|
A zealotous, "i will destroy all evil" type paladin...... is not a Paladin. Killing the Lawful Evil commoner who has never actually broken a law or committed a crime, but is mean and cruel, does not serve any deity of Good.
Paladin's don't have to follow a deity IIRC. Also, a commoner is not likely to register on smite, AND evil is the antithesis of good...why wouldn't good be out to destroy its arch-enemy and use paladins to do so?
zurai that guy would never show up to a detect in pathfinder.
You have no 5th level NPCs in your campaign world that are evil without having committed heinous crimes deserving of death?
Enemies get one chance to surrender before the fighting begins (or at the beginning if an ambush).
They will know before hand that if they fight me their lives are forfeit...surrender will not be accepted nor quarter given if they refused my initial offer (which will lead to killing surrendering combatants more than likely).What is wrong with that type of paladin? Nothing as far as I'm concerned :D.
This is a blackguard, not a paladin. If you were to play this in my game you'd rapidly end up being hunted by other Paladins. The first time you killed a non-evil who had surrendered after the fight started (especially one who was tied up on the ground helpless).
So what happens when two good countries fight over territory, and your LG paladin kills a LG paladin from the other side who surrendered to save his followers from dieing after the fight went against him? You going to kill him and his followers, all good?
why wouldn't good be out to destroy its arch-enemy and use paladins to do so?
Because Good's goal isn't to kill everything that isn't Good. Hell, even Evil's goal isn't to kill everything that isn't Evil (it isn't even to corrupt everything so that everything's Evil!).
Good's goal is to make the world a good place to live in. Murdering people for being petty, selfish, and mean does not make the world a good place to live in.
Paladin's don't have to follow a deity IIRC. Also, a commoner is not likely to register on smite, AND evil is the antithesis of good...why wouldn't good be out to destroy its arch-enemy and use paladins to do so?A zealotous, "i will destroy all evil" type paladin...... is not a Paladin. Killing the Lawful Evil commoner who has never actually broken a law or committed a crime, but is mean and cruel, does not serve any deity of Good.
Because true good should be better than that. Just because you stand for everything I'm against doesn't mean I must kill you at all costs. Evil may generally think that way, but good shouldn't. Not actual good at least imo.
|
|
This is a blackguard, not a paladin. If you were to play this in my game you'd rapidly end up being hunted by other Paladins. The first time you killed a non-evil who had surrendered after the fight started (especially one who was tied up on the ground helpless).
So what happens when two good countries fight over territory, and your LG paladin kills a LG paladin from the other side who surrendered to save his followers from dieing after the fight went against him? You going to kill him and his followers, all good?
It is simply more of a focus on the law rather than most of the focus being on good. After all, your enemies were given a chance to surrender and didn't take it...that and I never said anything about them being tied up. If I can't make it to all the wounded to finish em off and the rest of the party takes some prisoners I'm not going to cut them down while they are totally helpless. Even those who are surrendering on the battlefield will be given a chance to take up their arms again before they are killed.
Leaving enemies alive to escape or come back is a bad idea...LG, not LS.
|
|
Because true good should be better than that. Just because you stand for everything I'm against doesn't mean I must kill you at all costs. Evil may generally think that way, but good shouldn't. Not actual good at least imo.
In a world of blacks and whites, pure good and pure evil, that is exactly what should happen. Good and evil are at war, and there is nothing wrong with killing someone of the opposing side.
Because true good should be better than that. Just because you stand for everything I'm against doesn't mean I must kill you at all costs. Evil may generally think that way, but good shouldn't. Not actual good at least imo.In a world of blacks and whites, pure good and pure evil, that is exactly what should happen. Good and evil are at war, and there is nothing wrong with killing someone of the opposing side.
Yet a Paladin should hold himself as closely to the ideal of actual true good as they possibly can... thus they should be living by that ideal. Killing a Demon of pure evil is one thing, but killing a 7th level Noble just because he registers as evil via Detect Evil should go against everything he has been taught. Should the Paladin do nothing? No. He should attempt to find a reason to bring said noble to justice, but killing him on the spot -just- because he's evil is right out. Like others have said, how do you know he's actually ever done anything wrong?
In a world of blacks and whites, pure good and pure evil, that is exactly what should happen. Good and evil are at war, and there is nothing wrong with killing someone of the opposing side.
Except, of course, that good's goal is not to kill everything that is evil. Wars are rarely won by wiping out the other side, and good isn't stupid enough not to realize that. Good prefers, and I quote, "altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others", while evil prefers "hurting, oppressing, and killing others".
A Good character wants to help the petty, selfish, mean commoner be a better person. The absolutely perfect example is A Christmas Carol: Ebenezer Scrooge is absolutely and totally Evil at the start of the story, yet he doesn't do anything at all that warrants his death. The Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present, and Future are absolutely Good entities, and powerful supernatural ones at that. Yet, their goal is not to kill Scrooge, but rather to change him and make him see the error of his ways.
Are goblin babies and goblin children evil? If they aren't evil when they're born, when do they become evil?
Yes.
In a world of blacks and whites, pure good and pure evil, that is exactly what should happen. Good and evil are at war, and there is nothing wrong with killing someone of the opposing side.Except, of course, that good's goal is not to kill everything that is evil. Wars are rarely won by wiping out the other side, and good isn't stupid enough not to realize that. Good prefers, and I quote, "altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others", while evil prefers "hurting, oppressing, and killing others".
A Good character wants to help the petty, selfish, mean commoner be a better person. The absolutely perfect example is A Christmas Carol: Ebenezer Scrooge is absolutely and totally Evil at the start of the story, yet he doesn't do anything at all that warrants his death. The Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present, and Future are absolutely Good entities, and powerful supernatural ones at that. Yet, their goal is not to kill Scrooge, but rather to change him and make him see the error of his ways.
Or to paraphrase
Defeating evil -> Good
Redeeming evil -> Better
Defeating evil by redeeming it -> Best
zurai that guy would never show up to a detect in pathfinder.
He would if he were a 6th-level commoner who made it to the top by stepping on others (figuratively speaking).
why wouldn't good be out to destroy its arch-enemy and use paladins to do so?Because Good's goal isn't to kill everything that isn't Good. Hell, even Evil's goal isn't to kill everything that isn't Evil (it isn't even to corrupt everything so that everything's Evil!).
Good's goal is to make the world a good place to live in. Murdering people for being petty, selfish, and mean does not make the world a good place to live in.
+1
This is a blackguard, not a paladin. If you were to play this in my game you'd rapidly end up being hunted by other Paladins. The first time you killed a non-evil who had surrendered after the fight started (especially one who was tied up on the ground helpless).
So what happens when two good countries fight over territory, and your LG paladin kills a LG paladin from the other side who surrendered to save his followers from dieing after the fight went against him? You going to kill him and his followers, all good?
It is simply more of a focus on the law rather than most of the focus being on good. After all, your enemies were given a chance to surrender and didn't take it...that and I never said anything about them being tied up. If I can't make it to all the wounded to finish em off and the rest of the party takes some prisoners I'm not going to cut them down while they are totally helpless. Even those who are surrendering on the battlefield will be given a chance to take up their arms again before they are killed.
Leaving enemies alive to escape or come back is a bad idea...LG, not LS.
You said if someone surrenders afterward, you'd still kill them, even if they had surrendered to someone else successfully.
And you can adhere to lawful all you want, but when you do evil, you are no longer a paladin. Your alignment would slip to lawful neutral, since you wouldn't care about good or evil, just following your own code. That means you are no longer a paladin, you lose your paladin abilities, and that's it.
|
zurai that guy would never show up to a detect in pathfinder.You have no 5th level NPCs in your campaign world that are evil without having committed heinous crimes deserving of death?
That wasn't your premise... Your premise was a law abiding selfish evil commoner, who's never killed or stolen, where the heck is that guy getting the xp to rise above 1st level let alone 3rd.
as an aside, 5th level is pretty much the cap for non-villain NPCs in my worlds typically. I don't even build NPCs with PC classes unless they've done something extraordinary. So no, there are no 5th level NPCs in my campaign world without committing heinous crimes, well there are, but they're few and far between, and they have a reason for being so tough my party has only encountered 1 (Jakardros of the black arrows was a ranger 2/expert 1/warrior 3 when they met him, the other 2 black arrows were level 5 mixed warrior/expert) and they're 8th level.
undead
That wasn't your premise... Your premise was a law abiding selfish evil commoner, who's never killed or stolen, where the heck is that guy getting the xp to rise above 1st level let alone 3rd.zurai that guy would never show up to a detect in pathfinder.You have no 5th level NPCs in your campaign world that are evil without having committed heinous crimes deserving of death?
Where does any commoner or expert or adept or aristocrat get the xp to rise above 1st level? Are they 1 level only classes for you?
They get their XP however you the DM say they do. There is no provision in the rules for any NPC to gain experience with the exception of cohorts. Giving non-cohort NPCs xp is a house rule. An NPC is whatever level the DM says he is; they don't need to earn xp.
And yes, that very much was my premise. I didn't mention level. You're the one who brought level into the equation. There's nothing in the rules that prevents an NPC from being a level 5 commoner/expert/aristocrat/whatever if they never kill or steal, so my premise stands.
|
Again, replace the young goblins with baby chromatic dragons and see how well that argument stands up.
This is, of course, D&D, where we had 20 years worth of rules for subduing and taming evil dragons as pets...
Killing them is a fairly recent invention. Heck, they used to have *prices* for people who wanted to get into the booming 'selling baby dragons' market.
This discussion brings back memories...some good and some not so good :)
There are so many angles to "How To Play a Paladin" that it is IMHO the most difficult character to play well.
I wish I had $5 for every time my paladin was asked why I hadn't smited the person/creature/etc we'd just encountered (and hadn't engaged in combat with) yet had registered as "evil"...
"I haven't seen them do anything evil nor do I have any knowledge/evidence of them having done something evil" was my usual response. In my justification-evil was a verb, not a noun.
But that was a human paladin of a super-churchy god (and IMHO only super-churchy gods should have paladins-this "you can be a paladin/etc without receiving your power from a deity" annoys me to no end...almost as much as non-humans ignoring their racial deities...but that is another rant). When I've played different races I have tried to adapt the concept of "good" with their own racial quirks.
For instance, If we're dealing with racial enemies I think that shifts the argument. This is why in the past in other systems (which we will not name) you weren't supposed to see:
1. Dwarven Barbarians
2. Elven Paladins of non-elven deitites
I pick these two examples because they always seemed to bug me, when viewed through the lens of their individual racial history/background/makeup.
But I digress...
Playing a human paladin, I would be vehemently against killing non-combatants regardless of age or racial makeup. This would make things more difficult logistically, but that is the duty of playing a paladin.
Playing a LG character in general would most likely result in a similar decision on my part...unless there was a racial/class justification that could come into play (such as a favored enemy type thing).
Is there a Goethe categorical "killing children is evil, regardless of race, etc." in a fantasy setting? Nope, there isn't (in my opinion).
|
|
That wasn't your premise... Your premise was a law abiding selfish evil commoner, who's never killed or stolen, where the heck is that guy getting the xp to rise above 1st level let alone 3rd.zurai that guy would never show up to a detect in pathfinder.You have no 5th level NPCs in your campaign world that are evil without having committed heinous crimes deserving of death?Where does any commoner or expert or adept or aristocrat get the xp to rise above 1st level? Are they 1 level only classes for you?
They get their XP however you the DM say they do. There is no provision in the rules for any NPC to gain experience with the exception of cohorts. Giving non-cohort NPCs xp is a house rule. An NPC is whatever level the DM says he is; they don't need to earn xp.
And yes, that very much was my premise. I didn't mention level. You're the one who brought level into the equation. There's nothing in the rules that prevents an NPC from being a level 5 commoner/expert/aristocrat/whatever if they never kill or steal, so my premise stands.
Well then by that premise, fill your world with as many 6th level evil but never hurt nobody people that you'd like.
Me I like the normal people to have human limits, once you get past 5th level anyone no matter the class, can jump farther than a world class athlete in the real world and survive being stabbed with a blade through the gut. I don't like worlds where random joe peasant can jump farther than olympic gold medalists, so I don't assume there are 6th level commoners that exist just to exist. So if there are 6th level commoners that exist, I'd assume them to be people of relative import. I assume that you have to have done something to get to the point that you would have that kind of ability, not just been joe farmer for 20 years. Clearly we have different styles.
|
Me I like the normal people to have human limits, once you get past 5th level anyone no matter the class, can jump farther than a world class athlete in the real world and survive being stabbed with a blade through the gut. I don't like worlds where random joe peasant can jump farther than olympic gold medalists, so I don't assume there are 6th level commoners that exist just to exist.
Point of contention, a 20th level anything with no ranks in jump cannot beat an Olympic champion, so your first point is false. Also, a sword in the gut will kill anyone without magical healing. To get that sword in the gut you have to wear your target down. HP is an abstraction, so that first 'hit' doesn't actually run him through unless it deals enough damage to put him in negatives.
Point of contention, a 20th level anything with no ranks in jump cannot beat an Olympic champion, so your first point is false. Also, a sword in the gut will kill anyone without magical healing. To get that sword in the gut you have to wear your target down. HP is an abstraction, so that first 'hit' doesn't actually run him through unless it deals enough damage to put him in negatives.Me I like the normal people to have human limits, once you get past 5th level anyone no matter the class, can jump farther than a world class athlete in the real world and survive being stabbed with a blade through the gut. I don't like worlds where random joe peasant can jump farther than olympic gold medalists, so I don't assume there are 6th level commoners that exist just to exist.
Devil's advocate: So I guess those characters who actually take a sword to the gut and stay standing are those with the Diehard feat?
Well then by that premise, fill your world with as many 6th level evil but never hurt nobody people that you'd like.
Reading through the thread and a couple of things popped up. One is simple. If no commoner is ever going to get by 5th level, why do you suppose it's a 20 level class? I'd say it's because some people (however rare) go over 5th level... personally I assume a base amount of experience for NPCs per year (with variations for the area and class). So, that village elder or master smith who have been at their jobs for 30-40 years could be 8-10th level. I certainly don't see any commoner (or even an expert) seeing (or surviving) enough combat / encounters to get there. And what would that have to do with being a better farmer / smith anyway? So, they must get their xp, gradually, through the practice of their craft / profession. My 2 cp on that. Ymmv.
Hit Points are not literally how much damage you can take. They represent health, luck, combat experience and lots of other factors.
"Oh, I dive into the lava. It only does 20d6 per round. I swim around for 3 rounds and climb back out... I need healing but I don't die. I have plenty of hit points".
That thinking is just wrong in so many ways.
|
|
Devil's advocate: So I guess those characters who actually take a sword to the gut and stay standing are those with the Diehard feat?
Thinking on it more, someone run through like that and still conscious should be taking Bleed damage. But you should only say 'he gets stabbed in the gut' if the character is going down that round or is taking Bleed damage like I suggested. 5 points of damage off of 100 is not getting run through, it's getting a hair trimmed.
Because true good should be better than that. Just because you stand for everything I'm against doesn't mean I must kill you at all costs. Evil may generally think that way, but good shouldn't. Not actual good at least imo.In a world of blacks and whites, pure good and pure evil, that is exactly what should happen. Good and evil are at war, and there is nothing wrong with killing someone of the opposing side.
No, that's not what "should happen". Being good isn't about intentions. The road to H3ll is paved with "good intentions". Sounds familiar I hope. It's about what you do. You're actions. Killing the helpless *is* evil. Period. There is your absolute. Killing someone in combat is one thing, murdering the helpless is another.
Zurai, mdt and Dork Lord have that pegged. Any Paladin should.
As always, my 2 cp. Ymmv.
Ahhh, alignment and paladin debates.
How do you define Good and Evil (we'll skip the Law-Chaos for the time being)?
Is being mean or greedy enough to be Evil?
Is being polite or generous enough to be Good?
How do these distinctions interact with the planes/afterlife?
If being mean is enough to make someone Evil, when they die, they are condemned to the pits for all eternity for being mean?
Are their different layers like Dante's Inferno where the Evil souls are divided up based on the severity of their Evilness?
Really, it seems strange to me for people to condemn someone's soul to be the plaything of fiends for eternity, but then get up in arms if someone runs a sword through their mortal body. Which is really the worst condemnation?
why wouldn't good be out to destroy its arch-enemy and use paladins to do so?Because Good's goal isn't to kill everything that isn't Good. Hell, even Evil's goal isn't to kill everything that isn't Evil (it isn't even to corrupt everything so that everything's Evil!).
Good's goal is to make the world a good place to live in. Murdering people for being petty, selfish, and mean does not make the world a good place to live in.
Exactly this.
If you read the Fiendish Codexes it explains how Devils often arrange for the 'accidental' death of someone that signs a Faustian Pact. This is because if they die, they go to Baator and swell the ranks of Devils.
It also explains why good characters (which Paladins exemplify) prefer to convert evil-doers rather than slay them - and send them to the Hells. This is why they also prefer dying in glorious battle for their god and beliefs rather than 'fall'.
zurai that guy would never show up to a detect in pathfinder.
You seem very adamant about this, yet parsing both Detect Evil and the Paladin's ability does not support this claim (unless there's some errata or official ruling that I'm not aware of, which is absolutely possible).
From Detect Evil:
"...You can sense the presence of evil. The amount of information revealed depends on how long you study a particular area or subject.
1st Round: Presence or absence of evil.
2nd Round: Number of evil auras (creatures, objects, or spells) in the area and the power of the most potent evil aura present..."
From Paladin:
"...At will, a paladin can use detect evil, as the spell. A paladin can, as a move action, concentrate on a single item or individual within 60 feet and determine if it is evil, learning the strength of its aura as if having studied it for 3 rounds..."
Non-undead/outsiders under 5 HD ping evil "passively", those over 5 HD radiate it, as I read it. Again, I could be missing something.
Zo
Check out the table on p.266:
Creature/Object None/ Faint/ Moderate/Strong/Overwhelming
Aligned creature (HD) 5 or lower/5–10/ 11–25/ 26–50/ 51 or higher
Aligned Undead (HD) — 2/lower 3–8 9–20 21 or higher
Aligned outsider (HD) — 1/lower 2–4 5–10 11 or higher
Cleric/paladin — 1 2–4 5–10 11 or higher
1 Except for undead and outsiders, which have their own entries on the table.
2 Some characters who are not clerics may radiate an aura of equivalent power. The class description will indicate whether this applies.
|
If no commoner is ever going to get by 5th level, why do you suppose it's a 20 level class?
Well, that's always been the $64K question, hasn't it?
Even if you accept that Joe Nobody, the peasant, had a bad start in life, and had no choice to be a level 1 Commoner, by the time he's defended his cabbage patch from hungry goblins, and taken enough knocks to be second level, he sure wouldn't be Joe Nobody any more.
He'd have been spotted by the Sherriff, and invited to join the Lord's guard, or hailed as a local hero, and be a village headman.
Either way, his class options will have opened up; if not to every class, then at least, Commoner, Expert, Warrior, and Fighter.
Anyone who's got to level 5, and is still considering throwing good xp after bad, by advancing as a Commoner, would have to be retarded.
Maybe a choice for the Village Idiot, but, by definition, a village only needs one of them to fill that post.
Check out the table on p.266:
Creature/Object None/ Faint/ Moderate/Strong/Overwhelming
Aligned creature (HD) 5 or lower/5–10/ 11–25/ 26–50/ 51 or higher
Auras never enter into it. The first round is merely a yes/no.
Zo
zurai that guy would never show up to a detect in pathfinder.You have no 5th level NPCs in your campaign world that are evil without having committed heinous crimes deserving of death?
Nope. IMC, you have to be evil to have an Evil alignment. Evil is always of the deserving of death variety; so killing a creature you know to be evil is retribution, not murder. Greedy pig farmers who would never harm another living soul haven't earned an evil alignment. Greedy pig farmers who waylay innocent travelers and feed them to their pigs have. YMMV.
A goblin child couldn't be evil unless it was capable of moral choices. IRL, laws tend to assume that children are incapable of forming the requisite intent to commit a crime (or maturity to decide to have sex or enter into a contract). In D&D, you need INT 3+. So if the child is old enough to have an INT 3+, then it will have an alignment, and will not otherwise. I'm comfortable with my real-life belief that children should not be tried as adults and my fantasy belief that good creatures can kill evil things if you know they are evil, even if they are children. I suppose this isn't really incompatible, since I think that a good person might believe the children IRL should be tried as adults under certain circumstances; I just disagree.
I think the player should get to decide how to treat the goblin children. If a good character knows the goblin children are evil, he can execute them for being evil, though will not necessarily do so (being good doesn't mean you have to act in the same cookie-cutter fashion as every other good creature). If a good character isn't sure whether the goblin children are evil, he cannot kill them because it is evil to kill non-evil creatures for expedience. It is difficult for me to believe that a mercy killing could be reasonably justified under the circumstances because I think that bringing the kids back to town is possible without a huge expenditure of resources. Of course, a good character would be willing to expend some resources to protect the lives of the innocent.
I think the CN character would be motivated more to free the goblin children than to kill them. The whole point of neutrality is that you aren't good enough to protect the innocent, but aren't evil enough to kill innocent people for pleasure or profit. So I think leaving the goblin children in their cages or letting them go is more in line with CN than executions, mercy killings, or whatever other euphemism you want to apply to the action.
* Extenuating circumstances apply, of course. Detect evil is perfectly acceptable mid-combat if they want to be sure their smite will actually work, for example. It's just not an excuse to start the combat.Depends on what type of paladin they're playing. A zealotous, "i will destroy all evil" type paladin would be perfectly justified in doing this, IMO. What's "gooder" than ridding the world of all evil, both big and small?
I will be playing a paladin in an upcoming game and I will play it more like:
Enemies get one chance to surrender before the fighting begins (or at the beginning if an ambush).
They will know before hand that if they fight me their lives are forfeit...surrender will not be accepted nor quarter given if they refused my initial offer (which will lead to killing surrendering combatants more than likely).What is wrong with that type of paladin? Nothing as far as I'm concerned :D.
+1. The more ways to get your paladin fix, the better. Ignore the corn-cob up the canal crowd. ;)
Check out the table on p.266:
Creature/Object None/ Faint/ Moderate/Strong/Overwhelming
Aligned creature (HD) 5 or lower/5–10/ 11–25/ 26–50/ 51 or higherAuras never enter into it. The first round is merely a yes/no.
Zo
So you're saying that in the 1st rnd you detect the presence of evil. But you can't determine where the evil is emanating from? I suppose you could interpret it that way.
Going by the first two lines "You can sense the presence of evil. The amount of information revealed depends on how long you study a particular area or subject". I read that as saying that the auras are the presence of evil.
Or putting it another way, if you can discern the auras - then that is what is present for you to detect, IMHO.
PS: Might be relevant to the OP's dilemma: Creatures with actively
evil intents count as evil creatures for the purpose of this spell.
Because true good should be better than that. Just because you stand for everything I'm against doesn't mean I must kill you at all costs. Evil may generally think that way, but good shouldn't. Not actual good at least imo.In a world of blacks and whites, pure good and pure evil, that is exactly what should happen. Good and evil are at war, and there is nothing wrong with killing someone of the opposing side.No, that's not what "should happen". Being good isn't about intentions. The road to H3ll is paved with "good intentions". Sounds familiar I hope. It's about what you do. You're actions. Killing the helpless *is* evil. Period. There is your absolute. Killing someone in combat is one thing, murdering the helpless is another.
Zurai, mdt and Dork Lord have that pegged. Any Paladin should.
As always, my 2 cp. Ymmv.
I completely disagree. The road to (LE) hell is paved with good intentions is just fine for NPCs and players who decide they want to play a character that is trying to do the right thing, and just veers off into evil over time. It sucks when the DM decides that due to a different take on alignment than yours your character is no longer good, even though you know that your character's intentions are good. (Hopefully players get to choose the intention of their characters.) If you are playing a good character IMC, you are entitled to act in whatever way you believe will result in protecting the lives of non-evil sapient beings. You don't turn evil until you start killing non-evil sapient beings for fun.
So, the road to hell is paved with good intentions IMC refers to bad things happening because your choices are well-intentioned, but perhaps not very smart. It has nothing to do with a good character with good intentions gradually changing alignment to evil.
Killing the helpless is an act. You do not know whether it is evil until you know the intent of the actor. An executioner is not ipso facto evil because he is beheading a rapist/serial killer, even though the evil villain is bound and forced to kneel. If the evil villain is in a cage, you can kill him in his cage, too. Or, more to the point, if the evil villain is a goblin child, you can kill him in his cage. The question of the hour is whether the goblin child is really an evil villain. Killing the helpless really has no bearing on good/evil.
Anyway, requiring sport (combat) in order to justify a kill is juvenile or cavalier. I've chuckled about the supposed honor of a paladin who forces an evil villain to pick up a sword because the paladin doesn't want to kill the villain unarmed. If the villain is worthy of death, you don't have to make it a good show. It's particularly funny when the person forced to pick up the sword is hopelessly outclassed. It's the same as killing the helpless if you are 5th level paladin engaging a basic goblin in a stand-up fight.
|
Interesting discussions here. I have to say that any Paladin that doesn't give quarter when asked for it is not a Paladin.
For me a paladin does not kill something because it detects as evil for a very good reason. They are LAWFUL Good. That means they work within a code of conduct and a set of rules as well as a moral duty.
Killing someone in the street who detects as evil is a chaotic act and a chaotic act is just as much an anathema to a paladin as an evil one. A paladin who does this is setting himself up as judge, jury and executioner without knowing what actions said evil character has committed. That isn't lawful as it follows no code of law or basic justice and it is also not good as it is a brutal and shocking act of vengence that is totally unjustified.
A paladin follows due process, they respect the rule of law. Unless a paladin has proof of an illegal or evil act he should not act in an arbitary manner. A paladin would therefore distrust an evil character and may report this knowledge to the authorities but his powers do not give him carte blanche to do whatever he likes.
If a Paladin is in an area without a legal authority then he acts as a knight errant working to a code of natural justice. He would not kill someone based on the fact that they detect as evil but he would answer any injustice. However, crucially he still believes in redemption (Good) and justice (Law).
A paladin should be loath to draw his weapon. Killing should be a final resort and not one taken lightly. Instead a paladin should search for other alternatives as far as possible after all diplomacy isone of their class skills for a reason. Basically a paladin believes in peace and harmony but is realistic enough to know that sometimes you have to resort to violence against a minority to protect the majority. They hold themselves to a higher standard yet are modest about it. Paladins should therefore act as an example, a paragon of virtue and not as a hotheaded, bloodthirsty avenger.
|
|
Point of contention, a 20th level anything with no ranks in jump cannot beat an Olympic champion, so your first point is false. Also, a sword in the gut will kill anyone without magical healing. To get that sword in the gut you have to wear your target down. HP is an abstraction, so that first 'hit' doesn't actually run him through unless it deals enough damage to put him in negatives.Me I like the normal people to have human limits, once you get past 5th level anyone no matter the class, can jump farther than a world class athlete in the real world and survive being stabbed with a blade through the gut. I don't like worlds where random joe peasant can jump farther than olympic gold medalists, so I don't assume there are 6th level commoners that exist just to exist.
point of contention, that doesn't change my point, it takes 6 ranks in jump to beat world record holders, you can have 6 ranks at level 6.
And I'm actually tired as hell of the HP is an abstraction argument. It is the same dumb argument that doesn't actually say anything, as someone else already pointed out that you can swim in lava at high levels, how do you abstract that? No I'm not arguing that they aren't abstract, I'm saying that they're so abstract that they can be represented however you want, IMO a max damage roll on a sword is a stab, I don't care how anyone else abstracts it, thats my opinion. And a 6th level character can take a full damage swing from a sword and survive, however you want to abstract it, I don't like normal Joe farmer people having that capability, it actually breaks my immersion to run into unnamed guards, and shopkeeps who have 8-15 levels.
Here's the thing. Much of the commentary assumes a perspective that we have in the modern world today, which is largely based on judeo-christian morality. It's artificial to apply those same values to a fantasy game world where there are racial enemies that are a part of the mileau (elves vs. drow; elves vs. orcs, dwarves vs. duergar, etc). In this context, such races would likely view the elimination of young as "extermination". There is even a class (the ranger) that has bonuses against such favored enemies, so the concept of racial extermination is very much a part of the game.
I'd completely forgotten about those issues. Firstly, there is a CG ranger in the party who has Favoured Enemy - Goblinoids. Secondly, there is CG gnomish sorcerer in the party and gnomes have a racial hatred of Goblinoids.
Now I'm wondering if I should remind the ranger and gnome of their respective hatreds when they get around to encountering the caged goblin children. This could make the encounter more difficult for the paladin.
I understand that handling the scenario can be done in multiple ways based on players beliefs about alignments, class abilities and racial hatreds. I've already decided that provided the players explain their behaviour in context with their character makeup, there will be no negative repercussions for them.
I'm still confused about the Detect Evil ability. In the 1st round, apparently the presence or absence of evil occurs. Then in subsequent rounds, the paladin would detect nothing if he focused as the gobbos are obviously less than 6 hit dice. Assuming that the oldest goblin child was evil, does this mean that the paladin could detect evil generally and then not be able to focus on it or does it mean the paladin would detect nothing at all from the start because of its hit dice total?
|
|
point of contention, that doesn't change my point, it takes 6 ranks in jump to beat world record holders, you can have 6 ranks at level 6.And I'm actually tired as hell of the HP is an abstraction argument. It is the same dumb argument that doesn't actually say anything, as someone else already pointed out that you can swim in lava at high levels, how do you abstract that? No I'm not arguing that they aren't abstract, I'm saying that they're so abstract that they can be represented however you want, IMO a max damage roll on a sword is a stab, I don't care how anyone else abstracts it, thats my opinion. And a 6th level character can take a full damage swing from a sword and survive, however you want to abstract it, I don't like normal Joe farmer people having that capability, it actually breaks my immersion to run into unnamed guards, and shopkeeps who have 8-15 levels.
You said anyone over 5th level could beat an Olympic athlete. I pointed out that was not true.
A 6th level character can only take a full swing from a sword if the dm says so. Nothing in the rules require it to be described as a serious wound. That 12 points of damage can just be the character barely ducking under the blade. You want damage to be less abstract, remove Con bonus to HP. Then weapons will be a lot more deadly.
And I'm still tired of people making Favored Enemy a hatred thing.
If it's not a hatred thing then what is it? I think it needs to be more than just a game mechanic that gives you a bonus to hit and damage from a 'role-playing' as opposed to a 'roll-playing' perspective.
|
|
I'm still confused about the Detect Evil ability. In the 1st round, apparently the presence or absence of evil occurs. Then in subsequent rounds, the paladin would detect nothing if he focused as the gobbos are obviously less than 6 hit dice. Assuming that the oldest goblin child was evil, does this mean that the paladin could detect evil generally and then not be able to focus on it or does it mean the paladin would detect nothing at all from the start because of its hit dice total?
You could of course run with the idea that way, or you can realize that running it that way is the product of rules lawyering with no regard for how the ability is intended to work. I don't think the designers went through the effort of changing how the auras work just to have it broken by the first round. Or maybe they did, but in that case, detect evil can be f-ed with even more, as then you can go even further with it and get into well, evil is always around, so the first round always says yes theres evil around (depends on how you view evil and the fact that there are evil gods). so you need the second and third rounds to tell anything. I mean at what point do we say, OK it's obviously intended to work this way? It makes no sense that detect evil would say yes there's evil, but if I focus I suddenly can't tell who's evil or if the evil is even there anymore, I can only detect the evil for 6 seconds. I just don't get that mindset.
|
|
And I'm still tired of people making Favored Enemy a hatred thing.If it's not a hatred thing then what is it? I think it needs to be more than just a game mechanic that gives you a bonus to hit and damage from a 'role-playing' as opposed to a 'roll-playing' perspective.
It's specialized training. It's knowing the anatomy of that specific race. it's a bonus gotten from the fact that you prefer dealing with that race, so you've taken special care to learn its strengths and weaknesses. It can be hatred, but it doesn't have to be.
An elf born in a human city becomes a bounty hunter, 95% of the people he tracks are humans, so he studies human physiology, and learns about what areas bleed more, which areas are debilitating without being lethal etc. etc. he uses that knowledge when he's tracking a bounty, he doesn't hate every human he comes across, he just knows how the human body works because it makes his job in a human city easier.
Don't forget that you get to choose more races at higher levels, does a 20th level ranger with all humanoids as his favored enemies have hatred for every humanoid he comes across, does he hate himself if he has his own race as a favored enemy?
There's absolutely no reason from a roleplaying perspective that having a bonus vs. certain races has to be hatred, there are hundreds of ROLE-playing ways to explain that bonus. I can give you more if you need them.
|
|
And I'm still tired of people making Favored Enemy a hatred thing.If it's not a hatred thing then what is it? I think it needs to be more than just a game mechanic that gives you a bonus to hit and damage from a 'role-playing' as opposed to a 'roll-playing' perspective.
All it means is the ranger's hunting instincts are attuned to hunting that particular foe. He knows how to hit them where it hurts as he has studied them and knows their weaknesses.
It does not imply that the ranger hates his favoured enemy and will rabidly wipe them out to a rediculous extreme. If the PC wants then he can play it like that "Gnolls killed my family... I will kill them all!" but that's up to the PC.
|
|
If it's not a hatred thing then what is it? I think it needs to be more than just a game mechanic that gives you a bonus to hit and damage from a 'role-playing' as opposed to a 'roll-playing' perspective.
My dwarven ranger studied humans because he found them fascinating creatures. He ended up being selected as an ambassador to the human nations because of his understanding of their culture. So I'll thank you not to pidgeon-hole me as a 'roll-player'. There are people IRL that have FE. Psychologists and zoologists. (that is the word for someone who studies animals, I think.)
My dwarven ranger studied humans because he found them fascinating creatures. He ended up being selected as an ambassador to the human nations because of his understanding of their culture. So I'll thank you not to pidgeon-hole me as a 'roll-player'. There are people IRL that have FE. Psychologists and zoologists. (that is the word for someone who studies animals, I think.)
It was not my intention to pidgeon-hole you as a 'roll-player' and I'm sorry if you interpreted it that way. It was a general statement not directed at anyone.
I think your choice for your dwarven ranger's FE is very creative and obviously has nothing to do with racial hatred. Nonetheless, I would not penalise my players if they took the hatred angle when they choose their favoured enemies.