but the paladin killed an innocent and there was clearly other options available to him than just run in and act like a murderhoboNo, the paladin does not fall.
For any questions, refer to this thread.
But were there any obviously better options available to him?
Otherwise the paladin was presented with a bunch of sucky choices, so they picked one. It happened to be the wrong choice. Great, bad luck paladin. Still doesn't warrent falling unless you make paladins fall for inadvertently causing evil that they couldn't have reasonably known would happen.
but the paladin killed an innocent and there was clearly other options available to him than just run in and act like a murderhoboNo, the paladin does not fall.
For any questions, refer to this thread.
But were there any obviously better options available to him?
Otherwise the paladin was presented with a bunch of sucky choices, so they picked one. It happened to be the wrong choice. Great, bad luck paladin. Still doesn't warrent falling unless you make paladins fall for inadvertently causing evil that they couldn't have reasonably known would happen.
Exactly this. The Paladin makes a reasonable judgement call with the information available to him. Not being omniscient is not grounds for falling.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Better options in hindsight doesn't mean better options apparent at the time the paladin made the decision. Imagine you were reading this post:
"The paladin had heard rumours about a fiend in this particular area - people turning up dead with demonic symbols carved into them, that kind of stuff. He comes across this village and finds everyone reverently gathered around this succubus, seemingly oblivious to her obvious demonic nature. He tells her to surrender. She does, claiming this is a big mistake and she's been redeemed by the power of Sarenrae. The paladin is skeptical but decides to bring her in. The locals make a fuss and the second his back is turned she teleports out of her bonds. Now the paladin has been finding dead bodies in his path and all the locals are convinced that he's the killer..."
I think you'd see a lot of people calling the paladin stupid for trying to take a succubus prisoner.
Exactly this. The Paladin makes a reasonable judgement call with the information available to him. Not being omniscient is not grounds for falling.but the paladin killed an innocent and there was clearly other options available to him than just run in and act like a murderhoboNo, the paladin does not fall.
For any questions, refer to this thread.
But were there any obviously better options available to him?
Otherwise the paladin was presented with a bunch of sucky choices, so they picked one. It happened to be the wrong choice. Great, bad luck paladin. Still doesn't warrent falling unless you make paladins fall for inadvertently causing evil that they couldn't have reasonably known would happen.
that was no way reasonable, it was more like a snap judgemnt based on what the succubus looked like, the paladin didn't even take time to ask what was going on, he charged in and smote the succubus
my biggest gripe with the OP is why the nine hells did the succubus change her shape back into her natural form?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking of other consequences...
I would say the paladin needs a lesson (not a player lesson, or even a YOU FALL lesson, but definitely a lesson). In my opinion the best role playing way to handle this would be for a herald of Sarenrae and of Abadar give the paladin a quest to restore the redeemed succubus to life.
Seeing as the body is there, this isn't going to be unduly difficult, he needs a true resurrection spell and it's done. Maybe a bit of a speech about listening to what others say and not jumping the gun too fast, but not take his powers away.
Actually, it doesn't even take True Resurrection - Limited Wish will work.
Unlike most living creatures, an outsider does not have a dual nature—its soul and body form one unit. When an outsider is slain, no soul is set loose. Spells that restore souls to their bodies, such as raise dead, reincarnate, and resurrection, don't work on an outsider. It takes a different magical effect, such as limited wish, wish, miracle, or true resurrection to restore it to life. An outsider with the native subtype can be raised, reincarnated, or resurrected just as other living creatures can be.
I'd also like to repeat my original idea of making the paladin go redeem a tiefling for a more in-depth learning experience.
So you would change t so only True Res works?
I would suggest requiring the paladin to find a way to return the succubus paladin to life (a limited wish spell, at least) and then performing one service at her bequest, such as redeeming a tiefling.
Too trite and pat for my taste, and it requires high powered magic which means bringing in super NPC's in most cases.
My favored resolution would require the Paladin to serve in her shoes. Having the succubus remain dead, reinforces the idea that there are choices you can't take back.
Only LazarX considers a level 7 spell trite and pat. ;p
I get what you are saying, but if it's a standard world the likelihood the paladin could get her back on her feet is pretty high.
On the other hand though: Her being "dead" could be a good thing -- if her spirit/soul/whatever is released while doing good who is to say that that didn't get turned into a different outsider under her deity?
Granted that's not a normal thing, but it's not outside the bounds of possibility either.
^Keep in mind that Abadar is Lawful Neutral. so from his point of view, a Chaotic Good Succubus is just as much of a threat as the more standard Chaotic Evil variety. This would also apply in the replacement (higher probability) situation that I posted above (withe Oracle of Life).
{. . .}
edit: you guys know what, the more i read this thread the more i believe that there wasn't any paladin with the oath against chaos or a succubus paladin and all this is was a sick game play on us by the OP to make us argue
Wait, I thought that was the whole point in the first place . . . .
This is theoretical, but not intended to make you all argue, just to start a spirited debate.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Normally I'd like the idea of taking on the succubus' role, but in this case I see problems.
The succubi is clearly a healing-focused paladin and her killer appears to be more combative, so if he tries to actually fill her role he'll fall far short. Ordinarily that would be a good teachable moment but in a crisis like this the villagers pay, and that's not OK from the POV of whoever's setting the atonement. (It would be a dandy setup from a GM/storyteller's POV but I'm looking at this like someone who wants to avoid further evil.)
If the villagers don't suffer it's probably because the fiendslayer has gone out and efficiently killed the fiend that was originally causing problems - which does nothing to teach the lesson "be more careful about killing things, even fiends."
^Keep in mind that Abadar is Lawful Neutral. so from his point of view, a Chaotic Good Succubus is just as much of a threat as the more standard Chaotic Evil variety.
The succubus is LG, she just detects as chaotic (and evil) thanks to alignment subtype rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't have the paladin fall, but I would require penance.
I use the due diligence standard for paladins, which means that they don't fall for not having all the information unless they should have realized they needed more information - unless they're being careless or stupid.
Redeemed fiends are in most settings extremely rare. It's not unreasonable to assume that any given fiend is up to no good, even when there is no obvious sign of evil intent. This is particularly the case with succubi, fiends that are known for being subtle. Note also that the paladin is responding to reports of fiendish mayhem. He might have drawn the wrong conclusion, but it's not a stupid one. It's also not feasible for this paladin, acting alone, to verify the situation. An evil succubus certainly would be capable of winning over the townsfolk between charm and astronomical social skills, and most paladins are short on investigative skills. Compare an inquisitor who should be able to detect charm effects and the succubus' good aura.
However, this is a significant injustice and the paladin is obligated to remedy it once the situation becomes clear (presumably once he returns with better-equipped backup). Failing to take responsibility for your mistakes is dishonourable, and in this situation I would also describe a lack of regret as evil even if the initial act wasn't.
I would suggest requiring the paladin to find a way to return the succubus paladin to life (a limited wish spell, at least) and then performing one service at her bequest, such as redeeming a tiefling.
Agreed, +1, exactly.
However, if the succubus is an NPC and the oathbound paladin is a PC, I say this reads like an apparent trap by the GM and should not occur.
Far too many unlikely scenarios on top of each other [a redeemed succubus that isn't only not evil but lawful good, a normal fiend operating at the same time, and the oathbound storming in at the worst possible moment] for me to feel comfortable having such a plotline in a campaign.
To my mind, the scenario is about as likely as "A paladin comes across a giant horned creature swallowing hundreds of newborn babies, detects evil, and kills it. It is actually a good outsider that was tricked into accepting an Infernal Healing, and is killing polymorphed imps. Should the paladin fall?"
I would suggest requiring the paladin to find a way to return the succubus paladin to life (a limited wish spell, at least) and then performing one service at her bequest, such as redeeming a tiefling.
Too trite and pat for my taste, and it requires high powered magic which means bringing in super NPC's in most cases.
My favored resolution would require the Paladin to serve in her shoes. Having the succubus remain dead, reinforces the idea that there are choices you can't take back.
Ehh. Limited wish scrolls don't have to be that hard to get one's hands on, nor require access to high-level characters.
However, I do think that having the succubus remain dead can be an important lesson in not being able to take back our sins. As Weirdo says though, I'm not sure doing her job is either possible nor fitting.
Some kind of atonement that is more than just shelling out a few thousand GP's would be appropriate, but as Weirdo suggested, redeeming other evil characters, through non-combat means, could be such a duty.
that was no way reasonable, it was more like a snap judgemnt based on what the succubus looked like,
And the fact that it detected as evil.
Remember that in many settings, outsiders simply cannot ever be redeemed, and in those where they can, it's about as common as a one-legged awakened centipede enjoying her unicycle.
~skipping all the pages~
The paladin falls... I am puzzled why anyone thinks differently.
The commission of an act of evil even once immediately causes a fall. It doesn't matter that the paladin was too stupid to recognize what was going on, was tricked by circumstance into thinking something evil was happening, nor does it matter what oaths they swore. The CORE code of the paladin was violated. He did EVIL. He falls.
Now as a player I would be pissed at the GM for placing a GOOD creature that detects as EVIL. HOWEVER if I was the paladin I would immediately surrender myself for judgement to the village authorities, do anything in my power to correct my mistake even paying a true resurrection fee to restore the Succubus, and I would then seek an atonement for my error to restore my powers. AND if any of this derails the campaign it is clearly the GMs fault for deliberately creating a situation with a HIGH likelihood of making me fall.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
~skipping all the pages~
The paladin falls... I am puzzled why anyone thinks differently.
Because the paladin falls when he knowingly commits evil, it's in the code
Again, can we get out of the Paladin fall mentality as the only means to bring out consequences of a bad decision?
Like I said before, I would not strip the Paladin of his powers in this scenario.
But that doesn't mean he's gotten off scot free. Actions have consequences, and if the Succubus Paladin helped and saved a lot of people, he's going to face blowback from his actions.
This. Though the thread TriOmegaZero linked above contains the primary thing that irks me about the proposed scenario: Was the player warned.
In setting (as it were): How did no one move quick enough to stop the Paladin? Did this crowd of villagers get any initiative? I find it highly highly unlikely that here was no possible intervention.Now that all serves as stuff for the table, as opposed to just the theoretical scenario. Which perhaps avoids the debate.
But there is a point in doing that: When we're working in an abstraction that means we ignore the presence of the situation in the context of gaming - we are just philosophizing on some philosophy. Such philosophy-wank is pointless, moribund, and just leads to a run of silly claims.
To actually engage (though I do maintain the entire discussion is pointless but I am bored):
Abadar is silent on whether it's OK. An oath against chaos/fiends gives us new burdens. But let's look at them all:
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin ...
A paladin who takes an oath against demons, devils, daemons, and other evil outsiders is constantly on the lookout for malicious fiendish insurgence into the world, and faces it with swift and unwavering defiance...
Spread the order of law wherever you go, so long as the law is just; do not serve as a tool of tyranny. Fight vigilantly the servants of chaos.
Now we don't know whether it broke local laws but we can certainly say the fiend in question was not a servant of chaos, nor malicious. So neither Oath actually offers any justification beyond assumptions made by the Paladin in our situation. So we're then onto the vase Paladin code of conduct: Willingly commiting an evil act. Willingly, as a word defined elsewhere, makes no references to whether the character had knowledge of what they are doing. This just shifts the burden onto: Is it evil?
Killing a good person? Unless we're contriving some circumstance (like we are!); yes. Killing a fiend? A being of evil and chaos, whose ground state is to cause suffering?* No. Leaving villagers defenceless and with no means to deal with whatever is killing them? Definitely yes. Certainly doesn't spread the law. And here Abadar's particular code can be referenced: I am a protector of the roadways and keep travelers from harm.** Such an adction can only increase risk to travellers and roads in the region.That is unless the Paladin devotes themselves to filling in the role just made vacant and/or reversing their error. Preferably attempting both.
Personal conclusion: Paladin fixes it, or falls. Atonement doesn't happen until they fix it. Do not pass go.
*On that: I personally actually despise this in D&D/PF. The idea of "always evil", particularly taken to "therefore OK to kill" feels crude and lazy. Let alone all the ethical qualms to have with it.
**The code has more statements and this one is longer but I want to minimise what I steal from Champions of Balance here.
Because the paladin falls when he knowingly commits evil, it's in the code~skipping all the pages~
The paladin falls... I am puzzled why anyone thinks differently.
No. He falls when he willingly commits evil. He doesn't have to know anything.
No. He falls when he willingly commits evil. He doesn't have to know anything.
If you want to put it that way, to be willful evil he has to know that is evil, otherwise it's not evil or willful, pick your poison
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I think anytime a GM uses a good aligned undead or fiend, it's basically a paladin trap. After you kill a thousand undead and/or fiends and they're all evil, I imagine you stop detecting evil when you see one of those things again and you just strike it down. And that's when the GM yells "GOTCHA! That Lich/Pit Fiend/whatever was good. YOU FALL!"
Whole thing reeks of GM shenanigans. Just wait until the player forgets to use detect evil, then say THAT bad guy was actually good and you fall cause you killed him.
Abadar is not Lawful Stupid tho, and multiple sources have him value good much more than evil, he's neutral because he's accepting of evils like slavery for the expansion of civilization.
He officially endorses a Paladin order after all
What does "lawful stupid" have to do with it? She's a fiend and she is dead, the paladins oath is to kill fiends, not resurrect them to the plane... I can grant he should have lived and let live in this particular case(because he can acknowledge good fiends and not kill them), but should he bring her back? What is the "lawful stupid" of those two options?Abadar is not Lawful Stupid tho, and multiple sources have him value good much more than evil, he's neutral because he's accepting of evils like slavery for the expansion of civilization.
He officially endorses a Paladin order after all
She's a fiend but also a Paladin, that is a paragon of Justice.
Also the Oath agains Fiends is about malicious entities, which a Paladin is not.
If you rez the Paladin Succubus Abadar is not going to complain about the Chaotic subtype because he knows better.
Does he know better (in a general sense)? Gods in Golarion are by no means omniscient right? And have their own flaws in attitude and even morality?
Does he know better (in a general sense)? Gods in Golarion are by no means omniscient right? And have their own flaws in attitude and even morality?
Then how does he catch wind that you rez a succubus in the first place? He gets to know the single individual and thus he sees it's a Paladin. A-OK
Yes Gods including Abadar have tunnel vision but he's rather fond of Paladins and he's against actual agents of destruction ad anarchy.
I am very confused. Why is there a debate over the definitions of knowingly/willingly?
No. He falls when he willingly commits evil. He doesn't have to know anything.Because the paladin falls when he knowingly commits evil, it's in the code~skipping all the pages~
The paladin falls... I am puzzled why anyone thinks differently.
Is killing an evil act?
So it's pretty clear cut isn't it? I can easily understand arguments that even if he was being stupid and shortsighted at least he didn't intend to do evil? So atone but not fall under this reading.
So it's pretty clear cut isn't it? I can easily understand arguments that even if he was being stupid and shortsighted at least he didn't intend to do evil? So atone but not fall under this reading.
Well, it doesn't help that KenderKin, for the grace of being helpful: Isn't quite right. The Paladin code, as written, specifies over willingly comitting an evil act with no reference to intent. Were the word (un-)intentional(-ly) in there somewhere, it would be incredibly clear cut (intent is to protect villagers, cut and dry not evil). But it is not there, meaning all we have is:
Paladin willingly attacks a Succubus Paladin, without knowledge they are a Paladin. Only the knowledge that a succubus is typically CE. This then is willingly killing a Good being doing good things.Willingly, as a word, allows us to cut out killing people by total accident and domination effects. Not deliberately killing someone they wouldn't have if totally informed.
Is killing an evil act?No. He falls when he willingly commits evil. He doesn't have to know anything.Because the paladin falls when he knowingly commits evil, it's in the code~skipping all the pages~
The paladin falls... I am puzzled why anyone thinks differently.
What's our ethical school here? Kant says yes. Bentham asks "Was the killed party a bit of a douche?" :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I would say that willingly committing an evil act requires knowing, at least on some level, that it's evil. It's not about what the consequences of the act are, it's about the paladin making a decision to do something that he knows is wrong rather than choosing to follow the Paladin's code.
Obviously not otherwise the game no longer works!Is killing an evil act?No. He falls when he willingly commits evil. He doesn't have to know anything.Because the paladin falls when he knowingly commits evil, it's in the code~skipping all the pages~
The paladin falls... I am puzzled why anyone thinks differently.
Therefor the ACT of killing is not inherently evil. It is the extraneous detail that determine "evil" or not.
Knowing that, the next question would be to ask, is killing a G aligned person evil/is killing an E person good or evil?
If so, than that means soldiers/warriors who ever went into battle for their country should potentially be evil (depending on just WHO they killed and if they even managed to kill someone at all). Unless of course you have a happy fantasy land where all "good" kingdoms get along and only fight evil tyrannical monsters.
Additionally, we have to determine the moral rammification for killing evil. Is killing an E person good or evil or N? This is in a vacuum with no regard to any other details beyond person kills someone who has E written on his character sheet. That information comes in the next layer of study.
So if you believe absolutely, killing something G is an E act, then the Paladin falls. Also means soldiers are mostly evil.
If you believe killing a E person is N/G then Muderhobo style paladin is completely justified, atleast on the G/E spectrum. The L/C may be an issue but that is irrelevant for now. So long as it pings on Detect Evil he is justified to kill it.
If you believe alignment does not make as huge a determination on justifiable kill or not that then leads to the next layer of detail, motivation and intent. At this phase, present knowledge does, in fact play an inportant part. Often, reasonable capability for knowledge of the situation is a major determination between accidental death and purposeful death. If there is no reasonable way for the subject to possess knowledge of a situation, often it is considered accidental (like closing a breaker that is not tagged out and accidentally killing a person down stream who is performing a resistance check.
Another example of this would be a police officer. Say an officer/swat are aware there is a shooter in a building. They have a general idea of the suspect appearance (clothes, gender, rough age, possible race, know he is wearing a mask). So they enter the building and say a person matching the perp comes running toward them with a gun. They shoot and kill him (after all, he was charging them). But they find out it wasnt the perp. He had the gun tapped to his hand, had ear pugs so he.couldnt hear them to back off. But often it will be considered an accidental death because, at that moment, they could not have known.it was not the perp.
So at this point, the act would most likely NOT be considered evil...
But that is just my logic lol
But, there are also some people out there that interpret that some acts are inherently evil (such as killing another Paladin), and committing such an act willingly (as in, the player/character made the choice to do so) is sufficient to fall, even if the player/character were tricked into doing so or did so under the influence of false information. For those people, it doesn't matter if you knew the act would have evil consequences; it only matters whether or not you willingly undertook the act (as in free from mind control, for example).
(Not saying I agree with this interpretation, but other people apparently do.)
I'd support the premise that deontological ethics is just a flawed way to operate. But when the Paladin code specifically references the very notion of commits an evil act, there seems to be a presupposition that acts exist that are evil. Thing is, even worming around to reject a deontological approach: The act in the scenario is concequentially an evil one.
My problem with the idea of a Paladin's committing evil being knowledge-based is thus:
Whether an act is evil subsequently depends on intelligence and wisdom. Let us suppose a Paladin of near (if not actually) animalistic intellgence and/or wisdom; further, let us assume that in their experiences, humans are a threat. It becomes completely legitimate for this Paladin to go to a village of humans, and kill all of them without question. Because it thinks it's doing a good thing.
Now, my example is, without doubt, reductio ad absurdum but I feel it is a totally valid conclusion of the premise, if the system's rules are internally consistent.
Unfeasible, Saldiven, Chengar, Kenderkin:
At what threshold of knowledge would you all say the responsibility truly shifts over to the paladin? How much due diligence should be required before using something like lethal force? At what point might you say a paladin is guilty of negligence?
Should Paladins wear magical body cameras and let their church elders review the footage periodically? Is that kind of accountability necessary? Tha kindness Paladins don't need to make traffic stops...
|
|
So it's pretty clear cut isn't it? I can easily understand arguments that even if he was being stupid and shortsighted at least he didn't intend to do evil? So atone but not fall under this reading.Well, it doesn't help that KenderKin, for the grace of being helpful: Isn't quite right. The Paladin code, as written, specifies over willingly comitting an evil act with no reference to intent. Were the word (un-)intentional(-ly) in there somewhere, it would be incredibly clear cut (intent is to protect villagers, cut and dry not evil). But it is not there, meaning all we have is:
Paladin willingly attacks a Succubus Paladin, without knowledge they are a Paladin. Only the knowledge that a succubus is typically CE. This then is willingly killing a Good being doing good things.
Willingly, as a word, allows us to cut out killing people by total accident and domination effects. Not deliberately killing someone they wouldn't have if totally informed.
There's room for debate on the second paragraph, hence the issue.
"Willingly" doing X implies, for me, that the will or intent was to do X.
So the paladin willingly killed someone.
The paladin did not willingly kill a good being doing good things, because did not know that the being he killed was a good being doing good things (nor did he even have any reason to suspect that was the case).
The legal system shares this assessment of the concept of "willing." Involuntary manslaughter is defined as an act that causes death but wasn't intended to kill. To qualify as voluntary manslaughter, you need intent to kill.
Additionally, involuntary manslaughter requires negligence or other unlawful behavior - if a reasonable person would have acted as you did given the information you had, then it's not even involuntary manslaughter. It's not a crime nor is it morally wrong to give someone a peanut butter sandwich, even if they have a fatal allergy and the sandwich kills them.
To do something wrong, it's required that you know what you did, or that you should have known what you did.
