Paladin PC - I think he just fell.


Advice

101 to 150 of 496 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:
Broken Zenith wrote:

Should the Paladin Fall?

No. This game is not about punishing players for making roleplaying decisions. It is about working collaboratively to achieve a fun time and excellent story. Bring it up with your player and work together to achieve the most fun and interesting result.

This makes no sense. Using that guideline, no character ever could possibly ever have any kind of negative consequence for RP.

Which is bananas.

I GM this game to have fun. My players play this game to have fun. I am absolutely positive that if I made a paladin player fall without discussion and consent he would have less fun, I would have less fun and everybody at the table would have less fun.

Paladins should fall when both the player and the GM realize that it would great character develop, move the story along, and be an interesting roleplaying point. If the player is not interested in any of that, then he's going to have a bad time if a severe mechanical handicap is forced upon him. And he's going to make the game unpleasant for the rest of us.

The only circumstance where a player could fall without a consent is if I said "Hold up there buddy, Iomedae likes puppies. She's going to make you fall if you murder that puppy." And then he murders the puppy.


Davick wrote:
Verteidiger wrote:
Davick wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Davick wrote:
Replace gangstaz with the people in Ukraine worried about they're homes and land and yourself with Russian soldiers trying to annex them, and sure thing bud.

Good job on making light of a complicated issue to prove a spurious point.

For your information, a good deal of the population of the Ukraine, especially in Crimea, ARE ethnic Russians. That's been a thing that many Westerners don't realize about the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and a few other places. these former Communist nations did pack a fair number of ethnics that have problems playing nice with each other.

But then again this isn't a surprise when asked where the Ukraine was actually located, a fair number of Americans answered... Iowa.

I'm well aware of the realities of the Ukraine situation. I could have used a less contemporary example to make the same point, but I didn't.

Ethnicities do not make an annexation ok, by the way, but let's not derail a paladin alignment thread for a politically charged one.

Off topic but: It is actually just Ukraine. 'The Ukraine' is something Ukrainians tend to find offensive since 'the Ukraine' was how the Russians refered to the country while it was in the USSR. Now that it is an independent nation, it is simply, Ukraine.
But it would still be "The Ukraine Situation" as opposed to "ukraine situation". You'll notice no "the" in my first post. Unless you're talking to LazarX. And the Ukrainian language has no word for "the".

Was taking to Lazarx, was just being lazy and clicking the reply button on the entire relevant conversation for convenience.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Davick wrote:
StrangePackage wrote:
It's evil to kill monsters that have attacked you?

Yep.

I can't really think of a situation where Paladin + Coup de Grace = OK.

I can.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

To atone, the Paladin should be fed alive to a pack of Wyverns. You can always resurrect him afterwards.


Reckless wrote:
Davick wrote:
StrangePackage wrote:
It's evil to kill monsters that have attacked you?

Yep.

I can't really think of a situation where Paladin + Coup de Grace = OK.

I can.

touche.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Davick wrote:

From Shelyn's code

Quote:
I act to prevent conflict before it blossoms.
Quote:
I accept surrender if my opponent can be redeemed—and I never assume that they cannot be.
Quote:
I lead by example, not with my blade. Where my blade passes, a life is cut short, and the world's potential for beauty is lessened.
You won't find a code for a paladin of any good alignment who OKs killing a surrendered enemy. It shouldn't even need to be written out or discussed beforehand.

In the Faiths of Purity book Torag's paladin code states "Against my people's enemy I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except to extract information. I will defeat them and scatter theirs families. Yet, even in the struggles against our enemies, I will act in a way that brings honor to Torag."

You are wrong.


Ckorik wrote:
Davick wrote:

From Shelyn's code

Quote:
I act to prevent conflict before it blossoms.
Quote:
I accept surrender if my opponent can be redeemed—and I never assume that they cannot be.
Quote:
I lead by example, not with my blade. Where my blade passes, a life is cut short, and the world's potential for beauty is lessened.
You won't find a code for a paladin of any good alignment who OKs killing a surrendered enemy. It shouldn't even need to be written out or discussed beforehand.

In the Faiths of Purity book Torag's paladin code states "Against my people's enemy I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except to extract information. I will defeat them and scatter theirs families. Yet, even in the struggles against our enemies, I will act in a way that brings honor to Torag."

You are wrong.

We went over that already, but thanks.

Sovereign Court

Does anyone in this thread really think that a LG Paladin shows mercy to evil outsiders, undead or dragons because "they surrendered"? I mean, really? I'm hoping to God this is a troll thread.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
taldanrebel2187 wrote:
Does anyone in this thread really think that a LG Paladin shows mercy to evil outsiders, undead or dragons because "they surrendered"? I mean, really? I'm hoping to God this is a troll thread.

Uh...that seems reasonable for a Paladin to do. Maybe not required, but reasonable. And unlike your examples, this creature wasn't Evil at all...which makes your argument exceedingly poor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ckorik wrote:
"Against my people's enemy I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except to extract information. I will defeat them and scatter theirs families..."

Paladins shouldn't have a code that makes 'em sound like Mongols.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:
Broken Zenith wrote:

Should the Paladin Fall?

No. This game is not about punishing players for making roleplaying decisions. It is about working collaboratively to achieve a fun time and excellent story. Bring it up with your player and work together to achieve the most fun and interesting result.

This makes no sense. Using that guideline, no character ever could possibly ever have any kind of negative consequence for RP.

Which is bananas.

You job as the GM is to both 'play the other side' and be the judge - if your player is trying to RP and doesn't expect negatives - doing so will shut down any attempt at RP they ever wanted to try again.

As the judge - you should have the maturity to stop the session and make sure the player both wants the RP to have consequences and is comfortable with the effects on their character - because if they aren't it can totally take the fun out of the game.

Some people want RP light games - some want RP to have real bite - if you (as the GM) and your players are not on the same page it will cause problems. If you haven't had those discussions before it rears it's head at the table - then that's when you need to step back and have the talk.

In this situation - player did something GM thinks should make him fall. I'm not sure why he brought it to this forum - it's his game he needs no permission from us to make a call for *his* game.

If he hasn't had this discussion (about RP and consequences) prior to making the call - he's being a jerk GM. Regardless of his right to make the call or what the player did and 'rules of the game'.

If his player is blindided by this then this is just a passive aggressive way to punish the player. Don't use the rules to beat up a player - if you don't like how they are playing just have a talk about it, and make sure they know what the rules and consequences are before you enforce them.

If the player expects this to happen and is fine with it - then why ask the forums - we are not the GM in question - the only person that has the right to make a 'fall' call is the GM and it's your game - you already allowed a chaotic paladin - without a code you can argue grey morals till the end of time but it's still your game. If you are just wanting justification - again it doesn't matter what anyone else says - you are better for the health of your gaming table asking your table (with the Paladin present) for their opinions - instead of strangers on the internet. At least then you can be sure that your players are able to speak up - no amount of forum posts backing you up will save your game if everyone else at your table thinks it was a bad call.

Liberty's Edge

Jaelithe wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
"Against my people's enemy I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except to extract information. I will defeat them and scatter theirs families..."
Paladins shouldn't have a code that makes 'em sound like Mongols.

In fairness, the Mongols wouldn't dream of scattering their enemies' families. They just killed them.


taldanrebel2187 wrote:
Does anyone in this thread really think that a LG Paladin shows mercy to evil outsiders, undead or dragons because "they surrendered"? I mean, really? I'm hoping to God this is a troll thread.

The only paladin (at my table) I'd expect that from would be one of Sarenrae.

Although her paladin code is a bit looser than most in other areas - such as the ability to lie.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
"Against my people's enemy I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except to extract information. I will defeat them and scatter theirs families..."
Paladins shouldn't have a code that makes 'em sound like Mongols.
In fairness, the Mongols wouldn't dream of scattering their enemies' families. They just killed them.

Indeed. I stand corrected. ;)


Ckorik wrote:

You job as the GM is to both 'play the other side' and be the judge - if your player is trying to RP and doesn't expect negatives - doing so will shut down any attempt at RP they ever wanted to try again.

As the judge - you should have the maturity to stop the session and make sure the player both wants the RP to have consequences and is comfortable with the effects on their character - because if they aren't it can totally take the fun out of the game.

Some people want RP light games - some want RP to have real bite - if you (as the GM) and your players are not on the same page it will cause problems. If you haven't had those discussions before it rears it's head at the table - then that's when you need to step back and have the talk.

In this situation - player did something GM thinks should make him fall. I'm not sure why he brought it to this forum - it's his game he needs no permission from us to make a call for *his* game.

If he hasn't had this discussion (about RP and consequences) prior to making the call - he's being a jerk GM. Regardless of his right to make the call or what the player did and 'rules of the game'.

If his player is blindided by this then this is just a passive aggressive way to punish the player. Don't use the rules to beat up a player - if you don't like how they are playing just have a talk about it, and make sure they know what the rules and consequences are before you enforce them.

If the player expects this to happen and is fine with it - then why ask the forums - we are not the GM in question - the only person that has the right to make a 'fall' call is the GM and it's your game - you already allowed a chaotic paladin - without a code you can argue grey morals till the end of time but it's still your game. If you are just wanting justification - again it doesn't matter what anyone else says - you are better for the health of your gaming table asking your table (with the Paladin present) for their opinions - instead of strangers on the internet. At least then you can be sure that your players are able to speak up - no amount of forum posts backing you up will save your game if everyone else at your table thinks it was a bad call.

It response to your comments - I have discussed that actions have consequences and the player is probably the player who has most put the view that the game should be tough on the PCs.

Of course this doesn't mean that putting it to him that the events could result in his Paladin falling won't blindside him. Humans are quite skilled at not seeing consequences of actions and suggestions they've made or put in place.

I came to hear to get some distant perspective because as GM and Players we are within the situation and while this gives details you don't have this also means we lose a degree of perspective and can develop tunnel vision. This is the "Advice" forum after all. And indeed I have gained useful input from many of the posters. I'm not asking for posts I can hold up to my players and say "I'm right because they say I am". I'm looking for posts that say "you are right/wrong because of "x"" and "have you thought of "y"" and "you could try handling the situation with "y" or "z"" which is where your post largely fits, and is not without value, although I could've done with out the passive-aggressive attacks on myself. Those posts will help we check my thinking and see things I've missed and make me rethink things I had clearly understood.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Davick wrote:

From Shelyn's code

Quote:
I act to prevent conflict before it blossoms.
Quote:
I accept surrender if my opponent can be redeemed—and I never assume that they cannot be.
Quote:
I lead by example, not with my blade. Where my blade passes, a life is cut short, and the world's potential for beauty is lessened.
You won't find a code for a paladin of any good alignment who OKs killing a surrendered enemy. It shouldn't even need to be written out or discussed beforehand.

Torag sounds like the kind of god who doesn't accept surrender when foe falls into the "enemy of my people" category.


Hey, there. The creature had surrendered, which I think is the crux of it. What I might do is turn this into a roleplaying opportunity that also serves as an opportunity to work with your player to develop and further the story.

1. Speak with the player aside from the table and work with them as regards what it means for them to be a chaotic paladin. Don't focus on this event specifically, but on more general aspects of their character: behavior, ideals, goals. This may be something you've discussed, but you should also examine what his interpretation of chaotic and yours is, and then relate it to his stated ideals and goals for that paladin type. For example: chaotic to some means a non-extensive but existent personal code is okay. To others, that the "code" is mutable and changable, that "end goals" are more important and "however you get there" is flexible. A number of posters seem to fall into this latter category.

2. Take some time later and contemplate the above. Treat yourself to a pizza while doing so.

3. Decide then not to revoke the paladin's powers, but to exert some divine consequences to encourage the paladin to consider what you'd worked through, above.* For example, he might feel his god's disapproval. This signals to him to pay closer attention to the tenants you'd worked through, together. If he wants a tougher game, I would impose a penalty of some kind on his actions until he has time to contemplate, and act on this ingame (-1 or -2...talk with him). To some players, consequences do not exist without the mechanical component.

4. If you ended up needing to express the deific disapproval and the Freedom Warrior continues his actions, then remove powers.

...I suggest this sequence of actions as it will develop and build a greater depth of story and character, within your campaign. Also, it works on and maintains your relationship with the player. Finally, it encourages the player to give the action a deeper level of thought--along /with/ you, and that is pretty cool.**

* If appropriate. I have a difficult time imagining that "does not accept an honorable surrender" fits within a good alignment, but it might fit within interpretations of -chaotic-, if the end goal was more important (wyvern was still a potential threat, skip the inbetween and eliminate threat). This is one of the reasons why the indepth discussion is so important.

** Sometimes, I have found that the "Freedom Paladin" can turn into a "Freedom, 'Murica!" type. I don't claim this is the case, but if it is it might encourage him to develop and deepen the concept.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm just not sure where this idea that killing is evil or that killing after incapacitating is evil comes from. It isn't stated in the books. I can imagine plenty of good characters who would think that, and I can imagine plenty of good characters who think the first group are dangerous idiots. I don't mind roleplaying character differences, but I do prefer to spend time before campaigns start figuring out if the story is gonna be worth telling. I have been involved in too many games that went nowhere because of style difference or player conflict to waste my or anyone else's time on ones that appear to be headed there.


Gregory Connolly wrote:
I'm just not sure where this idea that killing is evil or that killing after incapacitating is evil comes from. It isn't stated in the books. I can imagine plenty of good characters who would think that, and I can imagine plenty of good characters who think the first group are dangerous idiots. I don't mind roleplaying character differences, but I do prefer to spend time before campaigns start figuring out if the story is gonna be worth telling. I have been involved in too many games that went nowhere because of style difference or player conflict to waste my or anyone else's time on ones that appear to be headed there.

If it's not evil, it's neutral. And paladins aren't neutral. Not every adventurer has to have their actions scrutinized by the divine. It's ok for them to fudge a bit. It's even ok for a paladin to fudge a bit. But imagine if this scenario were between the paladin's party and a group of humans and they were negotiating in a hall after a battle on the field instead of in the woods. When the paladin busts in and kills the other party, would you be dismissing it like you would this?

Silver Crusade

Solidchaos085 wrote:
Davick wrote:

From Shelyn's code

Quote:
I act to prevent conflict before it blossoms.
Quote:
I accept surrender if my opponent can be redeemed—and I never assume that they cannot be.
Quote:
I lead by example, not with my blade. Where my blade passes, a life is cut short, and the world's potential for beauty is lessened.
You won't find a code for a paladin of any good alignment who OKs killing a surrendered enemy. It shouldn't even need to be written out or discussed beforehand.

Unless you're a paladin of Torag, then you slay the enemies of your people, no questions asked, no mercy given.

There's a reason Torag and Sarenrae don't get along.

Yeah but Torag is pretty bad at being LG. Many people find his code highly questionable.

This paladin was behaving far too bloodthirsty to qualify as a paladin. And is exactly the kind of character that makes diplomatic/redemptive PCs miserable.


Davick wrote:
Gregory Connolly wrote:
I'm just not sure where this idea that killing is evil or that killing after incapacitating is evil comes from. It isn't stated in the books. I can imagine plenty of good characters who would think that, and I can imagine plenty of good characters who think the first group are dangerous idiots. I don't mind roleplaying character differences, but I do prefer to spend time before campaigns start figuring out if the story is gonna be worth telling. I have been involved in too many games that went nowhere because of style difference or player conflict to waste my or anyone else's time on ones that appear to be headed there.
If it's not evil, it's neutral. And paladins aren't neutral. Not every adventurer has to have their actions scrutinized by the divine. It's ok for them to fudge a bit. It's even ok for a paladin to fudge a bit. But imagine if this scenario were between the paladin's party and a group of humans and they were negotiating in a hall after a battle on the field instead of in the woods. When the paladin busts in and kills the other party, would you be dismissing it like you would this?

Depends on the world and setting, and the paladins code.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Davick, that is a straw man argument. If you replace the wyvern with a flying human who attacked first and flew away to some cave it would be closer. And yes, I think characters of all alignments could justify killing the guy easily. I think the player was being chaotic in ignoring the wishes of his companions, but I think the gnome and the sphinx were a little odd in that they cared enough to stop the wyvern from running away but not enough to stop the paladin from killing it.

Liberty's Edge

Gregory Connolly wrote:
I'm just not sure where this idea that killing is evil or that killing after incapacitating is evil comes from. It isn't stated in the books. I can imagine plenty of good characters who would think that, and I can imagine plenty of good characters who think the first group are dangerous idiots. I don't mind roleplaying character differences, but I do prefer to spend time before campaigns start figuring out if the story is gonna be worth telling. I have been involved in too many games that went nowhere because of style difference or player conflict to waste my or anyone else's time on ones that appear to be headed there.

I disagree. It's an Evil act. However...Good characters aren't perfect. Many, if not most, will commit minor Evil acts under the right circumstances, and as long as they're Good the rest of the time their Alignment remains. And so you're right, some Good characters would argue for doing this...but doing so is an Evil act. Paladins don't have the luxury of doing those.


Mikaze wrote:


Yeah but Torag is pretty bad at being LG. Many people find his code highly questionable.

This paladin was behaving far too bloodthirsty to qualify as a paladin. And is exactly the kind of character that makes diplomatic/redemptive PCs miserable.

But the fact remains that Torag is LG and has a code that allows this behavior.

And there is nothing in the paladin description that precludes being "bloodthirsty". A Paladin can be the hand of vengeance and the personification of his god's wrath.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Democratus wrote:

But the fact remains that Torag is LG and has a code that allows this behavior.

And there is nothing in the paladin description that precludes being "bloodthirsty". A Paladin can be the hand of vengeance and the personification of his god's wrath.

Sure. And killing truly Evil foes is totally cool (especially in combat...out of combat, summary trials are a thing, but you need charges ie: they need to have done something warranting execution). This wasn't an Evil creature, though. Or one who'd provably done more than commit assault. Or an ancestral enemy of his people.

Heck, even Torag would look at this guy and be like "Dude, did Wyverns kill your grandpa? No? Then that was excessive. Stop it."


Stephen Ede wrote:

It response to your comments - I have discussed that actions have consequences and the player is probably the player who has most put the view that the game should be tough on the PCs.

Of course this doesn't mean that putting it to him that the events could result in his Paladin falling won't blindside him. Humans are quite skilled at not seeing consequences of actions and suggestions they've made or put in place.

I came to hear to get some distant perspective because as GM and Players we are within the situation and while this gives details you don't have this also means we lose a degree of perspective and can develop tunnel vision. This is the "Advice" forum after all. And indeed I have gained useful input from many of the posters. I'm not asking for posts I can hold up to my players and say "I'm right because they say I am". I'm looking for posts that say "you are right/wrong because of "x"" and "have you thought of "y"" and "you could try handling the situation with "y" or "z"" which is where your post largely fits, and is not without value, although I could've done with out the passive-aggressive attacks on myself. Those posts will help we check my thinking and see things I've missed and make me rethink things I had clearly understood.

From the information given you haven't given him a code to follow

I need to know though - do you houserule Coup De Grace as well? Because it's a full round action that doesn't complete until your next turn - his allies should have had plenty of time to explain what was going on before the head came off.

I tried to follow your link to the document but it didn't work - the OGL has a code for the Paladin of Freedom to whit.

Quote:


Paladins of freedom do not follow a strict code, other than to say that they always seek to uphold the tenets of liberty and goodness wherever they travel. They resist tyranny and oppression, lead others in fighting unjust rulership, and ignore laws which limit the free and fair choices of intelligent beings. A paladin of freedom adheres to the philosophy of "That which is knowingly consented to by all involved, is just." Most leaders, good or otherwise, consider paladins of freedom anarchists to be sought out and either kept away from others by way of imprisonment, or in more evil societies, simply destroyed as soon as they are discovered. In most organized societies paladins of freedom must operate quietly as to not arouse the attention of the most powerful around them.

Ignoring the moral drama if you use the official CTG rules his party consented and thus his actions were just.

If you houserule CTG and his party didn't have time to respond then he didn't have consent and so broke his code.

Liberty's Edge

He should have lain hands upon it, woken it up, demand it surrender (which is totally cool- Paladins of Freedom are all about forcing other people to bend to their will) and then killed it if it DIDN'T comply. If he wasn't able to one-shot the creature to death from there, the process would have to be repeated until he could, to avoid killing a helpless creature.

Amiright?!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

I disagree. It's an Evil act. However...Good characters aren't perfect. Many, if not most, will commit minor Evil acts under the right circumstances, and as long as they're Good the rest of the time their Alignment remains. And so you're right, some Good characters would argue for doing this...but doing so is an Evil act. Paladins don't have the luxury of doing those.

It's not an evil act - it's just not a lawful one. Nothing says good must give quarter - even if the foe isn't evil. Once attacked you have the right to take out your foe without being called evil - it's not like the Paladin went looking for a Wyvern nest to take out.

He's not a Lawful paladin - he's a chaotic paladin - he certainly doesn't have to agree to peace just because the enemy realised it can't kill him.

Liberty's Edge

Ckorik wrote:

It's not an evil act - it's just not a lawful one. Nothing says good must give quarter - even if the foe isn't evil. Once attacked you have the right to take out your foe without being called evil - it's not like the Paladin went looking for a Wyvern nest to take out.

He's not a Lawful paladin - he's a chaotic paladin - he certainly doesn't have to agree to peace just because the enemy realised it can't kill him.

Peace? No, certainly not. Avoiding killing unconscious foes? Yeah, that's sort of a thing...


Gregory Connolly wrote:
Davick, that is a straw man argument.

Nope. I didn't make an absurd argument, I merely changed the trappings of the one at hand. Wyvern->Man woods -> hall

If you're saying the scenery affects what is good and evil, then no amount of logic will help you. The same could be said if you think it's good for a person to kill one half of a diplomatic meeting.

Would it be good for Obama to shoot Putin at their next Summit?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ckorik wrote:


He's not a Lawful paladin - he's a chaotic paladin - he certainly doesn't have to agree to peace just because the enemy realised it can't kill him.

But why wouldn't he? Why would a good character kill when they could not kill? It sounds like some people are trying to make the same distortion the character did, and it's eerie, like Dr. Manhattan strange: "There is no difference in the composition of a living person and a dead person." Sure, but killing is evil guys. It IS. No matter how cool it is. They say war is hell for a reason. There's a reason PTSD is what happens afterwards, because even if you know you had to kill, it gets to you. Which is why in a situation where the paladin didn't have to kill, and EXPLICITLY only did it for petty vengeance, it IS evil. It just is. You don't snuff out a life for nothing. You guys are messed up.


Torag's code is so obviously problematic (and a bit of institutionalized myopia from the Paizo writers, IMO) that I would immediately disallow, or at the very least amend, it for my game, were I employing Golarion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nice try but no. There is a huge difference between one creature and a group of creatures. There is a huge difference between the chase in the air through the woods and the aftermath of a group battle in a field near a hall. In your changed example you have created a gap of more than 12 seconds between when the gnome and sphinx start the parlay and when the paladin catches up. The characters never left combat rounds in the original example.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Davick wrote:
Gregory Connolly wrote:
Davick, that is a straw man argument.

Nope. I didn't make an absurd argument, I merely changed the trappings of the one at hand. Wyvern->Man woods -> hall

If you're saying the scenery affects what is good and evil, then no amount of logic will help you. The same could be said if you think it's good for a person to kill one half of a diplomatic meeting.

Would it be good for Obama to shoot Putin at their next Summit?

Except that isn't at all what this would amount to. Good job on missing the point.

This situation would amount to Putin Bombed the US then called a peace summit with California and Texas while talking in a secret code then Obama shows up and shoots him in the face twice. It seems fine to me, no falling imo.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

"This creature is a danger to civilized society and should be put down for the good of all. It attacks passerbys at random and quite likely wouldn't have given quarter should it have won. Can we guarantee that it won't go on to harm others after we've left?"

Putting others in danger is definitely an evil act if you're hoping this "brutish" monster is going to keep to it's word and not attack the next travelers who happen by if it is attacking first and asking for parley if it loses. I certainly wouldn't trust the word of a creature that attacked without warning.

Coup de grace is a bit much though better than just watching the thing bleed out.

Theres plenty of justification that can be made, the question is Stephen...

Do you want to punish your player for this action? Would this make the game more enjoyable for you and your players?

Liberty's Edge

Davick wrote:
Ckorik wrote:


He's not a Lawful paladin - he's a chaotic paladin - he certainly doesn't have to agree to peace just because the enemy realised it can't kill him.
But why wouldn't he? Why would a good character kill when they could not kill? It sounds like some people are trying to make the same distortion the character did, and it's eerie, like Dr. Manhattan strange: "There is no difference in the composition of a living person and a dead person." Sure, but killing is evil guys. It IS. No matter how cool it is. They say war is hell for a reason. There's a reason PTSD is what happens afterwards, because even if you know you had to kill, it gets to you. Which is why in a situation where the paladin didn't have to kill, and EXPLICITLY only did it for petty vengeance, it IS evil. It just is. You don't snuff out a life for nothing. You guys are messed up.

This. There are situations where killing isn't Evil (combat, execution for serious crimes, etc.)...but it's almost never a Good thing (sometimes in direct self defense or defense of another it could be, but not always even then). This wasn't any of those, though. This was murder. Of a non-Evil being. Out of personal spite. How the hell is that not Evil?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jaelithe wrote:
Torag's code is so obviously problematic (and a bit of institutionalized myopia from the Paizo writers, IMO) that I would immediately disallow, or at the very least amend, it for my game, were I employing Golarion.

Or Paizo could be trying to say that alot of alignments can be played broadly.

Liberty's Edge

P33J wrote:

Torag

• Against my people's enemies I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except to extract information. I will defeat them, and I will scatter their families. Yet even in the struggle against our enemies, I will act in a way that brings honor to Torag.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Sure. And killing truly Evil foes is totally cool (especially in combat...out of combat, summary trials are a thing, but you need charges ie: they need to have done something warranting execution). This wasn't an Evil creature, though. Or one who'd provably done more than commit assault. Or an ancestral enemy of his people.

Heck, even Torag would look at this guy and be like "Dude, did Wyverns kill your grandpa? No? Then that was excessive. Stop it."

Liberty's Edge

Scavion wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:
Torag's code is so obviously problematic (and a bit of institutionalized myopia from the Paizo writers, IMO) that I would immediately disallow, or at the very least amend, it for my game, were I employing Golarion.
Or Paizo could be trying to say that alot of alignments can be played broadly.

Don't be silly. Good is monolithic. It's impossible for two good people to disagree on what is right in any given situation.

Liberty's Edge

Scavion wrote:

"This creature is a danger to civilized society and should be put down for the good of all. It attacks passerbys at random and quite likely wouldn't have given quarter should it have won. Can we guarantee that it won't go on to harm others after we've left?"

Putting others in danger is definitely an evil act if you're hoping this "brutish" monster is going to keep to it's word and not attack the next travelers who happen by if it is attacking first and asking for parley if it loses. I certainly wouldn't trust the word of a creature that attacked without warning.

Coup de grace is a bit much though better than just watching the thing bleed out.

Theres plenty of justification that can be made, the question is Stephen...

Do you want to punish your player for this action? Would this make the game more enjoyable for you and your players?

When your Paladin is violating the Geneva Convention, you are doing it wrong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
P33J wrote:

Torag

• Against my people's enemies I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except to extract information. I will defeat them, and I will scatter their families. Yet even in the struggle against our enemies, I will act in a way that brings honor to Torag.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Sure. And killing truly Evil foes is totally cool (especially in combat...out of combat, summary trials are a thing, but you need charges ie: they need to have done something warranting execution). This wasn't an Evil creature, though. Or one who'd provably done more than commit assault. Or an ancestral enemy of his people.

Heck, even Torag would look at this guy and be like "Dude, did Wyverns kill your grandpa? No? Then that was excessive. Stop it."

Attacking people with lethal force without warning is pretty damning. The Wyvern intended to kill them. Are you saying every party should roll over and let creatures go when the creature wouldn't do the same for them?

Deadmanwalking wrote:
When your Paladin is violating the Geneva Convention, you are doing it wrong.

I didn't know the Geneva Convention was in the game as a international standard between countries and individual monsters. Remember, for it to be valid, the parties must have agreed to it beforehand.

Liberty's Edge

Scavion wrote:
Attacking people with lethal force without warning is pretty damning. The Wyvern intended to kill them. Are you saying every party should roll over and let creatures go when the creature wouldn't do the same for them?

Who said anything about letting it go?

A surrender could certainly be negotiated, as well as reparations and appropriate punishment. But..."You invaded my territory." is actually not a bad defense against charges of assault in a lawless wilderness area. It's not exactly a get out of jail free card, but it's a mitigating factor, and should probably reduce the severity of the punishment to something lower than, y'know, death.

Scavion wrote:
I didn't know the Geneva Convention was in the game as a international standard between countries and individual monsters. Remember, for it to be valid, the parties must have agreed to it beforehand.

*sighs* Allow me to rephrase:

When your Paladin is doing something that would violate the Geneva Convention when done to enemy combatants, you are doing it wrong.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Attacking people with lethal force without warning is pretty damning. The Wyvern intended to kill them. Are you saying every party should roll over and let creatures go when the creature wouldn't do the same for them?

Who said anything about letting it go?

A surrender could certainly be negotiated, as well as reparations and appropriate punishment. But..."You invaded my territory." is actually not a bad defense against charges of assault in a lawless wilderness area. It's not exactly a get out of jail free card, but it's a mitigating factor, and should probably reduce the severity of the punishment to something lower than, y'know, death.

Yeah no. If you walk through my yard I'm not going to shoot you in the leg.

This creature savagely attacked with the intent to kill.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Scavion wrote:

"This creature is a danger to civilized society and should be put down for the good of all. It attacks passerbys at random and quite likely wouldn't have given quarter should it have won. Can we guarantee that it won't go on to harm others after we've left?"

Putting others in danger is definitely an evil act if you're hoping this "brutish" monster is going to keep to it's word and not attack the next travelers who happen by if it is attacking first and asking for parley if it loses. I certainly wouldn't trust the word of a creature that attacked without warning.

Coup de grace is a bit much though better than just watching the thing bleed out.

Theres plenty of justification that can be made, the question is Stephen...

Do you want to punish your player for this action? Would this make the game more enjoyable for you and your players?

When your Paladin is violating the Geneva Convention, you are doing it wrong.

Yiles. Don't play any Paizo Adventure Paths. There's murder-hoboing a'plenty.

Heck, the foundation of this RPG is hostile entry into the homes of often sentient beings, killing them all, and taking their stuff.

The Geneva Convention isn't in line with this idiom.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:


*sighs* Allow me to rephrase:

When your Paladin is doing something that would violate the Geneva Convention when done to enemy combatants, you are doing it wrong.

Which again, would be valid if the Paladin and the Enemy knew of that universal standard beforehand and agreed to it.

The Paladin code doesn't state "OH and you must obey the Geneva Convention."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The party was attacked in the woods by this wyvern. Why is it that some people always want to try and negotiate with something that just tried to kill you? He's a Paladin, not a Monk with a Vow of Peace. There is a difference. A wyvern just attacked them in the woods, if he lets that wyvern live, think of who else that wyvern will attack. In the interest of protecting people, and for the good of the weak, he can't let this creature live. The wyvern was a coward who fought without honor by ambushing the Paladin. There is no discussion to be had. Who cares if the party is full of foolishly forgiving diplomats?

This is why I always refrain from playing a Paladin. Many GMs try to distort just about anything you do and label it an evil act.

Liberty's Edge

Scavion wrote:

Yeah no. If you walk through my yard I'm not going to shoot you in the leg.

This creature savagely attacked with the intent to kill.

Let's examine the actual situation, not hyperbole, shall we? You live in an area with no laws or authorities, and a group of armed strangers enter your land uninvited. They are, in fact, scouting it to expand their community onto it without consulting with you. Is attacking them justified now?

Personally, I'd say attacking them without warning them is highly excessive, but it's a pretty understandable reaction in context. Should they put up with that? No. Are they justified in fighting back? Sure. Is defending your property from interlopers a crime worthy of death? I'm gonna go with no.

The Exchange

Davick wrote:
...in a situation where the paladin didn't have to kill, and EXPLICITLY only did it for petty vengeance, it IS evil. It just is. You don't snuff out a life for nothing. You guys are messed up.

It wasn't for nothing! It was to settle an arbitrary and one-sided grudge!

Humor aside, Davick, your argument is valid but suffers from Pathfinder's innate stipulation that violence is an acceptable measure for any being, no matter how Good. It's not the sort of world I'd want to live in (and luckily almost any creature listed in the Bestiary would grant my wish of 'not living' in that world). Folks tend to see the paladin as a warrior first and a paragon of Good second... while I see a paladin's duty to be an example of (in this case Chaotic) Good as more important than getting a surprise attack. The paladin definitely slipped up, and some lesser penalty would be reasonable, but permanent power loss is a bit much. Save that for when he sets out to kill all wyverns, in the egg, so they won't grow up and do evil things.

Liberty's Edge

Democratus wrote:

Yiles. Don't play any Paizo Adventure Paths. There's murder-hoboing a'plenty.

Heck, the foundation of this RPG is hostile entry into the homes of often sentient beings, killing them all, and taking their stuff.

The Geneva Convention isn't in line with this idiom.

Uh...invading another country to conquer it and take it's stuff isn't against the Geneva Convention. Nor is killing enemy combatants when they object to this behavior.

That's just war. The Geneva Convention deals with war crimes, which are a somewhat different category of thing.

Also, having just recently re-read Legacy of Fire, Curse of the Crimson Throne, Reign of Winter, Serpent's Skull, and Wrath of the Righteous...at no point are you forced to make unprovoked attacks against the homes of other creatures. Unless those homes belonged to your countrymen before the creatures in question murdered them and took said homes, of course. And that's not exactly unprovoked, now is it?

101 to 150 of 496 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Paladin PC - I think he just fell. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.