(1) Hold a quick trial, sentence them to death.
(2) Demand they give you a reason why the world is a better place with them in it. If they don't come up with anything satisfying cut their head off.
(3) "Pick up the sword. Pick up the sword. You can die on your feet, or die on your knees. Pick up the sword."
(4) "You have fought bravely, worthy foe. You deserve a fair trial for your crimes. Unfortunately, I'm in a dreadful hurry here..."
(5) Make them dig their own grave. As they do, ask them if they have any last requests, any relatives who need informing, etc.
(6) Weep as you string them up. "I'm sorry, I'm so sorry. I wish I had a choice in this matter."
(7) "If you are not prepared for death, recant your false god and accept the way of Torag!" If he recants, kill him anyway. "Now he will go to heaven. I have saved his soul."
^
I like this guy
Thing is... surrender is only for those who accept it themselves. Once someone shows you that they do not, I would say it's unreasonable to say you have to respect theirs. It is a matter of honour. If someone without honour does it, chances are it's just a trick, perhaps to win time. The book Escape from Undermountain had this happen... the heroes finally managed to corner and defeat their enemy, a slimy, rotten bastard. He begs for mercy, something he did not give when asked earlier.
"Mercy is for innocents."
Followed by a quick killing thrust to the heart.
|
Refusing to accept surrender is in no way, shape, or form evil. The individuals have realized that they are going to die if it continues; it's an act of self preservation from, more than likely, someone unrepentant for their wrongdoings. Let us consider for a moment human history, shall we?
Some of the most successful military forces in our world's history maintained a take no prisoners, leave no survivors mentality in a majority of their battles; it helped to break enemy nations. Accepting surrender only to torture would be evil, but offering a swift death? Not in the least. Particularly if one, for example, shared the mindset of the Spartans. They took good care of their own people, but God have mercy on the souls of anyone that dared cross them. If they did take you prisoner it was for a very good reason. The normal thing to do would simply be to kill you. Were the Spartans, collectively, qualified as evil? Nope! Neutral maybe, but certainly not evil.
Now take a look at Pathfinder. Even Torag, a deity that is quite clearly not evil, calls for the "take no prisoners" mentality of his followers. You kill your enemies to the last.
You see, this is why I don't really like Paladins.
For most other classes these things actually are subjective. It doesn't matter if the game would class you as a neutral character. If you stand by your personal code you can claim to be as honorable as you like and it makes very little difference.
|
|
You see, this is why I don't really like Paladins.
For most other classes these things actually are subjective. It doesn't matter if the game would class you as a neutral character. If you stand by your personal code you can claim to be as honorable as you like and it makes very little difference.
I'm right there with you on this one. Luckily, my own paladin of Torag is most often played under a GM that is well versed in both rules and lore. They don't threaten me with alignment infractions or falling if the character is forced to execute someone for their misdeeds. It isn't unlawful and it isn't evil, so why should it be an issue? Torag does actively support it.
Paladins ought to be able to put down the rabble so long as they are in a place where it is their lawful right (dare I say, duty?) to do so.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
paladins should NOT be excepted to follow every countries laws. They follow the laws of their deity, their church, and their own moral code (which, is line with their deity) because if you enforce the former, what happens when a LG paladin that serves a god/goddess of freedom enters a LE society that enforces slavery?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think giving them the mercy of a quick and painless death is quite good enough.
Better than letting them wander free, unarmed in the Forest of Eternal Doom to starve to death or be eaten, or some such.
|
|
paladins should NOT be excepted to follow every countries laws. They follow the laws of their deity, their church, and their own moral code (which, is line with their deity) because if you enforce the former, what happens when a LG paladin that serves a god/goddess of freedom enters a LE society that enforces slavery?
Paladin is forced to abide by that country's laws. Lawful is not a subjective term, you see. Is the country evil? Certainly, but the paladin has no right to go trying to free legally owned slaves or overthrow a legally empowered government. He just has to suck it up until someone else with authority tells him to do otherwise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
paladins should NOT be excepted to follow every countries laws. They follow the laws of their deity, their church, and their own moral code (which, is line with their deity) because if you enforce the former, what happens when a LG paladin that serves a god/goddess of freedom enters a LE society that enforces slavery?Paladin is forced to abide by that country's laws. Lawful is not a subjective term, you see. Is the country evil? Certainly, but the paladin has no right to go trying to free legally owned slaves or overthrow a legally empowered government. He just has to suck it up until someone else with authority tells him to do otherwise.
I don't see this anywhere in the description of the Paladin class.
A Paladin has a Code that she must follow. The code includes being Lawful Good and never willingly performing an Evil act.
That's it. Nothing about having to follow the laws of any country in which she is currently standing.
Evil authority is not legitimate authority. It is, in fact, the enemy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
paladins should NOT be excepted to follow every countries laws. They follow the laws of their deity, their church, and their own moral code (which, is line with their deity) because if you enforce the former, what happens when a LG paladin that serves a god/goddess of freedom enters a LE society that enforces slavery?Paladin are forced to abide by that country's laws. Lawful is not a subjective term, you see. Is the country evil? Certainly, but the paladin has no right to go trying to free legally owned slaves or overthrow a legally empowered government. He just has to suck it up until someone else with authority tells him to do otherwise.
No, they're not.
Lawful Good: "They fight to abolish or change laws they deem unjust, and they always aid those in need."
Paladin Code: "Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority"
One of the VERY few good things about the Paladin Code is that it makes one reasonable exception to the rigidity of the Code: You don't need to follow an illegitimate authority. Most good people would consider an Evil authority to not be legitimate, especially as they also charged with protecting the innocent...which the laws may otherwise not do.
It's quite a reasonable sentence in the Code. Whoever wrote it must have been half asleep that day or we'd have something more in line with the rest of it like "Additionally, a Paladin's Code requires that she must respect all laws in all nations".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
paladins should NOT be excepted to follow every countries laws. They follow the laws of their deity, their church, and their own moral code (which, is line with their deity) because if you enforce the former, what happens when a LG paladin that serves a god/goddess of freedom enters a LE society that enforces slavery?Paladin is forced to abide by that country's laws. Lawful is not a subjective term, you see. Is the country evil? Certainly, but the paladin has no right to go trying to free legally owned slaves or overthrow a legally empowered government. He just has to suck it up until someone else with authority tells him to do otherwise.
Ummmm... no. Just, no. Lawful means he believes laws are a good tool to shape a good society... but in the face of horrid laws, a paladin will certainly do his or her utmost to right the wrongs caused. And I think the paladin's god qualifies as the only authorization he or she will ever need.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's quite a reasonable sentence in the Code. Whoever wrote it must have been half asleep that day or we'd have something more in line with the rest of it like "Additionally, a Paladin's Code requires that she must respect all laws in all nations".
I can see the confusion set in as a crusading paladin enters enemy territory...and must immediately turn himself in because it is illegal in the evil empire for someone to attack their soldiers.
|
|
Unfortunately, that's just how it is. Evil does not necessarily make a government illegitimate, and not all settings great slavery as evil or unlawful. It could very well be that despite their evil, slaving ways, that city and/or country is the very definition of lawful. That's where it gets difficult for the paladin. Condoning slavery and acts of evil does not rob a country of its legitimacy, period. In no content, anywhere in Pathfinder or D&D has it ever been stated that these things render something illegitimate.
Unfortunately, that's just how it is. Evil does not necessarily make a government illegitimate, and not all settings great slavery as evil or unlawful. It could very well be that despite their evil, slaving ways, that city and/or country is the very definition of lawful. That's where it gets difficult for the paladin. Condoning slavery and acts of evil does not rob a country of its legitimacy, period. In no content, anywhere in Pathfinder or D&D has it ever been stated that these things render something illegitimate.
In combination with the charge to "protect innocents" and the statement in the LG alignment that they should try to enact change on any unjust laws...not sure you have a leg to stand on with this one.
Unfortunately, that's just how it is. Evil does not necessarily make a government illegitimate, and not all settings great slavery as evil or unlawful. It could very well be that despite their evil, slaving ways, that city and/or country is the very definition of lawful. That's where it gets difficult for the paladin. Condoning slavery and acts of evil does not rob a country of its legitimacy, period. In no content, anywhere in Pathfinder or D&D has it ever been stated that these things render something illegitimate.
Shenanigans.
You've just made it impossible for Paladin's to fight a war on enemy territory. Once they cross the border they can't break the law by attacking local representatives of the government (soldiers).
|
|
In Geb, if a Paladin goes around slaughtering Necromancers for raising zombies, they are not following the legitimate authority of the nation. IT may not be recognized as legitimate by the paladin, but it sure as hell is to everyone living there in peace.
This here is pretty much what I'm getting at. What if the people there like their way of life, and are in no way oppressed (slaves aside)? What if it's a setting where slavery is not deemed unjust by the masses? What does the paladin do then? Certainly, it can try to pursue these, but to do so is no longer behaving in a lawful manner. The paladin can disagree all they want. Besides, the code actually does state that a paladin must respect legitimate authority. I just looked at it. That nation's authority is legitimate; the paladin therefore has no claim to violate those laws. What they can do, on the other hand, is pursue other, legal means of actually changing the laws rather than violating them. I will say, however, that I don't think they should be penalized for ransacking Geb. Undead don't exactly get the same rights and considerations as... well, anything else in Pathfinder.
Shenanigans.You've just made it impossible for Paladin's to fight a war on enemy territory. Once they cross the border they can't break the law by attacking local representatives of the government (soldiers).
There is a difference between fighting a war that was authorized by whatever country that paladin serves, and just going "Well hey, my deity disagrees with this country. Clearly I should burn it down."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This here is pretty much what I'm getting at. What if the people there like their way of life, and are in no way oppressed (slaves aside)?
Now you're being silly for the sake of being silly.
Liches LOVE destroying whole villages. Demons LOVE corrupting innocents. None of this makes them legitimate and none of it means that a Paladin shouldn't break out the Smite hammer in order to stop them.
What if it's a setting where slavery is not deemed unjust by the masses? What does the paladin do then?
Fortunately, good and evil aren't decided by the masses. A horde of 10000 orcs doesn't suddenly become good because they outnumber the villagers 10-to-1 in feeling that "sacking and raping is ok!".
In Geb, if a Paladin goes around slaughtering Necromancers for raising zombies, they are not following the legitimate authority of the nation. IT may not be recognized as legitimate by the paladin, but it sure as hell is to everyone living there in peace.This here is pretty much what I'm getting at. What if the people there like their way of life, and are in no way oppressed (slaves aside)? What if it's a setting where slavery is not deemed unjust by the masses? What does the paladin do then? Certainly, it can try to pursue these, but to do so is no longer behaving in a lawful manner. The paladin can disagree all they want. Besides, the code actually does state that a paladin must respect legitimate authority. I just looked at it. That nation's authority is legitimate; the paladin therefore has no claim to violate those laws. What they can do, on the other hand, is pursue other, legal means of actually changing the laws rather than violating them.
There is a difference between fighting a war that was authorized by whatever country that paladin serves, and just going "Well hey, my deity disagrees with this country. Clearly I should burn it down."Shenanigans.
You've just made it impossible for Paladin's to fight a war on enemy territory. Once they cross the border they can't break the law by attacking local representatives of the government (soldiers).
Not by your standard. If a government declares war on another government - it is recognizing the enemy government as legitimate. Otherwise it wouldn't be a war declared against them.
If the enemy government is legitimate then by your assertions - the paladin MUST obey it's laws when inside it's borders.
|
|
This here is pretty much what I'm getting at. What if the people there like their way of life, and are in no way oppressed (slaves aside)?Now you're being silly for the sake of being silly.
Liches LOVE destroying whole villages. Demons LOVE corrupting innocents. None of this makes them legitimate and none of it means that a Paladin shouldn't break out the Smite hammer in order to stop them.
What if it's a setting where slavery is not deemed unjust by the masses? What does the paladin do then?Fortunately, good and evil aren't decided by the masses. A horde of 10000 orcs doesn't suddenly become good because they outnumber the villagers 10-to-1 in feeling that "sacking and raping is ok!".
Please stop trying to go off to extremes. We are talking about a country that has every right to be in power, not a horde of orcs. ... And yes, time to find that paladin discussion thread that was mentioned. We also aren't talking, necessarily, about war. The subject as I understood it was a single paladin that had not been given any orders to do so trying to overthrow a lawfully and legally empowered government it disagreed with. That is the very definition of unlawful. More specifically, there was no mention whatsoever of this government having done anything negative to other, surrounding countries. Nor was there any mention of abusing its people, unlawful acquisition of slaves, torture, or many other things that could actually justify a paladin taking action.
Please stop trying to go off to extremes. We are talking about a country that has every right to be in power, not a horde of orcs. ... And yes, time to find that paladin discussion thread that was mentioned.This here is pretty much what I'm getting at. What if the people there like their way of life, and are in no way oppressed (slaves aside)?Now you're being silly for the sake of being silly.
Liches LOVE destroying whole villages. Demons LOVE corrupting innocents. None of this makes them legitimate and none of it means that a Paladin shouldn't break out the Smite hammer in order to stop them.
What if it's a setting where slavery is not deemed unjust by the masses? What does the paladin do then?Fortunately, good and evil aren't decided by the masses. A horde of 10000 orcs doesn't suddenly become good because they outnumber the villagers 10-to-1 in feeling that "sacking and raping is ok!".
It's no more extreme for me to claim 10000 orcs are wrong than for you to claim 100000 peasants are right. Good and evil are objective in Pathfinder. No matter how many people "like slavery" it doesn't change the evil/good nature of it.
|
|
It's no more extreme for me to claim 10000 orcs are wrong than for you to claim 100000 peasants are right. Good and evil are objective in Pathfinder. No matter how many people "like slavery" it doesn't change the evil/good nature of it.Please stop trying to go off to extremes. We are talking about a country that has every right to be in power, not a horde of orcs. ... And yes, time to find that paladin discussion thread that was mentioned.This here is pretty much what I'm getting at. What if the people there like their way of life, and are in no way oppressed (slaves aside)?Now you're being silly for the sake of being silly.
Liches LOVE destroying whole villages. Demons LOVE corrupting innocents. None of this makes them legitimate and none of it means that a Paladin shouldn't break out the Smite hammer in order to stop them.
What if it's a setting where slavery is not deemed unjust by the masses? What does the paladin do then?Fortunately, good and evil aren't decided by the masses. A horde of 10000 orcs doesn't suddenly become good because they outnumber the villagers 10-to-1 in feeling that "sacking and raping is ok!".
Except for the part where it does. Slavery is not specifically considered evil in all settings. Anyway, still trying to find that other thread. In any case I think this is about enough of me playing devil's advocate. I'm actually all for giving paladins some leeway because RAW just puts the screws to them by default.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the god doesn't like slavery, I'd assume that the god's word supersecedes that of mortal led government bound by conditions a diety is not bound by. The dieties are a legit authority in pathfinder.
|
I had a charismatic bloodthirsty human fighter that was in a fight against duergars, whe only left two gray dwarves, both surrendered, but they did before my fighter's turn, he chopped the head of one off and pointed his big sword to the other and said "that's what happens when our prisoners try to escape". Then striped half naked the duergar, locked him in a tiny cell in the dungeon and throwed the key in the lake nearby.
This was not honorable, of course.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please stop trying to go off to extremes. We are talking about a country that has every right to be in power, not a horde of orcs. ... And yes, time to find that paladin discussion thread that was mentioned. We also aren't talking, necessarily, about war. The subject as I understood it was a single paladin that had not been given any orders to do so trying to overthrow a lawfully and legally empowered government it disagreed with. That is the very definition of unlawful. More specifically, there was no mention whatsoever of this government having done anything negative to other, surrounding countries. Nor was there any mention of abusing its people, unlawful acquisition of slaves, torture, or many other things that could actually justify a paladin taking action.
On what basis does that country's government have a "right" to be in power in the eyes of a Paladin?
A Neutral Evil king may have ascended to the throne legitimately, without murdering other family members or the prior king to get the throne. However, if he then engages in assassination and torture of any dissenters to his rule, after having decreed that such activities are perfectly legal as long as they are done in the name of the Crown, does that make his governance and authority legitimate?
|
|
Please stop trying to go off to extremes. We are talking about a country that has every right to be in power, not a horde of orcs. ... And yes, time to find that paladin discussion thread that was mentioned. We also aren't talking, necessarily, about war. The subject as I understood it was a single paladin that had not been given any orders to do so trying to overthrow a lawfully and legally empowered government it disagreed with. That is the very definition of unlawful. More specifically, there was no mention whatsoever of this government having done anything negative to other, surrounding countries. Nor was there any mention of abusing its people, unlawful acquisition of slaves, torture, or many other things that could actually justify a paladin taking action.On what basis does that country's government have a "right" to be in power in the eyes of a Paladin?
A Neutral Evil king may have ascended to the throne legitimately, without murdering other family members or the prior king to get the throne. However, if he then engages in assassination and torture of any dissenters to his rule, after having decreed that such activities are perfectly legal as long as they are done in the name of the Crown, does that make his governance and authority legitimate?
Thaaaaaaat is a far cry from doing things in a manner that many would consider lawful. What we've been discussing, to my knowledge, is a lawful evil kingdom that is not actually wronging anyone aside from legally acquired, legally owned slaves. Slave trade is a big thing in a lot of settings, and many governments are cool with it.
Anywho, this topic has gotten derailed enough. So.
Killing someone who tries to surrender: why do so many people think it's an evil act?
If your in any sort of city this question is easy. Tie them up/manacle them and hand them over to the city guard for prosecution on appropriate charges. (Pretty much every character I make gets manacles or magic/Masterwork manacles for this reason).
The problem gets harder the farther from civilization you get and frankly has no cut and dried answer IMO. Each case will be handled on it's own merits.
My only fast and hard rule is on creatures with the Evil subtype. They get killed/destroyed no matter what. They are truly evil to the core and have no redeeming possibility. Destroying them out of hand is generally never an evil act as long as it is done quickly. No torture or such.
It really depends on how evil the foe is and what the chances are of their causing further pain and suffering should you let them live.
Sometimes a divination or augury can answer whether they should be executed for their crimes or not as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would rather look at it from the beginning: How did the combat initiate? Was the opponent strong or weak? What is your character's concept of "honor"?
It's not like it can be singlely defined. My Fighter would challenge worthy, powerful enemies to duels. Some times it would be until one is disarmed and at the mercy of the victor, other times it would be to the death. He would abide by the rules set in the duel, but that is his only obligation; nothing else applies. If it was a duel for control or other such subjects, then he would secure his spoils after claiming victory. If it was a duel to the death, then he would honor his commitment to the fight and end the enemy's life; why make it a fight to the death and then cheap out? If anything, it shows cowardly, dastardly behavior; that you're afraid to take life when it is expected from you.
Honor isn't about being mister good guy, but about being of strong calibur and a keeper of your word. Most of the time when honor is displayed, it is generally done with positive intentions and viewed as a matter of admiration. People commonly misconstrue this to mean "He's such a good guy!"
My Fighter is actually Lawful Evil, and while he may serve the forces of Evil, he's still an honorable warrior through and through.
|
An honorable person would always accept a surrender.
Not correct. Honor may dictate that you kill the surrendering person. For example, you and your opponent may have been engaged in a duel of honor to the death, but the coward wimps out in the middle of combat and dishonors himself by begging for mercy, so you kill him. That's honorable. A good character might spare him.
But maybe not... Followers of Saranae will kill the "irredeemable" (though who is irredeemable may be a tricky question), even if they attempt to surrender. Followers of Rovagug are specifically called out as being denied a chance at salvation. And she's a pretty goody-two-shoes type of god.
I guess it's just dangerous to use words like "always" when describing roleplaying actions.
Another problem is a lot of people confuse law with honor. Being lawful doesn't make you honorable and being honorable doesn't make you lawful.
You see, this is why I don't really like Paladins.
For most other classes these things actually are subjective. It doesn't matter if the game would class you as a neutral character. If you stand by your personal code you can claim to be as honorable as you like and it makes very little difference.
I'm right there with you on this one. Luckily, my own paladin of Torag is most often played under a GM that is well versed in both rules and lore. They don't threaten me with alignment infractions or falling if the character is forced to execute someone for their misdeeds. It isn't unlawful and it isn't evil, so why should it be an issue? Torag does actively support it.
Paladins ought to be able to put down the rabble so long as they are in a place where it is their lawful right (dare I say, duty?) to do so.
there are actually a large number of faiths and codes that not only allow execution-without-trial (in the sense that they stand trial by the paladin/cleric in the faith), but in some cases actually encourage it! the most recent i can think of is an Oath of Vengeance Paladin a friend of mine made that follows (just drew a massive blank and i don't own the source, its a deity from one of the more recent player companion booklets... i think...) and is actually FORCED to execute anyone who has committed an evil act serious enough (in the eyes of the player) to deserve execution, else he fall. he also needs to kill one evil creature/being/person daily as part of his code. pretty hardcore for a lawful-stupid.
i want to say that the god was a minor god or like a really strong angel or something whose sole purpose was to root out and destroy evil wherever he went, we joked with him the whole game that his deity seemed more like a devil that an angel, but regardless he was VERY potent swinging around a Large Bastard Sword with both hands...
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I Kingmaker, I LOVED yelling at the bandits "Hard labor, or DEATH!" I got a sadistic joy every time someone threw away their weapons, put up their hands and shouted "Hard labor!" We managed to "recruit" around 3 "workers" for the labor camp. I wanted to give them a chance to earn redemption, but the campaign dissolved before we could play that out.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are a few problems with the real world assumptions that people are bringing to this thread.
First, in the real world, everyone that we know of or consider that we might fight is human and we can probably make the general assumption that humans are usually Neutral and have free will in the real world like they do in Pathfinder. That makes accepting the surrender of a human a very different thing than accepting the surrender of a demon, a lich, a drow, an ogre, or an orc whose nature either predestines them (in some cases) or predisposes them to evil and chaos. Likewise, in the real world, people are pretty much all able to be disarmed and confined if necessary--even a skilled combatant can be put in a prison camp and guarded with reasonable reliability. On the other hand, consider a dragon. What arrangements would you make to keep a dragon prisoner? A dragon can't be disarmed and guarded by a group of ordinary soldiers, secure in the knowledge that he is unlikely to overwhelm them and escape. Even some humans can present that kind of problem: how can you keep a high level sorcerer captive? (You would definitely need to take special precautions and most of the ones available to non-magic rich or high level societies would be considered inhumane in the modern world. On the other hand, the modern world doesn't have access to regeneration spells so some things that horrify us because they inflict permanent damage and would make it impossible for a prisoner to live an ordinary life after release might not carry the same stigma in a Pathfinder world).
Those differences between the real world and Golarion (or any pathfinder setting) mean that the concept and custom of surrender would likely be limited (perhaps only to certain races--off the top of my head I would think that the base PC races, anything with the human subtype and hobgoblins would be included in the surrender conventions but drow, demons, ogres, undead, and possibly orcs and goblins would not be). In any case they would also be significantly different from real world customs. (I suspect that spells like Brand, greater brand, geas/quest, mark of justice, and even arcane mark (if nothing else is available) might play a role in this and that parole might be more widely used--particularly if enforced by binding oaths. (Pathfinder doesn't have any good mechanics for this but throughout the ancient world the gods were thought to punish those who swore falsely in their name. If the DM thinks Pathfinder deities would really do that without spells (such as Geas/Quest or Mark of Justice that force their hand), taking a Cheliaxan lietenant's oath on Asmodeus to return to his home and not participate in further wars on that front until hostilities ended might be the normal way to do things. As a side note, the 3.0/3.5 setting Arcanis had very good mechanics for handling this kind of thing).
The other important distinction to make is that most real world surrender traditions are either for regular military combatants or criminals surrendering to the police. Very few pathfinder characters are members of regular military forces acting in that role. The situation that pathfinder characters and their enemies occupy is generally similar to irregular forces, pirates, or bandits.
Irregular forces (guerillas, resistance fighters, etc) are far less likely to either accept surrender or to be offered the opportunity to surrender and are sometimes killed after surrendering. Modern (20th and 21st century) treaties have formalized some rules of war for irregular lawful combatants (people who carry arms openly, observe a chain of command, bear a distinct uniform allowing them to be distinguished from non-combatants by observation). Irregular combatants who do not fit into those categories are often considered to be unlawful combatants to whom the laws of war have generally been held not to apply. Unlawful combatants may generally be held personally liable for whatever laws they broke and are punished as per those laws. (Recent real world events may have changed this somewhat in the US, but as recently as the second world war, FDR had unlawful enemy combatants (German spies and saboteurs in the particular instance summarily executed). In many other nations and cultures, even regular lawful combatants cannot rely on Hague and Geneva convention laws being applied in their case, much less irregular lawful combatants).
Pirates and other "common enemies of all mankind" form another special category in the legal status of prisoners. (More recently, slavers have been included in this status as well). From the first piracy laws in Roman times to the present, they have been considered a matter of universal jurisdiction--any military or auxiliary unit that ran into a pirate had the authority to deal with them. In most western nations, as late as the early twentieth century, while commanders were supposed to transport their prisoners back to the authorities (the governor in Port Royal in cases like those dramatized in the first Pirates of the Caribbean film), other options were considered legal and appropriate in unusual circumstances. Commanders were allowed to hold a drumhead court martial and execute sentence or in some cases simply apply summary punishment without at trial. (Tom Clancy dramatized a Navy commander using those laws which were apparently still on the books in one of his Jack Ryan novels in the 90s. Wikipedia's "hostis humani generis" article has other examples.)
In a Pathfinder world where legal authority is often less formal (though not in Kingmaker--there the PCs are formally invested with legal authority) it seems entirely plausible that--especially in wilderness areas, the PCs might rightly consider themselves to be the relevant authority and dispense summary justice as they see fit.
phew, no fear of words in this one, eh basilisk. to sum up in his tldr, STOP APPLYING REAL WORLD S!!~ TO MAGIC! GAH!
i want to say that the god was a minor god or like a really strong angel or something whose sole purpose was to root out and destroy evil wherever he went, we joked with him the whole game that his deity seemed more like a devil that an angel, but regardless he was VERY potent swinging around a Large Bastard Sword with both hands...
Sounds like Ragathiel, Empyreal Lord of Chivalry, Duty, and Vengeance. His daily obedience requires the slaying of a proven wrongdoer in Ragathiel's name. Maintain the Obedience and you get a nice +4 sacred bonus on saving throws against spells and effects cast by evil creatures.
If you take the Celestial Obedience feat and slay wrongdoers in his name he eventually grants some epic boons... Like another sacred bonus equal to half your HD on damages rolls against the creature thar last wounded you.
i want to say that the god was a minor god or like a really strong angel or something whose sole purpose was to root out and destroy evil wherever he went, we joked with him the whole game that his deity seemed more like a devil that an angel, but regardless he was VERY potent swinging around a Large Bastard Sword with both hands...
Yep, sounds like Ragathiel.
And it may sound kinda like a Devil because he WAS a Devil.
Take the Antagonize feat. Problem solved. :P
i want to say that the god was a minor god or like a really strong angel or something whose sole purpose was to root out and destroy evil wherever he went, we joked with him the whole game that his deity seemed more like a devil that an angel, but regardless he was VERY potent swinging around a Large Bastard Sword with both hands...Yep, sounds like Ragathiel.
And it may sound kinda like a Devil because he WAS a Devil.
yeah, thats the guy, props to both of you for remembering THAT name... xD