I could. A paladin can't. Their code can prevent them from doing actions that are good. A paladin is held to a higher standard than a LG anyotherclass
Wow. Okay, so Marthkus's official position is that a paladin is not allowed to kill fiends in dishonorable combat. Not even qlippoth, the true Worst of the Worst. What's your position on undead? Ghouls are sentient--if one drops prone and begs to be spared, he didn't mean to hurt the girl, he was just so hungry, what's a first-level paladin to do?
I wouldn't make a paladin fall if he let the goblin run...if he was a follower of Sarenrae...if he was a paladin of Torag, he'd be in deep doodoo.
He could be in deep doodoo, but that doesn't mean he falls. Unless your using one of those non-PRD splat books with NEW shiny rules.
|
Guys, I have an important question. A swarm of parasprites threatens to consume the town. Is it an Evil Act for my unicorn wizard/paladin to kill them all? They are vermin, but they just want food, and they're so cute!
I considered making a new thread for this, but then I realized there was already a thread with no actual topic on the subforum. :)
Whassa parasprite? :p
Ummm...unicorn wizzie/pallie? Wow.
Ummm...no. He's protecting innocents. (And the guilty, too, but hey.)
|
|
He could be in deep doodoo, but that doesn't mean he falls. Unless your using one of those non-PRD splat books with NEW shiny rules.I wouldn't make a paladin fall if he let the goblin run...if he was a follower of Sarenrae...if he was a paladin of Torag, he'd be in deep doodoo.
It's atoneable, I'm sure...but part of the atonement might be to hunt it down and slay it and all its kin. (YES, including the women and children!)
there was another way the party was willing to find a solution that made every body happy.
I think i am going to play a paladin with a wand/scrolls of mark of justice. there fore i can command the creature to "not commit evil acts" and I can let it go. problem solved
Actually, I'd argue that doing that would almost certainly lead to you falling, especially if the creature didn't actually intend to be good, but only agreed to let you mark him to be let go. There are ways to remove the mark, and if you're evil you probably know someone who will do it. Even if you don't, while you may not be able to remove it, you can still proceed about you life (though with penalties). If you're using it as negative reinforcement to promote good behavior than that may work, but only to the extent the creature actually wants to be good. And until the creature commits and evil act it doesn't do anything. So, in order for you plan to work you have to let someone evil go without anyone watching over them. Then they have to do something evil to activate your mark, and then they get penalties. Congratulations, you have just let evil flourish by inaction. You fall.
Whassa parasprite? :p
Oh, monster of so little size. Is that a parasprite before my eyes? Tales of crops and harvests consumed. If these creatures are in your town, you're doomed.
Ummm...unicorn wizzie/pallie? Wow.
Mostly wizard, but she's multiclassed recently after saving the world and gaining like five levels at once. :)
Ummm...no. He's protecting innocents. (And the guilty, too, but hey.)
But they're adorable, and they can't defend themselves! Just because they breed faster than rabbits doesn't give you an excuse to murder them!
You horrible monster.
Wow. Okay, so Marthkus's official position is that a paladin is not allowed to kill fiends in dishonorable combat. Not even qlippoth, the true Worst of the Worst. What's your position on undead? Ghouls are sentient--if one drops prone and begs to be spared, he didn't mean to hurt the girl, he was just so hungry, what's a first-level paladin to do?
I could. A paladin can't. Their code can prevent them from doing actions that are good. A paladin is held to a higher standard than a LG anyotherclass
Mindless undead are essentially objects and can be destroyed whenever.
The Ghoul pleading for mercy can be brought to a temple to be purified. If the ghoul attempts to resist then the paladin kill them.
Same goes with defenseless fiends or devils. A paladin does not kill fiends while they are sleeping. It is not honorable and breaks their code.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow. Okay, so Marthkus's official position is that a paladin is not allowed to kill fiends in dishonorable combat. Not even qlippoth, the true Worst of the Worst. What's your position on undead? Ghouls are sentient--if one drops prone and begs to be spared, he didn't mean to hurt the girl, he was just so hungry, what's a first-level paladin to do?
I could. A paladin can't. Their code can prevent them from doing actions that are good. A paladin is held to a higher standard than a LG anyotherclass
You can't kill fiends dishonorably. Absolutely.
Let me put this another way.
It's impossible to kill fiends dishonorably. It's an honorable thing to do, regardless of how you do it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Marthkus, if it is inherently dishonorable to kill helpless creatures, how can paladins be an Inheritor's Crusader? The class specifically calls out paladins as a potential entry class. When they use Sword Against Injustice on a helpless prisoner and it kills (because they are guilty), are they stripped of their paladin powers?
I dotn think that ability would apply:
As a standard action he may announce he is bringing divine judgment upon a target who is accused of a crime, lie, or other affront to justice.
I dont see starving to death in a cell besides that ability screams DM fiat. It is super cool but who decides by RAW who is innocent or guilty?
Not trying to apply it to the captive morlock situation (though I would argue it could apply, as the Inheritor's Crusader can be the accuser). Marthkus's contention is it is dishonorable to kill a helpless creature.
Consider the following scenario:
Paul has been arrested on suspicion of being the leader of a murder cult and committing a series of killings. Unfortunately, the town has no way of definitively proving this, but a Paladin/Inheritor's Crusader named Bill is in town. The town decides to ask the Bill to use his Sword Against Injustice on Paul. If it hits Paul, he is guilty. If it fails, he is innocent. Bill, wanting to see justice get done, agrees. Paul is brought to him tied up and in chains (as he is a suspected murderer). Bill activates his ability and gives a mighty swing and lops off Paul's head.
According to Marthkus, Bill loses his paladin status as he just killed a helpless creature. Why?
Wow. Okay, so Marthkus's official position is that a paladin is not allowed to kill fiends in dishonorable combat. Not even qlippoth, the true Worst of the Worst. What's your position on undead? Ghouls are sentient--if one drops prone and begs to be spared, he didn't mean to hurt the girl, he was just so hungry, what's a first-level paladin to do?
I could. A paladin can't. Their code can prevent them from doing actions that are good. A paladin is held to a higher standard than a LG anyotherclassYou can't kill fiends dishonorably. Absolutely.
Let me put this another way.
It's impossible to kill fiends dishonorably. It's an honorable thing to do, regardless of how you do it.
A fiend come to your paladin pleading for redemption and ask how to best atone for it's crimes so that it may be good. After you determine its honestly, what do you do? Kill it for poops and giggles?
Now the likely hood of that happening is low.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guys, guys! I just solved all our problems!
Paladin Archetype: Best-Friends-Forever Happy Shiny Friendship Hippie
Why can't we be friends?(Su): This ability can turn one evil creature into a good creature. The paladin can use this ability once per day, and once more every 3 levels beyond first. This ability replaces Smite Evil.
|
|
Whassa parasprite? :pOh, monster of so little size. Is that a parasprite before my eyes? Tales of crops and harvests consumed. If these creatures are in your town, you're doomed.
Ummm...unicorn wizzie/pallie? Wow.Mostly wizard, but she's multiclassed recently after saving the world and gaining like five levels at once. :)
Ummm...no. He's protecting innocents. (And the guilty, too, but hey.)But they're adorable, and they can't defend themselves! Just because they breed faster than rabbits doesn't give you an excuse to murder them!
You horrible monster.
Yeah, yeah, and I'm terrible in that I promote genocide for tribbles, too. Especially around high-quality grains. :p
The Ghoul pleading for mercy can be brought to a temple to be purified. If the ghoul attempts to resist then the paladin kill them.
"Purification" is basically killing--it erases who the ghoul is and replaces it with whoever the ghoul was before dying. What gives you the right, as no more than a servant (and not any sort of authority), to force the ghoul to march to its own death when it is claiming repentance? It is helpless and begging for mercy.
What happens if it doesn't go with you? If it just lies there, clinging to a fencepost for dear unlife? Do you kill it, even though it's not fighting back?
|
|
Wow. Okay, so Marthkus's official position is that a paladin is not allowed to kill fiends in dishonorable combat. Not even qlippoth, the true Worst of the Worst. What's your position on undead? Ghouls are sentient--if one drops prone and begs to be spared, he didn't mean to hurt the girl, he was just so hungry, what's a first-level paladin to do?
I could. A paladin can't. Their code can prevent them from doing actions that are good. A paladin is held to a higher standard than a LG anyotherclassYou can't kill fiends dishonorably. Absolutely.
Let me put this another way.
It's impossible to kill fiends dishonorably. It's an honorable thing to do, regardless of how you do it.
A fiend come to your paladin pleading for redemption and ask how to best atone for it's crimes so that it may be good. After you determine its honestly, what do you do? Kill it for poops and giggles?
Now the likely hood of that happening is low.
Absolutely not.
I friggin' celebrate, as that's the greatest WIN I could ever achieve...and I prepare myself for the hard part...seeing it through.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love the attitude of "as a CN character, this should be irrelevant to you".
Because yeah, those two letters on the character sheet will define exactly how you react to every situation and CN equals apathic.
Your alignment is a consequence of how your character acts and thinks, not an exact definition of your personality.
Again, you are taking a modern 21st century western ethics and imposing them on a game that is loosely drawn from medieval society.
Actually I'm just reading the rules. If poison and sneak attack are not allowed, then neither is a coup de grace or other attacks against a harmless creature.
Yeah, yeah, and I'm terrible in that I promote genocide for tribbles, too. Especially around high-quality grains. :p
Valuing grain over innocent lives! FALLEN!!!
Guys, guys! I just solved all our problems!
Paladin Archetype: Best-Friends-Forever Happy Shiny Friendship Hippie
Why can't we be friends?(Su): This ability can turn one evil creature into a good creature. The paladin can use this ability once per day, and once more every 3 levels beyond first. This ability replaces Smite Evil.
Uh, I object. This ability has power not even the Elements of Harmony possess and is therefore horrendously OP. NERF PLOX!!!
I love the attitude of "as a CN character, this should be irrelevant to you".
Because yeah, those two letters on the character sheet will define exactly how you react to every situation and CN equals apathic.
Your alignment is a consequence of how your character acts and thinks, not an exact definition of your personality.
|
|
Marthkus, if it is inherently dishonorable to kill helpless creatures, how can paladins be an Inheritor's Crusader? The class specifically calls out paladins as a potential entry class. When they use Sword Against Injustice on a helpless prisoner and it kills (because they are guilty), are they stripped of their paladin powers?
I dotn think that ability would apply:
As a standard action he may announce he is bringing divine judgment upon a target who is accused of a crime, lie, or other affront to justice.
I dont see starving to death in a cell besides that ability screams DM fiat. It is super cool but who decides by RAW who is innocent or guilty?
Not trying to apply it to the captive morlock situation (though I would argue it could apply, as the Inheritor's Crusader can be the accuser). Marthkus's contention is it is dishonorable to kill a helpless creature.
Consider the following scenario:
Paul has been arrested on suspicion of being the leader of a murder cult and committing a series of killings. Unfortunately, the town has no way of definitively proving this, but a Paladin/Inheritor's Crusader named Bill is in town. The town decides to ask the Bill to use his Sword Against Injustice on Paul. If it hits Paul, he is guilty. If it fails, he is innocent. Bill, wanting to see justice get done, agrees. Paul is brought to him tied up and in chains (as he is a suspected murderer). Bill activates his ability and gives a mighty swing and lops off Paul's head.According to Marthkus, Bill loses his paladin status as he just killed a helpless creature. Why?
Sweeeeeet! I LOVE this PRC! Never again worry about whether you did the right thing, in a case like that! DEE-licious! :D
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
You don't kill helpless creatures just because they are evil. You are required to take them prisoner and hand them over to proper authorities.
These kind of debates are tough because people want to be very generic about a very specific situation...
******IN THIS ADVENTURE******
Quite frankly your butting your nose in a place it doesn't belong.
When WE ran it... there were no drow mentioned, but we had already set up an alliance with the morlocks and any more soldiers was good, so we rescued them.
OTHERWISE... the prisoners were there as 'food' for the monsters to eat as they will. Killing them could EASILY be seen as a mercy.
Do I think the paladin made the right call?? ehhh... not really. They would have been useful later.
Do I think he was 'honor bound' to release the evil creatures into the world again? Not even remotely. This was really a situation that the Paladin wins regardless. The prisoners are evil (as per the DM). They were going to die anyway. If the paladin did not feel he could trust them NOT to jeopardize his current mission... then he was really RIGHT to kill them.
HOWEVER... He would have been a BETTER man if he HAD freed them. My Paladin king always choses life if he can. If he offers redemption and they attack, or if they surrender and fail the 'Sense motive' test, then their life is forfeit.
Redemption is a tricky thing. Paladins are not STUPID. they should KNOW when they are being played. Hence Sense motive as a class skill. I have it maxed out, and frankly use SM MORE then I use Detect Evil ;)
The Ghoul pleading for mercy can be brought to a temple to be purified. If the ghoul attempts to resist then the paladin kill them."Purification" is basically killing--it erases who the ghoul is and replaces it with whoever the ghoul was before dying. What gives you the right, as no more than a servant (and not any sort of authority), to force the ghoul to march to its own death when it is claiming repentance? It is helpless and begging for mercy.
What happens if it doesn't go with you? If it just lies there, clinging to a fencepost for dear unlife? Do you kill it, even though it's not fighting back?
You drag it to the temple. If it resist and attacks you, then you can kill it. You can't leave the creature be, because that would be exposing innocents to harm, but you can't strike down a creature pleading for mercy either.
Killing a ghoul ends it's existence. "Purifying" it at a temple at-least allows ghoul to be resurrected as it's previous self. I could see a ghoul choosing to persist in a form instead of no form.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, you are taking a modern 21st century western ethics and imposing them on a game that is loosely drawn from medieval society.Actually I'm just reading the rules. If poison and sneak attack are not allowed, then neither is a coup de grace or other attacks against a harmless creature.
A CDG HAS to be against a harmless creature. Are you saying that a pally of Torag can't make sure his enemy is dead? You're so silly... :)
I'm giggling like a schoolgirl...gah!
Incidentally, I now want to run a one-shot about a "redeemed" ghoul the party has to look after. Maybe this Halloween...
Again, you are taking a modern 21st century western ethics and imposing them on a game that is loosely drawn from medieval society.Actually I'm just reading the rules. If poison and sneak attack are not allowed, then neither is a coup de grace or other attacks against a harmless creature.
Wait . . . no sneak attack? All I see for examples of dishonor are lying, cheating and poison. Any rogues who have been successfully reformed and are now paladins must actively ignore all they know about anatomy so as not to be . . . cheating?
|
|
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.
You don't kill helpless creatures just because they are evil. You are required to take them prisoner and hand them over to proper authorities.
These kind of debates are tough because people want to be very generic about a very specific situation...
******IN THIS ADVENTURE******
** spoiler omitted **
Do I think the paladin made the right call?? ehhh... not really. They would have been useful later.
Do I think he was 'honor bound' to release the evil creatures into the world again? Not even remotely. This was really a situation that the Paladin wins regardless. The prisoners are evil (as per the DM). They were going to die anyway. If the paladin did not feel he could trust them NOT to jeopardize his current mission... then he was really RIGHT to kill them.
HOWEVER... He would have been a BETTER man if he HAD freed them. My Paladin king always choses life if he can. If he offers redemption and they attack, or if they surrender and fail the 'Sense motive' test, then their life is forfeit.
Redemption is a...
Good stuff. :)
You drag it to the temple. If it resist and attacks you, then you can kill it. You can't leave the creature be, because that would be exposing innocents to harm, but you can't strike down a creature pleading for mercy either.Killing a ghoul ends it's existence. "Purifying" it at a temple at-least allows ghoul to be resurrected as it's previous self. I could see a ghoul choosing to persist in a form instead of no form.
Again, this ghoul is holding on to the post and not fighting back. You're just a first-level paladin, and it is too well-situated for you to extract it. You either kill it or leave it. What do you do?
HOWEVER... He would have been a BETTER man if he HAD freed them. My Paladin king always choses life if he can. If he offers redemption and they attack, or if they surrender and fail the 'Sense motive' test, then their life is forfeit.
You say better man, while I say he still gets to be a paladin, unlike the other option.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like how I can post something and immediately start on another post and still have three posts between my two. It's nice not to have to worry about double-posting.
EDIT: See what I mean?
Again, this ghoul is holding on to the post and not fighting back. You're just a first-level paladin, and it is too well-situated for you to extract it. You either kill it or leave it. What do you do?
You drag it to the temple. If it resist and attacks you, then you can kill it. You can't leave the creature be, because that would be exposing innocents to harm, but you can't strike down a creature pleading for mercy either.Killing a ghoul ends it's existence. "Purifying" it at a temple at-least allows ghoul to be resurrected as it's previous self. I could see a ghoul choosing to persist in a form instead of no form.
You extract it. You can't kill a helpless creature just because you are weak and still be a paladin.
|
|
Again, this ghoul is holding on to the post and not fighting back. You're just a first-level paladin, and it is too well-situated for you to extract it. You either kill it or leave it. What do you do?
You drag it to the temple. If it resist and attacks you, then you can kill it. You can't leave the creature be, because that would be exposing innocents to harm, but you can't strike down a creature pleading for mercy either.Killing a ghoul ends it's existence. "Purifying" it at a temple at-least allows ghoul to be resurrected as it's previous self. I could see a ghoul choosing to persist in a form instead of no form.
I say a prayer for its soul, in hope that it's not too late, and give it the mercy it's begging for...preferably with a 2-h weapon, and power attack. Mercy should be quick.
Okay, new question. My unicorn wizard/paladin has been ordered by her mentor (the co-ruler of the kingdom) to defeat an extremely evil shadow with wizard levels. However, she's been ordered to do it alone. The time comes to stop the shadow. If she doesn't, he will enslave an entire nation. But she can't. She almost certainly needs help.
Does she disobey her ruler, or put the nation at risk?
In addition, even if she does get ahold of the Crystal Heart that will defeat the shadow, it will almost certainly kill him. Does she risk losing her paladin powers for this murder? He can't fight against the Crystal Heart, it's the second-most powerful artifact known to ponykind! He's basically helpless!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Heck...I'd let a pally use poison. Those ants are a problem? I think the local alchemist has the right stuff... :p
Are you KILLING defenseless and INNOCENT NON-EVIL creatures with POISON?! Immediate fall! You fall so hard your mother falls! Your fall is a fall that is heard around the world!
Sense Motive DC 5:
Wait . . . no sneak attack? All I see for examples of dishonor are lying, cheating and poison. Any rogues who have been successfully reformed and are now paladins must actively ignore all they know about anatomy so as not to be . . . cheating?Again, you are taking a modern 21st century western ethics and imposing them on a game that is loosely drawn from medieval society.Actually I'm just reading the rules. If poison and sneak attack are not allowed, then neither is a coup de grace or other attacks against a harmless creature.
honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth). Lazy writing. But if you can argue that a sneak attack or a coup de grace a beaten opponent is honorable then go ahead.
|
|
Heck...I'd let a pally use poison. Those ants are a problem? I think the local alchemist has the right stuff... :pAre you KILLING defenseless and INNOCENT NON-EVIL creatures with POISON?! Immediate fall! You fall so hard your mother falls! Your fall is a fall that is heard around the world!
Sense Motive DC 5:** spoiler omitted **
*ROTFLMAO*
You extract it. You can't kill a helpless creature just because you are weak and still be a paladin.
Okay, so you let the ghoul escape. If you can't extract it, that's your only choice.
Your official position is that it is better to let an evil undead that exists solely to eat innocent humans--and has quite recently harmed an innocent--escape than kill it when it refuses to fight back.
Heck...I'd let a pally use poison. Those ants are a problem? I think the local alchemist has the right stuff... :pAre you KILLING defenseless and INNOCENT NON-EVIL creatures with POISON?! Immediate fall! You fall so hard your mother falls! Your fall is a fall that is heard around the world!
Sense Motive DC 5:** spoiler omitted **
You would fall, but your mother paladin wouldn't :P
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth). Lazy writing. But if you can argue that a sneak attack or a coup de grace a beaten opponent is honorable then go ahead.Wait . . . no sneak attack? All I see for examples of dishonor are lying, cheating and poison. Any rogues who have been successfully reformed and are now paladins must actively ignore all they know about anatomy so as not to be . . . cheating?Again, you are taking a modern 21st century western ethics and imposing them on a game that is loosely drawn from medieval society.Actually I'm just reading the rules. If poison and sneak attack are not allowed, then neither is a coup de grace or other attacks against a harmless creature.
Lazy writing, or you providing your own interpretation? No where does it say sneak attacks or coup de grace's are dishonorable. You are interpreting that they fall under so forth. Many of us here seem to think that is silly. You have a different interpretation of the rules, and that is fine, but you have been stating them as fact, which they are not.
If I were your GM, you could hang up your mistletoe, you're no longer a Druid. Even an evil Druid has to revere nature. If you do things that show you lacked that reverance, no longer a druid.I had a evil druid that would do stuff like that..use his druidness to lure animals to him then kill them to make hunting easier and use them to find traps and stuff like that.
And yes I know that has nothing to do with the thread, just felt like saying it.
I dont want to contribute.
I completely agree. It irritated me that the GM let me get away with it.
honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth). Lazy writing. But if you can argue that a sneak attack or a coup de grace a beaten opponent is honorable then go ahead.Wait . . . no sneak attack? All I see for examples of dishonor are lying, cheating and poison. Any rogues who have been successfully reformed and are now paladins must actively ignore all they know about anatomy so as not to be . . . cheating?Again, you are taking a modern 21st century western ethics and imposing them on a game that is loosely drawn from medieval society.Actually I'm just reading the rules. If poison and sneak attack are not allowed, then neither is a coup de grace or other attacks against a harmless creature.
So...
- You cannot use ranged combat against someone who does not have a ranged weapon. Because that is an unfair advantage.- You cannot use spells against a non-spellcaster, because that is unfair.
- You cannot use Lay on Hands when fighting an enemy without healing capability, because that is unfair.
- You cannot use a magical weapon against someone with a mundane weapon, because that is unfair.
- You cannot attack someone when you are buffed, or when they have been debuffed.... etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc
You extract it. You can't kill a helpless creature just because you are weak and still be a paladin.
Okay, so you let the ghoul escape. If you can't extract it, that's your only choice.
Your official position is that it is better to let an evil undead that exists solely to eat innocent humans--and has quite recently harmed an innocent--escape than kill it when it refuses to fight back.
No you can't let it escape. If it attempts to run away, that is a hostile act and endangers innocents. This situation is unlike the goblin, because goblins don't exist just to hurt people.
You extract it does not mean you let it escape. I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. You and the ghoul begging for mercy begin a battle of patience. If the ghoul loses he is "purified" or killed. If the paladin loses he falls.
Also, I still want to know why Bill the Paladin/Inheritor's Crusader can lose all of his class abilities just because he used one of them on a guy guilty of serial murder.
If your interpretation of the rules ends up with a class losing all of its class abilities due to using one of its abilities in the intended way, you need to re-think your interpretation.
honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth). Lazy writing. But if you can argue that a sneak attack or a coup de grace a beaten opponent is honorable then go ahead.Wait . . . no sneak attack? All I see for examples of dishonor are lying, cheating and poison. Any rogues who have been successfully reformed and are now paladins must actively ignore all they know about anatomy so as not to be . . . cheating?Again, you are taking a modern 21st century western ethics and imposing them on a game that is loosely drawn from medieval society.Actually I'm just reading the rules. If poison and sneak attack are not allowed, then neither is a coup de grace or other attacks against a harmless creature.So...
- You cannot use ranged combat against someone who does not have a ranged weapon. Because that is an unfair advantage.- You cannot use spells against a non-spellcaster, because that is unfair.
- You cannot use Lay on Hands when fighting an enemy without healing capability, because that is unfair.
- You cannot use a magical weapon against someone with a mundane weapon, because that is unfair.
- You cannot attack someone when you are buffed, or when they have been debuffed.... etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc
Fair is not the same as honorable. Please try again.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You extract it. You can't kill a helpless creature just because you are weak and still be a paladin.
Okay, so you let the ghoul escape. If you can't extract it, that's your only choice.
Your official position is that it is better to let an evil undead that exists solely to eat innocent humans--and has quite recently harmed an innocent--escape than kill it when it refuses to fight back.
No you can't let it escape. If it attempts to run away, that is a hostile act and endangers innocents. This situation is unlike the goblin, because goblins don't exist just to hurt people.
You extract it does not mean you let it escape. I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. You and the ghoul begging for mercy begin a battle of patience. If the ghoul loses he is "purified" or killed. If the paladin loses he falls.
Uh-uh. I'm on the clock. I have other evil-doers to vanquish. One quick stroke, and a little prayer, that's all that's allotted. :p
The big argument I see from players is "if it doesn't fulfill every aspect of Paladin-ness, then they Fall." Walking the path of righteousness is not supposed to be a cut and dry path of "smash evil." Its a daunting challenging walk, constantly testing the Paladin (and the player's roleplaying capacity) during their travels. They most certainly do hold themselves responsible for the actions of an evil person if they made the choice to let them live, but that doesn't mean their soul is dropped into the murk. Often times, a veteran Paladin is haunted by the decisions he's had to have made, killing one person, letting another go to jail instead of the chopping block, or allowing the one to escape. As long as the character remains true to his deity, his cause, and his morals, he's not Falling, he's roleplaying.
Detecting Evil is a starting point, not an end all. Its a good tool to get a point of reference when dealing with suspect people. That clerk skimming coins is a good example. If the Paladin is buying his new Long Sword +2, and he feels he's getting the rip, he can pop the Detect, and take a more firm stance in his haggling. It doesn't mean the sword comes out of the scabbard.
I must apologize, I never meant to imply that my scenario would cause him to fall and become an expaladin or a blackguard. I was just trying to express that I felt a paladin should at the very least hold himself responsible for his choices.
Marthkus, if it is inherently dishonorable to kill helpless creatures, how can paladins be an Inheritor's Crusader? The class specifically calls out paladins as a potential entry class. When they use Sword Against Injustice on a helpless prisoner and it kills (because they are guilty), are they stripped of their paladin powers?
I dotn think that ability would apply:
As a standard action he may announce he is bringing divine judgment upon a target who is accused of a crime, lie, or other affront to justice.
I dont see starving to death in a cell besides that ability screams DM fiat. It is super cool but who decides by RAW who is innocent or guilty?
Not trying to apply it to the captive morlock situation (though I would argue it could apply, as the Inheritor's Crusader can be the accuser). Marthkus's contention is it is dishonorable to kill a helpless creature.
Consider the following scenario:
Paul has been arrested on suspicion of being the leader of a murder cult and committing a series of killings. Unfortunately, the town has no way of definitively proving this, but a Paladin/Inheritor's Crusader named Bill is in town. The town decides to ask the Bill to use his Sword Against Injustice on Paul. If it hits Paul, he is guilty. If it fails, he is innocent. Bill, wanting to see justice get done, agrees. Paul is brought to him tied up and in chains (as he is a suspected murderer). Bill activates his ability and gives a mighty swing and lops off Paul's head.According to Marthkus, Bill loses his paladin status as he just killed a helpless creature. Why?
he should not that is a absolute legitimate use of the ability
Also, I still want to know why Bill the Paladin/Inheritor's Crusader can lose all of his class abilities just because he used one of them on a guy guilty of serial murder.
If your interpretation of the rules ends up with a class losing all of its class abilities due to using one of its abilities in the intended way, you need to re-think your interpretation.
"punish those who harm or threaten innocents." Court mandated executions fall under the code. That is not the same as killing a defenseless prisoner where you are not the assigned executioner or Judge. A paladin cannot just take the law into his own hands.