I'm willing to set aside the issue of spell DCs / etc and continue with the over arching issue sans minutiae, but I still believe the question is presenting a false choice.
The fundamental question that is being brought back and forth here (regardless of actual minutae) is, "Can a paladin, under any circumstances, break the law?" The simple answer is "yes", as they are expected to respect "legitimate" authority (otherwise they'd be able to be shut down by someone declaring themselves "sovereign"). But what is the limit of "legitimate"? Here is where the crux of our argument lies. Not in game-rule exercises of "Magic fixes it!" (which is finite and fallible anyway), but rather "Is there an authority considered legitimate by some or even many that a Paladin need not respect and/or obey."
He clearly does not need to respect or obey Evil Authority. That's easy.
Good Authority, that's competent in their jobs, does not provoke the situation.
I maintain that his duty with respect to Incompetent Authority is not to break it, it's to fix it.
You should set that to the beat of your marching goalposts.Uh...I'll reiterate my Raven point. He's the one stating an absolute (that this situation will never occur), I'm just arguing that it's theoretically possible. That it could come up. I can quite literally throw out as many different possibilities as I like, because if any one of them is valid, his statement is not.
Just saying: an absolute position need not be taken, but simply a sufficiently strong position is fine. That a specific process to identify the innocent will be successful 95% of the time is sufficient for establishing it as a standard.
But that's part I disagree with. I think it could be extremely effective, to the point that only very high level characters would be able to circumvent the process with any reasonable chance, but high level characters break every system, so that's irrelevant.My contention is that doing so to the degree described isn't economical or plausible.
Isn't it too bad when the guidelines and mechanics on very technical matters gets in the way of a good story backdrop? This was the whole point of asking about reduction in crime compensating (with cost of damages, moral value benefits, and the resulting investigative, trial, and incarceration costs, not to mention the benefit an orderly and peaceful society has on productivity) for the cost of the divination services. Kind of like well-paved roads, they may not have a direct value, but the benefit they bring to a nation is high.
Right. Enchantment and Divination would be the Feats your occupation would push you to "focus" on.And almost all you're taking is Spell Focus (4 Feats at 7th level)? It would seem to me other Feats might be better.
/me shrugs
A human should have 5 at that point. But whether or not other Feats are better is subjective, obviously. If I were to train a cleric to go around creating hallowed zones of truth for an entire nation, I would make sure he was sufficiently trained (skills/feats), had all the magic items necessary to augment his work, and so forth. The greater his ability, the more effective the work. The more effective the work, the greater the compensation on the back end; a loss leader, as it were.
You say, "If it was intended to work that way, it wouldn't allow a save at all. Or would force a new save for every question." Why did you come to this conclusion? Also, what do you mean when you say, "Since it says it's one save per spell, it's one save per spell." What says that and where?It's implied. If a spell requires multiple saves to avoid, the spell says so (and many do). Hell, there's a Metamagic Feat (Persistent Spell) for adding just such an effect. It really shouldn't be available free (and vastly more effective) on spells that happen to not be combat based (or effect an area).
That's not what Persistent Spell does. But I agree that one could reasonably infer, RAW, what you suggest. As I said, when combined with Hallow, it seems ridiculous--but you seem to like the idea.
And here we hit the same point on accounting again. Having something like this is possible...but the costs are so exorbitantly high that the entire society has to be deeply focused on it for it to even exist.
Again, that's why asked about offsetting costs. If there is a way to justify the cost, then it becomes not just morally compelling, but also economically feasible.
We're hitting the point where hypotheticals cannot properly reflect what you're suggesting. Give me an actual example, and I can probably talk around it.
Ok, sure. While trying to pilfer a local merchant's jewels in his home at night, he wakes up and finds you at it. He cries out, "Thief!" You stab him in the throat with your dagger just a moment too late to shut him up. And, unfortunately for you, guards are near. They find you in the street outside the merchant's home and grab you. The resulting investigation finds the merchant dead.
The Inquisitor says to you, "Were you in the merchant's home?" "Did you kill the merchant?" "Why were you in the merchant's home?"
If we're going to have this discussion, maybe a different thread would be more appropriate?
|
It's simple really. If the Paladin has proof that the accused didn't do it then he has every right to exercise his power to find a way to clear the person's name, legally.
Now if he doesn't and a legitimate court finds the accused guilty then there is nothing more the paladin needs to do.
All it takes is some common sense for the paladin to know if he is dealing with a legitimate legal system or not. He also understands that no system is 100% and that sometimes people do fall between the cracks. He he comes across one then he needs to try his best to clear that person while staying in the confines of the law.
lets hit this with some Socrates
Socrates was a morale philosopher he was tried (some would say unfairly) but even though he had potential for escape he gladly drunk the hemlock and died proudly. even tanked the poisoner for doing such a good job.
Socrates said that even if the court wasn't fair he choose to live in Athens he choose to live by their rules he could of moved but did not and he choose to go through their court system in order to make the morale choose he must accept the result of the jury.
a paladin's code requires that she
1. respect legitimate authority, - Respect and obedience are not the same, I'll note once again. You have yet to demonstrate any way in which disagreeing, or even using force in a disagreement cannot be done respectfully. Enemies can still respect each other after all. And indeed, a Paladin might easily have an entire LN (and legitimate) country as an enemy.
I sincerely doubt that when the Paladin breaks the prisoner out of jail, knocking out guards and contradicting the legitimate ruling of a Good and Lawful court, the Magistrate or Mayor or anyone else for that matter will consider it respectful. Well, no one else would see it this way other than the Paladin (and his player) who did it with, "all due respect". It's practically laughable.
You're arguing sophistically. dictionary.com has two relevant defintions:
- esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability, or something considered as a manifestation of a personal quality or ability
- deference to a right, privilege, privileged position, or someone or something considered to have certain rights or privileges; proper acceptance or courtesy; acknowledgment
Your usage is of the first, but the one of importance is the second. The Lawful Paladin should defer to the right of the court.
It's like the difference between having respect for the President (the man) and respect for the Presidency (the office). Who cares if the Paladin respects the man as long as he respects the office? He *respects authority* whether he holds that authority figure in esteem or not and he *honors tradition* even when that tradition fails from time to time.
2. act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), - Okay, this one has little to do with the question at hand. Nowhere did I suggest the Paladin do any of these things.
I have no serious issue here. "So forth" is pretty vague. Whatever plan the Paladin comes up with would have to be honorable and sneaking is always a little iffy when it comes to honor. Obviously, the greater good (preserving the lives of the jailers) implies that sneaking is required - but it was this that I specifically referenced. He's not likely to tell the court: "I'm going to break that man out of prison because he's innocent." So, on the quiet--perhaps even deceptive ("Will you attempt to break this man out of jail?" "I have no plans to do so [evading].").
3. help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), - Okay, here we get to the meat of it: This guy's in need, clearly, and the ends in question aren't Evil. Are they Chaotic? Hmmm. I'd say that depends. If he's just gonna run and set up shop elsewhere, yes they are, and a Paladin who helps him is breaking his Code. If he's gonna actually prove his innocence, acquiring evidence and returning to prove the court's ruling wrong? That's about as Lawful a goal as I can think of. The means are Chaotic, but not the ends, and nothing prohibits a Paladin from using Chaotic means at need. So the Paladin must both break him out and ensure that his innocence is proven. Just helping him relocate (as at least one poster suggested) would simply not cut it, and cost the Paladin his powers.
This sounds like some serious rationalization. You are using "means" as if they are not actions bound by Law. "I can act Chaotic and break the Law if it brings about a Good end." That's pretty much the definition of Chaotic Good.
Hah! What would the Paladin do if he doesn't find the evidence he needs or he brings it back and the judge still decides it's not sufficient. Now he's in a pickle... does he now do an evil and turn over an innocent man to be hung?
4. and punish those who harm or threaten innocents. - I think we can give the Paladin a pass on punishing the court, as they act in ignorance.
Can we? Apparently, we can give the Paladin a pass on anything as long as Good is the focus. Exactly how does a Chaotic Good Paladin differ, then, from a Lawful Good Paladin? How would he handle this situation differently?
Don't you see that you're allowing the Paladin to define the Law instead of abiding by a Law already existing?
I disagree with this sentiment completely, and, frankly, think it does Paladins, and their fictional roots as pure champions of Good and Righteousness, a deep disservice.
A true Paladin follows only the laws of their God absolutely. Human laws are good and worthwhile, and always followed under normal circumstances, but if the two come into conflict the laws of their God win. Always. And if what is truly right and the law come into conflict? Then to, the law must bow to the greater good.
Let me ask you a question. You're a Lawful Good society. You believe in morality, you revere life, and you protect the innocent. You have a strong system of justice and a strong belief in prosecuting criminals. Why in the world would you ever let Paladins (or Inquisitors or Clerics) into your country if they profess to obey *only* their own Laws and show a crass disregard for yours or your right to adjudicate your Laws?
It is my belief that any church that trained and supported violent vigilantes that act within the borders of well-developed, civilized Lawful Good societies would be banished. No nation could tolerate that sort of policy.
Your position is untenable, in my opinion, whether you think it "honors" Paladins and their fictional tradition or not. As for me doing a "deep disservice" to the same, I'm not sure that even makes sense definitionally, but even if it did, I'm not that concerned. Either I'm right or I'm wrong, and I somehow doubt the books and literature will even whimper for me expressing it. As for the readers of said material, they're probably not going to feel very hurt, either.
It seems clear to me that it's very difficult to see past issues of good and evil to the value of law over chaos. So difficult, that I think you and others go to great lengths to rationalize and justify acting on your conscience (as this character) as opposed to what the character should realistically do. I think a 20 year old Paladin of 1st level (or even a 4th level 30 year old Paladin) acts with great arrogance to assume he has a right to dispense justice in a society much older and developed by much wiser people than he. It's... chaotic!
And I'd make you fall for not making the attempt. Lesson to players: Talk to your GM about what being a Paladin means in their world. It's often very different for different people.
Too true, but even so, I would find myself very hard-pressed to accept that fate. I'm very Chaotic Good myself. I would actually be angry with the authority (the GM) for ruling in this way.
For my Paladin is punished for not disobeying rightful authorities, though they heard my testimony ("I was there. He did not do this thing." "It is the decision of this court, that in spite of the very compelling testimony of the Paladin of Iomedae, the evidence against the accused is even more compelling. We suspect that the Paladin was under the influence of some sort of glamour."), and did the hard thing. Namely, he stood by in spite of his desire to save the innocent guy because he understands his place in the Law and the necessity of acceptance for the greater Good, even while raging inside. He might even recognize the wisdom of the court--maybe he was tricked by the effects of an illusion.
It would be interesting if that Paladin sought the counsel of the highest ranking clergy and was told, "You must save the man. Bring him here for sanctuary." Relieved, the Paladin could do what an even greater authority commanded him to do, but he couldn't help but wonder at the church setting itself against the country and challenging the country's entire structure of Law and judicial supremacy.
|
|
Here's the problem I see.
People are trying to nitpick the hell out of it when it's not necessary.
You really need to back up and look at it from a broader perspective.
A paladin is going to respect a legitimate court unless he has some kind of proof that something bad is going on.
You don't always win and the paladin should realize this and not be penalized for it. The paladin can't be everywhere and do everything down to the smallest detail.
If the Paladin thinks the accused is innocent then he could fork over some gold to help hire him the best lawyer in town. If he has some kind of proof then he needs to come forward with it. He can exhaust his resources to try and help the accused as possible but if the accused gets a fair trial and is found guilty then the paladin needs to let it go.
He has already acted on his good side by doing what I mentioned above and he has acted on his lawful side by accepting the decision of the court.
Too much stuff!
And a lot more. :)
There is no single correct answer for the definition of the words "legitimate authority".
Basically, you are attacking the premise "legitimate authority". But I believe that's already stipulated. I'll pose you the same question I posed DW:
What civilized, well-developed Lawful Good nation would rationally permit religious organizations to exist within its borders when those religions actively promote and train their champions, clerics, and inquisitors to be vigilantes acting outside the Law? What nation would allow any such organization to exist if its policy was that it would act on conscience and violently overthrow any ruling with which it might strongly disagree even though it was handed down by the officially sanctioned courts? I suspect such a church and its members would be seen as terrorists and law-breakers using "Good" as a guise for nefarious and treasonous activities. I suspect that it would be shut down or could cause such unrest as to precipitate civil war.
Unless the Paladin has a serious reason (and not just a well-it-justifies-my-actions-now sort of reason) to believe the courts are not legitimate, we have to assume he respects their authority.
|
Just saying: an absolute position need not be taken, but simply a sufficiently strong position is fine. That a specific process to identify the innocent will be successful 95% of the time is sufficient for establishing it as a standard.
Need be taken? No. Indeed, you haven't taken one, despite our disagreement. He did, by saying the initially suggested hypothetical could never happen.
Isn't it too bad when the guidelines and mechanics on very technical matters gets in the way of a good story backdrop? This was the whole point of asking about reduction in crime compensating (with cost of damages, moral value benefits, and the resulting investigative, trial, and incarceration costs, not to mention the benefit an orderly and peaceful society has on productivity) for the cost of the divination services. Kind of like well-paved roads, they may not have a direct value, but the benefit they bring to a nation is high.
Story concerns should absolutely override rules concerns when the two come into conflict. However, even on a story level, such a society seems less likely to need adventurers, likely to have fewer and less entertaining adventures within it, and to just generally be less fun, as a primary setting anyway.
And it's a quite possible society. I'm not arguing that such a system couldn't exist somewhere, I'm saying that organizing it is a project on par with building the Great Wall of China. Can someone do it? Yes, and it's impressive. Does everyone expect every society to do it, or fault them if they don't? Not really, no.
I'm not arguing for the nonexistence of such a society, I'm arguing for it's rarity or uniqueness. Which, since it would need to be unuiversal to universally avoid the original situation, would sorta make the original point I was trying to make (that the situation presented was possible).
/me shrugs
A human should have 5 at that point. But whether or not other Feats are better is subjective, obviously. If I were to train a cleric to go around creating hallowed zones of truth for an entire nation, I would make sure he was sufficiently trained (skills/feats), had all the magic items necessary to augment his work, and so forth. The greater his ability, the more effective the work. The more effective the work, the greater the compensation on the back end; a loss leader, as it were.
True enough, I suppose. I'm just of the opinion that even in a large nation the number of 9th level Clerics is a bit limited (maybe one person in five or ten thousand in Golarion, for example) meaning you have a limited pool of personnel who can do it at all, and thus might need to make do to some degree.
Still, we're arguing details at this point. The basic idea would indeed work fairly well (if extremely expensively).
That's not what Persistent Spell does. But I agree that one could reasonably infer, RAW, what you suggest. As I said, when combined with Hallow, it seems ridiculous--but you seem to like the idea.
It gives the creature two saves, and if it fails either it's screwed. How is that not what we're talking about? And I'm not sure why you feel it's ridiculous, so we're even there. :)
Again, that's why asked about offsetting costs. If there is a way to justify the cost, then it becomes not just morally compelling, but also economically feasible.
Possibly, but again, I'll just note how major a project this would be to start, before any of the offsetting costs kicked in. Again, not saying it's impossible, just that it'll be rare.
Ok, sure. While trying to pilfer a local merchant's jewels in his home at night, he wakes up and finds you at it. He cries out, "Thief!" You stab him in the throat with your dagger just a moment too late to shut him up. And, unfortunately for you, guards are near. They find you in the street outside the merchant's home and grab you. The resulting investigation finds the merchant dead.
The Inquisitor says to you, "Were you in the merchant's home?" "Did you kill the merchant?" "Why were you in the merchant's home?"
If we're going to have this discussion, maybe a different thread would be more appropriate?
Well, with that setup, no you're screwed. The point is, if you know truth detection might be used, you set it up another way. You come to the merchant's house under a legitimate pretext (trick him into inviting you, for example) and then have your friend actively help you kill him. So that your answers can be "Yes." "I didn't kill him, no." (Which is true, 'we' killed him, but not 'I') and "I was invited."
The second one's a little shaky...but murder's never gonna be easy to get away with. Assuming the trial was only for theft, the other two would stand up completely.
|
|
I sincerely doubt that when the Paladin breaks the prisoner out of jail, knocking out guards and contradicting the legitimate ruling of a Good and Lawful court, the Magistrate or Mayor or anyone else for that matter will consider it respectful. Well, no one else would see it this way other than the Paladin (and his player) who did it with, "all due respect". It's practically laughable.
Sure he can! He can apologize profusely while doing it, and leave a note explaining both his reasoning and how deeply he regrets his actions and will be happy to turn himself in once his friend's innocence is proven. Sorry about all the truble.
How is that disrespectful? Disobedient, yes, but he's not forbidden disobedience.
You're arguing sophistically. dictionary.com has two relevant defintions:
- esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability, or something considered as a manifestation of a personal quality or ability
- deference to a right, privilege, privileged position, or someone or something considered to have certain rights or privileges; proper acceptance or courtesy; acknowledgment
Your usage is of the first, but the one of importance is the second. The Lawful Paladin should defer to the right of the court.
No, my usage is appropriate for both. A Paladin can absolutely acknowledge and show deference to the law of the land while simultaneously breaking it, and acknowledge their right to take umbrage at his acts. That's why he strives to avoid harming anyone unnecessarily in his jailbreak, and will eventually turn himself in for it and accept his punishment. And he'd never dream of blaming someone for trying to stop him, as he acknowledges their right to do so.
Much like you can respect a neighbor's customs or religion (which are indisputably the same usage) without actively obeying them, the Paladin can respect and acknowledge the rightness of the law as a general rule while disobeying it right now.
Look at civil disobedience. That's absolutely something a Paladin should be able to do (and for the most part, very respectfully done), but it's technically illegal.
It's like the difference between having respect for the President (the man) and respect for the Presidency (the office). Who cares if the Paladin respects the man as long as he respects the office? He *respects authority* whether he holds that authority figure in esteem or not and he *honors tradition* even when that tradition fails from time to time.
Honoring something as a good and worthwhile idea that you support, and following it blindly no matter the circumstances and consequences are very different things.
I have no serious issue here. "So forth" is pretty vague. Whatever plan the Paladin comes up with would have to be honorable and sneaking is always a little iffy when it comes to honor. Obviously, the greater good (preserving the lives of the jailers) implies that sneaking is required - but it was this that I specifically referenced. He's not likely to tell the court: "I'm going to break that man out of prison because he's innocent." So, on the quiet--perhaps even deceptive ("Will you attempt to break this man out of jail?" "I have no plans to do so [evading].").
Eh. It depends. He could easily warn them right at the outset of the trial that "This man is innocent, I will not see him killed." and then continue onward. The court likely assumes he merely means to work to prove his innocence (true!) and might not realize that he'll go as far as breaking the guy out.
This sounds like some serious rationalization. You are using "means" as if they are not actions bound by Law. "I can act Chaotic and break the Law if it brings about a Good end." That's pretty much the definition of Chaotic Good.
Hah! What would the Paladin do if he doesn't find the evidence he needs or he brings it back and the judge still decides it's not sufficient. Now he's in a pickle... does he now do an evil and turn over an innocent man to be hung?
But it's not only a Good end, but a Lawful one. A properly Lawful person despises the idea of the law being perverted like this. A CG attitude tends more towards stopping the guy who framed you, and possibly freeing the country. Who cares about overturning the conviction? Assuming he doesn't live around there, anyway.
That would put him in serious trouble. He might well be forced to violate his code no matter what he did. Though other avenues like bringing the evidence to a higher authority such as the /king might offer a way out to some degree.
Can we? Apparently, we can give the Paladin a pass on anything as long as Good is the focus. Exactly how does a Chaotic Good Paladin differ, then, from a Lawful Good Paladin? How would he handle this situation differently?
Don't you see that you're allowing the Paladin to define the Law instead of abiding by a Law already existing?
A CG Paladin would probably not even wait for the trial to be over, he'd break the guy out as soon as the winds started looking conviction-y, and flee the jurisdiction with him. At least, if that was a workable plan (they don't live in this place and don't want to come back). Though they would work to find the guy doing the framing and bring him down, somehow. That's...a pretty big difference.
No. I'm not allowing the Paladin to define the law, I'm stating, unequivocally, that the Paladin is held to higher and more important principles than the laws of whatever land he happens to be in. His Code is absolute, and should not be violated, and he must behave as a truly good and righteous man.
Have you ever read the Dresden Files? Michael Carpenter is a Paladin. And in his first appearance helps the main character break into a hospital to save babies from a murderous ghost. An indisputably illegal act. Would you argue he was wrong to do so? Or that he should lose his powers?
Let me ask you a question. You're a Lawful Good society. You believe in morality, you revere life, and you protect the innocent. You have a strong system of justice and a strong belief in prosecuting criminals. Why in the world would you ever let Paladins (or Inquisitors or Clerics) into your country if they profess to obey *only* their own Laws and show a crass disregard for yours or your right to adjudicate your Laws?
Well, that's not the attitude I'm suggesting. They're extraordinarily law abiding (indeed they must be)...as long as those laws don't directly conflict with their Code. Which, in a LG society is so rare that almost no Paladins ever even run into such a situation.
It is my belief that any church that trained and supported violent vigilantes that act within the borders of well-developed, civilized Lawful Good societies would be banished. No nation could tolerate that sort of policy.
Whoah, who said anything about vigilantes? If a Paladin sees a crime, he'll stop it, and turn the criminal over to the proper authorities.
Also, you're assuming Paladins have an order, which is, again, an assumption I've never sen borne out in play. Though if they do, I'd not be surprised were they given police powers, making their status as vigilantes even less of an issue.
Your position is untenable, in my opinion, whether you think it "honors" Paladins and their fictional tradition or not. As for me doing a "deep disservice" to the same, I'm not sure that even makes sense definitionally, but even if it did, I'm not that concerned. Either I'm right or I'm wrong, and I somehow doubt the books and literature will even whimper for me expressing it. As for the readers of said material, they're probably not going to feel very hurt, either.
The Paladin class exists in the game so that people can play Paksenarrion, Michael Carpenter, and similar holy warriors from fiction. That's what it's for, just as other classes epitomize other archetypes. Any interpretation that makes it not properly reflect the source material is not the correct one, and any that would cause them to commit an Evil act rather than a Chaotic one (which is precisely what you suggest) is...vaguely insulting to people who admire the ideal in question. Much like having a Robin Hood equivalent burn down houses because it's fun 'because he's Chaotic.' is insulting to people who value that ideal (if perhaps, a bit less extreme).
It seems clear to me that it's very difficult to see past issues of good and evil to the value of law over chaos. So difficult, that I think you and others go to great lengths to rationalize and justify acting on your conscience (as this character) as opposed to what the character should realistically do. I think a 20 year old Paladin of 1st level (or even a 4th level 30 year old Paladin) acts with great arrogance to assume he has a right to dispense justice in a society much older and developed by much wiser people than he. It's... chaotic!
Oh, no. I'm not projecting. I'm NG verging on CG and wouldn't for a moment consider leaving an apologetic note if I staged a jailbreak. Nor turning the guy over unless circumstances forced it. The CG Paladin ideas above? That's what I'd do.
I'm basing this on the fictional Paladins I've seen, the actual provisions of the code, the fact that (mechanically) Paladins value Good over Law (Smite and Detect Evil, not Chaos), and the actions of other clearly LG characters in media under similar circumstances.
Too true, but even so, I would find myself very hard-pressed to accept that fate. I'm very Chaotic Good myself. I would actually be angry with the authority (the GM) for ruling in this way.
Which way? The way I did? Why? I'd certainly warn the Paladin first.
For my Paladin is punished for not disobeying rightful authorities, though they heard my testimony ("I was there. He did not do this thing." "It is the decision of this court, that in spite of the very compelling testimony of the Paladin of Iomedae, the evidence against the accused is even more compelling. We suspect that the Paladin was under the influence of some sort of glamour."), and did the hard thing. Namely, he stood by in spite of his desire to save the innocent guy because he understands his place in the Law and the necessity of acceptance for the greater Good, even while raging inside. He might even recognize the wisdom of the court--maybe he was tricked by the effects of an illusion.
And that's the heart of it. A Paladin is definitionally the guy who stands up against injustice. That whole "Evil triumphs when good men stand by and do nothing."? Paladins are the guys who don't stand by, that's their entire thematic role, it's what they're for. Any interpretation that forces them to stand by while what they believe is an injustice occurs is thematically wrong.
It would be interesting if that Paladin sought the counsel of the highest ranking clergy and was told, "You must save the man. Bring him here for sanctuary." Relieved, the Paladin could do what an even greater authority commanded him to do, but he couldn't help but wonder at the church setting itself against the country and challenging the country's entire structure of Law and judicial supremacy.
See, I'd absolutely allow that, too. Though, as you say there would be worries about the potential conflict.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Judge the court and all parties by the Chain. Order, Discipline, and Mercilessness. All that is within the Measure draws from this philosophical foundation.
If the rulers who shape the laws have done their duty correctly, than the laws of the land will enforce and enhance public order, decency, and truth. This fairness and concern for the greatest good is what we call justice. If the rulers have misshapen or wrongly enforced the law, than it will be obvious to the trained eye and the rational mind, and it becomes duty to rein in the injustices of the court. Halting the larger disorder overtakes the basic imperative to obey local laws. (Notably, within Cheliax, this power and authority is explicitly provided to the Hellknights by the highest power in the land, Queen Abrogail Thrune II. I feel other Paladins should likewise seek special dispensation from monarchies and councils to act outside the confines of temporal law.)
If the rulers, the court, the judge and the jurors -- assuming the judicial system even involves jurors -- compose themselves with proper discipline, than justice will prevail. Undisciplined people permit themselves to be led astray by lies, slander, falsehoods and biases. Emotion is weakness. If these people entrusted with power cannot reign in their weakness, than it falls again to the Hellknight to act. Every Man A Tyrant. When the undisciplined misstep, it is the duty of the disciplined to right them.
Remember: None Are Innocent and Society Cannot Survive Mercy. Entrusted with this legal power over local authorities, the duty of the Hellknight, especially the Hellknight Paladin, becomes all the heavier. All are deserving of punishment, but only that punishment which best serves the greater needs of civilization ought to be meted out.
To examples then: a Hellknight may, if he or she has applied the Chain correctly, encounter situations where he or she finds it necessary to free a person from unlawful imprisonment or defy the edicts of temporal powers. In such cases, the use of strength to accomplish these aims can only be validated by the pursuit of greater public order and social good. These will be rare, rare circumstances. But those that willingly oppose a Hellknight must recognize the folly of their ways. If they should die, it is a tragedy, but no more so than the injustice at hand.
The imprisoned man from this thread's initial example would likely be left to the fate of the court. Whether guilty or not of the murder for which he was tried, None Are Innocent breaking him from prison or circumventing the authority of the court would likely spread greater disorder and suffering. He will suffer, but better that he do so than society descend into chaos. The Hellknight's duty is clear, and the oaths of Paladinhood remain strong, if bruised. Do better next time to prevent such injustice before it reaches that point.
However, if the man was important enough that his punishment will lead to revolt, or if the framed murder conceals some larger conspiracy against society, than the Hellknight's duty is also clear: the court acts against the greater good and the greater order, and so the Hellknight must overcome the local authorities that have now proven themselves illegitimate.
Ever do we aspire to sharpen our senses and our rational thinking, that we might see all situations clearly. Only an emotional fool pretends that this means absolute infallibility: Hellknights have fought Hellknights before, and likely will again, all because one or the other could not grasp the Chain strongly enough to see matters objectively.
In my world a paladin would be justified under the OP's scenario in breaking the innocent out of jail (assuming diplomacy had failed), remaining free long enough to prove their innocence or stop a relevant evil plot, and then turning himself over to the court for judgement.
This both protects the innocent (the framed individual and any others likely to suffer at the hands of the true perpetrator) and respects the legitimate authority of the judicial system.
Just my two cents.
I'm willing to set aside the issue of spell DCs / etc and continue with the over arching issue sans minutiae, but I still believe the question is presenting a false choice.
The fundamental question that is being brought back and forth here (regardless of actual minutae) is, "Can a paladin, under any circumstances, break the law?" The simple answer is "yes", as they are expected to respect "legitimate" authority (otherwise they'd be able to be shut down by someone declaring themselves "sovereign"). But what is the limit of "legitimate"? Here is where the crux of our argument lies. Not in game-rule exercises of "Magic fixes it!" (which is finite and fallible anyway), but rather "Is there an authority considered legitimate by some or even many that a Paladin need not respect and/or obey."He clearly does not need to respect or obey Evil Authority. That's easy.
Good Authority, that's competent in their jobs, does not provoke the situation.
I maintain that his duty with respect to Incompetent Authority is not to break it, it's to fix it.
It's simple really. If the Paladin has proof that the accused didn't do it then he has every right to exercise his power to find a way to clear the person's name, legally.
Now if he doesn't and a legitimate court finds the accused guilty then there is nothing more the paladin needs to do.
All it takes is some common sense for the paladin to know if he is dealing with a legitimate legal system or not. He also understands that no system is 100% and that sometimes people do fall between the cracks. He he comes across one then he needs to try his best to clear that person while staying in the confines of the law.
To both of the above: I agree... insomuch as a given Incompetent (but still Legitimate) Authority does not harm or threaten innocents, which is a direct violation of his RAW code: he'd be required to punish them. Other paladins with different codes - oh well, they have to abide by their own codes, not the Core RAW one.
lets hit this with some Socrates
Socrates was a morale philosopher he was tried (some would say unfairly) but even though he had potential for escape he gladly drunk the hemlock and died proudly. even tanked the poisoner for doing such a good job.Socrates said that even if the court wasn't fair he choose to live in Athens he choose to live by their rules he could of moved but did not and he choose to go through their court system in order to make the morale choose he must accept the result of the jury.
Yes, but was Socrates acting in a lawful good way? Or just an emotionally lawful way? A lawful good person can make non-good choices and still maintain their lawful good alignment. If that wasn't true everyone - at best - would be neutral, and probably evil. Again, presupposing every action and decision Socrates performed - even the major ones - was a "good" action simply because he was a "moral" philosopher is incorrect.
That said - depending on your own interpretation of Lawful Good, that's perfectly valid. It could be a "good" action. Many, however, would think it a Noble-If-Stupid action, and not terribly good at all.
And a lot more. :)Too much stuff!
Yeah, I tend to do that. :)
There is no single correct answer for the definition of the words "legitimate authority".Basically, you are attacking the premise "legitimate authority". But I believe that's already stipulated. I'll pose you the same question I posed DW:
What civilized, well-developed Lawful Good nation would rationally permit religious organizations to exist within its borders when those religions actively promote and train their champions, clerics, and inquisitors to be vigilantes acting outside the Law? What nation would allow any such organization to exist if its policy was that it would act on conscience and violently overthrow any ruling with which it might strongly disagree even though it was handed down by the officially sanctioned courts? I suspect such a church and its members would be seen as terrorists and law-breakers using "Good" as a guise for nefarious and treasonous activities. I suspect that it would be shut down or could cause such unrest as to precipitate civil war.
Unless the Paladin has a serious reason (and not just a well-it-justifies-my-actions-now sort of reason) to believe the courts are not legitimate, we have to assume he respects their authority.
While Deadmanwalking pretty much made every point I could have above, I'll reiterate this one: yes, he respects the law very much, however the lawful authorities are, in this case, coming to a wrong decision and the innocent is being harmed and threatened by said authorities. He must act. If we go strictly by Core RAW (plus personal interpretations posited on the forum), he must allow the death of the innocent in question (sidestepping the "chaotic ends") and then punish those who harmed the innocent, as they have just invalidated themselves as "legitimate" according to his code.
Obviously, no one - and I mean NO ONE - here is arguing that this is what a paladin should do. Let the innocent die and the "punish"* those who (innocently) killed him? No. In this case, he would be reasonably act before his code caused him to do something even more drastic. And rendering unconscious could reasonably be seen as a suitable "punishment"* for those who've threatened an innocent (in this case with execution).
But again, we're missing much of the context in the scenario above, and, like most things, context matters heavily.
I've been presupposing that the innocent will die, because that's what the OP suggests. But when? Does the paladin have days or (like our system) months or even years? In which case he may very well allow the innocent to languish temporarily while he works to the best of his ability to avoid the situation, only resorting to desperate measures later when they are, in fact, desperate measures.
And again, given the small context of what we've seen, I'd say Snorter clarified well enough at the beginning - he's completely correct for a Core RAW paladin and an "immediate" situation.
One point of contention with Deadmanwalking and myself however is the concept of leaving the jurisdiction to set up elsewhere as a chaotic act. I would say that it was not. The act of removing oneself from one authority and placing oneself into another authority involves: switching authorities. If you do this without just cause than it probably is chaotic. But when the cause is just (the previous authority is performing an evil act in innocence, by way of this example) than I'd suggest that it is both a lawful and good tactic to do... again, presupposing the ultimate ends aren't just to "evade justice" but rather to create justice.
Again, I don't agree with him 100%, but nitpicking Deadmanwalking's post would be, well, nitpicking at this point, as we're pretty close on this.
* Yet another relevant question: how, exactly, is a paladin expected to "punish" those who harm or threaten innocents? What is the limit of his actions? The tools he's given by his deity are: "smite evil", a best base attack bonus, and good saves and hit points. The tools he's given by his training is proficiency in a great deal of armor and weaponry. This does not indicate that this "punishment" she's supposed to deal out is meant to be, "Well, I think you did a bad thing, shame on you." (though it might be depending on the circumstances and his specific skill selection**). Effectively, his punishment should, reasonably speaking, be equivalent to the crime committed. Again, depending on who's the one making the value judgments, killing an innocent person - even with the best of intents - is an evil act.
** I mean, using that intimidate followed by diplomacy on a school yard bully would make a lot of sense, but doing so to, say, a Magistrate is probably a stupid idea.
EDIT: Kegulne-, er I mean AM HELLKNIGHT gets all my bases!
sounds very supermanish finarin panjoro. its still a chaotic act
my paladin would first argue in court provided that didn't work request a stay of execution to get more time try to declare a miss trial try to find out who is framing the guy. talk to someone higher up request help from whoever i could. and if all that wasn't enough i would call the dm a dick and move on.
but really heres the diffrence between a lawful person and lawful absolute.
people make mistakes alignment just bring them home at the end of the day. a paladin may do something outside his alignment we all make mistakes. i as a dm would not penalize them for makeing a chaotic action as a mistake in order to do something that is good. unless they take it to far.
theres a diffrence between a human's alignment and say an angels alignment an angel IS lawful good everything they do is lawful good they cannot do anything that isn't lawful good. therefore the angel could not break the man out of prison if it was a legitimate respected authority. a man could cause he can deviate from his alignment a bit. all men are diffrent even all paladins can have slightly diffrent philosophys. but the lawful good thing to do is what the absolute would do. (and im sure theirs paladins out there that value the lawful more the the good just as ones that value good over law)
Lots of stuff...
I do that!
I would say that the paladin can punish people without having to use his sword.
I agree!
He could help make sure the crooks that are in the system be brought down and taken to jail.
... but that probably involves using his sword! This is Pathfinder, after all... and that's how most adventures (though certainly not all) roll.
What I'm saying is that GENERIC PALADIN X does not automatically have diplomacy or intimidate as a trained skill. Class skill, yes, but trained, no. They don't automatically have all the options taken. Similarly, a fighter doesn't automatically have every feat, nor a wizard automatically every spell. Even a super-intelligent rogue wouldn't have every skill on the list.
Certainly, individual paladins could do some things while others couldn't (and could do other things instead). That's why I'm saying that "all paladins must come to X, Y, or Z conclusion(s)" is a fallacy (and holding them to an incorrect ideal). But any given paladin does have certain traits in common: smite evil, armor/weapon proficiencies, and (unmentioned previously because it was mostly irrelevant to the "punishment" aspect) spellcasting, channeling energy, and laying on hands (though what exactly they can do by laying on hands differs greatly as well), plus their individually chosen skills (which differ from Paladin to Paladin).
Also, KinderKin: that's basically exactly what Rahadoum did in Golarion. And, true, it sucks there now, but they were successful.
Also, very small, crying children going through teething pains (and tantrums to go with it) make it hard to type at all, much less coherently. So, sorry 'bout that, if it comes out oddly here.
|
|
In my world a paladin would be justified under the OP's scenario in breaking the innocent out of jail (assuming diplomacy had failed), remaining free long enough to prove their innocence or stop a relevant evil plot, and then turning himself over to the court for judgement.
This both protects the innocent (the framed individual and any others likely to suffer at the hands of the true perpetrator) and respects the legitimate authority of the judicial system.
My entire argument, simplified and in two paragraphs. I'm too wordy for my own good.
One point of contention with Deadmanwalking and myself however is the concept of leaving the jurisdiction to set up elsewhere as a chaotic act. I would say that it was not. The act of removing oneself from one authority and placing oneself into another authority involves: switching authorities. If you do this without just cause than it probably is chaotic. But when the cause is just (the previous authority is performing an evil act in innocence, by way of this example) than I'd suggest that it is both a lawful and good tactic to do... again, presupposing the ultimate ends aren't just to "evade justice" but rather to create justice.
There are two problems with this idea:
1. The original authority didn't perform an Evil act. They made a mistake, and (per the OP) a reasonable one they had every reason to make. They're victims, having been tricked into harming an innocent.
2. It allows someone to get away with murder. Only by overturning the existing conviction can the real criminal be brought to justice.
Again, I don't agree with him 100%, but nitpicking Deadmanwalking's post would be, well, nitpicking at this point, as we're pretty close on this.
Lord yes, there'smore than enough of that in this thread already. :)
sounds very supermanish finarin panjoro. its still a chaotic act
It is! Absolutely a Chaotic act. I'd never claim otherwise. But Paladins are not forbidden Chaotic acts. Indeed, they are sometimes required to perform them if it's a choice between Chaos and Evil their code necessitates they pick Chaos. And it's a Chaotic act used to serve a Lawful and Good goal, which helps make it less of a bad thing from their perspective.
my paladin would first argue in court provided that didn't work request a stay of execution to get more time try to declare a miss trial try to find out who is framing the guy. talk to someone higher up request help from whoever i could. and if all that wasn't enough i would call the dm a dick and move on.
Trying al that first should, indeed, be assumed. Paladins will always try to work within the system.
Though I can easily see a GM doing this without being a dick. After all, maybe the player had every opportunity to succeed at the trial and just couldn't roll to save his life?
but really heres the diffrence between a lawful person and lawful absolute.
people make mistakes alignment just bring them home at the end of the day. a paladin may do something outside his alignment we all make mistakes. i as a dm would not penalize them for makeing a chaotic action as a mistake in order to do something that is good. unless they take it to far.
I tend to agree to some degree, though see above regarding Paladins and Chaotic acts.
theres a diffrence between a human's alignment and say an angels alignment an angel IS lawful good everything they do is lawful good they cannot do anything that isn't lawful good. therefore the angel could not break the man out of prison if it was a legitimate respected authority. a man could cause he can deviate from his alignment a bit. all men are diffrent even all paladins can have slightly diffrent philosophys. but the lawful good thing to do is what the absolute would do. (and im sure theirs paladins out there that value the lawful more the the good just as ones that value good over law)
I actually disagree regarding angels somewhat. After all, angels can fall, so they have to be capable of violating their alignment. I do agree that they would require a great deal more provocation before doing so.
And as much as individual Paladin codes vary, I don't think a class that gets Detect Evil and Smite Evil should ever despise Chaos more than Evil. If they did, they'd be some other custom class (like Hellknight, for example) and recieve Detect and/or Smite Chaos.
I sincerely doubt that when the Paladin breaks the prisoner out of jail, knocking out guards and contradicting the legitimate ruling of a Good and Lawful court, the Magistrate or Mayor or anyone else for that matter will consider it respectful. Well, no one else would see it this way other than the Paladin (and his player) who did it with, "all due respect". It's practically laughable.Sure he can! He can apologize profusely while doing it, and leave a note explaining both his reasoning and how deeply he regrets his actions and will be happy to turn himself in once his friend's innocence is proven. Sorry about all the truble.
How is that disrespectful? Disobedient, yes, but he's not forbidden disobedience.
Yes, it's disobedient (not just disobedient, but rebellious). We agree. But it's disrespectful, because in spite of his convenient apologies, he still places his authority and right to act above that of the officially sanctioned court.
No, my usage is appropriate for both. A Paladin can absolutely acknowledge and show deference to the law of the land while simultaneously breaking it, and acknowledge their right to take umbrage at his acts.You're arguing sophistically. dictionary.com has two relevant defintions:
- esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability, or something considered as a manifestation of a personal quality or ability
- deference to a right, privilege, privileged position, or someone or something considered to have certain rights or privileges; proper acceptance or courtesy; acknowledgment
Your usage is of the first, but the one of importance is the second. The Lawful Paladin should defer to the right of the court.
I'm sorry, but it's clearly not appropriate for both. Sadness at feeling compelled to take action against someone else's right and authority and acceptance that they're going to be upset (but "oh well") is not the same as deferring to the right of that authority to rule as they have.
That's why he strives to avoid harming anyone unnecessarily in his jailbreak, and will eventually turn himself in for it and accept his punishment. And he'd never dream of blaming someone for trying to stop him, as he acknowledges their right to do so.
Yes. He accepts that they have the right to do what they're doing and he's going to disregard that right, anyway. This is disrespect. Because out of one side of my mouth I acknowledge it and then out of the other I apologize for not deferring to it, I show that I don't respect their right.
Much like you can respect a neighbor's customs or religion (which are indisputably the same usage) without actively obeying them, the Paladin can respect and acknowledge the rightness of the law as a general rule while...
Not the same at all. When I respect my neighbor's customs and religions, I acknowledge their right to practice it and I won't interfere with that right. By preventing them, for instance, from sacrificing a lamb to their deity, I'm disrespecting them, regardless if I think I'm doing a Good thing.
Look at civil disobedience. That's absolutely something a Paladin should be able to do (and for the most part, very respectfully done), but it's technically illegal.
Why should a Paladin be able to do so? The only reason I can think is because his God and church sanctioned such action. Again, no church would sanction a Paladin to go against a legitimate-LG-blah-blah-blah court, challenging the sovereignty of an entire nation, and jeopardizing the church's position to save one *possible* innocent based on the subjective wisdom of one Paladin.
You keep talking about Paladin obedience. But no one is asking the Paladin to be the executioner. Actively refusing that would make sense. But when springing a prisoner, he's not just disobeying, he's actively working against the court. He's rebelling and doing so violently (taking it to another degree of wrongness). This is not respect for a court. Even civil disobedience shows disrespect to a court's ruling.
But it's not only a Good end, but a Lawful one.
There's no such thing. One applies Law/Chaos to actions, and Good/Evil to intent and results (results desired and those that actually obtain). The court is merely an extension of Law used to judge actions to be in compliance with Law.
A properly Lawful person despises the idea of the law being perverted like this.
There is no perversion of Law, here. Perversion is not an appropriate word. A Good person despises the idea of the Law failing like this. Enough so, that they'll further break the Law to see Good done? Sure. If they're Chaotic or a mistaken Paladin. :)
A CG attitude tends more towards stopping the guy who framed you, and possibly freeing the country. Who cares about overturning the conviction? Assuming he doesn't live around there, anyway.
A CG attitude is one where Good is paramount and you act as conscience dictates to achieve that Good. A CG attitude tends to be a bit arrogant because it believes it knows what Good is and has a right--even a moral compulsion--to ensure it obtains in spite of what laws, cultural taboos, or code of ethics are broken in the process.
That would put him in serious trouble. He might well be forced to violate his code no matter what he did. Though other avenues like bringing the evidence to a higher authority such as the /king might offer a way out to some degree.
Yes it would put him in serious trouble. That's sort of the point of the question. He's violating his honor and his code before he even puts himself in this situation. Once there it becomes obvious--he acted against the Law (which he honors and holds as Good) to save an innocent man. He put himself above the court and the Law. He should have found a different way or accepted his position with humility and realized there was no way.
A CG Paladin would probably not even wait for the trial to be over, he'd break the guy out as soon as the winds started looking conviction-y, and flee the jurisdiction with him. At least, if that was a workable plan (they don't live in this place and don't want to come back). Though they would work to find the guy doing the framing and bring him down, somehow. That's...a pretty big difference.Can we? Apparently, we can give the Paladin a pass on anything as long as Good is the focus. Exactly how does a Chaotic Good Paladin differ, then, from a Lawful Good Paladin? How would he handle this situation differently?
Don't you see that you're allowing the Paladin to define the Law instead of abiding by a Law already existing?
You're saying the only difference between CG and LG is impulsiveness and/or maximization of opportunity? Yuck.
No. I'm not allowing the Paladin to define the law, I'm stating, unequivocally, that the Paladin is held to higher and more important principles than the laws of whatever land he happens to be in. His Code is absolute, and should not be violated, and he must behave as a truly good and righteous man.
His code is to obey the Law. Even following Iomedae or Sarenrae, they do not give him license to go around challenging the lawful rulings of legitimate courts and nations. An Evil is about to be done. That's sad. It's also inevitable, unless the Paladin can sway the court or somehow get a stay of execution. The better way would be to plead with the court to stay the execution for a finite amount of time to allow the Paladin an opportunity to secure proper evidence or to plead with his church to intervene with the same goal in mind. But ultimately, if all this fails, it is the Paladin's job to realize that some things are bigger than he is, to pray for the soul's speedy delivery to heaven, and then set about exacting vengeance.
Have you ever read the Dresden Files? Michael Carpenter is a Paladin. And in his first appearance helps the main character break into a hospital to save babies from a murderous ghost. An indisputably illegal act. Would you argue he was wrong to do so? Or that he should lose his powers?
Two things, you have repeatedly conflated warriors with a holy background/cause with Paladins as they are described by the source. If Michael Carpenter were a "Paladin" and he violently broke into a jail to spring a prisoner, then he would be behaving Chaotically. And according to D&D/PF, he would be breaking his alignment. There's a difference in the order of degrees in breaking into a hospital (a minor break of the law) to protect many innocent children and the disregard of a court's right to rule on the fate of a prisoner by violently breaking that prisoner out of jail.
The Paladin class exists in the game so that people can play Paksenarrion, Michael Carpenter, and similar holy warriors from fiction. That's what it's for, just as other classes epitomize other archetypes.
No, it's not. The Paladin does not support just any "holy warrior from fiction". It supports a specific type of holy warrior, namely the stiffer, more disciplined, extremely Lawful sorts that are imbued with divine power as a result. Any fighter can have a seminarial and devoted background, can fight for a holy cause, and still not be a Paladin. Being a Paladin requires doing hard things and sometimes the hardest thing is doing nothing for the greater good.
'That whole "Evil triumphs when good men stand by and do nothing."? Paladins are the guys who don't stand by, that's their entire thematic role, it's what they're for.' That's only a part of the truth.
Any interpretation that makes it not properly reflect the source material is not the correct one,
The source I'm using is the CRB. The more source material you bring in, the greater the chance for conflict and contradiction. The most binding, obviously, is the CRB--other source material can help inform and guide us.
and any that would cause them to commit an Evil act rather than a Chaotic one (which is precisely what you suggest) is...vaguely insulting to people who admire the ideal in question. Much like having a Robin Hood equivalent burn down houses because it's fun 'because he's Chaotic.' is insulting to people who value that ideal (if perhaps, a bit less extreme).
A bit of straw man, don't you think? First you claimed my position did a "deep disservice", now it's just "vaguely insulting". I'm improving it seems. How am I suggesting that a Paladin commit an Evil act?
To sum up:
I understand you don't think it's the case, but I do think you are projecting. I think so because you don't really differentiate between Lawful Good and Chaotic Good other than to say that one is more impulsive/opportunistic than another and one is more apologetic than the other while performing the same sort of actions. But the first is personality difference, not a difference in moral attitude, and the second is a difference without a distinction (who cares if he's sorry, he still knowingly did what he knew was wrong).
You talk about "intent" to find evidence and return, but this just underscores the point that the action taken is one that the Paladin knows is wrong, just "less wrong". But even a CG Paladin would want to clear his name and the name of the innocent guy--it's just sensible. In the end, neither would want to turn the innocent guy back in if they couldn't find sufficient evidence, you just claim the LG Paladin would want to... more. The Lawful Good alignment is clearly and primarily an alignment that obeys the Laws of a Good and Lawful society. I think you stretch to make these actions fit into a Code that only partially supports the action (helping others in need), instead of looking at what the code means in the whole.
The answer to that question is any nation that wants the healing/other spells granted
In the imaginary world the nation does not have all the "power"
the churches, priest and yes paladins have power both individually and collectivly.It would take equally powerful means to expell divine magic from a realm, likely that would need to be arcane magic.
The answer is the "nation" can not eject your "terrorists"
also ** spoiler omitted **
Yes, the most obvious answer and I'll give you credit for actually stating it. The nation could want to expel one or more of the religious orders, but may be unable to because of popular support and the necessity of working with the church for the benefits they bring. However, unlike the modern day church, there really exists a marketplace for clerical services. If Serenrae won't cohabit peacefully in an LG country, Iomedae will, or Erastil or Torag. So, they'll put all of their resources, propaganda, and laws towards boxing the Serenraeans out. I doubt any church has a desire for that sort of political opposition in a world where they're just one of many alternatives. Reminds me of Henry VIII and his opposition to the church. When you have so many competing religions, I doubt you're in quite the same position of power over the people that the Christian church has enjoyed over the millenia.
|
|
Paladins are keepers of law as well; unless he has true evidence (which he can present), who is he to decide he is better at determining innocence instead of the court.
A CG may break him out, but a pally needs to operate in the law. He can ask for more time, but pallies are LG because they work within a law set. If they believe the local government is just making an honest mistake, they have until the execution to prove it. If not, he has to accept that the judges are as likely to be right as him.
Magics are uncertain, and it's not like everyone in the world understands ratios. Also, if detect lies was the basis, evil clerics would get off Scott free more often than innocents.
Finally, how far do you take the illusion / charm / dominate defense? If I got caught in wrongdoings, my first defense would be "it seemed like a good idea", which would then get people to surmise I may have been charmed. You have to accept people's actions at face value in this harsh magic worlds; and most courts would rule against Detect lies on the basis that it is unreliable and can be tainted by the caster or the wordings of the questions. It is these reasons that make lie detectors not used in US courts.
|
|
But it is; lawful is about thinking about the society. A lawful character would decide a judge is quite possibly (or even probably) more wise in his judgement, and begrudgingly step back. In real life, how many times has society been more wrong about a criminal than the judge? A good number is the answer; the judge has his job for a reason, and the pally would not overstep his bounds simply because he believes in a different ruling.
Paladins are keepers of law as well;People keep saying that, but despite 'law' being part of the word, 'lawful' is not about following laws.
In spite of what you and DW claim, this is clearly untrue. Lawful is about following laws and obedience. From the PRD: "Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability..."
|
|
In spite of what you and DW claim, this is clearly untrue. Lawful is about following laws and obedience. From the PRD: "Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability..."
Oh, I agree with you completely on that, and would call disobeying authority a definitionally Chaotic act*. But this is still where the heart of our disagreement lies:
What authority does a Paladin have to obey? Absolutely, with no exceptions, to avoid losing his powers.
You seem to say that any lawful government a Paladin is in the jurisdiction of, he must obey absolutely.
I think that's ridiculous. A Paladin must obey his God (the ultimate authority) and the code of behavior that God gave him (which he didn't pick, bear in mind, though his player likely did), and then if it doesn't conflict with that, he obeys the local laws.
There are several other little gripes and disagreements (like what kind of archetypes Paladins are supposed to represent) but that's the heart of the matter, and I simply can't comprehend your attitude. Have you read fiction featuring Paladin-like characters? Have you read adventurers featuring Paladins as NPCs? Do you even allow Paladins in your games? Do you have any actual experience with what you're talking about? Because none of them that I've ever seen support your attitude in the least.
*But remember, Paladins can commit chaotic acts without falling.
|
|
You have to play the paladin by ear. You are not going to respect a law that says it's okay for the police force to walk around cutting the heads off of people whom they suspect of committing a crime.
Overall there is no hard coded facts about how you are supposed to handle all situations.
It's mainly down to the paladin and the DM to work together.
In spite of what you and DW claim, this is clearly untrue. Lawful is about following laws and obedience. From the PRD: "Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability..."Oh, I agree with you completely on that, and would call disobeying authority a definitionally Chaotic act*. But this is still where the heart of our disagreement lies:
What authority does a Paladin have to obey? Absolutely, with no exceptions, to avoid losing his powers.
You seem to say that any lawful government a Paladin is in the jurisdiction of, he must obey absolutely.
I think that's ridiculous. A Paladin must obey his God (the ultimate authority) and the code of behavior that God gave him (which he didn't pick, bear in mind, though his player likely did), and then if it doesn't conflict with that, he obeys the local laws.
There are several other little gripes and disagreements (like what kind of archetypes Paladins are supposed to represent) but that's the heart of the matter, and I simply can't comprehend your attitude. Have you read fiction featuring Paladin-like characters? Have you read adventurers featuring Paladins as NPCs? Do you even allow Paladins in your games? Do you have any actual experience with what you're talking about? Because none of them that I've ever seen support your attitude in the least.
*But remember, Paladins can commit chaotic acts without falling.
I am saying that unless his church or God directly tell him to violate the laws of a Lawful Good society, then he must abide by those laws. Until such time as a greater authority overturns the law of a lesser authority (church directive, church canon, or direct deific communion), the lesser authority would still be legitimate authority.
That's not to say that some Magistrate can command a Paladin to work for him (that's outside the scope of his authority), but if the Magistrate, using the authority vested in him, says that the Paladin must leave the city (for the safety of the citizens or whatever), then the Paladin must comply. I'm reminded of A Few Good Man, when Kaffee says to Kendrick:
"Yeah, but it wasn't a real order, was it? After all, it's peace time. He wasn't being asked to secure a hill or advance on a beach head. I mean, surely a Marine of Dawson's intelligence can be trusted to determine, on his own, which are the really important orders and which orders might, say, be morally questionable? Lieutenant Kendrick? Can he? Can Dawson determine on his own which orders he's going to follow?"
"No, he cannot."
As for chaotic acts: "A paladin ... who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features..."
Clearly there is must be wiggle room or Paladins become cookie-cutter, but breaking a prisoner out of jail to avoid execution based upon the sole discretion of the Paladin is more than just wiggle room, it's throwing off the restrictions of Law altogether.
Obedience to authority
which authority?
1. The divine being who powers their abilities
2. The order to which they belong
3. The rulership of the King
4. The court systemObedience to all authorities, sounds a bit odd to me.....
It's actually not that hard. Pretty much, in almost all fiction that I've read, the vision is that deities provide guidance, churches provide canon and directive, but both pretty much stay out of the affairs of men. Unless there is evil afoot, churches and deities allow men to define the law of the land and they comply to the best of their ability, but sometimes that compliance is hard. In some cases, too hard, and then you have active hostility between the church and the country.
So, while divinity and church are the greater authority, they acquiese to the authority of self-rule; self-rule usually being seen as the best scenario for free willed creatures.
Thus, they place themselves (and their agents) beneath the authority of the Lawful Good society or they actively oppose that society.
|
|
I am saying that unless his church or God directly tell him to violate the laws of a Lawful Good society, then he must abide by those laws. Until such time as a greater authority overturns the law of a lesser authority (church directive, church canon, or direct deific communion), the lesser authority would still be legitimate authority.
His God already has commanded him when they gave him his Code. They commanded him to follow it above all else. That's how it works.
That's not to say that some Magistrate can command a Paladin to work for him (that's outside the scope of his authority), but if the Magistrate, using the authority vested in him, says that the Paladin must leave the city (for the safety of the citizens or whatever), then the Paladin must comply. I'm reminded of A Few Good Man, when Kaffee says to Kendrick:
"Yeah, but it wasn't a real order, was it? After all, it's peace time. He wasn't being asked to secure a hill or advance on a beach head. I mean, surely a Marine of Dawson's intelligence can be trusted to determine, on his own, which are the really important orders and which orders might, say, be morally questionable? Lieutenant Kendrick? Can he? Can Dawson determine on his own which orders he's going to follow?"
"No, he cannot."
Oh, I quite like the military analogy. Let's put it this way: A Paladin is a soldier for his God, and under discipline as such.
Guess who's not in his chain of command? Mortal lawmakers.
Now, his actual superior officer has told him to play nice with them for the most part (that'd be the whole 'respect' part of the code), but when his standing orders ('help those in need') come into conflict with theirs, well, he's got to obey the chain of command, not the particular laws of the place he's standing.
Very similar to a U.S. soldier operating in a semi-friendly nation, really. He's expected not to get in trouble or violate local laws...unless his standing orders require it of him.
I quite like that. Thanks for the analogy, it allows a very clear statement of my point of view on the issue.
As for chaotic acts: "A paladin ... who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features..."
Chaotic acts aren't violating his Code. They only cause him to fall if he commits so many as to no longer be LG (which is usually quite a few).
Clearly there is must be wiggle room or Paladins become cookie-cutter, but breaking a prisoner out of jail to avoid execution based upon the sole discretion of the Paladin is more than just wiggle room, it's throwing off all restrictions of Law altogether.
I disagree. A non-Paladin LG guy could be a professional thief or rebel leader and do such things all the time. Easily. He just has to be the right kind of thief or rebel leader, assuming such a career for the right reasons. A Paladin couldn't, but that's because of their code, not because of how LG works.
I am saying that unless his church or God directly tell him to violate the laws of a Lawful Good society, then he must abide by those laws. Until such time as a greater authority overturns the law of a lesser authority (church directive, church canon, or direct deific communion), the lesser authority would still be legitimate authority.His God already has commanded him when they gave him his Code. They commanded him to follow it above all else. That's how it works.
If the Code is basically what's listed in the CRB, then *obey authority* is pretty much in there. What could that possibly mean? It doesn't say, "Obey his deity" and it doesn't say, "Obey his church". So anything you're suggesting is purely inferential, whereas I'm reading plainly and accepting a rational position that doesn't put my Paladins and their churches at odds with Lawful Good societies.
That's not to say that some Magistrate can command a Paladin to work for him (that's outside the scope of his authority), but if the Magistrate, using the authority vested in him, says that the Paladin must leave the city (for the safety of the citizens or whatever), then the Paladin must comply. I'm reminded of A Few Good Man, when Kaffee says to Kendrick:
"Yeah, but it wasn't a real order, was it? After all, it's peace time. He wasn't being asked to secure a hill or advance on a beach head. I mean, surely a Marine of Dawson's intelligence can be trusted to determine, on his own, which are the really important orders and which orders might, say, be morally questionable? Lieutenant Kendrick? Can he? Can Dawson determine on his own which orders he's going to follow?"
"No, he cannot."
Oh, I quite like the military analogy. Let's put it this way: A Paladin is a soldier for his God, and under discipline as such.
Guess who's not in his chain of command? Mortal lawmakers.
Now, his actual superior officer has told him to play nice with them for the most part (that'd be the whole 'respect' part of the code), but when his standing orders ('help those in need') come into conflict with theirs, well, he's got to obey the chain of command, not the particular laws of the place he's standing.
Very similar to a U.S. soldier operating in a semi-friendly nation, really. He's expected not to get in trouble or violate local laws...unless his standing orders require it of him.
I quite like...
Thanks, I liked the analogy, too. You don't see marines running around breaking innocent people out of jail in the U.S., do you?
Mortal lawmakers are quite certainly in a Paladin's chain of command, he's most certainly under their authority (unless he takes a hostile position against the country--the country becomes his enemy), else he would never have any reason to follow mortal law.
You're now basically saying that Paladin's exist outside the law. That is the very definition of a vigilante--one who doesn't believe in any law but his own or his God's. Here's a mental exercise for you: If the Paladin only follows the Code of his God, how does he handle being told he can't pee on city streets? Is there some sort of Divine Law set down on how to handle such situations? Can he safely ignore the laws of the city that prohibit public nudity or public urination, because he's not beholden to these authorities?
Chaotic acts aren't violating his Code. They only cause him to fall if he commits so many as to no longer be LG (which is usually quite a few).
I didn't say they were. I said that chaotic actions were against his alignment (which they are) and breaking his Code would cause him to need to atone. Busting a prisoner out of jail violates his Code, because it is chaotic and because it is in direct rebellion against authority and order.
A non-Paladin LG guy could be a professional thief or rebel leader and do such things all the time.
People do such things all the time, but not LG people. A LG guy could not be a professional thief or rebel leader in a LG society, I'm sorry. That's simply self-contradictory, like hot ice. You're talking "lawful thief" and "lawful rebel". The concepts are dichotomously opposed. Thieves break the law, that is anti-Lawful. Rebels break the law, that is anti-Lawful.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You imagine the law to be a house, that one might stand inside or outside. This is folly. The law is a tool that serves a purpose. The purpose is Order. Some have the strength to make their own law. Others act to enforce those handed down by others. But these are still tools, nothing more and nothing less.
A Lawful soul is one that best resonates with the principle of Order. It seeks hierarchy, rules, fairness, and consistency. It aspires toward logic rather than impulse.
This word, vigilante, is meaningless to any paladin. They aspire toward justice and the greater good. The tools they use to achieve these ends are just that: tools. To be discarded or broken as necessary.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In spite of what you and DW claim, this is clearly untrue. Lawful is about following laws and obedience. From the PRD: "Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability..."
But says nothing of following laws.
Lawful is just deontological, which can involve following laws, but does not require it.
As I've said before in other Paladin threads, a Paladin should obey the law, even if he doesn't like it, so long as the law is not evil.
My favorite example is this :
War widow with 4 children is being evicted from her home for failure to pay her rent. The owner is a LN character. The sheriff is also LN. The widow has not paid her rent in 6 months.
What should the Paladin do? Well, he can try paying her rent, if he wants. He can talk to his church and ask them to help. He can try to talk to the owner, but he can't threaten the guy. He can try to find the widow a new home with cheaper rent and help her move there.
What he can't do is bust the sheriff's skull in and kill the owner for kicking out a widow and four small children. He can't even threaten either of them. They are not performing evil acts, they are within their rights by the law. The widow owed money and didn't pay it.
In this case, the Paladin can only work within the law and try to help. He can't force anyone to let the woman stay in the home. He doesn't have to like the law, but it's not an evil law, and the people enforcing it aren't evil either.
The only time a Paladin should be disobeying a law is if it is inherently evil. For example, a law that says you must sacrifice a virgin on your birthday is evil. The Paladin should be fighting it. A law that says all baskets have a fifty percent tax is a bad law, but it's not evil. It makes baskets more expensive, and he can lobby to have it changed, speak out publicly against it, but not actively prevent it from being enforced.
see i think it all varies to much for the individual. we all see the world differently. as would paladins. their human to i think we would all play oen slightly diffrent and we might all make morale chooses form our standpoint.
think of superman comics superman almost always does the perfect thing
the whole situation of would you throw one person in front of a train to save many? superman would say nope ill save them all.
realistically we can't do this we just have to rely on our experiences and teaching to decide on our choice.
now if your agureing that breaking a law isn't lawful well thats silly. but is he inclined to do it make him forever chaoitc no but that one action might have been.
dm will just have to decide if what the paladin did was wrong or better if the paladin thinks he did wrong.
Just a situation and a question for you GM-types out there:
Let's say a person is the target of some evil plot and is framed for a murder. You're a paladin, and you know absolutely that the person in question is innocent, but the evidence is so stacked against them that your testimony is not enough to save them from an execution sentence. You also know that the court in question is a fair one and is not corrupt itself.
In this type of scenario, the paladin faces a tough choice: Either save the innocent and go against legitimate authority, or allow an innocent to die for a crime they did not commit.What, in most people's opinions, is the correct path to follow here, and in other situations where doing the right thing is also doing the wrong thing? How would you not break your code either way? (Before you say anything, I absolutely know GMs who would allow such a scenario!)
The conversation has ranged far and wide, but in answer to the OP, I would have said Pally take the accused as a vassal. (It depends on legal powers of paladins in your campaign.)
As I've said before in other Paladin threads, a Paladin should obey the law, even if he doesn't like it, so long as the law is not evil.
My favorite example is this :
War widow with 4 children is being evicted from her home for failure to pay her rent. The owner is a LN character. The sheriff is also LN. The widow has not paid her rent in 6 months.
What should the Paladin do? Well, he can try paying her rent, if he wants. He can talk to his church and ask them to help. He can try to talk to the owner, but he can't threaten the guy. He can try to find the widow a new home with cheaper rent and help her move there.
What he can't do is bust the sheriff's skull in and kill the owner for kicking out a widow and four small children. He can't even threaten either of them. They are not performing evil acts, they are within their rights by the law. The widow owed money and didn't pay it.
In this case, the Paladin can only work within the law and try to help. He can't force anyone to let the woman stay in the home. He doesn't have to like the law, but it's not an evil law, and the people enforcing it aren't evil either.
The only time a Paladin should be disobeying a law is if it is inherently evil. For example, a law that says you must sacrifice a virgin on your birthday is evil. The Paladin should be fighting it. A law that says all baskets have a fifty percent tax is a bad law, but it's not evil. It makes baskets more expensive, and he can lobby to have it changed, speak out publicly against it, but not actively prevent it from being enforced.
Not argue with you MDT, but any PC can probably afford a widow's rent out of their pocket change, right?
(I'm saying Pallies shouldn't go all kill-crazy in the middle of town.)
In spite of what you and DW claim, this is clearly untrue. Lawful is about following laws and obedience. From the PRD: "Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability..."But says nothing of following laws.
Lawful is just deontological, which can involve following laws, but does not require it.
Lawful is about deontology, as I've argued many times, but it is not "just deontological". You're right that a deontologist is not necessarily beholden to the law of any given land. The laws he follows may be subjective or sourced from his deity or his church, but ultimately it ought not be arbitrary or vacillating. However, "Obedience to authority" says quite a lot about non-subjective laws, which leaves laws of the land and church canon. And there's more.
Compare "A Lawful Good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act." with "A Chaotic Good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him." It is through laws of the land and social mores that a good person may know what's expected of him and how he should behave.
And also, "Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties." "Respect authority" generally is understood to mean, 'obey the laws of rightful and just rulers'. "Honor tradition" generally is understood to mean that you don't flout the rules, laws, and ways of doing things in a given society, but rather you abide by them.
If you don't read, "Obey the law of the land" in any of this without it being written directly, then I don't know what else to say. In your world, Lawful Good characters should just go around doing whatever they think is right and forget about laws of the land as anything other than inconveniences when (attempted to be) enforced.
Of course, I would then have to ask as a player in your world, how do you distinguish between Lawful Good and Chaotic Good? Is Chaotic just whimsical--random--whereas Lawful has a code of ethics to which they adhere with no real regard for the laws of the land (it just might be coincidental that they are similar laws) or the laws of a specific organization (such as the church)? The problem is, unless you write up a codification of church law and specifically tell players that their characters are to abide by this church law even when it conflicts with the laws of a Lawful Good society, they still don't know what they should do other than in rather Chaotic and subjective fashion.
If so, then exactly what alignment is the person who's belief system can be encapsulated by the following statement: People should adhere to a common set of rules and laws and principles originating from a philosophy of Good morality and having the common goal of achieving the greatest good and a well-ordered, peaceful society?
Note that the definition of "rightful and just ruler" may vary though...
There's also often a difference between what's the law and what's just. The only authority that is worth respecting is that of the people, and even a "rightful and just" ruler often opposes that. The only tradition worth honoring is that of the class war.
Regards, the anarchist paladin
Note that the definition of "rightful and just ruler" may vary though...
Regards, the anarchist paladin
Yes, that definition is very appropriately questioned. But, just as obviously, it shouldn't be questioned in the moment just because the Paladin decides he wants to break the law and needs justification for doing so.
Yes, that definition is very appropriately questioned. But, just as obviously, it shouldn't be questioned in the moment just because the Paladin decides he wants to break the law and needs justification for doing so.Note that the definition of "rightful and just ruler" may vary though...
Regards, the anarchist paladin
Of course not. I imagine most paladins have a quite firm grasp on what rulers, rules and laws they respect and not. Doing it on a case by case basis ("stealing is wrong only when you do it, but I steal") is chaotic, unless a more specified explanation is set up ("it's wrong to steal from those that need, but also wrong to hoard when others are in need. Taking a king's hoard for his people to share is a good act") is not necessarily chaotic.
Note though that D&D's alignment system is completely borked, especially law vs chaos. It's just... stupid. I don't use it. I do use paladin codes though.
Yes, that definition is very appropriately questioned. But, just as obviously, it shouldn't be questioned in the moment just because the Paladin decides he wants to break the law and needs justification for doing so.Note that the definition of "rightful and just ruler" may vary though...
Regards, the anarchist paladin
Of course not. I imagine most paladins have a quite firm grasp on what rulers, rules and laws they respect and not. Doing it on a case by case basis ("stealing is wrong only when you do it, but I steal") is chaotic, unless a more specified explanation is set up ("it's wrong to steal from those that need, but also wrong to hoard when others are in need. Taking a king's hoard for his people to share is a good act") is not necessarily chaotic.
Note though that D&D's alignment system is completely borked, especially law vs chaos. It's just... stupid. I don't use it. I do use paladin codes though.
So far, I have very little to say against their alignment system. Seems kinda neat to me. However, stealing for a good reason is still chaotic. It's chaotic good. The whole point about being Chaotic Good is that you're willing to break the law because you feel that doing so is justified and your conscience compels you to do so.
So far, I have very little to say against their alignment system. Seems kinda neat to me. However, stealing for a good reason is still chaotic. It's chaotic good. The whole point about being Chaotic Good is that you're willing to break the law because you feel that doing so is justified and your conscience compels you to do so.
But that depends on your definition of stealing. If the king's hoard is built on forcing his people to give him what they own, which is how feudalism works, then the king has basically stolen those goods - albeit in a legal way, with the laws he has enacted himself - and the paladin is taking back the stolen goods to it's proper owners (the people).
If the authority the paladin respects the highest is the people, rather than the king, the people's wishes and needs, and the "laws" they enact, is more important than the laws enacted by the king. Laws still are just forced social conventions installed by some kind of power, usually enforced through violence - if the paladin follows the king's mandate rather than the people's, just because the king has armored knights to serve as police, he might very well be neutral or even evil.
The thing is that even with D&D's "absolute" moral system, many of the descriptions are open for interpretation and often, the descriptors for each alignment often conflicts.
A paladin that sees the people as the only authority that should be respected, will always see a king, boss or baron as a force of oppression - even if the king is by alignment good, it is (in the eyes of the paladin, showing resentment towards legitimate authority (the people), focusing on his individual freedom and taking arbitrary actions. All chaotic traits. The king is also oppressing his people, even if he's good - he's excersizing authority in an unjust way (since it's self-taken authority).
So the king ruling is acting both chaotically and evil in the eyes of the paladin, and thus, must be opposed. A chaotic good character might oppose the king because he doesn't like being restricted by the king's laws - but he might just as well support the king if he likes him, since upholding the proper authority of the people isn't important to him (though he would oppose obviously cruel actions of the king).
And a law has no more validity than the authority that invented it - and whether the law is written on a piece of paper or in the minds of the people is irrelevant. Not killing people for sports is a law enacted by the people, and those who do must be brought down. Taxation and profiteering of the poor are allowed by laws of kings and capitalists, are not valid, and thus taking back what they have stolen is not breaking any law of relevance.
A chaotic good character often goes more on a gut feeling and places his own judgement above that of the community. He means well, but is oh so prone to fall to emotions.
A lawful good character analyses the situation, what is right and then is wrong, and acts upon it rather than some random feeling.
Remember:
There is no emotion, there is peace.
There is no ignorance, there is knowledge.
There is no passion, there is serenity.
Regards, the anarchist paladin
So far, I have very little to say against their alignment system. Seems kinda neat to me. However, stealing for a good reason is still chaotic. It's chaotic good. The whole point about being Chaotic Good is that you're willing to break the law because you feel that doing so is justified and your conscience compels you to do so.But that depends on your definition of stealing. If the king's hoard is built on forcing his people to give him what they own, which is how feudalism works, then the king has basically stolen those goods - albeit in a legal way, with the laws he has enacted himself - and the paladin is taking back the stolen goods to it's proper owners (the people).
If the authority the paladin respects the highest is the people, rather than the king, the people's wishes and needs, and the "laws" they enact, is more important than the laws enacted by the king. Laws still are just forced social conventions installed by some kind of power, usually enforced through violence - if the paladin follows the king's mandate rather than the people's, just because the king has armored knights to serve as police, he might very well be neutral or even evil.
Yes, I agree. We already established that a rightful ruler implies a good and just ruler. However, now we get into some gray area. Kings were considered "rightful rulers" in medieval times and in most fantasy settings, so you can't assume that just because the people disagree with the King, the King isn't a rightful ruler.
The thing is that even with D&D's "absolute" moral system, many of the descriptions are open for interpretation and often, the descriptors for each alignment often conflicts.
I don't see a whole lot of conflict, but I do see places where a person has to apply a common sense understanding to the text. The alignment system is not meant to be a psychology textbook or written with legal precision. Instead, it's meant to push an idea and understanding. It's meant to push an intent that can be understood if you look at the forest and not the trees. Unfortunately, it's only by looking at the trees that we can understand what sort of forest it really is. That's where the nitpicking and debate stems.
A paladin that sees the people as the only authority that should be respected, will always see a king, boss or baron as a force of oppression - even if the king is by alignment good, it is (in the eyes of the paladin, showing resentment towards legitimate authority (the people), focusing on his individual freedom and taking arbitrary actions. All chaotic traits. The king is also oppressing his people, even if he's good - he's excersizing authority in an unjust way (since it's self-taken authority).
So the king ruling is acting both chaotically and evil in the eyes of the paladin, and thus, must be opposed. A chaotic good character might oppose the king...
Again, you're back to the issue of rightful rulership. However, I would point out that this issue of King vs. the people that you push is fraught with problems. You're saying that Paladins in a medieval, fantasy setting which is more likely to support and endorse feudalism is going to disregard a King's right to rule his nation because the Paladin believes in a Democratic Republic?
What you're really suggesting is that the Paladin is ready to oppose the King, foment rebellion with the goal of deposing the King and establishing new Law. In this case, he would have to believe that he is sanctioned to do so by the precepts of his church and deity. It seems rather hokey to me, especially if the King is considered a legitimate authority by all other nations and even the Paladin's own church. Any church pressing such a policy is likely to be uninvited from that country. It would become all out war. :)
Furthermore, implying that "what the people want" is the same thing as tradition, codified law, and a code of ethics is stretching the boundaries of believability rather far.
And you're reaching if you think that the difference between Lawful and Chaotic is non-emotional vs. emotional analysis. Nothing supports that perspective.
Not argue with you MDT, but any PC can probably afford a widow's rent out of their pocket change, right?
(I'm saying Pallies shouldn't go all kill-crazy in the middle of town.)
Sure, he can. Now, what happens next month when the widow still can't afford her rent? What about when she can't afford to feed more than 2 of her kids? What about the widow down the street with two kids? Is she less in need than the one with four kids, so she is left high and dry? What about the 3 orphan girls working the streets to make money? Are they evil for selling their bodies to eat? Where does the Paladin stop with handing out wealth? When he has none?
Of course not. I imagine most paladins have a quite firm grasp on what rulers, rules and laws they respect and not. Doing it on a case by case basis ("stealing is wrong only when you do it, but I steal") is chaotic, unless a more specified explanation is set up ("it's wrong to steal from those that need, but also wrong to hoard when others are in need. Taking a king's hoard for his people to share is a good act") is not necessarily chaotic.
The road to hell, as they say, is paved with good intentions.
So, the Paladin kills the kings guards, breaks into the palace treasury, and hands out the gold to the poor.
Two months later, the evil kingdom next door realizes that the king is broke, and can't pay for an army. So they start annexing huge chunks of his country, enslaving the peasants, and taking the gold they were given.
OR
The people spend their gold, the local economy get's a boost, for a month or so. Then a plague breaks out, which often happens when there are a ton of poor people, especially poor people all camped out around the capital to get some of the free gold the Paladin is passing out. Poor peasants spending their gold on prostitutes and further spreading the sickness, soon it's a plague. Normally, the king would open his coffers and pay the neutral and even evil clerics to cast cure disease spells, and even donate to the good churches. He'd pay druids to help the sick, and bards to minister, and oracles as well. But now he has no money, so only those who are good are casting the remove disease spells, and it's just not enough.
OR
The people are poor, but they have enough food to get by, just. The Paladin empties the coffers and gives it out. The people who work the farms rejoice, and don't work as hard. Now the crops start producing less, and there's not enough food to go around. The price of food skyrockets, and everyone spends their recently gotten gold to buy food. But it is still not enough. Normally, the king would open his coffers and buy more food from neighboring countries to tide the country over until the food supply was back to normal, but he can't now.
I could go on, but usually when someone decides to take the law into their own hands, no matter what kind of law you want to talk about a Paladin following, usually it leads to something even worse.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My own feeling is this.
A Paladin is going to uphold local laws for as long as he can do without it violating his moral code of Good. Why? Even harsh laws still work out better for the common people than chaos. War, which is required to drag down an existing law and government, always results in chaos which will lead to a LOT of innocents being hurt. Mass raping and pillaging, forced enlistments, death on and off the battlefield.
No single Paladin is going to take it in his head to start a war on his own. If the laws and rulers become so bad that the Paladin doesn't feel like he can continue even tacitly supporting the structure, he's not going to go foment rebellion by himself. He's going to go get every paladin he can find, and they're going to have a conference on 'WHAT TO DO ABOUT KINGDOM A'. And it's going to be a very long drawn out hashing out, and it's going to involve higher members of church clergy. Then as a united front, they'll move forward.
*post*Dude, you should not be up this late. Or early. Whatever. :P
LOL, tell me about it. I had one of my killer migraines yesterday, spent all day in a dark room with the blinds closed, and the computer monitor dimmed down.
Still got amild headache, but can't sleep since I spent all day in bed.
The road to hell, as they say, is paved with good intentions... I could go on, but usually when someone decides to take the law into their own hands, no matter what kind of law you want to talk about a Paladin following, usually it leads to something even worse.
I don't actually agree with this, but I do agree that a Paladin would believe this.