|
I like the idea of sending a letter to his superiors.
Either, they take actions to correct the blemish on their order and that will teach the Paladin what it is like to choose to blindly follow orders and that freedom to act as you want is in fact better than even his "holy" powers.
Or they support his action and you can denounce them all as a bunch of casual murderers and hypocrites using their pretense of upholding the law as an excuse to act as they want while shackling others to follow rules from which they exempt themselves.
In any case, a clear win for Chaos :-)
I would argue that a letter to his superiors is playing into a system of laws, a chaotic character seeking the law of the paladin's order to pronounce a judgement, good or bad, which a chaotic person wouldn't want to do. Now, his denouncing the order as
a bunch of casual murderers and hypocrites using their pretense of upholding the law as an excuse to act as they want while shackling others to follow rules from which they exempt themselves.
is something he would do, even without the letter, because of the Paladin's actions. The Pally does, after all, represent the whole of his clergy. What would be interesting is when that order finds out about such a proclamation, and begins to dig into how such slander came about in the first place. THAT'S more of a chaotic twist in my opinion. Subtle, and with impact.
|
|
I would argue that a letter to his superiors is playing into a system of laws, a chaotic character seeking the law of the paladin's order to pronounce a judgement, good or bad, which a chaotic person wouldn't want to do. Now, his denouncing the order as
a bunch of casual murderers and hypocrites using their pretense of upholding the law as an excuse to act as they want while shackling others to follow rules from which they exempt themselves.is something he would do, even without the letter, because of the Paladin's actions. The Pally does, after all, represent the whole of his clergy. What would be interesting is when that order finds out about such a proclamation, and begins to dig into how such slander came about in the first place. THAT'S more of a chaotic twist in my opinion. Subtle, and with impact.
Actually, I feel that seeing the Paladin as representative of the whole of his clergy is much more Lawful than using the laws and codes of the Paladin against him.
My take on the chaotic alignment is that the chaotic person will do as he feels like and will absolutely refuse to care about what tradition or rules say and what other people may think of him.
Thus, even if people come and tell him that he is not acting in a chaotic way, he just would not care about their point of view ;-)
BTW chaotic does not necessarily means subtle.
My take on the chaotic alignment is that the chaotic person will do as he feels like and will absolutely refuse to care about what tradition or rules say and what other people may think of him.
Thus, even if people come and tell him that he is not acting in a chaotic way, he just would not care about their point of view ;-)
BTW chaotic does not necessarily means subtle.
Aye, but I would think that the "rules and traditions" part would, in a chaotic person's view, extend to everyone. Its not that the rules don't apply to them. Its that the rules shouldn't apply at all. Thus wanting the rules of the Paladin's order to go into effect with the letter to his superiors is against this.
Also, chaos can be subtle, just as good can be brazen and evil overt. Look at the movie "Law Abiding Citizen" with Gerard Butler. The individual actions weren't subtle, but his entire scheme was, and it was completely chaotic, trying to bring down a system of law and order. Stereotypically, alignments have molded themselves into their niche because it was easy to play that way, but an evil can be both crafty and cunning as it can be bold and apparent. Same can be said for all the polar alignments. Except maybe pure true good, that'd I'd have to think on.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't understand Shadowsoul's assertion that killing something that's Evil (something that detects as evil with the spell, and isn't somehow magically changed to detect as evil when it's not) is anything but Good. Good kills Evil. Thats what it does. It doesn't have to be repetant about it. It doesn't have to be kind or merciful. It is honorable under all circumstances to kill Evil as a Paladin. The Paladin does a comendable job, erasing the threat of evil from the world. Why on Golarion should he be penalized for that?
Being evil trumps all other considerations for the Paladin. His motto is "Slay Evil Immediately."
If the Paladin doesn't get to kill evil on sight, you basically just turn him into a castrated fighter who has to hold back against everyone until the start stabbing him or his friends.
|
|
I would like to point out what has already been mentioned here: They were Morlocks. They're barely better than beasts. There is literally no chance that they would ever 'change their ways'...maybe one captured young could be something other than a murderous savage...but even then, it wouldn't be a functioning member of society.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't understand Shadowsoul's assertion that killing something that's Evil (something that detects as evil with the spell, and isn't somehow magically changed to detect as evil when it's not) is anything but Good. Good kills Evil. Thats what it does. It doesn't have to be repetant about it. It doesn't have to be kind or merciful. It is honorable under all circumstances to kill Evil as a Paladin. The Paladin does a comendable job, erasing the threat of evil from the world. Why on Golarion should he be penalized for that?
Being evil trumps all other considerations for the Paladin. His motto is "Slay Evil Immediately."
If the Paladin doesn't get to kill evil on sight, you basically just turn him into a castrated fighter who has to hold back against everyone until the start stabbing him or his friends.
That is not how Detect Evil is used with regards to a Paladin. If that is what you feel then you don't need to hand out any advice.
Detecting Evil doesn't give you an auto license to slay.
I really don't understand Shadowsoul's assertion that killing something that's Evil (something that detects as evil with the spell, and isn't somehow magically changed to detect as evil when it's not) is anything but Good. Good kills Evil. Thats what it does. It doesn't have to be repetant about it. It doesn't have to be kind or merciful. It is honorable under all circumstances to kill Evil as a Paladin. The Paladin does a comendable job, erasing the threat of evil from the world. Why on Golarion should he be penalized for that?
Being evil trumps all other considerations for the Paladin. His motto is "Slay Evil Immediately."
If the Paladin doesn't get to kill evil on sight, you basically just turn him into a castrated fighter who has to hold back against everyone until the start stabbing him or his friends.
Ehhh... yes but no. Good does kill evil, true, but 99% of the time, evil is not chained down, starved and beaten. And any Good character, especially Paladins will attempt to disarm and capture a foe rather than slaying it. Thieves go to jail, bandits get sent before the people they've savaged, criminals face the charges they've brought on themselves. As self-defense or in the defense of another (usually party members, and is the over-looked norm in most D&D/Pathfinder games) a Good character will fell their foe. However, in this case, the Evil is already captured, is unarmed, and is beaten and tortured. Yes, morlocks are beasts, and depending on their condition, a mercy killing would be appropriate.
This is not what happened.
The Paladin, by the description, went barbarian on them and had an elemental, a neutral planar being, an outsider, shred them. There was no "Good Godly character" justification other than "I detected evil." He butchered them. This is not the way to play a Paladin of almost any porthos. (I say almost because I'm sure there are homebrews or clergy that exist that I don't know about.)
|
|
So...what's the proper response? Morlocks. Should he have freed them and nursed them back to health so that they might have a chance to kill him, and it's more fair?
Maybe just give them some sticks and stones similar to what they might fight with, and call it fair?
Maybe he should make sure he's real injured first, and then fight them. Without weapons and armor, just to make it more fair.
...otherwise, it's just a slaughter.
The Paladin, by the description, went barbarian on them and had an elemental, a neutral planar being, an outsider, shred them. There was no "Good Godly character" justification other than "I detected evil." He butchered them. This is not the way to play a Paladin of almost any porthos. (I say almost because I'm sure there are homebrews or clergy that exist that I don't know about.)
You may want to re-skim the thread, especially the parts about Torag's tennets which say yes you pretty much "go barbarian" on evil.
What really baffles me aobut all these threads is the fact that people only mess with the Paladin. The Inquisitor, Cleric, Druid, Samurai, Ranger, and Cavalier all have similar codes, yet we hear nothing about them. Why does everyone take the Paladin code so seriously, but ignore all the rest?
|
|
OK, some advice for the ninja (and the barbarian). Sit the paladin down and say, "Hey we very much appreciate your ability to fight evil and your combat abilities are without peer. But this kill everything first and not bother to ask questions later attitude is leading us into some tactically unsound situations, and is jepardizing our mission. If you could, try to use a bit more restraint. We're in the underdark,and some information and aid, even from evil creatures, could help us stop a larger evil in the long run. Besides, using evil to defeat evil has some poetic justice to it, don't you think?
The prisoner situation was a great example. Yes, we got some information from the drow, but the morlock's could have provided us something as well - maybe they are greatful for being released, and show us a safe place to camp or where to get supplies. Maybe we could convince them to help us, and use them as catapult fodder against something really tough.
Of course if demons and undead start popping out of the wordwork, go to town. I don't think anyone will miss them."
Problem solved. Or at least it gets a constructive in character dialogue going...
|
|
The Paladin, by the description, went barbarian on them and had an elemental, a neutral planar being, an outsider, shred them. There was no "Good Godly character" justification other than "I detected evil." He butchered them. This is not the way to play a Paladin of almost any porthos. (I say almost because I'm sure there are homebrews or clergy that exist that I don't know about.)You may want to re-skim the thread, especially the parts about Torag's tennets which say yes you pretty much "go barbarian" on evil.
What really baffles me aobut all these threads is the fact that people only mess with the Paladin. The Inquisitor, Cleric, Druid, Samurai, Ranger, and Cavalier all have similar codes, yet we hear nothing about them. Why does everyone take the Paladin code so seriously, but ignore all the rest?
Because people are caught up in the concept that paladins have to be perfect. That their gods apparently really don't want holy warriors, and are just itching to find an excuse to make such imperfect beings fail, and fall, lest they think they're something special.
*shrug*
I see a paladin as a huge investment, and your most trusted servant...I can see admonishments from a god, from time to time, and atonement needed, but the idea that he shouldn't effectively destroy your enemies...when that's a major part of the god's code in the first place...strikes me as out of whack.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK, some advice for the ninja (and the barbarian). Sit the paladin down and say, "Hey we very much appreciate your ability to fight evil and your combat abilities are without peer. But this kill everything first and not bother to ask questions later attitude is leading us into some tactically unsound situations, and is jepardizing our mission. If you could, try to use a bit more restraint. We're in the underdark,and some information and aid, even from evil creatures, could help us stop a larger evil in the long run. Besides, using evil to defeat evil has some poetic justice to it, don't you think?
The prisoner situation was a great example. Yes, we got some information from the drow, but the morlock's could have provided us something as well - maybe they are greatful for being released, and show us a safe place to camp or where to get supplies. Maybe we could convince them to help us, and use them as catapult fodder against something really tough.
Of course if demons and undead start popping out of the wordwork, go to town. I don't think anyone will miss them."
Problem solved. Or at least it gets a constructive in character dialogue going...
You want...information...from...morlocks???
Go ahead, write a letter. Lets assume you even know who to write it to, where it goes, and have a way of getting it there. Paladin High Command receives the letter and reads it. Lets assume they don't throw it away because its from schmuck they dont know, haven't heard of, and cant rely on. They reply, "Sorry, can't help you. Our God decides these sort of things."
You want the GM to punish the player because he got you into danger.
So...what's the proper response? Morlocks. Should he have freed them and nursed them back to health so that they might have a chance to kill him, and it's more fair?
Maybe just give them some sticks and stones similar to what they might fight with, and call it fair?
Ending their lives is not the issue, it was HOW he did it. Ruthless destruction of defenseless creatures is anti-paladin, irregardless of the foe's race, alignment or the morality of the person committing the act. Rage filled death, begrudging honorable kills, slaying a foe on the battlefield, and compassionate mercy killing are all different ways to do the same thing with the same end, and each have their own morality.
You may want to re-skim the thread, especially the parts about Torag's tennets which say yes you pretty much "go barbarian" on evil.
Torag is Moradin Pathfinder style. His domains are Artifice, Earth, Good, Law, Protection, War. Didn't see slaughter, murder, or massacre on the list. I don't doubt that his servants on the battlefield would crush their foe relentlessly, but this wasn't a battle, this a massacre. Definitely against that "Protection" bit, and other than the fact his bloody sacrifices were evil creatures, not really in line with "Good" either.
Not saying the end result would be different, but the player roleplayed it all wrong for being a Paladin.
Code of Conduct: 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.
Lawful Good: A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
Lawful good combines honor with compassion.
The only part about any of it he went with was "commitment to oppose evil", though this passage conveniently didn't clarify "evil creatures" or "evil acts". If it was the former, Paladin's would be walking around the streets of every city in the world detecting evil 24/7 smashing every evil person's head in with abandon crying prayers to their god. Forgive me for thinking that's a little over the top.
|
|
I feel for the position the OP is in...and if multiple players feel the same, there IS an issue. This isn't a solution, though...first, if the paladin has gone too far...this time...it's by scant degrees. The church has little say, even with a letter.
I really don't see this as being something with a good in-game solution. I think it's a matter of talking to the player...letting him know that while he might be playing his character in a way he sees as right, it's disruptive to the others...just ask him to tone it down...let others have their moments in the spotlight.
Even though it may be in-game stuff that's a problem, sometimes it needs to be discussed out-of-game for an out-of-game solution.
Oh, and as for the Ninja, from Good Vs Evil in the Core Rulebook:
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.
So his character would be somewhat distressed over this, though not overly so. Think he roleplayed his alignment decently.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So...what's the proper response? Morlocks. Should he have freed them and nursed them back to health so that they might have a chance to kill him, and it's more fair?
Maybe just give them some sticks and stones similar to what they might fight with, and call it fair?
Ending their lives is not the issue, it was HOW he did it. Ruthless destruction of defenseless creatures is anti-paladin, irregardless of the foe's race, alignment or the morality of the person committing the act. Rage filled death, begrudging honorable kills, slaying a foe on the battlefield, and compassionate mercy killing are all different ways to do the same thing with the same end, and each have their own morality.
You may want to re-skim the thread, especially the parts about Torag's tennets which say yes you pretty much "go barbarian" on evil.Torag is Moradin Pathfinder style. His domains are Artifice, Earth, Good, Law, Protection, War. Didn't see slaughter, murder, or massacre on the list. I don't doubt that his servants on the battlefield would crush their foe relentlessly, but this wasn't a battle, this a massacre. Definitely against that "Protection" bit, and other than the fact his bloody sacrifices were evil creatures, not really in line with "Good" either.
Not saying the end result would be different, but the player roleplayed it all wrong for being a Paladin.
...Code of Conduct: 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.
Lawful Good: A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil
My issue with your post is pretty simple.
No, paladins don't go around killing every evil thing they can find...but they aren't all flat-out enemies, as morlocks would be...and with them, there's hope for redemption. Not with morlocks. Morlocks are not redeemable. Maybe you feel differently, but I don't see Torag as feeling differently, and that's the crux of the issue. They're only nominally intelligent...and their society is utterly savage. Not just somewhat...you'll be hard-pressed to find a more savage society. Neanderthal man is absolutely civilized by comparison.
There's hope for redemption. Not with morlocks. Morlocks are not redeemable. Maybe you feel differently, but I don't see Torag as feeling differently, and that's the crux of the issue. They're only nominally intelligent...and their society is utterly savage.
And in this instance, the Paladin acted like a morlock would, utterly savage. Paladin's hold themselves to a higher standard. Sure, kill them all, but at least keep your honor and composure. This Paladin lost his head, and roleplayed a bloodletting.
How did you know he was a mass murderer?
I didn't say he was. But typical PF alignment, you usually are. Drow have a reputation of being murderers, especially to surface dwelling folk (but to their own kind as well). I don't see the problem.
But I guess that's the point I was trying to make, which went over your head. It's not up to you, me or the player to decide. That's the GMs job. And just like a referee, he's there to arbitrate, especially in the murky waters of alignment debates.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A drow and three morlocks.
Any dwarf in the wide-world-of-Golarion would likely insta-kill a room full of a drow and three morlocks. These are the ancient terrors of the dwarves from the days before the Quest for the Sky, and are probably only slightly less hated, across the board, than orcs. And that is made up for by their being more legendary and mysterious to generations that have lived entirely on the surface.
Any. Dwarf. Would. Do. It.
Stonelords of Torag are the Dwarviest Dwarves you will ever meet.
Seriously. If you made "Dwarf" into a class, it would be the Stonelord.
A drow and three morlocks.
A Stonelord of Torag.
A no-brainer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
He finds these evil things rotting and starving in a cell, and kills them out of mercy to end their suffering, and he's the bad guy? Hell, he did them a favor!!!!
He finds these evil things rotting and starving in a cell, and kills them out of mercy to end their suffering, and he's the bad guy? Hell, he did them a favor!!!!
No, he found them rotting and starving in a cell, and butchered them in a blood craze. From what I got out of the OP, there was no honor in it, only "they're evil, dwarf kill evil" barbarianism.
Any dwarf in the wide-world-of-Golarion would likely insta-kill a room full of a drow and three morlocks. These are the ancient terrors of the dwarves from the days before the Quest for the Sky, and are probably only slightly less hated, across the board, than orcs. And that is made up for by their being more legendary and mysterious to generations that have lived entirely on the surface.
Alright, can only say this one more time becoming a broken record.
The topic is not "too kill or not to kill", its "did he perform an honorable kill or a murderous act." Felling someone is not an inherently evil act, depending on how its done. Butchering them mercilessly while defenseless is a massacre. There is no denying that the drow and morlocks should have died, but how it was roleplayed, even for the "dwarfiest dwarf" was all wrong for a Paladin of any religion.
He finds these evil things rotting and starving in a cell, and kills them out of mercy to end their suffering, and he's the bad guy? Hell, he did them a favor!!!!
I have to agree with The Crusader and master_marshmallow. It'd be a greater act of evil (negligence) to let these creatures go to harm more innocents (because they're going to), and it'd be a greater act of evil (cruelty) to let them suffer a long lingering death in the cages.
Killing them was an act of mercy. They way he went about it is the true problem.
Which brings me to the OP's point. The real problem here (based on the OPs comments throughout) is a lack of teamwork. When one player becomes the driving force because of a refusal to compromise it makes the other characters feel marginalized. It also shows a complete lack of respect for the other characters wishes.
This creates resentment. The characters need to have a talk about the fact that they're all in it together and no one is more important than the other.
The problem isn't that he killed the prisoners, the problem is that he did so without regarding the other players wishes.
A CN Ninja is allowed to not like killing helpless prisoners (unless they're his target of course) because he sympathises with them due to character background. It's a nice touch to make his character different.
What should he do? Well, not aiding the paladin in combat could lead to problems for the Ninja. Not helping the Paladin with a raving beastie could lead to said raving beastie coming after the ninja next.
You can remind the Paladin about the disrespect he show'd you while showing the Paladin respect later (or not showing respect as you want).
As for writing a letter, ask yourself, does it sound like a very CN Ninja-ie thing to do? How much faith would a character like that have in the dwarves religious hierarchy? Probably not much.
Maybe remind the paladin that the group isn't "a paladin and his mooks", it's three adventurers.
It's so weird for me when people say essentially "You're not playing your alignment."
Yes, that's true. I'm playing my character. I'll write whatever alignment the DM thinks I am on my character sheet, and if the DM thinks my alignment has shifted, so be it.
I have to agree with The Crusader and master_marshmallow. It'd be a greater act of evil (negligence) to let these creatures go to harm more innocents (because they're going to), and it'd be a greater act of evil (cruelty) to let them suffer a long lingering death in the cages.
Killing them was an act of mercy. They way he went about it is the true problem.
I almost raged about the first one until I saw the second. At least someone gets it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's so weird for me when people say essentially "You're not playing your alignment."
Yes, that's true. I'm playing my character. I'll write whatever alignment the DM thinks I am on my character sheet, and if the DM thinks my alignment has shifted, so be it.
I find this discussion about playing CN "wrong" to be hilarious because everyone I play with always plays CN because they can do whatever they want and not have to worry about the DM challenging their alignment, this is a nice counterexample for me.
I'm gonna stick with my answer of: if the ninja is trying to get back at the paladin for being arrogant and brash, then he can write this letter to [the paladin's] superiors and could even lie about the things that this paladin is killing without remorse. That sounds like a CN thing to do to me.
|
|
The Paladin, by the description, went barbarian on them and had an elemental, a neutral planar being, an outsider, shred them. There was no "Good Godly character" justification other than "I detected evil." He butchered them. This is not the way to play a Paladin of almost any porthos. (I say almost because I'm sure there are homebrews or clergy that exist that I don't know about.)You may want to re-skim the thread, especially the parts about Torag's tennets which say yes you pretty much "go barbarian" on evil.
What really baffles me aobut all these threads is the fact that people only mess with the Paladin. The Inquisitor, Cleric, Druid, Samurai, Ranger, and Cavalier all have similar codes, yet we hear nothing about them. Why does everyone take the Paladin code so seriously, but ignore all the rest?
No it doesn't. Will you please brush up on your knowledge of Torag because no where does it say that.
No it doesn't. Will you please brush up on your knowledge of Torag because no where does it say that.The Paladin, by the description, went barbarian on them and had an elemental, a neutral planar being, an outsider, shred them. There was no "Good Godly character" justification other than "I detected evil." He butchered them. This is not the way to play a Paladin of almost any porthos. (I say almost because I'm sure there are homebrews or clergy that exist that I don't know about.)You may want to re-skim the thread, especially the parts about Torag's tennets which say yes you pretty much "go barbarian" on evil.
What really baffles me aobut all these threads is the fact that people only mess with the Paladin. The Inquisitor, Cleric, Druid, Samurai, Ranger, and Cavalier all have similar codes, yet we hear nothing about them. Why does everyone take the Paladin code so seriously, but ignore all the rest?
Why do you want the paladin to fall?
A bit more about Torag...
** spoiler omitted **
So based on this part, I personally believe that the Player who runs the Paladin worked it perfectly with the Morlocks and the Drow. The drow surrendered and he got the group some valuable information. Morlocks on the other hand are evil evil evil beasts that wouldn't try to surrender, they just want to frickin eat you. This means they need to die. The Paladin is absolutely spot on here. Read the spoiler below about Morlocks...
** spoiler omitted **...
You need to brush up on your history of Torag to be honest. Having no mercy is not the same as murder. Having an opponent surrender during battle is one thing but killing slaves is another. I own both Faiths of Purity and Dwarves Golarion and neither one mentions any of the above when it comes to Torag's dogma. All it mentions is finding mercy weak but that is mo excuse for murder.
Please go and read more before you spread more untruths.
Dude, seriously I think you really need to read Faiths of Purity in the section where it discusses the tenets of the various gods and their Paladin's Codes. I'm not "spouting untruths" here, I'm paraphrasing from that part of the book (not directly quoting as those posts were removed by the forum police). This can be found on page 27 and is the last bullet point. Go read it now since you have the book and then see what I'm talking about and that I'm not telling lies here to back up my point.
As far as Dwarves of Golarion goes, it was published in 2009 and Faiths of Purity was published in 2011, so the one in 2011 supersedes anything written in 2009 about Torag just like an errata. You need get your facts straight my friend.
The other facts that remain are that the Morlocks are the epitome of evil and are beasts that can't be reasoned with or redeemed. So killing them or leaving them locked up would be the only options available to a Paladin of Torag who kept to his paladin code as prescribed by his faith. The Drow on the other hand is an intelligent being who can be redeemed or reasoned with. The Paladin accepted the surrender of the Drow and in exchange was given some vital intelligence which moved the campaign forward.
I'd have played it the same exact way as the player who played the paladin and as a person who has actually read the tenets of Torag. That's how I'd interpret it as a GM as well.
Okay, so just commenting on the first page: Chaotic Neutral characters are not banned from caring about helpless prisoners. They are not all apathetic a$&*&%&s. That is just a single way to play what is arguably the most diverse alignment in the game. Even a Chaotic Evil character can be bothered by the deaths of prisoners. Only fiends, aberrations and undead are utterly barred from compassion. And goblin babies.
|
|
A drow and three morlocks.
Any dwarf in the wide-world-of-Golarion would likely insta-kill a room full of a drow and three morlocks. These are the ancient terrors of the dwarves from the days before the Quest for the Sky, and are probably only slightly less hated, across the board, than orcs. And that is made up for by their being more legendary and mysterious to generations that have lived entirely on the surface.
Any. Dwarf. Would. Do. It.
Stonelords of Torag are the Dwarviest Dwarves you will ever meet.
Seriously. If you made "Dwarf" into a class, it would be the Stonelord.
A drow and three morlocks.
A Stonelord of Torag.
A no-brainer.
Emmmmm no.
There is a difference between a dwarf fighter of Torag or even a cleric compared to a dwarf Paladin.
I will repeat this one more time. Being a follower of Torag doesn't grant you permission to slaughter. You can go and read Faiths of Purity and Dwarves of Golarion and you won't find a reference to it.
Let me give you a perfect example of what no mercy means.
You are fighting a drow and you best him in combat. Before the final blow is dealt the drow droops his sword and begs for mercy. You proceed to remove it's head.
That is Torag's dogma.
|
|
A bit more about Torag...
** spoiler omitted **
So based on this part, I personally believe that the Player who runs the Paladin worked it perfectly with the Morlocks and the Drow. The drow surrendered and he got the group some valuable information. Morlocks on the other hand are evil evil evil beasts that wouldn't try to surrender, they just want to frickin eat you. This means they need to die. The Paladin is absolutely spot on here. Read the spoiler below about Morlocks...
** spoiler omitted **...
You need to brush up on your history of Torag to be honest. Having no mercy is not the same as murder. Having an opponent surrender during battle is one thing but killing slaves is another. I own both Faiths of Purity and Dwarves Golarion and neither one mentions any of the above when it comes to Torag's dogma. All it mentions is finding mercy weak but that is mo excuse for murder.
Please go and read more before you spread more untruths.
Dude, seriously I think you really need to read Faiths of Purity in the section where it discusses the tenets of the various gods and their Paladin's Codes. I'm not "spouting untruths" here, I'm paraphrasing from that part of the book (not directly quoting as those posts were removed by the forum police). This can be found on page 27 and is the last bullet point. Go read it now since you have the book and then see what I'm talking about and that I'm not telling lies here to back up my point.
As far as Dwarves of Golarion goes, it was published in 2009 and Faiths of Purity was published in 2011, so the one in 2011 supersedes anything written in 2009 about Torag just like an errata. You need get your facts straight my friend.
The other facts that remain are that the Morlocks are the epitome of evil and are beasts that can't be reasoned with or redeemed. So killing them or leaving them locked up would be the only options available to a Paladin of Torag who kept to his paladin code as...
I own it and I have read it so I'm still not sure where you are getting what you claim.
|
|
Why do you want the paladin to fall?No it doesn't. Will you please brush up on your knowledge of Torag because no where does it say that.The Paladin, by the description, went barbarian on them and had an elemental, a neutral planar being, an outsider, shred them. There was no "Good Godly character" justification other than "I detected evil." He butchered them. This is not the way to play a Paladin of almost any porthos. (I say almost because I'm sure there are homebrews or clergy that exist that I don't know about.)You may want to re-skim the thread, especially the parts about Torag's tennets which say yes you pretty much "go barbarian" on evil.
What really baffles me aobut all these threads is the fact that people only mess with the Paladin. The Inquisitor, Cleric, Druid, Samurai, Ranger, and Cavalier all have similar codes, yet we hear nothing about them. Why does everyone take the Paladin code so seriously, but ignore all the rest?
Because he deserves to fall.
He is a freaking paladin for one thing and paladins do not do that. Secondly, detecting evil doesn't grant you an automatic Pass Go slaughter at will.
Now if the DM allows him to do that then fair enough but I have shown this thread to multiple PFS groups in my area and they all laughed their ass off, especially about someone claiming a Paladin of Torag could get away with it.
They all agree the paladin would fall so fast he would make a dent in the earth.
I just told you dude, Page 27 located under the Paladin Codes, it's the last bullet point at the top right of the page.
Morlocks and Drow are the enemies of Dwarves and Torag. They are evil, there is no doubt there, they are KNOWN to be evil beasts by all denizens living underground, anyone with a knowledge check would know this pretty easily, it doesn't take a detect evil for the paladin to know it. It states that the only time that mercy is shown is when the enemies surrender and only to extract information.
Morlocks can't be reasoned with, they must be put down. The Drow can be reasoned with and surrendered to give information.
This is a perfect example of the Paladin following his god's tenet per RAW.
|
|
I just told you dude, Page 27 located under the Paladin Codes, it's the last bullet point at the top right of the page.
Morlocks and Drow are the enemies of Dwarves and Torag. They are evil, there is no doubt there, they are KNOWN to be evil beasts by all denizens living underground, anyone with a knowledge check would know this pretty easily, it doesn't take a detect evil for the paladin to know it. It states that the only time that mercy is shown is when the enemies surrender and only to extract information.
Morlocks can't be reasoned with, they must be put down. The Drow can be reasoned with and surrendered to give information.
This is a perfect example of the Paladin following his god's tenet per RAW.
You do realize the circumstances of surrender don't you?
If I am laying there half dead and you walk up and kill me then where did the surrender part come in?
Did I miss something in subsequent posts that said it wasn't just a few Morlocks and a drow that the Paladin had killed off? Like were there some halfling babies sitting there that he killed?
Yes I know what surrender means. These were slaves and the drow decided to surrender and give information rather than to be killed. The morlocks are an entirely different matter and as I stated shouldn't ever be allowed to live or be set free by a paladin. They will go on to cause much more evil and kill many innocents. I'd see a paladin of Torag fall if he released the morlocks way before killing them even if they were helpless and on the brink of death.
Bottom line is still that this particular Paladin followed his Code to the letter as per RAW. There is no dispute there to me.
...Morlocks can't be reasoned with, they must be put down...Ub3r_n3rd: I own the adventure under discussion, and the colony of morlocks presented earlier in that adventure hail visitors from the surface as heralds of a long-awaited deliverance. This particular batch of morlocks are not presented as unreasoning and irredeemable, although I concede that they might differ in that regard from the morlocks as presented in the Bestiary.
Then they are the exception, not the rule. Players and especially PC's do not know this, they would be able to roll knowledge checks to realize that 99% of morlocks are evil beasts that should be killed by goodly folk so that they don't cause havoc.
|
|
Yes I know what surrender means. These were slaves and the drow decided to surrender and give information rather than to be killed. The morlocks are an entirely different matter and as I stated shouldn't ever be allowed to live or be set free by a paladin. They will go on to cause much more evil and kill many innocents. I'd see a paladin of Torag fall if he released the morlocks way before killing them even if they were helpless and on the brink of death.
Bottom line is still that this particular Paladin followed his Code to the letter as per RAW. There is no dispute there to me.
I disagree.
You are cherry picking instead of reading about the entire faith.
So, we have finally gotten to the core of the problem: not that the Paladin killed evil, which apparently we agreed is okay, but the way in which the Paladin proceeded to dispatch the Morlocks somehow violates some percieved Paladiness?
Now, I've missed the post where it goes into greater description of how exactly the Paladin killed the Morlocks, but I'm not sure there a great many ways that the Paladin will fall from doing it. Do the Morclocks offer to become prisoners and ask to be tied up until they can be taken to the proper authorities to sort it all out? Does the Paladin tell them they're free to go and stabs them in the back as they walk out of the cell?
I've seen mentions about having his Earth Elemental do the deed for him? Is this accurate? If that is the case, I don't see a problem.
"Hey, Rocky! Take out the trash." Earth Elemental beats their head in with fists the size of large rocks.
I just really don't see that as a problem. I think Paladins can ultimately be cold-hearted towards evil, so long as they temper it with unlimited compassion towards goodly people.
At the very least, if such an act would have caused the Paladin to fall, its a GM job to step in and provide him with knowledge that his character would have that the player either does not know, or does not understand. Obviously Paladins and their actions are complicated problems, that will be handled differently by different GMs with different ideas about what is and isn't acceptable. Some things are clear that a Paladin shouldn't do, like rape. Some are less clear. Personally, if I played the Paladin I would've consulted the GM about letting the ninja use stealthy assassination (assuming against a known evil creature) and see if that is offensive to the tennets of my god. If it was not, I would have set back and let him go to town. By the same token, I would also assume the Paladin (in character) should reasonably be aware if his method of killing the Morclocks would be offensive to his god.
My view of playing a paladin: Detect Evil is not something I would use willy-nilly on anyone I met. There would have to be a reason. I would use it on my companions when first joining, since as a paladin I wouldn't want to associate with evil. I would use it on any employer, since as a paladin I wouldn't want to work for evil people.
If while clearing out a fortress of an evil person and I encountered prisoners, I would assume they are unlawfully imprisoned and want to free them. If I used Detect Evil, it would determine which prisoners I could trust if they wanted to arm themselves once freed.
Detecting as evil is not evidence of a crime, so as a paladin I would not use that as a basis for rendering judgement. However, if there is evidence of evil acts my paladin would not hesitate to render justice at the end of a sword. I see a paladin as having the authority to administer justice (including execution) if there is clear evidence of a crime.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So letting someone else kill something for you isn't honorable? Guess Druids and Rangers are dishonorable. I guess every king ever is dishonorable. I guess everyone in a position of authority who doesn't fight every fight themselves is dishonorable.
Yes I know what surrender means. These were slaves and the drow decided to surrender and give information rather than to be killed. The morlocks are an entirely different matter and as I stated shouldn't ever be allowed to live or be set free by a paladin. They will go on to cause much more evil and kill many innocents. I'd see a paladin of Torag fall if he released the morlocks way before killing them even if they were helpless and on the brink of death.
Bottom line is still that this particular Paladin followed his Code to the letter as per RAW. There is no dispute there to me.
I disagree.
You are cherry picking instead of reading about the entire faith.
And I feel you are not reading into what it says. You are taking things out of context and plain ignoring the Paladin Code and one of their tenets.
If one of their tenets said: "You should try to redeem all evil and if you can't, let them be free like skylarks. Your compassion will eventually find seed in their minds and they will turn to the light."
Then sure I'd agree with you and say that you were right, but the fact remains that I'm pulling directly from the newest book with information about Torag and his Paladins.
I'm pulling directly from a tenet that specifically states that his Paladins should show no mercy to his enemies and that they should be put to the sword, that their families should be scattered and that the only exception is for complete surrender and only to gain information.
What happened here? The paladin killed the evil Morlocks and allowed the drow to live per the surrender clause.
Keep arguing, but you are just plain wrong about this specific instance dude.
Edit: Oh and the Stonelord using his elemental isn't dishonorable. That is one of the weapons his god has granted him. He used it to kill his enemies and the enemies of his god. See the stonelord and notice that the Elemental takes the place of a normal paladin's divine bond. It is no different than a paladin using the divine bond of his/her sword to kill.