A cut scene:
"Do you surrender in [insert god's name here] name? Do you swear to convert fully to, and follow the precepts of [insert god's name here]?
If the Goblin agrees, then state "Know then that your crimes against [insert gods name here] have been judged and are unforgiveable. Rejoice however that even as your physical body is destroyed, you have saved your immortal soul!'
if Goblin refuses then he's not really surredndering and so deserves death, and obviously following the scenario above is worthy of a Hard-Case Paladin who takes religion and misdeeds VERY seriously. What measure mere physical destruction versus saving the spirit/soul of the Goblin. Either way dead Goblin but I think the provided scenario is quite legimate for a Paladin,(remember to pick your god carefully)..perhaps Ragathiel??
Good lord.....
Yeah I didnt want to go there... see the third paragraph with spirit/soul option!!
I think RD has the best answer of the thread... get a phylactery of faithfulness. You will be clued in to your DMs twists and turns before they ever happen.... every single time. Yes it is a drain on funds, but isn't it worth keeping your powers?
I agree. Unless you're enjoying the experience of not knowing what the consequences of your actions are.
I dont mind placing paladins in awkward situations, but a situation which basically seems to be "Have a guess about what you should do here. The consequences are potentially severe." isnt something most people who play paladins in my games would enjoy.
A cut scene:
"Do you surrender in [insert god's name here] name? Do you swear to convert fully to, and follow the precepts of [insert god's name here]?
If the Goblin agrees, then state "Know then that your crimes against [insert gods name here] have been judged and are unforgiveable. Rejoice however that even as your physical body is destroyed, you have saved your immortal soul!'
if Goblin refuses then he's not really surredndering and so deserves death, and obviously following the scenario above is worthy of a Hard-Case Paladin who takes religion and misdeeds VERY seriously. What measure mere physical destruction versus saving the spirit/soul of the Goblin. Either way dead Goblin but I think the provided scenario is quite legimate for a Paladin,(remember to pick your god carefully)..perhaps Ragathiel??
Oh boy! Like I said its DM's and Player's interpretations of how Paladins should act is the problem.
Isn't there a spell that even paladin has that allows him to basically ask his diety or some being associated with his diety if a certain action would possibly have some sort of adverse effects? find it, keep it prepared for the next time the DM throws somehting like this at you.
Asta
PSY
|
When you are playing a Paladin there is something that needs to be taken into account. Good characters are a little more restrained than evil people when it comes to what they can and cannot do. Even though an evil person may deserve to die for his crimes mercy is a form of chivalry. It's what makes you into a better person. Now you won't act stupid and turn your back on the goblin but surrender is surrender and if that goblin surrenders and you kill him anyway then that is evil. If there is another route that you can take besides killing then you will go that route.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Ned Stark Approach: If you have the prerequisit legal authority which many paladins might, you give the speach. "I Humphrey Dogooder find you guilty of murder and your life forfiet to the king's/god's justice." *waits a moment* *Thwack*
The Wyatt Erp Approach: Beat him about the head and shoulders and kick him as he flees and yell, "Run dog, run back to rest of your foul kin, and you tell them justice is coming, you tell em I'm coming and the wrath of (insert god here) is coming with me." This is especially good in conjuction with some sort of compulsion spell ;) Send the poor gobby back to his tribe or if you just wiped them all out the nearest tribe warning them to watch it.
The Superman Approach: After sufficently binding said goblin. Drop him off with the nearest and lowliest law enforcement offical possible and condesendingly say while smiling, "You take it from here officer."
The Professor X Approach: "Yes poor thing I know you are homicidal evil thing but that is because your mind has been twisted by evil. Come with me I will teach you how to untwist it."
The Ned Stark Approach:...
The Wyatt Erp Approach:...
Problem is I wouldn't call either of your 1st 2 examples LG (not sure about the 4th might be more NG). It is easy for superman to be a paladin, he is nearly invulnerable and omnipotent.
Ned seems to be a lot closer to LN or NN.
And while Wyat may have been LG at the start of the movies (I don't really see enough data to decide). Byt the end of the movie I'd say he was much closer to CN. Practically defining a fallen paladin that didn't descend quite all the way to evil.
He was just getting even. He didn't care about the law/right/wrong. Wasn't dedicated to any particular moral code, just killing the redshirts. Didn't matter who else got hurt. Etc...
In Tombstone, Wyatt didn't indiscriminately kill to mow down red legs. There's not word one in The Code about situations like the OK Corral *if memory serves*. 'Sides, Wyatt operated on a 19th century American mindset. His brothers, if anything, were closer to paladins - Wyatt was a Gunslinger :P
I agree gunslinger is appropriate for Wyatt. But he was being put forth as an example of paladin style behavior.
No, he didn't kill bystanders, that would be evil. But when I watch the movie most of the time he doesn't really seem to care if those around him get hurt just so long as a few more bad guys go down.
No THE CODE doesn't say anything about the mass gun fight of th OK Corral. But Wyatt doe not appear to be dedicated to any kind of code or law (as a paldin is) just killing the gang members.
I really have hard time seeing Wyatt as an exmaple of paladin-ness.
I agree gunslinger is appropriate for Wyatt. But he was being put forth as an example of paladin style behavior.
No, he didn't kill bystanders, that would be evil. But when I watch the movie most of the time he doesn't really seem to care if those around him get hurt just so long as a few more bad guys go down.
No THE CODE doesn't say anything about the mass gun fight of th OK Corral. But Wyatt doe not appear to be dedicated to any kind of code or law (as a paldin is) just killing the gang members.
I really have hard time seeing Wyatt as an exmaple of paladin-ness.
He definitely operated under a Code of Honor - he didn't draw unless he was willing to kill as an example. From what I gather, the "real" Wyatt did act a lot like the opening scenes.
Whacking the Red Legs would definitely fall under LG behavior though, *especially* to the mindset of that time.
I can see, with very slight modification, Wyatt being a good basis for RP'ing a Paladin. At the very least, it would be a lot of fun RP'ing a Paladin with Improved Unarmed Strike and Improvised Weapon Mastery. ^_^
I would agree if he were doing it because he was the sherrif and it was the right thing to do do. But I saw it as the other way around.
He got the badge just so he could get away with going on a vengeful killing spree.
Been a while since I saw the movie. But that is how I remember it. Maybe I'll rent and watch it again this weekend.
take him as captive and deliver him to the next paladin order or to the next temple of your faith, then give your GM the finger.
Or cast commune or something to ask your god or your mentor or whoever knows best how to handle this. Ask the GM if perhaps a knowledge religion check suffices.
It's a tough decision, not killing him will surely not bring any troubles with your vow, LG doesn't mean you have to follow the laws if they are from an evil civilization. On the other hand it's really difficult what you would do with him alive.
Either your GM doesn't care as both outcomes are fine and he just wants to see you sweat for being a paladin (that's what I would do) or he's a jerk, ... or there is something you missed.
ok so here is a question for everyone. im playing an oath of vengence paladin. im play in the pathfinder world and i am fighting gobblins. one of the goblins drops his sword and surrenders to me.
here is my issue. im in a part of the world that treats gobblins as a kill on sight nuisance. by the laws of the area im fully justified in killing it anyway, but ignoring a plea for mercy, especially against an unarmed sentient being, would be an evil act.
so what the hell do i do with him?
tie him up and leave him for dead?
carry him around like a child on a leash until i make it back to town to have the city guard run over and slaughter him, and do i sit back and watch as he pleads for help from me?
do i give him a slap on the wrist, and say bad gobblin dont do it again and let him go?
or do i take the point against my alignment, potentially, to give some speech and execute him?
im up against the wall on this one. so many factors to concider, and i may lose my paladin levels if i choose wrong.
for what its worth im a paladin of Iomedae.
You can kill the goblin and get away with it, easy. However, you might want to try something else. Sit down with the goblin, ask him some questions, explain how it is and why they are killed on sight. See if he is up for redemption or doing something worthwhile--does he have skills a community can use? Be the caring but stern father, go on, rp this.
If the goblin sticks to the path of dark, insists he will never change, then kill him quick and kill him clean.
The Ned Stark Approach:...
The Wyatt Erp Approach:...Problem is I wouldn't call either of your 1st 2 examples LG (not sure about the 4th might be more NG). It is easy for superman to be a paladin, he is nearly invulnerable and omnipotent.
Ned seems to be a lot closer to LN or NN.
And while Wyat may have been LG at the start of the movies (I don't really see enough data to decide). Byt the end of the movie I'd say he was much closer to CN. Practically defining a fallen paladin that didn't descend quite all the way to evil.
He was just getting even. He didn't care about the law/right/wrong. Wasn't dedicated to any particular moral code, just killing the redshirts. Didn't matter who else got hurt. Etc...
Wyatt Erp is probably not LG, but that does not mean the approach I labled is not a possiblilty even if it is poorly named.
Ned however is not lilly white but I would say he comes pretty darn close to LG at least for a wold like Westeros. But even if you want to put him off to NG which is probably closer to the point the approach like above might be poorly named but a valid approach.
... at least for a wold like Westeros...
LOL! I was getting confused until I read this phrase a bit closer and took a hop over to google. I've never watched Game of Thrones. But there is an old sci fi series of novels with a main character that is a violent mercenary named Ned Stark. You would really have to do some nimble mental gymnastics to call that guy NG.
Man, now I feel old again! { sigh }Back to point, even if you could convince some country to give you preemptive judicial and excutive authority. That will fit lawful. But executing someone just because of his race is very difficult for most people to countenance as 'good.' Unless you are in a campaign where they some sort of uncontrolled pyscopaths. So are always unredeemable evil. Even then most people and religions would say you have to have actually commited evil acts, not just be a nasty vile person to merit execution. By the OP's initial statements. All this goblin has done for certain is be a member of a hated race and do a poor job of defending his home from invaders.
If that paladin tries to kill you . . . well, you just go right ahead and try to kill him back!
Master Arminas
It depends but I would talk to your GM first and get his insight.
If I were the GM I would say murdering a prisoner is an evil act. Since he surrendered he is essentially your prisoner and should be treated like a sentiant being.
Likewise I would say turning him over to the local authorities to be potentially tortured or executed is also an evil act
Turning him loose with a warning would be fine IMO, but without some time spent with your character and learning why he should change his ways or at least not having some kind of inspiration or code to live up to would mean the chances of him going back to gobliny things is high.
Have you considered redeeming him? I know it sounds crazy but one of the greatest things a good character can do is help an evil creature turn away from its evil ways. This is usually done through several diplomacy checks over the course of his time with you. It really does seem like the best option to me and if your redemption really kicks through he could become your follower later. Speaking as a GM I love seeing the players go this route because redemption is a very seldom pursued option and, if successful, it deserves big rewards on the players part
If the monster is a caricature of evil, no foul. If the dm is trying to get you to sympathise, if the dm is succumbing to humanising the foe, then the dm will see a player executing them as evil, and punish the player if possible. No paladin abilities for you!
We must engage in verstehen, and see how the various actors see it.
-
Example.
Merc city, dm's world. Told the goblins/kobolds are a dangerous threat. Hordes that require serious opposition. Pick up job to kill kobolds which have been raiding people. Investigate. Find they have shut down a mining operation, kidnapped people. Go to lair. They try to shoot us on sight. Invade. Kill. Come to the mothers and the children. They arm up and fight us en masse. Kill many of the young combatants, leave some alive after this hard fight (lot of grapples). (Dm tries to present them sympathetically and that we are evil invaders, the survivors will remember. I say, "well they shouldn't have been raiding and killing everyone around them"). Later I kill a child sorcerer which also attacks us. (Dm presents the child sorcerer sympathetically, and us as evil. Dm was seeing the evil creatures as victims. We made them victims).
-From the journal of Mosca the rogue.
ok so here is a question for everyone. im playing an oath of vengence paladin. im play in the pathfinder world and i am fighting gobblins. one of the goblins drops his sword and surrenders to me.
here is my issue. im in a part of the world that treats gobblins as a kill on sight nuisance. by the laws of the area im fully justified in killing it anyway, but ignoring a plea for mercy, especially against an unarmed sentient being, would be an evil act.
so what the hell do i do with him?
tie him up and leave him for dead?
carry him around like a child on a leash until i make it back to town to have the city guard run over and slaughter him, and do i sit back and watch as he pleads for help from me?
do i give him a slap on the wrist, and say bad gobblin dont do it again and let him go?
or do i take the point against my alignment, potentially, to give some speech and execute him?
im up against the wall on this one. so many factors to concider, and i may lose my paladin levels if i choose wrong.
for what its worth im a paladin of Iomedae.
I've only read one quarter of the posts in this thread, so I'm not quite sure where we all are. But here's my take (I'm beginning to find these sorts of topics fascinating):
1- Re: The issue of gaming/DMing) The premise is highly flawed. If you don't know what your character *should* do, I think it's clear you and your DM should have a comfortable, non-opposed, informational conversation. Your character grew up in this world and was highly trained in the strong disciplines of the Iomedaean faith. The morality of that world and that faith is up to your DM to decide. If you're unsure what would be most moral in this scenario, it shouldn't be kept as a secret from you. Just ask and expect a straight-forward answer or, at least, a general-guideline answer.
2- Re: Redeemable Evil) More than one person has jumped out and said that Goblins are either inherently evil or culturally evil. The question I have to that is: in who's world? In Golarion, in my opinion, you have very little evidence of the latter and a great deal of evidence to the former.
3- Re: Justified Eradication) Even assuming cultural evil, if only 1 in a 1,000,000 or, hell, 1 in 10,000 goblins are neutral -> good, then I would think you have a pragmatic duty to kill on sight (site) to protect the lives of the innocent and good. The collateral damage might be unfortunate (that 1 goblin), but the overwhelming good of killing thousands of these pests outweighs the evil of killing the one good one. If you're a Paladin, Detect Evil could be your friend here, obviously, to help you sort out the diamonds-in-the-rough.
A couple more:
4- Re: Taking a goblin back to town/authorities)
a) Not all authorities are the same. In some places the authorities are rotten and are just going to kill the goblin right in front of you ("What are you doing with that? They're worse than rats!") or they might simply reject you saying, "We don't want it! Why are you bringing it to us? Get rid of it!"
b) Sometimes you're in the wild (no "official" authority) and it would take weeks to get to any nearby civilization. Is it right to even try since no nearby civilization has legitimate dominion over the area? (Speaking of which, how far underground do typical national boundaries extend? Is there any standardization here?)
c) Unless you have legitimate mandate (by rightful authority over the land in which you are acting), you're not a representative of the law. The OP, in fact, was only a representative of Iomedae, not a soldier or member of some nation's or city's law enforcement. Do they have "citizen's arrest" laws? If not, would dragging the goblin to the "authorities" constitute kidnapping?
d) Exactly how will anyone provide evidence of the goblin's "bad behavior". It's your word against it's word. He could simply claim you captured him, but he did nothing wrong; that you're simply a lunatic. "I only asked him what he was doing on my land and he says, 'Drop your weapons.' He scared me, so I did. Then he tied me up and dragged me for two weeks to Your Honors."
e) What gives a mayor of town X authority over a member of a goblin tribe? By what right does this species of humanoid (elf, human, dwarf, half-orc, gnome, halfling, etc...) judge the actions of a goblin? Remember, all the goodly species *choose* to live together. Goblins choose to live apart - they are not part of the same society or civilization (or as one poster put it: a resident of the nation).
f) Which brings me to the next point. How does one ensure a fair goblin trial in a civilized society? There are ton of unfair presumptions already built into the idea of goblin/orc trials:
g) What if it's found "innocent"? Who's responsible for it's well-being and safe return trip home? The PC the goblin tried to kill?
5- Re: Enlightening the Goblin) Once you've forced the goblin to drop his weapons, you then put to it the idea to renounce it's wicked ways. Either it agrees or it doesn't.
a) If it agrees, you then have to trust it. You can't watch over the thing all the time. Some time in the night it might, when that one opportunity arises (think of Gollum's escape from the elves of Mirkwood), choose to Coup de Grace the Paladin or backstab the party wizard on watch (whatever) and escape.
b) If it doesn't agree ("oh great warrior, forgive me, I just want to go home" or "great warrior, you speak wise words - too wise for the likes of me... I repent, let me go, please?"), then you have an unarmed, defenseless prisoner on your hands that you're too empathic and/or principled to kill. Now what? Remember the freed German in the movie Saving Private Ryan?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ultimately, both of these ideas propose the notion that sentience equals morality and an assumption that goblins are merely victims of their environment and past. I will never understand why people believe that just because a creature has intelligence it automatically has the willpower to overcome the base animal instincts that drive it to eat, aggress, reproduce, self-preserve, or dominate. I don't see necessity for sentience to mean "free will" over your primal nature. I would think that goblins are like a lot of posters on this board: filled with primal and emotional goals who use their intelligence to achieve those goals. But unlike most of those posters, they lack empathy and moral understanding and reasoning (Goblin: "Yeah, lying not nice... I no lie... ever... I good goblin"). Of course, these posters use their intelligence to rationalize their anti-empathic/excessively-empathic and immoral positions, too, which goblins don't bother with.