So let's see where he went wrong:
1. He attacked an unarmed, defenseless, and (obviously) unwilling combatant. A Paladin is an honorable fighter, and slaughtering a warrior without his sword drawn is a disgrace to their code of conduct.
Natural weapons are weapons. Not defenseless or unarmed in that sense.
2. A Paladin should be open to a creature who is not causing evil acts (even though they are evil through other means); unless he has some sort of probable cause to even consider attacking it (which the creature obviously did not provide, outside of being detected as evil, something trivial that shouldn't warrant a death wish), he has no reason to even use force against it. A Paladin should allow a creature to live its life assuming it doesn't endanger others in a wrongful way.
You can't be evil unless you have done evil. It would be neutral if it never did evil.
3. The creature was evil due to something outside of its control. Perhaps the creature contracted Lycanthropy due to the origin of its birth, or due to an accident that happened, and perhaps had no means (or even knowledge) of being able to reverse it. The Paladin should (almost always) be open to paths of Redemption (just as a God is open for a Paladin to atone for any misdeeds they may commit).
No, natural lycantropes can choose alignment.
Only afflicted change and only during full moon unless in control: if in control it willingly assume evil alignment and did an evil act.If natural, it can afflict others and definitely dangerous as it chose to evil.
4. Regardless of it being a lycanthrope, it was still a youngling (and one that can be cured/redeemed, mind you). The mindless slaughtering of children (just as his actions demonstrated) is hardly the mindset of a Paladin character, nor is that really the role model he should preach and/or demonstrate to the general public of good.
This depends on DM's description if it was a tiny wererat or something. No way to know its age.
See KenderKin's post. An evil character might just be selfish and uncharitable. He or she may be innocent of guilt. Thought-police paladins are going to have a hard time talking their way out of slaughtering every jerk they encounter (granted, many are going to lack the sufficient HD to "ping").
No, selfish is neutral, but evil looks out for number 1 while kicking number 2.
Being charitable is good, neutrals are not charitable. Otherwise it would not be a good deed.The wererat was 4th level class + 1 Dire rat HD =5th minimum.
This has been said SEVERAL times. the were rat WAS NOT a CHILD. it has a still human child somewhere, and this is out of game knowledge, because the PC's haven't found it yet.
I decided not to read all 154 posts, sorry :D
Of the first page, I saw no mention of what the rest of the party was doing. As far as I could tell, they were sitting on their hands while the Paladin hacked the good little wererat was hacked to pieces. Something about this strikes me as wrong. Was it a small room? All the monk had to do was to grapple the Paladin and tell him to stop. Inter-party combat stops all kinds of things! :)
But if the party was so concerned for the rat, they would have don something to stop the slaughter. Maybe I missed something on one of the following pages, but I have a feeling everything continued on how to flay the Paladin. If the GROUP stopped their party member, there would be no Paladin fall.
The same thing would happen in all the scenarios where a Paladin is walking down a street looking for evil. If he has a party member with him, that person will have the good sense (hopefully) to stop the paladin from making a bad mistake.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It very well looks like the DM made a small mistake about Detect Evil. It is easily done, I could see the mistake being made. Even so, a creature detecting as having evil intent does not allow you to murder it.
From the SRD, under alignments:
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.
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.
From the Paladin class description:
Although their convictions might lead them into conflict with the very souls they would save, paladins weather endless challenges of faith and dark temptations, risking their lives to do right and fighting to bring about a brighter future.
Showing a lack of respect for life? Check
Showing a lack of concern for sentient life? CheckKilling without qualm because it is convenient? (taking a prisoner is hard) Check
A vast majority of the Paladin class description deals with being a shining example of morality and discipline, walking the better path regardless of the difficulty, and, despite what others like Pendagast have implied, redemption is as much a part of a Paladin's goals as destroying evil, per the class description. Unredeemable evil should be destroyed, yes, but mindless destruction of one's enemies is NOT Paladin-like, regardless of your opponent's alignment.
If you want to be able to charge in and kill someone because your detect spell "pinged," you are playing the wrong alignment and class. Slaughtering a foe who has surrendered, with no evidence they have committed a crime, because they have "evil thoughts" is not something a good-aligned creature does. period.
In fact, by the vague wording of the detect evil spell, there are many scenarios where a non-evil creature, who happens to be considering an evil act, would come up as evil. For example, if the party was negotiating with a Neutral noble, who had decided to sell the party out to some evil syndicate because he believes it best for his city.
Would he detect as evil?
Is he evil?
What does that mean?
If a diplomacy check could change his mind, is he worthy of death?
What if the wererat was scared, and so was considering killing the PC's, or leading them into a trap? Did he commit a dirty thought crime?
The situation and the scenario matters, but in this circumstance, I struggle with seeing a good excuse for the Paladin's actions. He would lose his abilities for a short period (one gaming session or so) with a warning about thinking about his actions next time, something a Lawful character should be inclined to do anyway.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a were rat, it CANNOT be redeemed. It CAN inflict others, and WILL kill others.
You are ignoring, that through a respect for life, the paladin has a responsibility to protect innocent life.
This doesnt require court or long deliberations.
It's a were rat, it CANNOT be redeemed. It CAN inflict others, and WILL kill others.
You are ignoring, that through a respect for life, the paladin has a responsibility to protect innocent life.
This doesnt require court or long deliberations.
Killing something for what it is, (something that the thing has absolutely no control over, mind you,) is hardly a means for the Paladin to base his claim to kill something.
It's no different than somebody getting mad at someone else for being Black, or Asian, or whatever race you want to list, and wanting to beat up or kill them. The fact they are upset and behave that way over something that neither that person, nor the person being mocked, had no control over happening, is childish and ridiculous, something a Paladin would not do to begin with (unless he had no other means within a reasonable standpoint of time and positioning).
That's right; I'm calling the Paladin a racist, because that's the claim you make for justifying his means to kill. Goody Goody Two-Shoes aren't racist bastards, and the Paladin should be no exception, nor should he use the whole "It's Evil, Kill it" rule to back him up, because it's an ignorant blanket that can heavily conflict with the Paladin's code(s).
The Paladin can protect innocents without having to shed blood, such as talking to somebody and persuading them from making a costly mistake, or using a ritual to seal/ward off an impeding force of doom. In this case, tieing it up (or even just talking to it, and asking about its strange behavior, something that is understandable for just about any reasonable being, and perhaps was what the GM intended for them to do) and interrogating it for information would have also been a good idea, and one that didn't have to involve the Paladin being Mr. Nice Guy all the time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Comparing racism to things that are Always Evil such as Demons is rather sad, to be honest.
You are ignoring, that through a respect for life, the paladin has a responsibility to protect innocent life.
I am not ignoring anything, I am presenting a scenario where the Paladin can do both. You are the one limiting him by ignoring a Paladin's capacity for compassion and redemption. Your interpretation is a one-dimensional killer who justifies his actions with vague spell wordings.
By RAW, what the Paladin does is in violation of one, but not the other. There is no evidence the wererat is a danger to innocent life. What if the wererat lives in a goblin cave and feeds on them to avoid killing "good" creatures? Or is newly infected and could be easily cured and hasn't done anything evil yet? Once again, killing something because it thought about doing evil is not "good."
It's a were rat, it CANNOT be redeemed. It CAN inflict others, and WILL kill others.... This doesnt require court or long deliberations.
So, if a party member contracts lycanthropy while fighting a den of them, it would be ok to kill that party member without guilt or debate? They would be, by your own standards, beyond redemption and inherently evil from that point forward.
You do not address the alignment facts presented, or my alternate scenarios, because they prove your assumptions are incorrect. There are multiple routes to cure/heal lycanthropy; if left alone, the creature may very well kill others, but that is not your only route.
Plus, your actions while afflicted or changed may be evil, but that does not make the creature evil, especially if it has no control of itself at those times. By that standard, a dominated creature is game to be killed merely because it has been dominated.
Again, detect evil ONLY tells you the creature has "evil intent," an incredibly vague phrase. It does not give you free rein to kill the creature. Again, by your standards, the wererat could be killed, merely because it was a wererat without the detect evil. Because, you know, creatures are never of different alignments.
You are ignoring, that through a respect for life, the paladin has a responsibility to protect innocent life.I am not ignoring anything, I am presenting a scenario where the Paladin can do both. You are the one limiting him by ignoring a Paladin's capacity for compassion and redemption. Your interpretation is a one-dimensional killer who justifies his actions with vague spell wordings.
By RAW, what the Paladin does is in violation of one, but not the other. There is no evidence the wererat is a danger to innocent life. What if the wererat lives in a goblin cave and feeds on them to avoid killing "good" creatures? Or is newly infected and could be easily cured and hasn't done anything evil yet? Once again, killing something because it thought about doing evil is not "good."
It's a were rat, it CANNOT be redeemed. It CAN inflict others, and WILL kill others.... This doesnt require court or long deliberations.So, if a party member contracts lycanthropy while fighting a den of them, it would be ok to kill that party member without guilt or debate? They would be, by your own standards, beyond redemption and inherently evil from that point forward.
You do not address the alignment facts presented, or my alternate scenarios, because they prove your assumptions are incorrect. There are multiple routes to cure/heal lycanthropy; if left alone, the creature may very well kill others, but that is not your only route.
Plus, your actions while afflicted or changed may be evil, but that does not make the creature evil, especially if it has no control of itself at those times. By that standard, a dominated creature is game to be killed merely because it has been dominated.
Again, detect evil ONLY tells you the creature has "evil intent," an incredibly vague phrase. It does not give you free rein to kill the creature. Again, by your standards, the wererat could be killed, merely because it was a wererat without the detect evil. Because, you...
there could be a situation by which the paladin might have to slay a former party member how became a were creature. I actually happened in a game where I was playing, we came across a cursed item that turned a party member into a weretiger and my wife did eventually kill it (the party paladin). SO yea that happens.
We tried what we could to undo it, but couldn't. Euthanisation was the task at hand.
In the case of a party member getting the disease, it doesn't change him/her at first, and there is a short window where something can be done about the lycanthropy. but I shouldn't have to type it. It's all available for reading.
this wasn't a newly infected were rat in some city or village. It was at the core of a dungeon full of other monsters the party was clearing out, and clearly the most intelligent one they met so far (ogres and skeletons). No reason to assume innocence.
newly infected people with lycanthropy don't flee to the heart of a dungeon with their still human child for "safety". infact , if she was still newly infected, she wouldnt be A) Evil yet (so detect evil wouldnt have worked) or B) have the power to wander through that dungeon past ogres and other denizens unscathed. I think there is plenty of evidence that this was a dungeon boss or one of it's cronies. It was on the SECOND (lower level) of a dungeon and just to EAT or get supplies has to pass the Ogres and skeletons to get to and from it's "nest"?
Yes, innocent and harmless.
10 miles from town it was written. Too close to civilization to not be a threat.
Comparing racism to things that are Always Evil such as Demons is rather sad, to be honest.
Lycanthropy and Daemons have absolutely nothing in common, firstly. Secondly, taking a step back from the whole "different race" thing, it's like in the olden days, where women who were only suspected of being a Witch were burned at the stake by the very same people who preached of this "salvation," without even respecting any forms of their life, or expressing any concern other than to "purify their souls" in fire; those who were innocent begged to be spared, that those who captured (and imprisoned) them and then went on with the Inquisition regardless of their pleas, because they were left with the impression of them being Witches, and then proceeded to slaughter them.
It's the same concept with this. The Paladin sees a Wererat. He uses Detect Evil. According to the GM (and his misinterpretation of Detect Evil), the Wererat pings Evil (without it doing anything other than asking the party to leave his den). Paladin doesn't care about its pleas, all it sees is Wererat pings Evil, only thing he was told is that anything evil must die (something that being Good doesn't exactly uphold). Regardless of its pleas of being left alone in its Den, making no attempts to resist the Paladin's strikes, the Paladin continues to cut away at the Wererat, until it chops it into pieces (or decapitates it; either way, it dies).
I don't see how it's sad to involve a real life example when it's a primary correlatory example as to why the Paladin's behavior in this scenario was ridiculous. He killed something that he had no proof that it did anything wrong other than the Detect evil class feature (which is hardly grounds to provide the right to kill, due to the ambiguity he had with how it radiated evil).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paladin doesn't care about its pleas, all it sees is Wererat pings Evil, only thing he was told is that anything evil must die.
We have evidence that this is not what the paladin believes! If what you say was true, then he'd have killed the humans that pinged as evil. He didn't.
So, what's different? It was a were-creature.
Is an evil were-creature who hasn't done anything wrong as far as we know any different to an evil human who hasn't done anything wrong as far as we know?
Let's see...the human isn't magically compelled to murder innocents three nights a month...the human can't turn those innocents into even more of those monsters, who could each make even more of those monsters! The paladin doesn't need advanced statistics to understand the geometric progression of this curse.
The wererat is more comparable to the Ebola virus! Does the ACLU take the World Health Organisation to an international court for genocide because it wiped out smallpox in a completely racist way?
The paladin isn't a slave to our morality; in his worldview lycanthropy is a disease to be wiped out. Worse, those infected are cunning and can trick an unwary paladin into failing in that duty, just by pretending to be innocent; just by pretending to surrender as it knows the paladin will fall if it tries to harm an intelligent creature which has surrendered.
BTW, the wererat did not surrender! It told him to leave. If that trick had worked then paladins would be completely neutralised as a threat to evil creatures as soon as word got round!
What was the Wererat doing in the den anyway?
that NPC was afraid of getting slaughtered by mad mobs of citizens from above... no redeeming quality there. Self preservation.
Paladin doesn't care about its pleas, all it sees is Wererat pings Evil, only thing he was told is that anything evil must die.We have evidence that this is not what the paladin believes! If what you say was true, then he'd have killed the humans that pinged as evil. He didn't.
So, what's different? It was a were-creature.
Is an evil were-creature who hasn't done anything wrong as far as we know any different to an evil human who hasn't done anything wrong as far as we know?
Let's see...the human isn't magically compelled to murder innocents three nights a month...the human can't turn those innocents into even more of those monsters, who could each make even more of those monsters! The paladin doesn't need advanced statistics to understand the geometric progression of this curse.
The wererat is more comparable to the Ebola virus! Does the ACLU take the World Health Organisation to an international court for genocide because it wiped out smallpox in a completely racist way?
The paladin isn't a slave to our morality; in his worldview lycanthropy is a disease to be wiped out. Worse, those infected are cunning and can trick an unwary paladin into failing in that duty, just by pretending to be innocent; just by pretending to surrender as it knows the paladin will fall if it tries to harm an intelligent creature which has surrendered.
BTW, the wererat did not surrender! It told him to leave. If that trick had worked then paladins would be completely neutralised as a threat to evil creatures as soon as word got round!
And so we're back to the whole racist semantics again. Being killed for what you are, versus what you can do. Arguing that is a two-way street; so let's go back to those group of rangers, shall we?
Did the Paladin sit there and analyze the evil human rangers and what they can do? Raid entire towns, entire cities, even destroy entire armies and kingdoms with them corrupting (and eventually claiming their clan of Rangers) for their own amusement or selfish gain at the cost of others? No. He believed that the good guys that accompanied them would keep those two clowns in line; that's silly, they're evil! They have every capability to do what I just described, he should've said "EVIL SCUM, YOU MUST PERISH TO PRESERVE THE GREATER GOOD!" And then their party should've proceeded to kill that entire group, since the Good guys with them could have easily been corrupted into becoming the same as the Evil companions they were imprisoned with.
But he didn't. Now the real question is, "Why didn't he kill them?" Because they're human? I've already explained (in fact, almost proved) that those two guys could've ended up being nearly as destructive and evil as the Wererat apparently was, so the Paladin not killing them should be just as much grounds for him to fall, since he let Evil off the hook to live (because apparently anything that's Evil must die). Is it because they're rangers, and not some random creature like a Wererat? Don't be ridiculous, vile and nasty BBEGs are (more often than not) NPCs than they are mook monsters. They can do so much more than a Wererat can.
And guess what? A Paladin can take safety measures. He could've been diplomatic at first, stating what reason they would have them leave his den, and if the Wererat proceeds to get stupid with you, then you have reason to tie him up and flush whatever information he may be hiding out of him, at which point you can either leave him to starve to death and die, forever bound by the rope he's tied with, or you can give him a mercy killing (should you not have any other method to cleanse him of the taint of Lycanthropy, which is most likely the source of his evil, especially based on the actions that he took against that very aggressive Paladin instead of the more violent ones he could've taken instead).
Then they would've probably found out about its Human Child, looked him over, got him to the village and did a cleansing ritual (in case the child really wasn't Human, and was actually a Lycanthrope hybrid), and there you have it; problem (and quest) solved, with little to no casualties, or violation of his code.
|
|
that NPC was afraid of getting slaughtered by mad mobs of citizens from above... no redeeming quality there. Self preservation.
That NPC risked her life to approach heroes that, for all she knew, might have reacted like Sir Smiteeverything in order to save her people from themselves when she could have just cut and run.
And then there are the other instances in the setting of lycanthropes not fitting neatly into their little alignment holes. From the community of lycanthropes in Varisia trying to keep its own measure of peace and safety to a werebear encountered in one adventure I know had to have been something other than lawful or good.
And then there's the matter of the Bestiary itself dealing with alignment absolutes, or rather, how they are not.
youre clearly not reading, again.
The RANGER was lawful good. The other members of the party, some of them were evil. How does he knows this? goes around scanning everything he meets? For whatever reason he discovers they were evil and refuses to cooperate. Perhaps they had nothing to offer for the greater good?
Humans (or elves or whatever they are) CAN be redeemed as they have no condition forcing their alignment. Further more, the Lawful Good Ranger (how the heck did he know THAT alignment?) was their traveling companion (who DID decide to cooperate with them, I guess for the greater good) is also the one who's hands their evil deeds fall on.
The Paladin does not have responsibility for them, as the Ranger does.
Like one police officer handing off criminals at a jail, Once the jailer takes charge of the prisoners, if the prisoner breaks loose and kills someone, that responsibility does not fall on the arresting officer. However, if the officer decided, what the heck, Ima Let dis guy go....
and then he killed someone, when the officer knew full well this guy was a danger to society? Yes. That guilt falls on the police officer, who should have done something about it when he could have. which would have prevented needless innocent death.
So wait, everyone with a Lawful Good alignment is a police officer and has authority and responsibility for every evil person around him?
That's a new one.
It's a were rat, it CANNOT be redeemed. It CAN inflict others, and WILL kill others.
You are ignoring, that through a respect for life, the paladin has a responsibility to protect innocent life.
This doesnt require court or long deliberations.
Show me in the book where it says that remove curse can't remove the curse of lycanthropy. No points for omission.
|
The GM shoud have warned the Paladin's player about the risk of falling.
He apparently did not, so it is too late, as it is 100% unfair to retroactively punish the Paladin if he had no inkling that this act was considered Evil by the Gods (ie, the GM).
In fact, maybe the GM (and thus the Gods) do not find the Paladin's actions Evil.
In which case, the problem (as always) lies in differing interpretations of what the alignments mean to the various players and the GM.
Hopefully it is not too late to clarify it and reach a consensus palatable to all (and no retroactive Paladin's fall).
Should you warn players to not use fire damage against iron golems too? I firmly believe that the players actions should have consequences.
If the GM is going to tell a Paladin every time he does something that would make him fall, then a Paladin is never going to fall. Instead, he can do whatever he wants and know that the GM will warn him if he is going to do something wrong.
In which case he will probably not do it (ie, NOT doing what he wants), unless he believes that his action is worth his fall from grace. Which should be the crux of a Paladin's fall.
But really, I am 100% sure that a Paladin would have been thoroughly educated in what his deity considers Good and Evil. In other words, the character would have known what was the Gods' (ie GM's) take on what constitutes an evil act.
But if the GM did not tell the player beforehand, the player could not know it.
Asking him to guess correctly how the GM feels about a specific action is about as fair as expecting a Rogue's player to describe precisely how he will disable a trap.
Show me in the book where it says that remove curse can't remove the curse of lycanthropy. No points for omission.It's a were rat, it CANNOT be redeemed. It CAN inflict others, and WILL kill others.
You are ignoring, that through a respect for life, the paladin has a responsibility to protect innocent life.
This doesnt require court or long deliberations.
What's it's DC?
newly infected people with lycanthropy don't flee to the heart of a dungeon with their still human child for "safety". infact , if she was still newly infected, she wouldnt be A) Evil yet (so detect evil wouldnt have worked) or B) have the power to wander through that dungeon past ogres and other denizens unscathed. I think there is plenty of evidence that this was a dungeon boss or one of it's cronies. It was on the SECOND (lower level) of a dungeon and just to EAT or get supplies has to pass the Ogres and skeletons to get to and from it's "nest"?
Yes, innocent and harmless.
10 miles from town it was written. Too close to civilization to not be a threat.
To be honest... I could see if one of my characters 'got bit' he'd hole up in a dungeon somwhere JUST to mimimize the threat he would be... go somewhere away from people where I could only hurt ogres and undead...
But I wouldn't take my KID!!! ;)
It's no different than somebody getting mad at someone else for being Black, or Asian, or whatever race you want to list, and wanting to beat up or kill them. The fact they are upset and behave that way over something that neither that person, nor the person being mocked, had no control over happening, is childish and ridiculous, something a Paladin would not do to begin with (unless he had no other means within a reasonable standpoint of time and positioning).
That's right; I'm calling the Paladin a racist, because that's the claim you make for justifying his means to kill. Goody Goody Two-Shoes aren't racist bastards, and the Paladin should be no exception, nor should he use the whole "It's Evil, Kill it" rule to back him up, because it's an ignorant blanket that can heavily conflict with the Paladin's code(s).
Yeah... ok... Comparing discriminating how someone LOOKS... to having a bias over the feral, clawed, infectious monster is EXACTLY the same thing...
What about all the undead and Ogres in this Dungeon? How come nobody has questioned if the Paladin spends his first three rounds trying to peacefully discourse with them??
The humans can wake up one morning and say GOSH... Getting Trapped like that SUCKED... We could have DIED!!! I'm gonna change my ways!!
Wererats can NOT wake up and say 'I'm not going to go on rampages anymore!!!"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I once had to stop a paladin, in a game I played a long time ago, from dealing a death blow to an Erinyes while we were storming an enemy stronghold. Why? She said one word: Mercy. We had just made it to the room that had the main villain and some of his henchmen and her. the bad guy commanded her to attack us, while we did our best to attack them. As we basically defeated all but her (though she was nearly dead), she begged for mercy.
Now, at the time, it was likely an act but to me, she genuinely looked scared, so as the paladin went for her, regardless of her plea, I found myself defending her. I told her to get out of here and that she owed me one. Needless to say I got into an argument about ethics with the paladin (which I have to admit, was one of the finest role-playing moments I ever had the pleasure to partake in). All but the wizard of the group claimed I was played for an idiot (even the GM hinted I may have been a bit foolish to do so, but not necessarily wrong either).
A few months later, in a fight that went horribly wrong (I have never seen every single PC being completely disabled by a single spell via bad saving throw rolls), we end up prisoners. The GM took a moment to contemplate the situation and then you could see he was thinking up something and said we woke up in cells. Now we are all getting ready for our *obvious* torture sessions, but behold a guard comes, relieves the current guard and then opens my cell once the other one is gone. "My debt has been paid." It did took me a moment to click it was "her". Ultimately, one act of compassion sorta led to another one, even if it was performed by a devil. The whole thing also lead to a whole new slew of adventures, involving her.
- - -
As for advice, you can't retroactively punish the player. However, you can mention his character is having afterthoughts regarding the situation. Give him a nightmare or two. Make him feel compelled to review his actions and present him at a later time with a similar situation where he will need to make a hard choice. Warn him more that small acts like these can definitely lead to darker deeds in the future.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Comparing racism to things that are Always Evil such as Demons is rather sad, to be honest.
Agreed, but I think the question at this point is whether Were-rats are Always Lawful Evil or just Often Lawful Evil. If it's the former, smite away. If it's the latter, the paladin really ought to at least take a minute to assess the individual were-rat's situation. (Again, depending on the style of game, Detect Evil may or may not be sufficient for this assessment.)
And it is not clear to me, and possibly was not clear to the Paladin, which was the case in this world.
it doesnt matter IF SOME were rats might not be evil, THIS one WAS. Because the paladins power told it so, a power given to him by His god FOR this purpose.
So THIS wererat was evil, IN a DUNGEON full of other evil monsters and undead.
Perhaps the situation might be different, if they had encountered this individual in town, mind it's own business and somehow through observation figured out "mrs. jones is a were rat! shock! Awe!"
Well, have there been any mishaps or missing people or what not? No. hmmm. During the day perhaps we wander in to mrs jones shop and while the bard distracts mrs jones, the paladin detects evil.
After ward, outside, "well what did you get sam?" "Well she did come off as as evil bart"
Wow, what do we do?
I don't know, maybe we should keep a bit more watch on Mrs. Jones to see what she is up to.
That would be a different situation than this...
that NPC was afraid of getting slaughtered by mad mobs of citizens from above... no redeeming quality there. Self preservation.That NPC risked her life to approach heroes that, for all she knew, might have reacted like Sir Smiteeverything in order to save her people from themselves when she could have just cut and run.
And then there are the other instances in the setting of lycanthropes not fitting neatly into their little alignment holes. From the community of lycanthropes in Varisia trying to keep its own measure of peace and safety to a werebear encountered in one adventure I know had to have been something other than lawful or good.
And then there's the matter of the Bestiary itself dealing with alignment absolutes, or rather, how they are not.
WereBears exist in the game as a tribute to Beorn from the hobbit, and are Chaotic Good. they dont attack people and eat them.
Now, an interesting thing would be a werebear that infects an ogre with lycanthropy, what happens then? Ogres are Chaotic Evil, Werebears are chaotic good. What happens?
THAT's WHAT DETECT EVIL is FOR! So one might tell the difference.
In the case of Yelloweyes, she risks her life, because a PC could have been Sir Smiteseverything.
Yes, a PC MIGHT have done that. Would he have missed an opporunity to serve the 'greater' good? Yea, the quest leads to saving 400 lives. But killing the wererat is not KNOWINGLY causing those 400 people to die, nor is he directly responsible for it, because that would have been the evil doings of OTHER wererats. there for either option for the paladin, remains an OPTION. He CAN smite yelloweyes, or he can follow her quest.
Besides, who said yelloweys reveals SHE is a were rat, specifically? Sure there could be suspicion, especially when she emplores the PCs not to kill the other were rats, but why WOULD she suspect they MIGHT kill the other were rats? Oh i dunno BECAUSE THE ARE EVIL??
|
|
Werebears are actually generally Lawful Good. And again, the werebear NPC we met was neither. (again, generally)
Yes, a PC MIGHT have done that. Would he have missed an opporunity to serve the 'greater' good? Yea, the quest leads to saving 400 lives. But killing the wererat is not KNOWINGLY causing those 400 people to die, nor is he directly responsible for it, because that would have been the evil doings of OTHER wererats. there for either option for the paladin, remains an OPTION. He CAN smite yelloweyes, or he can follow her quest.
Killing her would have been evil, because she has done nothing to justify being murdered after imploring them to stop an atroicty from happening.
Besides, who said yelloweys reveals SHE is a were rat, specifically? Sure there could be suspicion, especially when she emplores the PCs not to kill the other were rats, but why WOULD she suspect they MIGHT kill the other were rats? Oh i dunno BECAUSE THE ARE EVIL??
No, because the wererats of Korvosa have faced purges and brutal persecution before. Yelloweyes knows what's at risk for her people, and she's banking on the PCs having a damn heart.
In our game, she did try to hide the fact that she was a wererat, but the players were savvy to it and they had enough compassion between them to be empathetic to her situation and appreciate the risk she was taking in even approaching them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's it's DC?
I'm afraid the burden of proof is upon you, since Lycanthropy isn't a "curse" it's an "affliction."
Pathfinder CRB, page 557...
Werewolf LycanthropyType , injury; Save Fortitude negates, Will DC 15 to avoid effects
Onset the next full moon; Frequency on the night of every full moon or whenever the target is injured
Effect target transforms into a wolf under the GM’s control
until the next morning
And then the Remove Curse spells makes absolutely no mention of anything remotely like Lycanthropy.
I would say the ball is back in your court but I think I ended the argument very nicely.
HOW do you determine if the remove curse is successful? Hmmm? those are DCs to AVOID the curse. Not cure it. It takes a 12th level cleric to cast remove disease so you think a 6ht level cleric can cast the spell to remove the curse once it's set in? No. The fact that the information to remove the curse isn't in print, means it cannot be done.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
HOW do you determine if the remove curse is successful? Hmmm? those are DCs to AVOID the curse. Not cure it. It takes a 12th level cleric to cast remove disease so you think a 6ht level cleric can cast the spell to remove the curse once it's set in? No.
It's not a disease. It's a curse. It can be removed with remove disease or heal in the first 3 days of the curse. No other curses can be removed by remove disease because they are curses and not diseases, with the exception of mummy rot, which is a disease and a curse.
How do I determine if remove curse is successful? You're fond of telling people to read lycanthropy so read remove curse. Here, I got it for you.
If the target is a creature, you must make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) against the DC of each curse affecting the target. Success means that the curse is removed.
The DC is 15. 1d20+caster level versus the DC. Success means the curse, which is what lycanthropy is, is removed.
The fact that the information to remove the curse isn't in print, means it cannot be done.
First: No points for omission.
Second: Find me the rules for reproduction, breathing, and gravity. Otherwise, because they are not in print, they do not exist.
|
By RAW, what the Paladin does is in violation of one, but not the other. There is no evidence the wererat is a danger to innocent life. What if the wererat lives in a goblin cave and feeds on them to avoid killing "good" creatures?
Then by your own definitions, it would be an EEEEEEEVil wererat; since the wererat's killing of evil creatures makes it evil.
Even if it has good reason to believe them to be evil.
Especially if it does so multiple times.
Especially if it does so 'for convenience' (ie not having to go near human towns and risk the wrath of organised militia).
You see how silly the anti-paladin stances in this thread are, when you show how they are applied hypocritically to each side unevenly.
Paladin goes to wild frontier area, kills the evil creatures he finds?
Wererat goes to wild frontier area, kills and eats the evil creatures he finds there?
(Sorry Rynjin, still editing my post when you started.)
By RAW, what the Paladin does is in violation of one, but not the other. There is no evidence the wererat is a danger to innocent life. What if the wererat lives in a goblin cave and feeds on them to avoid killing "good" creatures?Then by your own definitions, it would be an EEEEEEEVil wererat; since the wererat's killing of evil creatures makes it evil.
Even if it has good reason to believe them to be evil.
Especially if it does so multiple times.
Especially if it does so 'for convenience' (ie not having to go near human towns and risk the wrath of organised militia).
No one ever disputed the wererat was evil.
What the dispute stems from is whether the Paladin has the Right to Smite every evil creature or person he comes across, regardless of circumstances.
|
|
The circumstances being, that it appears to be the leader of a gang of slave-taking cannibalistic monsters, running a human-trafficking operation from an abandoned monastery, whose rightful inhabitants were probably slaughtered and messily devoured, by the wererat and his ogre minions?
Those circumstances?
Because those are the facts made available to the player.
That those facts may not be correct, is not the player's fault. He has to work with the facts he is given.
The wererat saying "Please leave"* doesn't alter any of those facts.
If the GM expects the player to modify his actions, he should give the player new, additional information. Reasons to doubt what appear to be the prevailing facts.
"Please leave, I have nothing to do with the slavers upstairs." might be such. It doesn't, in itself, prove his non-association, but at least it is something the player could pick up and run with.
"So, why are you here, then?"
"Well, it's a long story, but I was going about my business as a travelling tinker, when I was accosted by this big rat....had my child with me....fought off the rat with a silver candlestick....camped up, felt dizzy....looked for a place to hide...."
Two groups, two descriptions.
One group has cause to question the situation, the other does not.
1.) Where are you getting the human trafficking thing from?
2.) The "rightful inhabitants" of the monastery were killed by the party on the way in. Lawful Evil Monks.
He's working with the facts he was given, yes, but it's also the player's fault for not trying to obtain more information before he goes "Paladin Smite puny rat man raaaaaaaargh!"
The more information that was revealed the less I'm convinced the creature was innocent, but this shows that the Paladin DOES seem to have a Smite first ask questions never policy, which isn't something that should be encouraged.
Then by your own definitions, it would be an EEEEEEEVil wererat; since the wererat's killing of evil creatures makes it evil.
Even if it has good reason to believe them to be evil.
Especially if it does so multiple times.
Especially if it does so 'for convenience' (ie not having to go near human towns and risk the wrath of organised militia).
I did not say killing an evil creature makes someone evil. I am assuming here the wererat identifies as evil, as far as the spell detect evil goes. I used the goblin scenario to explain how, just because something "pings" as evil doesn't mean it has been doing what could be considered "evil" things. Killing goblins, wererats, or the like, is not--in and of itself--evil. Killing a foe who has made no effort to attack you and is pleading for mercy is evil.
I merely indicated how, by the tenants of good alignment and the Paladin class, the character was not acting like a Paladin.
A Paladin would never slaughter someone who has attempted surrender and could, possibly, be redeemed. And, according to expanded rules in Pathfinder #45 and Classic Horrors Revisited, there are ways to cure lycanthropy beyond the 3 day period. A paladin would attempt to talk to the creature, toss out a skill check, find out why it is there.
See, that's the difference between playing a LG Fighter, and playing a Paladin. A paladin takes the harder road, and is expected to do so, it is a class feature for Nethys' sake. If you want to play a knight, play a cavalier, or a fighter-cleric, do so. A paladin is neither of these, and anyone who makes an honest attempt to play the class properly, and not just for abilities, understands this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I create my evil fortress of evil I'm going to carve "GO AWAY" on the front door so paladins can't enter.
Paladins are basically vampires in terms of entering homes uninvited, right?
Also "Go away" is not a plea for mercy.
The wererat saying "Please leave"* doesn't alter any of those facts.
If the GM expects the player to modify his actions, he should give the player new, additional information. Reasons to doubt what appear to be the prevailing facts.
I am in complete disagreement with you here. In fact, the actions of the wererat were already reason enough to provide doubt to the situation at hand. Why is this evil wererat not attacking? What is the story behind its presence? The player had enough information and, ultimately, it should be up to him/her to pursue those avenues.
In the end, I don't consider the paladin's actions bad for the game, and it could be a great rp opportunity and time for the DM to explain, by that DM's standards, the actions were not in line with the class as a simple warning.
In the end, this is all relative, right? Every DM, every player, sees alignment differently. I choose to see the paladin code as a class feature that differentiates the class, others think good warrior=kill anything that registers evil. Whatever works for your group is what matters. People should just be prepared to realize other groups may see things very differently.