|
I'll admit that I'm a little confused by the stance that a paladin can't oppose an evil government on the basis that it's "legitimate?"
It's not really like that.
He can of course oppose an evil government. But opposing an evil government is not unsheathing your sword and killing the officials.Opposing an evil government means creating an opposition to it.
Promoting a change.
Which could pretty much involve joining a revolution and free the people from the tyranny, so .. there will be time for chopping baddies heads.
But that is fighting for a cause, supporting a change in the government.
Not ... "well .. I'll kill the evil dudes and ... I guess someone will figure out something sooner or later.
That is not justice and order, that is plain anarchy.
I mean, let's take the county of Barstoi in Ustalav. Barstoi is run by the lawfully appointed Count Neska.
Count Neska is a Lawful Evil psychopath who has declared and enforces in his county the harshest laws in the nation - the vast majority of Neska's laws carry the death penalty. Neska's also strong enough that Prince Ordranti can't meaningfully sanction Neska in any way.
To give an example of Neska's laws, being a spellcaster who isn't part of Pharasma's church is punishable by immediate execution.
Which means that for nearly any paladin, entering Barstoi is a crime, and the paladin faces execution if captured.
Do people seriously take the stance that the paladin isn't even allowed to fight back in those sort of circumstances?
We need some more information on the situation here.
A paladin should enter Barstoi if he really needs to enter Barstoi.If you are a paladin and you enter Barstoi just to make a point ... that would be a chaotic act. Not even remotely a major "I'm falling from grace" one, but still a chaotic act.
If he needs to be in Barstoi he will probably enter and try not to be spotted as a paladin.
If he gets caught he has all the rights to fight back without fearing repercussions... again .. this if he need to be in Barstoi,
Bottom line is .... don't enter Barstoi....
If he "needs" to free Barstoi from it's tyrannical and arbitrary laws that's different ... but he should do that to back someone.
If he finds out that the people of Barstoi is pretty happy with their rulers and have no intention to rebel, the paladin has no moral authority to jump in and say "this is still wrong and I have to destroy it no matter what".
Basically ... actions are wrong when there is no innocent to protect and order to restore.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think people need to read about John Brown and why storming the slave auction would not turn out well.
If a paladin wants to "save" an evil town he needs to do it through hearts and minds. You can never change a society for the better by just invading it with out cause. Because we think they are evil is not cause.
If the paladin desired to just start killing the "evil people" to save a town he is no better than those he claims to oppose. He is just another ruthless warlord killing a bunch of people to gain control. The paladin will not help any one, he will not change their view point. His actions of slaughter will only harden the people against him, his values, and his god.
It seems to me that a lot hinges on what 'legitimate rule' means in game, and I think that might vary from game master to game master. I can only say that as a player, I'd be hoping the DM would give me some idea of which side of the debate he falls before thrusting me into a possible no win scenario
"You let the slave auction continue? Evil Act!"
"You disrupted a slave auction where slavery is legal? Chaotic act!"
ick
If the paladin was doing this as basically a random act "oh.. here's a random town , and I'm going to 'free them from their LE oppressor'"
It's probably a chaotic act there..just rolling into town and deciding on a whim to wipe out all government.
As well, as GM, I would almost cackle at this, and have the CE theives guild take over in the aftermath of no local government.
Sometimes the known evil is alot better then the unknown evil.
Said Paladin would be much better off investigating things in depth first, and figuring out the political landscape, and civilian landscape of the area first; rather then running amok slaying whoever pings off and leaving a power vacuum.
I'd like to (sort of) invert the question and ask when is it appropriate for a Paladin to REFRAIN from attacking evil entities that have not taken hostile action?
. . . if the evil actually radiates noticeably according to Detect Evil?
. . . if the evil radiates noticeably according to Detect Evil because the entity is an evil divine character or dragon?
. . . if the evil radiates noticeably according to Detect Evil because the entity is an Outsider with the Evil subtype or is Undead?
This would also be good to know for anyone from your mid-to-high-level villainous type who wants to go clean but hasn't pulled it off yet to the rare Outsider with the Evil subtype who may have even truly quit being evil, but hasn't been able to get rid of the Evil subtype yet, or even someone who is simply cursed to radiate evil (possibly but not necessarily with fiendish heritage for visual backup to the supernatural perception).
|
I'd like to (sort of) invert the question and ask when is it appropriate for a Paladin to REFRAIN from attacking evil entities that have not taken hostile action?
. . . if the evil actually radiates noticeably according to Detect Evil?
Appropriate. Indeed, attacking them for no reason but alignment and hit dice is highly inappropriate. Now, if you know why they're Evil and it involves serious crimes...that's another matter, but Alignment on its own doesn't justify an attack.
. . . if the evil radiates noticeably according to Detect Evil because the entity is an evil divine character or dragon?
Dragons don't actually radiate any more strongly than normal people. They do have enough HD to radiate pretty strongly, but not any more than a human with the same HD.
Refraining from attacking someone with an aura on par with a Cleric of an Evil deity is legitimate, and so is attacking them, IMO. You're not obligated one way or the other. You pretty much can't be obligated to attack, because, well, un-fallen Chelish Paladins and Clerics of Asmodeus, but I don't think a Paladin should be in trouble for walking into Nidal and killing Clerics of Zon-Kuthon with no real questions asked.
. . . if the evil radiates noticeably according to Detect Evil because the entity is an Outsider with the Evil subtype or is Undead?
At that point, killing them is probably necessary barring a compelling reason not to (ie: you're working with a Devil against Demons, it will get you killed and thus keep you from doing any more good). A plea for mercy andd help in their redemption does likely qualify as such a reason.
This would also be good to know for anyone from your mid-to-high-level villainous type who wants to go clean but hasn't pulled it off yet to the rare Outsider with the Evil subtype who may have even truly quit being evil, but hasn't been able to get rid of the Evil subtype yet, or even someone who is simply cursed to radiate evil (possibly but not necessarily with fiendish heritage for visual backup to the supernatural perception).
Well, in basically all cases, if the thing you're starting to kill yells "Stop! You're making a mistake, I'm innocent!" I think a Paladin is obligated to at least hear them out or potentially be in deep trouble.
Something along the lines of this?
{. . .}
Well, in basically all cases, if the thing you're starting to kill yells "Stop! You're making a mistake, I'm innocent!" I think a Paladin is obligated to at least hear them out or potentially be in deep trouble.
Problem for someone who is really innocent is that those who aren't say exactly the same thing . . . . Presumably this contributed a lot to the corrupt purges of the Third Mendevian Crusade into at least the first part of the Fourth Mendevian Crusade (and likely since then, but more under the table). Probably this contributes a lot to the fact that some Paladins have joined Hellknight orders.
(Aside on this: Ought to be something like a Wrathknight base class that would be considered an alternate class to both Paladin and Antipaladin, and would have Archetypes that include Hellknight base class and Diabolist Knight, associated with the Hellknight and Diabolist factions, respectively, in Cheliax and related or otherwise similar areas.)
What's the exact difference between a Paladin going into a dungeon or BBEG's lair and "forcing his LG morality" upon them? Setting? Most well built dungeons are akin to small establishments, especially the LE variety. I say it's the same thing, no problem; after all they're LE, he was breaking up SOME nefarious plot by doing so; does it matter if he doesn't know or care what it was?
He's 15th level, he's got s*** to do; he can't be bothered to figure out EVERY nefarious plot; just detect evil, destroy evil, keep on truckin. Detect evil is at will, who needs circumstances and backdrop? They didn't give him insight into why people turn to evil; just wipe it off the map before they destroy the neighboring GOOD (meaning neutral but bearable, barely) town.
Plus he probably dump-stat'd Int anyways so unless he's got some "investigative-type" around, he probably needn't bother looking for a reason, evil is reason enough. Probably best if he doesn't even bother trying to figure out reasons, smite evil don't give one s*** about reasons.
What's to stop a 15th level Paladin from rolling into some small LE town and killing all the corrupt local officials, effectively forcing his morality on them through force?The setting.
Their lawful good alignment.
The Paladin Code.
The laws of the land they are in.
Common sense.
Possibly the rules of the Paladins Deity.
The fact that the Paladin may have no legal standing to do so in that country.
That fact that "rolling into some small town and killing all the corrupt local officials," yes IS an evil act, since I highly doubt simple corruption carries a death sentance in most situations.
That fact that 'killing all X' is not why Paladins exist? Any Paladin who can only solve problems by 'kill them all and ask questions later' is not a Paladin?Have the locals done anything illegal within their country that the Paladin is authorised to enforce/counter?
Has anyone in that town asked aid from the Paladin or the powers he represents?Simply being of evil intent or alignment is not grounds for a Paladin to execute you. Again, simply being of evil intent or alignment is not grounds for a Paladin to execute you.
Actively doing evil in front of the Paladin is grounds for that Paladin to take action and oppose that evil with an APPROPRIATE response. That Paladins ACTION does not have to be 'KILL THEM'. In fact it should be the least chosen action if at all possible.
The Paladin is GOOD and so therefore life is sacred to them. They do not exist to kill everything and let the gods sort them out.
I want to point something out: "That fact that "rolling into some small town and killing all the corrupt local officials," yes IS an evil act, since I highly doubt simple corruption carries a death sentance in most situations. "
That's actually a lawful act, as usurping the law is the antithesis (in this setting) of what law is there for in the first place. Arguably good too, if the passing of corrupt laws further an evil end.|
|
Problem for someone who is really innocent is that those who aren't say exactly the same thing . . . . Presumably this contributed a lot to the corrupt purges of the Third Mendevian Crusade into at least the first part of the Fourth Mendevian Crusade (and likely since then, but more under the table). Probably this contributes a lot to the fact that some Paladins have joined Hellknight orders.
Sure. Which is why you take them captive and bring them to someone who can judge such things effectively. Or do it yourself if you have enough Sense Motive that you're confident in your own judgments...though that's a bit sketchy. You really need magic to do that sort of thing well. This is one reason Paladin/Inquisitor pairs of the same God are basically the ideal team for this kind of thing...
Problem for someone who is really innocent is that those who aren't say exactly the same thing . . . . Presumably this contributed a lot to the corrupt purges of the Third Mendevian Crusade into at least the first part of the Fourth Mendevian Crusade (and likely since then, but more under the table). Probably this contributes a lot to the fact that some Paladins have joined Hellknight orders.Sure. Which is why you take them captive and bring them to someone who can judge such things effectively. Or do it yourself if you have enough Sense Motive that you're confident in your own judgments...though that's a bit sketchy. You really need magic to do that sort of thing well. This is one reason Paladin/Inquisitor pairs of the same God are basically the ideal team for this kind of thing...
meh... magic.
Magic's too easy to fool. Go with the sense motive.
Still say
1:detect evil
2:smite evil
3:rinse, repeat as necessary
and if needed
4:leave the philosophy to the philosophers.
The moral implications of eradicating an entire LE town is the same exact implications of eradicating a dungeon of LE people; it's just called an "urban" or "rural" backdrop.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a black & white topic, moral implications need not apply. Next people will be telling me that my pally destroying the cult's shrine to Dagon "was reprehensible destruction of their cultural heritage" or stopping them from opening a portal to the Old Ones "was interjecting my unrealistic standards upon them".
...And that's the story of how Grandpa fell from being a paladin kids; now go to sleep and don't forget your prayers to Mammon!
|
|
"You let the slave auction continue? Evil Act!"
I'd like to (sort of) invert the question and ask when is it appropriate for a Paladin to REFRAIN from attacking evil entities that have not taken hostile action?
@UnArcaneElection: ALWAYS
the fact about a evil act is that ,... you have to act.
to choose not act upon something should never implicate an alignment hit.
Granted that a paladin is defined by his actual good action and not general lazyness, the idea that a paladin have to react, and always with the highest degree of hostility and violence to everything that could even slightly considered questionable is horribly wrong.
A Paladin shuld never fall because he decided not to slaughter something.
This does not mean a Paladin has to be a pacifist or that he shouldn't resort to violence.
But he should always have the right to choose his battles. Even more so when they are morally dubious.
the idea that a paladin looses his powers as soon as something is evil and doesn't gets immediately dealt with using lethal force is plain lawful stupid.
This is a black & white topic, moral implications need not apply. Next people will be telling me that my pally destroying the cult's shrine to Dagon "was reprehensible destruction of their cultural heritage" or stopping them from opening a portal to the Old Ones "was interjecting my unrealistic standards upon them".
It is, it is !!!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a black & white topic, moral implications need not apply. Next people will be telling me that my pally destroying the cult's shrine to Dagon "was reprehensible destruction of their cultural heritage" or stopping them from opening a portal to the Old Ones "was interjecting my unrealistic standards upon them".
"Is it evil for a good guy to tell bad guys to stop being evil?"
I love these forums ;)
"Is it evil for a good guy to tell bad guys to stop being evil?"
Not at all, no. But the actual first post here asks a very different question-
What's to stop a 15th level Paladin from rolling into some small LE town and killing all the corrupt local officials, effectively forcing his morality on them through force?
To which the answer is "the paladin's morality."
The real issue at play here, and in so very many other threads along these lines, is whether you're looking at good versus evil as a matter of "kind-hearted philanthropic types who want everyone to be healthy and happy" versus "self-serving callous types" or if you're looking at it as a red team versus blue team/white hats vs. black hats sort of thing. Typically, if you're playing Pathfinder, both of these exist to some degree.
There are people and creatures out there who totally have those black hats on. Demons and undead and weird freaky aberrations and even a few regular humans who really don't have their heads screwed on right and set about actively doing really horrible things to people because it's just plain something they really enjoy, or they were promised some great enough reward for doing so to set aside the ethics of it. There is no moral ambiguity at all at play here. As someone who wears a white hat, it is your clear duty to deal with them, because not only does their hat happen to be black, they are actively slaughtering and torturing innocent people, which anyone with a functional moral compass is going to take issue with (goes against the people being healthy and happy bit and all), and this being a sword-swinging fantasy type game based around a fair deal of combat happening, we really have to accept the notion that violence is totally the answer when dealing with this sort of unambiguous evil. Smite away.
That does not, however, cover everyone whose alignment is officially Evil. For instance, when you have some random settlement of people whose average alignment is Lawful Evil, you can pretty well be assured it is not, in fact, populated by a majority of people in the full-on black hat wearing mode, twirling their mustaches and sacrificing babies and killing people just to watch them die. If they were, it would honestly be impossible for them to really form any sort of organized society. Even if they're all swearing allegiance to Team Evil and vowing not to stab each other in the back, they're going to run out of other people to murder and would eventually need to disperse and find fresh victims. So if there's a whole settlement full of lawful evil people, and a paladin wanders in, odds are that paladin isn't going to get along too well with the average person, at least not if they get into any sort of philosophical or political debate. However, they shouldn't really be inclined to take drastic action about it. Give that merchant you think is ripping people off a stern talking to, maybe alert authorities to some scam, rescue some poor sap who's getting a beating for being terrible at his job, maybe even give a big stirring speech about the importance for standing up for the little guy, but unless you happen to come across one of those properly black hatted folks, straight up killing any of these people is going to move things farther from the nice and happy let's all get along and help each other virtues you're representing.
All that of course is assuming the paladin in question follows that "kind-hearted philanthropic types who want everyone to be healthy and happy" version of good (which the rules and fundamental concept absolutely insist they do). If you're instead following some weird red team vs. blue team version where you either where a white hat or a black hat and murder anyone on sight who doesn't match your wardrobe, totally removing the concept of morality from the equation, then sure, don't question it, let the slaughter begin. Don't go calling that good versus evil though, because that's just plain confusing wording.
That being said, some people really don't like moral ambiguity, or for whatever personal reasons object to measuring morality on some sort of selfless versus selfish sort of scale, and really do want a setting where it's absolutely black and white. If something is labelled as evil, it is a completely unrepentant, irredeemable, black hatted fiend that must be destroyed, period. If a human is registering as evil, it is because there is some kind of tangible supernatural taint which has turned them and can't be undone. Anyone free of that taint is officially Good (or at least neutral) regardless of their actions and views, and needs to be protected by the unholy darkness sweeping the land and all that. There's an interesting sort of appeal to that sort of game, and if you're in one, hell yes a paladin is obligated to kill anything that pings as evil. By default though, Pathfinder absolutely is not that game, stat blocks are not written with those assumptions, and you're going to have to house rule in a lot of changes, most notably, in this case, shifting the alignment of any printed settlement/NPC/creature you're tossing in one degree towards Good.
Probably a good idea with such a game to also house rule Detect Evil to always go off the HD values of an aligned outsider. By the book, another answer to the original question here is that the paladin really wouldn't have any particular indicator who was evil and who wasn't in a given small town, because everyone is probably below level 5.