Bill Dunn |
Bill Dunn wrote:Zhangar wrote:Blatantly chaotic? No, it’s blatantly evil and right, smack dab in direct affront to Abadar’s ethos. That’s why the cleric would lose his powers.
An evil cleric of Abadar who walked into a law-abiding village and starting Channeling it to death should lose their powers for engaging in a blatantly chaotic act.
Worshipers of Abadar can be evil. They're essentially heretics (just like good followers of Abadar), but they absolutely exist. If you can be evil while staying within the bounds of the law, that's good enough for Abadar.
It's chaos that Abadar will not abide.
A cleric of Abadar who annihilated a village under a lawful authority (probably because the villagers were rebels or rebe sympathizers) would probably be just fine. It'd be distasteful, but rebellion against lawful authority is unacceptable.
Abadar is not a nice god.
I’m not saying that clerics of Abadan can’t be evil. Rather, just because an act is against the ethos of a lawful god, we shouldn’t think of the act as ‘chaotic’. Stomping into a village to murder everyone isn’t a necessarily or blatantly chaotic act - but it is an obviously evil one. Why it would cause a cleric of Abadar to lose his powers is because it’s an affront to Abadar’s ethos as the god of towns and cities and protection.
And I don’t think Abadar would be keen on slaughtering a town in rebellion either. That doesn’t seem fitting with his description or portfolio at all. I’d expect his flock to support imposition of martial law, but probably only as long as it was necessary to keep the peace and keep trade flowing.
Rajnish Umbra, Shadow Caller |
Regarding "is wantonly slaughtering a village evil or chaotic"...
...it's usually both?
Either way, sure, Abadar wouldn't go "Oh no, these poor people!", but he'd still be very displeased if someone just wiped out villages for no good reason. (In other words, he'd still go "Oh no, this waste of infrastructure!")
If you're following orders or enforcing discipline, then he doesn't like much how you do it, but evil constrained by law is still acceptable - as long as you stick to the rules.
But trying to enforce discipline by killing everyone tends to cause violent unrest, causing even more chaos, so... Yeah, Abadar wouldn't like it, unless it's part of warfare and you plan to conquer and rebuild the area afterwards.
Michael Talley 759 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Avoron wrote:"Someone really should, non-lethally, stop these relentless paladins!"Rub-Eta wrote:"He's killing demons! That means he's evil! Kill him, he's evil!"The qlippoth lord looked up innocently from his snack.
Que the Illusionist theme park of things you can kill and not be a criminal?
Moonclanger |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suggest y'all don't bother arguing with Lady-J on this. We've established in past threads that their view on morality is that any killing is an evil act regardless of circumstances. They also don't differentiate between Killing and Murder.
Although I don't agree with Lady J I can see where she's coming from. I don't think killing is always evil, and it's often lawful, but I don't think it's ever good.
LG characters believe the guilty should be punished and to this end paladins kill countless bad guys. But that's the lawful side of their nature talking. NG and CG characters tend to be more forgiving.
The belief that killing is never good has enabled me to navigate numerous moral dilemmas over the years. Only last week my paladin in Wrath of the Righteous had to choose between slaying a major demon and saving her victims. I chose the latter course of action and we thereby completed a mythic trial (that we'd have otherwise failed).
In one of the rule books (I think it's Pathfinder Unchained) there's a picture of Seelah stood before a signpost. One arrow points to the burning orphanage, the other to the antipaladin's stronghold. It's a moral dilemma, but to me it's a no-brainer. To me it's a simple choice between good (save the children) and law (punish the antipaladin), and for a paladin good always trumps law.
Over the years I've seen a lot of moral confusion caused by the apparent belief that killing can be a good act. It's clear that Lady J doesn't suffer from such confusion.
Matthew Downie |
The belief that killing is never good has enabled me to navigate numerous moral dilemmas over the years. Only last week my paladin in Wrath of the Righteous had to choose between slaying a major demon and saving her victims.
(1) Spoilers.
(2) What if the moral dilemma wasn't "kill evil thing or save innocents" but "kill evil thing or leave evil thing alone"?Rajnish Umbra, Shadow Caller |
[...] and for a paladin good always trumps law.
#NotAllPaladins. And again, #NotAllPaladins.
More seriously, while a paladin falls from any evil act while being allowed to act chaotic from time to time, nothing says that when given the choice between neutral good and lawful neutral they would have to favor good.
Deadmanwalking |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Although I don't agree with Lady J I can see where she's coming from.
I can sorta see it, but it's still completely wrong, IMO.
I don't think killing is always evil, and it's often lawful, but I don't think it's ever good.
I agree with this, but only in the most technical sense for reasons I'll make clear below.
LG characters believe the guilty should be punished and to this end paladins kill countless bad guys. But that's the lawful side of their nature talking. NG and CG characters tend to be more forgiving.
Here I disagree, IME all three Good alignments can be equally forgiving...or unforgiving.
The belief that killing is never good has enabled me to navigate numerous moral dilemmas over the years. Only last week my paladin in Wrath of the Righteous had to choose between slaying a major demon and saving her victims. I chose the latter course of action and we thereby completed a mythic trial (that we'd have otherwise failed).
And that's a clearly morally right choice in many cases...but not all.
In one of the rule books (I think it's Pathfinder Unchained) there's a picture of Seelah stood before a signpost. One arrow points to the burning orphanage, the other to the antipaladin's stronghold. It's a moral dilemma, but to me it's a no-brainer. To me it's a simple choice between good (save the children) and law (punish the antipaladin), and for a paladin good always trumps law.
Okay, now we come to the crux of my disagreement with you. See, I don't think that's always an easy choice, depending on circumstance. See, I'm of the firm opinion that permanently ending an ongoing Evil threat is morally equivalent to saving the people who'd be harmed if you left it alone. And I think that's a defensible point of view, morally speaking.
Now, that only trumps a burning orphanage very occasionally (usually, the number of people who'd die in the orphanage is far greater than those the villain will kill if not stopped for a short while...but usually isn't always).
And that's where we get into the grey area, because while I agree that killing isn't ever a Good act in its own right, stopping a serial killer is...and if that stopping involves killing them, that's less Good than some other method, but still a net Good act.
Over the years I've seen a lot of moral confusion caused by the apparent belief that killing can be a good act. It's clear that Lady J doesn't suffer from such confusion.
No, she suffers from a different form of confusion entirely.
Val'bryn2 |
Pathfinder has established that killing, not murder, just plain killing, is at worst neutral. That's how you get celestial lords who are both Lawful Good, and patrons of executioners and vengeance, with Ragathiel himself being a proponent of no-holds-barred, kill 'em all, no mercy to evildoers. It may be his devil blood driving him to his viciousness, but he maintains a good alignment.
Good is many things in the Pathfinder universe, but mandatorily pacifistic isn't one of them.
If Good always trumps law, why are there paladin Hellknights? Clearly it isn't as cut and dry as you suggest, Moonclanger.
Moonclanger |
Good is many things in the Pathfinder universe, but mandatorily pacifistic isn't one of them.
If Good always trumps law, why are there paladin Hellknights? Clearly it isn't as cut and dry as you suggest, Moonclanger.
I'm not advocating pacifism. My character may well be the least pacifistic member of her group. Killing bad guys is often the only way to stop them. But while stopping bad guys is a good thing, killing them, in and of itself, is not. I think it's important to remember that. It helps keep you on the straight and narrow. A good aligned character needs a good reason to kill someone.
The paladin's code is intended to help the paladin be as good as he can be. Good is the end, law is the means. It's the moral equivalent of colouring by numbers. If you can see the world in black and white (or "cut and dry" if you prefer) decision-making is a lot easier. Of course each code has it's own version of black and white.
I'm biased towards the classic Christian knight inspired paladin because the code of honour makes sense. (In Pathfinder Iomedae seems to be the best fit.) I'd never play something like a paladin of Torag because the code has been made up out of whole cloth by Paizo staff. Who knows what passes for black and white in their world!
So, I'll always put good before law.
Over the years I've seen a lot of paladins, but only two problem paladins - the only two paladins I've ever seen who put law before good. They came across as uncharismatic jerks who alienated the rest of the party in nothing flat.
But problem paladins have been done to death in other threads.
Bill Dunn |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, now we come to the crux of my disagreement with you. See, I don't think that's always an easy choice, depending on circumstance. See, I'm of the firm opinion that permanently ending an ongoing Evil threat is morally equivalent to saving the people who'd be harmed if you left it alone. And I think that's a defensible point of view, morally speaking.
I can't really agree with that being as morally defensible as letting the bad guy go to save someone now. Certainly not when you're choosing between people actually in need now vs an undefined future that's impossible for the hero to know. It's a common trope more for the anti-hero or cynical rationalizer than the traditional hero - of which the paladin archetype is a better fit.
Senko |
I agree a word of warning from the paladin's god is definately in order here if you haven't moved on having Iomedae raise the hobgoblin and warn the party hands off is a possibility. Either way as far as I can tell he basically went "Well I can't kill you for no reason but I can stand and let my fellow party member do so then loot your corpse."
Also you REALLY should have a talk (delicately) with your party about the way your running your world. If the Dwarven player genuinely doesn't see a difference between an 80 year old hobgoblin and an 80 year old Dwarf there could be other assumptions on how things work that could come back to bite you later. I also agree from the way it went down the player seems like they're either a bit of a jerk who has to have it their way and/or a younger person who doesn't know better.
I also agree cursing the treasure isn't something you should do but maybe curse the Dwarf to suffer the penalties from the venerable age category?
Val'bryn2 |
I have to say that no one is really innocent in this one. Should the dwarf continue attacking? Probably not, especially as it refused to fight. Dwarves aren't required to accept surrender, and since his allies stopped, he should have stopped, even if he grumbled (perfectly fitting a dwarf) however, the GM gave out bad info that the player acted on. For the hobgoblin to radiate evil, either it lied about being a cleric of Abadar, or was powerful enough to be a major threat in the region. If it was only CR 1/3, it was a weakened cleric, as PC class CR starts at 1/2.
Matthew Downie |
The problem with these morality threads is that it's always hard to untangle:
Real World Morality (where "If you think someone is a bad guy, you should take it upon yourself to murder them" is a terrible moral)
Game World Morality (where you're frequently operating outside of civilization, and lots of people/things seem to be irredeemably Evil and have no purpose in life beyond hurting others)
Gameplay Morality (where killing should be encouraged if it makes things more fun for the players)
Moonclanger |
The problem with these morality threads is that it's always hard to untangle:
Real World Morality (where "If you think someone is a bad guy, you should take it upon yourself to murder them" is a terrible moral)
Game World Morality (where you're frequently operating outside of civilization, and lots of people/things seem to be irredeemably Evil and have no purpose in life beyond hurting others)
Gameplay Morality (where killing should be encouraged if it makes things more fun for the players)
In my experience players expect the three to marry, so GMs and scenario writers need to provide characters with the necessary moral impetus, i.e. plot hooks.
Of course it helps if everyone's singing off the same hymn sheet, but the best you can usually hope for is the same hymn book. Fortunately most players seem to enjoy debating alignment.
PS: Sorry for the spoiler in my earlier post and thanks for pointing it out. I haven't been posting for long and so the etiquette is new to me.
Senko |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When you consider that we are playing a game in which you break into beings homes (i.e. a dungeon), murder them and take their loot, I don't see how any of the OP encounter is evil.
If you think it's evil, play another game.
Usually dungeon creatures are either unintelligent or actively hurting people which is why th PC's were called in, here the guy was minding his own business (literally as he was selling stuff for his village) and a priest of an allied God. Even on the law only scale that Paladin is well on his way to a fall and should be warned by his God of that fact.
I use a system of checks for my alignment monitoring where I'm forced to (Paladins and their need to be lawful good for example). Neutral you need 6 check marks on an alignment to move to it (actions the other way e.g. being lawful rather than chaotic) also remove the marks or move you that way depending. Law/chaos/good/evil you only need 3 as it's easier to be neutral. Then you have major/minor actions that will get you 1 or 2 check marks. So for me going by this...
Paladin detects evil and just attacks without knowing the situation minor chaotic act 1 check mark. I don't know how/why the others got involved so no shift there.
They stop attacking on finding he serves an allied God a little lawful, a little chaotic no change.
Dwarf tries bribing the hobgoblin to attack so they can kill him. Minor evil act 1 check mark.
Dwarf on being told no promptly attacks and murders the hobgoblin anyway major chaotic and major evil act 2 check marks on each axis.
Depending on how quickly the dwarf killed the hobgoblin and whether they could/did just stand by and let it happen or worse joined in this could be a minor evil act for the paladin/warpriest.
Looting the stuff they were told already had a buyer and the profits were going to the village minor chaotic for all involved one check mark.
Final score.
Dwarf: 2 check marks chaotic, 3 check marks evil.
Paladin: 2 Check marks chaotic, possibly 1 check mark evil.
Warpriest: 1 check mark chaotic, possibly 1 check mark evil.
The dwarf is now well on his way to chaotic evil, if he was good before he's now neutral.
The warpriest isn't too badly affected.
The paladin is on the verge of moving from lawful to neutral and was involved in the death of an allied gods priest because he's an "evil hobgoblin". At this point he'll be getting told to straighten up by his God (whether that's a feeling their unhappy and about to remove their favour or an actual "meeting" where they outline exactly where he went wrong depends on your game).
Dastis |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When you consider that we are playing a game in which you break into beings homes (i.e. a dungeon), murder them and take their loot, I don't see how any of the OP encounter is evil.
If you think it's evil, play another game.
Well not everyone plays the same way even in the same system
Just in Pathfinder I've seen
-a completely nonleathal dungeoneering party
-a group of evil murder hobos living in a world where they somehow are the least of all evils
-a group that refused to attack anything that they couldn't confirm already committed evil acts. Even then they only did it to bring them to the authorities
-a group that regularly tried to rehabilitate villians
-hack n slash the villain of the week
Deadmanwalking |
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Okay, now we come to the crux of my disagreement with you. See, I don't think that's always an easy choice, depending on circumstance. See, I'm of the firm opinion that permanently ending an ongoing Evil threat is morally equivalent to saving the people who'd be harmed if you left it alone. And I think that's a defensible point of view, morally speaking.
I can't really agree with that being as morally defensible as letting the bad guy go to save someone now. Certainly not when you're choosing between people actually in need now vs an undefined future that's impossible for the hero to know. It's a common trope more for the anti-hero or cynical rationalizer than the traditional hero - of which the paladin archetype is a better fit.
Depends on circumstances. Letting someone who has just acquired a nuclear weapon (or magical equivalent), and has stated a clear desire to use it to kill everyone in a city, get away in order to save a single person is certainly a Good act, something a Good person might do.
But, IMO, so is refusing to let them go, thus protecting all the people who might be killed by the nuke. In fact, I'd argue that this one is probably more Good in many ways.
The best option, obviously, is to manage to both save the person and catch the villain, but absent that option, I think both routes are Paladin safe.
Of course, that's an extreme example. In the vast majority of cases, you're gonna want to prioritize saving people over killing a villain, simply because, as you say, these are hypothetical future people and anyway the likelihood of the villain killing that many is gonna be low with you hunting him. But usually and always are, once again, not quite the same thing and sometimes ignoring someone's plight to focus on the greater issue really is the right thing to do.
I mean, say a Paladin is on his way to stop the World Ending Ritual (tm) and hears a scream for help. He knows that if he goes to investigate it the world, including whoever screamed, dies horribly. So he ignores it to go stop the ritual. That's a moral choice. A Good choice. It's heartbreaking and awful, but not morally wrong, y'know? And sometimes (not often, but sometimes) stopping a particular villain permanently is exactly the same kind of thing.
Matthew Downie |
Paladin detects evil and just attacks without knowing the situation minor chaotic act 1 check mark. I don't know how/why the others got involved so no shift there.
They stop attacking on finding he serves an allied God a little lawful, a little chaotic no change.
Dwarf tries bribing the hobgoblin to attack so they can kill him. Minor evil act 1 check mark.
Dwarf on being told no promptly attacks and murders the hobgoblin anyway major chaotic and major evil act 2 check marks on each axis.
Depending on how quickly the dwarf killed the hobgoblin and whether they could/did just stand by and let it happen or worse joined in this could be a minor evil act for the paladin/warpriest.
Looting the stuff they were told already had a buyer and the profits were going to the village minor chaotic for all involved one check mark.
Just for fun, I'll grade them by an entirely different system of morality. In this system, it is the duty of good characters to slay evil monsters:
Paladin detects evil and just attacks without knowing the situation: 1 chaotic mark.
They stop attacking on finding he serves a lawful God. (If the hobgoblin had been a neutral follower of an evil god, he might have detected evil without actually being evil. But now, having confirmed that the hobgoblin is an evil monster, they stop...) 1 evil mark (for failing to battle evil, the Paladin's sacred duty), 1 lawful mark (for supporting a lawful god).
Dwarf tries bribing the hobgoblin to attack so they can kill him. 1 lawful mark for trying to create a legal pretext.
Dwarf on being told no promptly attacks and murders the hobgoblin. 1 chaotic mark for abandoning legal pretext, 1 good mark for battling evil.
SheepishEidolon |
I mean, say a Paladin is on his way to stop the World Ending Ritual (tm) and hears a scream for help. He knows that if he goes to investigate it the world, including whoever screamed, dies horribly. So he ignores it to go stop the ritual. That's a moral choice.
It's only a tough choice if you assume it's really a dilemma. Usually there are more than two options. For example you can send a trustworthy (and fast) ally to check what can be done for the screamer - and then try to rejoin you to stop the ritual. That's still risky: You might fail to stop the ritual because the ally doesn't make it back in time or the screamer dies because the one ally wasn't enough to save them. But it's an option that can be taken with less bad feelings than the two more obvious ones...
Deadmanwalking |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Deadmanwalking wrote:I mean, say a Paladin is on his way to stop the World Ending Ritual (tm) and hears a scream for help. He knows that if he goes to investigate it the world, including whoever screamed, dies horribly. So he ignores it to go stop the ritual. That's a moral choice.It's only a tough choice if you assume it's really a dilemma. Usually there are more than two options. For example you can send a trustworthy (and fast) ally to check what can be done for the screamer - and then try to rejoin you to stop the ritual. That's still risky: You might fail to stop the ritual because the ally doesn't make it back in time or the screamer dies because the one ally wasn't enough to save them. But it's an option that can be taken with less bad feelings than the two more obvious ones...
Oh, absolutely. And I'm a fan of 'take a third option' choices like that, and would probably never put a player in a position like this in the first place.
But I'm not hypothesizing real scenarios here. These are hypotheticals to make a point about the nature of morality. For purposes of the hypothetical, we assume the choice is binary (perhaps the Paladin is alone).
Senko |
Senko wrote:Paladin detects evil and just attacks without knowing the situation minor chaotic act 1 check mark. I don't know how/why the others got involved so no shift there.
They stop attacking on finding he serves an allied God a little lawful, a little chaotic no change.
Dwarf tries bribing the hobgoblin to attack so they can kill him. Minor evil act 1 check mark.
Dwarf on being told no promptly attacks and murders the hobgoblin anyway major chaotic and major evil act 2 check marks on each axis.
Depending on how quickly the dwarf killed the hobgoblin and whether they could/did just stand by and let it happen or worse joined in this could be a minor evil act for the paladin/warpriest.
Looting the stuff they were told already had a buyer and the profits were going to the village minor chaotic for all involved one check mark.
Just for fun, I'll grade them by an entirely different system of morality. In this system, it is the duty of good characters to slay evil monsters:
Paladin detects evil and just attacks without knowing the situation: 1 chaotic mark.
They stop attacking on finding he serves a lawful God. (If the hobgoblin had been a neutral follower of an evil god, he might have detected evil without actually being evil. But now, having confirmed that the hobgoblin is an evil monster, they stop...) 1 evil mark (for failing to battle evil, the Paladin's sacred duty), 1 lawful mark (for supporting a lawful god).
Dwarf tries bribing the hobgoblin to attack so they can kill him. 1 lawful mark for trying to create a legal pretext.
Dwarf on being told no promptly attacks and murders the hobgoblin. 1 chaotic mark for abandoning legal pretext, 1 good mark for battling evil.
If the "evil monster" detected is a young child? A human? An old holy man with ultimate evil sealed inside him (Rezzo from slayers) would you mark them the same or does the hobgoblin get screwed over by bad PR?
ShroudedInLight |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd roll with it, giving the PCs increasingly questionable moral circumstances until they end up all as evil without realizing it. You see, evil is easy to fall into. Especially when you assume you are the "good guys".
Make it seem reasonable, perfectly fine, have folks praise them. Wait till they are complacent, then slam a Hunter-killer party of Paladins who successfully smite evil against them. If the paladin tries to defend his friends instead of surrender to stand trial before his god, have him fall. Take the cheering crowds and turn them into jeering crowds. Have their lands, items, and etc taken from them.
Let it be known that their ruin has been in the making with every decision they've made. Catalog and show them their sins, gathered from witnessed accounts. After all, the trees and stones have ears as well. Show them the hobgoblin as the start to their fall towards the dark side. At the trial, have the gods themselves pronounce their exile and fall from power. No more paladin levels, no more war priest levels. After being defrocked, Exile them, forever from these lands until they atone.
Now, you have a set up for a chance at redemption or vengeance.
Kitty Catoblepas |
If the "evil monster" detected is a young child? A human? An old holy man with ultimate evil sealed inside him (Rezzo from slayers) would you mark them the same or does the hobgoblin get screwed over by bad PR?
You're ignoring that this world has various horrible evil things that disguise themselves as young children or old men.
A "faintly" evil child is most likely not 5HD, so something is definitely awry. In that guise, a weak Undead/Outsider/Cleric could wreak some havoc on innocents. "Moderately", "Strongly", or "Overwhelmingly" evil? That's an immediate red flag and call to action.
As this thread has illustrated, no one is innocently evil. Alignment is a mobile quality that is changed or reinforced by actions.
Kitty Catoblepas |
I'd roll with it, giving the PCs increasingly questionable moral circumstances until they end up all as evil without realizing it. You see, evil is easy to fall into. Especially when you assume you are the "good guys".
Make it seem reasonable, perfectly fine, have folks praise them. Wait till they are complacent, then slam a Hunter-killer party of Paladins who successfully smite evil against them. If the paladin tries to defend his friends instead of surrender to stand trial before his god, have him fall. Take the cheering crowds and turn them into jeering crowds. Have their lands, items, and etc taken from them.
Let it be known that their ruin has been in the making with every decision they've made. Catalog and show them their sins, gathered from witnessed accounts. After all, the trees and stones have ears as well. Show them the hobgoblin as the start to their fall towards the dark side. At the trial, have the gods themselves pronounce their exile and fall from power. No more paladin levels, no more war priest levels. After being defrocked, Exile them, forever from these lands until they atone.
Now, you have a set up for a chance at redemption or vengeance.
Meh. Evil is More Effective™ anyway. Also, the Antipaladin class that the Paladin will most likely retrain into is a lot of fun.
Question, though: How will the group of Hunter-killer Paladins keep from falling?
Moonclanger |
Bill Dunn wrote:Deadmanwalking wrote:
Okay, now we come to the crux of my disagreement with you. See, I don't think that's always an easy choice, depending on circumstance. See, I'm of the firm opinion that permanently ending an ongoing Evil threat is morally equivalent to saving the people who'd be harmed if you left it alone. And I think that's a defensible point of view, morally speaking.
I can't really agree with that being as morally defensible as letting the bad guy go to save someone now. Certainly not when you're choosing between people actually in need now vs an undefined future that's impossible for the hero to know. It's a common trope more for the anti-hero or cynical rationalizer than the traditional hero - of which the paladin archetype is a better fit.
Depends on circumstances. Letting someone who has just acquired a nuclear weapon (or magical equivalent), and has stated a clear desire to use it to kill everyone in a city, get away in order to save a single person is certainly a Good act, something a Good person might do.
But, IMO, so is refusing to let them go, thus protecting all the people who might be killed by the nuke. In fact, I'd argue that this one is probably more Good in many ways.
The best option, obviously, is to manage to both save the person and catch the villain, but absent that option, I think both routes are Paladin safe.
Of course, that's an extreme example. In the vast majority of cases, you're gonna want to prioritize saving people over killing a villain, simply because, as you say, these are hypothetical future people and anyway the likelihood of the villain killing that many is gonna be low with you hunting him. But usually and always are, once again, not quite the same thing and sometimes ignoring someone's plight to focus on the greater issue really is the right thing to do.
I mean, say a Paladin is on his way to stop the World Ending Ritual (tm) and hears a scream for help. He knows that if he goes to...
Good points and well made.
However the point I was originally trying to make was about killing, after all it was a Dwarf killing a Goblin that started this thread.
Pathfinder is a combat-oriented RPG and problems tend to get solved by violence, so it's easy to get into the habit of killing - and it can be hard to justify a good alignment if all you do is kill monsters.
A good aligned character who wants to stay good, or even just wants to stand out from the neutrals in the party, should strive to be something other than just another killer. If you're playing a paladin you want your character to be remembered for your alignment play, not your combat ability.
And unfortunately save-the-world scenarios rarely put alignment to the test, because the end of the world is bad for everyone, so evil characters want to stop it as well. And the hackneyed convention of laying down your life to save the world in the final session of the campaign is no big sacrifice precisely because it's the final session.
In a game that can be one big blood bath it's my experience that you need to find non-violent ways to do good if you're to be recognised as such.
ShroudedInLight |
Because they are actually good, the trick is that the PCs won't view them as such because by that point they will be so numb to evil that the paladins will seem like tyrannical or even chaotic forces opposing them for no reason they can comprehend. Because by that point they will be too far gone. Having missed every chance of redemption you've put in their path.
Besides, as said, killing isn't inherently evil unless you are in Lady Js game. Hunter killer paladins (because Hunter/arrester sounds lame) make total sense in a game world where groups of evil people band together, so too must the forces of good. Especially if that evil has made a name for itself or worse, is parading around under the noses of an especially tolerant paladin who is letting his attachments and sentimentality get in the way of his duty. Then the paladin troop might even have been divinely recruited to put a stop to this, since the paladins mere presence over a period of time is as if the diety is turning a blind eye. Yet, the diety cannot bring themselves to directly interfere and so keeps testing the paladin until the ultimate confrontation, duty vs family arises.
Lady-J |
Senko wrote:Paladin detects evil and just attacks without knowing the situation minor chaotic act 1 check mark. I don't know how/why the others got involved so no shift there.
They stop attacking on finding he serves an allied God a little lawful, a little chaotic no change.
Dwarf tries bribing the hobgoblin to attack so they can kill him. Minor evil act 1 check mark.
Dwarf on being told no promptly attacks and murders the hobgoblin anyway major chaotic and major evil act 2 check marks on each axis.
Depending on how quickly the dwarf killed the hobgoblin and whether they could/did just stand by and let it happen or worse joined in this could be a minor evil act for the paladin/warpriest.
Looting the stuff they were told already had a buyer and the profits were going to the village minor chaotic for all involved one check mark.
Just for fun, I'll grade them by an entirely different system of morality. In this system, it is the duty of good characters to slay evil monsters:
Paladin detects evil and just attacks without knowing the situation: 1 chaotic mark.
They stop attacking on finding he serves a lawful God. (If the hobgoblin had been a neutral follower of an evil god, he might have detected evil without actually being evil. But now, having confirmed that the hobgoblin is an evil monster, they stop...) 1 evil mark (for failing to battle evil, the Paladin's sacred duty), 1 lawful mark (for supporting a lawful god).
Dwarf tries bribing the hobgoblin to attack so they can kill him. 1 lawful mark for trying to create a legal pretext.
Dwarf on being told no promptly attacks and murders the hobgoblin. 1 chaotic mark for abandoning legal pretext, 1 good mark for battling evil.
the dwarf isn't the paladin that entire analogy is moot
Lady-J |
Senko wrote:Paladin detects evil and just attacks without knowing the situation minor chaotic act 1 check mark. I don't know how/why the others got involved so no shift there.
They stop attacking on finding he serves an allied God a little lawful, a little chaotic no change.
Dwarf tries bribing the hobgoblin to attack so they can kill him. Minor evil act 1 check mark.
Dwarf on being told no promptly attacks and murders the hobgoblin anyway major chaotic and major evil act 2 check marks on each axis.
Depending on how quickly the dwarf killed the hobgoblin and whether they could/did just stand by and let it happen or worse joined in this could be a minor evil act for the paladin/warpriest.
Looting the stuff they were told already had a buyer and the profits were going to the village minor chaotic for all involved one check mark.
Just for fun, I'll grade them by an entirely different system of morality. In this system, it is the duty of good characters to slay evil monsters:
Paladin detects evil and just attacks without knowing the situation: 1 chaotic mark.
They stop attacking on finding he serves a lawful God. (If the hobgoblin had been a neutral follower of an evil god, he might have detected evil without actually being evil. But now, having confirmed that the hobgoblin is an evil monster, they stop...) 1 evil mark (for failing to battle evil, the Paladin's sacred duty), 1 lawful mark (for supporting a lawful god).
Dwarf tries bribing the hobgoblin to attack so they can kill him. 1 lawful mark for trying to create a legal pretext.
Dwarf on being told no promptly attacks and murders the hobgoblin. 1 chaotic mark for abandoning legal pretext, 1 good mark for battling evil.
in addition paladins are not duty bound to go hunt down evil, nothing in their code says they need to hunt down nore that that need to kill evil
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.
Ex-Paladins
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any further in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see atonement), as appropriate.
Matthew Downie |
Punish those who harm or threaten innocents
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
Sounds like a threat to innocent people to me!
Note that in my games, no-one would detect as Evil if they were merely unpleasant. They have to be EEEEVIL!
(Though I'm happy to play in a game that runs by different rules, where paladins sit about crafting Oils of Bless Weapon that I can purchase for 50gp.)
Senko |
Senko wrote:
If the "evil monster" detected is a young child? A human? An old holy man with ultimate evil sealed inside him (Rezzo from slayers) would you mark them the same or does the hobgoblin get screwed over by bad PR?You're ignoring that this world has various horrible evil things that disguise themselves as young children or old men.
A "faintly" evil child is most likely not 5HD, so something is definitely awry. In that guise, a weak Undead/Outsider/Cleric could wreak some havoc on innocents. "Moderately", "Strongly", or "Overwhelmingly" evil? That's an immediate red flag and call to action.
As this thread has illustrated, no one is innocently evil. Alignment is a mobile quality that is changed or reinforced by actions.
Not ignoring it the priest in Rezzo was actually trying to ressurect the ultimate evil and playing on his reputation as a holy man while doing very evil acts all in order to try and get his eye sight back. My point was more the palading shouldn't just be running around going "He dinged evil" stab, stab stabbity, stab he should actually be trying to determine the circumstances before he becomes mr mc stabbity. Especially since while there are things that can masquerade as a child/nice person there are also things that can hide, alter and mislead alignment checks. Not to mention if you just ride into town and kill the kid who detected as overwhelming evil the villagers are less likely to cheer "Yay he killed the anti-christ" and more likely to scream "Oh my god he killed Damien someone get the city guard." unless you can prove you had a legitimate reason beyond "I'm a paladin and he detected as evil."
On top of which here the GM has already indicated they misused the evil alingment and he basically said to his party memeber yeah your murdering this guy's fine hand me his mace would you I like it.
Take the bloodlink from inner city intrigue . . .
This amulet allows the wearer to use the same spells many drow can cast innately. The wearer can use each of the following spells once per day as a spell-like ability: dancing lights, darkness, and faerie fire. In addition, while wearing this item, the wearer is granted the ability to speak and understand Undercommon and gains proficiency with the hand crossbow, the rapier, and the short sword. While the target is wearing the amulet, she radiates the aura of a chaotic evil creature for the purposes of spells such as detect chaos and detect evil. A bloodlink can serve as the focus for a recorporeal incarnation spell.
Huge amount of benefits and the only drawback is that you detect as chaotic evil which the average person isn't going to notice as they're not running around with detect alignment abiilties. Peasant finds this in a field where a battle took place and they're going to love it magical abilities, skill with weapons and then the paladin comes along and cuts their head off because they detected as "evil". What if the hobgoblin had been wearing one of these because it let him talk undercommon to the person he was expecting to buy his goods and he hadn't realized it also made him detect as evil? The party loots this, dwarve puts it on to use its powers and ding he's evil so the paladin has to attack him too.
Lady-J |
Paladin code wrote:Punish those who harm or threaten innocentsQuote:Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.Sounds like a threat to innocent people to me!
Note that in my games, no-one would detect as Evil if they were merely unpleasant. They have to be EEEEVIL!
(Though I'm happy to play in a game that runs by different rules, where paladins sit about crafting Oils of Bless Weapon that I can purchase for 50gp.)
not all evil is harming innocents and not all neutral or good is innocent from harming innocents also the terms of "harming innocents" is highly subjective
Senko |
For example a lawful evil lord of a border estate.
"Sure his Lordships cold, maybe even a little cruel but he keeps the bandits and monsters away however unlike some nobles you know if you find yourself before him for judgement he'll rule according to the law not who has the biggest bribe. Don't even get me started on that Robbin Hud fellow. 3 times thus year I paid me taxes only for him to steal from the tax collector and give it back to is. His Lordships taxes are fair and last time he didn't get them he cut back on patrols and let go a whole bunch of guards as he didn't have the money to pay for em. Young Harry nearly staved cause he lost his food and board not to mention the bandit outbreak. Stupid do gooding hero howsabout he asks if we want his interference."
Chuck Mount |
Wow! I haven't looked here in a while. This thread is still going? Now I see it's all about whether it's okay to kill someone just because they're evil or not. I'll just say, someone can be evil without actually doing anything wrong. Never killing anyone. Maybe steal something small every now and then, but who hasn't? I would think, killing someone simply because they were evil is a little evil, itself. Committing murder, even. If it's okay to kill simply because of their alignment, that's basically killing someone because of their beliefs and not their actions. Almost like the movie Minority Report. At least that was determining that someone will actually commit a crime. A paladin just goes on what their belief is, not their actions.
Now... RPGs have decided that certain races HATE others and certain races are evil... the entire race. Come across a sleeping red dragon and a bet you wouldn't wake it up and ask it's views on world affairs and how it feels about puppies. You'll think "Thank God it's sleeping. Let's kill it". What if it was a band of hobgoblins instead of only one? I'm not saying they should have killed the hobgoblin. I'm all for questioning it and maybe determine if we should kill it later. It IS an evil race, after all. Everyone runs games differently, but hobgoblins are typical "bad guys" and this sounds like a kid who was looking to kill something. He simply needs guidance if that's not how that game is typically run.
This thread has become everyone trying to convince everyone else that their way of playing is right. Alignments are open to interpretation since there's no way to make an extensive list of what is allowed and what isn't for each alignment. Just like the Paladin's code. They give you a few guidelines and hope for the best. It's up to each person to figure it out and since everyone has different views, players and DMs have to decide together what is best for the game. The bottom line is, nobody is right and nobody is wrong. Everyone has their own views... Threads like this one have a lot of people trying to force their views on other people who they think are wrong. Just accept that not everyone thinks the same and the other person isn't wrong... they just don't share your views.