|
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.
Thank you. I admit I am a bit touchy around that word.
I don't have a problem with that as a character choice, just the stereotype of it. I played an elven cleric with a hatred of gnolls, but I didn't need FE for it, and nor do you need hatred to have a FE. That's all.
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
You defeated you own argument DigMarx. Let's parce the ability and spell as you suggest...
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..."
If the creature has no aura, at the end of one to three rounds (with the spell) or a move action (paladin class ability) you learn that there is no aura to detect.
|
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.
I said I would not accept surrender. If someone else wants to, I'm not going to kill their prisoner. Additionally, the way I will be playing the character, if they're fighting me, they already received and refused their chance to surrender (I will give them a chance before the fight or ASAP after the fight starts). If they didn't want to surrender then, why should a paladin accept their surrender later?
(btw I will be backing up my surrender offer with intimidate by way of the bully trait and probably intimidating prowess)
|
|
If they didn't want to surrender then, why should a paladin accept their surrender later?Because you're a paladin...?
A LG paladin, not a LS paladin. The only reason they didn't surrender at the beginning is due to the fact that they thought they would win and the only reason they're surrendering afterward is that they see they can't win. Letting someone who was dedicated to fighting and trying to kill you live simply because "you're a paladin" is not Good, it's Stupid...especially when they knew what the outcome would be beforehand. How many times must mercy be offered before it's considered good enough?
|
|
If they didn't want to surrender then, why should a paladin accept their surrender later?Because you're a paladin...?
To expand on that, because accepting a surrender is a Good act. Refusing a surrender because they refused when you said 'last chance' is a Lawful act. And most likely an Evil act if you're killing a helpless person. And paladins are Lawful Good.
How many times must mercy be offered before it's considered good enough?
Every time, or it's not Good, it's Neutral.
Letting someone who was trying to kill you live is the epitome of Good. This does not mean 'let him walk free' of course. Incarceration and rehabilitation would follow, unless you really were Stupid Good.
|
|
To expand on that, because accepting a surrender is a Good act. Refusing a surrender because they refused when you said 'last chance' is a Lawful act. And most likely an Evil act if you're killing a helpless person. And paladins are Lawful Good.If they didn't want to surrender then, why should a paladin accept their surrender later?Because you're a paladin...?
We'll have to agree to disagree. In a lawless area, a paladin is more than justified being judge, jury, and executioner. There were given a chance to surrender and be judged, they refused, were tried in battle and will be executed.
How many times must mercy be offered before it's considered good enough?
Every time, or it's not Good, it's Neutral.
Letting someone who was trying to kill you live is the epitome of Good. This does not mean 'let him walk free' of course. Incarceration and rehabilitation would follow, unless you really were Stupid Good.
Here I heartily disagree. Even the most pious Lawful Good (not Lawful Stupid) character is only going to offer mercy once before letting their opponents actions make the decision for them. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. etc. etc.
Mercy is such a big deal to Paladins they made it a class feature in Pathfinder! >.>
|
|
Here I heartily disagree. Even the most pious Lawful Good (not Lawful Stupid) character is only going to offer mercy once before letting their opponents actions make the decision for them. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. etc. etc.
I would point out the interaction in Order of the Stick, in which Elan accepts the surrendering enemy and V disintegrates the enemy as the perfect example of Good and Neutral. A Good character is not going to kill a surrendering opponent, no matter what. A Neutral character will.
|
Here I heartily disagree. Even the most pious Lawful Good (not Lawful Stupid) character is only going to offer mercy once before letting their opponents actions make the decision for them. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. etc. etc.
That's eye for an eye stuff. Executing surrendering enemies is not a good act. It's not even close.
If a Paladin did that in any game I ran they would be signing their application form to the "fighters-without-feats" club very quickly.
|
|
Here I heartily disagree. Even the most pious Lawful Good (not Lawful Stupid) character is only going to offer mercy once before letting their opponents actions make the decision for them. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. etc. etc.I would point out the interaction in Order of the Stick, in which Elan accepts the surrendering enemy and V disintegrates the enemy as the perfect example of Good and Neutral. A Good character is not going to kill a surrendering opponent, no matter what. A Neutral character will.
Not to mention the entire Miko Myasaki plotline...
|
|
Here I heartily disagree. Even the most pious Lawful Good (not Lawful Stupid) character is only going to offer mercy once before letting their opponents actions make the decision for them. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. etc. etc.That's eye for an eye stuff. Executing surrendering enemies is not a good act. It's not even close.
If a Paladin did that in any game I ran they would be signing their application form to the "fighters-without-feats" club very quickly.
Then i must say that I am glad I don't play in your game :D
But seriously, it just seems insane that a paladin is expected to offer mercy/surrender an infinite number of times. I can see it playing out like this:
Party: "Aw, crap! the prisoner escaped again!"
Paladin: "We must re-capture him!!"
Party: "Dude, this is the fifth time we've captured him and he escaped...wouldn't it be better to kill him at this point?"
Paladin: "Do not soil my ears with your blasphemous talk! We will continue to capture him as long as he continues to escape as I am a paladin and that's how I roll!"
Party: "*sigh* Allright, let's get the prison caravan rolling again...when can we drop these guys off at a jail???"
EDIT: And it's not like the prisoners aren't going to escape if they know they won't be punished for it...they'll just get recaptured and they can try and escape again.
Here I heartily disagree. Even the most pious Lawful Good (not Lawful Stupid) character is only going to offer mercy once before letting their opponents actions make the decision for them. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. etc. etc.That's eye for an eye stuff. Executing surrendering enemies is not a good act. It's not even close.
If a Paladin did that in any game I ran they would be signing their application form to the "fighters-without-feats" club very quickly.
Then i must say that I am glad I don't play in your game :D
But seriously, it just seems insane that a paladin is expected to offer mercy/surrender an infinite number of times. I can see it playing out like this:
Party: "Aw, crap! the prisoner escaped again!"
Paladin: "We must re-capture him!!"
Party: "Dude, this is the fifth time we've captured him and he escaped...wouldn't it be better to kill him at this point?"
Paladin: "Do not soil my ears with your blasphemous talk! We will continue to capture him as long as he continues to escape as I am a paladin and that's how I roll!"
Party: "*sigh* Allright, let's get the prison caravan rolling again...when can we drop these guys off at a jail???"EDIT: And it's not like the prisoners aren't going to escape if they know they won't be punished for it...they'll just get recaptured and they can try and escape again.
Wouldn't it also depend on the laws of the area too? If the paladin is pursuing the bandits and the law of the region is that they must go on trial before judgement is given then it would be within his code to subdue and bring back the prisoner to be jailed.
|
Xpltvdeleted, we're playing it wrong.
According to the slippery slope reasoning that quarter should always be granted at every opportunity every round for every creature regardless of alignment, intent, age, and prior actions, even when creatures who do not surrender are killed (not by the paladin, of course), they should be resurrected and given the chance to surrender again.
Take away the Paladin's full BAB progression, he should never have to use it.
Also, they'll need a portable hole too keep all their prisoners in. You see, prisoner's can't be handed off to a local authroity because the locals will probably kill the goblins anyway. That means you will be complicent in the execution and therefore you would have commited and evil act by handing them off to be killed.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
There should be a point when a paladin has to kill and destroy evil in order to protect the good/innocent. The paladin's duty is to PREVENT evil from causing harm. I think that by playing a paladin in a purely REACTIVE role goes against the very concept of a champion of good.
Looks like most people will never see the way I do on this issue, so I'll move along.
|
|
Wouldn't it also depend on the laws of the area too? If the paladin is pursuing the bandits and the law of the region is that they must go on trial before judgement is given then it would be within his code to subdue and bring back the prisoner to be jailed.
Yes, it would. I am taking my paladin standpoint from the game I will be playing it in--it is a largely lawless region, so I don't see any problem with the paladin being judge/jury/executioner.
All this may be moot if the APG comes out before I start in the game...supposedly templars are paladin-esque and not troubled by the pesky pre-conceived notions most people have about LG(LS) and paladins.
Here I heartily disagree. Even the most pious Lawful Good (not Lawful Stupid) character is only going to offer mercy once before letting their opponents actions make the decision for them. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. etc. etc.That's eye for an eye stuff. Executing surrendering enemies is not a good act. It's not even close.
If a Paladin did that in any game I ran they would be signing their application form to the "fighters-without-feats" club very quickly.
Then i must say that I am glad I don't play in your game :D
But seriously, it just seems insane that a paladin is expected to offer mercy/surrender an infinite number of times. I can see it playing out like this:
Party: "Aw, crap! the prisoner escaped again!"
Paladin: "We must re-capture him!!"
Party: "Dude, this is the fifth time we've captured him and he escaped...wouldn't it be better to kill him at this point?"
Paladin: "Do not soil my ears with your blasphemous talk! We will continue to capture him as long as he continues to escape as I am a paladin and that's how I roll!"
Party: "*sigh* Allright, let's get the prison caravan rolling again...when can we drop these guys off at a jail???"EDIT: And it's not like the prisoners aren't going to escape if they know they won't be punished for it...they'll just get recaptured and they can try and escape again.
Sounds like what Spider-Man does... actually that's exactly what Spider-Man does. Perfect example. He's had people tell him again and again "why don't you just kill Carnage instead of turning him over to the authorities? He's just going to escape and kill again", but you know what? If he did kill the villain that would make him no better than they are. Spidey would never kill a villain and even if he would he would never kill one that was surrendering, because he's good.
|
|
Here I heartily disagree. Even the most pious Lawful Good (not Lawful Stupid) character is only going to offer mercy once before letting their opponents actions make the decision for them. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. etc. etc.That's eye for an eye stuff. Executing surrendering enemies is not a good act. It's not even close.
If a Paladin did that in any game I ran they would be signing their application form to the "fighters-without-feats" club very quickly.
Then i must say that I am glad I don't play in your game :D
But seriously, it just seems insane that a paladin is expected to offer mercy/surrender an infinite number of times. I can see it playing out like this:
Party: "Aw, crap! the prisoner escaped again!"
Paladin: "We must re-capture him!!"
Party: "Dude, this is the fifth time we've captured him and he escaped...wouldn't it be better to kill him at this point?"
Paladin: "Do not soil my ears with your blasphemous talk! We will continue to capture him as long as he continues to escape as I am a paladin and that's how I roll!"
Party: "*sigh* Allright, let's get the prison caravan rolling again...when can we drop these guys off at a jail???"EDIT: And it's not like the prisoners aren't going to escape if they know they won't be punished for it...they'll just get recaptured and they can try and escape again.
That's why it can suck to be a paladin. It is by far the most difficult path to follow but hey, thems the breaks. :)
Btw you would love my games :)
Wouldn't it also depend on the laws of the area too? If the paladin is pursuing the bandits and the law of the region is that they must go on trial before judgement is given then it would be within his code to subdue and bring back the prisoner to be jailed.Yes, it would. I am taking my paladin standpoint from the game I will be playing it in--it is a largely lawless region, so I don't see any problem with the paladin being judge/jury/executioner.
All this may be moot if the APG comes out before I start in the game...supposedly templars are paladin-esque and not troubled by the pesky pre-conceived notions most people have about LG(LS) and paladins.
In your game that makes perfect sense too. If your character is in that lawless region he may find that he is that authoritative figure that must bring a sense of law and good to that region.
On the flip side of the coin, is the paladin attempting to create law in this region beyond killing evil? If not, as a character is he using the lawlessness of the region as an excuse to allow himself to kill anything he deems "evil"?
|
|
Sounds like what Spider-Man does... actually that's exactly what Spider-Man does. Perfect example. He's had people tell him again and again "why don't you just kill Carnage instead of turning him over to the authorities? He's just going to escape and kill again", but you know what? If he did kill the villain that would make him no better than they are. Spidey would never kill a villain and even if he would he would never kill one that was surrendering, because he's good.
So which is worse...killing Carnage to prevent him from killing innocents again, or capturing him to be sent to prison...knowing he'll escape and kill again? Take the life of one evil-doer or allow the lives of many innocents to be taken? The choice seems like a no-brainer to me.
In that case, the "logical" course of action isn't necessarily the good one. Why should he become a murderer just because the authorities won't do what -their- role is and see that justice is done? It's not Spidey's job to execute a villain... it's the authorities' job. Spidey's responsibility ends at handing the villain over.
Sounds like what Spider-Man does... actually that's exactly what Spider-Man does. Perfect example. He's had people tell him again and again "why don't you just kill Carnage instead of turning him over to the authorities? He's just going to escape and kill again", but you know what? If he did kill the villain that would make him no better than they are. Spidey would never kill a villain and even if he would he would never kill one that was surrendering, because he's good.So which is worse...killing Carnage to prevent him from killing innocents again, or capturing him to be sent to prison...knowing he'll escape and kill again? Take the life of one evil-doer or allow the lives of many innocents to be taken? The choice seems like a no-brainer to me.
Venom has no problem killing him and eating his brains! :) i think he's more Chaotic Neutral/Good though.
|
|
Wouldn't it also depend on the laws of the area too? If the paladin is pursuing the bandits and the law of the region is that they must go on trial before judgement is given then it would be within his code to subdue and bring back the prisoner to be jailed.Yes, it would. I am taking my paladin standpoint from the game I will be playing it in--it is a largely lawless region, so I don't see any problem with the paladin being judge/jury/executioner.
All this may be moot if the APG comes out before I start in the game...supposedly templars are paladin-esque and not troubled by the pesky pre-conceived notions most people have about LG(LS) and paladins.
In your game that makes perfect sense too. If your character is in that lawless region he may find that he is that authoritative figure that must bring a sense of law and good to that region.
On the flip side of the coin, is the paladin attempting to create law in this region beyond killing evil? If not, as a character is he using the lawlessness of the region as an excuse to allow himself to kill anything he deems "evil"?
I envision him as more of a zealotous anti-evil crusader. Through past experiences trying to redeem evil, he has come to believe that evil is beyond redemption. He will still only kill evil, but he has seen what doing things in the name of "greater good" has done and he takes a much more hard-line approach to good vs. evil than most. The law he is enforcing will be vehemently anti-evil, and there will be no room for any evil whatsoever.
|
|
In that case, the "logical" course of action isn't necessarily the good one. Why should he become a murderer just because the authorities won't do what -their- role is and see that justice is done? It's not Spidey's job to execute a villain... it's the authorities' job. Spidey's responsibility ends at handing the villain over.
Aaaah, but in your example, he is not acting in an evil manner but rather in a chaotic manner (ie.-disregarding the law in favor of good). IIRC, paladins only fall for evil acts, not un-lawful acts.
I envision him as more of a zealotous anti-evil crusader. Through past experiences trying to redeem evil, he has come to believe that evil is beyond redemption. He will still only kill evil, but he has seen what doing things in the name of "greater good" has done and he takes a much more hard-line approach to good vs. evil than most. The law he is enforcing will be vehemently anti-evil, and there will be no room for any evil whatsoever.Wouldn't it also depend on the laws of the area too? If the paladin is pursuing the bandits and the law of the region is that they must go on trial before judgement is given then it would be within his code to subdue and bring back the prisoner to be jailed.Yes, it would. I am taking my paladin standpoint from the game I will be playing it in--it is a largely lawless region, so I don't see any problem with the paladin being judge/jury/executioner.
All this may be moot if the APG comes out before I start in the game...supposedly templars are paladin-esque and not troubled by the pesky pre-conceived notions most people have about LG(LS) and paladins.
In your game that makes perfect sense too. If your character is in that lawless region he may find that he is that authoritative figure that must bring a sense of law and good to that region.
On the flip side of the coin, is the paladin attempting to create law in this region beyond killing evil? If not, as a character is he using the lawlessness of the region as an excuse to allow himself to kill anything he deems "evil"?
That's a tyrant in the making if you ask me. No offense to your character, but that's the first impression I get.
Sounds like what Spider-Man does... actually that's exactly what Spider-Man does. Perfect example. He's had people tell him again and again "why don't you just kill Carnage instead of turning him over to the authorities? He's just going to escape and kill again", but you know what? If he did kill the villain that would make him no better than they are. Spidey would never kill a villain and even if he would he would never kill one that was surrendering, because he's good.So which is worse...killing Carnage to prevent him from killing innocents again, or capturing him to be sent to prison...knowing he'll escape and kill again? Take the life of one evil-doer or allow the lives of many innocents to be taken? The choice seems like a no-brainer to me.
So, I haven't read this whole thread, but I pretty much agree with xpltv here. The Paladin can follow his laws, and has the right to dispense judgement as he sees fit. Different gods will have different levels of tollerance for this, but a generic Paladin I would not penalize for killing someone who surrendured. Depending on the person, why they were fighting, and what god the Paladin followed, this could change greatly.
In that case, the "logical" course of action isn't necessarily the good one. Why should he become a murderer just because the authorities won't do what -their- role is and see that justice is done? It's not Spidey's job to execute a villain... it's the authorities' job. Spidey's responsibility ends at handing the villain over.Aaaah, but in your example, he is not acting in an evil manner but rather in a chaotic manner (ie.-disregarding the law in favor of good). IIRC, paladins only fall for evil acts, not un-lawful acts.
What's acting in a chaotic manner? Killing Carnage or turning him over to the authorities?
|
|
What's acting in a chaotic manner? Killing Carnage or turning him over to the authorities?In that case, the "logical" course of action isn't necessarily the good one. Why should he become a murderer just because the authorities won't do what -their- role is and see that justice is done? It's not Spidey's job to execute a villain... it's the authorities' job. Spidey's responsibility ends at handing the villain over.Aaaah, but in your example, he is not acting in an evil manner but rather in a chaotic manner (ie.-disregarding the law in favor of good). IIRC, paladins only fall for evil acts, not un-lawful acts.
Killing Carnage would be a CG act in the scenario you presented.
EDIT: I say this because, job & responsibility both point to the need to hand him over being more of a Lawful requirement. There is no question in my mind that killing evil that has shown a propensity for escape and continued slaughter is a good act...only whether it is lawful or not.
So, I haven't read this whole thread, but I pretty much agree with xpltv here. The Paladin can follow his laws, and has the right to dispense judgement as he sees fit. Different gods will have different levels of tollerance for this, but a generic Paladin I would not penalize for killing someone who surrendured. Depending on the person, why they were fighting, and what god the Paladin followed, this could change greatly.Sounds like what Spider-Man does... actually that's exactly what Spider-Man does. Perfect example. He's had people tell him again and again "why don't you just kill Carnage instead of turning him over to the authorities? He's just going to escape and kill again", but you know what? If he did kill the villain that would make him no better than they are. Spidey would never kill a villain and even if he would he would never kill one that was surrendering, because he's good.So which is worse...killing Carnage to prevent him from killing innocents again, or capturing him to be sent to prison...knowing he'll escape and kill again? Take the life of one evil-doer or allow the lives of many innocents to be taken? The choice seems like a no-brainer to me.
So a paladin would be fine killing someone in cold blood and not need to atone? (Assuming this is a genuine surrender and not an attempt at deception) Would there be some sort of trial first ( i am assuming these are non evil subtype humanoids) ? or does the paladin just decide based on their observations that the person should be executed?
|
|
That's a tyrant in the making if you ask me. No offense to your character, but that's the first impression I get.
And that very well may be the case...but that's the character I envisioned, and what I'll be playing. Which is why I said i hope the APG comes out before then so I can see if the Templar would be more appropriate for what I'm envisioning. (although my DM doesn't have a problem with how I've presented my paladin, so I may just roll with it)
Killing Carnage would be a CG act in the scenario you presented.What's acting in a chaotic manner? Killing Carnage or turning him over to the authorities?In that case, the "logical" course of action isn't necessarily the good one. Why should he become a murderer just because the authorities won't do what -their- role is and see that justice is done? It's not Spidey's job to execute a villain... it's the authorities' job. Spidey's responsibility ends at handing the villain over.Aaaah, but in your example, he is not acting in an evil manner but rather in a chaotic manner (ie.-disregarding the law in favor of good). IIRC, paladins only fall for evil acts, not un-lawful acts.
Boy I can't tell you how much I disagree. A murderer is a murderer imho and you better believe that if Spidey did kill a villain he'd be a total pariah. People would be terrified of him... they sure wouldn't hail him as a hero. The only thing I might be swayed about is that morality is slightly different in a High Fantasy setting than in a modern one... but it shouldn't be -that- different. Good people don't kill baddies they have already subdued, or are surrendering.
|
|
Boy I can't tell you how much I disagree. A murderer is a murderer imho and you better believe that if Spidey did kill a villain he'd be a total pariah. People would be terrified of him... they sure wouldn't hail him as a hero. The only thing I might be swayed about is that morality is slightly different in a High Fantasy setting than in a modern one... but it shouldn't be -that- different. Good people don't kill baddies they have already subdued, or are surrendering.
I quantified my statement a bit with an edit that didn't come in fast enough I guess.
EDIT: I say this because, job & responsibility both point to the need to hand him over being more of a Lawful requirement. There is no question in my mind that killing evil that has shown a propensity for escape and continued slaughter is a good act...only whether it is lawful or not.
I would actually posit that if he didn't kill him (knowing that he would escape and kill again from past experience), that would be an evil act. He knows jail won't hold him, he knows that when (not if, when) he escapes again he will kill. By simply handing him over he's giving de facto endorsement to whatever murders are committed after the inevitable escape.
|
|
Ah the old "kill one to save thousands" argument.
The point is that a paladin can't make that judgement. He is held to a higher standard than any other class. A Paladin must therefore be pure in deed, thought and purpose as he is the epitome of a pure heroic knight.
Therefore killing helpless opponents (no matter how justified or convenient it is) taints the paladin with impure acts. His mercy, honour and respect for life have been found wanting and therefore his powers should be withdrawn.
A paladin is not responsible for the actions of others (other than those under his command). He is however responsible for his own actions. A surrendered opponent is no longer a valid opponent and should be treated with respect and courtesy until he is handed over to the appropriate authorities.
|
|
Ah the old "kill one to save thousands" argument.
The point is that a paladin can't make that judgement. He is held to a higher standard than any other class. A Paladin must therefore be pure in deed, thought and purpose as he is the epitome of a pure heroic knight.
Therefore killing helpless opponents (no matter how justified or convenient it is) taints the paladin with impure acts. His mercy, honour and respect for life have been found wanting and therefore his powers should be withdrawn.
A paladin is not responsible for the actions of others (other than those under his command). He is however responsible for his own actions. A surrendered opponent is no longer a valid opponent and should be treated with respect and courtesy until he is handed over to the appropriate authorities.
The kill one to save thousands argument involves killing an innocent 99% of the time. This is not the case. The opponent is "surrendering" because he knows he wouldn't kill him anyways...he will just hand him over to authorities and he will be able to escape again. Paladins may not be responsible for others actions, but they are responsible for their own, and allowing a person such as this to live amounts to quietly endorsing the deaths that will result from his eventual escape.
Boy I can't tell you how much I disagree. A murderer is a murderer imho and you better believe that if Spidey did kill a villain he'd be a total pariah. People would be terrified of him... they sure wouldn't hail him as a hero. The only thing I might be swayed about is that morality is slightly different in a High Fantasy setting than in a modern one... but it shouldn't be -that- different. Good people don't kill baddies they have already subdued, or are surrendering.I quantified my statement a bit with an edit that didn't come in fast enough I guess.
EDIT: I say this because, job & responsibility both point to the need to hand him over being more of a Lawful requirement. There is no question in my mind that killing evil that has shown a propensity for escape and continued slaughter is a good act...only whether it is lawful or not.I would actually posit that if he didn't kill him (knowing that he would escape and kill again from past experience), that would be an evil act. He knows jail won't hold him, he knows that when (not if, when) he escapes again he will kill. By simply handing him over he's giving de facto endorsement to whatever murders are committed after the inevitable escape.
Mercy is -never- an evil act. End of story (imo). I do not believe for a second that not killing a villain is endorsing their future crimes. What you seem to be implying is that unless our comic book heroes go around like the Punisher wantonly killing every villain who might kill an innocent in the future, they're evil. Down that road lies madness.
How many times must mercy be offered before it's considered good enough?
Since Mercy is a defining trait of a Good character, every time. If it's not accepted, it's not accepted, but Good characters are Merciful, Altruistic, Helpful, and Self-Sacrificing, and Paladins are the ultimate Good characters.
Paladins don't get all their fancy powers because they got a shortcut around being Good, they get all their fancy powers because they do not take shortcuts around being Good. A Paladin is expected by his code to act Good at all times. They're the closest thing to an Exalted character you can get without bringing in the Book of Exalted Deeds.
...So a paladin would be fine killing someone in cold blood and not need to atone? (Assuming this is a genuine surrender and not an attempt at deception) Would there be some sort of trial first ( i am assuming these are non evil subtype humanoids) ? or does the paladin just decide based on their observations that the person should be executed?
I never said he would be killing someone in cold blood. I said he doesn't have to accept a surrender. A Paladin has been ordained by his god to be judge, jury, and executioner in his own right. So long as he is in adherance to his faith, he can judge his opponent, provide them with a trial by combat, and execute the sentance, which may include death. If the man wants to stand helpless when given the chance to fight back, its his perogative.
Some gods, like Seranrae, would require the Paladin to show mercy as a function of their faith. Other gods, like Torag, who is also lawful good diety but from Pathfinder wiki , "... see Sarenrae's willingness to forgive as folly and a sign of weakness." may consider not killing the man a transgression of the faith.
|
|
Mercy is -never- an evil act. End of story (imo). I do not believe for a second that not killing a villain is endorsing their future crimes. What you seem to be implying is that unless our comic book heroes go around like the Punisher wantonly killing every villain who might kill an innocent in the future, they're evil. Down that road lies madness.
Nor am I. But (there's always a but, isn't there), killing every villain you've heard of isn't the same thing as killing Carnage in the scenario you provided. Past experience shows spidey that turning Carnage over to the authorities is an exercise in futility. He has two choices at this point: Continue capturing him, turning him over to the police, and allow him to continue escaping and killing numerous innocents OR he can end the threat of an un-repentant evil-doer once and for all. My idea of a good guy (although not necessarily a lawfuly guy) will choose option B. Every. Single. Time. Why? Not only is he saving lives, but doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity...and nobody's suggesting that paladins are insane are they?
Meh. You and I obviously have a completely different idea of what "good" is then. I'm going to chalk it up to general disagreement and move on.
|
|
The fact that Carnage keeps escaping is a failing of the judicial system in that universe. Were such a criminal in jail in reality, he would have been executed long ago. But that's what being the main villian does for you. The execs won't allow you to die because you make them too much money.
|
|
The fact that Carnage keeps escaping is a failing of the judicial system in that universe. Were such a criminal in jail in reality, he would have been executed long ago. But that's what being the main villian does for you. The execs won't allow you to die because you make them too much money.
Exactly my point. The guy is unrepentant and evil to his core, yet the law fails to handle the situation. Exercising vigilante justice is, by definition, unlawful...but it's not always a bad thing.
|
|
How many times must mercy be offered before it's considered good enough?Since Mercy is a defining trait of a Good character, every time. If it's not accepted, it's not accepted, but Good characters are Merciful, Altruistic, Helpful, and Self-Sacrificing, and Paladins are the ultimate Good characters.
Paladins don't get all their fancy powers because they got a shortcut around being Good, they get all their fancy powers because they do not take shortcuts around being Good. A Paladin is expected by his code to act Good at all times. They're the closest thing to an Exalted character you can get without bringing in the Book of Exalted Deeds.
At what point does a character realize that their merciful nature is being taken advantage of? 1 time? 2? 3? 10? Every person has their own threshold, and as long as mercy has been offered and refused at least once and the "surrenderer" in question is evil, I see no problem in administering some swift, harsh, and lethal justice.
*George Takei voice* Oh My!
So many issues.
First off, killing a helpless foe is not evil. Or is anyone claiming paladins can't use coup-de-grace actions? Coup-de-grace is evil? I didn't see that anywhere in the rules, is it there somewhere, perhaps you could quote it? Let's stop that moronic train of thought at the station, ok. It may be dishonorable to attack a helpless foe (and that is certainly something a paladin would be concerned with), but it is not evil to do so.
Second off, killing in general is not evil. Sorry, otherwise 99.9999% of all adventurers would be evil (the rest took Vow of Peace and then their DM kicked them out of the group). Batman killing the Joker or Spidey killing Carnage would not be evil deeds (in PF morality.
If a paladin found out someone was evil, I would assume they obtained that alignment in some fashion, either through evil acts or through being innately evil, in either case, excluding the situations where the DM decides that giving nerdy kids who play with strange shaped dice swirlies is enough to make a bully evil, the person is dangerous and a yard of cold steel is a legitmate way of ending their threat.
If you believe that paladins are expected to redeem evil at every opportunity, answer me these questions. At what level can a paladin cast atonement? Why does the Holy Avenger, THE iconic paladin weapon, not have the merciful property? Why isn't a paladin limited in dealing non-lethal damage to all creatures except constructs and undead?
At what point does a character realize that their merciful nature is being taken advantage of? 1 time? 2? 3? 10? Every person has their own threshold, and as long as mercy has been offered and refused at least once and the "surrenderer" in question is evil, I see no problem in administering some swift, harsh, and lethal justice.How many times must mercy be offered before it's considered good enough?Since Mercy is a defining trait of a Good character, every time. If it's not accepted, it's not accepted, but Good characters are Merciful, Altruistic, Helpful, and Self-Sacrificing, and Paladins are the ultimate Good characters.
Paladins don't get all their fancy powers because they got a shortcut around being Good, they get all their fancy powers because they do not take shortcuts around being Good. A Paladin is expected by his code to act Good at all times. They're the closest thing to an Exalted character you can get without bringing in the Book of Exalted Deeds.
That's not a good outlook, though. That's a solid Lawful Neutral outlook.
Curses! I was just about to drop it, too... *sighs*
At what point does a character realize that their merciful nature is being taken advantage of? 1 time? 2? 3? 10? Every person has their own threshold, and as long as mercy has been offered and refused at least once and the "surrenderer" in question is evil, I see no problem in administering some swift, harsh, and lethal justice.
I'm not talking about the surrender issue, I'm talking about your support for Paladins killing every evil character they meet with only detect evil for cause.
First off, killing a helpless foe is not evil. Or is anyone claiming paladins can't use coup-de-grace actions? Coup-de-grace is evil? I didn't see that anywhere in the rules, is it there somewhere, perhaps you could quote it? Let's stop that moronic train of thought at the station, ok.
Because if it's not in the rules it doesn't apply, and to Hades with common sense!
Come on now... killing a guy who's in the process of surrendering/cowering is blatantly evil. That one evil act won't necessarily magically change your alignment from good to evil, but it's not adhering to what a good character should do imo. It's a notch toward becoming evil or at least Lawful Neutral if the character keeps that kind of behavior up.