I am basing my new paladin/gunslinger off roland from the dark tower series...I know surprise surprise. his name is Roland towersbane.
in the book Roland goes into the town of tull and end ups killing every one in the town, as they all attack him. Now it is never clearly stated but it seems to me that the evil pregnant priestess is controlling them or has tapped into some primal religious fever. in pathfinder the closest thing would be mind control or domination if you will. I don't think the towns folk were particularly "good" aligned in the first place and the domination command to kill Roland was not against theier value system.
but if roland was a paladin would him acting in self defense and killing the town make him to lose his paladin hood
in my characters back story he runs across the same thing and the council of ELD (his church) decides what he did was evil, but he had no choice and his quest was very important so he couldn't lose his life or more folks would die. So he is not stripped of his paladin hood but he is not allowed to be a paladin a grey area the needs of the many outweigh the few sort of situation.
so he travels the world has a gunslinger hoping to destroy the evil that had him lose his good name so he can be a full paladin again.
I guess the situation comes down to a town full of evil/neutral folks under mind control with the paladin having no way to break it. he has to defend himself because he cant die because his quest is to important he must find the maguffin. does he lose his paladin hood?
what do you all think?
No, I do not think so. If he knows they are possessed and not evil and he knows it, then it's a problem because his first concern should be saving them from possession, not wiping them out. If they were evil anyway, and he had no way of knowing they were possessed, then it's legitimate self defence.
they are evil, and all attacking him, he cant free them he doesn't know how. he took out the evil priestess and it didn't end.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A scenario should never be: You either die or stop being *insert alignment/class*.
normally a paladin i play would sacrifice himself to avoid killing "innocent" folks or civilians if you were. but again I am taking it out of a book written by some other guy. I just though tit was an interesting story arc.
Obviously the most important person to talk to on this is your GM.
In general this falls under the same sort of clause where the paladin can associate with evil, but only if he is doing so to eliminate a greater evil, and so on. In practice, the core question that would be asked by the church/GM is "did you have to kill them? Could you have used non-lethal force instead?", and questions in that vein.
Did he try, make every possible effort, to avoid harming the (innocent but mind-controlled) townsfolk? If he couldn't avoid harming them, did he make every effort to avoid killing them?
If his reaction was "well they're attacking me, time to shoot them all in the face", that's losing paladinhood. If he attempted to talk to them, attempted to find a way to break or subvert the mind control (not that he would necessarily have one), and used the minimum necessary force, I can see him retaining his powers.
But I'm not your GM.
"well they're attacking me, time to shoot them all in the face"
Favorite quote ever.
yes he did try to stop them and reason with them. have you read the book BTW?
he tries to stop them and reason with them but realizes he is quickly being surrounded and they are throwing rocks and bottles and wood at him
Well if he had no option, self defence trumps most other considerations. Paladin's are not required to sacrifice their own lives for no gain. Sacrifice their lives for great gain, yes, but not no gain and not in any event for people who may well have been trying to kill him anyway.
I have not read the book.
Ok, so the paladin made the attempt to avoid conflict. He couldn't. But he killed everyone, yes? Did he really have to do that? Could he have, instead, knocked people out, and only killed the actually, clearly, evil, who pinged his detect evil (and note that a normal evil-aligned commoner would not do so)?
Basically, I would rule his loss or not loss of paladinhood based primarily on his efforts to avoid killing the presumably innocent. If he made absolutely no effort to use non-lethal force or avoid killing people who didn't actually ping detect evil, I would take away the paladinhood permanently. If he had only killed those he had no choice but to kill, I would hit him with some visions and a direct penance quest, but no loss of powers. If he tried to avoid killing unnecessarily, but ended up doing so, I'd strip him of paladinhood until he atoned (through a quest and atonement).
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.
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features (including the service of the paladin's mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any further in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description in Spell Lists), as appropriate.
Note that there is nothing prohibiting bloodshed in the paladin code. Also note that there is nothing about killing in self defense either.
A GM can tell you it's a gray area if he wants, but there is nothing in RAW supporting his call if he tries to take your abilities away.
You are not willfully committing an evil act, you are not disrespecting legitimate authority, you are not being dishonorable (lying, cheating, using poison), you are not refusing help to those who need it and you indeed punished those who harmed or threatened the innocent.
In fact, the player could argue that the mind controlled townsfolk are a threat to other innocent folk who may stumble upon the town and he has cleansed it of it's taint.
Calling the actions of the paladin evil in this case is the equivalent of calling the protagonist from a resident evil game evil on the basis that they kill townsfolk who have been infected by a parasite/virus and are trying to murder everything.
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.
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features (including the service of the paladin's mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any further in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description in Spell Lists), as appropriate.Note that there is nothing prohibiting bloodshed in the paladin code. Also note that there is nothing about killing in self defense either.
A GM can tell you it's a gray area if he wants, but there is nothing in RAW supporting his call if he tries to take your abilities away.
You are not willfully committing an evil act, you are not disrespecting legitimate authority, you are not being dishonorable (lying, cheating, using poison), you are not refusing help to those who need it and you indeed punished those who harmed or threatened the innocent.
In fact, the player could argue that the mind controlled townsfolk are a threat to other innocent folk who may stumble upon the town and he has cleansed it of it's taint.
Calling the actions of the paladin evil in this case is the equivalent of calling the protagonist from a resident evil game evil on the basis that they kill townsfolk who have been infected by a parasite/virus and are trying to murder everything.
yes that is what I said!
My paladin just ate an orc baby for fun, does he fall?
|
im a paladin inquisitor.. my characters sister is inquisitor gunslinger. self defense no he wouldn't.. my character would ry not to hurt them by ether using a thing to stop control or exsorsisum to make her lose control or knock out people not kill..but if u had to u wouldn't.. just pray for the towns people that were lost and they are were ever people go when they are good in this game.
@MEH
It works for me and my back story. I am paladin 2 mysterious stranger 7
the bonus to my saves is so worth it and the holy smite that I had to make it work.
it is all years in my characters past so ti shouldn't effect the current AP. I just like to see how people see it. I think it is a convincing argument, for discipline but not stripping of powers..
as for roland I think he is a gunslinger but the original gunslingers were Knights of Arthur Eld. they were paladins And I always liked that angle that the gunslingers were law and justice in a lawless wasteland
Wait! What pregnant priestess are you talking about?
Is there a pregnant priestess in the dark tower series?Now I'll have to read the books again.
Sylvia Pittston (at least I think that's the name) in the first book. The preacher-lady from the run-down town.
I don't want this thread to deviate into the subtle nuisances of the gunslinger series and if roland was this or that.