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?
;)
That can be explained.
1: He a dwarf and ale is involved
2: Someone has to watch out for ol Cayden
3: He a dwarf and ale is involved
4: You always have that one friend who is always dragging you into mess you have to fix ( Have you not watched sitcoms?)
5: And last but not lest,He a dwarf and ale is involved
Is snagging people for slavery unlawful in Cheliax?
Yup. it is.
And Lawmen acting on their own with no regards due process are Vigilantes
So that kind of ends that.
The person has admitted to a crime, therefore that crime now needs investigating. That will involve arresting or detaining that Halfling, interestingly you yourself had your paladin detain the halfling for questioning.
The person has admitted to a crime, therefore that crime now needs investigating. That will involve arresting or detaining that Halfling, interestingly you yourself had your paladin detain the halfling for questioning.
No, i had the paladin ask the halfing a question while they were proverbially leaping into the arms of the paladin with a cry of "save me". The paladin wasn't keeping the halfling there.
Your focus on this bit of made up minutia in the face of the rest of the conversation is telling.
Is it illegal for Chelaxian forces to take slaves as spoils of war? In short the question here is "where are all these slaves coming from" ?
A good many come from elsewhere, slavery is a thriving trade on the inner sea, Gaurndi and Qadir {sp}are big time traders. People are born into it and sold into it for any number of reasons. Dept and crimes being the big ones.
Your average slave could have come from anywhere in the inner sea of beyond, but they all come into the country as legal property. How is an honest merchant to know those slaves just happen to come off a ship taken off the shore of taldor? As long as you have the paper work it's legal in chelix and just about everywhere else.
Well at least we finally have critera. lets look at them.
1. THis critera is completely immaterial, the peoples perception has nothing to do with what is or is something is ligetimate Perception is not reality. In a world with magic, where peoples minds can be tricked quite easily this is even more so.
Reads as I don't like it so it does not count (Much like a Cg pc would say)
2. This is a good one. I will say I agree this is a function of legitamacy. However, if said government also violates the role of government, then it loses any claim on these grounds.
This also Reads as I don't like it so it does not count (Still seeming like something a CG pc would say) The only Violation of government is one you made up ( the leadership are evil so it somehow is not a real government)
3. This is the same catagory as number 1, except less compelling, contries recognize who they will fortheir own reasons, a usurper who is recognized by others is still a usurper.
Again you are making up your own rules the rest of the world does not agree with. Also not Lawful, this is still a chaotic attitude to take.
I don't recall sayingthat anywhere, can you direct meto where I might have said that? There is nothing CG about anything I have said. Again you seem to unot understand the aliegnment system at all. The revolutionary with an organized hierarchical army is LAWFUL, whether or not he is in support of the people in Power.
Everything you state is chaotic, you refuse to accept anything you dislike as legit, even when it is excepted as such by the people of the country and the world at large. I understand Al fine, you however seem not to. That however is a classic example of CG behavior.
LG folks do not bend rules they dislike, they do not ignore laws they don't like and they don't act like rulers of lands they are in are not real rulers because they happen to dislike them.
Really Are you sure slavery is not evil in Golarion, can you direct me to an entry in a book which says that? Becuase Droskar the god of Slavery is NE.
If a man in Cheliax is murdering and abusing his life-slaves, how exctly are you going to deal with it? Legally they have the right to do so. According to the LAW of Cheliax Life slaves can be disfigured, abused or killed, they are property, cattle, nothing more.
You are a paladin, or so you say, you have many ways to stop his wicked actions, offer to buy his slaves, learn the locale laws, make sure he knows you will be his enemy if he keeps his actions up, find out what else he has been doing, they are sticklers for laws you know. And if nothing else Dueling is legal.
And Yes I am sure, the act itself is not good nor is it evil. It has been around in every nation since at lest the age of darkness, there have been no grand crusades by paladins to put the trade down.
How you treat a slave can be good or evil but merely owning a slave in and of itself is not an evil act. Trading slaves is not in and of itself evil ( kidnapping folks and selling them into slavery would be however).
Slavery is very, very common in the homelands of two of the major paladin gods. When was the last crusade by those to end it? Name just one grand crusade to end it lead by hosts of paladins somewhere in the last 4000 years.
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?
;)
Other thought: who, of the good gods, hangs out with evil ones? Sarenrae. But then again, she's got other motives in mind...
Really Are you sure slavery is not evil in Golarion, can you direct me to an entry in a book which says that? Becuase Droskar the god of Slavery is NE.
Actually, I can't point it to you, but I can give you a strange (and admittedly weak) proof-of-concept, that I've mentioned before: there are only two countries that I know of that are anti-slavery. One is, of course, Andoran, the NG country who aggressively seeks to export their culture to the world. NG is, in fact, good.
The other is the River Kingdoms, a Chaotic Neutral "country" more accurately described as a loose collection of fully independent countries that all agree to a strange (distinctly non-good) code, run by the "outlaw council" (Non-lawful? Strong potential for non-good) and support the worship of two different deities that are non-good (chaotic neutral and chaotic evil) universally reviled elsewhere due to their propensity (and command) to murder (mostly) innocent people, and is only held together (and more importantly, the previously-mentioned code only enforced) by the power of two evil guilds. In other words, the only other example of a truly abolitionist "state" is a chaotic neutral (at best) one, which consists of predominantly neutral-or-evil* countries and enforced by an evil power.
* SEMI-EDIT: I did some checking on the River Kingdoms to verify my statements based off what I've seen
Neutral 11^; Evil 1; Good 1^^; Unknown 5^^^
EDIT: So we have one (kind of dark and un-liked) neutral good people against slavery and one chaotic neutral (but propped up and ruled by multiple instances of evil) country, leaves the abolitionist (anti-slavery) movement somewhere solidly in the neutral or chaotic good territory. In any event slavery tends toward law.
^ At least four of these are run by evil rulers and/or kept running due entirely to the power of evil groups (without which they'd collapse), and another has a two-thirds normally evil creatures majority (with the remaining third a normally neutral) on the ruling council, and I have no idea how the Protectorate is considered "neutral", given that it runs almost entirely on murder and theft
^^ This is the only one not-so-concerned with the River Freedoms, and is thus lawful good... and worships a chaotic good goddess. And it seeks to "unite the river kingdoms"... in order to save Galt. Obviously, there are some communication problems here.
^^^ At least two of these are run by evil creatures, and two are (at least until Kingmaker) completely uncivilized
EDIT:
And Yes I am sure, the act itself is not good nor is it evil. It has been around in every nation since at lest the age of darkness, there have been no grand crusades by paladins to put the trade down.
...
Slavery is very, very common in the homelands of two of the major paladin gods. When was the last crusade by those to end it? Name just one grand crusade to end it lead by hosts of paladins somewhere in the last 4000 years.
Alternatively this is a good point about slavery as well.
You know, threads like these are always a bit odd, as I always seem to end up defending slavery like I actually like it, on a personal level. Which I don't. Odd, that.
Your average slave could have come from anywhere in the inner sea of beyond, but they all come into the country as legal property. How is an honest merchant to know those slaves just happen to come off a ship taken off the shore of taldor? As long as you have the paper work it's legal in chelix and just about everywhere else.
This is a very messy point. The Paladin's Code of Conduct (Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook, p. 64) requires the Paladin to:
...So the person who was enslaved illeagally, is still an innocent. True, the merchant who buys the slave may not know if the person was enslaved improperly or not, but the slave still sould be freed (to correct the original crime).
This leads to the second problem ...
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.
This is not actually true. Going back to the core rules under "Ex-Paladins" (again Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook, p. 64):
So, a single "evil act" will cause a Paladin to fall. A "chaotic act" merely gets the Paladin into some minor alignment trouble, but does not cause the loss of Paladin abilites or requres and Atonement spells as long as his/her overall behavior is still LG.
So, yes a Paladin ignoring/defying a law or ruler he/she merely disliked would be a problem. But, enforcing an "evil" law would cause the paladin to fall almost immediately.
The Paladin's Code of Conduct also brings up a problem with Hellknight Paladins (once again Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook, p. 64):
As has been already discussed, many Hellknights are Lawful Evil (and the Hellknight leadership very well might be ...), so would a Paladin want to associate with them?
|
However, Gods of Good seem to take a very dim view of it (to say the least).
See for example this excerpt of the Bestiary (page 168) : "buying or forcibly domesticating intelligent creatures like griffons is still recognized as slavery by most good deities", which strongly implies that said good deities do not like slavery one bit.
*dons his helmet*
I have awaited this reasoning.
Tell me, which of the gods names himself patron of animal husbandry and domestication? Erastil, patron of hunting and farming, often holds that distinction. Lawful and Good, a patron of acts and community before civilization but a fine patron nonetheless.
Does Erastil count a cow upon a farm as a slave?
I have known many a paladin and soldier who returned home to their farm when their weapons were no longer needed, but never have I met one who suffered Erastil's wrath for the 'imprisonment' or 'murder' of livestock. Where, then, does Erastil's patience end? One cow? Two? A hundred? Would it be different if the farmer kept swine? Or sheep? Why, then, should Erastil frown on the keeping of men? As a patron of family, his priests teach that children are to be disciplined and taught well until they are capable of confronting the world on their own. So it is with the holding of slaves.
You seem to believe that slavery and humanity are incompatible. But this is not so: chattel, brutal slavery and dignity are incompatible because of the brutality and wrongdoing of the slave-holder. Obligations extend both ways.
It boils my blood to see Andoran cities decry slavery only to demand "community service" from those who cannot pay their taxes or have given some minor offense. Revolting hypocrisy. It is all I can do to remember Mercilessness and Discipline and remain unmoved.
*removes his helmet*
I am sorry, but what you decried was not a reasoning, but part of the RAW (well, as much as the description of an entry in the Bestiary is).
Your argument would hold a lot of water if a cow, swine or sheep was an intelligent creature. Thankfully for Erastil's alignment, they are not.
So the person who was enslaved illeagally, is still an innocent. True, the merchant who buys the slave may not know if the person was enslaved improperly or not, but the slave still sould be freed (to correct the original crime).
-the kicker is that there's a HUGE possibility that the person who was enslaved LEGALLY is still an innocent.
Born into slavery
Captured by the military
Kidnapped and sold
Given a ridiculously severe sentence for a petty crime
And if the halfling was illegally enslaved then she will no doubt be given fair hearing and her freedom, the Paladin could pretty much ensure this happens. Notice there is a process of law here?
So would you care to FINALLY elaborate on why, exactly, a Policeman arresting someone or detaining them in custody for questioning after having the person confess to a crime is abducting them.
Would you care to elaborate on why you think its a perfectly OK act for a Paladin to simply draw a sword on a person and threaten them with bodily harm based on no evidence at all of their wrongdoing, and simply refusing to even hear out their complaint over a property crime? Why is it LG to assault strangers, deny them an avenue of complaint, and deny them justice?
Curious, your LG looks pretty UN LG at this point.
So the person who was enslaved illeagally, is still an innocent. True, the merchant who buys the slave may not know if the person was enslaved improperly or not, but the slave still sould be freed (to correct the original crime).
-the kicker is that there's a HUGE possibility that the person who was enslaved LEGALLY is still an innocent.
I was responding to seekerofshadowlight's argument.
On this point, I would however be inclinded to agree with you (see also my point in the same post, about a Paladin enforcing evil laws).
But, in realms where Slavery is completely legal, this can put the Paladin into a very difficult situation.
If the only choice is the continued riegn of Evil or a jolt of Chaos, then Chaos is the only choice.So believed Hosetter of Galt.
However, such a choice is false.You are the one who professes that the Paladin must choose between obeying the Law and promoting the cause of Good. I make no such distinction.
I choose the path of the Paladin. I will obey the Law. I will promote Righteousness. I will never compromise. The diabolic cancer of Cheliax has no greater fear than my blade, my shield, my conviction. I will see the evil of the world undone and I will build the foundation for lasting victory.
I am Destroyer and Defender, Slayer and Healer.
I am The Crusader.*dons his helmet*
Cheliax is not your foe. Should we meet on the field of battle, one of us would surely fall and all the world made poorer for it.
Consider joining the Orders. As a Hellknight, you could put fear into the heart of every devil-worshipper and heretic.
*removes his helmet*
Such as those within your own orders? I do not see you making war on other Hellknights.
Andoran seems to be actually the only true nationalism in the setting.
...
In short, nationalism has to transcend race to be real, and only in Andoran are we really seeing that.
==Aelryinth
So ... no. You do not appear to understand the nature of nationalism or how the concept of a nation relates to the concept of a race. And if you need some more validation look to -- and I know you hate trusting the words of the writers -- page 4 of Cheliax, Empire of Devils for a citation of the words "nationalism" and "patriotism" applied to Cheliax. Furthermore, social contract theory has, apparently, broken some ground in Cheliax. Probably Asmodeus' influence.
*dons his helmet*
Andorans are distinct from Chelish and Taldan stock. You can identify them by the stink of idealism about them, and the lucid phantasmagoria before their eyes just as they stab you in the back.
Some history then, for the revolutionaries and delusional savages who think five cows and a few spare bushels of wheat constitute wealth and plenty.
Long ago, the Last Azlant turned the savage princes of Taldor into a civilized people. The noble Chelish blood sprung from peoples conquered and civilized by the Taldan Empire at its height, and when they faltered it was Aspex the Even-Tongued who recognized the true spirit of Aroden's people in Cheliax and so made it the greatest empire on Golarion. Cheliax was to cover the whole of the world, every race and creed brought in and granted citizenship in time, so Aroden could return once more to claim the crown and usher in a new age of peace and justice. This was the Starfall Doctrine. It was the legacy, the destiny of our Empire, the thing that drove us onward.
Then Aroden fell. And all of Cheliax's enemies emerged to take from us everything we had fought and labored so long to produce. Cheliax built the roads, the walls, the keeps, the canals and the aquaducts that benefited all, but no loyalty was returned for these gifts.
Can you...
It is the way of the evil to misuse words and apply them wrongly.
The racism in Chelian culture is endemic at every level, and most obviously applied to the tieflings who are the children of those of your nation who choose to deal with the infernal, and the endemic slavery of the Halflings.
You do not have nationalism, you have racism, and it is bound up with your national identiy. True nationalism transcends racial identity. Cheliax does not have that. It has Imperialism in decline, striving to hold onto some shred of pride as it rots from within.
And you have the typical LE response to images that do not fit your worldview, you simply dismiss them as from those 'inferior' or 'savage'. The capital of the Land of the Linnorm Kings has existed longer then CHeliax.
Cheliax was an Empire. Those were not 'lawful taxes'. They were extracted tithes of conquest and oppression. They enriched the center of the EMpire and impoverished the lands outside of it. The common man was oppressed and lived in continuous poverty to support their betters.
Bundles of wheat are indeed wealth when you have nothing. The average man in Andoran lives far better then the average man in Cheliax. The WEALTHY in Andoran do not live quite so decadently as the wealthy in Cheliax. Andoran spreads its wealth around, it does not concentrate it in the hands of those who believe their bloodline entitles them to it. If this means they cannot erect unwanted monuments to themselves, that is a fine way to go.
The average peasant doesn't see a devil, unless they go to your own capital and see Imps all around. The average person of means sees devils all the time, and the nobility frequently.
And the church of Iomadae deals with Asmodeus out of neccessity, not choice.
You yourself associate willingly with those of Evil alignment, who deal with devils. Willfil blindness is not an excuse for your actions. You are not a paladin, but a Hellknight true, and the biased and dismissive rhetoric spouting from your lips merely confirms that ruling.
And I find it most interesting that you would guide the unemployed to take advantage of charity, for charity is mercy to those with less then you, and you again contradict yourself by supporting mercy and then decrying it so fervently.
You rule by threat of fear and intimidation. You annihilate courage.
You believe only the Hellknights can do the job that must be done. That is overweening Pride, and you lack humility.
You decry mercy, and so destroy compassion in support of arrogance.
You give no recourse to the law and society as is, and so seek to slay hope, which advocates change for the better.
By your actions, you are waging war upon the virtues of Good. You are no paladin.
==Aelryinth
And if the halfling was illegally enslaved then she will no doubt be given fair hearing and her freedom, the Paladin could pretty much ensure this happens. Notice there is a process of law here?
No, she won't because
1) You are AGAIN equating legally and rightfully. She could have been born a slave: she is legally but not rightfully a slave. She could have been kidnapped outside the country: once she is bought she is legally a slave. She was given a ridiculously harsh sentence for a petty crime. You keep clinging to the corner cases as if they were the norm when it does not appear to be the case, and specifically is not in this case. You did say in all cases.. because you don't care if she's rightfully enslaved as long as she's legally enslaved. They're the same thing to you
2) You don't understand how lawful evil works. There is a PROCESS of law without justice. She is guilty of grand theft: her own person. The sentence will be enslavement and she'll be returned to her owner.. for a fee of course.
So would you care to FINALLY elaborate on why, exactly, a Policeman arresting someone or detaining them in custody for questioning after having the person confess to a crime is abducting them.
Depends on how you do it. Please come with me= not an abduction. Dragging them out of their house is an abduction.
Can you tell me what the difference is between the illegal kidnapping by the Mexican cartel and the legal arrest by the policemen in the example is?
Would you care to elaborate on why you think its a perfectly OK act for a Paladin to simply draw a sword on a person and threaten them with bodily harm based on no evidence at all of their wrongdoing
There is evidence that they're doing wrong. There's a slave, they're out chasing them and looking for "their property". The evidence isn't conclusive but it is in fact still evidence.
You are, AGAIN, equating wrong with illegal. That's fine for a hellknight. It is NOT an acceptable stance for a paladin. You are not acting with mercy, you are not acting with compassion, you are not offering to help the helpless in need. While the law is important it is not MORE important than your entire reason to exist.
You said it was a NON GOOD act to oppose the slaver with violence. That's what i objected too. Yes, i see the contradiction this poses to a lawful good character: thats the point. But you are equating good with lawful good and insisting that this would be a problem for a chaotic good ranger (or even a NG one)
I don't think that its "perfectly ok". There's an element to ignoring the law that a paladin has to deal with. But i think its a lot closer to a paladin's ideals than tossing a slave back into a rigged and corrupt court system built to keep slaves in their place.
and simply refusing to even hear out their complaint over a property crime? Why is it LG to assault strangers, deny them an avenue of complaint, and deny them justice?
Again, you're confusing a day in court with justice. There is no justice in the chelaxian court system. its lawful EVIL.
Curious, your LG looks pretty UN LG at this point.
Its because you're equating all goods with lawful good. Try responding to what i actually said, not what i needed to have said to confirm your ideas that everyone in the world besides you is an idiot.
You're not that kantian prepositionalist i was arguing with before are you? Your LG looks like LN if not LE.
Also note that nowhere does it say those slaves present are due to 'lawful debasement' of any kind. Most slaves are either born into the caste, kidnapped and sold as slaves by force, conquered and sold off as spoils of war, or forced into slavery for punishment for the most minor of crimes in an effort to provide cheap labor to society.
Also note that 'buying slaves and freeing them' is CONTRIBUTING to slavery...the slaver still gets paid. If he goes and gets more and sells them to you, he is STILL making money.
The only way to stop slavery is 1) stop buying slaves and 2) punish those who commit slavery.
I will say that slavery is a step up from previous modes of conquest, where the enemy was simply slain. Slavery to work off debt, i.e. indentured servitude, can have some support as long as it isn't abused (which, generally, it is). But slavery for the sake of profit and power is an Evil thing, not a neutral thing. The reason people put up with it is because powerful people want slavery, and as long as you aren't a slave, you get the 'as long as its not me' fear going nicely, and nothing is done.
==Aelryinth
Again you seem to not understand the alignment system, lets go over this a bit.
Lawful people tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. If you go back into the past things like promote Hierarchy are also in that list. Neverin the entire history of D&D has lawfulness been connected to a requirment to obey the Law of the Land.
As I mentioned above, the Revolutionary who builds an orderly and hierarchical army to fight his revolution is Lawful.
Other examples.
THe Knight who holds absloute obediance tohis lord, but contends that " the lord of my lord is not my lord" and so follows his lord into rebellion is Lawful.
The Cleric who honors his superiors in Church, and follows their orders and cares not one wit about any other "authority" is Lawful.
THe Monk who rigidly keeps his training schedule and obers the Rule of his order is Lawful, regardless of how he interacts with the rest of the world.Lawful persons work for an orderly society, they are indeed predisposed to obey laws becuase obediance is in their nature, but they are not blindly required to do so.
George Washington was a Traitor and violated the most sacred laws of his day, but he was Lawful.
Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.
Chaotic people are not necessarly opposed to Laws and may be certian laws greatest defenders. If a law enshrines a Chaotic Value such as gauranteeing some form of freedom, then Chaotics will love it, support it and defend it.THe first 10 amendments tothe US Constitution are laws which promote Chaos, they gaurantee certain freedoms and eliminate hierarchical authority. Chaotic people are stalwart defenders of such laws, and some like the ACLU are quite litigious.
IF someone is violating the "rights" of another
to freedom chaotics will be only to happy to follow the "law" when it is a Chaotic Law.So depending on the cricumstances a Chaotic may be a greater defender of the Law of the Land than a Lawful person.
Lawfulness and Chaoticness are personal qualities which have to do with internal decision making, ritual, belief in authority, theory of ideal soceity and the like.Paladins, however, are held to a bit higher standard, they are required by their CoC to respect legitimate authority.
Now the fact that the word Legitimate is in there is meaningful, it means that there must be illegitimate authorities and these authorities do not have to be respected.
As the code of conduct also requires that the paladin "punish those who harm or threaten innocents." then it follows that any claimed authority which does this, is not legitiment and does not have to be respected.
No offense, man, but you really have to look after your spelling. There's a spellchecker on the system, use it!
You seem to have misconstrued concepts of Lawful as well.
That revolutionary is orderly and militaristic in his style of combat, it does not make him lawful.
That vassal is loyal. That does not make him lawful. Chaotic types are MORE likely to act this way!
That cleric following his superiors is Obedient. It does not make him lawful. Chaotic clerics do this all the time!
That monk is DISCIPLINED...but because he's a monk he's lawful (heh). If he's a non-classed monk, he's merely disciplined, something like a professional athlete might be...and a lot of those guys are intensely chaotic types.
Lawful types believe in something overarching above and beyond themselves, and give their loyalty to whatever that is...government, philosophy, laws, society, and are willing to give up personal freedoms and choice for that loyalty. Lawful types surrender personal freedom for what they and others believe, and accept that as right. By subordinating personal choice to the good of the whole, they build a stronger society.
Chaotics, however, believe in themselves, personal bonds, and personal choice. They don't care who their liege lord's lord is...there's no personal tie. They don't care about the laws of the land, they care about their own personal code and honor...which may dovetail, but if it doesn't, the law can take a flying leap whenever they can get away with it. What other people proclaim he must do, the Chaotic sees only as imposing their will upon them, and will fight back savagely for their own freedom of choice. By refusing to subordinate their choices to the dictates of those they do not know, they build a freer and more equal society.
George Washington betrayed no laws...he upheld a greater one.
The AMendments to the Constitution do not enshrine Chaos, they enshrine Good Laws. There's a difference. The Amendments are there to insure that the laws of the Land cannot be used as a weapon against their own people.
The paladin argument is spot on. Their Lawful nature is subordinate to their 'good' nature. Respecting authority that is Evil and abusing the innocent is emphatically NOT required of them, and is immediately illegitimate in their eyes. That others around them may hold it legitimate is not going to sway them, because it absolutely violates the Good part of their code. In the eyes of a paladin, such things hold power only by force and fear...which describes Cheliax perfectly.
How they choose to fight is another matter. But a Paladin is in no way obligated to following laws that contribute to evil means. This is different then Chaotics, who simply don't follow any laws which they do not personally endorse. The Paladin has to make that 'good' judgement, it is not up to his individual flavor of the moment.
==Aelryinth
|
YES! as I said, LAW without justice, or even an attempt at Justice is not legitiment and a paladin is not obliged to "respect" it.So the person who was enslaved illeagally, is still an innocent. True, the merchant who buys the slave may not know if the person was enslaved improperly or not, but the slave still sould be freed (to correct the original crime).
-the kicker is that there's a HUGE possibility that the person who was enslaved LEGALLY is still an innocent.
Born into slavery
Captured by the military
Kidnapped and sold
Given a ridiculously severe sentence for a petty crime
So, if I come over to the US, and proclaim that death penalty and 150 years of prison sentence for a financial scam isn't justice, and therefore the American law isn't legitimate, then I am A.O.K and if get jailed for "violating" said "laws" you're going to stand on your eyebrows to defend me? Cool beans!
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ach, I quit the thread for a day or so and look what happens. Alright, let's see what I can do here.
With regard to the primary discussions at hand … please, understand: what we face here are questions of logic. Straight logic. They must be questions of straight logic, because they are questions of principle. Three questions seem preeminent, with the rest being qualifiers or circumstances applied to hypothetical situations.
Question 1: Is the institution of slavery inherently evil? That is, evil by nature.
Question 2: Does tolerance of slavery constitute an evil act? If so, what degree of tolerance?
Question 3: If slavery or another evil is condoned or mandated by law, does a paladin 'fall' for failing to uphold that law? Furthermore, must a paladin take up arms in order to not 'fall' as a paladin?
Furthermore, the particular place in mind here is Cheliax, so when examples in specific are needed they are drawn from the case of Cheliax. With that in focus …
TL:DR, the short answers I submit are: Cheliax's government is legitimate; slavery is not inherently evil, though presents many opportunities for evil; tolerance of evil does not constitute evil, though it may constitute non-good, and 'good' resistance may take many forms that do not disrupt the law; a paladin should not 'fall' for failing to take up arms, and has at their disposal many ways of enforcing even evil laws in good ways.
In the long form, in the hopes of avoiding the acrimony and confusion that emerges from interrupted dialog ...
Foundational Points Re: Legitimacy of Cheliax's Laws and Government
Everything is a no but sort of Question, circumstances matter. Topic matters. Cheliax has an Evil and illegitiment goevernment, in those areas where its laws are Evil then the paladin is not obliged to obey them. IF he is confronted with a direct choice of enforcing those evil laws or not he cannot, and must resist. This does not mean he is forced to go out and seek his death in a stupid act of rebellion. However, if he is made to chose then he must chose resistance.
There are, in fact, questions for which yes and no function just fine. When logic comes into play, the circumstances must be stipulated by the premises. But let us revisit.
A government cannot be illegitimate on purely moral grounds. Which is to say, you do not get to dictate to the government what its role is. Under the social contract as it is understood in Cheliax (and the criteria applied by seekerofshadowlight) the government of Cheliax is commonly understood to be entirely legitimate. Which is to say, legal. Because either the legitimacy of the government derives from the will of the people – in which case the criteria are valid – or the legitimacy of the government derives from a set code or divine mandate – both of which may have been invented by the current divine patron of Cheliax.
Presuming otherwise because 'perceptions may be manipulated by magic' does not refute these points because if we accept the contention 'perceptions may be manipulated by magic' than every single government and association is equally invalidated by this.
I must conclude that Cheliax has a legal government. And from the conditions introduced in the supplements, I will argue Cheliax is a Lawful society as well, since its population is, in general, more inclined toward obedience, trusting in the legal system rather than extra-legal conflict resolution, public order and the like. We will return to this later.
Re: Is the institution of slavery inherently evil? That is, evil by nature.
Slavery is considered immoral in the contemporary earth that we all live in and love. The logic supporting this lies in the declaration that humans possess rights, natural rights, rights they are entitled to either because a) God bestowed those rights on humanity, or b) the United Nations, by virtue of representing the vast majority of humanity, declared it so. There are a few other possible sources of support for the existence of human rights, but for expedience these are the primary possibilities.
Golarion does not operate on precisely the same standards, in part because it possesses an explicit alignment system which is intended to represent the inclinations of the soul, and in part because souls may move on to other Planes which are themselves possessed of inherent alignment. The origins of these planes are unclear, due in no small part to the inclination of their denizens to lie, as the denizens of these planes have a vested interest in influencing the outflow of souls from Golarion in their own favor for reasons hotly argued. No doubt the salons and temples of Absalom and other places in Golarion are full debates about such things, but let us not drift too far astray.
That said, there are some standards from which we may draw for a set of standards for Good and Evil. In what may a useful example of virtue ethics being the supported model within Golarion, there are enumerated 'sins', and the nature of these sins is the perversion of particular virtues to serve the desires of the individual rather than the whole of society. And while these sins might be viewed as a cultural artifact of Thassilon, it is worth noting that they have some metaphysical power as they were sufficient to found entire fields of magical endeavor. So there is something to be said about circumstances mattering on Golarion.
In further support, items and actions from the Prime Material Plane do not appear to possess strict alignment implications outside of their circumstances. The ur-example is killing. Killing is frowned on by the Good deities, but none of the good deities mandate non-violence. 'Murder', by contrast, is considered categorically evil, but the point at which a killing becomes a murder may be hotly debated and is reliant on circumstance, i.e. killing a child in their bed for your own joy constitutes evil while slaying the hated general of a marauding army of fleshmongering necromancers constitutes good.
So. Back to the point. Slavery. Slavery at its heart is nothing more than compulsory service. If prison labor may be considered 'penitentiary' and good, and if 'community service' may be considered good, and if the institutions of peonage and serfdom do not raise the ire of the good deities, than slavery ought not to raise the ire of the deities. Slavery has existed across Golarion for centuries upon centuries, probably as long as time itself, and yet angels do not descend to end it and slave-holding societies all the world over have produced valiant paladins, noble heroes, and other good folk.
But the deities do 'frown' upon slavery, just as they frown upon killing (citations available up-thread). And the reason for this, I would argue, is that power corrupts and being a slaveholder, like being a feudal lord or a sword-swinging mercenary adventurer, presents many opportunities for corruption. Like killing, the evil in slavery comes from circumstance, not from inherent nature. There are no natural rights in Golarion, no divine mandate, and so no inherent moral argument against slavery. And unlike our Earth, in Golarion a high priest at some point in time might have consulted their god to determine whether wiping out the institution of slavery was worth a series of bloody wars. I imagine the answer was something condemning but less than a call for universal emancipation.
Re: Does tolerance of slavery constitute an evil act? If so, what degree of tolerance?
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? … snip snip snip …
A major theme within this thread is the question of whether 'evil' laws were illegitimate and thus could be ignored by a LG person, particularly a paladin. The degree of this tolerance has been a moving target, at times seeming to imply any failure to overthrow the corrupt government that propagated the 'evil' laws and at other times explicitly meaning such lurid acts as 'returning a child slave to her owner so she may be further raped and abused'.
Firstly, it is fortunate that these rules and this setting make distinctions between laws and Law, as well as the Lawful-Chaotic axis and the Good-Evil axis. When a society has laws covering the case of slavery, it has become legal, and as such the question of whether or not one will be punished for violating those laws is already answered. And since the alignments of people are somewhat less than absolute and, as I argued earlier, acts themselves do not often carry moral weight in and of themselves, so it must be acknowledged that it is possible for a person to be Lawful by nature and yet act contrary to local laws. Particularly in cases where the laws seem to compel Evil from Good people.
But if one can be Lawful while still acting against laws, what does it mean to be Lawful? Put simply: inclined toward order. This implies, more than anything, an approach to problems than any particular imperative to promote laws wherever one goes. It implies someone (or something) willing to work within guidelines, codes, laws and agreements, someone who places value in the sanctity of such covenants, and someone opposed to people acting however they fancy. As such, things like duty, obligation, and loyalty tend to fall under the larger category of Lawful alignment even though they do not belong exclusively there. This will become important again in two paragraphs.
Secondly, since slavery has no inherent moral weight, tolerance of the institution of slavery itself ought not to constitute Evil. Even in a case where the institution of slavery has grown increasingly dominated by wicked and malevolent people and characterized by Evil acts, such as the aforementioned kidnapping of children or the abuse of chattle slaves, tolerating the existence of that slavery is less a case of an individual being Evil by their failure to take action than a case of the laws and institutions of the land actively preventing them from acting at liberty. The moral opprobrium ought not to fall on the common Chelaxian farmer or the prosperous Chelaxian salt merchant simply because they live in an empire accustomed to slaves. If, by their personal actions, they exploit slaves to indulge themselves or fail to provide their slaves with even basic necessities in order to increase their personal profit, than the Evil ought to be clear.
Thirdly, and building on the first two points, although tolerance of slavery does not constitute evil it does not inherently constitute Good either. How might a Lawful person inclined to do Good behave in the face of Evil Laws? Resistance may take many forms, but what characterizes Lawful resistance is the determination to carry out that resistance by exploiting, working within, and least impacting the public order.
The case of whether or not to harbor an escaped slave has been the primary focus, so let us focus on that. Lying, like killing or slavery, has no inherent moral value under our virtue ethics but is inclined toward Evil due to the moral hazards it presents, and so the simplest form of 'Good' resistance to cases of Evil in slavery is simply to lie. If the slave seems trustworthy and Good themselves – i.e. the LG resister does not believe that the escaped slave is on their way to burgle or murder or that they were enslaved on just grounds, etc. etc. – than lying about seeing them would still be Good. Even if the LG resister were wrong and the escaped slave later acted as a violent criminal, their failure was a failure to correctly read the character of the slave, not moral failure related to their lie. And if the LG resister is found to be 'dealing in stolen property' by their efforts to ferry slaves away from abuse, they may have a variety of grounds under the law upon which to build a defense.
An armed person with the strength to do so might also take the slave into protective custody until compelled to yield up the slave to another with the power of the law behind them. Even after that, they might go to the courts to fight the decision. If the courts are stacked against the LG resister and they lose their legal battle to emancipate or protect the escaped slave, they have still taken action to defend their preferred morality and behaved Lawfully. And, as is often the case in Cheliax, if the courts are stacked against the LG resister, than engaging in a bit of court manipulation or legal shenanigans is just playing the system and still not, in my estimation, 'Evil'.
Hypothetical cases such as these can go on forever, but I hope these hypothetical cases are seen for what they are: examples of possible forms of resistance that permit someone to act alignment Lawful and Good even in the face of twisted laws and the threats of evil people. At the very least, when denied all else, the Good may dissent in silent rage and still not let themselves be ground down by the wickedness surrounding them.
Fourthly and finally, what degree of tolerance before a person's actions become evil? Very much a circumstantial question, and sensitivity to that is essential. One person's tense negotiation is another person's obvious collusion, as it were. There is no simple answer, and the only useful standard I can suggest is how active they are or can be in resistance. Obviously, in Cheliax the law is constructed to impeded and prevent good people from speaking out or taking action against the dominant order, but resistance within and around the law remains possible. One need not speak out against every symbol of the state in order to pursue a “Good” agenda.
Re: If slavery or another evil is condoned or mandated by law, does a paladin 'fall' for failing to uphold that law? Furthermore, must a paladin take up arms in order to not 'fall' as a paladin?
I don't recall ever saying anything about abandoning standards of decency, onthe contray, decent people do not return chattle slaves to their "owners". Nor do I recall saying anything about terrorist activity, but quite the opposite, bold and public action against those IN THE ACT OF COMMITING EVIL AGAINST THE INNOCENT.
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.
Now the big one. I gather that there are many who do not feel it appropriate to support Cheliax while still enjoying the powers of paladinhood. I disagree. I believe that many forms of resistance and opposition are legal and desirable within Cheliax. So long as the paladin has done nothing inherently wicked, such as abuse a slave him- or herself, I do not believe a paladin should fall.
Really, causing a paladin to fall for mere accessory to an immoral act sets an impossibly high standard that cuts back over to every possible action anyone could take. I feel it is senseless idealism … and if, say, Iomedae first communicated her displeasure with one of her paladins for his or her failure to act on the ambiguous slavery agenda rather than, say, a gentle omen or a small warning, than she deserves to lose her good alignment because clearly by her inaction she is just as guilty for immorality in the world as the paladin. (Not to mention Iomedae is a patron of rulership and nobility … so she still supports people who create class distinctions in order to perpetuate an economic order favorable to them.) Demanding that paladins take up arms against the government is bad, especially since a god commanding their holy warriors to engage in armed uprising is being stupidly heavy handed and basically calling on their followers to commit suicide. Leave things to the discretion of the individual paladin, or their knightly Orders.
In fact, rather than repeat myself on why living in a society that has slavery is not itself evil, please assume I apply those same arguments here as potential outlets for the Paladin urge toward Law and Good, and then let me change gears to a pure gameplay argument:
Characters for this example are hypothetical 'me' and hypothetical 'you', the GM. Make it very clear early on what your standards for paladinhood are so we can avoid this stupid argument entirely. If I want to join a game with a LG Paladin of Iomedae that wants to oust the corrupt nobility and clean up the laws, you are within your rights to tell me that this will be a difficult character to play. But I think you are being a bit of a jerk if your response is “you can't because Cheliax can't have paladins”. Furthermore, throwing unsolvable moral quandaries at characters is something of an uncouth move as a GM, especially if you are determined to make the Cheliaxian paladin “fall” or renounce their homeland.
Hell, one simple case I've seen in another thread on another forum: a Cheliaxian paladin has a problem with runaway slaves, and so when confronted by the owner of said slaves invoke an obscure law (Bluff) and say that he is buying them (legal) right now for a reasonable price, and that giving him a hard time or taking this to court would be far, far more costly. This is a creative solution to a complex problem, and should have worked because the paladin had enough leverage (and threat of violence) to make it legal. The GM made the paladin fall, and I've never gotten enough details to be 100% sure of how it went down but what I have heard led me to the conclusion of “you moralizing prat”. Doubly so because it apparently took three game sessions before they found someone capable and willing to help the paladin atone.
A paladin returning an escaped slave to the authorities might not have much of a choice in the matter, and may feel they can do more good by remaining free and legal than by becoming an outlaw for just one slave. And if the gods put up with all the crap they do around the setting, surely the guilt and anguish of having to make that one sacrifice is enough punishment for the paladin already, and the GM doesn't need to stick their real-world convictions into the game by making the paladin fall over something like that.
Appendix: What form, then, for a Lawful Uprising?
Uprising and civil war stories are often messy and not nearly so cut-and-dry as 'good versus evil'. In any such story, there will be good and bad people on both sides with their own interests in the outcome. Bear that closely in mind.
As I have previously argued, a Lawful character may still act against local laws, but the form of their uprising will be different. Primarily, the concern of a Lawful uprising would be a) if it was justifiable under the law, and b) whether the present state of the law was actually contributing to public disorder and the destruction of society. Thus, armed uprising with the cry of the “the King is not really our King” or “freedom from tyranny” would not generally, in my estimation, constitute a Lawful uprising, whereas an armed uprising with the stated intention of “restoring the rightful monarchy” or “preserving the people of our nation” could constitute one.
Also, a LG paladin could easily find themselves forced into resistance to an Evil government by efforts to destroy or punish him. Paladins often make obvious targets, may be perceived as “Good” by Detect Good, and are known for causing trouble. Once a paladin finds him- or herself at odds with the government, they are an outlaw. Their resistance will almost certainly focus on minimizing the harm to 'innocent people', reorganizing the councils or leadership of the whole country, and opposing the wicked and cruel, but they are now outside the legal system. If they feel compunctions about what they do in their resistance, they may place themselves before a legal authority as soon as they feel it is fair to do so.
Appendix II: the case of the Hellknight Paladin
But now the case of the ultimate arbiter of Law in Cheliax. How can a Hellknight stay LG? In such a wicked place, where society is so fiercely segmented into classes!
My in-character posts were an effort to shed light on that. But if they are unclear, here are a few principles for the Paladin Hellknight:
1. Hellknights are explicitly extra-judicial. They are outside the legal system and empowered by the highest authority of the land to deal out Law and Order as they deem fit. Paladin Hellknights will often come into conflict with people within their own society, including the Clerics of Asmodeus and the Inquisitors. But then again, they are the only people in Cheliax at such liberty to do so, and so function as the Queen's Watchmen and sometimes even heroes of the oppressed. As a Paladin Hellknight, you are above the Law, and so long as you do not pick a fight bigger than you can win you are empowered to make a mess of whoever you like.
2. As a direct result, most Paladin Hellknights are kept out of places where they would make themselves menaces. “Assign them to Varisia, or the Andoran border, anywhere but the heart of Egorian where we would actually have to deal with their good intentions. Send them where they will do the most good.”
3. Remember: order first, because it is a precondition for Good. The ends justify the means. Strive always to test the limits of your own logic and reason to ensure every crime receives precisely the right type and degree of punishment. Target lawbreakers and laws that disrupt the public order before worrying about other things.
4. Slavery is not inherently evil. But there are evil people who abuse the institution, creating disorder, potential rebellions, and injustice. Punish them, for they are as much a threat to Cheliax as an affront to the concept of Law.
5. When in doubt, seek wisdom in the Measure and the Chain. Remember always that mercy makes men weak, reliant and helpless.
6. Remember always that the orders are not monolithic, and that rivalries and doctrinal disagreements would set them on each others' throats if not for the fact that other threats were more pressing. They are nothing if not practical.
Plus rewind up the thread a good ways for a wonderful Order of the Godclaw paladin code of conduct.
Question 1: Is the institution of slavery inherently evil? That is, evil by nature.
Question 2: Does tolerance of slavery constitute an evil act? If so, what degree of tolerance?
Question 3: If slavery or another evil is condoned or mandated by law, does a paladin 'fall' for failing to uphold that law? Furthermore, must a paladin take up arms in order to not 'fall' as a paladin?
1. In real life: In the Pathfinder Setting: No, but it is a system more subject to evil influences than most.
2. I think not (once again, in the Pathfinder Setting only). But, this is a RPG. If you choose to work against slavery, you can do it. And you can do it either Lawfully, by working to make societal/legal changes, or Chaotically, by actively fighting the slavers and freeing the slaves. You can also choose to participate in it (though, this will never be allowed at my games) or handwave it into the background (i.e. you're aware that it exists, but it's never in the forefront).
3. This is the kind of "trap" is best decided by GM's and PC's, rather than a blanket decision to cover all situations. If it is merely background scenery, then there is little reason to punish a Paladin Character who fails to take an active role. If it is a major part of the campaign, then it probably depends very largely on the player, the setting, the paladin build, the deity, the rest of the party, the time of day, the phase of the moon, the soil quality, the traffic, the stock market, the starting line-up...
|
|
Question 1: Is the institution of slavery inherently evil? That is, evil by nature.
Question 2: Does tolerance of slavery constitute an evil act? If so, what degree of tolerance?
Question 3: If slavery or another evil is condoned or mandated by law, does a paladin 'fall' for failing to uphold that law? Furthermore, must a paladin take up arms in order to not 'fall' as a paladin?
1. In real life: In the Pathfinder Setting: No, but it is a system more subject to evil influences than most.
2. I think not (once again, in the Pathfinder Setting only). But, this is a RPG. If you choose to work against slavery, you can do it. And you can do it either Lawfully, by working to make societal/legal changes, or Chaotically, by actively fighting the slavers and freeing the slaves. You can also choose to participate in it (though, this will never be allowed at my games) or handwave it into the background (i.e. you're aware that it exists, but it's never in the forefront).
3. This is the kind of "trap" is best decided by GM's and PC's, rather than a blanket decision to cover all situations. If it is merely background scenery, then there is little reason to punish a Paladin Character who fails to take an active role. If it is a major part of the campaign, then it probably depends very largely on the player, the setting, the paladin build, the deity, the rest of the party, the time of day, the phase of the moon, the soil quality, the traffic, the stock market, the starting line-up...
*dons his helmet*
Wisdom. Brofist, brother paladin?
*removes his helmet*
|
|
I am sorry, but what you decried was not a reasoning, but part of the RAW (well, as much as the description of an entry in the Bestiary is).
Your argument would hold a lot of water if a cow, swine or sheep was an intelligent creature. Thankfully for Erastil's alignment, they are not.
Not that the character understands RAW, but ...
*dons his helmet*
You do not understand.
Slaves are held captive. Children are held captive. Animals are held captive. Prisoners and malcontents are held captive. All have fewer rights due to their status, but you object only to the violence against one. You are very selective in which forms of captivity you abhor.
A good slaveholder is like a good parent. An injustice is a people deceiving themselves that their underclass is anything but slaves under a different name.
But there is some truth in what you say. I would never expect a swine to stand upright, no matter the punishment, but I know well that the touch of discipline can make humans from slaves.
*removes his helmet*
It is the way of the evil to misuse words and apply them wrongly.
... snip snip snip awesomeness righteousness of the revolutionary heart snip snip ...
By your actions, you are waging war upon the virtues of Good. You are no paladin.
==Aelryinth
*dons his helmet*
Rhetoric. Appeals to emotion. Primitive.
When you grow up and understand the Chain, you will see that Order is the precondition of Good, and the evils of the state are paltry compared to the evils of the state of nature. That I am empowered to reign in the wickedness of my brother and sister Chelaxians, no matter their station, is proof enough that we can control ourselves.
Tieflings are discriminated against because they embody the weakness and decadence of the undisciplined. To face hell, burn away fear and weakness, is to be Cheliaxian. To have had such congress as produces tieflings is to let Hell's taint seep into your heart where there should be only steel. Emotion. Mercy. Compassion. Things hell will never show us. Someone parent to a tiefling has proven they cannot control themselves. Little better than chaff on the wind, a puppet to the first man or devil that finds them.
Halflings, on the other hand, are hardly human. Less even than the savage orcs, with whom we share enough in common to at least breed. I do not understand whence your fanciful notions of equality emerge. Perhaps the same misguided innocence that leads you to believe that charity exists for any purpose other than to safeguard the people of our empire and return them to busy labor. Perhaps you would rather they riot for want of food and work, bloodying themselves and destroying property? Feh.
Oh the complaints of the feckless. "Pride!" you say. I kill my pride nightly, burying it alongside my fear, my joy and my sorrow. I have purpose in its place.
"Empire!" you prattle. Hrmph. What hypocrisy! The moment you do not wish to pay a tax in exchange for the services you enjoy and the rulership that has made you prosperous it is "Empire! Tyranny! Villainy!" until you are blue in the face. And you, the same man that claims an obligation to do Good, are content to let the world fracture into selfish warring states for fear that one of them has become an 'Empire'. Allow me to purchase for you a mirror, as you are too poor to afford one.
As to the savages? When you have bled to create and had it stolen away, you will be at liberty to speak. Andoran has become a nation of thieves in our absence, taking not only the fruits as a province but also whatever their marauders can pilfer from the seas. Another failure, reminding us to be more diligent in our teaching in the future.
And mark me well: if your militias butcher another village of Chelaxians trapped behind your border we shall return. We protect our own. Your independence has been barely tolerated, and the moment your chaotic land shows signs of becoming the next Galt we will be forced to save you from yourselves by any means.
And it is fortunate for the world that you are no judge of what constitutes a paladin. Such an unreasoned mind would plunge us all into destruction.
*removes his helmet*
But seriously, nationalism doesn'twork like that. Nationalism and racism are not mutually exclusive, and most examples of Nationalism since the invention of the term have been rather exclusive rather than exclusive. If you want to keep believing that there is a "true nationalism transcends racial identity", that's ... fine I guess. But that doesn't make what Cheliax has -not-nationalism.
Golarion does not operate on precisely the same standards, in part because it possesses an explicit alignment system which is intended to represent the inclinations of the soul, and in part because souls may move on to other Planes which are themselves possessed of inherent alignment.
The idea that natural rights are a new idea and more of an anacrhronism than guns is complete hogwash. The ARTICULATION of said rights took on a new form in the 18th century, but the basic ideas have been with us for a long time.
From the Code of Ur-Nammu,Then did Ur-Nammu the mighty warrior, king of Ur, king of Sumer and Akkad, by the might of Nanna, lord of the city, and in accordance with the true word of Utu, establish equity in the land; he banished malediction, violence and strife, and set the monthly Temple expenses at 90 gur of barley, 30 sheep, and 30 sila of butter. He fashioned the bronze sila-measure, standardized the one-mina weight, and standardized the stone weight of a shekel of silver in relation to one mina... The orphan was not delivered up to the rich man; the widow was not delivered up to the mighty man; the man of one shekel was not delivered up to the man of one mina."
• 1. If a man commits a murder, that man must be killed.
• 2. If a man commits a robbery, he will be killed.
• 3. If a man commits a kidnapping, he is to be imprisoned and pay 15 shekels of silver.
This recognizes that people have a right not to be killed, people have a right not to be robbed, and people have a right not to be kidnapped. It sets out the idea that people are equal before the law despite their wealth. Very “modern” concepts that people forget the world has had for a long time.
What this law, and many others, do not do is consider everyone equally HUMAN. There are insiders, groups of people who have these rights, and outsiders, people who do not have these right. Why do people make this distinction? Because it’s CONVINIENT. No one questions why its wrong to hurt them: they KNOW it’s wrong to hurt them. No one questions why it’s wrong to kidnap them, they KNOW it’s wrong to kidnap them. People apply these rights to themselves quite naturally; they have a MUCH harder time applying them to others. That is the entire concept of being good. That’s what it MEANS to be good. That is what it always has meant to be good and that is what it will always mean to be good.
People know damned well that they don’t want to be kidnapped and forced to work for other people. It does not take any advanced moral reasoning or modern innovation to figure out that other people don’t want to be kidnapped and forced to work for other people either.
So. Back to the point. Slavery. Slavery at its heart is nothing more than compulsory service.
Fallacy of composition. Some forms of compulsory service being ok is not a green light on all forms of compulsory service.
Slavery has existed across Golarion for centuries upon centuries, probably as long as time itself, and yet angels do not descend to end it and slave-holding societies all the world over have produced valiant paladins, noble heroes, and other good folk.
By this argument NOTHING is evil, because the angels have not descended to put an end to murder, demon summoning, or raising vast armies of undead monstrosities to invade hapless villages. In other words, the gods inaction is not the gods approval, they EXPECT mortals to work these problems out.(you know, with a ragtag bunch of adventurers)
And unlike our Earth, in Golarion a high priest at some point in time might have consulted their god to determine whether wiping out the institution of slavery was worth a series of bloody wars. I imagine the answer was something condemning but less than a call for universal emancipation.
It probably sounded like something from a fortune cookie.
Firstly, it is fortunate that these rules and this setting make distinctions between laws and Law
This is not a distinction for a paladin, who has a code requiring that they respect legitimate government. Unlike my fellow rabble rouser there, I do not consider cheliax to be illegitimate in that sense.
The case of whether or not to harbor an escaped slave has been the primary focus, so let us focus on that. Lying, like killing or slavery, has no inherent moral value under our virtue ethics but is inclined toward Evil due to the moral hazards it presents, and so the simplest form of 'Good' resistance to cases of Evil in slavery is simply to lie.
Which also violates the Paladin’s code.
And if the LG resister is found to be 'dealing in stolen property' by their efforts to ferry slaves away from abuse, they may have a variety of grounds under the law upon which to build a defense
.
No, they don’t If the Halfling had said “I’m not a slave” wink wink nudge nudge they could feign ignorance under plausible deniability. But an escaped slave is an escaped slave regardless of the circumstances of their initial enslavement.
An armed person with the strength to do so might also take the slave into protective custody until compelled to yield up the slave to another with the power of the law behind them…. So long as the paladin has done nothing inherently wicked, such as abuse a slave him- or herself, I do not believe a paladin should fall.
At this point you do not become a bystander to enslavement you become a participant. If I see a woman being chased by two men in hockey masks letting them all just run by me is a rather nasty (but legitimate) form of neutral. If I put my arm out and stop her I’ve just become a participant.
If a paladin is aware that they cannot in good conscience, refuse to hand over a runaway slave to the lawful authorities then the obvious solution for that paladin is to refuse to take the Halfling into custody. That is not an option for a paladin hellknight.the Good may dissent in silent rage and still not let themselves be ground down by the wickedness surrounding them.
This is one possible option I spelled out for a paladin. It does not however work for a paladin Hellknight.
Really, causing a paladin to fall for mere accessory to an immoral act sets an impossibly high standard that cuts back over to every possible action anyone could take. I feel it is senseless idealism
Impossibly high standards are what paladins are all about. That’s why it’s a fantasy world.
Bereft of the veneer of law chattel slavery is no different than kidnapping, and just as evil. A paladin does not have to attempt to right every wrong, but they CANNOT help that wrong take place.|
|
Quick aside: BigNorseWolf, I like you. Really, most everyone here, I have to say you've all done a lot of work and made this thread awesome.
I am actually familiar with the Code of Ur-Nammu, so ... you receive major nerd-cred there hauling that out. And yeah, the ideas go way, way back. But even in the code of Ur-Nammu the authority to make such a declaration derives from divine mandate ... in this case from a divinely descended monarch.
So, when Cayden Cailan or another deity flat out makes a declaration of human rights it will have a more authoritative support. But in the meantime it is a useful human notion and not worth much more. And the Cheliaxian notion of such rights is rather exclusive.
Other than that, I like what you say. Except for one thing: relying on virtue ethics as I do for my approach to the cosmology, I find the prohibition against lying to be pretty conditional. Conditions like protecting an innocent should be pardonable offenses, and not something that causes the paladin to fall.
But that's me.
Quick aside: BigNorseWolf, I like you. Really, most everyone here, I have to say you've all done a lot of work and made this thread awesome.
Nah, arguing good is easy. Arguing evil is tough. The threads awsomeness is 99% do to you and your helmet (and whatever mind controlling brain squid abomination you have hidden in there)
I am actually familiar with the Code of Ur-Nammu, so ... you receive major nerd-cred there hauling that out. And yeah, the ideas go way, way back. But even in the code of Ur-Nammu the authority to make such a declaration derives from divine mandate ... in this case from a divinely descended monarch.
Ok, but notice how the...law? Song? Poem? Comes across as praise for the actions. This is being written by someone that thinks the right not to be killed robbed or kidnaped, and equality before the law are GOOD things. Ur-Nammu isn't being praised for his divinity or his power he's being praised for *gasp* his actions. In order to hold an action as good there needs to be some external measure of goodness other than "that's what the deity did".
So, when Cayden Cailan or another deity flat out makes a declaration of human rights it will have a more authoritative support. But in the meantime it is a useful human notion and not worth much more. And the Cheliaxian notion of such rights is rather exclusive.
I think that is implicitly done when the developers put "Good" down for a deities alignment. I don't think that the authors expect the players to be experts in philosophy. The concept of good being anything other than a respect for peoples inherent rights would be rather confusing to the reader, so without some sort of explicit statement about what the system/setting considers to be good in contrast to what the modern notions of good are I have to conclude that they're rather close.
Furthermore
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Being concerned with the dignity of sentient beings is pretty much the modern concept of good, and it clashes heavily with the idea of slavery.
Other than that, I like what you say. Except for one thing: relying on virtue ethics as I do for my approach to the cosmology, I find the prohibition against lying to be pretty conditional. Conditions like protecting an innocent should be pardonable offenses, and not something that causes the paladin to fall.
ACK! I didn't say a paladin would fall for lying about the whereabouts of the halfling. Sorry if i gave that impression. A hellknight would ... fall? Rise? Get in trouble? for lying to authorities.
A paladin isn't supposed to lie, or even dissemble, to authorities. But their lawful nature has FAR more wriggle room than their Good nature. Thats why i think some of the proposed actions for a paladin in this situation could work that would not work for a Hellknight Pally: Paladins have a degree of flexibility with their lawful natures that hellknights do not.
A paladin cannot bend, even a little, on good. A hellknigt cannot bend, even a little, on law.
Without the legal framework for slavery, lets examine what happens. Someone is either born as a slave or kidnapped on a military raid and dragged somewhere, then sold like property. How is that any different, soley on the good/evil axis, than kidnapping? Is using force, or the threat of force, to keep someone in one place, doing what you want, showing concern for their dignity? Or is it debasing them?
No, she won't because
...because you haven't heard any of the facts of the case, you have simply gone off on your own actions without bothering with things like hearings and trials. You have simply heard 'slave', and without checking the facts of the case you have passed judgment based on your own biases. Thats not LG, not HK, not Paladin.
A person conducting themselves based on their own personal biases with complete disregard for anything or anyone elses views is what alignment again?
So would you care to FINALLY elaborate on why, exactly, a Policeman arresting someone or detaining them in custody for questioning after having the person confess to a crime is abducting them.
Depends on how you do it. Please come with me= not an abduction. Dragging them out of their house is an abduction.
So here we finally have it. A Policeman arresting someone or detaining them for questioning on the basis of carrying out their official functions is 'abducting people'.
There is evidence that they're doing wrong. There's a slave, they're out chasing them and looking for "their property". The evidence isn't conclusive but it is in fact still evidence.
So someone chasing down their own legally owned property is a valid target for assault and possible boily harm as you break a litany of laws that would be valid and reasonable in any Lawful community - frankly I now see why you are so transfixed on Mexican cartels.
You seem to think an LG Paladin should be some kind of crazed vigilante dishing out 'justice' on any percieved slights or personal displeasures, just so long as he doesn't ever actually arrest anyone, and at no point should he bother with investgations.
To say that is reflective of paladinhood or the LG alignment is beyond bizarre at best.
No investigations.
No arrests.
No detaining for questioning.
Police brutality
Assaulting law abiding members of the public
Aiding and abetting known fugitives
Theft
Wow...
Just wow.
You sort of lost me at 'Arrest is abduction', and some odd references to it being ok for criminals to do in Mexico or something.
because you haven't heard any of the facts of the case, you have simply gone off on your own actions without bothering with things like hearings and trials. You have simply heard 'slave', and without checking the facts of the case you have passed judgment based on your own biases. Thats not LG, not HK, not Paladin.
Your contention was that it was not GOOD. Put the goalposts back.
A person conducting themselves based on their own personal biases with complete disregard for anything or anyone elses views is what alignment again?
Any.
So would you care to FINALLY elaborate on why, exactly, a Policeman arresting someone or detaining them in custody for questioning after having the person confess to a crime is abducting them.
I did so. Several times. Including in the next sentence.. THAT YOU RESPONDED TO.
A Policeman arresting someone or detaining them for questioning on the basis of carrying out their official functions is 'abducting people'.
A Policeman arresting someone or detaining them for questioning on the basis of carrying out their official functions is carrying them off by force.
Would you like to point out the huge, gaping disparity between those two sentences that warrants repeated attacks on my honesty?
So someone chasing down their own legally owned property is a valid target for assault and possible bodily harm as you break a litany of laws that would be valid and reasonable in any Lawful community
There are no valid and reasonable reasons for owning people as property.
You seem to think an LG Paladin should be some kind of crazed vigilante dishing out 'justice' on any percieved slights or personal displeasures, just so long as he doesn't ever actually arrest anyone, and at no point should he bother with investgations.
This is entirely made up by you. There is no conceivable way for you to connect what i said with this conclusion. Exactly which part of my suggested actions for paladins qualifies as a crazed vigilante out for justice?
Behold the whirling, blood thirsty paladins, the brood of the Fenrir wolf!
I think a paladin/hellknight facing an escaped halfling slave would be obligated to help the slave escape to the river lands, and then turn himself in.
You could, as a good act, simply believe her and help her win her freedom
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
If the law is evil that creates, for a normal paladin, a situation where they cannot act within the law they have to abstain
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.?"
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"
Terrifying ain't they?
You sort of lost me at 'Arrest is abduction', and some odd references to it being ok for criminals to do in Mexico or something.
I think i lost you at law does not equal good. You have the two equated in your head and the concept of them being at odds just doesn't register.
A Policeman arresting someone or detaining them for questioning on the basis of carrying out their official functions is carrying them off by force.
You said 'abducting'.
If you cannot comprehend that abducting someone, and arresting them or detaining them lawfully for questioning is not the same thing then there is no real point conversing about Hellknights, Paladins, and the LG alignment.
A Policeman does not effect an arrest and 'Abduct' someone down to the Police station.
Period.
If you really think that's what happens then it explains the huge gulf in expectations.
Pulling swords on innocent members of the Public and threatening them with being killed is not the actions of Hellknights, Paladins, and the LG.
Throwing out legal process, investigation of crimes, rules of evidence, fair trials - not the actions Hellknights, Paladins, and the LG.
At best you get CG Vigilantism, but in no way does your thinking represent Hellknights, Paladins, and the LG.
You said 'abducting'.
Yes. I did
ab·duct (b-dkt)
tr.v. ab·duct·ed, ab·duct·ing, ab·ducts
1. To carry off by force;
A Policeman arresting someone or detaining them for questioning on the basis of carrying out their official functions is 'abducting people'.
A Policeman arresting someone or detaining them for questioning on the basis of carrying out their official functions is carrying them off by force.
A Policeman does not effect an arrest and 'Abduct' someone down to the Police station.
Period.
If you really think that's what happens then it explains the huge gulf in expectations.
The huge gulf in expectations is your idea that a legal authority is a good authority. You think all governments are like your government: that there is due process and that the ultimate goal of the system, however flawed, is justice. This is what separates an arrest from a mere abduction. When you remove the expectation of justice they become equated again.
Pulling swords on innocent members of the Public and threatening them with being killed is not the actions of Hellknights, Paladins, and the LG.
I have a hard time using the word innocent with slavers. They're acting in a legally permitted fashion. The two are not the same.
Throwing out legal process, investigation of crimes, rules of evidence, fair trials - not the actions Hellknights, Paladins, and the LG.
A palladin, given time, may be able to do his own investigation before deciding how to proceed.
See this is why I have to keep asking about your honesty here:
ab·duct (b-dkt)
tr.v. ab·duct·ed, ab·duct·ing, ab·ducts
1. To carry off by force; kidnap.Noun 1. abduction abduction - the criminal act of capturing and carrying away by force a family member; if a man's wife is abducted it is a crime against the family relationship and against the wife
seizure, capture - the act of taking of a person by force
I have bolded in one part the amazingly essential bit you edited out, and have also added in the rest of the definition below that simply goes on to explain that ABDUCTION is a CRIMINAL act.
The Police do NOT abduct you when they affect an arrest or detain you, and I hope you are finally starting to get that now.
Abduction == Kidnap.
kid·nap (kdnp)
tr.v. kid·napped or kid·naped, kid·nap·ping or kid·nap·ing, kid·naps
To seize and detain unlawfully and usually for ransom.
Thats what you were accusing the Mexican/Cheliaxians of doing, which is a CRIME under both laws.
Thank you, come again.
I have bolded in one part the amazingly essential bit you edited out
-I gave you the entire thing before, up thread. It confused you, so i left it out when i tried the exact same explanation again.
The Police do NOT abduct you when they affect an arrest or detain you, and I hope you are finally starting to get that now.
This was already answered.
What is the difference between the mexican cartel grabbing someone off the street for ransom and a 3rd world countries police force putting a bag over someone's head, giving them a day in kangaroo court and holding them until "bail" is paid?
Why are you focusing in on the minutia of one choice of words to the exclusion of 99% of whats been said?
Why are you focusing in on the minutia of one choice of words to the exclusion of 99% of whats been said?
Because if we can't get an agreement on a clearly defined set of words with clearly detailed explanations then just about everything else becomes impossible.
You have stated time and time again that arresting someone is abducting them, and this is categorically not true. Furthermore, the curious editing of the reference you were citing places question marks on the conversation too.
You made the accusation that arresting the Halfling, or at least detaining her for questioning is 'abducting' her, and frankly that is the common theme that underpins your entire argument.
The initial engagement with the Halfling is the first hurdle to overcome, and given the option of doing the legally correct and morally justifiable course of action, you have instead declared it the criminal act of 'abduction', and furthermore advocated a whole plethora of criminal activities in order to simply affect your will and to Hell with the law and any innocent citizens.
So yeah you can call it what you want, but its not Paladin, Hellknight, nor Lawful Good.
In fact it's not even Good.
What is the difference between the mexican cartel grabbing someone off the street for ransom and a 3rd world countries police force putting a bag over someone's head, giving them a day in kangaroo court and holding them until "bail" is paid?
Nothing, its pure and simple Kidnap, which has already been covered, and has nothing to do with the matter at hand.
Because if we can't get an agreement on a clearly defined set of words with clearly detailed explanations then just about everything else becomes impossible.
Oddly enough i don't check every word i use with a thesaurus to see if there are alternate meanings. If you want to ignore the convo and deal with semantics no word choice of mine is going to stop you.
You have stated time and time again that arresting someone is abducting them, and this is categorically not true. Furthermore, the curious editing of the reference you were citing places question marks on the conversation too.
ENOUGH with your false and baseless accusations.
ab·duct (b-dkt)
tr.v. ab·duct·ed, ab·duct·ing, ab·ducts
1. To carry off by force; kidnap.
<--------
Look up thread
Are you carrying her off by force? Yes. Thats what i meant by the statement. I explained it this way the first time, you ignored it, only to bring it up again latter.
Apparently my attempts at a Machiavellian turn of phrase include giving you the entire definition yesterday.
The initial engagement with the Halfling is the first hurdle to overcome, and given the option of doing the legally correct and morally justifiable course of action, you have instead declared it the criminal act of 'abduction', and furthermore advocated a whole plethora of criminal activities in order to simply affect your will and to Hell with the law and any innocent citizens.
Your assertion that what you are doing the morally justifiable is whats being called into question here. You are going to take a halfling whose sole crime is stealing their own body, by force, and bring them to a judicial system that is 99% likely to return them into a life of forced labor. Which part of that is helping the innocent? Which part of that is respecting the dignity of sentient beings?
In fact it's not even Good.
Point blank: Do you think chaotic good is possible? Do you think that there is good outside of the law? You seem to be indicating no.
What on earth could be more good than risking your life and well being to bring a life of freedom to another person? Just as a Chaotic Good person can fight and kill a kidnapper in Absolom they can fight and yes, if need be kill, a slaver in Cheliax because there is no MORAL difference between the two. They are both committing the morally reprehensible act of depriving a moral innocent of their freedom and the LEGALITY of the act is completely irrelevant to someone that is chaotic good.
Nothing, its pure and simple Kidnap, which has already been covered, and has nothing to do with the matter at hand.
It has everything to do with the matter at hand. The point is that just because one is legal and one is not it does not create a moral discrepancy between the two acts: they are the same. Your paladin is taking the victim of a morally reprehensible act back to her tormentors. That is not good.
ENOUGH with your false and baseless accusations.ab·duct (b-dkt)
tr.v. ab·duct·ed, ab·duct·ing, ab·ducts
1. To carry off by force; kidnap.
<--------
Look up thread
Are you carrying her off by force? Yes. Thats what i meant by the statement. I explained it this way the first time, you ignored it, only to bring it up again latter.
No.
And there's the whole point.
She is being LAWFULLY ARRESTED OR DETAINED FOR QUESTIONING.
THIS IS NOT ABDUCTION.
Please read the definition of abduct again, see the part about Kidnap, then go have a look at the words detain and arrest.
The first are CRIMES, the latter are LEGAL.
Only once you finally accept that the Paladin is well within his rights to take the Halfling into custody can we take the conversation anywhere, and hopefully once we have done that we can debate words like ASSAULT, which you have suggested is fine to unlawfully commit against the law abiding innocent party (the owner).
It is the way of the evil to misuse words and apply them wrongly.
... snip snip snip awesomeness righteousness of the revolutionary heart snip snip ...
By your actions, you are waging war upon the virtues of Good. You are no paladin.
==Aelryinth
*dons his helmet*
Rhetoric. Appeals to emotion. Primitive.
When you grow up and understand the Chain, you will see that Order is the precondition of Good, and the evils of the state are paltry compared to the evils of the state of nature. That I am empowered to reign in the wickedness of my brother and sister Chelaxians, no matter their station, is proof enough that we can control ourselves.
Tieflings are discriminated against because they embody the weakness and decadence of the undisciplined. To face hell, burn away fear and weakness, is to be Cheliaxian. To have had such congress as produces tieflings is to let Hell's taint seep into your heart where there should be only steel. Emotion. Mercy. Compassion. Things hell will never show us. Someone parent to a tiefling has proven they cannot control themselves. Little better than chaff on the wind, a puppet to the first man or devil that finds them.
Halflings, on the other hand, are hardly human. Less even than the savage orcs, with whom we share enough in common to at least breed. I do not understand whence your fanciful notions of equality emerge. Perhaps the same misguided innocence that leads you to believe that charity exists for any purpose other than to safeguard the people of our empire and return them to busy labor. Perhaps you would rather they riot for want of food and work, bloodying themselves and destroying property? Feh.
Oh the complaints of the feckless. "Pride!" you say. I kill my pride nightly, burying it alongside my fear, my joy and my sorrow. I have purpose in its place.
"Empire!" you prattle. Hrmph. What hypocrisy! The moment you do not wish to pay a tax in exchange for the services you enjoy and the rulership that has made you prosperous it is "Empire! Tyranny! Villainy!" until you are blue in the face. And you, the same man that claims an obligation to do Good, are content to let the world fracture into selfish warring states for fear that one of them has become an 'Empire'. Allow me to purchase for you a mirror, as you are too poor to afford one.
As to the savages? When you have bled to create and had it stolen away, you will be at liberty to speak. Andoran has become a nation of thieves in our absence, taking not only the fruits as a province but also whatever their marauders can pilfer from the seas. Another failure, reminding us to be more diligent in our teaching in the future.
And mark me well: if your militias butcher another village of Chelaxians trapped behind your border we shall return. We protect our own. Your independence has been barely tolerated, and the moment your chaotic land shows signs of becoming the next Galt we will be forced to save you from yourselves by any means.
And it is fortunate for the world that you are no judge of what constitutes a paladin. Such an unreasoned mind would plunge us all into destruction.
*removes his helmet*
=================================
But seriously, nationalism doesn'twork like that. Nationalism and racism are not mutually exclusive, and most examples of Nationalism since the invention of the term have been rather exclusive rather than exclusive. If you want to keep believing that there is a "true nationalism transcends racial identity", that's ... fine I guess. But that doesn't make what Cheliax has -not-nationalism.
Again, you take the diabolic tact of bigotry and pride. You have truly lost all sense of the seven great Virtues of Good and embraced the deadly sins.
No emotion quoted I, but the very virtues upon which the concept of Good is built, and you dismiss them outright. Good existed before Law was a gleam in the eye of Abadar, and will continue after Law falls into Entropy and Chaos into Decay. Only Hope springs Eternal. You insult and belittle Good itself!
No paladin are you.
Your bigotry applies to your own citizens, and you justify to yourselves your treatment of them, instead of holding them up to a greater light.
You do not kill your pride. You clutch it firm to your heart, lay it upon your tongue with arrogance, and steel yourself with the contempt of your own bigotry.
Your defense and lack of knowledge of history show. Indeed, your own nation is famous for its attempt to obfuscate history, bury the truth, and rewrite truth in favor of lies. I see you have abandoned Truth, as well.
And mark you well, if you come prancing over the border into Andoran shouting that you are defending Chelixians, the Andorans there will put you to the sword like the evil thing you are, and you will learn what it means to Smite Evil.
Andoran has become a land where the rights of the people, not the nobility, are enshrined in law. They export their violence every bit as readily as Cheliax, they refuse to bow to your extortion on land and seas, and hurl you back into the cesspits from which you call and bray your lies. That you do not respect their laws is every bit as telling that you cling only to the interpretations foisted upon you by your Hell-serving order.
At least Andoran has angels upon its side. Cheliax cannot say the same.
=======
I'd like to point out that Cheliax's bigotry is inextricably wound up with its 'nationalism'. In lands where Chelians don't consider themselves superior, surprise, there is no Chelian nationalism. Nationalism is thus an extension of racial pride, not vice versa. it's 'us' over 'them'. Standard LE tripe.
True nationalism is about 'I live here', not 'I was born with pale skin and black hair, and thus I'm uber.' It is noteworthy that Sargava still considers themselves Chelian nationalists, if not under the line of Thune, and as bigoted as their ancestors.
===Aelryinth
Lawful people tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. If you go back into the past things like promote Hierarchy are also in that list. Neverin the entire history of D&D has lawfulness been connected to a requirment to obey the Law of the Land.
This is also a fallacy.
Chaotic people tell the truth, too, and might go to incredible lengths to keep their personal oaths, as such are a measure of their standing. They also honor their traditions, often more fervently then Lawful folk who merely indulge...Chaotics tend to BELIEVE in their traditions.
Lawful people tend to keep the letter of their word. Good people keep the spirit of their word, even to their disadvantage. Lawful Evil will twist it and misconstrue it in whatever fashion best suits their purpose. And they are certainly not above lying by misdirection or if it suits their purposes to do it...they will simply be less obvious or blunt about it then most chaotics, and do it less freely.
==Aelryinth
True nationalism is about 'I live here', not 'I was born with pale skin and black hair, and thus I'm uber.' It is noteworthy that Sargava still considers themselves Chelian nationalists, if not under the line of Thune, and as bigoted as their ancestors.
Er, I'm afraid that doesn't support your point as well as you hoped, as they're lawful neutral, not lawful evil, as a country and people. I get your point, though.
This is also a fallacy.
Chaotic people tell the truth, too, and might go to incredible lengths to keep their personal oaths, as such are a measure of their standing. They also honor their traditions, often more fervently then Lawful folk who merely indulge...Chaotics tend to BELIEVE in their traditions.
Lawful people tend to keep the letter of their word. Good people keep the spirit of their word, even to their disadvantage. Lawful Evil will twist it and misconstrue it in whatever fashion best suits their purpose. And they are certainly not above lying by misdirection or if it suits their purposes to do it...they will simply be less obvious or blunt about it then most chaotics, and do it less freely.
Eh... ish? It seems your interpretation of chaotics is that they lack subtlety? If so, this is something that is very different from the core presumptions.
Let's look at alignments and subtlety, and the central theme of them. (This is not to argue with you, but just to look at creatures together and see how they behave according to alignment)
Chaotics: Succubi are, in fact, highly chaotic... and have amongst the best subtlety in the plains. They can tell the complete truth when it serves their purpose. That is also not to say that chaotics are only subtle. Many other demons are straight forward, though shadow demons, glabresu, and babau have their own kind of subtlety. Azatas range the gamut of aggressive to passive (and some seem passive-aggressive!), subtle to blunt, and are not bound by any one standard. In fact, only proteans are as aggressive as you proscribe/blunt, and that's mostly because they are zealots for enacting "the will of chaos". That said, proteans do lend credence for your stance that chaos can follow a "law". It opposes your credence that they believe in individual liberty, as proteans do not believe in the rights of other creatures (or even themselves)... unless those rights are specifically used to cause chaos. The only defining trait that chaotics have is that it is up to the individual to decide if something is or is not appropriate.
Lawful: That is not to say that lawful creatures are all known to behave the same way: point in fact, hound archons, who are inherently lawful good, are known to be extremely subtle as well, often masquerading as common dogs for extended periods of time. They do this in order to allow the mortals to generally do things on their own (without relying on the archon: they certainly help out, but the people actually take initiative (hopefully) on their own, without the archon. A hound archon simply allows the deception to happen: they never lie, they simply obscure or refuse to answer. That seems like a twisting to one's own ends, if for the common good. Certainly devils have subtlety, too. Axiomites, creatures who embody the epitome of law, have subtlety: they have the ability to appear in different forms and do so in order to interact with others in a most "appropriate" manner. The only group lacking in any subtlety is the inevitables, who seek only to enforce the laws that they are tasked with. While each of these are different, they all have one focus: that all are beholden to some Other, some Higher, whether it be a code, concept, legal system, or deity that tells them Yes/No, Proper/Improper, Right/Wrong.
Good: Good people, too, have subtlety, when called for it. I've already pointed out archons and azatas, but agathions work as familiars, inspirational, spiritual leaders, and hidden "pets". Some angels have alternate forms with which to hide amongst the lesser plains. The entry in Bestiary indicates that Solars (any good) sometimes masquerade as mortal prophets or even martyrs for their deity so that their holy power blossoms across the world. Then again, Solars are also known to lead battles straight for the enemy and destroy in glorious combat. Star archons, too. Good can be completely unsubtle. Already covered good and evil creatures above, so what, then, identifies a good creature as good? Effectively, that they believe in others as equals or superior to themselves: that there is something worth doing for the sake of another person, not just themselves. This is, in fact, a code (ill-defined as it is) that restricts their behavior and limits what they can or cannot do. Good, then, while not lawful, does have more similarity to it, as the individual is not free to choose for themselves: there is a higher code in play. These two codes are not the same, but they are both there.
Evil: Evil are subtle, as we've shown with devils and demons both, and blunt, again devils can be blunt (erinyeses are known for their lack of subtlety) as can demons (balors can barely contain their lust for destruction). Daemons long for and actively, aggressively campaign for mortal corruption and destruction - but some do this subtly... others, not so much. The only thing identifying evil people as evil is that they are, in fact, out for their own ends, regardless of what is good for others. There is no law but their own, no will but theirs, and nothing beyond themselves that is important. Thus, evil comes much closer to aligning with chaos than it does with law. Again, one can have a code, but twist it to their own ends, as you indicated above, but generally it's all about the individual will, not about the code itself.
So what conclusions can we take?
Good and law have marked similarities in the fact that they believe that there is a "Higher Something" (though they might disagree on what that something is) that all are beholden to.
Chaos and evil have marked similarities in the fact that they believe in nothing beyond the individual - the Highest is, in fact, the Self - though, again, they might disagree on the way to express this.
That is not to equate good with law, nor evil with chaos. These are different, but there is a similarity more between good and law and between chaos and evil more than between chaos and good and between evil and law.
Anyway, I'm out of time. This will probably be refuted, but, I had some time, so I figured I'd write up what I could think about. It's a ramble, but it may or may not be helpful in the conversation. Not trying to argue, just show my thought progression. :)
EDIT: to make tags work.
Only once you finally accept that the Paladin is well within his rights to take the Halfling into custody can we take the conversation anywhere, and hopefully once we have done that we can debate words like ASSAULT, which you have suggested is fine to unlawfully commit against the law abiding innocent party (the owner).
I'm going to take that as a no, you don't believe in chaotic good. You don't believe in lawful evil either.
The Paladin, indeed, ANY chelaxian citizen, would have the LEGAL authority, in fact, a legal requirement, to take the halfling into custody and turn them over to the court system if they were so able. That does not mean that it is their right. You are equivocating one with the other.
Please read the definition of abduct again, see the part about Kidnap, then go have a look at the words detain and arrest.
This patronizing tone is completely unnecessary. I'm well aware of the words and their definitions, but since like the D&D alignment system i recognize that good and legal are completely different things, they mean something much different to me than they do to you. Moral and legal are two completely different things. As long as you not only equivocate between the two, but assume that everyone else equates the two, you are going to continue operating under the delusion that anyone who disagrees with you is babbling incoherently.
The inner sea world guide has an example of an eagle knight starting to "assault" a chelaxian slaver. With good reason. Legal or not, slavery is no different than kidnapping. Legal pretenses are not moral reasoning. Wrangling with the dichotomy between legal and moral is a difficult job for any paladin , but doing it well requires the recognition that it IS occasionally a dichotomy. Cheliax is a walking example of that.
I'm going to take that as a no, you don't believe in chaotic good. You don't believe in lawful evil either.
No, thats not what is being debated here.
The Paladin/HK is a recognised agent of the legitimate and accepted Government, and thus has a legal and moral right to detain and arrest.
That is NOT Abduction.
I repeat again,
That is NOT Abduction.
Only once you can accept that they are within their rights (and indeed HAVE AN OBLIGATION) to effect an arrest can we go anywhere.
Is the Paladin/HK a legitimately recognised (By Chel law) agent?
Yes, or No?
Lets just get the basics covered here first.
This patronizing tone is completely unnecessary. I'm well aware of the words and their definitions, but since like the D&D alignment system i recognize that good and legal are completely different things, they mean something much different to me than they do to you.
Then you need to stop referring to the Paladin/HK's legitmate powers of arrest as 'abduction'. You have been corrected on this repeatedly, and then point to examples of kidnap, blackmail, and extortion in places that are not Chel, and those would all be illegal there too.
No, thats not what is being debated here.
Yes. Yes it is in fact.
You are repeatedly relying on the idea that legal equals moral. In that process you are denying the possibility of a good act that goes against the law (the chaotic good ranger's solution) as well as the possibility of a legal act that is not good.
You are arguing for some Kantian morality system that is not in place in D&D. Its rather confusing to come into a conversation like this thinking we're using common terms only for you to completely change the definitions without telling anyone.
Assault is a legal term not a moral one and is in fact the time honored solution of chaotic GOOD characters everywhere. There is no moral difference between a kidnaper who abducts people in the andor and a slaver in cheliax who returns people to slavery. One operates under the protection of the law: protection that is irrelevant to a chaotic good person.
The Paladin/HK is a recognized agent of the legitimate and accepted Government, and thus has a legal and moral right to detain and arrest.
Legal rights do not grant moral ones.
Only once you can accept that they are within their rights (and indeed HAVE AN OBLIGATION) to effect an arrest can we go anywhere.
You mean only once I agree that you're right and i'm wrong then we can discuss.... you being wrong and me being right? You're blatantly assuming your conclusion here.
Is the Paladin/HK a legitimately recognized (By Chel law) agent?
Yes, or No?
Legally yes (for the 8th? time) You think this makes your case. It does not.
Then you need to stop referring to the Paladin/HK's legitmate powers of arrest as 'abduction'.
You have been corrected on this repeatedly, and then point to examples of kidnap, blackmail, and extortion in places that are not Chel, and those would all be illegal there too.
I have disagreed with you many times on the point. I realize you don't recognize the difference between disagreeing with you and being corrected, but that's how it goes.
In order to prove your point you need to demonstrate a MORAL difference between dragging a free escaped slave back into slavery and putting her into slavery in the first place. The legal distinction is meaningless, as you yourself admitted when you said there was no real difference between a cartel kidnapping for ransom and the legal arrest by a country followed by sham proceedings for bail money.
Andoran seems to be actually the only true nationalism in the setting.
Cheliax is definitely racial, ties of blood and race. Not human= inferior. Not human Chelian, inferior. That is standard fare for devil-worshippers and LE, the whole 'inferior races/others' argument.Cheliax is all about human Chelian racial supremacy over EVERYTHING.
<snip>
In short, nationalism has to transcend race to be real, and only in Andoran are we really seeing that.
==Aelryinth
This may be you playing a role, I suppose, or expressing what you want the normative meaning of nationalism to be... but it's most definitely not the case. Nationalism may transcend ethnic/racial identity in favor of an alternative imagined community, but often incorporates it instead and is still nationalism.
True nationalism is about 'I live here', not 'I was born with pale skin and black hair, and thus I'm uber.' It is noteworthy that Sargava still considers themselves Chelian nationalists, if not under the line of Thune, and as bigoted as their ancestors.Er, I'm afraid that doesn't support your point as well as you hoped, as they're lawful neutral, not lawful evil, as a country and people. I get your point, though.
** spoiler omitted **...
I'm not sure at all where subtlety comes into play here. Nor your viewpoint on Chaotics.
For Chaotics the individual is #1...the only right is what the individual wants. CG extends this in empathy to others, and considers not doing harm to others more then he'd accept himself, their rights are equal to his own rights. CN simply exists in their own universe and is amoral, not caring. CE is actively malicious and is only deterred from action by threat, having no reservations, compunctions, and actively seeking to do harm.
Subtlety and slyness are bound to no alignment.
The rulership of Cheliax is clearly bigoted, it's a part of the ruling culture, endemnified in their slavery of halflings, repudiation of tieflings and half-bloods, and even looking at devils as lessers. The populace will be mostly LN, but peasants aren't the sort to be LE and accept their horrible lot in life as their due, LN just accepts and goes on, trying to work for better.
So, yeah, the important people in Cheliax all bend LE. It's how they roll, man.
==Aelryinth
*dons his helmet*
Wisdom. Brofist, brother paladin?
*removes his helmet*
Brofist, definitely, brother.
I have lost the trail of this thread, I think. It seems to have become a discussion of the morality of slavery, and an argument over alignment. It's a pity. I was really enjoying balancing the absolute Lawfulness of the Hellknight against and with the absolute (or flexible, depending on the poster's viewpoint) Lawful-Goodness of the Paladin.