I've considered throwing in a mission in my current campaign in which the party is to capture battle plans from a high ranking official, who happens to have quite a fortune along with him in the caravan that he is traveling with. The idea is that the party gets to keep the spoils as long as they bring back the battle plans. However, I don't know if this is pushing the boundaries of a paladin's alignment too far. On the one hand, this is an enemy who would be using the funds for nefarious deeds, and on the other stealing is stealing. I'd like to hear your thoughts on such things.
If the money is an enemy who would be using the funds for nefarious deeds, like you said, and the paladin knows this, would it not be proper for the paladin to confiscate the money so that it can not be used for evil ?
Copes do this all the time. So i do not see a problem with a LG paladin doing this also..... BUT... here is the BUT. A paladin who makes a habit out of only going for money, only going after bad guys with money and ignoring bad guys without money, is on a long slippery slope into something other than being a paladin.
Confiscating stuff from the bad guys/enemy in the line of duty, i do not see as an unlawful act. Stealing money from innocent people, stealing money from people you do not know, stealing money from there rightful owners when you know "" or dont know "" that the money will not be used for evil, i would say is unlawful.
|
I guess it depends on your interpretation of Lawful alignments. I have never played Lawful alignments or required players to play Lawful alignments as people who strictly follow the laws of the land. It could be the Lawful person is very structured and predictable, or very methodical on how he goes about doing things. Lawful characters are not the guys who blindly charge into every situation, they are the planners and thinkers. There is no real reason that a Paladin would not use subterfuge and guile, especially when it comes to dealing with known evil forces.
|
Lawful means that the person values the means over the end (or, in other words, is very methodical in their approach). This means that the paladin must acquire the item "the right way" in order for it to be considered a lawful act. This doesn't mean it's a chaotic act, just that it's not lawful.
A chaotic act is one where only the ends matter, not the means.
In this case, the "proper" means would be to bring the caravan to justice then check to see if the owner of the wealth had any heirs, granting it to them if so. If they did not, the money belongs to no-one and can be claimed as salvage/spoils. So it's definitely not lawful (unless the person ordering the mission had the authority to override such estate laws, then it's all fine).
I wouldn't consider this chaotic, however, as that implies that there was a definite and clear "right way" that was harder but ignored in favor of a more likely to work solution that wasn't considered "right." When the right way is much much more difficult than the easy way, it's more of a neutral act.
Example: If you find a five dollar bill on the sidewalk you don't think "Oh, I should try to find the owner." because that would be stupidly difficult to do. You generally go "Oh well, I guess I may as well put it to good use." I usually think of the "normal person" response as being the neutral one. In this case it's "This guy was ordered dead and I was told it was okay to keep his stuff." Normal people would just keep his stuff, unless of course they knew that the family had no other valuables and were totally awesome people.
In short: it's all judgement call, so have at. I would personally say "As a paladin you feel that the right and good path is to ensure that this money goes to his (probably not evil) family." If he chooses to ignore that kind of statement more than once, then there would be grounds for action, but a single act is not a big deal.
It really depends on how the paladin views and handles the assignment. Ambushing the guy, stealing his stuff at sword-point, and then keeping the money isn't very paladin-esque.
However, if he fights fairly, and treats the NPC (and any minions he may have) as enemy combatants, and fights with the primary goal of retrieving the battle plans, all he's really doing is disarming a potentially deadly foe. As for keeping a share of the loot, he should put the money towards arming himself for the good fight, as usual. I don't see a problem with any of that.
Something like that would have to come from a very high ranking official in the government the official is traveling through, preferably the king. Most countries in ye olde D&D medieval times don't have laws against search and seizure, or guilty until proven innocent. If the king said you did it, then you were guilty. Most courts had no problems with taking all of your possessions and using the sales to pay for your imprisonment and your trial.
The enemy official should be a traitor of some sort, with solid evidence against him (that can't be presented in trial because that would let the merchant know he was busted) Its not so much a seizure of property as the start of imprisonment for treason: The man is to be beheaded, his lands confiscated, and his property seized. Whats on him is a suitable reward for his capture and the return of valuable state secrets (the battle map)
Lawful good does NOT mean nice.
I've considered throwing in a mission in my current campaign in which the party is to capture battle plans from a high ranking official, who happens to have quite a fortune along with him in the caravan that he is traveling with. The idea is that the party gets to keep the spoils as long as they bring back the battle plans. However, I don't know if this is pushing the boundaries of a paladin's alignment too far. On the one hand, this is an enemy who would be using the funds for nefarious deeds, and on the other stealing is stealing. I'd like to hear your thoughts on such things.
Well consider this..
You have a bunch of goblins who have quite a fortune, but the paladin is never in question if he is being lawful or not regardless of the actual goblins. Who knows, they may only be attacking people because people are imposing on its home and its trying to keep them away.
Now the High ranking Officially would consider anything against him like this an unlawful act, especially if he thinks he is the law.
Remember though, causing thousands of goblins to fall into the ocean and drown is good, but drowning them one by one is evil.
So the Paladin following the laws of king and country or the orders, goes and confronts the villain, gets the plans and brings the gold to the chirch, or to the local starving peasants :) Remember you are thinking modern morality. Becides the paladin isnt stealing he is confronting an evil villain. If you are thinking of stealing then you would be going in for the riches, but the objective is facing the villain and capturing the battle plans. So ending up with a bunch of junk to clean up afterwards isnt stealing otherwise the Police, FBI, RCMP etc would be Stealing all the time :)
Just think of Batman, James Bond, Chuck and others like that as Lawful Good. Many would have the Rogue class, many steal, none break the Ideal of Lawful Good, as they do it as a job for their country or as a cop or whatever :) Not for greed or ill gotten gain.
|
Lawful means that the person values the means over the end (or, in other words, is very methodical in their approach). This means that the paladin must acquire the item "the right way" in order for it to be considered a lawful act. This doesn't mean it's a chaotic act, just that it's not lawful.
A chaotic act is one where only the ends matter, not the means.
I disagree with your assessment here. Lawful Neutral/Evil can be very ends justify the means. Can you explain how you came to this conclusion or where it is written in the rules?
It seems more of the issue a paladin would have would be whether the mission was for the cause of good or just simply a random mission. A mission against an evil enemy shouldn't be a probem for a paladin, covert or otherwise. I would think a paladin would want to know the why of a mission or trust the person who gave the mission
A mission against an evil opponent would be lawful but to take a mission against an unknown enemy for an unknown cause sounds more chaotic to me
If this mission is in service to an authority who is believed to be Lawful (and good if there's a Paladin involved) then have him offer a letter of marque or something.
In general, stealing from your opponent in warfare (which I assume this is due to the fact that plans are being stolen) is considered to be a lawful act. Conduct during this act, however, might still breach the paladin's code.
Just think of Batman, James Bond, Chuck and others like that as Lawful Good. Many would have the Rogue class, many steal, none break the Ideal of Lawful Good, as they do it as a job for their country or as a cop or whatever :) Not for greed or ill gotten gain.
As there are very strong laws against taking suspects and questioning them without a lawyer while suspended upside down over a precipitous drop, I'd hardly count batman as Lawful good.
Batman: CG
Superman: LG
lotta stuff, then this gem, The idea is that the party gets to keep the spoils as long as they bring back the battle plans
Don't fall victim to the notion that the Paly can't take spoils, he can.
I've considered throwing in a mission in my current campaign in which the party is to capture battle plans from a high ranking official, who happens to have quite a fortune along with him in the caravan that he is traveling with. The idea is that the party gets to keep the spoils as long as they bring back the battle plans. However, I don't know if this is pushing the boundaries of a paladin's alignment too far. On the one hand, this is an enemy who would be using the funds for nefarious deeds, and on the other stealing is stealing. I'd like to hear your thoughts on such things.
Historically, this is how knights and soldiers were paid during times of war. Typically, I would say a Paladin's "lawful" side of his alignment would mirror that of society. They are supposed to be paragons of virtue, so they should be the best that society has to offer. If it's socially acceptable (and doesn't violate the Good part), a paladin should be allowed to do it. For instance, in a society that owns slaves, I don't think a paladin should be allowed to as well.
Whenever I've played a paladin, I've been fine with taking money/possessions like this, though I always give a sizable amount to organizations that help the poor and needy (10% usually, sometimes more). He felt he had both an obligation to help the poor and outfit himself with the best weapons/armor he could so that he'd be able to continue to fight evil.
|
|
Lawful means that the person values the means over the end (or, in other words, is very methodical in their approach). This means that the paladin must acquire the item "the right way" in order for it to be considered a lawful act. This doesn't mean it's a chaotic act, just that it's not lawful.
A chaotic act is one where only the ends matter, not the means.I disagree with your assessment here. Lawful Neutral/Evil can be very ends justify the means. Can you explain how you came to this conclusion or where it is written in the rules?
It's not written in the PF rules but it was part of some article or some-such I read a while back. Memory is a crappy thing so that's about as much detail as I remember, but it was very clear that they were trying to deemphasize the "law" in lawful (as in, it doesn't mean "legal" in any manner, nor was it necessarily meant to). I also seem to recall it being from an official source.
Again, memory sucks and it was months ago at the earliest.Not that I care, my games don't use alignment >.>
Incidentally, paladins don't fall or are punished for "non-lawful" acts. It's the evil ones that get them. You don't get paladins falling because they decided to gamble a bit, after all.
Unincidentally, if looting from an enemy is considered stealing, how the hell do you have paladin adventurers in your campaign at all?
|
|
Lawful means that the person values the means over the end (or, in other words, is very methodical in their approach). This means that the paladin must acquire the item "the right way" in order for it to be considered a lawful act. This doesn't mean it's a chaotic act, just that it's not lawful.
A chaotic act is one where only the ends matter, not the means.I disagree with your assessment here. Lawful Neutral/Evil can be very ends justify the means. Can you explain how you came to this conclusion or where it is written in the rules?
It's not written in the PF rules but it was part of some article or some-such I read a while back. Memory is a crappy thing so that's about as much detail as I remember, but it was very clear that they were trying to deemphasize the "law" in lawful (as in, it doesn't mean "legal" in any manner, nor was it necessarily meant to). I also seem to recall it being from an official source.
Again, memory sucks and it was months ago at the earliest.
Not that I care, my games don't use alignment >.>
Right on. I just can see situations where folks of any alignment may look at things from either standpoint.
|
|
Incidentally, paladins don't fall or are punished for "non-lawful" acts. It's the evil ones that get them. You don't get paladins falling because they decided to gamble a bit, after all.
Unincidentally, if looting from an enemy is considered stealing, how the hell do you have paladin adventurers in your campaign at all?
I dont know about the OP, but we usually kill them before they become too powerful...
Incidentally, paladins don't fall or are punished for "non-lawful" acts. It's the evil ones that get them. You don't get paladins falling because they decided to gamble a bit, after all.
Unincidentally, if looting from an enemy is considered stealing, how the hell do you have paladin adventurers in your campaign at all?
2E flashback:
A paladin never retains wealth....all excess must be donated to the church or another worthy cause. A paladin must tithe to whatever charitable religious institution of lawful good alignment he serves. A tithe is 10 percent of the paladin's income. It must be paid immediately.
|
I'd like to hear your thoughts on such things.
When I DM, my rule is "your alignment is whatever you say it is" since any one act could be interpreted as any of the nine alignments. So if whoever is playing the paladin says he's lawful, then he's lawful.
When I play, my DM will usually give me the benefit of the doubt if I can present a decent argument, though he personally may not agree with it. There's the argument that lawful isn't necessarily obeying the law, but following a code, so that's where you could throw out the "My code is to prevent nefarious deeds from taking place" thing and be good to go.
I've considered throwing in a mission in my current campaign in which the party is to capture battle plans from a high ranking official, who happens to have quite a fortune along with him in the caravan that he is traveling with. The idea is that the party gets to keep the spoils as long as they bring back the battle plans. However, I don't know if this is pushing the boundaries of a paladin's alignment too far. On the one hand, this is an enemy who would be using the funds for nefarious deeds, and on the other stealing is stealing. I'd like to hear your thoughts on such things.
Consider using the following guidelines.
Good = Altruism, Love, and Kindness
Evil = Selfishness, Hate, and Cruelty
Law = Justice, Order, and Logic
Chaos = Freedom, Change, and Emotion
If the Paladin is regularly - as a trend - adhering more to the selfishness, hate, cruelty, or freedom, change, emotion side of things, then his alignment is slipping. However keep in mind that there are no aligned actions outside of game mechanics.
If your Paladin is taking the spoils for his own selfish wants, perhaps a bit more chaotic evil than expected. If he's taking them out of a desire to help others and ensure justice, then perhaps more lawful good.
Really, unless the Paladin is grossly acting out character, such changes from one alignment to another (and acts of violating an alignment) should be subtle and should be evaluated over a period of time. "He is an embodiment of..." would be a good way to start. If over a few sessions he seems to be embodying far more of the chaos or evil aspects, you might have a wayward Paladin on your hands.
For instance, in a society that owns slaves, I don't think a paladin should be allowed to as well.
Of course Paladins should be allowed to own slaves.
Buying slaves for the purpose of freeing them is perfectly OK, assuming you lack the power to change the society.
If offered a slave as a gift then accepting and freeing them as soon as is safe and convenient for the slave is no less LG than refusing.
Depending on the society, setting, and so forth, a Paladin might still legally own a slave, even if he or she does not enforce their servitude. It might actually be in the slave's best interest, since assaulting the slave might earn you multiple penalties under the law (assault, attempted murder, plus laws protecting the slave as property of an individual).
That being said, I don't like the idea of slavery. I'd much rather use mindless undead.
2E flashback:
A paladin never retains wealth....all excess must be donated to the church or another worthy cause. A paladin must tithe to whatever charitable religious institution of lawful good alignment he serves. A tithe is 10 percent of the paladin's income. It must be paid immediately.
1E Flashback: Paladins can only retain 10 total magic items. One suit of armor, one shield, 2 weapons, 4 misc magic items, and .... some other stuff I do not remember off the top of my head. I think 2 expendable items like potions or magic ammunition?
They had some serious restrictions back in the day.
But to the OP's question, it is not theft if your not taking it just to take it and get rich. In a world of adventurer's, taking the wealth of your defeated opponents is a tried and true and moral (in their morality) way of accumulating wealth.
If they are taking out an evil for a good cause, especially if sponsored by the Paladins deity or church then taking the cash is depriving the enemy of valuable resources in an eteranl war of good vs evil.
Now if the paladin went into a house and stole a families savings, that would be evil. But defeating an evil enemy and taking his stuff is RPG classic goodness. For the most part. Depending on the established campaign world and religion the paladin serves.
Don't get your ethical and moral alignments mixed up.
Lawful: Following the laws as intended (good), as written (neutral), or as they most beneficial to the interpreter and possibly merely as an excuse and extension of tyranny(evil).
Good: The greatest good to the greatest number.
Lawful Good: Respect for family, king, country, your fellow man, and the compassion to see the good of the law, and to structure yourself as a part of the society in which you live, the foundation that others may rely on.
Lawful can and does represent those who rely on a fierce personal discipline, but for the paladin especially it signifies what it is the paladin represents to his community. There's a reason the gnomish paladin is called 'Sherrif' whether or not he has the actual position in his home town. They gravitate towards the one you can trust, the one that rights wrongs, the one that can be depended on.
The Issue At Hand:
The Paladin has not been ordered to hurt anyone. The enemy of the state, of the Paladin's community, is known to be carrying battle plans in a place they would be vulnerable to the Paladin and his party. The Paladin's commander/benefactor/village elder/king/Power-That-Be has authorized him to take out a threat to their country and way of life. He has a duty to do as much damage as possible to the enemy in what ever way possible to protect those people he is mandated by his holy orders to protect. The permission he has to take the money they're carting doesn't excuse him from putting it to use to continue that endless mandate. He should thank the Lord for that opportunity, thank his Diety for the powers granted to him, and kill as few of the soldiers arrayed against them as possible, wherever possible. When they meet him on the field of battle, he is bound to play by rules of honor and kill, but that doesn't force him to march out and announce his presence when the party he is with relies on stealth to ambush those who might out-position and out-power them.
Lawful Good does not have to be lawful stupid, and the Paladin played correctly is a force to be reckoned with. Don't hamstring him by delving -too- deep into the ethical mythos. He has to protect his community, and it's his decisions that declare whether or not he's following the ethical alignment.
You mentioned "battle plans". If this is an open war and the enemy official is member of opposite army then by all means the party and the paladin is legaly allowed to keep the spoils. Unless the setting you are playing in have some *very modern* laws concerning rules of warfare. Regardless of the further use of the captured wealth.
If there is no war then situatuion becomes more tricky, unless the party is acting under the orders given by someone who has actual authority to do so this would be a highway robbery.