|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Evil and do 0 evil acts? How do you get to level 5+ without EVER doing an evil act as an evil character?An evil person locked away in prison is still evil. He's not committing any evil though because he has had no opportunity to do so.
Just because someone/something hasn't had the opportunity to commit evil doesn't mean he isn't evil - evil intentions which will be acted upon when the opportunity arises is enough to make one evil.
For example, compare a werewolf in a cage, with a werewolf outside of cage. Do the cage bars make one less evil?Good is similar. A good druid living as a hermit in the middle of nowhere might not have the opportunity to help others, but if the opportunity ever presented itself he would do the right thing.
Of course, PCs are a bit different, because they are always doing stuff, and so are tested on a regular basis.
Also along those lines, here's another example of how the "if it detects as evil at all it must be an atrocity-monger/irredeemable/deserve death!" argument falls apart. One of my favorite posts on this forum:
The trouble is also that the RAW assumes that, excepting clerics of evil gods, 1st level characters cannot have done enough evil to show up on a paladin's radar, while characters of 6th level and above suddenly do based on a false assumption that they're truly committed to wickedness.Let's take the count's son, for example. He's a nasty piece of work, cruel to everyone, pulled the wings off flies as a child, worked his way up to strangling kittens, and has just done it with a chambermaid and tossed her body off the battlements to make it look like a suicide. It was thrilling and he's planning to do it again and again. He's also a 1st level aristocrat. The RAW says he doesn't detect as Evil.
Meanwhile, we have the local wizard. He's a mean old curmudgeon who finally, at the age of eighty, reached 7th level. He's never summoned an imp familiar because his mean old cat was always good enough for him and besides, when he inquired, Hell was not able to offer a contract to his liking. He's basically Scrooge as a wizard. The RAW says he radiates as much evil as a 1st level evil cleric.
Meanwhile we have the 1st level evil cleric. She's wicked but has only been sacrificing doves to her dark god because in her dark temple, 1st level acolytes don't get to do human sacrifices. And all she knows about goodness is the twaddle taught to her by the dark cult that raised her.
Now, which of these three is the most evil?
To the above post: if you take the advice of previous posters: all of them are evil; kill them, plus their cat, their dog, their father and mother, and their adopted newborn because you're a Paladin and you should scatter their families and let good win. Evil should be removed from the multiverse entirely, leaving no definition for good and allowing everything to unravel and become nothingness because nothingness has no evil. (P.S. how far can I straw man before it implodes under its own gravity?)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is why I hate paladins in 3.5/PF. The Code screws you without providing any true benefit over other classes. And you have lose lose situations like this...
A. Paladin refuses to kill the evil prisoners till they are dragged back to town and given a trial. He is so frustrating... how do we get rid of the him!
Or
B. Paladin slaughtered the evil prisoners! Im writing a letter to his superiors, petitioning the DM that he should fall, and never going to help the Paladin in combat again! Jerk!
Literally you cant win with some groups... its not if the Paladin gets screwed... its when. I have seen some of the most ticky tacky crap called on Paladins. In my games I completely overhauled them. Paladin is a 10 level cleric prestige class. You can be LG, CG, LE, or CE based on your deity. And the code is much more forgiving. It really takes some blatant and repeated acts to fall. In its RAW form... none of my Players would touch a paladin.
As for the OP: Your a CN Ninja. RP a CN Ninja. You shouldn't care one way or the other. Let him do him, and you do you.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is why I hate paladins in 3.5/PF. The Code screws you without providing any true benefit over other classes. And you have lose lose situations like this...
A. Paladin refuses to kill the evil prisoners till they are dragged back to town and given a trial. He is so frustrating... how do we get rid of the him!
Or
B. Paladin slaughtered the evil prisoners! Im writing a letter to his superiors, petitioning the DM that he should fall, and never going to help the Paladin in combat again! Jerk!
Literally you cant win with some groups... its not if the Paladin gets screwed... its when. I have seen some of the most ticky tacky crap called on Paladins. In my games I completely overhauled them. Paladin is a 10 level cleric prestige class. You can be LG, CG, LE, or CE based on your deity. And the code is much more forgiving. It really takes some blatant and repeated acts to fall. In its RAW form... none of my Players would touch a paladin.
As for the OP: Your a CN Ninja. RP a CN Ninja. You shouldn't care one way or the other. Let him do him, and you do you.
I find it incredibly ironic that you spend most of your post talking about how overly restrictive class/alignment expectations and roleplaying restrictions are for Paladins, and then finish it by telling the OP that there's only One True Way to play a Chaotic Neutral Ninja.
|
I haven't seen what PF does for code but in 3.5 the paladins player wrote his own code, thus it would be a fall from grace for some but not for others depending on what code they wrote. LG isn't some universally objective absolute concept thatapplies exactly the same to everyone. And since the concept of evil is percieved in a different fashion by different people, the acceptable ways of dealing with it is different.
I haven't seen what PF does for code but in 3.5 the paladins player wrote his own code, thus it would be a fall from grace for some but not for others depending on what code they wrote. LG isn't some universally objective absolute concept thatapplies exactly the same to everyone. And since the concept of evil is percieved in a different fashion by different people, the acceptable ways of dealing with it is different.
True, but killing people you've never met or heard about, even evil people, who are tied to a wall, starved and tortured, for no reason other than they detected as evil is a butcher's work, no matter how grey you make the matter. If he'd been tracking this group of slaves because of past crimes, cool, he's got motive. If he'd recognized the drow as a elusive spy from the surface world wanted for crimes, he'd have motive. Detecting evil as your one and only reason behind a massacre is a flimsy excuse at best.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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...
The Black Raven, let me give you some advice:
1. Read the entire thread until you understand what is being said, and quit taking things out of context.2. Quit looking for people to fight. You take every post as if it's a direct attack on you. This ties in nicely with...
3. Get over yourself. You are not so important to me that every post I make is about you, or even something you post.
Now to clear up a few things. You use a Straw-Man to imply that I said it was okay for a Paladin to sneak in and slaughter people in their sleep. There was no obvious tongue-in-cheek there. You wanted my statement to sound ridiculous, so you made implications that weren't there. What I did was show another way the conversation could have gone with two imaginary beings. Not only that, but if I remove "die by starvation and thirst" to "No I let them go because they were slaves and slavery is evil" the conversation becomes much more plausible.
In my post you quoted above, you continue your straw-man attacks, by saying I said "always pro-players". I never said always, I said majority. But let's forget about that for a minute, what we're talking about is player vs player NOT player vs GM, so even if what you said was correct, it really has no relevance to the discussion. What is more accurate, is that I feel my opinion is correct because my opponents refuse to take the circumstances into account when deciding if a Paladin will fall. If you think I'm off-base with that assumption, look at the conversation taking place right before this post. People want a set of rules that applies to every Paladin every time. That is the very conversation taking place right now. The post you attacked I made on the top of page 4, here we are 4 pages later, and you see I was pretty spot on. That post goes on to say, that the reason I think people want a set of rules that always apply, is because to do otherwise puts the power in GM hands, and people don't like that. If you think THAT assumption is off-base, well I could probably find you the numerous threads I've used to draw that conclusion as well.
I haven't seen what PF does for code but in 3.5 the paladins player wrote his own code, thus it would be a fall from grace for some but not for others depending on what code they wrote. LG isn't some universally objective absolute concept thatapplies exactly the same to everyone. And since the concept of evil is percieved in a different fashion by different people, the acceptable ways of dealing with it is different.True, but killing people you've never met or heard about, even evil people, who are tied to a wall, starved and tortured, for no reason other than they detected as evil is a butcher's work, no matter how grey you make the matter. If he'd been tracking this group of slaves because of past crimes, cool, he's got motive. If he'd recognized the drow as a elusive spy from the surface world wanted for crimes, he'd have motive. Detecting evil as your one and only reason behind a massacre is a flimsy excuse at best.
Do we know that he had not known about these monsters beforehand? Or are you just assuming that these evil monsters who had already been tried and are now hanging up and rotting to die were unknown?
We know nothing except for what OP told us, and all we got was that it happened, not the story leading up to it.
Second, what if this paladin doesn't believe in the prison system, and that anything tried and found guilty (as these things most likely were) should be destroyed?
The situation is not about finding some random monster child on the street and deciding he has to slaughter it in front of its parents, this is about convicted and sentenced monsters, and maybe he felt the sentencing wasn't enough in the eyes of his deity.
Maybe whoever took them prisoner was weak in his eyes, or in the perspective of his deity. Maybe he felt that these monsters were shown too much mercy that they did not deserve. Maybe he thought killing them was an act of mercy so they wouldn't be tortured anymore. You and I simply don't know, and trying to punish the player that you have never met for a decision you weren't there for is unfair.
Paladins aren't philosophers, they do not ponder the nature of good and evil, they combat it. The more intelligent or wise ones may question their actions a bit more, but you are requiring this paladin to not play like a BDF class, and you want him to spend x number of minutes thinking about and deciding what he believes in meanwhile there's evil afoot.
Its not the Paladin class that has the issue, it was the player behind the Paladin who didn't stop to think "Would a Paladin do it like this? Would MY Paladin do it like this?" I stopped trying to explain that the act of killing is not the issue, but how he went about it. For that discussion, its back a few pages.
|
|
When playing a paladin you have to stop and look at each situation carefully and not run in blindly to vanquish the evil.
The type of creature can make a big difference. You can safely say that slaughtering evil dragons, undead, demons, devils, evil things with barely an intelligence, and anything else I have missed is fine.
When you look at other types of creatures such as drow or duergar for example then you need to judge more around deeds and whats happening at the moment.
If you see a half dead evil creature chained up in an evil dungeon, with knowledge of the individual, then it's better to walk away or handle the situation differently.
I would have chained them up, healed them, and then drilled them with questions and better assess the situation.
Edit: They were already chained. Yoy never know, you could come across a Drizzt at some point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I admit as to only reading the first page so something to this effect may have been mentioned.
After reading in another thread about a "must kill all evil" paladin, I have been wanting to run across one with my CN sorcerer. I want to slap a random person with an infernal healing and then point the paladin in his direction to watch the comedy. Imagine the paladin's horror when he found out what happened.
If your ninja has UMD, you can go this route for the low price of a 750 gp wand.
I missed this yesterday:
While it might be taxing on his mind, it won't make him fall. He has to willingly commit evil. He has to know what he is doing is evil and do it anyway. He was tricked, he didn't know it was evil. Although, you your CN Ninja did this and I was your GM, you just became CE for having an innocent person assassinated.
When playing a paladin you have to stop and look at each situation carefully and not run in blindly to vanquish the evil.
Opinion, and in some campaigns where you don't hacknslash, sure I can see this. But not everyone shares that playstyle, and not all DMs want to make a paladin fall for, and I quote "each situation." Are you gonna make the paladin fall if he doesn'y say excuse me when he sneezes?
The type of creature can make a big difference. You can safely say that slaughtering evil dragons, undead, demons, devils, evil things with barely an intelligence, and anything else I have missed is fine.
Hi, I'm a Morlock, and I'm CE.
When you look at other types of creatures such as drow or duergar for example then you need to judge more around deeds and whats happening at the moment.
He let the drow go.
If you see a half dead evil creature chained up in an evil dungeon, with knowledge of the individual, then it's better to walk away or handle the situation differently.
You started this sentence with a hypothetical if that you, yourself do not have the answer to.
I would have chained them up, healed them, and then drilled them with questions and better assess the situation.
You weren't there, maybe questions did not need to be asked, we don't have all of the information about the game, and we cannot make assumptions about what they did and did not know, besides, he did ask questions of the drow and got what he needed by the sounds of things.
Edit: They were already chained. Yoy never know, you could come across a Drizzt at some point.
My point, they were already chained, they were already found guilty. They were evil, they done evil, they got caught doing evil. My dwarf hates these things and think they didn't get punished enough.
No means for felling a paladin here, not even close to a moral quandary.Remember the in game issue is "the ninja doesn't like that the paladin doesn't care about his opinion," not, "the paladin should fall because he's a paladin and you need to think carefully about every situation you come into."
My paladin had mexican food for lunch, and was playing bodyguard for a noblewoman, but upon needing to go to the bathroom he really had a problem. I mean, a problem! Whatever could do that to a bathroom must assuredly be evil, and thus the paladin should fall, and all other paladins henceforth shall know to never consume mexican food ever again.
|
I admit as to only reading the first page so something to this effect may have been mentioned.
After reading in another thread about a "must kill all evil" paladin, I have been wanting to run across one with my CN sorcerer. I want to slap a random person with an infernal healing and then point the paladin in his direction to watch the comedy. Imagine the paladin's horror when he found out what happened.
If your ninja has UMD, you can go this route for the low price of a 750 gp wand.
I missed this yesterday:
While it might be taxing on his mind, it won't make him fall. He has to willingly commit evil. He has to know what he is doing is evil and do it anyway. He was tricked, he didn't know it was evil. Although, you your CN Ninja did this and I was your GM, you just became CE for having an innocent person assassinated.
Actually, a PC can commit an evil act without being aware that it is evil (description of the Atonement spell : "If the atoning creature committed the evil act unwittingly or under some form of compulsion, atonement operates normally at no cost to you.")
Also, going from CN to CE for a single evil act ? Wow, that is harsh.
In any such case of alignment change due to a PC's actions, if I am the GM, I warn the player that the action he envisions for his PC will make his alignment change. Simply because it is very likely that the player does not share my understanding of how actions and alignments interact in my game.
In fact, thanks to all the alignment threads on the boards, I now tell my players my vision of the alignments before the game begins, at the same time that I describe the houserules I am going to use. Better to clarify it all beforehand than during a heated game session.
Also, going from CN to CE for a single evil act ? Wow, that is harsh.
Did he really just say that in this thread?
|
|
Did he really just say that in this thread?Also, going from CN to CE for a single evil act ? Wow, that is harsh.
Actually ...
I admit as to only reading the first page so something to this effect may have been mentioned.
After reading in another thread about a "must kill all evil" paladin, I have been wanting to run across one with my CN sorcerer. I want to slap a random person with an infernal healing and then point the paladin in his direction to watch the comedy. Imagine the paladin's horror when he found out what happened.
If your ninja has UMD, you can go this route for the low price of a 750 gp wand.
I missed this yesterday:
While it might be taxing on his mind, it won't make him fall. He has to willingly commit evil. He has to know what he is doing is evil and do it anyway. He was tricked, he didn't know it was evil. Although, you your CN Ninja did this and I was your GM, you just became CE for having an innocent person assassinated.
YES :-)
Come to think of it, maybe this harshness is reserved for the CN ninja who got so many stupendous powers due to his following a very strict code :-))
Did he really just say that in this thread?Also, going from CN to CE for a single evil act ? Wow, that is harsh.
Actually ...
I admit as to only reading the first page so something to this effect may have been mentioned.
After reading in another thread about a "must kill all evil" paladin, I have been wanting to run across one with my CN sorcerer. I want to slap a random person with an infernal healing and then point the paladin in his direction to watch the comedy. Imagine the paladin's horror when he found out what happened.
If your ninja has UMD, you can go this route for the low price of a 750 gp wand.
I missed this yesterday:
While it might be taxing on his mind, it won't make him fall. He has to willingly commit evil. He has to know what he is doing is evil and do it anyway. He was tricked, he didn't know it was evil. Although, you your CN Ninja did this and I was your GM, you just became CE for having an innocent person assassinated.
YES :-)
Come to think of it, maybe this harshness is reserved for the CN ninja who got so many stupendous powers due to his following a very strict code :-))
So what about that paladin alignment change? Is that not harsh for one act of killing monsters that detect as evil?
I haven't seen what PF does for code but in 3.5 the paladins player wrote his own code, thus it would be a fall from grace for some but not for others depending on what code they wrote. LG isn't some universally objective absolute concept thatapplies exactly the same to everyone. And since the concept of evil is percieved in a different fashion by different people, the acceptable ways of dealing with it is different.
I think that you are either confusing your group's house rules with the actual rules or you are talking about paladin rules for a specific setting (i am not well versed with 3.5 settings), because the paladin's code of conduct is the same in PF as it was in 3.5 and the associates entry is also the same with the inclusion (in PF) of a sentence talking about the atonement spell.
|
|
So what about that paladin alignment change? Is that not harsh for one act of killing monsters that detect as evil?
I do not know about any alignment change. For the fall, a single evil act is enough.
Anyway, I would have made the Paladin fall for dishonorable act, rather than evil act. But I would have warned the player beforehand. And the atonement would likely have come soon after, as the PC comes to term with the reason why Torag did not approve (in my game, of course).
YES :-)
Come to think of it, maybe this harshness is reserved for the CN ninja who got so many stupendous powers due to his following a very strict code :-))
I don't see what the Paladin did as evil, it completely follows the tenets of his god.
Not EVERY evil act is an instant alignment shift, but this one? Oh yes absolutely. And I don't care if it was a CN Ninja, or a LG Wizard, his alignment just went evil. The motivation is what decides it. You killed an innocent for the sole purpose of hurting a beacon of goodness.
Now, for those that take exception to me saying "you killed" when the Paladin actually did it, I submit to you, if I shoot you in the face with a bazooka, I didn't kill you, the bazooka round did. Sure I knew what would happen if I pointed it at you and pulled the trigger, but I didn't make your head explode the round did.
To further the Motivation discussion, what was the Paladin's motivation for killing the prisoners? In my estimation, it was to stop them from inflicting more evil. The prisoners were captives of evil people (assuming I've read this correctly). The captors would probably use the captees for evil means. If the captees could be redeemed and/or were doing evil against their will, and wouldn't do evil if released, that's one thing, and that wasn't the case in this instance. The captees would continue their evil ways even if released. The paladin removed a tool of evil that would continue to do evil in any situation.
I am sorry you did not understand the original intent of my post it was thus:
if I feel like a paladin has violated his code of honor instead of making a big stink at the table. would writing a letter to his church be a good way to deal with it in game. has any body ever don this?
he is lawful good like all paladins?.....I don't understand what you mean by what authority? you may be referring to him telling me what to do? I am self employed. does that help? because calling me fat does not though my quivering man cheeks are stained with tears.
and I was not aware that the paladin of Torag was so hard core. but it should not even matter because my character does not know that.
Well, I apologize for my brutal honesty. If you had written this post instead of your original post, I'd have been much more helpful from step 1. The other posts really were like a fat kid whining.
I also apologize that this thread has degraded into exactly what you didn't want, a debate about whether or not the Paladin should fall, and for letting a bunch of time pass since my last post.
About the "Authority" thing, one of your posts says that he somehow overrided your authority (the post about his past transgressions in the view of your character). I was questioning what authority your character had over his that you feel was violated in-game.
Just tossing in my two cp: I've been watching this thread since the OP started it, and I noticed no one seemed to touch the issue that I considered the problem: not that the paladin murdered helpless prisoners (evil or not: killing evil that can't fight back based on the fact ALONE that they detected as evil with no knowledge of the 'victims' beyond that IS evil itself) although its a big part, I gathered that the issue is the fact that the paladin didn't even acknowledge the other party member views he just did what HE wanted and damn anyone else opinions.
Take a paladin who personally believes that evil should not be tolerated, and should be executed, mix a little IRL experience and you get a stubborn, arrogant dwarf paladin that doesn't care what these ninjas and barbarians think, "they aren't devoted like I am!!!"
As far as RP goes, player is doing a great job of being a stuck up, stubborn, dwarf paladin.
See that post that I made 2 pages back?
Just tossing in my two cp: I've been watching this thread since the OP started it
This statement is then, a lie.
(evil or not: killing evil that can't fight back based on the fact ALONE that they detected as evil with no knowledge of the 'victims' beyond that IS evil itself)
This is an opinion, and we don't know what the paladin did or did not know. All we know is that he found these evil creatures already imprisoned. Calling them victims may make you a good lawyer, but they were not victims, they were culprits, and as as far as RP goes, if the paladin feels their punishment was not just enough, or if he decided that their punishment is too harsh, he could fluff either of those explanations into being a legitimate reason for killing them. We simply do not know and should not make judgments on this player we have never met based on assumptions about the scenario that none of us were there for.
LOL the other "problem" with that post by Solidchaos085 is that he may have been watching the thread since the OP, but he surely didn't read any of it. And he interprets the issue that "HE" considers the problem instead of the actual question the OP asked us about.
The problem isn't the Paladin at all. The problem is the reaction to the Paladin's actions by the Ninja. The Ninja's player clearly outlined that this was not a Paladin-Needs-to-Be-Knocked-Off-His-Horse thread.
What's with the sympathy for the devil in this thread? They blipped as evil. That removes any ambiguity. They were an evil race to boot.
If killing weaker than you enemies is dishonorable than are Paladins allowed to fight unarmed opponents? Should high level Paladins avoid low level monsters? Should this Paladin have nursed the Morlocks back to health before killing them?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Overnight the thread really got crazy. Kinda funny to me. Again I'll reiterate there is no universal way to play your characters and your alignments, there are some guidelines as to what kinds of things they'd do, but the developers purposely left things vague so that you can give them their own personality, otherwise every paladin would be the "lawful stupid" and every CN character would be the "psychopathic madman."
Each paladin has his own deity, set of codes/tenets/dogma, person playing them, and GM who oversees the rules. All this crap about this paladin falling for killing so-called innocent morlocks is laughable at best and plain moronic at worst.
Overnight the thread really got crazy. Kinda funny to me. Again I'll reiterate there is no universal way to play your characters and your alignments, there are some guidelines as to what kinds of things they'd do, but the developers purposely left things vague so that you can give them their own personality, otherwise every paladin would be the "lawful stupid" and every CN character would be the "psychopathic madman."
Each paladin has his own deity, set of codes/tenets/dogma, person playing them, and GM who oversees the rules. All this crap about this paladin falling for killing so-called innocent morlocks is laughable at best and plain moronic at worst.
I usually play Lawful good by default, and I just picked Chaotic Nuetral by chance to see how it would play. this is my first ninja so the role is very new to me. I may ask the dm for an alignment change more towards good -ish. I really feel has a player I did fall into the CN trap. my character was always supposed to be a jaded doesn't believe in anything type. I had planned to slowly have him realize team work is key and he is not defined by his past but how he acts in the moment. it is not about what has been done to you ect...but with this paladin it is going backwards.
the paladin wrote me offline and explained his actions in character and out of character. he did mention his pc sees "good" in me and he hopes I will change my ways....which just makes so much harder to see him has anything different than a holy assassin.
part of my characters back ground is he was trained by a dwarf who was the Gardner for a temple of some good god( I admit I am not up to speed on all the pathfinder deities the head gardeners turned out to be the head of a secret order in the church who do the dirty work the church that the higher ups are aware of but never acknowledge. so this paladin doing what he was trained to do goes against every thing he has been taught.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As for writing a letter, it's a waste of time. As long as the paladin is un-fallen the church won't care what he does to who. I mean paladins do have the approval of their god flowing through them. If that's there, I can't imagine some church official mouthing off to them.
All right. This is not a paladin alignment thread: you just want to know how you, as a fellow player, should react to the paladin's actions.
My advice - given your alignment and class - is to use the gambit TVTropes refers to as "Your Approval Fills Me With Shame." Congratulate the paladin often on having the foresight to murder a bunch of helpless people. Be sure to mention that even you - a trained killer with no pretensions toward lawfulness or benevolence - thought that was "ruthless" and "pragmatic." If any situations come up where information the prisoners could have told you would have been useful, say, "I sure wish you'd allowed me to torture information out of those prisoners before you had them smashed to death." Mind you, a little of this goes a long way. If he loses his paladin powers, be sympathetic and supportive.
Hire a bard to write a funny song about the brave paladin who sent a minion to kill weakened prisoners, pay him enough to get it to include implications of cowardice, cruelty and stupidity?
|
|
We simply do not know and should not make judgments on this player we have never met based on assumptions about the scenario that none of us were there for.
This has not stopped the "Paladin should not fall" crowd (including you) from voicing their judgment on this player we have never met.
Each paladin has his own deity, set of codes/tenets/dogma, person playing them, and GM who oversees the rules.
I agree with this take on things up til there.
All this crap about this paladin falling for killing so-called innocent morlocks is laughable at best and plain moronic at worst.
So, players and GMs can adjudicate the situation any way they want, but those who go for the "Paladin should fall" are morons to be laughed at ?
Casually flinging insults at people who do not agree with you usually weakens your point.
you're CN you have no conflicts about killing your enemies short of outright murder that doesn't benefit you, you've worked with the paladin THIS long (book 5 of Serpent's Skull?
TPK. New characters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's with the sympathy for the devil in this thread? They blipped as evil. That removes any ambiguity. They were an evil race to boot.
If killing weaker than you enemies is dishonorable than are Paladins allowed to fight unarmed opponents? Should high level Paladins avoid low level monsters? Should this Paladin have nursed the Morlocks back to health before killing them?
I think the actual question in that case is that the prisoners were locked up and unable to defend themselves. Blipping as evil on a Paladin's radar may or may not be justification for instant judgement and execution, based on that Paladin's deity's tenets and beliefs.
In my opinion, too many Paladin players think that Detect Evil is the end-all justification to cleave now, ask questions of the corpse later. Most goodly gods will want the actions of that being weighed, rather than go off of the black-and-white, good-or-evil spell radar. In fact, many gods may consider that killing to be murderous and below a representative of his/her faith. (Note that Torag is definitely an exception in this case, as he shows zero mercy with zero exceptions.)
There's a huge difference between killing an unarmed/unarmored evil being plotting a theft behind a copse of trees, and slaughtering a helpless evil being who is bound and caged. Think of the romantic knights of old as your Paladins.
In standard cases, yes, they should release the morlock from the cage, feed it, allow it to rest (perhaps via a Sleep spell so there's no funny business), put a sword in it's hand, and then strike it down in as much "fair combat" as the Paladin can muster.
Now, in a dungeon, when you don't have time or the means to do such things, and each noise risks the death of you and your parties, then putting these prisoners out of everyone's misery may have been the right call.
Exceptions to every rule. Only the Paladin and the DM can determine what his actions mean in the scale of things.
|
|
As for writing a letter, it's a waste of time. As long as the paladin is un-fallen the church won't care what he does to who. I mean paladins do have the approval of their god flowing through them. If that's there, I can't imagine some church official mouthing off to them.
Hire a bard to write a funny song about the brave paladin who sent a minion to kill weakened prisoners, pay him enough to get it to include implications of cowardice, cruelty and stupidity?All right. This is not a paladin alignment thread: you just want to know how you, as a fellow player, should react to the paladin's actions.
My advice - given your alignment and class - is to use the gambit TVTropes refers to as "Your Approval Fills Me With Shame." Congratulate the paladin often on having the foresight to murder a bunch of helpless people. Be sure to mention that even you - a trained killer with no pretensions toward lawfulness or benevolence - thought that was "ruthless" and "pragmatic." If any situations come up where information the prisoners could have told you would have been useful, say, "I sure wish you'd allowed me to torture information out of those prisoners before you had them smashed to death." Mind you, a little of this goes a long way. If he loses his paladin powers, be sympathetic and supportive.
That's...just so...chaotic neutral...
Each paladin has his own deity, set of codes/tenets/dogma, person playing them, and GM who oversees the rules.I agree with this take on things up til there.
Thanks.
All this crap about this paladin falling for killing so-called innocent morlocks is laughable at best and plain moronic at worst.So, players and GMs can adjudicate the situation any way they want, but those who go for the "Paladin should fall" are morons to be laughed at?Casually flinging insults at people who do not agree with you usually weakens your point.
Okay I got ya, I let my own views kind of color my words here. I didn't call anyone names though, I said that the idea of calling evil morlocks "innocents" to be redeemed was moronic.
What I'm saying is that in THIS instance with these EVIL morlocks who are defined as cannibalistic beasts in the bestiary (by default), it is common knowledge that they are evil and need to be put down. I'd personally play a Dwarf Stonelord Paladin who follows Torag in this way and most of the posters up to this point agree with this singular argument.
These are enemies of his people (Dwarves as well as followers of Torag) and his pally-sense is buzzing off the radar when he encounters them (detect evil). If he left them to live then he'd be breaking his tenet and receive the displeasure of his god.
So in the end I felt that the Paladin did right by his god and his code, others disagree, but that's why I said that it depends on the kind of paladin you play, what codes/tenets/dogma they follow, who their deity is, who is playing the PC, and who the GM is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, too many Paladin players think that Detect Evil is the end-all justification to cleave now, ask questions of the corpse later.
Agree with most of your post, but have a different experience with this. In my experience, this is not a problem at all. From what I have seen on the forums, people who say "Yes, it is ok to kill evil people even if they are helpless" are quickly painted as thinking that Detect Evil is the end-all justification.
You can see it occur this very thread (don't want to re-read to find direct quotes). Saying "paladins are supposed to hunt down evil, it is why they have Detect Evil and Smite Evil, so they can do their job" was twisted to "he Detected as evil, I can kill him!". Just saying "you can use Detect Evil to determine whether to sniff around more" tends to elicit cries of "Detect and kill is not ok!". The far greater problem I have seen, is that people on the forums who posit killing helpless creatures might be ok depending on the creature and the paladin's god have their words twisted to try to make it sound like they want paladins to be Lawful Stupid killing machines, when their argument really is that paladins are not Lawful Stupid peace machines.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If at any point in this thread I indicated the OP was metagaming I redact such an accusation, as well as any accusation about the ninja not behaving it a certian manner because he is chaotic neutral. I think this actually provides an oppurtunity for an interesting role play experience.
This is how I see it going down:
The Ninja character when they have reached a point of relative safety gets in the Paladin's face. "What they hell where you doing killing innocent beings like! You're a monster, you're no holy protector!"
Paladin, "My god abhors all evil everywhere. These creatures had no one to watch over them and ensure their captivity. We are in the Underdark, far from any just laws or judges to determine a betetr course of action. Without greater support to watch over these beings, they cannot be released, nor can they be left where they may be freed to commit evil acts. These beings are by nature evil, and rather than permit evil to flourish it was necessary that they be cleansed. I pray for their souls that they might know peace, and found this act, while necessary, distateful still. So much so that I commanded my stone servant to end their lives rather than do it myself"
The ninja can then say that he had never known or understood the complex burden of being a paladin, or he can say that it's a crock of bull. Maybe he attacks the paladin, or perhaps he expands his view of what it means to be lawful and good.
I think if it plays out like that, the paladin is completely justified in what was done, and the ninja can be justified in proceeding in pretty much any way he likes. Though I absolutely contend that writing a letter doesn't sound like something he would likely do, and that it would probably be 100% ineffective as his god and not the church is in charge of him.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, too many Paladin players think that Detect Evil is the end-all justification to cleave now, ask questions of the corpse later.Agree with most of your post, but have a different experience with this. In my experience, this is not a problem at all. From what I have seen on the forums, people who say "Yes, it is ok to kill evil people even if they are helpless" are quickly painted as thinking that Detect Evil is the end-all justification.
You can see it occur this very thread (don't want to re-read to find direct quotes). Saying "paladins are supposed to hunt down evil, it is why they have Detect Evil and Smite Evil, so they can do their job" was twisted to "he Detected as evil, I can kill him!". Just saying "you can use Detect Evil to determine whether to sniff around more" tends to elicit cries of "Detect and kill is not ok!". The far greater problem I have seen, is that people on the forums who posit killing helpless creatures might be ok depending on the creature and the paladin's god have their words twisted to try to make it sound like they want paladins to be Lawful Stupid killing machines, when their argument really is that paladins are not Lawful Stupid peace machines.
I think of Detect Evil as a tool in the Paladin's backpack. He uses it to make sure or double check something that he suspects.
In this particular case we have a few things going on:
1) Paladin is a Dwarf Stonelord of Torag.
2) One of Torag's tenets is to show no mercy to the enemies of his people, with the exception of mercy to those who surrender in order to gain information.
3) The Paladin encounters morlocks and a single drow. He KNOWS that they are usually EVIL. Morlocks are twisted creatures and enemies of his people and he has either seen or heard of drow as being evil as well. This can be resolved with a simple knowledge check by him and/or other party members.
4) He uses Detect Evil to confirm that they are evil and is rewarded with them pinging as such.
5) The drow offers to surrender instead of dying and the Paladin follows one of his tenets.
6) The Paladin uses the weapon his god has bequeathed to him, his Stone Servant (see: Takes the place of Divine Bond) to eradicate the evil of the morlocks. It doesn't matter how he does it, he is showing a semblance of mercy by allowing them a quick end rather than a slow death.
7) He is also making sure that by killing the morlocks that they don't end up somehow sneaking up on his party to kill THEM.
Claiming that the Paladin in question could leave the morlocks alone and in shackles presents a catch-22 to the poor paladin. He has to make sure that the evil enemies of his people/god aren't allowed to cause more mischief and that they don't somehow warn others or break free of the prison cell and do so.
I'll say it again, different paladins will react differently to the same situations, it's not cookie-cutter. Some Paladins are the redeeming, sweet, and loving kind who think even a demon lord has a chance to become good and others are the killing machines of their gods they seek out vengeance and seek to rid the world of all the terrible evils at almost any cost.
So, I'm still not getting involved in the main debate, but I have a question that might clarify things.
What do those who think the paladin would have fallen think he should have done?
Let the morlocks go? Left them and let them die naturally? Taken the morlocks to a rehabilitation center? Killed them himself? Healed them, armed them and challenged them to duels? ;D
So, I'm still not getting involved in the main debate, but I have a question that might clarify things.
What do those who think the paladin would have fallen think he should have done?
Let the morlocks go? Left them and let them die naturally? Taken the morlocks to a rehabilitation center? Killed them himself? Healed them, armed them and challenged them to duels? ;D
According to SS, he should have stopped, and had a full, in depth interview with each of them, had a trial for each of them, then ask Torag what he should do, then kill them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Edit: They were already chained. Yoy never know, you could come across a Drizzt at some point.
Except he wouldn't have been evil.
Evil and do 0 evil acts? How do you get to level 5+ without EVER doing an evil act as an evil character?An evil person locked away in prison is still evil. He's not committing any evil though because he has had no opportunity to do so.
Just because someone/something hasn't had the opportunity to commit evil doesn't mean he isn't evil - evil intentions which will be acted upon when the opportunity arises is enough to make one evil.
For example, compare a werewolf in a cage, with a werewolf outside of cage. Do the cage bars make one less evil?Good is similar. A good druid living as a hermit in the middle of nowhere might not have the opportunity to help others, but if the opportunity ever presented itself he would do the right thing.
Of course, PCs are a bit different, because they are always doing stuff, and so are tested on a regular basis.
Also along those lines, here's another example of how the "if it detects as evil at all it must be an atrocity-monger/irredeemable/deserve death!" argument falls apart. One of my favorite posts on this forum:
The trouble is also that the RAW assumes that, excepting clerics of evil gods, 1st level characters cannot have done enough evil to show up on a paladin's radar, while characters of 6th level and above suddenly do based on a false assumption that they're truly committed to wickedness.
Let's take the count's son, for example. He's a nasty piece of work, cruel to everyone, pulled the wings off flies as a child, worked his way up to strangling kittens, and has just done it with a chambermaid and tossed her body off the battlements to make it look like a suicide. It was thrilling and he's planning to do it again and again. He's also a 1st level aristocrat. The RAW says he doesn't detect as Evil.Meanwhile, we have the local wizard. He's a mean old curmudgeon who finally, at the age of eighty, reached 7th level. He's never summoned an imp familiar because his mean old cat was always good enough for him and besides, when he inquired, Hell was not able to offer a contract to his liking. He's basically Scrooge as a wizard. The RAW says he radiates as much evil as a 1st level evil cleric.
Meanwhile we have the 1st level evil cleric. She's wicked but has only been sacrificing doves to her dark god because in her dark temple, 1st level acolytes don't get to do human sacrifices. And all she knows about goodness is the twaddle taught to her by the dark cult that raised her.
Now, which of these three is the most evil?
Mikaze, you know I heart you, yes? Yes? Good! Because I do!
However, I have a problem with Kevin's post, and it's the same one I have whenever I talk with people about "what is evil" on the forums (especially with Kevin, though he's a pretty swell guy) and RAW involving the alignment system in the first place.
1) The first place the argument falls apart is the presumption KAM uses with "they haven't done enough evil". This is entirely incorrect. It's that they aren't powerful enough. I've argued this with him (I think, though it might be someone else) before. In a way, it's like an inverse-detect-magic spell. In this case the net isn't fine enough to "catch" creatures that are too "small", spiritually speaking. And that's a flaw of magic, not of any divine power (except, perhaps, the insane Nethys, in a game-world kind of way). Thus over-all power is measured, not individual evil.
A lot of people look at this a the "trap" of the detect alignment spells, but for Paladins (especially low-level paladins) that's not what it's supposed to be... it's supposed to be a reward to give them the "go ahead" to smite in their adventures. It's a signature that lets them know, "okay, this creature - for some reason or another - is worthy of my smite", whether that's because they're powerful enough to warrant it (>5HD... just about at that level where normal melee weapon damage becomes fully survivable), they have difficult-to-overcome resistances and abilities (undead and outsiders), or they're literally imbued with the power of an evil god (clerics). The "trap" aspect comes in when it's applied fallaciously, either by the Paladin or the GM, in an attempt to be the be-all end-all of determinations, regardless of situation.
Also, the fact that the count's son managed to murder a woman and make her death successfully look like an accident is a pretty impressive (evil) feat, and sounds like the subject of an adventure, probably one in which he gained a level. Unless the GM is purposefully trying to screw over paladins or treats NPCs so fundamentally different from PCs that the rules of the world don't apply equally to each. In other words, it's a trap. Also what Sense Motive and the like are for.
2) Why is the wizard "evil"? What makes him "evil"? Is it purely a thought crime? Because that's not really falling under the definition of evil that I've seen you use (that of active willful agency). If, on the other hand, he's actively perpetrating evil events, then, yeah, he's evil. Or on the other hand if he's actively had the opportunity to do things that are necessary to help others survive but purposefully chose not to be bothered even though he has the power, that's also evil. In either event, he's evil from his own actions and choices and has earned a smiting (which is, at its base level, a punitive measure).
3) She's evil. She worships an evil god. She hates goodness. If she chooses the only thing she knows, she still chooses instead of demanding a different way because of moral sensibility.
To me it seems substantially more like count's son is a higher level (or he'd be getting caught which would mean much larger implications for the world at large, and means the paladin would be facing lots of wicked corruption), the wizard's neutral (or has purposefully performed with wicked intent either action or inaction), and the last is an open/shut case of "smite the thing that's evil because it's dedicated, devoted, and chosen evil". The middle one is kind of iffy, but when would the paladin ever come across them that isn't covered by the code?
Question "which is more evil" is rather misleading and asks a question that doesn't matter. It's like question, "Which is worse: a madman with a dagger who loves stabbing people; a corrupt, powerful, evil man who seeks more power so he can ruthlessly crush any who oppose him; or a young, fanatic devotee of a murder cult?"
The answer is: "all of the above".
What a paladin will do about it varies heavily, based on the situation. In all cases, however, presupposing no other circumstances but "evil enough to detect", a paladin isn't in the wrong for smiting it. In an actual game-world, a paladin's response will vary wildly based on the paladin, their religion, the history of the situation, and everything else.
...Edit: They were already chained. Yoy never know, you could come across a Drizzt at some point.Except he wouldn't have been evil.
** spoiler omitted **
Wow, great post Tacticslion! I totally agree with you on every single point you made in it.
Stonelords don't have Smite evil btw everypony. They get another ability instead, but they do have detect evil.
I laughed, Jeven. XD
According to SS, he should have stopped, and had a full, in depth interview with each of them, had a trial for each of them, then ask Torag what he should do, then kill them.
Okay, see, this is strawmanning, so you might want to retract it. You are giving an exaggerated version of Shallowsoul's views and saying they are actually what Shallowsoul is saying. :P
Stonelords don't have Smite evil btw everypony. They get another ability instead, but they do have detect evil.
Good catch, you are 100% right about that, they get Stone Strike.
Stonelords don't have Smite evil btw everypony. They get another ability instead, but they do have detect evil.And that has what to do with the argument?
A few people mentioned Smite Evil in their posts about paladins and this particular paladin (stonelord) doesn't have that ability. A bit off topic, but whatever.
