| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Neutral = Beyond redemption now.
Ok.
You get one disingenuous twisting of what was said.
One.
That was it.
This is not any neutral person. This is a neutral cleric of an evil deity . This is someone that looked at all the evil a deity does and said "yeah , sure, i'll give my life over to that.. well most of it..." That is not farmer brown looking to mind their own business.
You can not walk around town casting detect evil and smiting whatever shows up, but if you're already swinging at them over some other matter and your smite doesn't pack QUITE the punch you thought it would , taking the -4 on your next swing for non lethal damage is an option. but so is power attack.
Or, you could redeem the evil, thereby stopping it from hurting anyone and also making another champion for good.
That's an option (and there's an archtype for that) But this being an option doesn't make it the best, much less the only, way to be a paladin.
What a lot of that is going to come down to is the paladin's own experience. Many have rightfully concluded that talking to a demon sitting on throne of mangled peasant corpses is so unlikely to change their mind that killing them is the better option: a conclusion backed by the paladins actual class abilities of making large pointy objects kill bad things.
A paladins job is to kick ass and chew bubble gum, and they have a religious prohibition on bubblegum.
Immediately jumping to the conclusion of "im against it so it must die" or worse, "it looks like i might be against it at some point in the future so it must die" is evil.
Thats why they get detect evil.
Methings someone is a Gray Warden who thinks hes still a Paladin.
I think you're equating violence with evil. They're not the same thing.
A paladin has very little if any ability to do what you're talking about.
This is not any neutral person. This is a neutral cleric of an evil deity . This is someone that looked at all the evil a deity does and said "yeah , sure, i'll give my life over to that.. well most of it..." That is not farmer brown looking to mind their own business.
Would you say a Paladin would be justified in smiting heretical worshippers of Nocticula?
Would you say a Paladin would be justified in smiting heretical worshippers of Nocticula?
Depends on the circumstances.
A paladin cannot rush into a Nocticula temple in the middle of town and start slaying them
If they bump into each other in a dungeon and they ping as evil, sharp pointy metal object becomes one of many viable options.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, theres no disingenuous twisting at all. The person is Neutral. Neutral. It doesnt matter what he does in his day job. He is not even evil yet. He is neutral. That means at least 40% of the time he does the right thing. If he didnt, he would be evil.
There is more than one way to play a paladin
Good is not nice.
Lawful good is not super extra good. it is not double plus good. It is not the best good. it is not more good than the other goods. its morality and ethics trying to work together
Most importantly You are more than your alignment. Even a non evil cleric of an evil deity advances an evil deities desires enough to be problematic. IF a paladin is justified in swinging a sword in the first place, they're justified in swinging it again after the smite doesn't kick in.
Or stopping and trying to talk it over. Different strokes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do not like what ifs without a very detailed scenario that leads to the conflict.
In fact, a Paladin who did that walking through some town square would not only most likely fall, but will definitely be arrested.
You're missing everything I'm saying to the degree that there's no point in continuing.
-A paladin cannot rush into a Nocticula temple in the middle of town and start slaying them
-No, because that wouldn't be lawful. Part of a paladins oath is to obey legitimate authorities, and oddly enough those authorities have asked not to be killed in the course if their duties.
-You can not walk around town casting detect evil and smiting whatever shows up
Three times (at least) I clarified that this was not my position, but that's what you keep arguing against.
|
The question is: Should the DM make a paladin Fall for accidentally slaying a good-aligned being due to (logical) biases? 99.9999999% of demons are evil after all.
Also, at what point has a Paladin taken "reasonable care" in making sure he doesn't accident attack an innocent?
Yes, she should fall. I would, however, rule that she should qualify for the zero cost version of atonement as I would consider the act unwitting. Now this is just for your standard paladin, there may be some wiggle room depending on exactly what flavor of paladin we're talking about.
Personally, and I recognize that there are differing opinions, I'm of a mind that simply being part of a race that is traditionally evil is not an excuse for wholesale slaughter of them.
I would also argue that a redeemed succubus (or any other brand of evil outsider) would NOT register as evil, because a redeemed succubus is no longer a succubus, they are something else (probably an angel of some flavor). My reasoning is that if they were, three out of four of the Whore Queens would still ping good and most (though not all) of the Erinyes would as well, which they don't (unless you house rule it or something).
|
|
To be fair, Asmodeus often reshapes his followers. The Erinyes of 3.5 were fallen angles, but they were reshaped in this way making them fully devils (and thus no longer of the good subtype) while the Pathfinder ones are just mockeries of angels, not actually fallen. The Whore Queens could similarly have been reshaped, though its possible they DO ping as good.The question is: Should the DM make a paladin Fall for accidentally slaying a good-aligned being due to (logical) biases? 99.9999999% of demons are evil after all.
Also, at what point has a Paladin taken "reasonable care" in making sure he doesn't accident attack an innocent?
Yes, she should fall. I would, however, rule that she should qualify for the zero cost version of atonement as I would consider the act unwitting. Now this is just for your standard paladin, there may be some wiggle room depending on exactly what flavor of paladin we're talking about.
Personally, and I recognize that there are differing opinions, I'm of a mind that simply being part of a race that is traditionally evil is not an excuse for wholesale slaughter of them.
I would also argue that a redeemed that a redeemed succubus (or any other brand of evil outsider) would NOT register as evil, because a redeemed succubus is no longer a succubus, they are something else (probably an angel of some flavor). My reasoning is that if they were, three out of four of the Whore Queens would still ping good and most (though not all) of the Erinyes would as well, which they don't (unless you house rule it or something).
"While most other devils are created from mortal souls, most erinyes are sculpted from the essences of fallen celestials that have been turned away from the path of good. A few are created from lesser devils, but only if that devil had a spark of piousness in its past existence."
|
The really important lines though, imo, are these ones:
"Although their convictions might lead them into conflict with the very souls they would save"
"risking their lives to do right and fighting to bring about a brighter future"
they risk their lives to do right and bring about a better future, not to combat evil. Combating evil is part of it, but their primary goal is to make the world better. They also want to save evil souls, but understand they might not be able to and might have to fight them.
While I respect that you have a different opinion than I do, the point I'm trying to make is that you can't ignore a great deal of the class writeup that seems to contradict the point you are making. I disagree that "A Paladins first goal should always be redemption". Firstly, I do not see redemption as the best good. Not within the context of the game. It can be, but it shouldn't automatically be the assumed default. Nor is it always an option in the circumstances. Secondly, Evil prevails when good men do nothing. Trying to be nice instead of good, (the two are not the same thing), is a form of doing nothing that would allow evil to hide their evil in plain sight. Thirdly, it seems to heavily smack of a DM looking for excuses to either play the character for the player, make Paladins boringly cookie-cutter, or to find a way to make them fall. Like I tried to point out, I can see Paladins of Sarenrae, and maybe Shelyn maybe going the redemmer route, (but not required). However, for the vast majority of other LG faiths, it should also be very unlikely to be the goto default. Iomedae, Erastil, Torag, Abadar, and others. That doesn't mean they can not or will not, simply that it's not the go to. Lastly, Paladins are not stupid. Nor are they perfect.
Iomedae is by far the most active god when it comes to battling evil on Golarion. As a worshiper of the Inheritor, your first goal is to stamp out evil and injustice wherever you find it.
-
They are crusaders and live for the joy of righteous battle. They serve as examples to others, and their code demands they protect the weak and innocent by eliminating sources of oppression, rather than the symptoms.
-
The paladins of the Dawnflower are fierce warriors, like their goddess. They provide hope to the weak and support to the righteous.
-
* I will seek out and destroy the spawn of the Rough Beast. If I cannot defeat them, I will give my life trying. If my life would be wasted in the attempt, I will find allies. If any fall because of my inaction, their deaths lie upon my soul, and I will atone for each.
* 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.
-
<Shelyn> I am peaceful. I come first with a rose. I act to prevent
conflict before it blossoms.
* I never strike first, unless it is the only way to protect the innocent.
* I accept surrender if my opponent can be redeemed—and I never assume that they cannot be.
-
<Torag>
You despise the cult of Rovagug and seek to smash it every turn, yet this strangely isn’t enough to make you comfortable around followers of Sarenrae—you appreciate their devotion to the cause, yet you can’t help but see their focus on forgiveness and veneration of the sun as weaknesses.
-
* Against my people's enemies I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except to extract information. I will defeat them, and I will scatter their families. Yet even in the struggle against our enemies, I will act in a way that brings honor to Torag.
Wow... he's the son of a Devil who battles his dark side, not automatically evil, but happens to be good.
You sound like you subscribe to the racist Paladin philosophy.
"Their kind's all evil. Born that way. Only we to redeem 'em is death"
I'm going off of the assumption that Outsiders with an Alignment Subtype are not normally capable of changing their Alignment. It takes extraordinary circumstances, generally by another source, to do so. That is not how I'd personally do it in my home games, but that is the assumption in the Setting and what I'm going with here. It's also worth noting that this doesn't apply to everything, only (non-Native) Outsiders with an Alignment Subtype, Undead, and certain specific other creature such as Drow, (which my understanding Paizo also designed to never allow non-Evil Drow as part of the setting's creation story and lore).
I'm also going off of the assumption that said Outsiders, like Demons, literally taint the Material Plane by simply existing. That is, even if, in the extremely rare occasion that a give Demon is not actively doing Chaotic Evil stuff, the very fact that they are there has an effect of strengthening the influence of Chaotic + Evil, helping it influence everything around them, simply by existing. (This is also true for any Aligned Outsider with their particular Alignment, and Undead with Negative Energy).
And yes, you can be Farmer Joe just trying to make his way in life who also happens to worship an evil god. Asmodeus in particular, but there are others.
Farmer Joe is not a Cleric of Asmodeus, and very likely pays lip service. A Cleric works to make their chosen Patron stronger, enact their will, bring in more followers, and does various acts that are necessarily, (for Asmodeus), going to be both Evil and Extreme Evil.
So, like a Succubus? A scenario like that.
If you tell the player "You better act fast or the succubus is going to eat that baby!" when its a redeemed succubus, you are leading him to do wrong. Whatever your motivations are, that is being a predatory GM.
{. . .}
Um . . . like the kind of GM who might say what I first misread the above as: "You better act fast or I am going to eat that baby!"
It sort of begs the question (raises the question?), why a neutral person is working for an evil organization. The "it's a job" argument tends to fall flat in a reality with physical tangible evil.Well, in the case of say, Cheliax, there's not exactly a whole lot of options unless you want to be a renegade. Of all the evil deities, Asmodeus is the least bad, really.
That’s what Asmodeus wants you to think . . . He’s certainly the most insidious . . . .
A Paladins first goal should always be redemption, followed closely by protection. It should never be extermination.Shouldn't a Paladin's first goal be to destroy evil before it has a chance to corrupt, destroy, poison, torture, enslave, or otherwise harm anyone else? That IS protecting others.No. Preventative annihilation is not protection, its genocide. Theres no redemption in genocide. This kind of action just makes good a different shade of evil, one that is considered acceptable to the common folk because "hes just killing the people who do the bad things"
Good, especially Paladins, should be good. An evil creature should not be able to say "were really not so different" to a Paladin. A neutral character should be able to be inspired by him to switch to good because he sees the benefits of good, not just because hes against the concepts evil enjoy.
Redemption will always be the number 1 goal in any conflict. An evil person destroyed at best stops his particular evil, but an evil person redeemed goes on to propogate more good.
Through a select, worthy few shines the power of the divine.
Called paladins, these noble souls dedicate their swords and lives to the battle against evil. {. . .}Um, its not hard to bold certain parts of that to make it support whatever side you want. watch:
Through a select, worthy few shines the power of the divine.
Called paladins, these noble souls dedicate their swords and lives to the battle against evil. Knights, crusaders, and lawbringers, paladins seek not just to spread divine justice but to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve.
In pursuit of their lofty goals, they adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline. {. . .}
From reading of the various deities’ Paladin Codes, it looks like this bolding actually happens in the Pathfinder Campaign Setting. After all, even before Gray Paladin came out, Oath Against Chaos was already a thing. Although I haven't found proof yet, it seems reasonable to hypothesize that Paladins of one deity might fall for something that would be considered normal and maybe even expected for Paladins of another deity. Which makes it seem just wrong that Paladins are all (except for the recent and rather unsatisfying Gray Paladin archetype) all hard-coded as Lawful Good . . . That's a holdover from earlier D&D Editions for you . . . .
{. . .}
Lastly, Paladins are not stupid. {. . .}
Actually, having checked several guides and several posts on these message boards plus a Paizo web tale featuring a Paladin in Geb, it does seem like they do very often dump Intelligence . . . and Wisdom . . . .
Legit question: Do aligned outsiders have Free Will?
Anybody who is portrayed by a player or the GM has free will, I figure.
I meant that literally, insofar as a character is acted out by a human being, they are capable of changing their mind, whether they're the grand Duchess or Hell or Joe the farmer. A being that can change its mind has free will.
I would just read "made of elemental evil" as just a very strong form of enculturation. The only values a demon has ever been exposed to or learned were important were chaotic evil values. They likely have no interest in learning about any different way to be than they way they are, but it's not to say that they can't.
The long and short of it is that outsiders have to have free will, insofar as the GM wants to tell a story about one of them making a choice. That's how you get all kinds of redeemed outsiders out there: someone wanted to tell a story about their redemption. Saying "such and such doesn't have free will" is meaningless because any GM who wants to tell a story involving their breaking from their programming is just going to ignore that.
|
|
You say for example, maybe Shelyn, but then you show that motto, and everything in it is the role of a redeemer.
Yes, because I wanted to show why I said maybe Sarenrae or Shelyn, but also to emphasize that there is no "one true correct way".
That's also why we get a whole variety of LG, and while you might not like Torag, I do. I think that the variations between his faith, Sarenrae's, Iomedae's, Eristal's, Ragathiel's, Arqueros', Damerrich's, etc . . . on basic assumptions of what is "Good", what Good can, will, and is allowed to do, adds a great deal of interesting options and shoots down definitively that any one real world political or ethic view is "correct" in the game.
Being stupid means "Because good is dumb". Essentially if you take every single opportunity to redeem Evil, Evil is going to figure that out very fast, (especially if we are talking every Paladin in the world), and use that against them, going through the motions to look like it's working, all the while corrupting everyone good and neutral around them. Leading to a lot more Evil and damage. It's also worth noting that Sarenrae and her faith outright state that Undead, Evil Outsiders, and the Spawn of Rovagug, as well as a few others are automatically classified as "Beyond Redemption", and "strike fast and strike hard" is encouraged.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was initially confused as to why this tame thread I had been desultorily following had 70 new posts over night. Then I did some investigation.
Does a Paladins Smite Evil work on a Neutral Cleric of an Evil God?
Does a Paladins Smite Evil work on a Neutral Cleric of an Evil
Does a Paladins Smite Evil work on a Neutral Cleric of an
Does a Paladins Smite Evil work on a Neutral Cleric of
Does a Paladins Smite Evil work on a Neutral Cleric
Does a Paladins Smite Evil work on a Neutral
Does a Paladins Smite Evil work on a
Does a Paladins Smite Evil work on
Does a Paladins Smite Evil work
Does a Paladins Smite Evil
Does a Paladins Smite
Does a Paladins
a Paladins
Paladins
Paladins
Paladins
Oh, right.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think what is being discussed here is that if a certain actions causes a Paladin to fall then an inaction would also cause them to fall, so paladins would automatically have to do the 'thing'. I believe Paizo draw a picture about it
http://pre01.deviantart.net/73c2/th/pre/f/2015/106/4/6/seelah_by_windmaker- d8pxfm9.jpg
Paladins, the delema class of D&D
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
... how often is that orphanage burning that they need to keep a permanent sign for it?
I can't see inaction causing a paladin to fall, unless this is a very clear cut situation with an obvious solution. If it's an ethically messy situation, and the Paladin is unsure, or has to make a hard call based on incomplete information I have to imagine that whatever forces are responsible for rescinding Paladin credentials will cut him or her some slack.
After all, the reason there's a "Fall" mechanic in the first place is to ensure that players aren't just paying lip service to the whole "holy warrior" thing in order to get the sweet class abilities. If a player is engaging with the actual moral dilemma and is wrestling with the conflict inherent in it, then you should never make them fall since that's exactly how a Paladin is supposed to RP ethical dilemmas, even if the choice they end up making doesn't end up being the best one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... how often is that orphanage burning that they need to keep a permanent sign for it?
To stop the Paladin from not falling due to ignorance.
and then the paladin loses their powers for committing an evil act unless of course they have an oath((especially the oath against fiends were they would lose their powers for not smiting her) going by the terrible rules paizo has for paladins)I just want to take the time to point out that this isnt necessarily true. It depends on how you define "evil outsider" in the oaths text. Its true that she would be an outsider with the type evil, but she is not an outsider who is evil. While the phrase "evil outsider" usually refers to the former, in this case I think we can assume it means the latter due to the contradictions in goals. Even though Oath Paladins dont have the same oath as standard paladins, they are still Lawful Good, and killing someone based on racism certainly isnt.
The oath against undead/abberations sadly isnt so redeemable.
The precedent in Pathfinder is that the risen demon loses the evil subtype.
Or so I have heard from a certain follower of Desna.
... how often is that orphanage burning that they need to keep a permanent sign for it?To stop the Paladin from not falling due to ignorance.
well THAT"s a lost cause...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It sort of begs the question (raises the question?), why a neutral person is working for an evil organization. The "it's a job" argument tends to fall flat in a reality with physical tangible evil.
Law, structure, discipline - these are paramount. Nothing else matters. Only Asmodeus, the Lord of Law, can being order to the world.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
and then the paladin loses their powers for committing an evil act unless of course they have an oath((especially the oath against fiends were they would lose their powers for not smiting her) going by the terrible rules paizo has for paladins)I just want to take the time to point out that this isnt necessarily true. It depends on how you define "evil outsider" in the oaths text. Its true that she would be an outsider with the type evil, but she is not an outsider who is evil. While the phrase "evil outsider" usually refers to the former, in this case I think we can assume it means the latter due to the contradictions in goals. Even though Oath Paladins dont have the same oath as standard paladins, they are still Lawful Good, and killing someone based on racism certainly isnt.
The oath against undead/abberations sadly isnt so redeemable.
The precedent in Pathfinder is that the risen demon loses the evil subtype.
Or so I have heard from a certain follower of Desna.
The Rules As Written say that creatures with {Insert Alignment} subtype keep this subtype and suffer all disadvantages of it no matter what their actual alignment is, so the above seems to be true only if you get it done by a professional (I think Desna certainly qualifies as a pro, even if this isn't in her official portfolio).
Okay. Thread has been dead for about a week. But here are my 2cp. A quarter of alignment, I think, is intention. Another quarter is circumstance, another is reaction, leaving just a quarter for action. If a paladin sets up a trap against a numerically and physically superior force, which backfires and kills innocents, I wouldn't make him fall immediately. But you can darn well bet he'd better be digging through the rubble, healing folks and trying to fix his screwup. If I tell the player the consequences of his actions, and his reaction is "meh," he's gonna fall. Fast. If the party comes across a lone bandit, and they kill him outright, that's a Bad Thing. If the party comes across a group of known-hostile bandits outnumbering them 2-1, who have them outgunned, killing the bandits is unfortunate but necessary. Self-preservation againsts those who seek to snuff you out, I don't think, is an evil act. Self-preservation at the expense of those who mean you no harm is neutral, at best.
That said, if you come across something that pings as evil, that does not mean you have carteblanche to slay them, ESPECIALLY if you have an upper hand before combat. My favorite example is Salvatore Scream in CoCT. I am honestly confused as to why he's considered evil in the first place. Morbid, sure. Evil as a person? No. I do understand that he has a corruption, but still. It's tenuous at best.
Anyone who's read this far: thank you for reading my barely coherent ramblings on alignment.
That said, if you come across something that pings as evil, that does not mean you have carteblanche to slay them, ESPECIALLY if you have an upper hand before combat. My favorite example is Salvatore Scream in CoCT. I am honestly confused as to why he's considered evil in the first place. Morbid, sure. Evil as a person? No. I do understand that he has a corruption, but still. It's tenuous at best.
I'd counter with the recognition that not all evil needs to be badass, plotting to dominate the world, villainous, or heinous. You could argue that Salvator Scream has a number of things pushing toward evil in his history and psychology. He paints and is fascinated by sadism. He worked at the Exemplary Execrables - a showhouse for things vile and grisly. So I have no problem branding him evil - and therein lies part of the lesson for players who think that evil = legitimate enemy that must be destroyed. Not all evil in nature is so evil in deed that they need to be destroyed.
Okay. Thread has been dead for about a week.
Sarenrae takes a rather dim view on necromancy... :>
It's a fundamental game rule. Cure minor on a vampire you don't know is a vampire still requires a roll to hit.
You can rule that your smite only does subdual damage, as not real evil warrants not real damage. That's more of a house rule. That's game world real, not IRL real.
It's a fundamental game rule. Cure minor on a vampire you don't know is a vampire still requires a roll to hit.
Only if the vampire tries to avoid it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay. Thread has been dead for about a week.Sarenrae takes a rather dim view on necromancy... :>
I think its a rather bright view.
