The other day I was playing a paladin of Torag in the PFS module In the Service of Lore. We were asked to do several menial tasks one of which was to investigate an orphanage that the Silver Crusade was helping out. Basically the Crusade wanted to know if the head of the orphanage was misusing their aid.
When we first got to the orphanage, after hearing several disturbing rumors about the orphanage and the lady who ran it during our trip, I used my detect evil ability on the old woman and discovered that she was in fact evil. I shared this information with my group, and then I proceeded to ask some of the orphans what it was like living in the orphanage. Through a little role-playing I discovered that this woman was finding sick children, healing them, and then extorting the parents with the well-being of their child for the right to rent the child out to wealthy members of Absalom society. She then kept all of the money for herself and used the wealth to fund her drinking habit.
Now I knew she was evil-aligned, doing evil things, and most likely breaking the law, so I took out my Earthbreaker, descended the stairs and asked her to surrender or suffer the ultimate penalty of her evil deeds. Mind you she was surrounded by the rest of the party and her escape was cut off. However, instead of surrendering she immediately began casting a spell, and I responded by striking her down.
At this point everyone at the table got upset with me. They said that what I did was horrible and the DM even suggested that I might need a spell of Atonement before I could play at his table again. In my mind I did exactly what a paladin, especially one of Torag, would do. However, the rest of the party held a different opinion. I just wanted to see what you guys thought. DId I do right? Or do I need to Atone?
Do you know what spell she was casting or even think about using nonlethal damage?
Most of the kids at the orphanage still had parents to go home to, but they were being kept against their will. Also I'm not sure she wasn't a threat. She was evil aligned and could heal people miraculously which led me to believe that this lady was a cleric of an evil aligned deity. That belief was out of character I will admit.
And I did not think of trying to use non-lethal force after I gave her the option to surrender. We had also done all the investigation we could to find out exactly what this woman was doing to make her ping on my evil radar.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tho i think you should have used nonlethal damage to killer with your weapon. But i disagree with everyone. You know shes evil and doing wrong and when you confront her she starts casting. And from you knew she wasnt so harmless. I don't think you were in the wrong to strike her down. Just would have been smarter to use nonlethal.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This comes down to the alignment problem, of course. The idea that humans deserve to live - that it is worth it to expand resources from tax money to build and maintain prisons for the wicked - depends on the notion that humans are never truly "evil" or, even if some of them were, you don't want to risk killing an innocent, so you opr for a lesser punsihment.
With the alignment system and "detect evil" this all changes and becomes a murk of unsovlable moral questions. This is why I ruled in my home campaign that 99.99999% of mortals are true neutral (so for example the orphanage keeper, while essentially not giving a damn about the kids and running an exploiting scam for a living, is not evil at heart - she is just a weak and cruel human). The other alignments are saved for outsiders, monsters and other supernatural forces. Solves most of the problems, I've found, and doesn't disrupt the game too much. In this case the answer would be that the orphanage keeper is not evil, thus she desrves the normal procedures that you would expect people to get when they are accused of something. Your paladin would not be compelled to use lethal force.
As others have said just because she pinged as evil doesn't mean that you have to or should 'smite' her; I personally would probably have done nonlethal damage or got the guards into the mix but if you felt that what she was doing could have endangered you, your allies, and/or the children I would see nothing wrong with cutting her down.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think once She started to cast a spell the paladin had every right to defend himself. Paladin knew she was evil and most likely had no idea what spell she was casting. No other party member would have to do an atonement for defending themselves because they not a paladin.
Edit: I forgot this was PFS and may be different rules for paladin code.
Probably should have gone nonlethal, but seems appropriate for a paladin of torag. Though I'm pretty sure the alternate paladin codes are not pfs legal. In society GM is supposed to warn you if an action will make you fall, so you shouldn't have to atone (and if you do kiss the paladin goodbye as that's 8 pa).
What I always do with my paladin of torag is bring his alternate code to the table and ask the GM if it's legit. Depending on his response I may just bring someone else, or alter his character sligjtly.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have zero problem with how you handled the situation; she was asked to surrender, and immediately started hostile actions: casting a spell. If a police officer tells someone that they are under arrest and they go for a gun, then the officer has justifiable cause for lethal defense. Sadly I feel that the people at the table and on the thread are busy moralizing over your decision when they weren't in your shoes; you made a choice to use lethal force to end the threat. Some people might feel that the situation caused for nonlethal force, but they weren't there; you were and felt lethal approach was best. Go back to the example I gave of the officer arresting someone who then tries to pull a gun; was it loaded? Could the officer have used less lethal means, such as mace? It could be viewed as commendable if such an officer were to risk his life to save this person who was pulling out a gun, but he wasn't forced to, he had all the justification needed to end the person.
On a side note, I have played many a paladin over the years; my friends say that's my iconic class. I would have likely done something similar. I always find it crazy when people try to shackle paladins by their code and atonements, when it was clear that it was strictly meant for chaotic and evil acts; a paladin falling would never happen in such a scenario. I believe that in this system, evil is very clear and means something: that it is a clear threat, even if it isn't entirely clear what threat. I would be entirely fine with a paladin making an enemy of any evil he encounters, although his code would be intact, his reputation may not be. The code was meant to keep the paladin from evil and corruption, not as red-tape to obstruct him from smiting the evil the Gods called him to smite, that is counter-intuitive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To the OP. You did a good job, no need for atonement. Reading the Paladin code for Torag your first mission is to protect your people, you aren't even allowed to let baddies surrender to you. Just slash all your foes in the name of Torag. Your people save is your main goal.
|
I have zero problem with how you handled the situation; she was asked to surrender, and immediately started hostile actions: casting a spell. If a police officer tells someone that they are under arrest and they go for a gun, then the officer has justifiable cause for lethal defense. Sadly I feel that the people at the table and on the thread are busy moralizing over your decision when they weren't in your shoes; you made a choice to use lethal force to end the threat. Some people might feel that the situation caused for nonlethal force, but they weren't there; you were and felt lethal approach was best. Go back to the example I gave of the officer arresting someone who then tries to pull a gun; was it loaded? Could the officer have used less lethal means, such as mace? It could be viewed as commendable if such an officer were to risk his life to save this person who was pulling out a gun, but he wasn't forced to, he had all the justification needed to end the person.
On a side note, I have played many a paladin over the years; my friends say that's my iconic class. I would have likely done something similar. I always find it crazy when people try to shackle paladins by their code and atonements, when it was clear that it was strictly meant for chaotic and evil acts; a paladin falling would never happen in such a scenario. I believe that in this system, evil is very clear and means something: that it is a clear threat, even if it isn't entirely clear what threat. I would be entirely fine with a paladin making an enemy of any evil he encounters, although his code would be intact, his reputation may not be. The code was meant to keep the paladin from evil and corruption, not as red-tape to obstruct him from smiting the evil the Gods called him to smite, that is counter-intuitive.
Yeah, except Paladins aren't cops, and the divine mandate of their church does not allow them to go around smiting whomever they think deserves it.
City watch exists for that reason. Real cops. I wouldn't have made the paladin fall, but he would answer for the crime of murder in court.
In my games, only the foolhardy or the absolute best would even try to trick or hide in plain sight against a paladin; doubly so if she was an actual high wisdom class such as a cleric. Paladins are noted for being able to root out evil and sense evil motives, it's their thing. Were I running the game and the lady knew a paladin was on her tail, she would have been laying low, or if she was caught by you, would have either went hostile or threw herself at the mercy of the rest of the party.
In my games people treat paladins with explicit respect and implicit fear, especially neutral NPC's. They might fear meeting the paladins knowing gaze; and seeing all of their little evils reflected in those eyes which see altogether too much. The people would fear saying the wrong thing, or be seen doing something wrong. On the other hand, evil NPC's would have heard the tales and made themselves real scarce, knowing that any contact with the paladin will eventually lead to one of them falling. They would have excuses for being absent, their not being able to meet with the PC's, using underlings to try to stop them from ever locking eyes with such a powerful weapon of good and law. Not every NPC is this smart but most evil people have heard of paladins.
@Hamas "Whoever they think deserves it" is a far cry from what happened, an evil person after being found guilty of a crime and being told to surrender, started casting a spell. He acted in defense, asking a PC to run to the city watch after combat has started is ridiculous, no offense intended. In my opinion, the GM should have made it to where he could have had the chance to either go to the guard or have a peaceful solution if he was not happy with her getting smited while casting a spell. I am fully cognizant that maybe the other PC's were trying something and maybe the pally spoiled it by being so blunt, but in the split second of "she begins casting a spell, what do you do?", I believe the OP is fully justified.
As for the paladin having no authority, I would disagree; he is given authority by the gods to find and fight evil, an authority which most cities would recognize. He was also granted further authority by Silver Crusade to investigate the matter, to which in the course of the investigation he found damning evidence, which also intersects with his duty to fight evil. Sending a paladin to do a city watch job would most likely end in this manner, although I would argue that the watch might have been in for a nasty surprise once she started casting spells.
I would also argue that no real authority is necessary to end someone you are arresting once they start casting spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lol a Torag paladin is even allowed to lie and deceive. Coolest paladin ever :)
A Paladin who can't moderate his responses between passivity and all out assault has quite frankly, a problem. Yes, she cast a spell. Spells by themselves ARE NOT that big a deal, unless...I have zero problem with how you handled the situation; she was asked to surrender, and immediately started hostile actions: casting a spell. If a police officer tells someone that they are under arrest and they go for a gun, then the officer has justifiable cause for lethal defense. Sadly I feel that the people at the table and on the thread are busy moralizing over your decision when they weren't in your shoes; you made a choice to use lethal force to end the threat. Some people might feel that the situation caused for nonlethal force, but they weren't there; you were and felt lethal approach was best. Go back to the example I gave of the officer arresting someone who then tries to pull a gun; was it loaded? Could the officer have used less lethal means, such as mace? It could be viewed as commendable if such an officer were to risk his life to save this person who was pulling out a gun, but he wasn't forced to, he had all the justification needed to end the person.
On a side note, I have played many a paladin over the years; my friends say that's my iconic class. I would have likely done something similar. I always find it crazy when people try to shackle paladins by their code and atonements, when it was clear that it was strictly meant for chaotic and evil acts; a paladin falling would never happen in such a scenario. I believe that in this system, evil is very clear and means something: that it is a clear threat, even if it isn't entirely clear what threat. I would be entirely fine with a paladin making an enemy of any evil he encounters, although his code would be intact, his reputation may not be. The code was meant to keep the paladin from evil and corruption, not as red-tape to obstruct him from smiting the evil the Gods called him to smite, that is counter-intuitive.
I would point out that this paladin had no idea what spell was being cast or how powerful said spell was. Also I disagree that only powerful spell casters casting spells are a clear threat; please tell that to the hordes of dead goblins and kobalds of gaming history. A spell being cast by an unknown caster for an unknown purpose, can be viewed as a threat, and rightfully so; what happens if that spell was a save-or-lose? As an example, if you came upon a market-place and someone is arguing and one goes for his component pouch and begins intoning a spell, what would you think that spell is, bless? If you had one standard action to do, would you just wait and see?
I am actually pretty harsh but in the other direction, they HAVE to move against evil. If the paladin in this scenario would have done nothing, he would have surely fell. I get that you don't agree that paladins have any authority, I am sure many would agree, but I feel that most goodish cities would allow the paladin to "hunt". The weight of their church might be a factor, the outlook of said city etcetera. I would totally agree that a paladin in a place such as Cheliax for instance would be granted no authority to go about a paladins business, but most places would to some extent.
You probably didn't mean anything by it, and I am by no means offended, but I take some exception to you saying I allow paladin greater clemency; I feel that paladins are called to fight evil, not coax it, not bicker with it, not arrest it. Sure some sub-sects of paladins might be focused on granting mercy, but that's an exception not a rule. Not every time someone is killed in a city is an unjustified murder or example of excessive force, sometimes a PC is justified in acting swiftly and finally. I do agree that we view paladins different, yet I look at the entry and feel completely justified with my interpretation, also it seems to be (in my opinion) far superior in terms of allowing players to have fun. Paladin is not a "no fun" sentence some GM's view it as, and my only real complaint of the OP would be being a paladin in a game that the GM didn't know what a paladin of Torag would do and got his PC in trouble.
I would suggest printing the paladin code of Torag from the inner sea gods. A Gm probably doesn't know all the deities codes but assuming a "vanilla" palidin code for all paladins makes even having a deity worthless roleplaying wise. I mean what would be the difference between a Sarenrea paladin and a torag paladin if both are forced to press the LG button in every occasion? As long as your character stays lawfull good overall (again overall, not pressing the LG button every occasion) and keeps his deity's code there is no need for atonement.
Ps once you printed the code you can't ask baddies to surrender anymore, really pisses of Torag.
Tldr: print paladin code of your deity, Torag paladin and Sarenrea paladin are different.
would point out that this paladin had no idea what spell was being cast or how powerful said spell was. Also I disagree that only powerful spell casters casting spells are a clear threat; please tell that to the hordes of dead goblins and kobalds of gaming history. A spell being cast by an unknown caster for an unknown purpose, can be viewed as a threat, and rightfully so; what happens if that spell was a save-or-lose? As an example, if you came upon a market-place and someone is arguing and one goes for his component pouch and begins intoning a spell, what would you think that spell is, bless? If you had one standard action to do, would you just wait and see?To some extent, the answer is YES. The job of a Paladin is not to smite the citizenry when he' not sure of the situation. And that means putting yourself in a bit of a risk. Because that's what you are. You are in TOWN dealing with citizenry. Which mean different rules apply. When you start viewing them in the exact same way as monsters in a dungeon, then you are a PROBLEM, no matter what your class is.
The Paladin in question would be headed for a fall in my game, not because of what he fights, but because he's clearly losing sight of what he's supposed to be fighting for.
To my point, casting a spell AT someone is a hostile act, especially in the context given; even if the spell was charm person to get them to cool down, the point stands. A paladin acting in a moment's notice could hardly be blamed for splattering someone for casting a spell AT them. Being a citizen does not make the matter any different than the orc in a 10x10ft room, that only changes the setting; hell even the hypothetical orc hasn't provoked him like she did. So we established that she was evil, hostile, a criminal; what exactly more did he need?
I think the other guy said it best:The GM fumbled by making her so antagonistic and hostile when she was outgunned. Something perfectly ok to do by the way as long as he's not going to whine when she gets splattered later.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let me quote myself from an old thread for clarity:
Still say
1:detect evil
2:smite evil
3:rinse, repeat as necessary
and if needed
4:leave the philosophy to the philosophers.
The moral implications of eradicating an entire LE town is the same exact implications of eradicating a dungeon of LE people; it's just called an "urban" or "rural" backdrop.
He's 15th level, he's got s*** to do; he can't be bothered to figure out EVERY nefarious plot; just detect evil, destroy evil, keep on truckin. Detect evil is at will, who needs circumstances and backdrop? They didn't give him insight into why people turn to evil; just wipe it off the map before they destroy the neighboring GOOD (meaning neutral but bearable, barely) town.
Plus he probably dump-stat'd Int anyways so unless he's got some "investigative-type" around, he probably needn't bother looking for a reason, evil is reason enough. Probably best if he doesn't even bother trying to figure out reasons, smite evil don't give one s*** about reasons. What's the exact difference between a Paladin going into a dungeon or BBEG's lair and "forcing his LG morality" upon them? Setting? Most well built dungeons are akin to small establishments, especially the LE variety. I say it's the same thing, no problem; after all they're LE, he was breaking up SOME nefarious plot by doing so; does it matter if he doesn't know or care what it was?
This is a black & white topic, moral implications need not apply. Next people will be telling me that my pally destroying the cult's shrine to Dagon "was reprehensible destruction of their cultural heritage" or stopping them from opening a portal to the Old Ones "was interjecting my unrealistic standards upon them".
|
|
She began casting. Unless he can actually discern what with spellcraft, he's not at liberty to strike her down. Maybe she was casting a protective spell.
I know it's a long shot, but still.
I agree that Paladins are there to fight evil. But there are many ways to fight evil. And if that way is to give her to authorities, he has to do it. Because he is lawful and must respect the laws of the place he is in.
Personally the fact that she was renting out the children should be enough. But just because she is a little old lady does not mean helpless or not high level. The orphanage could be a front for the thieves guild or many other things. she was given the chance to surrender or suffer she chose to start casting. i feel any paladin would have been just to swing at that point. Knowing these things even without the detect evil make it viable for responding to her actions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
LG Fighter: "Surrender you are coming with me for the crimes you did"
*fight erupts people die*
Ok bad things happen!
LG Paladin: "Surrender you are coming with me for the crimes you did"
*fight erupts people die*
OMG he killed an nearly unarmed civilian, Paladin must fall *chants* Paladin must fall!
I think what most of you should rethink is the "surrender or suffer the ultimate penalty of her evil deeds" part.
You did exactly as a Paladin of Torag should.
There's a big difference between being out on your own, purging evil in some truly Gods forsaken Dungeon, and doing your thing in the middle of civilization itself.
Different rules apply because killing someone without due process can lead to justifiable charges of murder. Dealing with urban adventures calls on a talent many Pathfinders find hard to master..... finesse. And I'm not talking about that thing you do with your rapier.
I disagree entirely. A Paladin's mandate is from their beliefs and their god, not from mortal civilization. The rules do not change. The Paladin does not answer to mortal authorities.
Now that I look at Torag's code again, not killing her would probably have been a violoation.
They still committed murder in an urban area. Like I said, Paladin shouldn't fall, but there are enough grounds to have them arrested and harassed by the local police force for vigilante justice. Because most coppers frown upon such works.
Mortal authority does not affect whether he falls or not. A Paladin can not fall and still be liable to face charges by the law.
I will defeat them, yet even in the direst struggle, I will act in a way that brings honor to Torag.
Emphasis added. I'd argue that cutting down unarmed civilians does not bring honor to Torag.
Since the evil little old lady turned out to be a spellcaster (though I'm really curious as to what kind - adept? witch? cleric?), and was stupid enough to try throwing spells at an armed and angry paladin, I'd be inclined to cut you some slack (i.e., shouldn't fall), but you still made a mess of the situation.
What you described the lady doing was pretty creepy/weird, but it certainly wasn't a capital offense.
Speaking as someone who plays paladins: Just because someone is a petty jerk does not make it okay to kill them.
Also, if you merely knocked her out on your first swing, and used a second attack to finish her off, then you probably should be in trouble.
I strongly recommend using a sap next time. Or getting merciful on your earthbreaker.
I will defeat them, yet even in the direst struggle, I will act in a way that brings honor to Torag.Emphasis added. I'd argue that cutting down unarmed civilians does not bring honor to Torag.
Since the evil little old lady turned out to be a spellcaster (though I'm really curious as to what kind - adept? witch? cleric?), and was stupid enough to try throwing spells at an armed and angry paladin, I'd be inclined to cut you some slack (i.e., shouldn't fall), but you still made a mess of the situation.
What you described the lady doing was pretty creepy/weird, but it certainly wasn't a capital offense.
Speaking as someone who plays paladins: Just because someone is a petty jerk does not make it okay to kill them.
Also, if you merely knocked her out on your first swing, and used a second attack to finish her off, then you probably should be in trouble.
I strongly recommend using a sap next time. Or getting merciful on your earthbreaker.
Against my people’s enemies, I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except when strategy warrants.
I will defeat them, yet even in the direst struggle, I will act in a way that brings honor to Torag.Emphasis added. I'd argue that cutting down unarmed civilians does not bring honor to Torag.
Since the evil little old lady turned out to be a spellcaster (though I'm really curious as to what kind - adept? witch? cleric?), and was stupid enough to try throwing spells at an armed and angry paladin, I'd be inclined to cut you some slack (i.e., shouldn't fall), but you still made a mess of the situation.
What you described the lady doing was pretty creepy/weird, but it certainly wasn't a capital offense.
Speaking as someone who plays paladins: Just because someone is a petty jerk does not make it okay to kill them.
Also, if you merely knocked her out on your first swing, and used a second attack to finish her off, then you probably should be in trouble.
I strongly recommend using a sap next time. Or getting merciful on your earthbreaker.
Against my people’s enemies, I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except when strategy warrants.
And I quoted the qualifier that follows the sentence you quoted =P
Also note the "except when strategy warrants." Torag does not give a paladin permission to turn his brain off. If you're in a situation where "show no mercy" is idiotic (like arresting a little old lady for a nonviolent crime), then you're expected to have some discretion.
Think for yourself, and don't be a disgrace.