the red dragon.... the paladin would not hesistate to beleive that it is LG with LN tendancies as the humans may not have caused him or his species any harm and therefore no evil was done and the actions were in line with the way of nature.
Which is fine for roleplaying, but still dead wrong in the overall measure of the game. So long as you, the player, are aware of that from the beginning, go for it.
I think it would be a great story development to have a paladin all but fall on their very first mission, getting off to an incredibly rocky start, only to come back around and lead an exemplary career and life. Imagine the rolemodel he would then become to other young paladins in future years!
I wouldn't go so far as to say the paladin needs to atone directly to the goblin's family (which might impose logistical concerns, and depending on the faith/race/nation, might be unsavory even for the big wigs who would command the paladin to his atonement), but a quest to purge himself of this stain and prove himself capable of continuing as a paladin definitely sounds like it's in the works.
So pre-emptive strike = bad
So pre-emptive strike = bad
If the paladin didn't even bother to detect if the goblin was evil, it is hard to call this a pre-emptive strike.
Sigh the Paladins code once again
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.
I'm pretty sure letting a Dragon munch on villagers violates the parts of the Paladins code I've bolded.
just because the paladin beleives the dragon acted in a way that is true to its nature doesnt mean that it wouldnt defend the humans.
in this way we can see a motive for two lawful good entities to have reason to fight. something i find dreadfully lacking in the game.
So pre-emptive strike = badAgainst a non-aggressive being and based on "evidence" that would charitably be described as flimsy, yes.
the paladin viewed the action as being required to be preemptive due to the circumstances in which the situation unravelled.
was it his most shining moment as an upholder of good? no.
was it evil? no
was it chaotic? no, in fact it was lawful punishment for the crimes suspected.
Hang on - you hadn't proved anything. Why not attack anyone who may be capable of committing evil. If the gobbie was good (alas, we'll never know) your suspicion was wrong.
...then you would argue that it was a lower life form therefore it doesn't matter?
It makes the word "investigation" redundant because we should've just destroyed them for being sus (as all goblins are).
:)
Definitely evil dude!
A paladin is someone who acts like a paladin, champions the downtrodden, defends the helpless, upholds justice (not judgement) for all, is fair and kind and honourable, not someone whose class is called 'paladin' or who calls himself 'paladin'.
I reckon your should take a look at PrCs like Vigilante, Justiciar etc.
Vigilante : A Vigilante is essentially an Assassin of good rather than evil. Instead of killing for glory, power, wealth, or sport, the Vigilante kills in the name of justice. Not content to depend on unreliable law enforcement agencies to protect the streets, he hunts down notorious criminals, murderers, and men of evil on his own terms to deliver his own form of justice. His philosophy is that the guilty must be destroyed in order for the innocent to live in peace.
Just a thought...
I think you have it there Jezz.
In the end, you can rationalize anything you want from a philosophical point of view. (especially Raoul). Great talent really.
Hang on - you hadn't proved anything. Why not attack anyone who may be capable of committing evil. If the gobbie was good (alas, we'll never know) your suspicion was wrong.
...then you would argue that it was a lower life form therefore it doesn't matter?
It makes the word "investigation" redundant because we should've just destroyed them for being sus (as all goblins are).
:)
Is the same true of a Vampire? Should you wait until you have proof that it is not a benefit to society before attacking it? and then when you do attack it should you declare it to the Vamp before stiking?
where do you draw the line....... especially in a setting where there are no solid lines....
I've played a justicar. He fought in the biggest war the realm has ever seen. he was slain by a balor if memory serves and despite being very dear to the palyers heart chose not to be resurrected as the way of the law of the universe is that things die. it was probably the most dificult decision i have had to make as a player in relation to the actions of my character. sweet class justicar, but not this characters style at all. nor is vigilante, too personal.
ooooh and thanks for the compliment Tronos...I think :D
In the case of the vampire it is not a living being so arguably the rules don't apply. If you look at the BoED Vow of Non-violence and Vow of Peace there is an exception for undead.
If you are looking at a creature that has an 'always evil' alignment e.g. devils, demons etc then you will almost certainly be ok in striking first and asking questions later.
If you are talking about a creature like a drow, half-minotaur, orc etc that is in a 'social' situation, I think you should at least try to detect evil or wait to see if it engages in evil conduct before smashing its head open like a melon...
In the case of the vampire it is not a living being so arguably the rules don't apply. If you look at the BoED Vow of Non-violence and Vow of Peace there is an exception for undead.
If you are looking at a creature that has an 'always evil' alignment e.g. devils, demons etc then you will almost certainly be ok in striking first and asking questions later.
If you are talking about a creature like a drow, half-minotaur, orc etc that is in a 'social' situation, I think you should at least try to detect evil or wait to see if it engages in evil conduct before smashing its head open like a melon...
... hook, line and sinker buddy.
vampires are undead, therefore of lesser status in the world and undeserved of judicial process... like straud or dracula or whoever... but what of the "Blade" scenario or any good character with the (half?)vampire template?
demons and devils... if they are just fallen angels surely the reverse is possible.....
drow, minotaur etc... if i come accross one of these under suspicious circumstances i'll be doing the same thing. a drow (for example) is found with weapons and armour that arnt of the under dark, and a family is known to have died in the vicinity: measure his strength and if I can take him I do.
If you are talking about a creature like a drow, half-minotaur, orc etc that is in a 'social' situation, I think you should at least try to detect evil or wait to see if it engages in evil conduct before smashing its head open like a melon...
Yup, that is why the class gets that ability at will. Sadly I don't think this paladin is going to have it very long.
Also, a paladin acts honorably not because their foe deserves it (a judgement on the quality of their foe), but because the paladin believes it is the right way to behave (a judgement on the quality of himself).
But, that is the problem. The Vast consensus of the people that were asked is that the act most certainly was Evil.So pre-emptive strike = badAgainst a non-aggressive being and based on "evidence" that would charitably be described as flimsy, yes.the paladin viewed the action as being required to be preemptive due to the circumstances in which the situation unravelled.
was it his most shining moment as an upholder of good? no.
was it evil? no
was it chaotic? no, in fact it was lawful punishment for the crimes suspected.
- It was Racism. You, yourself, helped established that Goblins in the setting do have free will, so can make moral choices.
- It was Murder (A Pre-Meditiated Act of Killing), without any mitigating factors.
We could then go further into the arguement about the act being "Lawful" or "Chaotic," but at this point that hardly matters.
where do you draw the line....... especially in a setting where there are no solid lines....
But your arguement about the Goblin is also based on a solid line. ("They're not like you and me, that means they must be Evil." - Disney's Pocahantas)
In a setting without solid lines, the Paladin still needs to try his/her best to do what is right. You didn't.
And, I believe that is the problem.
My previous post of exceptional thought and rational discourse was eaten by the boards. Its a conspiracy!
So instead i'll make use of a running "Naughty Pally" thread rather than start a new one.
In my Age of Worms game, the group just encountered a spirit nage, a particularily nasty one working with a mind flayer.
The party got the drop on the naga, so it cried "Parlay!" The paladin entered discourse with it, but kicked up detect evil nonetheless and as such verified it was an evil creature.
Some diplomacy ensued, led by the palladin. The end result was the naga agreeing to leave peacefully, if it could keep its treasure. The party agreed to those terms.
Here's the catch. The paladin made the sense motive check to realize the naga was lying. The naga planned to leave, buff up with spells, and come back to kill them all. While the palladin din't know that much information, since he just got the sense motive result of "regarding leaving peacefully, you are pretty sure it's lying", he felt it was sufficient reason for his next action.
He told the rest of the party to stand aside, presumably so the naga could slither past them. When the naga was fully in melee range, he struck it, and started combat. All the other PCs had to take move actions to get within melee reach of it.
Now, I've already made my judgements on this, but I'm interested in what the rest of the boards has to say. If you like, preface your responses with "Black Bard" so my little story doesn't threadjack too much.
|
So pre-emptive strike = badAgainst a non-aggressive being and based on "evidence" that would charitably be described as flimsy, yes.the paladin viewed the action as being required to be preemptive due to the circumstances in which the situation unravelled.
was it his most shining moment as an upholder of good? no.
was it evil? no
was it chaotic? no, in fact it was lawful punishment for the crimes suspected.
Going by this "logic", there is NO evil, as each creature "just acts according to his or her own nature. And I guess this so called paladin, doesn't believe in actual guilt or innocence, just suspected guilt is enough to warrent the death penalty. Sorry dude, but that ain't LG and trying to reason it as so is more LE, you know do what ever I want as long as I can find some justification. Going by this if elves have no legal rights then killing, maiming or even raping them is "good" in his eyes. Or to give you a real world comparison your saying slavery in the U.S. was a good thing, segregation was a good thing and Martin Luther King Jr. was evil for upseting "the law of the land". Sorry that doesn't float here.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Here's the catch. The paladin made the sense motive check to realize the naga was lying. The naga planned to leave, buff up with spells, and come back to kill them all. While the palladin din't know that much information, since he just got the sense motive result of "regarding leaving peacefully, you are pretty sure it's lying", he felt it was sufficient reason for his next action.
He told the rest of the party to stand aside, presumably so the naga could slither past them. When the naga was fully in melee range, he struck it, and started combat. All the other PCs had to take move actions to get within melee reach of it.
Now, I've already made my judgements on this, but I'm interested in what the rest of the boards has to say. If you like, preface your responses with "Black Bard" so my little story doesn't threadjack too much.
Black Bard,
Interesting. It's not evil, as his actions were based his knowlege. "Evil? Check. Lying? Check. A threat to law and order? Check." I'd say they were chaotic though. He gave his word, and then broke it. Technically, the Naga never got a chance to prove his actions right.
He gets 'paladin points' for taking the consequences of his actions on himself though. At least he didn't greataxe it in the back of the head ;-)
I'd say the Lawful Good approach would have been to a) warn the party and ask if they wanted to ready a counter ambush. b) send the rogue/familiar/psicrystal (you know, the small expendible creature) off to scout the naga to make sure it played fair. or c) continue on but be on guard for ambushes.
I find this thread extremely interesting.
You see, I am the DM of this particular campaign.
I am deliberately not weighing in with too many opinions at the moment, but I am watching with a great deal of interest.
If anyone has any questions about the campaign setting, feel free to ask me, and I shall answer as best I can.
One thing I will supply for interest, for those reading through this thread, is that in this campaign setting, homebrew deities have been created.
In this campaign setting, every god represents a portfolio (Fire, Diplomacy, Healing, etc), rather than an alignment.
Importantly, each god represents every alignment (yes, there is a lawful manifestation of the god of chaos, and vice versa).
The individual worships the god, and while the individual may believe that they are praying and worshipping a particular manifestation (i.e. alignment), if a person is not what alignment they THINK they are, then they might find themselves worshipping another manifestation entirely.
Oh, and one last: knowing that my players delight in discussions of ethics, law, morality and any ambiguities therein, this particular encounter was designed, specifically and deliberately, to explore these very themes.
The Watchman returns to watching.
I find this thread extremely interesting.
You see, I am the DM of this particular campaign.
I am deliberately not weighing in with too many opinions at the moment, but I am watching with a great deal of interest.
If anyone has any questions about the campaign setting, feel free to ask me, and I shall answer as best I can.
One thing I will supply for interest, for those reading through this thread, is that in this campaign setting, homebrew deities have been created.
In this campaign setting, every god represents a portfolio (Fire, Diplomacy, Healing, etc), rather than an alignment.
Importantly, each god represents every alignment (yes, there is a lawful manifestation of the god of chaos, and vice versa).
The individual worships the god, and while the individual may believe that they are praying and worshipping a particular manifestation (i.e. alignment), if a person is not what alignment they THINK they are, then they might find themselves worshipping another manifestation entirely.
Oh, and one last: knowing that my players delight in discussions of ethics, law, morality and any ambiguities therein, this particular encounter was designed, specifically and deliberately, to explore these very themes.
The Watchman returns to watching.
B.T.W., Welcome to the Paizo Boards. :)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
And it's Paladin Quote time!
Jean-Luc Picard: There can be no justice so long as laws are absolute. Even life itself is an exercise in exceptions.
Jean-Luc Picard: No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another.
Benton Fraser: Thank you. Anyone carrying illegal weapons, if you would place them on the bar. You are under arrest.
[Patrons pull out numerous guns and point them at him. A knife is thrown into the wall near Fraser's head; he never even blinks]
Benton Fraser: You realize I'm going to have to confiscate that?
Fraser: Well, I understand your skepticism. Appearances can be deceiving. I mean, for example, you're a nurse, yet you wear extremely high heels to work. Which indicates either you haven't been a nurse for very long, or you have remarkable arches. Also, the way you hold your wrists suggests you spend many hours at a computer keyboard. And add to that, the slight crick in your neck, which indicates extended phone usage, and the minute traces of printer's ink under your three-quarter-inch nails. Which, by the way, must make bandaging quite a challenge. And a less trusting person might assume that you weren't a nurse at all. A less trusting person might assume that you work, say, for a newspaper. But then appearances can be deceiving.
Mackenzie: And you've known this since...?
Fraser: The parking lot. Also, you should check you tape recorders. I think either your battery is leaking or some liquid has spilled into the motor. From the smell of it, I would say... [sniffs] mace.
Aw heck, pretty much all of Frasier's life. (Ok, so he's a LG ranger with an animal companion, find me a better Paladin.)
B.T.W., Welcome to the Paizo Boards. :)
Thankyou, Fyre. I am used to the CharOp boards at Gleemax, or Min/Max at Brilliant Gameologists. So far, it seems like some pretty cogent and politely argued points have been made. I think I shall visit more often!
There doesn't seem to be a stickied intro thread, or at least one that my feeble searching found. Can anyone direct me?
There doesn't seem to be a stickied intro thread, or at least one that my feeble searching found. Can anyone direct me?
No. I think you're right.
I do not believe that there is one. :(
And it's Paladin Quote time!
Jean-Luc Picard: There can be no justice so long as laws are absolute. Even life itself is an exercise in exceptions.
Jean-Luc Picard: No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another.
Jean-Luc Picard as a Paladin?
I've never considered such a thing, since the genre is so vastly different...
Does that mean Kirk was a Paladin too? He certainly was self-righteous... :-P Or was his flagrant disregard for the Prime Directive his badge of non-Paladin status?
This has me pondering now. Sisko might be a Paladin, but only a reluctant one. Janeway could be because of her Caretaker decision. Hmm...
Going by this "logic", there is NO evil, as each creature "just acts according to his or her own nature. And I guess this so called paladin, doesn't believe in actual guilt or innocence, just suspected guilt is enough to warrent the death penalty. Sorry dude, but that ain't LG and trying to reason it as so is more LE, you know do what ever I want as long as I can find some justification. Going by this if elves have no legal rights then killing, maiming or even raping them is "good" in his eyes. Or to give you a real world comparison your saying slavery in the U.S. was a good thing, segregation was a good thing and Martin Luther King Jr. was evil for upseting "the law of the land". Sorry that doesn't float here.
was it his most shining moment as an upholder of good? no.
was it evil? no
was it chaotic? no, in fact it was lawful punishment for the crimes suspected.
since we are talking about a dragon eating people and no motivation being given as to why then a judgment cannot be made as to whether the act was good or evil. Evil is: the intent to cause harm for pleasure. the paladin took no joy in his action. therefore his act was not evil.
if elves had no rights and actions to cause them harm were done for the pleasure of the character this would be evil.
but to be fair their rights mean nothing in the determination of good and evil. they do have sway in whether or not actions are lawful/chaotic. Martin Luther King Jr was an agent of chaos. not an agent of evil.
EDIT: and for the record, a detect evil would have proven nothing. if he came up as non evil he could have bought or otherwise procured the items without having done an evil act. if he had have come up evil, it still doesnt mean he knowingly commited the crime i accuse him of.
ALSO: my personal beleifs on whether or not slavery was a good thing, the declaration of australia as terra nullis, or the good generals comments about american indins as written by Lord Fyre have nothing to do with how my character acts in the mythical world of d&d.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
And it's Paladin Quote time!
Jean-Luc Picard: There can be no justice so long as laws are absolute. Even life itself is an exercise in exceptions.
Jean-Luc Picard: No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another.
Jean-Luc Picard as a Paladin?
I've never considered such a thing, since the genre is so vastly different...
Does that mean Kirk was a Paladin too? He certainly was self-righteous... :-P Or was his flagrant disregard for the Prime Directive his badge of non-Paladin status?
This has me pondering now. Sisko might be a Paladin, but only a reluctant one. Janeway could be because of her Caretaker decision. Hmm...
I think he's Lawful Good at the very least. He does follow the rules, but also tries to follow them for the greater good. Especially in the first season. "Hmm, Starfleet seems to be corrupt? Set a course for Earth Number one, my smite evil finger is twitchy!"
Sisko's a fallen Paladin I think.
Benjamin Sisko: At 0800 Hours station time, the Romulan Empire formally declared war on the Dominion. They have already struck fifteen bases along the Cardassian border. So this is a huge victory for the good guys! This may even be the turning point of the entire war. There is even a 'Welcome to the Fight' party tonight in the ward room. So... I lied; I cheated; I bribed men to cover the crimes of other men; I am an accessory to murder. But the most damning thing of all is... I think I can live with it. And if I'd have to do it all over again... I would. Garak was right about one thing...a guilty conscience is a small price to pay for the safety of the Alpha Quadrant. So I will learn to live with it...because I can live with it. [pauses] I can live with it. [pauses] Computer, erase that entire personal log.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
Evil is: the intent to cause harm for pleasure. the paladin took no joy in his action. therefore his act was not evil.
By that definition of evil, you may very well be correct. But that's not the point.
Lying; Backstabbing/Ambush; Looting; Assuming guilt without the burden of proof (or attempting to gather even dubious proof, i.e. Detect Evil). I think it's indisputable that the Paladin's actions were *NOT* Good.
As far as Lawful/Chaotic axis goes... You seem to base the legality of your actions on the racist argument that goblins are 'sub-human(oid)', despite having no historical (goblin extermination campaigns, wars leaving a lingering hatred) or racial (Dwarven bonuses vs. goblinoids don't apply because you're a Dream Dwarf) reasons for thinking so.
You've acted in a way inconsistent with the laws of the land (Murder is illegal) before determining if they actually apply. You've convicted and carried out punishment without carrying out an investigation, based on 'your gut'. Both of which sound much more impulsive and Chaotic than deliberate and Lawful.
Just my two cents.
|
|
Evil is: the intent to cause harm for pleasure. the paladin took no joy in his action. therefore his act was not evil.
Okay so you can only commit evil if you enjoy it, So a bad king orders a knight who swore loyalty to the king to rape and sodomize a six year old boy. The knight hates doing it, but does it because he swore an oath of obediance. By this logic, the knight didn't commit an evil act at all.
Evil is: the intent to cause harm for pleasure. the paladin took no joy in his action. therefore his act was not evil.By that definition of evil, you may very well be correct. But that's not the point.
Lying; Backstabbing/Ambush; Looting; Assuming guilt without the burden of proof (or attempting to gather even dubious proof, i.e. Detect Evil). I think it's indisputable that the Paladin's actions were *NOT* Good.
As far as Lawful/Chaotic axis goes... You seem to base the legality of your actions on the racist argument that goblins are 'sub-human(oid)', despite having no historical (goblin extermination campaigns, wars leaving a lingering hatred) or racial (Dwarven bonuses vs. goblinoids don't apply because you're a Dream Dwarf) reasons for thinking so.
You've acted in a way inconsistent with the laws of the land (Murder is illegal) before determining if they actually apply. You've convicted and carried out punishment without carrying out an investigation, based on 'your gut'. Both of which sound much more impulsive and Chaotic than deliberate and Lawful.Just my two cents.
i agree with the majority of what you say.
i have a further point to raise: the dwarf was not being racist. a gobbo is not of the same species. call me a hair splitter but someone had to say it, wish it wasnt me.
Okay so speciast then
i have a further point to raise: the dwarf was not being racist. a gobbo is not of the same species. call me a hair splitter but someone had to say it, wish it wasnt me.
Actually, look at Ch. 2 in the PHB, you'll see in game terms the word "Race" has a specific meaning, which need not corresponde to the way it is used in the real world. Thus when LE says it condemns others based on their race, it is using the game meaning of the word.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
i agree with the majority of what you say.
i have a further point to raise: the dwarf was not being racist. a gobbo is not of the same species. call me a hair splitter but someone had to say it, wish it wasnt me.
So, your Paladin is not acting Goodly, and he's not acting Lawfully. You don't see a problem with that? Especially when these actions have dire consequences, needlessly taking the life of a sentient (possibly innocent) creature?
Do you have Caucasian, African, Hispanic, and Mongoloid dwarves in your game? Because if you don't, then I fail to see how you could confuse Game Term: Race, as pres man described it, with Real Term: Race.
Look at your character sheet, hair-splitter; where you've written 'Dream Dwarf'. Does that line say 'Species'? or 'Race'? I rest my case.
(If you haven't noticed, when dealing with morality issues in D&D, I deliberately avoid bringing in 'Real World' examples. Morality in the real world is much fuzzier than in D&D. Use ONLY terms and concepts found in the system, and you'll simplify a whole lot of issues.)
In conclusion, I don't think the Paladin should be stripped of his powers (yet), but he's on a very slippery slope. If he continues his Non-lawful and Non-good behavior, especially the next instance it results in the loss of (potentially innocent) life, break out the Atonement.
|
|
In conclusion, I don't think the Paladin should be stripped of his powers (yet), but he's on a very slippery slope. If he continues his Non-lawful and Non-good behavior, especially the next instance it results in the loss of (potentially innocent) life, break out the Atonement.
Really, I honestly do think the paladin should be stripped of his powers. I mean what he did was blatently dishonest and dishonourable. I mean, raoul can argue that it wasn't evil all he wants, that doesn't change the whole acting honorably thing or the acting honestly. Hell I don't even have a problem with a paladin lying as long as its kept minimal and only in the gravest of circumstances, but striking a creature down in the back when it isn't expecting combat. Can someone give me an example (any example) of a character acting less honourably?
Looking at the potions in question: "a couple of gentle repose potions, invisibility, silence(?) and healing potions." Depending on what the exact healing potions were, a good 3rd level cleric with the trickery domain could have made all of those. For all we know, the paladin could have killed a good cleric who has been subtly changing the beliefs of those fellow goblins around him to a good outlook. Since the paladin made no attempt to actually determine anything, I would have to say he has to be judge on the basis of this possibility. If the goblin had been good would the paladin's actions have been appropriate?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
In conclusion, I don't think the Paladin should be stripped of his powers (yet), but he's on a very slippery slope. If he continues his Non-lawful and Non-good behavior, especially the next instance it results in the loss of (potentially innocent) life, break out the Atonement.Really, I honestly do think the paladin should be stripped of his powers. I mean what he did was blatently dishonest and dishonourable. I mean, raoul can argue that it wasn't evil all he wants, that doesn't change the whole acting honorably thing or the acting honestly. Hell I don't even have a problem with a paladin lying as long as its kept minimal and only in the gravest of circumstances, but striking a creature down in the back when it isn't expecting combat. Can someone give me an example (any example) of a character acting less honourably?
Annikin mowing down Jedi children? :-)
I think a certain goblin killing theiving 'paladin' might be getting a job offer
I think a certain goblin killing theiving 'paladin' might be getting a job offer
Oops, I thought you were going for this industry.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
Really, I honestly do think the paladin should be stripped of his powers. I mean what he did was blatently dishonest and dishonourable. I mean, raoul can argue that it wasn't evil all he wants, that doesn't change the whole acting honorably thing or the acting honestly. Hell I don't even have a problem with a paladin lying as long as its kept minimal and only in the gravest of circumstances, but striking a creature down in the back when it isn't expecting combat. Can someone give me an example (any example) of a character acting less honourably?
Rereading the SRD section on ex-paladins, I find I must concur. Its pretty cut and dry:
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities...
Code of Conduct:...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. Sounds more like an assassin than a paladin.
He lied to lull the goblin into turning his back, then struck him from behind, so he would not alert the rest of the villiage to his presence.
(BTW, the DM should remember that speaking is a free action. After that first missed strike, I would have had that goblin shouting for help, even if it lost initiative and couldn't move or attack first. A big axe is swung at me, I'm not waiting 6 seconds to shout for help!!)
The Black Bard
Some diplomacy ensued, led by the palladin. The end result was the naga agreeing to leave peacefully, if it could keep its treasure. The party agreed to those terms.Here's the catch. The paladin made the sense motive check to realize the naga was lying. The naga planned to leave, buff up with spells, and come back to kill them all. While the palladin din't know that much information, since he just got the sense motive result of "regarding leaving peacefully, you are pretty sure it's lying", he felt it was sufficient reason for his next action.
He told the rest of the party to stand aside, presumably so the naga could slither past them. When the naga was fully in melee range, he struck it, and started combat. All the other PCs had to take move actions to get within melee reach of it.
Now, I've already made my judgements on this, but I'm interested in what the rest of the boards has to say. If you like, preface your responses with "Black Bard" so my little story doesn't threadjack too much.
He violated the truce. It doesn't matter if the other party was going to do so. He did first. Which means the truce was still in effect and HE broke it not the naga.
This is a violation of his code as he lied & broke his word. He loses his powers till he can quest and atone.
Instead he should have confronted the Naga or even prepared a trap for when the Naga broke the truce. Instead he sullied his honour.
Look, this paladin killed someone with no proof of any wrongdoing. Just suspicions. That is an evil act. How can it not be? The goblin gave no indication he was evil except his race, gave no indication he was guilty except circumstances. Perhaps he was claiming to be able to make them because if it was revealed that he bought them from another merchant, he might lose business? But nobody will ever know, because the paladin felt the need to kill him without proof, evidence, and really any sign of guilt.
The Black Bard
** spoiler omitted **
This.
Also
Look, this paladin killed someone with no proof of any wrongdoing. Just suspicions. That is an evil act. How can it not be? The goblin gave no indication he was evil except his race, gave no indication he was guilty except circumstances. Perhaps he was claiming to be able to make them because if it was revealed that he bought them from another merchant, he might lose business? But nobody will ever know, because the paladin felt the need to kill him without proof, evidence, and really any sign of guilt.
Well there is always speak with dead and raise dead if he was wrong, but the paladin should have taken the body in that case.
Look, this paladin killed someone with no proof of any wrongdoing. Just suspicions. That is an evil act. How can it not be? The goblin gave no indication he was evil except his race, gave no indication he was guilty except circumstances. Perhaps he was claiming to be able to make them because if it was revealed that he bought them from another merchant, he might lose business? But nobody will ever know, because the paladin felt the need to kill him without proof, evidence, and really any sign of guilt.Well there is always speak with dead and raise dead if he was wrong, but the paladin should have taken the body in that case.
Either way, it would have been more convenient and more Good to knock out the goblin. At any rate, he should be fiend for the money to cast Raise Dead.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Well there is always speak with dead and raise dead if he was wrong, but the paladin should have taken the body in that case.Either way, it would have been more convenient and more Good to knock out the goblin. At any rate, he should be fiend for the money to cast Raise Dead.
Yes, I know it's a typo, but considering the evil nature of the deed it is a funny one.
"I understand you killed an innocent and now need to pay for his raising?"
"He wasn't innocent! He was guilty I say!"
"Yes yes, but money's tight, I'm sure, being an ex-paladin and all-"
"I'm NOT an ex-paladin. I've NOT lost my abilities, my gods are testing me."
"Oh, I'm sorry, well I've always had a soft spot for Paladins, let me lend you the money to pay for the raise dead. I'll need you to sign a receipt..."
I always love the denial part. "I'm STILL a paladin, THIS IS ONLY A TEST!"
Rationalization is done only after someone has done something wrong. IF you are correct or right you don't have to explain it.
Ah, minor bit of clarification, if it changes things: In my previous mentioned situation, the party had not explicitly agreed with the naga on the terms of "take your posessions and leave peacefully", and the party was all connected telepathically via the drow psion's mindlinks. The party had agreed with themselves on those terms (as some really wanted its treasure) not with the naga. The paladin's sense motive came in before the agreement was offically closed, so he himself did not actually agree. The drow in the group was the one who "formally" said yes, after the paladin informed them via mindlink that the naga was lying and likely going to return (he made the sense motive by 20) and that he would not allow the group to have such an creature at their backs.
Ultimately, I decided he had been slightly dishonest. Thus later on he had a dream where he was minorly chastised by his diety (since I felt one bit of dishonesty by ommission was not a gross violation). He lost the use of turn undead and spells for three days.
I like the idea of calling the critter on its dishonesty though. I'm definitely going to pass that one on to the player. Thanks again for your comments! Most of my DM abilities have been refined through the discussions on these boards.
*Edit* Oh, and the paladin is doing an excellent job of keeping his word, even if he doesn't like it. They chose a different sponsor for the Champion's Games, and didn't exactly know everything about the household when they did (they knew the family was a known evil force, but the mansion had burned down a few years back, and the surviving heir had been working towards severing the ties with evil groups and such). What they didn't know, was that the butler of the family is high end fiend in human form. Granted, the fiend is obligated to abide by the heir's wishes, but still, the palladin agreed to the sponsorship, then found out about the presence of the fiend. But he won't go back on his word, he just stays as far from the fiend as he can.
There doesn't seem to be a stickied intro thread, or at least one that my feeble searching found. Can anyone direct me?No. I think you're right.
I do not believe that there is one. :(
How would that be done - tell me and I shall do it.
Very nice to see you, Watchman. :)
As per PHB..." Paladins must be LG, and they LOSE their divine powers if they deviate from that alignment."
"Lawful Good... A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act.... She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice."
Right out of the Rules.
..."A Lawful Evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of HIS CODE OF CONDUCT...He condemns others not according to their actions but according to their RACE, religion, homeland, or social rank."
Seems he wasn't acting LG after all.
|
|
As per PHB..." Paladins must be LG, and they LOSE their divine powers if they deviate from that alignment."
"Lawful Good... A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act.... She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice."
Right out of the Rules.
..."A Lawful Evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of HIS CODE OF CONDUCT...He condemns others not according to their actions but according to their RACE, religion, homeland, or social rank."
Seems he wasn't acting LG after all.
Nice Baby!