Honestly if the succubus detected as evil and smite was working on her then she is not innocent.This.
I don't agree with that. But...
In a world where Fiends are redeemable, the Paladin should either A) not be allowed to take 'genocide against potentially good things) or B) Be able to detect which ones aren't bound by his oath (hmmmm it looks like a fiend, but I've never seen that golden glow around it...)
This I think I can agree with.
As yes, fiends should be redeemable. After all, Angels can fall (See Erinyes entry)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
After all, Angels can fall (See Erinyes entry)
the problem with that is in your own example... A fallen Angel in this case, is now an Erinyes. So by that logic, a redeemed Succubus should become something other than what it once was.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As yes, fiends should be redeemable. After all, Angels can fall (See Erinyes entry)
Bah... falling is easy. Just look at these paladin threads ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, he falls. Next.
Honestly, "Being a f%!#ing moron" should be against the Paladin Code of Conduct just so this onslaught of Paladin threads that pop up every summer would hopefully dry up.
That or "Playing to stereotype".
*PING* "It's evil! Kill it!" is Lawful Stupid activity and should be curbed with a boot to the head. If killing the random thing that *PINGED* (oh, sorry, didn't even *PING*, he didn't even try to Detect Evil) when it wasn't doing anything wrong wasn't an issue, assaulting innocent villagers and refusing to take responsibility for his crime is.
|
This is a theoretical question about how a paladin prioritizes multiple duties, not an actual situation to put a player in. Calm down everyone, you've seen too many paladin threads.
Honestly if the succubus detected as evil and smite was working on her then she is not innocent.
Smite works on anything with an evil subtype even if it doesn't have an evil alignment. It's rare but theoretically possible within the rules.
This subtype is usually applied to Outsiders native to the evil-aligned Outer Planes. Evil Outsiders are also called fiends. Most creatures that have this subtype also have evil alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype. Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has an evil alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment. A creature with the evil subtype overcomes damage reduction as if its natural weapons and any weapons it wields are evil-aligned.
Whether that's actually a good way to handle it is debatable. On the one hand, I like the idea that a redeemed fiend has a kind of taint that makes them vulnerable to holy power even as they embrace holiness. On the other, it does make sense for a redemption that significant to be wholly transformative.
Can the paladin lose paladin powers even with Abadar approving of his actions?
Yes, unless you're houseruling. Default RAW says paladins have to follow the code, not their deity's wishes.
How does the paladin reconcile the competing duties he has? His Oath says "Never suffer an evil outsider to live if it is in your power to destroy it." However, his paladin code of conduct requires him to protect the innocent (indeed he must find and punish those who hurt innocents). The succubus, at this point in time, counts as an innocent (or she wouldn't qualify to be a paladin herself).
So, how should he decide how to satify both duties? Oh and of course there's a (perceived) time pressure. If the fiend is a threat, then he must act QUICKLY too or others could be harmed by his delay.
If he did not have those Oaths would the judgement be any different?
Strict RAW, paladin falls either way. He falls if he kills an innocent, and he falls if he fails to kill a fiend.
As I treat paladins, neither paladin falls because as I discussed earlier a reasonable person with the information the paladin has would believe that the succubus is evil and that further investigation would more likely hurt than help. The oaths add a little extra urgency but the ultimate judgment is the same.
Now, the real question is - what happens if the paladin has strong evidence that the succubus is not evil, and he kills her anyway? That's a situation in which his fall is not due to ignorance but to deliberately choosing his specific oaths over the general good.
Personally, I prefer paladins to prioritize the Good first, then any additional restrictions or oaths whether they concern use of poison or slaying fiends.
However I think it is also valid to allow a paladin to select their own priorities, possibly in reference to their deity. In this case the priorities should be clearly stated prior to play and followed consistently.
This is a theoretical question about how a paladin prioritizes multiple duties, not an actual situation to put a player in. Calm down everyone, you've seen too many paladin threads.
Honestly if the succubus detected as evil and smite was working on her then she is not innocent.Smite works on anything with an evil subtype even if it doesn't have an evil alignment. It's rare but theoretically possible within the rules.
You are equating Good with innocent.
Also looking at the code:
** spoiler omitted **Doesn't say you can't kill innocents, you just have to stay LG. None of the other aspects of the code are violated in the scenario we are discussing.
So the real question is: Does the paladin's alignment change?
I think that if the paladin had absolutely no clue that the succubus is Good, then this one mess up is not enough to cause an alignment change. If he knew and still deliberately murdered the succubus then yes, alignment change.
he has an oath against fiends that doesn't care whether the monster pretends to have been redeemed or not. if you are so determined to tell a story about this paladin falling, maybe you should consult with that player about it first. you know, since its his character, and the game is about cooperative story telling, not having the dm dictate your character's motivations and actions to you.
Man, there is a LOT of hate for this theoretical GM. Hell, you don't even know who the PC is. Maybe the PC is the succubus and the DM is trying to decide whether or not the NPC that just came and whacked the PC should fall or not.
Do you believe the special Oath comes first or the general commitment to Good comes first?
He doesn't fall. Period.
Do you believe the special Oath comes first or the general commitment to Good comes first?
General commitment.
If a paladin violates the code of her oath, she loses the class abilities associated with that oath until she atones. If she violates her paladin’s code, she loses her oath abilities as well as her other paladin abilities.
Also as an added quote,
The oathbound paladin must abide by the listed tenets of her oath in addition to the specifics of her god’s code of conduct. In some cases, a deity’s or paladin order’s code may conflict with the oath’s tenets; in most cases, these conflicts mean the oath is unsuitable for a paladin of that deity or order (such as the Oath against the Wyrm with respect to a good dragon deity or a dragon-riding order of paladins) and cannot be selected by the paladin.
So really there shouldn't BE a conflict... if there's a conflict then there must have been something that went wrong. If there is however, the Oath is the lesser of the codes.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Evil requires intent and/or supernatural intervention. The Paladin evaluated the situation, including the need to act swiftly and decisively, and found it far more likely that it was smiting time than that it was yet another elaborate Paladin trap from the GM. There was no Evil being done, just a tragic misunderstanding (and GM douchebaggery like it's the 1990ies all over again).
Man, the hypothetical GM is SUCH a douchebag for including a hypothetical redeemed Demon that a hypothetical Paladin SPECIFICALLY SOUGHT OUT to screw with (meaning he had plenty of time to do some research before he got there).
Well, this one, simple event probably won't change his alignment, so the Abadar paladin probably doesn't fall for no longer being lawful good, at least.
So the only question that remains is whether he violated his code of conduct or committed an evil act. Whether he violated his code of conduct, only the GM can answer, I do not know the specifics of the order in question. The only question left is whether the paladin committed an evil action.
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
Emphasis mine.
I leave it to you to make your own decision on this one, it's too early for alignment-fu.
-Nearyn
Well, this one, simple event probably won't change his alignment, so the Abadar paladin probably doesn't fall for no longer being lawful good, at least.
So the only question that remains is whether he violated his code of conduct or committed an evil act. Whether he violated his code of conduct, only the GM can answer, I do not know the specifics of the order in question. The only question left is whether the paladin committed an evil action.
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
Emphasis mine.
I leave it to you to make your own decision on this one, it's too early for alignment-fu.
-Nearyn
emphasis has to be in the wrong place. Killing without qualms, convience sport... those are evil. Just highlighting 'and killing others' breaks the game.
In the real world or various realish settings... killing may be avoidable. But in D&D and Pathfinder, it's a staple of all games. This implies that killing in and of itself is evil... then how could a paladin smite anything ever? It may be a house rule somewhere... but it completely invalidates any idea of a 'good' character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, the emphasis was to draw attention to what qualifies an act as evil. Remember the part where I said "I leave it to you"? in relation to whether or not an evil act had been performed? Yeah, that's what's happening.
Also, killing being an evil act doesn't invalidate good characters whatsoever. It empowers the notion of good.
Your characters kills a creature(evil) in order to protect the innocent people who would have been eaten by the monster (protecting innocent life), and you have no intention of asking for a reward (altruism).
So now you're performing a good evil action? That sounds an awful lot like a neutral act to me.
So a good character who does NOTHING but kill and kill and kill and kill, guess what, no matter his good cause, will eventually turn neutral(if the GM changes character alignment, based on the alignment of their actions). So a good character has to be about more than killing, - empowering the concept of good, not invalidating it.
-Nearyn
Well, the emphasis was to draw attention to what qualifies an act as evil. Remember the part where I said "I leave it to you"? in relation to whether or not an evil act had been performed? Yeah, that's what's happening.
Also, killing being an evil act doesn't invalidate good characters whatsoever. It empowers the notion of good.
Your characters kills a creature(evil) in order to protect the innocent people who would have been eaten by the monster (protecting innocent life), and you have no intention of asking a reward (altruism).
So now you're performing a good evil action? That sounds an awful lot like a neutral act to me.
So a good character who does NOTHING but kill and kill and kill and kill, guess what, no matter his good cause, will eventually turn neutral(if the GM changes character alignment, based on the alignment of their actions). So a good character has to be about more than killing, - empowering the concept of good, not invalidating it.
-Nearyn
Except the Paladin code expressly falls if 'she ever willingly commits an evil act.' They can change alignments past LG, but they also can not EVER do ANYTHING 'evil'.
Nothing about motives or frequency... If they do something that is evil, they fall. If 'killing others' is evil in and by itself, a paladin can not kill.
Which breaks the games. Or at the very least this class.
Killing is not inherently evil. Or else all animal predators would be evil. There needs to be intentional callousness or intent to cause undue suffering.
Killing is not inherently evil. Or else all animal predators would be evil. There needs to be intentional callousness or intent to cause undue suffering.
I agree. Hence why I question that particular quote that often shows up in alignment threads.
In the real world I am very pacifistic and don't condone killing at all... but in a fantasy world even the good guys kill.
It's a good thing then, that in my example, said character performed a neutral act, not an evil one. Had the character in the example been a paladin, he'd then be in the clear, at least with regards to the alignment of this one action.
-Nearyn
Killing is not inherently evil. Or else all animal predators would be evil. There needs to be intentional callousness or intent to cause undue suffering.
I appreciate the idea, but it is not grounded in the core rules. Then again, we're not talking in the rules forums, so I won't start a discussion. I've posted the relevant quotation, you're free to go read the alignment rules yourself - they're under the "additional rules" chapter of the core rulebook. If you want to run it by the rules, everything you need is in there. If you want to run with a different version of how alignments work, you're free to do so, but I'd advice you inform your players, since they can only assume the game is being run by RAW unless told differently.
-Nearyn
EDIT: Also animals would not turn evil from killing, since animals are, per the rules for the animal creature type, ALWAYS neutral. one of the very few, if not the only, type of creature to have its alignment carved in stone.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are we actually having a discussion over whether it's evil to kill someone who not only poses no threat, but is actively seeking to help others at personal risk/cost?
This isn't whether the paladin is allowed to kill the BBEG in pitched combat. It's not even whether the paladin is allowed to execute a bandit who they have taken prisoner.
It's whether the paladin is allowed to kill a fellow paladin with a shady backstory.
Personally I like to think that redemption means something and that even in a fantasy adventure it's not OK to kill someone just because they were evil once.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Man, the hypothetical GM is SUCH a douchebag for including a hypothetical redeemed Demon that a hypothetical Paladin SPECIFICALLY SOUGHT OUT to screw with (meaning he had plenty of time to do some research before he got there).
He walks into the local healing house where a large group of people seem to be watching something, entranced. In the middle of it all he sees a beautiful woman...but wait she suddenly shifts into s Succubus! A fiend! Of the CHAOTIC subtype!
Not really sure where you're getting this whole "specifically sought out" part, because he definitely was just checking on some "fiendish activity".
And given that most "hypothetical" posts on these boards are not actually hypothetical, let's stop using that as a defense for the situation.
Kinda tired of hearing about GMs doing/wanting to do this whole switch-a-roo thing with the "redeemed evil outsider". It's ridiculous.
"You have been slaying evil fiends all of your career, and I've been getting tired of it. So, have fun not having any class features."
I mean, really.
Using a real-world example: you're in the army of a country actively at war with another.
You hear reports of enemy activity in an area, so you go to check it out.
A random, cool dude that gives out food and stuff to the citizens picked up an old jacket or uniform of the soldiers of the enemy country.
You spot him, and of course shoot at him.
It doesn't matter that he's innocent, you have been trained to fight that enemy, and have been doing so for a while.
To the Paladins literally falling for this trap everywhere, I have but one piece of advice.
Play an inquisitor.
Edit: @Weirdo- I'd be okay with your interpretation, except for one thing: how was he to know that she was a fellow paladin? The description of a paladin isn't set in stone. If you really think redemption means something, remove the whole "keeps its subtypes" rule from your game. That'd solve the problem.
He Detects Chaos, she isn't chaotic, problem solved.
Also, evidently using LoH stops you from having a magical disguise, because that's a thing.
TLDR; it was/is a trap from the very beginning, and isn't meant to be anything else.
Wierdo, apparently being effectively Mother Theresa isn't "innocent" enough to be afforded protection according to some on this forum XD
Although I suppose Pathfinder never defined the word "innocent" so...
Wierdo, apparently being effectively Mother Theresa isn't "innocent" enough to be afforded protection according to some on this forum XD
Although I suppose Pathfinder never defined the word "innocent" so...
I haven't seen a definition for "redeemed" either. It really boils down to the whole Fiends being 'made of the essence of evil and chaos'. Their very presecnce is meant to be a blight on the material plane, and REGARDLESS of their current actions and attitude they are still detecting as a physical manifestation of Evil.
There are so many books about how they are created and formed from the hells, and nothing about the redemption seems to change that.
If the scenario was a known bandit lord who turned over a new leaf and was killed outright while helping orphans... then the debate wouldn't be here (or would knowing these forums)
If it had involved someone disguised as succubus and was killed outright... yeah, that's a problem!!
If the scenario had the evil and chaos burned from the succubus being and she no longer detected... and the paladin killed on sight, that would be different too. (On a side note... I LOVE Josh-O-lanters idea of 'changing' them like Erinyes. Just picture a succubus bathed in glowing light and having golden feathers start sprouting from her bat wings or something. That's just cool!)
What kind of redemption was done anyway?? I'll admit I'm not a fan of the idea. Demons and devils have been around causing evil and suffereing for hundreds of years... what do demons do to atone for ALL of that? Be nice for a few months, save a life or two and they'll detect as good?
Backsliding is REALLY easy, and they STILL have the evil subtype...
I think the real question is... Can removing an actual physical 5'5" 100 pound chunk of EVIL... be an evil act? Whatever they may have done here... there is 'less' actual evil in the world for it... Seems the worst it could be would neutral.
That's....probably the worst argument for killing a Paladin I've ever heard...?
That's....probably the worst argument for killing a Paladin I've ever heard...?
Meh....
It's 430am... I'm gettin' sleepy ;)
I already made most of my points earlier >.<
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Man, the hypothetical GM is SUCH a douchebag for including a hypothetical redeemed Demon that a hypothetical Paladin SPECIFICALLY SOUGHT OUT to screw with (meaning he had plenty of time to do some research before he got there).
Reading the original post, it sounds like a different demon was busy rampaging around and that's who the PC pally was after. The odd ball redeemed succubus pally was also seeking out that demon and was only in the area because of it. Note that as it would appear that PC and succubus are from different areas, the idea that it was even possible for an "evil outsider" may have never even come up; never heard of it after all and even if you did, succubi are notorious liars and manipulators.
So PC walks into the aftermath of a previously done demon attack to investigate and finds a succubus surrounded by people who love her (i.e. demon worshipers or charmed as per their MO)... Literally found a demon surrounded by "victims" at the site of the demonic crime. What conclusion should be drawn based on that? Really it would have been meta-gaming to NOT smite on sight, and I don't quite believe anyone who says they would have cast Detect Evil first (again barring meta-gaming).
PC did what was reasonable with the information presented. He only falls if not being omniscient is against his code.
Paladins can Detect Evil as a Move action. On round 1 of a combat the Paladin actually initiates (rather than walking into a room and being attacked, or greeted by a creature who is actively hostile, as in most cases), a Paladin should (and I do this):
1.) Use a Move to Detect Evil
2.) Smite (if above yields Evil intent)
3.) Ready an attack, or cast a spell.
The 3rd option(s) being a smart thing for round 1 in any case (rather than moving in and eating a full attack next turn), so it's not really a stretch to add on options 1 and 2.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins can Detect Evil as a Move action. On round 1 of a combat the Paladin actually initiates, a Paladin should (and I do this):
1.) Use a Move to Detect Evil
2.) Smite (if above yields Evil intent)
3.) Ready an attack, or cast a spell.
The 3rd option(s) being a smart thing for round 1 in any case (rather than moving in and eating a full attack next turn), so it's not really a stretch to add on options 1 and 2.
Serious question: As a Paladin do you really routinely use your first round of combat to confirm creatures that are obviously Evil Outsiders are in fact evil? People I can see checking up on, but Evil Outsiders have the evil part right in the name.
Anyway, based on the scenario we have a "vile fiend" of the type that is known for being weak in direct combat surrounded by helpless villagers. Getting up close and personal immediately is a smart play: Potential victims are protected, caster-type enemy is threatened, and now you are set to full attack next round. Due to double smite damage on the first attack due to the enemy being an Evil Outsider, you may even be able to one shot it off the charge if you crit.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't seen a definition for "redeemed" either. It really boils down to the whole Fiends being 'made of the essence of evil and chaos'. Their very presecnce is meant to be a blight on the material plane, and REGARDLESS of their current actions and attitude they are still detecting as a physical manifestation of Evil.
...
I think the real question is... Can removing an actual physical 5'5" 100 pound chunk of EVIL... be an evil act? Whatever they may have done here... there is 'less' actual evil in the world for it... Seems the worst it could be would neutral.
Being a chunk of evil doesn't seem to get in the way of being a paladin, the purest agent of Good a mortal can be. So it can't be that much of an affront to all things Holy.
Using a real-world example: you're in the army of a country actively at war with another.
You hear reports of enemy activity in an area, so you go to check it out.
A random, cool dude that gives out food and stuff to the citizens picked up an old jacket or uniform of the soldiers of the enemy country.
You spot him, and of course shoot at him.
It doesn't matter that he's innocent, you have been trained to fight that enemy, and have been doing so for a while.To the Paladins literally falling for this trap everywhere, I have but one piece of advice.
Play an inquisitor.Edit: @Weirdo- I'd be okay with your interpretation, except for one thing: how was he to know that she was a fellow paladin? The description of a paladin isn't set in stone.
Which is why in my original post I said that the paladin wouldn't fall but should try to make amends - because a good person wouldn't be at fault for accidentally killing an innocent because they were in enemy uniform, but should feel bad about it and try to make it up to the innocent's community.
I only complained when this guy argued that it was OK to kill the succubus because she wasn't innocent enough*, and it's OK to kill innocents anyway because the code doesn't specifically say you can't. The mitigating factor here is that it's a misunderstanding, not that anyone in an enemy uniform deserves to die.
*And she wasn't innocent enough because smite worked - despite the "keeps the subtypes" rule leaving even a succubus paladin vulnerable to holy power.
If you really think redemption means something, remove the whole "keeps its subtypes" rule from your game. That'd solve the problem.
I don't have a problem with the keeping its subtypes rule. People in my group don't tend to kill things just because they detect as evil.
Serious question: As a Paladin do you really routinely use your first round of combat to confirm creatures that are obviously Evil Outsiders are in fact evil? People I can see checking up on, but Evil Outsiders have the evil part right in the name.
I routinely use my first round of combat to buff as any character.
Now there's that pesky move action left over that can take this from "I can probably Smite this" to 'Yep, I can TOTALLY Smite this".
Good use of an unlimited resource there. Especially since you're rolling with 2-3 skill points per level. Mine are in Kn. Religion and Diplomacy, not Kn. Planes.
Anyway, based on the scenario we have a vile fiend of the type that is known for being weak in direct combat surrounded by helpless villagers. Getting up close and personal immediately is a smart play: Potential victims are protected, caster-type enemy is threatened, and now you are set to full attack next round.
So move in and Ready an attack triggered on if it casts a spell, if that is your concern.
You have now even more effectively protected the innocents (any spell that might cause collateral damage will be disrupted), and given the being an opportunity for surrender.
I don't think Paladins should be in the habit of starting fights unless someone is in clear and present danger. Too much of this kill 'em all and let Ragathiel sort 'em out attitude among Paladins IMO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good use of an unlimited resource there. Especially since you're rolling with 2-3 skill points per level. Mine are in Kn. Religion and Diplomacy, not Kn. Planes.
A valid point in regards to unknown opponents, but we are talking about Evil Outsiders. I'd probably be more inclined to try to get into a better position with my move action than to confirm the demon standing in front of me was evil, especially if there has been no implication that finding a non-evil one was even possible.
So move in and Ready an attack triggered on if it casts a spell, if that is your concern.
You have now even more effectively protected the innocents (any spell that might cause collateral damage will be disrupted), and given the being an opportunity for surrender.
A 5ft step defeats your readied action in most cases, leaving the enemy to do whatever they were going to do anyway. I'd say putting a solid hit onto the enemy that you have the possibility of one shotting anyway does a better job of securing their safety.
I don't think Paladins should be in the habit of starting fights unless someone is in clear and present danger. Too much of this kill 'em all and let Ragathiel sort 'em out attitude among Paladins IMO.
Again valid point, but from presented information this would seem to be a "clear and present danger." Innocent people are in harms way and you are facing an enemy that can mindf~#& you (via both magical and mundane methods) if you even give it a moment to "explain itself." As the succubus was actually raising people, there may have even been corpses laying around her to even further seemingly implicate her.
I actually had a sort of similair situation happen to our party paladin...
We were in town looking for work when the paladin was walking around and had his undead-dar ping (he had oath against undead since it was specifically a game with heavy lich and necromamcer focus and pretty much walked around woth it on). Well he saw a lady just kind of minding her own business when he succeasfully determined it was a vampire (good roll and high know (religion).
Well he then preceeded to smite the crap out of it and pretty much wiped it out (it was just a spawn, not a.full vamp).
Well needless to say the towns guard was not pleased with pally mcsmiter smiting around.
Funny enpugh though... he HAD to smite her... lol.
To and tangent here: oath against undead raises a HUGE issue... the oath modifies the paladin code so he HAS to destroy ALL undead he comes across.... so if he happens along say... a good aligned lich witch that is just watching over and protecting a village from invaders, he is BOUND TO KILL IT. But the lich is good. He just MURDERED A GOOD PERSON. For what amounts to racism.... now figure THAT pne out... that oath is easily a trap unless tou are playong stereo type undead... and good undead are not unheard of... its not like they are made of literal evil like a.demon.
so if he happens along say... a good aligned lich witch that is just watching over and protecting a village from invaders, he is BOUND TO KILL IT. But the lich is good. He just MURDERED A GOOD PERSON. For what amounts to racism.... now figure THAT pne out... that oath is easily a trap unless tou are playong stereo type undead... and good undead are not unheard of... its not like they are made of literal evil like a.demon.
To be fair you really can't murder a lich unless she was one of the stupid ones who carries around her phylactery; no harm, no foul really if you don't/can't break it. That nitpick aside, you have a valid point.
And honestly you dont even need a contrived scenerio. Lets just say there was a kind old hedge witch that lived in a small village. He was a powerful witch mind you. Well say some big nasty creatures moved near by (you can have anythong. Giant, dragons, orcs what have you) but she protects the village (like i said strong). Well as she gets older, she realizes the.village wpuld be doomed without her protection, so she pursues some of her darker lore (i mean come on, she os a witch lol) and turns herself into a lich so she can continue to protect the village as a sort of guardian. Well initially the villagwrs are frightened but become accustomed to her since since she is Ol lady Morrigan watching o'er them. After all, she can help their crops, heal wounds, and provide.potions. She is a blessing to them.
Simple... and not horridly contrived.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Serious question: As a Paladin do you really routinely use your first round of combat to confirm creatures that are obviously Evil Outsiders are in fact evil? People I can see checking up on, but Evil Outsiders have the evil part right in the name.
Do Paladins automatically pass Knowledge(Planes) checks?
Oh and we cant forget the Neutral Liches who are liches simply becausw their research is too important for.the simple mundane distraction like death stop their newest discovery. Maybe they just abput crack the secret to cancer but just need more time. Not really evil, just VERY dedicated to their work lol.
Serious question: As a Paladin do you really routinely use your first round of combat to confirm creatures that are obviously Evil Outsiders are in fact evil? People I can see checking up on, but Evil Outsiders have the evil part right in the name.Do Paladins automatically pass Knowledge(Planes) checks?
Even if you failed the DC 17 check would you not feel comfortable assuming your smite would stick on something that looks like this? That is one of the nice things about "always evil" outsiders; you may not know what kind they are exactly, but you only have to see them to have pretty good idea about their alignment. Good old fantastic racism.
@chaoseffect
1: - Who are you talking about? Who's killed everyone?
2: - How can a monster such as you have such a sweet voice?
3: - I'm not going anywhere until I get an explanation.
4: - I'm not about to believe a foul creature such as yourself! Have at you!!
5: - Perhaps you're right, I should go...
-Nearyn
Even if you failed the DC 17 check would you not feel comfortable assuming your smite would stick on something that looks like this? That is one of the nice things about "always evil" outsiders; you may not know what kind they are exactly, but you only have to see them to have pretty good idea about their alignment. Good old fantastic racism.Serious question: As a Paladin do you really routinely use your first round of combat to confirm creatures that are obviously Evil Outsiders are in fact evil? People I can see checking up on, but Evil Outsiders have the evil part right in the name.Do Paladins automatically pass Knowledge(Planes) checks?
Who knows, might be a winged satyr.
Also Golarion is full of creatures that look ugly but aren't evil, a Paladin should know by now.
"It has horns! It must be evil!" it's something that cannot fly in a setting like this.
Who knows, might be a winged satyr.Also Golarion is full of creatures that look ugly but aren't evil, a Paladin should know by now.
"It has horns! It must be evil!" it's something that cannot fly in a setting like this.
Bat wings, horns, hooves, stereotypical "devil" tail... I would feel comfortable hazarding a wager on alignment, but I do see your point.
Totally agree with everyone saying this was a needless GM trick.
That said, Abadar would likely have a bigger issue with refusing to submit to the town's justice than with destroying the demon.
Tiefling with a bit stronger heritage? Half-Fiend? Unfettered Eidolon?
Lots of possibilities.
But really it's all about the scene - and seeing a succubus surrounded by praising victims and some dead bodes is a good reason to smite.
But if the paladin lacks Knowledge (Planes), all the "Succubus are known to mindcontrol" arguments are void and she can only rely on what she sees and that she knows some fiends do that.
I really don't understand those of you considering this situation an evil GM trap set up to f~%% with the paladin player.
Paladins as a class are strongly tied to the morality of the game. They can fall if the act in a way they shouldn’t. Other classes don't do that. You can play a fighter who swears to do good and kill evil creatures, but when this fighter does so you are not punished.
Why play paladins if you are not interested in exploring what morality means, to come across difficult and muddy situations where your clear-cut code is challenged?
|
He doesn't believe anything that the villagers say (dumped Wis)
Sense Motive is a WIS based skill, so did he think they were lying and somehow beat their non-existent bluff check (since they weren't lying) or did he fail hard on his 'hunch' and 'detect enchantment' rolls?
and ignores the orders from the town guard to stand down and be arrested for trial. He instead knocks them out with non-lethal damage, and decides the next step is go back to his paladin order and get some backup as to cure all these people of being...
Lawful how?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, what exactly is it with a certain subset of GMs that make them feel the need to concoct obnoxiously convoluted circumstances specifically designed to put Paladins in a position to fall?
If the GMs in question have that attitude towards Paladins, why not just ban them from their tables?
To those GMs: I guarantee none of your players find this kind of stuff entertaining.
The GMs do it because they find it entertaining. Who cares about the players.
Or more seriouly, they feel OK with paladins played the way they feel they should be played, whatever that is. If the players can't read their mind, then they probably won't play their paladins the way the GM wants. The GM, being the boss of the table and whose duty and right it is to decides how their game is going to work, opts to punish the player by constructing a situation where by failing to play the way the GM considers "kosher" the player can be tricked into doing something which clearly warrants falling. Thus those dirty players can learn to roleplay properly, instead of doing the slack, inappropriate nonsense they were doing before. Because screw them.
In other words, some GMs do it because some GMs are ***holes.