So do you allow masters to rape their slaves? Do you return escaped slaves to bondage? To you execute children for the crime of starvation?Do you kick down doors and storm private homes? Do you stop people in the streets, or in the wilds, and demand their identity? Do you ignore their pleas of hunger, and watch them sink into desperation?No, such would be no differnet than the monsters who kidnap halflings from their homes.
So I ask agian... Do you allow masters to rape their slaves? Do you return escaped slaves to bondage? Do you execute children for the crime of starvation?
Where do you find these rapists, if not in their homes? Do they invite you in while they indulge in their laciviousness? Do you invade the bedrooms of the decadent hoping to stumble upon a crime in progress?
Do you seek these escapees? Do you track them to their ratholes, and run them to ground as the manhunters do? How do you return that which you have never sought?
I do not hear the screams of the hungry. If I must go without, all others will be fed. Because I build rather than tear down, organize rather than disrupt, preserve rather than undermine, and sanctify rather than subvert, the community is strengthened. Thus, none must resort to desperation and depravity. Do you believe chaos is the better choice?
|
Realize that this is not hypothetical, in 18th century England people could be exectued for stealing a loaf of bread, or a hankerchief. I cannot believe that Chelaix who is in bed with Devils would be more kind than England was.
I find those that think a Paladin would ever concider a blatantly evil Society to be a Legitimate Authority to be silly. I find those that defend chattle slavery as not evil in and of itself, even in the context of D&D to be disturbing. I find those that cannot see that the Paladins CoC requires that the oppressed be defended, and slaves freed to be selectively reading at best.
More kind? Of course not. More legalistic? Absolutely. Check your sourcebooks, please, the amount and strength of the rights afforded to the slave class in Cheliax is dependent on the type of slave they are, the severity of their sentence, and other conditional factors.
Your standards for "blatantly evil" society are ... odd. Is Cheliax "blatantly evil" because its leadership deal with devils? Or because the local authorities don't prosecute crimes the way you would like them to?
*dons his helmet*
Any paladin that considers the renegade, lying, insurgent government of Andoran a legitimate authority trucks with murderers, saboteurs and pirates.
Armed Andorans carrying arms may be slain legally in my province if they fail to answer two hails at one-hundred paces. This is good and just.
*removes his helmet*
|
Elthbert's model of paladin would not survive for long in Cheliax. I can say this because of the Council of Thieves' Players Guide entry for paladin. And it says....
Paladins face many of the same challenges clerics do in Cheliax. Worshipers of Asmodeus openly walk the streets, protected by the sadistic but nonetheless legitimate House of Thrune. A paladin in Cheliax, particularly a major city such as Westcrown or Egorian, must take care to rein in her righteous impulses and work with the existing law rather than attempting to barge through it. A well-intentioned strike against evil could result in brutal government-sanctioned retaliation, and an imprisoned paladin combats evil far less effectively than a free one.
Yet for all the corruption of the country’s rulers, there are many more evils to face within the country, and a paladin might work great deeds in the eyes of Cheliax’s people by combating subtler and potentially even more destructive evils. Paladins of Abadar, Iomedae, and Shelyn most often
find their way to Cheliax, their devotion to order typically being well satisfied within the rigid society even as they crusade to make the land a better place for its people.
And just in case you're wondering what it says concerning clerics...
Although the nobility of Cheliax openly pays lip service to Asmodeus, the majority of the nation’s people are little different from those found in other lands—only more oppressed and guarded about their actual faith. With the same hopes and goals as their neighbors, Chelish folk
find appeal in the same deities as other common folk, though many do so under the burning eye of Asmodeus’s faithful. Thus, adherents of any faith might be found in Cheliax, though they tend to keep their convictions subtle in the face of rampant diabolism. Clerics of all
religions practice in the country, though the numbers of non-lawful deities are significantly fewer, usually being little more than traveling priests. Westcrown was once an epicenter of Aroden worship, but in the century since his death actual worshipers of this dead god have all but vanished, even if his shrines still stand. In most cases,
clerics of Iomedae have taken up the mantel of honoring Aroden’s legacy.
Small temples to Erastil, Abadar, and in particular to Iomedae do exist in Westcrown, the former mostly in rural communities, the others in larger cities. Where Iomedae's faith exists, it tends to emphasize her aspects of rulership and justice over honor and fairness. This may
be the influence of the rigid noble hierarchy in Cheliax, or the power of the infernal faiths of the aristocracy, or it may be a survival mechanism; to preach too openly on goodness and fair play in the streets of Westcrown could mean trouble for the church.
Clerics and worshipers of all other gods exist in Cheliax, but most keep their activities hidden, or at least private. No worship is outright forbidden in Cheliax, but going against tradition can draw unwanted attention. The exception to this is the church of Shelyn. Her followers openly maintain shrines and conduct colorful, beautiful ceremonies in public (usually involving acrobats and musicians). For the darkness pervasive throughout Cheliax, even the decadent nobles can’t resist the appeal and entertainments of the goddess of beauty.
This is why a paladin must be aware of the laws of any land. Your stubborn refusal to acknowledge the laws of the country combined with your impassioned, kick-the-doors down approach to rooting out evil would get you imprisoned (at the very least) or killed (at worst). Most likely the latter, mainly because of your refusal to act in a way that is tempered with restraint while operating in that country (in this case, Cheliax).
|
|
I would say they are BLATANTLY evil because they consort with devils.
I would also say they are blatantly evil becuase they have Life-slaves who serve at the mercy of their owners ( pg 5 Cheliax Empire of Devils), i.e. they can do anything they want with them, including use them in bloodsports (Pg.5). They take people who were just " in the wrong place" (Pg 5) for these slaves.
They Traffic in said slaves on an international basis (pg11). They are Blatantly Evil because their Law is designed to...
*sigh* Alright. Let's unpack your statements.
Set a bound on what level of consorting with devils makes someone evil. In increasing order of severity (at least I think so):
1. adventurers have a conversation with an imp.
2. adventurers have a conversation with a duke of hell.
3. adventurerers ask a devil for advice
4. adventurers trade goods/services with a devil
5. adventurers do favors for a devil in exchange for power
6. Any of the above, substituting whatever sort of person you regard as needing a higher moral standard than an adventurer
7. An Empyrean Lord/Lady makes a deal with Asmodeus.
At what point is the party of the first now "evil" for having dealings with devils? Include time variables if it pleases you.
Then, before getting into the nitty gritty of the rest of the laws and whether or not all of Cheliax should be damned because it has some bad legislators and corrupt nobility, I need something answered:
IF Cheliax's government is incontrovertibly evil
AND an incontrovertibly evil government is not a legitimate authority a paladin must respect
AND the stated aim of paladins is the defense of the helpless, etc. etc.
THAN must every paladin take action to overthrow this government? (y/n?)
Does your opinion change if the paladin faced with the question understands that doing so may place tens of thousands of otherwise "innocent" lives at risk by doing so, since the present government actually stopped the ongoing civil wars brought about by the corrupt nobility and the death of Aroden?
---
I have to ask because "blatantly evil" sounds a little dubious as a description for the average Chellish village. It may not be a land with things you like, but it is far from the most obviously and objectively evil place in all of Golarion. In fact, I would have hoped by now that my in-character posts might have clued you in to the fact that from the perspective of a patriotic Cheliaxian most of the rest of the world is far eviler than they.
By your words, you seem content to paint every man woman and child in the country evil for infernalism and slavery, then in the next breath distinguish "innocent people" who may or may not be Cheliaxians but suffer at Cheliax's hands, then in the next breath again apply the adjective of "evil" to all of Cheliaxian society. And this is becoming confusing. Either everyone is evil by association or what you really mean is that slavers and slaveholding have significant defenders in the kingdom of cheliax and those people are evil.
I would also say they are blatantly evil becuase they have Life-slaves who serve at the mercy of their owners ( pg 5 Cheliax Empire of Devils), i.e. they can do anything they want with them, including use them in bloodsports (Pg.5). They take people who were just " in the wrong place" (Pg 5) for these slaves.
So you only accept one major nation in all of GOlarion as not evil. I would not allow you CG "I get to pick only folks I like as legit" paladin in any games I run. Because paladins must be LG and the way your talking is clearly not.
|
|
It would seem that seekerofshadowlight and I agree once again. The type of paladin you espouse is not LG, but rather CG, which is to say, not a paladin at all.
I was willing to entertain the possibility that you were merely being stubborn in your preference of erring on the side of good, so much so that you're willing to do anything and everything to stamp out evil. But even that argument cannot hold up in lieu of your most recent post, because your idea of evil is totally unrealistic.
Looking at Kegluneq's post, #7 jumps out at me first and foremost. And with good reason. For if we are to go by what you've said, then Sarenrae is evil for having made a deal to secure Asmodeus' help in imprisoning Rovagug. Had this not been done, then in all likelihood, the Rough Beast would have destroyed Golarion...and this conversation would be moot. But it did happen, and she is not evil. Even Iomedae, who is LG to the core, views Sarenrae as an ally, and she holds no truck with evil whatsoever.
I'm not looking to pick on you, Elthbert. In truth, I don't think any of us are. But your statements are very confusing. Golarion is not a black and white world. The people at Paizo have gone out of their way to make it where sometimes the moral choice may not always be the best choice. Or, to use a quote from the movie S.W.A.T., '...sometimes doing the right thing isn't doing the right thing.' When you play in this world, you do so knowing that this is the way of things. Of course, if you've made changes to it for your own needs, then that's fine too. If paladins in your version of Golarion can run around not having to obey the law of the land and are therefore free to take the fight as they see fit to evil, then that's how it works for your version of the world and there's no changing it until you decide to. However, what works for you does not work for alot of us. In your vision of the world, the Hellknight Paladin could never exist, to which I say more's the pity. Because you're passing on some great role-play opportunities should your style of paladin and that particular Hellknight were ever to meet. Just the philosophical ground they would cover in converse alone is making my head spin with anticipation.
Oh, wait....
I would say they are BLATANTLY evil because they consort with devils.
Given how many Tieflings there are in Cheliax, I would say that the really consort with devils.
You have to use what you have to work with. "I don't have to follow the law, respect authority of that government inside its own boards or of its law enforcers as I don wanna" Is not the behavior of a LG type. CG would say that easily, but if you are a paladin with the code, yep you do. It is legit, even if you do not think it is. You do not get to make that call.
Paladins do not have to like the laws of lands they are in, but they do have to obey and respect them. Respect, meaning as not to seek to break them because they do not happen to like slaves or the color red or walking on the left side of the street.
"Walk on the left side of the street? NEVER! That is Tyranny! Tyranny I say!"
If you want to change a government, there are both legal and good ways to do this, flat out law breaking then saying it does not count as "YOU" not the world but you alone find that government "Not legitimate" because you disagree with it, is not among those.
And when they run to you for protection, and the Law is on their heels, do you place you body before them, do you draw your sword and scream that THIS time, THIS time the slave will not go back? When the halfing sneaks into your room and begs you to help him return to his home, where he was kidnapped so long ago, do you return him to the "authorties" because in Cheliax he is property?
Do you not yet see the fallacy in your question?
Your halfling slave will not run to a stranger for protection. She will not sneak into a stranger's room and ask for aid. She can not and will not approach anyone. Fear and starvation are her companions, now. She must flee when people appear, and hide when they draw near. To survive, she must debase herself even further; hiding in squalor where others do not go, stealing to feed herself.
Yes, she has run from the man who holds her chains, but she is no more free today, than she was yesterday. Freedom, Justice, Vindication. These things can only be found within the Law.
You find out the who, what when, where and why. You do not act till you hear her side, then you go find out the truth and go from there.
Either way, you have an a large likely hood of having an atonement coming. Catch 22 like this are why paladin's fall, they are black and white in a world that isn't.
Why doesn't a paladin get to make that call, unless you havea very non violent campaign adventures make life and death decisions all the time, and it is ormally other sapiant creatures deaths they are deciding on, but a Paladin does not get to deside that the Queen who has a pit feind advisor is not a Legitimate ruler?
Ask yourself:
Is this government seen as the real government by the people: Y/NDoes this government function and carry out the duties of a real government : Y/N
Is this government in fact recognized by other countries and the world at large as a real government :Y/N
If yes ( which they all are in this case) it is legitimate. Legit and "good" do not go hand in hand. Most government are not "good" they can have good rulers but that does not make the whole good.
You dislike like the ruler, deal with it.She is a legitimate and recognized ruler. The people of her own country do so, other government do so and her country does indeed work like any other.
So its not about legit but "do I like this" So yes your code says you must respect and obey the Laws of that land while inside said land.
THey don't happen to like slavery? Really? I don't think there is any point discussing this with you further, as you think sapiant creatures can be taken against thier will and raped and murdered( Pg. 5 C,EoD) and that a Paladin would have to "respect that", this is not Good, lawful or otherwise.
Yeah you like to play CG I get that. YOu call it LG, but it is not LG. Under what you have said you respect no government, no law or no ruler that is not from Andor. You do what you want, when you want it and to hell with this so called "code"
Paladins are rare because the code is hard. The world is not black and white but a paladin is. He is good and evil, right and wrong, just and unjust. And so they have a very hard time dealing with the world that is not as they are.
Slavery and the act of slavery in and of itself is NOT evil on Golarion. You can't simply call it all evil when it is not, nor can you simply ignore laws about slavery in lands that have them ( almost all lands). If a man is murdering his slaves or abusing them as a paladin you need to deal with that, but you can not just ignore Laws you do not like.
|
|
*sigh* Alright. Let's unpack your statements.
Set a bound on what level of consorting with devils makes someone evil. In increasing order of severity (at least I think so):
1. adventurers have a conversation with an imp.
2. adventurers have a conversation with a duke of hell.
3. adventurerers ask a devil for advice
4. adventurers trade goods/services with a devil
5. adventurers do favors for a devil in exchange for power
6. Any of the above, substituting whatever sort of person you regard as needing a higher moral standard than an adventurer
7. An Empyrean Lord/Lady makes a deal with Asmodeus.At what point is the party of the first now "evil" for having dealings with devils? Include time variables if it pleases you.
Any, all or non of them except number 5 and 7, ( which are always evil) at the moment when it becomes consorting with, and not simply talking to, or dealing with as enemies, consorting requires harmonious assosiation, agreement with, companionability. It is beyond simple conversation, and even perhaps trade (for example if one was trading with a devil to retreve an innocent).
Then, before getting into the nitty gritty of the rest of the laws and whether or not all of Cheliax should be damned because it has some bad legislators and corrupt nobility, I need something answered:IF Cheliax's government is incontrovertibly evil
AND an incontrovertibly evil government is not a legitimate authority a paladin must respect
AND the stated aim of paladins is the defense of the helpless, etc. etc.
THAN must every paladin take action to overthrow this government? (y/n?)
NO, but a paladin could work to overthrow this government without violating either the CoC or his alignment.
A paladin MIGHT be forced to act against the government forcefully if confronted with a situation which made him choose between Law and Good, such as the escaped slave asking him for help.Paladins could work within the society until such a...
This is not a "no, but" sort of question. Either every paladin MUST take immediate action or there is enough wiggle room. Hate the slaver, not the slave; hate the infernalist, not the Hellknight.
What I posed was not a straw man argument; you are very fond of the term, but you may want to reconsider its usage. What I posed to you was that your approach to alignment issues and slavery lacks nuance and so is a useless standard. The evidence is your statement that "a paladin could work to overthrow this government without violating either the CoC or his alignment." You obviously understand that good people can exist in Cheliax, but your knee-jerk rhetoric (a fallacy of composition or division, depending on which direction one cuts) that "Cheliax = Evil" and no person (let alone paladin) may tolerate any form of slavery in Cheliax without also being evil by association avails no one and fails under scrutiny.
The case of a happy Chelaxian village is but one counter-example to your absolute statements. The case of a properous neighborhood in Egorian could be another. The simple fact that the leadership in Egorian has congress with Hell does not necessarily imply that every person within the borders of the Kingdom faces an obligation to rise up and destroy their leaders. Not even every paladin faces such an obligation.
And that is the point of this thread, isn't it? Whether or not a Hellknight Paladin can exist, or even a Paladin in Cheliax at all. I say they can, because I do not believe all paladins are obligated to absolute action by their codes. I neither endorse nor understand the notion that all paladins must be religious fundamentalist terrorists pledged to the task of pulling down every last "sin" in the world by force. Surely, as seekerofshadowlight indicates, when one becomes willing to disregard all standards of decency and order in order to pursue a moral agenda one has drifted into Chaotic territory.
---
Seekerofshadowlight has once again headed me off with quality. And one more thing: please define consorting because the very POINT of the exercise above was that CONSORTING is a very loose concept.
I could just as easily say that having a conversation represented consorting. After all, -I- don't know what you said to that devil in private. Clearly a case of consorting.
Yup If only one major nation in Golarion forbids Chattle slavery, then only one nation is good.
(I know you did not say "only one" first - but I'm just throwing this out there, not at you):
That means that there are two "good" nations. Andoran (NG), and the River Kingdoms (CN). Huh. That's odd. You put them together and you either get true neutral or chaotic good*. Weird.
A LG person is no more obliged to obey the Laws of the Land than a Lawful Evil assassin is.
Funny you should mention that! Also in the (CN) River Kingdoms, there's this whole Assassin's Guild that that enforces the law of the land! Including a complete and utter revocation of all slavery forever! In fact, they helped establish that as part of the eternal and fully accepted laws of that land and maintain that as part of their power. It's not just one country, but many. It's part of their creed.
What you cling to is the part of the Paladins CoC which requires that they respect legitimate authority, you seem to have no criteria for what makes one legitimate, and you dismiss the rest of the CoC which requires the paladin to punish those who harm the innocent and to help those in need. Your concept of the slavish devotion of a paladin to existing government is LN not LG.
In fact, I agree that there is a certain point at which EVIL trumps LAW, at which point the paladin is forced to act outside of the law (probably most effectively by working up a holy crusade into said land in a legal fashion with another government and/or country). However, presuming that just because a land is EVIL with its law the LAW is eliminated is incorrect. That's the main problem: slavery is not, always, evil, nor is lawful evil always voiding the lawful aspect. Paladins cannot simply ignore the law of the land just because it happens to have a few evil laws, which, from the perspective of those reading, seems to be what you're espousing.
Elthbert, that seems to be the problem. You have given an example that is unlikely in the extreme, and presumed to hang the entire argument upon it in such a way as to appear to be willfully ignoring all laws just for the sake of GOOD, which is, at best, neutral good behavior (with strong chaotic good leanings) instead of lawful good.
Again, to answer you: no, a Paladin does not need to always follow all the laws of all the lands, however they generally need to follow all the laws of the land they are in, with specific, notable, moment-by-moment exceptions being made in extraordinary circumstances, which, the one you describe is exactly: extraordinary. It's uncommon and bizarre. Also, a paladin who does so must be willing to undergo any an all responsibilities for such an act, including any punishments associated with it.
Again, let me direct you to Martin Luther King. He was a man who fought for freedom, justice, and equality amidst a land that (despite it's claims) didn't have it. And he was placed under arrest. He fully accepted his imprisonment, not because he couldn't have fought it (he easily could have led riots, if he had so desired, which might have been very effective) and not because the arrests were "just", but because he had violated the laws of the land, and willingly accepted the punishment.
Or, instead, how about Susan B. Anthony? The exact same situation, only in regards to women.
In these cases, the people accepted their punishment - their punishment due to an incorrect law that they were currently fighting, mind - for the exact reason that they have violated the law, and therefore were punished according to it. Eventually, due to their submission, subservience, and excellence of character, they won. Often, not even during their lifetime, but their example - that of a just and ordered opposition to evil, not the violent, radical push for now is what inspired many. True, their life was followed later by those who improperly followed their example, but there are many others who take their lessons to heart, and ultimately this was what led to civil rights for both groups. The violent insurgency only stagnated and increased tensions.
This is the kind of lawful good behavior people are discussing. Yes, the law can be resisted, but at the same time, accepted. This is quintessential to both law and good working together.
Quite frankly, if you have an infinitely (and blatantly) evil, fully legitimate government, and the oppression of innocents a paladin who is a member and is not at war is forced to either a) fall, b) fall, or c) fall and die. The argument ceases to be how a paladin should behave, as you've created a situation in which the correct argument is how a paladin should fall, as they are still attempting to be both fully lawful and fully good and that's impossible.
Now, the size, authority, and nature of the "war" a paladin engages in is surely up for debate, but a paladin that ignores the laws of a land because he doesn't like some of them is a paladin who is not behaving in a lawful good manner.
To sum up:
The reason it seems that you are arguing a chaotic good point of view for the behavior of a lawful good person, is that your arguments exemplify what is written of chaotic good types - including the inherently chaotic good azatas - and is directly opposed to the write ups within the lawful good types - including the inherently lawful good archons - with few, very specific, exceptions, which you're clinging to fiercely as the "proof".
*And yeah, that sentence is just a joke, and thus is not the basis for any argument in the rest of the post.
It appears so, unfortunately.
This is simply not the case, and it is rather frustrating trying to respond to you when you deliberately misread what is being said in light of this arrogance.
and when it was found that the Halfling had no case to answer you offered her the protection of the Law?
you're going to need to offer her protection AGAINST the law.
Not really, you had to even invent a new 'Halfling Hunting Licence' in order to give creedence to your scenario.
No, i used it as a shortcut for pointing out that there are people who legally acquire slaves through kidnapping, something i pointed out through a source book and you declined to address except through libel.
Where is such said license written up anywhere? It isn't, in which case the 'rescuer' would be bound to help the Halfling both as a Paladin AND a Hellknight.
Fine, what if she was born into slavery? Or taken in a raid to varissa?
On the other hand if the Halfling had legally been made a slave through unpaid debts or other breeches of social contract, then the Paladin would be bound to honour the judgment passed via fair trial and return the slave, unless of course it was asserted the Slave owner had indeed been breaking other laws. It is, after all, an LE society, not an NE or a CE society - the simple seizure and capturing of slaves and deprivation of liberty through force of arms is not an LE activity.
And if the halfling had been serving 5 years of a 20 year sentence of forced labor for stealing table scraps at a restaurant? Her servitude is legal, but definitely not good.
The only way you could give weight to your argument was to simply declare that all slaves were kidnapped, which is patently false.
Or to claim that THIS one particular slave was kidnapped legally, or was born into slavery, OR was given a sham trial, OR was given a ridiculously harsh sentence because there's money to be made in handing criminals over to slavers. You said in ALL cases you would act the same.
Regardless of her innocence of the original crime, she was legally made a slave and is technically violating the law by running away instead of seeking manumission through proper legal channels.
This is simply not the case, and it is rather frustrating trying to respond to you when you deliberately misread what is being said in light of this arrogance.
It appears so, unfortunately.
Well, he is... Shifty *rimshot!*
(I'm sorry, I'll go back to planning out my exorbitantly long posts so I can get ninja'd)
If a halfling slave will not run to you for protection then you must be hiding who you are very well.
Once again, you read the words, but you do not heed them. You present an impossible situation, then counter reasoned arguments with stubborn "What if's?". I do not need to hide who I am, for I am no fugitive, despite your attempts to corner me into becoming one.
You claim to be an adherent of Andoran, but I see the truth: You are a scion of Taldan nobility. For nowhere else in Golarion will you find someone who clings with such tenacity to something even as it crumbles before their eyes.
Furthermore, I name you Chevalier, for that is what you are. While you and I may be allies against evil, I stand stalwart against your efforts to compromise and undermine the foundations of Righteous Order I am building.
BNW I have been completely consistent in my approach:
Take her into custody.
Investigate the matter.
Deal with the outcomes.
This may end up with her returned to the Slave owner, dependign on the outcome, or it may end in some lashes or charges against the owner.
You seem to have had difficulty with this and from the outset decided that slavery was bad and that you should immediately assist her flight.
You began flip flopping on this when it was pointed out to you that there may be legitimate reasons for her servitude, but your 'god given right to freedom' reflex had already been triggered. Still your position moved significantly over time.
Unfortunately you had to make a worst case scenario up as a 'gotcha', but then that was easy to argue against, and now you have added 'corruption' (illegal) into the mix.
The Pally HK isn't the one who decides the law, the Pally HK is there to enforce it, though with all things 'legal' there is always a bit of discretionary waggle room - they get to play with that grey area.
If they feel that strongly then it is on them to work with the legitimately recognised legal system to effect change, or resign as both a Paladin and a HK and become a CG fighter.
BNW I have been completely consistent in my approach:
Take her into custody.
Investigate the matter.
Deal with the outcomes.
Your recap is leaving out the entire reason i brought up the objection.
the Paladin would be obliged to at least detain the Halfling and bring him/her back whilst the Paladin investigated the bona-fides and legitimacy of the Halflings servitude and detention.
In all cases, the Halfling would rightfully be detained and placed in custody.
You could, as a good act, simply believe her and help her win her freedom. It might not always be SMART, but there's certainly nothing non good about helping with the best of intentions even if you do wind up hoodwinked. Helping an old lady by carrying a heavy package for her is still good even if you don't rip the box open and check for small children and cooking utensils inside.
Failing that, if you determine the halfling to be LEGALLY enslaved, but not RIGHTFULLY enslaved (there is a difference remember, and i don't think i need to go out on a limb to say they clash a majority of the time in a LE country) you have a huge moral quandary. A regular paladin would have to be pretty creative to come up with a lawful solution in order to not bring her back. At the very least he could refuse to answer any questions about her whereabouts. (the nazi's at the door quandary)
A paladin hellknight is just out of luck. At the very least, she is actually guilty of running away from legal enslavement instead of seeking manumission through the proper legal channels (which oddly enough are impossible to reach while chained in a kitchen, but hey, that's LE for you). As soon as you bring her back (which is what you said you would do) she's going to be taken out of your hands and put back to slavery for the crime of escape if nothing else. That may be a lawful outcome, but it is not a good one.
You began flip flopping on this when it was pointed out to you that there may be legitimate reasons for her servitude, but your 'god given right to freedom' reflex had already been triggered. Still your position moved significantly over time.
You asked what if she was imprisoned legally/rightfully and equated the two. I brought up a situation that separated them and let you know that they were separate. It shouldn't matter, you did say in any case you bring her back.
Unfortunately you had to make a worst case scenario up as a 'gotcha', but then that was easy to argue against, and now you have added 'corruption' (illegal) into the mix.
From what i know of cheliax its the most likely scenario.
And i have not added corruption (illegal) into the mix. Its a lawful evil country. You don't act corruptly against the law you just make the corruption legal. Also, you brought this on yourself by saying that you take the same actions in any case... so yes, you handed me license to come up with any case i wanted, and are now affronted that I'm picking a case that illustrates the point i had from the beginning.
I think the problem here is you don't think evil enough. You think law is good so the concept of evil laws just doesn't register. Ask your friend with the helmet how it goes.
The Pally HK isn't the one who decides the law, the Pally HK is there to enforce it, though with all things 'legal' there is always a bit of discretionary waggle room - they get to play with that grey area.
Without the 38 volume "The laws Cheliax" setting supplement, i can only go by real world comparisons of nations who had legal slavery. The laws are heavily tilted in favor of the slave owner and rarely if ever allow someone that has been bought and paid for to escape slavery. You call it cheating, i call it research and extrapolation.
For example, shortly before the civil war the federal government tied strengthening fugative slave laws. One of the provisions was a special court set up to determine if someone was a slave or not. There was no need to bribe he judge, because the judge got paid more if they ruled that the person was a slave.
If they feel that strongly then it is on them to work with the legitimately recognized legal system to effect change, or resign as both a Paladin and a HK and become a CG fighter.
As I've said repeatedly: Paladins do not fall for an unlawful act. They fall for evil ones. If they HAVE to choose law or good they choose good.
This reminds me of something i read about in the crusades. There was a German emperor (one of the fredricks i think) who didn't have the blessings of the pope was was effective as all hell as a crusader because he would NEGOTIATE with the muslims. Templars were not allowed to associate with him, so they just wound up riding in the same direction, by sheer coincidence, about 50 feet apart.
A PC paladin could simply not associate with the party, ride some distance back, and either refuse to answer questions about the slaves whereabouts, or if truley pressed, find some loophole in the law or in the question. If, for example, the law requires you to report the whereabouts of an escaped slave to the first official you see, the paladin could blindfold himself and put down his helmet while in town.
You could, as a good act, simply believe her and help her win her freedom. It might not always be SMART, but there's certainly nothing non good about helping with the best of intentions even if you do wind up hoodwinked. Helping an old lady by carrying a heavy package for her is still good even if you don't rip the box open and check for small children and cooking utensils inside.
Failing that, if you determine the halfling to be LEGALLY enslaved, but not RIGHTFULLY enslaved (there is a difference remember, and i don't think i need to go out on a limb to say they clash a majority of the time in a LE country) you have a huge moral quandary. A regular paladin would have to be pretty creative to come up with a lawful solution in order to not bring her back. At the very least he could refuse to answer any questions about her whereabouts. (the nazi's at the door quandary)
A paladin hellknight is just out of luck. At the very least, she is actually guilty of running away from legal enslavement instead of seeking manumission through the proper legal channels (which oddly enough are impossible to reach while chained in a kitchen, but hey, that's LE for you). As soon as you bring her back (which is what you said you would do) she's going to be taken out of your hands and put back to slavery for the crime of escape if nothing else. That may be a lawful outcome, but it is not a good one.
It is not up to the Paladin to start handwaving laws that he/she simply finds unpalateable, indeed the hard part of their job is actually dealing with said laws. The Paladin has to act for the GREATER good, and not stay fixated on the smaller issues. That MAY include finding out that the Halfling is a legit slave and having to hand her back, as gutwrenching as he may find that.
What should happen next is that the Paladin spends their time working with the Legal system to do something about Slavery in the big picture, to get the laws changed to either abolish slavery, or move to have protections put in place for the treatment of slaves etc.
Yes there are 'laws that are evil', we see that in the present age, let aone 'less enlightened times', but that doesn't mean we can simply break them when we don't like them or feel they don't apply to us.
Indeed you had to use (illegal) corrupt actions, like sham trials. Matters the Paladin would be able to raise argument against.
So there are a lot of actions the Paladin HK CAN undertake in this case in the pursuit of justice, and they don't involve breaking the law to do so.
Given that he has options, the only true 'questionable' activity is his choice to break the law and to aid and abet a known fugitive.
Sadly, in the real world, LG Police Officers have to do all sorts of horrible things every day - like hand children back to crack addicts, leave victims of domestic abuse alone at home, knowing the crazed partner might come back when they are gone, watch killers walk free on technicalities... the list is endless.
Those people understand duty, those people understand there is a bigger picture. They have the courage and the strength to put aside righteous moral outrage and do what they can, all the while pressing 'the powers that be' to bring in changes and new laws to build a better society.
You would have them as vigilantes.
It is not up to the Paladin to start handwaving laws that he/she simply finds unpalateable, indeed the hard part of their job is actually dealing with said laws. The Paladin has to act for the GREATER good, and not stay fixated on the smaller issues. That MAY include finding out that the Halfling is a legit slave and having to hand her back, as gutwrenching as he may find that.
Again, you're using legit to cover two completely different things. This particular slave was 10, is from varissa, and was taken as spoils of war by a duly appointed military authority, and has a chain of paperwork a mile long covering her legal sale from one owner to another. Does that seem like a reasonable situation an adventuring PC paladin in cheliax might come across?
It is not the paladin's Job to help enforce corrupt laws or a corrupt system. A paladin returning an innocent slave into slavery is no worse than a kidnaper. It is an evil act, and needs to be avoided with the same, if not more ardor, than an illegal act. You can tell a paladin not to violate a law but you cannot compel them to commit an evil act with a law.
What should happen next is that the Paladin spends their time working with the Legal system to do something about Slavery in the big picture, to get the laws changed to either abolish slavery, or move to have protections put in place for the treatment of slaves etc.
Good luck on that.
Yes there are 'laws that are evil', we see that in the present age, let aone 'less enlightened times', but that doesn't mean we can simply break them when we don't like them or feel they don't apply to us.
It doesn't mean you have to participate either.
Indeed you had to use (illegal) corrupt actions, like sham trials. Matters the Paladin would be able to raise argument against.
A sham trial isn't necessarily illegal. Sometimes they hire Kangaroos on purpose.
So there are a lot of actions the Paladin HK CAN undertake in this case in the pursuit of justice, and they don't involve breaking the law to do so.Given that he has options, the only true 'questionable' activity is his choice to break the law and to aid and abet a known fugitive.
Your stated action for the lawful GOOD paladin was to abduct an morally innocent young girl and drag her back to someone with a 99% chance of throwing them back into slavery. Exactly which part of that sounds good to you? That is far, far FAR more questionable than helping them, or at worst doing nothing.
Those people understand duty, those people understand there is a bigger picture. They have the courage and the strength to put aside righteous moral outrage and do what they can, all the while pressing 'the powers that be' to bring in changes and new laws to build a better society.
Good way to wind up lawful neutral. Part of the thing i like about fantasy is that it doesn't have to go this way. PC's have enough power to avoid conflicts like this, not the least of which is being self funding.
You would have them as vigilantes.
The difference here is, rhetoric to the contrary aside, our governments domestic policies aren't evil. Stupid on occasion, but not evil. Turning an innocent over to the system leaves them with a good chance of being found innocent (in most areas anyway) For really egregious cases there's always jury nullification.
Your stated action for the lawful GOOD paladin was to abduct an morally innocent young girl..
Not a once.
So here we have the final part where you just simply turn to making things up.
I guess we are done here; not only have you had to invent 'what if' cases that just havn't stood up, but now you are saying that somewhere I said the Paladin should be abducting people.
Thats so far off the mark of what has been said it's not funny.
Similarly, whilst changing the law through legitimate and honest means might be an almost impossible task (indeed 'good luck with that' is a fair observation) the Paladin is not within his rights just to delacre it all too hard and act off on his own personal initiative because it doesn't suit him or is inconvenient.
Anyhow, given that, I reckon we are probably done debating. At no point have I asserted any abuductions were 'ok' in fact quite the contrary, repeatedly. That you have now had to not only misconstrue my position but actually falsify it in order to sustain an argument shows a certain finality.
Your stated action for the lawful GOOD paladin was to abduct an morally innocent young girl..Not a once.So here we have the final part where you just simply turn to making things up.
the Paladin would be obliged to at least detain the Halfling and bring him/her back <--------
My hallucinations are usually a little more multicolored and far less specific. And less prone to being copy pasted.
That has been your ONLY statement of what you WOULD have a paladin hellknight do, after repeated calls for comming up with an action that was both as lawful as a hellknight and as good as a paladin.
I guess we are done here; not only have you had to invent 'what if' cases that just havn't stood up
Darn that standard/stereotypical adventuring fare.
Thats so far off the mark of what has been said it's not funny.
Detain and bring back. What on earth do you think that entails?
Similarly, whilst changing the law through legitimate and honest means might be an almost impossible task (indeed 'good luck with that' is a fair observation) the Paladin is not within his rights just to delacre it all too hard and act off on his own personal initiative because it doesn't suit him or is inconvenient.
He is obligated to try. He is not obligated to participate through evil acts while doing so.
Anyhow, given that, I reckon we are probably done debating. At no point have I asserted any abuductions were 'ok' in fact quite the contrary, repeatedly. That you have now had to not only misconstrue my position but actually falsify it in order to sustain an argument shows a certain finality.
Then explain the difference between kidnapping and detaining and transporting. That one comes with a legal obligation does nothing to change the morality of it.
Your stated action for the lawful GOOD paladin was to abduct
The Paladin is faced with a person they know is (by their own admission) an escaped slave (very likely a criminal act). Taking the woman into custody (which is also a protective measure) so that the matter may be investigated is not an abduction.
The Police do not 'abduct' you down to the station whilst they investigate a matter.
Interestingly you yourself in your own example submitted the woman to a line of questioning, but luckily gave yourself the full means of 100% accurate and verifiable investigatie tools right on hand!
The average Paladin/HK does NOT actually walk around with their buddy the Inq or Cleric, rather they walk around with fellow Armigers etc... so their only avenue of investigation is by taking the girl into custody and walking to the nearest station where such resources may be to hand.
So lets be clear. You had to make abduction up too.
Rather unsporting.
The Paladin is faced with a person they know is (by their own admission) an escaped slave (very likely a criminal act). Taking the woman into custody (which is also a protective measure) so that the matter may be investigated is not an abduction.
Why? Because its legal?
ab·duct (b-dkt)
tr.v. ab·duct·ed, ab·duct·ing, ab·ducts
1. To carry off by force; kidnap.
Yes, you are carrying her off by force.
Interestingly you yourself in your own example submitted the woman to a line of questioning, but luckily gave yourself the full means of 100% accurate and verifiable investigatie tools right on hand!
In order to avoid your inevitable pleas to epistemic nihilism and focus on the question at hand, yes. And its not 100% accurate, there are ways around it. Darn my attempts to reach the point of an example rather than wandering endlessly in a side track.
You still haven't explained how to resolve this in a fashion that is both lawful and good.
The average Paladin/HK does NOT actually walk around with their buddy the Inq or Cleric, rather they walk around with fellow Armigers etc... so their only avenue of investigation is by taking the girl into custody and walking to the nearest station where such resources may be to hand.
Obviously, NPC's CAN be hellknight paladins. My point was that the DM can break that combo at the drop of a hat, sometimes accidentally. Despite having the situation in front of you far longer than a typical game session, you have yet to present a solution worthy of both a hell knight and a paladin.
So lets be clear. You had to make abduction up too.
Rather unsporting.
You dislike the characterization of taking someone against their will to someone that will enslave them and likely punish them rather harshly as "Abduction". Too bad. That's what it is, all legal ranging aside. You are giving me 'bring her back to a court that has a 99% chance of returning her to slavery' as your solution and that is NOT by any stretch of the imagination, a good act even if it is lawful. You're upholding the less important half of being a paladin with your actions, hard enough to fall. There is no mercy, compassion, or justice in your actions. It falls far short of what is expected of a paladin.
The Paladin is faced with a person they know is (by their own admission) an escaped slave (very likely a criminal act). Taking the woman into custody (which is also a protective measure) so that the matter may be investigated is not an abduction.Why? Because its legal?
ab·duct (b-dkt)
tr.v. ab·duct·ed, ab·duct·ing, ab·ducts
1. To carry off by force; kidnap.Yes, you are carrying her off by force.
So you are saying that anyone under arrest is simply being abducted. Thats very interesting.
ar·rest (-rst)
v. ar·rest·ed, ar·rest·ing, ar·rests
v.tr.
1. To seize and hold under the authority of law.
n.
1.
a. The act of detaining in legal custody: the arrest of a criminal suspect.
b. The state of being so detained: a criminal under arrest.
We could even look at other words I have used.
de·tain
Verb/diˈtān/
1. Keep (someone) in official custody, typically for questioning about a crime or in politically sensitive situations.
Guess that sort of derails your 'kidnapping' and 'abducting' debate.
So yes, teh Paladin has the authority to enact both, and in fact is REQUIRED to under BOTH hats they wear as a Pally HK. The Paladin side is required to ensure the Law is followed, and he/she has many options, including, sitting in on the trial to ensure the Law is followed, or possibly getting to the point of buying the troubleseome slave from his/her owner and freeing them if needs be,
There are several ways out that retain the Pally/HK's integrity, just you have decided taht flaunting the law and making your own rules is the preferred and 'only' viable method.
The Paladin can ensure that slave ets their day in court. The Paladin has wherewithal to get that slave out of slavery via bona-fide legal methods, and they have the ability to influence the Laws.
Thats their job.
Vigilantism isn't.
So you are saying that anyone under arrest is simply being abducted. Thats very interesting.
They are under arrest AND they are being abducted if they're being dragged out. Your idea that the two terms are mutually exclusive holds no weight, much less enough to support your spurious attempts to cast my arguments as dishonest, something you've done so often and on such little provocation that i have stopped looking for the proverbial lupine. The english language is not limited to applying one word to an action. Your argument is essentially 'You can't call it a denizen its an inhabitant'
So yes, the Paladin has the authority to enact both, and in fact is REQUIRED to under BOTH hats they wear as a Pally HK. The Paladin side is required to ensure the Law is followed, and he/she has many options, including, sitting in on the trial to ensure the Law is followed, or possibly getting to the point of buying the troublesome slave from his/her owner and freeing them if needs be,
I do not believe that the halfling has a chance in a LE court system. They are manifestly guilty of running away, and the last thing a slave owner or the system wants to do is to encourage people to run off in the hopes of finding help such as yourself. Again, you keep trying to run on the idea of prisoners as slaves, and i don't think that's what the world is presented as the norm. Even a lawful good paladin is going to question a system where the very act of seeking legal recourse to object to your detention requires an unlawful act.
You can chalk it up to a CG dm or just a pessimistic one, but its not dishonesty here. I don't think that your option qualifies as good.
There are several ways out that retain the Pally/HK's integrity, just you have decided taht flaunting the law and making your own rules is the preferred and 'only' viable method.
I'm waiting to hear another one. Buying them MIGHT work, as i said, depending on the scale of the operation. If the halfling is one of 5 slaves and the owner is more pragmatic than vindictive then the extra money would be more valuable than teaching an upstart a lesson. If the halfling was part of a large 500 slave plantation, the owner is unlikely to sell because of the message it would send to the others.
The Paladin can ensure that slave gets their day in court. The Paladin has wherewithal to get that slave out of slavery via bona-fide legal methods, and they have the ability to influence the Laws.Thats their job.
Vigilantism isn't.
Upholding evil laws isn't their job either. Supporting a system without mercy, compassion, or justice is not their job. A day in court is supposed to be about more than the law: its supposed to be about justice. There is no justice in a lawful evil society run by devils.
A paladin is good first, lawful second. A hell knight is lawful period. If the law is evil that creates, for a normal paladin, a situation where they cannot act within the law they have to abstain. A hellknight cannot take that option.
A paladin is good first, lawful second.
And that thinking is what leads to fallen paladins. They are Lawful and good first and always. You can not ignore the lawful part and stay LG, that thinking leads you toward NG or CG and thus you fall.
A paladin is good first, lawful second.And that thinking is what leads to fallen paladins. They are Lawful and good first and always. You can not ignore the lawful part and stay LG, that thinking leads you toward NG or CG and thus you fall.
Nah, they usually fall from one act of evil, rather than a lot of acts of neutrality.
Thats right in the mechanics. They can get away with unlawful acts as long as their alignment stays lawful, ONE evil act and they drop like a rock. I think that says a lot about their priorities.
If the paladin starts a robin hood style crusade against cheliax's slave trade, i agree with you they'll move over to NG. But unlike evil i think it is something they can get away with on occasion.
Its your game, In mine they must stay lawful. Ignoring Laws they do not like and committing crimes as they do not see them as crimes will make em fall just as much as a small evil act.
At the very lest you are starting down the same road that makes most Hellknight paladins fall. Leaning to far one way over the other.
|
|
A paladin is good first, lawful second.And that thinking is what leads to fallen paladins. They are Lawful and good first and always. You can not ignore the lawful part and stay LG, that thinking leads you toward NG or CG and thus you fall.Nah, they usually fall from one act of evil, rather than a lot of acts of neutrality.
Thats right in the mechanics. They can get away with unlawful acts as long as their alignment stays lawful, ONE evil act and they drop like a rock. I think that says a lot about their priorities.
If the paladin starts a robin hood style crusade against cheliax's slave trade, i agree with you they'll move over to NG. But unlike evil i think it is something they can get away with on occasion.
It bears noting that paladins get Smite Evil, not Smite Chaos.
It bears noting that paladins get Smite Evil, not Smite Chaos.
Also bears noting they Mus be Lawful and Good and respect legitimate authority. One out of three leads to a None LG character and a Fallen paladin.
Well I don't see that there can really be a lot of discussion when you claim that being arrested or detained for questioning is exactly the same as abducting them.
That you can't tell the difference is a significant hurdle.
That you believe the act of a policeman arresting someone is ipso facto kidnapping them.
Well I don't see that there can really be a lot of discussion when you claim that being arrested or detained for questioning is exactly the same as abducting them.
That you can't tell the difference is a significant hurdle.
That you believe the act of a policeman arresting someone is ipso facto kidnapping them.
And that sum it up. I see more then enough NG and CG so called paladins in this thread but very few Lawful ones that use the code.
That you can't tell the difference is a significant hurdle.
I disagree with you that there is a difference in this instance. You. as usual, treat said disagreement as a defect on my part, despite the definition fitting.
Well I don't see that there can really be a lot of discussion when you claim that being arrested or detained for questioning is exactly the same as abducting them. That you believe the act of a policeman arresting someone is ipso facto kidnapping them.
Ok, so what precisely is the difference between walking around mexico, having a bag put over ones head and being dragged off and held for ransom by a drug cartel and being in some third world country, having police throw a bag over your head, given a sham proceeding and being held until your relatives can pay a large fine for your crimes against the state?
And that sum it up. I see more then enough NG and CG so called paladins in this thread but very few Lawful ones that use the code.
There's a difference between a NG or CG paladin and a NG or CG ACT. I have yet to see a solution to the halfling slave dilemma that didn't involve a borderline evil act for a hellknight paladin.
Would a paladin be able to lawfully refuse to arrest the escaped slave? Not help them, but merely sit on the log and inform them "I cannot assist you in your unlawful escape.?"
Or more good and a touch less law " However the days travel has left me too tired to go after you. My only hope is that you do not steal my horse... no not that one.. the one loaded with supplies. Oh woe is me, what shall i YAWN... do. Zzzzzzzzz"
I disagree with you that there is a difference in this instance. You. as usual, treat said disagreement as a defect on my part, despite the definition fitting.
No, fictional Mexican cartel scenario, and fictional but straight up illegal and completely unlawful kidnap and extortion stuff aside (Both of which are also unlawful in Cheliax, by the way)
The PaladinHK in this instance, the instance relating to the slave, now has in front of them a person who has actually already confessed to being an escaped slave. This in and of itself is reasonable grounds to arrest that Slave, or detain them for questioning on the grounds of reasonable suspicion of a crime.
It is a clear cut defect on your part that you can't tell the difference between 'lawful arrest' or 'detention' (as a Pally/HK, carried out as a recognised agent of the law), and 'abduction'.
Funny, you seemed quite happy to consider facing off against the slaver under force of arms as being perfectly ok, despite there being no trial given, no investigation held into the legitimacy of that persons suit, and there being no lawful excuse to be threatening and assaulting him, nor thieving what is (apparently) his property.
Thats a WHOLE RANGE of NOT GOOD acts.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also bears noting they Mus be Lawful and Good and respect legitimate authority. One out of three leads to a None LG character and a Fallen paladin.It bears noting that paladins get Smite Evil, not Smite Chaos.
Torag is the most hardcore Lawful-leaning of all the LG paladin-havin' gods.
Real quick, who's Torag's drinking buddy that he sometimes goes with on wacky adventures? Cayden Cailean or Asmodeus?
;)
No, fictional Mexican cartel scenario, and fictional but straight up illegal and completely unlawful kidnap and extortion stuff aside (Both of which are also unlawful in Cheliax, by the way)
I've seen examples of both on CNN. Next objection?
Is snagging people for slavery unlawful in Cheliax?
The PaladinHK in this instance, the instance relating to the slave, now has in front of them a person who has actually already confessed to being an escaped slave. This in and of itself is reasonable grounds to arrest that Slave, or detain them for questioning on the grounds of reasonable suspicion of a crime.
Since the vast majority of chelaxian slaves do not deserve to be slaves you are effectively arresting someone for the crime of stealing their own body. It is LAWFUL grounds for arresting them but it is neither reasonable nor GOOD grounds for arresting them.
It is a clear cut defect on your part that you can't tell the difference between 'lawful arrest' or 'detention' (as a Pally/HK, carried out as a recognised agent of the law), and 'abduction'.
I think it depends entirely on the system you're being tossed into. Its not my fault that in a fair number of governments the only difference between criminal cartel and government is the operating budget and the size of their biggest guns. Your inability to answer the example demonstrates that you have no grounds for this sort of abusive language.
Funny, you seemed quite happy to consider facing off against the slaver under force of arms as being perfectly ok, despite there being no trial given, no investigation held into the legitimacy of that persons suit, and there being no lawful excuse to be threatening and assaulting him, nor thieving what is (apparently) his property.
Thats a WHOLE RANGE of NOT GOOD acts.
That is patently a whole range of not LEGAL acts. You are, again, equating the two. A Chaotic Good ranger would have more than enough justification to say "Hmmm.. innocent little slave girl, chains, that story checks out and my bear likes you. Let met get my bow, I'll be back in a minute" thunk thunk thunk "there you go little missy, no need to worry about him anymore"