| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hes completely in the right to offer even the most evil being a chance to surrender and prove its innocence. That kind of action is even required in the 3.5 Book of Exalted Deeds.
The issue here is that according to the setting being a demon, the literal incarnation of evil and chaos, is not just something that happens to someone through no fault of their own. They aren't chaotic and evil because they are demons, they are demons because they are chaotic and evil. There is no doubt of their guilt; their chaotic evil outsider form is ultimate proof of guilt as their guilt is a prerequisite for becoming a demon. Really the best evil outsiders can offer is "Well, yeah I gleefully committed dozens, if not hundreds, if not thousands of horrifying, depraved capital crimes, but I'm not doing one right now." It's like letting a known serial killer go on the grounds that he hasn't yet killed anyone in the current town so why are you hassling him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its not about whether or not the creature is doing evil right this second, its about if its going to be doing it. Give an evil demon the chance to stand down and submit to tests to prove its innocence and even the most tricky of demons is going to refuse, because its impossible for them to pass all of them. A redeemed demon however is going to accept because the tests are going to show that it is redeemed.
Doubtful. Paladin's aren't known for their awesome Sense Motive abilities and evil outsiders tend to have rather good bluff. Evil beats out Good when it comes to pretending to have switched sides. Evil outsiders are pretty much unfettered in regards to what actions they can take; demons can do "good acts" all day to build trust that they ultimately plan on betraying. Good creatures on the other hand have moral qualms and can only really eat so many kittens before they really begin to wonder if they are still a member of Team Good.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They cant hold a holy avenger, or stand up to a testimony from a god through a commune spell. They cant detect as good without the aid of magic. Put em under observation for a week, then detect good on them while wearing a simple cloth robe you give them.
MFW the succubus Greater Teleports away with the Paladin's Holy weapon, laughing and wincing simultaneously. That said, even if the Succubus was good, it would be debatable about whether or not a Holy weapon would be something she could wield due to her still having the evil subtype.
It is rather iffy about how Detect Insert Alignment would work against creatures that are technically Good but radiate Chaotic Evil just for existing; seemingly they would have equal strength Evil and Good auras though.
Detect Good and Commune are good methods, but are also methods Paladins have no access to on their own. You also have issues with stopping the at-will Greater Teleport as it's probably not viable to have castings of it up at all times and Succubi have 10% chance of slipping Dimensional Shackles on any given Escape Artist check.
I see your point though; if you were determined enough and had enough resources you could use the game mechanics to come up with a fool-proof test for "redeemed" evil outsiders to go through.
If theres a doubt what youre doing might be evil, a paladin should take all steps to be sure first.
As I've said before, I agree in most circumstances but it always come back to the idea that you are giving the benefit of the doubt to literal incarnations of evil, chaos, and in this case, lies. As a Paladin you have to be Lawful Good, not Stupid Good. The whole coming across a redeemed evil outsider scenario is possible but also as likely as you hitting the Power Ball. Chances are a lot of demons would go for the "But no really, I'm a good person trapped in demonic form!" if they thought it could work as it's a decent escape/delay method as well as a source of incredible hilarity and evil opportunity if the person ends up believing you.
I mean are you going to take the nearly defeated Balor's word when he says he only tried to murder the Paladin and company because he thought that they wouldn't understand his true good, gentle nature and would "smite on sight" if he tried to explain? What if things like that continually happen? Are you obligated to launch a painstaking investigation into each and every claim made by a fiend, even when they could clearly be construed as the fiend stalling for time and/or delaying you for potentially nefarious reasons? Again, demons are already found guilty by the universe or else they wouldn't be demons in the first place, and exceptions to that are incredibly rare.
women are more likely to be pregnant than men.
Can't believe you. Using facts to be so sexist. :P
My first instinct is that this is why a Merciful weapon should be mandatory for all paladins. (Can Sarenrae "curse" the offending paladin with an inability to deal lethal damage? That might be fun.)
On that: The Redeemer archetype offers us an interesting caveat in their merciful smite ability:
...She cannot use this ability to deal nonlethal damage to outsiders with the evil subtype, evil-aligned dragons, or undead creatures (these creatures take lethal damage from her smite).
Even an archetype flavoured on recognising not all monsters are necessarily evil mechanically pushes the concept that some just are.
{. . .}
^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.Oops, got my redeemed Succubi mixed up -- you're right, Paladin implies Lawful Good and nothing else (I wish that wasn't so, but fixing that requires changes largely outside the scope of this thread).
But the alternative example that I gave (way back now) of the Chaotic Good Tiefling Oracle of Life with sensory impairment using Life Link + Greater Infernal Healing to save dying (not dead yet) villagers still fits what I said and is noticeably more likely to come up and is even within Rules As Written possibility to occur between 2 PC parties if the players are not aware of each other (their characters haven't seen each other's PC cards).
A tiefling is not comparable to a succubus. A tiefling is a mortal who has some blood relation that is some kind of fiend. A succubus is a demon created from the souls of lustful, predatory, evil mortals for the sole purpose of death and destruction. EDIT: To clarify, there's nothing wrong with lustfulness, but them being described as "lusftul and rapacious" hints at things less than consensual.
In addition, a good tiefling would not detect as evil.
So yeah, a paladin killing a tiefling because of her prejudice of a mortal, free-willed subspecies? I'd have her fall in a heartbeat.
When it comes to succubi, or devourers, or mohrgs, or wraiths, or pit fiends, things are very different from when dealing with a human who's gramps' gramp was a succubus.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought it was RAW anyways? Even "always evil" is technically "holy crap it's ridiculously rare for it to be anything but evil but it's possible."
Has Gandalf taught them nothing!
Taught them about what?
|
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.
Sorry - I know this one's kinda old - but I had to comment.
You CANNOT have a neutral lich. The process of becoming a lich is so mind-numbingly evil - involving the sacrifice of multiple sentient creatures etc - that it's simply impossible.
I could see there being a lich who became so because he wants to continue his research. And he's still freakishly evil. He put his research ahead of the lives of innocents which makes him evil and such that he should be killed on sight.
True, but a lich can reform?
|
|
True, but a lich can reform?
It's a moot point. If he feels bad about it - he still needs to be destroyed. (Not that I'd believe him anyway.)
If a serial killer suddenly feels bad about it - that doesn't mean that he still shouldn't be executed. In fact - if he's truly repentant he should go along with it.
Justice only works if everyone is punished for their actions - not just those who don't feel bad about it afterwards.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You CANNOT have a neutral lich.The hell I can't!
If they did the horrible ritual to become a lich - they're evil.
If they didn't - then they're not a lich. If you still say they are a lich without said ritual, you've changed the definition of what a lich is, so any discussion of it is pointless.
If they did the horrible ritual to become a lich - they're evil.
If they didn't - then they're not a lich. If you still say they are a lich without said ritual, you've changed the definition of what a lich is, so any discussion of it is pointless.
The definition of Lich is that of an undead (often spellcaster) that has its soul stored in a Phylactery and cannot be destroyed definitively as long as the Phylactery is intact. May or not may be a skeleton.
How does become one depends on settings as of now the ritual is undefined for what concerns Golarion or PF as a ruleset.
James Jacobs on a comment even implied the possibility of one being turned into a Lich by someone else, even against his will.
If they didn't - then they're not a lich. If you still say they are a lich without said ritual, you've changed the definition of what a lich is, so any discussion of it is pointless.Eat it.
but were you an elf when you were alive?
|
|
If they didn't - then they're not a lich. If you still say they are a lich without said ritual, you've changed the definition of what a lich is, so any discussion of it is pointless.Guess you can stop discussing it then.
Right... but that's not Pathfinder. And they're 'lich-like' - not liches.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right... but that's not Pathfinder.I don't see how that's relevant.
Because this is a Pathfinder message board. The default assumption is Pathfinder. Should I start talking about half-vamp Daywalkers when vampires are brought up with no context? Maybe sparkling in sunlight?