The answer is simple. A sapient being is asking for mercy. Give it.
Yes, it's a pain, but doing good and right is often more difficult. That's what Yoda is saying when he says the Dark Side is quicker, easier, and more seductive.
Tie the goblin up, take him back to town, and tell the guards there he is their prisoner, and you expect to see him treated like any POW. Then, exit gracefully before they can do anything bad to him.
You're not just 'Good' but 'Lawful' as well. The creature has no doubt performed any number of despicable acts and a execution is a perfctly acceptable act by one sword to uphold justice, especially in a world where the black and white of good and evil actually exist.
the truth is, you commit an evil act when you commit an act that you believe is evil. If you think the execution of an evil marauding creature who has suddenly realized that he was outmatched is justifiable then it is. There is an argument to be made for redemption though - giving the creature a chance to redeem himself by serving as a guide or informant could be an option.
It depends mostly on the DM. Players of paladins have to be especially aware of the DM's personality and even personal views. Does your DM allow force you to act with 20th century morality and opinions in an essentially modern campaign setting? Is your DM the power tripping kind who enjoys screwing paladins over? Does he/she have particularly strongly held personal beliefs that bleed over into the game?
None of these things are great behavior from a DM, and they all have a bearing on how happy the players of paladins are.
For example, I believe that if your paladin is from a place where goblins are really a "kill on sight nuisance" and seen merely as a pest, then why would they count to the paladin as a sentient being who's surrender he is honor bound to take. That category would extend to all civilized races or course, and possibly to some monstrous races such as Orcs, Hobgoblins or even Gnolls, but not to the goblins that are seen as vermin or pests. Lets have paladins following different, but equally lawful cultural mores, and not just force an anachronistic 21st century behavior on them.
... he smiled, wrote something down and said "so what do you guys do next".
now my paranoid ass is thiking ...
Not to give away trade secrets or anything, but there is a not-insignificant chance that your DM is simply screwing with you.
Of course, the minute you believe that and let your guard down, he'll actually take away your paladin levels, so I guess you're still up the proverbial creek.
I'd guess the GM is just trying to get you to squirm a bit and to get you to question your actions. The "making a note" trick is to increase your paranoia.
There are going to be situations where there is no right answer. Just do what your character deems appropriate and live with your decision. Be able to reasonably justify your actions.
Your character could seek council from similar paladins, when given the opportunity. Or, when you are in town, ask the local militia what would happen to a goblin prisoner. Ask another player character who is LG, what they think is right. Pray to your god for guidance.
If you feel you need to atone, try doing it in a role playing way, rather than just burning a scroll. Instead of buying the Atonement scroll, make a similar donation to an orphanage, for example, and say that that is for your atonement.
|
Make him your squire!
Then teach him your ways and make him a shining leader of all a goblin could be. Then release him back to his people and watch as he leads them to a glorious golden age of goblin society.
Or he will run away at the first opportunity and you will never see him again. Oh well.
Above works best with Serenrae where redemption is a big part of their religion. Doesn't work so well with Iomedae and Torag.
Whether or not that is really an evil act depends on the assumptions ingame. When DnD was fashioned races like orcs and goblins acted as the antagonist race which were irredeemably evil. It was just a part of their race. As time progressed the player base started to allow a less black and white view of morality, even regarding those races...
The question is: in your game, is the race fundamentally evil or is it also capable of goodness? If the answer is the former, you are fully justified in killing him. You might not grant this creature his mercy, but you have to think about the multitudes of innocents he would murder otherwise.
I bet, however, the GM didn't think this through and is now presenting you with this dilemma (perhaps just to tease the paladin player) without having thought about the fundamental issues behind it. The outcome depends on the assumptions of the world.
As an extension of my second paragraph; alternatively, it depends on what your deity tells you and what you know. You could try to ask your deity for advice, or ask everyone you are with what they know about this race. Finally, it is not per se an evil act to kill this goblin when its fundamental characteristics are unsure, but everyone you know has heard only of goblins being murderous cretins. Would a real paladin risk the lives of innocents to let this creature live?
Make him a squire and teach him chivalry. Protect his life as your own, but make sure that he does not fail in his duties to you. If necessary, do not return to town. If he fails you, if he does not immediately and forever forsake his evil alignment, kill him.
I like this. This is what I would do if I was playing the paladin (or if I was GMing I'd probably have the goblin beg to serve the powerful warrior, if it fit in with how the goblin/story was written.)
This is, why playing a Paladin can suck - it is often a question of DM style and, in my opinion, best avoided by them. Well, in itself the question is really simple as PF provides us with a clear Alignment code: Goblins=evil so there is no question that killing one could be wrong even by a Paladin's higher standards. He would not listen to the pleas of a demon, would he?
If at all possible I suggest that he capture the creature and let it be justied by a proper court, but that's more for performance reasons as the verdict is totally clear and therefore the responsibility for a certain death (sentence) lies by the Paladin.
I myself loathe the idea of a whole sentient race being "evil" as racist, so I prefer a more realsitic view: even if goblins, orcs etc. pp for example are mostly "evil" (no more than huns but i digress) a Paladin should have proof of their evildoings before bringing them to justice. This can only be ok if law institutions would not hang a goblin for being one of course.
So in this example, on the assumption of laws who would only punish for crimes (and not for race, color, religious beliefs...), the Paladin should capture the goblin and let justice have its way. For practical reasons - we are talking medieval here - he could even set him free if there are no evidences for this goblin to have done evil acts - and defending his comrades could hardly be count as such.
In any case, the DM has to make clear how certain actions are viewed in his world, so the player can make a thorogh decision (and has not to guess what his DM might want). This is extremely neccessary for moral questions in a fantasy/medieval world with players and a modern view on things.
In no way is the personal view of the Paladin a measure for "right" and "wrong" as this is totally for his god(dess) / DM to decide. It is of course easy to force a Paladin to commit evil acts so unless player and master are agreeing on such dilemmas I would rather not implement them.
|
Just to throw in one more aspect - it depends on your Paladin Code.
There are some good Paladin codes for Golarion in Faiths of purity
These are the two most extreme entries towards prisoners
Against my people's enemies I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, execpt to extract information. I will defeat them, and I will scatter their families. Yet even in the struggle against our enemies, I will act in a way that brings honor to Torag.
I accept surrender if my opponents can be redeemed - and I never assume they cannot be. All things that live love beauty, and I will show beauty's answer to them.
So in case 1 you should have killed the goblin as an enemy to your tribe. In case 2 you should go for atonement now.
The issue in regard to paladins is the code. A player has (hopefully) one in mind. A GM tends to have one in mind. It is important that both parties sit together and discuss the code how they understand it.
In my view the code of a paladin is an integral part to play one. The issue only arises when the player doesn't has a code - now he becomes at the mercy of the GM or if the GM follows a different one.
As people have said, you should sit down with your DM and discuss your particular deity's code. Otherwise, you (the player) are thinking:
the code means X, Y and Z
and your DM is thinking:
the code means A, B and C.
Given that the alignment system is flawed, the code becomes far more important and it's something that should be established at character creation.
To address your points (as *I* see them):
~to tie him up and leave him = a death sentence and probably the worst thing you can do as a paladin. You've essentially said "Well, I know he'll die but I'm not strong enough/don't have enough conviction to kill him myself"
Consequence: Not good. Oh, and, erm, expect a visit from one of Iomedae's 'people'. :)
~to hand him in = same as above. His death would likely be quicker but you've no idea how he'll be treated before his death.
Consequence: Maybe as above. Or maybe just some disturbing dreams and a loss of power for a few days.
~slap on wrist = this is the tricky one, given Iomedae's views on evil.
Consequence: Given the ambiguity, probably just some sleepless nights.
~execute him = of those you've listed, probably your best option.
Consequence: As it stands, no consequence. This is taking into account Iomedae's doctrine.
Incidentally, my opinion of the alignments is that "good" has a greater priority than "law" and that to kill someone/thing is evil and to kill someone/thing because the law allows is still just as evil. That's my stance and that is what I would say to my players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You chose to play a paladin under a GM you KNEW was going to test you and punish you for it?
It's your own fault. Good luck getting out of it unscathed.
squire or a follower/henchmen.
Ask him why he is surendering.
Detect Evil?
|
|
Remember at her heart Iomedea is a god of glory and battle; of bringing good. Pallies of Saernrae may let things go for mercy; at their best, Iomedean pallies would trial the goblin, THEN execute. In fact, if you release a goblin on the world to do more evil, that would be more against the tennents of Iomedea than killing them, especially as you are embracing Vengence.
Judge Dread was Lawful Good too.
The issue with outright making him a squire (and not just a tethered prisoner) is if it truly is evil it's likely it will slit your throat while you sleep and run off into the night. So tread carefully in that regard. BTW, I like this solution you just have to be careful with it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't kill it, take it in like a puppy and tell it your darkest fears and deepest secrets. Then, act surprised when the DM has it kill you in your sleep.
While you're at it, throw away all your weapons and armor because with a GM like yours, he'll probably punish you for actually using your full BAB. Classic case of Catch 22.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I highly recommend getting a phylactery of faithfulness while operating under such a GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... thats the problem, he did this to test my ability to RP a paladin. his mentality is " ive never had a paladin make it in my games" so i know he did this to test me...
I don't really know either of you so can't tell for sure. But I wouldn't play with a GM who's going to be a complete ash hat and try to make me fail. (The GM having fun only at the expense of one of the players is not the point of a game.) If he is only like that on this one topic, then I might keep playing with him, but probably only neutral characters.
It's really hard to talk about a paladin and potentially evil acts without debating what is evil, and what is good. It's been a subject of debate for as long as humanities been able to ask the question. We are not going to get a definitive answer on these forums. There are always a few people who make statements I vehemently oppose in these discussions.
Typicaly, no one really thinks they are evil. In their own minds they could be totally justified. So a while a player/character could believe they are doing good if the DM feels their actions don't muster they the pally is hosed. I recommend creating a saintly code you follow. Create it with the help of your DM take into account your god and then as long as you follow the code you are fine.
And for the record, my current character a cleric os Sarenrae, would have granted mercy and offered the goblin a chance to redeem himself.
I used to pray for their salvation, then behead them.
To my character, the act of praying was to give them a chance of absolution in there next life/realm/state of being.
OK so most folks appear to be on the "he's a goblin and deserves to die" platform. What if the situation changes slightly to it being a bandit?
Bandit has been Detected Evil on and come up with a yes.
Offer the chance to reform or pray and slay?
OK so most folks appear to be on the "he's a goblin and deserves to die" platform. What if the situation changes slightly to it being a bandit?
If he's a bandit, he can be turned in to the nearby town guards for a trial, whereas a goblin they'd probably just kill as soon as the paladin's back was turned.
I can't believe so many people are tangentially moving into the philosophical discussions of good and evil. When this can be easily resolved with a roll.
Some of us actually enjoy this sort of thing.
Does your campaign have a legal system? A code of laws? Any chance you have ranks in Profession (barrister)?
With any of those, you would have more than your opinion vs. DMs opinion. Why are you operating in a vacuum? That's going to be frustrating.
So it's all racially motivated as to what to do with bad guys?
I'm starting the Kingmaker Path and I'll be out in the wilderness with no town guard to turn bad guys over to. What should I do with them then?
Charter says Bandits are to be slain with sword or hung but that seems too black and white.
My plan is offer repentance to all, spare the ones that actually repent (sense motive and detect evil) and justice for those that don't based on the charter.
The racial motivation isn't any different from 'kill it! it is a demon!'. On conditions noted in my previous post of course.
|
|
Same. If we're invading a lair, and they attacked us, they have forefit their life. Surrender entitles them to a faster death and a prayer to Iomedea to spare their soul. Such is the way of Vengence Paladins; if they truly repent Iomedea will hear their voice and grant them a better hereafter.
Note that the detect evil is unnecessary; the same would happen with neutral people who violated the laws to the level that they are labeled a bandit.
... If we're invading a lair, and they attacked us, they have forefit their life...
It could more easily be reasoned that YOU attacked them. They are just defending their homes.
How do you know that every single one of them has committed acts worthy of execution. Sheezmo could be a goblin nerd that everyone picks on so he always gets left behind on the raids. Sure he is an unpleasant and not nice individual, but he has never had the opportunity to committ murder, theft, arson, etc...
If being a not nice person qualifies someone for instant execution without any kind of proof or trial, I have several prior bosses I'd like to introduce you to...
-------------------------------------------------------------------
It is very difficult to fit most adventuring missions/campaigns into what counts as 'good' in a western/judeao/christian morality framework. I believe is unfair/notfun to individually penalize the paladin for the same activities that are just fine for any of the other character types.
... Paladins are held to a higher standard than other classes. If someone surrenders you may judge them to be irredeemable and then execute them. I would have issue if the paladin doesn't even listen to the person surrendering and just swings away.
Other classes (probably not even other good characters) can get away with it but I do expect more from the paladin...
Held to a higher standard I can understand. But most other characters are not held to ANY standard. If killing the dude that surrenders is wrong for the paladin, it should also be wrong for the LG cleric of the same god even if he is more likely to get away with it.
Ok, a bit more particular for the paladin. He gets a stern divine warning the first time and second time losses his powers.
For the cleric... {crickets chirps} I almost never hear anyone bring it up at all for any other character. No matter what alignment or class it is almost always a complete non-issue. Not expecting a bit less than a paladin, not a lower standard than a paladin, it is nothing at all.
Ask yourself this queston:
Suppose the goblin had been a human. Would you have killed him? Goblins are not irrevocably evil; when he asked for mercy it should have been granted. Turning him over to the local authorities is more than sufficient.
Remember this scene from Firefly (the episode is Shindig)?
After deliberately annoying Wing, Mal escorts Inara onto the dance floor. Mal expresses concern about Atherton's insincerity, to which Inara responds with the possibility of her staying on Persephone with him. When Atherton cuts in and insists on his right to take Inara away because "money changed hands", Mal punches him in the face. But he is astonished to find out that his action was an implicit challenge in this social circle, and that he is now committed to a duel by sword. The trouble is, Mal is no swordsman, and his opponent is an expert. Even as he faces this disaster, he uses Sir Warrick's amused respect to try to swing the cargo job. Sir Warrick does agree to be his second.
Mal passes away the hours in a locked room by ineptly practicing with a sword. Inara manages to sneak into his room to talk. She is confused by Mal's decision to punch Atherton because he insulted her, when Mal often does this himself. Mal replies that he merely insults her profession, whereas Wing insulted her, and has no true respect for her. When she tries to convince him to escape with her assistance, he refuses. He counters by asking her to help him practice, but her efforts seem to meet with little success.
In the misty dawn, a confident Atherton Wing faces an absurdly cocky Mal, while Sir Warrick, Inara, and a crowd of spectators watch. Atherton toys with Mal, and after wounding Mal in the arm, Atherton invites an unsuspecting Mal to attack him, but tricks him with a backhanded thrust, stabbing Mal deeply in the stomach. Mal uneasily but energetically pushes back, only to have his sword broken. Standing over the kneeling captain, Atherton turns at a plea from Inara, who offers to stay with him if he will only spare Mal's life. Mal uses his distraction to disarm the swordsman, deliver a punch to the face, and throw his own broken sword blade at him, stabbing him in the shoulder.
Mal stands over the wounded Wing, wielding Wing's own sword, and Sir Warrick demands that he deliver the final blow, lest Atherton be humiliated. Mal, however, shows mercy — after getting in two more pokes. As Inara helps Mal off the field, Atherton calls out viciously to Inara and threatens to ruin her. Inara responds by informing him that he is now persona non grata in the Companion registry, implicitly ruining him. Entertained by Mal's trouncing of the conceited Wing, and impressed by his tenacity, Sir Warrick agrees to send his cargo with Mal. "Mighty fine shindig!" says Mal to Inara.
Mal is no Paladin. But he doesn't take a life when he doesn't have to. Should a true Paladin do less?
Master Arminas