If the evil wizard is rightfully sentenced to death by the authorities, a lawful paladin probably has to accept that. His opinion may be a different one but he has to bend to the judgement of the local law (provided it's not unlawful in general).
Breaking the wizard out of prison is an unlawful act and threatens the paladin's code of conduct.
That's why I prefer chaotic good "Paladins".
|
Strictly adhering to the Code:
Paladin could go to bat for the wizard at court when the trial happens, speaking on his behalf and vouching for him if he feels it's the right thing to do. However, the paladin must also concede to the rule of law. If the wizard is sentenced to death, the best the paladin can do is offer spiritual support and comfort to the wizard before his execution.
Unless...
If the court turns out to be illegitimate, he need not be bound by it.
THIS is a possibility that shouldn't be discounted, but it needs to be presented pretty well by the GM. It still presents the possibility of paladin vs. paladin, with all the potential good and bad that can bring to the table.
I'd try to avoid presenting the pursuing paladin as an Inspector Javert type. Have him be a genuinely good man. Just misled. Or maybe the player paladin is misled. Maybe both.
"May Sarenrae have mercy on your soul" - **thwack** - the Wizard's severed head rolls on the freshly laid straw that surrounds the chopping block.
Being LG means that when you turn the guy over to the proper authorities, that's it. Job well done.
I'd try to avoid presenting the pursuing paladin as an Inspector Javert type. Have him be a genuinely good man. Just misled. Or maybe the player paladin is misled. Maybe both.
Problem is, there's nothing like opinionated alignment in Pathfinder. A paladin that thinks he acts LG but does not, is not. For all it's worth, I would favor an inquisitor over a paladin for that role. The line on which two paladins could reasonably battle one another is just too thin for my tastes.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd try to avoid presenting the pursuing paladin as an Inspector Javert type. Have him be a genuinely good man. Just misled. Or maybe the player paladin is misled. Maybe both.Problem is, there's nothing like opinionated alignment in Pathfinder. A paladin that thinks he acts LG but does not, is not. For all it's worth, I would favor an inquisitor over a paladin for that role. The line on which two paladins could reasonably battle one another is just too thin for my tastes.
You can have such a character be genuinely LG. He just doesn't know the government/people he's serving aren't legit.
If it's a case of the paladin serving people that are openly committing atrocities, he doesn't have an excuse. But if those in charge are keeping their misdeeds hidden, that paladin is really doing the best he can with what he knows. Such a paladin is both a valuable asset and a danger to those in charge, because they likely need to keep him at a distance* and in the dark about what they're really about. Said pursuing paladin could be the genuinely good sort of person that discovers a horrible consipiracy amongst those in charge, if the story was about him. Here, he hasn't found out yet. Perhaps the player paladin can change that, perhaps not.
It's not a sort of situation I'd like to force though.
*Especially considering what paladins are known for being able to detect! That makes them even more valuable as misleading PR and even more of a potential threat. It's basically the bad guys playing with fire.
|
|
presumably before it came to blows, there would be a 'wait a moment, we are both paladins... what the deuce?!' type moment.
Yep, that's the moment I'd most be looking forward to as a paladin player. Two genuinely good people trying to convince each other of what they know to be the truth and stopping something terrible before it starts.
Like Solid Snake and Paragon Commander Shepard debating at each other over a battlefield. If both parties learn something that shocks them, bonus.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"May Sarenrae have mercy on your soul" - **thwack** - the Wizard's severed head rolls on the freshly laid straw that surrounds the chopping block.
Being LG means that when you turn the guy over to the proper authorities, that's it. Job well done.
Authorities can be corrupt.
Which weighs more heavily - your Lawful side or your Good side? A Paladin divided against himself cannot stand.
"May Sarenrae have mercy on your soul" - **thwack** - the Wizard's severed head rolls on the freshly laid straw that surrounds the chopping block.
Being LG means that when you turn the guy over to the proper authorities, that's it. Job well done.
Authorities can be corrupt.
Which weighs more heavily - your Lawful side or your Good side? A Paladin divided against himself cannot stand.
Then I guess it comes down to how simple or complex the DM wants it to be. What's to be gained by making things so complex that the Pally could fall?
Which weighs more heavily - your Lawful side or your Good side? A Paladin divided against himself cannot stand.
A paladin seeking to uphold both law and good, can find the law to be wrong. However, said character would have to use the rule of law to change it. So finding evidence which exposed the rules of law violated by the corrupt authorities and making them public IS being lawful good, IMO.
Also, the 'law' of the land can differ from the law of the paladin's deity. ;-)
Take care,
Harry
|
|
"May Sarenrae have mercy on your soul" - **thwack** - the Wizard's severed head rolls on the freshly laid straw that surrounds the chopping block.
Being LG means that when you turn the guy over to the proper authorities, that's it. Job well done.
Authorities can be corrupt.
Which weighs more heavily - your Lawful side or your Good side? A Paladin divided against himself cannot stand.
Since you asked... :)
IMO-- Good is more important than law, for Paladins. Good first and foremost, last and always... Law is important to Paladins, but not as important as good; and if the principles of Law ever conflict with the principles of Good, the Paladin must place 'the Good' first.
After all... there are lots of reasons why the Paladin's powers include 'Smite Evil', 'Detect Evil', etc... but do not include 'Smite Chaos' and 'Detect Chaos'-- that should tell you something. :D
(and if I were running the game-- if the Paladin ever placed Law over Good, when the two are in conflict, disregarding 'Good' in the process, he/she is losing his/her powers. If Law and Good are in conflict, and the Paladin chooses Good, although it means violating lawful principles-- the Paladin has made the necessary choice and chosen correctly on which of the two principles must have priority-- he/she is keeping his/her powers... I'm not out to screw Paladins, and I am consistent on these ideas regarding a Paladin's necessary priorities.)
"May Sarenrae have mercy on your soul" - **thwack** - the Wizard's severed head rolls on the freshly laid straw that surrounds the chopping block.
Being LG means that when you turn the guy over to the proper authorities, that's it. Job well done.
Authorities can be corrupt.
Which weighs more heavily - your Lawful side or your Good side? A Paladin divided against himself cannot stand.
Since you asked... :)
IMO-- Good is more important than law, for Paladins. Good first and foremost, last and always... Law is important to Paladins, but not as important as good; and if the principles of Law ever conflict with the principles of Good, the Paladin must place 'the Good' first.
After all... there are lots of reasons why the Paladin's powers include 'Smite Evil', 'Detect Evil', etc... but do not include 'Smite Chaos' and 'Detect Chaos'-- that should tell you something. :D
(and if I were running the game-- if the Paladin ever placed Law over Good, when the two are in conflict, disregarding 'Good' in the process, he/she is losing his/her powers. If Law and Good are in conflict, and the Paladin chooses Good, although it means violating lawful principles-- the Paladin has made the necessary choice and chosen correctly on which of the two principles must have priority-- he/she is keeping his/her powers... I'm not out to screw Paladins, and I am consistent on these ideas regarding a Paladin's necessary priorities.)
Quoted for truth. :D
|
|
The Paladin is supposed to resist the court which you're all labeling as corrupt and evil simply because they did not decide to simply whitewash everything the wizard IS guilty of?
Where is that happening?
The idea of a corrupt government/court was only brought up as a possibility to play with, not an assumption of fact.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The POINT of playing a lawful good character as opposed to chaotic, and in particular a paladin, is that when they disagree with an established authority they try to change things through lawful means. This might involve trying to convince the 'enemy' party or the local lord in question that the wizard deserves a chance to repent. It should not under any circumstances involve flagrantly disobeying the local lord regardless of the paladin's personal beliefs...unless the paladin has direct and tangible evidence of the local lord being illegitimate in his or her own right.
Not saying it is necessarily occurring in the presented scenarios-- but if the local lord, even if he is the law, is deliberately and intentionally committing evil-- that would be something that a Paladin cannot go along with, law or not. Although, I agree with you that the Paladin should try to use lawful means, and should only flagrantly disobey the local lord if the local lord has crossed that 'moral event horizon' (or is about to, if the Paladin does not bar the way).
However-- punishing an evil wizard for his crimes, in accordance with the nation's laws-- not evil. Paladin does not have grounds for defying the local law because he/she personally feels that scumbag the wizard is repentant and should get a chance to atone for his deeds through acts to make up for them.
It's probably a stretch for a paladin to bust out of jail someone who has been convicted of a capital offense by a fair and just legal system.
It really doesn't matter if the guy had a true change of heart after the crime and has repented: the law has spoken. The paladin could certainly attempt to go through channels to appeal the conviction or death sentence, or try to get the person a pardon (or at least a stay of execution). But busting him out of jail? No way. I could see the paladin standing beside the condemned, tears in his eyes, holding the condemned's hand as the guillotine blade was dropped.
It would be a different story if trial was corrupt (i.e. the judge took a bribe to sentence the convict to death, when what was warranted was a year as a galley slave), particularly if the paladin had definitive proof that the defendant was truly innocent.
But in the situation that was presented, I would warn the player that busting this wizard out of jail went against his vows as a paladin. If he chose to do it anyway, then I'd probably make him lose his powers.
It didn't come to blows, but it came close, when the Chelaxian paladin of Iomedae (and former Hellknight) in my party ended up in a heated argument about the legitimacy of landed nobility with an NPC Andorran Eagle Knight paladin of Sarenrae. Both were Lawful Good, but they were playing by different sets of laws!
if in doubt look at the diferent codes of conduct for different paladin orders. paladins from different faiths or even just different churches will act differently.
a paladin of Erastil would be perfect for the seeking role as they are more likely to abide by the community than good at any cost.
a paladin of Erastil would be perfect for the seeking role as they are more likely to abide by the community than good at any cost.
A paladin of Abadar would work extremely well in this role as well.
As for the discussion on whether or not the paladin would lose his powers, this scenario is dependent on the idea that the paladin believes that the laws of his god demand that someone who desires redemption must be given the chance. Thus, breaking the wizard out of prison would be unlawful under the eyes of the government (and several gods of law) but lawful under the eyes of the paladin's god. I would say this is a bit of a grey area where the paladin's code of conduct is concerned. The GM could easily rule either way.
I definitely agree. A situation where a paladin has to weigh his action between his devotion to law and his devotion to faith should not warrant a loss of power. It's a situation where the character cannot truly follow both aspects of his code, and so a personal decision must be made. It's a great opportunity to really elaborate on the character's personality and worldview. In any case, as long as the actions that are taken don't outright go against the character's beliefs I feel it should be fine. Especially if the paladin's role is nothing more than what you describe.
Fun idea.
Option 1- Well there a number of things that could be done here. A lot of folks have talked about law vs goodness or whether the PC paladin would submit to the law and so forth. Why not have Sarenrae involved? After the wizard's change of heart Sarenrae is moved to mercy and after the wizard is convicted and sentanced calls upon the party's paladin to take action. Call it a test, call it the paladin is more avaliable spiritually whatever but he is called on to act by Sarenrae differently than would normally be expected. Think about this, Abraham was aked by God to kill his son, a human sacrifice. Very out of the ordinary, God stepped in before the end, but it certainly made for a unique test. Think of it after both the PC paladin and the NPC that is trying to stop him in the end both earn favor with Sarenrae. One for obedience to Sarenrae's call to mercy (because he was asked directly) and the other's fidelity to justice.
Option 2- Depending on the region or city perhaps their justice system is a bit twisted. What if in addition to execution criminals were put on display and tortured (like the end of Braveheart). Criminals who own up to their crimes get a good quick death. When the gavel hits this judge decides that even though the wizard is taking responsibility for his actions and trying to own up to his crimes the judge says "I don't buy it," and arranges for a horrific torturing death. This to the paladin pushes him over the edge.
Isn't good also about redemption and forgiveness for those that repent?
Mmm, a fun day when lawful courts prevent good from being achieved.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the Paladin is devoted to a particular Deity (for instance, Sarenrae)-- then the laws of his faith and the requirements of his code directly handed down from his deity (perhaps via teachers of the faith) take precedence over any non-religious law. IMO-- Paladin does not lose his powers no matter how blatantly he defies the local law, if he is doing so only to the extent that is necessary in order to follow his deity's wishes and his order's code. On the other hand-- taking this example, the Paladin loses his powers if he does not follow his Deity's commands (both explicit commands and commands that are implicit in the tenets of his faith and his order's code)-- the Paladin has to follow Sarenrae's commandments, not the local law and local authorities, if the two conflict and the Paladin serves Sarenrae.
This, however, makes the conflict easier to see-- both Paladins are LG, both seek to serve the greater good-- but one (the one 'rescuing' the condemned wizard) serves Sarenrae and is following her law; the other Paladin serves a different deity, who sees the matter of justice differently... IMO, both Paladins must set good first and foremost-- but this is a case where one deity's view of the requirements of good is that the wizard must be duly punished for his crimes (a Paladin of Iomedae, Abadar, Erastil... probably a few others as well) would likely take this side; and the other Paladin (the follower of Sarenrae) believes that the wizard is genuinely repentant and must be allowed to atone for his crimes through good deeds to repair the past damage he's done.
This'd make for a really interesting scenario.
"May Sarenrae have mercy on your soul" - **thwack** - the Wizard's severed head rolls on the freshly laid straw that surrounds the chopping block.
Being LG means that when you turn the guy over to the proper authorities, that's it. Job well done.
Authorities can be corrupt.
Which weighs more heavily - your Lawful side or your Good side? A Paladin divided against himself cannot stand.
Since you asked... :)
IMO-- Good is more important than law, for Paladins. Good first and foremost, last and always... Law is important to Paladins, but not as important as good; and if the principles of Law ever conflict with the principles of Good, the Paladin must place 'the Good' first.
After all... there are lots of reasons why the Paladin's powers include 'Smite Evil', 'Detect Evil', etc... but do not include 'Smite Chaos' and 'Detect Chaos'-- that should tell you something. :D
(and if I were running the game-- if the Paladin ever placed Law over Good, when the two are in conflict, disregarding 'Good' in the process, he/she is losing his/her powers. If Law and Good are in conflict, and the Paladin chooses Good, although it means violating lawful principles-- the Paladin has made the necessary choice and chosen correctly on which of the two principles must have priority-- he/she is keeping his/her powers... I'm not out to screw Paladins, and I am consistent on these ideas regarding a Paladin's necessary priorities.)
I don't agree that the Good part of a paladin's alignment should consistently be placed above the Lawful in every scenario. It really depends on the deity. for example in this case, a paladin of Abadar would never in a million years break a condemned prisoner out of jail, but a paladin of Desna would be more than willing to give a repentant evildoer a chance to redeem himself (only one chance though).
If I were playing a paladin of Abadar, or Torag, or maybe Iomedae I would expect to be able to make the choice to pick Law over Good when it came down to the wire.
...just my 2cp.
|
|
I don't agree that the Good part of a paladin's alignment should consistently be placed above the Lawful in every scenario. It really depends on the deity. for example in this case, a paladin of Abadar would never in a million years break a condemned prisoner out of jail, but a paladin of Desna would be more than willing to give a repentant evildoer a chance to redeem himself (only one chance though).If I were playing a paladin of Abadar, or Torag, or maybe Iomedae I would expect to be able to make the choice to pick Law over Good when it came down to the wire.
Obviously I disagree with your basic premise, but if your GM and fellow players see things your way, I guess it'll work for you-- I have no monopoly (nor does anyone else) on how to play the game.
However-- I think if you separate the point a little bit... There is room for different interpretations on what acts/actions are good or not-- and/or which is the best one. While I firmly think that with regard to a particular situation, the 'good' choice and the 'lawful' choice for courses of action are irreconcilable, the Paladin must choose 'good' over 'law'-- but it's clearly best of all if the Paladin can reconcile the 'good' course of action with the 'lawful' course of action and uphold both principles. I don't think the Paladin should be allowed to get away with unlawful behavior and with not upholding lawful principles, other than in those limited situations commented on above.
The example of a Paladin of Abadar, or for that matter Iomedae, not breaking a condemned prisoner out of jail (unless the justice system was horribly corrupt and twisted)-- well, damn right they wouldn't, because to Abadar, Iomedae, Torag, and probably Erastil as well-- the good demands that the condemned prisoner receive the duly and lawfullly imposed punishment for his crimes. To many LG deities, the good and the law are usually inseparable... and that usually keeps the dilemmas of what happens when the two conflict from occurring as often.
With regards to the various permutations-- when there is a course of action (as there usually is) that satisfies both the principles of good and of law, that is the course of action the Paladin must follow. If a Paladin consistently acts in an "unlawful" fashion, IMO doing it because he has to set "good" first is usually no valid excuse and the Paladin will soon be an ex-paladin, because the situations where one cannot be both should not be that common in most games.
I close however, with a variation on my previous comment-- if Paladins were meant to be lawful first and foremost-- they would have powers based on imposing and maintaining order, not powers that emphasize doing good and opposing evil in the world. But, being Lawful and being Good do go well together and different deities do have different ideas for what their followers should consider good.
If the Paladin is devoted to a particular Deity (for instance, Sarenrae)-- then the laws of his faith and the requirements of his code directly handed down from his deity (perhaps via teachers of the faith) take precedence over any non-religious law. IMO-- Paladin does not lose his powers no matter how blatantly he defies the local law, if he is doing so only to the extent that is necessary in order to follow his deity's wishes and his order's code. On the other hand-- taking this example, the Paladin loses his powers if he does not follow his Deity's commands (both explicit commands and commands that are implicit in the tenets of his faith and his order's code)-- the Paladin has to follow Sarenrae's commandments, not the local law and local authorities, if the two conflict and the Paladin serves Sarenrae.
This, however, makes the conflict easier to see-- both Paladins are LG, both seek to serve the greater good-- but one (the one 'rescuing' the condemned wizard) serves Sarenrae and is following her law; the other Paladin serves a different deity, who sees the matter of justice differently... IMO, both Paladins must set good first and foremost-- but this is a case where one deity's view of the requirements of good is that the wizard must be duly punished for his crimes (a Paladin of Iomedae, Abadar, Erastil... probably a few others as well) would likely take this side; and the other Paladin (the follower of Sarenrae) believes that the wizard is genuinely repentant and must be allowed to atone for his crimes through good deeds to repair the past damage he's done.
This'd make for a really interesting scenario.
Excellent point. Being a lawful good paladin doesn't mean following all laws (lawful evil laws for instance hold little sway and the paladin wont lose the powers for not respecting slavery, tyrannical executions, legalised rape, sanctioned genocide from a chaotic evil empire etc etc).
Am currently writing up an AP in Mendev
http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz58wt?Would-you-play-a-Lawful-Good-AP
where the party really need to be L&G to benefit fully. The beginning of mod 3 will be the moral 'nightmares' outlined above
Whose LG God is 'right',
forces of good and law in opposition
Can a paladin truly adhere to what it means to be LG
What will you do 'to win'
hoping I frame it all right!!
good discussion
As I understand it Paladins must accept and abide by the judgments of just and legitimate authority and if they consider the authority to be illegitimate it is their duty to do everything within the system to fix it or if that is in their judgment impossible they must do everything to destroy the corrupted system and see it replaced with a just one.
So if I was going to break this wizard out of jail it would have to be because the system is corrupt and because fixing it within the system is impossible therefore the only option would be to attempt to destroy the local judicial system and get it replaced now I have a feeling this wasn't your goal but if the system is legitimate then you can't do anything about it otherwise it's time for all out war.
What is your opinion when the mandates of the paladin's deity directly conflict with the just and legitimate local authority, as it does in this instance?
What is your opinion when the mandates of the paladin's deity directly conflict with the just and legitimate local authority, as it does in this instance?If the authority is just and legitimate it is your duty to accept that the call is theirs to make. You may petition and what not as is allowed within the laws however your code does not supersede that of the local authority or else you are simply a tyrant by another name.
Per the OP's scenario, what he's really setup is the possibility for a very moving RP session, when the Pally does as gnomersy suggests here (petitions the court on the Wizards behalf). I think that's pretty cool, personally. You don't have to kill everyone, not even if you're a Pally. Redemption can be possible.
/note: what is the advantage of denying the petition and "forcing" a Pally-on-Pally scenario?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't 99% of all criminals either repent or deny guilt? If repentence was all that was required to get release, there would be no criminals, but there would be a lot more crime.Isn't good also about redemption and forgiveness for those that repent?
Mmm, a fun day when lawful courts prevent good from being achieved.
In a magical world, where Gods are real and actively involved in the activities of mortals, I expect these kinds of events operate a little differently than they do here.
|
presumably before it came to blows, there would be a 'wait a moment, we are both paladins... what the deuce?!' type moment.
How do you identify a character as a Paladin ? At best, he checks as non-Evil when Detect Evil is used.
I would ask at least for Kn : Religion and/or Kn : Nobility if said character follows a different god.
I am not sure that many Paladins have good Knowledge skills.
If the authority is just and legitimate it is your duty to accept that the call is theirs to make.
And if your deity states otherwise? Are you saying that a paladin should be expected to oppose the goddess that gives him his power in the first place, simply because the laws of mortals tell him to?
I am not sure that many Paladins have good Knowledge skills.
I resent that. I play nerd paladins most of the time, thank you very much.
:P
Paladin vs paladin? I could see that happening in wars of nations.
The paladins ride into battle with their fellows, healing and bolstering them during the fight. At some point, they encounter each other.
After a moment of pleasant greetings, they agree to fight with fairness and honour, for each serves his/her country and god with valour yet these forces are inexorably opposed and they cannot betray them just to avoid fighting a good foe.
The paladins duel. One dies. The other does not fall.