The Ulfen did not say "I will not obey your laws".
No? Well, somehow you knew it well enough to say so to me. I expound on this more, below.
And before we proceed, I would like for you to cite where I reject or refute social contract theory.
You have not refuted it. That would require more skill than you obviously possess, but reject it you have. Repeatedly.
Here is where you begin: "You imagine the law to be a house, that one might stand inside or outside. This is folly."
You continued with your explanations of how the Ulfen paladin and the three Erastil paladins would have rightly behaved (they would not fall from grace): "And never would he know conflict, as [he] marshaled his tongue with such discipline that he would never agree to an oath to obey local law if it might turn him against those that had already earned his oaths of loyalty." which was almost fine (who would accept a contract or count legitimate a law that turns you against your own?), until, "If one were to quest away from their home and face such an unjust court, I believe they would have placed the laws of their own communities and conscience above the laws of the land."
You continued to defend your avatars of paladinhood, claiming first that you had no right to force the contract upon the Ulfen, "I might have demanded they acknowledge that Cheliax's laws rule while they cross, but they might easily have argued that their own laws and traditions held sway within their encampment. Which holds greater claim and legitimacy?" and then confirmed by stating that, "We differed considerably in our opinions on what made a society, and he vowed to fight to the death before letting even a single one of his band 'become a slave'."
Of course, now you claim that in all that conversation on the subject of society, he never once let on that he wouldn't follow your law if there was contention betweeen 'his laws' and yours?. And you, in your foolishness, couldn't discern the truth of it?
In this same breath, you also tried to argue against social contract theory by equivocating on the issue of "boundaries", saying that it was impossible to know who's law you were legitimately bound to follow under such a contract saying, "Fah! Your own standard is flimsy and nonexistent, sophistry and pedantry most foul. If you doubt it, try to apply your own standard and show me how any action can satisfy a paladin's oath as you interpret it. Where, praytell, does Cheliax end?"
But the most unavoidable evidence of this follows with: "The nearest to a contention you have offered on the matter is the insultingly primitive standard of 'a temporal authority is legitimate as soon as I enter its territory unless I declare it illegitimate and make war upon it,' which is embarrassing in its simplicity." Of course, this is just a small sample of the whole soliloquy that was nothing but an attack on the concept, regardless of how strawman-like you made it.
While creating another "perverse" strawman argument, you attack it here: "But you ... seem to feel that first principles violates the paladin code, since you cannot help but harp on those 'local' and 'legitimate' laws of the land. Those laws that you believe are set down purely by strength. And that the present state of warfare between competing kingdoms and codes of law is a feature of the system, and not disorder itself.
Caught between a hammer and an anvil (social contract and your duty), you backtrack, just a little, by saying that the Ulfen did not accept the social contract, but that it's not required that residents of your land do so, "The example holds weight because even as I viewed them as being subject to Chelaxian law, they did not believe themselves subject to it." Meaning, you knew them to be lawless (not accepting the laws of Cheliax) and yet you permitted them to cross your land. And you consider this doing your duty.
Finally, just as a point of righteous anger: I am provoked that you actually request I prove this. The principle that the social contract applies to the paladin's Lawful Good nature has been the core of my arguments from the first and throughout this entire discussion and is the basis for my belief that a paladin must not act outside the law in a Lawful Good society who's laws are just, good, and impartially applied. All who can understand and have followed this argument can attest to it.
It is also this position that you have attacked constantly and impotently. You have done so by first trying to say that no such social contract exists (as with the Ulfen) for the paladin in a foreign land and second by trying to cast doubt on one's ability to adequately determine the legitimacy of the contract. Both are exception-making criticisms, but the former was a denial by appeal to an authority different than the one that rules a land (e.g. rules either by the willing approbation of the populace or by strength of arms).
For you to ask for proof strongly implies you deny this. But denial is tantamount to admission of dishonorable debate and thus my anger is explained. You have played games, such as trying to separate Lawfulness from Goodness when talking about a Paladin--this is much like focusing exclusively on the honey separate from the water when talking about honey water and remarking how it's incorrect to address how water also affects the properties of the mixture. You have avoided answering refutations and points that are embarassing to your position. You have stumbled, you have fallen. The evidence of your defeat is overwhelming to anyone not blind or stupid.
I can only lay you low so many times before the game tires and I move on to more important things. Steel your courage, stiffen your honor, and admit your loss, Hellknight.
|
Very good.
Now, tell me again why the laws and legal theories of men (including the Asmodean concept of the social contract) are not tools to achieve an the greater aim of Order but rather Order itself.
And how any given person will know with objective certainty which laws apply to them at any given moment. That is to say, which codes or laws they are to obey in order to be lawful or at least not chaotic.
I just want to be absolutely certain, since you are so impassioned by this.
Very good.
Now, tell me again why the laws and legal theories of men (including the Asmodean concept of the social contract) are not tools to achieve an the greater aim of Order but rather Order itself.
And how any given person will know with objective certainty which laws apply to them at any given moment. That is to say, which codes or laws they are to obey in order to be lawful or at least not chaotic.
I just want to be absolutely certain, since you are so impassioned by this.
I'm beginning to believe that what hides behind that blackened iron helm is the green, wart-covered skin of a troll's face.
I never claimed that codified law is not a tool used to achieve order. In fact, I make that exact claim. I have no idea what it means for something to be "Order itself".
I have no idea what it means to be "objectively free from doubt". The concept is meaningless. Certainty and doubt are subjective experiences and cannot be "objective".
Of course. I wear the helm for a reason.
And if there is no objective means of measuring these things, how does one prove either law or good?
I didn't say there existed no objective means of measuring these things, I merely said there is no such thing as objective certainty. There is no such thing as objective certainty, because certainty doesn't exist external to a mind. But we accept, on faith, specific philosophical brute facts which are objective to our minds and from there we use reason to determine the rest. In other words, there is no way to have perfect certainty in anything, we may only have degrees of certainty.
Proof is nothing more than objectifying one's subjective level of sufficient certainty.
The concept of proof has always been an issue of sufficiency. Something is proof if it meets one's subjective standards of sufficiency allowing one to make a decision. I assume when you ask how one can prove good or law, you ask how can one prove that an action is good or lawful? The answer is that such proof is not available to complete sufficiency for everyone. The yardstick for a society is usually and unfortunately, "What does a reasonable mind believe?" But as dilemmas and crises of law arise, we often ask for smart and learned minds--such as that of a judge--or a quorum of minds--such as that of a jury--to determine the lawfulness of actions. This topic easily fills many books and I am no scholor of jurisprudence. Nothing I've said here is not already known intuitively by you.
On Good)
On Law)
As is clear, when one is in an exceptional position, there is much to be considered when judging the legitimacy of the law, the law makers and enforcers, and your duty to them. This obviously leaves a great deal of room for evasion, equivocation, and gap-attacking.
That's a tough question, one to which I do not claim to have an answer. I envision this aura as the energy of one's spirit, corrupted by either evil or chaos or both.
Thanks, Fin. But here again, you admit to understanding the law of unintended consequences, but then don't seem to understand what that means to a deontologist. The deontologist follows the law (in this case, the Law of the Land), because he can't know what the consequences are. You present a good argument (one that I might or might not accept), but it's irrelevant, for it's a chaotic argument. It's one that looks at the consequences of ones actions, first, to determine if they're Good actions, not to the Law or to Order to determine if they're Good. The deontologist (Lawful) does not do this.Jupistar, I don't disagree with your point about the law of unintended consequences, but that sword cuts both ways. Allowing the law to execute an innocent man can likewise lead to unintended chaotic consequences (loss of faith in the system, defiance, riots, even rebellion) and certainly leads to an evil consequence (the execution of an innocent). It is entirely possible for chaotic consequences to result from lawful acts, especially in a case where two lawful forces are in contention.
In the OP's scenario the paladin is faced with no clear choice, either one has unacceptable consequences. But the only one which is irrevocable is the death of the innocent prisoner (discounting resurrection magic as a remedy since there's no guarantee the prisoner would return or the magic would be available). If the paladin frees the prisoner he then has time to address the consequences of that choice, unintended or not. By submitting himself for judgement by the authority that he's offended he is telling the society that the law is still right and valid and must be upheld, but that it is not absolute. If he finds the evidence of innocence and turns himself and the prisoner back over for judgement he again affirms that authority's legitimacy.
Yep, I follow. I just don't think that one has to be a deontologist to be lawful as defined by Pathfinder. I believe a deontological view to actually be inconsistent with paladinhood. Deontology seems lawful neutral to me (as those terms are defined in game).
So yes, my argument definitely looks to the actions to determine if they are good actions first because we are discussing paladins and that is what they should be doing IMO.
Yep, I follow. I just don't think that one has to be a deontologist to be lawful as defined by Pathfinder. I believe a deontological view to actually be inconsistent with paladinhood. Deontology seems lawful neutral to me (as those terms are defined in game).
So yes, my argument definitely looks to the actions to determine if they are good actions first because we are discussing paladins and that is what they should be doing IMO.
Deontology clearly defaults to the NG position. For deonotlogy is, at it's core, a belief in laws that are built upon goodness, but those laws may be subjective and personal. LG takes it one step further and removes one's hubris and autonomy from the equation--it realizes that, for order to obtain, a good code must apply to everyone equally. LG is a deontological position that defers to an external law. Even the paladin's code of conduct, while personally adhered to, is objective in nature and not determined by that paladin.
So, I agree that a Paladin would first determine if an action is Good before deciding to act. The question is in how they make this judgment. The idea behind a Lawful Good (deontologically good) approach is that one looks at the action from it's inherent goodness without regard for the consequences of the action. The perfectly Lawful Good would see that lying is considered inherently wrong, especially under oath, and wouldn't do it to save their own life or anyone else's, either. This may be extreme, but remember that not every LG is perfectly Lawful Good. The alternative is evident when a prisoner convinces the paladin he is innocent and the paladin should lie in court to save that innocent's life. Clearly that is wrong, but the reason for it's wrongness is that one assumes responsibility for the future including all evil variations of that future. Those that are LG and NG believe that a good life is one that is lived according to good principles, not by weighing one's actions against a predictive outcome. LG just looks to a common set of principles.
In the Condemned Innocent scenario, the Paladin, who not only abides by a Code of Conduct (see the inherent deontological aspect at work here?) but also is of a Law Good alignment, would see that breaking the law in a Good society, dishonoring and disrespecting a Good court, assaulting the prison guards of a Good jail, acting in a chaotic fashion, and placing himself outside the rulings of the judiciary, would be inherently evil. The wise LG paladins, philosophers, or ruler knows that no ruleset will ever achieve perfect goodness or perfect order, but believes that the way to maximize both goodness and order is to improve codified law and demand strict adherence to it; that only this leads to a greater chance of Good outcomes. In a way, the deontologist's approach is a statistical one that has the benefit of maintaining overall order and preventing culpability in one's actions. In simplistic terms, refraining from violent rebellion against the court, even to save a perceived innocent, would be considered orderly and Good by the Lawful Good paladin, for the concepts of Law and Good are intertwined.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again I don't disagree with what you're saying outside of the context of clearly defined alignments (as much as something so subjective can be clearly defined). I just don't believe that the Pathfinder system lends itself to as strict a set of definitions as you're advocating. The alignment definitions as provided do not support a conclusion that paladins would be deontologist IMO (and also IMO directly contradicts your assertion that deontology defaults to NG).
You make it sound as though all lawful good people would have the same response to the same situation (such as the OP's) and I don't believe the alignment system is that limiting. Deontology seems to most closely resemble lawful neutral to me as the outcome of the trial is less important than that the system be upheld. That is that a deontologist would see a lesser evil outcome as acceptable as long as it supported the greater good (the authority and integrity of the legal system). Even if the system is intended to provide the maximum possible good, that position is lawful neutral.
Your interpretation makes it sound as though the paladin's code is inherently in conflict with having a lawful good alignment which I also don't agree with. For example, if the paladin is lawful and must follow his code which commands that he punish those who harm innocents than isn't he required by his code to punish the good and lawful court that executed a man he knows to be innocent? After all the code provides no allowance for "unintentionally" harming innocents.
I'm just saying that the alignments as defined for game use in the core rulebook don't seem to support your conclusions (assuming I've read them correctly- I think you've been advocating the paladin letting the innocent be executed to uphold the greater good of the legal system and avoid unintended chaotic and/or evil consequences down the road).
But again this is subject to interpretation and this is merely how I interpret it.
Again I don't disagree with what you're saying outside of the context of clearly defined alignments (as much as something so subjective can be clearly defined). I just don't believe that the Pathfinder system lends itself to as strict a set of definitions as you're advocating. The alignment definitions as provided do not support a conclusion that paladins would be deontologist IMO (and also IMO directly contradicts your assertion that deontology defaults to NG)...
...Deontology seems to most closely resemble lawful neutral to me as the outcome of the trial is less important than that the system be upheld. That is that a deontologist would see a lesser evil outcome as acceptable as long as it supported the greater good (the authority and integrity of the legal system). Even if the system is intended to provide the maximum possible good, that position is lawful neutral.
Yeah, I made a mistake. I'm sorry about that. I have to agree with you and have always agreed with you. I don't know why I kept saying deontology defaults to NG throughout my previous post, especially as I've said more than once it was LN in all my previous communications on the subject. I guess I just got to focusing on the moral aspect of deontology. You're right, though, deontology defaults to the LN description, but not perfectly. Keep in mind, that deonotology is based on an understanding of morality--so the laws and principles by which a deontologist operates are Good ones, by and large. This is why all LG are deontologists, but not all LN are (thieves can be LN, but they can't be deontologists).
You make it sound as though all lawful good people would have the same response to the same situation (such as the OP's) and I don't believe the alignment system is that limiting.
That's true, to an extent, but only if they were all reasoning perfectly and privy to the exact same information and working within the exact same system of laws. But people rarely reason well, much less perfectly. Everyone understands information differently and has different experiences and situations, so they're operating under different perspectives. And not all operate under the same set of laws (e.g. one might be beholden to the law, one may be outside the law--acting as an agent of the law in a different capacity, one might be beholden to a separate but equally demanding law).
The reason, of course, is that, while the least restrictive alignment is neutral evil, the most restrictive and mandating is lawful good. But people are flawed, not robots, and so they behave in ways that are less than perfect. If you don't see it this way, then that's fine. I just don't understand why you don't. You repeatedly talk about outcomes when it's not about outcomes (conscience-based thinking is chaotic), it's about the inherent rightness or wrongness of an action. Consider Neutral Good, "He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them." That alone implies that the LG feels beholden to kings and magistrates, but that NG has a bit more flexibility in this regard.
Your interpretation makes it sound as though the paladin's code is inherently in conflict with having a lawful good alignment which I also don't agree with. For example, if the paladin is lawful and must follow his code which commands that he punish those who harm innocents than isn't he required by his code to punish the good and lawful court that executed a man he knows to be innocent? After all the code provides no allowance for "unintentionally" harming innocents.
You're right, the code as written makes no allowance for intent. But, if we are to parse the code so closely and ignore the intent (pun intended [not twice, that's just funny]) of the code, taking each point so literally, then we can also make the point that the commandment makes no specification for the nature of that punishment nor who the paladin should blame. Is it the judge? The jury? The executioner? The witnesses? The jailers? The soldiers who captured the prisoner? Everyone involved? You argue "the court", I argue "the criminal". The paladin argues that justice is like an arrow shot from a bow when a crime takes place. That arrow is meant for the criminal. If that criminal, with his chaotic and evil action, causes or allows an innocent man to be punished for his crime, then he's the one culpable for the innocent's death, not the impartial machine. If a man cuts a large tree so that it almost falls and then walks away so that a gust of wind finishes the job and it falls on someone killing them, you don't blame the wind or the tree. You blame the negligent man.
Alternatively, since the nature of mandated punishment is not clear either, the paladin might simply bring the guilty man before the court, prove his guilt, and let the knowledge of the death of the innocent weigh on the conscience of all those involved in the judgment. Or maybe he decides to "punish the court" by getting the law changed so that there exists no more death sentences. Or if the judge is being clearly partial and failing in his duty, petitioning to have that judge removed from his seat of power and maybe even thrown in prison, too boot.
I'm just saying that the alignments as defined for game use in the core rulebook don't seem to support your conclusions (assuming I've read them correctly- I think you've been advocating the paladin letting the innocent be executed to uphold the greater good of the legal system and avoid unintended chaotic and/or evil consequences down the road).
But again this is subject to interpretation and this is merely how I interpret it.
I think you're reading me right. I understand you reject this interpretation and that is your right. It's your game to enjoy the way you wish. I'm just not sure I understand how you come to the conclusion you do. Forget the word "deontology" for a moment. How can you have law and order, which a paladin is clearly committed to upholding, if at any moment lawful good people like himself feel obliged to violently rebel against the rulings of the court anytime they think an innocent man is being sentenced to death? In any given decision, there are always those who are convinced of one side or the other. Should those convinced of the innocence of a man, violently rebel?
I'll put the same question to you that I put to others. In what way does the Lawful Good paladin behave, here, that a Chaotic Good paladin wouldn't? In your mind, what separates the two in dealing with the Condemned Innocent?
That's a tough question, one to which I do not claim to have an answer. I envision this aura as the energy of one's spirit, corrupted by either evil or chaos or both.
Speaking as a player of often evil characters, I have to take issue with this 'corruption' designation. Good/evil =/= to better/worse.
Say, 'informed by' or 'empowered by.' Good is NOT the base quality of an aura.
That's a tough question, one to which I do not claim to have an answer. I envision this aura as the energy of one's spirit, corrupted by either evil or chaos or both.Speaking as a player of often evil characters, I have to take issue with this 'corruption' designation. Good/evil =/= to better/worse.
Say, 'informed by' or 'empowered by.' Good is NOT the base quality of an aura.
I was drinking as I read this and snarfed. Yes sir, I will try to keep my descriptors more neutral in this regard. Of course, in my defense, one could say that "neutral" is the base quality of an aura and therefore Good could be seen as a corruption, as well. Just saying.
|
|
That's a tough question, one to which I do not claim to have an answer. I envision this aura as the energy of one's spirit, corrupted by either evil or chaos or both.Speaking as a player of often evil characters, I have to take issue with this 'corruption' designation. Good/evil =/= to better/worse.
Say, 'informed by' or 'empowered by.' Good is NOT the base quality of an aura.
Indeed. The knave has the right of it. And I appreciate you have the tact to acknowledge it, Jupistar.
Now then. Advancing the point. We can see the influence of the Principle of Law, and the Principle of Good. We can see that Good and Evil and Law and Chaos accumulate upon the soul and play a role in certain magics. We can even map some of their interactions, and can identify their associations in the world around us.
And yet you still persist in arguing that we cannot achieve objectivity in detecting and advancing the Good or the Lawful?
That's a tough question, one to which I do not claim to have an answer. I envision this aura as the energy of one's spirit, corrupted by either evil or chaos or both.Speaking as a player of often evil characters, I have to take issue with this 'corruption' designation. Good/evil =/= to better/worse.
Say, 'informed by' or 'empowered by.' Good is NOT the base quality of an aura.
Indeed. The knave has the right of it. And I appreciate you have the tact to acknowledge it, Jupistar.
Now then. Advancing the point. We can see the influence of the Principle of Law, and the Principle of Good. We can see that Good and Evil and Law and Chaos accumulate upon the soul and play a role in certain magics. We can even map some of their interactions, and can identify their associations in the world around us.
And yet you still persist in arguing that we cannot achieve objectivity in detecting and advancing the Good or the Lawful?
I have no idea what you mean. How does one "achieve objectivity in detecting and advancing the Good or the Lawful?"
Imagine a rope, folded in half and twisted. That rope can be twisted one way or the other, and folded or unfolded. That rope may be light or it might be dark. A soul is much the same--it is metaphorically folded, colored, and twisted from a lifetime of attitude and perception, intent and choice. Seeing the symptoms of a life devoted to a singular alignment doesn't tell me much about the concepts of Good or Law, only that intent and attitude and action affects the soul accordingly.
Jupistar,
You make a good point about the paladin placing the blame for the condemned mans death upon the actual criminal. But I would still expect the paladin to act to save the innocent man's life.
Regarding your inquiry about lawful rebellion, I would not have put a paladin in such a predicament to begin with. As I said in a previous post, I would only find a paladin taking the law into his own hands acceptable if the penalty for the crime did irreparable harm to the innocent man, such as death.
In a world that can readily demonstrate the availability of illusions, domination, shape changing, and the like my feeling is that no good aligned court system would have a death penalty. So the paladin would be constrained to work within the system of a lawful good, neutral good, or chaotic good system and the system would allow him to do so by not killing the accused.
Any non-good system is going to have issues with a paladin even if the paladin grants that the system is largely just and fair. The system itself is flawed if it compels people of good conscience to circumvent it to prevent wrongs done in the name of maintaining the system. Even a lawful neutral or neutral system might have an appeal system that allows the paladin to delay the verdict and thus gain the time needed to prove his innocence (thus allowing the paladin to work within the system).
The OP however stated that no such route was available. So the paladin is put into a no win scenario because, despite the system's somewhat blood-thirsty and inflexible nature, the DM has described it as legitimate and non-corrupt.
Obviously this is just how I would handle it, many would argue that a death penalty is completely acceptable for a good aligned system.
As to your question regarding the actions of a lawful good paladin versus the chaotic good paladin, let's assume the court is lawful neutral. IMO both paladins free the innocent man. The lawful good paladin then strives to prove his innocence to the court, bring the truly guilty party to justice, and eventually turns himself over to the court for judgment himself (for a crime he knows he's guilty of, that of freeing the condemned man). The chaotic good character frees the innocent man and probably hunts down the person who framed him, but he doesn't consider the court beyond that. He certainly doesn't feel the need to prove anything to them or to answer to them for doing the right thing. The chaotic good character might even have acted before the conviction by providing false evidence or testimony to clear the innocent man, something the paladin would never consider.
And thank you for your continued well reasoned and polite debate.
This is why all LG are deontologists,
Nowhere does the core book state that. Respect for the law is just one of the traits that make up a lawful alignment and not even mentioned in the description.
"Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. "
NOWHERE AT ALL does it mention deontological viewpoints. It does not say "a lawful character always follows it's laws". A character that doesn't give a rat's ass about some objective "law" can still be lawful.
If we refer to 3.5 material, complete scoundrel had examples of the different alignments. While I disagree with some of them (Malcolm Reynolds as chaotic GOOD?!? WTF?!?), they might still be interesting as a sign of what the alignments where intended to mean.
On the lawful scale we find; LG: Batman, Dick Tracy, Indiana Jones; LN: James Bond, Odysseus, and Sanjuro; LE: Boba Fett and Magneto.
While some of these may have deontological tendencies (Batman sometimes has; Bond, Fett, Jones and Magneto doesn't really show anything like this and the rest I don't know enough to say anything about), having LG = deontological is not within whether the RAW or the RAI.
While I WOULD say being deontological is a lawful trait, and one of LN's most obvious and extreme examples would be the deontologist Judge Dredd, that doesn't mean deontological = law.
Fin,
The morality of a death penalty is in question, even in the modern world, where we understand the limitations of the mind and memory of witnesses, mistakes made through forensic testing, the inability of a judge and/or jury to make proper distinction between valid and relevant evidence and circumstantial or prejudicial evidence, and so forth. If we add in to the equation a world with illusion, domination, and shape changing, we must also address all the points made previously about magical detection and divination.
A death penalty may or may not be wise and it may or may not be moral. Tolkien has Gandalf say, 'Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.' This principle is beautifully stated, but does not capture the fullness of the debate, just one side. In spite of the modern world's court fallibility, defense of the death penalty is strong and well-reasoned. As William Otis said, "In the history of the [Supreme] court, there have been 112 justices; three of them -- Brennan, Marshall, and Blackmun -- have been against the death penalty per se. The other 109 have not." If even the most learned and wisest among us, those steeped in a history of jurisprudence, still support such a penalty in spite of the chance for mistake, we should take notice.
Even so, in the modern world, whether you think the courts are good and fair or otherwise, and where mistakes are possible, you don't see people breaking the law to "protect the innocent" by violently breaking them out of prison. It seems to me that we live in a society of laws and we abide by those laws, even when mistakes are made. Our soldiers and policeman and mercs-for-hire may not be divine warriors or profess to a code to help those in need, but it's pretty well understand that's what they do. Are none of them actually good or are they all just afraid?
If I may refocus your attention to one of my questions, I'm curious as to your answer:
Forget the word "deontology" for a moment. How can you have law and order, which a paladin is clearly committed to upholding, if at any moment lawful good people like himself feel obliged to violently rebel against the rulings of the court anytime they think an innocent man is being sentenced to death? In any given decision, there are always those who are convinced of one side or the other. Should those convinced of the innocence of a man, violently rebel?
I would like to emphasize that in any given decision no matter the subject (whether it's about football or guilty verdicts) and no matter the incontestability of the evidence, there's always one or two who seem to fervently believe the wrong side. We're talking about the principle of certainty and how that plays into the rightness or wrongness of law-breaking and rebellion. Should these certain individuals take the law into their own hands? What if it is their duty to uphold the law regardless of whether they think the law is good or not and they believe strongly in doing their duty?
Does this vision of the paladin I have described have a place in your world? Can there exist Good and Lawful paladins who wouldn't violently break the Condemned Innocent out of prison? If so, is neither your version or my version "correct" in their interpretation as to what should be done, or is it just my version that's incorrect?
Edit: Just an FYI. I've been reassessing and the more I think about it and after stringburka drove the point home for me (though I'm sure it was unintentional), I do believe that deontology defaults to LG. Although, a personal code is possible for a deontologist (which is not a very LG position and thus makes room for a LN tendency), the LN alignment makes zero reference to any concept of morality, which is necessary in a deontological viewpoint.
This is why all LG are deontologists,Nowhere does the core book state that.
Sure it does. It clearly states on page 354 of the CRB that Lawful characters are deontologists. Learn the rules, man.
Respect for the law is just one of the traits that make up a lawful alignment and not even mentioned in the description.
I thought we were talking about Lawful Good.
"Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. "
NOWHERE AT ALL does it mention deontological viewpoints. It does not say "a lawful character always follows it's laws". A character that doesn't give a rat's ass about some objective "law" can still be lawful.
I wouldn't expect that verbiage that specifically speaks to solely Law is going to sound quite like deontology, which is the notion of acting in accordance to morally sound law.
If we refer to 3.5 material, complete scoundrel had examples of the different alignments. While I disagree with some of them (Malcolm Reynolds as chaotic GOOD?!? WTF?!?), they might still be interesting as a sign of what the alignments where intended to mean.
On the lawful scale we find; LG: Batman, Dick Tracy, Indiana Jones; LN: James Bond, Odysseus, and Sanjuro; LE: Boba Fett and Magneto.While some of these may have deontological tendencies (Batman sometimes has; Bond, Fett, Jones and Magneto doesn't really show anything like this and the rest I don't know enough to say anything about), having LG = deontological is not within whether the RAW or the RAI.
While I WOULD say being deontological is a lawful trait, and one of LN's most obvious and extreme examples would be the deontologist Judge Dredd, that doesn't mean deontological = law.
I don't usually care to refer to the tons of accessory material that isn't as well-vetted or entirely in-keeping with the core material. This is why I specifically dislike people referencing splat books, pathfinder novels, and "other source material". The more writers that get involved, the less diligence given to consistency, the more flaws you're going to find.
But sure. Whatever. I don't care about this point. If you don't want to consider the term "deontology" applicable to Lawful Good characters, then don't consider it so. I only used the term to help people understand the alignment. It seems obvious to me: "A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice [emphasis mine: note there is no concept anywhere in here about breaking laws... she "speaks out", for heaven's sake, and for circumstantial evidence, "helping those in need" comes after honor-based items such as telling the truth and keeping her word... to obey the law, for instance?]. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. Lawful good combines honor with compassion." But, then, it also seems obvious to me that Indiana Jones is far from being Lawful Good. He seems to rather epitomize the concept of a Neutral Good character: "A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them. Neutral good means doing what is good and right without bias for or against order."
Do with it what you will.
You know, I still find it fascinating how many people clearly want the Paladin to act in a non-Lawful way. You all relentlessly criticize my position using so many different arguments, but none that make any sense to me. It's becoming difficult to stay motivated. The wolves have harassed the lone caribou into tiredness. You win. Munch away.
The "lawful good" description doesn't mention the law either. "As a good person is expected to act" does not have to be the same as the law - first of, expected by whom? The people I consider good would certainly expect me to break the law under certain circumstances. They are consequentialists. If it's lawful good to act as I'm expected to by them, then it's lawful good to act in a way that causes the best consequences (where the "good" part determines what is "best").
Actually, only the lawful neutral description says that a LN character follows the law. The LE description says the character is loath to break the law. LG doesn't mention it.
I don't have an issue with stating that paladins can commit chaotic acts. They can, just not so many they turn NG. A paladin can care about freedom and be flexible, or be anti-traditions holding pragmatic "good" above restricting traditions - as long as it compensates it with sufficient lawful acts to still stay LG, by telling the truth, respecting authority they deem legitimate and so on. Just because you're lawful does not mean every single act you do have to be lawful. It doesn't even mean that you'll regret acting chaotic sometimes. It just means you generally tend to act more lawfully than chaotic (by a fair margin or we're in neutral territory).
A paladin has no higher requirement to act lawful than any other lawful character. It has a certain other restrictions, which may vary from god to god, such as not being allowed to lie - but these restrictions are what make him lawful, he doesn't have the restrictions because he is lawful and think they're always the right choice.
Oh, and if deontological = lawful good, I can't really see a lawful good society working unless the ruleset used where veeeeery loose and vague. Heck, even taking the 10 commandments at face value and not consider consequences would make about any society non-functional.
Fin,
[edit]
If I may refocus your attention to one of my questions,I'm curious as to your answer:
"Forget the word "deontology" for a moment. How can you have law and order, which a paladin is clearly committed to upholding, if at any moment lawful good people like himself feel obliged to violently rebel against the rulings of the court anytime they think an innocent man is being sentenced to death? In any given decision, there are always those who are convinced of one side or the other. Should those convinced of the innocence of a man, violently rebel?"
Certainly, though my previous response regarding lawful rebellion was meant to address this issue, allow me to expand on my answer.
In my campaign world, a lawful good person would not find themselves in this scenario because I find the death penalty to be inconsistent with the definition of good as given in D&D.
"Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others." IMO respect for life and concern for dignity of sentient beings precludes a death sentence where an alternative (imprisonment, banishment, etc) is available.
If a lawful good person in my campaign world did find themselves in the scenario the OP described it would be a confirmation that the system was not good aligned. Either because the good system would have no death penalty or would have a mechanism for delaying judgment until a respected heroic figure such as the paladin could be satisfied that the punishment was just (essentially a system of appeals).
The OP did not allow for either of these factors. So in my opinion, it was not a case of a lawful good paladin opposing a lawful good system.
Should these certain individuals take the law into their own hands? What if it is their duty to uphold the law regardless of whether they think the law is good or not and they believe strongly in doing their duty?
Then IMO these individuals are not lawful good. They are lawful neutral. They are dedicated to a system and to duty (which is very lawful), not to altruism and respect for life (which is specifically defined for Pathfinder as good).
Does this vision of the paladin I have described have a place in your world? Can there exist Good and Lawful paladins who wouldn't violently break the Condemned Innocent out of prison? If so, is neither your version or my version "correct" in their interpretation as to what should be done, or is it just my version that's incorrect?
Neither of us is incorrect since we're clearly well into interpretation and personal definitions of good and law and how they relate and whether supporting one at the expense of the other is still consistent with respecting the first.
In my campaign world, this paladin would fall because I would make it clear to them that allowing the innocent to die through inaction constitutes an alignment changing decision (from lawful good to lawful neutral). In my world, a paladin would not put a legal system ahead of the life of an innocent and would see a system that required him to do so as something that needed to be opposed or at the very least reformed. Clearly it is a system which does not allow for mistakes in its own judgment nor allow appeals to its directives and is therefore more concerned with its own authority than with the well being of the governed.
But that's in my world, where I make the rules. I'm merely presenting that as a possible response to the OP's query.
stringburka and finarin,
Since, you're both so certain on this and basically saying the same thing, now.
Your arguments basically goes like this:
1) A system of Law and Order can not be good if it executes innocent people
2) A lawful good paladin only respects good Law and Order or is not required to obey any Law
3) A lawful good paladin must rescue innocents
4) If a system of law and order attempts to execute an innocent, then from (1), (2), and (3), the lawful good paladin must rescue the innocent.
1) I claim this is false and that you cannot prove it to be true. You only express an opinion and with little substantiation (much substantiation exists, but you don't provide it... there is just as much, if not more, substantion of the opposite). So, if in your game you impose this position, then you are defining good in a subjective way. One substantiating argument is to defend the existence of mistakes and then follow that with showing the value of the practice. First, mistakes happen in any justice system (some people die in prison because the funds don't exist for the prison to be well-policed, some innocent people die in prison because evidence is never supplied to prove their innocence, some people are freed when they have committed the most heinous of crimes). But in spite of this, the death penalty being strictly observed after an exhaustive case-by-case study of each crime and criminal, and allowing no rescue, helps to deter the worst of crime--leads to the greater good (less dead innocents at the hands of brutal and vicious people).
2) Is false and again is merely assumed. You provide absolutely no corroboration for this premise. There is plenty of evidence of the opposite, but not for this. Sure "she speaks out against injustice", but there is absolutely no notion of Lawful Good characters breaking the law. They are about honor and respecting tradition and trustworthiness and obedience to authority. Breaking the law is in direct opposition to this, especially when they believe that upholding the law leads to greater good.
Here are the relevant quotes combined from Good, Law, Lawful Good, and the Code of Conduct:
- Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability.
- Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
- A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. Lawful good combines honor with compassion.
- Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents
At no point does it say that Good characters protect innocent life without exception. At no point does it say that Good characters should break the law. The only guidance we are given on law is to respect it, obey it, honor tradition, keep their word, tell the truth, to act as they are expected and required to act. Good people protect the innocent, ok. But the code of conduct doesn't say that, it says: "help those in need...provided they do not use the help for ... chaotic ends". It is spelled out for you, right there, in clear text. So clearly there are exceptions to the help that can be provided.
Further, there is the basic principle of the social contract that constrains your actions.
3) Is true, but clearly not "without exception" as seen in my response to (2). We can imagine many scenarios where one can not save the innocent--they usually involve the deaths of more innocents, but could be through divine commandment, as well. Clearly, the main reason to stand by and accept the ruling of the court is that through disobedience, you serve the greater evil of civil discontent and lawlessness and vigilanteism where more innocents get hurt and die. Furthermore, if we assume the premise is true "without exception", then it begs the question. By definition, then, it would deny the dilemma and directly mean that paladins must ignore the law and the rightful authority and become a vigilante.
You are absolutely correct, that is why I so frequently clarify that these conclusions are my opinions and interpretations. Also just a reminder, you did ask me specifically how a paladin operating under your interpretation would fare in my campaign world. The answer was obviously not well, but I would have made that clear to you before you found yourself in the situation so it wouldn't be coming at you as an unexpected surprise. If you made your concept clear to me I would recommend that within my world you would make a better cavalier or lawful neutral fighter/cleric than a paladin and would happily work with you to create an appropriate prestige class to help you achieve any particular vision for that character that you have (if not available within the existing classes). If these issues arose in play we'd take a moment to talk about it and come to a mutually acceptable conclusion (since I'm not omniscient after all) :)
I hope I've also been clear that I do not believe these conclusions are appropriate for a discussion of real world morality or legal systems. These are only conclusions on how I would run a game of heroic fantasy, Pathfinder in particular in which we have specific definitions of both good and law to site and from which to draw conclusions.
Yes, there are exceptions, I just don't believe the scenario that the OP provided constitutes one.
Also I'd have to modify the points you suggest that I'm arguing to actually agree that they represent my position.
1) A system of Law and Order cannot be good if it executes innocent people and has no system for appeal which can delay that execution until relevant parties are convinced.
A good system of law and order in my world would recognize a paladin, convinced of the condemned man's innocence, as a relevant party.
2)A paladin respects good law and order and neutral law and order, but always places good ahead of law and order. If he respects the law and order that he transgresses against he submits himself to its authority and accepts whatever judgement it deems appropriate for his actions.
He knowingly transgressed against the legitimate authority and is therefore not innocent, so he supports that authority by accepting the consequences of his deeds as the law commands. In this way, no innocent is punished and the law is respected.
Or at least that is how it would work in my world. Yes, a condemned innocent has been freed and the legal system thwarted, but when people say "How can you allow this to happen", the courts can clearly say "because any who follow this paladin's example will be punished according to the law in the same fashion as the paladin who has been convicted and punished for his offense."
By breaking the law the paladin has sacrificed his innocence in the scenario and accepts the punishment that would be wrongfully applied to the original prisoner.
That is also the critical point of difference between a neutral or chaotic person who would most likely not submit to the authority he had thwarted.
Also the law of unintended consequences is a great friend to the DM because the threat of those consequences is the call to adventure! Not so good in the real world or actual political/legal systems, but great stuff when you're dealing with heroic fantasy.
Great stuff. Permit me some more observations.
You are absolutely correct, that is why I so frequently clarify that these conclusions are my opinions and interpretations. Also just a reminder, you did ask me specifically how a paladin operating under your interpretation would fare in my campaign world. The answer was obviously not well, but I would have made that clear to you before you found yourself in the situation so it wouldn't be coming at you as an unexpected surprise. If you made your concept clear to me I would recommend that within my world you would make a better cavalier or lawful neutral fighter/cleric than a paladin and would happily work with you to create an appropriate prestige class to help you achieve any particular vision for that character that you have (if not available within the existing classes). If these issues arose in play we'd take a moment to talk about it and come to a mutually acceptable conclusion (since I'm not omniscient after all)
Yes, I was going to comment that the notion that a paladin falls for *not breaking the law*, *not assaulting innocent guards*, and *not usurping the authority of a rightful court* would be a bit hard to stomach. I would think that if the paladin flogs himself trying to save this guy using all legal means available to him, then that would be sufficient. So, I would think I would be feeling sore over the issue.
1) A system of Law and Order cannot be good if it executes innocent people and has no system for appeal which can delay that execution until relevant parties are convinced.
A good system of law and order in my world would recognize a paladin, convinced of the condemned man's innocence, as a relevant party.
a) We don't actually know that such an appeals process didn't happen. Let's assume it did. I don't see how that's all that relevant.
b) I hear you on the recognition of a Paladin's... nobility. I consider this a partially valid point. The real problem is that paladins are not all equal (look at Hellknight, for example), are just as fallible as the next guy, and have no actual authority. That said, I could see a good justice giving him due recognition. However,
c) Clearly, you can't just wait until people are all "satisfied". How long should the court reasonably wait, while feeding and clothing and housing a child-murdering thug? When we discuss the Condemned Innocent scenario, we can stipulate from the start that the paladin will never be satisfied with the evidence or the proof (either way, he won't be able to provide enough and he won't be convinced of what is presented) and that the appeals process has failed to overturn the conviction. What then?
2) A paladin respects good law and order and neutral law and order, but always places good ahead of law and order... Or at least that is how it would work in my world... By breaking the law the paladin has sacrificed his innocence in the scenario and accepts the punishment that would be wrongfully applied to the original prisoner.That's cool. I don't like the notion that the Paladin is trapped in this scenario--he is either required to save the innocent (doing all the nefarious things I listed above, as well as, acting in a chaotic way and for chaotic ends) with the following possible outcomes (not necessarily exclusive or exhaustive):
- dying in the process (not a huge deal, admittedly, for a hero, but very likely in a large city unless it's a sufficiently advanced paladin)
- freeing one of them, but not both (what a conundrum regardless of which gets away)
- causing the death of more than one innocent in the escape (e.g. several guards try to kill the innocent and you're forced to respond with lethal damage)
- both being caught and put in prison (not a huge deal, admittedly, for a hero, but very likely in a large city unless it's a sufficiently advanced paladin)
- not in your world, but perhaps in mine: getting all the way to the jail cell (having done all that I've detailed) to find out the innocent would rather accept the court's lawful ruling than be responsible for anyone else's guilt or anyone getting hurt
- both breaking free, but
a) looking at the certainty of being punished with years in prison or
b) worse not finding enough evidence to clear the other fellow's name and being stuck in a worse dilemma, yet still obligated to turn himself in and obligated to both turn in and not turn in the innocent man.
- Causing riots or copycat vigilantes
The worst part is all these risks that aren't just about himself. He's not just risking his life or freedom, he's risking other people's lives and liberty both in the short term and the long term.
Seems like a rough demand for anybody, even a paladin.
Also the law of unintended consequences is a great friend to the DM because the threat of those consequences is the call to adventure! Not so good in the real world or actual political/legal systems, but great stuff when you're dealing with heroic fantasy.
Agreed. Nothing more enjoyable than the surprise twists that challenge our heroes... well nothing more than seeing their creativity in overcoming them.
So... whoops, I've been gone for a bit. I'm running to catch up here, so pardon if it comes off as rambling.
Just so I'm clear: deontology is a fine, accurate, but incomplete interpretation of law in alignment. Legalism is a fine, accurate, but incomplete interpretation of law in alignment. Following the laws of the land is a fine, accurate, but incomplete interpretation of law in alignment. Implicit social contracts are a fine, accurate, but incomplete interpretation of law in alignment.
jupistar (please let me know if you'd rather have the first letter capitalized - I'm following the lead of how it's actually written here) please understand: I disagree with you heavily and deeply. I respect you as well - you seem quite learned and skilled, mentally.
However, there are three things I'd like to point out where you've been inconsistent with the rest of what you've been saying or that highlight certain points and a final statement over-all.
Alignment in D&D is more about the forest. We're looking at trees.
This is fairly apt, save it's even broader than you state. Each alignment is a different forest. If lawful good is, say, a coniferous forest, you're claim would be that only pine trees belong in the forest and everything else is incorrect. This isn't how D&D (and in this case, Pathfinder by extension) work. That coniferous forest has trends, traits, and tendencies, but it's full of individuals, just like everything else. And occasionally you're going to find really weird things there that aren't normal, but still function. Some things never will.
If a man cuts a large tree so that it almost falls and then walks away so that a gust of wind finishes the job and it falls on someone killing them, you don't blame the wind or the tree. You blame the negligent man.
Which is exactly the point: the paladin, by inaction, is guilty by negligence.
The proper response of the Paladin here is to either declare the country an enemy state and wage war against it or to try to change the law by mounting a human rights crusade against that sort of cruelty to women--and prior to and after declaring himself an enemy of that Law, feel justified in stopping the acts of rape that he encounters.
This is exactly what many people have been saying that the paladin needs to do, except replace "rape" with "killing innocent people".
Eventually it comes down to this. You keep insisting that "respect legitimate authority" trumps "helping those in need" given the provisions of the latter and that allowing the innocent to die is a perfectly good act to preform. I disagree. Completely.
As written, the OP is meant to be "unwinnable". But taking the word "know" (with all the quasi-objective certainty that a person can) and having a code that encourages action over inaction means that the paladin must act and not wait. I do not, under any circumstances, expect that a paladin's first (or even second, or likely even third) impulse would be to break the innocent out of jail. It's the last-resort. "Last" implies reluctance and an extreme desire to avoid at most costs.
The question, "would he do it" depends entirely on the individual code. With the RAW code, if we go by letter of the law... perhaps, depending on "respect". But if we go by letter of the law, he will not refuse to help those in need (they need not be performing the chaotic end... which isn't what he's after anyway) and he would have to punish those who threaten or harm the innocents. Which, regardless of all equivocating, would absolutely include the very human executioner, judge, and jury. If we go by the spirit instead (and there are many, many instances where lawful neutral and lawful good types prefer this), it's clear that over all he is to help protect the innocent and act before things are too late.
AND:
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.
Agreed!
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.
We entirely agree!
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.
Which is exactly what's going on here. The law, passed by otherwise good people who are otherwise doing great good are instead about to commit a great evil and further the cause of lawlessness
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.
Agreed again!
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.
Over-all mostly agreed again (though there are plenty of niggling details of disagreement). For example (counter to your claim, but also supporting it). This represents a paladin actually working to overthrow an bloodly, brutal, anarchic government cycle. (He's not getting very far, yet, though.)
I think there's an issue with the naming of the alignment actually. The alignment is called "lawful", but that doesn't really fit with the description - it doesn't really empathize law - more, it empathizes order and coherency over time. Personally, I would much have preferred if we had "order" and "freedom" as opposites, or "collectivistic" and "individualistic", or something like that. It would be easier to make them coherent.
This I more or less agree with. But the proposed names are rather misleading too.
BEWARE! I've created a magic device that casts , and works by you "clicking" the magical button titled "BLARG". It's basically redundant and older stuff. Please, please ignore it. Seriously. Don't read it unless you really want to. I'm not even posting it for anyone to read, I'm literally posting it only because I've written it and would like to analyze it later, but don't have the time or ability to look at it now. I can't even be sure I agree with all the points I make here! So don't read it unless you just want to read way, way too much text that may or may not be consistent and mostly disagrees with jupistar (often, perhaps, just on principle) and a couple of counters to some earlier stingburka comments.
First: You're repeatedly claiming that method is law/chaos and intent and results are good/evil. I disagree. Law is an end in itself. Law seeks to rid itself of chaos (as used in the alignment system). But Law does not mean "law" in the same sense that we mean "laws" or "legal". It means an ordered, disciplined, focus, obedience to a higher authority, and submission and meekness to said authority. This does not equate to laws that mortals pass (though it sometimes, and even often may).
Second: related to the above, you're conflating the action with the ultimate intent, execution, and results. Let's look at a well-discussed moral quandry. Killing people. Killing people - in a very general sense - is wrong, awful, and evil. We don't want to kill people. Killing people is an awful thing because death is not desirable for anyone. This is generally agreed upon.
One example where a problem arises, however: in the case when someone is trying to kill you or a loved one, violence and ultimately the death of said would-be murderer is sometimes the only option. This is not performing an evil act. Even premeditating, thinking about it, forming a strategy, and working to actively kill the would-be killer isn't an evil act! This is instead an act of self-defense (or fellow-defense).
In this case, not killing a person would be performing an evil act. This is what's called a "sin of omission", and the Catholic faith even says a prayer asking for forgiveness of such things every mass.
Similarly, by allowing an act he knows (insomuch as anyone can know) to come about - by accepting it as inevitable - the paladin is no longer being an innocent bystander. He loses that privilege by virtue of his knowledge. He must act, or else he is participating - by his silent acquiescence - to an evil act. He is committing a sin of omission.
This leads to Third: you're conflating "respect" with "obedience", which isn't the same thing. They are very similar, and have partial overlap of definitions, but they are different words and mean different things.
To this end, he breaks the law, insomuch as the written mortal laws is being evil and harming an innocent (which violates his code), but he is still being lawful by obeying the higher authority of his code. If you want to argue that he's breaking his code, you may (in which case he must, by virtue of his code, leading up to and immediately follow up the execution by "punishing" the court who came to the decision and also the executioner). But as we've established: he's following at least one element of the word "honor" (especially if he turns himself in later) and he's working toward a greater justice, he'd upholding the ultimate sanctity of the law (in the sense that if he finds and proves the guilt of someone else, turns himself in, and the first, innocent person goes free due to a declared mistrial by way of false evidence).
The Biblical story of Esther, interestingly, is a very similar case to this. In it, a proud man named Haman was insulted by a Jew's devotion to God above man (very specifically Haman himself). Because of this Haman worked to corrupt the king's decisions and placed the entirety of the Jewish people on a national Deathlist (basically stating that all their execution was coming on such-and-such a date at such-and-such a time).
In order to get around this, the woman Esther (the king's newest wife and favored consort, very meek, submissive, and often thought of as a paragon of lawful good behavior) did many great and diplomatic things, but when push-came-to-shove, she broke the law but accepted the consequences (which well could have involved her death, in way very similar to the previous queen before her). It worked out well for her in the end (especially because she was later able to reveal to the king that he had been tricked), but the fact is, she first violated the written mortal laws (specifically, she was not allowed to come before the king unless summoned, and the King was very, very busy at that time), placing her neck on the line for the sake of her people. This does not make her less lawful. This is one of the first recorded instances of civil disobedience, however (predated by King David before he was king, actually, but that's another story altogether).
()
I think one of my key problems with your arguments can be found below.
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.
"just because the Paladin decides he wants to break the law and needs justification for doing so" is a completely incorrect way of looking at this. You've entirely missed the point. The paladin doesn't want to. They don't like it. They are entirely backed into a corner where there is no other choice they can see. It would be like condemning someone for killing another person "because they want to"... who while the person who was killed was firing machine guns randomly in all directions, and claiming that the killer just "wanted justification". You are reading deep things into actions, intents, and consequences that simply aren't there. Your arguments are based on the presupposition that any paladin who doesn't agree with you doesn't want to serve the law and is just looking for a decent excuse. This is patently false.
As a question, here's a pickle for the D&D alignment system: what happens when a chaotic good goddess (Sune from Forgotten Realms) sponsors paladins (as she was wont to do)? What is their "highest authority"? The local magistrates? Certainly not! It's their goddess, their order, and their (unique and personal) code.
Note, however, that this in no way negates the alignment system. I love the alignment system (though I know many here do not) and I use it extensively. Rather, the alignment system is neat, clean, and flexible, if you look at it properly.
Adherence to a Code is not at issue.
Yes. It is exactly the issue.
The question is two-fold, does a Lawful Good person do Chaotic Good things?
Yes. Sometimes they do. (Though less often than lawful things.)
And, does the Code support breaking the law of a Lawful Good society for Chaotic Good purposes?
No, but it supports breaking the law of a Lawful Good society for Lawful Good purposes.
It doesn't matter to which law you appeal, it's certainly not codified anywhere, unless you (the player or DM) do it yourself. The best you have is the Code in the CRB and that clearly states you respect authority and honor tradition and help those in need when that help does not lead to chaotic results. Breaking a prisoner out of jail violates all three.
No, it only "violates" the last (while upholding the other two), and only to the extent that breaking someone from jail leads to "chaoitc" results (which is not actually true either, IF the paladin is careful enough about it, works toward finding and proving the true culprit, and turns himself in for crimes committed, aka breaking someone out of jail).
You admit that the behavior (means) is chaotic, just with good intent (you claim Lawful ends). But the Code of Conduct is all about behavior and much less about results. Your various justifications (not legitimate authority, appeals to different authority, etc..) are all just ways of masking what you've already admitted: it's a chaotic act.
You say that to Deadmanwalking, but I say to you: no it's not. It's not a legal act, but it is lawful and it abides by the code's spirit (rather than letter, which would have the paladin punishing the law-enforcement agencies for threatening and/or harming innocents).
You might as well just say the Paladin is able to act dishonorably to save innocent life; that he can lie, cheat, and use poison (to knock someone out); that he can act quite unPaladin-like to achieve his goals. In fact, consider the question: is there anything a Paladin cannot do to save innocent life other than killing other innocents? If there is nothing or very little, then perhaps you really ought to rethink your position on what the Code of Conduct means.
I don't actually recall this being said and skimming over the posts, I don't see this.
Of course, that also means that no Paladin ever considers himself subject to the laws of any land, which of course, begs the question again as to what really separates him pragmatically from the chaotic good individual who may also operate according to some personal ethic. I can imagine a world where countries constantly have to worry about Paladins breaking into their jailhouses in the name of Goodness and springing prisoners. They could make it their life's work, to free the innocent, setting up Underground Railroads and all that.
This is patently false. You are taking two different false presuppositions, and a specific moment of a specific situation while ignoring the greater context and the fact that the paladin submits to the authority thereafter for the over-all lawful ends (and means) of willingly paying for his crime.
"Respect does not mean obey regardless of the prevailing situation" - agreed.
Like wise, "protect innocent life" does not mean "Protect innocent life regardless of the prevailing situation."
No, you are conflating "respect" with "obedience" and then extrapolating based off of a false definition.
By way of extreme example, "Protecting one innocent life, but sacrificing one hundred" is a bad and wrong choice. Read below to see what I mean when I talk about "prevailing situation" of protecting the innocent.
Which is not what we're talking about here.
Remember, a Lawful Evil society doesn't have evil laws. They have order and maintain the rights of their citizens and believe in fairness. They just don't endorse concepts of compassion within the law, mercy is hard to find here.
No, this is incorrect. A Lawful Evil society doesn't always have evil laws, but many do. And the laws they do have will inevitably be more readily construed to evil than good.
But they wouldn't simply assume that a mistaken court is the same thing as an unjust court.
Actually, they would inherently. A court is judged for the sake of justice and if that judgement is wrong, there is no justice. If a court is mistaken, justice is miscarried. Their response would heavily depend on the severity of the breach of justice, but they would indeed hold that the court was being unjust in this case.
Two main points and I'll end:
1) Innocent people are punished in this country all the time, and while confidence and trust is not high, especially in certain demographics where propaganda feeds rebellious spirits, Law and Order do prevail in this society, for the most part.
2) To understand the reasons Paladins (and all deontologists/Lawful people) do not behave this way is because they understand and respect the law of unintended consequences.
- If my Paladin successfully breaks prisoner X out of jail and gets away with it, that sets precedent for others.
- My actions demonstrate vulnerability of the system and the lack of reprisal gives hope.
- My brother, the mass murderer, might be returned to me successfully, if I can stage a daring rescue.
- The Paladin of Iomedae did it.
- My actions foment unrest as the country is unable to capture me or the "murderer" in my care.
- Peasants revolt at the unfair treatment Iomedaeans receive, because obviously the rulers aren't trying hard enough.
- My actions and the actions of other Paladins in usurping authority, begin a chain reaction that leads to open hostility between the host nation and the church.
- My actions erode the faith of the people in the justice system from the opposite direction, "Wha' 'oes it ma'er i' da King's me' capcher the bloke, he's prolly just gonna 'scape 'nyway. The' Aymedayns ar tryn' ta roon dis c&#+ry."
That's what the sort of thing they believe is the evil of a short-sighted Chaotic Good decision. All of those things can lead to loss of innocent life and likely more than one. Order is the Good that the sacrifice of one innocent is weighed against. You may not personally see it as that great of a Good, but when you come out of the dark frontier, you understand that Order is all that keeps people from each other's throats.
For the first: you are putting law and order at the expense of good. This fails the concept of Paladin.
For the second: a good, sound, reasoned argument! ... about protecting a system that a) has little confidence b) fails regularly and c) performs evil acts. None of these are legitimate to the paladin.
Legitimacy is not usually that difficult to ascertain, but it is always a matter of judgment. For in truth, legitimacy is also a subjective thing: in that it is not about the rightness of the rulers and rules, but about our perception as to whether those rulers and rules apply to us in the moment. There are questions you must ask:
1) Do the rules and rulers impose order on the populace? Do they do so in fair and just ways?
At all times? No. Obviously not. Sometimes? Yes. And that is their target.
2) Are the rulers and rules accepted by those who coexist on the land? Are they oppressed and acquiesce to the Law of the Land through fear of reprisal or do they do so through the willing approbation of the rulers?
This is actually two questions but are very loaded. First, "coexist" implies that they don't wish or attempt to kill each other. Galt proves this a fallacy. The second has a false dichotomy - one can fear reprisal and be the willing approbation of the rulers (through more than just fear). And then there are conflicting responses to that very question within the answer to the first. Cheliax is a fine example of this. Those that coexist in Cheliax are diverse - some are oppressed and act from fear, while others are willing approbation of the rulers.
3) Do those to whom you owe allegiance recognize the legitimacy of these rules and rulers? If not, do you have an obligation to oppose these rules and rulers or do you subsume your duty in the moment and abide by a social contract for you have a greater duty to attend?
In this question you admit the very possibility of partial obedience ("in the moment") by virtue of a greater authority ("greater duty" and "those you serve").
4) If you're of goodly nature, do the rules and rulers not conflict with your devotion to goodness? If not, then do you have an obligation to oppose these rules and rulers or do you subsume your moral compunction in the moment and abide by a social contract for you have a greater need to attend?
a) In the case of the OP they do. b) This doesn't apply because of "a)".
And there are yet more questions that must be addressed. Specifically, what about the middle ground? Do you recognize the legitimacy of the rules and the rulers, but reject one or two specific laws (they're unjust, overly oppressive, or evil) and oppose them? This can take the form of mild opposition with merely being vocal, especially if you value law and order, to as much as open rebellion and the denunciation of the legitimacy of any ruler that endorses the law. There is an element of chaos in this, but perhaps it is a lesser and necessary "evil", for a good and lawful individual, to throw off bad law in favor of good law. Obviously, this would be a difficult situation for the lawful and good individual.
First: there is nothing inherently against the lawful alignment in opposing unjust mortally-written (and fallible) laws. It heavily depends on how they are opposed. (If they are opposed legally, for example, there is no chaos at all. You are opposing the the law with the tool the law has made to do exactly that.)
The reason, of course, is that, while the least restrictive alignment is neutral evil, the most restrictive and mandating is lawful good. But people are flawed, not robots, and so they behave in ways that are less than perfect. If you don't see it this way, then that's fine. I just don't understand why you don't. You repeatedly talk about outcomes when it's not about outcomes (conscience-based thinking is chaotic), it's about the inherent rightness or wrongness of an action. Consider Neutral Good, "He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them." That alone implies that the LG feels beholden to kings and magistrates, but that NG has a bit more flexibility in this regard.
It is absolutely about outcomes. Chaotic Good acts as chaos will, regardless of the outcomes, because "I" (the chaotic good individual) think it's the right thing to do.
Further, feeling beholden to something and actually being beholden to something is altogether different.
The paladin argues that justice is like an arrow shot from a bow when a crime takes place. That arrow is meant for the criminal. If that criminal, with his chaotic and evil action, causes or allows an innocent man to be punished for his crime, then he's the one culpable for the innocent's death, not the impartial machine.
Except there is no impartial machine. There's a large number of very partial people doing what they think is best together. The executioner? Not impartial. Definitely harmed the innocent. You cannot claim that he did otherwise. The judge who passed sentence? Definitely threatened the innocent. You cannot claim otherwise. The jury who chose the innocent as guilty? Partially debatable but they truly harmed the innocent socially and emotionally. So then we come to "what is harm"? In which case we're being silly.
1) If you do have a complete set of laws by which you are directed to interact with other beings human and non-human, then it is subjective to (s/t)he(y) who created it, whether it be an ruling body or individual, divine or otherwise. And no law is quintessentially clear since it must be written using human language which is imperfect and interpreted by the human mind which is imperfect, so subjective judgments must still be made no matter who wrote it.
So... the law is flawed and requires individual (flawed) judgement, yet a paladin is bound to it completely and fully?
2) If you don't have a complete set of laws by which you are directed to interact with other beings human and non-human, then (a) you're beholden to the same set of rules and laws as everyone else--unless, of course, you're given special dispensation--who coexist on the land with you, unless no set of rules and laws obtain--such as in the wild, or (b) you're making chaotic judgments as you go along using some basic principles to guide you. This last possibility is a huge problem for paladins, because that sort of chaos is too great.
This is a false dichotomy predicated on the words "complete set" of laws.
jupistar, you've invalidated most of your own arguments with the concept that you brought up: "Alignment in D&D is more about the forest. We're looking at trees." This is the problem. You're saying that a paladin (lawful good) cannot do X, Y, or Z because they are A. I'm saying that A is totally fine (and would definitely account for some paladins) but so is B, C, D, E, and so on all the way through Z. Law does, incidentally, allow for some wiggle room and even contradictions. For example, in Golarion, the absolute bastion of Law by its very essence, the God Mind of Axis has both made war and peace with the very core elements of Chaos and done so simultaneously.
Further, when speaking with AM HELLKNIGHT, you consistently refer to "you" (the individual) as the sovereign element which ultimately decides which laws to accept. The only core place that you differ in your arguments from your fellows then, seems to be the presupposition that a paladin cannot change their mind once they've accepted something. Again, this is obviously untrue - a paladin who can never change their mind can never make decisions.
As an aside: That's about the singular paladin. There are none. All paladins belong to a church and to a deity. These paladins, at the very least, have higher authorities in the church, even if no codified law. Thus, there are other people for such paladins to turn to when judging the legitimacy of nations and their rulers.
This is not true. Paladins do arise spontaneously and need worship/be part of no specific Order, Church, or Deity to come into being.
Arbitrary laws are chaotic. Harsh laws are evil. Laws have no more validity than the authority that makes and enforces them.
This is not really true. Arbitrary laws can be chaotic. Harsh laws can be evil. There is even a tendency toward such things. But they are not that inherently.
ALSO:
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).
This is just poorly thought out, man (though you have much better later posts). What if the people elect a popular Supreme Tyrant (in the way the Greeks sometimes did), investing him with Supreme Authority? The Tyrant did not take the authority for himself - he was literally given it by the people. Since he has Absolute Authority (as invested by the people) this entire argument fails. If he then refuted the Tyrant, he'd really be refuting the people, he would fail whatever strange oath he'd taken in the first place, and fall.
I mean, is it possible for a Paladin to justifiably set up rebellion in a local land and use it to overthrow false and unjust rule, becoming a rebel? Yes. Heavily depends on his religion (and thus code) and the government in question, however.
A corrupt body of "law" is attempting to kill an innocent. The paladin is quite justified in bringing the whole legal edifice down, executing all of the corrupt and erecting a proper lawful good authority to replace the sickening perversion of JUSTICE that established itself.
Do not serve evil or respect it. Make good, make law. And murder every moth*r f**ker that tries to stop you.
It doesn't matter if the real forces of evil are in a dungeon or a bureaucracy. Level thine smites on the evil-doers and their lackeys, and the populace if it supports their falsehoods. Spare them death though, for they must learn the correct way. Death-dealing must be paired with the growth of the right forces, forced into the bossom and minds of the people, as it is so often needs to be.
Go. The right path needs its champions.
(This is how I play paladins, this is what a holy militant champion would do.)
Perhaps, that depends on the game version and how they balance, (I prefer 3.5 paladins), but the question of what to do in the topic scenario, is an interesting one.
Paladins can be good fun. Can play the fanatic, can play the humanist, can play the law abiding paladin, the spreader of good and slayer of monsters/dragons.
Tacticslion, I don't even know where to begin with this. I appreciate all the effort you've put into it--I even read through your "wall of text" (you did warn me, I know).
I'm formulating in my mind a different tactic of trying to illustrate the truth of my position in the hopes that everyone can appreciate it. Understand that I hear everything you're saying and everyone else is saying and that it all rings as false rationalization in my ears.
Just by way of example, when you attack a sound piece of reasoning in my determination of whether or not "the court" (as a general body) should be punished (with no direction on how the nature of that punishment should be formed), I don't sense that you're attempting to understand me, but that you're attempting to oppose me. When we debate for an audience, I expect a desire to show me wrong (you have a duty to your position to oppose me), but when we debate for truth, we both have a duty to try to look for that truth whereever it appears. And my position, while it can be nitpicked, is on the face of it, true. It is not equivocation, even if it appears that way. If the Lawful Good paladin is a staunch supporter of law and courts, then he would see the court as part of an impartial machine--impartial in its application of the law. Sure that court makes a judgment, but so what? Even my computer can make a judgment, but that doesn't make my computer partial or prejudicial or unfair. But you claim that the paladin must punish the court in some undefined way so that you claim to preserve the letter of the code of conduct. This is only a means to an end, for you. You don't really want him attacking the judge and the jury and the executioner (though, you would probably support this last, if it serves the escape plan), you want to make a point. But the point is superficially false for exactly the reasons I explained.
Feel free to not respond to my example, it's only there to serve the purpose of illustrating why I hear rationalization and discern motivation outside of truth-seeking.
As for the rest of your post, other than your focused responses to mdt, I don't see any cohesive theme in your responses to me. You have cherry picked statements, out of context, here and there and respond to them in as literal of a way as possible. I will illustrate with everything not in the wall of text.
Just so I'm clear: deontology is a fine, accurate, but incomplete interpretation of law in alignment. Legalism is a fine, accurate, but incomplete interpretation of law in alignment. Following the laws of the land is a fine, accurate, but incomplete interpretation of law in alignment. Implicit social contracts are a fine, accurate, but incomplete interpretation of law in alignment.
jupistar, please understand: I disagree with you heavily and deeply. I respect you as well - you seem quite learned and skilled, mentally.
Thanks, jupistar is fine -- I acknowledge, implicitly, that no legal code expresses a perfect representation of good order. Every legal code will be imperfect (this is not logically required, it just will be). The question is one of approach. If a single "set of laws" is overall good and non-oppressive, then the people ruled by it will, by-and-large, probably see it as such. When you allow individual examples of bad law or poor rulings to say that the whole system is "corrupt", you incontestably equivocate. It has to be seen as a whole. It's the perfect example of throwing the baby out with the bath water. Sure, I can easily imagine a single law giving the overall sense of "unbelievable corruption" or "evil government", but that's the exception to the rule. Also, to talk about exceptions where the law is fair and non-oppressive to one group of people and at the same time unfair or oppressive to another is to equivocate--it's not fair law, then. We're not interested in the exceptions, right now, for the exceptions require exceptions to the rules. We're interested in the rule, first and foremost. You will see what I mean, presently.
However, there are three things I'd like to point out where you've been inconsistent with the rest of what you've been saying or that highlight certain points and a final statement over-all.
Alignment in D&D is more about the forest. We're looking at trees.This is fairly apt, save it's even broader than you state. Each alignment is a different forest. If lawful good is, say, a coniferous forest, you're claim would be that only pine trees belong in the forest and everything else is incorrect. This isn't how D&D (and in this case, Pathfinder by extension) work. That coniferous forest has trends, traits, and tendencies, but it's full of individuals, just like everything else. And occasionally you're going to find really weird things there that aren't normal, but still function. Some things never will.
What is the inconsistency you point out here?
If a man cuts a large tree so that it almost falls and then walks away so that a gust of wind finishes the job and it falls on someone killing them, you don't blame the wind or the tree. You blame the negligent man.Which is exactly the point: the paladin, by inaction, is guilty by negligence.
This analogy was intended to show how a man is culpable for actions done with knowing carelessness. The man who cut the tree acted with carelessness and negligence and that led to the death of an innocent. You try to take this same analogy and apply it to a paladin who has not acted--done nothing wrong--and attempt to say that by inaction he is just as negligent as the man who acted recklessly (assuming no intent). This is an equivocation on the word negligent and is further example of seeking for something other than truth. If you want to say that the paladin is remiss in his duty, that's one thing. To conflate that with the recklessness that causes the death of an innocent in my analogy is something else entirely.
The proper response of the Paladin here is to either declare the country an enemy state and wage war against it or to try to change the law by mounting a human rights crusade against that sort of cruelty to women--and prior to and after declaring himself an enemy of that Law, feel justified in stopping the acts of rape that he encounters.This is exactly what many people have been saying that the paladin needs to do, except replace "rape" with "killing innocent people".
Eventually it comes down to this. You keep insisting that "respect legitimate authority" trumps "helping those in need" given the provisions of the latter and that allowing the innocent to die is a perfectly good act to preform. I disagree. Completely.
As written, the OP is meant to be "unwinnable". But taking the word "know" (with all the quasi-objective certainty that a person can) and having a code that encourages action over inaction means that the paladin must act and not wait. I do not, under any circumstances, expect that a paladin's first (or even second, or likely even third) impulse would be to break the innocent out of jail. It's the last-resort. "Last" implies reluctance and an extreme desire to avoid at most costs.
The question, "would he do it" depends entirely on the individual code. With the RAW code, if we go by letter of the law... perhaps, depending on "respect". But if we go by letter of the law, he will not refuse to help those in need (they need not be performing the chaotic end... which isn't what he's after anyway) and he would have to punish those who threaten or harm the innocents. Which, regardless of all equivocating, would absolutely include the very human executioner, judge, and jury. If we go by the spirit instead (and there are many, many instances where lawful neutral and lawful good types prefer this), it's clear that over all he is to help protect the innocent and act before things are too late.
As I said, it is not equivocation at all, even if it appears so on the surface. It is the essence of reason to identify that the complicit one truly is the man who committed the crime but did not submit himself for judgment. If the court cannot, in good faith, make judgments that have the possibility of being wrong without being morally culpable, then no court can be "clean" in its duties. This is a mistake that can and will cause indecision, encourages discord through the land, distrust in the courts, and drive away wise jurists.
Your deep and heavy disagreement provides no sound argument--no rational position--other than an ethereal notion that somehow acting chaotic leads to lawful ends. But I don't see any sense in that statement, unless those chaotic actions are to establish a new order--new law. If the paladin were to save the innocent as part of a larger battle to rid the nation of the death penalty, then perhaps I could agree in it's "lawful ends", but even that presupposes that violently breaking the law, in the short term, will not lead to evil or chaotic ends (hence the violation of his code).
I agree, the law of the land (legalism) is not the same as "Lawful". I've never claimed that. The social contract is nothing more than a recognition of the legitimacy of and acquiescence to the law of the land and therefore is, of course, not the same as "Lawful". I've never claimed that, either. What I do claim is that Lawful implies a desire to live in a state of order and by a code. Lawful Good implies an appeal to a sense of order that is moral in nature and that applies to whole groups of people, not individuals. While LN have personal codes, LG tend to look outside to establish or adhere to good law that provides order for the populace.
All bodies of law are inherently flawed, having vagueness in some laws, incompleteness in others, and fundamentally poor reasoning in still others. But the existence of bad laws is seen as an acceptable price, if it brings about the greater good of social order and generally fair treatment. Even so, bad law is undesireable and so the LG are going to continue to try to improve the system to purge bad law. Of course, this presumes a democratic nation or a nation where the LG individuals have influence over the law of the land, perhaps by petitioning the King or a ruling council. You cannot look at one law or one ruling and arbitrarily dismiss the goodness of the courts, the law of the land, or your inherent acquiescence to the social contract. It simply is not fitting your Lawful Good alignment. Other words, besides vigilantism, that might apply would be "treasonous" and "traitorous".
As a side note, most of you say, "Since prison is not death, it does not cause irreparable damage." I submit that it most certainly does. One cannot reverse death, it is true, but one cannot reverse time, either. You say, "Well, a loss of time in your life is far better than the loss of all time in your life." While on the surface, true, there are men, perhaps myself included, who would rather fight and die than find himself innocent and in prison. To many, Liberty is more important than life itself. The larger point is, sometimes death is not the worst thing that can happen to some men, regardless of your view of things. If you offer a man a choice between either wallowing in prison with the scum of the earth, locked away from the wind and the forest, to be treated as cattle or he can choose to be hanged--he might very well choose the noose.
Please see my next post where I posit some small changes to the original dilemma, to put everyone to the test.
The wolves sense the man is growing weaker. It is time to start a fire. I simply cannot put in the effort required to respond to all of you that you're able to each, individually, put in to respond to me. I'm sorry. So I propose a different tactic.
Let's modify the OP's original intent, just a bit. Let us state the Condemned Innocent as follows:
A person has been condemned to death for horrific acts involving children, depravity, and murder, but a paladin is absolutely certain that the person in question is innocent of the crimes for which he has been convicted. The evidence appears to have been expertly and cleverly forged to prove his guilt; to frame him for the crimes of another. The paladin, after giving strong, but ultimately subjective testimony was unable to overcome the mountain of implicating evidence. The guilty decision was reviewed by a higher court and even came before the attention of the King who saw nothing untoward and provided his wax seal of approval.
Finally, the paladin pleaded with the court before the sentence of hanging was to be carried out, "Your honors, please allow me a little more time to collect the evidence needed. I know this case has been in the system a long time, but an innocent man's life hangs in the balance and a guilty man walks free." The courts recognizing the goodness of the paladin and trusting his inherent devotion to justice and law, agree to give the paladin one month. But after one month, the paladin is still unable to find the evidence. He again appeals to the court and the court is again swayed by the paladin's righteousness and nobility and grants the paladin another month. Upon reporting failure a second time, he makes yet another appeal and the court grants another stay of execution for one more month. Finally, the paladin returns with a small, but utterly unconvincing piece of evidence that sways no one (not even himself, if he thinks objectively).
The court, with deep regret and resignation, says to the paladin, "I'm sorry, but we can no longer delay the justice this man deserves. Sentence will be carried out in the morning. The man will die by hanging at dawn."
And one further stipulation: The paladin is wrong. The man is guilty.
We have just one question to answer: Is the paladin abiding by his alignment and his code by staging a daring, but ultimately violent, prison-break for this "innocent" man?
Jupistar, you misrepresent me. I have never said the paladin must, or even should, rescue the victim. I'm saying neither solution is cause for fall and the choice made would depend on the paladin and situation in question.
Honestly, if I were a defense attorney in a magical world, and all I needed to do to get a client off is to get the jury to believe the was a reasonable doubt, I would simply hire a learned wizard as an expert witness and have him discuss the following spells: Disguise Self, Alter Self, Charm Person, Magic Jar, and Modify Memory.
Disguise Self and Alter Self mean that no eye-witness testimony can be admitted as iron-clad evidence. Charm Person means that motive goes out the window--not only can innocent people be convinced to commit crimes which they would not do if in their right minds, but almost any witness can be convinced to perjure himself. Magic Jar means that even if the accused's body bears physical marks linking it to the crime--the guards cut off his hand and the severed hand matches the bloody stump--he still cannot reasonably be held responsible for crimes committed with his body while he was possessed. Indeed, a possessed person is simply another victim. And Modify Memory? No one's testimony is unimpeachable if any memory can be false.
The Shadow of Doubt is pretty much elevated to godhood in a magical universe.
The paladin who believes that some good and innocent person is being framed for a crime he did not commit may be correct, but an equal possibility exists that he may be a dupe, being fooled by an illusion or having his mind play tricks on him after the fact. The same with any other witness in a case.
Given this, it would seem that an equally good and lawful court would have a difficult time convicting anyone.
Jupistar, you are philosophically trained, and that is all well and good, but please learn to write concisely. After I read the second paragraph of what seemed to be waffle without clear substance, I stopped. I don't dislike you, in fact we might be in some agreement, but you bury meaning under so many words.
Kevin, interesting point on the shadow of doubt. No wonder the state suspicious of magic is a recurring setting.
stringburka: I did not intentionally misrepresent you. If you're saying that the paladin might choose either course of action, situationally, I wouldn't oppose that line of reasoning--everyone seems to be taking some version of this stance, now. "If the rulers aren't legitimate." "If the boundaries of the nations are in dispute." "If I oppose the nation and am beholden to a different law rather than the law of the land." "In my world, the paladin would never be in this situation because a Good court would never..." But the situation seems rather clear; the OP seems to already be stipulating that the paladin perceives the court as a legitimate institution of a good and fair society. Please see the revised Condemned Innocent.
3.5 Loyalist: I write as concisely as I can with as much as I have to say. There are definitely places where I can be more concise. But it takes long enough to say everything, what with all the exceptions I have to address, points and subpoints that have to be made, all to stave off the waffling of my critics :P, that I have little enough time to proofread for grammar and spelling much less looking for places where I can condense. I do my best, I promise. If it bothers you too much or you can't follow it, I apologize. Maybe you would like to simply respond to the revised Condemned Innocent?
A person has been condemned to death for horrific acts involving children, depravity, and murder, but a paladin is absolutely certain that the person in question is innocent of the crimes for which he has been convicted. The evidence appears to have been expertly and cleverly forged to prove his guilt; to frame him for the crimes of another. The paladin, after giving strong, but ultimately subjective testimony was unable to overcome the mountain of implicating evidence. The guilty decision was reviewed by a higher court and even came before the attention of the King who saw nothing untoward and provided his wax seal of approval.
Finally, the paladin pleaded with the court before the sentence of hanging was to be carried out, "Your honors, please allow me a little more time to collect the evidence needed. I know this case has been in the system a long time, but an innocent man's life hangs in the balance and a guilty man walks free." The courts recognizing the goodness of the paladin and trusting his inherent devotion to justice and law, agree to give the paladin one month. But after one month, the paladin is still unable to find the evidence. He again appeals to the court and the court is again swayed by the paladin's righteousness and nobility and grants the paladin another month. Upon reporting failure a second time, he makes yet another appeal and the court grants another stay of execution for one more month. Finally, the paladin returns with a small, but utterly unconvincing piece of evidence that sways no one (not even himself, if he thinks objectively).
The court, with deep regret and resignation, says to the paladin, "I'm sorry, but we can no longer delay the justice this man deserves. Sentence will be carried out in the morning. The man will die by hanging at dawn."
And one further stipulation: The paladin is wrong. The man is guilty.
We have just one question to answer: Is the paladin abiding by his alignment and his code by staging a daring, but ultimately violent, prison-break for this "innocent" man?
Different situation Jim. Why is the paladin unconvinced? Why is the evidence convincing to everyone but the paladin?
Your court is reasonable, patient and doesn't seem corrupt. The paladin also seems a paranoid buffoon (yes I said buffoon, you rarely get the opportunity to use it accurately). So why are you taking us away from the original question and subject?
Different situation Jim. Why is the paladin unconvinced? Why is the evidence convincing to everyone but the paladin?
Your court is reasonable, patient and doesn't seem corrupt. The paladin also seems a paranoid buffoon (yes I said buffoon, you rarely get the opportunity to use it accurately). So why are you taking us away from the original question and subject?
The situation is really no different. I have simply supplied more information. I've added, not changed, anything. I'm illustrating a point regarding the nature of unintended consequences.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I tend to think players have considerable room for interpretation within their alignment, a lawful good character can follow the law in one case and emphasize goodness in another, there is not a single answer that is the right one, though most paladins would likely choose good over law they would not make a decision to go against the established law lightly.
The paladin might end up doing the same as the chaotic good character might though he would likely be less happy about it and might seek out a self-imposed atonement, as a GM I would not punish a paladin for going against the law in such a case but I'd expect it to pain the paladin to do so.
Even if the paladin is tricked, the paladin is expected to do what he/she believes to be right which might differ on their point of view, it's to me more interesting to play alignment in this way without there being an absolute single truth.
I think a paladin that emphasizes law over good would try to do the right thing by taking any legal measure it can take but unwilling to break the law, again the paladin will likely seek out atonement for failing and might even start to question the legal system.
I'd say good roleplay allows for many options, this conflict is one of the reasons to roleplay a paladin.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the ops post i understood it as the paladin had indisputable proof to himself that the man was innocent, not that it was merely certain and potentially wrong. If the paladin is not sure for real then the situation is different because it's no longer saving an innocent.
In the ops post i understood it as the paladin had indisputable proof to himself that the man was innocent, not that it was merely certain and potentially wrong. If the paladin is not sure for real then the situation is different because it's no longer saving an innocent.
In the original scenario, the language was very 3rd person omniscient. The narrative went as follows: "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..."
This is meta-knowledge, so to speak. From the paladin's point of view, heck, from anyone's point of view, there's no such thing as "absolute certainty", but there can be "unwavering certainty" (meaning, "nothing's going to change my mind"). So to "know" something implies that you witnessed something that tells you with "absolute certainty" the man is innocent. Maybe, he was with you the whole night of the crimes playing harrow. Maybe you saw the real guy committing the crime. Whatever the case, you're convinced.
What the OP wrote could simply be seen as him describing the situation third person from the paladin's point of view.
See? It's all about a subjective viewpoint -> the paladin's. I'm simply trying to show everyone that the paladin is not in some special case scenario that he should abandon all adherence to the law. Even if he's absolutely certain, he can be wrong. Whether through illusion, a twin brother, a misunderstanding of how things could possibly happen. Even modern day magicians make a living out of fooling otherwise brilliant people, by finding clever tricks to make things happen. We have thousands of brilliant mystery novels showing how people are convinced, beyond a shadow of a doubt, of the innocence of another person.
The paladin's adherence to the law is based on humility and committing himself to something greater than himself. It's based on an understanding that only by everyone obeying the law is the greatest good done and the greatest likelihood of good outcomes achieved. It's the chaotic good guy who's contemptuous of the law and is willing to place himself above the sound judgment of the court.
I'm simply trying to show, by putting a different perspective, but not really changing anything, that a different truth reveals itself.
Yep to string.
It is not "all about a subjective viewpoint", there is the truth. The truth of the first example is that there is a cover-up. In yours, there is no cover-up, and the paladin refuses to believe the evidence, the court or any magical information that could help.
Loyalist: I hear you. I know. My point has been, no one has a perfect understanding of reality. The paladin could "know absolutely" any number of ways. The paladin could have been drugged while playing harrow and not known it only to come to his senses to play his next card, not knowing the murderer had come and gone in the space of the last two hours. Knowledge is never ever perfect.
Another way of putting it: to this paladin, nothing between my revised scenario and the original scenario has changed. Nothing.
No, you're changing the situation. Being an eye witness in a world of wizards does. Not lend itself to absolute knowledge. The OP said absolute an youre changing that. At the very least, it implies divine intervention or something like that.
In the ops situation there is a cover-up, the victim is innocent and the paladin KNOWS this. Not only believes.
No, you're changing the situation. Being an eye witness in a world of wizards does. Not lend itself to absolute knowledge. The OP said absolute an youre changing that. At the very least, it implies divine intervention or something like that.
In the ops situation there is a cover-up, the victim is innocent and the paladin KNOWS this. Not only believes.
How? How can he know it absolutely? Can he have received divine knowledge or was it put in his head by a wizard? Knowing something *is* believing something. They are the same things.
In other words, the following statements are exactly the same:
"You're a paladin, and you know absolutely..."
"You're a paladin, and you believe absolutely ...
Having encountered the supposed guilty party and the real evidence, feigned evidence planted after the fact becomes obvious. The innocent party may not have been at the scene of the crime, be not really capable of the act, there was an unusual response time and no investigation. Witnesses may have been bullied by the authorities to lie. Any number of things can give away the innocent party is innocent, there is a plot to uncover. Has this framing occurred before, are the leaders villains?
Your changing of the story is the alteration of significant elements, so don't try to claim "nothing between my revised scenario and the original scenario has changed."
Everything you state can be explained with both mundane and magical means. Nothing you state is in any way different from someone coming to believe something absolutely and having been deceived by it.
Planted evidence doesn't prove someone innocent, only that someone was trying to make him look guilty. Even someone else admitting to the crime could be done to make the other guy look innocent. Nothing you say does anything than provide evidence and that evidence can be wrong.
So, I claim it because it's absolutely true. The main point is very clear. The paladin can be deceived. His "absolute knowledge" does not put him in a special seat in relation to the law.
Edit: And further, I've been saying this all along. The paladin is not above unintended consequences. As I pointed out to Finarin, there are a ton of other consequences besides finding out he's wrong, that are just as bad and many that are worse. That paladin, by violently attempting a rescue in this scenario, risks a great deal more than his own safety.
- freeing one of them, but not both (what a conundrum regardless of which gets away)
- causing the death of more than one innocent in the escape (e.g. several guards try to kill the innocent and you're forced to respond with lethal damage)
- both being caught and put in prison (not a huge deal, admittedly, for a hero, but very likely in a large city unless it's a sufficiently advanced paladin)
- not in your world, but perhaps in mine: getting all the way to the jail cell (having done all that I've detailed) to find out the innocent would rather accept the court's lawful ruling than be responsible for anyone else's guilt or anyone getting hurt
- Causing riots or copycat vigilantes
- both breaking free, but
a) looking at the certainty of being punished with years in prison or
b) worse not finding enough evidence to clear the other fellow's name and being stuck in a worse dilemma, yet still obligated to turn himself in and obligated to both turn in and not turn in the innocent man.
Look man, I can throw a ball and you can catch it.
Let's start here. You can try and make up whatever story you want, but if you caught the ball you caught it. Your story of a different event doesn't change what happened. If the innocent didn't do it, they didn't do it. Someone threw the ball of framing and the schmuck caught it. If you make the court patient, caring and reluctant in their sentence, you are changing the original situation in which a man was framed and the court happily went along with the perversion of justice.
Ok, so let's say the guy in my "Condemned Innocent - Revised" didn't do it. The paladin is right. Is it a perversion of justice, then?
The OP never stated what the court went through. He simply stated "fair and not corrupt". He never talked about process, length, or anything. Your assumption about "perversion of justice" was what you put into it.
You are equivocating upon this issue. What does the paladin know or believe? He has absolute certainty that this guy is innocent. But is he, in fact, innocent? In the original scenario he is assumed to be so. In my scenario he isn't. I'm asking you, why does the truth actually matter in relation to what the paladin believes?
In both cases he believes it to be true and as far as I'm concerned he can believe it for the same reasons in both scenarios. Is he right to act on his belief or not?
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!)
Here we can see the original details, in the full. There is an evil plot and the target is framed by the evil forces. The paladin knows what has happened, most likely through divine magic, or it being an amateur act of framing. Evidence is created and stacked against the accused. As it indeed does state, the court and the conspirators are separate, but the court is led into folly by fabricated evidence.
Good investigation could reveal the truth to the impartial court, but it is quite clear the chap is innocent, for he has been framed for something they haven't done.
I like the back and forth of who did it, who who who, but eventually the truth must be possible or a view of indecisive subjectivism has actually crept in too far to the game.