|
Even then imo a Paladin should be using his Detecl Evil ability before charging in and attacking something that is evil. After all you can disguise someone with a illusion or alter their shape with magic. A truly evil creature would use such a tactic against a Paladin that charges anything and everything evil imo. True ceetain items can block or alter the ability yet to make sure one does not fall from grace Detect Evil should be done at all times imo.
I don't know, I kind of read that part as being the ultimate Paladin (or Cleric-type). Sacrificing even more than just their life to do what they know is right, regardless of what anyone else (even their deity?) tells them. I'd expect even the most zealous of LN characters to fall far short of this, and even many LG ones to as well. This, to me, seems to be the best of the best of the best ways that these forced moral quandries/shades of grey can end.If I'm the paladin and I can't find a good way to "out" the lich, but I know he's doing evil things and killing innocents... I attack in the lodge. Killing an evil undead is more important than my own paladinhood.That's a very prideful statement for a Paladin to make. Is destruction of evil undead more important than personal spiritual purity? That's an argument I'd expect from LN characters.To fall the Paladin has to choose to do Evil. How does 'doing Evil' fall in line with 'what they know is right?'.
The notion that a Paladin finding a 'worthy' way to fall is 'self-sacrifice' is only a self-deception. Falling is a FAILURE on the Paladin's part to eschew Evil. Being good means the end will not justify the means. A Paladin's self-sacrifice is to suffer the difficulties of remaining pure, and if necessary, die upholding his virtue.
A paladin's duty is also to protect the innocent. If I'm the paladin, and I'm convinced the lich is hurting innocents, I'm going to take the lich out. If doing so somehow breaks the code because I violated a rule or law, then so be it. My job is to protect the innocents I know I can protect.
This is an indictment more of the philosophical traps people try to pose on these forums.
A paladin's job is to self-sacrifice, regardless of the personal cost. If a paladin isn't willing to give up his paladin-hood to save a life, is he really worthy of it?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Breaking a law to save innocent lives should not cost the paladin his powers. If the law was such that it wasn't already protecting the innocents in the paladin's place, then it was obviously insufficient.
Paladins are lawful by nature, but that doesn't mean they are going to follow laws that are bad for the people (such as those set by a tyrant).
|
Breaking a law to save innocent lives should not cost the paladin his powers. If the law was such that it wasn't already protecting the innocents in the paladin's place, then it was obviously insufficient.
Paladins are lawful by nature, but that doesn't mean they are going to follow laws that are bad for the people (such as those set by a tyrant).
Of course should cost the paladin his powers. well .. actually depends on the exten ofthe violation.
Breaking the law to pursue good is the area of chaotic good alignment.Lawful good and paladinhood is not the pursue of supreme good (of course the paladin wouldn't see it that way) but essentially a paladin pursue good while falling in line.
It doesn't mean he as to approve a corrupt government, but if he wants to fight the law he needs a legittimate way to do it. supporting a pretender with a rightful claim to throne, a honourable neighbourg at war, a resistance group with a solid plan for creating a new government.
For sure he shouldn't start a revolution... even in a corupt nation that's promoting disorder and anarchy, something a paladin would see as inherently evil.
that's why holy liberators were way cooler... please paizo, give us kickass chaotic paladins
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins only fall when they fail a DEX check.
A paladin would not intiate a attack inside the lodge because innocent bystanders could get hurt...if the lich attacked first,or caused a great act of evil yes..but otherwise the paladin would demand to know why a lich is allowed in the lodge to begin with..then he would would leave..the paladin would not want to be assoicated with a orginazation welcoming a lich to begin with..after the lich left the lodge,city,town, whatever he would pop open a six pack of whoop arse
|
|
Their is a difference between protecting innocents and being a vigilante. Unless you have postive proof. either some sort of evidence or using the detect evil ability one does not simply go smashing doors down and attacking random people that pass them by because they are "convinced" that the person is evil. that would get him locked up in prison imo. Nor does a paladin imo go around breaking laws because they stand in his way. That is not a paladin imo that is once again a vigilante. A paladin is supposed to be the epitome of goodness not Dirty Harry/Judge Dredd with a sword. I think too many posters seem to think that they can justify their actions by go around and claiming "but I'm a Paladin". Paladin or not your not above the law and im ny games a Paladin that decides he can do anything and everything because of being one gets locked up in prison or killed by the authorites or more likley by Paladins who work within the law.
No, the paladin wouldn't fall simply for not assaulting a lich at first sight. Personally, I think that the best plan (remember that paladins are individuals, not robots, so some may do things differently) would seek to have the lich removed from the society, as others have more eloquently demonstrated. After that, the paladin would need to find the lich's phylactery and destroy it, followed by the lich.
If the paladin fails to have to lich removed, then the paladin must then remove himself from the society and continue on to steps 2 and 3, as outlined above. After all, what paladin would willingly associate with an organization that knowingly employs creatures that are inherently evil monsters? I think it bears mentioning that even though good liches may exist in a few campaign settings, these are supposed to be nearly unique examples (of bad writing, mostly). Liches are clear and present dangers, not simply "immortal spellcasters". They are inherently Evil, by virtue of the fact that they are choosing to fuel their existence through negative energy, a very corrupting prospect. The most well-intentioned lich would certainly be slowly driven to evil and madness by constant exposure to such life-draining energies, not to mention the lack of meaningful contact with other living things. If you want to create an immortal spellcaster that isn't an undead abomination, check out the deathless creature type.
Honestly, I can certainly see a paladin breaking the rules of the Pathfinder Society in a heartbeat in such a situation, since any organization that knowingly harbors a lich is most certainly NOT a legitimate authority.
One important thing to remember is that being Good in Pathfinder and D&D involves action. A Neutral character may dislike Evil, but a Good character actually goes out and does something about it, even if it means breaking the rules of the treasure-hunting organization that he happens to belong to.
A paladin would not intiate a attack inside the lodge because innocent bystanders could get hurt...if the lich attacked first,or caused a great act of evil yes..but otherwise the paladin would demand to know why a lich is allowed in the lodge to begin with..then he would would leave..the paladin would not want to be assoicated with a orginazation welcoming a lich to begin with..after the lich left the lodge,city,town, whatever he would pop open a six pack of whoop arse
There's nothing in the paladin's code against dealing with, working with, or being part of a neutral organization. What's more, a neutral organization that allows equal opportunity for membership in regards to alignment doesn't make it evil, just neutral.
The Society doesn't care about alignment insomuch as it cares about knowledge and secrets and bringing such things to light, therefore they are more or less neutral.
A paladin would not intiate a attack inside the lodge because innocent bystanders could get hurt...if the lich attacked first,or caused a great act of evil yes..but otherwise the paladin would demand to know why a lich is allowed in the lodge to begin with..then he would would leave..the paladin would not want to be assoicated with a orginazation welcoming a lich to begin with..after the lich left the lodge,city,town, whatever he would pop open a six pack of whoop arseThere's nothing in the paladin's code against dealing with, working with, or being part of a neutral organization. What's more, a neutral organization that allows equal opportunity for membership in regards to alignment doesn't make it evil, just neutral.
The Society doesn't care about alignment insomuch as it cares about knowledge and secrets and bringing such things to light, therefore they are more or less neutral.
A paladin's code explicitly states that only under "exceptional circumstances" can a paladin associate with evil beings, and only then temporarily, with liberal application of atonement. Being a member of an organization known to the paladin to include not only evil, but willingly created undead counts as "allying with evil associates".
A paladin's duty is also to protect the innocent. If I'm the paladin, and I'm convinced the lich is hurting innocents, I'm going to take the lich out. If doing so somehow breaks the code because I violated a rule or law, then so be it. My job is to protect the innocents I know I can protect.
This is an indictment more of the philosophical traps people try to pose on these forums.
A paladin's job is to self-sacrifice, regardless of the personal cost. If a paladin isn't willing to give up his paladin-hood to save a life, is he really worthy of it?
I agree. I see a Paladin's duty is to do the best he can at any given time. To always do what he thinks is right and to do it with all his heart.
If s Paladin is put in a situation where in order to save lives, he loses his Paladinship... he does so gladly. EVERYONE gets out alive, Forgiveness can come later... or he'll continue his fight as ex-paladin fighter.
That said... Chaotic acts aren't a deal-breaker. The paladin has to eitehr A) Stop being LG... WHich SHOULD be more than a single act outside the 'lawful' sphere... Or 'willingly commit an evil act'... And frankly I don't see any of this scenario fitting the bill here for 'fallable'.
Main point here... Attacking the lich in the Lodge WILL.... NOT.... WORK!!!
FIRST you need to destroy the phlyactary... which is NOT the lich himself. Drawing a sword and swinging away... ANNOYS the lich, but in no way STOPS him.
Starting a fight in a crowd for the sake of ANNOYING an enemy falls into the Lawful stupid catagory. Unless doing so saves lives... at which point the Pathfinders will be HAPPY for the help with the crazy power mad lich ;)
Rejuvenation (Su)
When a lich is destroyed, its phylactery (which is generally hidden by the lich in a safe place far from where it chooses to dwell) immediately begins to rebuild the undead spellcaster's body nearby. This process takes 1d10 days—if the body is destroyed before that time passes, the phylactery merely starts the process anew. After this time passes, the lich wakens fully healed (albeit without any gear it left behind on its old body), usually with a burning need for revenge against those who previously destroyed it.
a) Its 1d10 days he isn't hurting anyone
b) Its likely he'll come after the paladin, since you killed him once and you know he's coming again, hopefully you can do it again.c) during those 1d10 days, he can't cast spells AND he's near his phylactery, this is a window in which to attempt to find him and end him permanently
d) If others doubted you before, either his corpse, or his return should convince them.
A paladin's code explicitly states that only under "exceptional circumstances" can a paladin associate with evil beings, and only then temporarily, with liberal application of atonement. Being a member of an organization known to the paladin to include not only evil, but willingly created undead counts as "allying with evil associates".
Except the paladin isn't associating himself with evil beings, just the organization. For example, he would never ally himself with the lich under normal circumstances (to go on an expedition together for example), which is fine, because he doesn't have to. The Society does not really interfere with a person's personal affiliations, allegiances, or personal codes (which is stated in Seekers of Secrets as well as by others in this thread).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course should cost the paladin his powers. well .. actually depends on the exten ofthe violation.
Breaking the law to pursue good is the area of chaotic good alignment.
Lawful good and paladinhood is not the pursue of supreme good (of course the paladin wouldn't see it that way) but essentially a paladin pursue good while falling in line.
It doesn't mean he as to approve a corrupt government, but if he wants to fight the law he needs a legittimate way to do it. supporting a pretender with a rightful claim to throne, a honourable neighbourg at war, a resistance group with a solid plan for creating a new government.
For sure he shouldn't start a revolution... even in a corupt nation that's promoting disorder and anarchy, something a paladin would see as inherently evil.
that's why holy liberators were way cooler... please paizo, give us kickass chaotic paladins
There's nothing in the code forbidding the paladin from doing chaotic actions (other than a few specific such as lying). Paladins may do chaotic actions, just not so many they turn to Neutral Good. A paladin may do just as many chaotic actions as any other lawful character before turning to neutral.
And actually, breaking a law isn't always chaotic either. Think about two lawful countries that go to war towards each other. The members of each are going to break hundreds of laws in the other country, does this mean both countries will become neutral? Would archons declaring war on devils mean the archons "fell" to neutral good because the devils have laws forbidding archons from roaming freely in their lands?
I am afraid that a lot of people use and see alignments in the exact opposite way I do.
I see them as: I do act like this with these motivations and so I am "alignment"
and never I am "alignment" and so I act like this.alignment is the consequence, actions and motivations are the cause.
I would never really see how being of a certain race can make you good or evil.
as said before me, angels do indeed fall, so demons should be able to ascend as well.
personally I can find a thousand reasons to become a lich that shouldn't be considered evil.
don't get me wrong, lichdom should always be considered challenging for the morals of everyone.
It would be more than readonable to develop evil tendencies.but if you are not a mindless drone you can always refrain from evil acts.
unless you consider perverting the natural flow of life and death a evil act by itself. to me is just druidic crap.
nature will survive the creation of one more lich, and pharasma can @*®#!!!
hey, I said i wouldn't be evil, never said I would be LG and respectful didn't I?
Yep, agree. Druidic crap. Druids, these champions of nature can be evil too. It was just a bit of fluff put on to say they are all bad, but the fluff doesn't bear weight. Pharasma also, is not all that is good, so cannot be an authority on what is good and what can be good.
Good liches unite!
I also would find a holy champion character fascinating, if after approaching the end of their life, they wanted to stick around and not die, so as to deal with threats and challenges and evils still in existence. NG fighter/wiz goes lich.
|
|
Of course should cost the paladin his powers. well .. actually depends on the exten ofthe violation.
Breaking the law to pursue good is the area of chaotic good alignment.
Lawful good and paladinhood is not the pursue of supreme good (of course the paladin wouldn't see it that way) but essentially a paladin pursue good while falling in line.
It doesn't mean he as to approve a corrupt government, but if he wants to fight the law he needs a legittimate way to do it. supporting a pretender with a rightful claim to throne, a honourable neighbourg at war, a resistance group with a solid plan for creating a new government.
For sure he shouldn't start a revolution... even in a corupt nation that's promoting disorder and anarchy, something a paladin would see as inherently evil.
that's why holy liberators were way cooler... please paizo, give us kickass chaotic paladinsThere's nothing in the code forbidding the paladin from doing chaotic actions (other than a few specific such as lying). Paladins may do chaotic actions, just not so many they turn to Neutral Good. A paladin may do just as many chaotic actions as any other lawful character before turning to neutral.
And actually, breaking a law isn't always chaotic either. Think about two lawful countries that go to war towards each other. The members of each are going to break hundreds of laws in the other country, does this mean both countries will become neutral? Would archons declaring war on devils mean the archons "fell" to neutral good because the devils have laws forbidding archons from roaming freely in their lands?
War requires a formal declaration ... and then .. it is war.
War still have rules of engagement but of course, the rules of the invaded country doesn't count. That's still being Lawful.Promoting anarchy by yourself, not so much.
You don't start wars .. you end them.
I said depends on the extent of the violation because that's what makes you go towards chaotic.
not reporting a kid stealing food? only slightly chaotic and never able to make you switch alignment.
Starting a revolution and encouraging people to willingly violate the law and the government? that's pretty much a heavy chaotic act.
Having a honourable nation backing your revolution, having a precise plan for a new government should the revolution succeed, they all are lawful tendencies that could mitigate the chaotic act.
But doing it on a whim? with no plan, with no worry of the long term consequences just because it seems the good thing to do?
That's Chaotic Good. And it's not about condemning a player for a single violation.
Is a complete change from the Lawful good Modus operandi. A severe change in philosophy, the realization that law should be broken when it stands against good. And that's chaotic philosophy.
That's why we need a paladin of freedom or holy liberator... because rules are for suckers.
No really ... blackguards and antipaladins are all good for paladins who turns evil... we really need something cool for when a Paladin stays good but goes "screw the rules I'm saving people even if it's illegal" and still mantain some form of holy power because ... they are totally right.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
War requires a formal declaration ... and then .. it is war.
War still have rules of engagement but of course, the rules of the invaded country doesn't count. That's still being Lawful.
Promoting anarchy by yourself, not so much.
You don't start wars .. you end them.
I said depends on the extent of the violation because that's what makes you go towards chaotic.
not...
Rules of war is a pretty modern thing, actually. I'm not sure it's relevant in Pathfinder, that would depend on the setting in question. I don't know if they have rules of engagement in Golarion.
But isn't it very easy to protect yourself then? If the ruler of a plane in hell made a law "It's forbidden to declare war upon us", then any archon declaring war breaks the law and takes a step towards chaotic...
Breaking laws is not inherently chaotic since not all laws are lawful. To a large degree it depends on if the lawmaking institution is considered legitimate. If a local bandit gang declares that it's legal to rob the caravans, they're not considered legitimate lawmakers and so their law holds no weight. To a large degree, whether you are considered a legitimate lawmaker or not depends on "from who's standpoint?" and there's always big disagreements on this. The evil overlord that's killed the old king and taken control over his domains may be considered a legitimate ruler by his followers, and maybe even by "neutral" parties (depending on how long the ruling has gone on among other things), but among the people being ruled over as well as, for example, paladins - not so much.
So, what makes an authority legitimate (as mentioned in the code)? That's very fuzzy and to a large degree depends on DM rulings.
Take these examples:
1a. I'm a bandit lord and use force to take control over some land in my country and declare myself lord. Am I a legitimate authority?
1b. My grandfather was a bandit lord that used force to take control over some land in my country, and I've inherited his "throne", following the laws of succession my grandfather made. Am I a legitimate authority?
1c. I bought land from a lord that inherited his lordship from his grandfather that was a bandit lord and took it by force. Am I a legitimate authority?
2a. I'm a mercenary employed by a country to wage war upon another country. I take control of some land in the invaded country and declare myself lord. Am I a legitimate authority?
2b. My grandfather was a mercenary employed by a country to wage war upon another country and took control of some land in the invaded country and I've inherited that throne. Am I a legitimate authority?
3a. I'm a king and declared war upon another country and took control of some land that belonged to them, and made it part of my kingdom. Am I a legitimate authority over that land?
3b. My grandfather was a king and declared war upon another country and took control of some land that belonged to them, and I've inherited his throne. Am I a legitimate authority over that land?
4b. I'm an archdevil and declared war upon another plane and took control of some land that belonged to them, and made it part of my empire. Am I a legitimate authority over that land?
Could I be a legitimate authority in someone's eyes, and not in others?
If I'm considered a legitimate authority:
1. Could I make a law that says "no-one may declare war upon me?" and would creatures declaring war do a chaotic action?
2. Could I make a law that says "it's a major, major crime equal to mass murder to be a paladin in my country" and thus would any paladin that enters my realm fall instantly?
And so it goes on. There's a lot of different nuances,
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A Paladin and a Lich walk into a bar ...
sorry, I'm not sure I've heard that one before but here's my guess:
The Paladin fights him outside if possible.
Now I bet someone will ask, what if the lodge itself is the philactely of the lich, and it's impossible to kill it for good without breaking the rules.
Then the player punches the GM right in the face, there is no other outcome that is as satisfying and doesn't cause the paladin to break his code.
|
|
in any kindom there are usually more than one legitimate authority. nobles, previous rulers, prominent citizens with a big following in the realm and a plan for introducing a repubblic.
that's fair game.
a paladin supporting the nidal liberation army? great
supporting the scion of an ancient ruling bloodline? ok
a paladin saying "I will smite the government down since anarchy is better than that, they will figure something out eventually" You would win a one way ticket to chaotic goodwithout even going neutral.
about the law "you can't declare war on us" you have no ties to enemies laws only those of your faction.
If your faction leader says "no attacks without approval of your commander" you don't attack. if the enemy do something horrible you don't take matters in your own hands. you pledge your commander to let you bring justice to them.
If he refuses you either accept that he knows best, bring the subject to your commander superior or search for a more suitable faction to support.
you can even start a faction if you are legitimate enough.
I think its fascinating to see everyones varying interpretations of how a Paladin would/should/could act.
I think it would entirely depend on the Paladin in question and what code he follows in the first place to know whether or not he would fall for slaying a Lich in a Pathfinder Lodge.
I think a Paladin of Sarenrae would probably attack the Lich on site as the Lich is evil and according to Faiths of Purity the Paladins code says they will abide no evil. I would doubt he would fall for doing so either, he would get kicked out of the Pathfinder Lodge though but he would probably be quite alright with that because why would he be in a society that accepts evil undead?
However a paladin of Erastil would probably allow the Lich to go about his business and leave well enough alone unless he catches the Lich doing something WORTH getting all smitey about.
I don't think any Paladin would be chummy with a Lich but folowing the law of the Pathfinder Society would be important to any Paladin however following the code of their Diety would probably override that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think my Paladins engage the Lich in a bit of polite conversation, clearly laden with a polite undertone of 'understanding'. No boastful threats or waving swords... just polite banter between a hero and a potentioal nemesis.
I'm thinking more Sean Connery than Sly Stallone.
War requires a formal declaration ... and then .. it is war.
War still have rules of engagement but of course, the rules of the invaded country doesn't count. That's still being Lawful.
Promoting anarchy by yourself, not so much.
You don't start wars .. you end them.
I said depends on the extent of the violation because that's what makes you go towards chaotic.
not...Rules of war is a pretty modern thing, actually. I'm not sure it's relevant in Pathfinder, that would depend on the setting in question. I don't know if they have rules of engagement in Golarion.
But isn't it very easy to protect yourself then? If the ruler of a plane in hell made a law "It's forbidden to declare war upon us", then any archon declaring war breaks the law and takes a step towards chaotic...
Breaking laws is not inherently chaotic since not all laws are lawful. To a large degree it depends on if the lawmaking institution is considered legitimate. If a local bandit gang declares that it's legal to rob the caravans, they're not considered legitimate lawmakers and so their law holds no weight. To a large degree, whether you are considered a legitimate lawmaker or not depends on "from who's standpoint?" and there's always big disagreements on this. The evil overlord that's killed the old king and taken control over his domains may be considered a legitimate ruler by his followers, and maybe even by "neutral" parties (depending on how long the ruling has gone on among other things), but among the people being ruled over as well as, for example, paladins - not so much.
So, what makes an authority legitimate (as mentioned in the code)? That's very fuzzy and to a large degree depends on DM rulings.
Take these examples:
1a. I'm a bandit lord and use force to take control over some land in my country and declare myself lord. Am I a legitimate authority?
1b. My grandfather was a bandit lord that used force to take control over some land in my country, and I've inherited his "throne", following...
Good examples! I had the players encounter a war criminal (ranged CE fighter with track, dirty fighting), who was on the run from a knight and his soldiers. He was sketchy about what he had done, eventually they got more of his story, helped him out, after actually helping his pursuers first.
His family were involved in wars of rebellion. His bloodline were against the (mostly) good and holy empire, rebelling against their former lords and siding with the enlightened monster cities against feudal theocracy (yes, this is getting complex). His upbringing as a hostage was not joyous, and eventually, when he saw an opening, like Theon Greyjoy, took the keep of his captors with some of his land's fine archers. This one executed the young and old alike as a way of striking back, for his family and all that had been done. This only escalated the conflict. The real armies came, this was no longer a border dispute. He didn't get the whole family (some had been away involved in the conflict) and he lost the keep, escaping and only narrowly saving himself. Then they took his ancestral lands and annihilated his line, before setting off after him, even crossing borders to eventual try to claim him; but ultimately failing thanks to the players, which took him to far flung regions of adventure.
So when the players' characters asked him about it, and were a bit judgmental. He told them they had no idea what they were talking about, they didn't understand civil war and how everything collapses and how dark it gets, how easy it is to find yourself doing abhorrent acts, burning children alive for your family. What is law? What is good and right? It can be very hard to tell or keep a clear head when you are victorious over a hated enemy.
Still, because of his actions, Therin (similar to Theon, but denoting there in lies the problem, the evil within himself) was Chaotic Evil. He had fought with no honour and committed great acts of wanton evil when the opportunity was presented. If he plays his cards right, he might become a lord one day.