| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So what is a Paladin to do when the law is corrupted? Just let someone responsible for thousands of deaths off with a stern warning not to do it again?
If your interpretation of the Paladin Code involves suicidal stupidity, you're probably looking at it the wrong way.
Petrification is actually a nice and tried way of dealing with such cases. Been done already in Heroes of Might and Magic 2 and then the villain didn't even actually surrender..but he was the good and rightful kings brother. Good people don't kill their siblings just like that.
They left the statue locked up in a library back then..and in the next game some heroes had to actually turn him back to flesh as it turned out he knew something they needed to save the world.
|
When the law is corrupted he seeks out those that corrupt it.
The Queen is worried that the trial is fixed.
Prove it. Seek out those that would pervert Justice and let the truth prevail.
I mean, are we to believe that this Paladin wouldn't go out of his way to make sure the trial is on the level? Just as killing a man due to laziness isn't a grey area, neither is sitting in the sidelines watching a farce of a trial. If she has suspicions, seek them out and prove it. Or prove it's in her head.
I don't know of many things that stop a Smite Evil. Which means this man may have a legitimate reason for his actions that is just and true. He deserves to be heard, but only once outside influences can be assured to not mix things up.
This.
If the path of the paladin was easy, there would be no LG commoners.
Guys. This is the GM that was asking and the Queen it the bad guy.
Well, since I find the idea of Petrifying someone to get them out of a way a bit...unsavory, why not just keep the guy a prisoner while you investigate his stuff. That might sound like a pain, but it actually serves a great purpose.
If the guy you are investigating is honest, he won't try to flee because he knows that your investigation won't turn up anything. If he does try to flee, what does he have to hide? It's a pretty good litmus test for guilt and shies away from greyer morality.
Well, since I find the idea of Petrifying someone to get them out of a way a bit...unsavory, why not just keep the guy a prisoner while you investigate his stuff. That might sound like a pain, but it actually serves a great purpose.
If the guy you are investigating is honest, he won't try to flee because he knows that your investigation won't turn up anything. If he does try to flee, what does he have to hide? It's a pretty good litmus test for guilt and shies away from greyer morality.
He May try to flere so his necromancer sister dosent murder him?
He May try to flere so his necromancer sister dosent murder him?Well, since I find the idea of Petrifying someone to get them out of a way a bit...unsavory, why not just keep the guy a prisoner while you investigate his stuff. That might sound like a pain, but it actually serves a great purpose.
If the guy you are investigating is honest, he won't try to flee because he knows that your investigation won't turn up anything. If he does try to flee, what does he have to hide? It's a pretty good litmus test for guilt and shies away from greyer morality.
Well, you are investigating his innocence and whether he is fit to stand trial. This paladin has a duty to protect this prisoner while the investigation is underway. By the paladin's side is probably the safest place. Not to mention, if the queen sends some of her goons to finish the job, that plainly paints the Queen as evil and rallies the Paladin against her.
Well, you are investigating his innocence and whether he is fit to stand trial. This paladin has a duty to protect this prisoner while the investigation is underway. By the paladin's side is probably the safest place. Not to mention, if the queen sends some of her goons to finish the job, that plainly paints the Queen as evil and rallies the Paladin against her.He May try to flere so his necromancer sister dosent murder him?Well, since I find the idea of Petrifying someone to get them out of a way a bit...unsavory, why not just keep the guy a prisoner while you investigate his stuff. That might sound like a pain, but it actually serves a great purpose.
If the guy you are investigating is honest, he won't try to flee because he knows that your investigation won't turn up anything. If he does try to flee, what does he have to hide? It's a pretty good litmus test for guilt and shies away from greyer morality.
I think assuming that the safer place to be is by the side of the paladin is a bit on the simple side. Of cause if the paladin conducts his investigation on the internet, that May be the case. Also remember the paladin have no reason to belive that the prince will be target og assasination and he him self hi the queens principal goon.
But he is a paladin. They are so lawful good the radiate it. If you're a good guy, a paladin is always a great bet.
And a surprise assassination attempt on the prisoner is great conflict and encounter material. As an NPC, his will is the GMs. If the GM wants to tell a story, this may be a great opportunity.
But he is a paladin. They are so lawful good the radiate it. If you're a good guy, a paladin is always a great bet.
And a surprise assassination attempt on the prisoner is great conflict and encounter material. As an NPC, his will is the GMs. If the GM wants to tell a story, this may be a great opportunity.
Yes and this thread is the GM asking if he should make the Paladin fall if he kills the prince. We dont have a Line to the paladin player.
This is not only legal, by the law of the land this is the only way that a member of the royal family can be tried.
Unless the Paladin and his faith view this law as unjust, he will abide by it but make sure that the process will be free from corruption as much as he is able.
If the 'Queen' wants to circumvent this law then she is acting outside the established and righteous laws that rule the land (and apparently her as well from what you have written) and he should be ignoring that order/request.
Paladins are held to a high standard and it may come down to his deciding to obey his divine mandate or to obey the mortal power he has aligned himself with.
If he does the right thing and enforces the law (again assuming he believes that law is just) then losing his betrothed may be a factor. But a queen who ignores the law herself is committing a crime and may not be worthy of the throne.
Conversely, if he believes this law is fair and just but obeys the queen and kills the prince, he may fall. The one act alone may not be enough, falling should represent a long and consistent turn from goodness. Some seriously evil acts can do it in one go but this one, so mired in political and moral quandaries, may not be sufficient. But he may feel dirty afterwards if he has made the wrong choice. He may need to atone.
Also, in such cases, a Paladin should not rush to kill. Hearing the Princes reasons for doing what he did and ascertaining their truth seems proper for a Paladin, especially since the prince surrendered and asked for due process in line with the laws and customs of the land.
Any Paladin worth the name should agree there is nothing wrong with a fair trial. Even if he has to work his butt off to make sure it IS fair.
He also may want to spend 1000 GP and get a Phylactery of Faithfulness before he makes this decision. Seems to be a great investment if your actually concerned with obeying your alignment.
Has he asked why the queen wants him dead so fast? Are her reasons in keeping with the ideals of law, good and his faith?
It ain't easy being a Paladin.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So what is a Paladin to do when the law is corrupted? Just let someone responsible for thousands of deaths off with a stern warning not to do it again?
If your interpretation of the Paladin Code involves suicidal stupidity, you're probably looking at it the wrong way.
For the record, I agree with this. But this isn't that situation. There's evidence that the guy in question may not be guilty/there may be mitigating factors, and more importantly they aren't going to have to turn him over to anyone. They'll certainly retain custody of him until the trial is over at the very least, so as a worst case scenario, they can kill him before he's released.
Which means, kinda definitionally, that there's time and opportunity for them to see if the system works as designed, as well as to investigate the evidence of mitigating factors (which there almost have to be since he's not Evil).
So...you're murdering someone (who's never escaped from custody before) rather than allowing them to go to trial over the tiny possibility that they might escape from your own custody and go on to do bad things. That's...not a very moral option.
All of this in a way remembers me when
Also by reading this thread further it seems that the paladin wants to bang the queen and by extension this will lead him becoming a bride-prince. Killing the prince would be a huge conflict of interest too.
The queen is the rightful ruler, so the Paladin could accept her wishes as legitimate authroity.
Does the situation change if the queen actually is lying and the prince had good reasons for what he did? Even though the paladin doesn't know?
If the paladin is unaware of what's actually happening there's less weight on him (he still should push for the trial)
The fact that he already probed the prince and found he's not actually evil I'd say that the Paladin is obligate into further investigate the matter, otherwise it would be willing ignorance and just a way to twist rules that is antithetical to a Paladin
Does the situation change if the queen actually is lying and the prince had good reasons for what he did? Even though the paladin doesn't know?
Nope. You can only base the paladin's action on what he knows/believes. Not how things actually are. He is not an omniscient being nor is he expected to be.
I think the paladin is well within his rights to kill him and not fall. He knows that ex-king usurped the throne and started a war, and suspects an unfair trial will occur if allowed to go to trial. This belief is enough in my mind to justify his execution.
Learning later that he was wrong, and that his fiancée was manipulating him and is in fact the evil one leads to an very interesting role playing path that could involve the paladin killing his own (evil) wife and resurrecting the slain ex-king to right his unwitting wrong-doing.
Also, there's this which we all seem to have forgotten.
Rule #1, if you didn't warn him prior to the action the paladin should never fall.
Ultimately this situation is so mired and unclear I don't think any course of actions is clear enough grounds for falling. I think nearly anything is acceptable, depending on the type of paladin he is.
Also, there's this which we all seem to have forgotten.
Rule #1, if you didn't warn him prior to the action the paladin should never fall.
I just noticed that this totally invalidates the Phylactery of Faithfulness into uselessness.
I still think that the paladin has enough information to have a reasonable doubt on the matter at hand and if he decides to ignore that at all it's just willful ignorance
I think the paladin is well within his rights to kill him and not fall. He knows that ex-king usurped the throne and started a war, and suspects an unfair trial will occur if allowed to go to trial. This belief is enough in my mind to justify his execution.
You don't think that he should follow the established laws of the land, which are (from all I can tell) considered just and right and instead of hastily taking a life, ensure to the best of his power that the trial goes off without corruption while attempting to find out the truth of the whole situation?
Paladins are not supposed to be willfully stupid (ok no one is supposed to be) and should never rush to the sword for the answer to every problem.
The OP stated that the Law was that the only way to judge royalty was trial by moot. That seems to indicate that even the Queen would be bound by that law. In fact is very much seems to be a checks and balance issue between the crown and the country.
While the Paladin spent time returning the rightful queen to the throne he is dedicated to truth and justice as well. A fair trial should be something he throws his weight behind well before a quick beheading, especially without proof of true evil in the actions of the prince.
Also, there's this which we all seem to have forgotten.
Rule #1, if you didn't warn him prior to the action the paladin should never fall.
I just noticed that this totally invalidates the Phylactery of Faithfulness into uselessness.
I still think that the paladin has enough information to have a reasonable doubt on the matter at hand and if he decides to ignore that at all it's just willful ignorance
I think a majority of people agree that the particular magic item in question is a stupid one, that something like that should be a class feature or something that character (if not the player) should instantly know. But since the GM and the player may have different ideas about what constitutes right and wrong action the GM needs to warn you.
We can argue about right and wrong all day long, but in the end the GM decides what his deity thinks, and what the paladin knows about what the deity thinks. If the paladin has no reason to suspect this is an issue, then he doesn't fall.
Also, I disagree that the paladin has "sufficient" information to constitute willful ignorance. Detect evil didn't work and smite evil didn't either. You can commit crimes without being permanently evil. You would be guilty, but not necessarily detect as evil or have Smite Evil work on you.
|
|
Also, I disagree that the paladin has "sufficient" information to constitute willful ignorance. Detect evil didn't work and smite evil didn't either. You can commit crimes without being permanently evil. You would be guilty, but not necessarily detect as evil or have Smite Evil work on you.
This is true in general, but not in specific IMO. I'd say murdering your sister for power is the kinda thing that makes you Evil pretty much right away unless there's way more to the story.
I think a majority of people agree that the particular magic item in question is a stupid one, that something like that should be a class feature or something that character (if not the player) should instantly know. But since the GM and the player may have different ideas about what constitutes right and wrong action the GM needs to warn you.
We can argue about right and wrong all day long, but in the end the GM decides what his deity thinks, and what the paladin knows about what the deity thinks. If the paladin has no reason to suspect this is an issue, then he doesn't fall.
Also, I disagree that the paladin has "sufficient" information to constitute willful ignorance. Detect evil didn't work and smite evil didn't either. You can commit crimes without being permanently evil. You would be guilty, but not necessarily detect as evil or have Smite Evil work on you.
Attempted murder and attempted coup are big enough to warrant an alignment shift, we have tangible alignments in this world, intent and scale are paramount, these are not petty crimes like mugging a passerby or stealing an apple. If an act of this scale does not make him evil there's reason to question his motive.
Or the GM is a bad one and doesn't know ho alignments work and thus we have a flawed situation since the beginning, but that's an assumption that invalidates the entire discussion so I'll assume that the GM made him intentionally not evil because he's actually not evil and not to avoid Detect & Smite.
This is true in general, but not in specific IMO. I'd say murdering your sister for power is the kinda thing that makes you Evil pretty much right away unless there's way more to the story.
Which is something the Paladin would have time to find out if he follows the realms law and gives the prince his trial.
Maybe there is a valid REASON all those nobles are siding with the Prince? Have they detected good on him? Have they detected evil on the Queen?
The Paladin should have as much info as possible before he kills. Often self defense does not give that luxury but in this situation he has the time if he wants to.
And what have we said about Paladins and expediency?
Attempted murder and attempted coup are big enough to warrant an alignment shift, we have tangible alignments in this world, intent and scale are paramount, these are not petty crimes like mugging a passerby or stealing an apple. If an act of this scale does not make him evil there's reason to question his motive.
What if the prince learned his sister has been corrrupted by demon/devil/whatever worship and will lead the realm to evil and destruction and he had to act before the coronation made such efforts impossible? That would be a GOOD act, in trying to save his kingdom and oppose evil.
The trial is the law and allows time for the truth.
|
|
That's a woolly situation. If the law is solely or largely the whim of the ruling monarch, then the Paladin has whatever legal rights the monarch grants him.
Given the OP specifically describes a situation where that pretty clearly isn't the case (ie: 'the moot is the only legal format to try members of the royal family')...it seems a bit less wooly, and a bit more 'this is a bad thing, do not do it'.
Sooooo the prince attempted to kill his sister to seize the throne and he's not evil?
How's that work?
Sooooo the prince attempted to kill his sister to seize the throne and he's not evil?
How's that work?
Spoiler: the sister is actually evil and the brother tried to stop her
Sooooo the prince attempted to kill his sister to seize the throne and he's not evil?
How's that work?
read the thread and you will get hints:) or read another of the OPs threads and you May undestand.
At one point he tells Fury "You should have left me in the ice." Temporal exile from every thing, every value you once knew can be a heavy burden.What you're proposing is not really that much different from murder. Ask Steve Rogers what he felt like when he realized the world he knew was seven decades in the past.Petrify him.
Drop him in a dark hole in a secret location for forty years.
at the end of that time period, bring him out and give him his trial before the Moot. His supporters will be likely dead and gone, her children or grand children will be on the throne.
If you allow a variant where he can age, he'll also be an old man and nobody in their right mind would want him on the throne.
---The paladin in this case cannot do as his Queen asks, because she is definitely asking for murder.
Ask Steve Rogers if he'd rather be 'killed in action' rather then 'asleep for 40 years'.
Indeed.
And yet, he doesn't shoot himself. Because he's alive and can recover.Exile has always been a harsh punishment, but life goes on.
And so did Captain America. He started going back and seeing everything he missed, and realizing that the world may be different, but there's great things about it nonetheless, and he could adapt.
Petrifying a prisoner is cost effective, stops escape attempts, minimizes the amount of space, maximizes security, and solves a really thorny issue neatly. It can be taken care of with a simple Break Enchantment, it can be administered with a pet gorgon or basilisk, or maybe a Medusa, for basically no cost.
Mass Petrification is how you store people for long periods of time when low on resources, or being unwilling to pay those resources. Any decently advanced D&D society would use it. Since there's no system shock risk anymore, its a perfectly safe and legitimate form of jail time.
If you can work in the aging mechanism, or do like FR and actually keep them partially aware so they know time is passing, that's even better, because it actually becomes a punishment, instead of just time travel.
==Aelryinth
The question here is not what is the best course of action, the question is should the paladin fall if he in fact executes the ex-king. While there may be hints that the queen is evil (and how on earth she has managed to keep it hidden after such protracted interaction is worth great speculation) the paladin does not have much to go on other than some negatives.
He didn't get a response from detect evil or smite.
His fiancée has asked him to ignore the normal law for her brother's trial because it will be unfair due to the dukes allegiance to him.
The brother did in fact usurp the throne and start a war.
If we remove the knowledge about good and evil in regards to the brother and sister this situation is so murky it might as well be mud.
I believe the paladin can execute the brother without falling, but will discover he was wrong in doing so and will need want to make amends for his actions.
Overall, this is actually a much more exciting story line in my mind than the alternative.
It's certainly not wrong to investigate further, but there is enough ambiguity for the paladin to think that the execution of a usurper and warmonger is justified even if detect/smite evil didn't work.
Sooooo the prince attempted to kill his sister to seize the throne and he's not evil?
How's that work?
Lots of ways. The most obvious is that the princess is actually the evil one.
Alternatively, it is well within the realm of Pathfinder for non-evil creatures to do isolated actions that would be considered evil without having their alignment shift. If this weren't the case, pretty much every PC ever created would be evil just from the sheer amount of carnage they've left behind them in their respective careers.
It's just as possible that both prince and princess are neutrals that have different impressions of how the country should be led in the future. Both of them might be 100% convinced of their own righteousness and the other's perfidy, even though neither one is actually evil. From this hypothetically neutral prince, the assassination of his sister might have seemed like the only possible method to prevent her from ascending to the throne, something he felt would be tragic for the future of the realm. Imagine these thoughts going through his head, "I know that I will go down in history as a fratricide and usurper. So be it. My reputation and honor is the least of thing things I will sacrifice to protect the realm from the tragic consequences of allowing my incompetent sister to hold the power of the throne. I will gladly be the most hated man in the kingdom if I can protect its future, and the well-being of the citizenry, from the mess my sister would make of it."
Sacrificing your virtue to do what you believe is right is part of that slippery slope heading on down.
It's one of the hardest things NOT to do, and is effectively Evil's greatest argument - You can't succeed without being a Bad Person, even for the best of reasons! Come over to Team Evil and be a dastard to do Right the way you have to!
=+Aelryinth
At that point, though, there's no point in trying him, since the Queen has accomplished what she wants - taking (her / her brother's) throne, and (benevolently ruling throughout / summoning the World-Eater sometime during) the forty years.There's a whole difference between stasis imprisonment and murder. The side benefit is you don't have to actually live the tedious, dull 40 years of imprisonment...bam, it's done, you are seventy years older, life has passed you by, and you get to regret your stupid youthful indiscretions as an old man with no power, and now you can face a Moot not packed with your supporters.
That's punishment that fits the crime. And it is far more humane and cheaper then feeding and having to watch a prisoner for 40 years.
==+Aelryinth
Which, of course, is PRECISELY the point. If he's counting on the letter of the law, you're giving it to him...with a minor delay.
==Aelryinth
At that point, though, there's no point in trying him, since the Queen has accomplished what she wants - taking (her / her brother's) throne, and (benevolently ruling throughout / summoning the World-Eater sometime during) the forty years.There's a whole difference between stasis imprisonment and murder. The side benefit is you don't have to actually live the tedious, dull 40 years of imprisonment...bam, it's done, you are seventy years older, life has passed you by, and you get to regret your stupid youthful indiscretions as an old man with no power, and now you can face a Moot not packed with your supporters.
That's punishment that fits the crime. And it is far more humane and cheaper then feeding and having to watch a prisoner for 40 years.
==+Aelryinth
Which, of course, is PRECISELY the point. If he's counting on the letter of the law, you're giving it to him...with a minor delay.
==Aelryinth
Honestly, that somehow seems vastly more evil to me than just killing him. The whole "letter of the law" thing is something I associate with lawful evil.
Also I'd call conflict of interest in doing his girlfriend's bidding
Have I ever stated how much these either or scenarios annoy me.
Given the situation the paladin has a great many options....
1. He could recuse himself from acting in the case
2. He could request the assistance of a horde of inquisitors of his faith
3. He could begin the trial himselfThis list gets very long very quick.....with lots of things happening in between.
But assuming this is a GM asking for your opinion to the question: "If my players Paladin lille the Prince before his trial because the Queen, and the paladins GF, ask him to. Does he fall?" What would your answer be?