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.A Paladin of Sarenrae would not castrate or mutilate those they deem worthy of being killed either. When they exact a death penalty it would be quick and painless.
Good point, though I fail to see how the mutilation of someone already dead is so horrid unless he went to show off the corpse to the guard's family (if they even had families), because by this merit, collecting trophies from slain enemies is evil and thus all barbarians (and shamans) who do it would be evil as well.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When Good takes on the methodology of Evil when it becomes indistinguishable from Evil in it's means, it becomes Evil. You're not Lancelot, you're Dexter. You're simply choosing more acceptable targets for your bloodlust.nowhere does it say in the paladins code that they cannot mutiliate and murder corrupt guards as punishment for committing evil acts. i would encourage this behavior.
Thankfully for most Good PCs, the definition of Good in the RAW is far more accepting of bloodlust as long as it is not aimed at "innocent lives" and does not outrageously destroy "the dignity of sentient beings". Thus the mutilating part might be out of question, unless of course it is the traditional way of punishing the criminals. Remember that respect of tradition is of the utmost importance for any Lawful character, including LG Paladins.
Guilty people are open game. In fact, "A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished." (CRB, page 167)
Within the RAW, I see the OP's character as quite LG.
That said, many people are more comfortable with an interpretation of the Alignment system closer to our modern western morality. Thus the OP should ask his GM about this.
These people are forgetting that the ones killed were vile, evil excuses for meat sacs, it seems like. Usually that does not factor into alignment, but if it's an intelligent sentient then I'd say it does.
Part of the difference between LG and CE, to me, is that the former person realizes and accepts that deeds reflects on the person committing them, regardless of who they're committed on. If it's not OK to lie, then lying doesn't suddenly become OK just because you think the person you're talking to is dishonest.
"They deserved it" is a rationalization for abandoning your own moral principles in favor of the dubious ones followed by your victims.
Yeah the actions were definitely IMO LN.
I think the LG thing to do would have been bring the matter before the magistrate, divination would have worked, heck if the barmaid didn't have the money, you could have paid for it. If you didn't have the money, perhaps finding the local LG cleric, explaining the situation via Diplomacy would have got you a freebie.
I think there were other avenues to at least attempt before the killing.
Just ask yourself WWHKD! (What would the Hell Knights Do)
...man I love the Hell Knights... Excellent Thread!
Yeah the actions were definitely IMO LN.
I think the LG thing to do would have been bring the matter before the magistrate, divination would have worked, heck if the barmaid didn't have the money, you could have paid for it. If you didn't have the money, perhaps finding the local LG cleric, explaining the situation via Diplomacy would have got you a freebie.
I think there were other avenues to at least attempt before the killing.
Just ask yourself WWHKD! (What would the Hell Knights Do)
...man I love the Hell Knights... Excellent Thread!
How many times must it be repeated? THEY WERE GOING TO GET AWAY WITHOUT ANY CHARGES SINCE THE CASE WAS ENTIRELY DROPPED!! Anyone who would have gone to try and report them would have suffered the same fate as the victim, if not a worse one!! How many bother to even read the other posts here?
How many times must it be repeated? THEY WERE GOING TO GET AWAY WITHOUT ANY CHARGES SINCE THE CASE WAS ENTIRELY DROPPED!! Anyone who would have gone to try and report them would have suffered the same fate as the victim, if not a worse one!! How many bother to even read the other posts here?Yeah the actions were definitely IMO LN.
I think the LG thing to do would have been bring the matter before the magistrate, divination would have worked, heck if the barmaid didn't have the money, you could have paid for it. If you didn't have the money, perhaps finding the local LG cleric, explaining the situation via Diplomacy would have got you a freebie.
I think there were other avenues to at least attempt before the killing.
Just ask yourself WWHKD! (What would the Hell Knights Do)
...man I love the Hell Knights... Excellent Thread!
Hmmm... read the posts, just because a corrupt captain drops an investigation doesn't mean that it cannot be independently followed through, there is always a chain of command, perhaps the guard captain reports to a local regional sheriff, who may not like corruption going on in a town under their jurisdiction.
And as far as suffering the same fate, if the Paladin is taking the helm, then she would have justification for defending herself.
I spend most of my RL investigating cases that the police don't want to and often I lay an information with the local "magistrate" myself.
Hmmm.. how many people bother to even think outside the box?
I love it how one act will instantly turn you from a mortal Archon wanna-be into a mortal Daemon wanna-be. These guys deserved it, there were no other options left and she did challenge them to explain themselves which leads me to assume that if they had tried to plead mercy, they might have received it. Then again, I personally wouldn't have shown mercy to those bastards, so I guess that makes me Lawful Evil.Killing out of moral outrage I can see, but mutilating the bodies takes it a little more over the top.
One can be good and still kill when they have to. Mutilating, and or torture however falls into the evil category regardless of how much they deserve it.
They were already dead, right? How is chopping someone up post mortem (quite likely as an object lesson for those who find them) worse than chopping them up while they are alive while trying to kill them?
I love it how one act will instantly turn you from a mortal Archon wanna-be into a mortal Daemon wanna-be. These guys deserved it, there were no other options left and she did challenge them to explain themselves which leads me to assume that if they had tried to plead mercy, they might have received it. Then again, I personally wouldn't have shown mercy to those bastards, so I guess that makes me Lawful Evil.That's the thing. It IS very easy to fall when you're standing on the moral summit. Being Good, especially to the standards of a Paladin is a matter of constant vigilance, not only of without, but within as well. That's why when Paladins do fall, they do so dramatically.
Yeah,
We fought an anti-paladin this weekend. He was a paladin, and had a thing for a girl who preferred his sell-sword brother. So he went from a paladin to a guy who killed a nunnery full of nuns, shoved a cursed knife into his brother's heart and left him to die on a defiled alter. Then he put the girl in a cage, and got a small child demon to guard him while the ritual went. Oh, and some of the nuns got turned into ghouls somehow. So we blasted our way through the nuns, killed the demon boy, and found the anti-paladin.AP stands up, the ritual interrupted before he could fully convert all his levels from Paladin to Anti-Paladin (I healed his brother to keep him alive when I pulled the dagger out). He cats 'Harm' at the Dwarf Ranger in our party. I was down 7 hp of 14 and stepped in front and took the hit. Then I grinned at the AP, and he got really confused (sometimes it's an advantage to be a Dhampir). :) After that we flanked him and he was too outnumbered to cast any more spells.
So basically, in two weeks, he went from a high level Paladin to a mid-level AP who got iced by a bunch of second level characters (that's what happens when someone interrupts your week long necromantic ritual and reverses all the evil steps you took).
I love it how one act will instantly turn you from a mortal Archon wanna-be into a mortal Daemon wanna-be. These guys deserved it, there were no other options left and she did challenge them to explain themselves which leads me to assume that if they had tried to plead mercy, they might have received it. Then again, I personally wouldn't have shown mercy to those bastards, so I guess that makes me Lawful Evil.That's the thing. It IS very easy to fall when you're standing on the moral summit. Being Good, especially to the standards of a Paladin is a matter of constant vigilance, not only of without, but within as well. That's why when Paladins do fall, they do so dramatically.
Exactly. Plus, to be fair, while one evil act does not (necessarily) make a person evil -- it does shatter the Paladin's code and make them fall... You can very much be an LG (ex)paladin.
However, it can be a slippery slope, especially when the paladin thinks they're in the right -- and if the paladin's got a few levels, his fall also tends to attract the attention of some denizens of the lower planes who would love to help push the paladin down that slippery slope.
One of the most memorable characters I've ever seen was an LE Blackguard who still very much thought of himself as a paladin of a good god (LG, "justice" sort of patron) -- but he was actually in service to the Lord of Hatred and Revenge (LE).
His original fall came from murdering someone who had "beaten" the justice system by throwing money at it in a corrupt city-state (by murder, I mean killing him despite being completely unarmed and no threat). Evil act, loss of powers -- but he was P7 at the time, and so an Erinyes was sent to help develop that mindset -- he was assured that his loss of powers was a test to see if he could become something even greater and chosen, an instrument of his god's "righteous fury" on the guilty -- and, over time, he became the sort of person who delighted in the sort of act the OP discussed, though he would likely have done the castrating before the killing. All the while, in his own mind, sure he was just serving justice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I remember a paladin I played a while ago. She fell to gain vengeance on the evil nobles who butchered her people. She became a Blackguard on her bloody path of revenge... then fell again for the sake of true love. So I ended up with a very neutral featless fighter who had one heck of a tale to tell. Hey at least I got the guy, right?
|
|
I do not understand why people see a Paladin's fall (ie, losing his powers) as permanent.
Atone and you're good to go.
My character in RotRL was a pure Ranger until a few sessions ago. He was True Neutral with a tendency toward Chaotic Evil. A lecherous, violent, heavy-partying and cowardly bully.
His best scene, IMO, was using Intimidate to scare a few children into running from a BBEG, thereby provoking an AoO and allowing him to shoot while threatened. Sadly, he failed tremendously.
Due to unforeseen circumstances and wounded pride, he has recently devoted his life to the holy service of Erastil. He is currently a Lawful Neutral Ranger 8/Paladin 1 (ie, no Paladin special powers) and will soon become a Lawful Good Ranger8/Paladin 2.
I expect him to fall short of a Paladin's duty and requirements more than once, due to his bad habits. But he will dutifully and sincerely pursue any needed task to atone for his most recent misdeeds and get Erastil's blessings (ie, powers) back.
I think there is a good story to be told about a former bad guy trying to honestly be the hero that people expect him to be all the while being tempted to go back to his bad old ways.
His being married to the lovely Urgathoa-worshipping only daughter of a very rich Necromancer should make things even more interesting.
|
|
I do not understand why people see a Paladin's fall (ie, losing his powers) as permanent.
Atone and you're good to go.
My character in RotRL was a pure Ranger until a few sessions ago. He was True Neutral with a tendency toward Chaotic Evil. A lecherous, violent, heavy-partying and cowardly bully.
His best scene, IMO, was using Intimidate to scare a few children into running from a BBEG, thereby provoking an AoO and allowing him to shoot while threatened. Sadly, he failed tremendously.
Due to unforeseen circumstances and wounded pride, he has recently devoted his life to the holy service of Erastil. He is currently a Lawful Neutral Ranger 8/Paladin 1 (ie, no Paladin special powers) and will soon become a Lawful Good Ranger8/Paladin 2.
I expect him to fall short of a Paladin's duty and requirements more than once, due to his bad habits. But he will dutifully and sincerely pursue any needed task to atone for his most recent misdeeds and get Erastil's blessings (ie, powers) back.
I think there is a good story to be told about a former bad guy trying to honestly be the hero that people expect him to be all the while being tempted to go back to his bad old ways.
His being married to the lovely Urgathoa-worshipping only daughter of a very rich Necromancer should make things even more interesting.
Sure sure there's the evil that just enjoys eating babies and raping horses, but that's such a BORING evil.
bold is mine.
I'd love to play an adventure where we try to stop a villain who goes around raping horses, it would be pretty hilarious.I could actually steal your idea for the next mock campaign.
The only hassle is that LN still adhere to the law, yet this was vigilantism.
I don't think this is set in stone. She could have witnessed their crimes or gathered evidence. In her mind she could be Judge, jury, and executioner. Then deal out appropriated punishment. The alignment system is there as a loose guideline. I think if you can pitch that to your DM then I could see you being Lawful Good.
You would have to go over with your DM what punishments would be inappropriately acceptable by your God to let you stay in the Good Category. But an assassin can be lawful as long as he follows a code. Doesn't have to be the code imposed by the general people or the ruling body of the land.
I would think most on these boards would consider that Lawful Neutral at best though. Most peoples view of Good is trying to rehabilitation and stuff like that. But pitch it to your DM and see if he will allow it.
The only hassle is that LN still adhere to the law, yet this was vigilantism.I don't think this is set in stone. She could have witnessed their crimes or gathered evidence. In her mind she could be Judge, jury, and executioner. Then deal out appropriated punishment. The alignment system is there as a loose guideline. I think if you can pitch that to your DM then I could see you being Lawful Good.
Indeed, the question about LN adhering to the law is "Whose law?". It could be a personal code, or the tenets of faith, or the kingdom's laws -- or it could be about ensuring that the law that's being ignored is actually followed.
As such, a LN character in a corrupt city would very likely become a vigilante in order to bring law and order to the chaos (à la Punisher).
(Heck, an LG probably would, too, but by less... dramatic [read: lethal]... means.)
Lawful Neutral, likely. Not evil, as you weren't doing this for yourself. And you can still be lawful and not strictly adhere to legal behavior as long as you have your own morals.
The character is NG or possibly CG. Taking the law into your own hands is a very results oriented way of doing things and that translates into chaotic, however it sounds like she made one brief attempt to use the law against these men. I would rule NG unless the character consistently acted in a chaotic fashion. Remember the character is doing all this FOR others, not herself. This is selfless behavior and the character is definitely Good. She isn't solidly Good... there are a couple breaks which could be described as neutral or maybe even mildly evil: Starting a bar fight and mutilating the dead in order to intimidate others. But two small breaks here wouldn't be enough to lower her to neutral.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Discussions like these really pique my interest. Good and evil are not as black and white as the rules would have you think they are.
What would happen if the story was altered slightly? Change “guard” to “orc”. Almost no one would question any LG character (or even a paladin) for killing and mutilating an orc for raping and beating a human woman, even if the circumstances and evidence were less clear than in this case. It’s what adventurers do.
The “guard” aspect, as well as the circumstances, makes this change. The “law” has pretty much had its say in the matter: stern warning and that’s it. But I don’t think a champion of virtue and righteousness would let that stand, especially considering the defiling and attempted murder of an innocent. And I don’t think any LG deity would be too upset with his/her champion putting these vile guards to the sword. The fact that the champion was impassioned and went a little too far with the ‘beheading’ part may not even be an issue, depending on the deity. The putting them on display part... maybe a bit excessive, but the bodies would have been found anyway.
As a GM, I would say, “Hey, don’t make a habit of this sort of thing. Go spend some time in prayer to meditate on your actions.” and be done with it.
Almost no one would question any LG character (or even a paladin) for killing and mutilating an orc for raping and beating a human woman, even if the circumstances and evidence were less clear than in this case.
I probably would. There's no call for gratuitous mutilation by a LG character -- that's just reveling in one's own blood lust for its own sake. It's not cricket. Bad form, what?
|
Sry, I'm late to this long discussion, but after reading the OPs post:
Your GM was wise to suggest that you be an inquisitor. An inquisitor played very well, can still be seen as both lawful and good even when you "castrate guards" as you put it. A paladin cannot.
The zealotry of inquisitors position them to administer the type of "justice you see fit" per the guidance of your deity or church. Sometimes this can seem horrible, evil, chaotic, etc., but to your eyes it adheres to your personal judgment. In this sense you are always "lawful" but to your sense of religious furvor.
If you were playing any other class, I wouldn't say you were lawful if you were killing guards to make an example of them. In that regard, LG becomes NG since the NG alignment understand sometimes you must break the law to achive good outcomes.
I wouldn't say you were chaotic, because your reasoning was methodical, calculating, and adhering to personal code.
I don't think you're evil, so long as what you believe to be good is still what you fight for, and that it is something external to yourself, such as a higher power, word of god, overall goodness, etc.
I wish I had time to read the whole thread. Hope that helps a bit. Just remember the Inquisitor is a great new base class precisely becuase it can fill a long overlooked place in the definition of LG, even when the world may think you are misguided in your judgments.
I could see Lawful Neutral. The only thing that doesn't display neutrality is your characters actual feelings towards the acts of the guards. In this case justice should have been done as the price they need to pay for the crime. Not because your character had a particular feeling towards the guards actions. I view a Lawful Neutral character as a person who is almost like a Vulcan in temperament. Devoid of feeling when decisions have to be made. No emotion should enter into the equation.
Almost no one would question any LG character (or even a paladin) for killing and mutilating an orc for raping and beating a human woman, even if the circumstances and evidence were less clear than in this case.I probably would. There's no call for gratuitous mutilation by a LG character -- that's just reveling in one's own blood lust for its own sake. It's not cricket. Bad form, what?
Given the same circumstances as the present case, it doesn't sound gratuitous or reveling in bloodlust. It was done post mortum to send a message to other potentially corrupt guards (or orcs in my example). Without being present at the session, it is difficult to assume the true motive (sending a message vs. reveling in bloodlust). The emotion (or lack thereof) involved is really needed to make a fair ruling.
If you want to just castrate the orc/guard for the crime and let him live, I'd probably be okay with that too. It's a bit an-eye-for-an-eye, but that's old timey justice for you. It would also be more merciful than an outright beheading. (And a true an-eye-for-an-eye punishment... well, that would be a bit much.)
Now if the multilating was done before the killing, I'd agree that it wasn't a "good" act. Gratuitous, vengeful, tortuous, etc. Inflicting extreme pain and then killing the criminal, that leans towards the "torturing for pleasure" axis of evil.
One could argue that rape is a CE act. It deprives a victim of his/her rights under the law and defiles the victim in a very vile manner for personal pleasure. So does punishing CE automatically = LG? So many factors to consider.
Another twist. Sure, the law of (hu)man was taken into the character's own hands, but was the law of god(dess) being followed? Many individuals of faith believe law of deity > law of man. If the paladin adhered to his deity's code of ethics, then he would still be considered Lawful even if he broke the law of man.
Again, I love these discussions. Ethics and philosophy are great topics to debate, mainly because the "correct" answer is a personal one rather than a concensus.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One last thing (told you I like these discussions).
Per the PRD:
Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
I see the need to punish the guards coming into direct conflict with respecting the legitimate authority. If the paladin acts as he did, he disrespects the "law". If he does nothing, he lets the guilty off the hook. Had he spent the time appealing the decision up the chain, as had been suggested, maybe the guards would have used the time to complete their murdering of the victim or commit additional rapes/murders. It's a bit of a Catch-22.
Also per the PRD:
Lawful Good: A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
Lawful good combines honor with compassion.
LG wants to see those guards punished because it is the good and just thing to do. The alignment does not demand that the law of man be followed at all times in the pursuit of this justice.
In the end, it is all between the player and the GM. I'd try to use the RAW as leniently as possible. It's not like the paladin went all Jigsaw on the guards. (That would be spooky, to see in the middle of the night the paladin kick down the door of the barracks, wearing a crimson-trimmed black robe, and declare to the guards, "I want to play a game.")
LG wants to see those guards punished because it is the good and just thing to do.
Punishment is lawful, I agree -- but not good. The Good viewpoint would be that punishment is worthless compared to prevention and rehabilitation.
LG wants to see those guards punished because it is the good and just thing to do.Punishment is lawful, I agree -- but not good. The Good viewpoint would be that punishment is worthless compared to prevention and rehabilitation.
Worth less than prevention and rehabilitation, maybe. Worthless? No. Good can punish, just with mercy and without wanton cruelty.
Justice and Heroism aren't the same thing. Yes Veidt killed millions of people. Now this is in a context where Billions are about to be snuffed in a war started by Nixon. I'm not going into whether Veidt's action was justified because he's not the topic. The fact is that Rhorshack had no compunctions about tipping the world back into the Armageddon countdown because for him his concern is not justice, not the potential lives that would be lost but Retribution. That's why Night Owl and Spectre aren't blowing the whistle on Ozzy as much as they want to.Remember his last statement. "No compromise... even in the face of Armageddon."
I think that's a misread of Rorschach. He won't compromise on his view of justice, which may have retributive elements to it, but isn't just about retribution itself. At least I don't think so. In fact, I think he can't relinquish his absolute view of justice and he knows it, which is why he tells Dr. Manhattan to "Do it", meaning vaporize him, an act that will keep Veidt's mass murder secret... for a time. And I believe Rorschach knows that.
I don't think I'd call Rorschach the most heroic of the Watchmen - a pretty tarnished bunch overall. He's effective and he won't give up, but I think hero has to transcend a bit more.
How many times must it be repeated? THEY WERE GOING TO GET AWAY WITHOUT ANY CHARGES SINCE THE CASE WAS ENTIRELY DROPPED!! Anyone who would have gone to try and report them would have suffered the same fate as the victim, if not a worse one!! How many bother to even read the other posts here?
Totally immaterial to the inherent morality of the actions in question. They may have gotten what they deserved, in some grand sense, but that doesn't mean giving it to them was a moral action. Would torturers deserve to be paid back in their own coin? Perhaps. But committing torture would still be an evil thing to do. Good is good because it sets high standards of behavior, not because it's in opposition to evil.
I wouldn't go out on a limb from my position here and say what the inquisitor's alignment should be. I don't know enough about how the player plays the character. But I don't have any qualms with saying that killing the guards and then mutilating the bodies was not a good act. One act won't make a character's alignment good, evil, or indifferent. It's the pattern of behavior that's important. If this is part of a pattern of behavior, then good is probably out of the question. If it's the aberration, then the character may be good and just need to spend some effort atoning for the moral slip-up.
You know, these kinds of questions make alignment seem less like a 2d axis, and more like an icosahedron.
Lawful Neutral, likely. Not evil, as you weren't doing this for yourself. And you can still be lawful and not strictly adhere to legal behavior as long as you have your own morals.
This right here is the key to the dilemma of the whole 'is it lawful' part. Lawful means strictly adhering to a code - be it the civic code, or some other code of honor or justice.
That said, you would have to analyze - closely - the motivations behind the actions, as well as the actions themselves.
If the motivation were to end perceived corruption, then I would be inclined to say the acts are Chaotic Good.
If, however, the motivation were to bring justice to the unjust, then I would be inclined to say the acts are Lawful Neutral.
Frankly, even if you claim both were motivating factors, I would be disinclined to try stretching for Lawful Good.
An argument can be made for Neutral Good, in that an attempt was made to act within the frame work of the law, and the law cast aside when it proved useless. But I would say, that Neutral Good - in this case - could only be argued for the character and not for the act itself. Bringing them to the authorities is a Lawful act; acting as vigilante is Chaotic. Net effect - Neutral characteristics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I remember the days when Frank Castle's methods and actions made him a Spiderman villain as opposed to his present status as staple hero.
Castle's only a hero in his own books, where they set him up against monsters that are far, far worse than his usual prey. The only time I've seen him in a heroic role outside of his own books was in Civil War-- when the combination of his uncompromising principles and his harsh methods is what shocks Captain America into realizing what he's been doing.
Punisher is very much an anti-hero, and he works best as a character when he's serving as a foil to one of the classic heroes-- forcing them to learn something about themselves. The scene with Daredevil in Welcome Back, Frank was a thing of beauty, but it's too bad it happened in his book instead of in Daredevil's.
As such, a LN character in a corrupt city would very likely become a vigilante in order to bring law and order to the chaos (à la Punisher).
He would, but I can't even imagine calling Punisher less than LE. He isn't interested in saving lives, and he only really does so incidentally. He kills criminals because he hates them, because he enjoys killing, and because he needs a war to fight in. He's cruel for cruelty's sake, because he enjoys it.
He's the perfect example of how Evil characters can be heroes too, and how an Evil character can fight for the side of Good.
(Heck, an LG probably would, too, but by less... dramatic [read: lethal]... means.)
I'm still in the camp that doesn't see much moral difference between evildoers meeting their death at the end of a blade, rather than at the end of a rope. You tell me how a Paladin could fix a corrupt government like that without bloodshed-- how they can rehabilitate the evil guards without the government's support and how they can keep the city from hiring more guards just like them-- and I'll concede that a Good character would have looked for a non-lethal solution here.
I'm not Good, by any stretch of the imagination, but I just don't see how a Good person could have come to any other conclusion; I don't see how a Good person could condemn someone for doing something that obviously and desperately needed to be done.
Some of the details... not so Good. Does sound like she was careless about collateral damage and needlessly cruel. Posting the mutilated bodies as a warning is effective, but it isn't Good. But people seem to be disputing the necessity of killing the guilty guards, too, and I just can't fathom how they can think that way.
I'm still in the camp that doesn't see much moral difference between evildoers meeting their death at the end of a blade, rather than at the end of a rope. You tell me how a Paladin could fix a corrupt government like that without bloodshed-- how they can rehabilitate the evil guards without the government's support and how they can keep the city from hiring more guards just like them-- and I'll concede that a Good character would have looked for a non-lethal...
A truly Lawful Good character would have kept appealing to legitimate authority instead of taking matters into her own hands. The guard captain is corrupt? Go to her superior. He too is corrupt? Go even higher. Find someone who cares, high enough to do something about it.
Sure its time consuming and inconvienient, but that's what a Paladin should do. Let's look at what actually happened here. 2 corrupt guards died. So what? 2 more will take their place.
Kelsey only put a band-aid on the real problem. Corruption. That is the real enemy here, and the city seems loaded with it. But instead of trying to remove it she just decides to kill some low level schmucks. She didn't even bother to kill the guard captain, which might have affected some actual change.
Lastly, I'm not saying don't kill people, but that should be the last option. Only after you've gone to the king/queen or whomever is the highest authority and they still don't care should you consider that. And then you have to kill EVERYBODY from those 2 guards up to the king because that's the only way to affect real change.
All she did was satisfy her own petty need to "do something" she didn't bother to actually DO anything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A truly Lawful Good character would have kept appealing to legitimate authority instead of taking matters into her own hands. The guard captain is corrupt? Go to her superior. He too is corrupt? Go even higher. Find someone who cares, high enough to do something about it.
You do realize that there isn't always a higher authority to appeal to, right? Even if the rulers of the city owe fealty to a king, he may not have the lawful authority to tell them how to run their own estates. At some point, asking other people to do the right thing has to give way to doing it yourself-- or else you end up asking other people do what it is your duty to do yourself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As such, a LN character in a corrupt city would very likely become a vigilante in order to bring law and order to the chaos (à la Punisher).He would, but I can't even imagine calling Punisher less than LE. He isn't interested in saving lives, and he only really does so incidentally. He kills criminals because he hates them, because he enjoys killing, and because he needs a war to fight in. He's cruel for cruelty's sake, because he enjoys it.
He's the perfect example of how Evil characters can be heroes too, and how an Evil character can fight for the side of Good.
Here, I think it depends on how you qualify that (and, for that matter, what "version" of the Punisher we're talking based on who's writing him) -- Frank has shown many times a respect for life and goodness of innocents -- for instance, he won't fire through a human shield to hit an "evildoer" behind (around, sure, but not through) - whereas an LE would just accept the collateral damage and go with it.
(Heck, an LG probably would, too, but by less... dramatic [read: lethal]... means.)I'm still in the camp that doesn't see much moral difference between evildoers meeting their death at the end of a blade, rather than at the end of a rope. You tell me how a Paladin could fix a corrupt government like that without bloodshed-- how they can rehabilitate the evil guards without the government's support and how they can keep the city from hiring more guards just like them-- and I'll concede that a Good character would have looked for a non-lethal solution here.
Well, not everything is a capital offense, for one thing. An LN vigilante would break in and kill and/or torture the guilty -- basically they'd exact punishment for the guilty. An LG would capture and gift-wrap with evidence, for example, forcing the hand of the corrupt government by exposing the corruption. In the end, there may be blood on his blade, but chopping down the corrupt isn't his first choice, especially not for, as I said, non-capital offenses.
I'm not Good, by any stretch of the imagination, but I just don't see how a Good person could have come to any other conclusion; I don't see how a Good person could condemn someone for doing something that obviously and desperately needed to be done.
Because, to an LG, the ends do not justify the means. Because, quite simply, that way lies evil. Taking short-cuts and bypassing what is right is the neutral's way -- you believe in good, but it's just so darned hard to live up to.
You do realize that there isn't always a higher authority to appeal to, right? Even if the rulers of the city owe fealty to a king, he may not have the lawful authority to tell them how to run their own estates. At some point, asking other people to do the right thing has to give way to doing it yourself-- or else you end up asking other people do what it is your duty to do yourself.
If there is no higher authority to appeal to then at least get the people themselves behind you. The guard captain will have to act when the public is demanding she do so or be removed.
Again, nothing was really accomplished here. Those guards were a symptom of the disease of corruption. A disease that is still untreated. If she's going to murder people, she should have at least murdered the guard captain.
Also, thinking about it, there HAS to be someone above the captain. It's just a job. Someone must be paying her. Someone must give her her orders. Where is the local mayor/viscount/lord?
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.
You're good, damn good.
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.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.
This really feels like ultra-violent chaotic good to me. But, as you argue, you care about law, you want the law to be purged of its corrupt elements. So possibly, LN.
One chap I know, re-did the alignment system slightly, and added militance or violence into the mix and re-defined a few other parts.
They were dead before she castrated them."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.
Dead guard in the afterlife:
"Doesn't matter, had sex."
Ah, good must be ineffectual. Got it. But how is justice served when the law acts as a shield for the guilty? How is justice served when rapists can get away with murdering witnesses just because they've got the imrinteur of the local feudal authority?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.
Good is not necessarily ineffectual but they are moral. The moral i.e good aligned path is normally far from the path of convenience. In this case i'd term it CG since its what a vigilante would do. She wasn't killing them for no reason but complete disregard for the law was evident.
Corpse mutilation after killing someone also leads into the less then good tree.
A warning to others? Understood Vlad.
Say what you like about Vlad Tepes, that ruler laid down the law. :) Crystal clear. He was against corruption, theft, negligence.
Sometimes who are the villains can get a bit blurry in games. Night attacks on rapists and nailing their peckers to sign-posts should send a pretty clear message, and be a very cathartic game too!
Now the paladin just needs a giant flanged cod-piece, and the grapple feat tree to make it really ironic. Like a Batman rapist of rapists.