So why even bother to post if you're acknowledging you're entirely wrong with your own words?
Coup de gracing the evil overlord in his sleep is also an evil act.A lot of people must die on your watch.
I'm beginning to think YOU'RE the evil one...
Or we can y'know, D Anchor him, and capture him in his sleep then bring him to the appropriate legal and ethical authorities to await his judgement.
After his capture we can loot him and such.
Really the only difference that players will experience is that the BBEG will die via state sanctioned execution instead of by coup de grace.
What state? As the evil OVERLORD, he IS the legal authority. He's in his own country, surely, and the leader of it.
Where are you going to take him? Who has the authority to execute him that hasn't already granted you the authority to do so?
How are you going to get him there? Overland, obviously, since you cast Dimensional Anchor on him. How many chances does he have to escape from this?
All for the end goal of, as you said, killing him anyway. Except giving him days, weeks, or perhaps even months of time to escape and go back to doing what he was doing before...except with increased security.
Murdering the BBEG in his sleep breaks the "act with honor" clauseHonor and stupidity aren't the same thing.C'mon man, you usually read things too.
If no legal+ethical authorities are nearby, or even existent in the case of corrupt states, the Paladin can of course use his Phylactery of Faithfulness to ask if he has jurisdiction to perform an execution.
I'm afraid that literally makes no sense man.
It's pretty simple
BBEG somehow gets caught sleeping by the party
A. They are close to a kingdom that has the right to judge them.
B. They are not anywhere near a kingdom that has a right to judge them
B(alt): They are not anywhere near a kingdom that has the right to judge them because the BBEG owns/controls said Kingdoms.
In case of A, take them there.
In case of B, execute the criminal with permission from your deity.
Except we were talking specifically about scenario B(alt) already, and you determined that executing said criminal was evil...
Coup de gracing them in their sleep is an evil act yes.
Remember, in Pathfinder it does not matter who you do an action to or why. Only what action was committed.
Coup de gracing them in their sleep is an evil act yes.
Remember, in Pathfinder it does not matter who you do an action to or why. Only what action was committed.
No, not in Pathfinder. In weird Golarion specific optional splatbooks, but not within the rules.
Curious if any of you would just take a fall in that situation? Do some Paladin's just keep scrolls of atonement around for those situations?
To avoid a fall I would just arrest them, which is easy while they sleep, take them outside and start playing 20 questions using my phylactery of Faithfulness until I find a way that wont let me fall.
I would remind both players that i don't condone pvp in my games and if they need to settle their issues with role playing
Coup de gracing them in their sleep is an evil act yes.
Again. I rules quote is needed, because in the PRD I read that an Evil act is the debasing of innocent life. As I posted up thread. I also read in the Paladin code that they are compelled to punish those who threaten the innocent.
Remember, in Pathfinder it does not matter who you do an action to or why. Only what action was committed.
Again, that's not how the Alignment section in the PRD reads. Or the Paladin Code. So, I'm gonna need a rules quote.
Also, didn't you just claim that torture isn't torture if it's necessary? Wanting to break a bound enemy's fingers. At least in my hypothetical the enemy would recover all on his own with a good night sleep.
Curious if any of you would just take a fall in that situation? Do some Paladin's just keep scrolls of atonement around for those situations?
Or just let another character do it, because:
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
As far as I can tell it's not even an Evil act. Maybe against the honor of a Paladin, but not Evil.
breaking a spell-caster's fingers is just a smart thing to do if you want to bring them in alive
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
LE PCs need not fit arch-villain tropes about wanting to rule over the world.
The two aspects of the alignment, lawful and evil, can be taken as complementing one another, instead of shaping each other. A LE is in no way obligated to scheme about creating a tyrannical empire for himself, just as a LG character need not dream about vanquishing ever villain on earth.
For example, just try to picture yourself the typical LN character. Law-abiding, respects authority, values tradition, doesn't cause trouble, and so on. Now, remove all empathy from the person you pictured. Add him a cruel streak. He doesn't make evil an end in itself, maybe he's not really all that ambitious. But he does take pleasure in the pain of others. Catches a thief breaking into his house? Won't just try to capture him, he'll make him pay, citing legitimate defense for whatever may happen. Captures an enemy in battle, wants information out of him. Making him talk will be a pleasure. Maybe he'll even make a zombie out of him after to further punish him/vent his hate. This guy, he need not have an agenda that will one day force him to oppose the other PCs. As long as they are willing to ignore some of his acts, or he is good at hiding it/justifying it, they might not have any issues with him at all. He could really just be good for them all the time, forever. He might like them for whatever reason, and thus his code of honor would bind him to be loyal to them. But to anyone else that crosses him...
Same with the other alignments. The handbook descriptions of alignments really ought to be taken in a general sense, it'd be stupid to argue that there are only 9 potential personality types in a game world. Ambition, in my opinion, has nothing to do with alignment.
Honestly, I think that a DM is better served by putting clear rules about PvP than to police alignment. The characters I've seen initiate PvP have overwhelmingly been LG (mostly but not limited to paladins), because they think the moral high ground entitles them to judge, belittle, and condemn other PCs. The rest was attributable to evil PCs being stupid, mostly. Everyone's #1 priority should be maintaining the party, and not staying true to whatever concept they envisionned for their characters with no regard to its impact on the game.
LE PCs need not fit arch-villain tropes about wanting to rule over the world.
The two aspects of the alignment, lawful and evil, can be taken as complementing one another, instead of shaping each other. A LE is in no way obligated to scheme about creating a tyrannical empire for himself, just as a LG character need not dream about vanquishing ever villain on earth.
For example, just try to picture yourself the typical LN character. Law-abiding, respects authority, values tradition, doesn't cause trouble, and so on. Now, remove all empathy from the person you pictured. Add him a cruel streak. He doesn't make evil an end in itself, maybe he's not really all that ambitious. But he does take pleasure in the pain of others. Catches a thief breaking into his house? Won't just try to capture him, he'll make him pay, citing legitimate defense for whatever may happen. Captures an enemy in battle, wants information out of him. Making him talk will be a pleasure. Maybe he'll even make a zombie out of him after to further punish him/vent his hate. This guy, he need not have an agenda that will one day force him to oppose the other PCs. As long as they are willing to ignore some of his acts, or he is good at hiding it/justifying it, they might not have any issues with him at all. He could really just be good for them all the time, forever. He might like them for whatever reason, and thus his code of honor would bind him to be loyal to them. But to anyone else that crosses him...
Same with the other alignments. The handbook descriptions of alignments really ought to be taken in a general sense, it'd be stupid to argue that there are only 9 potential personality types in a game world. Ambition, in my opinion, has nothing to do with alignment.
Honestly, I think that a DM is better served by putting clear rules about PvP than to police alignment. The characters I've seen initiate PvP have overwhelmingly been LG (mostly but not limited to paladins), because they think the moral high ground entitles them to judge,...
Preach
I think he created this character to create drama. Just because he likes it. The GM gave his approval to play the evil twin again.
What would you do in my position? Killing him?
Don't kill someone just for creating drama in a game... sheesh
breaking a spell-caster's fingers is just a smart thing to do if you want to bring them in alive
Sure, I totally agree. I just find it incredibly hypocritical to say, "No hurting the prisoner, it's torture, and I won't allow it." Then turn around and say, "He's a caster, we better break all his fingers." Plus, that doesn't even solve the problem. He can still cast, especially if he has Silent/Still spell.
The characters I've seen initiate PvP have overwhelmingly been LG (mostly but not limited to paladins), because they think the moral high ground entitles them to judge, belittle, and condemn other PCs. The rest was attributable to evil PCs being stupid, mostly. Everyone's #1 priority should be maintaining the party, and not staying true to whatever concept they envisionned for their characters with no regard to its impact on the game.
I agree with pretty much everything in your post. As for this particular part, my experience has been similar. PvP I've seen has overwhelmingly been by self righteous LG and/or Paladin-like characters. Others were from chaotic characters who antagonized and/or stole from party members.
I have been attacked in game once, it was by a CG Barbarian who thought of himself as a Paladin. On multiple occasions he forced my character to submit to Detect Evil because he didn't trust me (liked drama). Which, revealed that I was in fact NOT Evil. Meanwhile, the CG Party Cleric trusted my character more than anyone else in the group. Eventually, the Barbarian attacked me because I was secretive (kept to myself, did a lot of stuff on my own when we were hanging around in towns) and refused to tell him what god I worshiped.
On another occasion a new Player (he'd actually played with us before, over a year before) to the group, introduced an actual Paladin, who also almost attacked me for something that was none of his business. The best part was he was a "one game cameo," as the player was moving away the next week.
Both games were under the same GM. GM did not allow Evil PCs and if you became Evil you also became an NPC. Also, he had made it clear to the group that he did not allow PvP. In both cases he had to step in and reign back the Paladin-like characters.
Oh well in that case... we should probably lobotomize him too. We have to prevent him from casting thought only spells (Silenced/Stilled Dimension Door), because it's not torture if it's necessary right?Since Silent/Still Spell still allow a Spellcraft roll to identify, you know if he's casting. Ready an action to smack him if he tries to cast a spell.
Silent/Still do not mean undetectable.
Same with thought spells.
The same point also makes breaking someone's fingers unnecessary. However, I don't think you can ready actions outside of combat. So it would actually come down to initiative checks.
Even if you could, this forces the party to keep a 24/7 watch on this guy.
I don't really fancy having a paladin in my group. What if he decides, according to his arbitrary magic, that I'm no longer "good" enough to associate with? It's not like I can consciously control my own alignment. I'll have to constantly toe the line. Am I allowed to kill this prisoner? Am I allowed to shoot that fleeing ape? What's going to lead to me being smited? After all, all Lawful Good people are obliged to battle evil. A paladin just isn't worth the risk for a practical party—adventuring's too gray a profession.And this is why you should talk to your group before starting a paladin character. It's a very harsh class to play and doesn't gel with a lot of other common character types. Unless of course, you're the type of person who enjoys player drama at the table.
But you are confusing a Lawful Good character and a Paladin. The average lawful good character simply has a general orientation toward law and good. A paladin has a strict mandate against evil and a strong distaste for chaos.
Okay, apparently the rest of my post did not make the meaning of that paragraph clear.
Let me make it clear.
And this is why you should talk to your group before starting a villainous character. It's a very harsh character type to play and doesn't gel with a lot of other common character types. Unless of course, you're the type of person who enjoys player drama at the table.
But you are confusing a evil character and a villainous character. The average evil character simply has a general willingness to do evil things to accomplish what he thinks is right. A villain has a strict motivation to harm others and is generally rather lacking in legitimate loyalties.
I think there is a huge point being missed in claiming that Good characters can be wrong because they chose Good
oh my GOD DID ANYBODY GET THAT I WAS BEING SARCASTIC WITH THAT
And see, all this stuff is ridiculous. It's ridiculous to assume a good person is going to turn on you just because they have a firm moral compass.
I was trying to illustrate that we should not base our assumptions on someone's alignment when it's their personality and goals that are the actual indicators. I was trying to show how faulty it is in taking the worst possible scenario ("Lawful Stupid paladins"/"mindlessly treacherous evil PCs") as evidence that the entire class/alignment doesn't work in a practical adventuring party. An evil character lacks a strict built-in mandate and is guided more by his own personality than by moral outrage.* That can be disruptive or perfectly fine, both in-character and out-of-character. Just like with a paladin, or anybody with an unbending moral compass.
Don't kill someone just for creating drama in a game... sheesh
But the question is, can I break his fingers?
*Edited this, since obviously some evil characters can be guided by morals (and many are). My intention was to say that an evil character's "tolerability" is determined by his personality, not the two-letter abbreviation on his sheet.
Oh well in that case... we should probably lobotomize him too. We have to prevent him from casting thought only spells (Silenced/Stilled Dimension Door), because it's not torture if it's necessary right?Since Silent/Still Spell still allow a Spellcraft roll to identify, you know if he's casting. Ready an action to smack him if he tries to cast a spell.
Silent/Still do not mean undetectable.
Same with thought spells.
Hey! We already brought torturing paladins into this thread. We don't need to bring that in, too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I merely read the first few posts and already started facepalming. Going into pvp first thing straight would be enough for a paladin to fall from grace in my game even if it was for killing a helpless opponent. Giving the culprit a vocal flogging of a lifetime about how wrong it is and how the evil pc should repent should definitely come first before comming to blows. A paladin certainly shouldn't go " you did something I dont agree with - I kill you".
A good use of rope should make fingerbreaking needless too.