So is semi-forcing paladin to commit evil, evil?


Advice

151 to 181 of 181 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Finlanderboy wrote:
I never said wrell rounded.

I didn't say you did. I was telling you that the description you so kindly provided painted a very negative and not very well 'rounded' picture.

Finlanderboy wrote:
So do not be a jerk and put words in my mouth.

Apparently that would be difficult to do, what with your foot already being in there.


Well, I figured out what makes it uninteresting to me is that it's a trap more than anything else.

The trap CR would be lower because only a few classes would get mechanical penalties from shrugging it off and going through.

As for ideas, they come as questions:
What does good mean in your world? is the first, without that we can't quite see what to set up.

You're treating this as a moral dilemma but it's not. You can call it out as the bad guy being a dick though, because he is.

What kind of stands has the paladin taken in his life outside of the tactical mat? For me dilemmas don't work when they're put in a CR 11 room. If you want to go for morality stuff, you need to connect it to what they're doing, likely out of the dungeon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So I can slay the kid and send him on to his just reward in the heavens, regret it for a bit but realize that we have saved countless others and continued to crusade for what is good adn just.

OR

I can spare the kid accept my fate to be transported to hell wherein me and my comrades in arms will endeavor to escape by slicing a bloody swathe through the infernal ranks one by one dealing untold amounts of righteous damage unto the abyssal realms itself?

The only conundrum I see here is how am I going to pack enough sandwhiches for the trip?


Shifty wrote:

Accepting that the CE and NE characters still dont have anything to do with CN...

The best you have is that a CN wizard is against killing children?
Somehow he's magically anti-social and anti-establishment, running his own fundamentalist agenda, and yet only manifests this against NPC's and never against the party - even if they turn around tomorrow and do something completely at odds with his disestablimentarianism?

That sounds like totally non-metagamey and completely legit.

Eh any jerk PC should focus his jerkness on NPCs. It isn't fun for the group. The rule of fun trumps all.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Karlan Bladetwist wrote:

So I can slay the kid and send him on to his just reward in the heavens, regret it for a bit but realize that we have saved countless others and continued to crusade for what is good adn just.

OR

I can spare the kid accept my fate to be transported to hell wherein me and my comrades in arms will endeavor to escape by slicing a bloody swathe through the infernal ranks one by one dealing untold amounts of righteous damage unto the abyssal realms itself?

The only conundrum I see here is how am I going to pack enough sandwhiches for the trip?

you don't need sandwiches

devils are edible too.

when resources are rare, you will settle for anything

purify the flesh of those sinners within your holy body.


shifty the super brillaint and god of everythign since you obviously decide everything and argues with complete fallacys and mistruths as facts. Because I was debating the play of CN, and the ability to create moral dillimenas for them. While you gave a giant red herring to attack me and say my play was not well rounded. Well rounded you as it as a means to attack someone. So what does it mean? fully developed; well-balanced. desirably varied. having desirably varied abilities or attainments.

If you are so great why don't you magic the game and remove CN from character able to play them if it bothers you so much. You givng supidbadfun for other people seems awesome and completely open minded.

After all you know what everyone likes. because god forbid I want to play someone antisocial, greedy or not a paladin. I guess I should stop playing the game because you know me so well never having played with me and read my posts.

Plain and simple you are a jerk. Your assumptions and decsions you place on people is rude and ignorant.

Let people play what they find fun. Implying they are stupid and need time to understand you is how you insult someone without getting your post imediately deleted.


Shifty wrote:

Accepting that the CE and NE characters still dont have anything to do with CN...

The best you have is that a CN wizard is against killing children?
Somehow he's magically anti-social and anti-establishment, running his own fundamentalist agenda, and yet only manifests this against NPC's and never against the party - even if they turn around tomorrow and do something completely at odds with his disestablimentarianism?

That sounds like totally non-metagamey and completely legit.

Not the best I have, but an example. He's my most recent CN character. He's not magically anti-social and anti-establishment, he just is. He trips over his own words even working with fellow party members and he wears a scowl when he works for lawful establishments or has to do paperwork. He openly states he's against something, but if he has reason to stay with the party he will. Of course, he might leave if they try to open the embassy for the Axiomatic order of Axiomites instead of an embassy to the Maelstrom/Elysium, but that's not an every day thing. He attempts makes up for it with a high diplomacy and using his intellect so say intelligent things and make good points, though he mostly lacks tact and emotional push unless he's really into it. The fact that he was an abused child and won't let anyone else have that trauma if he has a say is a part of his background and personality.

Yes, he's not made to be meta-gamey, and he is a legit character I've used.

johnlocke90 wrote:
Eh any jerk PC should focus his jerkness on NPCs. It isn't fun for the group. The rule of fun trumps all.

I agree, its awful for groups. This character wasn't meant to be a jerk though to anyone though...

This is probably way off topic at this point though. New thread? I'd like to see something other than lawful good for a bit.


I had a CN that's main purpose was to survive. And get rich. Mostly survive.

He was a really fun guy to be around, and fought to the death a few times for allies, because A) he liked them... and B) Allies help keep him alive.

There were also times that the retreat was called, and there was one or two of the more 'noble' PCs who refused to be the first out the door... He was NOT that character, and was eager to be the first to flee.

He was cowardly, a bit greedy, and could be both noble or selfish as the situation called for it.

Hardly 'evil-lite' and would certainly never kill children to further his own goals...

In fact his CN sounds an awful lot like X-men's Gambit.


Finlanderboy wrote:

shifty the super brillaint and god of everythign

Apologies accepted.


Uhm i didnt read all the posts here (maybe one half more or less)

- As GM i think this is the perfect example of how people cant menage groups with paladins. The punishment for some kind of evil act should happen in situation with a normal choice from a good act and an evil act.
The line that divide these two worlds should be clearer as you can when playing with paladins. In the 'gray zone' people love to let paladins fall.. but why??? I'd probably jump down to the hell.. imho, but setting up situation like this is almost terrible.. no choices and everything you do will bring pain on you (the better for a paladin) your friends (no good) killing an innocent (sob..) .. why not the end of the world too??

I dont like these things sorry.

Playing with the phrase that a paladin will fall if he volontary commit an evil acts its a different things.. always imho.. and creating a fan of choices like 'bad evil act - evil act - suicide' it's not a good way to manage with that :)

bye bye :) and have a nice play


You want to give a Paladin a moral quandry?

Find his family, mother, father, brother, sister, wife, child...whomever. One of them. All of them. Capture them. Torture them. Kill them. Manage to somehow magically record the experience so you can give it to the paladin so he can experience it. Tell him where you are. Let him come to you, fight through your minions and slay them all. When he finally reaches you...surrender. Tell him you submit yourself to the law and wish to be given a fair trial in the nearest city. Watch as the paladin is forced to choose between his desire for vegance and his dedication to law.

Bonus points if you find a country that doesn't utilize the death penalty for murder or torture and the paladin knows that you will basically spend a few years locked up until you're eventually release. Now thats a moral quandry that doesn't involve forcing the paladin to fall. He's in control, but he has to decide to make himself happy or his god. Further bonus points if you can come up with a way that allowing yourself to be killed by a Paladin somehow allows you to metamorph into some more powerful being if they do so willingly and with knowledge that their action will result in such.

Wow this sounds like an interesting story...I might have to run this some time.


Negative ghost rider the trial will commence immediately......

Requesting a change of venue and being granted one are two different things.

"Prepare to be judged!"


Claxon wrote:
Wow this sounds like an interesting story...I might have to run this some time.

Mind you the player might not enjoy you killing his whole family. That's a whole different can of worms relating to plot and what type of game your running and what the player is okay with. Personally, I'm not big on killing children.


MrSin wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Wow this sounds like an interesting story...I might have to run this some time.
Mind you the player might not enjoy you killing his whole family. That's a whole different can of worms relating to plot and what type of game your running and what the player is okay with. Personally, I'm not big on killing children.

Killing all his family or his children is strictly necessary. A close friend or wife or any one individual that the character has a close attachment to works. The rest is about how despicable you want to make the character.


And this particular paladin has also built a church in town. Can always have him choose between saving it, or helping someone in need or making a choice to grab a valuable/lost treasure or relic of his church.

Silver Crusade

Why would the BBEG, who is free and can pursue world domination to his heart's content, throw it all away just to give himself up to either go to jail for life or be killed?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is a longish thread. I'm going to try to collect all of my responses into one post, here, so it may jump around a little.

1. I think whoever made the analogy with the Joker, from The Dark Knight, made a very good point. In that movie, the Joker tries very hard to put Batman in a position of "go against your code or innocent people will die" similar to what the OP is trying to do to his paladin. Does Batman go against his code? Does Batman let the people die? No, he uses all of his gadgets (his cool adventuring loot, if you will) and finds a third option. As long as there is the possibility of the Batman option, then this dilemma is not nearly so bad as some people are making it out to be.

2. I feel it is OK to give a paladin tough choices SOMETIMES. Don't make one player feel like you are picking on him (or her) but a good campaign should shine the spotlight on each character from time to time, and give them a chance to use their unique powers or show off some interesting part of their character or backstory. One of the interesting things that you can bring up when you shine the spotlight on the paladin is that they are held to a higher moral standard than most other characters.

3. I had a paladin of mine put in an interesting moral dilemma once (and actually, now that I think about it, this also happened between the Joker and Batman). The bad guy had set up a situation where I had to choose between saving my mentor, who had recruited me into being a paladin, or saving a bunch of innocents in a burning building. At first, it seemed like kind of a contrived lose-lose situation, but it made me think about my character more carefully. I realized that to save my mentor was the selfish choice, and if she was at all serious about me being a good paladin then she would actually want me to go save the innocents. And it sure did make me hate the bad guy!

4. Arguing about CN characters seems pretty much at a tangent to the main focus of this discussion, but I feel obliged to throw in my two cents there also. In my opinion, using your alignment (any alignment) as a substitute for having an interesting character with more complex motivations is likely to end up with a pretty boring and 2-D character. CN characters can have hopes and dreams, friends and enemies, likes and dislikes just as much as anyone else. Do people sometimes use CN as an excuse for making pseudo-evil characters? Sure, but if your character concept is "I'm CN, I go around being chaotic" then I think the problem is that you haven't made a very deep character, not your alignment.

Shadow Lodge

I think we have to concede that Shifty has an excellent point about 75% of the party being CN. It isn't fair to say that CN is always 'evil lite' or a cop out alingment, but I do think 'often' fits.

If everyone at the table recognizes the alignment system as a fun source of drama, then you're golden.

But if even one of your players selected CN as a great big 'alignment does not apply to me' sign, then this whole idea gets pretty risky pretty fast.

Better go find out why those other players selected CN first.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Why would the BBEG, who is free and can pursue world domination to his heart's content, throw it all away just to give himself up to either go to jail for life or be killed?

To see him suffer. To make him choose. There's a certain thrill in forcing someone to fall from grace. Maybe he just wants to see if there's really good in the world, or maybe he just really wants to force blood on his hands and desecrate him. The best part is if he wants both options. Either way, he wins. The saddest villain is the one who gets killed and wanted you to choose otherwise though, just to be sure there's really good in this world to see through the pain and suffering he's endured.

I can think of plenty of reasons. That said, the current bad guy is apparently a nut who opened a gate to someplace, he doesn't know where, and just felt like chucking people in it.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Disclaimers: I just found this thread. I didn't read all of it, so I apologize if I am bringing up moot points or repeating something someone else said:

Scenario: PC's encounter big bad. There is child in room. Big bad promises he has other child they are supposed to rescue. Their choices, as I see them:

- Paladin specifically kills child, maybe rescue other child--but BBEG could be lying, and they could end up with two dead children, and at least guarantee one dead child, plus fallen Paladin.

- Paladin does not kill child. Everyone--including first child, if I understand this correctly--falls through portal which is unidentified except as "to your doom." GM may allow PCs to roll to identify. PCs in process risk two children's lives--the one they opt not to rescue at this time, and the one that falls through the Gate with them. This one does not guarantee death of either, however, but it's little comfort.

The question I would not be asking is, "is this evil?"

The question I would be asking is, as is the question I would ask for ANY scenario I design, is, "Will my players HAVE FUN roleplaying through this scenario?" Because while moral dilemmas CAN be satisfying to play through, there is a fine line between a moral dilemma that is a fun challenge, and moral dilemma that just says "f&&! you, players, I enjoy your pain and anguish."

I don't know about the OP's players. If I were GM and I were thinking of the usual pool of players I have, my answer to that would be, "No, my players would not have fun choosing, essentially, which child dies, and worry about a paladin party member falling in the process." And so I would, personally, change the scenario. The OP will have to decide based on his best judgment of his players.

If I were to change the scenario:
- I would not specifically target the paladin. That comes perilously close to it looking like I'm targeting the paladin's player, and that's no fun. After all, even if the paladin LETS someone else kill the child, he'll still be at risk for falling, he doesn't have to be specifically picked on. As it is, if it's a good party, it should give EVERYONE a dilemma, not just the paladin.

- I would make the situation that the child in the room is the only one, the one they are looking for. The choice they are given is that you can kill him and leave the dungeon safely--perhaps with some other large, tempting, tangible rewards as well that the PCs can be guaranteed of having--or you and the child can go through the portal to hell. This means the PCs still have to protect the child when they go through the portal, and he could still die if they make that choice, but it gives them a little more agency and the choice is a little less f-you. It also gives the party an evil option that might be fun to play through if they are game with going evil, as they can get real immediate rewards from doing it (but still the shame of going evil).

- I would make it absolutely 100% crystal clear that it is a portal to hell. They can see it's a gate and they can clearly see Hell on the other side. No rolls necessary.

- I would also and most importantly make it absolutely 100% crystal clear, with meta-commentary as necessary, that going through the portal is a valid option and you have adventures planned for that if they go that way.


I guess I am the only one who thinks the whole scenario will not get the desired results.

Given the choice between kill an innocent (confirmed via detect evil), and the threat of the alleged portal to hell (anyone familiar with the silent image spell knows said portals can be easily faked.....).


Well i saw some other options in this thread that i might use to tweak the scenario. But i know my players. While yes the majority of the party is CN only the rogue would make an evil choice willingly. The CN striker in the party doesn't feel any remorse for anything that he kills as long as they attack first. He also has a soft spot for kids since he was abused as a child and would want to protect them. The druid is CN but does whatever is on her whim. She doesn't really like violence and tries to avoid it. So i guess this scenario is really geared towards all of them. It's just that the pally was singled out to do the killing blow. The paladin was an orphan raised in the church so he doesn't much of a family but i guess i could take the members of his church that he built and "murder his family" that way to get a more singular way to challenge the pally. And i have a BBEG lined up that could do it. I mean the pally is being hunted by a Anti-Pally from the rival church. An anti-pally would do something to that effect wouldn't he?


Unrelated to paladins, its hard not to roll an orphan when every other GM wants to kill your family for existing.


Claxon wrote:

You want to give a Paladin a moral quandry?

Find his family, mother, father, brother, sister, wife, child...whomever. One of them. All of them. Capture them. Torture them. Kill them. Manage to somehow magically record the experience so you can give it to the paladin so he can experience it. Tell him where you are. Let him come to you, fight through your minions and slay them all. When he finally reaches you...surrender. Tell him you submit yourself to the law and wish to be given a fair trial in the nearest city. Watch as the paladin is forced to choose between his desire for vegance and his dedication to law.

Bonus points if you find a country that doesn't utilize the death penalty for murder or torture and the paladin knows that you will basically spend a few years locked up until you're eventually release. Now thats a moral quandry that doesn't involve forcing the paladin to fall. He's in control, but he has to decide to make himself happy or his god. Further bonus points if you can come up with a way that allowing yourself to be killed by a Paladin somehow allows you to metamorph into some more powerful being if they do so willingly and with knowledge that their action will result in such.

Wow this sounds like an interesting story...I might have to run this some time.

I'm sorry my god is a god of justice and righteousness not gaming the system.

I cut him down where he kneels without mercy or malice.

Should the nation I'm in feel obligated to arrest me I will gladly accept the charges, go to trial and spend my requisite year in jail to meditate upon my loss and perhaps redeem a few lost souls here and there before continuing my crusade.

If my god thinks this is worthy of stripping my powers I shrug it off and find a god who doesn't think paladin means "born yesterday".


Alternatively, we take him in and suddenly he's axed to death in his sleep by a whole tribe of goblins mid transport.

Our party rogue/cavalier bravely fought them off (hence why his axe and body are all covered in blood) but he was too late.


Okay ultimately I guess the point I'm getting at with ole KArlan here is that most moral quandaries basically suck.

First they assume the god in question is stupid. They understand the failings and frailties of mortals. They know that the path they set their chosen isn't easy. They know that given a choice from bad and bad they tend to default to "least bad". So why strip one of your champions their abilities for having a weakness of character at a bad moment? You salvage these things, not discard them.

Second they assume the paladin is a robot incapable of creative thought. Kill baby hitler? If I can do that why not go forward in time and get the man some art classes, hook him up with my jewish best friend, and convince him politics aren't worth the effort.

Third they're rarely any fun. I mean you basically just crapped on a player's character. BEst part is you just eliminated the effectiveness of one of the party based purely upon personal whim. The rest of the group will really like that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Alignment is a tool to give players a background and a general direction for play, it is not a tool for the GM to screw players with, only a very poor GM uses alignment this way.


As for Chaotic Neutral, I'd say the stereotypes are not always fair, but they do exist for a reason. It may be wrong to say that "99% of CNs are just trying to be evil and get away with it," but it's certainly a common problem.

From what I've seen, my estimation is that out of every 10 players who pick Chaotic Neutral as an alignment:

2 of them do it for roleplaying reasons (it fits the character who will still be a contributing teammate, or it's a change of pace they want to try out while still participating in the story)

8 of them do it for lazy, destructive, or outright evil reasons, i.e., "Screw you, I just wanna blow s### up. Enough talk--let's KILL."


Calybos1 wrote:
8 of them do it for lazy, destructive, or outright evil reasons, i.e., "Screw you, I just wanna blow s### up. Enough talk--let's KILL."

So only 80% then? :p


Shifty wrote:
Calybos1 wrote:
8 of them do it for lazy, destructive, or outright evil reasons, i.e., "Screw you, I just wanna blow s### up. Enough talk--let's KILL."
So only 80% then? :p

That's my estimate.


Karlan Bladetwist wrote:

I'm sorry my god is a god of justice and righteousness not gaming the system.

I cut him down where he kneels without mercy or malice.

Should the nation I'm in feel obligated to arrest me I will gladly accept the charges, go to trial and spend my requisite year in jail to meditate upon my loss and perhaps redeem a few lost souls here and there before continuing my crusade.

If my god thinks this is worthy of stripping my powers I shrug it off and find a god who doesn't think paladin means "born yesterday".

I didn't say it would cause the paladin to fall, I said it was a moral quandry for a person who is supposed to uphold law and good. This qunadry isn't about good vs evil, its about law vs self gratification. This is an instance that by itself wouldn't be enough to make a paladin fall, but it could be the first act in road away from a lawful nature. It would be an interesting thing play out. Don't take my interesting thought as an indication that I intend or like to cause paladins to fall, quite the opposite. I'm usually one to veer away from such things, and hate the over played game of "lets get the paladin with every catch 22 possible".

To me there is no wrong answer to my test of morality, but it could mark the beginning of descent depending on future actions (and more importantly if the player wanted to play it out at all).

Edit: Also, I could only see the paladin being arrested if there was a lack of proof of actions from the now deceased evil or if in a Lawful Neutral country that is more concerned with "the process" than anything else. It could even be conceivable in a good country where it is more lawful than good. You wouldn't be charged with murder, but you would be charged with circumventing due process and executing a punishment that you did not have the authroity to authroize.

151 to 181 of 181 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / So is semi-forcing paladin to commit evil, evil? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.