Can Paladins Kill on Sight?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 118 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

So i have this group of adventurers.

most are fairly neutral but one is a Paladin.

The players enter an area in which they see 4 Kobolds lazing about and immediatly one player casts sleep and the others (including the paladin) race forward to kill them in their sleep.

Im not sure if I should warn the paladin on this.

I personally dont feel that a lawful good character should KoS anything simply because of its race. although goblins, kobolds, orcs and the like are usually used as XP fodder and generally evil in order to provide a good reason to enjoy killing them... I feel that a Paladin should at least hail the enemy and give them a chance to run or surrender.

I know this mostly comes down to the GM but I was wondering peoples opinions on the matter

Silver Crusade

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

My opinion is that all Paladin Alignment Thread end up the same.


Can they kill on sight? No. Can they attack an unarmed creature, no its a lawful thing.


yeppers...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

LG and the paladin code are not a suicide pact nor a set of rules against using good tactics.

Now have they any evidence that there are kobolds that arent gonna try to screw them over at best kill them at worst?

And pipe dream nothing says its unlawful to attack an unarmed opponent.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

3 people marked this as a favorite.

This is highly situational, I would say. Encountering four kobolds lazing about, I would say no—killing on sight when the target is "lazing about" is a chaotic act at the very least. But if said kobolds were actively engaged in evil, then sure!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
My opinion is that all Paladin Alignment Thread end up the same.

Lawful Popcorn?


It depends.
Some GM's run goblins, kobolds, and such as always evil, and nothing more than evil. In those games I would say it is ok.

In my games even though those monsters are normally evil they still have emotions and thoughts. Each one is its person, and they might not be evil. In my campaigns such things don't fly, but I also give such warnings up front. Being a paladin in my games is does not grant a license to kill.
As for attacking an unarmed combatant, that is not mean they are not dangerous so that would not affect a paladin, and to rule otherwise is a house rule.

Silver Crusade

Not enough context to really say one way or the other.

If these Kobolds were lazing about in the middle of their lair after a raid on a nearby town then sure.

If these Kobolds were just hanging out by the stream doing a little fishing then maybe not.

That is why paladins get detect evil as a move action. At least they can be sure they are surprise attacking evil creatures and not accidentally axing the one good kobold in a 100 miles.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
I would say no—killing on sight when the target is "lazing about" is a chaotic act at the very least.

This is more or less what I meant, but I could have worded it better.


pipedreamsam wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
I would say no—killing on sight when the target is "lazing about" is a chaotic act at the very least.
This is more or less what I meant, but I could have worded it better.

The Kobolds were literally lounging in the sun after gorging themselves on wild fruit in an open field. no words were exchanged and the players had no reason to believe the kobolds were dangerous or hostile other than the fact that they were kobolds.


Now we know that yes it was an evil act as it was unprovoked killing of creatures based off of alignment.


They are of a traditionally evil race. As far as I'm concerned that's strike 1 and 2. I know exceptions crop up though, and for the sake of those exceptions doing a quick Detect might be in order. If they blip, kill them.

Lawful Good does not mean stupid or even nice.


So... How does your paladin feel about atonement?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sleep and coups on non hostile targets. Lawful good doesn't mean stupid, but it does mean that you can't kill indiscriminately based off of race. Such an act would be fine if he was chaotic good. I'd slap him with a warning at the least and if they truly weren't evil then I'm make him find an atonement for not bothering to check. He had the time and ability to do so, without endangering him or his party or of them having any chance to get away, and didn't even consider it.

Silver Crusade

Situational.

Encountering kobolds minding their own business where there's no sign that they've been endangering people?

Not cool to kill on sight.

Encountering a kobold village full of civilians?

Not cool to kill on sight.

Encountering kobolds that are stabbing unarmed people to death?

Killing is a pretty safe bet.

Encountering a kobold in the barracks of some sort of Satanic Nazikobold Doom Fort filled with Satanic Nazikobolds?

Understandable.

Though if the GM wants to have any kobolds in that environment not be all that bad, he'd better be broadcasting some clues to the players.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
I would say no—killing on sight when the target is "lazing about" is a chaotic act at the very least. But if said kobolds were actively engaged in evil, then sure!

But the Paladins lawful side says he must stop theitr chaotic deeds of lazing about.

Thus to stay LAWFUL good, he must slay thse vicious creatures.


Mikaze wrote:

Situational.

Encountering kobolds minding their own business where there's no sign that they've been endangering people?

Not cool to kill on sight.

Encountering a kobold village full of civilians?

Not cool to kill on sight.

Encountering kobolds that are stabbing unarmed people to death?

Killing is a pretty safe bet.

Encountering a kobold in the barracks of some sort of Satanic Nazikobold Doom Fort filled with Satanic Nazikobolds?

Understandable.

Though if the GM wants to have any kobolds in that environment not be all that bad, he'd better be broadcasting some clues to the players.

I really have nothing to add here that hasn't been said, but I do want to throw in there Satanic Nazikobolds sounds like a great nerd death metal band.


Just wanted to say I'd be careful with that safe bet option sure the kobold probably is a bad guy stabbing unarmed people to death however I can still see way's for the kobold to be a "good guy".

1) He's attacking in a fit of fury brought on by these people slaughtering his village.
2) He escaped from their prison where he was being held till the monthly kobold-wolf match's and is just trying to escape.

Basically if your a paladin and walk in a fight use detect evil, it doesn't cost you anything and will help in picking which side to join.

One favorite scenario of mine is a group of robed figures on a dark night in a haunted wood sacrificing a young woman. Said woman was going to turn into a vampire at the stroke of midnight as part of an ancient curse and the hooded figures are the town elders ensuring she dies as a human and an ancient evil is not unleashed on the world. Basically its something I toss in with new groups as a warning to think before you act and taking even a few moments to determine what's really going on can save them a lot of trouble.

In this particular scenario attacking a group of beings who'd done nothing to deserve it in their sleep is definately a warning to the paladin. Even if they were evil kobolds the fact is that right now they aren't engaged in evil acts and that gets the paladin coming and going as its potentially a violation of both good and lawful alignment aspects. He killed an intelligent being with no evidence it had commited any crimes nor intended too without any official contract/permission from a local authority based solely on its race. Depending on the game world that could easily extend to all sorts of other races.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Just another note to toss on the fire.

Killing everything with an evil aura can be an evil act.

Janus, the Human Cleric, worships Sevarious, a Lawful Evil god of revenge, in his aspect as justice bringer. Janus works as a bounty hunter, tracking down those who have prices on their head and returning them for the bounty.

Dumbly DidWrong, the bumbling Paladin, comes across Janus tying up a pair of women in the woods. He casts Detect Evil on Janus, and BING, Evildar goes off. Dumbly races out and attacks Janus from behind and kills him (the women had hurt him bad before he caught them). Janus, who is not evil, and is in fact lawful, is dead.

Dumbly frees the women (who are hags in disguise) and they thank him and leave to go eat the children they had tied up back in their cave before they cackle off into the sunset.

A) Dumbly has killed a non-evil agent of the law, performing a lawful deed (taking the hags in for hanging).
B) Dumbly has freed two hags to go kill more innocent victims.

I submit that Dumbly has committed TWO evil acts (three if you count the hags as one evil deed each on being freed).

All because he attacked something that pinged Evil without confirming what was going on. Maybe Dumbly should have bought a phylactery.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, and just because something has an evil alignment doesn't mean it's dangerous. A nasty old woman who is racist and hates children may certaintly be evil, but not dangerous, so you shouldn't kill her. An evil mayor that uses deception and intimidation may be evil, but not necessarily dangerous. Heck, the lawful ruler might be ambitious and cruel, but a paladin would still need to follow the law he lays down.

That's why there are unarmed strikes and saps and that feat that let's you cause non-lethal damage with bludgeoning weapons and the merciful weapon special quality.


Please use the search feature of the forums before posting threads. You'd be surprised how often this exact question has been asked and answered.


It depends, if these were Evil Outsiders, it would be perfectly cromulent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SmiloDan wrote:

Yeah, and just because something has an evil alignment doesn't mean it's dangerous. A nasty old woman who is racist and hates children may certaintly be evil, but not dangerous, so you shouldn't kill her. An evil mayor that uses deception and intimidation may be evil, but not necessarily dangerous. Heck, the lawful ruler might be ambitious and cruel, but a paladin would still need to follow the law he lays down.

That's why there are unarmed strikes and saps and that feat that let's you cause non-lethal damage with bludgeoning weapons and the merciful weapon special quality.

You are confusing our western ideals of good with the in-game version of good. You can be completely racist and hate children while still being Lawful Good. Deception is chaotic, but intimidation can be fine for any alignment depending on who you do it against. Cruelty is the only inherently evil act you mention.


I play a paladin. He kills stuff on sight.

Subjectivity rears its ugly head once again.

In almost 9 levels of paladin, my character has dealt nonlethal damage to enemies not as often as you might think. Those enemies have surrendered or are helpless at this point. However, he doesn't always offer a surrender, and if he does and is refused, he usually doesn't offer another one, though does accept if it is put forth. He will attack known threats on sight and kill without hesitation.

Is he non-Good at this point? Or even non-Lawful? Though biased, I would say no. I carefully consider what passes through his head when I take an action, and he has a naive sense of right and wrong (which, admittedly, is a common trait for paladins - it is why they are able to function as righteous warriors who give no quarter to evil in worlds where grey areas such as a few of the above situations exist all over the place). His deity is Sarenrae, thus he believes in the utter destruction of the damned, and that helps a lot when it comes to battle. He rids the world of evil, while following the law.

It might not be your mother's Lawful Good, but it's still LG, and it works.

To be more direct, the situation you presented is missing information. Are the kobolds known enemies or have ties to such? Are they in the way of a greater good, even if not directly opposing the paladin? If they don't have any connection whatsoever, is there any evidence (such as mutilated corpses in the area) that leads the paladin to think they are definitively evil? If I'm just to assume that they are a truly random set of kobolds that appear to be spending an afternoon playing Yahtzee, then, even with my much more flexible view of LG, I might say that he overreacted a little. This might warrant a slight frown from his deity, but I wouldn't go further than that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
To be more direct, the situation you presented is missing information.

actually its not. the situation is exactly as simple as I clarified earlier. Characters are walking through the forest, see a bunch of kobolds having a siesta, kills the kobolds on sight. the group has no reason what so ever to feel any unusual anger toward the kobolds other than they are kobolds. never attacked by kobolds, no one mentioned dangerous kobolds in the area, no victims in the area, nothing.

I have decided that I will take the time to clearly state my views on alignment to the group and also take the Paladine aside and tell him about bad dreams or something sent by his deity to warn him away from further questionable acts.

in game another group of NPC adventurers will be heard bragging about helping out some rather friendly kobolds living in the area and receiving a nice reward.


blue_the_wolf wrote:
Quote:
To be more direct, the situation you presented is missing information.

actually its not. the situation is exactly as simple as I clarified earlier. Characters are walking through the forest, see a bunch of kobolds having a siesta, kills the kobolds on sight. the group has no reason what so ever to feel any unusual anger toward the kobolds other than they are kobolds. never attacked by kobolds, no one mentioned dangerous kobolds in the area, no victims in the area, nothing.

I have decided that I will take the time to clearly state my views on alignment to the group and also take the Paladine aside and tell him about bad dreams or something sent by his deity to warn him away from further questionable acts.

in game another group of NPC adventurers will be heard bragging about helping out some rather friendly kobolds living in the area and receiving a nice reward.

I think that's a perfectly valid course of action. I also like your added "what-could-have-been." Ideally, it will make the party as a whole think ahead a bit more.


Have you and the paladin agreed on his paladin's code? If not, I would make that the first priority.

I would also want to agree a guideline for prisoners. We have policemen, jails, trials and judges. Kingmaker doesn't. So get an agreement with the paladin on treatment of prisoners before it becomes an issue.

You might point out to him that creatures with 4 or fewer hit dice (like the kobolds) don't register as evil unless they're evil outsiders, undead or clerics of an evil deity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Vendis wrote:

Is he non-Good at this point? Or even non-Lawful? Though biased, I would say no. I carefully consider what passes through his head when I take an action, and he has a naive sense of right and wrong (which, admittedly, is a common trait for paladins - it is why they are able to function as righteous warriors who give no quarter to evil in worlds where grey areas such as a few of the above situations exist all over the place). His deity is Sarenrae, thus he believes in the utter destruction of the damned, and that helps a lot when it comes to battle. He rids the world of evil, while following the law.

It might not be your mother's Lawful Good, but it's still LG, and it works.

Oh, you must be kidding. Have you even bothered to read what Saranrae is about, besides the blurb about her portfolio? She doesn't give quarters to servants of Rovagug, but otherwise, she is all about redeeming evil. Read the Paladin code specifically written for her own Paladins in Faiths of Purity.

Here, I'll cite for you the relevant passages:

- I will redeem the ignorant with my words and my actions. If they will not turn toward the light, I will redeem them by the sword.

- I will not abide evil, and will combat it with steel when words are not enough.

If you'd said that your Paladin follows Torag, I would not bat an eye at your actions, as that god is described as damn hardcore and specifically tells his Paladins to go out and destroy his enemies and their families. Here:

- Against my peoples enemies I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except to extract information. I will defeat them, and I will scatter their families.

Saranrae is decidedly not a god for "no surrenders" Paladins, except on the topic of Rovagug followers and those who won't allow themselves to be redeemed.

---

As for the Paladin in question, yes, unquestionably evil act. I am pretty sure that the situation was the one from Kingmaker module one. As described, the Kobolds are only defending what they are seeing as their turf and there are diplomatic solutions to that.


I agree with what magnuskn said (most of them), Saranrae doesn't fit your paladin very well, Erastil or Torag might fit him better. If this situation is indeed from Kingmaker #1 and iirc those kobolds are evil and thus killing them wouldn't be such a bad thing but as magnuskn said that isn't the way Sarenrae paladins do things.


blue_the_wolf wrote:
Im not sure if I should warn the paladin on this.

The key question is:

Are the kobolds in question Evil?

If they are, then murdering them is Good. If they are not, then, well, it's Evil.

You might warn the Paladin that it's foolish to charge into murdering without checking their alignment first, but it's not automatically bad because the Paladin didn't check--it's only bad if they're not Evil.

blue_the_wolf wrote:
I personally dont feel that a lawful good character should KoS anything simply because of its race.

You bring up an interesting point--if the Kobolds were Evil, it's Good to kill them, but it might not necessarily be Lawful.


Not without some reaaaly good intel.

I mean, if the characters know that a kobold with a bright red headress and half a tail has been leading a band responsible for burning farms and killing men women and children, and one of the kobolds matches that description, sleep spell and behead might be about the humanest execution for his crimes possible.

Its a kobold, Kill it! on the other hand falls far, far short of the standards of good, much less palidinhood. Yes, a fair fight, warning them, hailing them might be dangerous... doing the right thing usually is.


Why is the group in the kobold lair? Just because? Or because they're kidnapping and eating local children? If it's because of eating children, then yes, the paladin can kill a bunch of kobolds lazing about on sight.
I can think of a whole bunch of situations where it would be acceptable for a paladin to kill on sight.


Sure, if you've determined the local kobold tribe has been "kidnapping and eating local children" and tracked them to their lair, then I think it's perfectly reasonable to attack on sight. You've already decided it's necessary to attack this enemy base. It's only a matter of tactics now. Neither Good not Lawful has to be stupid.

In the OP's situation though, they weren't in the kobold lair. The kobolds were spotted lounging around in an open field. There'd been no previous contact with kobolds.


Did you ask about the Paladins motivation?

If it was “I like to kill things” then yeah, that’s trouble for the Paladin. If on the other hand it was “Kobolds are dangerous, if we let them go they will whole tribe will be down on us. A quick, clean death is best” then no, that’s perfectly acceptable Paladin behavior.


I understand the OP's problem.

Spoiler:
This is a situation in Kingmaker #1: Stolen Land

My group encountered this situation with a paladin as well. It was a little easier for me because the paladin insisted on using detect evil. Being creatures of less than 5HD, the kobolds did not detect as evil. The rest of the group was pretty much ready to KoS after a color spray.

Is your player interested in using this as an RP opportunity?

While not cataclysmically evil - this is a "young" paladin (I'm assuming level 1 or 2). Whether an atonement is necessary or not is up to you, the GM. But a softer reproach (possibly by divine vision) may be available.

Spoiler:
FWIW: even the leader of these kobolds won't detect as evil to the paladin, but he is noted as being LE


while the scenario is indeed from Kingmaker I have modified the kingmaker story line for an E6 campaign and will not be following it exactly. the players are capable of and encouraged to use diplomacy to bring communities into alliance of the king/government which is not played by PCs as kingmaker usually allows.

in the specific case of the kobolds the PC were basically going to be allowed to ally with either the Mites or the Kobolds and help wipe out the opposing faction the end result would be that the allied faction would bring some benefit to the community such as a special spice that only that faction harvests and brings money to the community through trade or knowledge relevant to the campaign.

while the parties actions did not eliminate this possibility it showed me that the players have to realize that they are not playing a standard kill all the bad guys campaign.


magnuskn wrote:

Oh, you must be kidding. Have you even bothered to read what Saranrae is about, besides the blurb about her portfolio? She doesn't give quarters to servants of Rovagug, but otherwise, she is all about redeeming evil. Read the Paladin code specifically written for her own Paladins in Faiths of Purity.

I have read it, multiple times. In fact, a large portion of why I picked Sarenrae was because her code is what I felt would be a good balance between being able to roleplay a paladin as I expected it would be, but not limited to running around being a goody two shoes all the time. There were others that fit the bill, but I liked the flavor as well.

I might have come off as a bit too hardcore in my above post, but that was mainly to make a point (that being that paladins aren't necessarily restricted to offering surrender every fight).

Note the last two bits of both the passages you cited about Sarenrae. My paladin focuses on portions such as these. It's not a perfect translation of his faith, but as I stated, he's naive in his morals (still something I believe to be common among paladins). Anyway, this is all off topic. I understand your interpretation of Sarenrae's paladins, and I'm inclined to agree, but that's just not my paladin.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Vendis wrote:
Note the last two bits of both the passages you cited about Sarenrae. My paladin focuses on portions such as these. It's not a perfect translation of his faith, but as I stated, he's naive in his morals (still something I believe to be common among paladins). Anyway, this is all off topic. I understand your interpretation of Sarenrae's paladins, and I'm inclined to agree, but that's just not my paladin.

I don't see how such a Paladin could reasonably exist without falling in short order. Saranrae explicitly is against a "no redemption" attitude, with the only exceptions beings of pure evil and followers of Rovagug.

I understand the desire to "play against type", but I don't see how that is possible within the Paladin class of a goddess which explicitly frowns on the behaviour you described as indulging in. Paladins are not known for their moral relativism, nor their gods for accepting such.


magnuskn wrote:
Vendis wrote:
Note the last two bits of both the passages you cited about Sarenrae. My paladin focuses on portions such as these. It's not a perfect translation of his faith, but as I stated, he's naive in his morals (still something I believe to be common among paladins). Anyway, this is all off topic. I understand your interpretation of Sarenrae's paladins, and I'm inclined to agree, but that's just not my paladin.

I don't see how such a Paladin could reasonably exist without falling in short order. Saranrae explicitly is against a "no redemption" attitude, with the only exceptions beings of pure evil and followers of Rovagug.

I understand the desire to "play against type", but I don't see how that is possible within the Paladin class of a goddess which explicitly frowns on the behaviour you described as indulging in. Paladins are not known for their moral relativism, nor their gods for accepting such.

How such a paladin is possible?

Easy, he switch deities and all is ok.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
leo1925 wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Vendis wrote:
Note the last two bits of both the passages you cited about Sarenrae. My paladin focuses on portions such as these. It's not a perfect translation of his faith, but as I stated, he's naive in his morals (still something I believe to be common among paladins). Anyway, this is all off topic. I understand your interpretation of Sarenrae's paladins, and I'm inclined to agree, but that's just not my paladin.

I don't see how such a Paladin could reasonably exist without falling in short order. Saranrae explicitly is against a "no redemption" attitude, with the only exceptions beings of pure evil and followers of Rovagug.

I understand the desire to "play against type", but I don't see how that is possible within the Paladin class of a goddess which explicitly frowns on the behaviour you described as indulging in. Paladins are not known for their moral relativism, nor their gods for accepting such.

How such a paladin is possible?

Easy, he switch deities and all is ok.

That'd be the most expedient way, yes.


He doesn't have a "no redemption" attitude. It's more of a "few chances" outlook. You're starting to stretch my words past their intention.


Vendis wrote:
He doesn't have a "no redemption" attitude. It's more of a "few chances" outlook. You're starting to stretch my words past their intention.

Can you elaborate a little on that? (in a spoiler tag so that we don't hijack the thread) becuase it seems to me that he more of a "no redemption" and less of a "few chances", don't take it the wrong way, a lot of times is difficult to present something over the internet.


thanks for the consideration Leo and to be honest its a good debate.

the thing is... how does a paladine that is not subject to a Lawful Good god fully adhere to a lawful good outlook?

should paladin be locked into their gods alignment rather than locked into lawful good? or should only lawful good and maybe lawful nutural gods be allowed to have paladin

and by that note what is more important to the description of a paladin LAW or GOOD?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Vendis wrote:
He doesn't have a "no redemption" attitude. It's more of a "few chances" outlook. You're starting to stretch my words past their intention.
Vendis wrote:
In almost 9 levels of paladin, my character has dealt nonlethal damage to enemies not as often as you might think. Those enemies have surrendered or are helpless at this point. However, he doesn't always offer a surrender, and if he does and is refused, he usually doesn't offer another one, though does accept if it is put forth. He will attack known threats on sight and kill without hesitation.

Not really stretching here.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

My own theory is that a Paladin follows the axis of his god he most aligns with. In my own campaign world, I have a LN goddess of death. She has paladins. They are consecrated judges where ever she holds sway. They literally can be judge, jury and executioner. They execute murderers, thieves, assassins (after a fair trial) if it's deemed the correct punishment. They are also extremely anti-undead, as undead are an abomination to their goddess. Now, they have quite a bit more compassion than their goddess shows, although while LN, she's not without some compassion (in general, she considers children's souls 'not ripe' so if someone wants to resurrect them, she generally allows that without incident). So, we have a justice dealing anti-undead order of paladins... sounds like a nice bunch of guys to have around (unless you're a necromancer or lich). Where they would run into problems is Good Dhampirs and Good Undead. Fortunately, those are few and far between. But when it comes up, they usually have to go for an atonement one way or the other. Oh well, sometimes the world's not a cut and dry place.


My personal opinion is that good should take priority over law for paladins but both are needed.
About the paladins of NG and LN deities: the way i see it is that the deity in order to grant the mortal the powers of a paladin has to hold him in a higher standard than it helds all other followers and even himself.
In Golarion* only LG, NG and LN deities can have paladins, and not all LN deities have paladins, for exaple Irori doesn't but Abadar does and if i can guess i would say that Aroden also did have paladins.

*as we can see in the faiths line of pathfinder companion.


James Jacobs wrote:
This is highly situational, I would say. Encountering four kobolds lazing about, I would say no—killing on sight when the target is "lazing about" is a chaotic act at the very least. But if said kobolds were actively engaged in evil, then sure!

With all due respect, James, I don't think this action is lawful or chaotic. I think it's either evil or close to it.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Montana MacAilbert wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
This is highly situational, I would say. Encountering four kobolds lazing about, I would say no—killing on sight when the target is "lazing about" is a chaotic act at the very least. But if said kobolds were actively engaged in evil, then sure!
With all due respect, James, I don't think this action is lawful or chaotic. I think it's either evil or close to it.

He said 'at the very least', as in, the best possible spin on it given the information available is CN act, more likely CE.


mdt wrote:
Montana MacAilbert wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
This is highly situational, I would say. Encountering four kobolds lazing about, I would say no—killing on sight when the target is "lazing about" is a chaotic act at the very least. But if said kobolds were actively engaged in evil, then sure!
With all due respect, James, I don't think this action is lawful or chaotic. I think it's either evil or close to it.
He said 'at the very least', as in, the best possible spin on it given the information available is CN act, more likely CE.

I don't agree, however. I have a great deal of respect and affection for James, but I do not think he is correct in this matter. I don't think that this action has anything at all to do with the law. I could see an LE or NE character doing it as easily as I could see a CE character doing it. I think that it is a question regarding good and evil, not a question regarding law and chaos.

1 to 50 of 118 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Can Paladins Kill on Sight? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.