post that you didn't seem to note but instead found this, took it out of the broader context it was it and ran with it) Paladins shouldn't be "Detect, Smite, Slay" machines. Though by the rules there is nothing wrong with that. It would just make for mechanical and poor RP
But in this case, it was far more about how things went down.
Regarding this particular situation though, player could have tried any number of things. GM could have used a more subtle touch.Such as?
Not that that matters since this thread seems to have devolved into extreme camps talking past each other.
It only seems that way to you
So far what we've uncovered:
The OP has a legit beef as his DM told him the Kobold pings evil which when you read DE, means the Kobold was not just evil but something more
The OP's DM has very weak rules when it comes to what evil is and how one becomes evil. I pointed this out before, if you bothered to read it, where his definition of how one becomes evil one only needs to be one or more of the following: Victims of child abuse, domestic violence and bullying
The DM's gods are fickle and capricious. Why the PC's goddess saw fit to remove the powers after just 1 act of what many others, and we're not playing fast and loose with our definitions, would consider acceptable (Good can destroy Evil in many different ways, killing is but one option - one that is understandable given the dire nature of trying to locate a bunch of kidnapped kids and one was told the Kobolds took them) to expedient but understandable is way too harsh. A better "punishment would be a dream of repentance at best
The OP's DM has definite double standards that seems to have Good having to be perfect and make the correct decisions in the time frame where dozens have battled about it for days.
Perhaps you're the one who is not actually reading what the "other side" has posted
|
|
Nope, whn I asked you why the Kobold was evil, you posted:The OP's DM has very weak rules when it comes to what evil is and how one becomes evil.No, I go via the CRB.
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).
Which is not CRB
But I say that means that these people are all evil in yuor world as well:
Abused Children
Victims or Domestic Violence
Picked on kids at school
Your alignments make no sense.
Of course Evil doesn't ahve to be raving loonies and most psychopaths ARE NOT murderers. Ruining lives and getting off on that, having people thrown out of their dwellings knowing full well that is a death sentence not for any reason other than you can or personal gain is evil
I'm going to ask you to at least be honest and verify what I stated and how I state it as I painfully do with you
Not all evil people are psychopthic mass murderers. In fact most evil people are just complete bastards who gont give a toss about the suffering of others (and far more often than not contribute to it in some way).Yup, what I said above but the "contribution" is not a passing thing but active participation without guilt
A child molester, a perpetrator of domestic violence, a bully who beats those weaker than him for sport, profit or pleasure, a rapist; basically anyone who is a total and utter bastard falls within 'Evil'.
All but the last part. Being a "bastard" is not enough. The reason and why they do it is important.
A guy who gets drunk and picks fights and loses more than he wins is a drunk bastard but not evil.
Doing such evil acts once does result in an alignment change. Indeed many N characters do the above actions. But repeated cases would lead to an Evil alignment change.
Bovine Scat. Once is not enough. It can be really bad, but it is not enough. Aorry to rain on your parade.
I guess then in your world one good deed can turn you good as well? I doubt it, or at least I hope the hell not
Of course should a Paladin willingly do one of the above even once, he falls.Rape, child molestation cold blooded murder (of which a captured prisoner who you already said was evil isn't murder, sometimes justice calls for the death of the perp)
I pointed this out before, if you bothered to read it, where his definition of how one becomes evil one only needs to be one or more of the following: Victims of child abuse, domestic violence and bullyingOnly if as a result of child abuse, domestic violence and bullying they themselves become child abusers, perpetrators of domestic violence and bullies.
Many will obviously rise above it. Some will even go on to become Paladins themselves, seeking to help victims of such evil, and bring the perpetrators to justice.
Yes but "justice"? Justice where? The Paladin is far more than able to determine guilt and mete out justice.
Name someone better in the quasi-medieval/Iron Age world of Pathfinder
Without straying from the path of goodness, honor, charity and mercy.Show me where it says that in the Pathfinder write up. The first things it says is "sword to evil"
Compare the above to the Punisher (who is clearly LE). He kills evil people without mercy, remorse or compassion - clearly he seeks to do a greater good by only killing 'bad guys', but his actions themselves are evil.
Killing "bad guys" withot mercy is not a good trait, but it is not evil in the world of Pathfinder.
It may be so in yours but yours is clearly messed up.
In your world, not everywhere but you do make Paladins unplayable. Oh, I have no doubt people played watered down shells of characters called Paladins, but not Paladins, Social Workers is the real name
The first trick of playing a Paladin is to understand the ends never justify the means.
But the Paladin did nothing that was evil. He meted out justice to a being you said was evil.The DM's gods are fickle and capricious. Why the PC's goddess saw fit to remove the powers after just 1 actThems the rules mate. One single act of willfull evil for a Paladin (no matter how he justifies it to himself), and he falls.
Thats part of...
Them's the rules but I'll tell you to your face, your interpretations leave much to be desired.
You stated you've had many players play Paladins over the years. I wonder how many times you've glossed over how many times you screw them over
|
|
What you get then is a watering down of the alignments where "evil=not nice" and "good=Dudley Do Right". The Paladin becomes a truly useless class as their greatest strengths become their most glaring weakness and a one way ticket to being a Fighter with no fighter feats nor abilities
Make evil EVIL dripping with vile hate and murderous rage. Make the lawyer evil not because he's a Republican but because he enjoys finding orphans for the evil cult to sacrifice, throwing old women out into the cold so he can watch them in glee freezing to death and really getting off on their last breath
In a grey and grey morality world, Paladins really should be no more than fighters or inquisitors on special assignment. I'd never ever try to put a Paladin class on say a Warhammer world, or a Shadowrun world. Eberron is one of those places where being a Paladin is just borderline viable for this reason.
If you're going to allow Paladins and their opposites in your world, than you can't run away from considering the place of Good and Evil, and secondarily, Law and Chaos. You certainly can not retreat behind the copout of moral relativity. Your campaign has to draw lines in the sand.
What is really also an issue is where and how do the Paladins get their powers?
Are the "gods" granting those powers? Are there 4 or 5 alignments (G, E, L, C, or G, E, L, C and TN?) and they are separate and distinct concepts which someone are able to channel powers to those of a like "mindset"? Or do the Paladins manifest it from within?
If the gods give paladins their powers, do they watch the Paladin 24/7? If they do, is the Paladin more likely to get a DI (after all if the gods are all up in the Paladin's business, wouldn't they want to save/help/assist the Pally even more) or are they only there to punish?
Even deeper is the concept of are the gods and goddesses fallible or infallible? Do their words shape the very concepts of the Alignments, are they slaves to the alignment or as with players, outside and can "fall/ascend"?
Wouldn't the depth of what a Paladin does truly be covered by their ability to think and reason? As Int and Wis are really dump stats now, wouldn't an Int 10/Wis 10 Paladin see a lot fewer choices than an Int 16/Wis 16 one? Or is the player of either supposed to meta-game themselves out of it? Isn't RP playing the character not the same way over and over again, using player knowledge instead of what's on the paper the character is?
There is so much more I don't think a lot of DMs go over.
The OP's DM has very weak rules when it comes to what evil is and how one becomes evil.No, I go via the CRB.
I asked you on Page 8, here.
Where, specifically, did you get your definitions of evil in the CRB? I can't find what you've posted in Chapter 7. If you used something beyond the CRB, like Pathfinder Wiki or pfsrd, that's fine, and I'd like you to post the location you got your information.
But I don't see where you got this (what you told to the players):
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 this (what you didn't tell the players):
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).you did say the Kobold was evil. How did it get that way?
from the CRB.
I've looked at Chapter 7, where the alignments are talked about, and nowhere does it state that being raised in a cruel society causes one to be evil. It does not state that a lack of empathy is evil. I do not understand how an inability to understand other's feelings is in and of itself "evil" (sorry psychopaths, even if you've never done anything wrong in your life, you are automatically evil because you lack the ability to feel emotions and empathy). Flocking to the biggest baddest dude isn't evil at all. Picking on others and taking advantage of others, while certainly not good, is not necessarily evil.
I can see slavery, murder, torture, rape, genocide to all be absolutely evil, and goes along with the CRB's "evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others" clause.
Killing a defenseless sentient isn't necessarily evil. Sentience, as I've always known it, is the ability to feel, perceive, and have subjective experiences. Many animals have this, so that means hunting for food (depending on the animal) would be an evil act in your world. Perhaps you confused it with sapience? This clause also means that execution for crimes committed is an evil act in your world.
Causing unnecessary harm has a wide range of basis. Intentionally causing necessary harm would be something I agree is evil, but unintentional actions may not be evil.
Intentionally causing necessary harm would be something I agree is evil
Oops. I meant intentionally causing unnecessary harm...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's complete the whole quote:But I say that means that these people are all evil in your world as well:
Abused Children
Victims or Domestic Violence
Picked on kids at schoolYour alignments make no sense.
Youve utterly missed the point.
Of course Evil doesn't ahve to be raving loonies and most psychopaths ARE NOT murderers. Ruining lives and getting off on that, h is evilAnd to you, these people deserve to be butchered without mercy, even if they surrender, when doing so is convenient for the Paladin.
Of course Evil doesn't ahve to be raving loonies and most psychopaths ARE NOT murderers. Ruining lives and getting off on that, having people thrown out of their dwellings knowing full well that is a death sentence not for any reason other than you can or personal gain is evil
STOP QUOTE MINING
Show everything I stated, anything less is dishonest
But speaking of dishonesty on your part again, did I say "butcher or kill quickly? Did the OP's Paladin torture the Kobold? If so how? Did I ever state that torture is acceptable? You've dug a deep hole, hit rock bottom and are now using blasting caps to go deeper
I stated that sometimes, death is an appropiate sentence to be carried out even in today's world for evil doers. I said nothing about torture
Thats not 'good'And killing a captured evil being isn't evil either.
And the rest of your post is either wrong or covers points already rasied and answered.
Nope to both. It is not wrong and it was dismissed by you. Please learn the difference
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People justifying genocide as good. lol.
Just when I thought you couldn't sink lower you did
An Ad Hom to fire back when nobody who was a major contributor, I, bookrat, and the other major contributors to this thread on "the other side" never said genocide is okay. Seems your strategy then is to lump those who showed your excuse to be wanting as saying that is okay as to feel superior
Here's a hint: You're not
Checkmate
Execution is an evil act
So does your world have the most ridiculously extensive and well-manned and humane prison system in existence with incredibly elaborate infrastructure despite the medieval setting?
Executing is evil when there exists an extensive prison system with a competent police force etc etc etc. That's true of our modern world; that's not generally true in Pathfinder. So unless you've massively overhauled the entire structure of the setting, the only options are "Be evil" or "don't punish criminals" - because you're asserting that the only non-evil manner of punishment is to use a prison system that doesn't exist in the game world.
This may seem alien to you as you probably come from a society personally that views capital punishment as 'righteous' or 'good' (the USA springs to mind).
The rest of the developed world has outlawed the practice because it is seen as a cruel and unusual punishment, unneeded, unecessary and counterproductive.
While we're on the subject of the more civilized world, England wants to know why your cops are running around shooting people. Get off your high horse.
Where Malafice comes from capital punishment was only outlawed in 2010.
Although to be fair it hasn't been used in a while.
As long ofcourse as you're not on a boat trying to get into the country. Then you're in trouble.
Hulk Hogan - LG
Chris Benoit - CE
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I asked you on Page 8, here.Ive posted the passage already. As have others. Look to Chapter 7 in good vs evil.
Did you not see how I quoted directly from CRB to show that you didn't use the CRB as written, but instead ADDED ON TO what was written in the CRB?
Clearly explained to my players.
It was not clear to your players, or this entire issue wouldn't be an issue at all. And you've explicitly given the players one set of rules while using another set of rules behind the screen.
You are setting your players up for failure, and you are absolutely not correct when you say you explained it clearly.
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.
Notice the second half of that sentence? The part connected with AND? While some evil creatures have no empathy, not all creatures that have no empathy are evil, contrary to what you are claiming. The CRB says some creatures have no empathy AND kill without qualms if doing so is convenient.
The CRB does not state that ALL creatures that have no empathy are evil, which you have erroneously extrapolated from the rules.
And it was unecessary to slay the Kobold.
My correction was to keep in line with your own words. The Paladin obviously believed that it was not unnecessary. The player thought it was necessary to redeem the EVIL (read: 5th level who has committed all those evil actions you listed to the players OR a cleric to an evil deity) kobold. I state that the kobold was EVIL because you have yet to directly admit that you erroneously gave the player wrong information. I don't know why you cannot admit error in any aspect whatsoever, but you have shown a great resistance to it, despite my and others using your own words to show your own contradictions.
Convenient perhaps (in the Paladins own words - 'Once I made a threat I have to carry it out'), but unecessary.
Wow. So keeping one's own word (which is generally thought of as honorable) is simply a convenience in your world?
People justifying genocide as good. lol.
Who's talking genocide? Genocide = mass extermination of an entire race. We're talking about eliminating a group of EVIL kobolds who the players have reason to believe are kidnappers and have done other EVIL things, like murders, rapes, tortures, etc, because they DETECTED AS EVIL and were going by Detect Evil as defined in the CRB and not by your hidden, secret version that you kept from the players.
It's rather annoying that you keep changing your emphasis on specific lines in the CRB for one argument, and then use a different emphasis with the same rules to prove a different point, while ignoring the non-emphasized parts that would prove you wrong. It's also annoying that you only focus on parts of my and other's comments that you can easily "counter" while ignoring the parts that would show your own counter to be wrong; you know, QUOTE MINING, something which is generally considered unacceptable debate behavior. Why are you not trying to look at this honestly and openly in order to figure out the best way to go about finding a solution? Why are you not giving other people a fair evaluation? Why can you not admit when you are in error? This isn't a court of law; admitting error won't cause you to lose the case. You can be wrong on one thing and right on others without your entire argument crumbling to the ground. Your own comments throughout the thread have contradicted themselves and you have consistently misrepresented other's comments and thoughts to make them as worse as possible; i.e. "genocide = good" comment. No one is saying that genocide is good, and you know that.
Execution is an evil act
From CRB:
Through a select, worthy few shines the power of the divine.
Called paladins, these noble souls dedicate their swords and
lives to the battle against evil. Knights, crusaders, and lawbringers,
paladins seek not just to spread divine justice but
to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve.
In pursuit of their lofty goals, they adhere to ironclad laws of
morality and discipline. As reward for their righteousness,
these holy champions are blessed with boons to aid them
in their quests: powers to banish evil, heal the innocent,
and inspire the faithful. Although their convictions might
lead them into conf lict with the very souls they would
save, paladins weather endless challenges of faith and dark
temptations, risking their lives to do right and fighting to
bring about a brighter future.
Role: Paladins serve as beacons for their allies within
the chaos of battle. While deadly opponents of evil, they
can also empower goodly souls to aid in their crusades.
Their magic and martial skills also make them well
suited to defending others and blessing the fallen with the
strength to continue fighting.
Why is executing a prisoner evil, yet executing that same individual outside of prison not evil? Why do paladins use swords (weapons of death) to fight evil? Why are paladins called deadly opponents of evil if they're not supposed to be killing and causing death in the name of good? If paladins are not supposed to kill and execute evil, why do they not use a mancatcher or a net, or are assigned merciful weapons straight from the get go?
There are flourishing democracies, near total sufferage of women (and equal rights) and so on, which are all very modern ethical considerations.
Greece would like a word with you.
As for England's capitol punishment, wiki says it was outlawed in 1998, so iced2k is incorrect. It would be nice of you to provide evidence that he was wrong, rather than just saying "nope" and acting like a general jerk.
Bookrat, there is so much wrong with your post I dont even know where to start.
I fear you are just arguing for the sake of it and intentionally being obtuse.
But best of luck to you anyways. In my campaigns (and IRL) I have a clear definition and concept of what actions constitute 'evil', and this is explained to the players in no uncertain terms.
Killing a helpless, unarmed sentient guard (even an evil aligned one) who poses you no direct threat, is evil in my world.
Always will be, always has been.
Feel free to disagree, and have your Paladins hack to death without mercy or quarter anyone 'evil' (such as many of the residents of Falcons Hollow and Cheliax), but I'll run my campaign differently.
Enjoy.
So once again you ignore my posts on page 8 that showed you were in error with cheliax and falcon's hollow? There's no way the paladin would be able to tell that the majority of people in those areas were EVIL because they would not be powerful enough to detect as evil, UNLESS you are changing the rules from the CRB w/o telling your players.
Unless all farmers, bartenders, shop owners, housewives, children, guards, fishermen, cooks, assistants, scribes, and more, ALL of them were ALL above 5th level WHILE maintaining an evil alignment, which has been described BY YOU as performing the following actions: murder, torture, rape, genocide, etc.. If they're evil for being bastards, then you are screwing your players over, because that was not told to them when you were defining evil.
Malafice is certainly not from England. One of it's experiments in penal colonisation sure. Wikipedia supports me that it Capital Punishment was banned in his country in 2010, although specific states and territories had done away with it specifically before hand.
Im Australian.
Mea cupla.
I figured you weren't from there, because I assumed you were right in that capital punishment wasn't outlawed in 2010. But in Australia, it was.
In 2010 federal legislation prohibited capital punishment in all Australian states and territories.
In 2010 federal legislation prohibited capital punishment in all Australian states and territories.Thats Federal legislation prohibiting the States from legislating for its return (and probably consitutionally challengable, but thats a differnt story!).
It was outlawed/ abolished in our various States (and Federally in 1973) much earlier than that.
NSW was the last State to formally abolish the death penalty via legislation, and it did so officially in 1985 (although no death sentences were carried out for decades prior).
If you read the wiki article it contains more detail.
Why does it give the abolition date for WA as 1984?
FWIW, your mob (the British) didnt abolish the death penalty till 1998.
The guy that shagged Princes Diana commited a Capital offence (Treason) when he slept with her (at British Law sleeping with the Royal consort is a Capital offence for all but the King to protect the bloodline).
There were (muted) calls for his execution!
She was also comitting a Capital offence herself by the way.
Good old death penalty. The sooner we see the back of it the better.
At the top of your browser are tabs. Press Ctrl-T then open your email and respond to the email I sent you...
|
|
FWIW, your mob (the British) didnt abolish the death penalty till 1998.
The guy that shagged Princes Diana commited a Capital offence (Treason) when he slept with her (at British Law sleeping with the Royal consort is a Capital offence for all but the King to protect the bloodline).
There were (muted) calls for his execution!
She was also comitting a Capital offence herself by the way.
Send in the Paladins; no mercy, no surrender!
Good old death penalty. The sooner we see the back of it the better.
So the death penalty is evil? What about those that argue long term imprisonment is torture? You party to torture are you? or in your world does the hero just be all my little pony and make it cry and become friends in the end? Paladins kill threats to the innocent rather than see the innocent suffer to give a fools mercy to evil