Can a Paladin kill innocents for "their own good"?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 272 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Lets assume a ruling LG decides to end the world and take to heaven most souls. Forbidding suicide in his ethos he gave to his most faithful followers and paladins the order to kill all the population, especially the sinless ones.

1. How should paladins of that deity react?
2. Accepting the order, would paladins keep their status and alignment?
3. If some paladins refuse, can they still be paladin?
4. If paladins refusing loose their status, what should be their new alignment?


37 people marked this as a favorite.

And away we go


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This one is going to require A LOT more information - we basically need to know your entire cosmology because you're clearly not using the Pathfinder standard, or possibly you're misunderstanding it.

However, proceeding on the presumption that you are, indeed, trying to use the PF standard cosmology, the first thing is that this kind of wanton murder is never Good. Never. The GOD would become evil for ordering it of his priesthood.

I'm going to sort of skip the first question you asked, because it's an individual thing and I don't really have enough information on what their belief system is.

Paladins who follow the order fall. Period. No ambiguity on this one - direct murder of an acknowledged innocent is a deliberate evil act, regardless of reasons. That's the one rule ALL Paladins have to follow

ALL Paladins who refuse retain their status, so long as their ethos doesn't have an edict requiring them to obey their god (And they don't have an archetype requiring them to follow a deity.) Base Pathfinder doesn't even require Paladins to draw their power from a deity, so they'll retain their powers regardless over their refusal.


1) Paladins should go on a killing spree, first identifying the innocent and killing them first.

2) Yes, presuming the souls of the innocent at the moment of the "end of the world" are not able to travel to their heavenly reward.

3) No.

4) No. Refusing the dictates of your deity will result in the loss of paladinhood, but refusing the dictates of your deity is not overtly committing an evil act, so there would be no change in alignment.

Quote:


Paladins who follow the order fall. Period. No ambiguity on this one - direct murder of an acknowledged innocent is a deliberate evil act, regardless of reasons. That's the one rule ALL Paladins have to follow

Incorrect. See my presumption above. Not all killing is murder even of the innocent. Murder is a legal definition, and the dictates of his god supercede the dictates of non-heavenly laws.

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Angstspawn wrote:

Lets assume a ruling LG decides to end the world and take to heaven most souls. Forbidding suicide in his ethos he gave to his most faithful followers and paladins the order to kill all the population, especially the sinless ones.

1. How should paladins of that deity react?
2. Accepting the order, would paladins keep their status and alignment?
3. If some paladins refuse, can they still be paladin?
4. If paladins refusing loose their status, what should be their new alignment?

No matter how you slice it, the central figure left the LG dockyard long ago. He's clearly insane, chaotic, and evil.

1. They either become evil because they worship the diety, or desert him for the falsehood he has revealed himself to be.

2.3.4, all answers follow from 1.


I think you guys missed the premise of the question:

It's "the end of the world". Everyone is going to die, regardless of circumstances.

The only question at this point is how and what happens after.

1) If all souls at the time of the end of the world are damned to the abyss and the deity in question can't stop it, it is both lawful and good to prevent as many pure souls from going to the abyss as possible.

That means killing the innocent in as many droves as possible. Thus radically reducing the soul harvest by Evil.


End of the world... So celebrate and enjoy with your friends and family. Not that it matters, you're all Good and will see each other in the Kingdom of Heaven.

But to draw a blade across an infant's throat? No, you can't come to the party up above.

Evil and insane.


Which, by PF standard, can't happen. That's why my VERY FIRST thing was asking about exactly that kind of thing, we really need more information. . . although again, I would say the Paladins falling is absolutely going to happen regardless. One of the problems with objective morality is that it restricts options, this is one of them.

You can debate the degree of evil, but it is evil, is deliberate, and thus a direct ethos violation. Period.

(And I'd never run a campaign on this premise for that exact reason.)


Also, this is only one world of an infinite number. Even if *ALL* of the souls went to the Abyss, it's less than a drop in the bucket.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Quintain wrote:

I think you guys missed the premise of the question:

It's "the end of the world". Everyone is going to die, regardless of circumstances.

The only question at this point is how and what happens after.

1) If all souls at the time of the end of the world are damned to the abyss and the deity in question can't stop it, it is both lawful and good to prevent as many pure souls from going to the abyss as possible.

That means killing the innocent in as many droves as possible. Thus radically reducing the soul harvest by Evil.

Your premise takes the game so far from it's presumed assumptions that there is no point in discussing a common ground.

The answer is if your the GM and you want to mandate that Paladins go slaughter the "innocent for their own good", more power to you. The whole point of being a GM is Your World, Your Rules. If you decide that Paladins should fall for following thier god's rules, again YWYR.

A game that runs on the assumptions that D+D and Pathfinder would make would mean that the supposed LG diety you describe was WRONG.


Eh, Divine Command morality is probably objectively true on Golarion. If your deity orders mass infanticide, and he is still Good aligned, then your refusal to strangle babies in the crib will make you lose your Paladin status.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Angstspawn wrote:

Lets assume a ruling LG decides to end the world and take to heaven most souls. Forbidding suicide in his ethos he gave to his most faithful followers and paladins the order to kill all the population, especially the sinless ones.

1. How should paladins of that deity react?

Step 1: look at each other. Pause pause pause. Did we really just hear that?

Step 2: Dog pile grapple the king.

step 3: Take the king to the clerics for signs of possession, poison, madness, mind tricks, or dopleganger status.

Step 4: Regardless of step 3, you find the next in line and inform them that they're now in charge , possibly on a permanent basis.

2. Accepting the order, would paladins keep their status and alignment?

Fall hard enough to leave cracks in the floor.

3. If some paladins refuse, can they still be paladin?

Yes. One "chaotic" act does not cause a paladin to fall. Thats evil.

4. If paladins refusing loose their status, what should be their new alignment?

One does not need to lose their alignment to fall as a paladin. A lawful good paladin using poison for example is still lawful good.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Casual Viking wrote:
Eh, Divine Command morality is probably objectively true on Golarion. If your deity orders mass infanticide, and he is still Good aligned, then your refusal to strangle babies in the crib will make you lose your Paladin status.

Wrong premise. A diety that orders mass infanticide is NOT Good, but Evil, and a Paladin would fall for obeying such an order.

There are things you can not do and call yourself Good, no matter what the justfication, no matter who or what you are. Mass infanticide is high on that list.

That's the thing. The idea that Good and Evil are not subjective qualities is a major presumptive conceit on canon Golarion. The presumption is that certain acts, are Good, Evil, or Neutral no matter what.

But I have to ask this of the OP, would you even have conceived of this, if Paladins with their built in auto-destruct,had never existed in the game?


While this example is poor, it does kind of touch on another question though. Say there is a village out in the wilderness and a small tribe of orcs or something show up near by.

Say the villagers, having learned from experience of others, send a raiding team to drive away the orcs and they fail. So a palaadin happens to stroll along and they commission the paladin to "save" them from the orc menance. So pally goes along and takes out the orcs. He is hailed hero and all is good.

But... not quite .. the orcs had done nothing wrong. Say they were just a nomadic tribe of nature revering orcs and were on a pilgrimage to a traditional hunting ground. But they were wiped out...

Or another example that drives the point harder. Say there is a vampire. Say she was raised but her master was killed so she is free. So, since she never really fancied being evil and all, tries to live as normal a life as she can. She is honest enough and sates her thirst on animals (think Interview with a Vampire). Say she evem helps the community as much as she Can without rerevealing her nature. She is an all around good person if a little eccentric. There here comes adventuring party with a paladin. And lets say, since he is one of those players, he has his detect evil up and he gets a ping. He sees her and he immediately draws his sword and smites her dead....er. Well by Pf He is fine since she is a "evil" creature for simply being a vampire.

Black and white morality of PF is kinda annoying sometimes...

Dark Archive

So a Lawful Good ruler decides on a whim to end the world, kill as many devout followers as possible, and bring them to their eternal reward early? Ahahahaha, no. By the standards of Pathfinder, this ruler isn't respecting the sanctity of life in their decision to end the world, and is thus not Good. Any paladin who follows such an order falls, and has their alignment shifted towards Evil. Disobeying this order isn't a Chaotic act - it is a Good act. Paladins are not and should not be required to follow the orders of a ruler who has clearly gone insane and is no longer fit to rule. They should restrain him immediately, attempt to determine why he would do such a thing, and appoint a new ruler in the meantime.

Also, if said paladins did follow the order, they would eventually have to kill each other since they are "the most faithful". Allowing someone to kill you is technically suicide, so they'd be breaking their own ethos. If it's not okay for the devout to kill themselves, the paladins are basically doomed.


LazarX wrote:
Casual Viking wrote:
Eh, Divine Command morality is probably objectively true on Golarion. If your deity orders mass infanticide, and he is still Good aligned, then your refusal to strangle babies in the crib will make you lose your Paladin status.

Wrong premise. A diety that orders mass infanticide is NOT Good, but Evil, and a Paladin would fall for obeying such an order.

There are things you can not do and call yourself Good, no matter what the justfication, no matter who or what you are. Mass infanticide is high on that list.

That's the thing. The idea that Good and Evil are not subjective qualities is a major presumptive conceit on canon Golarion. The presumption is that certain acts, are Good, Evil, or Neutral no matter what.

But I have to ask this of the OP, would you even have conceived of this, if Paladins with their built in auto-destruct,had never existed in the game?

Well, it's not entirely true that objective morality is an ironclad rule in Golarion. Lizardfolk maintain a Neutral alignment despite practicing cannibalism because in their culture it's just something you do in an environment with sparse resources. They don't hold the corpses of their own sacred, so they aren't.

I'm pretty sure the OP's premise is "Oh no, my deity has been corrupted by an Old God" territory, though. No Paladin worth her salt is going to take that order at face value.


Quintain wrote:

I think you guys missed the premise of the question:

It's "the end of the world". Everyone is going to die, regardless of circumstances.

The only question at this point is how and what happens after.

1) If all souls at the time of the end of the world are damned to the abyss and the deity in question can't stop it, it is both lawful and good to prevent as many pure souls from going to the abyss as possible.

That means killing the innocent in as many droves as possible. Thus radically reducing the soul harvest by Evil.

The question said the LG(CE) god decided to end the world not that the world was already ending.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:


Wrong premise. A diety that orders mass infanticide is NOT Good, but Evil, and a Paladin would fall for obeying such an order.

Wrong.

What happens if Rovagug is released and all those whom he devours further strengthens him to the point the rest of the multiverse will be threatened by his increase in power? And innocent souls strengthen him further exponentially.

You can't stop his release, and you can't stop him from devouring others, thus consuming their souls. And there is no way to do a mass exodus of all the people on golarion.

What do you do? The only alternative is to prevent the food from being present upon his release, thus starving him and preventing that threat from endangering the rest of the multiverse.

Now, suicide also prevents the souls from travelling to the upper planes, but instead damns them to the lower, further strengthening a different evil.

Your presumtion in your "objective good and evil" is that all killing is wrong. This is wrong on it's face.

What's the alternative?

Quote:


Allowing someone to kill you is technically suicide, so they'd be breaking their own ethos.

Allowing others to kill you is not suicide. Suicide is killing yourself.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Kill Rovagug.


havoc xiii wrote:
Kill Rovagug.

Not possible. Look at how he was trapped in the first place. He wasn't able to be killed then, and he has overcome the one result of that deity-conflict.


No.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Wouldn't be the first time the Big Damn Heroes of a story manage to kill an evil entity that was only sealed the first time.

Paladins find another way. They certainly don't force the sacrifice of others. Familiar with the Culling of Stratholme?


Quote:


The question said the LG(CE) god decided to end the world not that the world was already ending.

Yes, but the question is why? If the LG deity had a vision showing the release of Rovagug and the ensuing end of the multiverse, what are the options.

This comes down to a question of perspective. If you liken golarion to a limb on the human body and that limb has gangrene, is it not better (aka more Lawful and Good) to sever the limb so that the rest of the body can survive?

Kill millions so that untold trillions may live? That is the scenario.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
FireberdGNOME wrote:

Also, this is only one world of an infinite number. Even if *ALL* of the souls went to the Abyss, it's less than a drop in the bucket.

True, but even a small amount of lead in the heart of a star leads to a supernova.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Quintain wrote:
havoc xiii wrote:
Kill Rovagug.

Not possible.

Paladin.

You do it anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quintain wrote:
havoc xiii wrote:
Kill Rovagug.

Not possible.

Paladin.

You do it anyway.

No, you just die trying.


Arachnofiend wrote:

Wouldn't be the first time the Big Damn Heroes of a story manage to kill an evil entity that was only sealed the first time.

Paladins find another way. They certainly don't force the sacrifice of others. Familiar with the Culling of Stratholme?

This is a fantastic question:

Let's flip the scenario -- let's say you (as a paladin) are thrown back in time, and are pivotal in the events where in a fellow paladin became a great evil, but there are events in the scenario where your intervention could prevent that fall.

Here are your options: prevent the fall, thus changing the timeline and all it's inherent unknowns coming into play, possibly bringing an even greater evil to the fore,

or

allow the fall, knowing full well that you strengthen evil in the short run and thus ensure that all the atrocities said anti-paladin commits will come into place.

What do you do?


Angstspawn wrote:

Lets assume a ruling LG decides to end the world and take to heaven most souls. Forbidding suicide in his ethos he gave to his most faithful followers and paladins the order to kill all the population, especially the sinless ones.

1. How should paladins of that deity react?
2. Accepting the order, would paladins keep their status and alignment?
3. If some paladins refuse, can they still be paladin?
4. If paladins refusing loose their status, what should be their new alignment?

this is without a doubt the most slanted question on paladinfall I have ever heard. And that's saying something.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:

Wouldn't be the first time the Big Damn Heroes of a story manage to kill an evil entity that was only sealed the first time.

Paladins find another way. They certainly don't force the sacrifice of others. Familiar with the Culling of Stratholme?

"You've just crossed a terrible threshold, Arthas."

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:

While this example is poor, it does kind of touch on another question though. Say there is a village out in the wilderness and a small tribe of orcs or something show up near by.

Say the villagers, having learned from experience of others, send a raiding team to drive away the orcs and they fail. So a palaadin happens to stroll along and they commission the paladin to "save" them from the orc menance. So pally goes along and takes out the orcs. He is hailed hero and all is good.

But... not quite .. the orcs had done nothing wrong. Say they were just a nomadic tribe of nature revering orcs and were on a pilgrimage to a traditional hunting ground. But they were wiped out...

Or another example that drives the point harder. Say there is a vampire. Say she was raised but her master was killed so she is free. So, since she never really fancied being evil and all, tries to live as normal a life as she can. She is honest enough and sates her thirst on animals (think Interview with a Vampire). Say she evem helps the community as much as she Can without rerevealing her nature. She is an all around good person if a little eccentric. There here comes adventuring party with a paladin. And lets say, since he is one of those players, he has his detect evil up and he gets a ping. He sees her and he immediately draws his sword and smites her dead....er. Well by Pf He is fine since she is a "evil" creature for simply being a vampire.

Black and white morality of PF is kinda annoying sometimes...

No, no, no. First off, if that vampire isn't doing evil things and actually tries to preserve other's lives, then the vampire isn't evil. The Paladin won't detect them as evil, and has no reason to kill them. Second, the Paladin will ask "What have the orcs done?" before taking that mission. The village instigated the fight by attacking without provocation. The paladin may try to use Diplomacy to fix their mistake, or take a job to protect the village in the event that the orcs do attack. A Paladin who doesn't check to see if the evil creature is actually doing anything evil before attacking is nothing more than a murderhobo.

Here's the deal - Paladins who kill based on something as easy to fool as Detect Evil are murderers and should be treated as such. There are many low-level spells that conceal ones alignment, alter it, or can make someone else detect as a different alignment than they really are. Without concrete evidence of wrongdoing a Paladin using this tactic risks killing innocent people, and thus does not value the sanctity of life - ergo, not Good, and they fall.

Dark Archive

quintain wrote:


luniasm wrote:


Allowing someone to kill you is technically suicide, so they'd be breaking their own ethos.
Allowing others to kill you is not suicide. Suicide is killing yourself.

Let's say a man wants to die. He gets in his car and drives off a cliff, dying. Suicide, right? Easy. Let's say that same man instead decides to run into a busy intersection, gets hit by a car, and dies. Would you argue it was murder because he wasn't the one driving the car that killed him? No, it's still suicide.

So what's the difference between slitting your own throat and handing someone else the knife and letting them do it for you? There is none. If you want to die, then willingly put yourself in a deadly situation and die, you committed suicide. The method isn't important, it's the intent.


All undead are evil. Simply being undead is enough to ping as evil.

You think the villagers are gonna be reasonable and straight forward about the orcs? They will most likely say that the orcs killed many of their men and spread the typical horror stories of orcs.


Quote:


So what's the difference between slitting your own throat and handing someone else the knife and letting them do it for you? There is none. If you want to die, then willingly put yourself in a deadly situation and die, you committed suicide. The method isn't important, it's the intent.

The actor. One performs the killing and one is the killed.

Suicide is when the actor and the acted are the same individual.

Quote:


Let's say that same man instead decides to run into a busy intersection, gets hit by a car, and dies. Would you argue it was murder because he wasn't the one driving the car that killed him? No, it's still suicide.

I wouldn't argue that it is murder. But it isn't suicide either.

It's putting yourself at great personal risk with the desire to die.

Let's give another example. There is a home invasion, and a burglar is about to shoot the woman of the house, and the husband steps in the line of fire knowing that he is very likely to die but might save his wife?

No one calls this a suicide. (This is no different than the death by car crash scenario that you described -- the only difference is intent of consequences that the one that puts themselves in harms way desires.)

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Quintain wrote:
FireberdGNOME wrote:

Also, this is only one world of an infinite number. Even if *ALL* of the souls went to the Abyss, it's less than a drop in the bucket.

True, but even a small amount of lead in the heart of a star leads to a supernova.

No... what leads to a supernova is that a massive star has essentially run out of fuel to burn having one through all of the nucleosynethesis conversions that yield energy. Fusing iron however costs more energy than it yields so without energy to keep it's outlayers aloft, gravity wins the tug a war and causes the star to collapse.

The layers however compress, forcing heavier reactions still, until the shockwave from the collapse blow the star apart, seeding the interstellar medium with heavy elements, which means that everything you see that's heavier than helium originated in the heart of a supernova.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quintain wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quintain wrote:
havoc xiii wrote:
Kill Rovagug.

Not possible.

Paladin.

You do it anyway.

No, you just die trying.

Yes. And?

The setup where you can't win and every option is in some way evil is not the sort of story that pathfinder is really set up to play. D20 doesn't work well for call of cuthulu because D20 has been set up so that the players CAN win, so that they can be the hero, and so that a paladin is not a walking contradiction that falls for not being the living dead Schrodinger cat.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Literally no point in arguing this without more information.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:

All undead are evil. Simply being undead is enough to ping as evil.

You think the villagers are gonna be reasonable and straight forward about the orcs? They will most likely say that the orcs killed many of their men and spread the typical horror stories of orcs.

If an undead who does nothing evil, works to overcome their evil desires, and preserves the lives of their potential victims still pings as evil, the DM is a jerk. If you don't do evil things you aren't evil, simple as that. There are examples of "evil creatures" becoming good in the Golarion setting - Wrath of the Righteous has a few. This trend of "All x are Evil" is a 3.5 relic that Paizo has explicitly avoided. Regardless, a Paladin who kills that vampire still falls for committing murder of an innocent.

If the paladin is tricked into going after those orcs, they still need to verify the story they were given. People can and will lie to get what they want. You cannot make assumptions as a Paladin - you have higher standards than that. If you want to play the character that blindly trusts people and mercilessly slaughters anything anyone says is bad, don't play a Paladin.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Quintain wrote:

Yes, but the question is why? If the LG deity had a vision showing the release of Rovagug and the ensuing end of the multiverse, what are the options.

This comes down to a question of perspective. If you liken golarion to a limb on the human body and that limb has gangrene, is it not better (aka more Lawful and Good) to sever the limb so that the rest of the body can survive?

Kill millions so that untold trillions may live? That is the scenario.

Kill none. If the deity can forsee Rovagug awakening then it can forsee how it is awakened and we stop that. And remember what we say to the gods of Evil: Not today.

Kill Rovagug. If we can't stop Rovagug awakening, we remind the gods why THEY need US, because gods are limited by their destinies but mortals are pure potential, changers of fate, destroyers of destiny. Be awesome, be epic, be mythic. Kick your puny reason to the curb, pierce the skies, do the impossible, kill the unkillable.

Die trying. If its impossible you go out fighting for good. You don't bow to evil, you dont accept death. Never give up, never surrender, this is the duty of a paladin, nay, his privelege.

Quintain wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:

Wouldn't be the first time the Big Damn Heroes of a story manage to kill an evil entity that was only sealed the first time.

Paladins find another way. They certainly don't force the sacrifice of others. Familiar with the Culling of Stratholme?

This is a fantastic question:

Let's flip the scenario -- let's say you (as a paladin) are thrown back in time, and are pivotal in the events where in a fellow paladin became a great evil, but there are events in the scenario where your intervention could prevent that fall.

Here are your options: prevent the fall, thus changing the timeline and all it's inherent unknowns coming into play, possibly bringing an even greater evil to the fore,

or

allow the fall, knowing full well that you strengthen evil in the short run and thus ensure that all the atrocities said anti-paladin commits will come into place.

What do you do?

Prevent the fall. You can't predict the future to know this would cause a greater evil, you also can't predict the future to know if this will make the future better for everybody.

Stop evil now, and if a worse evil shows up, you stop that evil too.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quintain wrote:
Quote:


So what's the difference between slitting your own throat and handing someone else the knife and letting them do it for you? There is none. If you want to die, then willingly put yourself in a deadly situation and die, you committed suicide. The method isn't important, it's the intent.

The actor. One performs the killing and one is the killed.

Suicide is when the actor and the acted are the same individual.

Quote:


Let's say that same man instead decides to run into a busy intersection, gets hit by a car, and dies. Would you argue it was murder because he wasn't the one driving the car that killed him? No, it's still suicide.

I wouldn't argue that it is murder. But it isn't suicide either.

It's putting yourself at great personal risk with the desire to die.

Let's give another example. There is a home invasion, and a burglar is about to shoot the woman of the house, and the husband steps in the line of fire knowing that he is very likely to die but might save his wife?

No one calls this a suicide. (This is no different than the death by car crash scenario that you described -- the only difference is intent of consequences that the one that puts themselves in harms way desires.)

I am curious. What do you define as suicide.

Here, have a definition from merriam-webster

Merriam-Webster Definition wrote:

Full Definition of SUICIDE

1
a : the act or an instance of taking one's own life voluntarily and intentionally especially by a person of years of discretion and of sound mind
b : ruin of one's own interests <political suicide>

So, if...

a)there is an act
b)the result of that act is (directly or indirectly, the definition doesn't make this distinction) your death
c)you intended for it to do so of your own free will
...then it is suicide.

So, lets look at the examples.

1.Cutting your own throat. You perform an act, it kills you, that was the point of doing the act. Three ticks. Suicide.
2.Handing the knife to someone else and asking them to kill you. You performed the act of handing someone a weapon and requesting that they kill you. They cut your throat and it kills you. Your action of handing off the knife and making the request was intended to result in your death. Three ticks again. Suicide
3.Walking into traffic with the aim of being killed by a collision. Act was walking into traffic. If it works, it kills you. The action was done with the intent to kill you. Three Ticks. Suicide.
4.Taking the bullet for a loved one. You acted by moving into the line of fire. Lets assume for the moment that it kills you. The intent of your act was to...save a loved one. Getting killed was not the intent. It was a known risk, and a highly likely outcome, but you were not voluntarily killed, and your death was not intentional. Just an unfortunate but predictable byproduct. Two ticks, one cross. Not suicide.

See how easy this is.

If you want another excellent example of suicide where another party actually does the killing, go google the term "Suicide By Cop".

As for the OPs scenario, assuming the people getting killed know it's coming and submit willingly to it, that would be suicide. The act was communicating their acceptance to the paladin. Presumably the paladin carried it out, so it kills them. The action of communicating their acceptance to the paladin was done willingly and with the aim of getting killed. Three ticks. Suicide.

So I hope that paladin has a high Stealth score so they can carry out the commandment...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:
All undead are evil. Simply being undead is enough to ping as evil.

This is incorrect. Undead creatures without the evil alignment do not ping as evil. Detect evil explicitly requires an aligned undead to ping, not just any ol' undead. If you meet a neutral-aligned mummy, they won't show up on detect evil at all.

Undead do, however, provide stronger auras when they are aligned when using detect [alignment] spells.

Dark Archive

Quintain wrote:
Quote:


So what's the difference between slitting your own throat and handing someone else the knife and letting them do it for you? There is none. If you want to die, then willingly put yourself in a deadly situation and die, you committed suicide. The method isn't important, it's the intent.

The actor. One performs the killing and one is the killed.

Suicide is when the actor and the acted are the same individual.

Quote:


Let's say that same man instead decides to run into a busy intersection, gets hit by a car, and dies. Would you argue it was murder because he wasn't the one driving the car that killed him? No, it's still suicide.

I wouldn't argue that it is murder. But it isn't suicide either.

It's putting yourself at great personal risk with the desire to die.

Let's give another example. There is a home invasion, and a burglar is about to shoot the woman of the house, and the husband steps in the line of fire knowing that he is very likely to die but might save his wife?

No one calls this a suicide. (This is no different than the death by car crash scenario that you described -- the only difference is intent of consequences that the one that puts themselves in harms way desires.)

People who want to die and have someone kill them in their stead are committing assisted suicide. Look it up.

In your scenario, does the husband want to die? No, he wants to save his wife. Did he put himself in a scenario where he was in danger? You say yes, but I say no. He did not ask that burglar to break in and shoot at his wife. That is still homicide, and would be ruled as such.


LuniasM wrote:
Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:

All undead are evil. Simply being undead is enough to ping as evil.

You think the villagers are gonna be reasonable and straight forward about the orcs? They will most likely say that the orcs killed many of their men and spread the typical horror stories of orcs.

If an undead who does nothing evil, works to overcome their evil desires, and preserves the lives of their potential victims still pings as evil, the DM is a jerk. If you don't do evil things you aren't evil, simple as that. There are examples of "evil creatures" becoming good in the Golarion setting - Wrath of the Righteous has a few. This trend of "All x are Evil" is a 3.5 relic that Paizo has explicitly avoided. Regardless, a Paladin who kills that vampire still falls for committing murder of an innocent.

If the paladin is tricked into going after those orcs, they still need to verify the story they were given. People can and will lie to get what they want. You cannot make assumptions as a Paladin - you have higher standards than that. If you want to play the character that blindly trusts people and mercilessly slaughters anything anyone says is bad, don't play a Paladin.

Think about this.

1)How many paladins speak orc?

2) The orcs have already bee attacked once, they see some HEAVILY guys strolling up to their camp. Chances are they will jump to action beofr giving them an oppotunity to hit them first.

3) Orcs have A piss poor reputation already. If you wanna make it even tougher, say a camp of drow. Drow are universally known as evil. They are also Known liars. Most wouldnt think twice of killong some drow. Same thing with the orcs. Orcs are like goblins, they are "monsters".

As for the undead thing, yeah some people get redeemed, but one thing Paizo has deffinetely not budged on is ALL undead are evil. Your actions mean nothing in regards to alignment of undead. Otherwise mindless undead would be neutral... sinply BEING undead is enough to be evil.

Dark Archive

Snowblind wrote:
Quintain wrote:
Quote:


So what's the difference between slitting your own throat and handing someone else the knife and letting them do it for you? There is none. If you want to die, then willingly put yourself in a deadly situation and die, you committed suicide. The method isn't important, it's the intent.

The actor. One performs the killing and one is the killed.

Suicide is when the actor and the acted are the same individual.

Quote:


Let's say that same man instead decides to run into a busy intersection, gets hit by a car, and dies. Would you argue it was murder because he wasn't the one driving the car that killed him? No, it's still suicide.

I wouldn't argue that it is murder. But it isn't suicide either.

It's putting yourself at great personal risk with the desire to die.

Let's give another example. There is a home invasion, and a burglar is about to shoot the woman of the house, and the husband steps in the line of fire knowing that he is very likely to die but might save his wife?

No one calls this a suicide. (This is no different than the death by car crash scenario that you described -- the only difference is intent of consequences that the one that puts themselves in harms way desires.)

I am curious. What do you define as suicide.

Here, have a definition from merriam-webster

Merriam-Webster Definition wrote:

Full Definition of SUICIDE

1
a : the act or an instance of taking one's own life voluntarily and intentionally especially by a person of years of discretion and of sound mind
b : ruin of one's own interests <political suicide>

So, if...

a)there is an act
b)the result of that act is (directly or indirectly, the definition doesn't make this distinction) your death
c)you intended for it to do so of your own free will
...then it is suicide.

So, lets look at the examples.

1.Cutting your own throat. You perform an act, it kills you, that was the point of doing the act. Three ticks. Suicide....

Thanks, you worded that much better than I did.


Ashiel wrote:
Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:
All undead are evil. Simply being undead is enough to ping as evil.

This is incorrect. Undead creatures without the evil alignment do not ping as evil. Detect evil explicitly requires an aligned undead to ping, not just any ol' undead. If you meet a neutral-aligned mummy, they won't show up on detect evil at all.

Undead do, however, provide stronger auras when they are aligned when using detect [alignment] spells.

I cant remember if mummys may be different but the problem is that Paizo made it a point of ensuring undead ARE EVIL for the sake of being undead. Case and point, the Ju Ju zombie. First time a necromancer type could make non evil undead... then they changed it to be evil...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:
All undead are evil. Simply being undead is enough to ping as evil.

This is incorrect. Undead creatures without the evil alignment do not ping as evil. Detect evil explicitly requires an aligned undead to ping, not just any ol' undead. If you meet a neutral-aligned mummy, they won't show up on detect evil at all.

Undead do, however, provide stronger auras when they are aligned when using detect [alignment] spells.

I cant remember if mummys may be different but the problem is that Paizo made it a point of ensuring undead ARE EVIL for the sake of being undead. Case and point, the Ju Ju zombie. First time a necromancer type could make non evil undead... then they changed it to be evil...

Undead lack the evil subtype which means that they are still beholden to the core alignment rules, which means that undead who aren't really evil or capable of moral choices will revert to a more suitable alignment (this is RAW). After some time, skeletons and zombies are required by RAW to revert to a Neutral alignment.

Further, not all undead are evil. Ghosts for example are not always evil. The Blood of Night book suggests neither are all vampires. Any creature that is sentient can make choices that lead to a specific alignment and any creature that is not will inevitably shift towards Neutrality per the alignment rules.


Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:
All undead are evil. Simply being undead is enough to ping as evil.

This is incorrect. Undead creatures without the evil alignment do not ping as evil. Detect evil explicitly requires an aligned undead to ping, not just any ol' undead. If you meet a neutral-aligned mummy, they won't show up on detect evil at all.

Undead do, however, provide stronger auras when they are aligned when using detect [alignment] spells.

I cant remember if mummys may be different but the problem is that Paizo made it a point of ensuring undead ARE EVIL for the sake of being undead. Case and point, the Ju Ju zombie. First time a necromancer type could make non evil undead... then they changed it to be evil...

Yes all undead are made evil, and the vampire template makes you evil.

BUT

An inteligent undead is fully capable of changing his alignment. That example vampire is trying to, and probably has, change her alignment.

Undead are not of the [Evil] subtype, so if they change alignment to good, or even just neutral, they stop pinging on Detect Evil.

And a paladin, or any adventurer really, should study the vampire before attacking, if nothing else to make sure it's not ten levels higher than the party. That scouting would reveal the thruth to the paladin.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:
LuniasM wrote:
Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:

All undead are evil. Simply being undead is enough to ping as evil.

You think the villagers are gonna be reasonable and straight forward about the orcs? They will most likely say that the orcs killed many of their men and spread the typical horror stories of orcs.

If an undead who does nothing evil, works to overcome their evil desires, and preserves the lives of their potential victims still pings as evil, the DM is a jerk. If you don't do evil things you aren't evil, simple as that. There are examples of "evil creatures" becoming good in the Golarion setting - Wrath of the Righteous has a few. This trend of "All x are Evil" is a 3.5 relic that Paizo has explicitly avoided. Regardless, a Paladin who kills that vampire still falls for committing murder of an innocent.

If the paladin is tricked into going after those orcs, they still need to verify the story they were given. People can and will lie to get what they want. You cannot make assumptions as a Paladin - you have higher standards than that. If you want to play the character that blindly trusts people and mercilessly slaughters anything anyone says is bad, don't play a Paladin.

Think about this.

1)How many paladins speak orc?

2) The orcs have already bee attacked once, they see some HEAVILY guys strolling up to their camp. Chances are they will jump to action beofr giving them an oppotunity to hit them first.

3) Orcs have A piss poor reputation already. If you wanna make it even tougher, say a camp of drow. Drow are universally known as evil. They are also Known liars. Most wouldnt think twice of killong some drow. Same thing with the orcs. Orcs are like goblins, they are "monsters".

As for the undead thing, yeah some people get redeemed, but one thing Paizo has deffinetely not budged on is ALL undead are evil. Your actions mean nothing in regards to alignment of undead. Otherwise mindless undead would be neutral... sinply BEING undead is enough to be evil.

1. How many don't? Along with Abyssal, Demonic, Subterranean and Drow. Those are the languages of their main enemies, why wouldn't they study them? What kind of stupid paladin wouldn't want to decypher written messages and be able to understand what their enemy commanders are shouting?

2. That is why you arrived with weapons sheated and announce yourself in a loud and clear voice before arriving. Ask them to leave without bloodshed. If they start a fight you kill them in self defense.

3. Only a racist lets prejudice cloud judgement. Paladins by definition are not klansmen. They won't kill them just because they are green.

Just because some people don't know how to play a Good character, doesn't mean it's impossible.

Dark Archive

Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:
LuniasM wrote:
Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:

All undead are evil. Simply being undead is enough to ping as evil.

You think the villagers are gonna be reasonable and straight forward about the orcs? They will most likely say that the orcs killed many of their men and spread the typical horror stories of orcs.

If an undead who does nothing evil, works to overcome their evil desires, and preserves the lives of their potential victims still pings as evil, the DM is a jerk. If you don't do evil things you aren't evil, simple as that. There are examples of "evil creatures" becoming good in the Golarion setting - Wrath of the Righteous has a few. This trend of "All x are Evil" is a 3.5 relic that Paizo has explicitly avoided. Regardless, a Paladin who kills that vampire still falls for committing murder of an innocent.

If the paladin is tricked into going after those orcs, they still need to verify the story they were given. People can and will lie to get what they want. You cannot make assumptions as a Paladin - you have higher standards than that. If you want to play the character that blindly trusts people and mercilessly slaughters anything anyone says is bad, don't play a Paladin.

Think about this.

1)How many paladins speak orc?

2) The orcs have already bee attacked once, they see some HEAVILY guys strolling up to their camp. Chances are they will jump to action beofr giving them an oppotunity to hit them first.

3) Orcs have A piss poor reputation already. If you wanna make it even tougher, say a camp of drow. Drow are universally known as evil. They are also Known liars. Most wouldnt think twice of killong some drow. Same thing with the orcs. Orcs are like goblins, they are "monsters".

As for the undead thing, yeah some people get redeemed, but one thing Paizo has deffinetely not budged on is ALL undead are evil. Your actions mean nothing in regards to alignment of undead. Otherwise mindless undead would be neutral... sinply BEING undead is enough to be evil.

1. Orc is fairly common as a known language in my groups, especially if you have a half-orc or a high INT character. How many orcs know common? How hard is it to get Comprehend Languages on two people? If you're high enough level to fight a roaming band of orcs that slaughtered a group of villagers armed with weapons and the element of surprise, why not prepare Tongues?

2. The original example just said "He goes and kills the orcs" without saying how. If he instigates, he is wrong to do so. If they instigate, that sucks for him, and he may defend himself from his attackers. He won't fall for protecting himself, that's stupid. Killing Orcs didn't make him "Good", trying to solve the situation did. The best solution would be to knock them out instead of killing them, then find out the whole story through questioning.

3. WotR has a redeemed succubus. You know, those evil monsters that are clearly always evil because just look at their stat block in the bestiary, it says so right there. Paladins aren't "most people", so don't play them as such.

4. Look up Xegirius Malikar, CN Lich. JJ has said they designed Golarion with the intent of all undead being evil, but exceptions do happen. According to the section on alignment in the crb, monster stay blocks are generalized and any creature with an INT of 3+ may differ in alignment as long as it isn't a planar creature, and yet WotR has a redeemed Succubus. Besides, if anyone is gonna try redeeming evil, it's a paladin or cleric of a good deity (I'm fond of Paladins of Sarenrae, personally).

1 to 50 of 272 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Can a Paladin kill innocents for "their own good"? All Messageboards