So, I'm sure everyone has seen threads like this a million times and are sick to death of them. but I'm hoping to open up some discussion here to better help my understanding.
Paladin's are champion's of justice whose primary job description is to smite evil in the name of there god. but really, that doesn't sound particularly just or even particularly good. I mean there is a reason why The Punisher isn't in the Avengers.
I was thinking of a scenario that involved an assassin and a paladin in the same party. lets say LG pally and CE Assassin.
now if I were to play a chaotic evil assassin, I wouldn't just make him a psycho who kills anyone for s!@@s and giggles. but rather a guy who kills people for money. he doesn't kill anyone for the right price, wouldn't kill his best friend or a puppy or that potential hit cause he thinks she's kinda hot. but generally, if some gangster payed him to take out some perfect stranger for the right price he'd do it and this is enough in my book to make him evil. he still has his humanity, or elfanity or whatever race he is. his alignment is evil but he's not relishing in world domination.
now, if a person did this kind of thing in our world, the rightful punishment would be inprisonment. but would a paladin be justified in strait up killing a guy? it seems to me that paladin's behave a lot more like the punisher than they do batman. killing anything thats evil and it kinda makes me question. are paladin's even good? i mean it may say so on the character sheet but are they really?
maybe I'm just misunderstanding how a paladin ideally should be played. if you were a paladin who upon first meeting the character I described, realised he had an evil alignment how would a paladin react? would a paladin draw his sword and kill as soon as he saw that purpley black aura or would a paladin try and save a soul instead of just taking one?
also, sorry for the ramble.
I think the Paladin would fall in love with the Assassin and have a tragic love/hate relationship where one tries to kill the other but can't because quitting the ones you love is so hard.
Sorry, it's the only way to handle this thread before it goes bananas.
that actually sounds like a pretty good read haha.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins dont go around "killing anything that is evil", because that also includes minor evil people who do mundane evil things, like bullying or wife-beating.
No "I walk down the street, activate Detect Evil, and start the slaughter of anyone who pings". This behavior is the caricature of a Paladin. Nor do you have to play him Lawful Stupid.
P.S.
The Punisher is Something Evil. Captain America is how a Paladin would behave.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Step 1: Step away from the thread.
I jest .
On topic, my answer to Paladin threads is 'check what their god values' and adjust accordingly. Some gods believe in redemption (Serenrae) and some in lawful executions (Damerrich), so their stances are completely different.
Remember, Good is your worldview. Lawful is how you enact it.
If all else fails, just turn it into a wacky sitcom.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins dont go around "killing anything that is evil", because that also includes minor evil people who do mundane evil things, like bullying or wife-beating.
No "I walk down the street, activate Detect Evil, and start the slaughter of anyone who pings". This behavior is the caricature of a Paladin. Nor do you have to play him Lawful Stupid.
P.S.
The Punisher is Something Evil. Captain America is how a Paladin would behave.
personally I wouldn't call wife-beating a minor evil but I digress.
the issue I have with comparing the paladin to captain america though is that, most superheroes default is to deal non-leathal damage, whist the default in pathfinder is lethal to the point that to deal non-leathal damage means taking on a penalty to hit. I mean the thing that separates The Punisher from Captain america is that Captain America, Batman, Spider-man and Superman actively try to do non-leathal damage, at there own risk. and most people wouldn't play a paladin that way.
Step 1: Step away from the thread.
I jest .
On topic, my answer to Paladin threads is 'check what their god values' and adjust accordingly. Some gods believe in redemption (Serenrae) and some in lawful executions (Damerrich), so their stances are completely different.
Remember, Good is your worldview. Lawful is how you enact it.
If all else fails, just turn it into a wacky sitcom.
good = worldview, lawful = execution. thats a good way to think of it, thanks for that.
I understand that different gods have different values. but it seems kind of weird to me that a good god places a higher moral value on killing somebody than aiding them redeem themselves. that seems... well, not good. I mean if it was a utilitarian situation I could understand i.e "were killing him so he can't kill them" but not as a form of punishment. although, maybe there being a definite afterlife in golorian skews beliefs if redemption is possible after death if the punishments aren't eternal.
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the thing:
A lot of adventures take place in areas where there are no legal authorities, being instead untamed wilderness. Full stop. When in such an area, a Paladin's choices about what to do with proven evildoers are significantly more limited than within a country with laws, jails, and the ability to punish evildoers who the Paladin, say, caught in the act. They can't arrest or jail them, so the Paladin's options are pretty much limited to handing down a summary judgment of his own (death, loss of goods, losing a hand, etc.) or letting them go with a warning. That's...pretty much all he's got. In those circumstances, killing people is very mch sometimes the right and moral thing to do
A lot of adventures take place in areas ruled by an Evil government. Again, at least regarding some kinds of evildoers, this really restricts a Paladin's options. I mean, you can't arrest the cops for rape when the girl they raped is a slave and that's legal here, y'know? And so, again, we're left with the Paladin having to either do something himself, or do nothing. And in this case, he's also risking his life (and his mission, and his comrades lives) if anyone survives who can identify him. so he's even more limited in some ways than the wilderness scenario.
The third scenario is a Paladin in a place with rule of law that's relatively fair and is respected by the Paladin. In such a place, murdering people is definitely something the Paladin shouldn't do. Of course, if people attack them, they have a right to self-defense just like everyone else.
So...what would a Paladin do with the Assassin in the first post? Well, where are they, what options does he have? He sure can't let 'em go...but if he has the option of having them arrested and sent to trial, he'd probably be inclined to take that rather than killing them. Of course, if they escape a couple of times, the Paladin is gonna need to start thinking real hard about the people who'll die if they escape again...
Also, for the record, in many ways superheroes are a bad example for how characters (even really nice ones with similar morals) in a Pathfinder game should behave for a few reasons. The first is that, almost universally, superheroes operate in a milieu where sending people to jail is a possible and viable option (Scenario #3 above), but almost as importantly there's a matter of power.
Superman doesn't kill people because he never needs to in order to, say, save their victims. He can pretty much just always win whatever fight he's in without permanently harming a human being or allowing them to do anything bad because he's just that powerful. A 20th level Paladin facing 1st level foes is in the same situation, but that's not a common situation for an Pathfinder character. The same is true of most superheroes vs. most of their foes (ie: ordinary criminals rather than supervillains), really, though to a lesser degree.
And Captain America absolutely killed people during World War II (more Scenario #1 or #2 than #3). Heck, he kills people in The Avengers movie as well...he's still LG and a great Paladin example in that movie. Heck, even Superman has killed Zod in a few different continuities (including the primary comics continuity for a long while...retcons) because, unlike his normal foes, he couldn't be sure of stopping Zod's reign of terror permanently any other way.
But like I said, superheroes are not a good way to look at this. For a more comparable example to the situations PCs are usually in, I recommend Westerns. Ever seen Have Gun Will Travel? It's a classic TV Western with a protagonist who actually goes by the name of Paladin. He's a very good example of how one can be a mercenary, kill people, and remain indisputably Lawful Good and honorable. And is thus an excellent reference for most PC Paladins.
So...what would a Paladin do with the Assassin in the first post? Well, where are they, what options does he have? He sure can't let 'em go...but if he has the option of having them arrested and sent to trial, he'd probably be inclined to take that rather than killing them. Of course, if they escape a couple of times, the Paladin is gonna need to start thinking real hard about the people who'll die if they escape again...Also, for the record, in many ways...
you make some good points. do you think a paladin would team up if their interests aligned. the paladin wants to kill the big bad evil cause he's a big bad evil, and the assassin wants to do it cause he's paid to. can paladin's form alliances with evil people? I mean, an alliance of convenience sounds like it make for some interesting role-play. but can a paladin actually form such alliances or would it break the paladin code to align oneself with an evil person.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
you make some good points. do you think a paladin would team up if their interests aligned. the paladin wants to kill the big bad evil cause he's a big bad evil, and the assassin wants to do it cause he's paid to. can paladin's form alliances with evil people? I mean, an alliance of convenience sounds like it make for some interesting role-play. but can a paladin actually form such alliances or would it break the paladin code to align oneself with an evil person.
They can explicitly do the 'alliance of convenience' version in their Code of Conduct. So yeah, that works fine.
As for an alliance that wasn't of convenience? What kind of alliance? Why are they making it? Is the assassin still killing people for money during this alliance?
That last one's the most important, really. No Paladin can put up with their allies murdering innocent people without doing things to stop it. Even in the 'alliance of convenience' version, they're gonna have to demand the assassin not take outside work while they're allied.
you make some good points. do you think a paladin would team up if their interests aligned. the paladin wants to kill the big bad evil cause he's a big bad evil, and the assassin wants to do it cause he's paid to. can paladin's form alliances with evil people? I mean, an alliance of convenience sounds like it make for some interesting role-play. but can a paladin actually form such alliances or would it break the paladin code to align oneself with an evil person.They can explicitly do the 'alliance of convenience' version in their Code of Conduct. So yeah, that works fine.
As for an alliance that wasn't of convenience? What kind of alliance? Why are they making it? Is the assassin still killing people for money during this alliance?
That last one's the most important, really. No Paladin can put up with their allies murdering innocent people without doing things to stop it. Even in the 'alliance of convenience' version, they're gonna have to demand the assassin not take outside work while they're allied.
well yeah, I would imagine that the assassin would agree to not take on any more jobs whilst he's partnered with the paladin. but you mentioned the term 'innocent' and thats something else I'd like to talk on. I mean the alliance of convenience was that both are targeting the same person albeit due to very different reasons. what if the assassin wanted to take on another job, and the other job in question wasn't an innocent person but another evil villain.
and to really stretch this. say both have an alliance of convenience. working together to kill the big bad. upon there travels they come across another evil that the paladin decides must be stopped. the assassin has no dog in this fight. could the paladin hire an assassin to aid in his quest to kill a villain?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
and to really stretch this. say both have an alliance of convenience. working together to kill the big bad. upon there travels they come across another evil that the paladin decides must be stopped. the assassin has no dog in this fight. could the paladin hire an assassin to aid in his quest to kill a villain?
Sure. Seems fine to me.
"Under exceptional circumstances a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good."
But your assassin doesn't sound Chaotic Evil to me.
He has a code of ethics. He won't hurt his friends, puppies, beautiful women, and probably has compunctions against harming children. This is indicative of a more Lawful/Neutral mindset than Chaotic.
He kills for money but why does he kill for money? Is he greedy? Is he doing it to survive? Was he indoctrinated in his skills by his assassin order and has only recently been cut free to do as he wishes? Is killing all he knows?
Being EVIL is a hugely meaningful thing. It means that somewhere in his core, that assassin enjoys killing others or lacks compassion in other human beings seeing them as nothing but stepping stones for his own path.
The reason I ask...is because these are questions the Paladin should ask.
There is no such thing as an "Evil character but he's not really all that Evil man." Either he's EVIL and the Paladin should absolutely Smite the dude to kingdom come or he's not really evil to begin with.
You can be an Assassin without being evil...just not the prestige class. There are probably tons of Slayers who are assassins that aren't necessarily evil.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Totally not on topic... but I don't actually feel the Assassin is Chaotic as he does have a Code as Scavion says.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
P.S.
The Punisher is Something Evil. Captain America is how a Paladin would behave.
And there is a reason why most heroes try to avoid the punisher and regard him as 'unhinged' even by the standards of a community that responds to personal tragedy by wearing their underwear on the outside.
How do paladins respond to the a punisher type character? Same way that Batman did- he punches them in the face when they go too far. Yes- that happened. Batman honestly had to save the joker from the punisher.
Admittedly, the line is blurrier since...as Deadmanwalking notes... the legal system and ability of authorities to take in criminals is limited in a premodern society. There are reasons why local lords have bounties for bandits to be received by strapping young adventurers.
Execution might be the only practical answer at time ssince you can't just load them up into the police cruiser and send them down to jail- no, you have to drag them for two weeks on foot, allowing ample time for them to break loose and stab you in your sleep.
But there is a difference between killing the bandit lord a week's travel from the nearest town and killing the local mobsters in the middle of the capital (where taking them to the local guards takes...30 minutes, tops).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was thinking of a scenario that involved an assassin and a paladin in the same party. lets say LG pally and CE Assassin.now if I were to play a chaotic evil assassin, I wouldn't just make him a psycho who kills anyone for s##~s and giggles. but rather a guy who kills people for money. he doesn't kill anyone for the right price, wouldn't kill his best friend or a puppy or that potential hit cause he thinks she's kinda hot. but generally, if some gangster payed him to take out some perfect stranger for the right price he'd do it and this is enough in my book to make him evil. he still has his humanity, or elfanity or whatever race he is. his alignment is evil but he's not relishing in world domination.
now, if a person did this kind of thing in our world, the rightful punishment would be inprisonment. but would a paladin be justified in strait up killing a guy? it seems to me that paladin's behave a lot more like the punisher than they do batman. killing anything thats evil and it kinda makes me question. are paladin's even good? i mean it may say so on the character sheet but are they really?
Well... first of all, your assassin isn't Punisher. He's Bullseye. He also isn't borderline evil... he's totally evil. He may not kill the hot girl, the puppy or his best friend... But he totally slit the throat of the simple shopkeeper who refused to pay the gangster protection money. He also has no problem killing the father who's upset the gangster kidnapped his daughter... Why? Because they're strangers and he doesn't care. He takes the gold, and slits the throat.
Also... in this world, I don't see him being 'imprisoned' I see him getting executed PRETTY quick on arrest.
As for a Paladin working with him? It's possible as long as the indiscriminate murder is something in his past. He wouldn't put up with killing innocent people while they're partnered. He totally WOULD smite him if it meant protecting others and his god would have no issue with that.
In this kind of world... most combat is lethal. Weapons are designed to be lethal and there are severe penalties to TRY to take people alive. He may totally try to get him to surrender peacefully, but once steel is drawn, it's a kill or be killed situation.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, I'm sure everyone has seen threads like this a million times and are sick to death of them. but I'm hoping to open up some discussion here to better help my understanding.
Paladin's are champion's of justice whose primary job description is to smite evil in the name of there god. but really, that doesn't sound particularly just or even particularly good. I mean there is a reason why The Punisher isn't in the Avengers.
That's because you're looking at a distorted view of the Paladin. The Paladin is like the Jedi. Smite Evil is the Paladin's lightsaber, but neither of these are the focus of what they're supposed to be. A Jedi is a Jedi, even without a lightsaber, and a Paladin without smites is still a Paladin.
A Paladin's mission is to oppose evil and protect the Good. He is given tools to aid him in this lifelong mission, but the tools do not define his role. A Paladin who thoughtlessly smites everyone who pings evil on his radar is heading for either a fall, or a fatal confrontation with the law.
Some may be evil, may harbor evil thoughts, but still have not done anything to merit death. Others may be redeemable to the side of Good. Both of these cases are alternatives to mindlessly smiting.
The Punisher is not a Paladin, originally he was a Chaotic Evil vigilante. (he was introduced as part of Spiderman's gallery of villains), Since then he has moderated his approach enough to be considered chaotic neutral with some good leanings, but he's lost too much faith in the system to ever be Paladin material.
The primary job of a paladin is not to smite evil, but rather to protect the innocent. If you look at the breakdown of the class abilities you will notice that all offensive class abilities are limited in the number of uses per day. Even lay on hands which can be used offensively vs undead is limited. By contract all defensive and informational abilities (detect evil) are either constant or can be used an unlimited number of times per day.
Trying to use super hero ethics in a fantasy setting is not a good idea. Most super hero’s use non-lethal attacks because they are super heroes. Capitan America would be a brawler so he takes no penalty for using non-lethal damage.
Also Punisher is Lawful Evil, not Lawful Good. He uses the same tactics that he fights against, but limits his targets based on his code, hence the lawful.
and to really stretch this. say both have an alliance of convenience. working together to kill the big bad. upon there travels they come across another evil that the paladin decides must be stopped. the assassin has no dog in this fight. could the paladin hire an assassin to aid in his quest to kill a villain?
He probably could but I dont think he is going to actually look for an assassin. However if the only person willing to help is an assassin he might take the help for that mission, and then part ways with the individual.
I recall reading a story where a paladin teamed up with an evil character with aspirations to become a demon. Not too happy about the arrangement, but his viewpoint was if he could act as a moral compass to the evil character, try to redeem him, and if not keep him in check so he doesn't cause evil.
I don't see anything in the paladin code about needing to slaughter evildoers - in fact, it only says "punish those who harm or threaten innocents". Punish does not equate to necessary murder.
Then there's the classic Associates section:
While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good.
What I take this to mean is, the paladin and the assassin can certainly team up, if the assassin is not actively assassinating during the job, and there's a greater evil at work. The paladin would likely have to warn the assassin up front "no funny business, y'hear!".
It also seems to me that this assassin seems akin to a "contract killer". A lot of adventurers go in it to get paid, and if someone pays the assassin and recruits the paladin to, say, stop a band of brigands, then they have the common enemy. The assassin won't necessarily go out of his/her way to kill anyone else (not being paid for it), which will help the "more harm than good" warning.
This would be a good occasion for the paladin to try to redeem the assassin, and act as a "conscience". It's an opportunity to do the right thing. To, in his/her eyes, save a soul that needs saving. And if the evil-doer isn't doing evil, it's an easier pill to swallow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
and to really stretch this. say both have an alliance of convenience. working together to kill the big bad. upon there travels they come across another evil that the paladin decides must be stopped. the assassin has no dog in this fight. could the paladin hire an assassin to aid in his quest to kill a villain?Sure. Seems fine to me.
"Under exceptional circumstances a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good."
But your assassin doesn't sound Chaotic Evil to me.
He has a code of ethics. He won't hurt his friends, puppies, beautiful women, and probably has compunctions against harming children. This is indicative of a more Lawful/Neutral mindset than Chaotic.
He kills for money but why does he kill for money? Is he greedy? Is he doing it to survive? Was he indoctrinated in his skills by his assassin order and has only recently been cut free to do as he wishes? Is killing all he knows?
Being EVIL is a hugely meaningful thing. It means that somewhere in his core, that assassin enjoys killing others or lacks compassion in other human beings seeing them as nothing but stepping stones for his own path.
The reason I ask...is because these are questions the Paladin should ask.
There is no such thing as an "Evil character but he's not really all that Evil man." Either he's EVIL and the Paladin should absolutely Smite the dude to kingdom come or he's not really evil to begin with.
You can be an Assassin without being evil...just not the prestige class. There are probably tons of Slayers who are assassins that aren't necessarily evil.
I wouldn't really call what I described to be a code of ethics. he does and doesn't do things because he doesn't want to do them. its not like batman, and how the batman actually wants to kill the joker but refuses because it breaks his code of ethics.
I'd say having a code of ethics is to do good for goods sake, not cause you want to. I know it can get really confusing and meta and you could bring up the point that person a does good for good's sake because he wants to but yeah...
personally I think we disagree on what being evil is. I don't think evil characters have to be psychopaths or sociopaths or actively enjoy hurting people, Evil people in real life don't tend to think that way. I'm sure most people would agree that if we had to put Hitler on an alignment scale he'd be in the Evil category, but it doesn't mean he's more likely to kick a dog than to pet it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, I'm sure everyone has seen threads like this a million times and are sick to death of them. but I'm hoping to open up some discussion here to better help my understanding.
I have participated in so many of these threads that I accrued enough material to write a book on the subject, which I encourage you to check out.
There are lots of ways to interpret the Paladin code, and obviously I think the one provided in the book above is best: The Paladin fights against Evil and for Good, and the "lawful" part of the code is generally imposed on the Paladin herself to ensure that she doesn't get too bloodthirsty or otherwise become the thing that she's fighting against.
It is threads like this that show why when not running an AP I just chuck the whole Alignment thing out the window. Unchained has a lot of useful stuff when it comes to fixing or replacing Alignment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I recall reading a story where a paladin teamed up with an evil character with aspirations to become a demon. Not too happy about the arrangement, but his viewpoint was if he could act as a moral compass to the evil character, try to redeem him, and if not keep him in check so he doesn't cause evil.
Those two are going to have a push comes to shove moment.. The road to redemption and the road to demonhood don't exactly have an intersection in thier future.
If it helps, you can also talk to your GM about creating a custom Paladin code that better matches your deity or your character's worldview. For example, I once wrote an expansion to the main code that was specifically designed to be as Anti-Lawful-Stupid as possible, and it included things like "My way is not the only way things can be done, and I will thoughtfully consider the ideas of others", "I'll be fair when it is possible to do so, and otherwise I'll be practical", and my personal favorite, "Doing good is more important to me than any of my other oaths, so if there's ever a conflict between my oaths and doing what's right, I am free to ignore my oaths until they once again support good".
no offence but I'd hate to see a paladin oath like that in any of my games. just sounds like somebody wants all the benefits of being a paladin without any of the drawbacks. an oath that lets you break it under certain circumstances without any kind of punishment isn't really an oath.
Unchained has lot of tools to make alignment less constricting if you need words on paper to do it.
I don't remember the last time alignment rules were not hand-waved.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I play Paladins, the point is to do good, and to use lawful means as the preferred method of doing so. Law and Good are not equal - Law supports Good, and if the means genuinely interfere with the end, then and only then should the means be reconsidered. The redone oaths were a direct reflection of that.It's a loaded phrase that really has no definition.
True, but we all know what it means. Rather than telling him to not express the idea I would give him a better way to say it that was not so negative.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lawful Stupid is pretty easy to understand. Its about Paladins slamming their heads against the wall about how vague their code is and how a GM can easily construe it against them.
The end result are Paladins that seriously ham up the restrictions.
I agree with most folks. Law and Good are not equal for the Paladin. First and foremost, Good comes first.
Lawful Stupid is pretty easy to understand. Its about Paladins slamming their heads against the wall about how vague their code is and how a GM can easily construe it against them.
The end result are Paladins that seriously ham up the restrictions.
I agree with most folks. Law and Good are not equal for the Paladin. First and foremost, Good comes first.
Well, then again, every time you do not really feel compelled to be Lawful, you nudge yourself towards Neutral Good, by the rules that do not actually exist.
By the RAW, all alignment rules outside of alignment restrictions are homebrew, it is right there in core. Soooo anything really goes what the GM decides.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We had:
A Paladin (well Oradin) - Me
Now I want to make a paladin named Jo Jo.
"SU-MITE!!! ORA ORA ORA ORA ORA..."
Lawful Stupid is pretty easy to understand. Its about Paladins slamming their heads against the wall about how vague their code is and how a GM can easily construe it against them.
The end result are Paladins that seriously ham up the restrictions.
I agree with most folks. Law and Good are not equal for the Paladin. First and foremost, Good comes first.
That's not what Lawful Stupid actually refers to. Lawful Stupid (originally) was a reference to Paladin players who would have Paladins perform blatantly suicidal acts.
"Forget all of you! I'm a Paladin at level 4 and I will kill this Great Wyrm!"
Then, later on, players started using it to describe any Paladin who refused to do something due to the code:
"What do you mean you won't coup de Grace the evil Wizard while he's sleeping? What are you? Lawful stupid!?"
There are certain things a Paladin won't do. Even in Pathfinder, who has made the code with much more wiggle room that previous versions.
For example, listed the idea that, "I will listen to other's input."
All Paladins would do that. If the input, however, is, "Let's poison his food." Then the answer was, "No." Before said input was ever given.
Not being able to employ certain tactics is simply the price you pay from a party with a Pallie.
When was Coup de Grace against code?
That seems a player issue not Paladin code issue.
When was Coup de Grace against code?
That seems a player issue not Paladin code issue.
Well it is easy to fight over a code...that has never really been codified.
So, I'm sure everyone has seen threads like this a million times and are sick to death of them. but I'm hoping to open up some discussion here to better help my understanding.
Paladin's are champion's of justice whose primary job description is to smite evil in the name of there god. but really, that doesn't sound particularly just or even particularly good. I mean there is a reason why The Punisher isn't in the Avengers.
I was thinking of a scenario that involved an assassin and a paladin in the same party. lets say LG pally and CE Assassin.
now if I were to play a chaotic evil assassin, I wouldn't just make him a psycho who kills anyone for s!&$s and giggles. but rather a guy who kills people for money. he doesn't kill anyone for the right price, wouldn't kill his best friend or a puppy or that potential hit cause he thinks she's kinda hot. but generally, if some gangster payed him to take out some perfect stranger for the right price he'd do it and this is enough in my book to make him evil. he still has his humanity, or elfanity or whatever race he is. his alignment is evil but he's not relishing in world domination.
now, if a person did this kind of thing in our world, the rightful punishment would be inprisonment. but would a paladin be justified in strait up killing a guy? it seems to me that paladin's behave a lot more like the punisher than they do batman. killing anything thats evil and it kinda makes me question. are paladin's even good? i mean it may say so on the character sheet but are they really?
maybe I'm just misunderstanding how a paladin ideally should be played. if you were a paladin who upon first meeting the character I described, realised he had an evil alignment how would a paladin react? would a paladin draw his sword and kill as soon as he saw that purpley black aura or would a paladin try and save a soul instead of just taking one?
also, sorry for the ramble.
Based on the paladin codes presented to us for the gods of Golarion, there are a wide range of "paladin-approved" solutions from summary execution to fair trial to attempts at redemption to binding him over to a lawful authority.
Lawful Stupid is pretty easy to understand. Its about Paladins slamming their heads against the wall about how vague their code is and how a GM can easily construe it against them.
The end result are Paladins that seriously ham up the restrictions.
I agree with most folks. Law and Good are not equal for the Paladin. First and foremost, Good comes first.
An Oathbound Paladin of Abadar might disagree.
|
I can be wrong but i think your description of CE assasin is more close to NE than to CE. Basically you set your own rules about killing, but you dont follow them as strict as a Legal character would. I dont see the Chaotic part, that part where there are no rules, no plans just the mindless destruction and innovative ways of satisfaying your personal lust for killing.
On the other hand, I think the greater achievement for a Paladin would be to vanquish evil by trasforming that evil force into a Good force. So basically if he could convince the Assasin to stop his mindless evil doings, and focus his efforts into the good things of the world, that would be the Real victory for the paladin. Of course, depending on the DM the assasin should fullfil some kind of justice-system.
At least, that is the way I see it as a DM. If Paladin can turn evil into good, best achievement ever, if not, kill it. But be aware that you must be able to kill it.
Regards.
When I play paladins I usually defer to killing the evil subject on two merits:
1. Is it a humanoid creature? If yes, then chances are they can be redeemed or punished by some other means other than death. Subdual damage is the way to go here unless continued resistance, then kill it. Some creatures of this type are more difficult than others, like Ogres, Giants, and Trolls. These might get the sword because they're too dangerous to bring to captivity.
2. Is it a monster? Pretty much all Abberations, Chromatic Dragons, Evil Fey, evil Magical Beasts, Monstrous humanoids, Outsiders, Undead, and Vermin. If yes, smite it and hope it dies quickly.
|
|
When I play paladins I usually defer to killing the evil subject on two merits:
1. Is it a humanoid creature? If yes, then chances are they can be redeemed or punished by some other means other than death. Subdual damage is the way to go here unless continued resistance, then kill it. Some creatures of this type are more difficult than others, like Ogres, Giants, and Trolls. These might get the sword because they're too dangerous to bring to captivity.
2. Is it a monster? Pretty much all Abberations, Chromatic Dragons, Evil Fey, evil Magical Beasts, Monstrous humanoids, Outsiders, Undead, and Vermin. If yes, smite it and hope it dies quickly.
This attitude is retty prejudiced and might (or might not, depending on circumstances) rapidly result in a Paladin in one of my games falling. A creature's species is immaterial to how evil it is and whether it can be redeemed.
Well, barring Evil Outsiders, anyway.
But like I said, superheroes are not a good way to look at this. For a more comparable example to the situations PCs are usually in, I recommend Westerns. Ever seen Have Gun Will Travel? It's a classic TV Western with a protagonist who actually goes by the name of Paladin. He's a very good example of how one can be a mercenary, kill people, and remain indisputably Lawful Good and honorable. And is thus an excellent reference for most PC Paladins.
Some of the more classic definitions of the word have nothing to do with morality as much as loyalty.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've always been a bit leery about threads like this when they come up.
Do all other Lawful Good or Good characters get free passes on conduct, because they don't have built in self destructs? If that's the case one has to wonder on the mindset of the questioner in the first place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins have a class mechanic explicitly tied to alignment and behavior, some of which can be murky even as the best of times. It's sort of like playing baseball without any posts to differentiate between 'home run' and 'foul'. Most other characters don't get the same scrutiny because it's less relevant to them.
That's from a gamist mechanic perspective. IF they are playing characters that are supposed to be good, lawful, or at least heroic, it should. If your level of roleplay is dependent on mechanical penalty or the lack of them, then it's not really roleplaying that much.