Would the Paladin Fall?

[Beelzebub1111]

The party gnome illusionist was keeping watch when bugbears started sneaking on the camp. He went inside a tent cast disguise self to look like a goblin then make it seem like he killed his party members. Coming out like they were killed giving the all clear. The bugbears attacked anyways, and after the combat was over the gnome (being a bit of a prankster) decided to keep up the act and pretended to be a heroic goblin who then be off to help another in need. The paladin in the party attacked before anything could be said and kills the gnome (With Frostrazor). Does the paladin fall?

[Skeletor]

I'd say yes if he had frostmourne but since it's frostrazor it's cool.


Seriously though it sounds like an accident and maybe a lesson for the paladin, not to be so smite happy.

[Snake-Aes]

I'd say yes, as his reaction was "Crushburnmaimkill!"
Was he aware that the gnome was away?

It's kinda tricky on what the paladin was expected to do, since we don't know all circumstances, but someone who defaults into carnage generally doesn't have a clean record.

[Coplantor]

I'm confused here, what did you meant by heroic goblin?

[Beelzebub1111]

They saw the goblin fighting with the bugbears and then approach without any weapons raised.

By heroic, I mean the goblin version of Dr'zzt.

[drengnikrafe]

We're looking at this from the perspective of too much information (which is probably a good thing as a point of reference, but could lead one down the wrong path). Look at it through the paladin's eyes, as far as my understanding goes.

You are awoken in the middle of the night to the sounds of an ambush. The fellow you left in charge of watch is nowhere to be found, probably killed. Bugbears attack, and a strage creature aids you in the battle. Then, the instant the battle is over, the strange creature desides it's time to skip town and runs away. You stop his fleeing, and bring him down.

Questionable on many levels, but people like to make paladins fall as much as they like to twist reasonable wishes. I would put this paladin on serious probation, and make sure he did a better job of being good.

In short: Fall? No. Close to falling? Yes.

EDIT: It appears my understanding was not quite right. On the other hand, how can you know he's a "heroic goblin" if he didn't speak? To my understanding, goblins and many other evil creatures will resort to all sorts of trickery to get a kill in.

[Theodoriph]

So there's a fight going on in camp...the bugbears are defeated, but the Paladin sees another monster in camp and kills him.

I see no problem. For all he knew, the goblin could have been the Bugbear's leader. Goblins are treacherous creatures.

[Snake-Aes]

They saw the goblin fighting with the bugbears and then approach without any weapons raised.

By heroic, I mean the goblin version of Dr'zzt.
So the paladin was aware that the goblin was either against his enemies, or part of a ploy. Both are not situations where you default to CRUSHBURNMAIMKILL in the first second.

[tyckspoon]

From the given description, yes, the Paladin falls- he betrayed and murdered an apparently allied creature, unprovoked, which is pretty solidly evil (and, being a party member, I would assume Detect Evil would have shown him that the 'goblin' was at least Not Evil if he'd bothered to check.) It's not irrevocable, he can go get an Atonement and carry on, but he falls. And should probably reconsider playing a Paladin; if he just wants the mechanical abilities (I'm not sure why you would, but ok) there are half a dozen other classes that have similar talents without the roleplay baggage.

[Theodoriph]

So the paladin was aware that the goblin was either against his enemies, or part of a ploy. Both are not situations where you default to CRUSHBURNMAIMKILL in the first second.


Shoot first, ask questions later. A strange monster appears in camp at night alongside a bunch of other strange monsters appear who are attacking you...well, let's just say coincidences like that are rare. The goblin is most likely with the enemy.

The paladin did the right thing (neutral thing). I'm guessing he one-shotted the gnome, or else the gnome would have dispelled the illusion and they all would have had a jolly laugh. It was a mistake, you can have fun making him roleplay grief, but he shouldn't fall. It wasn't evil.

[Caphi]

Does the paladin's god approve of spontaneously bisecting people based on race and paranoia? The answer to that question is the same as the answer to yours. I'm pretty sure most Good gods don't, though.

The other factor here is the fact that the paladin used lethal force. Most good melee paladins have the ability to subdue anyone who isn't themselves a heavy fighter or barbarian, and if the paladin can't, his mount should be able to. Even if he had reasonable suspicion, cleaving shouldn't have been the automatic choice.

[Psyx]

Normally, I'm against paladins falling. But I'll take an exception.


He appears to have murdered a goblin for no real reason. Did he even TRY to detect evil on it? Did he give the 'goblin' time to explain or talk?

Lawful Good means not just killing someone the second you see them, based entirely on race. What if it was a gnome, who'd heroically saved the party... oh wait, it was.

I'm assuming that he also knew OOC that the goblin was the party gnome. Which means that he was basically being a d!ck on purpose.

[Aroka]

They saw the goblin fighting with the bugbears and then approach without any weapons raised.

By heroic, I mean the goblin version of Dr'zzt.

Dishonorable for sure, probably a paladin code violation. (Attacking an intelligent, living, non-fiendish enemy who is not ready to fight is unchivalrous.) Evil? That depends on how allowable the slaughter of goblins is in general; is it okay for paladins to go out and find goblins and kill them for being goblins, absent any specific reason like raids on local villages?

[Theodoriph]

Does the paladin's god approve of spontaneously bisecting people based on race and paranoia? The answer to that question is the same as the answer to yours. I'm pretty sure most Good gods don't, though.

It's not paranoia. They were under attack in their camp by monsters. He was full of adrenaline. There was no time to launch an investigation. Who knew what those fiends were planning? Action had to be taken.

[Psyx]

{Scrubbed}

[Snake-Aes]

Because casting detect evil or rolling sense motive is just too hard when you arrive at a scene where your enemies are being slain by a third unknown party. Yes, it could only be an enemy, of course.

Here:

They saw the goblin fighting with the bugbears and then approach without any weapons raised.
The key problem here is not that "he killed a friend by accident". It's that he could have done things to make sure he knew what was going on, and he didn't. Even after seeing the goblin was obviously either not a threat or plotting something, he did not bother even making sure he knew what was going on. He just attacked.

[Caphi]

It's not paranoia. They were under attack in their camp by monsters. There was no time to launch an investigation. Who knew what those fiends were planning. Action had to be taken.

In other words, paranoia. You might also respond to the second part of my post now, if it pleases the court.

[Psyx]

"Action had to be taken."

Would you have done that? Popped a guy in the head with a rifle after crawling out of a tent in the night, after a fight between two unknown sides had just ended? Just like that? Cold murder? No questions?

What if you had a 'bad-guy-o-meter'. You could pause to use it, or slot the guy. But you don't bother spending 6 seconds to do so and just end him there and then.

If the answer is 'yes', then you are not a Good person. or Lawful, come to think of it.

[Theodoriph]

Because casting detect evil or rolling sense motive is just too hard when you arrive at a scene where your enemies are being slain by a third unknown party.

Casting detect evil takes time. In that time, the monster who appeared in your camp with an attack force of other monsters could slash your throat or attack one of your comrades and kill them.

Jeez, you need to think in terms of roleplaying, not metagaming.

[Coplantor]

I'd made him fall, if what he saw was an unnarmed goblin who seconds before was helping them, and was still suspicious, he could've taken the goblin prissioner instead of just choping his head off.

[Caphi]

Jeez, you need to think in terms of roleplaying, not metagaming.

And if you're roleplaying consists of "I don't know what it is! It might be evil! I have to do 2d6+15 lethal damage to it right now!", then I would kindly roleplay booting your character from the party as a liability.

[Snake-Aes]

Casting detect evil takes time. In that time, the monster who appeared in your camp with an attack force of other monsters could slash your throat or attack one of your comrades and kill them.

Excellent, but sense motive to realize if the goblin had no murderous intent when he presented himself without holding any weapon after being seen fighting against the group's aggressors? Countering a bluff doesn't cost an action.


Jeez, you need to think in terms of roleplaying, not metagaming.
Ok, let's think about roleplaying: You are a valiant champion of the ideals of order, justice and mercy. Attacking something that is not an obvious threat without first assessing if it is a threat goes totally against it. It's rash, rushed and dishonorable. And it risks causing harm to innocents. (which happened this thread's paladin)

[Theodoriph]

In other words, paranoia. You might also respond to the second part of my post now, if it pleases the court.

I'm supposed to check back for edits now?


Anyway, I disagree. It's not the Paladin's job to metagame. He had a sword and was under stress due to a surprise attack by monsters on his camp. There is one monster left, who may kill him or his comrades. So he swings. He's likely not going to try to deal non-lethal damage with a sword, which is difficult to do and isn't guaranteed to take out the target before he takes you or your party out.

[super dark33]

no he wouldnt.
he attacked an ''evil monster'' who was attacking the camp, not knowing it was the gnome thus he did a good act. its kinda the gnome tricked him to kill him.

[Theodoriph]

Excellent, but sense motive to realize if the goblin had no murderous intent when he presented himself without holding any weapon after being seen fighting against the group's aggressors? Countering a bluff doesn't cost an action.

Metagaming...

In roleplaying terms, the paladin did roll a sense motive check when he decided whether the monster was friend or foe. He decided on foe. So obviously he failed miserably.


I'm not saying it was a good act. Just that it wasn't evil. I see it as neutral myself, given the circumstances.

[Caphi]

No. That's why I called your attention to that part of the post.

Is your argument that it's "metagaming" to play a character who isn't a wild-eyed meathead who slashes instinctively after giving the situation only a superficial analysis based on paranoia?

Every character I have every played would say, in-character, with adjustments based on personality, speaking style, and charisma, "you're a moron and you'll probably get us killed or arrested. Please stop following us. Stick around and you will be immobilized and left on a corner."

BONUS EDIT: Including my paladin, who despite actually being a hot-blooded Red Ranger type, also has a brain and occasionally uses it.

[Enixon]

no he wouldnt.
he attacked an ''evil monster'' who was attacking the camp, not knowing it was the gnome thus he did a good act. its kinda the gnome tricked him to kill him.

He was attacking the camp by fighting the bugbear and then lowering his weapons?

[Trasilor]

Paladin falls...

I must Agree with Snake-Aes on this. Killing a non-threatening creature is very much against the paladin's code.

[Snake-Aes]

no he wouldnt.
he attacked an ''evil monster'' who was attacking the camp, not knowing it was the gnome thus he did a good act. its kinda the gnome tricked him to kill him.

Did he know goblins are "evil monsters"? In a race whose alignment is "usually evil"? Against a specimen who had presented himself to the group unarmed?


And "rolled and failed" is unknown. The information we were given consists only of "Paladin saw goblin defending the camp and presenting himself unarmed, and charged". At no point we were told the paladin bothered knowing what was going on.

[Theodoriph]

He was attacking the camp by fighting the bugbear and then lowering his weapons?

Yes it was obviously a fiendish ploy. We've been over this already.

[Theodoriph]

Did he know goblins are "evil monsters"? In a race whose alignment is "usually evil"? Against a specimen who had presented himself to the group unarmed?


And "rolled and failed" is unknown. The information we were given consists only of "Paladin saw goblin defending the camp and presenting himself unarmed, and charged". At no point we were told the paladin bothered knowing what was going on.


Rolled and failed is known from a roleplaying perspective. The paladin decided on his own that this was an unfriendly creature. Ergo, he failed his own personal sense motive check. You don't need to roll a die to sense motive. Whether your character chooses to believe or disbelieve something is a check in and of itself. It's a decision made in the character's own mind.

In this case, it was perfectly reasonable.

[Coplantor]

Metagaming...

In roleplaying terms, the paladin did roll a sense motive check when he decided whether the monster was friend or foe. He decided on foe. So obviously he failed miserably.


I'm not saying it was a good act. Just that it wasn't evil. I see it as neutral myself, given the circumstances.

It matters not if it was the gnome, woth that I agree. But it was an evil act since he killed what seemed like the last goblin standing wich was surrendering.

[Snake-Aes]

Rolled and failed is known. The paladin decided on his own that this was an unfriendly creature. Ergo, he failed his own personal sense motive check. You don't need to roll a die to sense motive. Whether your character chooses to believe or disbelieve something is a check in and of itself. It's a decision made in the character's own mind.

In this case, it was perfectly reasonable.

No. Sense motive is a separate skill and therefore it has a mechanical value. If he just outright attacked, he didn't try to assess the enemy.

[psycojester]

And if you're roleplaying consists of "I don't know what it is! It might be evil! I have to do 2d6+15 lethal damage to it right now!", then I would kindly roleplay booting your character from the party as a liability.

"I hear the sounds of combat and bestial roars coming from outside the tent, i grab hold of my sword, charge out of the tent and prepare to do battle. The camp is full of corpses and there's a goblin standing in front of me, given that goblins are related to bugbears and often work with them i assume the goblin is a threat to me and my still groggy companions and attack it"

The Paladins actions while hasty and poorly thought through were honest mistakes, yes he should go through the guilt ringer for it and learn some kind of moral lesson about rash decisions, but there was no malice in his decisions.

Additionally the gnome player should learn a valuable lesson about how stupid it is to wander around a bunch of keyed-up armed people while looking like a monster that frequently attacks them.

[Theodoriph]

No. Sense motive is a separate skill and therefore it has a mechanical value. If he just outright attacked, he didn't try to assess the enemy.

Yes but you're meta gaming by claiming the Paladin should have asked for a sense motive check.


Roleplay wise, he already made the check and decided the goblin was with his enemies.

[Aroka]

Anyway, I disagree. It's not the Paladin's job to metagame. He had a sword and was under stress due to a surprise attack by monsters on his camp. There is one monster left, who may kill him or his comrades. So he swings. He's likely not going to try to deal non-lethal damage with a sword, which is difficult to do and isn't guaranteed to take out the target before he takes you or your party out.

I think that would be completely fine for any other adventurer, and not an Evil act in itself (unless, of course, killing goblins for being goblins is considered evil in the campaign/the setting).

Where it may be wrong is the paladin's code. This is why any specific paladin's code should be written out in detail. They tend to require chivalry, which tends to mean you don't attack enemies without issuing a challenge and making sure they're ready. Yes, that's stupid, but so chivalry is codified and idealized idiocy, and paladins aren't supposed to take the easy way.

[Lysander]

Paladin falls. No doubt about it. A stranger assists you and then you kill them for no reason. That's outright murder.

Also this is the goblin alignment:


Alignment: Usually neutral evil

So it's perfectly possible for there to be neutral or good goblins. And even if it was an evil goblin, it would have still been an evil goblin that helped you and was approaching unarmed.

[Snake-Aes]

Yes but you're meta gaming by claiming the Paladin should have asked for a sense motive check.


Roleplay wise, he already made the check and decided the goblin was with his enemies.

No. In-game, the paladin saw the goblin and attacked, without giving it second thought.
A sense motive check would be interpreted on the lines of "I try to discern whether he looks like he's serious about his display of surrender". It doesn't take more than a second or two. He doesn't have to be vulnerable to do it. He doesn't have to let his friends die to do it. He just looked and attacked.

"I roll sense motive" is not meta-gaming, it's the deliberate act of musing over the other's action.

[Coplantor]

Yes but you're meta gaming by claiming the Paladin should have asked for a sense motive check.


Roleplay wise, he already made the check and decided the goblin was with his enemies.

The thing is, this is a game, party member killing anothe paty member should be avoided because no one is happy when their character dies a meaningless death, specially a stupid meaningless death.

Also, it was stated that the goblin was seen attacking other goblinoids and that it was unnarmed and aproaching the party. A single, unnarmed goblin, aproaching the party, and from what I've grasped here, there was an army, patrol, troop, whatever with the party, the goblin was not a threat, taking him prissioner was what the paladin should've done.

[Enixon]

What bugbear is going to agree to a ploy that starts, "Okay we have you get killed by a goblin, then-(insert fiendish plot here)"
If the goblin was supposed to make them lower their gaurd or something then offing him dosen't do much, now they'll get ambushed while the rest of the party is going "wtf mate" assuming they are also good or good-ish.

-wait I've got it! T'was a goblin psion and he was lowering his weapon to better kill the party with MIND BULLETS!!! (I've got to use that in game somehow:smallsmile:)



Also to Beelzebub1111 just for informations and/or ha-has sake how did the Gnome play the "pretended to be a heroic goblin who then be off to help another in need." thing anyway, I keep getting the following echange in mind :smallbiggrin:

Goblin: -and now I must go on to help the helpless-
Palidin: :smallfurious: Not on my watch you don't!!(thukk)

[Flame of Anor]

he betrayed and murdered an apparently allied creature, unprovoked, which is pretty solidly evil (and, being a party member, I would assume Detect Evil would have shown him that the 'goblin' was at least Not Evil if he'd bothered to check.)


He appears to have murdered a goblin for no real reason. Did he even TRY to detect evil on it? Did he give the 'goblin' time to explain or talk?

Exactly right. This "paladin" is a disgrace. He assumed that an ally was evil, just because of the ally's race. I'm trying not to call down Godwin's Law, here, but damn, that's cold. Lawful yes, but Evil all over the place.



Casting detect evil takes time. In that time, the monster who appeared in your camp with an attack force of other monsters could slash your throat or attack one of your comrades and kill them.

Jeez, you need to think in terms of roleplaying, not metagaming.

Time? All the enemies are dead, so one round. If we're talking roleplaying here, the course of action for a TRUE paladin is to accept the slightly increased risk of attack rather than murder a probable innocent. Paladins should be self-sacrificing to protect the weak. There's no metagame thinking there.



Yes but you're meta gaming by claiming the Paladin should have asked for a sense motive check.

Roleplay wise, he already made the check and decided the goblin was with his enemies.

No. In-game, the paladin saw the goblin and attacked, without giving it second thought.

"I roll sense motive" is not meta-gaming, it's the deliberate act of musing over the other's action.

And neither is there any here. It's not metagame to use the mechanics of the game to simulate acting in character. By Theodoriph's argument, it would be just as metagame to roll the dice for the attack on the gnome.

So to conclude, fall fall fall fall fall.

[Theodoriph]

No. In-game, the paladin saw the goblin and attacked, without giving it second thought.
A sense motive check would be interpreted on the lines of "I try to discern whether he looks like he's serious about his display of surrender". It doesn't take more than a second or two. He doesn't have to be vulnerable to do it. He doesn't have to let his friends die to do it. He just looked and attacked.

"I roll sense motive" is not meta-gaming, it's the deliberate act of musing over the other's action.

You're wrong.

The paladin did try to discern whether he was good or evil. He decided the creature was an enemy and killed it.

You don't make a roll for every decision in D&D, or for every time someone says something to you. You only use sense motive, when you're unsure. The paladin in this case obviously didn't doubt the creature was evil and was part of some scheme. He made up his mind. He decided between friend and foe. That in and of itself is a sense motive check. No roll required.

Using the metagame sense motive check is for situations where you're left uncertain by the roleplaying aspect. It doesn't come into play if the character has already decided. If anything, the DM should have insisted on the roll, but not the character.

[Caphi]

You're wrong.

The paladin did try to discern whether he was good or evil. He decided the creature was an enemy and killed it.

You don't make a roll for every decision in D&D, or for every time someone says something to you. You only use sense motive, when you're unsure. The paladin in this case obviously didn't doubt the creature was evil and was part of some scheme. He made up his mind. He decided between friend and foe. That in and of itself is a sense motive check. No roll required.

Using the metagame sense motive check is for situations where you're left uncertain by the roleplaying aspect. It doesn't come into play if the character has already decided. If anything, the DM should have insisted on the roll, but not the character.

Then the character, by his personality, does not think before coming to conclusions, does not plan for any contingency outside of what he has already decided, and does not use anything less than lethal force. That's Miko material right there. That's sub-Miko material - at least Miko did a little bit of planning on occasion.

Even if he doesn't fall (assuming your Lawful Good deity doesn't revoke your powers for randomly slaying an unarmed, nonthreatening target based on twitch and paranoia), he is a danger to the party.

[Starbuck_II]

I love this show: When the Paladin falls (similar When the World turns soao opera).

Hmm, I'd say the paladin doesn't fall this time.
The Paladin can't accept help from evil (code) as that would be associating.
He can't detect evil because it takes 18 seconds before he can tell ifr an individual is not evil (you get get alerted to evil in area in 6 seconds).

[Coplantor]

You're wrong.

The paladin did try to discern whether he was good or evil. He decided the creature was an enemy and killed it.

You don't make a roll for every decision in D&D, or for every time someone says something to you. You only use sense motive, when you're unsure. The paladin in this case obviously didn't doubt the creature was evil and was part of some scheme. He made up his mind. He decided between friend and foe. That in and of itself is a sense motive check. No roll required.

Using the metagame sense motive check is for situations where you're left uncertain by the roleplaying aspect. It doesn't come into play if the character has already decided. If anything, the DM should have insisted on the roll, but not the character.

Emphasis mine.

He made the wrong decission, he felled. Why? Because his decission was to go on and kill what, at that moment, was not a real threat.

[Kylarra]

Does the paladin even know, ingame, that the goblin was fighting bugbears? I mean, I assume it's night and even at the best of times in battle, ie well lit, it's hard to tell what's going on. So we have potentially:

It's dark
You're attacked by bugbears
There's a goblin with bloody weapons
He is currently fleeing the campsite

[drengnikrafe]

Here's my real question. Why are people so hasty in wanting to make a paladin fall? Do DMs keep logbooks of every time they've screwed over a wish, killed a PC with a trap and made a paladin fall? Do you take pleasure in taking away all the class features of a PC based on one QUESTIONABLE act?

I won't deny this act was questionable, but if you have to ask it's probably not worth destroying the usefulness of a character who is already in the lower tiers. Sure there's always atonement, but until then this thing is as good as a warrior plus 1 HP per level.

[elonin]

We don't have enough information to go with. From the point of view of the paladin it is established that he saw an unarmed goblin with some bugbears. This action could have been an ally who was in disguise (as was the case) or the goblin taking an opportunity to settle differences. It is not necessarily true that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Another point is that the goblin apparently didn't identify himself and could have been a spell caster (also as was the case) and asking the paladin to wait for identification is asking him to metagame.

[Caphi]

Here's my real question. Why are people so hasty in wanting to make a paladin fall? Do DMs keep logbooks of every time they've screwed over a wish, killed a PC with a trap and made a paladin fall? Do you take pleasure in taking away all the class features of a PC based on one QUESTIONABLE act?

I like paladins. I don't search for ways to make them fall, but I don't plan to pull punches if they do something monumentally, mind-numbingly stupid. Based on the data the OP gave us, that is exactly what this was.

[psycojester]

Has the party been attacked by goblins recently, because if they have i think that would count as adventurous probable cause for assumed evil/malice.

[Snake-Aes]

Here's my real question. Why are people so hasty in wanting to make a paladin fall? Do DMs keep logbooks of every time they've screwed over a wish, killed a PC with a trap and made a paladin fall? Do you take pleasure in taking away all the class features of a PC based on one QUESTIONABLE act?

I won't deny this act was questionable, but if you have to ask it's probably not worth destroying the usefulness of a character who is already in the lower tiers. Sure there's always atonement, but until then this thing is as good as a warrior plus 1 HP per level.

The problem in this one is that it was not questionable, it was outright rash and unfair and, yes, evil. Refer to the OP's second post: The goblin was approaching unarmed.

Paladin's code is nasty. If he had at least bothered assessing the situation and then coming to the wrong conclusion and killed the guy, it'd be much more dubious.
But ignoring your capability to assess the situation and going straight to violence? That's a deliberate evil act. It can't even be called accidental.

[Enixon]

You're wrong.

The paladin did try to discern whether he was good or evil. He decided the creature was an enemy and killed it.

You don't make a roll for every decision in D&D, or for every time someone says something to you. You only use sense motive, when you're unsure. The paladin in this case obviously didn't doubt the creature was evil and was part of some scheme. He made up his mind. He decided between friend and foe. That in and of itself is a sense motive check. No roll required.

Using the metagame sense motive check is for situations where you're left uncertain by the roleplaying aspect. It doesn't come into play if the character has already decided. If anything, the DM should have insisted on the roll, but not the character.



That's part of the problem he decide it was likley an enemy and offed it. When he could take one round-6 second to be positive it was, heck he could of did that while the others were parleying and if I remember the area of detcet evil right had he used it for 2 rounds-12 seconds (about the time for each side of a disscusion to say their peice) would of noted any other evil auras such as an ambush, cause whats one gobo going to do to a full party?

Also if he assumse someones a enemy because he helped them fight a bugbear, whats next? is he going to off a barkeep because he might of poisoned their drinks?

[Theodoriph]

I like paladins. I don't search for ways to make them fall, but I don't plan to pull punches if they do something monumentally, mind-numbingly stupid. Based on the data the OP gave us, that is exactly what this was.


The whole situation is mindnumbingly stupid. What idiot in their right mind would disguise himself as a monster and then not bother to tell their party about it. Instead of just dispelling the illusion and re-making it later, he tries to convince his party that he's not actually evil or part of some scheme and just happened to be out taking a walk in the lovely moonlight when he happened upon a bunch of horrid bugbears about to attack some innocent campers...

Yeah...he got what was coming to him. =P

[Lysander]

Does the paladin even know, ingame, that the goblin was fighting bugbears? I mean, I assume it's night and even at the best of times in battle, ie well lit, it's hard to tell what's going on. So we have potentially:

It's dark
You're attacked by bugbears
There's a goblin with bloody weapons
He is currently fleeing the campsite

In that case the paladin could be forgiven for making an honest mistake. But if it's:

A goblin seems to be defending you from bugbears
The goblin sheaths his sword once the battle is over
The goblin walks towards you seeking to talk

[Kylarra]

Has the party been attacked by goblins recently, because if they have i think that would count as adventurous probable cause for assumed evil/malice.Bugbears are goblinoids, they just attacked.

Additionally

Bugbears prefer to ambush opponents whenever possible. When hunting, they normally send scouts ahead of the main group that, if they spy prey, return to report and bring up reinforcements.

So it's perfectly plausible to believe that a goblin represents a scout to a bigger group of bugbears.


In that case the paladin could be forgiven for making an honest mistake. But if it's:

A goblin seems to be defending you from bugbears
The goblin sheaths his sword once the battle is over
The goblin walks towards you seeking to talkPotentially, except we already know that the goblin gave a blurb about going to help another in need and then turned to leave. So, it's pretty suspicious for the goblinoid with weapons, even lowered ones, to say "oh hey, let me go cuz I'm on your side and I'm going to go save other people :D :D :D", right after you were attacked by and defeated, other goblinoids.

[Coplantor]

Here's my real question. Why are people so hasty in wanting to make a paladin fall? Do DMs keep logbooks of every time they've screwed over a wish, killed a PC with a trap and made a paladin fall? Do you take pleasure in taking away all the class features of a PC based on one QUESTIONABLE act?

I see your point. I hate it when people asks for help to device a situation just to make a paladin fall, the same way I hate it when they are always looking and waiting for the paladin to make a single mistake and make him fall.

But here? IT's a completely different situation, he accidentally killed a friend, I dont know if I'd made him fall for that, what I'd made him fall for is for killing an otherwise non hostile creature.

[Snake-Aes]

Yeah the fact it was his gnome friend is pretty much irrelevant to the falling. The act of attacking someone that wasn't a clear threat is enough on its own.

I'd like the OP to come here and post again himself, because there are two posts and almost no one is taking both in consideration.

[Enixon]

The whole situation is mindnumbingly stupid. What idiot in their right mind would disguise himself as a monster and then not bother to tell their party about it. Instead of just dispelling the illusion and re-making it later, he tries to convince his party that he's not actually evil or part of some scheme and just happened to be out taking a walk in the lovely moonlight when he happened upon a bunch of horrid bugbears about to attack some innocent campers...

Yeah...he got what was coming to him. =P


but what if it instead of a illusioned gnome it really was a heroic goblin that was not actually evil or part of some scheme and just happened to be out taking a walk in the lovely moonlight when he happened upon a bunch of horrid bugbears about to attack some innocent campers...

I'm sure there's at least one goblin paladin out there.

[drengnikrafe]

I'd like the OP to come here and post again himself, because there are two posts and almost no one is taking both in consideration.

I agree with this statement. I'd also like to add that finer points of the situation itself are still pretty fuzzy.

[Mnemnosyne]

The obviously hostile attackers were gone, the remaining creature - who it should be noted, assisted the group - appeared to be no threat or at least minimal threat at that moment, since it had lowered or dropped its weapons and was approaching peacefully.

The correct course of action would be to call out and demand an explanation, while readying an action to attack should the "goblin" make any hostile motions such as preparation for spellcasting. Since a readied action happens before the enemy's action, if the goblin had been hostile, the paladin would still have performed exactly the same attack in response.

Now, if it had occured while the battle was still raging, I would have the other point of view (he saw a monster, hadn't noticed that it seemed to be on his side, and killed it, nothing wrong with that). But for it to happen after the battle has ended and the goblin is approaching with apparently peaceful intentions means that the most he should do to prepare for the threat is ready an action, not immediately kill.

[Theodoriph]

but what if it instead of a illusioned gnome it really was a heroic goblin that was not actually evil or part of some scheme and just happened to be out taking a walk in the lovely moonlight when he happened upon a bunch of horrid bugbears about to attack some innocent campers...

I'm sure there's at least one goblin paladin out there.


With his camp having been attacked and him and his party under threat, the paladin acts on the most probable possibility, and kills the goblin. :smalltongue: I wouldn't call it evil in these circumstances.

[Bharg]

Sounds to me like he just wanted to kill off a party member.

[Coplantor]

I'm sure there's at least one goblin paladin out there.

Does he have big ears by any chance :smalltongue:

@Theodoriph: Wut? Come on, had the attackers been humans, would you say that killing an unnarmed man is not evil because of the odds?
And being a paladin is abut going against the odds, about self sacrifice, about not doing the easiest thing. Is about what's just, what's fair and what's right, and in this case, the character went against all those principles to kill one unnarmed little fellow who moments prior to being beheaded was actually giving them a hand.

EDIT: Also, what Bharg said.

[psycojester]

Given the Gnomes behaviour it was justifiable homicide.

[Lysander]

With his camp having been attacked and him and his party under threat, the paladin acts on the most probable possibility, and kills the goblin. :smalltongue: I wouldn't call it evil in these circumstances.

It's not a good act to kill someone based on a hunch. Especially when there was an opportunity to gather more information before making a decision.

[liquid150]

I am shocked how many of you confuse "an honest mistake" with "evil."

[Trasilor]

With his camp having been attacked and him and his party under threat, the paladin acts on the most probable possibility, and kills the goblin. :smalltongue: I wouldn't call it evil in these circumstances.

Would it have made a difference if was a human instead of a goblin? If so, you are basing on whether a paladin falls on your attitude towards goblins rather than factoring the actions of the paladin.

I say the paladin falls because he killed a non-threatening creature.

This wasn't the paladin fighting a bunch of goblins (or globlinoids), then sees another goblin, kills it only to find out it is his foolish gnome friend disguised as a goblin.

Furthermore, why didn't the paladin get a save to see through the illusion/disguise?

[Coplantor]

I am shocked how many of you confuse "an honest mistake" with "evil."

Killing your party member because he is silly is a honest mistake.
Killing an unnarmed creature that shows no hostile behaviour is evil.

Both of those occured.

[Enixon]

I am shocked how many of you confuse "an honest mistake" with "evil."

how's killing a someone who's just helped you fight of a much bigger monster (and assuming goblins in this world act like normal goblins one fighting a big scary bugbear is'nt normaly what I'ld consider a standard goblin-y action) and for all apperances seems to be peaceable "an honest mistake". being short and green (or orange based MM pic) isn't a crime.

[liquid150]

Killing your party member because he is silly is a honest mistake.
Killing an unnarmed creature that shows no hostile behaviour is evil.

Both of those occured.

So killing a well-known evil creature that is unaware of your presence (non-hostile) is evil, rather than smart?

Sorry, but you're just looking for an excuse to make this guy fall.

[Coplantor]

So killing a well-known evil creature that is unaware of your presence (non-hostile) is evil, rather than smart?

Sorry, but you're just looking for an excuse to make this guy fall.

But the whole situation here, is that it was not a well known evil creature as much as a creature that was helping you moments ago and started walking towards you, unnarmed.

[Enixon]

So killing a well-known evil creature that is unaware of your presence (non-hostile) is evil, rather than smart?

Sorry, but you're just looking for an excuse to make this guy fall.

When it just risked it's neck to help you (thus showing it's likley not a normal goblin) and is "(non-hostile)" yes, yes it is.

[Lysander]

So killing a well-known evil creature that is unaware of your presence (non-hostile) is evil, rather than smart?

Sorry, but you're just looking for an excuse to make this guy fall.

If you read the OP it's clear that the goblin was walking towards the party with the intention of talking. It's not a matter of the paladin ambushing an unsuspecting goblin.

[Theodoriph]

It's not a good act to kill someone based on a hunch. Especially when there was an opportunity to gather more information before making a decision.

Probability isn't a hunch.

[Caphi]

To say nothing of the fact that even if the paladin's insane paranoia was justified, there were other options than killing. Some of them were even smarter than smitesmitesmite.

[Trasilor]

I am shocked how many of you confuse "an honest mistake" with "evil."

Actually, I don't think killing an unarmed opponent is an honest mistake, I thinks its evil.

Think about it. At the very least the paladin could have readied an action such as "If the green bugger tries to move, or starts to act threatenly, I attack". Then he could have talked to the gobline to try and find out who he is.

None of this is metagaming, it would be perfectly reasonable action for a paladin to do.

[tyckspoon]

So killing a well-known evil creature that is unaware of your presence (non-hostile) is evil, rather than smart?

Sorry, but you're just looking for an excuse to make this guy fall.

WHEN YOU'RE A PALADIN, yes (it's evil for everybody else too, but they don't generally care because it's a fairly minor evil and they don't have their class power source as 'Being Really, Really Good.) Especially when it's only a 'usually' evil creature from a sentient race that has a fairly high percentage of non-evil members. It's not like you're ambushing a fiend or a chromatic dragon or a wight, here- taking those out is generally an absolute good because of their nature. It's a goblin.

[Coplantor]

Probability isn't a hunch.

And probablity is not a licence to kill

[erikun]

So let me make sure I understand the situation correctly:

Paladin is woken up in the middle of the night by attackers.
Paladin and party fights off bugbears. Goblin helps fight bugbears.
At the end of combat, Paladin immediately kills Goblin before anything can be said.

Yes, that sounds like falling material to me. I'm generally against harsh interpretation of the Code, but killing someone who aided you before they could even speak a word will violate it all over the place.

Note that this is just how I interpret events from the original post: If the Paladin woke up to killing Bugbears, then turned the corner to see a Goblin fleeing, then it changes things quite a bit. The Goblin is not an ally or someone providing aid, but a potential enemy trying to flee or sweet-talk his way out of the situation. How this is handled depends on how strict the Code is against attacking fleeing enemies.

Whether the Paladin rolled a Sense Motive check is irrelevant. He is judged by the situation and his actions, not by how long it took him to reach his decision. A Paladin does not get a free card for intentionally remaining ignorant, either.

[Theodoriph]

Actually, I don't think killing an unarmed opponent is an honest mistake, I thinks its evil.

Think about it. At the very least the paladin could have readied an action such as "If the green bugger tries to move, or starts to act threatenly, I attack". Then he could have talked to the gobline to try and find out who he is.

None of this is metagaming, it would be perfectly reasonable action for a paladin to do.


In D&D, there's no such thing as unarmed. There are lots of ways to die.

In my campaigns, one of my religious BBEGs used suicide bombers (regular commoners), who'd walk up to my party with a necklace of fireballs in their hand and detonate them.

It's a world of magic and sorcery. There are many ways to die. Hell, in our world if the police tell you to put down your weapons and stand still and you throw down your gun and walk towards them with your arms up, they will shoot you. And the police don't live in a world with evil creatures trying to kill them at every opportunity. =P

[Theodoriph]

And probablity is not a licence to kill


I'm not saying it is. But he shouldn't fall either. It should just be a good roleplaying opportunity for them and maybe a plot hook as he repents for his honest mistake (without actually needing to fall).

[Snake-Aes]

In D&D, there's no such thing as unarmed. There are lots of ways to die.

In my campaigns, one of my religious BBEGs used suicide bombers, who'd walk up to my party with a necklace of fireballs in their hand and detonate them.

It's a world of magic and sorcery. There are many ways to die. Hell, in our world if the police tell you to put down your weapons and stand still and you throw down your gun and walk towards them with your arms up, they will shoot you.
Sure. This paladin didn't even do that. He just attacked. He didn't try to see if the guy was threatening. He didn't bother detecting evil. He didn't bother asking a more wise party member to check. He didn't bother nonlethally disabling the guy in case it was a mistake. He didn't bother anything.
If you go by the paranoia of "but he might be concealing his alignment and ready to cast a silent still meteor swarm", you just escalate into impossibilities that frankly don't matter. Upholding your ideals is more important than acting on unlikely risks.


And the police don't live in a world with evil creatures trying to kill them at every opportunity. =P I disagree. Organized crime can be really evil. Go ask any cop that deals with them.

[liquid150]

In D&D, there's no such thing as unarmed. There are lots of ways to die.

It should have been blatantly obvious this "goblin" was a spell caster. I suppose the paladin could have just waited for it to become hostile, in which case the paladin would have already been dead (if it had really been a hostile creature).

A normally evil creature with spellcasting ability is quite a threat. Yes, the paladin should have used Detect Evil, but not doing so was an honest mistake and not an intentionally evil act.

[Coplantor]

In D&D, there's no such thing as unarmed. There are lots of ways to die.

In my campaigns, one of my religious BBEGs used suicide bombers (regular commoners), who'd walk up to my party with a necklace of fireballs in their hand and detonate them.

It's a world of magic and sorcery. There are many ways to die. Hell, in our world if the police tell you to put down your weapons and stand still and you throw down your gun and walk towards them with your arms up, they will shoot you. And the police don't live in a world with evil creatures trying to kill them at every opportunity. =P

Emphasis mine.

But nothing like this happened, there was no verbal exchange, paladin deafulted into smiting.
And suicide bombing is not something you suspect of every single creature, specially if you haven't seen it before (wich we dont know if it happened in th OP campaign, but I'm going to assume it didn't).

And I completly agree with you that this is an intresting plot hook and roleplaying oportunity :smallbiggrin:

[Lysander]

In D&D, there's no such thing as unarmed. There are lots of ways to die.

In my campaigns, one of my religious BBEGs used suicide bombers (regular commoners), who'd walk up to my party with a necklace of fireballs in their hand and detonate them.

It's a world of magic and sorcery. There are many ways to die. Hell, in our world if the police tell you to put down your weapons and stand still and you throw down your gun and walk towards them with your arms up, they will shoot you. And the police don't live in a world with evil creatures trying to kill them at every opportunity. =P

But the paladin didn't actually tell him to stand still. Or put his hands up.

[Theodoriph]

But the paladin didn't actually tell him to stand still. Or put his hands up.



The paladin is not a policeman. He's not trained in such matters. You guys all watch too many cop shows, with your expectations of how real humans behave in a crisis.

[Mnemnosyne]

In D&D, there's no such thing as unarmed. There are lots of ways to die.

In my campaigns, one of my religious BBEGs used suicide bombers (regular commoners), who'd walk up to my party with a necklace of fireballs in their hand and detonate them.

It's a world of magic and sorcery. There are many ways to die. Hell, in our world if the police tell you to put down your weapons and stand still and you throw down your gun and walk towards them with your arms up, they will shoot you. And the police don't live in a world with evil creatures trying to kill them at every opportunity. =P
A readied action takes place before the action that triggers it. The paladin can easily ready an action to attack the goblin should it move at all or take any actions or whatever he thinks is appropriate for 'credible threat' and then demand an explanation. If the goblin triggers the paladin's readied action, his attack will have exactly the same effect (as far as damage to the goblin) as attacking unprovoked, but it wouldn't have been attacking an individual that could be entirely innocent and a good person.

If there was a major, probable disadvantage to taking this course of action, sure, but there wasn't.

[Coplantor]

It should have been blatantly obvious this "goblin" was a spell caster. I suppose the paladin could have just waited for it to become hostile, in which case the paladin would have already been dead (if it had really been a hostile creature).

A normally evil creature with spellcasting ability is quite a threat. Yes, the paladin should have used Detect Evil, but not doing so was an honest mistake and not an intentionally evil act.

Please tell me you were being sarcastic regarding the goblin as a spellcaster.

[Jan Mattys]

Probability isn't a hunch.

Killing something based on probability is definitely evil. It means you don't care much for the single entity, because hey, 9 times out of ten you are right. Who would ever care about the innocent you slay the tenth time?

OF COURSE I would make a paladin with such a mindset fall.

[Theodoriph]

A readied action takes place before the action that triggers it. The paladin can easily ready an action to attack the goblin should it move at all or take any actions or whatever he thinks is appropriate for 'credible threat' and then demand an explanation. If the goblin triggers the paladin's readied action, his attack will have exactly the same effect (as far as damage to the goblin) as attacking unprovoked, but it wouldn't have been attacking an individual that could be entirely innocent and a good person.

If there was a major, probable disadvantage to taking this course of action, sure, but there wasn't.



Readying an action is a metagame consideration. You can't penalize the paladin for not readying one.

[hamishspence]

The paladin is not a policeman. He's not trained in such matters. You guys all watch too many cop shows, with your expectations of how real humans behave in a crisis.


He is, however, an "exemplar of law and good". Or should be, anyway. Hence, he should be well versed in upholding the law, and not violating it by attacking people withour provocation.

[Snake-Aes]

It should have been blatantly obvious this "goblin" was a spell caster. I suppose the paladin could have just waited for it to become hostile, in which case the paladin would have already been dead (if it had really been a hostile creature).

A normally evil creature with spellcasting ability is quite a threat. Yes, the paladin should have used Detect Evil, but not doing so was an honest mistake and not an intentionally evil act.

It's not that simple. The paladin can remain on guard and ready to defend himself and his allies without instantly dieing because the goblin was secretly a lvl 17 wizard. The paranoia is not more important than the risk of harming innocents.

"Honest Mistake" would be checking on the creature and mistake the result. Attacking without even bothering to figure out the being's threat? Evil.

You know how "innocent until proven guilty" works? When you epitomize "Justice", you can't just ignore it.

Adding again: The problem here is not that he killed(nor what he killed), but the fact he killed someone that wasn't displaying threat without making sure the display was true.

[tcrudisi]

The whole situation is mindnumbingly stupid.

Agreed.


What idiot in their right mind would disguise himself as a monster and then not bother to tell their party about it. Instead of just dispelling the illusion and re-making it later, he tries to convince his party that he's not actually evil or part of some scheme and just happened to be out taking a walk in the lovely moonlight when he happened upon a bunch of horrid bugbears about to attack some innocent campers...

Yeah...he got what was coming to him. =P

This in no way has any bearing on the situation. He got what was coming to him? Really? So if a young lady goes walking down a dark alley and then gets murdered ... she got what was coming to her? It was okay for that murder to happen?

The paladin falls. He had the resources available to find out that the goblin was not evil. He chose not to use them. The situation that was presented before him was one that screamed out that the paladin needed to do some more research... not blindly attack. Whether the goblin was the illusionist or not does not matter. In fact, if you ignore the fact that it was the illusionist, I would still say the paladin falls (and I hate making paladins fall). Why?

The goblin was obviously a melee-type. He had helped the party out with defeating the bugbears (which is enough to at least give him a thanks and check to see if he's evil). Assuming that he has mind-bullets to shoot at the party would mean this guy would be Bad-Donkey. The loss of one round to find out if he is evil probably won't make a difference if this guy attacks. (Yeah, it takes 18 seconds, but you aren't going to keep going for 2 more rounds if he attacks, ya know).

Even if the guy didn't exhibit Drizzt-like skills, he should still be respected for helping you out in a fight, which is enough to warrant checking him for evil... and certainly not immediately attacking you when he walks towards you non-threateningly. Could the goblin be evil? Sure. But something else is going on if he's helping you out in a fight. That, to me, might mean you can work on changing his life perspectives a bit and making him neutral or good. Regardless, the Paladin really rushed things and came to the completely wrong decision and in so doing performed a very, very evil act. He should fall.

[Enixon]

Probability isn't a hunch.

Reasons to kill gobo
-it's a goblin 60% of which are Neutral evil leaving 40% to be other alignments which include the other 2 evils as well as CN-which tends to be a little.... off
-it may be a trap

reasons not to kill gobo
-helped fight bugbear
-lowered weapons
-attempting parley

that's 3 to 2 to not kill* so probability isn't an issue also in at most 18 seconds and at least 6 the gobs alignment could be found out with 100% accuracy** neither is much time, if they were going to be ambushed in 6 seconds they would get ambushed anyway and anyother trap would likley take longer than Detect Evil to do

as for detect evil

6 second/round one: presence of evil aura assuming their are no evil party members, which is it's own can of worms for the pally the only one within 60 feet most likely would be the goblin, or maybe the bugbear if it wasn't fully dead yet. If there are more baddies waiting this close chanses are they're going to jump you anyway.

12 second/round two: number of evil auras if one then ethier the gobo is evil or as before the bugbear is still twiching, if two gobo is most likley evil but if nothing has happened yet and discourse is continuing no sense jumping the gun, after all he could of just recently seen the error of his ways and has just now started the path to redemtion. If three or more auras are detected, well now that little goblin is the least of your worries, also what the heck are they waiting for anyway?

18 seconds/round three: now the auras are IDable and you know if the gob is evil and if it is an ambush and they still haven't attacked for some reason well you know they are there so it's not much of an ambush anymore, happy smiting:smallbiggrin:




*unless we're missing something, for example did the organisation that the bugbear use goblins and if so why would they sacrifice a much stronger bugbear for their trap.

**undetectalbe alignment notwistanding of course.

[liquid150]

Please tell me you were being sarcastic regarding the goblin as a spellcaster.

No, I wasn't. If the illusionist was actually helping in the battle, rather than just standing there, he would have been casting spells.

[Snake-Aes]

Readying an action is a metagame consideration. You can't penalize the paladin for not readying one.

Theodoriph, you're going too far throwing "Metagame" all around.

Metagaming is adding a knowledge your character shouldn't have.
Metagame is trying to stay behind a beholder to cast spells without succeeding on a knowledge(dungeoneering) check nor having previous experience with them.
Metagame is your character not being afraid of risks because if he died the campaign would be over.

Readying an action? Fully within any combative character's knowledge. It's literally staying on guard and ready to react as soon as something happens.

[Trasilor]

In D&D, there's no such thing as unarmed. There are lots of ways to die.


Yes I agree, but there is a difference between threatening and non-threatening. From the OP, this appears to be a case of the latter.:smalltongue:



In my campaigns, one of my religious BBEGs used suicide bombers (regular commoners), who'd walk up to my party with a necklace of fireballs in their hand and detonate them.


By this logic, everyone could be a potential threat. Are you therefore allowed to kill everybody? :smallconfused:



It's a world of magic and sorcery. There are many ways to die. Hell, in our world if the police tell you to put down your weapons and stand still and you throw down your gun and walk towards them with your arms up, they will shoot you. And the police don't live in a world with evil creatures trying to kill them at every opportunity. =P

That is an extreme situation to say the least. I am not going to get into a debate regarding our world as it is well beyond the scope of the OP. :smalltongue:

[Mnemnosyne]

Readying an action is a metagame consideration. You can't penalize the paladin for not readying one.
I wouldn't really agree that it's a metagame consideration - it's a rule that reflects the fact that, in-character, the paladin knows that since he is prepared for it, he can act immediately to kill the goblin before it has a chance to do anything.

[hamishspence]

Reasons to kill gobo
-it's a goblin 60% of which are Neutral evil leaving 40% to be other alignments which include the other 2 evils as well as CN-which tends to be a little.... off


The actual figure for Usually X alignment varies a lot. It can be as low as 51%, and as high as 90% or more.

[tcrudisi]

Readying an action is a metagame consideration. You can't penalize the paladin for not readying one.

No. I have done it before in situations where I thought a fight could break out. I have my phone out, ready to call the cops, or I linger around a stick that I can use in a fight if I believe a fight may break out. What am I doing? I'm keeping an eye on the situation (sense motive) and readying an action (to call or swing should the bad situation erupt).

[erikun]

Readying an action is a metagame consideration. You can't penalize the paladin for not readying one.
Readying an action is a mechanical game construct to explain an action a character wishes to perform. "I ready myself to jump foward and strike him down if he tries attacking or casting a spell" is readying an action, and is an entirely reasonable action to take.

Saying the Paladin cannot ready an action "because it is a metagame consideration" is like saying a Fighter cannot full attack for the same reason.

[liquid150]

Adding again: The problem here is not that he killed(nor what he killed), but the fact he killed someone that wasn't displaying threat without making sure the display was true.

Which is not in and of itself an evil act, it is an honest mistake.

To me, deliberately killing helpless villagers would be evil. Failing to use a class feature is an honest mistake.

It's pretty clear we won't agree, however.

[Theodoriph]

Theodoriph, you're going too far throwing "Metagame" all around.

Metagaming is adding a knowledge your character shouldn't have.
Metagame is trying to stay behind a beholder to cast spells without succeeding on a knowledge(dungeoneering) check nor having previous experience with them.
Metagame is your character not being afraid of risks because if he died the campaign would be over.

Readying an action? Fully within any combative character's knowledge. It's literally staying on guard and ready to react as soon as something happens.


No in roleplaying, you don't know that you'll get an action off before your opponent does. You can ready an attack in real life, but that doesn't mean you won't get attacked first by that opponent and killed.

The rules of D&D state differently. But it's metagaming when you're basing your roleplaying decisions off of those rules instead of what's actually happening in the world.

The paladin doesn't know if he just stands there with his sword in the air that he'll be able to hit the goblin first if the goblin tries to kill him or his party members.

You can't penalize him for not readying an action.

[drengnikrafe]

The more debating goes on, the less progress I see. I'm more curious about whether or not the OP's mind has been made up, and the fallout from the situation that did occur.

[Coplantor]

No, I wasn't. If the illusionist was actually helping in the battle, rather than just standing there, he would have been casting spells.

So you were serious when you said that the goblin was obviously a spell caster? Why? Because he was unnarmed?

[Snake-Aes]

Which is not in and of itself an evil act, it is an honest mistake.

To me, deliberately killing helpless villagers would be evil. Failing to use a class feature is an honest mistake.

It's pretty clear we won't agree, however.
A Good character cares about the dignity and life of others even if he doesn't like them. He saw a display of nonthreat. If he cared any for that goblin's life, he would first make sure the display was real instead of a ploy.

Honest mistake would be doing so in the middle of combat. Honest mistake would be doing so if the goblin attacked the party.

Goblin dropping his weapons and attempting to talk, and you still attack? Not compatible with a Good alignment.

[liquid150]

So you were serious when you said that the goblin was obviously a spell caster? Why? Because he was unnarmed?

Please at least attempt to read what I wrote before responding.

[Enixon]

Which is not in and of itself an evil act, it is an honest mistake.

To me, deliberately killing helpless villagers would be evil. Failing to use a class feature is an honest mistake.

It's pretty clear we won't agree, however.

wait so killing someone that killed someone that wasn't displaying a threat isn't evil? :smallconfused:

heck you may as well stab everyone, they could be assassins or dopplegangers or polymorphed red dragons or even polymorphed half-red dragon doppleganger assassins

-:smallbiggrin:hey on a side note maybe that's what MitD is! If MitD turns out to be a polymorphed half-red dragon doppleganger assassin remeber I called it first!

[hamishspence]

BoVD shows the same act (starting a rockslide that flattened a village), with 3 levels of seriousness depending on what might be expected of the paladin.

Honest Mistake, Negligence (enough to cause a Fall) and Clearly Evil act.

If he couldn't be expected to realize it could happen, it was an honest mistake.

If he was told there was a risk, thought he was skilled enough to avoid triggering the slide, and vastly overestimated his own abilities, that's Negligence.

If he knew there was a good chance it would happen, but figured his survival was more important than the safety of the village, that's Clearly Evil.

This case seems to me to fall somewhere between Negligence and Clearly Evil, but it's a long way from Honest Mistake.

[tcrudisi]

Which is not in and of itself an evil act, it is an honest mistake.

To me, deliberately killing helpless villagers would be evil. Failing to use a class feature is an honest mistake.

It's pretty clear we won't agree, however.

What do you define as helpless, then? If that villager had a hoe, he's no longer helpless. So if every farmer you run into has a farming implement that can be used as a weapon, you must attack them without first finding out if they are evil?

Oh, that farmer wasn't evil? Well, he had a hoe that he had laid on the ground and walked towards me. I assumed he was going to attack me with his mind bullets, so I had to smite him right away!

Basically, the situation can easily be applied to a villager. What he did was evil.

[Coplantor]

Please at least attempt to read what I wrote before responding.

I did, I just dont really understood what you said and this was my interpetation. I do not mean to be offensive in any way. Since there was an apparent confussion, could you please explain your opinion again?

[liquid150]

A Good character cares about the dignity and life of others even if he doesn't like them. He saw a display of nonthreat. If he cared any for that goblin's life, he would first make sure the display was real instead of a ploy.

Honest mistake would be doing so in the middle of combat. Honest mistake would be doing so if the goblin attacked the party.

Goblin dropping his weapons and attempting to talk, and you still attack? Not compatible with a Good alignment.

I see you are not familiar with the Silver Flame.

[Snake-Aes]

I see you are not familiar with the Silver Flame.

Eberron doesn't care about alignments in the same way. We have no indication that this is eberron and I don't know how much that changes for Paladins, so I don't think it's wise to add it to the table.

Except that in Eberron often evil creatures are shown as "taxpaying citizens". That really only worsens the situation for our paladin here.

[liquid150]

I did, I just dont really understood what you said and this was my interpetation. I do not mean to be offensive in any way. Since there was an apparent confussion, could you please explain your opinion again?

The statements here have been saying the gnome-goblin helped in the battle with the bugbears. As a spell caster, he would have been casting spells. Since he would have been casting spells, it would be obvious that he was a spell caster.

[hamishspence]

I've read Faiths of Eberron- and the followers of the Silver Flame are expected to treat even goblinoids and orcs with respect, unless they prove to be hostile.

This might be because what's called a "monster" in other settings is often called a "taxpayer" in Eberron though :smallwink:

And Eberron paladins are bound by the same rules as those in other settings- it's Eberron clerics that can keep their powers even if they disobey the rules of their faith.

[tyckspoon]

I see you are not familiar with the Silver Flame.

The Silver Flame is neither entirely composed of Good members nor entirely composed of Paladins. It has its share of Well Intentioned Extremists (link redacted to spare the innocent) who would do that kind of thing (although probably to a Shifter rather than a goblin), but it also has honestly Good members who would balk at it and Paladins who would still fall for doing it.

[Psyx]

no he wouldnt.
he attacked an ''evil monster'' who was attacking the camp, not knowing it was the gnome thus he did a good act.


You have to be kidding me? Gunning down a suspected criminal is 'good', if you don't even hesitate to substantiate guilt?

[tcrudisi]

They saw the goblin fighting with the bugbears and then approach without any weapons raised.

By heroic, I mean the goblin version of Dr'zzt.


The statements here have been saying the gnome-goblin helped in the battle with the bugbears. As a spell caster, he would have been casting spells. Since he would have been casting spells, it would be obvious that he was a spell caster.

Yes, he helped, but by being the goblin version of Drizzt. Since Drizzt was not a spellcaster, I think it's easy to infer that he did not cast any spells during the fight, but rather used his prowess with weapons (or at least had his current illusions make him appear to have that prowess).

[Coplantor]

If he helped via spells then he was a bit... flashier than if he had just went stabity stab stab. His presence would've most likely been noticed. There was no justification for the paladin to think that now that the bugbears are dead, he was going to attack the party.

[hamishspence]

Suppose a party of paladins were aided in their fight against attacking monsters, they scanned their helper, and he pinged as Evil. Would they promptly attack him?

I think they'd at least give him a chance to explain himself first.

[Enixon]

What do you define as helpless, then? If that villager had a hoe, he's no longer helpless. So if every farmer you run into has a farming implement that can be used as a weapon, you must attack them without first finding out if they are evil?

Oh, that farmer wasn't evil? Well, he had a hoe that he had laid on the ground and walked towards me. I assumed he was going to attack me with his mind bullets, so I had to smite him right away!

Basically, the situation can easily be applied to a villager. What he did was evil.

and before someone says "but it wasn't a farmer it was a goblin" i should point out yes it was a goblin as in you know goblins:the origanal cannon fodder, goblins:a disposable mook origanal, goblins:the low hanging fruit of the exp. tree, goblins:yeah we're just here to make you look good.

What's one goblin going do, die at the party threateningly? and if it is some uber-gob mage/psion of doom that can one-shot people with ease.....well.... your skrewed anyway, may as well try diplomacy.

[drengnikrafe]

Suppose a party of paladins were aided in their fight against attacking monsters, they scanned their helper, and he pinged as Evil. Would they promptly attack him?

Reminds me a little bit of Arthas. Enlisting the aid of monsters, and then killing them, all while being a Paladin. Of course, by that time he was pretty evil-ish.

[liquid150]

Eberron doesn't care about alignments in the same way. We have no indication that this is eberron and I don't know how much that changes for Paladins, so I don't think it's wise to add it to the table.

Except that in Eberron often evil creatures are shown as "taxpaying citizens". That really only worsens the situation for our paladin here.

My point was that the severity of the act is important, and the context is important as well. The Player's Handbook even states that characters are not always always consistent. They should not be penalized for making one mistake. Once they start to consistently act in a manner that does not follow their alignment, only THEN should they be considered for an alignment change. I do not believe in radically changing a character's alignment simply because of one act (or mistake, in this case). This would cause wild swings in alignment constantly throughout a game, which would only depend on the last action your character took.

A player should be judged based on their knowledge of the situation, not on what actions they theoretically could have taken instead. If this player systematically begins to show consistent disregard for life, then he should be subjected to falling. Simply making him fall due to one act is that of a DM that needs to reconsider his motivations.

[Snake-Aes]

My point was that the severity of the act is important, and the context is important as well. The Player's Handbook even states that characters are not always always consistent. They should not be penalized for making one mistake. Once they start to consistently act in a manner that does not follow their alignment, only THEN should they be considered for an alignment change. I do not believe in radically changing a character's alignment simply because of one act (or mistake, in this case). This would cause wild swings in alignment constantly throughout a game, which would only depend on the last action your character took.

A player should be judged based on their knowledge of the situation, not on what actions they theoretically could have taken instead. If this player systematically begins to show consistent disregard for life, then he should be subjected to falling. Simply making him fall due to one act is that of a DM that needs to reconsider his motivations.
That is true for his alignment, but not for his paladinhood. Paladins do fall by commiting evil acts. What our paladin did was, at the slightest, Negligence, which on its own drops his status. He would remain lawful good if that was a rare deed..but he'd lose his paladinhood anyway.

[Enixon]

Reminds me a little bit of Arthas. Enlisting the aid of monsters, and then killing them, all while being a Paladin. Of course, by that time he was pretty evil-ish.

Also Warcraft Pallies seem a bit different after all the blood elves got pally powers by basicaly kidnaping what is more or less the Warcraft equalavant to an angel and basicaly sucking the light magic out of it..... they got better later though.....



Anyways is the OP still here anyway we could proboly use some more insight to the situation or see if he made up his mind so then we can start arguing over weather he made the right choice.:smallsmile:

[Trasilor]

and if it is some uber-gob mage/psion of doom that can one-shot people with ease......

these are my favorite kind of goblins :smallbiggrin:

Seriously, I think there are two schools of thought here though.

The first is that the Paladin acted on what he perceived to be a threat and killed (no fall).

The second is the Paladin failed to determin the threat (which was well within his power and relative safety - see readied actions above) and killed mercilessly (fall).

The fact that it was a goblin (or perhaps gnome:smalltongue:) seams to give him a bit of a pass.

Did I miss something?

[hamishspence]

Reminds me a little bit of Arthas. Enlisting the aid of monsters, and then killing them, all while being a Paladin. Of course, by that time he was pretty evil-ish.

I was thinking more "Evil guy who happens to have Good Samaritan moments".

Jarlaxle does this in Servant of the Shard (he's officially NE in the sourcebook Underdark)

[liquid150]

That is true for his alignment, but not for his paladinhood. Paladins do fall by commiting evil acts. What our paladin did was, at the slightest, Negligence, which on its own drops his status. He would remain lawful good if that was a rare deed..but he'd lose his paladinhood anyway.

There is no evidence to suggest that a paladin should fall from a single act. There is only evidence that his alignment is what matters, and as long as his alignment remains lawful good then he is fine.

Like I said previously, we are going to have to agree to disagree because I do not believe either of us will ever convince the other.

[Trasilor]

Anyways is the OP still here anyway we could proboly use some more insight to the situation or see if he made up his mind so then we can start arguing over weather he made the right choice.:smallsmile:

absolutely, we don't argue nearly enough:smallbiggrin:

[hamishspence]

There is no evidence to suggest that a paladin should fall from a single act.

The PHB states- "if a paladin commits an evil act, he falls"

The question is whether this is an evil act.

Murder is on the list of Corrupt acts in FC2, and mentioned as exceptionally Evil in BoVD- but this isn't really murder, it's more like manslaughter.

Or in this case, gnomeslaughter :smallamused:

Alternatively, a single "gross violation of the code" causes a paladin to Fall- but the code doesn't say much about unjustified attacks on others.

[tyckspoon]

There is no evidence to suggest that a paladin should fall from a single act. There is only evidence that his alignment is what matters, and as long as his alignment remains lawful good then he is fine.

Like I said previously, we are going to have to agree to disagree because I do not believe either of us will ever convince the other.

Hi, here's the Code, mostly stripped of the further description because it's the SRD version:

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

One evil=Fall. Doesn't matter how little or what the Paladin's overall alignment is. A Paladin Does No Evil.

[drengnikrafe]

There is no evidence to suggest that a paladin should fall from a single act. There is only evidence that his alignment is what matters, and as long as his alignment remains lawful good then he is fine.


A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

No evidence?

EDIT: Doubleninja'd! But... I provided a page number. That's something, right?

[hamishspence]

On the bright side, at least it's not 2nd ed, where doing 1 Chaotic act caused paladins to Fall, as well.

[Theodoriph]

No evidence?

EDIT: Doubleninja'd! But... I provided a page number. That's something, right?


Except the act in question wasn't evil. 'Twas neutral.

[liquid150]

Well, I was referring to this statement (the SRD isn't as important as the Player's Handbook):


Alignment: Paladins must be lawful good, and they lose their
divine powers if they deviate from that alignment.

And as stated above by hamishspence, the question is important whether it is an evil act (and to me, this isn't).

[super dark33]

thats right. he havent done an evil act for reason, he done it becuause he thought its an evil goblin working with the bugbears and attacked him not to kill the specific gnome but to kill the ''evil goblin''


usually natural evil doesnt matter if the paladin is like this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0369.html)

[drengnikrafe]

Except the act in question wasn't evil. 'Twas neutral.

That's really what this entire debate hinges on. And I stand by my original statement (slightly altered from all this evidence) that since this is in highly questionable territory, it should be a slap on the wrist and probation.

[Coplantor]

On the bright side, at least it's not 2nd ed, where doing 1 Chaotic act caused paladins to Fall, as well.

Kids these days have it easy, 1 chatoic act made you fall and you had to go on an epic quest to regain your powers (no silly attonement spell), one evil act and your powers were gone for ever.

[hamishspence]

Kids these days have it easy, 1 chatoic act made you fall and you had to go on an epic quest to regain your powers (no silly attonement spell), one evil act and your powers were gone for ever.

One intentional evil act, anyway. Doing one under magical compulsion, or not willfully, meant you could atone.

[Enixon]

absolutely, we don't argue nearly enough:smallbiggrin:

if it makes you feel better somone would proboly argue that point.

ya know I can't help but wonder were all the goblin rights activists that swarm the comic discusion threads are clearly this is an issue in which PETG should involve itself in as the fact that it was a "goblin" tthat helped the party is key to the issue here, after all it was an elf that apperared out of know where and was killed it would be a non issue.... after all killing elves on sight is a clearly good action* :smallbiggrin:



*just so you know I was kidding there, killing an unarmed elf is not a good action..... it's an EXAULTED one!!**
**once again kidding

[Trasilor]

if it makes you feel better somone would proboly argue that point.


I disagree

[Theodoriph]

ya know I can't help but wonder were all the goblin rights activists that swarm the comic discusion threads are clearly this is an issue in which PETG should involve itself in as the fact that it was a "goblin" tthat helped the party is key to the issue here, after all it was an elf that apperared out of know where and was killed it would be a non issue.... after all killing elves on sight is a clearly good action* :smallbiggrin:



The goblins rights activists are protesting the gnome's use of "goblinface."

[Coplantor]

thats right. he havent done an evil act for reason, he done it becuause he thought its an evil goblin working with the bugbears and attacked him not to kill the specific gnome but to kill the ''evil goblin''


usually natural evil doesnt matter if the paladin is like this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0369.html)

You are using a paladin that fell due to her reckless actions as an examplo of why a paladin shouldnt fall due to his reckless actions?

[hamishspence]

ya know I can't help but wonder were all the goblin rights activists that swarm the comic discusion threads are clearly this is an issue in which PETG should involve itself in as the fact that it was a "goblin" tthat helped the party is key to the issue here


I like the "Chaotic/Accepting" viewpoint of Savage Species- which while having no qualms about defending yourself or others from monster attack, takes the view that evil alignment in monsters is more to do with psychological disorder than anything innate, and that they should be treated with kindness and consideration (though also with caution).

It goes on to speculate that "even the foulest tanar'ri may in truth be the victim of it's own psychoses"

Whether WoTC takes the same view or not is hard to tell- but they did give us the redeemed succubus paladin.

[tcrudisi]

Please inform me why the following is neutral and not evil:

"You attack and kill someone who is unarmed and had just helped to save your life moments before."

[Theodoriph]

Please inform me why the following is neutral and not evil:

"You attack and kill someone who is unarmed and had just helped to save your life moments before."


That's a very simplistic view of the situation.

[Caphi]

That's a very simplistic view of the situation.

That is an accurate view of the situation.

[Enixon]

Please inform me why the following is neutral and not evil:

"You attack and kill someone who is unarmed and had just helped to save your life moments before."

Clearly the goblin and bubear were playing a sort of real life Counterstrike and the goblin didn't want the bugbear to steal his kill so pk-ed him as such killing the pk-er and forcing him to wait to respawn whiles being berated on team speak is a just and admirable act, also mind-bullets.


Just once I'ld love for that to be the real reason.

[Starbuck_II]

Please inform me why the following is neutral and not evil:

"You attack and kill someone who is unarmed and had just helped to save your life moments before."

No, it would be more accurate:
"You awake after hearing signs iof the enemy attacking your camp. You see goblins fighting each other. You attack and kill one who had just fought the others (but they all look alike so you can't be sure). You are unsure why your oppnents fought each other, but the detraction made it easier to kill them. You are safe andf now ponder why they attacked your camp. "

[Snake-Aes]

No, it would be more accurate:
"You awake after hearing signs iof the enemy attacking your camp. You see goblins fighting each other. You attack and kill one who had just fought the others (but they all look alike so you can't be sure). You are unsure why your oppnents fought each other, but the detraction made it easier to kill them. You are safe andf now ponder why they attacked your camp. "

Yeah, except it's just as full of bias.

What we have is: You wake after hearing signs of fight nearby. You see a goblin fighting bugbears and winning. The goblin drops his weapon and comes to talk. You attack and kill it.

[Kylarra]

It's easy to metagame that you know that the goblin was fighting the bugbears, but ...

1) It's dark/night aka poor lighting
2) goblinoid casting spells on goblins
2a) spellcraft not on paladin's skill list + int a dump stat
2b) "unarmed" with a spellcaster means nothing
3) He's opening his mouth to speak, when you know he's a caster, he's a goblinoid, and you were just fighting goblinoids


Is it the best of actions to kill him instantly? Nope, but if a single hit killed him, then it's definitely not necessarily an evil act since there's no way for the paladin to know for sure that he'd be able to one hit kill the target rather than just putting it down to a point where he can tie him up and interrogate at his leisure, rather than letting him run free to signal other bugbears to attack. Sure he could've gone for subdual damage instead, but if a single hit put him to -10 instantly, it's not the paladin's fault necessarily unless he was pulling out all the stops to do it.

[Snake-Aes]

Is it the best of actions to kill him instantly? Nope, but if a single hit killed him, then it's definitely not necessarily an evil act since there's no way for the paladin to know for sure that he'd be able to OHKO the target rather than just putting it down to a point where he can tie him up and interrogate at his leisure, rather than letting him run free to signal other bugbears to attack.

His magic weapon is specifically of the sort that "sometimes kills instantly". If he didn't intend to kill, he wouldn't use it.

[Kylarra]

His magic weapon is specifically of the sort that "sometimes kills instantly". If he didn't intend to kill, he wouldn't use it.
Eh, debatable. It may just have been the only weapon he had on hand, or he forgot its powers, or he was banking on luck to not kill him.

[Theodoriph]

His magic weapon is specifically of the sort that "sometimes kills instantly". If he didn't intend to kill, he wouldn't use it.


No....he'd go back to his sleeping tent for his other weapons....jesus.

[Snake-Aes]

Those are as much a stretch as assuming what they would not know based on what the dm said.

Unless he said these things to us but not to the player, but then he's being a **** to us.

I guess we still have to stick to "Let's wait for the guy to clarify it all".


No....he'd go back to his sleeping tent for his other weapons....jesus.

Fun fact: nonlethal damage interrupts spellcasting just as well as lethal damage.
Grappling hampers most spellcasters.
Zone of Truth could be cast.

[Kylarra]

Well, he was resting, ergo one can assume that he doesn't sleep fully equipped with all his weapons sheathed and ready on his body.

They were attacked while making rest so he grabs his strongest weapon, not taking the time to grab secondaries, because hey, being attacked here.

Hardly a stretch.


Fun fact: nonlethal damage interrupts spellcasting just as well as lethal damage.
Grappling hampers most spellcasters.
Zone of Truth could be cast.I'm assuming your sword of sometimes instant killing triggers on an attack roll, and not specifically lethal damage.

Grappling provokes OAs and frankly everyone sucks at it unless they're trying for it.

If he's a level 8+ paladin...

[Snake-Aes]

Well, he was resting, ergo one can assume that he doesn't sleep fully equipped with all his weapons sheathed and ready on his body.

They were attacked while making rest so he grabs his strongest weapon, not taking the time to grab secondaries, because hey, being attacked here.

Hardly a stretch.
Indeed. Doesn't preclude attacking him instantly tho:

They saw the goblin fighting with the bugbears and then approach without any weapons raised. By heroic, I mean the goblin version of Dr'zzt.

[tcrudisi]

The party gnome illusionist was keeping watch when bugbears started sneaking on the camp. He went inside a tent cast disguise self to look like a goblin then make it seem like he killed his party members. Coming out like they were killed giving the all clear. The bugbears attacked anyways, and after the combat was over the gnome (being a bit of a prankster) decided to keep up the act and pretended to be a heroic goblin who then be off to help another in need. The paladin in the party attacked before anything could be said and kills the gnome (With Frostrazor). Does the paladin fall?


They saw the goblin fighting with the bugbears and then approach without any weapons raised.

By heroic, I mean the goblin version of Dr'zzt.


It's easy to metagame that you know that the goblin was fighting the bugbears, but ...

1) It's dark/night aka poor lighting
2) goblinoid casting spells on goblins
2a) spellcraft not on paladin's skill list + int a dump stat
2b) "unarmed" with a spellcaster means nothing
3) He's opening his mouth to speak, when you know he's a caster, he's a goblinoid, and you were just fighting goblinoids

Based on the information given from the OP:
1) He never said it was dark/night or that there was poor lighting. The players made camp, but that could be because they were out of spells, not because it was night. Even if it was night, there's no guarantee that it was poor lighting.
2) He never mentioned the goblin was casting spells. In fact, he said the goblin was doing an imitation of Drizzt, a popular character that knows no magic and is very well-renowned for his fighting ability. As such, it is safer to assume (of course, it is an assumption) that the goblin did not cast any spells.
2a) Spellcraft does not need to be on his skill list as he likely never saw any spells cast.
2b) Unarmed with a fighting specialist (like a fighter) does mean something.
3) Yes, bugbears are goblinoids, but they look nothing like goblins. If you put two side-by-side, you would easily see the difference. As such, he's opening his mouth to speak, you assume he's a fighter, and he looks as different from the bugbears as you do. He's also unarmed.

[Theodoriph]

Those are as much a stretch as assuming what they would not know based on what the dm said.

Unless he said these things to us but not to the player, but then he's being a **** to us.

I guess we still have to stick to "Let's wait for the guy to clarify it all".



Fun fact: nonlethal damage interrupts spellcasting just as well as lethal damage.
Grappling hampers most spellcasters.
Zone of Truth could be cast.


Fun facts: From a roleplaying standpoint, it's extremely difficult to deal non-lethal damage with a sword. It's also not as effective damagewise from a roleplaying standpoint (though mechanically it is, though that's metagaming)
Trying to grapple the goblin doesn't stop the goblin from killing you or your party.
Zone of Truth doesn't stop the goblin from killing you or your party.

[Kylarra]

I already put to question the whole "saw him fighting bugbears" thing by pointing out spellcaster + not having spellcraft = suspicious; poor lighting; confusion of battle.

Certainly from a metagame perspective you could hear the other player saying I do this, this, and that, and I have no problem with behaving uncharacteristically from a metagame perspective in order to keep party peace, but at the same time, it's not implausible for the goblin fighting bugbears to not be so readily apparent to the character.

Without any weapons raised was negated by the spellcaster point as well.

Also, imitating a fighting character with D4 Hps and poor BAB? The gnome deserved to die in order to win a darwin award.

[Snake-Aes]

Fun facts: From a roleplaying standpoint, it's extremely difficult to deal non-lethal damage with a sword.
Trying to grapple the goblin doesn't stop the goblin from killing you or your party.
Zone of Truth doesn't stop the goblin from killing you or your party.

Sure, it doesn't.
But how much can they expect to be killed like that? How much does that preclude the inherent respect for life good characters have, and paladins epitomize?
This is why it's important: The paladin could assess the threat and didn't. He instantly assumed it was a threat and attacked.

[Caphi]

Fun facts: From a roleplaying standpoint, it's extremely difficult to deal non-lethal damage with a sword.

Actually, it's about as hard as whatever the onstage translation of -4 to the attack roll is. And being a full BAB class, the paladin would have a pretty good idea of that.


Trying to grapple the goblin doesn't stop the goblin from killing you or your party.

If your character is so paranoid as to assume that every goblin, commoner, and housecat might still dominate person you at any moment, we have other problems, and you will be summarily immobilized and left behind at the nearest opportunity.

All fully IC roleplaying, of course.


Zone of Truth doesn't stop the goblin from killing you or your party.

Immobilize, then question. Better than leaping to bisection as your first option, and certainly much more Good.

[Starbuck_II]

2) He never mentioned the goblin was casting spells. In fact, he said the goblin was doing an imitation of Drizzt, a popular character that knows no magic and is very well-renowned for his fighting ability. As such, it is safer to assume (of course, it is an assumption) that the goblin did not cast any spells.


Have you read Drizzt? He casts spells (he is a Drow). Drow get spell-likes naturally (always have).

[Coplantor]

Also, imitating a fighting character with D4 Hps and poor BAB? The gnome deserved to die in order to win a darwin award.

It's surprising how a few spells might make you a better fighter than a guy with d10 HD and full BAB

[Theodoriph]

Actually, it's about as hard as whatever the onstage translation of -4 to the attack roll is. And being a full BAB class, the paladin would have a pretty good idea of that.

Metagaming is bad. Either way a -4 is alot when it's a life or death situation. Much better to protect your party members.



If your character is so paranoid as to assume that every goblin, commoner, and housecat might still dominate person you at any moment, we have other problems

The character is not assuming that. The paladin has determined that this particular goblin is evil given these particular cirumstances.

[Snake-Aes]

Metagaming is bad.Either way a -4 is alot when it's a life or death situation. Much better to protect your party members.
so you call metagaming a character that is extensively trained to hit things with his sword knowing he has a good chance of pulling it off compared to characters who aren't extensively trained?
He sure would not know that "he has a -4 penalty", but he does know that it is harder, but he can still pull that off reasonably.
How much must a penalty be to preclude a character betraying his ideals?


The character is not assuming that. The paladin has determined that this particular goblin is evil. And this is the key factor: he determined it arbitrarily. He didn't back it with any valid knowledge. He just saw goblin, said "evil" and slashed away.

[Kylarra]

It's surprising how a few spells might make you a better fighter than a guy with d10 HD and full BABUsually those spells are along the polymorph line or amidst the divine spectrum though. :smallwink:

Anyway, I'm not saying what the paladin did was necessarily right, or that he necessarily shouldn't fall, simply that circumstances easily make things far more complicated than the OP has presented it as.

[liquid150]

2) He never mentioned the goblin was casting spells. In fact, he said the goblin was doing an imitation of Drizzt, a popular character that knows no magic and is very well-renowned for his fighting ability. As such, it is safer to assume (of course, it is an assumption) that the goblin did not cast any spells.

He never said the goblin WASN'T casting spells, either. As a wizard, that is exactly what he would do in combat.

Everybody keeps focusing on Drizzt as a melee combatant, and is completely ignoring what the OP probably meant: that he was going to try to portray a typically evil creature with a good alignment. Somebody does not need to have scimitars and a cat to imitate Drizzt, just look at what Jarlaxle did.

By heroic he most likely meant HEROIC, not that the gnome goblin was spinning around with scimitars doing snap-kicks and backflips.

[Coplantor]

Metagaming is bad. Either way a -4 is alot when it's a life or death situation. Much better to protect your party members.

Metagaming what? Taking the chance to go subdual because you know it's only a -4 and you have a good BAB/Str? The character knows he is skilled and a good fighter, he knows that he is most likely to score that hit, specially if your enemy is not wearing any armor.

EDIT: @Kylarra: Touche :smalltongue:

[liquid150]

A little off-topic, in any game where I was DM and a player did this, he probably would have just done his party a major favor.

When there is a gnome NPC hanging around the party, he is typically up to no good and not to be trusted. But hey, that's just my games. :smallamused:

[Caphi]

A little off-topic, in any game where I was DM and a player did this, he probably would have just done his party a major favor.

When there is a gnome NPC hanging around the party, he is typically up to no good and not to be trusted. But hey, that's just my games. :smallamused:

The gnome was a PC, and this pretty much has nothing to do with anything.

[Beelzebub1111]

Wow, this sure ballooned

Some clarifications needed from what I read:
The gnome was fighting in melee. It had mirror image, but they were all gone by the time the combat was over.
The reason the gnome was disguised as a goblin, was because he tried to convince the bugbears that the camp wasn't worth attacking, and that he took care of it already, maybe get a surprise attack in if they investigate.
He sheathed his weapon, walking back and managed to put on a pretty good goblin voice, saying "Good thing I come by..."
He thought he might have produced an opportunity to make an alter-ego.
It is night, but the there was a sufficient light-source to see the entire combat.

Anything I miss?

[Lysander]

Imagine if, for a moment, it wasn't a gnome illusionist but actually a good goblin. Let's say a plot crucial NPC who is part of a rebellion of good goblins trying to free his people from the BBEG's slavery. The DM decides the best way to introduce this character is to have him assist the party to show he's a good guy, and then talk about the rebellion so the party can join forces with them.

DM: "The goblin sheaths his sword and walks over to talk."
Paladin: "I kill it."
DM: "Wait, what? Why? He just helped you!"
Paladin: "Goblins are evil. You said his sword was sheathed right? Does that give me a surprise round when I attack?"
DM: "Uhhh....yeah. I guess. Are you sure you don't want to use detect evil on him first?"
Paladin: "Nah, he could be a wizard trying to trick me. So I attack...and roll an 18. Is it dead?"
DM: "Yeah. Crap. *sigh* Ok, so you loot the corpse and find a letter from a well known good human cleric offering to help the goblins rebel against the Dark Lord Necromancer. There's also a map showing where the goblin rebel headquarters are, if you want to go meet their leaders to join forces."
Paladin: "Sweet! Let's go kill those goblin rebels!"
DM: *facepalm*

[tcrudisi]

Have you read Drizzt? He casts spells (he is a Drow). Drow get spell-likes naturally (always have).

Yep, I've read most of the books (I stopped reading them about 4 years back). Drizzt does not cast any spells. He is a drow, so he does get the 3 basic SLA - faerie fire, levitate, and darkness. They are spell like abilities and not spells. He also casts a few Ranger spells -- mostly Calm Animals or Speak with Animals sort of thing... nothing that would be done in 99.5% of combats (warning: I made up that statistic, but 87.3% of all statistics are made up anyway).

And I'm glad the OP showed back up -- from what he is reading though, it only reaffirms what I have said previously.

[hamishspence]

And he lost access to Levitate after a few months on the surface.

[Theodoriph]

so you call metagaming a character that is extensively trained to hit things with his sword knowing he has a good chance of pulling it off compared to characters who aren't extensively trained?
He sure would not know that "he has a -4 penalty", but he does know that it is harder, but he can still pull that off reasonably.

Actually he knows none of that. For all you know, he's never actually tried to deal non-lethal damage with a sword. All you can assume he knows is that it's harder to deal non-lethal damage with a double edged pointy weapon and that from a roleplaying perspective, hitting someone with the flat of a sword does less damage.



And this is the key factor: he determined it arbitrarily. He didn't back it with any valid knowledge. He just saw goblin, said "evil" and slashed away.

He backed it with valid knowledge combined with his perspective on events.

1) We're being attacked in camp.
2) The attackers are monsters.
3) The lives of myself and my party members are at risk.
4) One of the monsters is a goblin.
5) Goblins don't just wander by every day.
5) Goblins are related to bugbears.
6) The likelihood of the goblin not being affiliated with the bugbears is next to nothing.
7) The Goblin also seems to be infighting with the Bugbears.
8) The Goblin knows magic (mirror image)
9) Goblins are malicious and ingenius schemers. (source: common knowledge)
10) The Goblin survived and the bugbears died. The Goblin must be very powerful.
11) The Goblin sheathed his visible weapon, but he knows magic.
12) The Goblin is approaching us menacingly.
13) The evil goblin is plotting something and will kill us.
14) I must protect my party members.

One to twelve are essentially all the paladin knows. Thirteen and fourteen are probably what he thinks.

[Snake-Aes]

Actually he knows none of that. For all you know, he's never actually tried to deal non-lethal damage with a sword. All you can assume he knows is that it's harder to deal non-lethal damage with a double edged pointy weapon and that from a roleplaying perspective, hitting someone with the flat of a sword does less damage.


It is a valid assumption that anyone with high bab knows it. Much more so someone who embodies the ideals of justice, and epitomizes the lawful good alignment.



He backed it with valid knowledge combined with his perspective on events.

1) We're being attacked in camp.
2) The attackers are monsters.
3) The lives of myself and my party members are at risk.
4) One of the monsters is a goblin.
5) Goblins don't just wander by every day.
5) Goblins are related to bugbears.
6) The likelihood of the goblin not being affiliated with the bugbears is next to nothing.
7) The Goblin also seems to be infighting with the Bugbears/
8) The Goblin knows magic (mirror image)
9) Goblins are malicious and ingenius schemers.
10) The Goblin survived and the bugbears died. The Goblin must be very powerful.
11) The Goblin sheathed his visible weapon.
12) The Goblin is approaching us.
13) The evil goblin is plotting something and will kill us.
14) I must protect my party members.

One to twelve are essentially all the paladin knows. Thirteen and fourteen are probably what he thinks.
And the fact he came up with 13 just like that is what makes it all fallworthy. #13 is pretty much a Mikonclusion. You're completely handwaving 11,12 and the fact he tried to actually talk. With words. That alone is worth the benefit of doubt.

[Coplantor]

1) We're being attacked in camp.
2) The attackers are monsters.
3) The lives of myself and my party members are at risk.
4) One of the monsters is a goblin.
5) Goblins don't just wander by every day.
5) Goblins are related to bugbears.
6) The likelihood of the goblin not being affiliated with the bugbears is next to nothing.
7) The Goblin also seems to be infighting with the Bugbears
8) Goblins are malicious and ingenius schemers.
9) The Goblin survived and the bugbears died. The Goblin must be very powerful.
10) The Goblin sheathed his visible weapon.
11) The Goblin is approaching us.
12) The evil goblin is plotting something and will kill us.
13) I must protect my party members.

One to eleven are essentially all the paladin knows. Twelve and thirteen are probably what he thinks.

From 1 to 11 there are no real reasons to attack, 6 should be with the "what he thinks" since evidence points otherwise. 8 is just biased thougth.

12 and 13 is just paranoia and recklesness. And when your powers are granted to you by univrsal powers, your point of view on the matter is meaningless.

[Theodoriph]

From 1 to 11 there are no real reasons to attack, 6 should be with the "what he thinks" since evidence points otherwise. 8 is just biased thougth.

12 and 13 is just paranoia and recklesness. And when your powers are granted to you by univrsal powers, your point of view on the matter is meaningless.


One to Eleven consist of multiple reasons to attack. Six is based on probability. Eight isn't biased. It's common knowledge. It's also true. That's their description in the monster manual. Every cowherd can tell you about those shifty evil goblins. And it's not paranoia when you're actually under attack.

[Snake-Aes]

Six is based on probability. Eight isn't biased. It's common knowledge. That's their description in the monster manual. Every cowherd can tell you about those shifty evil goblins. And it's not paranoia when you're actually under attack.
Again, I ask: How much are you willing to sacrifice innocents by not giving them the benefit of doubt? How many lives must you destroy in order to "Make sure" things work your way?

Hint: None at all if you are Good. PHB2 describes an evil personality's action to "kill them all" when your character is hired to cleanse the lycanthropy infection from a small village, just to be thorough since most will be infected anyway.

[Coplantor]

Probablity of what? You saw the little fellow fighting against them!
There was nothing that could make the paladin or anyone there suspect of the gobling trying to kill them.

"12) The evil goblin is plotting something and will kill us."

Automatically assuiming that the goblin is evil based on "common knowledge".
He was helping us, therefore he must be plotting something.
He is evil and he is plotting, he wants to kill us!
I must kill first!

[Theodoriph]

Again, I ask: How much are you willing to sacrifice innocents by not giving them the benefit of doubt? How many lives must you destroy in order to "Make sure" things work your way?

Hint: None at all if you are Good. PHB2 describes an evil personality's action to "kill them all" when your character is hired to cleanse the lycanthropy infection from a small village, just to be thorough since most will be infected anyway.


I see no innocents. Only one goblin, who's an enemy and about to attack with magic.

[Snake-Aes]

Probablity of what? You saw the little fellow fighting against them!
There was nothing that could make the paladin or anyone there suspect of the gobling trying to kill them.

"12) The evil goblin is plotting something and will kill us."

Automatically assuiming that the goblin is evil based on "common knowledge".
He was helping us, therefore he must be plotting something.
He is evil and he is plotting, he wants to kill us!
I must kill first!
Thus why I named it "Mikonclusion". We have an excellent example of a paladin that fell doing exactly what our paladin here did.

[Zore]

One to Eleven consist of multiple reasons to attack. Six is based on probability. Eight isn't biased. It's common knowledge. It's also true. That's their description in the monster manual. Every cowherd can tell you about those shifty evil goblins. And it's not paranoia when you're actually under attack.

The monster manual says not all Goblins are evil explicitly. And if someone approaches with a sheathed weapon you are not under attack, especially if they are attempting to communicate.

[Caphi]

The reason I stepped out of this is because with each of Theodoriph's posts, his stance smells more and more of rationalization, which is one of the most powerful forces in the human mindscape.

Whether the paladin feels justified in the heat of the moment, which I think was Theo's thesis at some point, is irrelevant; if he falls and regrets it, he's welcome to atone. But if he insists on rationalizing it, the way Theo is doing now, he will be ineligible for atonement.

[Snake-Aes]

I see no innocents. Only one goblin, who's an enemy and about to attack with magic.

That's called Schizophrenia.

The goblin fought enemies, sheathed his weapon and talked.
The paladin could have rolled sense motive instead of automatically assuming it was evil, and plotting against you.
Especially when goblins are known as usually evil. "Usually" implies that the number of Evils is greater than the number of Neutrals, and greater than the number of Goods.

[Theodoriph]

Probablity of what? You saw the little fellow fighting against them!
There was nothing that could make the paladin or anyone there suspect of the gobling trying to kill them.

"12) The evil goblin is plotting something and will kill us."

Automatically assuiming that the goblin is evil based on "common knowledge".
He was helping us, therefore he must be plotting something.
He is evil and he is plotting, he wants to kill us!
I must kill first!


Read the list. There are lots of reasons to suspect the goblin.

[Coplantor]

I see no innocents. Only one goblin, who's an enemy and about to attack with magic.

Come on! You cant be serious!

Also, you say that reading an action is metagaming, so is asking for a sense motive to avoid killing another PC and so is doing subdual amage bcause the character does not know if he can.

Yet goblins are evil and is common knowledge because it says so on their monster manual entry?

[Theodoriph]

That's called Schizophrenia.

The goblin fought enemies, sheathed his weapon and talked.
The paladin could have rolled sense motive instead of automatically assuming it was evil, and plotting against you.
Especially when goblins are known as usually evil. "Usually" implies that the number of Evils is greater than the number of Neutrals, and greater than the number of Goods.


The paladin roleplayed sense motive as we discussed before. He failed it. No meta-gaming, yes. Sheathed what weapon? You can't sheathe spells. Putting away a dagger does little to deter from the threat of a goblin mage.

[Snake-Aes]

The paladin roleplayed sense motive as we discussed before. He failed it. No meta-gaming, yes. Sheathed what weapon? You can't sheathe spells. Putting away a dagger does little to deter from the threat of a goblin mage.
You are deliberately calling "metagaming" on what is, by the rules, the character's capability of assessing the situation.


The reason I stepped out of this is because with each of Theodoriph's posts, his stance smells more and more of rationalization, which is one of the most powerful forces in the human mindscape.

Whether the paladin feels justified in the heat of the moment, which I think was Theo's thesis at some point, is irrelevant; if he falls and regrets it, he's welcome to atone. But if he insists on rationalizing it, the way Theo is doing now, he will be ineligible for atonement.

I'm with you. There's no point in bashing heads with Theo. He keeps bringing exactly the same argument without backing it by anything other than a certainty that we saw in a certain Bissected Beige Paladin.

[Theodoriph]

Come on! You cant be serious!

Also, you say that reading an action is metagaming, so is asking for a sense motive to avoid killing another PC and so is doing subdual amage bcause the character does not know if he can.

Yet goblins are evil and is common knowledge because it says so on their monster manual entry?


Ummm no. Goblins are shifty, nefarious, evil creatures because that's the lore of the standard D&D setting.

[Coplantor]

Read the list. There are lots of reasons to suspect the goblin.

I read the list and inidcated wich points of it either made no sense or were reasons to make the paladin fall.
And the OP told us, the goblin fought without weapons, there was no reason for the fighter to believe that he was going to make doom rain all over the place

[Theodoriph]

You are deliberately calling "metagaming" on what is, by the rules, the character's capability of assessing the situation.


The character is quite capable of assessing the situation without a "sense motive" roll, and in character, he did so. You don't need to make a roll for every decision you make, or every time someone says something to you.

[hamishspence]

Technically it's "usually Neutral Evil" raising the possibility that a proportion of the exceptions will be LE and CE.

Still, it's probable that a reasonable proportion will be LN, N or CN, and a small proportion will be Good.

Not to mention that even Evil beings vary a great deal. An Evil being who hasn't done much actual evil, through a lifetime in slavery, who's just been released and is moving toward Neutrality through gratitude to those who've released him, certainly doesn't deserve to die.

Goblins tend to be the slaves of worse evils- which may make them good candidates for redemption- since they've seen what it's like to be oppressed by the Evil.

[Coplantor]

The character is quite capable of assessing the situation without a "sense motive" roll, and in character, he did so. You don't need to make a roll for every decision you make, or every time someone says something to you.

With this I agree, sort of, but still, he commited a reckless, evil act. Doubting of the nature of everything is a paranid act, it wont save you from falling.

[Lysander]

Even if the paladin knows the goblin is a wizard, that doesn't justify killing them on the spot. Saying "good thing I stopped by" isn't provocation.

It would have been pretty ironic if the goblin was a powerful good wizard though, with enough hitpoints to survive the goblin's assault. The next round when the goblin casts prismatic spray would have been pretty hilarious.

[Theodoriph]

I read the list and inidcated wich points of it either made no sense or were reasons to make the paladin fall.
And the OP told us, the goblin fought without weapons, there was no reason for the fighter to believe that he was going to make doom rain all over the place

Sure there were. Again they're in the list. And yes, I'll agree that most are circumstantial, but that's not a bad thing. The circumstantial evidence is strong enough for the paladin to know that something's up.


His only mistake was not realizing that what was up, was a prank. But you can't expect him to think of all contingencies.

[Starbuck_II]

Even if the paladin knows the goblin is a wizard, that doesn't justify killing them on the spot. Saying "good thing I stopped by" isn't provocation.

It could have been a villian's monalogue. He was gloating.

[Coplantor]

Sure there were. Again they're in the list. And yes, I'll agree that most are circumstantial, but that's not a bad thing. The circumstantial evidence is strong enough for the paladin to know that something's up.


His only mistake was not realizing that what was up, was a prank. But you can't expect him to think of all contingencies.

Why do you refuse to see that we are not discussing killing the gnome, but killing an otherwise non hostile goblin?

[Liekurmomma]

I'm a bit confused as to how OP could even think that this situation would make the paladin fall, being that its obvious it wouldn't. Unless the laws that the paladin abides by state that he can't kill under any circumstance whatsoever I'm going to assume he is not supposed to murder. What the paladin did was not murder but accidental manslaughter. While its not a good thing, it certainly isn't an evil act and by no means an unlawful one. As far as weopons and equipment go, there is nothing (unless otherwise mandated by the "laws" the paladin abides by) stating that he can not be in possession of or use "evil" items or that doing so would be an evil act or unlawful.

Then again, I tend to view the paladin as the good cop type character rather than the holier thanholy goodness character it seems people view it as.

[Lysander]

Manslaughter is accidentally killing someone. This is a deliberate homicide. The question is whether it was justifiable self-defense or not.

[Theodoriph]

Why do you refuse to see that we are not discussing killing the gnome, but killing an otherwise non hostile goblin?

I do see that. Why do you get the impression I don't. Because I'm referring to a contingency that the Paladin didn't foresee when analyzing the situation and determing that the hostile goblin was a threat to his and his party's safety?

[hamishspence]

Manslaughter is accidentally killing someone. This is a deliberate homicide. The question is whether it was justifiable self-defense or not.

Not always- there are jurisdictions where "imperfect self-defense" can result in a manslaughter verdict- if the character had the "honest but unreasonable" belief that they were about to be attacked- so had to strike first.


I do see that. Why do you get the impression I don't. Because I'm referring to a contingency that the Paladin didn't foresee when analyzing the situation and determing that the hostile goblin was a threat to his and his party's safety?

Because the paladin did not, at the time, have a good reason to believe that this particular goblin was hostile.

[Coplantor]

@Liekuromma: It was premeditated murder that turned out to be accidentl manslaughter because of magic.

@Theo: Can I call you Theo?:smalltongue: Well, you gaved me that impression when you said: "His only mistake was not realizing that what was up, was a prank. But you can't expect him to think of all contingencies."

[Theodoriph]

Manslaughter is accidentally killing someone. This is a deliberate homicide. The question is whether it was justifiable self-defense or not.

Homicide refers to killing a man. That should be obvious from its Latin roots. :smalltongue:

[Liekurmomma]

At this point we'd have to ask OP the intent of the paladin when he killed the goblin.

[Theodoriph]

@Liekuromma: It was premeditated murder that turned out to be accidentl manslaughter because of magic.

@Theo: Can I call you Theo?:smalltongue: Well, you gaved me that impression when you said: "His only mistake was not realizing that what was up, was a prank. But you can't expect him to think of all contingencies."


Well because there are two basic conceivable options.

1) The goblin is a friend
2) The goblin is a foe

The paladin has a number of reasons to choose 2, but only because he does not conceive of the third option

3) The goblin is really the gnome disguised as a goblin.

Option 3 would explain all his suspicions, but I can't hold it against him for not conceiving of it. Without three, there are a lot of peculiarities with regards to the situation which could lead to him pick 2.

[hamishspence]

Homicide refers to killing a man. That should be obvious from its Latin roots. :smalltongue:

A man- or a woman, or a child, or (in D&D) an elf, or dwarf, etc.

Even outside Eberron, goblins can become citizens of other kingdoms (Cityscape mentions that some cities have goblinoid districts) They may be something of an underclass, despised by the rest of society, but killing them is still murder.

[Beelzebub1111]

At this point we'd have to ask OP the intent of the paladin when he killed the goblin.

Goblins are notoriously evil. SMASH!

[Coplantor]

Goblins are notoriously evil. SMASH!

You made me LOL, I'm at work. You are cool.

@Theo: Actual options

1) Friend
2) Foe
3) Third Party.

And even, according to your list of facts, the less likely is the Foe option. And forget about the goblin being a gnome in disguise since it makes no difference.

[tcrudisi]

I'll play. My responses in Italics within your quote. Oops, italics did not work since the quote command automatically puts everything in quotes. Instead, my response will be bolded.


He backed it with valid knowledge combined with his perspective on events.

1) We're being attacked in camp. True.
2) The attackers are monsters. the ones attacking the players are bugbears.
3) The lives of myself and my party members are at risk. Yep.
4) One of the monsters is a goblin. This monster happens to be attacking only the bugbears, who are the ones attacking you.
5) Goblins don't just wander by every day. Nope, they certainly don't.
5) Goblins are related to bugbears. Yep... I'm related to my family as well, although I only talk to them once a year.
6) The likelihood of the goblin not being affiliated with the bugbears is next to nothing. next to nothing? Obviously, it's not nothing, since this case demonstrated it. Also, the fact that it's attacking the bugbears means that it's affiliation is negative and not positive.
7) The Goblin also seems to be infighting with the Bugbears. This right here is a very worrisome step. If it's fighting with the Bugbears, it is certainly for a reason.
8) The Goblin knows magic (mirror image) A fairly low-level spell (second?). Of course, it could know 9th level spells... but then why was it meleeing with the bugbears instead of just fireballing them?
9) Goblins are malicious and ingenius schemers. (source: common knowledge) Agreed.
10) The Goblin survived and the bugbears died. The Goblin must be very powerful. Uh... no? It could be very weak. It DID have the PC's helping, after all. Or did the goblin do it all on his own?
11) The Goblin sheathed his visible weapon, but he knows magic. Yep, and if that magic was dangerous enough, it would have used it more readily against the bugbears.
12) The Goblin is approaching us menacingly. Menacingly? No way. He sheathed his weapons and started walking towards the players. That is not menacing. Menacing would be to walk towards the players with weapons drawn. If he's a caster, he doesn't want to be near them, so he'd want to back away. Nothing here adds up.
13) The evil goblin is plotting something and will kill us. As I said above, he's either the dumbest wizard ever (getting into melee with melee types) when he wants to kill the PCs or he's demonstrating a sign of peace by sheathing his weapons and attempting to communicate.
14) I must protect my party members. Sure, but there are many ways to protect the party members. In this case, using Sense Motive, any social skill (Bluff, Diplomacy), casting Zone of Truth, using Detect Evil, etc, would have allowed him to protect his party members... and actually avoid killing one of them.

One to twelve are essentially all the paladin knows. Thirteen and fourteen are probably what he thinks.

The thing that really gets me is that he's been running around with this gnome illusionist. I know when I've played with an illusionist, I've always kept a wary eye out for tricks and pranks because they do so enjoy doing them.

[Liekurmomma]

I guess I have to change what I said earlier. If his intent was malicious, he did not commit manslaughter, but murder, regardless of the magic spell.

[tcrudisi]

Well because there are two basic conceivable options.

1) The goblin is a friend
2) The goblin is a foe

The paladin has a number of reasons to choose 2, but only because he does not conceive of the third option

3) The goblin is really the gnome disguised as a goblin.

Option 3 would explain all his suspicions, but I can't hold it against him for not conceiving of it. Without three, there are a lot of peculiarities with regards to the situation which could lead to him pick 2.

1) The goblin is a friend.

He did just assist the party with the bugbears that attacked them. Then he puts away his weapons and tries to talk with the players.

2) The goblin is a foe.

His actions did not demonstrate this at all. The only thing I can think of to substantiate this claim is that it is a goblin and all goblins must be foes.

So, do you go on a preconceived ideal about a race or go on ones actions when first meeting them? The paladin did the former ... without even considering that the actions could be pointing to something completely different.

[Caphi]

So, do you go on a preconceived ideal about a race or go on ones actions when first meeting them? The paladin did the former ... without even considering that the actions could be pointing to something completely different.

And defaulted to lethal force. I'm not sure if I can stress that enough. Normal LG paladins offer mercy even when the enemy is a clear, direct threat (drawn weapons, announced intent to kill), let alone when the "enemy"'s only crime is "being a goblin in the presence of a paladin" and is alone and has disarmed himself and is attempting to start parley. Even if the paladin was completely justified in believing the goblin was a threat, immobilizing, disarming, and interrogating would have been simple.

As a side note, The paladin may have believed himself to be completely in the right at the time of the incident (putting aside how he feels after the fact), but that doesn't mean he doesn't fall. Even though he didn't think he was screwing up, he still screwed up. (And big time, from an IC and OOC perspective, too.)

[Theodoriph]

You made me LOL, I'm at work. You are cool.

@Theo: Actual options

1) Friend
2) Foe
3) Third Party.

And even, according to your list of facts, the less likely is the Foe option. And forget about the goblin being a gnome in disguise since it makes no difference.



The goblin disguised is relevant only because it explains why the Paladin could not properly decipher the situation.

Foe:

A goblin, a relative to bugbears, and three bugbears planned to raid our camp and kill us. They had a disagreement over how to divide the loot/season the meat and being the violent, evil creatures that they are, started to fight. The goblin defeated the bugbears, for some unknown reason. The goblin is now scheming to talk his way out of being killed, or launching a surprise magic attack.

Friend:

Three bugbears planned to raid our camp and kill us. A goblin, who was in the area for some unknown reason, decides, for some unknown reason, to defend us and attack the other goblinoids, the bugbears. The goblin defeats the bugbears, for some unknown reason. The goblin sheathes his weapon and greets us.


In other words, it's probably much easier for the paladin to come to the conclusion that the goblin is a foe, because the story is more cohesive given what he knows about goblins and bugbears. For the idea of a good heroic goblin, it'd violate common knowledge and there would be things that he'd need explained.

He was in a situation where he had to make a choice, and one story made more sense than the other. So he decided to protect his party and kill the goblin.

[tcrudisi]

Friend:

Three bugbears planned to raid our camp and kill us. A goblin, who was in the area for some unknown reason, decides, for some unknown reason, to defend us and attack the other goblinoids, the bugbears. The goblin defeats the bugbears, for some unknown reason. The goblin sheathes his weapon and greets us.


In other words, it's probably much easier for the paladin to come up with a cohesive story that explains the goblin as a foe than it is one that explains the goblin as a friend given what the paladin knows about goblins.

In other words, he defaults to "Kill, kill, kill!" when there are many unknown variables and reasons?

[Theodoriph]

In other words, he defaults to "Kill, kill, kill!" when there are many unknown variables and reasons?


When your life and those of your party members are at stake, and it's far more likely in a given situation that a goblin is a foe and it makes no real sense for him to be a friend...then yeah, that's the neutral way to be. :smalltongue:

I'd cut my DM some slack because I'd metagame and figure this goblin isn't evil, has some purpose, and act on the less likely story...but to each his own. EDIT: Scratch that. I'd metagame and simply not attack the goblin because I'd know it was another PC. Silly me.

[Kylarra]

Given a tiny bit more info, I'd probably say fall with fairly simple atonement.

I don't hold with the idea that this is all of a sudden an evil act and thus shouldn't be a viable target for atonement, as there is enough circumstantial evidence for plausible deniability.

[hamishspence]

When your life and those of your party members are at stake, and it's far more likely in a given situation that a goblin is a foe and it makes no real sense for him to be a friend...then yeah, that's the neutral way to be. :smalltongue:

But paladins are supposed to be Good, not Neutral.


Given a tiny bit more info, I'd probably say fall with fairly simple atonement.

I don't hold with the idea that this is all of a sudden an evil act and thus shouldn't be a viable target for atonement, as there is enough circumstantial evidence for plausible deniability.

All evil acts are viable targets for atonement. However, atoning for wrongfully killing someone might take a bit of work to say the least.

[Theodoriph]

But paladins are supposed to be Good, not Neutral.

You don't fall for committing one neutral act. If this situation kept coming up and the Paladin kept picking the Neutral option and killing the goblin, then yeah, you pull him aside and say your alignment is in danger of going from Good to Neutral, but this was only one time.

[Caphi]

It doesn't matter anymore, guys. Theo's line of reasoning may be based more on rationalization than reasoning at this point, but it's also based on a false premise. The OP has stated that the paladin's thought process was, and I quote, "Goblins are notoriously evil. SMASH!" Taking a life based on racism is low neutral at best.

[hamishspence]

But you would fall for committing "An Evil act that is very typical of most Neutral characters"

Some Neutral characters do some evil acts, and some good, but neither very often- if they did Evil acts very often, they'd shift to Evil.

Being paranoid and overcautious about own safety, to the point of jumping the gun and attacking strangers not yet known (but suspected) to be hostile, may be typical of the nastier kind of Neutral character.

[Kylarra]

All evil acts are viable targets for atonement. However, atoning for wrongfully killing someone might take a bit of work to say the least.Eh, I'm still nominally of the belief that there's enough plausible deniability if it wasn't just goblins are evil smashsmash as the intent, but whatever.

Frankly in a world where death is a speedbump, wrongfully killing [a pc] is barely an issue at all, in terms of long-term crunchy consequences.

[hamishspence]

From the description though, they may be low enough level that death is not a speedbump. Unless there were a lot of bugbears, with class levels.

[Kylarra]

From the description though, they may be low enough level that death is not a speedbump. Unless there were a lot of bugbears, with class levels.Well he's apparently carrying around a weapon that can instagib things*, so I dunno.


*I have no idea what frostrazor is and am just going off descriptions previously cited in this thread

[ScionoftheVoid]

Foe:

Three bugbears planned to raid our camp and kill us. A goblin, who was in the area for some unknown reason, decides, for some unknown reason, to defend us and attack the other goblinoids, the bugbears. The goblin defeats the bugbears, for some unknown reason. The goblin sheathes his weapon and greets us.

Friend:

Three bugbears planned to raid our camp and kill us. A goblin, who was in the area for some unknown reason, decides, for some unknown reason, to defend us and attack the other goblinoids, the bugbears. The goblin defeats the bugbears, for some unknown reason. The goblin sheathes his weapon and greets us.

Fixed that for you.

The Paladin killed a lone Goblin who was either known to have helped the party and put away their weapon, approaching to talk to the party, or a lone Goblin who was in the fight against the Bugbears on an unidentified side and who was now either doing as above or surrendering. That is murder. An Evil act is an Evil act, no matter the victim.

With that many unknowns the Paladin should have resorted to non-lethal methods first. Nine Hells, if someone was known to be an active threat a Paladin, as a paragon of Good and Justice, should use non-lethal force first.

Additionally, the Goblin had just run out of Mirror Images. If they were going to fight the party why didn't they put that back up before putting away their weapon and coming over to say something? The Goblin was almost definitely not an immediate threat, and the Paladin still murdered them.

I have no idea why this wouldn't be a Fall.

[hamishspence]

Well he's apparently carrying around a weapon that can instagib things*, so I dunno.


*I have no idea what frostrazor is and am just going off descriptions previously cited in this thread

If they're low enough level- most weapons will instagib things :smallamused:

[Kylarra]

If they're low enough level- most weapons will instagib things :smallamused::smalltongue:

Indeed, but this was a magical effect, so I dunno?

[Theodoriph]

Fixed that for you.

No. Refer to the 12 facts I posted earlier.

[Theodoriph]

It doesn't matter anymore, guys. Theo's line of reasoning may be based more on rationalization than reasoning at this point, but it's also based on a false premise. The OP has stated that the paladin's thought process was, and I quote, "Goblins are notoriously evil. SMASH!" Taking a life based on racism is low neutral at best.



We know that in his player's case. :D Let's face it, he was just being a douche. I don't tolerate players who PK others and I'm not sure why the DM let it happen here, but the player was being an asshat. :smallsmile:


But some of us like to discuss the possiblity of an identical paladin who had a slightly more developped line of reasoning. As someone put it earlier, we just like to argue.

[Snake-Aes]

We know that in his player's case. :D Let's face it, he was just being a douche. I don't tolerate players who PK others and I'm not sure why the DM let it happen here, but the player was being an asshat. :smallsmile:


But some of us like to discuss the possiblity of an identical paladin who had a slightly more developped line of reasoning. As someone put it earlier, we just like to argue.
"arguing" involves presenting arguments and being ready to accept others. Yours is "goblins!evil!die!" and completely erases any possibility that the goblins is not a baddie.

Note that good characters just don't rationalize like that. It's inherent to Good people to give a chance.

[Theodoriph]

"arguing" involves presenting arguments and being ready to accept others. Yours is "goblins!evil!die!" and completely erases any possibility that the goblins is not a baddie.

Note that good characters just don't rationalize like that. It's inherent to Good people to give a chance.

Since I'm arguing that the act was Neutral, you can probably safely assume I'm not arguing it's good :smallwink:

[Caphi]

We know that in his player's case. :D Let's face it, he was just being a douche. I don't tolerate players who PK others and I'm not sure why the DM let it happen here, but the player was being an asshat. :smallsmile:


But some of us like to discuss the possiblity of an identical paladin who had a slightly more developped line of reasoning. As someone put it earlier, we just like to argue.

Fine. Three possibilities, then.

You can argue that killing the goblin seemed like a good idea to the paladin at the time. We can debate whether or not that was right (it wasn't), and whether or not it was incredibly stupid (it was), and whether or not it was bad for the metagame (it was), but none of that makes it have any effect on the paladin falling. It doesn't matter what he was thinking when he killed the unthreatening, parleying goblin. It was a mistake, and he arsed up, and he falls. Remember, Miko thought she was doing good when she killed Shojo too, and the Twelve Gods didn't care.

Or you can make your argument as the paladin's rationalization after the fact. That doesn't stop him from falling either. In fact, it probably prevents him from atoning, because you generally need to be, y'know, repentant to benefit from an atonement.

Finally, you can argue that your argument actually holds water in a larger sense, that a Lawful Good god of justice and light would be perfectly fine with one of the men he has empowered to represent his will on the Material Plane killing another living creature based only on suspicion and twitch. This is so laughable I don't even know how to start.

Which one are you saying, Theo?

[Fenryr]

Can't blame Paladin for being paranoic. But even with paranoia, he's supposed to be good. Like it or not, good take hits 'cuz almost all of 'em think people/monsters/gods can be saved. At least they try to save "evil" once or twice. If there's no hope, they will admit it.

I think is more honorable to die by the hands of a goblin you were not sure if he was evil (more stupid than honorable, maybe) than to kill a goblin who did no damage to you (so far). As a Lawful Good you should be slow to strike. You're not a Judge nor Stupid Good. You're an example and a guide.

If I was DMing that scene, I would role play him a god or a dream or a vision or whatevah, and explain to the Paladin that he acted too hasty and wrong. A warning, not "fall".

Plus, the body of his fallen comrade should make him reconsider some stuff. I mean, it's a "I KILLED HIM!".

[Theodoriph]

Fine. Three possibilities, then.

You can argue that killing the goblin seemed like a good idea to the paladin at the time. We can debate whether or not that was right (it wasn't), and whether or not it was incredibly stupid (it was), and whether or not it was bad for the metagame (it was), but none of that makes it have any effect on the paladin falling. It doesn't matter what he was thinking when he killed the unthreatening, parleying goblin. It was a mistake, and he arsed up, and he falls. Remember, Miko thought she was doing good when she killed Shojo too, and the Twelve Gods didn't care.

Or you can make your argument as the paladin's rationalization after the fact. That doesn't stop him from falling either. In fact, it probably prevents him from atoning, because you generally need to be, y'know, repentant to benefit from an atonement.

Finally, you can argue that your argument actually holds water in a larger sense, that a Lawful Good god of justice and light would be perfectly fine with one of the men he has empowered to represent his will on the Material Plane killing another living creature based only on suspicion and twitch. This is so laughable I don't even know how to start.

Which one are you saying, Theo?


Neither. To find out what I'm saying, I suggest you read my posts. I always find that most helpful.

[hamishspence]

Finally, you can argue that your argument actually holds water in a larger sense, that a Lawful Good god of justice and light would be perfectly fine with one of the men he has empowered to represent his will on the Material Plane killing another living creature based only on suspicion and twitch. This is so laughable I don't even know how to start.

Or, if you prefer, the "cosmic forces of Law and Good" if it's them and not a deity doing it.

[Caphi]

Neither. To find out what I'm saying, I suggest you read my posts. I always find that most helpful.

I know what your argument is. I'm asking from which viewpoint you espouse it. Is it to justify the paladin's reaction at the moment, is it to justify his actions as logical afterwards, or are you saying that's actually how the paladin's morality works?

Given that the act itself was Evil in nature, the first two don't protect his paladin powers, and the last one is just patently silly.

[Theodoriph]

I know what your argument is. I'm asking from which viewpoint you espouse it. Is it to justify the paladin's reaction at the moment, is it to justify his actions as logical afterwards, or are you saying that's actually how the paladin's morality works?

Given that the act itself was Evil in nature, the first two don't protect his paladin powers, and the last one is just patently silly.


First I'd disagree with you that killing is inherently an evil act.

[Snake-Aes]

Killing an innocent is.
Killing a harmless person is.
Killing without a good reason is.

All three apply regardless of what the paladin here thinks.

[hamishspence]

Killing without any of the normal mitigating factors (execution of a criminal convicted of serious crimes, self-defense, killing in war against an aggressor) may be though- as per BoVD.

"it's a goblin" is not really one of these mitigating factors.

[Theodoriph]

Killing an innocent is.
Killing a harmless person is.
Killing without a good reason is.

All three apply regardless of what the paladin here thinks.


The paladin had a good reason. Mages are never harmless (though I disagree with you on this point).

And I disagree with you on the first as well. Killing an innocent person is not always evil.

[liquid150]

{Scrubbed}

[hamishspence]

Killing an innocent person is not always evil.


Again- only if the major mitigating factors are in play. An innocent person under a dominate spell, who is about to kill, and the only weapon that can stop them in time is likely to kill them instantly- then, killing that innocent is not evil- because it's to protect others.

Otherwise though- very iffy.

[Rokurai]

The Paladin falls. Here's why:

While the given situation did have some questionable circumstances, like a goblin fighting bugbears in my camp, as soon as the goblin finishes and then presents himself as no threat to the party, a small measure of doubt should have entered the mind of everyone smarter than the 3 Int Barbarians out there concerning whether or not the goblin was the enemy. Should the Paladin have trusted him? No, but I would immediately try to capture and interrogate the creature, as at least a dozen pressing questions would be in my head if I were to wake up in a similar situation. Here's a novel idea for a Paladin who's supposed to be merciful... nonlethal damage.

I have seen arguments that "the adrenaline got to him in that situation." That's BS if you've even skimmed the Paladin's description. A Paladin is not only a defender of the weak and an exterminator of the irredeemably evil, but also the hand of mercy and redemption reaching out to those who are not righteous, but who are not beyond saving. The reason that a Paladin has a Strong Moral Code, which must be strictly adhered to, isn't just to limit the usefulness of some abilities from a mechanical standpoint, it is to demonstrate the a Paladin must go Above and Beyond what would be expected of those who are not dedicated to his path.

What the excuses given here have done, is exonerated any Fighter that may have accidentally killed a party member, but since the Paladin is not that, their argument here is empty. When there is a reason to be doubtful of whether or not your enemy is, in fact, your enemy, then it is nothing short of mandatory for the Paladin, in order to adhere to his strict moral code, to confirm and re-confirm the Friend-or-Foe status however he can. In fact, he has this nifty ability called detect evil that lets him do just that. Think of it as a non-liability clause that the Paladin's deity put in the Paladin's contract, stating that, "Here, I have given you the means to determine who's evil, and who's not, so unless you do something really beneath your Paladin's Code, like say, slaughter someone who you have doubts is evil, but you don't want to take six seconds out of your time to keep your status as a Paladin and murder anyway, you should be fine."

[hamishspence]

A Paladin is not only a defender of the weak and an exterminator of the irredeemably evil, but also the hand of mercy and redemption reaching out to those who are not righteous, but who are not beyond saving.

This. Although (in my view) the "not righteous but not beyond saving", can sometimes be evil-aligned, so detect evil alone isn't always enough.

Though it can help.

If the "goblin" had pinged as Evil, but shown no sign of hostility, it's questioning time, not killing time.

[Snake-Aes]

The paladin had a good reason. Mages are never harmless (though I disagree with you on this point).

And I disagree with you on the first as well. Killing an innocent person is not always evil.

That's the thing. He didn't have a good reason. It made sense for him, but the universal powers behind his paladinhood don't care. It's fallworthy, and his attitude will reflect how he will repent, if at all.

[Morbis Meh]

Personally, I believe that the Paladin should fall because he simply acted with little thought. He had a chance to gain an ally in the never ceasing struggle between good and evil and he simply killed him without question. Of course a paladin is duty bound to protect his party but when he deals a mortal blow to a person attempting to speak with you is not a threat. Even if he was a mage, like someone mentioned previously, it would be in his better interest to stay back since he would need time to cast a spell. This was an act of racism nothing less and trying to justify it by saying he was eliminating a potential threat is quite extreme.

[ScionoftheVoid]

No. Refer to the 12 facts I posted earlier.

Okay then let's see how that goes. My responses are in blue.


1) We're being attacked in camp. True, but mostly irrelevant to the events.
2) The attackers are monsters. They could be considered that, but it is also mostly irrelevant.
3) The lives of myself and my party members are at risk. True and sort-of relevant. Finally.
4) One of the monsters is a goblin. This Goblin is not an attacker, so this statement is false (see 2).
5) Goblins don't just wander by every day. Back to irrelevant so soon, eh?
5) Goblins are related to bugbears. Should I keep pointing it out, or can it be considered the default by now?
6) The likelihood of the goblin not being affiliated with the bugbears is next to nothing. False. It's killing them all. I assume you don't do that to your companions, no matter how much they irritate you. If they are killing one another they are more stupid than this Paladin or they are foes (as in, not the kind of affiliation you were talking about). Neither is any reason to kill the Goblin.
7) The Goblin also seems to be infighting with the Bugbears. Based on 6, which is false.
8) The Goblin knows magic (mirror image) Could be considered relevant, but the Goblin makes no effort to raise any buffs after the fight (not intending to fight again, i.e. non-threatening), approaches so any attempted spellcasting can easily be interrupted (non-threatening) and is presumably not waving his arms in somatic components (probably non-threatening). Less than one of three, totally reason to use lethal force.
9) Goblins are malicious and ingenius schemers. (source: common knowledge) Emphasis on general. Good characters should judge on individual merit (like the fact that the Goblin helped in a fight against your opponents and then put away his main weapon and made it far harder to use his secondary weapon (see above).
10) The Goblin survived and the bugbears died. The Goblin must be very powerful. Or the Bugbears rather weak, in general or to the particular tactics used. The party helped, so his being on the winning side isn't surprising. Also, he could have seemed strong because he used all his power in one go ("going nova") meaning he is now almost harmless. Look, another way for him to be non-threatening. So this could go for or against killing the Goblin.
11) The Goblin sheathed his visible weapon, but he knows magic. He's also not raised any buffs before walking toward you, making his magic far less useful. See 8.
12) The Goblin is approaching us menacingly. "Menacingly"? Since when is an unbuffed Goblin with no weapon, no buffs and only magic to rely on approaching you menacing?
13) The evil goblin is plotting something and will kill us. Whoah, whoah, whoah, where did "Evil" come from? A Goblin is getting less threatening by the step, has helped you, has shown no more signs of being Evil than the rest of the party, where are you getting any of this?! Unknown, leaning toward false.
14) I must protect my party members. Full circle back to true but irrelevant again huh? Even if your party couldn't handle an unarmed, unbuffed Goblin in melee range you could ready an action to attack if he tries anything. If you really wanted to be mean you could just disable him non-lethally without even waiting for an explanation. Or you could assume your party isn't incompetent and start investigating this stranger using magic, like that thing you have at any time, what's it called, Detect Evil. That could even check part of your completely unfounded assumption in number thirteen.

The amusing thing is that even if all of those were true and relevant the Paladin still had no reason not to use non-lethal methods. None of those at all justifies murdering an unarmed Goblin who assisted you and who was either going to explain or surrender. Wow, we got right to where we started from!


Neither. To find out what I'm saying, I suggest you read my posts. I always find that most helpful.

There were three options, so that should be "none". In any case, these people have been quoting and disagreeing with your posts. They (and I) have read them. That none of us are entirely sure what you are arguing for could be seen as evidence that that is your fault, could it not?

[Theodoriph]

Again- only if the major mitigating factors are in play. An innocent person under a dominate spell, who is about to kill, and the only weapon that can stop them in time is likely to kill them instantly- then, killing that innocent is not evil- because it's to protect others.

Otherwise though- very iffy.

Let's assume a perfectly neutral person who only commits neutral acts.

"People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships. "


From this description of neutrality we learn a few things:

1. It is neutral to kill non-innocent.

2. While neutrals have compunctions against killing the innocent, they may do so if the situation warrants.

3. Neutral people are committed to others (e.g. party members) by personal relationships. Such relationships may in fact be a spur to for a neutral person to go against his compunction in 2.



When you look at the evil you see:

"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.


We learn a few things from this too:

1. Evil implies killing. (The converse however, is not true)
2. We learn about the reasons evil creatures kill: convenience, sport (enjoyment), duty.
3. Presumably in general evil characters have no compunctions against killing the innocent.


The main distinction in the PHB seems to be on the motive for the killing. That reason differentiates neutrality from evil. If the person is not innocent, it would seem to be neutral. If the person is innocent, it would tend towards evil if there is no higher order reason. That reason need not be true or not. It simply must be a valid reason.

It's also unclear whether innocence has to be objective or subjective. For instance if a completely neutral person who only performed neutral acts believed a person to not be innocent, and he killed him, but the person was actually innocent, is that act neutral? The PHB would seem to say that it is, since you cannot have a compunction against killing someone who you see as not being innocent. That necessarily implies some subjectivity (unless they receive some objective voice from above saying...wait, this might not be a good idea when they are about to kill someone they think is not innocent).

Neutral characters are bound to others by personal relationships. Presumably this paladin feels something for his comrades. The questions are given the situation: Is protecting his party against the goblin mage enough of a higher order reason to label it a neutral act? Is the goblin mage innocent? Does it matter if the goblin mage is innocent?

There are more issues, but I'm tired of posting. I think I almost reached the next tag from this thread alone. :smalltongue:

[Snake-Aes]

The questions are given the situation: Is protecting his party against the goblin mage enough of a higher order reason to label it a neutral act? Is the goblin mage innocent? Does it matter if the goblin mage is innocent?
Of course it matters. It's a good character. He's supposed to CARE about the life of the innocent. And he had no reason to believe this goblin was guilty other than sheer prejudice, which is not a good reason(nor a Good reason).

Is the goblin mage innocent? Yes, he is. This is beyond the character's rationalization.


So, he falls. If he keeps rationalizing that he shouldn't have fallen, all he's earning is a one-way trip to the never-atoning-again camp.