Say you have a paladin that has code against undead and evil outsiders. They stop them whenever encountered. Would the same paladin be in the right of their code/alignment for attacking potentially innocent Dhampirs and Tieflings with the explanation of they are tainted and abominations to life and the light.
Welcome to "Good" is not always good. But yes, if the code says "kill always, don't 'stop them' with any half measure..." then yes, they are still half evil outsider or undead.
This is a bit more of a general or advice forum question though.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Say you have a paladin that has code against undead and evil outsiders. They stop them whenever encountered. Would the same paladin be in the right of their code/alignment for attacking potentially innocent Dhampirs and Tieflings with the explanation of they are tainted and abominations to life and the light.
No.
Dhampirs are humanoids with the dhampir subtype, not vampires.
Tieflings are outsiders with the native subtype (not evil).
So they are not undead or evil outsiders.
But they are associated with them. I could see an overzealous paladin trying to hassle/kill them, and then being warned by their deity against such activity. And continued actions in such a manner resulting in their fall.
Ultimately it's up to your GM, and how they want it to play out. So that's all that really matters. Ask your GM, and if you are the GM make a ruling that makes sense to you.
Personally I think trying to read paladin codes as pure black & white is what leads to the ludicrous and ridiculous ideas such as killing innocent people is somehow justified for a lawful good character.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hard no. Dhampirs and Tieflings are not Undead, nor are they Evil Outsiders. Furthermore, Paladins of any code would not harm INNOCENT beings. I would encourage your PC to pump the brakes, and reaffirm that Lawful Good isn't Lawful Stupid. Suggesting that Dhampir and Tieflings should die regardless of innocent or not = borderline genocidal.
Dhampirs highly resemble undead due to their half-vampire nature, but they are considered living beings. Not all are evil, but a lot of them are, so this is just a harmful stereotype.
Tieflings are indeed of the Outsider type, but they're Native subtype, and can be of any alignment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Say you have a paladin that has code against undead and evil outsiders. They stop them whenever encountered. Would the same paladin be in the right of their code/alignment for attacking potentially innocent Dhampirs and Tieflings with the explanation of they are tainted and abominations to life and the light.
No. Dhampirs are humanoids, not undead, and no matter the heritage, tieflings are not alignment-restricted, so killing those is not mandated by the Paladin Code, and a Paladin doing so can not invoke the code. The morality of the act is to be assessed as normal. Of course, an evil tiefling is an evil outsider, and if the code doesn't specify non-native outsiders, they would fall under the code.
The notion that non-evil sapient creatures of a certain heritage are to be killed because "they are tainted and abominations to life and the light" doesn't sound like a Paladin Code, it sounds like Mein Kampf.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the idea of a self-righteous knight rigidly applying to their holy code to the letter rather than the spirit could make for an interesting story. Good does not equal nice, etc.
...but Pathfinder is not set up to tell that story. At least as-is.
In a world where good and evil are not only black-and-white but also easily defined and identified, it just doesn't work.
I have a setting I'll use for Pathfinder/D&D that's a lot less Forgotten Realms and a lot more Warhammer/Song of Ice and Fire, and in that setting, this sort of idea is fairly common. Paladin-types are feared more than respected due to the corruption of the church and the largely unknown nature of evil.
In a setting where you can't just activate your Evil Radar or put in a long distance call to your deity of choice (like this world we live in), atrocities in the name of heaven are definitely a thing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
yes, in pathfinder, killing an undead is a good act, just like killing a raider in fallout is a good act.
Except dhampir aren't undead and tieflings aren't (always) evil outsiders. And they never have the evil subtype.
The evil radar makes even the "too stupid to know the difference" paladin character type fail as well. You could have a cult that was lead by people who made alignment disguising abilities sound far more common than they really are. Sifkesh paladins or something like that.
Say you have a paladin that has code against undead and evil outsiders. They stop them whenever encountered.
Something important is missing here: Why does the paladin want to stop them? If it's about protecting the innocent, any undead or evil outsider who is not a threat is not a valid target.
If it's just a personal crusade against these creature types, the paladin suddenly is in CN territory, though. And if the paladin enjoys their painful and violent deaths too much, they are probably CE already.
Beyond that, I'd think a paladin with temple school education and / or divine guidance is aware of the case of dhampirs / tieflings and wouldn't just charge because of pale skin or some horns. If the paladin still needs a final argument: There are tiefling paladins of Sarenrae and dhampir vampire hunters out there, fighting evil.
Personally I think trying to read paladin codes as pure black & white is what leads to the ludicrous and ridiculous ideas such as killing innocent people is somehow justified for a lawful good character.
Someone one said, "There are Paladins who are somewhat flexible, and there are dead Paladins."
Or something very similar.
:-)
where did I Say they were?yes, in pathfinder, killing an undead is a good act, just like killing a raider in fallout is a good act.Except dhampir aren't undead and tieflings aren't (always) evil outsiders. And they never have the evil subtype.
You post made it sound like you were indicating that the slaughter or tieflings and dhampir was justified because the were evil/undead.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
where did I Say they were?yes, in pathfinder, killing an undead is a good act, just like killing a raider in fallout is a good act.Except dhampir aren't undead and tieflings aren't (always) evil outsiders. And they never have the evil subtype.
The question asked if a paladin would be justified murder-hobo'ing dhampir and tieflings based solely on their race, and you, rorek, responded with "yes". (Whether intentionally or not)
If players or the DM suggest or even entertain this idea its a big red flag. Mainly in terms of bad roleplaying, not to mention the racial purity undertones this has...
Im not suggesting paladins have to be without prejudice, but their code should be. And if they act on said prejudice when its against their code, that's how you get fallen paladins and antipaladins. It conjures up images of an antipaladin unknowingly following a demon lord while cleansing communities of those that dont meet his racial standards while insisting he's on the side of good. Theres probably a demon lord, devil, daemon or some other dark deity whose whole portfolio is that kind of thing, knowing how extensive pathfinder pantheons are.
I would question the alignment of a deity that has a code stating that says to automatically kill innocent sentient beings. To me that sounds like an evil deity, and as such cannot sponsor a paladin. As others have noted dhampirs and teiflings are not undead or evil outsiders. Having a paladin’s code that says that all undead and evil outsiders are to be killed is fine, but when you go beyond that it becomes a problem. By that line of reasoning half the sorcerers should also be killed.
If the paladin starts adding his own interpretations and modifies the code of a legitimate deity, the deity is going to take corrective action. A paladin can be suspicious and distrustful of them, but to straight up attack them for no reason is an obvious breech of the core paladin’s code (The one about evil acts). If the dhampir or teifling are engaged in suspicious behavior, or even look like they are doing something wrong the paladin could take action including attack them without falling.
If the dhampir or teifling are engaged in suspicious behavior, or even look like they are doing something wrong the paladin could take action including attack them without falling.
But it'd have to be pretty damn bad.
"Oh look those fellows seem to be moving crates at night time, it could be a night delivery or it could be illegal. Best murder them to be safe." Isn't a good way to play a paladin.
I mean, depending on deity they might not make you fall there and then, but most certainly wouldn't be happy.
|
where did I Say they were?yes, in pathfinder, killing an undead is a good act, just like killing a raider in fallout is a good act.Except dhampir aren't undead and tieflings aren't (always) evil outsiders. And they never have the evil subtype.The question asked if a paladin would be justified murder-hobo'ing dhampir and tieflings based solely on their race, and you, rorek, responded with "yes". (Whether intentionally or not)
If players or the DM suggest or even entertain this idea its a big red flag. Mainly in terms of bad roleplaying, not to mention the racial purity undertones this has...
Im not suggesting paladins have to be without prejudice, but their code should be. And if they act on said prejudice when its against their code, that's how you get fallen paladins and antipaladins. It conjures up images of an antipaladin unknowingly following a demon lord while cleansing communities of those that dont meet his racial standards while insisting he's on the side of good. Theres probably a demon lord, devil, daemon or some other dark deity whose whole portfolio is that kind of thing, knowing how extensive pathfinder pantheons are.
apologies, technically speaking, killing undead/evil outsiders is an inherently good act in PF no matter what else simply due to their evil alignment. As has been stated, dhampir are not undead, and teiflings are not evil outsiders. The yes is part of that statement showing my agreement with the premise that killing undead is a good act. The issue here being that in pathfinder, and earlier DnD iterations, undead are evil, and their alignment is 99% of the time of evil leaning. Even killing a good aligned undead can be a good or neutral act. As you are releasing someone from the fate of undeath.
Assuming you are making use of alignments. If you play morally grey PF you are houseruling. And I admit to some moral ambiguity in many of my games but, at heart D&D/PF was never really designed around this type of play.
When I said suspicious behavior I meant actually suspicious behavior that the paladin would actually think is wrong. Paladins may be lawful good, but if they try and use a technicality to avoid a fall they are going to fall hard. Deities in Pathfinder are not going to be fooled by that type of crap. A deity in Pathfinder is capable to doing pretty much anything they want including seeing into the hearts of their followers. Any attempt by a paladin to weasel his way out a fall by falsely claiming ignorance is not going to cut it.
On the other hand a paladin can easily make a mistake. But it has to be an honest mistake.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I said suspicious behavior I meant actually suspicious behavior that the paladin would actually think is wrong.
While paladin can make honest mistakes and get Atonement, "suspicious behavior that the paladin would actually think is wrong" is a bit weak as a justification.
A paladin with a wisdom score that needs two hands to be counted should know that "suspicious behavior" isn't enough for a death sentence.Capture and restrain? Ok.
Kill? Decidedly no.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A honest mistake is one thing, but executing someone without proof/evidence isn't an "honest mistake". As Diego says, I can understand capturing, restraining, and investigating (including a combat where the paladin may beat pretty severely the target, but not killing).
Of course, this is in the context of the paladin being able to magically heal all the damage to the innocent person so they are none the worse (physically) for the encounter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I just always warn a character when they're stepping out of the bounds (as a I view the deity having) for what the would allow and ask the player if they actually want to proceed in that way.
The player never experiences a penalty unless they essentially agree to it by proceeding down a path they've been warned will lead to problems.
However, it certainly doesn't hurt for a player to come up with a list of tenets they think are appropriate and I would review them as a GM to make sure doesn't seem wildly off. However, it would still only be a rough guide and general intention is going to be more important than any specific written words.
|
First of all the most important thing.
Matters of Good and Evil are ultimately a matter of the GM personal Judgement. Asking for suggestions and exchanging ideas is great, that's what the board is for, but there is no such thing as the Right or Wrong answer here.
Personally speaking, "Destroy X without concerning yourself with context, specific and consequences" to me is a poor code for anything in the Good spectrum.
It is certainly very in line with the lawful part but it does risk having conflicts with maintaining a good behavior.
A paladin can fully subscribe to that code, but if he encounters a situation in which:
- Something is technically Undead or an Evil Outsider, but they are not Evil themselves, just part of an evil race.
- Something is evil but to stop it is to clearly cause even more evil
- Even worse, something is evil but is clearly attempting a difficult process of redemption
then in these cases I thing a crisis of faith is in order.
A crisis of faith can be fun, and doesn't have to be punishing, it's exploring the grey areas and coming the other side of the struggle with a Paladin who have clearer and more layered convictions.
I see it as on one side the Paladin risking to fall towards lawful neutral by unquestionably embracing his code by the book
on the other risking shifting towards neutral good by bending the rules for a good cause.
no single bump on one side or the other should be a "You chose wrong, your paladin powers are revoked" unless it becomes a solid conduct swinging on a clear side.
Without a crisis, by simply arbitrarily picking "the code is always better than morality" or "Morality is always better than the code" the paladin should actually fall.
A paladin that makes compromises and uses sound judgement is one that can balance himself between lawful adherence to the code and good morality.
A good and permanent resolution of the crisis would be shifting his code.
Remember, other than the very generic code (a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor, help those in need, and punish those who harm or threaten innocents) there is no need for an additional code to even be Paladins.
If he is tied to one code and the paladin feels like he needs a code to keep himself on the right path that doesn't prevent him from changing the code he follows.
Obviously is very easy if it is a self imposed code, more interesting if it is an institutional one.
That could lead to a lot of interesting RP opportunities like the paladin trying to reform his code and debate the merits of changing the norms of his order.
Him deserting his order for another, with all the social consequences of cutting ties with previous allies.
Perhaps even forming a schism in his order and seeing it split in two between the orthodox and the reformists.
but in general, IMO it is not a matter of a single episode that is a grey area, and Good, Evil, Law, Chaos are a gradient, not a binary code.
where did I Say they were?yes, in pathfinder, killing an undead is a good act, just like killing a raider in fallout is a good act.Except dhampir aren't undead and tieflings aren't (always) evil outsiders. And they never have the evil subtype.The question asked if a paladin would be justified murder-hobo'ing dhampir and tieflings based solely on their race, and you, rorek, responded with "yes". (Whether intentionally or not)
If players or the DM suggest or even entertain this idea its a big red flag. Mainly in terms of bad roleplaying, not to mention the racial purity undertones this has...
Im not suggesting paladins have to be without prejudice, but their code should be. And if they act on said prejudice when its against their code, that's how you get fallen paladins and antipaladins. It conjures up images of an antipaladin unknowingly following a demon lord while cleansing communities of those that dont meet his racial standards while insisting he's on the side of good. Theres probably a demon lord, devil, daemon or some other dark deity whose whole portfolio is that kind of thing, knowing how extensive pathfinder pantheons are.
I love that for an NPC
I would question the alignment of a deity that has a code stating that says to automatically kill innocent sentient beings. To me that sounds like an evil deity, and as such cannot sponsor a paladin. As others have noted dhampirs and teiflings are not undead or evil outsiders. Having a paladin’s code that says that all undead and evil outsiders are to be killed is fine, but when you go beyond that it becomes a problem. By that line of reasoning half the sorcerers should also be killed.
If the paladin starts adding his own interpretations and modifies the code of a legitimate deity, the deity is going to take corrective action. A paladin can be suspicious and distrustful of them, but to straight up attack them for no reason is an obvious breech of the core paladin’s code (The one about evil acts). If the dhampir or teifling are engaged in suspicious behavior, or even look like they are doing something wrong the paladin could take action including attack them without falling.
To be fair in my home-brew game arcane magic is heavily policed after it’s reckless use ripped open a rift and brought a world war. So practices caster have their spells controlled and spontaneous arcane ones that can’t hide are killed. There is one kingdom where arcane magic thrives but they stay to themselves.
They wouldn’t be justified in outright killing them, but they wouldn’t necessarily be chastised by their deity or their order for harassing them. Infact there are examples of Paladins harassing tieflings simply for their demonic origins in a few APs... it may not be considered the right thing to do... but when you look at it from the mindset of a devout follower to a religious belief that says that all demonic beings are evil, then you see the offspring of a demonic being, you’re likely to see them as the foul spawn of the devil and treat them poorly. Paladins tend to be the most zealous followers, and as such will generally pass harsh snap judgements based on their religious doctrines.
Simple rationalization of a zealous mind follows these steps.
1: my deity says demons are evil
2: tieflings are demonspawn
3: demonspawn are the spawn of evil
4: tieflings are the spawn of evil
5: tieflings are evil
6: but they are only half evil...
7: tieflings must be brought into the light of good... by force if necessary
8: their demonic half will resist, force will be necessary