| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.
Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has some respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is generally honest, but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.
Lawful Good: A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
Lawful good combines honor with compassion.
Neutral Good: A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them.
Neutral good means doing what is good and right without bias for or against order.
Chaotic Good: A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he's kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.
Chaotic good combines a good heart with a free spirit.
Lawful Neutral: A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.
Lawful neutral means you are reliable and honorable without being a zealot.
Neutral: A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn't feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos (and thus neutral is sometimes called "true neutral"). Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character probably thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she's not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.
Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.
Neutral means you act naturally in any situation, without prejudice or compulsion.
Chaotic Neutral: A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn't strive to protect others' freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those others suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as he is to cross it.
Chaotic neutral represents freedom from both society's restrictions and a do-gooder's zeal.
Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features (including the service of the paladin's mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any further in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description in Spell Lists), as appropriate.
Did I get everything we're arguing about?
Please feel free to continue.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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,...
Thanks. I realise looking back that the first post in it's entirety could be read as 'do you agree that this DM ruling sucks?' but it's not intended that way. I do really respect his roleplaying skills and the rest of the session was overall enjoyable. What I wanted to get was some advice on what to do in this situation and get some other people's opinions on the entire thing, since at that moment I felt trapped without any way out.
On how it eventually ended: I was three seconds away from making a snap decision to execute the prisoner despite the algnment change thing since I saw no other option, the thing was really dragging on and I noticed some OOC annoyance coming up. Then:
-(from the bloodrager player, suddenly and in exasperation): "This is rediculous! I tie her up. I say to her that we've beaten her before and that we know where to find her if she goes wrong again."
-(intimidate check gets rolled, gets a 7 total).
-The aspis agent (clearly unimpressed, again): "Ok."
-Bloodrager player: "Ok, let's go guys, we're out." (Bloodrager leaves.)
-Everyone decides to follow in the end, the rogue lingers behind to still try and execute her after everyone else leaves but gets an alignment warning again. Eventually, he leaves her too, probably also not seeing a better option.
So basically, we left her to the gnome npc. The GM then accepted this ( to my surprise, considering the whole alignment thing) as a nonevil act and we were then allowed to walkd away without a penalty.
I decided to post this here since personally I didn't really see how leaving her to be presumably executed by her direct competitor, who has directly stated that we should just kill her just like she herself stated that she would kill the npc family, is any less evil than doing it yourself. And the other options seemed just as bad. But I really did not want to drag on the thing any more and we just went to the next scene.
|
|
| 2 people 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...
Thanks for the insight. Honestly I didn't really expect this thread to reach like +/- 100 posts.
I don't hold any personal grudges over this. Yes, I did feel like I was in some kind of alignment trap without a good (no puns intended) way out but it is realistic that sometimes you end up in a very grey area on what you can or should do. That I then happen to play a character class who has the presumably harshest restrictions on code of conduct probably made it worse. I do feel that maybe the GM should have done something earlier to break up the ongoing argument (and preventing the huge momentum loss/slowly inscreasing annoyance in the session) by perhaps allowing the gnome npc to give more advice or aid rather than just saying: 'nope, can't help you, you should just kill her.'
However, it was a completely new situation and that has it's freshness in a way. Also, I did learn a lot of things from reading the debate on the alignment issue here and also grot a few creative options that none of us at the table thought of, which is defitnitely useful and was also fun to read.
And like I said before, I'd like to emphasise that the rest of the session was well done in my opinion. I never would have been able to pull off the super-hilarious Irish accent Aspis guards jumping us 3 encounters further on (the city was on super high alert by then due to us failing really hard in staying inconspicious, oops) which had me laughing uncontrollably for like the entire duration :)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a hard one, I ran into this before and when it came down to it my Paladin jumped on his sword. Killed the bad guy because they were irredemable and threaten to murder the innocent. Though he gave them several chances they didn't flinch, so in the name of protecting the innocent, the Paladin accept his fate. Lost his power and atoned, harshly, for what he had done.
10/10 would do so again. Don't think taunting a protector of the innocent means you get a 'I get to live because your code sucks' card. Totall went games of throne like Ned Stark with a greatsword and that ended the threats, permanently.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OP: Surprised at this thread reaching 100+ posts?
I'm surprised it hasn't hit 500+ and locked because of flaming!
GMs go for the whole good/evil thing cause its perceived as being 'easy'. Still waiting to see a 'Paladin Falls because he done Chaotic' thread.
Like I said this sort of thing happens because everyone has a different view on what is on the Paladin's 'Don't do' list. That is why I always do a Code of Conduct for Paladins, Clerics and Druids to show a GM before play so we both know what to expect.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
As the GM the OP is referring to, and apparently the dick and terrible GM in the eyes people I've never met before and who don't even know my side of the story yet, I'd like to share my point of view and point a few things out:
The woman never poisoned the child. The boy was sick, the woman provided medicine in return for having the alchemist make drugs for her. However, she watered down the medicine to the point the child wouldn't die, but also would not recover (quickly). That way she'd have a continuous supply of drugs.
More importantly I never said that tying the evil guy up was not an option. The few times that the players thought about tying her up were met with other players saying 'but then she'll escape so we can't do that'. At which point the player that suggested tying her up would reply with 'you're probably right'. I deliberately stayed out of that conversation as to not influence the final decision you guys would make.
This however meant that the discussion turned into 'we either kill her, or set her free'. In hindsight, I could (and should) have said something about that. I would have been perfectly fine with you just locking her up in a room. Not once did I say that was a bad idea. I however also didn't say it would be a good solution, and that's something I as a GM handled very poorly: I stayed too much on the background during this portion of the session. It's something I'll try and improve on. I'm honestly happy that the OP brought this up and I hope to talk to him, as well as the others, to gather feedback on how to better handle similar situation next time.
I did, however, say multiple times that to me just killing her felt like an evil act. I mean, I can understand why you'd want to kill her and I can understand the reasons behind it, but at the same I personally consider it as still taking someone's life, which makes you a murderer regardless of your intentions. It's the same way I view the death penalty in real life, which you're free to disagree on.
I also did state that I wasn't sure if your alignment would shift to evil or not because of this. I said that it would be something I'd have to check. If anything, I don't want a PC to drop down to evil. I don't want to be the one to tell a Paladin that he's fallen. I want that person to enjoy his character and play out his character, but I wasn't sure how to handle this particular situation. That's also why I asked a nearby GM what his thought were. I did not have a fixed result in mind, though it might have come across differently. After all: I didn't want the paladin to fall and/or the rogue to become evil, while I myself was in doubt, so I said that killing her was perhaps not the best solution. Again in hindsight, I should have been more open about me being in dubio towards the players.
In short, it was a difficult situation for me and I wasn't sure how to handle this properly. I struggled with the situation just as much as the players were. In the end I resolved it differently, avoiding the whole situation of 'will it be evil or not?'. That way I would stop second-guessing myself, make sure the player wouldn't get penalized if it indeed turned out to be an evil act and get the session going again.
Long story short: while the party was still debating what to do, I let the Bloodrager successfully convince the alchemist and his family to join the Scarab Sages. They would leave the city with the party, so they would no longer be in harm's way, meaning that even if she somehow miraculously got free, the bad guy couldn't exact revenge. The paladin wouldn't have to kill her and the family would be safe. Whether or not the new owner of the bar killed his former boss while the party is busy doing other tasks in the city, well, that's something left best to the players imagination because I honestly have no clue.
Now if not being entirely certain something is an evil act or not, is me being a dick or a terrible GM, then I guess I'm guilty. Actions have consequences, so if it indeed was an act evil enough to force a character to drop down in alignment, I will have to act accordingly after the scenario is over but it's not as if that's my goal, let alone something I want to have happen in the first place. I admit to having struggled there and not having handled the situation in the best way, I'm not ashamed of saying that. I however do not force my will upon a party and I will not make a character drop down in alignment against his will when I'm in doubt or when there's an other option available. I will continue to look with the party to find a suitable solution instead, though next time a bit more actively if required.
That said, I do hope that regardless of this incident the players had a fun time and I hope that they can provide me with some suggestions on how to handle similar situations better next time. I'm running the sessions for them, not for myself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's the same way I view the death penalty in real life, which you're free to disagree on.
Keep in mind that the pathfinder morality system has a LG God of executions, so rl aside, this is a bad starting point for the determining the morality allowable in a pathfinder game.
The difference between poisoning the kid and being a pharmaceutical shill was probably what was driving a lot of the disconnect.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Keep in mind that the pathfinder morality system has a LG God of executions, so rl aside, this is a bad starting point for the determining the morality allowable in a pathfinder game.
Fair point, though it still illustrates my thoughts about the whole situation and emphasizes that I struggle with it on a personal level. It will, however, make it easier to make a proper call next time, I suppose, so thank you :)
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I think dueling the GM to the death is forbidden by the PVP clause. Also local criminal statutes.
---
As an aside, let's keep two separate issues separate.
1) Paladins shouldn't be faced with "fall if you do, fall if you don't" scenarios. In most cases those are extremely contrived and fall apart if you analyze them through the lens of the paladin's code. They reek of adversarial GMing. Fortunately PFS avoids these.
In this particular case it would have been good for the paladin player to ask "if my god will be angry with me if I do nothing, what does he want me to do then?" - and then do that thing. In this case there was a third option the GM had in mind. I think in such dilemmas it's good for the GM to be more forthcoming if the players get stuck in an unproductive train of thought.
2) Paladins are a liability in undercover scenarios. If only because they're generally not allowed to lie. If you bring a paladin to an infiltration mission you take the risk that you end up in a "fail the mission or fail your faith" situation. Generally you can see infiltrations coming if you read the scenario blurb so pick a different PC or a pregen to play those, or be ready for the consequences.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you asking me that as a player, GM or person in general?
Player: That would be simple, I'd reconcile it poorly. I would not play that character personally as it will not sit with me for obvious reasons. I'd find it hard to distance myself from my believes. If others play it, no problem.
GM: Right now, which is after reading this thread and thinking about it, I'd see it as something that in the eyes of his god is the right thing to do and as such wouldn't necessarily be an evil act. I'd rule that person could go ahead without penalties. However, I don't believe that was the deity of the paladin this game.
Person: I'd respect their ideology, but I wouldn't agree with it.
Basically, what I've learned is to ask for the paladin's code when a similar situation arises as that can solve the issue much easier, as well as be more open about possible solutions.
Basically, what I've learned is to ask for the paladin's code when a similar situation arises as that can solve the issue much easier, as well as be more open about possible solutions.
A paladin's deity specific code is a supplement to, not a replacement for, the general paladins code. They still have to live up to the general code , but the diety code tells them how they go about doing that. Torn between justice and mercy the Paladin of Torag definitely leans more towards justice and a shelynite towards mercy. Both have to maintain a lawful good alignment and honorable conduct.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've never really looked into Paladin codes, but is it written anywhere you cannot lie, ever? It's just suicide if you can't lie to save the group. Of course, they can't deny they're a Paladin, he can lie about what he's doing in this town. If Bloodcove's full of people out to straight up murder good guys, you're not going to announce your Paladin-ness wherever you go.
Also, now I've got this scene in my head:
*A Paladin goes to visit his family.*
Paladin's mom, over dinner: "Oh yes, little Johnny's my favourite child. Always so obedient, always helping other people out in the name of Sarenrae. And do you know why he's become such a big boy, Billy? It's because he always ate his lentils. It's always been his favourite vegetable, isn't it, Johnny?"
*A single tear streaks down John the Radiant's face.*
EDIT: I looked it up, the CRB says "act with honor (not lying, not cheating...)." I personally find white lies and lies for self-preservation don't fall under that, but that's just me. I'm still sour because of that one time I lost my Paladin powers in a PbP because when I wasn't online for a few hours someone executed some tied-up Goblins and I didn't stop them.
I've never really looked into Paladin codes, but is it written anywhere you cannot lie, ever?
Code of Conduct
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
So while there's a large amount of disagreement over what honor means, lying and poison are the two specific examples we have.
It's just suicide if you can't lie to save the group.
No. I've seen paladins work around that before.
"Are you a pathfinder?
"Get lost before I gut you like a trout
A paladin of a goddess was asked to swear an oath to lissala, and came up with a very good one answering to "my lady" without specifying lissala.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something to remember is that alignments are not groups of mutually exclusive actions. Barring a few especially heinous or virtuous actions, most things can be done by someone of any alignment. What matters is why the character does it and the specifics of how they achieve it.
A LG character helps an old lady across the street because he sees it as his moral duty to be benevolent to those around him, and to be an example to others.
A CE character helps an old lady across the street because he's maintaining his cover in civilized society.
The action is the same, and the end result from an outside observer is the same. As omnipotent observers, we know the truth of each character's heart though, so we view them as completely different.
As a GM, this makes alignment a more useful tool. Instead of considering it as a trap to try and drag characters down, it's now something you use to enhance roleplaying. Alignment doesn't define the specific actions the character takes, but rather their attitude while carrying out those actions.
This doesn't mean that characters can do anything, but that if they do something that could be a grey area, they have to justify it adequately in order to maintain consistency of character.
Ah, fair enough. Still, sometimes I get the feeling Paladins get put in unwinnable situations. In your example, you have a player who can think on his feet, but circumstances might not always be equally favourable.
Ah, fair enough. Still, sometimes I get the feeling Paladins get put in unwinnable situations. In your example, you have a player who can think on his feet, but circumstances might not always be equally favourable.
Dumping int and wisdom isn't the best idea when you have to rely on your ability to come up with solutions to moral quandaries and then pick a good one.
I'll add that some deity's codes do supercede the base one in some areas.
For example, Torag's allows lying if it is necessary to save his people.
It does not
My word is my bond. When I give my word formally, I defend my oath to my death. Traps lie in idle banter or thoughtless talk, and so I watch my tongue.
I am at all times truthful, honorable, and forthright, but my allegiance is to my people. I will do what is necessary to serve them, including misleading others if need be.
I respect the forge, and never sully it with half-hearted work. My creations reflect the depth of my faith, and I will not allow flaws save in direst need.
Against my people’s enemies, I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except when strategy warrants. I will defeat them, yet even in the direst struggle, I will act in a way that brings honor to Torag.
Mislead. Not lie.
Hellknight: Have you seen any escaped slaves in the area?
Paladin: No (lie) Not allowed.
Hellknight: Have you seen any escaped slaves in the area?
Paladin: you might want to look in the alleyway behind the three roses. (hey, they might be there)
Not a lie. very misleading.
Yeah, horsecrap, that's a lie. And if a Paladin falls for *either* answer, that's a good sign that it's not a table worth playing at. Lying to slavers about escaped slaves is a moral obligation.
Yeah, horsecrap, that's a lie. And if a Paladin falls for *either* answer, that's a good sign that it's not a table worth playing at. Lying to slavers about escaped slaves is a moral obligation.
It's not a lie. Its definitely misleading. If you think it's too close to the line, fine. Find something a little further in.
A paladin does fall for the first one.
Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Ex-Paladins
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features
Just because its moral doesn't mean that a paladin can do it. Again, the paladin is being treated as double plus good, gooder than good good and he's not. He is lawful good and has a strict code of conduct, which is going to get in the way of doing the right thing sometimes, or at least make if far more difficult to do the right thing sometimes.
That is the sort of situation they make an atonement for "ACK! Morals and ethics were at complete opposites!" not slaughtering peasants costs you 500 gp a pop to get your class abilities back
act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth),
See, I actually disagree with this BECAUSE of this very quote.
Lying is not specifically called out. Acting with honor is. Lying may be an example of that, but it is not necessarily.
That's because, when acting with honor, one should not lie about their accomplishments. If you lie about slaying a dragon, that's acting dishonorably.
Also, lying to trick a foe to get them to turn their back would be dishonorable.
So lying in those sorts of situations are example of things that are dishonorable - but not all lies have to do with honor.
The slaver example - if the paladin isn't planning to attack the slaver while his back is turned, then there's nothing dishonorable about lying to him.
Basically, a lie that offers you a tactical benefit or bragging rights - that benefits you the Paladin directly - is likely to be dishonorable. Meanwhile, lies that protect others - such as lying about the location of escaped slaves, or lying to protect a noblewoman who is being blackmailed - would be an HONORABLE act, and thus not just okay, but practically required by the stipulation to act honorably.
See, I actually disagree with this BECAUSE of this very quote
No. I'm sorry. The words do not mean the exact opposite of what they plainly, clearly, and objectively say because of reasons. The thing it specifically calls out is the thing is specifically calls out. No lies. That isn't remotely in dispute.
90% of the time they are mutually exclusive, but I can see some corner cases in which the Paladin is allowed to lie. But I understand not everyone will see it the same way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The sort of semantics involved in distinguishing 'misleading' from a lie would be like conveniently taking a walk while the rogue does the dirty work of torture--a ridiculous rules lawyer loophole antithetical to the spirit of the paladin. If a Paladin is not allowed to lie, then he is obligated to tell the slave Hunter where the slaves are. And that is ridiculous, because that is inarguably evil. Lying is the moral obligation. And it doesn't conflict with the Paladin code because the deceit does not impugn the paladin's honor, but rather upholds his vows of defending the innocent. To say nothing of the fact that slave hunters are inherently *illegitimate* authorities, because they definitionally abuse their authority to bring cruel and unnecessary harm upon others.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've never really looked into Paladin codes, but is it written anywhere you cannot lie, ever?
I think it was mentioned that on Golarion, deity-specific codes take precedence, the one in the core book was meant to be generic and setting-neutral. Here is the code for Sarenite paladins:
• I will protect my allies with my life. They are my light
and my strength, as I am their light and their strength.
We rise together.
• 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 am fair to others. I expect nothing for myself but that
which I need to survive.
• The best battle is a battle I win. If I die, I can no longer
fight. I will fight fairly when the fight is fair, and I will
strike quickly and without mercy when it is not.
• I will redeem the ignorant with my words and my
actions. If they will not turn toward the light, I will
redeem them by the sword.
• I will not abide evil, and will combat it with steel when
words are not enough. I do not flinch from my faith,
and do not fear embarrassment. My soul cannot be
bought for all the stars in the sky.
• I will show the less fortunate the light of the
Dawnflower. I will live my life as her mortal blade,
shining with the light of truth.
• Each day is another step toward perfection. I
will not turn back into the dark.
That said, I would have asked what the local laws say on torture, kidnapping and poisoning, and if the paladin has any social standing to dispense justice.
Paladins don´t murder, but they sometimes do carry out executions.
The sort of semantics involved in distinguishing 'misleading' from a lie would be like conveniently taking a walk while the rogue does the dirty work of torture--a ridiculous rules lawyer loophole antithetical to the spirit of the paladin. If a Paladin is not allowed to lie, then he is obligated to tell the slave Hunter where the slaves are. And that is ridiculous, because that is inarguably evil. Lying is the moral obligation. And it doesn't conflict with the Paladin code because the deceit does not impugn the paladin's honor, but rather upholds his vows of defending the innocent. To say nothing of the fact that slave hunters are inherently *illegitimate* authorities, because they definitionally abuse their authority to bring cruel and unnecessary harm upon others.
Yes, that's exactly what I mean. This is an extreme case, but if the Paladin isn't supposed to lie, he'll lead an evil man right to his prey. The Paladin always has an option to not reveal the truth and deflect the questions, but I feel like that's unproductive and stupid.
*Slaver has captured Paladin and interrogating/torturing him.*Slaver: "Tell me where the slaves are and I'll set you free."
Paladin: "I hope Torag smites you with his hammer."
Slaver: *Strikes Paladin.* "Okay then, who are you working for?"
Paladin: "Didn't the 'Torag smiting you with his hammer' part tip you off?"
Slaver: "Cheeky one, eh?" *Hits Paladin some more.* "Tell me where I can find someone who's a little more cooperative, then. Someone in your party, perhaps."
Paladin: Never! I'm loyal until my death!"
Slaver: "Until your death? Is that a promise?"
Paladin: "Yes, of course!"
Slaver: "Okay then." *Stabs Paladin, casts Speak with Dead.*
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The sort of semantics involved in distinguishing 'misleading' from a lie would be like conveniently taking a walk while the rogue does the dirty work of torture--a ridiculous rules lawyer loophole antithetical to the spirit of the paladin.
I agree. Proper paladins travel the high road, they're not looking for loopholes.
If a Paladin is not allowed to lie, then he is obligated to tell the slave Hunter where the slaves are.
No, he must refuse to answer the question. Neither lying, nor betraying innocents.
That's why paladins get more and more abilities to resist intimidation, charm, and compulsion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is a paladin obligated to answer any question at all when speaking to a slaver?
Not answering or telling him to go screw himself would be my go to option.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The sort of semantics involved in distinguishing 'misleading' from a lie would be like conveniently taking a walk while the rogue does the dirty work of torture--a ridiculous rules lawyer loophole antithetical to the spirit of the paladin.I agree. Proper paladins travel the high road, they're not looking for loopholes.
If a Paladin is not allowed to lie, then he is obligated to tell the slave Hunter where the slaves are.No, he must refuse to answer the question. Neither lying, nor betraying innocents.
That's why paladins get more and more abilities to resist intimidation, charm, and compulsion.
First part can't be right. If they're Lawful, then logic dictates that they would understand the laws of the land, which would include any potential loopholes. And quite frankly, said Paladin (who assumingly didn't dump Intelligence to become Lawful Stupid/Stupid Good) would be smart enough to know what the loopholes are, how to exploit them (because even if they did, they'd still be acting within the laws of the land), and (in the case of actually following a legitimate authority) know what the intent of said law is, in the event that said loophole is called into question, and they are honor-bound to defend it.
Secondly, he doesn't have to refuse to answer the question. He can simply say "I'm not sure," and he'd be in the clear. Why? Because although he may have heard that so-and-so slaves were going to XYZ, maybe they lied to said Paladin in the event the slavers would come after him, especially if said Paladin didn't do a Sense Motive check.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The sort of semantics involved in distinguishing 'misleading' from a lie would be like conveniently taking a walk while the rogue does the dirty work of torture--a ridiculous rules lawyer loophole antithetical to the spirit of the paladin.
Not at all.
Taking a walk while torture takes place is letting something evil (torture) happen. Misleading is something paladins are called out specifically as being able to do
If a Paladin is not allowed to lie, then he is obligated to tell the slave Hunter where the slaves are. And that is ridiculous
The only thing ridiculous is the false dichotomy here. That absolutely, 100% does not follow, at all. He could flat out tell then "I'm not telling you where they went." Perfectly honorable and straightforward answer. Not smart, but definitely honorable.
Lying is the moral obligation.
You're mixing up paladin and right thing to do. Those are not the same thing.A paladin has moral AND ethical concerns that they have to meet. Just because something is a moral obligation does NOT make it enough for a paladin to do. Morals without ethics is the definition of NEUTRAL good: good without any other consideration. A paladin is lawful good, not extra good. Morally, you cannot aid the slavers. Ethically you can't lie. To be a paladin you need to find a way to do both. Telling him the exact truth that gives him the wrong idea is one way of doing that, and has a long list of examples from fictional paladins.
Yes, if a paladin is absolutely forced to choose between the two he chooses good over order, BUT... he has to at least try to go for both.
Explain how a paladin in your system is supposed to act different than a neutral good warpriest. Or even a chaotic good one. At all.
And it doesn't conflict with the Paladin code because the deceit does not impugn the paladin's honor, but rather upholds his vows of defending the innocent.
That argument would require that those are two distinct catagories and they're not. They overlap. Going full robinhood and robbing the rich to give to the poor would in fact defend the innocent but that is not the paladin's style.
To say nothing of the fact that slave hunters are inherently *illegitimate* authorities, because they definitionally abuse their authority to bring cruel and unnecessary harm upon others.
Absolutely not. You cannot just decide which authorities you will or won't listen to. Thats chaotic.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That isn't remotely in dispute.
*Pauses to look at all the other posts in this thread that are disputing it.*
Clearly there are those who dispute it. Thus clearly the rules are written in a way that invites that dispute. You can support your side, but please don't act like there isn't a discussion with several sides being had in this very thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lawful Good has nothing to do with the laws of the land unless those laws are themselves Good. What you're thinking of is Lawful Neutral. Lawful Good believes in laws, regulations, tradition and collective duty provide essential support for protecting the innocent, spreading prosperity and equality for all, and generally promoting good. Laws that spread evil are utterly anathema to Lawful Good, and no Lawful Good person has any obligation, for example, to hand someone over for sacrifice to the Church of Asmodean simply because they happen to be in Cheliax at the time. That said, the Lawful Good person probably won't provoke a riot against Cheliax as a first resort, and may not want to murder the Asmodean seeking the escaped slaves/sacrifices out of hand, because they are arguably just doing their job, and solving problems by killing within city limits is something to be discouraged as a matter of principle. Where possible, they'd prefer to reform from within, back an anti-Asmodean with a legitimate claim to the throne, or if it comes to outright overthrow, do so with an organized, formal war with enumerated plans and clear objectives--long term solutions to the underlying problems, with a minimum of chaos, collateral damage, and opportunity for the wicked to take advantage of the confusion of transition. They probably didn't organize the escape of the slaves, seeing it as commendable, but a patchwork solution at best--but knowing about it, they will certainly not betray it.
It would be 100% in keeping with a Saerenite or Shelyn Paladin's ethos to pretend to help a slave Hunter find his quarry, misleading them to allow the slaves more time to fully effect their escape, all the while attempting to convince the slaver to give up their hunt and turn away from their evil profession and ways. A Chaotic Good character, frankly, would be a lot more likely to murder them out of hand, because their more individualistic and personal ethical focus cannot ignore the imnediate suffering caused by such villains, and have no respect for tradition and law in principle in the first place. The paladin is concerned about the larger principle of Richard Spencer's freedom of speech, even as he condemns the man's ideas. The Chaotic Good character punches him in the face without hesitation.
Here's an idea. Untie the Aspis agent, give her a dagger and have the Paladin fight her in a duel. End of story.
Clearly there are those who dispute it.
There are people that have a problem with what the words say, or think that the paladin shouldn't fall for a minor act.
The word twisting you did is different, it was given the consideration it deserves, and then tossed with extreme predjudice.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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 worldOkay, 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...
I agree that a broad code allow doesn't represent the entirety of being lawful alone. However, the paladin code does specifically mention punishing those who would harm innocents. You're argument here carries no water because he completely comply with this part of code. Even if the code is more complex then the few lines we are given, that part is something that the paladin should explicitly do. Again, not punishing the NPC would actually be against his code.
You mention the paladin taking the law into his own hands? It's because the local laws are in contention with the paladins own law and code. A paladin isn't bound by the laws of a country or government. He's isn't a legal entity like a judge of a particular country. He is an agent of his deity, and is lawful because of a strict adherence to that deity's views, and to his obligations and code as a paladin. That the paladin is "taking the law into his own hands" is because the government that exist (or in this case mostly doesn't) in the city will not punish or protect appropriately.
A paladin isn't under any obligation to not rescue slaves in Cheliax, even though slavery is legal in Cheliax. A wise paladin might chose avenues such as buying a slave and setting them free, because options are available. But in this case there aren't any other real options available other than to execute the prisoner for the crimes they've committed. The paladin has proof and admission of guilt. In another situation I agree the paladin should hand over the prisoner for a trial, which would result in the imprisonment or execution of character. But again, this isn't a situation where the NPC can be extradited to another country for a proper trial. This just isn't an option. It's not chaos.
And more importantly, whether or not it's chaotic doesn't matter. The paladin doesn't fall for chaotic acts. And assuming the paladin was firmly LG before, this one act wouldn't be enough to change the paladin's alignment to non-lawful.
You want to call horsefeathers, but it's your argument that doesn't hold water. I'm talking about the modern legal concept of due process. Due process first came into being as I understand it with the Magna Carta. Without due process, a representative of the government would be entitled to be judge jury and executioner. That is what the paladin is doing. He's not murdering the character. He's executing him, for crimes he committed. The paladin has proof. He can render judgment, and execute the prisoner.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth),See, I actually disagree with this BECAUSE of this very quote.
Lying is not specifically called out. Acting with honor is. Lying may be an example of that, but it is not necessarily.
Yes it is. Page 63 of the core book, right at the very end of the page you'll see "not lying." Lying is specifically called out as dishonorable.
Everyone arguing that paladins can mislead. You're wrong. They can't.
What they can do is refuse to answer. You can't lie, or conceal the truth, but you can refuse to share it. But in doing so, you should state that you're refusing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As to the idea that misleading is different from lying--if you find a meaningful difference between 'The person you're looking for is in Andoran' and 'The person you're looking for might be in Andoran', then by that definition, the paladin is free to cheat at cards so long as he never directly states that it's a fair game. They could put disease-ridden maggots in a villain's food to infect them, because their code swears them against poison, not disease. The sort of semantic games involved in that distinction show no regard for the larger principle of Truth, and take the restriction of the code not as moral and ethical precepts, but as something to be worked around.
Whereas, the perfectly linguistically defensible reading that lying is forbidden *where it impugns the paladin's honor*, since it is only mentioned parenthetically to the instruction to act with honor, forbids deceit in more situations than your reading does, but remains perfectly ethically consistent in allowing a lie that protects someone fleeing slavery or genocide from capture--and likewise, forbidding using disease to get around the poison restriction, while also not making the paladin fall for using a pesticide to protect a village's crops from a swarm of mindless vermin threatening to leave them in famine.
Paladins and Lawful Good in general care about both the letter *and* the spirit of the law. Your reading of the code cares only about the letter, and is thus Lawful Neutral at best.
Also--"What's the difference between Lawful Good and Chaotic Good in this situation?" is a pretty poor argument--they'd both probably pet a dog instead of kick it. They'd both help a little old lady across the street. Ad contrarywise, a Paladin of Iomedae and a Paladin of Shelyn would likely treat their encounter with the hypothetical slavers very differently, as could two different Chaotic Good characters. Conntext and intent are every bit as important in determining alignment as actions stripped of either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lawful does not mean you obey every law, it means you obey your own laws. Most lawful character follows a hierarchy of authority. The typical paladin will ran authority in the following order. First comes his own deity, then his own church, then any secular authorities he is sworn to, then any allied authorities, then his own culture and last would come any local laws and customs. If something lower on the list conflicts with something higher the higher authority takes priority.
If your paladin is sworn to the service of a king the paladin does not have to obey the orders of an enemy of the king even when in the other king’s country. If your paladin’s deity is opposed to slavery you do not have to help the slavers.
As to the paladin of Torag I doubt he would outright lie. BigNorseWolf has it right but I would suggest a slightly different phrasing.
Hell knight: Have you seen any escaped slaves in the area?
Paladin: Have you checked the alleyway behind the three roses?’
This way you have not actually answered his question, but instead asked your own question.
I have always viewed the section on misleading in the code of Torag to be more of a matter of tactics than social behavior. Things like attacking from ambush or lighting extra fires to make your foes think yo have more troops. Basically it is about following the advice in the Art of War.
Okay I'm going to be honest I've only skimmed the thread, but there is a gruesome alternative to killing her or taking her with you or letting the family die, but it may also be evil, just nobody dies.
Cut off her hands and/or feet. You are lawful good. This is harsh as hell but it is just punishment for murder. I would argue that it is not evil, and that it is just and harsh punishment. Also very unlikely that the agent will be killing anyone anytime soon.
Lawful Good has nothing to do with the laws of the land unless those laws are themselves Good.
Correct, but thats not the issue here.
There is no reason that a lawful good rogue cannot sleep dart the guard in the neck with a blowgun. A lawful good paladin cannot.
A paladin has to be lawful good but not all lawful good are paladins. Lawful good is a rectangle. Paladins are square (in more ways than one..) Pointing out that something fits within the rectangle doesn't mean that it has to go in the square
Paladins have a list of obligations that not all lawful good people have. One of them is respecting legitimate authority. It doesn't say non evil, it doesn't say good, it says legitimate. A term that appears nowhere else in the game.
What you're thinking of is Lawful Neutral.
No. it is not.
This is not your opinion, this is not just how you see things. What I am thinking of is in no way, shape, or form lawful neutral. What you are attacking is not remotely my position .
lawful neutral would have no reason, at all, to risk their own necks with a deception that could get them killed. A lawful neutral PERSON might act outside of their alignment, but they're probably not going to make a habbit of it. Lawful neutral would more likely wonder what the reward was, or want to get the cops out of his shop because they're bad for business. (or sell them search lights: brightest spotlights around. Sounds like you'll need them..)
Lawful evil would have left garlic on the bottom shelf, and then sold the guards bloodhounds, and then claimed a halfling as their own in recompense for stolen goods.
[quoteLawful Good believes in laws, regulations, tradition and collective duty provide essential support for protecting the innocent, spreading prosperity and equality for all, and generally promoting good. Laws that spread evil are utterly anathema to Lawful Good, and no Lawful Good person has any obligation, for example, to hand someone over for sacrifice to the Church of Asmodean simply because they happen to be in Cheliax at the time.
Not remotely what i'm arguing. And I have made that clear enough, more than enough times.
No one is perfectly good and perfectly lawful at the same time. Its not possible.
A paladin needs enough deference to law (order, society, traditions) to be considered lawful.
They need to have enough deference to [the law] to qualify as respecting the authorities that made them. Not because they are lawful good, but because they are a paladin and they swore an oath to do so. One of the things that Law does well is the big picture, and if your organization keeps hacking up slavers the entire thing is going to get booted out of the country and be of no help to anyone. The long game matters to lawful people. yes, the immediate, small picture of the slaves matters, but you can't blow the bigger picture. Lincoln freed a lot more slaves than john brown.
If you absolutely, cannot do good or avoid evil with the above, the paladin picks good. But it has to stay in the decision making process. It's not the only thing, its not even the first thing, but it has to be there. Summary executions in the middle of a city because you don't trust the judiciary breaks the Law (you know, murder), Honor (treatment of a prisoner) , law (no trial, no jury, no investigation, no hoopla, the trappings of society that people expect) isn't just ignoring all of that it's catapulting it out of the city. (also a good way to leave town after said action)
It would be 100% in keeping with a Saerenite or Shelyn Paladin's ethos to pretend to help a slave Hunter find his quarry, misleading them to allow the slaves more time to fully effect their escape, all the while attempting to convince the slaver to give up their hunt and turn away from their evil profession and ways.
Have I expressed anything remotely hinting otherwise? I have even used the word mislead several times to describe what the paladin could do.
A Chaotic Good character, frankly, would be a lot more likely to murder them out of hand, because their more individualistic and personal ethical focus cannot ignore the imnediate suffering caused by such villains, and have...
I know where it gets the reputation, but chaotic good does not mean violent good. A chaotic good character is going to pick whichever solution they think has the best chance of success (possibly misleading them into the woods and THEN killing them) which is going to vary a lot with their power level and skillset, and the more they hurt the social structure that supports the slavery the better. A lawful good character is going to try to preserve that structure but still end the slavery, which is a harder balancing act when the government is evil. A chaotic good character would have a lot more trouble when a Neutral or better government is trying to organize people to do some good , but adventurers don't often face that moral/ethical quandary.
I agree that a broad code allow doesn't represent the entirety of being lawful alone. However, the paladin code does specifically mention punishing those who would harm innocents. You're argument here carries no water because he completely comply with this part of code. Even if the code is more complex then the few lines we are given, that part is something that the paladin should explicitly do. Again, not punishing the NPC would actually be against his code.
Absolutely not. Its not my argument that doesn't hold water it's your assumption that the paladin code cannot hand you contradictions and it certainly can.
You mention the paladin taking the law into his own hands? It's because the local laws are in contention with the paladins own law and code.
So if they were in contention with the chaotic good ranger's code he's perfectly lawful in running around killing people?
But in this case there aren't any other real options available other than to execute the prisoner for the crimes they've committed.
objectively false.
When you have two parts of something that contradict you cannot arbitrarily pick one of them, say that this must be true, therefore everything else is wrong, and only go with the first one. You can run the exact same logic the other way and get the opposite conclussion.
And look what would have happened in this case. The paladin THOUGHT that the lady was poisoning the kid and she wasn't.
But again, this isn't a situation where the NPC can be extradited to another country for a proper trial. This just isn't an option. It's not chaos.
That IS an option. The problem is that it's a HARDER option to do, and it seems like any imposition on the paladin is unsolvable dilema's out to screw him over.
It's not. Being a paladin is hard. If it was easy, everyone would do it. It is going to make your life difficult sometimes. Not impossible. If you don't want the occasional challenge, a paladin pathfinder is the wrong way to go.
And more importantly, whether or not it's chaotic doesn't matter. The paladin doesn't fall for chaotic acts. And assuming the paladin was firmly LG before, this one act wouldn't be enough to change the paladin's alignment to non-lawful.
This isn't mattress tag removal this is out and out murder in the middle of a city. its big enough to be a punt over to NG.
I'm talking about the modern legal concept of due process. Due process first came into being as I understand it with the Magna Carta.
Okay, first, lets say that's true. The magna carta was signed in 1215. Two hundred years before plate armor. Golarion is waaaay past that stage of development.
Secondly, the magna carta didn't spring the idea of due process out of nowhere. The processes were largely in place, certain government officials just kept going around them.
As to the idea that misleading is different from lying--if you find a meaningful difference between 'The person you're looking for is in Andoran' and 'The person you're looking for might be in Andoran', then by that definition, the paladin is free to cheat at cards so long as he never directly states that it's a fair game.
That doesn't follow. One's an explicit statement the other one is a social convention neccesary to have rules at all. (like assuming that the thing you say in response to someone's words is an actual response to their words.)
They could put disease-ridden maggots in a villain's food to infect them, because their code swears them against poison, not disease.
No, the player would have to try to rules lawyer that. And no, diseasing people is the same as poisoning them, dishonor. Dishonor on you, dishonor on your family, dishonor on your cow.
The sort of semantic games involved in that distinction show no regard for the larger principle of Truth, and take the restriction of the code not as moral and ethical precepts, but as something to be worked around.
name one paladin in fiction that didn't engage in it at some point.
Whereas, the perfectly linguistically defensible reading that lying is forbidden *where it impugns the paladin's honor*
That is not remotely what it says. That is not how any paladin has been run. That is not an argument you'll get away with at virtually any table.
Paladins and Lawful Good in general care about both the letter *and* the spirit of the law. Your reading of the code cares only about the letter, and is thus Lawful Neutral at best.
Objectively wrong. He cares about the letter and the spirit. Just because he can be misleading in a dire situation doesn't mean he can be misleading all the time.
Conntext and intent are every bit as important in determining alignment as actions stripped of either.
You're not differentiating between the two on anything other than lip service. The differences run deeper than that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
'What you're thinking of is Lawful Neutral' was specifically in reference to the general contention that a Paladin would be in any way specifically obligated to local and temporal laws which clearly conflict with justice and the paladin's principles. The legitimacy of authority is based in no small part upon using that authority to promote justice, and this speaks to the OPs original question. The government of Bloodcove clearly exists to pervert justice and benefit thieves and murderers. Therefore, while a Paladin should still not casually flout the laws of Bloodcove or otherwise disrupt it for no good reason, the wishes of the government of Bloodcove need not factor into their decision making process.
Having taken a prisoner, the paladin should treat them well, so far as the necessities of keeping them prisoner allow. That's not the same thing as saying that one may never execute a prisoner. This is not a matter of 'summary execution *just* because you don't trust the judiciary'. The knowledge that the judiciary is corrupt to the core is part of it, *as is* the fact that she is deeply unrepentant and threatening innocent lives, and that apparently the only viable alternative is to put her in the hands of one of her rivals who will almost certainly execute her himself, probably cruelly and painfully. To say nothing of the fact that Paladins of Iomedae, Torag, and especially Ragathiel, among others, would likely see themselves as having the divinely granted legitimate authority to conduct a trial and pass sentence, at least where no existing authority existed that could do that. Executing the Aspis poisoner shouldn't be done casually and without first considering whether she can be forcibly extradited or evenn the family she's threatening smuggled to safety before releasing her, but Paladins *do* have Smite Evil for a reason.
As to the Saerenite/Shelynite solution I proposed to the side discussion on slave hunters--yes, you *have* not just hinted but explicitly stated otherwise. Because by any rational definition, deliberately misleading is a lie, and you say Paladins can't do that.
Kill the child murderer, take the evil act and attone. Paladins suffer from being being dullards, now you have a Paladin with a backstory where some stand by your actions as a saint while haters sit back with disdain of your actions against the code.
Also it sounds like your dm misjudged the take photo, unless the text says it's an evil act.
I wouldn't blame the player or necessarily the GM. That was a rather poorly written encounter. I played a LG monk in that scenario and had the exact same reaction. The scenario was written to force the players to kill a captive.
I think more recent rules have been written for redemption though I'm not familiar with them. There ought to have been a diplomacy check offered to put her off. I guess one option in game mentioned earlier was to barrel her and ship her to proper authorities.
As to the Saerenite/Shelynite solution I proposed to the side discussion on slave hunters--yes, you *have* not just hinted but explicitly stated otherwise. Because by any rational...
No. Stop right there.
You cannot impose your frame of reference on someone else and then declare that what they're saying must follow from your frame of reference, ESPECIALLY when you know they hold that frame of reference because you're arguing against it.
I do not hold that all deception is lying.
You cannot argue that i must hold that all deception is lying because you do, and insert your premise into the rest of my statements to say that my conclusion so i must have said something that i didn't.
No. Wow no. That is discussing in incredibly bad faith.
Of course deliberately infecting someone with a disease is poisoning them. But there are objective differences between poison and disease which are much vaster than the difference between lying and misleading.