Strangest argument for or against a ruling?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

201 to 250 of 415 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

You'd have to appear in front of a court to present that defence, and if there are enough witnesse to have the court declare your outlawry, that usually means the standard of proof is enough to have you convicted and executed...


Sundakan wrote:
Baval wrote:


@Sundaken

wat.

outlaws have no legal rights?

so theres no courts. since by definition anyone who commits a crime is an outlaw, and thus you just kill them.

come on.

This is where the "tiny bit of research" thing comes in.

Let me give you the Cliff notes. Outlaws (in the classic sense) ARE NOT anyone who commits a crime. Being outlawed is a specific judgement the legal authority of your country or province places on you for your crimes, and (obviously) is does absent your presence. Some guy says "So and so has committed acts of banditry, he stole my sheep" and if enough people say so or a reliable witness says it, So and so is outlawed.

A petty thief is not an outlaw, he is a criminal.

A bandit is an outlaw. They are literally outside the law, having been essentially evicted from the society they have wronged. They have no civic responsibilities, but neither do they have civic RIGHTS and are not protected by law and do not even have the RIGHT to a trial.

If you capture a bandit and turn them over to teh authorities, they will not get a trial. They will be held in a cell over night, and in the morning hung or beheaded in front of a cheering crowd.

Baval wrote:
And something being overall neutral means if the Paladin does it consistently he becomes neutral. A Paladin does good, not neutral.

Paladin eats breakfast, he falls.

Paladin puts on armor, he falls.

Paladin ties his shoes, he falls.

Paladin brushes his teeth, he falls.

You understand where I'm going with this I'm sure.

I noticed just a minute ago, and edited my post but too late, that you said bandit and not outlaw.

So let me respond again here.

You are assuming the legal system of a fictional world that you literally cannot know since it can vary by DMs. This is impossible. If the law of the land the Paladin is in is banditry=automatic death and the Paladin knows this, only then is he justified in field executions.

Note that the Paladin should work to try and change this law, since setting a good example of what good is should be a Paladins priority.

As for your example of "the Paladin brushes his teeth he falls" you are confusing things that have no alignment with things that are Neutral in alignment. There is no "good" alternative to eating breakfast, but there is one to killing surrendered enemies. This is a fallacy.


I did not know that was the definition of medieval outlaws. neat!

still doesnt apply to a fictional world though (unless it does, your dm may vary)

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Rulebook, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

In Kingmaker book 1, you are tasked with taming the area and ridding it of bandits.

So you are given the right to meet out High, Middle, and Low justice before you establish your kingdom, and after, you are the government.


Baval wrote:


I noticed just a minute ago, and edited my post but too late, that you said bandit and not outlaw.

So let me respond again here.

You are assuming the legal system of a fictional world that you literally cannot know since it can vary by DMs. This is impossible. If the law of the land the Paladin is in is banditry=automatic death and the Paladin knows this, only then is he justified in field executions.

By that same token you are also assuming the legal system of a fictional world by saying they have trials.

Both criminal trials and outlawry were very nearly universal across most pre-modern societies.

Hell, proper outlaws were a big thing as recent as the American Old West.

Baval wrote:
Note that the Paladin should work to try and change this law, since setting a good example of what good is should be a Paladins priority.

Not touchin' that, too close to an actual Paladin/"What is Good?" debate. Suffice to say I don't agree, Paladins aren't required to be nice.

Baval wrote:
As for your example of "the Paladin brushes his teeth he falls" you are confusing things that have no alignment with things that are Neutral in alignment. There is no "good" alternative to eating breakfast, but there is one to killing surrendered enemies. This is a fallacy.

There is no clear Good alternative here. Taking them prisoner and turning them over to he authorities has the same result. Except worse, because even relatively open minded people in this world would gladly mistreat a goblin criminal and revel in it before killing them.

Leaving them tied up in the wilderness is execution, but slower. Or, they escape and go back to what they were doing before.

Executing them is well within your right, and is the responsible thing to do in this scenario. It is the best, most merciful option reasonably available to you.

Regardless, Paladins are not required to always take the "good" alternative. They are barred from committing evil acts, not from neutral ones.

Which is what "no alignment acts" ARE. Neutral is not a creed. Neutral is lack of dedication to one or both of the alignment axes. Neutral acts are anything that are neither Good nor Evil. The aforementioned mundane actions fall under that.

Is eating breakfast Good? Evil? No, it is neither. Neutral.


Wait, when did this turn into a "paladin falls" thread? Is this an appropriate thing for me to derail?

What happens when a paladin's ladder breaks?


@Baval

1) Grappling provokes an attack of opportunity without Improved Grapple and its prerequisite, Improved Unarmed Strike. Also, it takes two rounds to pin someone, in which time they and their allies get to attack you. After you tie them up in the 3rd round of grappling (assuming successful checks each time), you can (A)leave them where you found them and chance an escape or them getting killed because you left them somewhere helpless, (B)take them with you and risk them alerting other goblins or monsters or even escaping to fight you at an inopportune moment, or (C)take them back to town immediately. These are all bad options.

2) Doing nonlethal damage with your Greatsword can do a maximum of 32 damage with a 16 strength. If you're punching him to knock him out, you're probably going to need to punch him once after he falls unconscious to make sure he stays out. If you crit, you can make him start to bleed out. In this case, you would need to take him in for long-term care until he can go to jail to await his time to stand trial. For that matter, you should also take the fallen goblins with you so that they can benefit from long-term care.

At this point, you should ask yourself: Am I helping people, or am I selfishly imposing upon people so that I can keep my special powers?

3) Are you really advocating apprehending goblins, taking them back to town, waiting around to ensure that they get a fair trial without an "accident" happening before said trial, and fighting to reform the prison system if need be? I'd like to think that I'm misunderstanding you.

4) I was going to be snarky in response to your rudeness, but I decided against it.

Tim Statler wrote:

In Kingmaker book 1, you are tasked with taming the area and ridding it of bandits.

So you are given the right to meet out High, Middle, and Low justice before you establish your kingdom, and after, you are the government.

As a Paladin, I am given the right to meet out justice by my god. In my view as a Paladin, my god outranks the government.


@kitty

1. And? Either youre way overleveled, or you have your party and the goblins probably arent taking you out before you subdue them. You can still grapple them either way without much problem. I dont see how all three of your options are bad ones either.

2. So dont use your greatsword. You dont need to punch him again when he falls unconcious, just tie him up. If you crit and he starts bleeding out, stabilize him. Why does he need long term care? You should definitely take the fallen goblins with you.

3. Yes I am. That is the good thing to do. If you dont like that or think its stupid, thats fine, play a fighter.

4. You asked the question "what should you do with them after you tie them up?" as part of your first and second question, then again as its own seperate question. What did you expect me to say?


3) That's NOT the good thing to do. The GOOD thing to do is to kill evil creatures that are bent on disrupting the law abiding folk.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Johnny_Devo wrote:

Wait, when did this turn into a "paladin falls" thread? Is this an appropriate thing for me to derail?

What happens when a paladin's ladder breaks?

You know the ultimate bane of paladins? Not Antipaladins, not goblin babies, not bad GMs.

Gravity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If a paladin enters a gravity elemental and is destroyed forever, did he fall just before it happened?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@sundaken

I am not making any assumption, but if they do not have trials the Paladin should be working to make the civilization more Lawful Good. It is his job to set an example, not just kill evil. Thats why theyre Paladins and not LG Fighters or Clerics

Note even your article says its possible for outlaws to get a pardon if they surrender.

Paladins ARE required to be nice, because like it or not being nice is good and Paladins are supposed to be examples of the virtues of exemplary goodness. Again, if they want to purge evil and nothing else, they are not doing their job as Paladins, they are just being Fighters.

There is a very clear alternative here: not killing helpless people. If taking them back to town would be worse, the good alternative is to detain them yourselves while you work on fixing the corruption of the town.

Executing them is a possible solution. If you are in a hurry due to some other important matters, you dont believe the villain in question will repent, and you cant easily detain them, then you can execute them. Otherwise, showing mercy is demonstrating the virtues of good, and sets an example for others to follow, which might lead to more repentions later on. Killing because its convenient sets the opposite example.

Paladins are always required to take the good alternative, thats why for example they cannot lie. Lying is not in itself evil.

If there is a good, neutral, and an evil way to do something and you do not choose the good one what you are doing is demonstrating that good is not the best way to solve problems. By doing that you inspire people to be neutral or evil. This is not what a Paladin should be doing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
3) That's NOT the good thing to do. The GOOD thing to do is to kill evil creatures that are bent on disrupting the law abiding folk.

No, that is the just thing to do. The GOOD thing to do is to respect all life and not cause undue suffering. The good thing to do therefore is to stop the evil creatures while causing as little harm as possible.

The neutral thing to do is to kill them because its the easiest way to stop them.


Johnny_Devo wrote:

Wait, when did this turn into a "paladin falls" thread? Is this an appropriate thing for me to derail?

What happens when a paladin's ladder breaks?

It’s practically impossible to catch yourself on a wall while falling. Make a Climb check (DC = wall’s DC + 20) to do so. It’s much easier to catch yourself on a slope (DC = slope’s DC + 10).

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll have to tell all those friendly Contract Devils and Cuddly Succubi that since they're being nice they're slipping into Good.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Johnny_Devo wrote:

Wait, when did this turn into a "paladin falls" thread? Is this an appropriate thing for me to derail?

What happens when a paladin's ladder breaks?

It’s practically impossible to catch yourself on a wall while falling. Make a Climb check (DC = wall’s DC + 20) to do so. It’s much easier to catch yourself on a slope (DC = slope’s DC + 10).

But you might as well not try, since you're probably taking somewhere between a -9 (Splint mail and heavy shield) to -3 (Mithral Full Plate) from ACP. At the very least, that strips away your proficiency bonus, although I suspect most Paladins don't even put points into Climb. It would be better to invest in Boots of the Cat or a Ring of Feather Falling.


Rysky wrote:
I'll have to tell all those friendly Contract Devils and Cuddly Succubi that since they're being nice they're slipping into Good.

how exactly are they being nice?


Also someone needs to call Iomedae and tell her she needs to talk with evil deities outside of Asmodeus.

And maybe stop the crusades that are killing a bunch of evil stuff in the worldwound.


Trinam wrote:

Also someone needs to call Iomedae and tell her she needs to talk with evil deities outside of Asmodeus.

And maybe stop the crusades that are killing a bunch of evil stuff in the worldwound.

Iomedaes code includes:

"When in doubt, I may force my enemies to surrender, but I am responsible for their lives."

So yes, they do try to get surrenders and they do consider themselves responsible for their lives. Iomedae would fully agree with taking the goblins alive and making sure they get a fair trial.

And were back full circle to "some evil needs to be killed, so that means Paladins should kill all evil no matter what", which as I pointed out is exactly the black and white arguments that make me laugh.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Baval wrote:
Rysky wrote:
I'll have to tell all those friendly Contract Devils and Cuddly Succubi that since they're being nice they're slipping into Good.
how exactly are they being nice?

Cuddling.


Rysky wrote:
Baval wrote:
Rysky wrote:
I'll have to tell all those friendly Contract Devils and Cuddly Succubi that since they're being nice they're slipping into Good.
how exactly are they being nice?
Cuddling.

depends on motive. If the Succubus is cuddling for love, yep shes heading towards good. Most likely the vast amount of other evils shes doing will outweight that, but there is some goodness in her (which a Paladin might be able to exploit to redeem her)

If shes cuddling to suck the soul out of a victim, thats not something I would call nice.


Quote:
depends on motive. If the Succubus is cuddling for love, yep shes heading towards good.

The ends damn the means?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sundakan wrote:


Paladin eats breakfast, he falls.

Paladin puts on armor, he falls.

Paladin ties his shoes, he falls.

Paladin brushes his teeth, he falls.

You understand where I'm going with this I'm sure.

Paizo even has an understanding.


Baval wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
3) That's NOT the good thing to do. The GOOD thing to do is to kill evil creatures that are bent on disrupting the law abiding folk.

No, that is the just thing to do. The GOOD thing to do is to respect all life and not cause undue suffering. The good thing to do therefore is to stop the evil creatures while causing as little harm as possible.

The neutral thing to do is to kill them because its the easiest way to stop them.

Pretty sure there are LOTS of G deities that are all about killing enemies and evil doers. Ragathiel, iomedae, saranrae even has it if they aren't going to be redeemed are some that come to mind off hand.

GOOD CAN be what you say it is. But that isn't the only GOOD presented in Pathfinder.

Silver Crusade

Baval wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Baval wrote:
Rysky wrote:
I'll have to tell all those friendly Contract Devils and Cuddly Succubi that since they're being nice they're slipping into Good.
how exactly are they being nice?
Cuddling.

depends on motive. If the Succubus is cuddling for love, yep shes heading towards good. Most likely the vast amount of other evils shes doing will outweight that, but there is some goodness in her (which a Paladin might be able to exploit to redeem her)

If shes cuddling to suck the soul out of a victim, thats not something I would call nice.

Soul sucking evil, cuddling nice.


Rysky wrote:
Soul sucking evil, cuddling nice.

Therefore succubi are neutral!


Johnny_Devo wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Soul sucking evil, cuddling nice.
Therefore succubi are neutral!

No. pretending to be good or pretending to be nice is not the same as actually being nice or good. It is lying for the purpose of causing harm, which is evil


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Bit of a digression, but am I the only one who finds it funny that it's always succubi (and by extension their patron demon lord) that are always front and center for redeeming demons? Never hear much talk for turning that Hezrou to the path of good...

Silver Crusade

Baval wrote:
Johnny_Devo wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Soul sucking evil, cuddling nice.
Therefore succubi are neutral!
No. pretending to be good or pretending to be nice is not the same as actually being nice or good. It is lying for the purpose of causing harm, which is evil

No, you can legitimately want to murder someone and have genuine intimacy with them. Creatures aren't One-Dimensional.


Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Bit of a digression, but am I the only one who finds it funny that it's always succubi (and by extension their patron demon lord) that are always front and center for redeeming demons? Never hear much talk for turning that Hezrou to the path of good...

They tend to deal with mortals the most and use a form of temptation that leads to easy transition to good (its easier to change lust to love than it is to change say "tricking people into making unfair deals" to "making fair loans")


Rysky wrote:
Baval wrote:
Johnny_Devo wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Soul sucking evil, cuddling nice.
Therefore succubi are neutral!
No. pretending to be good or pretending to be nice is not the same as actually being nice or good. It is lying for the purpose of causing harm, which is evil
No, you can legitimately want to murder someone and have genuine intimacy with them. Creatures aren't One-Dimensional.

So you love someone and also want to murder them.

No that makes no sense at all.

Silver Crusade

Baval wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Bit of a digression, but am I the only one who finds it funny that it's always succubi (and by extension their patron demon lord) that are always front and center for redeeming demons? Never hear much talk for turning that Hezrou to the path of good...
They tend to deal with mortals the most and use a form of temptation that leads to easy transition to good (its easier to change lust to love than it is to change say "tricking people into making unfair deals" to "making fair loans")

... sure.


Baval wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Baval wrote:
Johnny_Devo wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Soul sucking evil, cuddling nice.
Therefore succubi are neutral!
No. pretending to be good or pretending to be nice is not the same as actually being nice or good. It is lying for the purpose of causing harm, which is evil
No, you can legitimately want to murder someone and have genuine intimacy with them. Creatures aren't One-Dimensional.

So you love someone and also want to murder them.

No that makes no sense at all.

Hate $^$# is a time honored concept good sir.

Or more generally, the psycho girlfriend who murders her boyfriend for some reason despite claiming to be in love with him.


Chess Pwn wrote:
Baval wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
3) That's NOT the good thing to do. The GOOD thing to do is to kill evil creatures that are bent on disrupting the law abiding folk.

No, that is the just thing to do. The GOOD thing to do is to respect all life and not cause undue suffering. The good thing to do therefore is to stop the evil creatures while causing as little harm as possible.

The neutral thing to do is to kill them because its the easiest way to stop them.

Pretty sure there are LOTS of G deities that are all about killing enemies and evil doers. Ragathiel, iomedae, saranrae even has it if they aren't going to be redeemed are some that come to mind off hand.

GOOD CAN be what you say it is. But that isn't the only GOOD presented in Pathfinder.

The only one who outright condones killing surrendering opponents is Torag. I dont believe he is actually a Good god though, because he doesnt act like one. He makes his Paladins fall if they walk into a room with some enemies and the enemies immediately surrender and they dont slaughter all of them

Silver Crusade

Baval wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Baval wrote:
Johnny_Devo wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Soul sucking evil, cuddling nice.
Therefore succubi are neutral!
No. pretending to be good or pretending to be nice is not the same as actually being nice or good. It is lying for the purpose of causing harm, which is evil
No, you can legitimately want to murder someone and have genuine intimacy with them. Creatures aren't One-Dimensional.

So you love someone and also want to murder them.

No that makes no sense at all.

Hate and Love aren't opposites, they're on the same side of the coin.


Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Baval wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Baval wrote:
Johnny_Devo wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Soul sucking evil, cuddling nice.
Therefore succubi are neutral!
No. pretending to be good or pretending to be nice is not the same as actually being nice or good. It is lying for the purpose of causing harm, which is evil
No, you can legitimately want to murder someone and have genuine intimacy with them. Creatures aren't One-Dimensional.

So you love someone and also want to murder them.

No that makes no sense at all.

Hate $^$# is a time honored concept good sir.

Or more generally, the psycho girlfriend who murders her boyfriend for some reason despite claiming to be in love with him.

hate f%+! is about lust, not love. It also doesnt involve cuddling.

The psycho girlfriend is insane, and again is more likely mentally ill than actually in love. But ill admit that is a possible exception. Note though that that psycho girlfriend once again has the possibility to be redeemed.


Rysky wrote:
Baval wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Baval wrote:
Johnny_Devo wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Soul sucking evil, cuddling nice.
Therefore succubi are neutral!
No. pretending to be good or pretending to be nice is not the same as actually being nice or good. It is lying for the purpose of causing harm, which is evil
No, you can legitimately want to murder someone and have genuine intimacy with them. Creatures aren't One-Dimensional.

So you love someone and also want to murder them.

No that makes no sense at all.

Hate and Love aren't opposites, they're on the same side of the coin.

Hate and love are the same thing?

Are you serious?

Are you trolling?

Silver Crusade

Baval wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Baval wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Baval wrote:
Johnny_Devo wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Soul sucking evil, cuddling nice.
Therefore succubi are neutral!
No. pretending to be good or pretending to be nice is not the same as actually being nice or good. It is lying for the purpose of causing harm, which is evil
No, you can legitimately want to murder someone and have genuine intimacy with them. Creatures aren't One-Dimensional.

So you love someone and also want to murder them.

No that makes no sense at all.

Hate $^$# is a time honored concept good sir.

Or more generally, the psycho girlfriend who murders her boyfriend for some reason despite claiming to be in love with him.

hate f&!& is about lust, not love.

The psycho girlfriend is insane, and again is more likely mentally ill than actually in love. But ill admit that is a possible exception. Note though that that psycho girlfriend once again has the possibility to be redeemed.

Note that origjnallly the conversation was about being nice, not love, you kinda need to stop sliding things around if you want this to remain coherent. Or start a new thread so everyone can go back to reading silly rulings.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

That's all they really want
Some fun
When the working day is done
Succbi - they want to have fun
Oh succbi just want to have fun

Silver Crusade

Baval wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Baval wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Baval wrote:
Johnny_Devo wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Soul sucking evil, cuddling nice.
Therefore succubi are neutral!
No. pretending to be good or pretending to be nice is not the same as actually being nice or good. It is lying for the purpose of causing harm, which is evil
No, you can legitimately want to murder someone and have genuine intimacy with them. Creatures aren't One-Dimensional.

So you love someone and also want to murder them.

No that makes no sense at all.

Hate and Love aren't opposites, they're on the same side of the coin.

Hate and love are the same thing?

Are you serious?

Are you trolling?

-_-


@rysky

youre right, the original was about being nice and not love. Tricking people into thinking you love them is not nice. So again, how is the succubus being nice?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Even if they can be redeemed, that doesn't mean that's your default modus opperendi. Even Shelyn, the goddess with the most hug-boxy paladin code written, encourages cleaving someone in half with a glaive if they're threatening the innocent (or art). Hell, even Ms Redemption herself, Sarenrae, has it codified that servants of Rovagug are kill on contact and people trying to take advantage of your mercy deserve no quarter.

Silver Crusade

Baval wrote:

@rysky

youre right, the original was about being nice and not love. Tricking people into thinking you love them is not nice. So again, how is the succubus being nice?

If I'm cuddling you, it doesn't outright mean I love you, it may just mean I want physical intimacy and security.


Rysky wrote:
Baval wrote:

@rysky

youre right, the original was about being nice and not love. Tricking people into thinking you love them is not nice. So again, how is the succubus being nice?

If I'm cuddling you, it doesn't outright mean I love you, it may just mean I want physical intimacy and security.

Ok so youre using me for your own gain, and when youre done with me intend to murder me in the worst possible way.

how is the succubus being nice again?


Tarik Blackhands wrote:

Even if they can be redeemed, that doesn't mean that's your default modus opperendi. Even Shelyn, the goddess with the most hug-boxy paladin code written, encourages cleaving someone in half with a glaive if they're threatening the innocent (or art). Hell, even Ms Redemption herself, Sarenrae, has it codified that servants of Rovagug are kill on contact and people trying to take advantage of your mercy deserve no quarter.

which i agree with. Having rules saying "dont be stupid" does not mean redemption shouldnt be your first priority, it just means you shouldnt have other alternatives if it is impossible.

But you should still prioritize it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Baval wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Baval wrote:
Rysky wrote:
I'll have to tell all those friendly Contract Devils and Cuddly Succubi that since they're being nice they're slipping into Good.
how exactly are they being nice?
Cuddling.

depends on motive. If the Succubus is cuddling for love, yep shes heading towards good. Most likely the vast amount of other evils shes doing will outweight that, but there is some goodness in her (which a Paladin might be able to exploit to redeem her)

If shes cuddling to suck the soul out of a victim, thats not something I would call nice.

Soul sucking evil, cuddling nice.

What if we held hands? Does a coffee date count as an intimate moment? Can I introduce her to my parents?


Chess Pwn wrote:
Baval wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
3) That's NOT the good thing to do. The GOOD thing to do is to kill evil creatures that are bent on disrupting the law abiding folk.

No, that is the just thing to do. The GOOD thing to do is to respect all life and not cause undue suffering. The good thing to do therefore is to stop the evil creatures while causing as little harm as possible.

The neutral thing to do is to kill them because its the easiest way to stop them.

Pretty sure there are LOTS of G deities that are all about killing enemies and evil doers. Ragathiel, iomedae, saranrae even has it if they aren't going to be redeemed are some that come to mind off hand.

GOOD CAN be what you say it is. But that isn't the only GOOD presented in Pathfinder.

Well, we can't expect those deities to try to perform at a Paladin's level, can we? A Paladin is supposed to be the epitome of good, head and shoulders above the rest.


What everyone's getting at is while redemption first is certainly one way to roll a paladin (especially Sarenraen ones or Shelyn ones), it's not the ONLY way. As the saying goes, Lawful Good does not necessarily mean Lawful Nice. It's perfectly valid to play a paladin who declares "The orcs/bandits/demons have made their choice, now let them reap what they've sown" followed by a sword to the face. Or more simply taking the most expedient way of protecting the innocent by way of slaughtering the marauding band of goblins. A paladin is under no obligation to be a nice guy. Just a good guy.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh no

What have I doooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn nnnnneeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sundakan wrote:

Oh no

What have I doooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn nnnnneeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

It's over now. The paladins have claimed the thread and they're falling down to the bottom. Your only hope is to use more succubi grapples.

201 to 250 of 415 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Strangest argument for or against a ruling? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.