Can you give more information?
Can you tell what kind of threats does he make? Does he make good on those threats or not? Can you give an example of such a situation? Also what does sense motive checks have to do with that? (i probably didn't understand something)
So i have a friend saying Palidans can threaten commoners or even people who pass a sense motive check and he has no idea they are lying.
Im pretty sure that it means he falls or is look down upon but im just making sure.
It doesn't take much to justify utilizing threats as a paladin. In fact, there's nothing wrong with threats, unless the specific purpose is to terrorize.
Depends on the purpose of the threat. If it's 'give me all your money or I'll tell everyone you're evil', that's wrong and unPaldinlike. If it's 'tell me what I need to know or I'll tell everyone you're in cahoots with the evil guys I'm chasing', it's okay, sort of.
I'm taking this to mean that the Pally in question makes a habit of bullying innocent civilians into confessing any crimes they may have knowledge of regardless of whether he has any cause to suspect them.
Such behavior, while not evil, is decidedly un-palladinlike, and multiple infractions may have consequences.
So i have a friend saying Palidans can threaten commoners or even people who pass a sense motive check and he has no idea they are lying.
Im pretty sure that it means he falls or is look down upon but im just making sure.
It depends on how the paladin goes about this. For example:
"The lives of many people depend on this. If you are lying, their deaths will be on your soul. You will rot in the hells for what you do, and I will personally make sure you get there soon." This is certainly not the nice way to go, but generally could work. Anything more can get the paladin in trouble - maybe not immediately fall, but they will likely get a sign of their god's displeasure.
Paladins are not hippies; they're charismatic and honorable knights who shed blood willingly for the good of all; As such, it carries an image; they are paragons of goodness and justice.
Interrogation is fine, but they should be polite about it, especially with random citizens. Now if he has good reasons to think that a particular citizen holds vital information (Having gathered information as a prerequisite, for example.), then he probably has the right to add a little force to his behavior.
When you're graced with the divine might of a god, you try to live up to it and be even more than what the common folk expect of you. Your status elevates you to the tales of knights in shining armor in the eyes of desperate families, and eventually those of kings in search of heroes. You just can't be a brutish prick who abuses his strenght.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed. Police use threats of force quite commonly, but so long as it's for the purposes of keeping the peace, it's OK. In a setting where you have the paladin as an enforcer of divine justice, threats that keep the peace for the benefit of law and goodness can themselves be acts of law and goodness.It doesn't take much to justify utilizing threats as a paladin. In fact, there's nothing wrong with threats, unless the specific purpose is to terrorize.So i have a friend saying Palidans can threaten commoners or even people who pass a sense motive check and he has no idea they are lying.
Im pretty sure that it means he falls or is look down upon but im just making sure.
I can't believe what I just read here...
You are saying that because police do it, it's ok...just so long as it keeps the peace? This has to be the most asinine thing I've read in a while. Is the peace so valuable that the guardians we put in place to protect it should resort to thug tactics to keep it? Where does it stop? Threats and intimidation are tools of tyranny. Are you aware that today we are living in a police state because over a period of time, incrementally, government has undermined our Constitutional protections? Ever heard of the TSA? Ever heard of VIPR teams? Why do they exist? Because someone demanded we give up liberty for protection! It all started innocently enough though. It didn't spring up overnight. Now, they are groping us and irradiating us all to keep us safe from the bogeyman...
When the people are convinced that such police/government behavior is acceptable, you have in place a system of corruption and domination that is the equivalent of SLAVERY anywhere else in the world. This is why we are supposed to have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, to prevent such tyranny. Today, everyone charged with defending and enforcing the Constitution seems to only want to undermine it and remove it. Thus we have tyranny on a scale not seen since the time of the American Revolution which started in 1776.
What does this rant have to do with the discussion at hand? Everything; it shows how "good" intentions pave the way to hell! Corruption is a slow process of going just a little bit further each time. "Give a mouse a cookie, and he wants a glass of milk..."
Evil lies in the heart; in justifications. By extension, evil lies in the actions that follow the hearts intent. Threats and intimidation are only outward manifestations of the corruption that lies in the heart. One could say, "but it's only a bluff". That too lies along the path to corruption for it is a lie, which is against a paladins code. So, as it pertains to a paladin and his code of conduct, it is absolutely evil to issue threats and intimidate. However, a paladin should not lose paladin-hood due to a single misstep. Rather, such corruption should be gradual in my opinion, as his actions match the intent of his heart.
The rationale you laid bare, is fit for Hellknights, not Paladins. Suitable for thugs, not peace officers.
|
|
You're argument seems to be based upon opposing the loss of liberty for protection. By the standards of D&D, this is a Chaotic Good (or possibly Chaotic Neutral in extreme cases) view. The paladin accepts a loss of liberty in exchange for protection. Quite often, it's the paladin that provides the protection.
As a condition of participating in civil society, one is expected to lend the state certain rights in order to facilitate said civil society. It is supposed to be a two-way street. We are expected to follow the law, the state is expected to uphold and enforce the law equally to all. This is called a social contract. When the state abuses those rights or violates the contract, as we have now in America, what do you have?
This argument boils down to the rule of law, period. Chaotic Good folks and societies are just more concerned with the particulars that concern individual freedom. When you have a government, or its agents, that engages in tyrannical behavior, you don't have law and order, you have despotism, or anarchy controlled at the point of a gun. Point is, it's not lawful behavior and cannot be legitimately justified.
I'd also request you not throw words like "asinine" around so casually, as it's rather inflammatory.
Political correctness is part and parcel to tyranny of mind control, my friend. May I suggest reading 1984 to get a better picture of what I'm talking about. However, asinine is defined by dictionary.com as follows:
as·i·nine
[as-uh-nahyn]
–adjective
1. foolish, unintelligent, or silly; stupid: It is surprising that supposedly intelligent people can make such asinine statements.
2. of or like an ass: asinine obstinacy; asinine features.
As you can see, the word fits perfectly with the quality of the statement when viewed in context. It was not meant to be a personal attack, merely an instrument to emphasize the foolish nature of the statement. Such thinking is anathema to what it is supposed to mean to be an American.
I apologize if it hurt your feelings though. If you prefer, I could use foolish or silly in place of asinine, as that was the intent.
|
an example would be a "seemed to be commoner", because he failed his sense motive check, walked up to him and asked for spare coins. he threaten him for coming so close to him and when the commoner moved his hand closer, which he thought was suspicious,he attacked the guy and dropped him in one hit. the commoner was a pick pocket but the paladin failed his checks to notice he might have been up to anything.Can you give more information?
Can you tell what kind of threats does he make? Does he make good on those threats or not? Can you give an example of such a situation? Also what does sense motive checks have to do with that? (i probably didn't understand something)
To be honest, I've rethought my post, because it really doesn't hinge as much as you suggest on the Sense Motive check. If the player fails Sense Motive, as you say, the character doesn't know what is going on in the situation. As GM, you shouldn't dictate or presume what the character thinks based on that information. The player could be justified in claiming that he thought the NPC was a spellcaster, a monster or a skilled thief, thus a real threat - which happened to be the truth - especially if the party had been warned about the locals previously.
Since the paladin turned out to be correct, his action was not evil or dishonourable. It might have been reckless, but until that actually leads him to do evil, it's a personality trait, not an alignment or code issue.
|
|
Malagant, you do not appear to understand that a threat can be made in an effort to exert lawful authority. When an armed guard is posted, there is an implied threat of use of force should one not respect the guarded threshold. When a police officer points a gun at a suspect and says "get on the ground" or something similar, he is using the threat of force. If he is doing so to prevent a crime or to apprehend someone after a crime, then that is hardly an unlawful act, and may be more merciful that simply gunning them down. A paladin drawing a sword and making similar statements is using intimidation, but is most likely not doing something offensive to most LG faiths (at least not if the act of running the miscreant through with the sword is an acceptable course of action).
I assure you I understand perfectly well. In certain limited circumstances when there is genuine probable cause (not probable whim or suspicion), an officer is justified to place a suspected criminal under arrest, using the minimum amount of force required to achieve that end. This however, is not what is being discussed in this thread. This thread is talking about the moral code of conduct that applies to paladins and the application thereof.
Your arguments relating to the modern United States and your political views are totally irrelevant to the case of a paladin. I won't be baited on that one. I use 'police' in a generic sense here, more for the ideal than for a specific real world example.
I could not disagree more. Where do our ideas of right and wrong come from when applied in a game? How do we know what is good and what is evil in that context? They come from the world we live in. We apply what we have learned from the real world to the worlds of role-playing fantasy. Role playing games are really nothing more than simulations we run in our imaginations that we share collectively with a group of friends. Simulations based on logic derived from experiences we have in the real world. Our ideas of good and evil, right and wrong directly carry over into the fantasy realm. We simulate scenarios based upon, "what if..." What if things were different...
Irrelevant? No, paladins in their description are seen as pious warriors that fight against evil, to protect the weak, to uphold the law, to punish evil-doers. Is that not the common perception of police (at least in this country)? Aren't they supposed to be there to protect the weak, uphold the law, fight against evil, take criminals to be punished? When they take the stand does the court accept the word of police as truthful by default, as they would hold an expert witness in a particular field as above reproach? Aren't paladins seen as authority figures, sanctioned by a religion? Aren't police the same only instead of endorsed by religion, they are endorsed by the state? Have you noticed an increasing attempt to remove God from everything and replace Him with the state? Do you see the relevance now? Paladins in D&D (and Pathfinder) are analogous to the common idea of what the masses at least once believed police should be. My point merely points out how abuse of power through "good" intentions leads down the dark path of corruption. It applies equally to paladins in the fantasy world and to police in the real world.
I'm not trying to bait you, I'm trying to enlighten you and everyone else who reads this thread. This just happens to be a convenient platform to make such comparisons.
an example would be a "seemed to be commoner", because he failed his sense motive check, walked up to him and asked for spare coins. he threaten him for coming so close to him and when the commoner moved his hand closer, which he thought was suspicious,he attacked the guy and dropped him in one hit. the commoner was a pick pocket but the paladin failed his checks to notice he might have been up to anything.Can you give more information?
Can you tell what kind of threats does he make? Does he make good on those threats or not? Can you give an example of such a situation? Also what does sense motive checks have to do with that? (i probably didn't understand something)To be honest, I've rethought my post, because it really doesn't hinge as much as you suggest on the Sense Motive check. If the player fails Sense Motive, as you say, the character doesn't know what is going on in the situation. As GM, you shouldn't dictate or presume what the character thinks based on that information. The player could be justified in claiming that he thought the NPC was a spellcaster, a monster or a skilled thief, thus a real threat - which happened to be the truth - especially if the party had been warned about the locals previously.
Since the paladin turned out to be correct, his action was not evil or dishonourable. It might have been reckless, but until that actually leads him to do evil, it's a personality trait, not an alignment or code issue.
How does the Paladin know he was correct? Did the commoner confess to being a Pickpocket before dying? For all the Pally knew, he just murdered a innocent beggar in cold blood for standing to close to him. And aren't Paladin's supposed to help the needy? I'd swear it's in the class description somewhere.
It hate to be the one to call "badwrongfun", but there is, in fact, a right way to play Paladins. It's written in the class description. There are certain things Pallys aren't allowed to do, and walking around offing helpless civvies because he thinks they might be up to something is definitely one of them.
On the other hand, a Paladin is supposed to punish those who threaten innocents. So maybe some self-flagellation is in order.
@ steve steve 983: The paladin is treading close to a fall, but hasn't quite crossed the line. The use of deadly force (even after a warning) may be considered excessive by the local laws, however, as your description did not indicate that the "commoner" seemed to be treatening the paladin with deadly force (or that this was impeding the paladin in a situation where other lives were at risk). In-character, the city/town watch will probably investigate the incident (i.e., detain the paladin and all witnesses for questioning, etc.), while the paladin's church/superiors may also want to discuss how his actions reflect on the standing of the church; out-of-character, the GM needs to discuss the Lawful Good alignment and the paladin's code with the player.
@ Malagant: A tyranny is still Lawful, just not Good. A tyrannical government enforces a harsh order and may abuse segments of the populace, but it's different than "everybody for themselves" (anarchy). For instance, since you wish to use real-world examples, compare Iraq's Saddam Hussein and Baath party to Somalia's feuding warlords.
|
|
Malagant, this forum is hardly a convenient platform for you to attempt to preach your brand of enlightenment.
Who is preaching? I'm merely pointing out facts that you may or may not be aware of.
I have no interest in seeing you or anyone else preach religiously loaded drivel on these boards.
The irony of this statement is quite thick, wouldn't you say? Talking about paladins (holy warriors) and you don't want to talk about religion?
This is a Pathfinder thread, more specifically a rules thread. The rules do not say that using Intimidate is an inherently evil act, nor is it necessarily unlawful.
This is indeed a Pathfinder thread about rules. The discussion at hand, in case you forgot, deals with the moral code of conduct of paladins. I simply used the real world to put teeth into the idea that paladins should not go doing things that real world police do and still call themselves righteous. You may not like my delivery, that is your prerogative, but it illustrates the point all the same. At the same time, everyone is being made aware of the goings on in the real world. Sounds like a win scenario to me. :)
You are right, Intimidate is NOT an inherently evil act, but in the context of the examples given in this thread, it is for a paladin. Paladins must tread a very fine line in using such a skill to influence behavior. In battle, sure it's perfectly acceptable to demoralize your foes.
@ Malagant: A tyranny is still Lawful, just not Good. A tyrannical government enforces a harsh order and may abuse segments of the populace, but it's different than "everybody for themselves" (anarchy). For instance, since you wish to use real-world examples, compare Iraq's Saddam Hussein and Baath party to Somalia's feuding warlords.
I find it very difficult to view any society as lawful when the laws don't apply equally to everyone. High and low, rich and poor. However, your point is well taken. Both of the examples you cited are much the same in many respects. One might be inclined to view Saddam as more lawful than the Somalis but it is still all tyranny.
All in all, a really great discussion. :)
As a side note paladin HAS to reasonably believe they are able and willing to follow through on threat, else he is lying.
SHUT MALAGANT DOWN PAIZO!!!!!!!
I have political & religious views that I keep AWAY from my role playing life. This guy is provoking me into debating him with his irresponsible statements about the USA. Imagine having this guy as a DM?! What a nightmare! Everyone, just ignore him please.
SHUT MALAGANT DOWN PAIZO!!!!!!!!!
All this reminds me of a paladin in a group once who used the its evil justifcation for killing a baker(guy was in an evil cult party didn't know this) and then tried to use his detect evil as his defense in court.
long story short its mostly up to you the DM wheter or not he falls however if he is attacking/threating averge joe for no reason his god my have a talk with him.
|
Evil. The paladin side-stepped the laws of the land. He acted as judge, jury, and executioner. As a paragon of law and good, I would think a paladin would attempt rehabilitation first. Knock the guy out, drag him in to the authorities, and make his life hell by preaching to him about the right way to live.
I don't buy the argument about living in a dangerous world. Assuming the paladin knew nothing about the pick-pocket, he had no just cause to kill him. Are we to suggest that every little girl playing in the street might actually be an evil necromancer in disguise? It could happen in a world of magic, but the possibility is highly circumstantial.
I'd also argue that the entire situation arose due to the paladin's uncharitable response to beggar. Greed, wrath, and hubris are not terms I would use to describe Lawful Good.
Batman, Lawful Good does not equal Lawful Nice
Malthir here is my LG Paladin of Iomedae. He is the Baron of Kardas, a kingdom formed from the GreenBelt. He would never act as the Paladin above did.
He would not look down on a commoner.
He would never threaten a commoner, unless said commoner was known to be evil or committed such an act.
He would not strike down a commoner, even if he did think he was a pickpocket. Would he arrest him, yes. His duty is to protect those who can't protect themselves.
Justice and honor are a heavy burden for the righteous. We carry this
weight so that the weak may grow strong and the meek grow brave.
The acts of this Paladin disgust me. Since the pickpocket didn't succeed, did he even know he was doing such a thing? So he struck down an innocent commoner as far as we can tell...
Of course this is the way I play Malthir. Other Paladin's are not as righteous so it is really up to the player and the GM to understand what are the expectations for this type of character. If the GM thinks this is fine then who am I to argue, this is just not how I personally would play or GM a Paladin of Iomedae in particular.
Batman, Lawful Good does not equal Lawful Nice
Comic book or movie cuz comic batman is nowhere near good and is barely lawful.
Batman, Lawful Good does not equal Lawful Nice
That's... tricky. Respect for the dignity and well-being of others is a large part of being good, as per the D&D/PF alignment description. A good character may be curt, crotchety, and occasionally unfriendly (hey, s/he is only human), but not a full-blown d.....bag. Remember, hurting others without necessity is an evil act.
Hmm, that's interesting. Say the paladin sees an urchin try to pick his pocket. Would slapping him instead of turning him in be considered chaotic or non-good?
Malthir here is my LG Paladin of Iomedae. He is the Baron of Kardas, a kingdom formed from the GreenBelt. He would never act as the Paladin above did.
He would not look down on a commoner.
He would never threaten a commoner, unless said commoner was known to be evil or committed such an act.
He would not strike down a commoner, even if he did think he was a pickpocket. Would he arrest him, yes. His duty is to protect those who can't protect themselves.Justice and honor are a heavy burden for the righteous. We carry this
weight so that the weak may grow strong and the meek grow brave.The acts of this Paladin disgust me. Since the pickpocket didn't succeed, did he even know he was doing such a thing? So he struck down an innocent commoner as far as we can tell...
Of course this is the way I play Malthir. Other Paladin's are not as righteous so it is really up to the player and the GM to understand what are the expectations for this type of character. If the GM thinks this is fine then who am I to argue, this is just not how I personally would play or GM a Paladin of Iomedae in particular.
Preach it, my Baron!
Of course you would never cut down a commoner in cold blood - you have your loyal Spymaster to do that for you. :-)
On-topic: If a paladin did that in m game, he would fall so fast and hard that he would take 40d6 falling dmg.
Oh, and please, for the love of Iomedae, please don't turn this thread into an argument about what alignment Batman is.
SHUT MALAGANT DOWN PAIZO!!!!!!!
I have political & religious views that I keep AWAY from my role playing life. This guy is provoking me into debating him with his irresponsible statements about the USA. Imagine having this guy as a DM?! What a nightmare! Everyone, just ignore him please.
SHUT MALAGANT DOWN PAIZO!!!!!!!!!
Best way to kill a Pathfinder Troll: Fire or acid dmg.
Best way to kill a Forum troll: Ignore!
The "unarmed man" was given fair warning not to approach. He ignored the warning and pressed his "attack" - in this case it was merely a pickpocket attempt, but it could have been some terrible touch-range effect. The key is that the paladin clearly spelled out a warning and then followed through with a reasonable response under the circumstances of the deadly world he lives in. Golarion is far from being as gentle as most of the places in this world that we post from.
In that situation, I would have personally tried to use a non-lethal attack, but there is no requirement to do so. If I press towards a man that has a lethal weapon in hand and he tells me to stop, I should not be surprised when he responds with deadly force if I don't follow the warning. This action is not evil, it's defensive.
Death is clearly a just and honorable punishment for standing too close to someone.
Ahem..
If we go back to the Police analogy, while the Police regularly have guns (lethal weapon) and have guns drawn (active crime scene) while doing crowd control they regularly tell people to stay back (keep away from person holding a lethal weapon) if the cop then shot dead an onlooker who refused to stay back....
Well, my Uncle is a cop...if he did that, he would no longer be a cop, he'd be in jail.
The law dictates the AMOUNT of lethal force allowed to be used in a given situation. Unless your Paladin has a REASONABLE reason to assume that every raggedy-ass commoner who approaches him is capable of delivering an incredibly lethal touch attack... then I would say he went beyond reasonable response. Nonlethal attack might have been warranted. But if this guy DID just look like a commoner-shlub... well, then a shield bash or unarmed strike would be about as far as "I" would rule the reasonable response to be.
This isn't about standing too close. If you see a man with a deadly weapon pointed at you and he clearly tells you not to approach any closer, you should not approach any closer without making your reason for doing so VERY clear and OBVIOUSLY benevolent. The unidentified 'commoner' above approached without making his intentions clear. Provoking a pre-announced defensive response is a great way to commit suicide by cop/paladin.
PS: Suicide by Cop (if the person coming at the Cop doesn't have an OBVIOUS lethal weapon to attack with) still gets the Cop charged with Manslaughter.
There are very strict guidelines under which law-enforcement are allowed to use force against the citizenry they are meant to protect.
SHUT MALAGANT DOWN PAIZO!!!!!!!
I have political & religious views that I keep AWAY from my role playing life. This guy is provoking me into debating him with his irresponsible statements about the USA. Imagine having this guy as a DM?! What a nightmare! Everyone, just ignore him please.
SHUT MALAGANT DOWN PAIZO!!!!!!!!!Best way to kill a Pathfinder Troll: Fire or acid dmg.
Best way to kill a Forum troll: Ignore!
Good one Casimir!
Seemingly, the paladin had many more options to choose from than "draw sword and smite beggar" so I would warn the player in question that what they did was not a good act. By itself it's not a cause for them to fall, but doing such questionable acts repeatedly most certainly would be.
If someone's bothering you you can just move away, or try restraining them, or use nonlethal force, or diplomatically talk them into a more productive lifestyle (your paladin does have diplomacy, right?). So many other options besides "I draw my sword and power attack!" /sigh
|
|
If we go back to the Police analogy, while the Police regularly have guns (lethal weapon) and have guns drawn (active crime scene) while doing crowd control they regularly tell people to stay back (keep away from person holding a lethal weapon) if the cop then shot dead an onlooker who refused to stay back....
Well, my Uncle is a cop...if he did that, he would no longer be a cop, he'd be in jail.
The law dictates the AMOUNT of lethal force allowed to be used in a given situation. Unless your Paladin has a REASONABLE reason to assume that every raggedy-ass commoner who approaches him is capable of delivering an incredibly lethal touch attack... then I would say he went beyond reasonable response. Nonlethal attack might have been warranted. But if this guy DID just look like a commoner-shlub... well, then a shield bash or unarmed strike would be about as far as "I" would rule the reasonable response to be.
This is what I'm talking about here. idwraith gets it :)