Thinking about a scenario to get paladins on both sides of a war. Goodness knows TRW is full of conflicts with decent people on both sides; it shouldn't be impossible to do in D&D.Let's see. Say we have a medium-size kingdom in a difficult corner of the world... demon-haunted woods on one border, barbarian steppes to the north, expansionist empire just across the straits. There's an order of paladins pledged to protect the kingdom.
The King has just died; his son, Prince Zod, has ascended the throne.
Zod is Lawful Evil and a thorough sonofab!*&!. He's arrogant and he's cruel. He openly worships Asmodeus, and has even installed a chapel to the devil-god right inside the palace. He's a chuckling sadist who likes hurting people; he wears black and cultivates a neatly trimmed goatee. Within six months of coming to power, Zod has re-instituted slavery, opened up aggressive persecution against several unpopular minorities (sorcerors, half-orcs, Varisians, whatever), and greatly increased the use of judicial torture. The temples of at least one Chaotic Good religion have been closed and its priests persecuted, and public executions are up 150%.
1) D&D/Pathfinder is based on ethical and moral absolutes. Good and evil, law and chaos, are not subjective or based on interpretation; they are objective and drive the way reality works. Can there still be gray areas? Yes; however, they occur with a lot less frequency. Good vs. good warfare is not something that would happen very often, even on a law vs. chaos basis: "Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make sacrifices to help others." Good characters may not agree on everything, but they will respect the views of others and work to a situation that will benefit both sides.
2) The paladins are pledged to protect the kingdom, not the king. King Zod is openly evil, enforces evil laws, persecutes sentients without justification (they are citizens and have not broken any laws), and is supressing a good church. These are not something paladins can condone without violating their code: "A paladin must be lawful good alignment..." "...punish those who harm or threaten innocents." "A lawful good character acts as good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice..."
Lawful evil is still evil, no matter how much popular support it gets. Paladins will oppose slavery, speak out against and try to prevent persecution of minorities, and fight against the supression of a good-aligned faith. If King Zod has taken the actions above and cannot be influenced to change his ways, then the paladins' best choice within their code is to attempt a coup to place Kindly on the throne.
Have to agree with Dorje on this one.
In a fantasy setting, a criminal could serve out his sentence in a jail, or as an indentured servant. An enlightened society could even prefer indentured servitude over prisons. The indentured servant criminal would have restrictions placed on him, be forced to work for food and board, and eventually, upon completion of his sentence, be released back into society. The advantage being that he has been socializing with everyday people rather than hardened criminals for the 10 years of his servitude. Additionally, he'd have a freedom due at the end, which is basically a saved up wage. Rather than being released from prison destitute.
In my own campaign world, several LN cities use such things for their prisoners. If the prisoners are too dangerous, they are put to work for the city state, doing road work in leg irons, rowing military galleons, etc.
Probably your best chance of Paladin vs Paladin would be a LN country at war with a CG country. The LN country has forced indentured servitude for criminals. The CG country abhors this and calls it slavery.
Paladins of a LN god live in the LN country, and Paladins of a NG god live in the CG country. During the war, both sides believe they are right and just. The LN country's Paladins see the CG country as the agressors, attacking a nation that did not attack them. They see the criminals as serving a legally applied punishment that's better for them than jail, and better for society.
The CG country's Paladins see it as liberating slaves from an oppressive regime.
What about an evildoer sentenced to labor for some time? It's slavery, and used to great extent to punish young criminals in TRW without exposing them to prisons (which would likely just harden them into more dangerous criminals).
Enforced labor, to be consistent with LG alignment and a paladin's code, would be based on restitution. The sentence would be the length of time required to produce a replacement item lost to theft/vandalism or an equivalent value in other goods/services.
Slavery is the equivalent of a life sentence. Either the punishment is excessive to the crime or the crime is so henious (murder, rape, etc.) that it would probably be better to excecute the criminal.
Remember, there are spells (such as zone of truth) to help determine guilt and innocence that can prevent wrongful convictions. For LG characters, those spells should be available on request of the acused as well as the acuser.
For an example of a setting where paladins would fight paladins, check out Privateer Press' Iron Kingdoms (same setting as Warmachine/Hordes). The people of Cygnar typically worship Morrow, a NG god. Paladins of that religion are somewhat common. They have two neighbors (well, more than two but I'm only going to talk about two), the Protectorate of Menoth (PoM) and Khador. The PoM worhips Menoth, a LN deity of Law, the Creator of Man. He has paladins. The country is, unfortunately, under LE rule; it is rulked by the Scutators (think Catholicism at the height of the Inquisition). To them, Morrowans are heretics. Also, Khador is split in worship of Morrow and Menoth (maybe leans more to Menoth). To most Khadorans, nationality is more important than religion. They would still have paladins of both faiths, though. So... all three of these nations have paladins and are at war with one another. In fantasy games, there is a tendency to not bring in national politics/ethnicity/etc, and consider alignment as more important. Not all are necessarily going to feel that way, though.
Randy
Growing Up Gamers
For an example of a setting where paladins would fight paladins, check out Privateer Press' Iron Kingdoms (same setting as Warmachine/Hordes). The people of Cygnar typically worship Morrow, a NG god. Paladins of that religion are somewhat common. They have two neighbors (well, more than two but I'm only going to talk about two), the Protectorate of Menoth (PoM) and Khador. The PoM worhips Menoth, a LN deity of Law, the Creator of Man. He has paladins. The country is, unfortunately, under LE rule; it is rulked by the Scutators (think Catholicism at the height of the Inquisition). To them, Morrowans are heretics. Also, Khador is split in worship of Morrow and Menoth (maybe leans more to Menoth). To most Khadorans, nationality is more important than religion. They would still have paladins of both faiths, though. So... all three of these nations have paladins and are at war with one another. In fantasy games, there is a tendency to not bring in national politics/ethnicity/etc, and consider alignment as more important. Not all are necessarily going to feel that way, though.
Randy
Growing Up Gamers
The issue is that paladins will not participate in/support unjust actions against other nations. Even if most Menothians view Morrowans as heretics, paladins cannot attack a good nation/faith without violating their code. Wars of agression or "convert or die" mindsets are not condoned by the LG alignment/paladin code as written in the Core Rulebook.
The issue is that paladins will not participate in/support unjust actions against other nations. Even if most Menothians view Morrowans as heretics, paladins cannot attack a good nation/faith without violating their code. Wars of agression or "convert or die" mindsets are not condoned by the LG alignment/paladin code as written in the Core Rulebook.
Who's to say they're good? The paladin's Detect Evil power would just tell them what they're not. A proclamation of heresy against an entire faith, and a national enmity can go a long way. Here's the paladin's code from the PFRD:
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.
The code doesn't specifically prohibit attacking a good nation or faith. It just means that they wouldn't participate in the specifically evil things the other Menites were doing (torture, genocide, etc). Similar to Paladin/Hellknights. Basically, it is more focusing on the Lawful part of the alignment.
Randy
Growing Up Gamers
What about an evildoer sentenced to labor for some time? It's slavery, and used to great extent to punish young criminals in TRW without exposing them to prisons (which would likely just harden them into more dangerous criminals).Enforced labor, to be consistent with LG alignment and a paladin's code, would be based on restitution. The sentence would be the length of time required to produce a replacement item lost to theft/vandalism or an equivalent value in other goods/services.
Slavery is the equivalent of a life sentence. Either the punishment is excessive to the crime or the crime is so henious (murder, rape, etc.) that it would probably be better to excecute the criminal.
Remember, there are spells (such as zone of truth) to help determine guilt and innocence that can prevent wrongful convictions. For LG characters, those spells should be available on request of the acused as well as the acuser.
World English Dictionary
slavery (ˈsleɪvərɪ) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]— n
1. the state or condition of being a slave; a civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune
2. the subjection of a person to another person, esp in being forced into work
3. the condition of being subject to some influence or habit
4. work done in harsh conditions for low pay
Nothing there indicates that the term is used exclusively in relation to LIFE-LONG servitude; it may be that I'm using the word incorrectly as I'm not a native English speaker, but in my country (Sweden) our version of the word (slaveri) isn't limited to life-long servitude, and I know that you also use the term "wage slavery" which isn't necessarily life-long. If the word slavery DOES mean life-long servitude, please correct me.
I'm not saying slavery isn't evil, I'm saying it isn't as simple to call it universally evil under all circumstances as the one I responded to seemed to make it, much like how the statement "killing is evil" may be generally correct, but there may be exceptions.
The issue is that paladins will not participate in/support unjust actions against other nations. Even if most Menothians view Morrowans as heretics, paladins cannot attack a good nation/faith without violating their code. Wars of agression or "convert or die" mindsets are not condoned by the LG alignment/paladin code as written in the Core Rulebook.Who's to say they're good? The paladin's Detect Evil power would just tell them what they're not. A proclamation of heresy against an entire faith, and a national enmity can go a long way. Here's the paladin's code from the PFRD:
** spoiler omitted **
The code doesn't specifically prohibit attacking a good nation or faith. It just means that they wouldn't participate in the specifically evil things the other Menites were doing (torture, genocide, etc). Similar to Paladin/Hellknights. Basically, it is more focusing on the Lawful part of the alignment.
Randy
Growing Up Gamers
"A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, etc..."You cannot ignore the LG alignment aspect. "A lawful good character acts as good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice..." Attacking a good nation/faith is definitely contrary to the good alignment; attacking them based on opinion ("they're heretics") when spells like augury, commune, etc. can provide clear guidance that they are good is contrary to the ideals of justice.
One more time: D&D/Pathfinder is based on ethical and moral absolutes. Good is good and evil is evil objectively in the system, not based on interpretation (outside of a few gray areas; and attacking a good nation/faith is not in any fashion a gray area).
What about an evildoer sentenced to labor for some time? It's slavery, and used to great extent to punish young criminals in TRW without exposing them to prisons (which would likely just harden them into more dangerous criminals).Enforced labor, to be consistent with LG alignment and a paladin's code, would be based on restitution. The sentence would be the length of time required to produce a replacement item lost to theft/vandalism or an equivalent value in other goods/services.
Slavery is the equivalent of a life sentence. Either the punishment is excessive to the crime or the crime is so henious (murder, rape, etc.) that it would probably be better to excecute the criminal.
Remember, there are spells (such as zone of truth) to help determine guilt and innocence that can prevent wrongful convictions. For LG characters, those spells should be available on request of the acused as well as the acuser.
World English Dictionary
slavery (ˈsleɪvərɪ) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]— n
1. the state or condition of being a slave; a civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune
2. the subjection of a person to another person, esp in being forced into work
3. the condition of being subject to some influence or habit
4. work done in harsh conditions for low payNothing there indicates that the term is used exclusively in relation to LIFE-LONG servitude; it may be that I'm using the word incorrectly as I'm not a native English speaker, but in my country (Sweden) our version of the word (slaveri) isn't limited to life-long servitude, and I know that you also use the term "wage slavery" which isn't necessarily life-long. If the word slavery DOES mean life-long servitude, please correct me.
The first definition (the most common one) is the problem for a LG/paladin code: "one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune." The key is that convicted criminals who are providing enforced labor still have certain rights. Slavery as a criminal punishment is either excessive (i.e., an injustice) or the result of a henious crime such that it's better to excecute the criminal rather than risk having them escape/commit the same offense again. Extenuating circumstances (manslaughter, negligence) and magic (raise dead) can provide a means of restitution even for actions that aren't premeditated resulting in a death.
The first definition (the most common one) is the problem for a LG/paladin code: "one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune." The key is that convicted criminals who are providing enforced labor still have certain rights.
That line doesn't say "has no rights". A criminal that tries to escape may be shot, thus, one person has absolute power over his life, liberty and fortune.
Ah, in such a situation, the personality of the paladins would play a big role. Zod may be a sadist but hes not committing heinous acts. I would expect two camps of paladins. Camp one would be those willing to fall temporarily to aid their lord or choice–Zod or Kindly respectively–in battle likely the younger, more impulsive paladins. Camp two would be traditionalists who treat their code in a very lawyerly manner.
Actually, no, in this case I'd expect no paladin worth his salt to march under Zod's banner. Some might try to change the system from within, but actually go to war with their brethren in support of someone like that? I can't really see that. To a paladin, or for that matter a LG character, efficiency is no excuse for ruthlessness, and the common opinion doesn't automatically make something right. And as for "not committing heinous acts" - innocent people are made to suffer because they are the wrong ethnicity/religion/whatever. Sure, he's not doing it personally (actually, wait, he may well be doing just that - judging from the whole "he is a sadist" angle), but a lot of heinous dictators never personally killed or tortured anyone either.
Paladins may go to war with each other, but in that particular case I can't imagine any paladin fighting in defense of such an overlord. The only difference would be between those actively fighting him and those advocating for a more peaceful settlement (which may or may not include deposition).
For a paladin on paladin war, I'd rather pit two nations against each other where neither has a moral advantage.
"So, poison is evil... but ... here are Ravages! They're just like poison, but kosher and 100% Paladin approved."
That was always silly to me to. I was not saying duplicate the book or its evil cousin. I was saying that what is evil in Pathfinder/D&D land needs to be spelled out for some people. I can't even find the reference in pathfinder that poison is evil anymore, even though I am sure that it is.
Additional data points:-- Zod isn't enforcing the worship of Asmodeus on anyone (though he's certainly not going to discourage it).
-- Zod's word is good. He'll stick to deals and keep his promises.
-- He knows that the paladins are an important support to the kingdom, so he's willing to bend pretty far backwards to keep them on side -- no missions that violate their alignment, and the like. There are plenty of jobs that the paladins can do without serving evil ends, from patrolling the demon-haunted forest to diplomatic missions (the kingdom needs a new trade treaty). Zod's pitch will be, basically, "Obey the King, but serve the kingdom."
-- The slavery is a combination of local debt slavery and importation of slaves from a nearby kingdom where it's legal. The kingdom is somewhat underpopulated thanks to constant wars and monsters, so there's a labor shortage. Zod thinks that slavery will help correct this. (Strictly speaking, he's right, though there will be some fairly hefty side effects.) The persecution of minorities is, unfortunately, pretty popular.
-- Support: a clear majority of the populace are at least content with Zod's rule, and a significant minority -- not all of them evil -- vigorously support him because they believe the kingdom needs a strong ruler to protect it from its many foes.
Doug M.
Zod enjoys hurting people, and I am sure people are harmed as slaves considering his evil temperment. Zod would have to reign himself in quiet a bit to not get smited in the face by me if I were in this game.
Popularity does not mean paladins have to stand aside.
A criminal is kept away from society in order to protect society, and I would hope any labor he performs would be a boon to society. A slave is normally just help for monetary gain, and at least the prisoner might be free again one day. The two while similar to some are definitely not comparable.
Hmmm.
I really love the concept of this storyline. Getting paladins on two sides of a conflict is a wonderful idea. You just have to make sure the motivations are powerful enough and to not stretch belief too far.
I think the setup of Zod the rightful king versus the upstart with clearer morality is a fantastic idea. The best part about such a setting is getting the players into deep philosophical arguments with NPC's and with one another. Really make characters have powerful reasons for their beliefs.
You might find this spell useful or interesting to include: Paladin's Plea
While I love the flavor of Zod's devotion to Asmodeus, I think that might be the one thing his paladins would find too hard to swallow. The draconian laws and the stern enforcement might send some paladins over to the side of the rebellion, while others stick with it. However, OPENLY worshipping an evil deity...that goes too far, I think.
Perhaps it is an open secret, one that some might be able to turn a blind eye to, while others can't ignore. Zod is too clever and too dangerous to just make his evil obvious.
Great stuff!
Moox
Moox, here I don't think there would be a violent conflict among paladins. In their eyes, Zod's cause would be too weak to merit actually fighting other paladins. At most, I imagine them not striking against him if he changes his ways sufficiently - but there is a big difference between neutrality and killing your brethren in his support.
I have to agree with The Shaman on the vast majority of the points brought up in this thread: no paladin worth his salt would follow Zod. They'd be hard pressed as it is to support a ruler known to be evil (even if he is good for the country), and they'd never support one who openly practices diabolism (awesome at it may be).
I think a far more likely scenario would be one in which Zod's father is still alive, and for some reason or other, he's decided to expand his flourishing kingdom. He's always been a good man, and perhaps at times he's pushed his paladins right up to the line, but he's never once made them cross it - they've learned to trust him. Let's say he want to absorb some smaller, nearby kingdoms, allowing them to flourish as part of his thriving kingdom. This is a cause I could certainly see a paladin supporting. Would they inflict undue harm upon the people of these other lands? No. But would they strip them of their current sovereignty in the name of their liege, especially if they feel the people would be better off under his rule? Why certainly! This might focus on the "law" aspect of the Paladin class, but at no time to they actually become evil or commit evil acts.
By the same token, there could be a great number of paladins native to these smaller kingdoms, and they will naturally resent the intrusion and fight to defend their homelands.
Additional data points:-- Zod isn't enforcing the worship of Asmodeus on anyone (though he's certainly not going to discourage it).
-- Zod's word is good. He'll stick to deals and keep his promises.
-- He knows that the paladins are an important support to the kingdom, so he's willing to bend pretty far backwards to keep them on side -- no missions that violate their alignment, and the like. There are plenty of jobs that the paladins can do without serving evil ends, from patrolling the demon-haunted forest to diplomatic missions (the kingdom needs a new trade treaty). Zod's pitch will be, basically, "Obey the King, but serve the kingdom."
-- The slavery is a combination of local debt slavery and importation of slaves from a nearby kingdom where it's legal. The kingdom is somewhat underpopulated thanks to constant wars and monsters, so there's a labor shortage. Zod thinks that slavery will help correct this. (Strictly speaking, he's right, though there will be some fairly hefty side effects.) The persecution of minorities is, unfortunately, pretty popular.
-- Support: a clear majority of the populace are at least content with Zod's rule, and a significant minority -- not all of them evil -- vigorously support him because they believe the kingdom needs a strong ruler to protect it from its many foes.
Doug M.
Code of Conduct
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.
To me that's the salient part. Are they defeating what they believe to be a greater evil? If not, I don't think there is any way they can serve a Devil worshiping King
Moox, here I don't think there would be a violent conflict among paladins. In their eyes, Zod's cause would be too weak to merit actually fighting other paladins. At most, I imagine them not striking against him if he changes his ways sufficiently - but there is a big difference between neutrality and killing your brethren in his support.
Aha! That depends on the flavor of the paladin orders in this setting. Were you to play a Paladin in this game, Shaman, you would clearly be a pacifist sort--unable to bring yourself to fight fellow paladins, though opposed to them. Others might not be so generous. All that's required is to make the deities slightly more distant, without immediately laying down their moral opinion for the mortals.
Where it gets really interesting is if paladins who follow different deities are instructed to opposite sides...
Therefore I say again, good stuff! This is starting to remind me of a pathfinder campaign I'm running right now.
Moox
.
..
...
....
.....Side Note: Slaves ran the Ottoman Empire
They weren't really slaves if they were the masters (which they were). They were just taking an oath of loyalty. You could say samurai are the slaves of their lords, they just never called themselves that, yet their lives were there for the instant taking.
Slavery of captured foes, etc, is a step up from mass slaughter and actually a sign of civilization.
Slavery for the PURPOSE OF ENSLAVING OTHERS FOR PROFIT is a great social evil. Slavery with no recourse for higher status/freedom is Evil, or at the very least the worst kind of law.
==Aelryinth
I think the initial scenario is flawed but not the initial idea. You could have a Paladin from a city town and a Paladin from a woodland town. The city might send lumberjacks to cut down some trees in the forest as part of its expansion. The woodland people might see this as an attack on their land and need the forest to survive, so they take up arms and fight off the lumberjacks. Since the lumberjacks need the wood, the city sends guards. Eventually the the escalates, and by the time the Paladins get involved it is way out of control. While a peaceful solution is ideal, neither Paladin can allow his people to be slaughtered and may well need to raise arms against each other.
No, the city paladins will say "Why are you attempting to steal the land/wood from these people? That is wrong and must cease immediately!" If the city does not cease, then the city paladins will side against the elements in the city who are committing the wrong (probably the lumberjacks or whoever is behind the lumberjacks).
LG does not mean "Whatever is good for me and mine, screw everyone else."
Heck, even LN characters would be against this ("The city residents have no legal right to the land/wood belonging to the woodland town").
Moox, here I don't think there would be a violent conflict among paladins. In their eyes, Zod's cause would be too weak to merit actually fighting other paladins. At most, I imagine them not striking against him if he changes his ways sufficiently - but there is a big difference between neutrality and killing your brethren in his support.Aha! That depends on the flavor of the paladin orders in this setting. Were you to play a Paladin in this game, Shaman, you would clearly be a pacifist sort--unable to bring yourself to fight fellow paladins, though opposed to them. Others might not be so generous. All that's required is to make the deities slightly more distant, without immediately laying down their moral opinion for the mortals.
In other words, you just want to throw out the objective alignment system...
No, the city paladins will say "Why are you attempting to steal the land/wood from these people? That is wrong and must cease immediately!" If the city does not cease, then the city paladins will side against the elements in the city who are committing the wrong (probably the lumberjacks or whoever is behind the lumberjacks).
You assume that the woodland town has any kind of way to claim the wood as "theirs". They may not do that, because 1. it may be that someone else (including the city town) owns it or because 2. they have an economic system that doesn't practice ownership of grounds (see american natives).
And maybe the townspeople need the wood too - the city needs it because otherwise people will be homeless and the woodland village needs it because that's where they hunt their food.
I can very well see conflict among paladins there, though I don't think it will be very long-lasting. After the first initial encounters, I think they'll say to each other, "What the f~$@ are we doing?" and start debating among them how to best solve it diplomatically.
I think there's a much larger risk of armed conflict if there's a major difference in their point of view - a conflict of differing wants are worse than a conflict of different needs, because these people are good and selfless. Even if morals are objective in the world, that doesn't mean every good person thinks the same about every topic - it doesn't even mean every person know what is good and what is evil. Not even every paladin knows that (that's why they and clerics got spells to find out).
EDIT: Take for example stealing. Is stealing an aligned action, and in that case to which? Can the alignment change depending on who the thief and the victim is? Does it depend on the local law? If someone can do an action that is more or less equal to stealing but not against any law, does that change anything?
I can see stealing as being a good, evil, lawful and chaotic thing depending on circumstances. More often chaotic than lawful, clearly, but there's plenty of situations where I would rule stealing to be a lawful action (for example, if the laws of property are arbitrary and very individualistic, stealing needed supplies for the community might be lawful simply based on the "community over individual" factor in "lawful")
.
..
...
....
.....Side Note: Slaves ran the Ottoman Empire
They weren't really slaves if they were the masters (which they were).
==Aelryinth
Aye aye, that be ma mojo point :)
.
..
...
....
.....Side Note: Slaves ran the Ottoman Empire
They weren't really slaves if they were the masters (which they were).
==Aelryinth
Aye aye, that be ma mojo point :)
:: A word gets thrown around. The word has a wider meaning for many than a cultural stereotype kept vivid with guilt.
No, the city paladins will say "Why are you attempting to steal the land/wood from these people? That is wrong and must cease immediately!" If the city does not cease, then the city paladins will side against the elements in the city who are committing the wrong (probably the lumberjacks or whoever is behind the lumberjacks).You assume that the woodland town has any kind of way to claim the wood as "theirs". They may not do that, because 1. it may be that someone else (including the city town) owns it or because 2. they have an economic system that doesn't practice ownership of grounds (see american natives).
In the case of 1., the woodland paladins will oppose action against the city ("That land does not belong to us, therefore we have no claim"); if it's the case that neither the city nor the woodland town has a valid claim, then the paladins on both sides will try to stop the conflict until a treaty agreement can be reached.
Case 2. conflicts with the scenario you initially stated: "The woodland people might see this as an attack on their land..." They may not believe in individual ownership of land, but communal/tribal ownership of general areas is pretty common.
And maybe the townspeople need the wood too - the city needs it because otherwise people will be homeless and the woodland village needs it because that's where they hunt their food.
In which case, there are methods of forestry where the city can cut down some of the trees and plant more to maintain the ecosystem that allows the woodland village to hunt. The city may pay the woodland village a stipend in manufactured goods to allow the use of the land/wood.
paladins should, by necessity, sometimes have to make very difficult decisions- this is a good example of what that might look like. every paladin in this kingdom should be wrestling with what the appropriate course of action is:
instigating a civil war to oust the rightful ruler of a kingdom seems, to me, like a clear violation of the code (to "respect legitimate authority")- so, while some might do it, that can't be the 'ideal' course...
they can NOT commit an evil act either, though, so they obviously won't be able to remain in the king's service for long (even if he doesn't ask them to actively do evil, they would find themselves needing to commit 'evils of inaction'), so they would likely need to become independent agents...
the hardest thing, as has been mentioned, would be figuring out how to "help those in need" and "punish those who harm or threaten innocents." the slavery issue should be less clear than most people are painting it (remember, it was considered perfectly acceptable for most of human history- really until only about 200 years ago...), and the victims of torture may or may not be 'innocent' depending on why they're tortured (if it is the prescribed punishment for a crime they willfully and knowingly committed, for example). those things said, an alliance of independent paladins should and would be actively engaged- seeking to exert political influence to change things, providing healing and support to the people and serving as a shield to protect the population for abuses of power (and actively opposing the machinations of the church of Asmodeus, which is now operating publicly).
playing a paladin is not supposed to be simple- its supposed to be a fun and sometimes thought provoking role-playing challenge; and observing NPC paladins struggle with how to maintain such lofty ideals should likewise be fun and thought provoking. it is, to answer the original question, possible to have paladins fight each other, but it should be a rare exception- in the limited cases where both sides of a conflict are persuing good (in a good manner) opposing paladins would nearly always work hard for a non-violent solution rather than take up arms against a fellow champion of righteousness (one exception might be wars between two neighboring LG societies that worship regional deities that either have some mythic rivalry or mutually 'recognize' each other as deceivers...)
In the case of 1., the woodland paladins will oppose action against the city ("That land does not belong to us, therefore we have no claim"); if it's the case that neither the city nor the woodland town has a valid claim, then the paladins on both sides will try to stop the conflict until a treaty agreement can be reached.
1. Why? Their will to protect the weak and innocent should come before their will to preserve the law (in this case, property laws).
2. What if they have different views on the property laws? What if the city town says "this is our land!" while the woodland town says "nobody can own the ground we stand on, and no-one can kill of the ground others need to survive!" Basically, one town has a system of private ownership of the ground and the other doesn't.I agree that the paladins would soon come to realize there's better ways than violence to solve the issue.
In which case, there are methods of forestry where the city can cut down some of the trees and plant more to maintain the ecosystem that allows the woodland village to hunt. The city may pay the woodland village a stipend in manufactured goods to allow the use of the land/wood.
Yes, but city-states tend not to care too much about that. Still, this assumes that the woodland tribe won't "sell" the right to their ground - otherwise there would be no conflict.
The point is, you CAN have an armed conflict between two good societies with different structures without anyone being at "fault" or an obvious evil. This, combined with limited knowledge of the other's situation, may cause paladins living in these different conditions to fight with each other. Probably it'll cease pretty soon unless the paladins are the over-zealous sort (aka soon to be fallen paladin) as both sides will realize there's merits to the other's argument and that it's a matter that can be solved without bloodshed.
As said, I think a conflict of interests is more easily managed than a conflict of ideological sort, because all paladins have about the same interests (the well-being of as many people as possible) but they may have vastly differing opinions on ideological matters (imprisonment, hierarchies and the like) that might lead to serious conflicts, as seen in the example above I gave where our anarcho-communistic paladin got into armed conflict with a government-supporting paladin after the government had done some legal but morally questionable things (and some outright evil ones).
|
The amount of disagreement in this thread seems to indicate that in such a fictional situation there would be a similar spread of opinion among the paladins.
There would be a group of paladins convinced that no paladin worth his salt could possibly support a government with an evil king.
There would be another group of paladins equally convinced that no paladin worth his salt could possibly participate in a military rebellion that will undoubtedly lose many lives and cause much misery in the country.
Their solution might be to get the king out by lawful means, or to get a paladin from out of the country (who is not subject to the king's laws) to challenge the king and rid their country of this tyrant.
Enter: the PC's.
Asmodeus is the legitimate authority of its domains by the Hells' own rules - does that mean a paladin who happens to go there must respect its edicts?
Off topic (and thread necromancy I know) but..
To be honest on that question (even if it was rhetorical), I'd say that to an extent yes. The only real reason a Paladin would be in hell and not immediately fighting demons for long enough to learn what the rules are or be inside of a city, they would probably be in the middle of a Parley, which I would assume would mean they need to respect that Parley and not make obnoxious disrespect of the laws of the land whilst he is here. Like.. Asmodeus is a particularly interesting one among this simply because Devils would technically have the same kind of respect of law and order that a paladin might, giving respect to certain rules and legitimate authority of higher devils in devil society.
As long as we're necromancing this thread, the part of the scenario I find interesting is the fact that King Zod's firm control of the military is mainly what is keeping outlying farmsteads and villages safe from invasion from demons and barbarians, and is something that was never really discussed.
Is a Paladin justified in instigating a civil war to depose Zod if they know that doing so will mean almost certain death for the many citizens under Zod's protection? Citizens whose only crime is living in a Kingdom ruled by a lawful evil person who commands the armies that keep them safe?
There was an article in Dragon Magazine back in the AD&D 1st or 2nd edition era about running a Crusades campaign, in which a number of Christian and Muslim knights would qualify as paladins, but still be honorbound to fight each other. It doesn't even require a particularly romantic take on the Middle Ages to justify mutual feelings of admiration of the other side's paragons. Historically, Saladin and Richard were as frequently praised by their enemies for their honor and chivalry as for their military skills.
Well then, good to see that saying something has brought some good discussion! I originally thought it would just be like "Dude, it's a 7 year old thread"..
But I think that the problem that really did mess the whole thing up the first time around was the whole "Sadistic Asmodeus Worshipper" part, as.. Well basically one may as well put a goatee on him.
Also on my original post that necromanced the thread I only just noticed the code says to "never parley with demons", which definitely kinda ruins my point from before, but I more just thought of that as the situation of "because of the heroes' renown agents of other planes have called them to work against a greater threat, and as such because of this they need to talk with a major asmodean devil because it is one of the few creatures that has the knowledge needed on it." PF2's Doomsday Dawn would be a good example (although it doesn't actually have any Devil negotiation) where the entire world of Golarion, which I'm sure devils would have stakes in because of all the asmodeus worshippers there and ancient devilish artifacts strewn about it. Would probably want the world not to end by aliens. also the simpler thing that if the paladin WERE forced into a situation where they needed to parley with demons, would their code say that the moment they entered demon town they had to start murdering everything or lose their powers? I don't think so.