Redeeming is great and a Paladin should give the Kobold a chance, but it DIDN't take up the offerFirstly it didnt understand the offer.
It doesnt speak Common and the PC's dont speak Draconic.
Secondly, it was s#&@ting itself expecting (as it would being from an evil culture) that it was going to be killed.
Letting it go would have been a pleasant surprise.
Wait . . it didn't understand the offer due to a language barrier, but the paladin could understand it begging for it's life through the translator cleric? The translation was occurring only one way?
EDIT: Disregard this. Forgot Comprehend Languages is one-way.
|
Hakken,
Thats a very good point, and one that might have been missed by the OP.
Or perhaps the GM hand waved and had it work both ways for the sake of storytelling and expediency. It would make it very hard to interrogate the kobold if it could not understand any questions, which makes the whole taking it prisoner thing sort of a waste of time. The GM may have been encouraging the PC to perform this sort of act, and so let it work both ways.
actually the Paladin nor the cleric said a single word to the Kobold that the Kobold could understand. they could understand it, but it could not understand a word they said. so as for it DIDN'T take up the offer---it COULDN'T take up the offer. An offer was never made to it that it could understand.I was under the impression the Paladin waited a day so the Cleric could get "Comprehend Languages"
Another poster who believes the Paladin was wrong chided him for "Waiting that extra day" instead of running off to find the kids
Like I said, the Paladin is "damned if he didn't, damned if he did, damned if he moved to the left, damned if he moved to the right, etc"
he did BB36 BUT
Comprehend languages
You can understand the spoken words of creatures or read otherwise incomprehensible written messages. The ability to read does not necessarily impart insight into the material, merely its literal meaning. The spell enables you to understand or read an unknown language, not speak or write it.
comprehend does not let you speak. They could understand the kobold--hence they knew it was begging. It could not understand them.
Hakken,
Thats a very good point, and one that might have been missed by the OP.
Or perhaps the GM hand waved and had it work both ways for the sake of storytelling and expediency. It would make it very hard to interrogate the kobold if it could not understand any questions, which makes the whole taking it prisoner thing sort of a waste of time. The GM may have been encouraging the PC to perform this sort of act, and so let it work both ways.
good point.
so the question to the GM---did you lead the party into thinking the Kobold could understand them?
Malifice:
To go way from any further debate regarding Saremrae, please answer a few questions:
A) Is there any way a paladin in your campaign could determine if a mortal was irredeemable? What act does it take for said mortal to become irredeemable?
B) How is releasing the kobold not breaking the paladin's vow to punish those who harm innocents? The kobold is not actually getting any punishment for his deeds that I can see.
|
BB36
what happens if the party finds out the kobolds dont have the children? What if the children are being kidnapped by cultist from the town? Does the paladin now slit the throat of the town militia? and how does he attone for murdering kobolds who did not kidnap the children now?
so you now have a village of kobolds minding their own business, while the village of humans is harboring teh cultist. Remember you all believe that the kobolds would all be held reliable if there were cultist in their ranks even if they themself did not partake---so same goes for human village?
so now the party goes out and slaughters the kobold village--when they did nothing. Who are the real "bad guys" here if it turns out that cultist in the human village are responsible and you just slaughtered the kobolds?
That is why he took the time and asked the Cleric to comprehend languages. Just want you to know another person thinks he should lose his Paladin status for doing what you think he needed to do, confirm the Kobolds have the kids
Nice to see though you're into hyperbole
The town militia told the Paladin and Co the Kobolds took the kids. The Paladin had done much NOT to kill first, trying to take the Kobold as a prisoner to question him. The DM made it very difficult for the Paladin to get info, treating the Paladin as if he was another Kobold and not have the Kobold notice that he WASN'T torturing him for the info
As the Paladin had intimidated the Kobold and, I believe this is true, Comprehend Languages was up and running, if the DM was worth his salt and the Kobold truly intimidated, it would've sung like a canary. I call DM trap on that
But let's say the Kobold was properly played, as he was intimidated and hurt but not badly, and its people DIDN'T take the kids, the Paladin goes back to the town militia finds the person who told him the kids were taken by the Kobolds and in front of others, asks "Who told you the Kobolds took the kids"
The rest of your post is extreme and not what I've been saying at all. Nice strawman
EDIT: I forgot Comprehend Languages was one way. Hakken was right, did you Mr. DM lead the players into believing the Kobold understood the party? Did the player of the Cleric know that Comprehend is one way? If he did, did he bother to impart that knowledge onto the Paladin?
|
|
Firstly nice way to ignore the entire context of the proceeding passage (some creatures cannot be redeemed, and thus worshippers of Sarenrae must be skilled with a sword, and compassiona and mercy are her greatest virtues).Actually I didn't ignore anything, that's your specialty, not mine
And the Paladin knows this how? Is there a test or a vague feeling that you can use to yank his chain as needed?Some mortals might be beyond redemption.
This Kobold wasnt one of them.
Oh, I got it and the Kobold NEVER did any of that? Did it enjoy it or was it "part of the clan"?By being raised in a society whereby prisoners are executed out of hand, mercy is for the weak and the strong rule because they can.
Get it yet?
Firstly it didnt understand the offer.Wasn't Comprehend Languages being used?
Or a stupid move that shows the weakness of "good" And the Paladin knows which way that would be how?It doesnt speak Common and the PC's dont speak Draconic.
Secondly, it was s~*&ting itself expecting (as it would being from an evil culture) that it was going to be killed.
Letting it go would have been a pleasant surprise.
How long does it take to place a tied up kobold in a room? Or to untie it and tell it to flee (with an intimidate check with a significant circumstance bonus)?
Depends on what is more important:
Rescuing innocents
-OR-
Redeeming bad guys
Don't you dare answer "both" as those two can come into conflict which is nothing but a trap to fall at the DM's whim.
Ah the "Slippery Slope" Falacy. Tell me, would a LG Fighter have the same issue of "becoming like the evil he fights" had he done the same thing?
1) Not the Paladins fault. Importantly not an intentional act on the part of the Paladin.
2) A risk the Paladin must take, lest he become like the foes he fights.
3) Its far more likely to run away should it get loose.And warn the the nest who set a trap and have Paladin Ham as a Main Course?
The Paladin puts his faith in his God that by doing what is right, and virtuous he will be rewarded accordingly.
Who then punishes them severely for minor transgressions when they have had no instruction, save for a code that is not inclusive nor explain what to do in any situation (what about the Paladin/Church/Etc he was trained in? Surely they've said, "In situation like...."
Or are they thrown outdoors and told "Have fun but we'll yank your powers faster than you can spit if we don't like what you do, when we feel like it"
|
|
he did BB36 BUT
Comprehend languages
You can understand the spoken words of creatures or read otherwise incomprehensible written messages. The ability to read does not necessarily impart insight into the material, merely its literal meaning. The spell enables you to understand or read an unknown language, not speak or write it.
comprehend does not let you speak. They could understand the kobold--hence they knew it was begging. It could not understand them.
Then the Paladin did with what the best he had and was still punished for it.
Thank you but that's not a game nor style I advocate nor will ever play in
The literal meaning was "Don't kill me", not "The kids are ....."
Yeah, railroad and another reason why a full set of instructions should come from far too many DMs whan a Player plays a Paladin
|
|
Redeeming is great and a Paladin should give the Kobold a chance, but it DIDN't take up the offerFirstly it didnt understand the offer.
It doesnt speak Common and the PC's dont speak Draconic.
Secondly, it was s#&@ting itself expecting (as it would being from an evil culture) that it was going to be killed.
Letting it go would have been a pleasant surprise.
Wait . . it didn't understand the offer due to a language barrier, but the paladin could understand it begging for it's life through the translator cleric? The translation was occurring only one way?
EDIT: Disregard this. Forgot Comprehend Languages is one-way.
You know I forgot that one. While a player may know, unless you like Metagaming, would the character know?
A Paladin, most likely not unless he has a few ranks in Spellcraft or Knowledge Arcana, after all they have to put all of those 2pts+Int Bonus per level skill points somewhere, right?
Wouldn't that be on the head of the Cleric, not the Paladin FOR NOT TELLING THE PALADIN?
I honestly can't believe the number of Paladin debates that go on here.
I'm siding with the Kobold.
I'm not saying why, mostly because I don't feel like reading someone trying to breakdown my reasoning into a myriad of 'what ifs' and extrapolated examples just to prove they're right and I'm wrong.
In my game he would have lost his status as a Paladin too, and there's not examples or explanations that would have swayed my decision. Go get an attonement.
Your Paladin sounds more like a Hellknight, not a Paladin to me. Make a Hellknight and the 'judge' everyone you come across with out mercy.
Have at it.
Interesting question:
Do we think that an Inquisitor of Sarenrae would have been punished for this same act using Malifice's standard as the benchmark not our own ideas of following Sarenrae.
|
|
The way I understood the 5HD/lvls or more requirement for DE was that if the creature was lower level than that, the intensity of its evil was less. In other words a 1st level CE character has not done enough vile deeds to register, whereas by 5th lvl his heart is quite black. Same with creatures, the higher level ones being more capable of larger vile deeds.
While it is true that none of this makes them candidates for insta-smite or killing, it does put them in a different category that a low level CE orc that doesn't "ping" as evil. It sounds like the PC and DM both thought it worked the old way, so its sort of a moot point in the case of the kobold. However, an NPC detecting as evil would mean that it is more likely to be unrepentant, since usually by 5th level, there are opportunities to change your ways and it is less likely you got trapped/fooled/brought up incorrectly and that is how you ended up being evil.
A good point.
As a Paladin, you would certainly be a lot more wary of a something that 'pings' as strong or overwhelming evil.
But even then, what do you reckon Vader would have pinged?
He committed genocide to the nth degree. Killed millions (billions) of people. Sometimes just to prove a point.
He was redeemed.
Made a good story too.
;)
True, but recall that the only reason Luke attempted to redeem him was that he sensed the good in him through his link to the Force. Otherwise Sith were considered the embodiment of evil and I doubt he would have tried if he had not sensed this.
Perhaps thats the answer to a lot of these issues... paladins should have a spell or ability called sight of the redeemer, where they can tell if something has the potential to be redeemed.
BB36
what happens if the party finds out the kobolds dont have the children? What if the children are being kidnapped by cultist from the town? Does the paladin now slit the throat of the town militia? and how does he attone for murdering kobolds who did not kidnap the children now?
so you now have a village of kobolds minding their own business, while the village of humans is harboring teh cultist. Remember you all believe that the kobolds would all be held reliable if there were cultist in their ranks even if they themself did not partake---so same goes for human village?
so now the party goes out and slaughters the kobold village--when they did nothing. Who are the real "bad guys" here if it turns out that cultist in the human village are responsible and you just slaughtered the kobolds?
That is why he took the time and asked the Cleric to comprehend languages. Just want you to know another person thinks he should lose his Paladin status for doing what you think he needed to do, confirm the Kobolds have the kids
Nice to see though you're into hyperbole
The town militia told the Paladin and Co the Kobolds took the kids. The Paladin had done much NOT to kill first, trying to take the Kobold as a prisoner to question him. The DM made it very difficult for the Paladin to get info, treating the Paladin as if he was another Kobold and not have the Kobold notice that he WASN'T torturing him for the info
As the Paladin had intimidated the Kobold and, I believe this is true, Comprehend Languages was up and running, if the DM was worth his salt and the Kobold truly intimidated, it would've sung like a canary. I call DM trap on that
But let's say the Kobold was properly played, as he was intimidated and hurt but not badly, and its people DIDN'T take the kids, the Paladin goes back to the town militia finds the person who told him the kids were taken by the Kobolds and in front of others, asks "Who told you the Kobolds took the kids"
The rest of your post is extreme...
note---I would not have taken his powers. I don't think his god would have a problem with it.
look at it this way---Paladins claim they have a higher code that makes it difficult for them? HOW? if they can just rules lawyer it away? If they can always just kill the evil just because, even if it is helpless.
I wouild still believe it IF they had to fight the evil even when it was inconvenient---ie slavery in a town. Then once again you could claim your code inconvenienced you---but if you rules lawyer that away and look the other way? then how do you really have a strict code?
I would use the legal rather than the religiouis side. Paladin keeps killing the hobgoblin patrols on the other side of the border with who this nation has a treaty----the king kicks paladin out of his nation.
Your diety does NOT give you the legal right to enforce the laws. Morality and legality are two different things. The town watching you execute their goblin launderer or hobgoblin stableboy may run you out of town. and your cries of "but he detected evil" will fall on deaf ears. Go to riddlemark--the majority of the town will probably radiate evil.
so instead of having his powers taken, the paladin who is to quick to kill helpless prisoners may instead find himself being shunned by people and rulers or even being asked to leave an area. Executioners often wear hoods so other people dont recongize them even though they are legally executing the prisoner.
Judge Dredd was not exactly adored by the average person who feared him in reality.
There's a difference between a paladin's alignment and a paladin's code.
A NG character doesn't care one whit about order or the law, or lack there of, they are all about goodness, damn the rules.
A paldin's code, however is:
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.
Running through a helpless enemy contradicts the 'acts with honor' bit, imho.
But, as others have said, I think Sarenrae would forgive this. Go pay your atonement, and remember that for the future.
You fell harder than an adamantium trebuchet shot.
Opinions please?
"Don't kill me" is not a magical bullet against holy judgement. You stuck your neck out FAR to save their wicked lives. You risked and put yourself out a great deal more than the average person would have.
Your GM would be a bitter friggin' pill if he made you fall over this. You're not a doormat, you're a Paladin. While some paladins would have left him tied up until it was time to drag him anal-retentively to town, or taken 5 kobold prisoners to trade...
...I think the book is with you. When words fail, it's swordie time.
You were harsh, but in light of needing to be expedient and the kobolds collective obstinance... you're practically a living saint.
Enjoy your continued Paladin status provided your GM is not a douche.
|
|
Comprahend languages is one way.
The Paladin knew the Kobold was begging for its life, and didnt understand him, but he killed him anyway.
And no its not damned if he did/ damned if he didnt.
He could have simply demanded the Kobolds surrender the prisoners (although even this was uneccessary). Then when they dont (or if he feels that this may compromise his mission), he marches into the lair, using whatever force is needed against any kobolds that resist (including lethal force) locate the kids, and leave.
He can use stealth and guile on the way, sneak in or simply kick in the door and take the kids (innocents) by force if needed.
But should the Kobolds honestly surrender, and hand over the children, the slaughter stops.
So Iced2k's character KNEW that the Kobold didn't understand him?
You still don't answer the questions that I or Scaevola77 asked:
What is more important?
Redemption of an evil or saving innocents?
What does one do when a prisoner is unrepentant?
Where's the Mercy from the Paladin's god for a harried Paladin trying to save innocents?
You say the Paladin has to go by "faith" to determine if the creature is redeemable. I see DM screw job
I'm running out of popcorn
|
|
Well, WTF is a Paladin going to do with tehm? So in your world, a Paladin is a babysitting service for malcontents who may or may not be redeemable and there's no formula, "just faith". Seeing as the Paladin's "faith" failed miserably with getting the Kobolb, I see nothing but troubleWhy on earth would a Paladin drag a bunch of Kobolds guards to town?Opinions please?"Don't kill me" is not a magical bullet against holy judgement. You stuck your neck out FAR to save their wicked lives. You risked and put yourself out a great deal more than the average person would have.
Your GM would be a bitter friggin' pill if he made you fall over this. You're not a doormat, you're a Paladin. While some paladins would have left him tied up until it was time to drag him anal-retentively to town, or taken 5 kobold prisoners to trade...
...I think the book is with you. When words fail, it's swordie time.
You were harsh, but in light of needing to be expedient and the kobolds collective obstinance... you're practically a living saint.
Enjoy your continued Paladin status provided your GM is not a douche.
What are the town guard going to do with them?Ditto for the Paladin
Like how are they going to prove these Kobolds had anything to do with the abduction of the children? They were guards for the tribe FFS.So the Kobold's clan isn't responsible for the abduction of the kids?
What 'crime' have they committed? Being 'evil' derp?Being Evil means you like to kill things. You enjoy causing misery. You do whatever to another to further YOUR ambitions, saving others isn't for you
All the town guard are going to do is march them off to the edge of town and release them.
Really? The town guard, who told the Paladin that the Kobolds kidnapped the kids will do that? Wow, your NPCs are stupid
Malafice has let me retcon my character post 'Paladin Code' shenanigans.
I will likely be statting up a Ranger of Sarenrae or an Inquisitor and continuing as normal with the character.
I'm sure you'll all agree this is very generous of Malafice and a suitable compromise.
|
|
So Iced2k's character KNEW that the Kobold didn't understand him?Yes; he and the cleric discussed it before they went in.
Thats why he was miming, and the cleric was relaying the information that the kobold was terrified and pleading for its life.
What is more important?
Redemption of an evil or saving innocents?
To a Paladin of Sarenrae, clearly redemption. She expressly states as much in her code. Its the greatest virtue remember.
What does one do when a prisoner is unrepentant?Anything non evil.
Where's the Mercy from the Paladin's god for a harried Paladin trying to save innocents?It doesnt work that way.
Gods dont turn a blind eye to the occasional evil act by their Paladins.
Quite the opposite.
You say the Paladin has to go by "faith" to determine if the creature is redeemable. I see DM screw jobThen youve had the misfortune of some s@@* DMs.
My Job isnt to 'screw' the players. If I wanted to do that I would throw a CR20 fight at them round one.
My 'Job' is to present challenges and roleplaying oportunities and to engage them in a story.
If your DM's regularly screw over Paladins by giving the Paladin an extremely hard time of it (by throwing hordes of monsters that surrender at him when such monsters usually fight to the death, or by having his mercy repaid constantly with enemies sneaking up and backstabbing him) then you need a new DM.
Your DM SHOULD occasionally reward you for making difficult but appropriate choices (and yes, occasionally make things challenging).
I could say a lot more but I'd never run a Paladin, let alone a good character in your game
You screwed the pouch
You state "Anything non-evil" WTF does that mean?
You should really reconsidered what your Paladin are to do. If I was a bad guy, I'd screw Paladins over left and right. It is so easy to do in your game
OBTW, you're wrong in revoking the Paladin status and redemption if it doesn't work, is ended by the sword
Paladins use "faith" but it is not in the Paladin code save to kill evil, which he did.
You ask a lot from Paladins and give them no tools to do it.
Iced2k stated you're a good DM
I disagree
Good bye
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Iced2k
I would not have taken your powers.
I would have taken one of two routes---1 the religious one
However depending on which god you worshipped something may have happened.
Torag--probably nothing
Sarenrae---you would have had nightmares for 2-7 days. in which you were defending a village, got taken prisoner, found yourself tied up and helpless while people spoke to you in a foreign language you did not understand and then slit your throat.
that would have been my warning to you.
the second route--and more likely one i would take is nothing from your god--but an obvious negative reaction from people who watch you behave so viciously. Even people who believe that someone deserves death will react negativly to a violent beheading of such individual and to the harbringer of death who brings it on. think the executioner wearing the black hood----a bringer of justice yes---but all fear and kind of loathe them.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think paladins should fall the moment they deal lethal damage to anyone. After all, if they really cared, they'd just take a -4 penalty on their attack rolls to deal nonlethal damage (hey, Good isn't always expedient, but it's a necessary cost to avoid becoming just like the monsters you fight) or use a Merciful weapon at all times. Any lethal damage dealt might kill the victim, and every victim killed is someone the paladin has failed to redeem. After all, the paladin should have faith that every single one of them is redeemable.
I think paladins should fall the moment they deal lethal damage to anyone. After all, if they really cared, they'd just take a -4 penalty on their attack rolls to deal nonlethal damage (hey, Good isn't always expedient, but it's a necessary cost to avoid becoming just like the monsters you fight) or use a Merciful weapon at all times. Any lethal damage dealt might kill the victim, and every victim killed is someone the paladin has failed to redeem. After all, the paladin should have faith that every single one of them is redeemable.
Not sure if serious...
Have you met Malifice? You two would get along.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The compromise is a good decision. On BOTH sides.
Frankly given the extra information about the circumstances of the death of the kobold, it may have been evil (stress may). However, the real lesson (that I got) is that in this world taking prisoners at all will lead to your paladin committing an evil act.
Waste time dealing with your prisoner while the kids die → evil
Summary execution of a "helpless" → evil
Let evil go to commit more evil → evil
Follow the redemption part of your code → fall for not punishing evil who threaten or harm innocents.
Follow the punishing evil who threaten or harm innocents part of your code → fall for not redeeming the evil.
Requiring a paladin to always show kindness, charity and mercy without defining those terms → fall.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, suppose the paladin did release the kobold. Where would the kobold go then?
Does the kobold wander around in the woods on its own? Does the kobold head off to the nearest human settlement and hope to be accepted there? No, of course not; the kobold goes back to its clan. That's where it's always lived; that's its home; that's what it relies on for basic survival. Isn't the main argument in favor of the kobold being redeemable that it only became evil because that was its clan's culture and it had nowhere else to go and what it did was necessary for its clan's survival. Of course it goes home. That's beyond question.
So, when it reaches home bruised, covered in blood, and without its fellow guards, do you think the other kobolds won't want to know what happened? And do you think think that kobold will lie to its kin to make things easier for the incomprehensible brutes that slaughtered its comrades?
Sending the kobold on its merry way clearly leads to it alerting the others. There's no other logical way for events to play out, and anyone can see that. Asking the paladin to let it go and alert the baby-eating cultists is stupid.
And it would likely get the children killed.
Which would be the paladin's fault. And cause her to fall.
Sounds like leadership is a mandatory feat then, so the paladin has someone to babysit all the lying scheming NPCs who ask for mercy, waiting for the chance to stab the party in the back. Since they can't be killed and it would be foolish to release them before everything is over, you need someone to babysit them. The only thing worse than falling for killing a helpless victim would be falling because you left him tied up and something came along and ate him. After all, that would be a mark on him since he was reponsible for its safety.
How is it any worse to have given him a dagger and have him run off, only to get magic missiled in the back or run through from behind by the barbarian? Is it okay because the paladin's hands aren't the ones directly getting dirty? If so, fantastic, we have our preferred method of execution now.
Heres a test, what would the kobold do if it ran across a helpless human child after fleeing the party? If the paladin can't honestly answer "leave it alone or help it", then killing this destructive evil creature should be justified. Remember, the paladin in this example is chasing down child kidnapping kobolds, not some random one out in the woods foraging for his family.
If you want to follow these high paladin ideals, you have to give the paladin some parameters. Making the same standards apply to known evil races as you would apply to a neutral with evil tendencies human bandit is not fair to the paladin or his party. Is he going to bring back a troll who covers his face and cowers in the corner? Let it go so it can come up behind and eat the cleric in the next heated battle? What are his choices here really?
When I was playing a good knight character fighting in the elven wars and taking plenty of drow hostages, I found that K.O via subdual and roping them up worked well.
Leadership feat? Just hire some common camp guards, they are very poorly paid and need to unionise, but they can guard a bound prisoner.
You want the easy way out, and to justify not accepting surrender. I think enemy surrenders are great rp opportunities.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think paladins should fall the moment they deal lethal damage to anyone. After all, if they really cared, they'd just take a -4 penalty on their attack rolls to deal nonlethal damage (hey, Good isn't always expedient, but it's a necessary cost to avoid becoming just like the monsters you fight) or use a Merciful weapon at all times. Any lethal damage dealt might kill the victim, and every victim killed is someone the paladin has failed to redeem. After all, the paladin should have faith that every single one of them is redeemable.Not sure if serious...
Have you met Malifice? You two would get along.
It is really hard to tell over the internet, but it seems like facetiousness at first glance...at least I am hoping..
Lethal force is justifiable in self defence or the defence of innocents.
Not if it's unnecessary. Nonlethal damage will subdue a foe just as easily as lethal damage. A paladin who decides it's worth butchering opponents when they could just as easily be safely made a non-threat is refusing to do everything she can to offer redemption.
Some enemies dont want redemption; they prove it by trying to kill the redeemer.
Darth Vader tried to kill his redeemers constantly. You gotta have faith. The fact that they are currently taking up arms against the paladin doesn't magically make them irredeemable. If the paladin really cared, she could still save them with a little effort.
That's the extra mile you have to go to be a true paragon of virtue. Anyone who doesn't has no business being a paladin.
|
|
Malafice has let me retcon my character post 'Paladin Code' shenanigans.
I will likely be statting up a Ranger of Sarenrae or an Inquisitor and continuing as normal with the character.
I'm sure you'll all agree this is very generous of Malafice and a suitable compromise.
He got caught with his pants down, the Paladin bent over and a raging, well, you guess the rest
That is his way of appearing magnanimous without admitting he's not just wrong but dead wrong
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The information wasnt wrong (unless my player assumed that the Kobold had a 5+HD, and even then that doesnt justify the killing).
Detect evil 'pings' the weight of the scanned creatures 'sins'; the acts it has done to date out of cruelty, or sans empathy or compassion for those it harms - its overall lack of empathy if you will.
It might give an indication of what the creature is likely to do in the future, but in no way does it green light the creatures unqualified murder.
If the creature or character is less than 4hd or levels, is not an evil cleric, an undead, or an outsider, it will not register for Detect Evil.
According to the rules, the aura given for those is "None." See for yourself: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/detectEvil.html
So if the kobold was only a 1 HD critter who was not a cleric (and obviously not an outsider or undead) and it pinged at all, then it was wrong information. The paladin should not have detected the kobold as evil.
But it did ping as evil, so the paladin would have thought it to be a powerful evil. With the belief that the kobolds kidnapped the kids, executing the prisoner was not an evil act. It may have not been a good act, but paladins don't fall for performing non-good acts, they fall for performing evil acts.
Can a Paladin who 'pings' a kobold adventurer wandering through town as evil charge up and smite it? What about an evil dwarf? Or an evil Orc (or half orc)?
No. There are laws for such a thing. If were outside the town where the laws don't apply, then yes, they could have. In town, they would have to report them to the authorities. If it were a LG paladin, I might even require them to prove the individual has done something illegal in order to have them arrested, but the paladin in this discussion is not lawful. If the town was evil, and the paladin knew that he could not kill the evildoer or have him arrested, he might have to chalk it up to untouchable, or wait until he can have a legal advantage, or wait until the evildoer was outside the protection of the local law.
Even before you consider that killing things is rarely lawful (aside from in self defence, or the defence of others when unavoidable) he'd want to get out of town pretty quickly before he gets arrested for murder.
But sherrif, he detected as evil! If I didnt kill him, Iomodae knows what he would have gotten up to!
The first responsibility of a paladin is to battle evil - that means killing them. Battle = combat, which leads to killing and death. It's what paladins do. And there is a definite difference between being in a town with law enforcement and being out in the wilderness where the paladin is the judge.
This is a situational exercise/debate, stop changing the situation to prove your point. What works in one situation is going to be different for what works in another situation. The situation we've been discussing is outside the bounds of the local law.
And lastly, stop calling it murder. In order for it to be murder, there has to be "malicious forethought" (yes, that's the legal definition of murder). Unless the paladin was malicious in the act (note one of my previous posts asking if the paladin was remorseful for having to execute the kobold or did in in glee) AND had previously planned on killing him, then it was not murder. It would be kobocide (as compared to homicide, which is the killing of a human). Unless there were laws in place by the society in charge about not killing kobolds, then it would not be unlawful (but that doesn't really matter, because our paladin is NG).
If you believe everyone has a chance of redemption, including mass murderers, then actually killing someone just for drawing a sword against you (instead of knocking them out and working to redeem them) is pretty terrible roleplaying.
"Of course, I have faith in the goodness of everyone's heart and will do everything in my power to bring them into the ligh- wait, Flaming weapons are way cooler than Merciful weapons, time to murder my foes!"