And these guards more or less proved they were unrepentant, misogynistic bastards who were not just getting off with rape, but also with corruption and abuse of power. Like I said earlier, they were no better than orcs or gnolls, and deserved to die like beasts. Hell, I don't care who would have killed them (even if the killer had been Chaotic Evil), but I still think they sure as hell deserved it.
|
Tell that to the paladins of Sarenrae. They are still Lawful Good, even though they don't show mercy to villains who refuse to repent in an honest manner. They give them one or two chances. If the villains choose to ignore these chances, then they only got what they deserved. And judging from how these guards behaved, they wouldn't have gotten very far either way.
Still, they seem to have missed out on the "one or two chances" part. The angry paladin has stalked them, killed them and mutilated them. I am not sure, but I think paladins of Sarenrae stop at mutilating the dead.
IMO, a paladin would try to bring them to justice and stand trial. It would be another thing if it was in the wilderness or in a time of war (where the paladin might be the closest thing to an authority). Also, if the town was a major centre of worship for the paladin's god, she might also be recognised as a legal authority.
My point being, she went straight to the kill part (it seems to me) rather than "freeze, paladin!".
Kelsey makes the best threads.
That she does. They're interesting and sorta humorous too.
Tell that to the paladins of Sarenrae. They are still Lawful Good, even though they don't show mercy to villains who refuse to repent in an honest manner. They give them one or two chances. If the villains choose to ignore these chances, then they only got what they deserved. And judging from how these guards behaved, they wouldn't have gotten very far either way.Still, they seem to have missed out on the "one or two chances" part. The angry paladin has stalked them, killed them and mutilated them. I am not sure, but I think paladins of Sarenrae stop at mutilating the dead.
IMO, a paladin would try to bring them to justice and stand trial. It would be another thing if it was in the wilderness or in a time of war (where the paladin might be the closest thing to an authority). Also, if the town was a major centre of worship for the paladin's god, she might also be recognised as a legal authority.
My point being, she went straight to the kill part (it seems to me) rather than "freeze, paladin!".
Did you forget to read like half the posts me and Kelsey made?
These guys were gonna get off the hook and brutalize the witness even more if it had gotten down that route!!
Bottom Line:
The character would be better as an inquisitor. Good or evil, this is shaping up as being more on the chaos side of the chart.
The way I see it:
Killing Evil-doers: GOOD: protect the meek, slay evil
Mutilating Corpses: EVIL (mildly, could be Neutral) the corpse is not hurting anything. Disrespecting the dead, even those you slayed for being evil, for what boils down to personal anger is brushing on being evil.
Personal Extrajudicial crusade: CHAOTIC: not enough restraint to be lawful. Give them the chance to confess their sins before an appropriate authority. Find the nearest non-corrupt one to do so. If that doesnt work, then smite.
If I was DM, I would say that this character would not be Evil, but probably should not be a paladin.
|
|
What?
So I have to agree with you just because you post? So, is it a requirement of these boards that I read every one of your posts? I focused on Kelsey's early posts and then your comment on Sarenrae.
I still do not see how she is justified in killing them without attempting to do her utmost to bring them to justice. Just running around hitting people with swords is not the best solution for a paladin or a NG character.
You might see no problem with her character running off to murder the villains. My point is that I think she could have done more before taking them down with violence. May be explore a few more options.
However, I was not at the table when it was being played out.
Removed posts and their replies. Post civilly, don't be a jerk, flag it and move on, etc.
While not official, I use this
Breaks down the 9 alignments into a broad guideline, gives 10 "commandments" and "sins" also "honorable" and "dishonorable" acts. Helps me role play and stick to a steady alignment path.
Kelsey makes the best threads.
At least this time it's because of something I did, and not my players or GM :)
So, you're fine with the idea of mutilating corpses as stable, good behaviour? Morality has nothing to do with being good or the alignment system? Ok.
It's already agreed that she needs to atone for that.
I think alignment is as much about the "whys" of an action as the "whats". Allowing a violent criminal to explain their actions, then administering vigilante justice and mutilating their corpse to send a message could be done by someone of several alignments:
These are just some of the probable actions and motives I could think of for various alignments in this particular situation. Naturally, no two characters are alike, even ones of the same alignment, so there are definitely other possibilities.
My opinion? Lawful Neutral.
In my opinion, desecrating a cadaver is not a non-good act as it does not limit the well-being of any living creature. However, it is a non-lawful act as it is a random act that affects public order.
On the other hand, your character definitely made a good deed by killing these guards who otherwise would have harmed other people, and that to her own risk. An evil character could have asked for a percentage of their business. A neutral character could have protected herself and family. But a good character doesn't care about the risk if anyone can benefit.
Even a paladin can get pushed to do chaotic stuff in the heat of the battle. It's all about instincts. Atoning for that crap seems fair to me, since is is very undignified to desecrate a cadaver, but I don't see the need to go inquisitor - unless you enjoyed what you did and don't plan to follow order anymore. :)
|
|
I think alignment is as much about the "whys" of an action as the "whats". Allowing a violent criminal to explain their actions, then administering vigilante justice and mutilating their corpse to send a message could be done by someone of several alignments:
** spoiler omitted **
Yes, but it comes down to interpretation and opinion of the different alignments. I disagree with your description of NG, but so what, that is my opinion. I think the character could have looked at other options instead of killing the guards and mutilating their bodies.
The Inquisition did not exist in the middle-ages. Also, I don't think the the "name" of a class gives you this kind of power. It's only a name, not a in-game political title.
The inquisition existed from the 12th century to the 16th century, in various forms. So yes, they did have the inquisition in the middle ages, given that the middle ages were from the 5th to the 15th century (notice those numbers overlap). As to the title, I was pointing out that the idea of church authority was so strong that it persists today to the point where we have an entire class who's purpose is inquisition.
In fact, even in the fiction of the times, you saw church soldiers and kingdom soldiers in conflict (Three Musketeers?).
Now, if in your game, your church has the political power to entitle you this vigilante role, you may well be in your right to do so. It means your chuch have a standing agreement with the local nobility in the best case, or that they are wrestling for judicial power in the worse.
She started as a paladin (which by definition, has the authority in a church) and transitioned to an Inquisitor. Short of rewriting all her background, she should still have the same authority in her church.
But I still think you can't be a "loyal vigilante". You need to follow common rules - they may come from the king, or the pope, but they must be justified by something larger than your own definition of morality. The "law" by definition, is not something you decide for yourself. It is either a social contract, or a law given by a god, but is is by nature something that is not your "individual" take on morality.
Didn't say you can't be a loyal vigilante. Just said you can't be a lawful one. By deffinition, you are not following the established laws. If the laws are broken, lawful people try to fix them within the system, not by flouting them and undermining them even more.
I also don't think a loyal-good character would be justified to act in an anarchic way because the power in place is loyal-evil. They will go to war, but in a lawfull way, stating why they do so, and doing so openly. IMO they will aknowledge they are...
Not sure why you're using Loyal instead of Lawful. But whatever. I agree a LG fighting an LE would be a very orchistrated type of affair, with missives sent back and forth, parley flags, and such like that.
|
I think that a lot of people here (yes I'm talking about you shifty) don't understand how the alignment system works;
Starting with the laweful/chaotic axis.
A character who prefers to do things by the law is lawful.
A character who doesn't care how they do things is neutral.
A character who prefers to do things outside the law is chaotic.Then the good/evil axis.
A character who does things for the greater good is good.
A character who does things for the greater evil is evil.
A character who is neither of these, is neutral.
Can you provide a source for any of this?
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.
Lawful Good Paladin of Abadar, one of his paladin oaths is specifically to only obey good laws, and to stamp out corruption when the law has been twisted.
Lawful Good Paladin of Abadar, one of his paladin oaths is specifically to only obey good laws, and to stamp out corruption when the law has been twisted.
Not only that, but he can grant himself the authority to be judge, jury and executioner if the local laws have been twisted and corrupted, which they pretty much were in this case. Extra proof of this is found in the Justiciar, which is a Prestige Class for Clerics and Paladins of Abadar.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/other-paizo/i-m/justiciar (See the Authority Supernatural Ability)
"A justiciar serves a religious or legal code and has absolute authority (granted by a higher-ranking agent of that code) to enforce it. This means that if the justiciar catches criminals, she may judge them guilty (given sufficient proof ) and order their execution, or do it herself if need be. Because the justiciar must act within the law, there is rarely any friction between her and established authorities other than disputes about jurisdiction and challenges from other forms of authority. (A religiously endorsed justiciar, for example, might come into conflict with secular governors who take exception to the execution of their subjects.) A justiciar may deputize others to aid her in her tasks, although she is responsible for their actions in her name."
Evil is skilled with worming it's way out of things. Depending on where this happened (assuming we are in Golarion), the citizens might not really give a s*** or would be too scared to make an uprising of that sort against actual guards. You can go around this however you like, but these guys were close to having diplomatic immunity, and going a bit far once should not warrant harsh punishments for a Paladin who ultimately did good for the people and the victim, by making sure these corrupt rapist bastards will never again get a chance to create more victims.
Oh, and I don't get what Shifty was getting at by linking that prison thing on the earlier page. The only thing it showed (at least to me) was people abusing their power, like those guards did when they raped that woman and almost killed her just for saying something they didn't like to hear.
Am I the only one that thinks trying to impose 21st century ethics on characters not from the 21st century is a bit foolish?
I think it is. Then again, people are free to agree or disagree with me.
Well the first problem we would hit is that when we read a certain word we naturally ascribe it with our experience and 'real world' understanding.
So when it says LG in the book, they are notionally referencing the behaviour we, the reader would percieve as LG, and by extension, the protagonists we later get to portray in the game.
Now whether that would otherwise be in step with the viewpoint of 'good' in a fantasy world is certainly food for thought, and there could quite readily be a disconnect (in fact quite easily) when we see how often there is a disconnect in this world.
I'm sure if you asked Terry the Taliban if he was good, he'd look at yuo and reply 'of course!', as would have Saddam and just about every other person we have found abhorrent.
I think Paizo could try out the system that was used in Book of Vile Darkness, where they gave options for "Objective Evil" and "Subjective Evil", though of course it would be better to just set the line in what defines Good, what defines Neutral, and what defines Evil. However, these guidelines should be lightly enforced just like alignments themselves instead of being restraining and narrowing down character concepts.
Oh, and Terry the Taliban might call himself good, but anyone seeing his actions would quickly call him evil unless they shared his views. It's all about perspective.
Oh, and I deleted my earlier post because I felt it was confidential information. But yeah, my reasons for posting in a rage are personal reasons, and I think you could say they are good ones.
This event shows the shortcoming of the game as for representing the complexity of the human mind.
Really, all of what you did as far as I'm concerned should not be discussed only on a law-chaos and good-evil perspective but more on a sanity level. You know, a sane character could have taken the exact same actions that you did for a variety of reasons, but always as deliberate acts.
From the I see, the following points that make me think your character is "insane":
- you barged in and questioned them in a way you know they couldn't answer.
- you killed them, than mutilated them
- you then let them exposed, uncaring of, let's say, the poor old woman who finds his rapist son mutilated the next morning (or even the passing children playing in the streets)
The point for me is the fact that these actions were premeditated or not.
If premeditated this fall right under Evil to me. Maybe neutral but that would be a stretch, good is not on my list.
If not premeditated (as it seems to me, judging on the basis of the incoherent interrogation, the following mutilations and finally the display of the corpses) this could be an episode of insanity of a good character and the beginning of the fall. Because, you see, paladins fall. Like raindrops they fall. I guess a good quarter of the BBEGs are fallen paladins, because it's easy to fall when you are righteous and the rest of the world is not.
To conclude: if I'm wrong and all was a deliberate act to stop further episodes of rape you may be LE or LN (more LE though) as a not lawful character would not have cared enough to take it to this point.
If I'm right and your character acted because of rage and hate you have just begun to fall and more than your alignment we should discuss your sanity.
Getting really angry happens in the real world too, and the Paladins are only mortal, after all. I wouldn't say the Paladin began to fall very far, but she should go atone at least for the unneeded mutilation. And like earlier discussed, this seems really hard to pinpoint, though I still say this didn't really cut to evil territory since there were very few options left, whether the Paladin was being in a frenzy or not.
Also, this is after all the same setting where killing orc/kobold/gnoll/goblin babies is perfectly fine of a Paladin (or any good-aligned character for that matter) "because they'll end up evil anyway". Given this kind of stuff is more or less canon (despite some attempts from me and others to subvert this), alignment arguments tend to cause a lot of disagreements in general.
Also, this is after all the same setting where killing orc/kobold/gnoll/goblin babies is perfectly fine of a Paladin because they'll end up evil anyway.
I think you'd find that position is (frequently) hotly disputed on these boards, there is certainly no mandate for killing those babies.