|
He was given reason to suspect the goblins only acted in self preservation and he went out and murdered them in cold blood anyway for a perceived crime. All the while lifting up his god's name in praise. Does it matter that the goblins were viscous little pyromaniacs that would kill you as look at you? No, there was no provocation, no lawful justification in this example.
Sorry can't agree with you.
What perceived crime? Crime alright. They ARE raiding the town.
What is the greater crime? Formulating a false flag attack to induce a response from the target group, or mobilizing to punish the criminal society that perpetrated such an attack? Is punishing an aggressor even a crime? Or is it justice? Or is it something else?
...from wikipedia.com
He did an astounding community service. These goblins murdered citizens, and probably not just the guilty party. The paladin acted nobly, responsibly and saved the town from current and future threats since you admit yourself they are pyromaniac murderers.
Congratulations, you just justified murder via a false flag attack. After all they are guilty of something, right?
He might want to have a talk with the town soldiers afterwards who started this mess though.
To what end? You sanctioned their behavior, which makes you just as guilty as them, when you had that paladin go out to slay those goblins. You did no investigating to learn if the crier was telling the truth, you didn't care enough. Your bloodlust would not allow for it. You may as well go have beer and swap war stories with those soldiers...
Ignoring the threat of these goblins to the town would not have been lawful good.
True, the paladin could have investigated what caused the goblins to attack. He could have used some DIPLOMACY! Perhaps arriving at a mutually beneficial arrangement that sees that the perpetrators get justice and protect the people at the same time. These would be examples of "lawful" paladin behavior.
I guess the real problem with playing a paladin, is the DMs and players who will be trying to ruin your fun because of their own twisted ethics.
If you mean by "fun", continually stretching and breaking the expected limits on moral/ethical behavior of that paladin character, then perhaps paladin isn't the class for you. I expect a paladin to behave in a manner that is above reproach. I'm not so slavish to perfection as to strip paladin powers for a single or even a few infractions of a questionable nature, but should it become clear the character is not holding to the code of conduct in spirit and to the letter, I will.
Funny you mention twisted ethics here, when you so casually justify murder when there is reason to suspect the real enemy is among you...
|
|
Note, that is from BEFORE CONQUERED BY ROME Era Greece, which means Pre AD. So the Jury Trial is in recorded history from over 2,000 years ago.The concept of "Common Law" in which Judges get to make interpretations upon the Legal Code which the US Court system is based off us can be tracked back to the 12th century and earlier.
"In the late 800s, Alfred the Great assembled the Doom book (not to be confused with the more-famous Domesday Book from 200 years later), which...
Sorry, still can't agrre with that either.
Oh yeah, trials, and courts, they did exist ... on the paper. How much were they enforced ?
truly ? /snip...
Of course, this post reinforces my earlier statement...
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.
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.
LE?
|
Sorry can't agree with you.
What perceived crime? Crime alright. They ARE raiding the town.
What is the greater crime? Formulating a false flag attack to induce a response from the target group, or mobilizing to punish the criminal society that perpetrated such an attack? Is punishing an aggressor even a crime? Or is it justice? Or is it something else?
Congratulations, you just justified murder via a false flag attack. After all they are guilty of something, right?
Okay, it'd probably deserve a lenghtier response : but basically, under your view, nobody should ever do anything, because everyone is guilty. A Paladin should automatically be doomed from character creation. A Paladin should let goblins slaughter innocents, because their neighbour was mean to them.
That is not my view, not in game, not in real life. And I do not think this is fun gaming, at all.
So I do not and can not agree with you. Ever.
I think the interesting part of playing a paladin, is that you will seek justice where there is none. And you will try to save innocents first, and leave the philosophics later, but you are still an action first character. If you discovered you have been tricked, then you may try to punish the trickters afterwards.
Okay folks, I move on.
Did I just see Galt referred to as an example of a a civilized land used to lend strength to the argument that legal systems in Golarion are healthy?No, you saw Galt used as a temporal reference. Galt is based on the French Revolution, which is 18th century.Thank you idwraith, your post was both well researched, enlightening, and educational. Actually doing your research is a pain (wikipedia dose make it quite a bit easier these days, links to your research would be appreciated next time, though I found it easily with google), but it is very refreshing to see someone that cares enough to make sure they know what they are talking about.
I'd like to propose that killing someone isn't necessarily a big deal.Do you even know what we are talking about? We are talking about the actions of a Paladin of Iomedae. You are asking me to believe that Iomedae is OK with her paladins just killing everyone and asking questions later, because magic can fix it. I am looking at the raise dead spell description right now, it uses words like ordeal, negative levels, constitution drain, and that is only if the poor bastards soul is strong enough to want to return. Some people just go to the light, or dark, or whatever.
I am tired of debating you. You are rude, pick nits, haven't presented a single shred of evidence supporting your opinion. Instead we get gems like this one.
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 was bull when Nixon said it, it's still bull today. Being a paladin doesn't make you good. Being (super) good makes you a paladin. When you have worked out that confusion of ideas, maybe you will understand what is being...
Thank you for grasping the point I was trying to make. I was attempting to point that people make the connection that Fantasy World = Lawless or basically Wild Wild West with Dragons. The point I was trying to make is that their have been laws and the concept of "trials" to establish guilt/innocence pretty much as long as there have been people living together.
idwraith, I'd have to say that "wild west with dragons" seems to be closer to my interpretation of most fantasy settings than trying to apply the laws of today's real world. You have heavily armed individuals wandering about dispensing justice that very quickly exceed the power of the local authorities. Hopefully this is used for good - PCs can make great heroes.
I grant that, and I don't disagree with it.
On the other hand the difference between a Chaotic Good character and a Lawful Good character should be that a Chaotic Good character follows his own moral code for the most part while the Lawful Good character obeys a Top down hierarchy of ethics predetermined by whatever power source he considers "the authority on Goodness"
This usually translates to a respect for the laws and codes of the towns that he happens to be passing through because the Good half of the Lawful Good means he believes in more than just a "Might Makes Right" attitude. He instead believes in Order and Discipline as a means to promote the greater good around him.
Killing a random bum running towards him doesn't seem to promote that ideal of law and order.
|
|
Okay, it'd probably deserve a lenghtier response : but basically, under your view, nobody should ever do anything, because everyone is guilty. A Paladin should automatically be doomed from character creation. A Paladin should let goblins slaughter innocents, because their neighbour was mean to them.
You obviously don't have a handle on anything I've said. Your entire babbling statement here completely takes everything I've said out of context...
So I do not and can not agree with you. Ever.
No one said we had to agree...
|
|
Stop your trolling. Real world has nothing to do with this. Had you quoted my whole statement, you'd have noted that I mentioned that spells such as Raise Dead make death a reversible condition.I'd like to propose that killing someone isn't necessarily a big deal.Try that on a cop and I guarantee you there will be a SWAT team looking for you...
Such flippant disregard for life...
Trolling? I thought we were having a discussion here...
|
|
Congratulations, you just justified murder via a false flag attack. After all they are guilty of something, right?Actually Malagant, that is correct (despite your implied sarcasm), at least according to the D&D alignment system. Monsters are suppose to be monsters, and in most D&D situations (unless your DM is trying to undermine your paladin) being evil is a crime.
If the goblin attack was precipitated by a false flag attack, then that is a second crime that our intrepid pally gets to hack and slash his way through to justice. The crux of this is that the paladins enemies initiated violence first, not some petty pick pocket attempt either, but real violence.
It was meant as sarcasm, yes. But also to illustrate a point. It may have sounded as if I hold the goblins blameless, and in that particular crime, I do. However, the point trying to be made was the paladin could have investigated prior to going on his crusade. Were the goblins viscous pyromaniacs? Yes, but that does not automatically mean they need to be put down just for existing.
I can accept in a game a certain amount of vigilante justice, but when it comes to paladins, I hold them to a much higher standard. :)
|
|
Malagant, you seem to be on a crusade to derail this thread.
I'm sorry you can't see how my posts in this thread support each other, but derailing? No, not intentionally anyway...
You just can't grab a definition of morals and ethics from an online dictionary to prove your point.
Explain to me why I can't please.
Moral originated from the Latin word morè, which meant something like “the way people are.” Ethics, on the other hand, came from the Greek word ethos, meaning “the way things should be.”
The origin of the terms is irrelevant for the discussion at hand.
And your explanation of logic is once again wrong.
In what way? Please explain.
Programing is frontloaded behavior. It doesn’t allow for learning, it doesn’t allow for learning. Granted Humans have some autonomic reflexes, but that’s not logic. It’s not learned.
You missed the point. I said they were programmed using logic. What do you think a computer program is?
Not every though that goes on in a person’s mind is “critical thought”. That’s reflective thought where you take an action and you measure the outcome from all perspectives, something that can’t be done all the time, day in day out, 24/7.
You assume that the application of logic is a conscious effort. I'm not saying that every thought is critical in nature. It is interesting that you should inadvertently agree with me here though (note the bolded section).
Philosophers try to use logic and reason to find answers to a wide variety of human questions, from the nature of reality or knowledge to the meaning of truth, to differing conceptions of beauty, much like the discussion we are having now. Logic implies introspection and reflection, it is more than just a reaction.
Granted, but somehow you missed the point that ties into the discussion.
But once you have moved into the world of play, you are moving into fiction. It’s not a truth, or a certainty and since all players perceive the fiction from a total different perspectives based on their personal perception filters, you are far from logic.
I'm tired of debating this, but once again, you missed the point.
If you're tired of debating it... please stop.
This is an OPINION thread. It can't be won. No amount of facts or argument is going to score a victory in this thread.
Yes, I posted facts about the origin of public jury trials. Yes, I used modern police rules as an example.
But in doing so I wasn't attempting to "win" the argument and I am unwilling to belabor the point as though my life depended on it.
Nor am I will to flood the thread with responses to each individual person who responded to my posts. One after another as if I can drown the voices through shear volume.
At this point you're following classic trolling strategies to "win" an unwinnable online argument. The only thing you haven't done yet is to rage quit and say "this isn't important to me, I was just bored" and then come back in a few days and start over once the heat has died down.
Now, the thread is specifically about Iomadea and I happen to have Faiths of Purity right next to me.
Under Adventurers it states:
"You become a crusader, traveling the world to find uprisings of evil so that you can tamp them back down. You are willing and able to serve and to lead; you have a forthright attitude and have no patience for lying, fraud or deceit. You believe in discipline for yourself and others, tempered with love and respect.
Although your goddess is a warrior and your church is known for its efforts in battle, you still prefer the word over the sword. You would rather solve differences without bloodshed, but even when negotiating you are firm and principled. And, of course, as an adventurer, you recognize that situations exist where the sword is the only answer."
Under Goals:
"You do not charge into battle against unbeatable odds---your faith does not require stupidity---but you do all in your power to protect the innocent and show them how to stand up for themselves."
Taboos might be the most relevant paragraph:
"If you see an opportunity to right a wrong and fail to take it, you have sinned against Iomadea and must perform a penance that fixes the original situation. If that's not possible, you must find three others like it and make those right instead. You must stand for justice, and the only exception is if you are playing a longer game that will have far greater benefits when it comes to fruition. Should you fail in this, you may lose traits and class abilities related to your faith until you complete your penance."
Going by the Faiths of Purity I wouldn't necessarily say that your Paladin falls immediately. Instead I'd set up a test. I'd give him 3 more instances where he has to make split decisions on whether someone is up to harm or not (in which is Detect Evil can't help him) and if he reacts violently to ALL of them, then I'd say he has to atone THEN.
Faiths of Purity is a really useful book for questions of religious ethics in the Pathfinder system. It doesn't go into exhausting detail, but it does expand the generalities to make things a touch clearer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Faith
Paladin Codes: pg 26
Iomedae
"The paladins of Iomedae are just and strong. Their mission is to right wrongs and eliminate evil at its root. They are crusaders and live for the joy of righteous battle. They serve as examples to others, and their code demands they protect the weak and innocent by eliminating sources of oppression, rather than the symptoms. They may back down or withdraw from a fight if they are overmatched, but if their lives will buy time for others to escape, they must give them. Their tenets include:
* I will learn the weight of my sword. Without my heart to guide it, it is worthless--my strength is not in my sword, but in my heart. If I lose my sword, I have lost of a tool. If I betray my heart, I have died.
* I will have faith in the Inheritor. I will channel her strength through my body. I will shine in her legion, and I will not tarnish her glory through base actions.
* I am the first into battle, and the last to leave it.
* I will not be taken prisoner by my free will. I will not surrender those under my command.
* I will never abandon a companion, though I will honor sacrifice freely given.
* I will guard the honor of my fellows, both in thought and deed, and I will have faith in them.
* When in doubt, I may force my enemies to surrender, but I am responsible for their lives.
* I will never refuse a challenge from an equal. I will give honor to worthy enemies, and contempt to the rest.
* I will suffer death before dishonor.
* I will be temperate in my actions and moderate in my behavior. I will strive to emulate Iomedae's perfection.
The bold is mine. I just thought those were the two points of the Code of Iomadae's Paladins that were the most relevant to the original point. Assuming the OP is still following the thread.
True, but if your Paladin interprets a beggar walking up to him as a "challenge" then I'd worry he's developing severe paranoia and hide my children around him.
I do think that the specific code of Iomedaean paladins is the most important point. These guys aren't running around hugging fluffy bunnies -- that's Shelyn's paladins. They don't really care that much about redeeming lost souls and showing sinners a better path -- that's more of a Sarenrae thing. Iomedae is a warrior goddess who focuses on destroying malignant people and things that threaten good people; her paladins are warriors first and foremost, and if fluffy bunnies happen to get hugged or lost souls happen to get redeemed along the way, so much the better, but that's not what they're in it for.
WRT the OP, threatening and slapping peasants who don't post a threat to anyone may be lawful behavior, depending on the culture (feudal Japan is a good example), but it sure isn't good behavior.
OTOH, goblins are, by nature, pyromaniacal sociopaths. They don't choose to become that -- that's what they ARE. It's an intrinsic part of their being, same as big heads and tiny brains. A paladin of Iomedae would, I think, look at the destruction of the band of goblins as removing both a proximal and long-term threat to a good and lawful community. After that, he'd go huntin' whoever was enough of a jackass to send the torch-wielding lunatics after innocents in the first place and, when he found that person, he would kill him unless he was pretty sure he'd never do anything like that again...in which case he'd turn him over to the local higher authority for execution.
It's a harsh world, man.
Ah yes contempt, the cornerstone of any Paladin's code.
Any paladin? No. Erastil's, Iomedae's, and (especially) Torag's paladins? Absolutely. Contemptible enemies get treated with contempt right up until the point the paladin slices them to tiny bits. Torag's paladins are even mandated to go after the families of their people's enemies and whack them too.
These guys aren't Galahad. These guys are hard-bitten warriors who deal with absolute, uncompromising evil (which, in the alignment system, exists in profusion) in the most absolute and uncompromising fashion possible.
|
A constitutional monarchy with strong checks in power, isn't necessarily any more than a flavorful change from America's democracy. Britain (from where we got our democrati blueprints), Norway, and Sweden are some examples that come to mind. Actually given that these nations aren't crippled with a lockjaw duopoly they might be said to be more democratic than our own country.
I’m pretty sure that many of the players in the western world would object to the loss of freedom a monarchy imposes and institutional slavery that is indentured servitude, serfdom and actual slavery, if they were actually subjected to it, and yet the Pathfinder game has it.
As a citizen of Britain I would say we have just as much of a duopoly as America.
|
|
Ah yes contempt, the cornerstone of any Paladin's code.Any paladin? No. Erastil's, Iomedae's, and (especially) Torag's paladins? Absolutely. Contemptible enemies get treated with contempt right up until the point the paladin slices them to tiny bits. Torag's paladins are even mandated to go after the families of their people's enemies and whack them too.
These guys aren't Galahad. These guys are hard-bitten warriors who deal with absolute, uncompromising evil (which, in the alignment system, exists in profusion) in the most absolute and uncompromising fashion possible.
Funny, I play any paladin as Galahad, it doesn't matter who they worship.
YMMV of course and that's why this (and any other paladin allignment thread) is completely pointless.
I do think that the specific code of Iomedaean paladins is the most important point. These guys aren't running around hugging fluffy bunnies -- that's Shelyn's paladins. They don't really care that much about redeeming lost souls and showing sinners a better path -- that's more of a Sarenrae thing. Iomedae is a warrior goddess who focuses on destroying malignant people and things that threaten good people; her paladins are warriors first and foremost, and if fluffy bunnies happen to get hugged or lost souls happen to get redeemed along the way, so much the better, but that's not what they're in it for.
WRT the OP, threatening and slapping peasants who don't post a threat to anyone may be lawful behavior, depending on the culture (feudal Japan is a good example), but it sure isn't good behavior.
OTOH, goblins are, by nature, pyromaniacal sociopaths. They don't choose to become that -- that's what they ARE. It's an intrinsic part of their being, same as big heads and tiny brains. A paladin of Iomedae would, I think, look at the destruction of the band of goblins as removing both a proximal and long-term threat to a good and lawful community. After that, he'd go huntin' whoever was enough of a jackass to send the torch-wielding lunatics after innocents in the first place and, when he found that person, he would kill him unless he was pretty sure he'd never do anything like that again...in which case he'd turn him over to the local higher authority for execution.
It's a harsh world, man.
Actually, as I posted the excerpt about Iomedae's followers above, it specifically says she wishes her followers to temper their actions with love and respect...and that they prefer to use the "word" before the "sword"
YMMV of course and that's why this (and any other paladin allignment thread) is completely pointless.
I'm tempted to ask why you've posted multiple times in a thread you see as completely pointless, but I'm not sure there's any point in asking. :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, as I posted the excerpt about Iomedae's followers above, it specifically says she wishes her followers to temper their actions with love and respect...and that they prefer to use the "word" before the "sword"
Will love, respect, and any amount of words make goblins stop being goblins? Paladin's aren't idiots (well, some of them are, but it's not like they make you pass an Idiot Test when you join or anything) and they know that they live in a world where evil is an objective, quantifiable force, and where some creatures are inherently evil. They're not going to love, respect, or bandy words with a goblin (unless it's one exceptional goblin indeed!) because goblins are inherently evil -- it's just part of what they are. A paladin would know that the goblins aren't going to stop being menaces to the good people of the nearby communities, so he's going to go out and issue a beatdown to the goblins whether they got set up or not. If they did get set up, then he'll issue another beatdown to the setter-upper after that -- maybe that will be a verbal beatdown (probably not, but maybe) but it will be a beatdown nonetheless.
I never said a word against Paladins killing goblins....
I was still addressing the original thread which was about a Paladin of Iomedae FAILING a sense motive check to detect if a guy was up to mischief and then hacking the dude to death because he walked up to him and tried to touch him.
|
|
Faith
Paladin Codes: pg 26
Iomedae
"The paladins of Iomedae are just and strong. Their mission is to right wrongs and eliminate evil at its root. They are crusaders and live for the joy of righteous battle. They serve as examples to others, and their code demands they protect the weak and innocent by eliminating sources of oppression, rather than the symptoms. They may back down or withdraw from a fight if they are overmatched, but if their lives will buy time for others to escape, they must give them. Their tenets include:* I will learn the weight of my sword. Without my heart to guide it, it is worthless--my strength is not in my sword, but in my heart. If I lose my sword, I have lost of a tool. If I betray my heart, I have died.
* I will have faith in the Inheritor. I will channel her strength through my body. I will shine in her legion, and I will not tarnish her glory through base actions.
* I am the first into battle, and the last to leave it.
* I will not be taken prisoner by my free will. I will not surrender those under my command.
* I will never abandon a companion, though I will honor sacrifice freely given.
* I will guard the honor of my fellows, both in thought and deed, and I will have faith in them.
* When in doubt, I may force my enemies to surrender, but I am responsible for their lives.
* I will never refuse a challenge from an equal. I will give honor to worthy enemies, and contempt to the rest.
* I will suffer death before dishonor.
* I will be temperate in my actions and moderate in my behavior. I will strive to emulate Iomedae's perfection.
The bold is mine. I just thought those were the two points of the Code of Iomadae's Paladins that were the most relevant to the original point. Assuming the OP is still following the thread.
Faiths of Purity should pretty much end this argument as far as the campaign world is concerned. Faiths of purity is a excellent book btw. The campaign world has a set of codes for each paladin order that are explicitly defined. The code for Iomedae appears to be loosely based on a Western Middle Ages Knightly order code, while Sarenrae's paladin orders are much more based on Arabic philosophy.
I never said a word against Paladins killing goblins....
I was still addressing the original thread which was about a Paladin of Iomedae FAILING a sense motive check to detect if a guy was up to mischief and then hacking the dude to death because he walked up to him and tried to touch him.
Oh, I agree with you there. That seems...exceptionally intemperate, shall we say? Or maniacally touchy? Take your pick.
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.
Umm where did you get the idea, that such a deed is un-paladin like?
Your moral ideas and thoughts of what a Paladin should act like and behave like, are not correct. There is nothing saying a paladin can't interrogate someone looking for cultist or something. Now if some kind of guard or sheriff approach's him and kindly asks him to stop interrogating the local populace. Then if the person asking is legitimate authority , then the paladin must stop. Of course as I said that's if the person is legitimate authority. If say the town was evil or net and the town guard and sheriff bullied their way up to these positions. Well he can ignore them and then start asking them for questions.He is just a little more inquisitor like paladin, I would suggest he think about taking at least one level in Inquisitor as that even gives him a better reason to be like that.
I think you're a little off about paladins as well. I feel that a lot of paladin players (and Ive seen plenty of supporting evidence on the boards) forget about the Goodness of Due Process.
Don't give me that I detected evil on him bologna. If you're interrogating someone, accusing someone, of doing something wrong, then any confession you get out of them would be coerced. Meaning it's probably a lie, and it wouldn't hold up in a modern court, for good reason. It's the same reason a paladin isn't allowed to bust into the evil lord's lair and kill him while he sleeps. Because once you can say, "Dude was evil, it's cool that I bypassed his rights." You just ruined justice and equality for everyone. Even if you KNOW that he was evil because you have a magic ability, how can anyone else trust that you even have that ability and aren't full of crap?
So just like in the real world, people deserve to be judged for their crimes, regardless of what they are, unless you're straight up catching them in the act and defending innocents from their evil wrath.
Another part of LG, and Paladins, should be their mercy and their willingness to turn evil to good. I think Paladins of Shelyn have an oath about that.
One more thing, in my understanding of alignment, the idea of doing something possibly evil, (bullying, threatening, killing etc) for a good end is the epitome of neutral.
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....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.Sorry I missed this post. No what he did was clearly evil, manslaughter at best, murder at worst, he killed an unarmed man (one of the worst possible taboos in chivalry). Even in the strictest societies stealing harshest punishment was mutilation (chopping off hands), and that was almost never for a first offense. Most often petty theft was punished by restitution plus a fine (most often paid to the state not to the victim) and/or hard labor. If it was my game, instant loss of pally powers (you don't dictate to an active god granting you powers what is right and wrong with pathetic excuses), plus arrest and trail for murder.
Now the punishment for murdering a known piss-ant thief might not be all that serious. The local lord in any monarchy is going to demand a favor at the very least for the crime of depriving his lordship the rightful labor of said dead peasant (regardless of the peasants actual contribution or lack their of). It sounds like your player would rather be playing a cavalier or even an anti-paladin. If you are low level considering retconning into a cavalier (still facing murder charges) with a an inherited title type trait. Or use this as an opportunity to go anti-pally, make a deal with the devil and the local lord, in exchange for leniency he agrees to do something truly nasty to prove his new commitment to evil.
And if the unarmed man had the evil (selfish) intent of stealing (or shocking grasp) the paladin could have detected it and bashed him in the face. It's not like using Detect Evil is a big time sink. Roll init if you feel so inclined and the paladin would almost surely win and could then use his move action to pinpoint the evil pickpocket. And any assassin that didn't detect evil would either be too low a level (<5) to be a threat even with shocking grasp or too high a level to be taken down in one hit, and would have gotten a surprise round before the pally could have smote him as he did.
* I will have faith in the Inheritor. I will channel her strength through my body. I will shine in her legion, and I will not tarnish her glory through base actions.
GREAT post. But I think this section would apply too. Paladins of Iomedae who go around brow beating the little folk willy nilly most definately tarnish their and their goddesses honor and reputation.
I think you're a little off about paladins as well. I feel that a lot of paladin players (and Ive seen plenty of supporting evidence on the boards) forget about the Goodness of Due Process.
Due process? Um...OK. I don't play Law and Order: Special Elf Unit. If we're using historical societies as a guide, "due process" is gaining a couple of inches on the rack and having hot irons applied to the soles of your feet. In most places, "due process" is probably little more than whatever the local ruler declares it to be. Paladins aren't district attorneys, they don't read anyone their Miranda rights, and nobody gets off on a technicality. I find the whole concept silly, personally.
Due process? Um...OK. I don't play Law and Order: Special Elf Unit. If we're using historical societies as a guide, "due process" is gaining a couple of inches on the rack and having hot irons applied to the soles of your feet. In most places, "due process" is probably little more than whatever the local ruler declares it to be. Paladins aren't district attorneys, they don't read anyone their Miranda rights, and nobody gets off on a technicality. I find the whole concept silly, personally.I think you're a little off about paladins as well. I feel that a lot of paladin players (and Ive seen plenty of supporting evidence on the boards) forget about the Goodness of Due Process.
Then (and Im making an assumption here) thank the maker you have nothing to do with how government works.
I wasn't using history as a guide. I was using the concept of Good. Good dictates inalienable human rights, which dictates equality, and Due Process. The paladin who says he is an arbiter of justice and can claim any man a thief, murderer, or what have you and then kill them on the spot with no evidence other than a gut feeling (Detect Evil), is being neither Lawful nor Good.
Who would look up to or trust a paladin when they thought their smite might come down on them at any moment? That sounds like tyranny, and tyranny sounds like Lawful Evil. A paladin should know that once he lays the smite on a dude, no matter how convinced of his evilness, what's to stop Jimbo the Blacksmith from saying he's imbo the Righteous and is now himself above the law and will smite those he thinks are evil too? Paladins should know better.
Then (and Im making an assumption here) thank the maker you have nothing to do with how government works.
So my view on how paladinhood works in a fantasy world disqualifies me from participating in government in the real world? Good to know. Thanks for unpacking that for me.
I wasn't using history as a guide. I was using the concept of Good. Good dictates inalienable human rights, which dictates equality, and Due Process. The paladin who says he is an arbiter of justice and can claim any man a thief, murderer, or what have you and then kill them on the spot with no evidence other than a gut feeling (Detect Evil), is being neither Lawful nor Good.
Several points:
1. I wasn't defending paladins killing people based on the result of Detect Evil. I was deriding the idea that a paladin in a fantasy game be expected to act like a 21st-century cop. I stand by my derision.2. Detect Evil is not "a gut feeling." In a D&D world, Evil, Good, Law, and Chaos are objectively quantifiable things. A paladin's Detect Evil ability detects an objectively quantifiable thing. An Evil creature will detect as Evil whether the person doing the detecting is a paladin, a third party, or the Evil creature itself. It's not subjective and it's not subject to hunches.
3. Here's what Pathfinder says about Good: "Good characters and creatures protect innocent life." "Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others."
Here's what Pathfinder says about Law: "Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties." "Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should."
Here's what Pathfinder says about Lawful Good: "A lawful good character acts as a 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. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. Lawful good combines honor with compassion."
Where in there is due process mentioned at all?
Here's the paladin's code of conduct from the Core book: "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."
Where is it said that paladins are required to observe due process?
Who would look up to or trust a paladin when they thought their smite might come down on them at any moment? That sounds like tyranny, and tyranny sounds like Lawful Evil. A paladin should know that once he lays the smite on a dude, no matter how convinced of his evilness, what's to stop Jimbo the Blacksmith from saying he's imbo the Righteous and is now himself above the law and will smite those he thinks are evil too? Paladins should know better.
Based on your previous assertion that I was defending the paladin's right to kill a person on the result of a Detect Evil, I can only assume that you're continuing the same line of thought. Since you've stipulated that the paladin kills people who detect as Evil, one can only assume that the people you're referring to in this paragraph who fear for their lives when a paladin is around would also detect as Evil -- and indeed your use of "smite" indicates this to be the case. Since those people are by definition Evil themselves (since the paladin can only Smite Evil), then I can't think of a single reason why they should look up to or trust the exemplar of Good. In fact, I'd assert that they have every reason not to look up to or trust a paladin.
As far as Jimbo goes, once again, the Detect Evil ability doesn't represent a hunch or a suspicion. It's an objective measure, the same as Detect Magic or Detect Undead. It can be fooled, but it isn't someone's wild-ass guess. It's measuring something that objectively exists and can be objectively quantified.
tl;dr
Look man, all I'm saying is that, if some guy came to town and said I can smell the evil in the air and decapitated a buddy of mine. I'd be scared s@&$less, and no amount of, "it's cool, God gave me powers." is gonna change that. It makes no difference if God actually gives people powers or not. I'm not going anywhere near that guy, and neither is anyone I care about. Detecting as evil does NOT mean is totally got an evil scheme cooked up for world domination. If you happen to be an especially miserable person, you may be of an Evil alignment. Doesn't make you firing squad worthy. And then there's the Jimbo guy. Who says (for whatever reason, maybe HE'S evil) "hey God gave me powers too! And look my exgirlfriend is SOOO evil!" See, this isn't a problem if paladins exemplify equal rights to all and due process.