| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To wit, the execution is because it will be an unfair trial.
And when the Prince in question is begging for a trial because you know he'll be twisting it to his own ends turns it a bit beyond an open and shut black and white case.The Paladin knows he's not Evil, and can certainly arrange to use truth-telling magic during the trial, helping to ensure a fair outcome. Plus, he can always kill him later if the justice system fails and it seems really necessary.
Basically, this is an argument from expedience. Paladins shouldn't make those as a rule.
Yeah, I'm not seeing why the paladin's only choices are "allow the guy to get off by manipulating the trial" and "extrajudicial murder."
We've got (as per OP) a paladin of at least 7th level, quite possibly higher, with a party, here.
They have alternatives. If no alternatives have fallen into their lap, they're likely potent enough to create alternatives.
The choice is only "let him get off" or "murder him" if the paladin and party do nothing to prepare for the trial and spend their time sitting around scratching their asses. If they spend their time making friends, influencing people, making deals, etc, they don't have to put up with that sort of situation. Either the paladin himself, or someone in his party, is likely socially potent enough to influence the course of politics in favor of a fair trial.
("Look, neither of us want another round of civil war, but I understand you don't want your friend executed. If you'll agree to evaluate the case objectively, we'll agree to exile him to Elba if he's convicted, instead of executing him." *rolls Diplomacy*)
Now, if he exerts himself as best he can and fails, maybe he rolls 1s on all his diplomacy checks or whatever, then he might have a dilemma on his hands. But if he murders the usurper because he sees some challenges standing in the way of a fair trial, and just throws up his hands and gives up on the whole "respect legitimate authority" thing at the first hint of adversity, sure, let him fall. That's not really paladin behavior.
Provided you and your player are clear on things OOC. I'm not a great fan of springing a fall on players, OOCly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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?
My answer would be that if I didn't intend this event to potentially ruin the Paladin, I wouldn't have given him this scenario. What's the point of giving your Paladin a genuine scenario where he might become a Fallen Paladin if you're not going to follow through with it. Working something like this into the plot in a believable way takes time and effort, and if there are no consequences it's all a waste.
Sacrificing your virtue to do what you believe is right is part of that slippery slope heading on down.
=+Aelryinth
There's a reason the "slippery slope" is referred to as a fallacy.
The point was merely that a person can do an act that others view as being evil without that person being evil in and of themselves. Sometimes, it's just the best option out of a list of terrible options.
The question was "why did the prince try to kill his sister if he wasn't evil." I was giving an example of non-evil thinking that could lead a person to make that sort of a choice, no matter how distasteful it might be.
The example being given was that of a person willingly doing things he knew were evil 'for the benefit of the greater good'. Not, 'there are no Good options here.'
==Aelryinth
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?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.
Time slows.
Have the mans severed head roll up to face the paladin, shining with the light in an appropriate color to his god. His voice echoes from beyond the grave
"WHY DID YOU KILL ME?"
"My girlfriend told me I'd be sleeping on the couch if i didn't? FALL
"He's a disruption to the social order and his needless civil war killed thousands of people " No fall.
"I was tired of this plotline" FALL
"It was a direct order from my liegewoman in time of war. If that is an illegal order, then she should be prosecuted for it. I might be prosecuted for following it. But if its a crime the nobles might get her out of power with a trial instead of a civil war" No fall.
|
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...
Great idea, but you don't even need this.
It's his responsibility as a paladin (I'm gonna assume he's an officer and not just some private grunt) to refuse to obey illegal orders. He would also be entitled to tell the guards to take her to the brig if she flies into a "kill him! KILLLLL HIMMMM!!" fit.
If she calls for "TREASON! KILLLL HIMMM OR YOU SHALL JOIN HIM AT THE END OF A ROPE!!" then he should calmly hand his sword to her, recite his holy vows, and kneel to await her immediate justice.
The End.
...unless... the Chaotic Good merry men burst into the throne room and abduct the overly loyal suicidal paladin! thus setting the stage for yet another campaign arc! muhahahahha!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of people confuse lawful with legal. Any given legal system may or may not be lawful.
In this case, clearly the Queen presumptive is giving an illegal order. If the legal system is terribly corrupt (which the Queen seems to be alleging) it might still be a lawful-aligned order. However, I don't think any proper Paladin would just take her word for it, he would try to determine the truth for it himself, and only if he could confirm it would he act.
Even if the system was terribly corrupt, killing a surrendered foe absent legal authority is a pretty big step. Other options should be explored (banishment is fairly traditional) or perhaps fixing the system becomes a priority.
A Paladin should never blindly follow orders. Their moral code implies doing what is right regardless of anything else, including someone in authority telling them to do something wrong.
A lot of people confuse lawful with legal. Any given legal system may or may not be lawful.
While normally true, a paladins oath to respect legitimate authority connects the two a fair bit. It goes further than just calling the sherrif "sir" as you behead the perfectly legal slavers in front of him :)
|
|
Modern version:
In the end the Mayor is the idiot for asking a district attorney to take a legal shortcut and summarily order the death penalty for a major CEO without heed to his rights.
She should have gone to Officer Joe in the back row who's been staring at her bosom the whole time, as she knows this guy has had a few friendly fire incidents.
It's true, it's almost like the GM forced a difficult situation by doing the least plausible thing from the character's (queen) view point.
If she really wanted the ex-king dead, ask literally anyone who's alignment does not contain good or law and you've got a pretty good shot that they'll do it no moral quandaries involved. Presumably, the ex-king is appropriately restrained or locked up making him a very easy target to coup-de-grace in the middle of the night. A potion of silence and a light pick are all you really need. That DC 30+ fort save or die can be the end of him in a very silent night.
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?My answer would be that if I didn't intend this event to potentially ruin the Paladin, I wouldn't have given him this scenario. What's the point of giving your Paladin a genuine scenario where he might become a Fallen Paladin if you're not going to follow through with it. Working something like this into the plot in a believable way takes time and effort, and if there are no consequences it's all a waste.
This makes good sense to me. Well said.
It's true, it's almost like the GM forced a difficult situation by doing the least plausible thing from the character's (queen) view point.
If she really wanted the ex-king dead, ask literally anyone who's alignment does not contain good or law and you've got a pretty good shot that they'll do it no moral quandaries involved. Presumably, the ex-king is appropriately restrained or locked up making him a very easy target to coup-de-grace in the middle of the night. A potion of silence and a light pick are all you really need. That DC 30+ fort save or die can be the end of him in a very silent night.
Yes we May be dealing with a villain here that somhow act like the PCs are part of the story. Imagine that:)
As to the op if your now second guessing "the fall" I say let him fall. If he raises a stink then extend the story line that he can right the wrongs and regain his god's and his order's favor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If she really wanted the ex-king dead, ask literally anyone who's alignment does not contain good or law and you've got a pretty good shot that they'll do it no moral quandaries involved.
Unless the queen IS evil and is TRYING To make the Paladin fall and have he own pocket Anti-Paladin.
If she really wanted the ex-king dead, ask literally anyone who's alignment does not contain good or law and you've got a pretty good shot that they'll do it no moral quandaries involved.Unless the queen IS evil and is TRYING To make the Paladin fall and have he own pocket Anti-Paladin.
Which, according to earlier posts, is exactly the case.
Point blank - a paladin is a paragon of righeousness. A redeemer who should draw sword only as a last resort. An exemplar for whom there is NO lesser evil, and NO "he's too dangerous to be kept alive"
and most of all there's no "the ends justify the means" - that sort of behaviour is for chaotic or at least neutral people.
To murder a defenceless opponent would be to renounce the ideals of his class. If the trial is suspected to be unfair then it is the paladins duty to MAKE it fair, not to avoid it.
End of story.
StDrake and thejeff I think if you read all my posts you would see I agree with what both of you are saying.
There are degree's of falling just like there are degree's of good and evil.
He could fall from grace and lose his good alignment and paladin abilities but not go evil.
Or he could go neutral and decide to abandon his old path, lose faith and stay a fighter.
Or he could fall from grace hard and embrace evil with his whole being and try to go anti paladin.
There are many options and if the act of killing the prince is enough to make him lose his powers then the player will have to decide how he will proceed. I am not saying that that one act alone will do so but it could depending on previous acts in the campaign or the full story and what the Paladin knows of it. We have only minimal information to work with from the OP.
But it is my belief that rush to judgement and violent expedience is not what a Paladin should be doing when there are non lethal, legal alternatives already in place. Especially if the beleifs of the Paladin support those alternatives.
I think a good campaign should have storylines that test EVERYONES alignment but I don't think those tests should be no win situations.
While I agree that the fall if it happens would be a wake up call, it could be the first successful step on a road to damnation. If the queen is evil and a corruptor, should may well try to guide the paladin unwittingly down that path.
Sounds like she already has some of his trust and has, in one sense, seduced him since they are betrothed. With that initial footing she may now try to push him to do evil.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
murdering a defenseless man in your custody is most certainly an evil act, whether you did it at the behest of your Queen or not.
It is the exact kind of order soldiers today and paladins always have the right to absolutely refuse.
==Aelryinth
You say murder, I say justified execution (from the view point of the paladin).
Of course, my answer to should the paladin fall is always no, unless the player wants it to happen. Fall and power loss mechanics are complete s++% and shouldn't happen because people have a difference of opinion on what constitute good or evil.
Unless it clearly and deliberately evil that paladin shouldn't fall unless he wants to.
*Please note this situation isn't clear at all or else we wouldn't have 4 pages of debate, and I doubt the player has deliberately evil intentions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Justified execution would mean it would have the rule of law behind it, which this explicitly does not. That's why it's murder.
==Aelryinth
Justified execution would mean it would have the rule of law behind it, which this explicitly does not. That's why it's murder.
==Aelryinth
Not at all. If a paladin has the chance to execute Queen Abigail of Cheliax and somehow end house Thrune's control over the country he would be quite justified in doing it, even if the law of Cheliax obviously wouldn't.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately for the paladin, he's not fighting AGAINST the law of Cheliax, he's fighting FOR the law of his home realm.
So, no, he is not justified...he'd be subverting the very laws he's fighting for.
Bad example, Claxon.
==Aelryinth
I'm not talking: "he might have enough supporters among the nobles to get off and then he might be able to pull together another army and pose some kind of future threat", but more like "I know he's got the judge mind-controlled, but can't prove it to anyone else and if he gets free and gets the MacGuffin back he'll summon the archdevil and everyone dies". And I've got the chance now and won't later.
But this is the former case you mentioned. Also killing him now is the easy choice, not the right one. The right one is making sure the trial is not rigged.
My opinion: sound like the paladin is pussywhipped
Or maybe is tempted by the prospect of becoming groom-prince.
A gold digger paladin lol
Not following the law is a chaotic act, thus executing the individual is at worst chaotic. Requires atonement.
A paladin only falls for committing an "intentional evil act"
A paladin can not be tricked into falling, she may be tricked into doing something evil, but will not fall. She may be dominated or mind controled into doing an evil act, but will not fall.
If the chaotic act is big enough to shift him from LG to NG he still falls, technically.
Unfortunately for the paladin, he's not fighting AGAINST the law of Cheliax, he's fighting FOR the law of his home realm.
So, no, he is not justified...he'd be subverting the very laws he's fighting for.
Bad example, Claxon.
==Aelryinth
Paladin's don't fight for the laws of any country, or at least they don't have to. The only law they are beholden to are their god's.
Executing someone who incites war and usurps a throne would be allowed by most lawful good deities, I think. That the ex-king is justified in doing so isn't information the paladin has. He has been duped. Being dumb isn't against the paladin code.
He shouldn't fall if he executes the ex-king. He should realize the error after the fact, and atone for it. Resurrecting him and helping to rid the country of the manipulating queen.
And please note I'm not saying this is the best course of action, but if that is the course of action taken it does not constitute a course of action worthy of falling.
People make mistakes, and even paladins are fallible people even if they seek not to be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i dont think the OP will have problems with the GM since he appear to be the GM.:)Ask your GM, who will be the ultimate arbiter of this decision.This is the best answer.
It's between you and your GM.
Will your GM insist upon it? Then it doesn't matter what we think, your GM is the ultimate arbiter of this decision.
If you're lucky, your DM will ask you whether YOU think your Paladin should lose his abilities... is the fall-and-redemption storyline something you want to play out?
Doesn't change my answer much.
If the player is lucky, the OP will ask whether the player thinks his character should fall and lose Paladin abilities... is the fall-and-redemption storyline something the player (and group) is interested in playing out? (Or, alternatively, is the turned-completely-to-the-darkside storyline something the player is interested in?)
If the fallen-Paladin plot is NOT a storyline the player is interested in following, I see no sense in forcing it on him/her and the rest of the group, especially if it "nerfs" a character that's probably not likely to be overpowered before falling.
With any luck, it's something that the player, the OP, and the group are all interested in pursuing, and it results in a dramatic, interesting, and exciting Shakespearean tragedy that the player will talk about for years, and everyone goes home happy. It's something that can work well... it's just not something everyone enjoys.
Otherwise, the OP might get more mileage from just simplifying the grey areas in the party's moral choices a bit, and give the Paladin PC some obvious, clear-cut, politically-correct villains to slay, so that the player's itchy trigger-finger gets some relief.
Good luck, in any case.
Executing someone who incites war and usurps a throne would be allowed by most lawful good deities, I think. That the ex-king is justified in doing so isn't information the paladin has. He has been duped. Being dumb isn't against the paladin code.
Justice is a Paladins mandate. Having a situation where you don't have all the answers, DO have time to get them and doing so follows legitimate laws makes an out of hand killing of a surrendered captive asking for the just legal process to be done is not just chaotic, it is counter productive to the pursuit of true justice and the protection of he innocent.
Because if the prince is NOT evil, has a valid reason to dethrone his sister and the support of the people of the land, gained by valid and legal trial and is doing all this for the good of his subjects, isn't that 'good'?
Look at it from this angle:
A popular young prince, second in line to the throne discovers at the last minute this his elder sister, who is about to be crowned regent, is in fact secretly in league with the forces of darkness in a bid to plunge the country into evil.
Acting quickly but disorganized he tries to usurp the throne and his sister is nearly killed in the process. He hopes to possibly redeem his sister as he loves her so does not spread the news that she is in league with darkness. Such news could forever taint her reputation and possibly even throw doubt on the entire royal family and he wants to try to minimize damage to the stability of the country.
She flee's to the countryside and fools a group of adventurer's lead by a just Paladin into helping her regain her throne, all the time subtly manipulating the paladin to make him fall in love with her.
She hopes that she can regain her power and have her good brother quickly killed by the paladin dupe, thereby causing him to unwittingly perform an evil act and perhaps send him on the path to AntiPaladinhood, giving her a new and potent ally in her path of corruption.
The prince loses the throne as the adventurer's unwitttingly recapture it for a corrupt and vile Princess and his only hope now is the Paladins adherence to his faith and code to make sure truth and justice come to the fore.
And, if we're really insisting on following the core Rules As Written to-the-letter:
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
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.
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features (including the service of the paladin's mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any further in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see atonement), as appropriate.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/paladin
The Paladin loses class abilities for committing an EVIL act (not necessarily an Unlawful act), or if the Paladin's alignment shifts from LG.
An expedient battlefield execution could be argued to fall fairly within the bounds of following the Paladin's Code of Honor, which requires the Paladin to "...punish those who harm or threaten innocents..."
If you wish to explore the morality of the execution a little further, you might have a legitimate authority (e.g. the Queen or the head of the Paladin's military order) summon the Paladin to a hearing for war-crime accusations, to decide whether to charge, try, and possibly convict and sentence the Paladin for murder.
The degree to which the Paladin respects the authority to hold the hearings (and, if necessary, trial) and the PC's conduct in court could then help to determine whether the Paladin has truly fallen in the eyes of an even higher authority.
Make it an opportunity for the Paladin to justify his actions, call witnesses to the execution, call the other PCs as character witnesses, summon legal experts, perhaps choose to throw herself on the mercy of the court and/or atone for the alleged injustice, etc.
If one or more members of the group are rules lawyers or fans of courtroom dramas, it could be fun :)
Since this question is coming from the DM, I think it would be proper to raise the question of why this villainous queen would want to make the paladin fall. Assuming that she has somehow shielded herself from pinging as evil, wouldn't he be more useful as her fully powered dupe than as a broken and disillusionied ex-paladin?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, I love reading over some of these morality debates. Really shows how sociopathic some gamers/people are.
Seriously though, has the group done much investigation or are they murder hobos whose actions are based solely on the word of the new Queen? Did they ever take the time to hear the Prince's side of the argument, or question some of the town folk and other nobles?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An expedient battlefield execution could be argued to fall fairly within the bounds of following the Paladin's Code of Honor, which requires the Paladin to "...punish those who harm or threaten innocents..."
There is that word again. The problem is that the Paladin, as you posted, must also act with honor.
The prince surrendered and asked for due process according to the law. Sounds like that kingdom has a way to legally deal with this exact situation. The Paladin would usually be honor bound to follow the rules of honor in his society.
From what little the OP has told us, battlefield execution by order of the Princess would be illegal, compounded even more by being dishonorable to slay a surrendered foe who asks to be heard by the just process of the law for his crimes.
You know, I love reading over some of the morality debates. Really shows how sociopathic some gamers/people are.
Honestly it creeps me the hell out how many people seem to be sociopath and amoral in such threads.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately for the paladin, he's not fighting AGAINST the law of Cheliax, he's fighting FOR the law of his home realm.
So, no, he is not justified...he'd be subverting the very laws he's fighting for.
Bad example, Claxon.
==Aelryinth
Paladin's don't fight for the laws of any country, or at least they don't have to. The only law they are beholden to are their god's.
Executing someone who incites war and usurps a throne would be allowed by most lawful good deities, I think. That the ex-king is justified in doing so isn't information the paladin has. He has been duped. Being dumb isn't against the paladin code.
He shouldn't fall if he executes the ex-king. He should realize the error after the fact, and atone for it. Resurrecting him and helping to rid the country of the manipulating queen.
And please note I'm not saying this is the best course of action, but if that is the course of action taken it does not constitute a course of action worthy of falling.
People make mistakes, and even paladins are fallible people even if they seek not to be.
Paladins do fight for the laws of their country all the time. They are also beholden to their own Code, above and beyond this.
Executing a helpless man who is calling for right and proper application of laws out of hand because he 'might' have influence in the Moot is an outright contravention of justice.
Doing it because 'well, if I'm wrong, we can just raise him from the dead' is so many steps of justifying murder that I'm not sure you have any idea what it means to act heroic.
The paladin wouldn't just fall, he'd CRASH with that line of reasoning.
Make the hard choice and do it right, not rules-lawyery. This arguments to subvert the very spirit of the paladin's code just have me shaking my head.
Paladins do NOT take the easy way.
==Aelryinth
An expedient battlefield execution could be argued to fall fairly within the bounds of following the Paladin's Code of Honor, which requires the Paladin to "...punish those who harm or threaten innocents..."There is that word again. The problem is that the Paladin, as you posted, must also act with honor.
The prince surrendered and asked for due process according to the law. Sounds like that kingdom has a way to legally deal with this exact situation. The Paladin would usually be honor bound to follow the rules of honor in his society.
From what little the OP has told us, battlefield execution by order of the Princess would be illegal, compounded even more by being dishonorable to slay a surrendered foe who asks to be heard by the just process of the law for his crimes....
Indeed - we, as observers, do not have all the information, and we're only getting the information we do have second-hand, from an observer who is not necessarily objective and unbiased in this case.
It's all the better reason for us to call for a court-martial hearing, to bring all the evidence, eyewitness testimony, and facts in the case into exhibition and consideration.
There's a heck of a lot more opportunity in such a hearing for role-playing, ROLL-playing (skill rolls, etc.), the players and the GM to think outside the box, and so on, compared to an expedient battlefield "de-Paladining" by a GM acting as judge, jury, and executioner.
I say, give the PC a fair trial! :)
Sure the pally and party can be pulled to a different dimension and be tried infront of the pallys god
He shouldn't fall if he executes the ex-king. He should realize the error after the fact, and atone for it. Resurrecting him and helping to rid the country of the manipulating queen.Doing it because 'well, if I'm wrong, we can just raise him from the dead' is so many steps of justifying murder that I'm not sure you have any idea what it means to act heroic.Sometime I actually want to run a game in a world where Raise Dead is common enough and acceptable enough for this to be a valid option. Brust's Drageara is something like that. It's common in certain circles to assassinate someone to send them a message.
So yeah, kill him to keep him under control while you investigate, then raise him if necessary. Why not?
Not in your standard PF world though.
Even with commonplace resurrection magic, the cost of the spell and dispelling negative levels is a less practical option than imprisoning him for the necessary time.
Also "eeh I'll resurrect him later if I'm wrong" is eerily similar to a paladin stacking castings of Atonement