| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The GM is being a jerk.
You have an evil character who is threatening to kill a family/child in the event they get free. You have no means to secure the prisoner to prevent the murder. You have no authority to turn them over to.
The only options are (essentially) let them go free and murder a family, or to kill them.
That's not even a choice. You execute the prisoner. AND IT'S NOT EVIL. Paladins are allowed to perform executions as agents of good and law.
It would actually be evil to not execute them since they're practically guaranteed to murder people afterwards.
What PFS scenario is this?
Killing the poisoner is definitely not evil.
It is however, unlawful and not befitting a paladin. It's entirely possible that the paladin would have to go inform the authorites, or go outside to examine the lovely rustic peasant architecture (leaving the rougue alone with the prisoner) , but he can't kill her.
The Chaotic Good rogue taking justice into their own hands in a town where law only exists to perpetuate evil? Totally their thing.
A few other problems:
1) 1 evil act does not make your alignment evil.
2) From the guide: Characters who become wantonly evil by performing
vile actions deliberately and without motive or
provocation are retired from the campaign. This
measure is a last resort; there is more than one way to
play a given alignment
It might go on your permanant record, but it doesn't immediately boot you from the campaign.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So yesterday during pfs, the following situation occured.
In short, we were infiltrating a lawless town were the aspis society and pirates crime lords are the only established order. One of the goals was to help an pfs aligned achimist who had gone silent.
When we find him, we learn that a local aspis agent has poisoned the alchimist's son and has been giving only small portions of antidote to keep the child weak and the man in check. Naturally, we decide to help him out.
In the next section, we are immediately attacked by the aspis agent/crimelord upon entering her turf (sort of to be expected, we were rolling poorly on social checks thusfar and had been in a fight already). We still manage to win the fight and subdue her.
Then, things get a bit messy.
In short, the aspis agent is constantly mocking us. She refuses to tell us anything about the antidote despite rolls of into the 30's of diplomacy and intimidate. She also heavily implies she will kill the alchimist's family the moment she gets away and that we're not going to harm her anyway since that's not what pathfinders do to prisoners.
Eventually, we do find the antidote nearby.Now, a long argument starts on what to do with the aspis agent. We have no allies in the city who can lock her up. The gnome npc who stepped up to take over her establishment after her thugs were dead and she defeated suggested just killing her, but he couldn't offer any kind of nonlethal assistance. We cannot take her with us since we need to keep as low a profile as possible. We are level 3 to 7 and have no major magic in the party to wipe her memory or do something similarly useful. Tying and leaving the npc was implied to be equal to us willingly letting the nearby gnome npc kill her which would still be an evil act.
Througout all this, the dm keeps insisting that killing the agent is an act of blatant evil and threatens to change mine and our rogue's alignment to evil if he executes her (thus making that character illegal for pfs play). As the...
No, should kill her. Killing can't turn you evil, at most turn you to Neutral (one step), at least just make you fall.
Atonement is an allowed spell so get that become good (or a Paladin) again.Take her with you, tie the NPC up, throw her in your bag of holding with a bottle of air, and forget about her.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Killing the poisoner is definitely not evil.
It is however, unlawful and not befitting a paladin. It's entirely possible that the paladin would have to go inform the authorites, or go outside to examine the lovely rustic peasant architecture (leaving the rougue alone with the prisoner) , but he can't kill her.
Yes he can, where does it say in the Paladin code that a paladin will fall for performing an "unlawful" act? Lawful in this case meaning against the local laws or Law.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is however, unlawful and not befitting a paladin. It's entirely possible that the paladin would have to go inform the authorites, or go outside to examine the lovely rustic peasant architecture (leaving the rougue alone with the prisoner) , but he can't kill her.
It might be against the local law, because the local law is corrupt and formed by an evil "government". You'll note the paladin needs to respect legitimate authority. A paladin would never consider a evil government a legitimate authority.
If anything, it's a lawful act for the paladin to kill the poisoner because it's within his code to "punish those who harm or threaten innocents". It literally couldn't be more the paladins thing.
And in this case the punishment is execution.
It doesn't mean the paladin should be happy about it or enjoy it. He should give a quick clean death, as painlessly as possible. Even pray for the soul of the individual afterwards. Possibly mourn the necessity of the act.
Obviously, the situation is finished, now (mind if I ask what you decided?), but...
Effectively, I agree with the vast majority here: it is not evil, not fall-worthy, and not an alignment ding; if it were an alignment ding, fine, you do what you have to, but as a non-Paladin player, if I were unable to alter the GM's mind, I'd either talk with the VC or lodge a complaint out-of-game. If it changes your alignment, or causes a fellow player to fall, or force-retire a character, I'd make a much stronger complaint.
That said, if this scenario (or something similar enough to be relevant) comes up again, out of character, you can ask the GM what s/he thinks of list of options, like:
- swift execution; this way the fewest people suffer the least
- permanent maiming (notably the hands, possibly a foot); this way she can't poison anyone, or flee effectively; if she states her intent to convince others to murder, and you believe she could, perhaps her tongue should be removed? In any event, it leaves her alive, you can then leave her in the custody of the gnome, and head out; I find this barbaric and awful, myself, but it fits the criteria given; just make sure it's done as quickly as possible, though, to minimize suffering where possible
- stuffing into a barrel; because nothing says "lawful good" like kidnapping, smuggling, and general physical abuse which may endanger the mission anyway
- parading her around, which will cause you to fail the mission
- letting her go, which will directly and soon result in the death of the innocent
- any other possible outcome you can think of
After the session, go to the VC, and present your situation, potential solutions, and the assigned alignment to them. Confirm or get an edited version. Get his sign off. Present this at the table the next time a quandary comes up.
(I suppose you could just go to the VC now with that list or one similar, explain the situation, and note that it's "not intended as a complaint or to throw someone under the bus, but..." situation, making sure to emphasize the good things about the GMing, too, just as you did here; solid post, there, by the way.)
It might be against the local law, because the local law is corrupt and formed by an evil "government". You'll note the paladin needs to respect legitimate authority. A paladin would never consider a evil government a legitimate authority.
How would that be remotely different from chaotic good? Even Chaotic good characters don't bust up good governments.
Look, i understand that not all lawful is lawful. But for a paladin they're kind of tied up. The paladin is acting, alone, without any kind of sanction or liscense to kill from any overarching body or authority. Killing a prisoner under those circumstances is straight up murderhoboing, which is the opposite of lawful. Its dishonerable to kill a prisoner without a trial a defense a ceremony and all that ruckus.
You could choose to leave the Aspis agent unconscious but stable. He's not going to wake up for a few hours, but he'll live.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The paladin is acting, alone, without any kind of sanction or liscense to kill from any overarching body or authority.
Yeah but none of that really matters (though arguably the paladin themselves has authority as a paladin). That's not what the lawful alignment mean.
Its dishonerable to kill a prisoner without a trial a defense a ceremony and all that ruckus.
Not really? I mean hell for a number of paladin codes it's expected behavior.
How would that be remotely different from chaotic good?
In this particular instance a lawful good and chaotic good character would probably come to similar conclusions. Again not seeing a problem with that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Obviously the DM is at fault here and not the player, but the simplest answer I come up with is to pull a Batman and injure the prisoner and give them the "I'm the only one that can help you, change your ways or choose to die on your own this is your one chance" option.
Also, can the prisoner be targeted by Smite Evil?
Give them a fair trial by combat, if they die then it was fair and just.
And you should report the DM.
It differs predominantly in this: a chaotic character would protest (and possibly act outside of) any seemingly heavy-handed interference from any lawful government (and perhaps any government that attempts to assert its authority at the expense of the individual); paladins would protest (and possibly act outside of) any seemingly heavy-handed interference from an evil government.
The chaotic character might not tear down the government, but may well protest our act outside of it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are paladins whose vows require them to give quarter, if honorably requested (Paladins of Iomedae do not operate under that restriction).
This prisoner brags of the evil he will do once loosed: The paladin is perfectly in his rights to act to forestall those actions. That is not an evil act.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Had... Well, not this situation, but another Paladin conundrum come up once. Kill someone who did deserve it, but might still be redeemed, or let him live and potentially redeem himself, at the cost of justice for his victims.
The paladin personally learned towards redemption. His patron deity leaned towards meting out justice. He was torn. Another party ended up stepping in and releasing the guy behind his back so that he didn't have to make a tough choice. They had a heated conversation about it afterwards, but the Paladin was able to both forgive her and stick to his deity's code, as one bit of it was about trusting the judgement of your allies. (He did have to ask her not to make decisions for him behind his back any more, though.)
That was an in-character solution to a more in-character issue, though. I never threatened that paladin with a fall. It was a crisis of alignment that he both invented and resolved in the game. With a more GM-centric problem (which this sounds like), you might need a bit less awesome in-game roleplaying, and a bit more sitting down and trying to talk it out maturely outside the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[
-Do not stabilize the aspis crimelord after the end of the fight, even though there is ample opportunity (seems like murder/evil?)
-Let the crimelord go but willingly allow the npc family to die (definitely evil imo)
That is allowing someone to die. Not killing them. Not evil.
Every day, every hour, every minute a evil act happens. The paladin cant be responsible for letting them happen. The others commit the evil act, not the paladin.
|
[
-Do not stabilize the aspis crimelord after the end of the fight, even though there is ample opportunity (seems like murder/evil?)
-Let the crimelord go but willingly allow the npc family to die (definitely evil imo)
That is allowing someone to die. Not killing them. Not evil.
Every day, every hour, every minute a evil act happens. The paladin cant be responsible for letting them happen. The others commit the evil act, not the paladin.
Then that would be no different then the Paladin walking outside and allowing his party to kill the crimelord. Which in this instance the GM is still ruling is an evil act and is trying to enforce an alignment shift to evil for doing it.
The issue here is simple in Pathfinder, Killing an evil creature is not an evil act, no matter what the circumstances are, you are not performing evil by ridding the world of evil creatures.
The GM was not only wrong, but needs to be severely educated. It's one thing to run a jump skill check contrary to how it's written, or to handle cover rules wrong. It's something totally different to force players NOT to kill the evil boss and allow the evil boss to come back and kill the innocent contacts you have made, because you claim killing an evil creature will make a LG Paladin Fall, and force any Neutral character to become evil.
It differs predominantly in this: a chaotic character would protest (and possibly act outside of) any seemingly heavy-handed interference from any lawful government (and perhaps any government that attempts to assert its authority at the expense of the individual); paladins would protest (and possibly act outside of) any seemingly heavy-handed interference from an evil government.
The chaotic character might not tear down the government, but may well protest our act outside of it.
No. Alignment is deeper than lip service and protests. It's actions or it's nothing. Yes, sometimes that means you don't do the good thing. Anything other than neutral good is by definition going to have to compromise on the good part at some point.
Individuals acting as judge jury and executioner in the middle of a city is chaos. If everyone did that (and thats the deontological veiw that law takes) it would rip society apart in a heart beat. Magister Onda Payroll may in fact be an evil shill of the aspis corporation, but to a lawful character the system he's a part of has value, either in and of itself or as the best means to the best possible outcome.
Or you find a third option. Like i said, go to inform the magistrate. Take your time in the inn, writing a nice long letter informing him of the crimes against her. Put "a report on The state of crime in the city" on the cover and have it delivered to the mayor by the most reliable street urchin a gold can buy. It should reach the mayors attention in about 3 weeks.
note: the DM did in fact inform the paladin before they did it. That's required by PFS rules, so they weren't out to screw the player. But this shows why the rule is neccesary: because there's so many different views on the right way(s) to paladin
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The issue here is simple in Pathfinder, Killing an evil creature is not an evil act, no matter what the circumstances are, you are not performing evil by ridding the world of evil creatures.
Well, no. You could still commit an evil act by killing an evil creature. It's not like you can simply murder them walking down the street. However, this situation isn't that. It's an enemy they've been fighting and who is psycho enough to imply she's going to continue to do exactly what brought them into conflict in the first place. That threat alone plus her previous actions should be enough to leave her assuming room temperature on the floor with clear conscience.
Convert to Ragathiel, as this sort of thing is right up his alley. For Ragathiel, killing your prisoner wouldn't be an act of evil - it would be the path to heaven.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
note: the DM did in fact inform the paladin before they did it. That's required by PFS rules, so they weren't out to screw the player. But this shows why the rule is neccesary: because there's so many different views on the right way(s) to paladin
Unless you have information we don't, this is not correct. The DM only gave warning that there was no possible outcome that wouldn't make the characters shift completely from good aligned to evil aligned. Only the worst imaginable acts can qualify for this severe of an alignment shift (according to all official rules). Killing an evil, unremorseful person to save innocents is not even an evil act.
Basically during combat the bbeg said, "I surrender."
GM then said, " OK, turn in your character sheets as there is no way to not turn evil at this point."
By killing the bad guy the paladin would be acting on the authority of his lawful/good church and or code of conduct. This is the only law and only guidance available to him at this point in time. Nothing evil nor chaotic about it.
Unless you have information we don't, this is not correct. The DM only gave warning that there was no possible outcome that wouldn't make the characters shift completely from good aligned to evil aligned.
I'm not seeing that in the OP's posts.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It might be against the local law, because the local law is corrupt and formed by an evil "government". You'll note the paladin needs to respect legitimate authority. A paladin would never consider a evil government a legitimate authority.How would that be remotely different from chaotic good? Even Chaotic good characters don't bust up good governments.
Look, i understand that not all lawful is lawful. But for a paladin they're kind of tied up. The paladin is acting, alone, without any kind of sanction or liscense to kill from any overarching body or authority. Killing a prisoner under those circumstances is straight up murderhoboing, which is the opposite of lawful. Its dishonerable to kill a prisoner without a trial a defense a ceremony and all that ruckus.
No it's not.
It's different from CG because the paladin is in fact following his code to the fullest extent possible by punishing an individual intent on causing further harm to others. If a institution were available to imprison the individual that would be the best choice. But circumstances of their location mean that the only reasonable course of action is for the party to act. The paladin is a representative of divine justice, and completely able to execute justice in the absence of other good governments/institutions to do so.
You're trying to apply modern legal codes to what is essentially a medieval world, it just doesn't work that way. The NPC said "I'm going to kill the family if you let me go", after poisoning the child. No trial is necessary at that point, it's an admission of guilt and intent to do further harm.
If your GM wants to ignore the entire PFS guide, then you could simply call her to a duel to the death and execute her during the duel.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The answer is simple. Ask the GM "In your game world what would my character know to be the right choices?" If the GM doesn't give you an answer that would preserve your character's alignment then you calmly get up from the table and leave. If it is PFS then I believe that you can report the situation.
Then that would be no different then the Paladin walking outside and allowing his party to kill the crimelord. Which in this instance the GM is still ruling is an evil act and is trying to enforce an alignment shift to evil for doing it.[
-Do not stabilize the aspis crimelord after the end of the fight, even though there is ample opportunity (seems like murder/evil?)
-Let the crimelord go but willingly allow the npc family to die (definitely evil imo)
That is allowing someone to die. Not killing them. Not evil.
Every day, every hour, every minute a evil act happens. The paladin cant be responsible for letting them happen. The others commit the evil act, not the paladin.
Yes, it is. A lot different. See the paladin willingly and continuously associates with that party.
But I do agree that it's not really all that evil.
Knowledge (Local) DC 10: Know local laws, rulers, and popular locations
Assuming the paladin or rogue aren't from the local area, they could roll to know what the laws are from their homeland. Medieval societies didn't have prisons, because prisons are expensive, almost exorbitantly so. In modern parlance, it costs $30-60k per year to imprison someone, which is as much money as a moderately skilled laborer makes (which is more than unskilled labor).
Historically, there were no prisons. Castles converted rooms to imprison people when necessary, or sometimes had small jails, but these were very small. Smaller than a typical apartment (maybe bigger than a NYC apartment). They were temporary holding locations until the magistrate/lord/someone could preside over their case and issue punishment.
You weren't given punishments of serving time, because that was expensive. You were given whippings, beatings, maimings and execution, depending on the severity of the crime.
During medieval periods the public would often become angry if punishments weren't severe or enacted often enough. Sometimes lords would grant pardons if offenders joined their army for a set period of time. People demanded justice though, and too many military service pardons could generate an unruly mob.
Since there's no legitimate legal authority in the area, the paladin should take it upon themselves to administer justice as best they are able. Attempted murder, assault, and threats to murder should be enough to warrant a death penalty. In medieval England, the typical sentence was hanging.
For the paladin to fall, it needs to be shown that punishment was unwarranted and malicious. Otherwise, the paladin is merely doing their duty.
No it's not.
It very much is.
It's different from CG because the paladin is in fact following his code to the fullest extent possible by punishing an individual intent on causing further harm to others.
I'm following some broad and subjective guidelines is not sufficient structure for lawful.
If a institution were available to imprison the individual that would be the best choice. But circumstances of their location mean that the only reasonable course of action is for the party to act. The paladin is a representative of divine justice, and completely able to execute justice in the absence of other good governments/institutions to do so.
The law isn't working so take the law into your own hands. You, the individual, are better able to judge the situation than the system is the motto of chaos.
You're trying to apply modern legal codes to what is essentially a medieval world
Okay, that has passed subjective evaluation and gone straight to horsefeathers. Objectively wrong horsefeathers.
The idea that you cannot flat out murder someone when they're tied up and sitting at your feet is NOT in any sense of the word a modern invention. It's older than modern, it's older than medieval, it's older than biblical. Civilization was not a 20th century invention. If anything medievalry chivalry codes were even tighter about that sort of thing. (the code. Not the actual practice)
it just doesn't work that way. The NPC said "I'm going to kill the family if you let me go", after poisoning the child. No trial is necessary at that point, it's an admission of guilt and intent to do further harm.
No trial is MORALLY necessarily past that point. Legally, either as the actual legal or the social order, it is. A paladin has to respect legitimate authority. That doesn't mean Good authorities. The town has taxes, public services, laws, courts etc. They are a legitimate government and while we don't have the entire legal code of blodecove I'm pretty sure "no murdering" is in there.
You're treating lawful good as extra good. Double plus good. more good than the other goods and it's not. It's holding two sometimes mutually contradictory ideas and yes, its supposed to be hard. Its supposed to require other solutions on the table. A and B are both problematic for a paladin, pick options C, D or E. I outlined some of those above.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was a GM at a table a few feet away from where this happened. Note that I'm pretty close with the offending GM and don't know OP at all, so I might not be impartial. Just wanted to get that out there.
The GM for that game takes the fiction pretty seriously. I don't know the full details and I've only skimmed the thread, but read all posts my OP. I don't know what the outcome for your Paladin was, but it's a difficult situation. Normally, tying up a combatant, interrogating him/her, then executing that person is an evil act (I've GMed an adventure that had the same situation happen, the players effectively kidnapped a high-ranking officer of the watch who turned out to be NE. I reasoned killing her would be evil, as she's just doing her job, but freeing her would jeopardise the situation. I ruled that they kept her tied up until the mission's finished and they're leaving town. They don't need to get in anymore, the guardperson lives). That person is effectively a PoW, and they have rights. But sometimes PFS scenarios don't offer a good solution for these kinds of situations. The GM said to me he had a solution in mind, but you didn't reach that conclusion.
My personal view on the situation: releasing that person would've been a death sentence for that family. I agree with what's been said upthread and say that killing the alchemist isn't evil. She confessed to a crime, and because there aren't any authorities to hand her over to, a Paladin is justified to execute that person. Another option would've been, as also suggested, to take her along to Absalom and get her tried there.
Please don't hold this incident against him, I'm pretty sure the GM didn't want to single you out specifically. These are just the kind of things you need to be careful of when playing a Paladin. These situations can happen. The GM just wanted to handle this delicately in-universe and maybe went a little too far with it. Alignment interpretations are just tricky things, and as you can see can lead to big debates. I hope this didn't lead to anything nasty in-game or any bad feelings out of game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My reaction would have been as simple as this:
The alchemist is an active, unrepentant threat to innocent life. The alchemist needs to die. If this is an evil act, I will seek atonement when the mission is complete.
Besides, a Paladin only 'falls' for committing an evil act. A legitimate execution like this is no where near EVIL enough to instantly change their alignment to Evil. I'd explain that to the DM/GM and then get the game moving again. If he changes the alignment to Evil, that is when you appeal the decision after the game. YOU ARE A PALADIN! DO NOT LET EVIL HOLD YOU HOSTAGE WITH BAD/WORSE ULTIMATUMS!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually BNW that does mean they respect good-ish authority rather than all authority. An evil authority is not legitimate to them. This was added to avoid the lawful stupid situations of a Paladin entering a land where Paladins are outlawed and falling for breaking said law, or they find a city where the law is a child has to be sacrificed every month and not being able to do anything about it. Just because someone is in charge does not make them legimate. Just because it is a law does not make it legitimate.
A Paladin does not put Law above Good.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Quentin, I don't know how to convince you but I really recommend having a lot of alignment flexibility in PFS games. Ethics is such a complex field that summing it up on two sliding scales is a laughable simplification. To grab the lowest hanging fruit, a Kantian Ethics Paladin could go to blows with a Consequentialism Ethics Paladin, both insisting that the other was committing evil, while both being LG. This would be fun a topic to explore in a home game, but PFS is open to all and sometimes a player just wants to smite evil and swing an earthbreaker.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For those arguing the act is unlawful, this is an irrelevant argument. Even if the gm threatened to switch their alignment to chaotic, they could still play their character (and later atone if needed). The problem is the severity of threatening to change their alignment complexly from good to evil for one act that is at worst morally grey. Turning them to evil is essentially killing their character because the GM chose to put them in a situation where the only solution was to do the random thing he was thinking of. Anything less and it's game over.
This is not acceptable in a home game, much less so in a pfs game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Quentin, I don't know how to convince you but I really recommend having a lot of alignment flexibility in PFS games. Ethics is such a complex field that summing it up on two sliding scales is a laughable simplification. To grab the lowest hanging fruit, a Kantian Ethics Paladin could go to blows with a Consequentialism Ethics Paladin, both insisting that the other was committing evil, while both being LG. This would be fun a topic to explore in a home game, but PFS is open to all and sometimes a player just wants to smite evil and swing an earthbreaker.
Oh, I totally agree. PFS is supposed to be easily accessible, and playing a Paladin is always tricky due to the alignment thing. I was just saying that it might happen again and to not think of it as a personal thing, but something inherent to the class. I was busy GMing my own table so I didn't really help, but yeah, in PFS Paladins shouldn't get that tight a leash. Especially since the length of that leash can differ from GM to GM, so the player never really knows what to expect. But if the Paladin starts coup de grâcing every opponent after they outlive their usefulness, I'd have a good look at my code again.
Actually BNW that does mean they respect good-ish authority rather than all authority. An evil authority is not legitimate to them.
Absolutely not. It says legitimate authority. If it wanted to say non evil authority that would have been an easier game term to use. They didn't do that.
Just because someone is in charge does not make them legimate. Just because it is a law does not make it legitimate.
I uphold laws i agree with makes lawful good (and thus paladins) indistinct and unrecognizable from any other good. Everyone upholds the laws and traditions that they agree with
Too much pressure to conform to an ideal and you have paladins by exclusion (its an impossible contradiction, no one does it)
This is the opposite. its including every possible action as lawful good. It washes out the black and white.. (or in this case maybe blue and orange) into one indiscernable shad of....*google* brown.
A Paladin does not put Law above Good.
I am not arguing that they are. If given an irresolvable delima they pick good over law, BUT you have to try.
Being lawful good means that there are times when you're going to be less good than you otherwise might. If you were only good, all the time, without any other concerns you would be neutral good. Lawful good by definition means you're going to pick law over some other actions.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins don't change the laws they uphold because they are in a different town. They are there by the authority that has given them the title paladin and will continue to abide by their rules. While they may respect authority of laws of the land while traveling as long as they don't conflict with their "home law" the local laws do not hold any sway over their paladinhood.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a fairly recent PFS adventure where a lot of players have complained that the final encounter is a "Paladin trap." In short, you're being wrongfully detained by evil persons who are upholding the (evil and oppressive) law of the country. It's made clear that if you comply, it means character death. Apparently, a lot of Paladin players have trouble with fighting these people, because fighting these people would mean you're fighting the law. The consensus of that thread is that you're allowed to fight back because a) you're rounded up under false pretenses, and b) just because it's the law of this country, it doesn't mean it's the same law you swore to uphold. As a Paladin, you're allowed to break this law if it's for your own life, and if it goes against your own belief. You wouldn't fall just because you're not agreeing to cooperate with people who have stated they want you dead.
But yeah, same applies here, I think. You don't recognise this place as a place you have faith in, so you're allowed to deviate from that. That opens up a whole can of worms about how to determine which cities you trust, and how far you can stray from that (a LG Paladin wouldn't trust a CE city with his prisoners, but would he trust a CG, or even a CN city?), but that's not the issue here.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As always, alignment (both good vs evil and law vs chaos) is a tricky beast, in large part because pretty much every player and GM has their own interpretation of it ;) We live in a subjective, postmodern world where there is no One Truth, but Golarion is a world in which Good and Evil are opposing forces. This can make it very difficult to adjudicate fairly on matters which many of us consider subjective, such as ethics.
By at least my standards as player and GM, I would argue that killing someone is never a good act for any reason, but it also isn't automatically an evil act. Killing someone who will otherwise do harm to innocents if they are not stopped is done by adventuring heroes all the time; in fact, killing the BBEG because they cannot otherwise be prevented from doing evil is the whole point of many adventures. Looking at the issue of the paladin and the captive poisoner...
In a lawless town, a paladin is effectively the closest thing to a wandering magistrate. This doesn't mean she is a vigilante (who ignores the law). It means that she must judge the case according to the laws she values and upholds (obviously, a LG set of laws), and the availability of a just and lawful authority to whom she might defer. The process is straightforward:
This act is not evil, for it is not done out of selfishness, cruelty, callous expedience, or generally evil intent. The paladin is not trying to rationalize her actions (I would argue that a paladin should never rationalize, but that's besides the point) - this is historically the way that the law functions in otherwise lawless regions. The point of being lawful in a lawless town is that she never ignores the laws she holds dear, and abides by them as much as circumstance can possibly allow.
Killing this woman is certainly not a merciful act, but paladins are not usually required to show mercy to those who have no remorse for their crimes and are willing to commit greater ones out of spite. The fact that she is unarmed at the time of her execution is irrelevant. Typically, criminals are not armed prior to being hanged, beheaded, or executed by other means for their crimes – but that doesn't make the judicial systems of all nations evil for sentencing hardened criminals to death.
So the way I see it, the execution of this woman (a self-declared impenitent criminal who will offend again) is a lawful and neutral act, and should not cause a paladin to fall, never mind change anyone else's alignment.
But of course, as I mentioned at the start, people have different ideas of what constitutes the various alignments. I have had players claiming to be good say that killing anyone who wasn't part of their nation was totally justified and righteous, and others playing lawful characters argue that the law is inherently subjective and only evil fundamentalists believed in applying objective law.
*shrug* Either way, I've added my 2 cents ;)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@BNW they don't say "non-evil" authority because some Evil people may be legimate in their authority, that does not mean that all Evil people and governments are legimate nor does it mean that all leaders and governments are legitimate just by nature of being in charge.
"I uphold laws I agree with" is EXACLTY what makes a character LG/LE, rather than LN.
My view of a Paladin is Good tempered by Law, not a perfect balance of Good and Law. If it comes down to doing what is Lawful or what is Good the Paladin should always choose Good over Law. The fact that the Paladin doesn't auto-fall for doing a single Chaotic act is telling there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I disagree with you too BNW. Following that philosophy there couldn't have been any Paladins on the rebellion fighting against the Empire in Star Wars.
As far as the current situation, again read the PFS rules. The GM doesn't have the authority to immediately make you evil. At most they can give you an alignment infraction and it takes many infractions to change your alignment to change If the GM decides that you've earned enough to change alignment, he has to get approval from a Venture Officer. It also says that every god will forgive one lapse.
@BNW they don't say "non-evil" authority because some Evil people may be legimate in their authority, that does not mean that all Evil people and governments are legimate nor does it mean that all leaders and governments are legitimate just by nature of being in charge.
And the mayor of bloodcove is illegitimate to call for no murder because...?
An illegitimate authority would be a catfolk bandit setting up shop and saying "i am the king of the forest!", or the prince stabbing his older brother and taking the throne, or someone tacking a private property sign up in the sewer. Yes, bloodcoves government is greedy corrupt and bribed, but it's still the government. Some attempt has to be made to preserve the system and the murderhobo approach is no effort at all.
"I uphold laws I agree with" is EXACLTY what makes a character LG/LE, rather than LN.
Or chaotic good. Or neutral good. Or neutral. or chaotic evil. Or Some varieties of lawful neutral. Even chaotic neutral characters don't run around kicking puppies because there's a law against it.
My view of a Paladin is Good tempered by Law, not a perfect balance of Good and Law. If it comes down to doing what is Lawful or what is Good the Paladin should always choose Good over Law.
There is absolutely no tempering of law going on here. Thats the problem. The paladin wants to take the easy way out instead of the right way out, and that is not what being a paladin is all about.
He is not being forced into that quandary in this case. He has dozens of other options besides murder
(KO! Grab the family and run)
Take her out to sea, have the captain try her. Benray Loves that sort of evenings entertainment. (I'm pretty sure there's a 205 level course on how to move through town with a dead/unconcious body at the pathfinderacadamy: Weekend at burnies, how to act loose while walking with a stiff )
Yes, some of them may also be illegal/disruptive to the norms of society , but murder is kind of a biggie and if you have to remove a mattress tag or commit murder, you take off the mattress tag.
The fact that the Paladin doesn't auto-fall for doing a single Chaotic act is telling there.
I really need people to stop arguing against things i'm not saying.
It's like people have been burned so often by people looking to wreck paladins over that they've gone to the opposite extreme to put no limits on the paladin what so ever.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Save the paladin - gank the GM :p
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In 139 games of PFS (star so close i can taste it...) I have pre emptively warned a paladin against doing something twice.
Once was to point out that a normally-a-monster race was in a country where the monsters are citizens , and that one in particular had an all official looking badge of some sort.
Another was that, after clanking some knowledge local checks, the people that the party were chasing were merely competing archeologists who had done nothing illegal or wrong that the party new about. You cannot gank someone in the open desert just for trying to beat you to an archeological site.
Both times, rather than holding the party back, the warning helped the party towards their second prestige point. (for the non pfs folks, thats a good thing for them)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see where the GM thinks killing the agent with a coup de grace is an evil act.
She's evil, the confessed to crimes, she's unrepentant. The sentence justice demands is quite obvious.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Both times, rather than holding the party back, the warning helped the party towards their second prestige point. (for the non pfs folks, thats a good thing for them)
Because you are a decent person and a quality GM :)
I don't see where the GM thinks killing the agent with a coup de grace is an evil act.
She's evil, the confessed to crimes, she's unrepentant. The sentence justice demands is quite obvious.
Justifiable homicide is kind of a hard concept for some people to process.
quillblade: However, a lawful good character will not honor a law that runs contrary to his alignment. A government may believe that unregulated gambling provides a harmless diversion, but a lawful good character may determine that the policy has resulted in devastating poverty and despair. In this character's mind, the government is guilty of a lawless act by promoting an exploitative and destructive enterprise. In response, he may encourage citizens to refrain from gambling, or he may work to change the law
Working in the system. Not burn down the gambling hall or rob it oceans 11 style.
That site is also past suspect by saying that a CG character won't use poison.
