| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That last action, where I kicked down the guards' door in the middle of the night, challenged them to explain themselves, killed them, and dumped the castrated bodies on the steps of the guard station as a warning, is beginning to make me think that the character I want to play is absolutely not a paladin. I love playing paladins, but a different class would work better here. I talked to my GM about it, and he says that I can switch out my paladin levels for inquisitor levels on a one on one basis. So now I'm a 3rd level inquisitor instead of a 3rd level paladin.
This character hates corruption, and believes that for the law to be effective it needs to be purged of such elements as the guards in the thread linked to above. Somebody needs to keep the guards in line, and it may as well be her. That said, she believes that the rule of law is essential for any civilization in order for it's people to have good lives, and for the law to be upheld. She isn't chaotic by any means, she just feels it necessary to purge those elements of the law that are corrupting it so that it can function for the good of all. Her favored method is to show up in the middle of the night when her prey is sleeping and give them one chance to justify their actions, knowing full well they can't do it. They she administers justice.
So, should I put her alignment as lawful good or neutral good? She's an inquisitor now, so she can be either alignment.
I'd question if you were even 'good' to be honest.
LN at best. LE quite possible.
That last action, where I kicked down the guards' door in the middle of the night, challenged them to explain themselves, killed them, and dumped the castrated bodies on the steps of the guard station as a warning, is beginning to make me think that the character I want to play is absolutely not a paladin.
If you are serious about this, I'd rule you Lawful Evil at best, more likely Neutral Evil.
I'd question if you were even 'good' to be honest.
LN at best. LE quite possible.
She believes in the cause of good. It's thieving, murdering, smuggling, slave trading corrupt guards that she is killing. Those two guards she killed and castrated brutally raped a woman, and then beat her into unconsciousness and left her for dead as punishment for reporting the crime, and got away with it due to being guards. They sorely deserved what happened to them, and I don't think what I did was non-good, just non-paladin.
I was thinking NE, but there was at least some adherence to the concept of law and order (although 0 concept of justice).
She doesn't really believe in the cause of Good.
Good says that there are laws and customs in place and the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven. Good believes in the rule of law and fair trials.
Good calls for arrest, restraint, and mercy.
Not found in any of what you put.
That was straight up vigilantism - you can be a toecutting lunatic and still despise rapists etc, thats not a unique to good guys, but the way the character has conducted themselves is flat out evil.
They did what was convenient in order to satisfy their own sense of right and wrong.
If you are serious about this, I'd rule you Lawful Evil at best, more likely Neutral Evil.
That last action, where I kicked down the guards' door in the middle of the night, challenged them to explain themselves, killed them, and dumped the castrated bodies on the steps of the guard station as a warning, is beginning to make me think that the character I want to play is absolutely not a paladin.
See above post. They committed a brutal rape, then attempted to murder the victim to get away with it, and got away with it because of their status as guards. They deserved to be punished.
Okay... Was this the same guard that was hitting on her in the bar in that other post? If it is, castration and death is a bit heavy handed, and probably not appropriate for any good-aligned character. In fact, such extreme methods in upholding standards in the guard seem characteristic of a lawful evil character. I'd be hard pressed to nail down such an alignment with only one act as an example, but this definitely strikes me as an evil action. Remember, just because a character believes themselves to be good, it doesn't make it true.
The same goes for law vs. chaos, while we're at it. A lawful character works to change things but typically does so within the system. If someone is corrupt, she exposes them and allows them to face the consequences of society, unless she has been implicitly empowered by the legal system to mete out justice. Vigilante behavior is more indicative of chaotic alignments.
EDIT: Started the post before I saw the crimes of the guards. In this instance, I could empathize. When dealing with this sort of thing the lines start to get blurry, but I'd say that following the guard home and killing them for their sentence would be something a CN or a (hardcore) CG character might do.
I'd shoot for NE or maybe even CE. A lawful character would try to eliminate Stuff She Doesn't Like using legal means and failing that, work to change laws instead. Barging somebody's door and castrating him without due process is five miles away from Good and Lawful.
Wouldn't that put me in neutral good territory? The law refused to do anything about their behavior due to their status, and something had to be done. Rape and attempted murder by an officer of the law cannot be tolerated, and the legal system refused to act, so she did.
She believes in the cause of good. It's thieving, murdering, smuggling, slave trading corrupt guards that she is killing. Those two guards she killed and castrated brutally raped a woman, and then beat her into unconsciousness and left her for dead as punishment for reporting the crime, and got away with it due to being guards. They sorely deserved what happened to them, and I don't think what I did was non-good, just non-paladin.I'd question if you were even 'good' to be honest.
LN at best. LE quite possible.
"She believes in the cause of good" is irrelevant. The cause of Good does not condone doing horribly evil things to evil people. Your character is acting the exact same way as the people she's killing are. She's torturing people, for crying out loud. I'd say your PC is LE.
"She believes in the cause of good" is irrelevant. The cause of Good does not condone doing horribly evil things to evil people. Your character is acting the exact same way as the people she's killing are. She's torturing people, for crying out loud. I'd say your PC is LE.She believes in the cause of good. It's thieving, murdering, smuggling, slave trading corrupt guards that she is killing. Those two guards she killed and castrated brutally raped a woman, and then beat her into unconsciousness and left her for dead as punishment for reporting the crime, and got away with it due to being guards. They sorely deserved what happened to them, and I don't think what I did was non-good, just non-paladin.I'd question if you were even 'good' to be honest.
LN at best. LE quite possible.
They were dead before she castrated them.
LOL "Hey they didn't suffer, I killed them in cold blood first".
Okay... Was this the same guard that was hitting on her in the bar in that other post? If it is, castration and death is a bit heavy handed, and probably not appropriate for any good-aligned character. In fact, such extreme methods in upholding standards in the guard seem characteristic of a lawful evil character. I'd be hard pressed to nail down such an alignment with only one act as an example, but this definitely strikes me as an evil action. Remember, just because a character believes themselves to be good, it doesn't make it true.
The same goes for law vs. chaos, while we're at it. A lawful character works to change things but typically does so within the system. If someone is corrupt, she exposes them and allows them to face the consequences of society, unless she has been implicitly empowered by the legal system to mete out justice. Vigilante behavior is more indicative of chaotic alignments.
She didn't kill them for hitting on her. She killed them for gang raping a barmaid, then attempting to beat her to death (and coming within a hair of succeeding) for daring to report the crime, and using their status as guards to avoid prosecution.
LOL "Hey they didn't suffer, I killed them in cold blood first".
They gang raped and attempted to murder a woman first.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...and when she went after them to kill them, she abandoned law and order and went 'vigilante with a vendetta'.
|
I'd shoot for NE or maybe even CE. A lawful character would try to eliminate Stuff She Doesn't Like using legal means and failing that, work to change laws instead. Barging somebody's door and castrating him without due process is five miles away from Good and Lawful.Wouldn't that put me in neutral good territory? The law refused to do anything about their behavior due to their status, and something had to be done. Rape and attempted murder by an officer of the law cannot be tolerated, and the legal system refused to act, so she did.
I'm pretty sure that a Good character would never express such a level of cruelty and risk leaving widows/orphans/parents who will live knowing that their family member got mutilated and murdered in cold blood.
Maybe NN could float with that. LN perhaps, if your concept of Lawful is "holds to the spirit of the law, not the letter". But castration? That's pure Evil material there.
Lawful Neutral. You believe people have to pay when they have broken the law. You don't want to offer them a chance to redeem themselves, just to punish them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They deserved to be punished.
An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
Then again, Paine the Pamphleteer was the living embodiment of CG, so take that with a grain of salt.
The only hassle is that LN still adhere to the law, yet this was vigilantism.
Lawful Neutral. You believe people have to pay when they have broken the law. You don't want to offer them a chance to redeem themselves, just to punish them.
They committed multiple death penalty offenses (rape and attempted murder), and only escaped the axe because they were guards. It wasn't an issue of redemption, it was an issue that they had to die just like any non-guard would have.
As for the castration, the rest of the corrupt guards needed to get the message: continue raping, beating, murder, and slave trading (those were the allegations that got her into the bar where this all began), and there will be consequences. Being a guard is not carte blanche to do whatever you want to non-guards anymore.
Sorry.
But to awnser your question. In a pseudo-medieval society judicial power, legal power and executive power would be the privy of the local nobles in charge, and they themselves would hold it from the king/queen, probably with the backing of a church.
So, are you working for the local noble? Did he gave you a license to act in his name to uphold the law?
If not, you are usurpating his right. You are very much a vigilante, and that will get you into trouble as nobles usually don't like people taking their birthrigh for themselves. After all, their political power is at the core defined by the fact they are in charge of justice. If you take on yourself to claim this right, you are directly challenging and undermining their authority. In this case, you hardly are "loyal" as the law is not your to make or interpret, and you don't hold the right to take matters into your own hands.
Now, if the local nobility invest you with this power, it's another game.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say either CG or LN.
Here's the difference. If she is punishing them because they did evil, and got away with it, and she is afraid they'll just keep doing it (pretty justified) then she's killing them for being evil and to *&$& with the local law. That's CG. CG does what is needed to protect innocents, whatever the law says should be done.
If she's doing it because they evaded the law by perverting it, and she is the only agent to do the job of the Law, then she's LN. She'd be thrilled for the local law to do it's job, but it can't, because the gears are broken. So she's just blowing out the broken bits so they can be replaced with bits that work. A LN character does this.
Neither is NG or Evil. An evil person would have barred their doors and burned down their houses. Or castrated them and left them to bleed out on pikes in the local square. She busted down the door, challenged them to a duel for their deeds. If they'd surrendered and agreed to go to trial, she'd have taken them in, based on her previous posts.
So, my position, CG (if the character is more concerned about the fact they did evil and got away with it and will hurt someone else) or LN (if she's more concerned about the law being perverted). From your posts, I'd go with LN.
I'd say either CG or LN.
Here's the difference. If she is punishing them because they did evil, and got away with it, and she is afraid they'll just keep doing it (pretty justified) then she's killing them for being evil and to *&$& with the local law. That's CG. CG does what is needed to protect innocents, whatever the law says should be done.
If she's doing it because they evaded the law by perverting it, and she is the only agent to do the job of the Law, then she's LN. She'd be thrilled for the local law to do it's job, but it can't, because the gears are broken. So she's just blowing out the broken bits so they can be replaced with bits that work. A LN character does this.
Neither is NG or Evil. An evil person would have barred their doors and burned down their houses. Or castrated them and left them to bleed out on pikes in the local square. She busted down the door, challenged them to a duel for their deeds. If they'd surrendered and agreed to go to trial, she'd have taken them in, based on her previous posts.
So, my position, CG (if the character is more concerned about the fact they did evil and got away with it and will hurt someone else) or LN (if she's more concerned about the law being perverted). From your posts, I'd go with LN.
The thing is, she's equally concerned with both. She despises them for being evil and being involved in rape, slavery, attempted murder, and the like and worried that they will continue to do it, and she despises them for escaping the law by perverting it.
Now, if the local nobility invest you with this power, it's another game.
You're forgetting, up until a few hundred years ago, there was another branch of 'the law' that was recognized by kings and queens and all their vassals.
The soldiers of the church. The class name Inquisitor comes from Inquisition, which was the police arm of the church. And their authority was as real as the baron's guards were. They reported to a similar hierarchy, all the way up to the Pope.
In this case, she's got the authority of the church behind her. Until and unless the church tells her she has lost that authority, or until the church and the kingdom work out some other deal, then she has the same authority as the city guards do. Given that the crimes they are accused of include flouting the local law, she has plenty of jurisdiction.
The thing is, she's equally concerned with both. She despises them for being evil and being involved in rape, slavery, attempted murder, and the like and worried that they will continue to do it, and she despises them for escaping the law by perverting it.
Yes, but which one is the overriding concern. From the way you post, it's the fact they're escaping the law by perverting it. What you have is a character who is actually LN with tendencies toward good. There's nothing wrong with that. But she can't quite be good, since she's willing to mutilate dead bodies to get her point across. Good doesn't do that, it doesn't leave the bodies on display, that's a terrorist tactic and good doesn't do that. So she believes she's good, but she's not. She's very much an 'ends justifies the means' type of person. That makes her neutral at best.
|
|
The thing is, she's equally concerned with both. She despises them for being evil and being involved in rape, slavery, attempted murder, and the like and worried that they will continue to do it, and she despises them for escaping the law by perverting it.Yes, but which one is the overriding concern. From the way you post, it's the fact they're escaping the law by perverting it. What you have is a character who is actually LN with tendencies toward good. There's nothing wrong with that. But she can't quite be good, since she's willing to mutilate dead bodies to get her point across. Good doesn't do that, it doesn't leave the bodies on display, that's a terrorist tactic and good doesn't do that. So she believes she's good, but she's not. She's very much an 'ends justifies the means' type of person. That makes her neutral at best.
A Good character would also consider that mutilating guardsmen may have an effect of scaring people away from the profession (hey, that's no good job when somebody can jump me in the middle of the night and cut my bees off). In the end there will be MORE rapes and murders, as less people are available for duty.
The thing is, she's equally concerned with both. She despises them for being evil and being involved in rape, slavery, attempted murder, and the like and worried that they will continue to do it, and she despises them for escaping the law by perverting it.Yes, but which one is the overriding concern. From the way you post, it's the fact they're escaping the law by perverting it. What you have is a character who is actually LN with tendencies toward good. There's nothing wrong with that. But she can't quite be good, since she's willing to mutilate dead bodies to get her point across. Good doesn't do that, it doesn't leave the bodies on display, that's a terrorist tactic and good doesn't do that. So she believes she's good, but she's not. She's very much an 'ends justifies the means' type of person. That makes her neutral at best.
Perhaps the mutilation and display could be an uncharacteristic action brought on by immense rage, and she went to a priest to repent? I really don't want to play a neutral character here.
Perhaps the mutilation and display could be an uncharacteristic action brought on by immense rage, and she went to a priest to repent? I really don't want to play a neutral character here.The thing is, she's equally concerned with both. She despises them for being evil and being involved in rape, slavery, attempted murder, and the like and worried that they will continue to do it, and she despises them for escaping the law by perverting it.Yes, but which one is the overriding concern. From the way you post, it's the fact they're escaping the law by perverting it. What you have is a character who is actually LN with tendencies toward good. There's nothing wrong with that. But she can't quite be good, since she's willing to mutilate dead bodies to get her point across. Good doesn't do that, it doesn't leave the bodies on display, that's a terrorist tactic and good doesn't do that. So she believes she's good, but she's not. She's very much an 'ends justifies the means' type of person. That makes her neutral at best.
You could certainly go that route, and if you want to stay good, then you should go that route. I'd even get an atonement, even though you're not required to as an Inquisitor for RP reasons. In that case, I'd say you're CG. And yes, you can be chaotic and still uphold the law. Superman is CG, he violates laws of privacy, laws of evidence, etc all the time in the name of upholding the law. Same with Batman, and pretty much any super hero in any comic book that is a vigillante and has no mandate to do what they do (for example, the Avengers actually have a mandate for what they do. Of course, most of them are pretty chaotic too, but they're at least not hypocritical about which side of the law they are on).
On the subject of the castration (EW!), what's the legal penalty for rape in said campaign?
Given a DM sanctioned PG rating (sex exists but happens offscreen), I can see a lawful good character doing that; retribution vs example is the differentiating factor imo.
This is just... I don't even know. This is Pathfinder, not the Care Bears RPG.
Being the 'Good guy' is actually hard work, you have to deal with I dunno, laws and justice n' all that inconvenient stuff.
Sure you can throw away all that unpleasantness and inconvenience and say 'Hey this is the mean streets of Pathfinder pal!' and go about hacking off the heads of people that morally offend your delicate sensibilities faster than your local Taliban, but that doesn't make you the good guy.
On a side note, this is the same character in another thread asking about how brutal torture can be used to help loosen the tongue of someone who wont talk.
I don't see a single redeeming feature in this character, they are way off the Good Guy bus.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the subject of the castration (EW!), what's the legal penalty for rape in said campaign?
Given a DM sanctioned PG rating (sex exists but happens offscreen), I can see a lawful good character doing that; retribution vs example is the differentiating factor imo.
Castration as a penalty would be done while still alive, it's a punishment. Doing it to a corpse is corpse desecration. It's also a terrorist tactic intending to scare people at large. And as someone pointed out, it has evil ramifications (scaring people away from being a guard, ratcheting up the general fear/hatred level, etc). Scared people are more likely to go off the handle at small things than people who are not scared.
A cop in a part of town where another cop was shot two days ago is much more likely to accidently shoot an innocent bystander than a cop in a part of town that hasn't had a murder in 6 months.
On a side note, this is the same character in another thread asking about how brutal torture can be used to help loosen the tongue of someone who wont talk.I don't see a single redeeming feature in this character, they are way off the Good Guy bus.
Torture pretty much translates to non-good for sure. I won't say evil, because it depends on the situation, but certainly not Good.
Well yes I'd agree, the concern I see is a continuous pattern of behaviour.
Sure we could have written off the whole castration incident as a brain-snap moment of red hot rage, but when we see torture added to the mix as well, and the rest of the picture we are getting...well its Evil-ville for sure.
On the subject of the castration (EW!), what's the legal penalty for rape in said campaign?
Beheading.
This is just... I don't even know. This is Pathfinder, not the Care Bears RPG.Being the 'Good guy' is actually hard work, you have to deal with I dunno, laws and justice n' all that inconvenient stuff.
Sure you can throw away all that unpleasantness and inconvenience and say 'Hey this is the mean streets of Pathfinder pal!' and go about hacking off the heads of people that morally offend your delicate sensibilities faster than your local Taliban, but that doesn't make you the good guy.
On a side note, this is the same character in another thread asking about how brutal torture can be used to help loosen the tongue of someone who wont talk.
I don't see a single redeeming feature in this character, they are way off the Good Guy bus.
That thread is about a BBEG, not this character. The mutilation may have been a lapse in judgment, but it was not torture. The guys were dead already. I'm taking over as GM soon, and the BBEG needs some information.
Corpse mutilation after killing someone also leads into the less then good tree.
A warning to others? Understood Vlad.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...and when she went after them to kill them, she abandoned law and order and went 'vigilante with a vendetta'.This is just... I don't even know. This is Pathfinder, not the Care Bears RPG.
When the law is used to shield evil a good character of any flavor cannot respect that law. A Paladin in particular cannot tolerate such misuse of law and remain a paladin. Kill them. They've gotten away with attempting to murder a witness once. That is no law but the "law" of the strong abusing the weak. The guards are not the law, they are paragons of chaotic evil twisting and abusing the very concept of law in the vilest way. You can't call yourself lawful or good if you let them live to try again.
^^ This. I would NEVER make a Paladin lose his or her powers for punishing rapists brutally. Then again, that might just be me.
That thread is about a BBEG, not this character. I'm taking over as GM soon, and the BBEG needs some information.This is just... I don't even know. This is Pathfinder, not the Care Bears RPG.Being the 'Good guy' is actually hard work, you have to deal with I dunno, laws and justice n' all that inconvenient stuff.
Sure you can throw away all that unpleasantness and inconvenience and say 'Hey this is the mean streets of Pathfinder pal!' and go about hacking off the heads of people that morally offend your delicate sensibilities faster than your local Taliban, but that doesn't make you the good guy.
On a side note, this is the same character in another thread asking about how brutal torture can be used to help loosen the tongue of someone who wont talk.
I don't see a single redeeming feature in this character, they are way off the Good Guy bus.
Ah, ok then. Ignore my post in the other thread. Sorry.
Well, good has to concern itself with not simply taking shortcuts where the ends justify the means.
Where was it established that the horrible rapists had 'got away with it'? Where was it stated about the Paladin taking it further up the chain? Remember, these guys posed litle real threat to the Paladin who could (and did) choose to wipe the floor with them, so when push came to shove where was the retraint? Why not capture them?
What about trials and process?
Should she have killed them in self defence then all would be fair in love and war, but this was a slaughter that ended with a bit of butchery.
None of this is in good-guy territory.
There are a stack of GOOD options that COULD hae been chosen, and the willingness to just go off on a massacre is no one of them.
Ah, ok then. Ignore my post in the other thread. Sorry.
Ditto then, its just you posted as the same avatar etc... made for a curious connection!
She had already said that these guys were not judged simply because the evidence was missing and the people trusted these guards. Apprehending them and setting up trials were probably both already tried and done away with by that part.
Oh, and I still think this Paladin is Lawful Good. After all, Good doesn't need to be NICE. Just ask grumpy ol' Erastil or the vengeful Desna.
so killing a king who cannot be prosecuted by law is still unacceptably evil no matter what the tyrant may do?
Wrong.
Never said it.
there are grey areas, accept it. While yes, the person did go overboard in a fit of rage, and the mutilation was not a good act, a single act doesn't cause an alignment change.
I dont need to accept it, I have already said as much.
You deny the fact that there are grey areas in D&D morality, Shifty?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
She had already said that these guys were not judged simply because the evidence was missing and the people trusted these guards. Apprehending them and trials were probably already tried and done away with by that part.
Ok so when you have no evidence to back up a trial you can just dispense of going around gathering some, or actually getting them caught red-handed in a sting etc, and just cut straight to the chase of killing them in cold-blood instead.
Evidence and stuff, such a burden to the legal process :(
Well, good has to concern itself with not simply taking shortcuts where the ends justify the means.
Where was it established that the horrible rapists had 'got away with it'? Where was it stated about the Paladin taking it further up the chain? Remember, these guys posed litle real threat to the Paladin who could (and did) choose to wipe the floor with them, so when push came to shove where was the retraint? Why not capture them?
What about trials and process?
Should she have killed them in self defence then all would be fair in love and war, but this was a slaughter that ended with a bit of butchery.
None of this is in good-guy territory.
There are a stack of GOOD options that COULD hae been chosen, and the willingness to just go off on a massacre is no one of them.
The guard captain knew full well about the rape allegations and the beating outside the guard house, and let the guards in question off with a warning and failed to start an investigation into their behavior. They made it clear that a trial and due process was not going to happen, as the guard captain in charge of determining who is charged with crimes was allowing her people to get away with their behavior.