I can't think of any society - particularly one that a paladin would respect - that would support that summary execution of a helpless individual is something that should be left to the whims of any given individual.
You try to give the paladin a very modern ideal with civil disobedience and then try to go away from modern with allowing high-lethality vigilante justice. Seems a bit of mixed signals are being sent here.
Pretty much everything adventurers do amounts to extrajudicial killing.
Furthermore, in most medieval societies you'd have probably gotten away with this behavior up until the point where you started killing people the closest authorities actually liked. Vigilatism was very common back in those days, and it was seen in a different light.
Also remember that I did say letting the authorities handle things is good. Self judgment is, as I said, for situations where that is not an option.
Lawful governments take the 'like' out and try to apply laws in a uniform (although not necessarily equal - since classes and castes can alter things considerably) manner. If the paladin bases his decisions on his personal 'likes' then that is certainly not lawful behavior.
If you do take the road that vigilantism is OK and the governments are not nearly so 'modern' in outlook, then I'd go back and argue that 'civil disobedience' is nothing more than treason without the will to take action. suggesting it as a course of action for a paladin is really not in fitting with 'harsh' societies at all, especially not for a character type that is expected to take action.
I'd argue that you are wrong. As I said, adventurers period would never realistically be tolerated. There has to be some artistic license to overcome this, and this applies to Paladins. They may be modern, because that is how people tend to play, but this is still a medieval themed game, so it makes sense to use some medieval policies to maintain the feeling, and the medieval policies that would tolerate adventurers are the same ones that would tolerate Paladin fiat. Strict realism will make the game no fun for everyone. Some things need to be hand waved.
Plus, as I said multiple times, Paladin fiat is for when turning someone over to the authorities IS NOT AN OPTION.
Organized law enforcement has been around for more than a thousand years the states were just smaller. As far as the killing of people roaming the countryside this action was greatly frowned upon depending on local law the reaction varied between here have a job for killing those bandits to you killed them without imperial degree you shall be executed summarily. See the Code of Hammurabi.
There is a big difference between killing goblins, monsters, and bears (not members of society) and individuals that are classified as sentient races.
No. Organized law enforcement is only about 200 years old. Before that the job was left to watches, guards, and sherrifs, all of whom were not police officers. A sherrif was a magistrate, and watches and guards were not there to fight crime.
Furthermore, the law wasn't enforced outside of settled areas. At most some soldiers would go after someone who was a major irritant, like Robin Hood.
No, it is not. Law enforcement that was separate from military power is recent, but use of military forces to enforce law is very old. Regardless, it's a moot point since just about every fantasy setting has law enforcement. Golarion, for example, has numerous examples of constables, sheriffs, watches, and even hell knights that provide law enforcement.Remember that organized law enforcement is a recent invention.
No, organized law enforcement is around 200 years old. Before that you had soldiers, guards, watches, and sherrifs, who were not cops. Military force as a method of law enforcement is far different than a uniformed police department.
As for Golarion, how often do these law enforcement officials tolerate adventures who kill sentient beings? A whole lot. Realistically, adventuring itself would be illegal for being vigilantism.
I'm sorry, but what you just said makes absolutely no sense to me. A sheriff is not necessarily a magistrate it is a title denoting authority based on the given society i.e. you have the old west sheriffs who kept peace or police sheriffs who hold rank. A watch is a role filled by guards that involves watching an area via patiently waiting or patrol. A police officer is by rote and function a guard.
Yeah sentient monsters, not people or members of the given society. History is chock full of instances where vigilantes were given permission to go slay members of external societal groups see the crusades, the entire founding history of the americas. As far as pure adventuring in an of itself is concerned. Adventuring has historical precedent unless you'd like to call the Lewis and Clark expedition something other than an adventure.
Also, remember that a Paladin is an agent of the church. It is perfectly feasible for such an agent to have legitimate authority to perform judgment. Surely this wouldn't be true of all nations, but likely for a good deal of them.
I'm sorry, but what you just said makes absolutely no sense to me. A sheriff is not necessarily a magistrate it is a title denoting authority based on the given society i.e. you have the old west sheriffs who kept peace or police sheriffs who hold rank. A watch is a role filled by guards that involves watching an area via patiently waiting or patrol. A police officer is by rote and function a guard.
Except for the fact that a guard was not there to enforce the law. They'd do it if the crime was in a public urban area, but other than that they didn't care, and it wasn't their job to care. Plus, that only applies to cities. Small settlements generally didn't have a guard.
Yeah sentient monsters, not people or members of the given society. History is chock full of instances where vigilantes were given permission to go slay members of external societal groups see the crusades, the entire founding history of the americas. As far as pure adventuring in an of itself is concerned. Adventuring has historical precedent unless you'd like to call the Louis and Clark expedition something other than an adventure.
Lewis and Clark weren't running around killing necromancers (oh, how I wish that statement were wrong). As for members of the society, as I said, outside of settled areas, which is when Paladin fiat would come into play, the law generally wasn't enforced. How would it be? Ideally, a Paladin would bring the guys to a settled area, and I SAID THAT, but things aren't always ideal, and the local authorities aren't always someone the Paladin can trust not to go torture happy, and the local authorities may not even care.
Guards were there to enforce the law. They stood watch in a given area and patrolled it as needed to do so. If they ignored their duties there were punishments set by law. Small settlements had a militia which is a group of volunteer guards. I do not see why you see a difference between the two. I suspect you think the term guard means a member of a noble house hold set to protect said noble's shinys. This is not true. Law, court cases and trials go back thousands of years. If you'd like to believe otherwise that is your prerogative.
What Lewis and Clark were killing is irrelevant. The crusades were against heathen demons and cruel beasts that would pay their the church tithe if you recall.
As far as paladins executing people under their own authority do what you will. I'm not contending that. I'm contending your justification for it and your supporting facts that you draw from history.
|
I'm sorry, but what you just said makes absolutely no sense to me. A sheriff is not necessarily a magistrate it is a title denoting authority based on the given society i.e. you have the old west sheriffs who kept peace or police sheriffs who hold rank.
More like the Sheriff of Nottingham. He ruled the entire place the way he wanted to, with guidelines set by the King. Taxes were his job to collect and thus, he collected them with brutallity.
In medieval times, the society did not elect anyone, the King gave land to a Lord, who chose a fitting keeper of the law named the Sheriff. Since Pathfinder was based more in the Midieval than in the Modern, this would be the correct Sheriff.
Guards were there to enforce the law. They stood watch in a given area and patrolled it as needed to do so. If they ignored their duties there were punishments set by law. Small settlements had a militia which is a group of volunteer guards. I do not see why you see a difference between the two. I suspect you think the term guard means a member of a noble house hold set to protect said noble's shinys. This is not true. Law, court cases and trials go back thousands of years. If you'd like to believe otherwise that is your prerogative.
No, guards were there to enforce order. That may have included handling public crime that violates public order, but not private crime. You got robbed in your house? The guards don't particularly care.
What Lewis and Clark were killing is irrelevant. The crusades were against heathen demons and cruel beasts that would pay their the church tithe if you recall.
The Crusades were a whole different bag of coals, and one I don't want to fling on the fire.
As far as paladins executing people under their own authority do what you will. I'm not contending that. I'm contending your justification for it and your supporting facts that you draw from history.
The problem here is that the justification needs to be artistic license. You seem to want something realistic, and that's going to lead to either total anarchy or outlawing all adventuring. This is a fantasy game, and not everything is going to make sense. Just look at the economy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police
Please read under the history. The summation is a little short, but still mostly accurate. Yes the guards did cover private crime it was at the very least established in the Code of Hammurabi and further developed under Babylonian law if you conclude that the ancient Chinese did not do this despite evidence to the contrary.
The sheriff of nottingham you are referencing to is a fictional character.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheriff_of_Nottingham_%28position%29
He was responsible for taxes, keeping the peace, and processing prisoners into the court system where they would be judged by the local magistrate.
Realism is irrelevant. I could care less about it. I'm arguing your justification not the result. Artistic license has nothing to do with the evidence from the real world you are using to justify his authority. From my perspective your evidence is not related to your claim except for when you were dictating that a paladin may have authority given by some states due to religion. He can slice and dice bandits with the greatest authority the world backing him, a godly one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police
Please read under the history. The summation is a little short, but still mostly accurate. Yes the guards did cover private crime it was at the very least established in the Code of Hammurabi and further developed under Babylonian law if you conclude that the ancient Chinese did not do this despite evidence to the contrary.
This is what I refer to. Back in those times, the community was responsible for their own policing, not a separate police force or the guards. If a crime happened, you and your neighbors were the ones to handle it.
I read Kelsey's posts to say that LG societies are those that most closely follow modern notions of law and human welfare while still allowing killing for any that a paladin feels 'need killing'. In short, the world needs to be made to make the paladin work. It seems to be a reactionary position stemming from too many world assumptions that would make the paladin very difficult to play. I have yet to see any fantasy setting that would conform to Kelsey's views (particularly the notion of civil disobedience as being an appropriate action for a paladin or even appropriate for most of the settings), but I do agree that too much realism makes the game very hard on adventures in general and paladins most of all.
Actually, I got civil disobedience from The D&D 3.5's The Book of Exalted Deeds and Pathfinder's Bestiary (the Archon description). Both specifically said that certain Lawful Good creatures would try to change things without rebellion. I extrapolated from there.
I read Kelsey's posts to say that LG societies are those that most closely follow modern notions of law and human welfare while still allowing killing for any that a paladin feels 'need killing'. In short, the world needs to be made to make the paladin work.
THERE is the problem. You are assuming that the Paladin is dealing with a Lawful Good society, while I am assuming that the Paladin may not be dealing with such a society, and may not even have the recommended option of bringing the captured back for judgment. I don't disagree that a Paladin should let the authorities handle things. I'm saying that it might not always be an option, especially if far away from civiliation or when dealing with a non Lawful Good society.
I just don't see most DMs granting a paladin the right to judge in a state over its citizens without taking the prestige class justicar and even then he's got to work for it. I don't know of any of the oaths that require him to violate that in a given state that doesn't fundamentally oppose his god. If he did he would violate the requirements of his alignment. Out in the woods hacking bandits more power to him.
Kelsey that is a very inaccurate view of English law during the medieval ages with no sources listed on a tourism page and so shouldn't really be considered evidence. I'm not trying to be rude saying that, but it is true.
I see no problem with the notion of civil disobedience. If a paladin were to incite a rebellion it would be for a damned good reason otherwise he would try to change the system as peacefully as possible.
Paladin's still have to obey local law if it doesn't conflict with their god or their oaths.
Again, I said multiple times that letting the authorities judge and not the Paladin is best. Paladin judging is for extreme circumstances, such as no available authority to judge, no capacity to guard prisoners, or when dealing with an Evil or Chaotic local authority. If the Paladin is dealing with a Good or Neutral society, Paladin fiat shouldn't be applying to that circumstance in the first place.
Essentially, Paladin fiat is for when the local law is unavailable or DOES conflict with their god and oaths.
I agree that is better evidence, but it does not state that law enforcement did not exist previous to the last 200 years. It states that a regular police force functioning as one does today did not exist under Anglo Saxon law during the tenth century. That is a very small portion of the world divided into very small villages. The reason for the lack of one was due to the societal structure. Gathering and presenting evidence for a claim against another individual was much much easier due to population density.
Law enforcement did exist and was necessitated in areas with less fragmented and larger regimes. When population density increases in a given area then more law enforcement is necessary.
Pathfinder is not solely based off of the Medieval ages in Mediterranean Europe.
I think we have very different definitions of law enforcement. I think of an organized, uniformed organization with law enforcement as it's primary job, and you seem to think of guards and soldiers who performed law enforcement tasks among other jobs.
As for the rest, I was only arguing medieval law as an example. I know Pathfinder is more flexible in it's time period and not solely European. I was pointing out that there are societies, such as the Anglo-Saxons, where vigilantism was in fact perfectly acceptable. I just worded it really poorly.
I can see that. What I was trying to state is that there were organized uniformed organization based law enforcement, according to what I believe to be your definition, as their primary job, just not really in Europe during the era you're referring to. I'm a history buff don't mind me. I spend too much of my time in books.
I can see your point and why you were using it as evidence.
I'm a history buff, too, I just don't think of them as cops so much as people who did that job among other jobs. A guard was many things aside from his job as a police officer, such as a fireman and tax collector. I'm defining a cop as a full time police officer, and you aren't. There isn't anything wrong with that.
It's a weird debate, anyway. In my campaign setting trained, full time professional police officers do exist, and classic adventurers don't (the PCs are professional monster hunters in government employ), so I'm basically arguing over something that makes no difference.
Ah our history buff data is conflicting then. If it does not matter then it does not matter.