I'm still shocked this is a conversation. "I didn't know any better" is NEVER a valid excuse. Why does the paladin get one for killing an innocent creature? Because he was stupid?
/flips table
Because it was difficult to judge the situation at the time? He might get a lesser sentence?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To do something wrong, it's required that you know what you did, or that you should have known what you did.You seem to forget the tried and true legal principle:
"Ignorance of the Law is not a sufficient defense against breaking it."
"Ignorantia legis non excusat" is about the ignorance of law itself rather that ignorance of context.
If they get me at the customs with a suitcase full of drugs, I'm not excused if I don't know that smuggling drugs is illegal, but I'm excused if I genuinely didn't know that the suitcase was full of drugs.
Therefor the ACT of killing is not inherently evil. It is the extraneous detail that determine "evil" or not.
Valid assertion...
Knowing that, the next question would be to ask, is killing a G aligned person evil/is killing an E person good or evil?
...And question.
If so, than that means soldiers/warriors who ever went into battle for their country should potentially be evil (depending on just WHO they killed and if they even managed to kill someone at all). Unless of course you have a happy fantasy land where all "good" kingdoms get along and only fight evil tyrannical monsters.
Invalid assertion without defining N killing N, or assuming that G is somehow more prevalent than E, for respect to a soldier.
So if you believe absolutely, killing something G is an E act, then the Paladin falls. Also means soldiers are mostly evil.
See above.
Additionally, we have to determine the moral rammification for killing evil. Is killing an E person good or evil or N? This is in a vacuum with no regard to any other details beyond person kills someone who has E written on his character sheet. That information comes in the next layer of study.
Valid premise/progression.
If you believe killing a E person is N/G then Muderhobo style paladin is completely justified, atleast on the G/E spectrum. The L/C may be an issue but that is irrelevant for now. So long as it pings on Detect Evil he is justified to kill it.
Entirely true. Indeed, would make those crusading at the Worldwound entirely within their remit.
If you believe alignment does not make as huge a determination on justifiable kill or not that then leads to the next layer of detail, motivation and intent. At this phase, present knowledge does, in fact play an inportant part. Often, reasonable capability for knowledge of the situation is a major determination between accidental death and purposeful death. If there is no reasonable way for the subject to possess knowledge of a situation, often it is considered accidental (like closing a breaker that is not tagged out and accidentally killing a person down stream who is performing a resistance check.
True. Though the example is problematic in that this is killing someone not knowing you're even killing them.
Another example of this would be a police officer. Say an officer/swat are aware there is a shooter in a building. They have a general idea of the suspect appearance (clothes, gender, rough age, possible race, know he is wearing a mask). So they enter the building and say a person matching the perp comes running toward them with a gun. They shoot and kill him (after all, he was charging them). But they find out it wasnt the perp. He had the gun tapped to his hand, had ear pugs so he.couldnt hear them to back off. But often it will be considered an accidental death because, at that moment, they could not have known.it was not the perp.
So at this point, the act would most likely NOT be considered evil...
But that is just my logic lol
Now, some meat for the argument! :P
The situation you describe involves an element of perciving being at actual risk of harm/death at the time of the killing. The situation in the OP works on an assumption of being in danger. Now the break down problem (in that real world relation is fuzzy) is that in the real world you don't have "made of evil" as a thing that people are. What you do have is that self-defence requires us to actually have a reasonable assumption of being at risk. I.e. A person just holding a shovel cannot be assumed to be about to hit you with it.The situation described oversteps normal, rational assumptions of risk in my opinion. But eh - I'm not saying the killing in question is what would prompt me to say fall (so I'm doing this for fun at this point). :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To do something wrong, it's required that you know what you did, or that you should have known what you did.You seem to forget the tried and true legal principle:
"Ignorance of the Law is not a sufficient defense against breaking it."
"Ignorantia legis non excusat" is about the ignorance of law itself rather that ignorance of context.
If they get me at the customs with a suitcase full of drugs, I'm not excused if I don't know that smuggling drugs is illegal, but I'm excused if I genuinely didn't know that the suitcase was full of drugs.
What if you could've reasonably known that there were drugs, but you just didn't bother to check?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if you could've reasonably known that there were drugs, but you just didn't bother to check?
Let's say that if they give me a sealed suitcase to pass through customs the chance that is a smuggling attempt is a lot higher than given a Succubus she's actually a a Paladin.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*sets the table back up* How rude.I'm still shocked this is a conversation. "I didn't know any better" is NEVER a valid excuse. Why does the paladin get one for killing an innocent creature? Because he was stupid?
/flips table
Sorry. I shouldn't have overreacted. I did something wrong, EVEN IF I DIDN'T KNOW IT AT THE TIME.
/fixes up the table and gets everyone a drink
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the table is flipped by an Oath against Furniture Paladin, does it complain about martial-caster disparity?
What if you could've reasonably known that there were drugs, but you just didn't bother to check?Let's say that if they give me a sealed suitcase to pass through customs the chance that is a smuggling attempt is a lot higher than given a Succubus she's actually a a Paladin.
But would you be excused?
But would you be excused?
If I'm truly ignorant of the context yes. Luckily alignment force and the patron deity know what the character actually thinks
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
WillFULLy =/= WillINGLy
Did the paladin intend to do evil?
Huh...one mis-thought checking my definitions and it spawns a lot of unnecessary talk.
Revised position: Nope Paladin doesn't fall for killing the succubus but does if leaving the locals defenceless subsequently.Which, amazingly, was my previous assertion anyway.
WillFULLy =/= WillINGLy
Did the paladin intend to do evil?
Huh...one mis-thought checking my definitions and it spawns a lot of unnecessary talk.
Revised position: Nope Paladin doesn't fall for killing the succubus but does if leaving the locals defenceless subsequently.
Which, amazingly, was my previous assertion anyway.
So does that mean raising the succubus or staying to protect the villagers?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still shocked this is a conversation. "I didn't know any better" is NEVER a valid excuse. Why does the paladin get one for killing an innocent creature? Because he was stupid?
No, it's because he wasn't stupid that there's a discussion.
"I didn't know better" is only a lame excuse if you're supposed to know better.
"I gave peanuts to someone who had an undiagnosed allergy and they died. I didn't know better." Fine.
"I gave peanuts to someone who warned me about their allergy because I didn't check the ingredients label. I didn't know better." Not OK. You might not have known about the peanuts, but you should have known to check the label.
What if you could've reasonably known that there were drugs, but you just didn't bother to check?
Depends. Should you have checked? In an airport everyone is held responsible for the contents of their own luggage - you're expected to know what's in it and keep it close enough that no one can add things to it without your knowledge. However if you're a shipping company and someone gives you a package to ship I don't think you're responsible for the contents of that package - in fact there's a contrary expectation that you shouldn't check because mail is private.
WillFULLy =/= WillINGLy
The English language, everyone!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Both you and Weirdo don't seem to get it. It's precisely BECAUSE the succubus' role is so opposite of Mr. Sword Happy, that makes it the perfect form of penance. The idea of redemption is not to just provide another excuse to cover himself in glory and blood, it's to grind in some humility and remind him who and what he's supposed to be fighting for.
That's a choice. Another choice of course is to simply lay waste to the ungrateful bastards. (Because surely they must be so) and take another step down The Road of Arthas.
Humility is great. If the paladin had destroyed the hospital I would be all for making him rebuild it. But this is a crisis situation in which the people require care that the paladin may be poorly qualified to give. While he's grinding in his humility, the villagers are suffering from lack of adequate care.
If the paladin accidentally killed a diplomat, would you want him to negotiate a peace treaty with no training in negotiation?
Again, I'm assuming that the penance is being suggested by a benevolent NPC who doesn't want the paladin's lesson to come at the villagers' expense. The OP says the paladin went back to find someone to 'break the enchantment' on the villagers, so I'd expect him to find a moderately powerful cleric to set him straight. If there isn't such an NPC present, it's perfectly effective to let the paladin struggle through the realistic consequences of that action even if those consequences involve further suffering and death.
Though from the paladin's POV the best option for protecting the villagers is still to kill the thing that's killing them, not to humbly struggle on as their medic while they die - which defeats the "blood and glory are not always the way" lesson.
So does that mean raising the succubus or staying to protect the villagers?WillFULLy =/= WillINGLy
Did the paladin intend to do evil?
Huh...one mis-thought checking my definitions and it spawns a lot of unnecessary talk.
Revised position: Nope Paladin doesn't fall for killing the succubus but does if leaving the locals defenceless subsequently.
Which, amazingly, was my previous assertion anyway.
Both is preferable. If the former can be done quickly, do the former. If no apparent means exist to do the former, do the latter. Basically: The Paladin should probably attempt to request a resurrection (not the specific spell) while filling in during the interim.
It would be the result that minimises concequence while maximising gain.
I would like to point out that an entire village of level 3+ npcs should be able to handle anything that a paladin can except a demon lord. They have to be level 3 or above to be raised by the succubus' ultimate mercy.
Level 2 or lower can be raised with Constitution drain instead of Negative Levels
I would suggest requiring the paladin to find a way to return the succubus paladin to life (a limited wish spell, at least) and then performing one service at her bequest, such as redeeming a tiefling.
Too trite and pat for my taste, and it requires high powered magic which means bringing in super NPC's in most cases.
My favored resolution would require the Paladin to serve in her shoes. Having the succubus remain dead, reinforces the idea that there are choices you can't take back.
Ehh. Limited wish scrolls don't have to be that hard to get one's hands on, nor require access to high-level characters.
However, I do think that having the succubus remain dead can be an important lesson in not being able to take back our sins. As Weirdo says though, I'm not sure doing her job is either possible nor fitting.
Some kind of atonement that is more than just shelling out a few thousand GP's would be appropriate, but as Weirdo suggested, redeeming other evil characters, through non-combat means, could be such a duty.
Both you and Weirdo don't seem to get it. It's precisely BECAUSE the succubus' role is so opposite of Mr. Sword Happy, that makes it the perfect form of penance. The idea of redemption is not to just provide another excuse to cover himself in glory and blood, it's to grind in some humility and remind him who and what he's supposed to be fighting for.
That's a choice. Another choice of course is to simply lay waste to the ungrateful bastards. (Because surely they must be so) and take another step down The Road of Arthas.
I'm not sure that's a fair comparison. I don't think Arthas was necessarily doing the wrong thing in Stratholme. He took the lesser of the evil paths. Uther just ran away. The plague is incurable by the Paladins and Arthas was facing a VERY strict time limit regarding Malganus gaining a large under army.
The entire excuse for the Paladin not suffering any fall amounts to. He was racist (against demons) so it was a good act to kill one in his mind, and that's all that matters. It doesn't matter that she was doing a good act, non-violent, and clearly supported by the good people of the church when he happened upon her. Nope, she was of a race he doesn't like so murder = good in some of your minds. Frightening.
Some of,them think that the paladin will suffer SOME consequences, like being required to do some penance, but notneeding to lose his powers while doing said penance.
The fact that this demon WAS good proves that in this GMs game not all demons are evil. Whether she was mortal isn't relevant.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's relevant in the fact that 99.9999999% of all other demons are evil, so there is reason for the paladin to be suspicious of the succubus.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's leave the real-world politics and race relations out of this. Please?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given the specific context, does the Paladin fall for killing the succubus? No. It wasn't the right thing to do, but in those particular circumstances, a tragic but understandable mistake. He *may* fall for resisting arrest afterwards, and if he refuses to ultimately acknowledge that it was wrong to kill her, he most certainly would fall.
It's relevant in the fact that 99.9999999% of all other demons are evil, so there is reason for the paladin to be suspicious of the succubus.
Is it? I don't think so. This demon mattered here NOT the unknown number of other evil ones. Unless it is absolute that they can only be evil then it is evil to attack someone who is doing good deeds. It would be pretty obvious that the demon wasn't the normal variety just by its actions. He didn't even ask anything... Just attack on sight.
evil to attack someone who is doing good deeds.
But the paladin didn't get to see the succubus healing people. When he entered he saw a succubus surrounded by unarmed people and some corpses.
[Godwin Intensifies]
It would be the same as entering in a room and finding a guy with a swastika strapped on his arm and with a rifle in his hands surrounded by some helpless Jews.
What's Godwin?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's relevant in the fact that 99.9999999% of all other demons are evil, so there is reason for the paladin to be suspicious of the succubus.Is it? I don't think so. This demon mattered here NOT the unknown number of other evil ones. Unless it is absolute that they can only be evil then it is evil to attack someone who is doing good deeds. It would be pretty obvious that the demon wasn't the normal variety just by its actions. He didn't even ask anything... Just attack on sight.
It's almost like Bard-Sader is suggesting that people commonly make inductive leaps based upon experiences despite that not being a rational, or in social contexts, fair thing to do.
If your experiences are fomrulated such that to your knowledge, all swans are white, and you hear a black swan without seeing it. It is entirely possible for you to assume the black swan will be white until proven wrong.So looking at the situation, in a setting where the 99.9999999% isn't too far off the mark:
A demon (usually explicitly* chaotic and evil) is among a group of people who can't defend themselves. Now this demon is LG, but experience suggests they are CE, and an immediate threat to those around them.
Disabling this threat is paramount from that perspective.
Really: A big delination from your real world analogies that would put me probably a lot more into your camp, were it not present, is the following: Pathfinder does not operate on a "death-is-the-end premise. In the case in question: A murder occurs. It occurs due to a misunderstanding but is reversible. If expensive. At that point, assuming that some resurrection is undertaken (no one is arguing no-fall if not reversing the crime in some way. It's generally agreed definitely evil, do not pass go), it's not really on any such scale as an offence.
*This is a key point, humans aren't wandering around as embodiments of chaos and evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's Godwin?
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1
And this time it isn't even an exaggerate comparison, actually Demons are worse than Nazis.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that this demon WAS good proves that in this GMs game not all demons are evil. Whether she was mortal isn't relevant.
But unless the paladin has reason to know this demon is good (and I argue below he doesn't) saying that he should have known that demons could be good because this demon is good is circular reasoning. And he OP didn't indicate whether the paladin had any other evidence that good fiends existed.
It's relevant in the fact that 99.9999999% of all other demons are evil, so there is reason for the paladin to be suspicious of the succubus.Is it? I don't think so. This demon mattered here NOT the unknown number of other evil ones. Unless it is absolute that they can only be evil then it is evil to attack someone who is doing good deeds. It would be pretty obvious that the demon wasn't the normal variety just by its actions. He didn't even ask anything... Just attack on sight.
No, it's not obvious that the succubus was abnormal just because she was standing in the middle of villagers without killing them.
This isn't an orc or a goblin. This is a succubus, the physical incarnation of seduction, temptation, and foul deceit. Her kiss both actually sucks the life force out of a mortal and makes them want more.
I've had a disguised succubus royally screw with my players by depending to be an ally. She framed an enemy of hers for her own crimes and sent the party after the enemy. They took him prisoner instead of killing him so she cut his throat. Up until then the succubus was entirely helpful. A succubus is perfectly capable of playing nice with some (possibly charmed) villagers while she gets her evil ducks in a row.
It's almost like Bard-Sader is suggesting that people commonly make inductive leaps based upon experiences despite that not being a rational, or in social contexts, fair thing to do.
If your experiences are formulated such that to your knowledge, all swans are white, and you hear a black swan without seeing it. It is entirely possible for you to assume the black swan will be white until proven wrong.So looking at the situation, in a setting where the 99.9999999% isn't too far off the mark:
A demon (usually explicitly* chaotic and evil) is among a group of people who can't defend themselves. Now this demon is LG, but experience suggests they are CE, and an immediate threat to those around them.
Disabling this threat is paramount from that perspective.
Not only are demons overwhelmingly usually evil but the side effects of the (evil) subtype produce observable evidence that support the idea that these creatures are literally bad to the bone. Fiends are particularly vulnerable to things infused with Goodness, including holy water, a paladin's smite, and the holy smite spell (which notably ONLY gets extra damage against evil outsiders). This means that even someone who might say "I've never seen a good orc but this one might be the first" would be (reasonably) much less inclined to give a fiend the benefit of a doubt.
In most settings I've played in, non-evil fiends are either non-existent or rare enough to be unheard of. As in, most people haven't heard of them, and those that have heard of them don't always believe they exist. After all, people really like the idea of a redeemed succubus so it'd be easy for someone to mistake a tiefling paladin for a succubus and start spreading rumours.
You may not like the idea that something is "evil by species" and I agree that it compares uncomfortably with historical claims that certain human races were savage or otherwise inferior by nature. But if we accept the idea that some type of supernatural entity might be overwhelmingly and demonstrably driven to cause death and suffering, then treating any given such entity as a threat without strong contradictory evidence is a reasonable call.
Disabling this threat is paramount from that perspective
actually, disable is indeed the key word. Would you say the best option is for the padin to take the -4 penalty for dealing non-lethal damage and actually disable instead of kill?
I can't wait to play a Paladin and takes oaths against everything. No other class has built in options that give them a divine right to commit genocide/mass murder and remain LG. This is gonna be friggin sweet.
Gonna smite ALL THE CHAOS. Is that 5 year old kid putting a whoopee cushion in someone's chair? Can't have that. Our oath tells us "Fight vigilantly the servants of chaos." Pranksters are worse than tyrants in the eyes of Abadar. The child must be slain for the good of civilization.
Demons exist for one reason—to destroy. Where their more lawful counterparts, the devils of Hell, seek to twist mortal minds and values to remake and reshape them into reflections of their own evil, demons seek only to maim, ruin, and feed. They recruit mortal life only if such cohorts speed along the eventual destruction of hope and goodness. Death is, in some ways, their enemy—for a mortal who dies can often escape a demon's depredations and flee to his just reward in the afterlife. It is the prolonging of mortal pain and suffering that fuels a demon's lusts and desires, for it is partially from mortal sin and cruelty that these monstrous fiends were born.
Among the demon hordes, a succubus can often rise to incredible heights of power through her manipulations and sensual charms, and many a demonic war has raged due to the subtle machinations of such creatures. A succubus is formed from the souls of particularly lustful and rapacious evil mortals.
|
|
Disabling this threat is paramount from that perspectiveactually, disable is indeed the key word. Would you say the best option is for the padin to take the -4 penalty for dealing non-lethal damage and actually disable instead of kill?
In this context, disabling is inclusive of killing.
And whether it's preferable to attack nonlethally in this case is a tricky question because it boils down to "should I reduce the harm to the person I believe is a threat, but increase the chance that that person will seriously hurt me or others?" And that's a question that we've been struggling with in the real world.
My first instinct is that this is why a Merciful weapon should be mandatory for all paladins. (Can Sarenrae "curse" the offending paladin with an inability to deal lethal damage? That might be fun.)
In the context of a game I'd have to consider the expectations I'd set to date. Have I encouraged the party to take prisoners in general? Has stopping to negotiate repeatedly screwed them over, or is it often fruitful? Have they encountered any "traditionally evil" foes that turned out to be more nuanced? Have I led them to believe that fiends in particular are absolutely evil, or given clues that they are redeemable? Have I given the paladin any particular instruction according to his code? For example I've had one GM inform me going into a game that a LG character should always avoid killing wherever possible.
This is sort of the meta version of whether the paladin should have known better - did the player know that nonlethal force was appropriate in ambiguous situations, and did the player have reason to interpret this situation as at all ambiguous? Or has the player been led to expect a game about killing Bad Guys with fiends as the Biggest Bads? Keep in mind that there's nothing necessarily wrong about the latter. In a morally complex world it can be really satisfying to confront obvious villains and Smite them, and that doesn't make you a murderhobo.
{. . .}
^Keep in mind that Abadar is Lawful Neutral. so from his point of view, a Chaotic Good Succubus is just as much of a threat as the more standard Chaotic Evil variety.The succubus is LG, she just detects as chaotic (and evil) thanks to alignment subtype rules.
Oops, got my redeemed Succubi mixed up -- you're right, Paladin implies Lawful Good and nothing else (I wish that wasn't so, but fixing that requires changes largely outside the scope of this thread).
But the alternative example that I gave (way back now) of the Chaotic Good Tiefling Oracle of Life with sensory impairment using Life Link + Greater Infernal Healing to save dying (not dead yet) villagers still fits what I said and is noticeably more likely to come up and is even within Rules As Written possibility to occur between 2 PC parties if the players are not aware of each other (their characters haven't seen each other's PC cards).