The way I'm seeing it, imagine a business district with a few dozens of merchants, hundreds, possibly thousands of artisans and laborers, several dozens of guards, some clergy etc. In a mostly evil society I'd expect roughly 40-50% of the people to be evil, and 5-10% to be of level 5 and above. Get 2000-3000 Chelish and you may well have several dozens that ping on the Paladar. Clerics are on top of that. There are likely to be other such places as well, especially where more seasoned travelers, sailors or soldiers gather.
Edit: the point is this - if Paladins do feel that everyone who registers evil is an enemy of all goodness best removed preventively before they can do great evil, it might boast a significant number of mass murderers.
Murdering evil is not murder, is it? Try, liberating, or cleansing.
That's how America does it.
Does anybody have any questions for me or tippo before we veer off the cliff of religious knights in the real world. And bashing religion in generalSorry I didn't mean to sound like I was bashing religion in the real world. I was making a point off of how a lot of the Golarion races/classes are based off of real world peoples. There are religious zealots in both, there are gun toting swashbucklers in both and there are sagely old men in both.
My question to you Lobolusk is how your GM felt about all of this? We haven't heard about how he/she handled the situation and if the Paladin in your group toes the line (as you seem to think) in other situations?
My gm is very laid back he lets each player really do hi or her own concept he comes from the old school add crowd. He didn't seem to have a problem with it. He is a real good dm when it comes to letting players be creative and play a ninja alligator man, a talking dog barbarian ect.. He really has never had a conflict like this and I am not to keen to bring him after reading this thread I realized I was letting my own perception of a paladin bleed through having to played one 2 characters back. Honestly a paladin of Torag is not my type of paladin I did play. I have to say I thought it an evil act what he did but Torag seems to give high fives for that and it was so close to the line that it is a hard call the paladin has basic,y argued many of the same points about his faith that you have argued. If I was dm he would of crossed the line. But I recognize it is not my call. The type of paladin that I see is a redeeming warrior that destroys evil with his goodness and because he has these powers he is required to always take the high road. Think super man form the justice league. It is a trade off but in this game they are much more grey. Though I think a kill all that is evil paladin is interesting it is just not my cup,of tea..
The other thing is we had a tpk a few weeks back and these are new characters that really haven't been given much of a plot hook to why they are where they are we are looking for some guy name Kline but even with our other characters we did not really grasp it. So we have fumbled and killed all our possible allies and know nothing so it would of been nice to actually have a big picture idea of what the heck is going on. Is that helpfull?
The way I'm seeing it, imagine a business district with a few dozens of merchants, hundreds, possibly thousands of artisans and laborers, several dozens of guards, some clergy etc. In a mostly evil society I'd expect roughly 40-50% of the people to be evil, and 5-10% to be of level 5 and above. Get 2000-3000 Chelish and you may well have several dozens that ping on the Paladar. Clerics are on top of that. There are likely to be other such places as well, especially where more seasoned travelers, sailors or soldiers gather.
Edit: the point is this - if Paladins do feel that everyone who registers evil is an enemy of all goodness best removed preventively before they can do great evil, it might boast a significant number of mass murderers.
Not all Paladins feel that way, and trying to make generalizations based on this one situation is unwarranted. Trying to use those generalizations to disprove some theory is also unwarranted.
This was a Dwarf. Stop.
He found three morlocks and a drow. Stop.
He has a deep-seeded racial enmity of those races. Stop.
Torag encourages, nay demands the destruction of his followers' enemies, without mercy. Stop.
Stonelords are the epitome of Dwarf-dom. Stop.
Stonelords (of Torag) are the Champions of Torag. Stop.
Put a Paladin of Iomedae/Erastil/Sarenrae/Shelyn/Abadar/Anyone Else in that situation and you have a whole different scenario. (Maybe not Ragathiel, though.)
Put a non-dwarf in that situation and you have a whole different scenario.
Put a non-Paladin in that situation and you have a whole different scenario.
but crusader, he let the drow live.
Edit I know that someone said torag is fine with that if they have info, but if he had to frag the morlocks then why give the drow a chance.
Edit 2 I dont really care, this particular bit of it just intrigues me
Hah! So, it's wrong that he killed in cold blood, AND it's wrong that he didn't kill in cold blood!
Talk about a no-win scenario.
I can't justify another persons character, even if I had all the info/backstory. Bottom line, if the player and DM have an understanding, and are both ok with the actions... This is player conflict, not really even PC conflict.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not to start a new debate, but is it really fair that race/religion can exempt a paladin from normal moral rules? Why should a dwarf paladin be able to kill prisoners and be considered "good" while a human paladin does the same and Falls?
no it is wrong if he killed one because it was evil, and then let another live.
seems like he had his cake and ate it too.
anyhow seems like you are getting flustered so i withdraw further commentary on your stance.
Not to start a new debate, but is it really fair that race/religion can exempt a paladin from normal moral rules? Why should a dwarf paladin be able to kill prisoners and be considered "good" while a human paladin does the same and Falls?
A human Paladin of Torag would have much the same rules. Or not. He's your character.
If you can present a good enough backstory/justification, your elf Paladin of Shelyn could do something similar.
The short answer is, "Define Fair?"
Not to start a new debate, but is it really fair that race/religion can exempt a paladin from normal moral rules? Why should a dwarf paladin be able to kill prisoners and be considered "good" while a human paladin does the same and Falls?
He wouldn't fall. Stop trying to make them fall for everything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not to start a new debate, but is it really fair that race/religion can exempt a paladin from normal moral rules? Why should a dwarf paladin be able to kill prisoners and be considered "good" while a human paladin does the same and Falls?
Not so much a debate as a different question that's easily resolved with (relatively) short answers*.
* But it's me, so you'll get needlessly long answers anyway. Sucker!
In Core RAW: no, it's not, and, by the way, there is only one solitary code that all paladins adhere to regardless of religion (and their religion doesn't matter anyway - unless it's considered "dishonorable" to go against the tenets of your faith, in which case speak with your GM).
In Golarion: they've signed up to follow through with a religion and that religion's way of doing things, and part and parcel of their "honorable behavior" varies to some extent between cultures. So, for example, a dwarven paladin of Sarenrae would be on dubious grounds indeed if they didn't stop and ask the question (as Sarenrae is all about redemption, and these creatures weren't currently engaging in evil), just like a human... although a dwarf - presuming they were raised in dwarven society** - would likely have a much harder time keeping that part of his code than a human would when faced with certain foes or placed in certain situations. A dwarven paladin of Torag, on the other hand, would be expected to do the honorable thing and ensure that the effectively-irredeemable foes he faced*** didn't pile even more damnation on themselves and potentially cause harm to other societies by smiting them until they're dead. Human followers would generally be expected to follow this, too, but they, like the dwarf of Sarenrae above, would tend (sort of) to have a more difficult time with this.
The real debate here, consists of weasely words like "honor" which means different things in different societies. While D&D presumed a code of honor akin to the medieval mindset (and that is, by all implications, exactly what they mean) by using the word "honor" which is entirely based on cultural norms instead of absolute morals, they opened the door to paladin-based debates for ages to follow.
Two Examples:
a) If I belch in front of a Victorian lady, I dishonor myself with such crude behavior. If I don't belch after a meal in certain Middle Eastern cultures, I dishonor the host who fed me.
b) If I commit suicide in Middle Age Christian Italy, because I failed in some task as a warrior, I dishonor myself (and condemn myself to die). If I don't commit suicide in Japanese Bushido as a Samurai who failed to fulfill the duties his master demanded, I dishonor myself and my family.
Golarion has established itself as a world with conflicting societies and conflicting definitions of "honor". Thus, a paladin who follows their religious and cultural norms for "honor" can look exceedingly different from a paladin with different religious and cultural norms for "honor". I do have to wonder about those cultures who find it perfectly acceptable or even "honorable" to lie, steal, use poison, or other "dishonorable" things (whether one or multiples) as noted in the Core RAW code. My guess is that they'd generally be classified as "not lawful good" or even if they are, they wouldn't be conducive to having a paladin (and people's debates would endlessly rage).
But ultimately, regardless of one's reading of anything: speak to your GM. You may or may not agree with their definition of "honor", but speak with your GM, and then play with his definition (unless you're okay with falling). Because really, that's what determines it.
** Why a dwarf raised by dwarves would follow Sarenrae, is a question we're not going to get into here. Just go with it for the sake of this conversation.
*** They "know" this because dwarves have tried to get along with the races. Hint: it ended terribly every time and drove the race above ground.
He wouldn't fall. Stop trying to make them fall for everything.
I like how people are complaining over minor cases of strawmanning while I'm being accused of "trying to make them fall for everything" for raising a single minor point.
Put a non-dwarf in that situation and you have a whole different scenario.
Crusader's words, not mine. Exactly what difference did he have in mind? I was asking a question, you know. -_-
<------------One of The Crusader's aliases.
<-------------Another one.
Read their backstories. Tell me if you think they would handle the same situation the same way.
Let me clarify. I was wondering what the difference would be between a paladin of Torag and a paladin of, say, Shelyn, if exposed to a scenario like the OP's. Would a paladin of Torag be able to get away with more?
I'm aware that two different paladins would handle it differently, but you seemed to be implying the consequences would differ.
What's your point? I was wondering what the difference would be between a paladin of Torag and a paladin of, say, Shelyn, if exposed to a scenario like the OP's. Would a paladin of Torag be able to get away with more?
Honestly, no. But they wouldn't be required to do less either.
Were these things innocent? No?
Were these things evil? Yes?
Why is my paladin's alignment in question?
Any paladin can say "I did the world a favor today, I was the one who fell these awful monsters who someone decided to lock up, rather than kill."
Let me clarify. I was wondering what the difference would be between a paladin of Torag and a paladin of, say, Shelyn, if exposed to a scenario like the OP's. Would a paladin of Torag be able to get away with more?
I'm aware that two different paladins would handle it differently, but you seemed to be implying the consequences would differ.
If different actions don't have different consequences, then your argument is that there is only ever one correct answer for every paladin, everywhere, ever.
I don't believe that is what you are saying.
Different Paladins handle situations differently. Different deities will adjudicate different Paladins handling of situations differently. Different DM's will interpret how different deities will adjudicate different Paladins handling of situations differently.
No, that's not what I was saying. I think I understand now--it's what I figured, there's a gap between "serving his god" and "serving his code". As such, I've made a separate thread.
Good talking to y'all.
Let me clarify. I was wondering what the difference would be between a paladin of Torag and a paladin of, say, Shelyn, if exposed to a scenario like the OP's. Would a paladin of Torag be able to get away with more?
I'm aware that two different paladins would handle it differently, but you seemed to be implying the consequences would differ.
First, while I was ninja'd, I'd appreciate it if you read my post, too!
Second, it's not "getting away with" it's "what's expected of them to be considered 'honorable'".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I read it--long as it was. :P
I just didn't have anything in particular to say. I basically agreed. As I said above, there's clearly a gap between "general paladin rules" and "personal paladin rules/god rules".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really think that @Crusader and @Tacticslion really hit the nail on the head with their posts here concerning the Paladin and what is expected of him/her being so dependant upon what the race of the paladin is, what the archetype is, and which deity they follow.
The bottom line here is that there is no ONE way to play a paladin. Some things that a stonelord who follows Torag would do in the course of his career would make a different paladin fall and vice versa. It really just needs to come down to each individual and their GM to talk about the paladin codes/tenets and how to follow them to the best of their abilities. Open communication with the whole group is key, that's what I've come to realize after my years spent doing this amazing, fun, and sometimes complicated hobby we all love.
@Lobolusk - I also know that it's hard to pick up new characters right after a TPK and try to run with them after you are used to the old characters/personalities and what they knew in the campaign.
I'm glad that some of us were able to shed some light on the stonelord Torag-following paladin in your group and that you realize that some of your personal feelings for how you played your previous paladin were bleeding through and coloring your vision a bit. I'm happy that I could help you see that and I wish you guys well in your game going forward. It's cool that you have such a laid back GM and that he allows you to play whatever you want and paving your own paths during what sounds like a fun and interesting campaign.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find it a bit scary how forceful some people are with "I know how CNN plays better than you, therefore you are metagaming." just cause he's CNN, he can't care that killing defenseless prisoners is morally creepy?
That's dumb. Even Jack Sparrow showed occasional mercy and empathy.
I find it a bit scary how forceful some people are with "I know how CNN plays better than you, therefore you are metagaming." just cause he's CNN, he can't care that killing defenseless prisoners is morally creepy?
That's dumb. Even Jack Sparrow showed occasional mercy and empathy.
Im am not trying to be an arsehat, just a smart arse but:-b
If CNN is Chaotic neautral, assume Fox is pure evil, BBC is Lawful neutral, and NBC is chaotic good?
Jack Sparrow isn't a bad example. He's the ultimate "apathetic CN" character, but even he was uncomfortable with some atrocities. And he was basically the nastiest CN can get while still being sympathetic--plenty of perfectly likable PCs can be CN and still argue over what to do with prisoners. There's no rule banning them from taking part in the discussion. :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like how important it appears to be to people that CN people do what they are supposed to do. ;P
A Chaotic Neutral character who violates the Chaotic Neutral Code of Conduct loses all abilities and must immediately change his alignment to either Chaotic Good or True Neutral. He is also banned from using the "I'm Chaotic Neutral" excuse to justify Evil acts.
The Chaotic Neutral Code of Conduct is as follows:
1) A Chaotic Neutral character must never willingly perform an act of altruism.
2) A Chaotic Neutral character must always stab his or her party members in the back if given the opportunity.
3) A Chaotic Neutral character must never allow his alignment to be changed to Evil for committing evil acts--that is what Chaotic Neutral is all about.
4a) A Chaotic Neutral character must never form sentimental attachments to other beings.
4b) A Chaotic Neutral character can be pardoned for forming attachments to extremely evil entities such as hellhounds and sentient daggers, on the condition that he allow a friendly entity to attack his allies whenever "it" feels like it. He must do his best to defend the entity (even violating Rule 1 if need be), and must avenge the entity in a petty but deadly manner at a later time if it is lost or slain.
5) A Chaotic Neutral character must never willingly defend the innocent. If he does, he is metagaming.
;D
I like how important it appears to be to people that CN people do what they are supposed to do. ;P
;DA Chaotic Neutral character who violates the Chaotic Neutral Code of Conduct loses all abilities and must immediately change his alignment to either Chaotic Good or True Neutral. He is also banned from using the "I'm Chaotic Neutral" excuse to justify Evil acts.
The Chaotic Neutral Code of Conduct is as follows:
1) A Chaotic Neutral character must never willingly perform an act of altruism.
2) A Chaotic Neutral character must always stab his or her party members in the back if given the opportunity.
3) A Chaotic Neutral character must never allow his alignment to be changed to Evil for committing evil acts--that is what Chaotic Neutral is all about.
4a) A Chaotic Neutral character must never form sentimental attachments to other beings.
4b) A Chaotic Neutral character can be pardoned for forming attachments to extremely evil entities such as hellhounds and sentient daggers, on the condition that he allow a friendly entity to attack his allies whenever "it" feels like it. He must do his best to defend the entity (even violating Rule 1 if need be), and must avenge the entity in a petty but deadly manner at a later time if it is lost or slain.
5) A Chaotic Neutral character must never willingly defend the innocent. If he does, he is metagaming.
You, sir, are my hero.
Chaotic Neutral has, in my experience, become the "I'm going to choose this alignment so I can completely ignore the alignment aspect of this game." My fellow players increasingly choose this alignment so they don't feel bound to roleplay anything other than "I'm outta control! I do what I want!"
But that being said, how'd it go from "Murderous Paladin: Good or Bad?" to "Chaotic Neutral Ninja: Metagamer or Alignment Breaker?"
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lobolusk: I think you should definitely look at this as an opportunity to roleplay, and perhaps steer the paladin in a more constructive direction. (See a previous post of mine a few pages back). Seriously, continuing to immediately kill everything that detects as evil in that adventure path is going to lead to another TPK pretty quickly. If the paladin is on board to find the same guy as you, getting him to use some restraint and sound tactics shouldn't be too hard.
Your other example of him waking up the barracks you were sneaking through kind of bothers me, as putting the scout in unnecessary peril appeared to be a tactically unsound decision for a trained warrior. Even the most bullheaded paladin should know the value of scouting and obtaining information. Point that out to him. (Well, not the bullheaded part).
Everyone else: I love it when people apply 21st century morals and ethics to a paladin in fantasy setting where irredeemable evil isn't just a philosophical concept, it's a frighteningly common fact of life. Keep them coming. Makes me laugh. :-)
|
Thanks for this great example of what a Straw Man Fallacy is. I understand it better now :-)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.Okay, okay, not to be harsh, but this fallacy keeps being triumphantly invoked all over the forums. It's gotten out of hand.
Taken literally, it's a Straw Man, but there is obvious sarcasm in the post. Hyperbole is a common way to make a point: "to better illustrate why your POV is flawed, let me blow up the picture and increase the contrast." Dismissing such expressions as a Straw Man really just seems like a tactic to brush off an argument while appearing superior. Jodaki made a point in tongue-and-cheek fashion. You don't get the argument prize for crying fallacy.
Actually, what you describe is exactly what Jodokai did in his comment about my earlier post here
Here, let me try :
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.
Taken literally, it's a Straw Man, but there is obvious sarcasm in the post. Hyperbole is a common way to make a point: "to better illustrate why your POV is flawed, let me blow up the picture and increase the contrast." Dismissing such expressions as a Straw Man really just seems like a tactic to brush off an argument while appearing superior. Black Raven made a point in tongue-and-cheek fashion. You don't get the argument prize for crying fallacy.
Hey, it works :-)
|
|
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.
BTW, the "attack" was the part directly under your quote, so not really about a bunch of words I put in someone's mouth ;-)
Also, I read Torag's code. It is just that my definition of bad-ass is not as extreme as yours and some other posters'.
|
|
He really has never had a conflict like this and I am not to keen to bring him after reading this thread I realized I was letting my own perception of a paladin bleed through having to played one 2 characters back. Honestly a paladin of Torag is not my type of paladin I did play. I have to say I thought it an evil act what he did but Torag seems to give high fives for that and it was so close to the line that it is a hard call the paladin has basic,y argued many of the same points about his faith that you have argued. If I was dm he would of crossed the line. But I recognize it is not my call. The type of paladin that I see is a redeeming warrior that destroys evil with his goodness and because he has these powers he is required to always take the high road. Think super man form the justice league. It is a trade off but in this game they are much more grey. Though I think a kill all that is evil paladin is interesting it is just not my cup,of tea..
I think this is the exact point. Though it is not (at least per the OP) a Paladin alignment thread here, it is still an alignment thread. More precisely, it hinges on differing perceptions of what is good, or evil, honorable or not, between a player, another player and the GM.
That is why, after reading all these threads on the boards, I now try to get my GM to explain as early as possible what he sees as an evil act, whether there is a Paladin at the table or not.
|
|
Oh hell I don't know, maybe ignore that murderous itch and walk away?I don't expect paladins to always be nice, but I do expect them to be honorable. Murdering defenseless prisoners does not strike me as honorable. Were they actively endangering the paladin or anything worth protecting, we wouldn't be having this conversation.What was the right thing to do with these (presumably) irredeemable prisoners?But had he walked away, do you seriously expect us to believe that you wouldn't tell us he should fall for that too?
I think you just have a problem with the fact that he's a paladin, you are very much against the players in every discussion I've ever had with you.
Shallowsoul is always on the GM side against the players.
No matter that here he is standing with the player (OP) ?
But wait, it gets better
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.
So, those that do not agree that the killing was okay (for example Shallowsoul) are against the GM.
It is amazing how people can read something in posts and texts when it is not there at all, to the point that they get completely opposite readings (ie, against the player AND against the GM).
What strikes me though is that both posts denigrate their opponent's stance as being "on principle" (because he is always pro-GM, you know. Or because the boards are always pro-players, you know), which implicitly means that it has no real value, and thus that their opinion is the right and proper one.
|
|
I am currently playing a Paladin/Inquisitor in one of our PFS games and I really like the character and the class so I'm not sure where Marshmellow gets the idea that I am against him because the guy is a paladin.
I'm against people abusing the powers of a paladin and making the class look bad. If you actually sat down and read the class then you would know that just pinging evil doesn't grant you the right to auto smite. Raven has already given a great reference from Faiths of Purity.
|
|
Wait, if those prisoners detected as evil doesn't that mean they had "actively evil intents"? Since they are not priests of evil gods or evil outsiders, they should not detect as evil if they were really cowed and harmless.
Mercy also has to work hand in hand with justice. And if you are in the middle of nowhere far from any court of law, you (the paladin) must often take justice into your own hands.
Just because a prisoner is helpless, doesn't mean he is without guilt. What if that prisoner had murdered, tortured and maimed dozens of innocents? Letting him go free to carry out more of the same would surely be a greater evil than just executing him on the spot for his crimes.
And how do you know what they did exactly or do you kill them just in case?
Detect Evil lists no crimes or anything of the sort. If you obtain proper information and then come across the individual then fair enough but this isn't that situation.
|
|
Everyone else: I love it when people apply 21st century morals and ethics to a paladin in fantasy setting where irredeemable evil isn't just a philosophical concept, it's a frighteningly common fact of life. Keep them coming. Makes me laugh. :-)
Then you should go read Champions of Purity ;-)
Essentially, they say : to each his own
There is a reason very few of the long-lived races have paladins. Most creatures that live for eons tend to get colored by the evils committed against someone they know well, and get rather callous about the lives of their enemies. Human lives are very short, which allows them to be naive and grow up without knowing repeated wars against creatures whose whole purpose in life is to kill you, nor the fight for mere survival.
Torag has been around since pretty much the dawn of time, and seen gods rise for the mere purpose of opposing him and his people. Orcs exist to destroy dwarves and elves, unless I am mixing up my lore here. Why would Torag NOT demand their extinction?
And to top it off, this is Golarion, where several gods of unquestionable evil exist. It is NOT earth, where you can argue that <insert religion/system of belief> is or is not evil, and open for interpretation. You follow a god, and if you do not live up to his or her VERY narrow expectations, you are cut off from their favor, and no spells for you. Nobody thinks Rovagug is actually a nice, misunderstood guy that is just acting out because he does not know how to otherwise express himself. And it is no secret that theft, poison and murder is the domain of the evil god Norgorber. People who choose to live within the domains of a god to the degree that their alignment correlates... well, if you are a paladin and want to protect the goodly people, it is your gods given MANDATE to kill them. You are given the powers "Detect Evil" and "SMITE EVIL" for a reason. IF you worship Sarenrae, and ONLY Sarenrae, are you obligated to give them a shot at redemption. And if you read up on Torag, you will see that he considers her weak and foolish.
|
|
There is a reason very few of the long-lived races have paladins. Most creatures that live for eons tend to get colored by the evils committed against someone they know well, and get rather callous about the lives of their enemies. Human lives are very short, which allows them to be naive and grow up without knowing repeated wars against creatures whose whole purpose in life is to kill you, nor the fight for mere survival.
Short-lived races should be filled with Paladins then. Races such as Orcs and Goblins, for example ;-)
|
|
There is a reason very few of the long-lived races have paladins. Most creatures that live for eons tend to get colored by the evils committed against someone they know well, and get rather callous about the lives of their enemies. Human lives are very short, which allows them to be naive and grow up without knowing repeated wars against creatures whose whole purpose in life is to kill you, nor the fight for mere survival.
Torag has been around since pretty much the dawn of time, and seen gods rise for the mere purpose of opposing him and his people. Orcs exist to destroy dwarves and elves, unless I am mixing up my lore here. Why would Torag NOT demand their extinction?
And to top it off, this is Golarion, where several gods of unquestionable evil exist. It is NOT earth, where you can argue that <insert religion/system of belief> is or is not evil, and open for interpretation. You follow a god, and if you do not live up to his or her VERY narrow expectations, you are cut off from their favor, and no spells for you. Nobody thinks Rovagug is actually a nice, misunderstood guy that is just acting out because he does not know how to otherwise express himself. And it is no secret that theft, poison and murder is the domain of the evil god Norgorber. People who choose to live within the domains of a god to the degree that their alignment correlates... well, if you are a paladin and want to protect the goodly people, it is your gods given MANDATE to kill them. You are given the powers "Detect Evil" and "SMITE EVIL" for a reason. IF you worship Sarenrae, and ONLY Sarenrae, are you obligated to give them a shot at redemption. And if you read up on Torag, you will see that he considers her weak and foolish.
You Detect Evil, assess the situation appropriately and you Smite when necessary.
It doesn't work to Smite everything that pings evil. Not sure where you and a few others have gotten this stance.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a reason very few of the long-lived races have paladins. Most creatures that live for eons tend to get colored by the evils committed against someone they know well, and get rather callous about the lives of their enemies. Human lives are very short, which allows them to be naive and grow up without knowing repeated wars against creatures whose whole purpose in life is to kill you, nor the fight for mere survival.
Torag has been around since pretty much the dawn of time, and seen gods rise for the mere purpose of opposing him and his people. Orcs exist to destroy dwarves and elves, unless I am mixing up my lore here. Why would Torag NOT demand their extinction?
And to top it off, this is Golarion, where several gods of unquestionable evil exist. It is NOT earth, where you can argue that <insert religion/system of belief> is or is not evil, and open for interpretation. You follow a god, and if you do not live up to his or her VERY narrow expectations, you are cut off from their favor, and no spells for you. Nobody thinks Rovagug is actually a nice, misunderstood guy that is just acting out because he does not know how to otherwise express himself. And it is no secret that theft, poison and murder is the domain of the evil god Norgorber. People who choose to live within the domains of a god to the degree that their alignment correlates... well, if you are a paladin and want to protect the goodly people, it is your gods given MANDATE to kill them. You are given the powers "Detect Evil" and "SMITE EVIL" for a reason. IF you worship Sarenrae, and ONLY Sarenrae, are you obligated to give them a shot at redemption. And if you read up on Torag, you will see that he considers her weak and foolish.
You Detect Evil, assess the situation appropriately and you Smite when necessary.
It doesn't work to Smite everything that pings evil. Not sure where you and a few others have gotten this stance.
Jeez, put some clothes on that straw-man, it is barely even humanoid.
That is not what I said, and you know it. My statement is that you get the power to destroy evil. You do not get the power to make evil magically turn non-evil.
No, you cannot smite everything that pings evil (and not just because you are limited to X smites/day), but everything that pings evil is corrupt, and warrants distrust. Depending on the god you follow, the next step varies. Paladins of Torag are obliged to kill everything considered "enemies of his people". Paladins of Sarenrae are obliged to give them a shot at redemption. But even they consider it a holy gift, and does not allow it to be subject of mockery or trifle.
In certain places, people have to live with evil, because evil is stronger, and have the upper hand. Societies can still exist, because people still have basic needs like food, shelter and so on. And most people are not heroes, and most heroes are not paladins. Thus, a lot of bad stuff needs to be accepted to survive. If a LE lord is the only reason the orcs are not violating your wife, sister and daughter, then you choose the lesser of two evils. If you are a paladin, you work your way up to reform or replace the evil lord, and become ruler yourself, for the good of the people. Or set out to destroy the orcs, so your people can unite against the evil lord. In no way is it acceptable for the paladin to do nothing and accept his people be kicked between two evils. Evil must be combated, for that is your purpose as a paladin.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are given the powers "Detect Evil" and "SMITE EVIL" for a reason.
Heh, I like this. But here's the flaw. Detect Evil is whenever you want, as long as you want, on whomever you want, without limitation. Smite evil is limited to only a certain number of times. Balance issues aside, there's also a philosophy behind it. An evil person can be evil at heart and perform 0 evil acts his entire life. A Paladin would not smite him. He is, despite his alignment, innocent.
One thing the OP didn't mention, and many people here have automatically assumed, is that the people in the cells were evil, had committed evil every waking moment of their life, and would do so again in barest second when given a chance. Who said they hadn't been born here? Raised here? Kept here for amusement and would ultimately die here?
Smiting is limited because "see evil, smash evil" on reflex is a downward spiral into the murky quandry many actively evil persons live in.
You are given the powers "Detect Evil" and "SMITE EVIL" for a reason.Heh, I like this. But here's the flaw. Detect Evil is whenever you want, as long as you want, on whomever you want, without limitation. Smite evil is limited to only a certain number of times. Balance issues aside, there's also a philosophy behind it. An evil person can be evil at heart and perform 0 evil acts his entire life. A Paladin would not smite him. He is, despite his alignment, innocent.
One thing the OP didn't mention, and many people here have automatically assumed, is that the people in the cells were evil, had committed evil every waking moment of their life, and would do so again in barest second when given a chance. Who said they hadn't been born here? Raised here? Kept here for amusement and would ultimately die here?
Smiting is limited because "see evil, smash evil" on reflex is a downward spiral into the murky quandry many actively evil persons live in.
Evil and do 0 evil acts? How do you get to level 5+ without EVER doing an evil act as an evil character? That is silly at best and entrapment at worst. A person that wants the world to burn, but NEVER acts upon it, not even to the degree where he kicks a kitten, is a Neutral person with a bad disposition. Just like a person who wants the world to be a better place but never offers a single copper or helps an old woman cross the street is not good.
In order to be evil, you need to BE evil. I have changed PC alignments before due to their reluctance to ever do good acts. There was a NG wizard in my last game that never did anything for anyone else, and was completely consumed with his magical studies, and regulations of the kingdom for the sake of structure, income and order. I made him LN, and the player agreed that it was the correct decision.
In no way is it acceptable for the paladin to do nothing. Evil must be combated, for that is your purpose as a paladin.
So when that man haggles for a few coppers off his purchase and outsmarts the shopkeep, and you Detect Evil on him and he shows, you just bash his head in for the good of the land. Evil vanquished, good has triumphed, despite the horrified store clerk's looks as the brain matter rolls down his counter.
Evil and do 0 evil acts? How do you get to level 5+ without EVER doing an evil act as an evil character?
Same way that old man in the tower who's studied for years and years without fighting a single person ends up being the epic evoker. Its an NPC.
If a drow was chained to a wall from child birth, he could very well plan and scheme and connive to do horrible unspeakable act, but the opportunity never arose. The drow is still evil. But he's done 0 acts of evil. The gods aren't going to come down and say "because you can't do it, we're going to force a change of heart." If a man plans to murder his wife and kids, but his friends are always over, his business schedule is full, and he can't come up with a good alibi or method, so fails to do it, there is still evil in his heart, but no actions to show for it. Evil doesn't have to be "off the deep end sadistic twisted maniac" which is the black and white roleplayers love to paint it as. And even if it is, the Paladin in the OP had no proof those creaturs did any act, had any plan, or any involvement with anything evil other than a level 1 ability to show alignment and their race. This pushes a lawful good honorable knight to slaughter? I've been playing my Paladins ALL wrong.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In no way is it acceptable for the paladin to do nothing. Evil must be combated, for that is your purpose as a paladin.So when that man haggles for a few coppers off his purchase and outsmarts the shopkeep, and you Detect Evil on him and he shows, you just bash his head in for the good of the land. Evil vanquished, good has triumphed, despite the horrified store clerk's looks as the brain matter rolls down his counter.
^ Now that is how you do a Straw Man Fallacy.
Of course, PCs are a bit different, because they are always doing stuff
A good point, and its this that often leads to "how did our enemies become as powerful as we are without going through all the crap we've went through?" NPCs are not, can not, shall not, be based on the PC scale. A level 20 NPC cleric could be a clergy man who has killed no undead, delved no dungeons, and performed very little outside of basic healing for his townfolk, yet still be the High Priest and higher than the party of level 10's who just got done with their 4th adventure.
^ Now that is how you do a Straw Man Fallacy.In no way is it acceptable for the paladin to do nothing. Evil must be combated, for that is your purpose as a paladin.So when that man haggles for a few coppers off his purchase and outsmarts the shopkeep, and you Detect Evil on him and he shows, you just bash his head in for the good of the land. Evil vanquished, good has triumphed, despite the horrified store clerk's looks as the brain matter rolls down his counter.
Thanks! I was hoping it wouldn't go unnoticed, but in its own exaggerated way explains my point.