You know what really happens when the paladin isn't allowed to kill the helpless kobold? The barbarian or fighter in the party does it, out of sensible expediency.This isn't really about the paladin, per se, it's about the alignment system. Personally I don't think that any good character can just kill a helpless, tied up captive without violating his alignment. A good cleric doing the same thing would lose his class abilities just as fast as the paladin in this case.
If it absolutely has to be done, then you can roleplay your way around it. Pray for a sign from your god, and then kill him because the first thing you saw was a black crow. Or if you really want to get fancy, offer the kobald a chance to prove his innocence with a trial by combat (IE: make sure he can't escape, hand him a short sword, and THEN kill him. ;) ) That kind of thing is totally in flavor of the class Knights of the Round Table-style holy knight that the paladin is based on. Be creative. In this case, though, it didn't really need to be done at all.
Even better, give him a large weapon they can't use effectively or don't have the proficiencies for, and you take the short sword.
The bards will sing tales of your bravery.
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 know you are just being unconstructively snarky -- but I can't help laughing when I see posts like this. I wish every thread had a "Yang Button"... it's friggin' hysterical.
The real end result of this thread is this:
If you don't try to be merciful by taking something captive, you can avoid this whole silly quagmire of "is or isnt it evil if".
As a paladin, ping for Evil.. if it is Evil, and I mean Evil in the games definition, then you as a paladin may smite away without regret, as that Evil entity has done things so terrible as to have the universe label him or her as a "bad person". No remorse, no silly arguments about falling. Kill the slaver, kill the Evil king of Cheliax, and kill every other evil creature you find... if you are good enough at it, you may just create world peace!
in my opinion--that would be more paladin like than the paladins who pick and choose which evil to kill based upon how inconvenient it is. At least the version of the paladin you list can honestly claim he attacks evil--rather than just evil that inconveniences him.
Should a DM ever assume that a paladin has omni-knowledge of every man-eating guard's personal story, it would obviously be a DM trap.
Be it good or bad, the characters know what best they can. They went in there to save children from a clan of evil kobolds. After wasting precious time to make sure no innocents would be killed, and getting stabbed to death by the clan's guards, you assume that the paladin is obliged to know what is redeemable and what is not.
Also try to imagine a vicious clan that lives near your irl home that eats people,(this is much worse than a war situation) then imagine what you would expect a holy warrior to do should you ask him to bring back your child. Standing your ground is one thing, but as well covered and dressed as it is, this story is still a DM trap for paladins.
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.
Nonlethal damage could still cause injury. You're essentially breaking bones and/or inflicting brain damage until you render your opponent incapable of resisting. That doesn't sound very merciful to me.
Obviously, the only solution is for the Paladin to hug his opponent until they realize the error of their ways. Sundering gear is also acceptable, so long as you compensate your opponent afterwards for damaging his property.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is crystal clear that 80% of the posts here find the paladin's actions justified. The paladin's player thought he was not being served justice and asked for more opinions. Every man has a respected opinion, but when the strong voice of the community does not condemn the paladin, then it is plain arrogant to ignore everyone and claim all-rightfulness. Everything in this game should be viewed under the scope of "fun", when "MY WAY" overrides fun, it is no longer a game, especially when one's way is heavily discredited by the many.
When i was a younger player i cut off the head of a giant wolf that had attacked us to scare the other wolves, but my DM though that it was an evil act too. Don't fall in this pit, and don't throw your players inside it, it ruins the fun for everyone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is crystal clear that 80% of the posts here find the paladin's actions justified.
I think 80% is pretty generous here... Did you read all 300+ or skip right to the end?
in the BEGINNING you are correct... The majority was on the side of the player... but as the thread took a life of its own... the opinion is MUCH more balanced...
The facts that
A) the opponent was helpless...
B) the opponent was crying and begging for its life....
C) the fact that it didn't understand the paladin's questions...
Coupled with the players own uncertainty that the Kobolds actually had TAKEN the children... REALLY swayed a lot of people over to the DM's side. Even the ones that originally voted for the Player...
Soooooo while tossing perchantages around is fun... I think the math is drastically off at this point ;)
The real end result of this thread is this:
If you don't try to be merciful by taking something captive, you can avoid this whole silly quagmire of "is or isnt it evil if".
As a paladin, ping for Evil.. if it is Evil, and I mean Evil in the games definition, then you as a paladin may smite away without regret, as that Evil entity has done things so terrible as to have the universe label him or her as a "bad person". No remorse, no silly arguments about falling. Kill the slaver, kill the Evil king of Cheliax, and kill every other evil creature you find... if you are good enough at it, you may just create world peace!
Once I was playing a ranger hunting down "witches" (read any spellcasters) and paladins actually rocked up to investigate the burning dwellings. They were horrified at my excess, and my char was saddened they were so permissive. Very amusing.
It is crystal clear that 80% of the posts here find the paladin's actions justified. The paladin's player thought he was not being served justice and asked for more opinions. Every man has a respected opinion, but when the strong voice of the community does not condemn the paladin, then it is plain arrogant to ignore everyone and claim all-rightfulness. Everything in this game should be viewed under the scope of "fun", when "MY WAY" overrides fun, it is no longer a game, especially when one's way is heavily discredited by the many.
When i was a younger player i cut off the head of a giant wolf that had attacked us to scare the other wolves, but my DM though that it was an evil act too. Don't fall in this pit, and don't throw your players inside it, it ruins the fun for everyone.
Appeal to the majority here. Are you sure it is sitting on that oh so persuasive number of 80%?
On the wolf, yeah some people find any trophy display or mutilation of the dead to be evil. That dm needed to chill out. If you prepped and cooked up the wolf, that would also involve decapitation. All slaughtermen ping as evil!
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.Nonlethal damage could still cause injury. You're essentially breaking bones and/or inflicting brain damage until you render your opponent incapable of resisting. That doesn't sound very merciful to me.
Obviously, the only solution is for the Paladin to hug his opponent until they realize the error of their ways. Sundering gear is also acceptable, so long as you compensate your opponent afterwards for damaging his property.
Broken bones can kill, it is lethal. Subdual is heavy bruising. Flat of the blade, non-lethal punches, being grappled but not your neck being broken.
Should a DM ever assume that a paladin has omni-knowledge of every man-eating guard's personal story, it would obviously be a DM trap.Oh, so its only evil when you have empathy for the creature youre about to slay? But assuming that its just a 'gamist' mook or minion then its OK?
Every creature has a backstory (life).
Just like every soldier has one.
Go to war and take a PoW. When it becomes too hard to keep him prisoner then shoot him in the face.
If that s$%@ doesnt haunt you for the rest of your days, then you arent human.
Dont search him, cause you might find photos of his wife and kids. You know; he might become a person.
Its an evil act in real life, just like in game. You'd know it, your God certainly knows it, and I as the DM know it.
The creature was 'evil'; it was planning to poison its superior officers family as paybacks. It lacked empathy for the kids down in the dungeon, and for its dead companions and relatives.
Does that mean that it can be ruthlessly executed out of hand?
Not in my world.
Agree to disagree if you want, but thats the standard I hold Paladins too, lethal force is Ok in the defence of yourself and others, but you should strive to live by more than just your sword - you should stive to set an example, avoid acts of wanton butchery and slaughter, have empathy and mercy for your enemies and friends a like, and strive to always be the better man.
Love your post. Some want what is expedient over what is right. Yes, even if they are Nazis, or the big bad, or goblins which must always be evil (apparently), if you respect life and have a sense of honour, you don't cap/chop captives. Pallies have churches behind them in the background, send the captives to them. The blueberries need to be picked, the monkshood collected, let them be servants to Cadfael for the rest of their days.
As a paladin, ping for Evil.. if it is Evil, and I mean Evil in the games definition, then you as a paladin may smite away without regret, as that Evil entity has done things so terrible as to have the universe label him or her as a "bad person". No remorse, no silly arguments about falling. Kill the slaver, kill the Evil king of Cheliax, and kill every other evil creature you find... if you are good enough at it, you may just create world peace!
First off, you're assuming detect evil is infallible, which it really, really isn't. There are a ton of easily accessible means of getting a false positive or false negative there. And that's not even getting into the fact that, barring undead, outsiders, clerics, and paladins, nothing under level 5 is ever going to detect as evil.
More importantly though, this right here represents a gross misunderstanding of how alignments work. If you go by the official pathfinder definitions, you will notice there are basically two different definitions for each alignment. There's the religious dedication, Rovagug wants everything dead so I'm going to kill everything definition, and then there's the "selfish jerk" definition. Detect evil does not discriminate between the two (Well, it kinda does with aura-strength, but without knowing the level of what you're scanning that doesn't help in any way that isn't crazy meta-gamey for this purpose). If it only detected cartoon villain style evil, you'd be sitting pretty, but it doesn't. It also detects the guy who's never actually done anything to harm anyone, he's just a total callous jerk with political ambitions.
You know who else is going to ping as evil? This paladin going around detecting-and-killing like this. Quoth the actual alignment rules...
"Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others."
Also, way upthread, did someone say something about being obligated to kill bandits by law in Kingmaker? Because that's not actually true. Quick little story from me playing a Paladin in Kingmaker- We end up taking a bandit alive in the first fight of the campaign, and go to get some information out of him. I was not opposed to killing him afterwards going into this, but in the questioning process, one of the other characters said something along the lines of "We might let you go free if you tell us where your group is based." He cooperated, so by my take on things, we were then obligated not to kill him. This was a problem, because that wasn't actually our call to make. It was Oleg's, because we were in his home, and by what passes for the local law (the river freedoms), coupled with the fact that we were basically fighting these bandits in his employ, he makes the rules here. Plus, for backstory reasons, this here paladin of mine is actually pretty sympathetic to the raiding and pillaging lifestyle.
My solution to this problem was therefore to play lawyer, making the case to Oleg (and the rest of the party) that according to the whole "you have what you hold bit," by hiding whenever the bandits came, rather than confronting them, he was, by local custom, permitting them to take whatever they wanted, and had no right to demand compensation. On top of that, since it was cold enough when we started here that sending him out of the trading post would have been a death sentence, and forcing him to work off his debt could be argued was a form of slavery (the bandit certainly asserted this), not only could he not punish him, he had to put him up until the weather cleared.
Somehow I actually managed to pull this off (admittedly, mainly with the promise of making sure he was never troubled by any bandits again and being pretty physically intimidating), and hey, turns out good old fashioned guilt led to the former bandit offering to help out while cooped up in there anyway, and he ended up signing on full time as his assistant. Still solves the bandit problem as far as Restov is concerned (although we did still end up having to kill the rest if I recall).
Do not forget that a paladin is also obliged to apply justice, and he did. A game where paladins are lawful stupid or stripped of their abilities is so cliche and boring.
Luckily my DM has done away with the awful paladin restrictions, to allow real role-playing decisions, not fixed ones.
|
One of the problems I see in all Paladin threads is still the idea of the Paladin being the "redeemer", "merciful one" (when I see nothing in the write up about Paladins needing to be merciful all the time but I do see "Detect Evil" and "Smite Evil" as two of their very first special abilities)
In this thread the DM went out of his way to cause the Paladin to fall, end of story. He used 21st Century morals (as we don't have universal "good" and "evil", not "law" and "chaos") in a game where death is easy and life is cheap. To further compound the issue, the ideas we have that are "law, chaos, good and evil" are REAL FORCES that are "Law, Chaos, Good and Evil"
When the Paladin did one thing that even as a redeeming god POV I don't see anything wrong with killing a member of a tribe, that is evil and guards them while they kill for sport and pleasure before eating them. The sad excuse "that's not how gods work" rings hollow as then the goddesses is just as tied to retribution and punishment despite the claims of her wanting redemption for evil. In that world, good is punished and evil coddled
The DM wanted Metagaming knowledge being used in this scenario by the players but I don't doubt that he'd hate it if they used that type of knowledge outside this encounter
Harraken is correct though, a Paladin that detects and slays when it's convenient but hides when they're up against really big bad guys IS NOT being a Paladin
Much has been said about the goddess that the Paladin followed, about redemption being her highest goal, etc. But it also states she gives redemption via the sword. If this goddess has Paladins, that is what they are used for, the retribution/redemption via sword
For what do her Clerics do? Aren't the Clerics in a FAR better place to offer redemption and when that fails, that is where the Paladin comes in. The Paladin is not the Redemption part of her creed. That's the Clerics
Paladins, being the most martial of the god's followers, do the killing part. Paladins don't have the Vow of {Insert DM screwing with your character here}, nor any other feat like power that is only used against them but they don't get the benefits
If anything the goddess allowed the wrong person to do the work. She sent a hammer when a scalpel was needed.
One question, since this goddess was so swift in rebuking the powers of the Paladin, does that mean she was watching him like a hawk? If something bad happens, since she's watching so closely, will she come to his aid as fast as she strips him of his powers?
Why do I think not?
And it so conveniently happened that the only Kobold left alive was the most peaceful one, a decent family guy that was forced to live in an evil society, and one that the players were supposed to know would not hurt anyone ever again. Do not punish a player for playing a paladin, like this.
|
|
stuff
Actually that is dealt with.
Being evil is not just being:
Mean
Selfish
Petty
A Jerk
Nasty
Rude
Crude
Unwashed
A Letch
Self Serving
Boorish
A person can be all those things and be nothing but a self-serving, selfish waste of skin but still not evil
To be EVIL to ping as such, you have to be vile. Killing babies, murder in cold blood (ie just some being at random with no other reason than "it's fun"), worshiping evil gods, cavorting with demons, being Republican, being a willing part of sacrificing sentient, and more, all those things make one EVIL
Don't trivialize "evil" in the game. Being truly Evil to ping as to be EVIL requires work on their part
Broken bones can kill, it is lethal. Subdual is heavy bruising. Flat of the blade, non-lethal punches, being grappled but not your neck being broken.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.Nonlethal damage could still cause injury. You're essentially breaking bones and/or inflicting brain damage until you render your opponent incapable of resisting. That doesn't sound very merciful to me.
Obviously, the only solution is for the Paladin to hug his opponent until they realize the error of their ways. Sundering gear is also acceptable, so long as you compensate your opponent afterwards for damaging his property.
Well, the D&D/Pathfinder damage system has always been very fuzzy when it comes to turning numbers into actual injuries. Sure, broken bones can kill (depending on location/severity of the break), but so can just about any other method of non-lethal combat. Hitting with flat of the blade isn't as dangerous as hitting with the sharp edge, but you're still smacking someone with a big hunk of metal moving at a distinctly unhealthy velocity.
It also bears mentioning that nonlethal damage can easily render someone unconscious for several hours. Outside of action movies, being unconscious for more than minute is the sort of thing that results in permanent brain damage.
Then again, applying real-world medical science/biology to Tabletop roleplaying leads to all kinds of wonkiness. There's often virtue in just keeping things simple so everyone can have fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the earlier naysayer there, I didn't bother quoting who it was. Here's a quote from the first AP book of Kingmaker.
"The carrier of this charter should also strive against banditry and other unlawful behavior to be encountered.
The punishment for unrepentant banditry remains, as always, execution by sword or rope." That is the law of a Neutral nation, not an Evil one.
Should the Paladin (upon getting back to town) start slaughtering the occupants of Falcons Hollow? And then, when the surrender, butcher them anyway?
A Neutral Good Paladin? If their death serves the greater good? HELL YES!
As was said before, Paladins are the Sword of the chruch. When diplomacy has failed, send in the Paladins.
That said, I also think you're playing a very different game than your players, or the rest of us. If your players were given the quest to "Enter the ruins and get the McGuffin to save the kingdom" and they were attacked by orcs, if the Paladin kills an Orc, he just fell. Those orcs were just defending their territory right? The party are invaders committing wanton destruction. If you don't think the Paladin should fall in this instance (which is exactly the same as what we're talking about now) then you've created the kobold incident with the sole purpose of making the Paladin fall. If the party doesn't have to interrogate and determing the motivation of each monster they kill, why did they this time? If you want to play a game where every monster presents a moral quandray, that's cool, just make sure your players know that. If you're only playing where SOMETIMES killing monsters is a moral quandray, well your players need to know which way you're feeling this time.
The other thing I think you're missing is that there is a reason kobolds are listed in the Bestiary as Evil. It's so moral complications like this don't create problems.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
[What follows is Homebrew talk, I'm not saying this is how Pathfinder is written. Just saying how I run things.]
In my homebrew game religion and those that follow it zealously are extremely tough customers.
I run a game where the gods are focused on the material plane. Some of the gods, especially ascended mortals, are more active than others and exhibit more...mortal inclinations when it comes to what their followers must do.
Example:
In my game, Hemondir is a god of Strength, Artifice, War and Honor. He rose to leadership among his people in a time of dire need and led them through a dark time and extreme natural catastrophes. He was laid low by the magic of a 'non-human spellcaster' and thereafter rose as a god to keep on guiding his people.
Now mind you...Hemondir was human. He was also the leader of an aggressively expansionist nation that would break and subjugate its neighbors. They're also racist, seeing as they believe that the human form was fashioned from the first stones of the Earth and that all other races are flawed or made by lesser beings. They're 'arcanophobic' Arcane magic killed their human form god, it is evil and only serves as a tool for evil to destroy and enslave the good of the world. Ontop of all this they're isolated and xenophobic.
Now take a Paladin of this religion. He's Lawful Good, for sure. He follows the tenets of his faith and what is deemed good and just in it is to relentlessly hunt and destroy heretical outsiders and to safeguard the lands against their predation.
So when the Hemondirian Paladin in my campaign came upon a family of Sorcerers (children included)...well...she did what she thought was right even though it left a bitter taste in her mouth, the penalty for sorcery is death so she killed them all.
Not only was it the right thing to do by her code but it was also 'good' by the standards of her religion, nation and culture.
The paladin did her best to make it as painless as possible, she regretted that they had chosen to come into this land she was sworn to protect and regretted the wasted potential of the people she now had to slay. When the chips were down though, she did what was 'Right'.
-----
Now, that's how I run alignments in my homebrew game. It's very subjective, but not so much that it renders them useless. Its a handy way to gauge how different cultures interact, to assess how different characters view each other and what their values are in relation to each other.
When asking people to assign alignments to their own character (because when would anyone ever be chaotic evil using subjective alignment rules?!) then we pick a comparison point and use that to determine the alignments. So you could be chaotic evil, in relation to the Hemondirian faith, and be the most likable and nice person ever while the Lawful Good guy is at this moment ratting you out to the Inquisitors (who are also LG) who are on their way to kill and/or imprison you.
I like my deities different. So different infact that they run the gamut from selfish and aggressive deities that even bar their followers from receiving healing from another deity, to more ethereal and 'universal' gods that are more a collection of thoughts and desires rather than a dominant personality, something like how my version of Gozreh behaves, where reverence and respect is enough and he otherwise doesn't interfere with people being more focused on nature.
----------[Back to Golarion and regular Pathfinder]--------
The Paladin does not fall.
Lets start with the obvious reason: Its not cool.
Falling because you killed a kobold is pretty weak. Not because the kobold didn't have a family that he loved or that he was about to make a donation to the war widows and orphans fund or whatever. But because its a classic monster that the paladin happened to kill while it was at his mercy.
I agree that the Paladin Code should be a RP tool, not a way for the DM to punish a player for playing a Paladin. The fall of a Paladin can be something the players and the DM enjoy.
Should the Paladin feel bad? Yes.
Should his deity send him a strongly worded letter? (Or the deity equivalent)? Yes.
Should she forsake one of her nascent champions leaving him ripe to be picked up and twisted by one of the COUNTLESS more evil agents out there? No.
I agree, there's things the Paladin could've done differently. But make him fall over something more meaty and substantial. The exact same situation but where he can actually understand the creature is even enough since that's a completely different situation!
A blubbering guard that wails on about his arthritic mother and his snotty children and his hag of a wife and how he's their sole provider and how those Norgorber clerics where paying him so much money to look the other way and the church was no help and the rent on their farm is so high and he cant make ends meet due to the recent droughts and this guard gig wasn't paying as much as he'd been promised oh please PLEASE don't kill me noooooo.
Etc.
If the paladin kills this man, then yes I agree he should fall. Having this paraphrased by a cleric who might go: "Something about him being paid off by Norgorber clerics..." doesn't have the same effect.
If the paladin kills this man, then yes I agree he should fall.Ho on earth is this any different to the Kobold situation?
Racist against Kobolds.
Kobolds are sentient creatures like any other, with possibly less choice than your average human(its not their fault they are amost always raised in an evil and cruel society after all).
The Kobold has a soul, that travels to the outer planes after death.
Why (outside of blatant racism) would the Paladin fall for slaying the juman guard begging for his life, but not the Kobold one.
You may want to reread my post.
The example wasn't relevant because the creature in my version was human. It was relevant because if he HAD been human he'd have likely understood his pleading.Hearing someone beg for their life and having it explained to you are two very different things. Not to mention if the creature doing so is not only speaking another language but doing so in a way you cannot emphatically understand (barking and yapping).
If the 'kobold' in this case had been a human Mwangi tribesman and the Paladin a human Andoran there's still racial constants that'd give away his distress and sadness. (There's a host of shared expressions and tones that are common amongst humans).
Try to tell me that you could do the same to the buzzing of a giant insect or the growling of a bipedal lion...or the yapping of a lizard for that matter.
-----
Lets add to this that the character that the player is playing has a better understanding of his own moral obligations than the player does. If killing the Kobold, regardless of understanding or whatever else WOULD cause him to fall from grace the character should've known even if the player didn't (and thus the player should've been informed beforehand).
Reread my post.
Objectivity has no place in that sentance.
Having something explained to you versus hearing it yourself is not at all the same. I of course wasn't there, so I can't know if the cleric was acting it out the same way the Kobold was.
In exactly the same way that reading what I'm writing doesn't intuitively impart tone or volume, having what someone is saying explained to you isn't the same as hearing it yourself.
He clearly did not understand the Kobold, nor the kobold him. It was being paraphrased by another. Even if you just allowed a straight understanding and didn't bother to have the Cleric tell the Paladin what was going on IC, you still can't expect the Paladin to fully grasp the distress of a creature of such a wildly different race from him.
I have no clue how you run Kobolds in your games, that's entirely your thing. In my opinion running them as scaly humans is abit silly.
There's a host of racial tendencies that we just take for granted as humans that might have no relevance to a creature of a different race.
Similar to how smiling to a Kzin (Larry Niven's 'Known Space') is a sign of clear aggression and a challenge to battle, a kobold in distress is not necessarily weeping and rocking on his heels. If he's anything like a Bearded Dragon (the only lizard I'm around with any regularity). He might arch his head back and open his mouth while puffing out his neck, even hiss. That, combined with the clear language barrier (even if its being paraphrased) isn't AT ALL the same has understanding both the language and body language of a creature in distress.
My point was being made assuming they weren't just scaly midget ventriloquists. If they are, it is no longer valid and I retract it.
------
Clearly the player does NOT know that this would've been a breach his code.
WHY ELSE WOULD THIS THREAD EXIST?!
Making your own feelings known in a separate adventure due to the actions of a different character in different circumstances does not count as 'fair warning' for someone about to lose their class powers nor does it do justice to what his own character likely knew about the tenets of his faith and code of conduct.
The player seems happy enough being allowed a remake of his character. I see this as being less him messing up and more a case of the GM not communicating.
Having read through all the posts, what is certainly apparent is how everyone's views differ. And this should come as no surprise.
This game was made by humans (us) in this real world there is no such thing as objective good and evil unfortunately. Therefore we can only interpret these subjective abstracts as best we can.
(Queue christianity discussion on God being good and yet sending the flood to kill all but Noah.....)
Philosophy aside what is also apparent is how we interpret the game. Because that's what it is a game. No kobold really died that day and justifying it one way or another with other fictional characters like Darth Vader as some people have been is equally as ridiculous and deluded.
I (and many here) believed I was playing by the code of Sarenrae. The DM (and others here) think my character should be punished by the rules.
If my character really was a Paladin of Sarenrae existing in Malifice's world he'd know the code backwards and not kill the Kobold. Because he exists in that world and is a Paladin. Just like how a person living in North Korea thinks their supreme leader is a god. Because he exists in that world. I the player however can do my character a dis service by acting in a way that does not support the world created by Malifice. Because I am not part of Malifices imagination as my character is.
My character would not or could not have fallen if he truly was a Paladin of Sarenrae. Killing the kobold would have been a much bigger dilemma for him than it was for me, because it goes against the very grain of who he is and what defines him in Malifices world.
Does this make sense? I hope so.
|
|
Trivializing Evil in Fantasy RP is fine, but then the "moral ground" is shifty and not a firm standing
If one is going to make "detecting evil" nothing more than detecting when a person laughs when a person falls and hurts themselves (an EVIL person would setup the situation for people to fall cause they enjoy it and hope they get really hurt, not for any punitive reason, just because they get off on it. If they didn't cause it, they'd find a reason to go and kick them when they are down and let them know they are at their mercy because they can)
If a DM makes evil banal and limp, then the whole "Smite Evil" becomes not a class skill but a weapon to be used to remove all skill from the Paladin
If you want moral ambiguity, great! I use it all the time. In my world even the gods aren't perfect and err, often. However when using morally ambiguous relations, don't hold ANY class to cut 'n dry gotchas
The fact that so many can argue for so long shows that the Paladin was in morally ambiguous territory at best, IMHO an Evil being is still fricking EVIL, not just "not nice", shows how difficult it is when the supposed distinction between Good and Evil as real forces are not easily seperated
So you think that Paladins should do around smiting anything (and anyone) that 'pings as evil.
Your paladins would simply storm into Cheliax, Falcons Hollow etc slaughter anyone and everything they come acroos thats 'evil' as in the majority of the citizenry (no mercy, no surrender) women, kids the lot of them.
This is your definition of 'Lawful and Good' and a Paladin upholding her Code?
We are going to have to disagree on the definiton of 'Good' if thats the case.
Pathfinder is a game. There are rules that define what detects as evil. Yes, there are ways to obfuscate the detection, but that is an exception and additional challenge.
The paladin gets the abilities to Detect Evil and Smite Evil. Anything that are truly affected by those two abilities can be killed by a paladin without losing his divine abilities. This is the one game mechanic bright line that clearly delineates for the GM and player. Playing without that bright line overly burdens the player to understand what the GM, acting as the arbiter of the paladin's god, wants.
There are enough moral challenges beyond that brightly lit line, e.g. evil creatures less than 5th level who don't detect as evil and being ordered by your Lawful Good authority to kill another Lawful Good creature for whatever reason.
The GM admitted to making a mistake: the kobold detected as evil. If it was evil, it can be killed by the paladin. If it wasn't evil, the kobold was a helpless sentient that shouldn't be killed.
If paladins go to Cheliax, Falcon's Hallow, etc, they can kill anyone that truly detects as evil (man, woman and child) without losing their divine powers. Because if they truly detect as evil, they are not innocent by the definition of game mechanics. Actually, in this case, the moral challenge of the paladin is how to spare their evil lives, because the paladin must respect legitimate authority. Plus, the paladin can reasonably expect the entire society to capture him stopping his crusade and possibly more important future missions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Surprising news!
Paladins can kill, and even use poison! They can own legal slaves, hire legal prostitutes, and even get drunk.
Actually, paladins may not use poison.
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.
While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.
I have to agree that slaying a helpless, bound creature begging for its own life when you could have just as easily let it go or left it there seems to me to be breaking the "act with honor" portion of the paladin's code. At the very least a paladin ought to untie and arm a helpless foe before putting it to the sword as punishment for its evil.
Daron Woodson
Abandoned Arts
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
[snip]
Many a Paladin falls thinking he is doing the right thing via his interpretaion of the code.His God may very well disagree.
I'd be careful about this interpretation of Character vs. Player knowledge.
By your own admission you don't even know if he was aware of the severity of his actions and from what I can tell you didn't give him a heads up that this was a clear violation of his code. We have spells and magic items that can ward a character about unknowing breaches of his deities codes or things that'll affect his alignment.
Obvious things should be made obvious to the player.
I have a campaign that is basically based around making my players make hard moral decisions. They're killing unarmed people, children on occasion, they're using torture and often underhanded methods to get their way, committing genocide on a mass scale against people for crimes no larger than being different and none of it is done trivially. My players have the mechanics of their codes and faith explained to them. I often get a question along the lines of "Right, I know what I'd do but what would I do if I were following my faith?". If there is a well known case they might know of, a few lines of dogma with an example puts them in the mindset of the zealous followers of a jealous god they're supposed to be playing as and helps set the precedence for future encounters.
When placing people in the mindset of a different person it takes abit of handholding to begin with. If you want objective good and evil in your games, that's great. You can't assume everyone will understand what that means when it comes to in-game decisions.
tl;dr
If something is obvious to you it may not be to the players.
So you think that Paladins should do around smiting anything (and anyone) that 'pings as evil.
Your paladins would simply storm into Cheliax, Falcons Hollow etc slaughter anyone and everything they come acroos thats 'evil' as in the majority of the citizenry (no mercy, no surrender) women, kids the lot of them.
This is your definition of 'Lawful and Good' and a Paladin upholding her Code?
Ah but we're not talking about Lawful are we? We're talking about Neutral Good, where the most important thing is doing the most good without regard to Law or Chaos.
No he didnt 'fall' anymore than he would fall for engaging a hostile enemy (using lethal force) in a just war or for a just cause.
If those Orcs surrenderd the McGuffin without a fight, and the kingdom was saved, the Paladin couldnt simply return to the Orc laid and slay the lot of them 'just because they are evil'.
And yet some gods require the destruction of evil wherever it is found.
From the monsters SUBJECTIVE view, youre correct.
So it is a case of sometimes monsters are just trying to feed their families, and sometimes they are inherently evil. Do you tell the players which monsters are which or are the forced to guess?
In this specific case, the Kobolds (who are mostly cruel and evil) initated the adventurers being there by capturing innocents (children). The Kobolds refused (or were unable to) return the children (and are in fact preparing to sacrifice them).
The Paladin is well within his rights to demand the return of the children (if he so desires), or failing that wade into the Kobild nest slaying any kobolds that try to stop him from protecting the lives of those innocents.
Everything you say here, we agree on. My question now is: If you agree the Paladin was justified in killing the Kobold, why did he fall? The above statements say you agree that he was justified, but made him fall anyway.
Rubbish, and debunked already in the thread.
Debunked in your mind maybe, the makers of the game, and I completely disagree with you.
And you still haven't answered the most important question: What possible way was there to get out of this situation with the knowledge that the Paladin had? Knowing that the Paladin would fear that if he let the Kobold go, the children would die. How did you expect him to get out of this situation with Paladinhood intact? Remember, you're the GM, you created this situation, and you knew the parties limitations (or should have). Did you give the players a way out? Doesn't sound like it, so we go back to looking for a way to make him fall. And while you may see it as a role-playing opportunity, it's obvious the player doesn't see it the same way or this thread would have never gotten started. If your intention was to make this a fun role-playing exercise, I would recommend talking to the player before hand, and let him know of your intentions, that this will be a spring board for another adventure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love entirely entering the mindset of a character, to the best of my ability. So enjoyable. Got to play more pallies, but perhaps more akin to Cadfael.
If my character really was a Paladin of Sarenrae existing in Malifice's world he'd know the code backwards and not kill the Kobold. Because he exists in that world and is a Paladin... My character would not or could not have fallen if he truly was a Paladin of Sarenrae.False reasoning.
Your character is human. And humans are not robots; they carry prejudices, bias and flawed reasoning. They have emotions. They get angry. They get scared. They err.
Real world history, and literature is littered with such examples.
Many a Paladin falls thinking he is doing the right thing via his interpretation of the code.
His God may very well disagree.
Your interpretation of your code may very well have allowed you to decapitate cowering and helpless sentients because they failed to co-operate (despite not understanding you).
Sarenrae begs to differ.
Sometimes I think you are unable to read.
'Sarenrae begs to differ'
Yes, the Sarenrae of your imagination begs to differ. I concede that.
But the Sarenrae as interpreted by me and a majority of people on this thread does not.