Keep in mind that enough non lethal damage can kill... As a wizard in LSJ found out when he hit a crowd with an Empowered, Enlarged, Merciful.... Fireball.
Which is why it can be hard to level a paladin and stay a paladin. Even the description of the class in the CRB mentions that the life of a paladin is one rife with temptations and pitfalls. A paladin must be unrelenting in their devotion to Law and Good. They have to be honorable at all times. For the paladin, there can be no such thing as "sacrifice one to save a thousand". Instead they must try to save all 1001. Try and fail, and they don't fall. But to not try at all or to chose to sacrifice that innocent to save thousands, and they fall.Personally, I don't believe in the "Catch 22" concept with regards to Pathfinder's morality and the Paladin/Antipaladin Codes of Conduct. A lot of people seem to think that there isn't always a "Good" option in every situation, which is appealing in a sense as a plot device or a trope but sucks as a challenge for Paladins and Antipaladins due to the removal of the player's agency. A GM using this in a game ought to have built up to it and discussed it with the player first.
The typical Catch 22 falls under the moral dilemna of "Greater Good vs Immediate Good", wherein the Greater Good option requires committing an Evil act to accomplish an ultimately Good result (killing one innocent to save thousands, taxing people to poverty to pay for an army to protect them with, allowing an unrepentant serial killer to be pardoned in exchange for information about a politician plotting to overthrow the crown, etc), while the other is a Good act which has drastic consequences. The Immediate Good act tends to result from inaction and is seen as a selfish choice, but this is simply not the case."For the greater good" is a mantra for those who want to reassure themselves that they are still good people in spite of their contradictory actions.
Sometimes the Good option is to not intervene, to say to one's self "I'm not a judge - it isn't my place to make this decision." Sometimes it is "I refuse to compromise my morality here - the consequences of my fall would be too great." Other times it is "I will not commit this Evil act, but I will work to ensure that the consequences are minimized as much as possible." Good is not often the easiest solution or the most obvious, and often it is not the "best" from a purely objective standpoint, but it is always an option. Whether you choose to take it or not is always up to you.
Absolutely agree with this portion.
Which is why often paladins are called "lawful stupid". The good and honorable path is not the easy path. Nor is it always the 'smart' path. Similarly the lawful path isn't always the smart path. Finding evidence about Lord Traitor's plans to overthrow the king would be easy if you break into his private residence. But this is something which a paladin wouldn't do because breaking and entering is against the law. Thus the paladin needs to find lawful ways to obtain the evidence required.
A couple things about this part though.
A Paladin would certainly not jump to breaking in as a solution to the issue of searching Lord Traitor's residence, which would be illegal (in most countries, I assume), but would certainly attempt to obtain the authority to do so legally through private channels to avoid arousing suspicion. If the Paladin has reason to believe that obtaining this permission could tip off Lord Traitor or that the laws preventing such an intrusion are not just they might end up justifying a break-in to obtain the information discreetly. It's a bit unsavory, but breaking into someone's home isn't an Evil act - it would probably be considered Chaotic, and Paladins have no restrictions against Chaotic acts just so long as those acts do not shift their alignment from Lawful.
It's important to remember that Paladins aren't inherently beholden to any laws, but merely follow them out of respect for legitimate authority. A Paladin would likely be very reluctant to break the law but willing to do so in certain situations, typically where the law has been compromised or is designed by what they perceive to be an illegitimate authority.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unless the enemy is immune to nonlethal damage, you don't need to kill to stop a presently occurring evil. With one feat or trait you can do nonlethal damage just effectively as you do lethal damage and stop most enemies without killing them.
Most killing is not neccesary to stop an ongoing evil, but Paladins do it anyway.
If you don't provide any evidence that killing Evil creatures is considered an Evil act then your arguments hold no weight.
Consider the code of a Paladin of Torag:
Against my people’s enemies, I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except when strategy warrants.
Show no mercy? Allow no surrender? If killing evil creatures was considered to be an evil act then it wouldn't matter if Torag is personally okay with it - the Paladin Code still forbids committing Evil acts.
Or how about Iomedae's Paladin Code?
When in doubt, I may force my enemies to surrender, but I am responsible for their lives.
Iomedae says that you may force your foes to surrender when in doubt, but shouldn't she be saying that you must force surrender at all times? If killing is truly evil she should advocate against it in all situations rather than just when you have your doubts.
Let's look at Sarenrae's Paladin Code. She's known for redemption, right?
The best battle is a battle I win. If I die, I can no longer fight. I will fight fairly when the fight is fair, and I will strike quickly and without mercy when it is not.I will redeem the ignorant with my words and my actions. If they will not turn toward the light, I will redeem them by the sword.
I will not abide evil, and will combat it with steel when words are not enough. I do not flinch from my faith, and do not fear embarrassment. My soul cannot be bought for all the stars in the sky.
Striking without mercy when a fight isn't fair, "redeeming" the unrepentant "by the sword"? Combating evil with steel? This is coming from the deity whose followers can take the very trait you brought up (Blade of Mercy) and she's perfectly okay with killing people who refuse to be redeemed.
All of these examples force you to make one of two observations - either killing is not inherently an Evil act, or killing is an Evil act and these gods' codes allow Paladins to kill in specific situations. Based on the Wrath of the Righteous adventure path I can safely say that the second is not true. Your premise is incorrect.
This is the 'responsible for their future crimes' view - that to kill evil is not itself evil. What it boils down to is this:
To kill a person who has fallen into Evil without deliberate choice - who can be brought to the light by word and example - is a bad thing. (Not inherently evil, but if they surrender, then you've won the battle.) If, however, they have been given the Word and been shown the Light, and have nonetheless chosen to deny the Word and delight in Darkness, then if you can kill them, do so. To take them prisoner is to permit them the chance to escape, to tempt and poison others within the prison to their position and evil, and to further the goals of evil. Should they escape to commit more evil, slay innocents, &c., you are complicit in their crimes by way of your choice to not remove from them the future possibility of evil - i.e., to 'redeem by the sword'.
This is the position of 'by not killing the Joker, Batman's helped kill thousands'. I'm not saying that in a comic-book world Batman's refusal to kill isn't right - for a comic-book world, it is. But for a more 'grimdark' world, one in which death is a frequent companion, killing an evil individual to end their evil is the correct, good act.