Dealing with a paladin killing prisoners in game.


Advice

351 to 400 of 867 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

Lincoln Hills wrote:
Guys! Call a truce, will you? Facetious comments, assigning false and absurd positions to the other side, and acting patronizing are effective tools in public rhetoric: but as actual persuasive argument they fail. Both sides are emotionally invested in their opinion and willing to back up their position with text quotation: at this point there is no magical combination of humorous or sarcastic words that will cause your adversary to say, "Oh! I was entirely mistaken and I now agree with you." Just shake your heads and be glad you're at different tables, eh?

Totally agree with you, the posts have just been running around in circles for the last 4 or 5 pages. No one is going to change their minds based on anything the other side has to say.


Lincoln Hills wrote:
Guys! Call a truce, will you? Facetious comments, assigning false and absurd positions to the other side, and acting patronizing are effective tools in public rhetoric: but as actual persuasive argument they fail. Both sides are emotionally invested in their opinion and willing to back up their position with text quotation: at this point there is no magical combination of humorous or sarcastic words that will cause your adversary to say, "Oh! I was entirely mistaken and I now agree with you." Just shake your heads and be glad you're at different tables, eh?

NOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! I will impose my ironwill on all of Golarion!!!!!!! WARBLEGARBAL!!!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:
Lincoln Hills wrote:
Guys! Call a truce, will you? Facetious comments, assigning false and absurd positions to the other side, and acting patronizing are effective tools in public rhetoric: but as actual persuasive argument they fail. Both sides are emotionally invested in their opinion and willing to back up their position with text quotation: at this point there is no magical combination of humorous or sarcastic words that will cause your adversary to say, "Oh! I was entirely mistaken and I now agree with you." Just shake your heads and be glad you're at different tables, eh?
NOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! I will impose my ironwill on all of Golarion!!!!!!! WARBLEGARBAL!!!

Joking or not, I won't back down on my stance that the paladin player did nothing wrong, and that too many people try and make a paladin fall for anything.


master_marshmallow wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Lincoln Hills wrote:
Guys! Call a truce, will you? Facetious comments, assigning false and absurd positions to the other side, and acting patronizing are effective tools in public rhetoric: but as actual persuasive argument they fail. Both sides are emotionally invested in their opinion and willing to back up their position with text quotation: at this point there is no magical combination of humorous or sarcastic words that will cause your adversary to say, "Oh! I was entirely mistaken and I now agree with you." Just shake your heads and be glad you're at different tables, eh?
NOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! I will impose my ironwill on all of Golarion!!!!!!! WARBLEGARBAL!!!
Joking or not, I won't back down on my stance that the paladin player did nothing wrong, and that too many people try and make a paladin fall for anything.

I agree with your position, and understand you sentiment. At a certain point though, it is no longer within our interest to proceed further with this argument. I think both sides have realized that we come from fundamentally and perhaps even diametrically opposed views. I think we can all agree that we are unlikely to change anyone's view here, and to try further is a waste.


Claxon wrote:
I agree with your position, and understand you sentiment. At a certain point though, it is no longer within our interest to proceed further with this argument. I think both sides have realized that we come from fundamentally and perhaps even diametrically opposed views. I think we can all agree that we are unlikely to change anyone's view here, and to try further is a waste.

I wholehearted agree with your sentiments, but I am still baffled as to why it's only the Paladin. As I've said before, Clerics, Druids, Inquisitors, Cavaliers, Samurai, and Rangers all have a similar code. Why do we never see a Druid used summoned animal to trigger traps, should they fall? thread?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The 8th Dwarf wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:

I find it a bit scary how forceful some people are with "I know how CNN plays better than you, therefore you are metagaming." just cause he's CNN, he can't care that killing defenseless prisoners is morally creepy?

That's dumb. Even Jack Sparrow showed occasional mercy and empathy.

Im am not trying to be an arsehat, just a smart arse but:-b

If CNN is Chaotic neautral, assume Fox is pure evil, BBC is Lawful neutral, and NBC is chaotic good?

Chaotic Neutral Ninja, that's what opinion is, no?

Since when can't a cn character care about killing defenseless creatures, if anything, wouldn't he stand for their right to freedom or at least a chance unless these directly harmed pc's before?


Jodokai wrote:
Claxon wrote:
I agree with your position, and understand you sentiment. At a certain point though, it is no longer within our interest to proceed further with this argument. I think both sides have realized that we come from fundamentally and perhaps even diametrically opposed views. I think we can all agree that we are unlikely to change anyone's view here, and to try further is a waste.
I wholehearted agree with your sentiments, but I am still baffled as to why it's only the Paladin. As I've said before, Clerics, Druids, Inquisitors, Cavaliers, Samurai, and Rangers all have a similar code. Why do we never see a Druid used summoned animal to trigger traps, should they fall? thread?

All paladin alignment threads are simply alignment threads in general tbh. Paladins are the example for the same reason that people strawman arguments together, because it's the extreme. All discussions about alignment eventually compare whatever scenario you are in to what would happen to a paladin, because ultimately that is where the line gets drawn for everybody.


My stance has been that the Paladin's player did it wrong, and never said anything about a "Fallen" Paladin. My opinion is that a "Fallen" Paladin is one who has stepped too far off his path of righteousness. One step off is easily corrected in the next, but a mile into the darker woods is a little different.

I straw man'ed the people who said "perfectly acceptable action" because it wasn't acceptable, nor hardly perfect. They went far to left, I had to bring it far to the right.

That and it was fun. :3

master marshmallow wrote:
All discussions about alignment eventually compare whatever scenario you are in to what would happen to a paladin

I can disagree with this, but only in so far as most alignments not about CN end up that way. CN alignment discussions usually circle around "They can care about anything they want." to "They care about nothing but themselves."


Jodokai wrote:
Claxon wrote:
I agree with your position, and understand you sentiment. At a certain point though, it is no longer within our interest to proceed further with this argument. I think both sides have realized that we come from fundamentally and perhaps even diametrically opposed views. I think we can all agree that we are unlikely to change anyone's view here, and to try further is a waste.
I wholehearted agree with your sentiments, but I am still baffled as to why it's only the Paladin. As I've said before, Clerics, Druids, Inquisitors, Cavaliers, Samurai, and Rangers all have a similar code. Why do we never see a Druid used summoned animal to trigger traps, should they fall? thread?

I had a evil druid that would do stuff like that..use his druidness to lure animals to him then kill them to make hunting easier and use them to find traps and stuff like that.

And yes I know that has nothing to do with the thread, just felt like saying it.

I dont want to contribute.


Actually I will. What is it when the Paladin decides to show mercy to said evil critters(assuming they are detecting as evil)and lets them go. Then they regain their health and kill innocents and destroy the lives of good people? It's called foresight when you stop it before it can happen.

Just my opinion.


YOUR LOGIC IS NO GOOD HERE LINCOLN!!!!!

Liberty's Edge

FireCrow wrote:

Actually I will. What is it when the Paladin decides to show mercy to said evil critters(assuming they are detecting as evil)and lets them go. Then they regain their health and kill innocents and destroy the lives of good people? It's called foresight when you stop it before it can happen.

Just my opinion.

Agreed, but foresight for a Lawful person should be strengthened by either long-standing traditions or more concrete things than a Paladin's gut feelings.

Which is why, IMO, pinging evil is not enough to warrant death at the Paladin's hands.

Note also that there is a very strong point for Paladins on HOW they go about dispensing justice. After all, even if an evil act makes the Paladin falls, so does acting without honor.

Say that a Paladin determines that he should kill a creature. If he does it on the spot with no sign of respect for life and the forms of judgment and execution, ie something like a knee-jerk kill reaction, then IMO he is not acting with honor. YMMV obviously.

In a way, I see an extremely bad-ass Paladin as Judge Dredd (at least in the Stallone movie). He WILL kill all his enemies, but he will do it in perfect conformity to the Law he has sworn to uphold. For example, he states the charges against his opponents and loudly tells them of their sentence before carrying it out.


FireCrow wrote:

Actually I will. What is it when the Paladin decides to show mercy to said evil critters(assuming they are detecting as evil)and lets them go. Then they regain their health and kill innocents and destroy the lives of good people? It's called foresight when you stop it before it can happen.

Just my opinion.

Pretty sure this is straw man in the other direction.


The black raven wrote:
FireCrow wrote:

Actually I will. What is it when the Paladin decides to show mercy to said evil critters(assuming they are detecting as evil)and lets them go. Then they regain their health and kill innocents and destroy the lives of good people? It's called foresight when you stop it before it can happen.

Just my opinion.

Agreed, but foresight for a Lawful person should be strengthened by either long-standing traditions or more concrete things than a Paladin's gut feelings.

Which is why, IMO, pinging evil is not enough to warrant death at the Paladin's hands.

Note also that there is a very strong point for Paladins on HOW they go about dispensing justice. After all, even if an evil act makes the Paladin falls, so does acting without honor.

Say that a Paladin determines that he should kill a creature. If he does it on the spot with no sign of respect for life and the forms of judgment and execution, ie something like a knee-jerk kill reaction, then IMO he is not acting with honor. YMMV obviously.

In a way, I see an extremely bad-ass Paladin as Judge Dredd (at least in the Stallone movie). He WILL kill all his enemies, but he will do it in perfect conformity to the Law he has sworn to uphold. For example, he states the charges against his opponents and loudly tells them of their sentence before carrying it out.

Very well spoken. Honestly I object to the idea of killing just because something shows up as evil. I just felt like putting that out there. I can be hard to play that class sometimes, but it's totally worth it. I find it fun to try to find a middle point between fighting evil and upholding the code.

It's actually why my paladin, Gabrial Kain, refused to kill a couple wood elves he and two barbarians were fighting.

That and I've always argued that killing evil because it is evil is a really poor argument. And I've had another paladin go against one of his own order for killing an npc because she pinged evil.


Kyaaadaa wrote:
FireCrow wrote:

Actually I will. What is it when the Paladin decides to show mercy to said evil critters(assuming they are detecting as evil)and lets them go. Then they regain their health and kill innocents and destroy the lives of good people? It's called foresight when you stop it before it can happen.

Just my opinion.

Pretty sure this is straw man in the other direction.

Probably.


Another interesting point is that a good majority of Drow and Morlock evil-doing ends up being toward their own kind, or the other nasty races of the Underdark. PC's usually default evil races actions to "they were born to kill the good surface races thus that's all they ever do." Hate to say it, but a good percentage of the time, the great evil befalling humanity is from humanity, even in Pathfinder, and the sub-races have suffered quite a bit at those hands. A ruthless tyrant razing Drow war parties and a Paladin smiting evil probably gets looked at exactly the same in the eyes of the Drow.


Kyaaadaa wrote:
Another interesting point is that a good majority of Drow and Morlock evil-doing ends up being toward their own kind, or the other nasty races of the Underdark. PC's usually default evil races actions to "they were born to kill the good surface races thus that's all they ever do." Hate to say it, but a good percentage of the time, the great evil befalling humanity is from humanity, even in Pathfinder, and the sub-races have suffered quite a bit at those hands. A ruthless tyrant razing Drow war parties and a Paladin smiting evil probably gets looked at exactly the same in the eyes of the Drow.

That too is a good point. I love one of my drow characters, a good guy who considers Pelor(from 3.5 god of healing and the sun) to be an evil god and thinks his worshippers are misguided fools.


The black raven wrote:
In a way, I see an extremely bad-ass Paladin as Judge Dredd (at least in the Stallone movie). He WILL kill all his enemies, but he will do it in perfect conformity to the Law he has sworn to uphold. For example, he states the charges against his opponents and loudly tells them of their sentence before carrying it out.

Damn, now I want to go play a Paladin... This would be sweet roleplaying.


Fkin Pelorians... I have a cleric of Pelor and a Paladin of Pelor in a 3.5 game atm. I play an ancestral worshipping Evoker (think Dunmer from Morrowind, summons undead, but hates necromancers, and loves to play with fire) who thinks the trouble we get into is almost always the Pelorians' fault. Which is funny, because it usually is. They cannot leave well enough alone (honor and healing and cleansing and all that), and tend to get us into scraps that could have been avoided. Its good exp though, building an Ultimate Magus with it.


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

I straw man'ed the people who said "perfectly acceptable action" because it wasn't acceptable, nor hardly perfect. They went far to left, I had to bring it far to the right.

That and it was fun. :3

The general problem I have with a lot of people arguing against the "kill the prisoners"-type option being acceptable is (in this thread, as well as the deluge of other paladin alignment thread that plague this forum), as Kobold Cleaver pointed out, they use straw men rather than proposing a valid course of action that is both incorporate's a paladins ability to make logical conclusions (releasing evil willy-nilly is bad), and also stays in keeping with their deity's creed (ex: for Torag/Sarenrae, killing evil/unrepentant evil is not just acceptable, but expected) and personal beliefs.

Options, remembering that if these creatures are pinging as evil, they are either steeped in evil, or potent creatures in the service of evil, and while Detect Evil is not the be-all and end-all, it is a pretty darn good basis for further conclusions:
1 - Execute the prisoners <- viable depending on your god, personal beliefs, and the potential for repentance. The paladin has to weigh the snuffing out of a life with the fact that he may be preventing the creature from taking someone else's life in the future.
2 - Heal them, give them weapons, and then fight them honorably <- this is a bit cruel if they don't really have a chance to win in a fight with the paladin
3 - Leave them to starve to death <- execution would be more merciful
4 - Release them into the world to do more evil (if they are unrepentant) <- as a paladin, aren't you supposed to be stopping evil when possible? Also, how easy/hard it is to convince the paladin that repentance is possible can vary to a great degree.
5 - Determine that they intend to repent and release them, trusting they will do good <- mileage may vary depending on deity and personal creed, this could be interpreted as a no-no for Torag, and a big yes for Sarenrae or Shelyn
6 - Take them prisoner and take them with you <- until what? You find a town to dump them in, one that likely has fewer compunctions about killing evil creatures than you? Until they turn good, an outcome that you may or may not believe will ever happen? For some paladins this is the best course of action, but not all paladins have to be redeemers, some paladins can be simply soldiers for good.

As I see it, there aren't really any perfect sparkly wondrous options that works for every paladin. Depending on the deity, the preferred options can change. Sarenrae is big on redemption (5 & 6), but if as her agent you don't believe redemption is possible, killing is the required course of action (1). Torag believes Sarenrae is too soft (more in favor of 1). Shelyn would be far more merciful than either, as she believes killing should be avoided whenever possible (strong aversion to 1).

On top of all this, regardless of the deity component, there is a range of perfectly valid approaches to being a paladin. You can mercilessly hunt down evil wherever it lurks, or you can believe all creatures are capable of redemption and try to save everyone, or anything in between. Neither of these is objectively wrong. A player or group may lean towards one interpretation over the other, but that doesn't mean the other interpretation is intrinsically wrong (except for that particular player or group).

For clarification, I am not saying executing the prisoners is the only valid option. I am not saying that in all cases it is the best option. I am not even saying that if I were playing a paladin, I would chose that option. I lean towards playing more of a redeemer myself, believe it or not. My last paladin basically believed in "love conquers all", and tried to spread love to all his enemies with varying degrees of success, and would avoid killing whenever possible. But depending on the type of paladin, and his personal and religious beliefs, execution can be the best option. Likely, for a paladin of Torag who takes the extermination of evil seriously, option 1 is the best option, and 4-6 would not be considered valid options.

People seem to want the paladin code of conduct to be black-and-white. If you are a paladin, you can do X, but can't do Y. But that is not the case. There is a full spectrum of paladins out there, all capable of having different interpretations of where to draw the line, and what their duty is. From any individual paladin's perspective, things may be black-and-white, but looking at the big picture, there are a lot of shades of gray in the paladin code.

Rambling post over . . .

tldr: frustration with straw men in lieu of constructive arguments in the various paladin threads, lots of different perfectly valid types of paladins, the best option for any given scenario can change greatly depending on the paladin's personal beliefs and his deity's tenets

Lantern Lodge

The black raven wrote:
FireCrow wrote:

Actually I will. What is it when the Paladin decides to show mercy to said evil critters(assuming they are detecting as evil)and lets them go. Then they regain their health and kill innocents and destroy the lives of good people? It's called foresight when you stop it before it can happen.

Just my opinion.

Agreed, but foresight for a Lawful person should be strengthened by either long-standing traditions or more concrete things than a Paladin's gut feelings.

Which is why, IMO, pinging evil is not enough to warrant death at the Paladin's hands.

Note also that there is a very strong point for Paladins on HOW they go about dispensing justice. After all, even if an evil act makes the Paladin falls, so does acting without honor.

Say that a Paladin determines that he should kill a creature. If he does it on the spot with no sign of respect for life and the forms of judgment and execution, ie something like a knee-jerk kill reaction, then IMO he is not acting with honor. YMMV obviously.

In a way, I see an extremely bad-ass Paladin as Judge Dredd (at least in the Stallone movie). He WILL kill all his enemies, but he will do it in perfect conformity to the Law he has sworn to uphold. For example, he states the charges against his opponents and loudly tells them of their sentence before carrying it out.

I have one problem with your statement, you assume a lawful person cares about the law. Lawful should rather be named dedicated, as a lawful person is dedicated to following their own beliefs and morals, which could be absolutely following the laws of the land or it could be following the tenants of a lersonal code of honor which can differ between individuals. Look up bushido, and samurai had varying codes. I would consider samurai to be real lifes paladins only without the magic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
FireCrow wrote:

Actually I will. What is it when the Paladin decides to show mercy to said evil critters(assuming they are detecting as evil)and lets them go. Then they regain their health and kill innocents and destroy the lives of good people? It's called foresight when you stop it before it can happen.

Just my opinion.

That is not your responsibility as a paladin unless you had some insight such as information that they were going to do that. You can't go around killing everyone who is evil to make sure they never commit acts of evil.

What happens if you take a criminal to jail and he is found not guilty then ends up killing people after he gets out? Are you responsible for his actions? No you are not. You are still a mortal being, you don't posses the power of foresight to where you know whats going to happen. Your part in situations do come to end at some point so you can't be held responsible for what someone may do.

You can't kill someone bcause of a maybe.


Scaevola77 wrote:
As I see it, there aren't really any perfect sparkly wondrous options that works for every paladin.

Truth.

Scaevola77 wrote:
For clarification, I am not saying executing the prisoners is the only valid option.

And I never said it wasn't a valid option, but there are ways to kill honorably.

From Gladiator, Maximus Decimus Meridius wrote:
"At least give me an honorable death. A soldier's death."

Death by elemental shredding is decidedly... not.

DarkLightHitomi wrote:
I have one problem with your statement, you assume a lawful person cares about the law.

While its true that a lawful person might put more stock in his own code than that of the law of the land, a Lawful person isn't going to look at a guard who's accusing them of breaking the law and say "Screw your laws, I have my own, thank you." A Lawful person would, at a minimum, attempt to obey the laws of the land their in.

DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Look up bushido, and samurai had varying codes.

True, but almost all of them tried to adhere to the laws of the Daimyo or Shogunate (at least until the Restoration) and lots of samurai followed their clans' code.


Scaevola77 wrote:
The general problem I have with a lot of people arguing against the "kill the prisoners"-type option being acceptable is, as Kobold Cleaver pointed out, they use straw men rather than proposing a valid course of action that is both incorporate's a paladins ability to make logical conclusions (releasing evil willy-nilly is bad), and also stays in keeping with their deity's creed (ex: for Torag/Sarenrae, killing evil/unrepentant evil is not just acceptable, but expected) and personal beliefs.

Just leaving the morlock in the cell is probably the best choice. The paladin is certainly not obliged to rescue evil monsters, and he was not responsible for its imprisonment in the first place. The creature might starve, but probably won't - other wandering monsters (friendly or not) could easily find it first. So the morlock has a chance of surviving, if its lucky.


Flightarrow wrote:
FireCrow wrote:

Actually I will. What is it when the Paladin decides to show mercy to said evil critters(assuming they are detecting as evil)and lets them go. Then they regain their health and kill innocents and destroy the lives of good people? It's called foresight when you stop it before it can happen.

Just my opinion.

That is not your responsibility as a paladin unless you had some insight such as information that they were going to do that. You can't go around killing everyone who is evil to make sure they never commit acts of evil.

What happens if you take a criminal to jail and he is found not guilty then ends up killing people after he gets out? Are you responsible for his actions? No you are not. You are still a mortal being, you don't posses the power of foresight to where you know whats going to happen. Your part in situations do come to end at some point so you can't be held responsible for what someone may do.

You can't kill someone bcause of a maybe.

I want to make this clear, I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm just replying.

In the idea of a paladin(at least how I see them) I disagree. A paladin is not a police officer. It is not his duty to capture bad guys. It is his duty to destroy evil. So no a paladin's responibilty does not end. If he allows an evil person to live and said evil person continues to do evil that is a failure on his part.

Once again that is just my opinion. I understand that people will disagree with me and I'm happy they do. Once again, not trying to start an argument and I'm certainly not trying to upset you or anything. Just responding.


FireCrow wrote:

It is his duty to destroy evil. So no a paladin's responibilty does not end. If he allows an evil person to live and said evil person continues to do evil that is a failure on his part.

Once again that is just my opinion. I understand that people will disagree with me and I'm happy they do. Once again, not trying to start an argument and I'm certainly not trying to upset you or anything. Just responding.

While not a straw man arguement, this outlook would make a straw man fallacy reality. If a Paladin lived by the code "Find Evil and kill it, no matter where, no matter when." Then we'd have my previous example of Paladin's walking around the streets of every city and village smashing skulls, with nothing more than "I detected evil." Most people would be horrified at this blatant show of force by a "good" person.

I would like to make the point that "destroying evil" does not have to mean the destruction of the individual, especially since there is an obvious depth to how evil an evil person is. An evil person could be someone who takes a couple of coppers off the top of every purchase made at his store out of greed.

FireCrow wrote:
If he allows an evil person to live and said evil person continues to do evil that is a failure on his part.

An evil person can be someone who runs the jails full of outlaw rebels for his honorable lord and makes the inmates miserable.

FireCrow wrote:
If he allows an evil person to live and said evil person continues to do evil that is a failure on his part.

I just can't grasp "the only course for evil is death" mentality. At what point do you define "good guy killing evil" versus "evil guy killing evil"? Really close to that line, honestly. When the only thing separating the two is what is written on a character sheet, its too close.


Kyaaadaa wrote:
FireCrow wrote:

It is his duty to destroy evil. So no a paladin's responibilty does not end. If he allows an evil person to live and said evil person continues to do evil that is a failure on his part.

Once again that is just my opinion. I understand that people will disagree with me and I'm happy they do. Once again, not trying to start an argument and I'm certainly not trying to upset you or anything. Just responding.

While not a straw man arguement, this outlook would make a straw man fallacy reality. If a Paladin lived by the code "Find Evil and kill it, no matter where, no matter when." Then we'd have my previous example of Paladin's walking around the streets of every city and village smashing skulls, with nothing more than "I detected evil." Most people would be horrified at this blatant show of force by a "good" person.

I would like to make the point that "destroying evil" does not have to mean the destruction of the individual, especially since there is an obvious depth to how evil an evil person is. An evil person could be someone who takes a couple of coppers off the top of every purchase made at his store out of greed.

FireCrow wrote:
If he allows an evil person to live and said evil person continues to do evil that is a failure on his part.

An evil person can be someone who runs the jails full of outlaw rebels for his honorable lord and makes the inmates miserable.

FireCrow wrote:
If he allows an evil person to live and said evil person continues to do evil that is a failure on his part.
I just can't grasp "the only course for evil is death" mentality. At what point do you define "good guy killing evil" versus "evil guy killing evil"? Really close to that line, honestly. When the only thing separating the two is what is written on a character sheet, its too close.

I'm really starting to enjoy talking with you. I have to ask do you like Punisher? I'm not trying to prove a point or anything, I'm just legitly curious.

All of your points are quite valid and the reasons for how long it took me to play a paladin.

As I mentioned in one of my earlier posts I had a paladin character go against another paladin over that situation.

Like I said that was all based on how I view paladins. I meant for my response to be more geared towards the end of responiblities. With how I've always read them, they route out and destroy evil. You have a point that that doesn't have to mean kill. But in my opinion a paladin above the other classes have to maintain that their actions carry concequences. If they don't stop evil when they have the chance, then they must hold themselves responible for what will come of it. And after reading that I suddenly realized the way I view paladins seems to be more in line with the inquisitors, so I guess I should take some time and go through the description again and refamiliarize myself. I always hated that the paladin only detects evil. The power puts it so black and white, they can't look at the other sides.


The big argument I see from players is "if it doesn't fulfill every aspect of Paladin-ness, then they Fall." Walking the path of righteousness is not supposed to be a cut and dry path of "smash evil." Its a daunting challenging walk, constantly testing the Paladin (and the player's roleplaying capacity) during their travels. They most certainly do hold themselves responsible for the actions of an evil person if they made the choice to let them live, but that doesn't mean their soul is dropped into the murk. Often times, a veteran Paladin is haunted by the decisions he's had to have made, killing one person, letting another go to jail instead of the chopping block, or allowing the one to escape. As long as the character remains true to his deity, his cause, and his morals, he's not Falling, he's roleplaying.

Detecting Evil is a starting point, not an end all. Its a good tool to get a point of reference when dealing with suspect people. That clerk skimming coins is a good example. If the Paladin is buying his new Long Sword +2, and he feels he's getting the rip, he can pop the Detect, and take a more firm stance in his haggling. It doesn't mean the sword comes out of the scabbard.

Lantern Lodge

You know, this is kinda making want to play a paladin. If only they could freely multiclass.


DarkLightHitomi wrote:
You know, this is kinda making want to play a paladin. If only they could freely multiclass.

With the exception of going into classes that mandate an alignment other than LG (chaotic for Barbarian and Rogue, Neutral for Druid, etc) Paladins can multi-class all they want.

Core Rulebook wrote:


Ex-Paladins:
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 the atonement spell description in Spell Lists), as appropriate.

They removed the blurb about multi-classing Paladin (and subsequently Monks) out of Pathfinder when it ceased being 3.5. Mostly due to the fact that lots of people realize these classes are great dips, and that 90% of the useful abilities come with the first 4 levels of a class, and many characters won't have those levels consecutively.


Kyaaadaa wrote:
I just can't grasp "the only course for evil is death" mentality. At what point do you define "good guy killing evil" versus "evil guy killing evil"? Really close to that line, honestly. When the only thing separating the two is what is written on a character sheet, its too close.

I usually tell the one from the other by which deity they pray afterwards and what kind of sacrifice they offer to said deity.


Kyaaadaa wrote:
DarkLightHitomi wrote:
You know, this is kinda making want to play a paladin. If only they could freely multiclass.

With the exception of going into classes that mandate an alignment other than LG (chaotic for Barbarian and Rogue, Neutral for Druid, etc) Paladins can multi-class all they want.

By the way rogues don't have to be chaotic (or nonlawful) they can be of any alignment, that has been the case for rogues in 3.5 too.

The bard class was the one (in 3.5) who had to be nonlawful but in PF that restriction was dropped.


leo1925 wrote:
Kyaaadaa wrote:
I just can't grasp "the only course for evil is death" mentality. At what point do you define "good guy killing evil" versus "evil guy killing evil"? Really close to that line, honestly. When the only thing separating the two is what is written on a character sheet, its too close.
I usually tell the one from the other by which deity they pray afterwards and what kind of sacrifice they offer them.

Seems a little flimsy, especially if their's is a god that practices compassion over smiting. My point was that if onlookers couldn't be able to tell the difference between the two during the act, maybe the difference isn't really there. If I'm horrified by a bloodletting taking place, then I hear prayers to a benevolent diety in the aftermath, odds are I'm not going to start thinking positively about the gore covered champion, but instead maybe rethinking that the deity in question isn't so benevolent after all if this is how their champions act.


leo1925 wrote:
Kyaaadaa wrote:
DarkLightHitomi wrote:
You know, this is kinda making want to play a paladin. If only they could freely multiclass.

With the exception of going into classes that mandate an alignment other than LG (chaotic for Barbarian and Rogue, Neutral for Druid, etc) Paladins can multi-class all they want.

By the way rogues don't have to be chaotic (or nonlawful) they can be of any alignment, that has been the case for rogues in 3.5 too.

The bard class was the one (in 3.5) who had to be nonlawful but in PF that restriction was dropped.

Aha, I do stand corrected. Truthfully, I haven't really played a rogue except one or two briefly since 2nd edition, and that was usually in Baldur's Gate II (still love that game) so my knowledge behind that subject is a little lacking.


Kyaaadaa wrote:
leo1925 wrote:
Kyaaadaa wrote:
I just can't grasp "the only course for evil is death" mentality. At what point do you define "good guy killing evil" versus "evil guy killing evil"? Really close to that line, honestly. When the only thing separating the two is what is written on a character sheet, its too close.
I usually tell the one from the other by which deity they pray afterwards and what kind of sacrifice they offer them.
Seems a little flimsy, especially if their's is a god that practices compassion over smiting. My point was that if onlookers couldn't be able to tell the difference between the two during the act, maybe the difference isn't really there. If I'm horrified by a bloodletting taking place, then I hear prayers to a benevolent diety in the aftermath, odds are I'm not going to start thinking positively about the gore covered champion, but instead maybe rethinking that the deity in question isn't so benevolent after all if this is how their champions act.

The difference is that you get to look and hear the gore covered champion saying a prayer to good deity, on the other case the gore covered guy would come to you and sacrificially kill you (and you are lucky if that's all it will do to you) in order to thank their deity.


FireCrow wrote:

I had a evil druid that would do stuff like that..use his druidness to lure animals to him then kill them to make hunting easier and use them to find traps and stuff like that.

And yes I know that has nothing to do with the thread, just felt like saying it.

I dont want to contribute.

If I were your GM, you could hang up your mistletoe, you're no longer a Druid. Even an evil Druid has to revere nature. If you do things that show you lacked that reverance, no longer a druid.


While this may be true, I'd end up running in either case just to be sure the guy killing people doesn't kill me. I don't know how many people think someone bludgeoning someone else in public is common practice, but I'd be terrified. This applies to Paladins going around killing every evil person as it does Blackguards going around killing every good person. Its still a man with a mace crushing skulls. I'm getting the hell out before they come for me. And where does Neutral fit into that? When does a Paladin think that Neutral is only a single step away from evil and start after them? Only the most ardent society of the strictest goodie-goodie rules in existence would condone such a display.

(Ok, a little Straw Manned, but only a little)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
FireCrow wrote:
Kyaaadaa wrote:
FireCrow wrote:

Actually I will. What is it when the Paladin decides to show mercy to said evil critters(assuming they are detecting as evil)and lets them go. Then they regain their health and kill innocents and destroy the lives of good people? It's called foresight when you stop it before it can happen.

Just my opinion.

Pretty sure this is straw man in the other direction.
Probably.

For educational purposes only, not for arguing anyone's point.

Actually, this is not a Straw Man. "Straw man" misconstrues someone's argument for the purpose of making them look stupid. Straw man asks "You're really arguing this ridiculous thing?" when they are, in fact, not arguing that ridiculous thing. Instead this is, at worst, a potentially-fallacious assumption of what people will do. Speaking of...

Flightarrow wrote:
FireCrow wrote:

Actually I will. What is it when the Paladin decides to show mercy to said evil critters(assuming they are detecting as evil)and lets them go. Then they regain their health and kill innocents and destroy the lives of good people? It's called foresight when you stop it before it can happen.

Just my opinion.

That is not your responsibility as a paladin unless you had some insight such as information that they were going to do that. You can't go around killing everyone who is evil to make sure they never commit acts of evil.

What happens if you take a criminal to jail and he is found not guilty then ends up killing people after he gets out? Are you responsible for his actions? No you are not. You are still a mortal being, you don't posses the power of foresight to where you know whats going to happen. Your part in situations do come to end at some point so you can't be held responsible for what someone may do.

You can't kill someone bcause of a maybe.

I bolded one part because I wish to address it. While technically true, you have the ability of "probability" foresight because you know they are evil. This means they have chosen evil in the past, long enough to continually register in front of you. You already have insight about what they tend to do and are likely to continue doing. It's called "Detect Evil". Oh, hey: they're evil.

The question arises "Will they continue?" which has the answer, "In lieu of other information, probably." which is what you must base your decisions off of, because, as you point out, you only have a limited amount of.

It's important to note that this does not automatically equate to a smite in all situations. However, this was a specific situation and had context (some of which I know from running that AP).

As to the idea of leaving them there... which is more cruel:


    1) leaving them to
  • starve;
  • or to be killed by another creature (who is not merciful, and has an odds-to-even chance of cruelly working them to death or annihilating their soul... sometimes before eating them);
  • or to make a harrowing, difficult, painful escape to live in conditions of squalor and filth and starvation and cruel slavery (having run the AP, I can attest that this is a known fact of their living conditions by this point in the adventure)

2) killing them quickly and mercifully (preventing them from performing evil actions against others and any of the above long and painful situations from occurring).

That said, my own paladins and lawful good people don't "Smite First, Ask Questions Later" (mostly, probably, because I don't play dwarves very often).

The above outline that I give, it's important to note, is not the only way of looking at it. In fact, it's a bleak, semi-pessimistic way of looking at it.

The optimistic (but unlikely) way is to look at the last and think, "But what if they, having received mercy, learn and change?" which is just as totally valid.

I'm pretty sure that people are often arguing past each other, not quite grasping what the other says and arguing about what they think the other one says. Heaven knows I do.

More on topic: Out of character, don't do things that will harm any friendships with the real-life player of the paladin. In character, as a chaotic neutral creature, the ninja is totally justified in using whatever means they wish (including writing a letter to the church) to rebuke the paladin. Just because the ninja is chaotic, doesn't mean he can't recognize that someone else follows a code and attempt to use that against them (however futile the effort might be).

Liberty's Edge

*sheesh*

You guys argue about teeny-tiny stuff.

I prefer complex characters - ones that alignments don't seem to cover at all.

I've modeled a king after one in the real world. He was so bloodthirsty that he slew every person that challenged his authority, and then used their bodies to decorate. At the same time, he was beloved by his people, and would bend over backward to do good things for them. Yes, he was a CE king that was loved and respected...and hated and reviled, if you were an outsider. He's gone down in legend as one of the most evil men that has ever walked the Earth...and as a national hero. Hell of a legacy.

The real-world king? Vlad Tepes III.

Oh...and if you guys wanna argue about paladins...Roland. :p


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I told myself I wasn't going to get involved with this thread anymore with serious discussion because it's not going to go anywhere. Unfortunately, I'm not a Paladin and I don't have the convictions to stick to my positions. So here goes:

For those of you decrying the Paladins actions as not honorable, the only actions explicitly listed as not honorable (per the PRD) are lying, cheating, using poison, and so forth. And so forth leaves a lot of room to interpretation. Each side is clearly interpreting that in a different manner, as so there can be no right answer. Because their can be no absolutely right answer, I prefer a world in which a Paladin can kill evil prisoners because he has no better option than that. If he enjoys the killing then he is probably slipping away from the whole lawful good thing, but if he does it out of necessity because there is no better option for him (can't let them go-->they're evil, can't leave them to get free-->they're evil, can't take them prisoner-->no where to take them to, etc) then sometimes killing is the only decent option. He should probably handle it as anyone would handle a distasteful but necessary aciton. That doesn't make him not lawful, not good, or not honorable. It makes him real. It means in an imperfect world he is doing the best he can to make it a better place.

Liberty's Edge

Claxon wrote:

I told myself I wasn't going to get involved with this thread anymore with serious discussion because it's not going to go anywhere. Unfortunately, I'm not a Paladin and I don't have the convictions to stick to my positions. So here goes:

For those of you decrying the Paladins actions as not honorable, the only actions explicitly listed as not honorable (per the PRD) are lying, cheating, using poison, and so forth. And so forth leaves a lot of room to interpretation. Each side is clearly interpreting that in a different manner, as so there can be no right answer. Because their can be no absolutely right answer, I prefer a world in which a Paladin can kill evil prisoners because he has no better option than that. If he enjoys the killing then he is probably slipping away from the whole lawful good thing, but if he does it out of necessity because there is no better option for him (can't let them go-->they're evil, can't leave them to get free-->they're evil, can't take them prisoner-->no where to take them to, etc) then sometimes killing is the only decent option. He should probably handle it as anyone would handle a distasteful but necessary aciton. That doesn't make him not lawful, not good, or not honorable. It makes him real. It means in an imperfect world he is doing the best he can to make it a better place.

Ambiguity rocks. :D


I highly suspect the Paladin and the dm didn't detect evil correctly by RAW. does any body have the stat block for the creatures described in book 5 of the serpent skull?

spoiler:
it is in the fortress of the urdifins and claw aquatic demons? the main guy is a flying urdifin cleric it think?

Liberty's Edge

Lobolusk wrote:

I highly suspect the Paladin and the dm didn't detect evil correctly by RAW. does any body have the stat block for the creatures described in book 5 of the serpent skull?

** spoiler omitted **

Yeah, the point has been made that unless they were 5th level or higher...or perhaps clerics, inquisitors, or some other closely related sort, they shouldn't ping...unless he houserules it.


EldonG wrote:
Lobolusk wrote:

I highly suspect the Paladin and the dm didn't detect evil correctly by RAW. does any body have the stat block for the creatures described in book 5 of the serpent skull?

** spoiler omitted **
Yeah, the point has been made that unless they were 5th level or higher...or perhaps clerics, inquisitors, or some other closely related sort, they shouldn't ping...unless he houserules it.

i know but does soembody have the book at there house so they could look?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm just kind of impressed by the people who say, "you don't have to play LG in a particular way!" and then they turn around and chide the OP for not playing his CN character a particular way. :P

Also, chaotic =/= automatically crazy, stupid, evil or ruthless. Acts of kindness aren't necessarily out of character... though what the OP describes sounds more like the character is fed up with the paladin than really concerned about the prisoners.

If the other player is OK with it, I see no reason why the OP's character shouldn't cause trouble for the paladin however he sees fit. Interesting RP could stem from it.

YMMV.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kyaaadaa wrote:


From Gladiator, Maximus Decimus Meridius wrote:
"At least give me an honorable death. A soldier's death."

Death by elemental shredding is decidedly... not.

It is the Paladin's class feature, it is definitely honorable.


EldonG wrote:
Lobolusk wrote:

I highly suspect the Paladin and the dm didn't detect evil correctly by RAW. does any body have the stat block for the creatures described in book 5 of the serpent skull?

** spoiler omitted **
Yeah, the point has been made that unless they were 5th level or higher...or perhaps clerics, inquisitors, or some other closely related sort, they shouldn't ping...unless he houserules it.

Inquisitors don't have auras, think about it a little. If inquisitors did have auras they wouldn't be able to do any inflitration-undercover work because they would be automatically detected and killed on spot. After 5th i think that access to magic in order to hide their alignment is a lot easier than <5th level.

Sczarni

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tippo Dakar wrote:

stuff...

We did argue the points, the three of us, in character. With the ninja and Balto pointing out that killing helpless individuals was the antithesis of 'good' and doing so without any due process or even evidence they'd committed 'evil' acts was the opposite of 'lawful'.

We did not prevail. The paladin reasoned that they (three morlocks and a drow) detected evil, they would perform evil acts if released, and it was therefore his duty to slay them (though he offered to do it in combat if we wanted to give them weapons; since it hardly could have been a fair fight, we didn't bite).

We backed down instead. I can't speak for the ninja, but Balto decided the consequences were on the head of the paladin and walked away.

In the end, the drow was spared because he bargained with the paladin - his life for information (so in fact, we, the party, finally have an inkling of what is going on in the module). The morlocks were killed out of hand without even being...

There was due process, the Paladin detected evil. That's enough. They are priests, or 5HD+. The got the evil aura from committing evil acts. His detection confirms it, and the law demands justice (execution). Now it didn't happen in a courtroom with a lawyer, but this isn't a CG society trying to live with each other.

The Paladin doesn't need some secular local beuracrat to empower him to enforce justice....his divine patron gives him that authority. He should work with them when they are available, and rendering justice as the Paly's god sees fit. But in their absence, or their malingering malfeasance, the Paly's god demands that his champion takes action.

IMO, most players tend to put modern day attitudes (and modern Western values of individual freedom) on their characters, which pushes most players' perception of morality closer to CG. We may live in modern rule-of-law societies, but they are societies that promote protection of individual freedoms like Andoran.

Singapore would be much closer to a LG, where drug dealers are executed and spitting on the sidewalk gets you flogged (for spreading vectors in a crowded metropolis), both strict lawful responses that are for the greater good above the individual.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

If you are playing morlocks and drow true to their nature, NO player character, from the spectrum of LG to CE should have any qualms about killing them. They are monsters, worshippers of a host of cruel gods, demon-consorts and worse. The drow are the epitome of evil, but thanks to the damage caused by Drizzt Do'Urden, people seem to think that drow are "misunderstood", rather than realizing that what makes him such an unlikely hero is that he comes from the worst of the worst sorts.

This is all irrelevant if you are playing a happy go lucky My Little Pathfinder edition, where there is no real evil, only victims of circumstance and tragic figures who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. A magical world of rainbows and sunshine, where every villain can be turned to serve good, given the time and understanding that it was deprived of as a child.

The canon setting of Golarion has some horrifying stuff, just read up on the bestiary entries for ogres and goblins for confirmation, and the paladin has a holy mission to go forth and combat the terror that lurks out there, serving gods that embody the worst of sins, whose desire is to see the world filled with pestilence, death and ruin.

If the paladin shows mercy, and allows someone to keep their lives, HE becomes responsible for every act of evil that creature does from that point onward. In my game, letting an irredeemably evil creature live for any other purpose than being taken to a rightful trial, and subsequently imprisoned or magically atoned, would fall. It is a willful evil act to give aid to someone who will use said aid for evil.

Liberty's Edge

leo1925 wrote:
EldonG wrote:
Lobolusk wrote:

I highly suspect the Paladin and the dm didn't detect evil correctly by RAW. does any body have the stat block for the creatures described in book 5 of the serpent skull?

** spoiler omitted **
Yeah, the point has been made that unless they were 5th level or higher...or perhaps clerics, inquisitors, or some other closely related sort, they shouldn't ping...unless he houserules it.
Inquisitors don't have auras, think about it a little. If inquisitors did have auras they wouldn't be able to do any inflitration-undercover work because they would be automatically detected and killed on spot. After 5th i think that access to magic in order to hide their alignment is a lot easier than <5th level.

Duh.

Good point. I had thought about it before. Mind is slipping...I'm gettin' old. :p

351 to 400 of 867 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Dealing with a paladin killing prisoners in game. All Messageboards