Malifice's page

The Magic domain in 3.5 allowed him yo use spell trigger items as if he was a 1st level Wizard.

He can use both wands just fine without UMD.

Thread Hijack... no.2 ! :)

I currently live in Shoreditch and am looking at running a mid-week Pathfinder session at mine, or another player's (Dalston) home.

Also live in Shoreditch and looking for a Pathfinder GM and/or players.

Currently reunning a SWSE game at my place also.

Anyone running any games?

Quote:

Four-Mirror Armor: This armor consists of four plates harnessed together with leather shoulder straps. Two round plates protect your front and back, while two smaller rectangular plates cover the sides of the torso. Four-mirror armor is worn over chainmail to provide added protection, and comes with a spiked helmet with a chainmail hood.

This does not seem right. It can be worn over Chainmail, Giving me +12AC with +2 Max Dex, and its MEDIUM ARMOR??!!?? Tell me thats a typo Please James....

With the exception of the Armored Kilt, Armor bonuses (which both sets provide) dont stack.

Armor check penalties do.

Feel free to wear as many suits of armor as you want.

;)

I've simply removed Crane style, Crane Wing and Crane Riposte from my games. It doesn't really compare to anything besides deflect arrows, which is generally much less powerful. All the other abilities that negate damage that I can think of right now require an opposed check of sorts (mounted combat requires a ride check opposed to the attack roll and only negates an attack on your mount) and are generally much less powerful (parry requires you to NOT take an attack during a full attack and only gives you a chance to deflect an attack, which in my experience is fairly low, especially when dealing with a large or larger creature.)

Currently playing an Unarmed Fighter 1/ Quingong Hungry Ghost Master of Many Styles 1 in the Serpents Skull AP.

I have just hit 2nd level and finally qualified* for Crane Wing.

I can assure you in no way is it 'broken'. I take a -2 to hit when using it and am very limited in what I can do with my Standard and Full round actions in a round (i.e. it only works when I am not Flat Footed and I fight defensively).

Even with a Strength of 18 (brutal for a MAD Monk), it leaves me with a single attack at +3 (or two attacks at +1 with 2WF). Flurry of misses anyone?

Yeah, its a nice defensive Buff against a single foe with just the single attack, but I am yet to be in a position whereby I am being attacked by a single foe with a single attack (and this is extremely rare - go through the Bestiary if you dont beleive me, and any classed NPC with a BAB of 6 or better has me covered, along with Supernatural and Spell like abilities and Ranged attacks).

Plus, even should I encounter a single enemy with a single attack, I would assume my enemy would figure out I have the feat after I first used it, and would resort to TWF (at the relevant penalties) themselves.

I think the hype over this feat is unfounded.

Did I mention I had to burn two feats, and give up Flurry of Blows to get access to it at 2nd level?

A steep price to pay.

* Contrary to popular belief, Crane Wing can not be taken any earlier than 2nd level. Even as a Human. You apply class abilities before level feats (so in this case, you must select your bonus feats from your class first i.e. your bonus style feat comes first) so its impossible (even for a Human) to take Crane Wing at 1st level.

Currently I am playing a Hungry Ghost Quingong Monk in the Serpents Skull AP, going by the name of Ogami Ittō (Lone wolf).

I am contemplating taking the Master Craftsman - (Profession: Feng Shui) and Craft Wonderous Item feats, and making wondrous items by 'channeling and capturing Qi' into items (Hungry ghost Quingong style).

Rationale:

First Ogami spends many days arranging fixed geometric patterns into the appropriate form and pattern in order to properly chanel and collect the correct Qi into a fountain. These geometric patterns include inscribing the correct Kanji (using expensive and exotic inks) and the burning of rare incense, and the alignment of esoteric objects to properly funnel the correct Qi into the fountain.

Ogami then meditates on the pool to manipulate and extract the collected Qi, and trap it into a focus to store and retain the Qi as a permanent magical item.

Mechanically and fluff wise it's just like a Dwarven Fighter with the Master Craftsman (Blacksmith) feat + Craft Magic Arms and Armor and a 'Forge' churning out Magic Axes, Hammers, Swords and Enchanted Full Plate.

Instead however I am a Human Hungry Ghost Quiggong Monk with the Master Craftsman (Feng Shui) feat + Craft Wonderous Items and a 'Fountain' churning out Wondrous Items from captured Qi.

Whats the verdict on the above fellow posters?

Thematically appropropriate and good use of the above feats and skills?

And what is stopping the evil mage from just lying about repenting and just blasting the naive morons in the face once he's freed?

Because apparently in your world Good is Dumb, and that's why Evil Wins.

Sense motive and Roleplaying for a start.

Zone of truth, detect evil, attonement and so on for a mechanical perspective.

Just because the Paladin shouldnt mercilessly slay the bastard after he surrenders, doesnt mean that the paladin is restricted from ripping off his component pouch, binding and gagging him, and dragging him off to the courts (or his victims) to face justice.

You see a Paladins having to accept surrender as a weakness.

Its a strength.

If his foes wish to surrender to the Paladin without putting up a fight, so much the better for the Paladin. It makes his job easier, not harder.

When a group gets a reputation for not taking prisoners, you tend to find that most of their enemeies fight to the death. OTOH if you have a reputation for mercy, you will find many people will surrender without the need for violence, allowing you to achieve your objective without killing and mayhem.

Thats (in part) why the Paladin does what he does.

It seems "Enlightened" = agreeing with you - OBTW, I'm against the Death Penalty but there are things I may reconsider that position

Thats because youre probably Neutral IRL.

;)

Im also probaly N (CN to be preceise) with good tendencies. I work for a homeless charity, and do a bit of human rights stuff, but my personal relationships with women leave a lot to be desired (Ive broken a few hearts through selfishness). I can be a bit capricious at times. A bit of good, a bit of evil and a lack of empathy for the feelings of others at times, but no strong leanings either way.

I also regularly ignore the law and do my own thing (depsite being a Lawyer!), am unconventional and a bit of a 'lone wolf' (currently travelling the world for a few years for the experience).

Well good for you. Does your game have "Lollipop Woods", do you players have to worry about "Molasses Swamp" at the foot of "The Gumdrop Mountains"? How do they take the "Rainbow Trail" to really make good time?

The Paladin can holiday there when he's not locked in a grim life or death battle with Demons, devils, undead monstrosities, violent barbaric Orcs and dark cultists.

Actually it doesn't have to be Lawful and as for "good", really depends as capturing an evil outside and killing it would be "good" and I dare say a mortal but thoroughly evil Mage

Agree execution does not have to be lawful. Capital punishement often is however (the proscribed penalty for a fixed offence).

Re the evil mage, Im sure many people would subjectively see his execution as a good deed.

Most of them would be Neutral.

At the execution, you would likely have protesters from good aligned churches protesting the killing though.

Just like IRL.

And tricked with their pants down three ways from Sunday but any fiend with half a brain

Tricked how exactly? The evil mage throws down his weapons and recants his evil, he must still pay for his crimes (lawfully) via imprisonment and set about making things right. An attonement spell (to allow a genuinely evil person to change alignment) would be a good start.

The Paladin drags the evil bastard before his peers, and sees to it that justice is done, and lets his mercy and compassion is an example to all. If not practical, he ties the evil sucker up, and comes back for him when convenient.

Bearing in mind, that many Golarion societies have the Death penalty (few people are as enlightened as the Paladin) so the Mage is probably fighting for his life (should he surrender and get handed over to the authorities) anyways.

You need to realise that 'punishing wrongdoers who threaten or harm innocents' does not allow execution, torture, selling them into slavery, or other cruel or unusual punishments.

All worthy goals but fought with one hand tied behind their back and feet in concrete

No-one said being good was easy.

Far from it.

In other words, you require characters to do stupid nonsensical things, then rewrite the laws of the universe to pretend they weren't stupid and destroy them if they don't act stupid. There are no decisions worth thinking about because the logical consequences of an action and its actual consequences have no relation to each other.

Sounds really fun.

Not at all.

Why would the Kobold return to its King? He's just as likely to kill the thing for failure (he's evil) than to reward him for his loyalty, and the Kobold is well aware of his Kings general nastyness.

It might consider returning to protect its wife and kids, but OTOH its evil, so it might just call it a day and stay gone.

Its perfectly logical for the pathetic thing to run off. Its certainly not as far fetched as you make it out to be.

The entry for Kobolds describes them as being cowardly; you suddenly want this kobold to return to the dungeon (under assault by adventurers) in order to reach the King and risk getting executed for failure?

From a metagame perspective, Im certainly not the kind of GM that throws wave upon wave of surrendering Kobolds at my PC's, only to screw with them or punish them for making the correct moral decsions, and I think it makes a far better game if good deeds tend to go rewarded.

Maybe your DM has a habit of scewing your players over for making morally correct choices, and thats perhaps why you are see 'its a trap' the instant a moral choice needs to be made, but I certainly dont play my games that way. It makes for a poor game where the player of a paladin is constantly punished by the GM for trying to do the right thing, wouldnt you agree?

I certainly wouldnt want to play a Paladin in such a campaign where I get punished for doing good.

Of course that said, sometimes it may very well be a trap, and the creature could very well be lying or planning to return to kill you later; otherwise the choice isnt a difficult one for the player to make. (otwewise the player metagames and reasons that he can just release a creature and it stays gone). Thats where skills like sense motive and diplomacy (both Paladin class skills) and roleplaying come in.

The player is torn; killing it would be convenient for the character, while releasing it may be dangerous, even though its the right thing to do.

Moral choices are not supposed to be easy, just like in real life.

See: Tom Hanks character in Saving Private Ryan and the subplot featuring the captured German.

Finally, why you so mad?

What the Paladins should have done is untied the Kobold, tie a dagger to his palm, and then kill him in combat.

You can't say it is unarmed becayse it has a dagger. It can't even drop the dagger because it is tied in its hand. Thus killed in combat.

The Gods are a bit smarter than to be fooled by such a ruse.

You should play a Knight Errant from Hackmaster.

Actually, Malifice earlier said that if the kobold were released, it would immediately have reformed and helped the party

No I didnt.

It would have been surprised to have been released (it was expecting to be killed; its what it is used to coming from a LE society).

It probably would have ran away into the woods; the Kobold King likely wouldnt have been impressed with its failure to do its job and stop the Adventurers entering the lair.

Although having the Kobold be so touched by this act of mercy, and returning to help the PC's later on would have made a cool story (and a suitable reward for the Paladin making the correct moral choice).

My game world has a way of rewarding good moral choices; not punishing people for them. Just like evil tends to beget more evil, so does good tend to beget more good. Same deal with Krynn and Dragonlance where Evil always turns in on itself, and good deeds often get rewarded.

Call it karma ;)

So the death penalty is evil?

In my mind (and from the POV of most of the developed and enlightened world including all of Europe, the UK and Ireland, Australia, New Zealand etc and most of the USA barring a few States) yes, it is.

You can differ of course, and youre entitled to that opinion, but in my game world, thats the way it is.

Of course capital punishement may be (and often is) Lawful - but its not (in my game world and in my opinion) Good.

Paladins fight to create a world where savagery, execution, violence and killing are no longer needed, and where mercy, charity and compassion rule the day.

They are righteous and benevolent divine warriors who take the battle to very forces that would undermine this goal, but must avoid slipping into darkness themselves in the fight.

This is why the code exists; Paladins must always strive to be better than those they fight against, should always pursue the higher moral ground, and must at all costs avoid resorting to the methods and tools of the evil they seek to vanquish.

Just the one willing act of evil, and the Paladin falls (till he attones).

Again; thats how it is in my game world - your interpretation may differ, and good on you - youre entitled to your own opinion.

As a resolution to this particular issue, this is the compromise I have reached with my player (from my most recent email):

Im equally happy to have you retcon the decsion to kill the Kobold (and thus keep your powers). I probably should have warned you before the act.

I'll explain it to the other characters as a confusion re interpretation of code, and GM error re Detect Evil, and my failure to warn you before you acted.

Although my interpretation of the code stands.

Your choices:

* Retcon the decision, and either release the bastard, or leave him tied in a room. (were all mature enough to deal with this reality shift)
* Retcon your entire character (assuming that you feel that the code as I interpret it wont be fun for you to play)
* Play as is (not to worry, i'll be proving in game RP fluff to help you to work around it after a sufficient period of attonement, and so on) . Accept you made a mistake (in your gods eyes as interpreted by the GM), and play it.

Up to you.

If you stick with the Paladin (and I hope you do, although an inquisitor might be intresting) then there should be no doubt where I sit on 'evil' and the code in the future.

M

At the top of your browser are tabs. Press Ctrl-T then open your email and respond to the email I sent you...

Im on it bro.

FWIW, your mob (the British) didnt abolish the death penalty till 1998.

The guy that shagged Princes Diana commited a Capital offence (Treason) when he slept with her (at British Law sleeping with the Royal consort is a Capital offence for all but the King to protect the bloodline).

There were (muted) calls for his execution!

She was also comitting a Capital offence herself by the way.

Send in the Paladins; no mercy, no surrender!

Good old death penalty. The sooner we see the back of it the better.

Why does it give the abolition date for WA as 1984?

Australia (like the USA) is a Federation of States.

Each State (like West Australia, New South Wales etc) has its own Criminal Code (and traffic act and a raft of other legislation). Different offences exist in Australia depending on where you commit the offence. Same as in the USA.

The constitution prohibits the Feds from legislating in State matters.

Although there is some wiggle room for the Feds to intervene in State law a narrow range of situations (the 'external affairs power' to uphold treaty obligations and others).

Should an Oz State attempt to reintroduce Capital Punishment, there would no doubt be a High Court challenge with the Commonwealth relying on its 'external affairs' power to hold the State to the Federal legislation prohibiting its return via enforcing our treaty obligations re abolishment of the Death Penalty (cruel and unusual punishment) on the State in question.

The Americans have similar issues with their federal system.

In 2010 federal legislation prohibited capital punishment in all Australian states and territories.

Thats Federal legislation prohibiting the States from legislating for its return (and probably consitutionally challengable, but thats a differnt story!).

Federally it was abolished in 1973 (although some States continued to have capital punishment legilsation after this date).

New South Wales was the last Australian State to formally abolish the death penalty via legislation, and it did so officially in 1985 (although no death sentences were carried out for decades prior to it being formally abolished).

The last person to be lawfully executed in Australia was in 1967 (and that was in the State of Victoria).

If you read the wiki article it contains more detail.

So once again you ignore my posts on page 8 that showed you were in error with cheliax and falcon's hollow?

Already answered. I wasnt in error. Most of the inhabitants are Evil.

There's no way the paladin would be able to tell that the majority of people in those areas were EVIL because they would not be powerful enough to detect as evil, UNLESS you are changing the rules from the CRB w/o telling your players.

There is a way; roleplaying. While a 4th level Evil Rogue might not detect as 'evil' it would be fairly apparent to someone interacting with that person (or entering an 'evil' community) that they are 'evil'.

You might not be able to detect the guy in front of you beating a child is 'evil' via detect evil, but his actions clearly indicate so.

The Paladin justified in slaughtering that child beater without mercy?

because that was not told to them when you were defining evil.

Youre overlooking the fact that both the Player AND GM beleived DE would ping the Kobold (a 1st level LE guard).

Your post assumes the player assumed the Kobold was over 5th level or an evil cleric etc, and that was not the case.

The players understanding (and mine) was that DE would ping a kobold warrior. There was no false information provided.

I conceed this was a wrong ruling on DE, and have noted it for the future.

Why is executing a prisoner evil, yet executing that same individual outside of prison not evil?

Both are evil.

Killing in self defence against an armed adversary is not.

And in a world populated by Orcs, Demons, Dragons and so on, there are plently of them to go around.

As for England's capitol punishment, wiki says it was outlawed in...

Im Australian.

Bookrat, there is so much wrong with your post I dont even know where to start.

I fear you are just arguing for the sake of it and intentionally being obtuse.

But best of luck to you anyways. In my campaigns (and IRL) I have a clear definition and concept of what actions constitute 'evil', and this is explained to the players in no uncertain terms.

Killing a helpless, unarmed sentient guard (even an evil aligned one) who poses you no direct threat, is evil in my world.

Always will be, always has been.

Feel free to disagree, and have your Paladins hack to death without mercy or quarter anyone 'evil' (such as many of the residents of Falcons Hollow and Cheliax), but I'll run my campaign differently.

Enjoy.

Where Malafice comes from capital punishment was only outlawed in 2010.

Not true.

As long ofcourse as you're not on a boat trying to get into the country. Then you're in trouble.

True (sadly).

And evil.

Even modern advanced and devloped liberal democracies, with the rule of law etc and an advanced welfare state can sometimes have harsh and oppressive (and immoral) laws.

Advocated for by those that lack compassion, and advocated against by those that are generally referred to as leftie 'do gooders'.

Thats where I draw the line in the sand anyways.

Get off your high horse.

Im discussing ethics and Paladins. Its one of the few times a high horse is appropriate.

FWIW, if I were to assign an aligment to the USA it would be LN, although I have met many a US citizen in my many stays there that were NG (lovelly people who go out of their way to help others). Nazi Germany on the other hand was a LE nation. (/Godwin)

Thats my subjective interpretaion of course.

From a fictional perspective Achillies from Troy (the movie) was CN, Odyesius was LN, Agamemnon likely NE or possibly LE (he never kept his word), Hector LG (kept his word, valued honor, strived to do the right thing), Paris likely NG or CG (a good man, but not honor bound like his older brother).

Also Raistlin (CE), Caramon (LG), Tasselhoff (NG), Sturm (LG) Steel (LE), Kitiara (NE), Tanis (probably N or NG) etc.

Malifice wrote:

Execution is an evil act

So does your world have the most ridiculously extensive and well-manned and humane prison system in existence with incredibly elaborate infrastructure despite the medieval setting?

Nope. Plenty of nations carry out lawful executions.

The trend is for the evilly aligned ones to have the most capital offences, followed by neutrally aligned nations, with the occasional good ones having very few or none at all.

Not all laws and citezens in good aligned nations are 'good' and not all laws and citizens in evil aligned nations are 'evil'. Its the trend, not the absolute rule.

The scale for lawful torture follows pretty much the same pyramid. Same deal with slavery.

No good nations I know of allows slavery (most are N or E aligned, and in the N aligned nations, slavery is generally agitiated for and practiced by evil residents within those nations, and opposed from within by good residents).

And I refute your assertiuons that Golarion is Medieval. There are flourishing democracies, near total sufferage of women (and equal rights) and so on, which are all very modern ethical considerations.

But speaking of dishonesty on your part again, did I say "butcher or kill quickly? Did the OP's Paladin torture the Kobold? If so how? Did I ever state that torture is acceptable?

I stated that sometimes, death is an appropiate sentence to be carried out even in today's world for evil doers. I said nothing about torture.

This is where we disagree. Execution is an evil act (but it may in some societies be lawful), just like Torture is an evil act (which can also be lawful).

Killing for convneience, vengance, pleasure etc is evil.

The only time killing of a creature unwilling to die is morally defensible is when that killing is in self defence or the defence of others, and only then when no other solution reasonably presents itself.

Thats how it is in my campagign at least.

This may seem alien to you as you probably come from a society personally that views capital punishment as 'righteous' or 'good' (the USA springs to mind).

The rest of the developed world has outlawed the practice because it is seen as a cruel and unusual punishment, unneeded, unecessary and counterproductive.

In my world, thats the view of most Paladins too.

bookrat wrote:

Intentionally causing necessary harm would be something I agree is evil

Oops. I meant intentionally causing unnecessary harm...

And it was unecessary to slay the Kobold.

Convenient perhaps (in the Paladins own words - 'Once I made a threat I have to carry it out'), but unecessary.

Im over this thread.

People justifying genocide as good. lol.

I asked you on Page 8, here.

Ive posted the passage already. As have others. Look to Chapter 7 in good vs evil.

But I don't see where you got this (what you told to the players):

Evil includes:

* Slavery
* Murder
* Torture
* Killing of a defenceless sentient
* Rape
* Causing unecessary harm
* Genocide

and this (what you didn't tell the players):

By being raised in a selfish and cruel society, with little to no contact with the outside world (aside from big scary monsters trying to kill it, and steel clad adventurers trying to kill it, and its own tribesmen trying to kill it) and as a result generally not having any empathy for other living creatures, and flocking to the most biggest baddest dude it can find, while picking on and taking advantage of anyone smaller than it (LE).

The above are examples of evil acts, using the CRB definition as a guideline, in place in my campaign world.

Clearly explained to my players.

I've looked at Chapter 7, where the alignments are talked about, and nowhere does it state that being raised in a cruel society causes one to be evil. It does not state that a lack of empathy is evil

Good Versus Evil

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

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.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.

Clear as day to me, and expressed to my players as such.

Hurting, oppressing or killing people, a lack of respect for life, a disregard for the dignity of other sentients, lack of compassion etc = Evil.

You might disagree, and more luck to you, but not in my campaigns.

But I say that means that these people are all evil in yuor world as well:

Abused Children
Victims or Domestic Violence
Picked on kids at school

Your alignments make no sense.

Youve utterly missed the point.

Of course Evil doesn't ahve to be raving loonies and most psychopaths ARE NOT murderers. Ruining lives and getting off on that, h is evil

And to you, these people deserve to be butchered without mercy, even if they surrender, when doing so is convenient for the Paladin.

Thats not 'good'.

And the rest of your post is either wrong or covers points already rasied and answered.

The OP's DM has definite double standards that seems to have Paladins having to be perfect and make the correct decisions in the time frame where dozens have battled about it for days.

Fixed that for you.

The OP's DM has very weak rules when it comes to what evil is and how one becomes evil.

No, I go via the CRB.

Not all evil people are psychopthic mass murderers. In fact most evil people are just complete bastards who gont give a toss about the suffering of others (and far more often than not contribute to it in some way).

A child molester, a perpetrator of domestic violence, a bully who beats those weaker than him for sport, profit or pleasure, a rapist; basically anyone who is a total and utter bastard falls within 'Evil'.

Doing such evil acts once does result in an alignment change. Indeed many N characters do the above actions. But repeated cases would lead to an Evil alignment change.

Of course should a Paladin willingly do one of the above even once, he falls.

I pointed this out before, if you bothered to read it, where his definition of how one becomes evil one only needs to be one or more of the following: Victims of child abuse, domestic violence and bullying

Only if as a result of child abuse, domestic violence and bullying they themselves become child abusers, perpetrators of domestic violence and bullies.

Many will obviously rise above it. Some will even go on to become Paladins themselves, seeking to help victims of such evil, and bring the perpetrators to justice.

Without straying from the path of goodness, honor, charity and mercy.

Compare the above to the Punisher (who is clearly LE). He kills evil people without mercy, remorse or compassion - clearly he seeks to do a greater good by only killing 'bad guys', but his actions themselves are evil.

The first trick of playing a Paladin is to understand the ends never justify the means.

The DM's gods are fickle and capricious. Why the PC's goddess saw fit to remove the powers after just 1 act

Thems the rules mate. One single act of willfull evil for a Paladin (no matter how he justifies it to himself), and he falls.

Thats part of the fun (and challenge) of playing a Paladin.

1. I suggest you reflect on what are the characteristics of players who can successfully play paladins for you, and clearly articulate those characteristics to potential paladin players to avoid these situations.

2. Many of us have over 25 years of role-playing game experience.

1. Did that.

2. Sweet bro. If your campaigns feature paladins ruthlessly hacking at any NPC they happen to stroll past that 'ping' as evil (no mercy, no prisoners) more luck to you.

you did say the Kobold was evil. How did it get that way?

By being raised in a selfish and cruel society, with little to no contact with the outside world (aside from big scary monsters trying to kill it, and steel clad adventurers trying to kill it, and its own tribesmen trying to kill it) and as a result generally not having any empathy for other living creatures, and flocking to the most biggest baddest dude it can find, while picking on and taking advantage of anyone smaller than it (LE).

You define the Paladin in Paizo's Pathfinder by the definitions you created for Paladins 25 years ago in a different system, with different rules, in a different world in a different game.

No, I have exclusivey been using the PF definition of Good, Evil, Sarenraes dogma, the NG alignment, and what causes a fall from grace in this thread.

You want me to apply the AD&D code to your paladin?

You dont want that, trust me.

Does it serve YOUR STORY that the Paladin falls from grace for something as trivial as killing a child eating Kobold?

As discussed, I do not consider this is not a 'trivial' infraction.

Its a child eating and sadistic lizard man, not an innocent bystander.

For the upteenth zillionth time, NO IT WASNT.

It was cruel and sneaky (thanks to its upbringing) but it wasnt a baby eating irredemable monster FFS.

Then playing paladins in your world are unplayable.

Weirdly many players have succesfully played Paladins in dozens of campaigns of mine over 25 years of roleplaying.

And risen to quite high levels.

Give me a scenario and I'll tell you what I would rule.

The GM made a mistake by allowing a house rule without making the player firmly define the expectations.

Ah no, I did that.

I went over it with him in some detail, and the player is well aware of my views on alignment in real life (weve been playing together regularly for 12 months, with me DMing most of the time).

The player (at best) made a false assumption based on his interpretaion of those rules.

]You mean a being that is a willing participant in ritualistic torture and consumption of other sentient being, especially if they're young and tasty?

Where is your proof of this?

This kobold hadnt ritualistically tortured anyone.

And even if he had done so, to a GOOD person, that doesnt justify that he himself should be ritualistically tortured, put to the sword, or thrown in a fire in retaliation.

Good people show mercy and compassion; they dont repay evil with more evil.

Paladins especially so.

And if that really were the case, good has absolutely no chance. You want a world of the "DM's Paladin"

Where they will garner their self-righteous attitude, join hands with Asmodeus and Demorgorgon and sing loud and proud "Kum by yah!

Ive played Paladins (and GM'd them) to high levels in the past in alliterations of the rules for over 25 years using this exact same definition.

And not a single campfire song, and a ton of smitten enemies along the way.

Where does it say "Chivalry"? As for Mercy, he was merciful, the Kobold died quickly and at the hands of a foe that will make him worthy to stand before his god

Fight fire with fire eh?

Not in my world.

At the risk of continuing this apparently pointless argument. Are you suggesting that a paladin who kills someone that truly detects as evil while respecting the local legitimate authority (however in the case of Neutral Good; local authority should not apply) could lose their divine powers?

Why are they killing this evil person?

Have they been attacked by this evil person? Do they have a choice other than to kill them?

Is killing them necessary?

Need more information before I can answer.

A "lol u lose all class abilities!" move is not cool and MOST importantly hardly serves the story.

Rubbish.

Many an awesome story has featured (and even revolved around) falling from grace, redemption, bad choices for good reasons, and attonement.

In fact, its a ridiculously common theme in fantasy literature.

Your definition of good is the end all

From the CRB:

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures... 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.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.

Again, checkmate.

I would suggest that if you deviate from playing with this bright line of game mechanics, you deviate from the general population of Pathfinder games.

I have cited the Game mechanics for you.

Rule: A Paladin who willingly commits at evil act loses Paladinhood.

Definition of Evil/ Good (from the CRB):

Good Versus Evil

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

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.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.

How I felt about it is clearly documented right here.

I'll take your word for it.

Still, hammering the cold blooded execution of a helpless cowering and bound foe (who posed you no direct harm) into a Paladins code, Sarenraes dogma, and the NG alignment is a stretch.

Ive told you before that I consider (as DM) the execution of a helpless foe to fall on the side of evil.

S&+$ we've argued about it before.

I was also clear in providing your code, and specifying that mercy, charity and compassion (for you) supersceded the LG Paladins reliance on honor, chivalry and justice.

OBTW, CE can do ANYTHING THEY WANT. They have a pang of conscious? NP, give a few alms to the poor, help an old farmer cross the stream, hug a baby

B@~!!%++.

Chaotic Evil: A chaotic evil character does what his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are likely to be poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.

Chaotic evil represents the destruction not only of beauty and life, but also of the order on which beauty and life depend

A Chaotic evil character that gives to charity, starts trying to prevent the suffering of others, works well with others, keeps his word, etc etc etc is not Chaotic evil.

Ergo he cannot just 'do what he wants'.

I figured it out - Malifice is copying his paladin's code to be exactly that of an average 21st century American police officer. Anyone who doesn't guess this and roleplay their fantasy world paladin in exactly that way is a bad roleplayer.

No, I use the context of 'good' and 'evil' from the perspective of the 20th and 21st century game designers and writers who placed the conceps (and rules around them) in the books to begin with.

Such as:

Good Versus Evil

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.

Sometimes I think you are unable to read.

'Sarenrae begs to differ'

Yes, the Sarenrae of your imagination begs to differ. I concede that.

But the Sarenrae as interpreted by me and a majority of people on this thread does not.

Thats because you (and others in this thread) have a fairly twisted opinion on what consitutes 'good' (some even advocate the wanton massacre of evil sentients, including prisoners, and for no other reason than detecting as 'evil'), and a rather conflicting view (to say the least) on what consitutes 'mercy' 'compassion' and 'redemption'.

You got frustrated after trying to do the 'right thing', and you lashed out at a helpless and frightened sentient that was entirely at your mercy (Sarenraes greatest virtue).

And to be honest, I think you regretted it not long afterwards.

But thats just my subjective view.

We have spells and magic items that can ward a character about unknowing breaches of his deities codes or things that'll affect his alignment.

I know.

Sadly he didnt have one.

Obvious things should be made obvious to the player

Murder of a helpless terrified sentient is fairly obvious I would have thought. At the very least (as this thread shows), it should have raised a massive question mark in his mind.

Pathfinder is a game. There are rules that define what detects as evil. Yes, there are ways to obfuscate the detection, but that is an exception and additional challenge.

The paladin gets the abilities to Detect Evil and Smite Evil. Anything that are truly affected by those two abilities can be killed by a paladin without losing his divine abilities.

Please point out the rules of the game that specifiy this exeption to the RULE that 'A Paladin that willfully commits an Evil act loses his Paladinhood'.

You cant detect evil on a helpless prisoner, then use your smite evil ability, then proceed to effectively murder it.

PF might be a game, but its a roleplaying game.

There are enough moral challenges beyond that brightly lit line, e.g. evil creatures less than 5th level who don't detect as evil and being ordered by your Lawful Good authority to kill another Lawful Good creature for whatever reason.

A Paladin can kill another LG creature.

As long as it presents a direct threat to him (usually by a mistake etc) and not lose his paladin status. He can do this (as a last resort) even if he knows it is LG. (A hungry blink dog defending its lair in the mistaken beleif that the Paladin is there to take the pups) He is not WILLFULLY committing an evil act by doing so (although he should try and use whatever means at his disposal to resolve the conflict with nonviolence if he is aware the creature is Good aligned).

Such situations are thankfully rare.

The GM admitted to making a mistake: the kobold detected as evil. If it was evil, it can be killed by the paladin.

No it cant. Not in the absenence of the evil creature presenting a direct and clear threat to the Paladin or other innocents.

If it wasn't evil, the kobold was a helpless sentient that shouldn't be killed.

The Kobold was a helpless sentient that shouldn't be killed. It was also 'evil' by virtue of its upbringing.

{quote]If paladins go to Cheliax, Falcon's Hallow, etc, they can kill anyone that truly detects as evil (man, woman and child) without losing their divine powers.

Not in my games they cant.

Can you point out an incident of this happeneing in any Golarion canon for me?

Hint: You cant.

The only place Paladins slaughter evil will is the Worldwound (and thats against irredemable evil creatures in Demons).

If my character really was a Paladin of Sarenrae existing in Malifice's world he'd know the code backwards and not kill the Kobold. Because he exists in that world and is a Paladin... My character would not or could not have fallen if he truly was a Paladin of Sarenrae.

False reasoning.

Your character is human. And humans are not robots; they carry prejudices, bias and flawed reasoning. They have emotions. They get angry. They get scared. They err.

Real world history, and literature is littered with such examples.

Many a Paladin falls thinking he is doing the right thing via his interpretation of the code.

His God may very well disagree.

Your interpretation of your code may very well have allowed you to decapitate cowering and helpless sentients because they failed to co-operate (despite not understanding you).

Sarenrae begs to differ.

Trivializing Evil in Fantasy RP is fine, but then the "moral ground" is shifty and not a firm standing

Thats exactly why I set a firm objective standard.

If one is going to make "detecting evil" nothing more than detecting when a person laughs when a person falls and hurts themselves (an EVIL person would setup the situation for people to fall cause they enjoy it and hope they get really hurt, not for any punitive reason, just because they get off on it. If they didn't cause it, they'd find a reason to go and kick them when they are down and let them know they are at their mercy because they can)

If a DM makes evil banal and limp, then the whole "Smite Evil" becomes not a class skill but a weapon to be used to remove all skill from the Paladin

If you want moral ambiguity, great! I use it all the time. In my world even the gods aren't perfect and err, often. However when using morally ambiguous relations, don't hold ANY class to cut 'n dry gotchas

The fact that so many can argue for so long shows that the Paladin was in morally ambiguous territory at best, IMHO an Evil being is still fricking EVIL, not just "not nice", shows how difficult it is when the supposed distinction between Good and Evil as real forces are not easily seperated

Evil people are not all 'mass murderers' or 'cultists'. Theyre (mostly) just cruel, callous bastards who couldnt care less if a street urchin lived or died, or the homeless guy is suffering.

Thats not 'morally ambiguous' from an objective view of evil as a lack of concern for sentient life and its suffering.

Good people generally go out of their way to help others (at thier own expense) and try to stop suffering and promote charity. Evil people generally look after themselves, and take advantage of other people with little regard for their feelings or suffering. Neutral people generally dont care one way of the other.

FWIW many evil people in Golarion dont realise that they are, in fact, 'Evil' (or really care if they did know). Some objectively evil aligned people actually think they are good, or even work towards a greater good by doing evil deeds (think the Punisher).

The means are always more important than the ends.

Thats how it is my campaigns anyways.

Dont forget, you are looking at this Paladin from your own subjective real world 'alignment' also.

Clearly the player does NOT know that this would've been a breach his code.

WHY ELSE WOULD THIS THREAD EXIST?!

Because the player wants his cake (the Powers) and to be able to eat it too (shirking the responsibilities or burden that comes with a Paladin when it suits him).

I love the guy, and he is by no means the worst at it, but its kinda how he rolls. He tested me, tried to justify it knowing how I would have viewed it, and I didnt budge.

FWIW, he wanted an evil PC to begin with (and I would have allowed it, but for the objections of another player - it was put to a player vote).

Pity about him retiring the Paladin; I was going to have a monologing villian attempt to seduce him fully to 'the dark side'.

The penalty for refusal would have been a clear and unambiguous certain death .

Think Sidious/ Luke scenario.

Now thats a roleplaying opportunity right there.

Im not a 'prick' of a GM, I just hold my examplars of Good to (rightfully) high standards.

People agree that Paladins are divine holy warriors, dedicated and entrusted by their dieties to upholding the highest principles of Good.

They are gifted with the ability to sense the weight of past 'sin' on others.

And this allows and justifies them (apparently) in butchering these people (even if helpless, minding thier own buisiness, surrendering, non combatants etc and taking no prisoners mind you) where they stand.

Whacked out definition of 'Good' to be sure.

Love to know what 'Evil' is, this being the case.

Looks to me to be the same thing, just delete the word good, and insert the word evil (and vice versa).

Not even Antipaladins in my campaign go around wantonly butchering every good person they find.

FWIW, Antipaladins must butcher fallen foes (unless the intent is to betray or corrupt them them later on etc) or 'fall'. An Antipaladin certainly shouldnt give mercy to his defeated foes without a clear nefarious intent (letting them watch as he butchers their family etc), as this is a good act.

Although a LE Antipaladin (allowed in my game) should keep his word.

First rule of playing a paladin: make sure your DM is not a dick.

First rule of roleplaying a Paladin.

Learn how to roleplay.

And know that from time to time, you will face tough decisions.

And be rewarded or punished for them appropriately.