shallowsoul why do you think that killing them is wrong?
If killing goblin babies is OK (as we now know it is) then killing morlocks should be very OK.
On top of that, he didn't even do it himself. He got another creature to do it for him and if you read about Torag then you will see he is also an honorable god.
Please show me where that act was honorable in anyway.
Now you're just making stuff up. Another thread jacked and derailed by SS.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ub3r n3rd - you're running into a common theme on these boards. The majority of the people on treat rules as a mathematical formula A + B = C. A+B will ALWAYS = C there is never never never any variation or circumstances where A+B does not = C.
In this case A = Helpless Prisoners B = Paladin kills prisoners C = Evil Act Paladin falls.
No amount of convincing, proof or even RAW will convince anyone that A+B does not ALWAYS = C. There are no variables to A. A Prisoner, is a Prisoner wheather it's Winston Churchil or Hitler himself, A = A. There are no variations of B, doesn't matter if it's a Paladin of Torag, Sarenrae or Irori, B = B. Which stands to follow that C will always be C.
To go deeper, if you allow variance then have to allow the GM to actually have some control over the enviornment and, perish the thought, the player's character, and that my friend, is THE cardinal sin on these boards.
|
shallowsoul why do you think that killing them is wrong?
If killing goblin babies is OK (as we now know it is) then killing morlocks should be very OK.
Who ever said that killing goblin babies was okay? Don't go and say a designer cayse that's not true.
Paladins do not slaughter or kill helpless opponents.
Paladins do not slaughter or kill helpless opponents.
Wow as if I needed more proof.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I almost raged about the first one until I saw the second. At least someone gets 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.
How did he really go about it? Was he laughing maniacally, or saying a prayer for their tortured souls, or somewhere in between? My guess is that it was done with little emotion, very matter-of-factly, but I wasn't there. Nor were you. Any judgement based on that is a matter of spinning it the way you want to see it.
Excuse me if I refuse that bandwagon.
I think people are confused about a Paladin's role. When his church/god needs someone killed or an enemy defeated, they send the Paladin. His job is to be a killing machine for his god. So yes a Paladin is supposed to slaughter his enemies, it's in the job description.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
shallowsoul why do you think that killing them is wrong?
If killing goblin babies is OK (as we now know it is) then killing morlocks should be very OK.Who ever said that killing goblin babies was okay? Don't go and say a designer cayse that's not true.
Paladins do not slaughter or kill helpless opponents.
Champions of Purity does. When it offers solutions to the goblin babies issue, one of the solution offered is to just kill them.
|
|
I think people are confused about a Paladin's role. When his church/god needs someone killed or an enemy defeated, they send the Paladin. His job is to be a killing machine for his god. So yes a Paladin is supposed to slaughter his enemies, it's in the job description.
I did not see that part of the Code, nor of the LG alignment.
Is it also okay if he sneaks into their chamber and hacks them to pieces while they sleep, all in full view of their loved ones ?
Wow, I can understand that the Ninja is upset with the Paladin doing the assassin's job for free.
|
|
Champions of Purity does. When it offers solutions to the goblin babies issue, one of the solution offered is to just kill them.shallowsoul why do you think that killing them is wrong?
If killing goblin babies is OK (as we now know it is) then killing morlocks should be very OK.Who ever said that killing goblin babies was okay? Don't go and say a designer cayse that's not true.
Paladins do not slaughter or kill helpless opponents.
I was just looking for that...thought I remembered it...it's under 'Ethics for Adventurers'.
|
|
I think people are confused about a Paladin's role. When his church/god needs someone killed or an enemy defeated, they send the Paladin. His job is to be a killing machine for his god. So yes a Paladin is supposed to slaughter his enemies, it's in the job description.I did not see that part of the Code, nor of the LG alignment.
Is it also okay if he sneaks into their chamber and hacks them to pieces while they sleep, all in full view of their loved ones ?
Wow, I can understand that the Ninja is upset with the Paladin doing the assassin's job for free.
Gee, he did that? Where did you get those details?
|
|
Gee, he did that? Where did you get those details?I think people are confused about a Paladin's role. When his church/god needs someone killed or an enemy defeated, they send the Paladin. His job is to be a killing machine for his god. So yes a Paladin is supposed to slaughter his enemies, it's in the job description.I did not see that part of the Code, nor of the LG alignment.
Is it also okay if he sneaks into their chamber and hacks them to pieces while they sleep, all in full view of their loved ones ?
Wow, I can understand that the Ninja is upset with the Paladin doing the assassin's job for free.
Sorry for derailing the thread. I was trying to understand what are supposed to be the limits on a Paladin's murderous behaviour :-)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a surprisingly great thread. I don't have a whole lot to add, but...
1) Love the 'on these boards' comment. Yes sir, context is key. Try not to let it get you down, though. There are lots of boards, each with their own mono-culture. Knowing the truth about the 3.5 community shouldn't detract from some great conversation within it...
2) OP - I would use this as an in-game reason to shift your PC towards LN. "Seeing that idiot slaughter those prisioners has made me reailze the truth: my code is the only thing sane in this world." Then you can have Lawful-vs-Lawful passive aggressive play, which seems to be something you'd prefer.
3) OP - If you wanted to 'tattle' on the Paladin, which in and of itself isn't a terrible idea, you need to choose a better vehicle. For starters, does your campaign world even have a postal system? Beyond just the practical, and someone already touched on this, why would they believe you? No, the far better approach would be to go to a rival church and tell them the tale, with embellishments of course. Let that rival church use their clout to spread the heresy of Torag's Paladin around, and then you might see some results - maybe.
4) Ahh, that discussion of Torag and genocide is deep stuff. As others have said, though, there's no 'RAW' here. It's totally 'GM fiat' because Torag is an NPC. Period, end of story. I'd expect to see any further arguments about what Torag would do be prefaced with 'at my table' going forward, if not for #1 above. :)
5) I think leaving them in their cells would have been most appropriate for the character. As was said, Morlocks and Dwarves have a long history of being enemies. Plus, what is more merciful, killing them or letting the gods decide what happens next? Perhaps it was all part of Torag's wisdom that they wound up in that cell in the first place. His code says he can't be weak to them, and certainly this would include giving them aid, such as releasing them. Were it my Pally I think I'd say a prayer and wish them all the best, hoping we can meet in glorious battle some day.
That's another gap with everyone's concept of the 'paragon' Paladin - why do they have to free prisoners and slaves? That's not very Lawful... But I digress.
|
|
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...
Are you ready for it? Here we go.
Torag A paladin of Torag's duty is first to protect her people,
but defending the works and traditions of her culture
follow at a close second. These paladins are dedicated
to protecting not just the lives but the lifestyles of those
under their charge and hold the ways of their chosen
people as holy, especially when they are the centuries-old
ways of an entire race. Their tenets include:
• My word is my bond. When I give my word formally, I
defend my oath to my death. Traps lie in idle banter or
thoughtless talk, and so I watch my tongue.
• I am at all times truthful, honorable, and forthright,
but my allegiance is to my people. I will do what is
necessary to serve them, including misleading others.
• I respect the forge, and never sully it with half hearted
work. My creations reflect the depth of my faith, and I
will not allow flaws save in direst need.
• Against my people's enemies I will show no mercy. I will
not allow their surrender, except to extract information.
I will defeat them, and I will scatter their families. Yet
even in the struggle against our enemies, I will act in a
way that brings honor to Torag.
Well would you look at that. I see nothing there that grants the all go to slaughter. Even check out that last bullet point you mentioned. "Yes even in the struggle against our enemies, I will act in a way that brings honor to Torag".
The part about Mercy can be interpreted in several ways so there is not definite RAW answer like you and a few others claim.
Like I said before, go and brush up on your Torag lore.
Good thing the DM gets to decide what brings Honor to Torag. At my table, death to evil is always honorable. In your table you can decide differently.
I guess not killing evil is a good act in your version of Golarion.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to be clear...I love ambiguity of alignment. I adore redeemed fiends. I've used a savant goblin in a campaign. It's my table.
What another DM does is up to him and his players...and Torag wants his enemies dead. How that gets interpreted is up to me...at my table...and anybody else's, at theirs.
Well that will be taken down by the mods shortly because they've already stated in this thread to not quote directly from the books and hence why I've not posted exactly what was in them, but rather paraphrased so that I wasn't abusing the forum's rules. It just goes to show that you don't read very well...
The point you highlight is directly below where I'm talking about. No mercy against enemies. The killing of evil brings honor to Torag, the Paladin is keeping his people safe.
You keep it up buddy, you are wrong here and no matter what you say you will still be wrong. You obviously just read the thing and completely ignored where the enemies of his people should be killed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Shallowsoul, the issue is that you are arguing against the first part of the same bullet you bolded a section of. Performing an execution in itself is not dishonorable in any way. And that is what the paladin was doing, executing evil members of a race that is a long-time dwarven enemy.
Within that bullet, you are using the second half to argue against the first half. You are essentially arguing that "showing no mercy" is dishonorable and turning that bullet into a Catch-22.
|
|
Oh, and by the way...as much as I love fallen paladins...and angels...I was even writing an epic AP about a fallen solar (apocalyptic, to be precise) I've never had a paladin PC fall in any game I ever ran. I wouldn't force it on a player. I've had...I think...one time when a paladin sought atonement.
One of my favorite sessions involved a very tough moral quandry...and a paladin. I don't recall the details...I come up with those a lot...I love them, it causes character growth...
I do remember the response of his god, when he fretted that he did the wrong thing. It was, in essence...you had no good choice. You chose well, and make me proud.
Shallowsoul, the issue is that you are arguing against the first part of the same bullet you bolded a section of. Performing an execution in itself is not dishonorable in any way. And that is what the paladin was doing, executing evil members of a race that is a long-time dwarven enemy.
Within that bullet, you are using the second half to argue against the first half. You are essentially arguing that "showing no mercy" is dishonorable and turning that bullet into a Catch-22.
This is exactly what I'm saying! I'm just sitting here *facepalming* over the silliness of it all. I can't do anything but laugh at this point.
To the OP: Ultimately you have to decide how your character would react to the Paladin's actions. Writing a strongly worded letter to the Paladin's superiors sounds a little... fruitless? At least, in my world, the chances of it getting to anyone who would have any authority over the Paladin, and then them finding the paladin and actually doing anything about it are extremely unlikely.
But then, in my game, I don't know if I would have judged that the paladin acted outside the purview of his personal code.
IF the Paladin detected evil (which he obvs did, regardless of official ruling of how Detect Evil works), and IF his personal MO is to stamp out evil everywhere, with! Extreme! Prejudice!, AND the clause of "specifically showing no mercy to evil" were written into that code, it would seem like he was living up to his code? Maybe?
The way I understand it, if a Paladin does something naughty, he is automatically stripped of his powers? Ergo: IF, indeed, this is how the table is run, and he isn't stripped of his powers, he hasn't done anything naughty, in view of his deity. Who, really, is the only person a Paladin really care about upsetting, in most cases. A letter pro'lly isn't going to get anybody too interested in the case. Especially one written by an assassin. :P
That being said, you can still be cheesed off at him. If you feel your character is sufficiently cheesed, for whatever reason, then if you feel like it, go at him as you feel your character would, commensurate with your own brand of cheese.
Keep in mind, though, that some DMs can also get cheesed if inter-party strife detracts from the enjoyment of folks at the table, which may or may not lead to sad things happening.
So you have to balance out how far you're willing to take this quest to express your own in-character feel-bads over what's best for the table.
IMO.
|
|
Good thing the DM gets to decide what brings Honor to Torag. At my table, death to evil is always honorable. In your table you can decide differently.
I guess not killing evil is a good act in your version of Golarion.
What you do in your games is your business but you can't sit there and declare what you are doing is RAW across the whole spectrum.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gee, he did that? Where did you get those details?I think people are confused about a Paladin's role. When his church/god needs someone killed or an enemy defeated, they send the Paladin. His job is to be a killing machine for his god. So yes a Paladin is supposed to slaughter his enemies, it's in the job description.I did not see that part of the Code, nor of the LG alignment.
Is it also okay if he sneaks into their chamber and hacks them to pieces while they sleep, all in full view of their loved ones ?
Wow, I can understand that the Ninja is upset with the Paladin doing the assassin's job for free.
He didn't. What he did was set up a Straw Man Fallacy. It's when you put a whole bunch of words in someone's mouth that they never said, or even implied, then you attack those words instead of what the original person actually said. It's typically done when you can't come up with a valid argument for what was actually said.
EDIT: Funny you should say "in front of loved ones", read what Torag expects his Paladins to do to his enemies' famlies.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shallowsoul, the issue is that you are arguing against the first part of the same bullet you bolded a section of. Performing an execution in itself is not dishonorable in any way. And that is what the paladin was doing, executing evil members of a race that is a long-time dwarven enemy.
Within that bullet, you are using the second half to argue against the first half. You are essentially arguing that "showing no mercy" is dishonorable and turning that bullet into a Catch-22.
All depends on how you look at mercy.
Yes execution can be honorable, slaughter half dead prisoners is not honorable I'm afraid.
Let's take a look at this:
The Paladin comes in to commune with Torag.
Paladin: Father Torag, I have vanquished our foes.
Torag: Good job my servant, what were they.
Paladin: There were drow and Morlocks.
Torag: Ah yes. Did you destroy them in battle?
Paladin: No, not exactly.
Torag: Did they try and use evil magic on you to command you against your will?
Paladin: No they did not.
Torag: Did they trick you into doing an evil deed against your fellows?
Paladin: No it was none of that.
Torag: Then tell me what happened.
Paladin: There were some half dead prisoners chained up in a cell so I sent in a mighty earth elemental to destroy them in your name.
Torag: ???????...........
Paladin: Father?
Torag: Don't do me any favors next time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What you do in your games is your business but you can't sit there and declare what you are doing is RAW across the whole spectrum.Good thing the DM gets to decide what brings Honor to Torag. At my table, death to evil is always honorable. In your table you can decide differently.
I guess not killing evil is a good act in your version of Golarion.
The same could be said for you my friend. Pot meet kettle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like that the OP is trying to make this an interesting role playing opportunity. I'm perplexed by any advice suggesting he should do (next to) nothing.
mcbobbo's suggestion to lean toward LN is really interesting. Some seem to believe that you have no character justification for judging, as if only goody-goodies are judgmental. On the contrary, some of the worst, most unjustified, pieces of crap in the world are harsh judges. Bad people often judge better people especially harshly. I do not see a character conflict. That is to say, you don't need to make an alignment change for your character to be a judgmental prick, but it could be neat-o.
Is your Ninja really the kind of guy to write an angry letter? It's your character, of course, but I'm with everyone else who found this odd.
Is your DM onboard with this dramatic conflict? I personally think it's authentic for a Ninja and Paladin to get along badly. The fact that you want to make this a sticking point in the relationship of these two characters is great. If, on the other hand, this is just a smokescreen for a disgruntled player wanting to teach another player a lesson, then I recommend rethinking the whole thing. If it were me, I'd talk to my DM about roleplaying PC personal conflict. There's a possibility for rich experience if all concerned are up for it.
|
|
Well that will be taken down by the mods shortly because they've already stated in this thread to not quote directly from the books and hence why I've not posted exactly what was in them, but rather paraphrased so that I wasn't abusing the forum's rules. It just goes to show that you don't read very well...
The point you highlight is directly below where I'm talking about. No mercy against enemies. The killing of evil brings honor to Torag, the Paladin is keeping his people safe.
You keep it up buddy, you are wrong here and no matter what you say you will still be wrong. You obviously just read the thing and completely ignored where the enemies of his people should be killed.
Yeah and your paraphrasing managed to leave out some key sentences.
What is there debunks your RAW argument and you know it. You do what ever you want in your game but don't preach that it is RAW when it's not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All depends on how you look at mercy...
Paladin: Father Torag met some of our most hated enemies.
Torag: Did you destroy them and scatter their familes like I decree?Paladin: Well, not exactly. They were half starved, half dead prisoners.
Torag: Ah, so you left them in their cells to rot?
Paladin: Oh no, making them suffer a slow painful death of thrist and starvation would have been truely evil. I let them go
Torag: So they could become healthy and kill our people...?
Paladin: Probably, but it was only honorable to let them kill us before I kill them.
Torag: Umm yeah good plan. Why don't you hang up your hammer, you won't be needing that anymore.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Shallowsoul, the issue is that you are arguing against the first part of the same bullet you bolded a section of. Performing an execution in itself is not dishonorable in any way. And that is what the paladin was doing, executing evil members of a race that is a long-time dwarven enemy.
Within that bullet, you are using the second half to argue against the first half. You are essentially arguing that "showing no mercy" is dishonorable and turning that bullet into a Catch-22.
All depends on how you look at mercy.
Yes execution can be honorable, slaughter half dead prisoners is not honorable I'm afraid.
Let's take a look at this.
The Paladin comes in to commune with Torag....
The way it should play out and how I'd do it with the Paladin if I was GM'ing this game.
Paladin : Father Torag I have vanquished the enemies of our people.
Torag : Good! Who were they and how did you destroy them?
Paladin: They were vile Morlocks which my companions and I found chained and used as slaves. A drow was among them.
Torag : Go on...
Paladin : I followed your tenet in regards to destroying our enemies and scattering their families. I didn't show any mercy to them other than to the drow.
Torag : Continue, how and why did you show mercy to the evil drow?
Paladin: I was able to obtain his surrender in exchange for information that led us toward the path of righteousness so that we may vanquish more of your enemies my lord.
Torag: How did you destroy the abominations of life... those Morlocks.
Paladin: I sent forth your holy wrath in the form of my stone servant which you divinely bonded to me upon coming to my paladin-hood. It utterly squashed the vile beings.
Torag: I find this acceptable. Good work my son, you will be rewarded.
|
|
I like that the OP is trying to make this an interesting role playing opportunity. I'm perplexed by any advice suggesting he should do (next to) nothing.
mcbobbo's suggestion to lean toward LN is really interesting. Some seem to believe that you have no character justification for judging, as if only goody-goodies are judgmental. On the contrary, some of the worst, most unjustified, pieces of crap in the world are harsh judges. Bad people often judge better people especially harshly. I do not see a character conflict. That is to say, you don't need to make an alignment change for your character to be a judgmental prick, but it could be neat-o.
Is your Ninja really the kind of guy to write an angry letter? It's your character, of course, but I'm with everyone else who found this odd.
Is your DM onboard with this dramatic conflict? I personally think it's authentic for a Ninja and Paladin to get along badly. The fact that you want to make this a sticking point in the relationship of these two characters is great. If, on the other hand, this is just a smokescreen for a disgruntled player wanting to teach another player a lesson, then I recommend rethinking the whole thing. If it were me, I'd talk to my DM about roleplaying PC personal conflict. There's a possibility for rich experience if all concerned are up for it.
Pretty well stated. That's about where I see it. :)
Well that will be taken down by the mods shortly because they've already stated in this thread to not quote directly from the books and hence why I've not posted exactly what was in them, but rather paraphrased so that I wasn't abusing the forum's rules. It just goes to show that you don't read very well...
The point you highlight is directly below where I'm talking about. No mercy against enemies. The killing of evil brings honor to Torag, the Paladin is keeping his people safe.
You keep it up buddy, you are wrong here and no matter what you say you will still be wrong. You obviously just read the thing and completely ignored where the enemies of his people should be killed.
Yeah and your paraphrasing managed to leave out some key sentences.
What is there debunks your RAW argument and you know it. You do what ever you want in your game but don't preach that it is RAW when it's not.
Mmmhmm sure, keep reaching buddy. You quoted it exactly and the only thing my paraphrase did was not exactly quote it, but they were the same. Good try though.
|
|
"Against my people's enemies I will show no mercy. I will
not allow their surrender, except to extract information.
I will defeat them, and I will scatter their families. Yet
even in the struggle against our enemies, I will act in a
way that brings honor to Torag."Really I can't see any other option for a paladin of Torag than killing his people's enemies. You are not allowed to let them surrender so I assume that means killing them on the battlefield regardless of whether they want to keep fighting unless you want to let the inquisitors to have a quiet word with them first. You could let them retreat if the choice was tactically sound but if it wasn't you would have to hunt them down and kill them (no mercy).
So are the drow and Morlocks the enemy of dwarves as a rule yes they are, that leaves a stonelord paladin one option in the case of chained unarmed enemies of his people which is to leave them chained as freeing them would be showing them mercy and problematic and killing them whilst they were chained would be dishonourable.
Since when can half dead prisoners, who aren't a part of the conflict, surrender? Also, just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's as black and white as you think.
Who says that the opposite to Mercy is murder or killing? You can show no mercy by walking away. Who says that it's not meant during battle? These are all questions that different DM's will answer differently. I can already tell you that all the PFS DMs around here disagree with your reading so that tells you right there that it can be interpreted differently.
|
|
Mmmhmm sure, keep reaching buddy. You quoted it exactly and the only thing my paraphrase did was not exactly quote it, but they were the same. Good try though.Well that will be taken down by the mods shortly because they've already stated in this thread to not quote directly from the books and hence why I've not posted exactly what was in them, but rather paraphrased so that I wasn't abusing the forum's rules. It just goes to show that you don't read very well...
The point you highlight is directly below where I'm talking about. No mercy against enemies. The killing of evil brings honor to Torag, the Paladin is keeping his people safe.
You keep it up buddy, you are wrong here and no matter what you say you will still be wrong. You obviously just read the thing and completely ignored where the enemies of his people should be killed.
Yeah and your paraphrasing managed to leave out some key sentences.
What is there debunks your RAW argument and you know it. You do what ever you want in your game but don't preach that it is RAW when it's not.
I don't need to reach for anything. I'm confident in what I have said and the reading from the entry corresponds with how I, and others like me, interpret it. See that's the amazing thing about the way it's written, open to interpretation.
I don't need to reach for anything. I'm confident in what I have said and the reading from the entry corresponds with how I, and others like me, interpret it. See that's the amazing thing about the way it's written, open to interpretation.
There's no one quite like you SS.
This thread is not about the paladin, and you need to understand that. The paladin did not fall, nor should he.Why were these things prisoners? Oh, they must have been innocent evil monsters, that did nothing wrong to deserve being imprisoned and abandoned to starve.
Dude, they detected as evil, and they were sworn enemies of his kind. Surrender or no, a Dwarf with prejudice in any way upholding his beliefs did nothing wrong or fall worthy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately for you it seems that most people in (and I'm not going through and actually counting the number of people) seem to view it in the opposite light that you do.
I agree that we are all free to rule and interpret at our own tables as we choose, and that we must understand that our interpretation, in fact no interpretation, is or can be RAW with the exception of very specific statements in the Paladin codes.
This means that while you're interpretation is valid, so is mine, and everyone else's. However, as I stated, it does seem that more people are interpreting the statements written into Torag's paladin code as justifying the actions that the paladin took.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since when can half dead prisoners, who aren't a part of the conflict, surrender? Also, just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's as black and white as you think.
Who says that the opposite to Mercy is murder or killing? You can show no mercy by walking away. Who says that it's not meant during battle? These are all questions that different DM's will answer differently. I can already tell you that all the PFS DMs around here disagree with your reading so that tells you right there that it can be interpreted differently.
It would probably play out like this:
Drow and Morlock slaves chained up in a cell. The Morlocks growl, hiss, and snarl as the paladin enters the room with his sword drawn having detected their evil from afar like a vile stench radiating through the door.
The Paladin and his companions speak in hushed tones and it's obvious that two of the paladin's friends aren't happy with the decision that the paladin has made. His earth elemental fills up the doorway and moves in at the paladin's command.
The lone drow having picked out what they were saying about killing the slaves is quick to yell out, "My lord, please I have information for you. It will help you and your friends out in the dungeons below. I willingly surrender to you an ask to be made your prisoner rather than to find death at the hands of your servant!"
The paladin halts his stone servant and nods, "I will allow you to live as you have asked to surrender to me and my faith calls upon me to give you mercy if you provide me with information which will aid our cause."
The Morlocks screech and groan as the stone elemental falls upon them and quickly ends their lives. The paladin and his friends take the drow as their prisoner to find out what information he knows...
It could be argued quite easily that killing the Morlocks is a form of mercy. They were killed quickly rather than to be left to feed off each other after they were left to starve by the party as is their nature.
@Wind Chime +1
Since when can half dead prisoners, who aren't a part of the conflict, surrender? Also, just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's as black and white as you think.Who says that the opposite to Mercy is murder or killing? You can show no mercy by walking away. Who says that it's not meant during battle? These are all questions that different DM's will answer differently. I can already tell you that all the PFS DMs around here disagree with your reading so that tells you right there that it can be interpreted differently.
If they never surrendered then you can do whatever you wish to them as they are then enemy combatants.
A couple of points...
1) in Golarion the Drow are not a enemy of the dwarf race. The dwarves don't even really know they exist...as there were no Drow in Golarion before the dwarves reached the surface. The Palain of Torag should have been more "What the heck are you?" to the drow. As per Second Darkness Drows are only known to a few elves(Winter council and the Lantern Bearers and the keep it secret.
2) 'Scattering their familys' seem to me to be very specidically not endorse genocide...true maybe the forgot the scatter the ashes of their familys...but we can only get what they wrote. So they don't believe in slaughtering the helpless.
3) A enemy of my people...is very ambigous considering he is not just a dwarven god. So it is not about reference to traditional dwarven enemies...as that make almost no sense then. It probably more in reference to your communities enemies. Which probably rules out the morlocks, drow and the underfen as 'enemies' as they don't go that deep.
4) Also a enemy is somebody who poses a threat to you...which a few morlocks in a jail cell of your actual ENEMY that you activing fighting really don't qualfied. Heck they would probably be more than willing to help you fight your actual enemy that to just attack you. So not only does this fail in most morale...it also truely fails in being pragmatic category as well.
5) So if killing evil is always honorable....than why did he stop the Ninja from killing evil enemies in their sleep? Would that not means he would fall for allowing Evil a fair chance?
Anyway of course this merely how I would interpert it in my game...I don't even know ecactly if the Paladin would fall because of it...he would though get a warning.
It's funny that some people think of paladins as these cute huggable people, when in reality (as someone in the thread previously stated) they are the holy warriors of their gods. They aren't there to coddle people, they aren't there to tell you it's going to be okay and put a band-aid on your boo-boo, they are there to destroy evil in every facet of the game and sometimes things get dirty and the choices get hard. That's when the Paladin has to keep to his faith, his code, and his tenets no matter what other people in his adventuring party have to say.
The real deal here is that we have kind of taken this thread off on a tangent. The OP was the CN ninja who wanted to complain to the Paladin's church officials about how the paladin did something he perceived as going too far.
Most of us feel that this is meta-gamey and the player didn't agree with how the Paladin was being played in this regard. The GM hasn't said anything as they haven't been in the forum yet.
Myself and quite a few others have established that the Paladin was in fact acting within his faiths tenets and within the Paladin's Code for his god Torag.
We are now at the point where we are arguing over semantics in the Paladin's code and not whether the OP's original question of what he wants to do to punish the paladin is valid. I still think it's passive aggressive behavior and that a CN ninja wouldn't give a rat's behind what happened to evil creatures helpless or not. He probably wouldn't care what happened to helpless innocent goodly folk either, that's just the way that CN is. They care only about themselves for the most part. They are about the moment.
So in that one moment he felt sympathy for these "poor helpless Morlocks" and told the paladin that he didn't agree with the way the paladin was handling the situation. Paladin noted it and said go ahead and write the church leaders, they won't care because he's doing his duty. It's over and done with unless the CN ninja decides he wants to try to exact some kind of twisted revenge upon the paladin for following his code. Good luck there, you'll need it since that paladin would crush you in a fair fight unless the dice gods were overly cruel to him and critically generous to you.
|
|
If they never surrendered then you can do whatever you wish to them as they are then enemy combatants.
Since when can half dead prisoners, who aren't a part of the conflict, surrender? Also, just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's as black and white as you think.Who says that the opposite to Mercy is murder or killing? You can show no mercy by walking away. Who says that it's not meant during battle? These are all questions that different DM's will answer differently. I can already tell you that all the PFS DMs around here disagree with your reading so that tells you right there that it can be interpreted differently.
If that is the way you want to look at it then go for it but I know many people who would disagree.