Ok, scenario time: my party had befriended the crown princess of the world's largest nation. Upon her father's death, she was to become Queen, but her younger brother usurped her and tried to have her killed, but she got away. The PCs helped her and have spent the last 6 levels raising an army to retake the throne. The battle ensued and they pushed their way into the castle.
Several big fights later they have captured the young king, who surrendered and is demanding the right to a trial by moot, a legal trial where a member of the royal family is brought before the Duke's and Duchess' of every major city and allowing them to decide the royal family member's fate. 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.
The new Queen doesn't want to give it to him, worried that her brother has too many contacts and friends among the noblemen to make for a fair trial. She wants the paladin (team leader and her betrothed) to execute him immediately for crimes against the throne. He is torn, after all, he knows the young king is not evil (his smite evil didn't work) and he is no immediate threat. Then again, if hes found innocent of his crimes by the moot, he'll be allowed to slither away to raise an army of his own.
So would carrying out this order (or allowing another to do it for him) cost the paladin his powers?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ask your GM, who will be the ultimate arbiter of this decision.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seem the young prince is trying to use the law to commit future evils. Also if he tried to have her killed he would be evil if I was the GM. His plot failing does not make him any less evil, so in my game he would have been smited and dead. I also think that if a paladin has to choose between legitimate authority and good, he does what is good.
I also think a paladin would have some idea of what his deity would want, so asking the GM "Will I fall if ____" should be a valid option without needing some silly magic item. I say that because there is a magic item in the game that lets you know if you are about to mess up in the eyes of your deity.
Your GM runs the game differently than I do so you will have to ask him.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If there is a serious conflict of morals here, then the answer is simple- remove yourself from the equation.
Do not act as the queen's jailor and executioner. Simply hand over the accused to a legitimate authority figure (the queen and her people) and simply allow the system to run its course (whether that si running the system straight, or an aversion of the system based upon the authority figure's judgment).
While she is asking you to do it, there is no absolute guarantee that she will (give her a stern warning? Advise her that the current nobles will most likely give a negative view of flaunting the system).
Also, that does not necessarily mean you remove yourself from the campaign or from her side. Maybe you can go from jailer to lobbyist- find the major supporters that the prince is most likely relying upon, and try to petition them and persuade them that removing the prince is the correct course of action. Try to put it heavily on the prince- this can make it easier to sway their opinion in a transparent trial, and it can also do some preemptive damage control if she avoids the trial.
Also, attempt to find dirt on these big wig nobles. Try to find legitimate reason to have them removed before the trial, and place others that side with the queen in their place.
Overall- don't play on the chopping block, play it in the court. And leave it to her (and party members with less moral qualms) if things need to end quietly. And try your best to make the 'right' way a viable option.
It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission.
Off with his head and if you fall then atone for it. Marry the Queen and live happy ever after.
This seems to fall directly into the "Lawful" part of your alignment.
If the authority you are in service to has laws that state he must face trial and can't be executed then you are sort of stuck.
As for him not being evil that is perfectly reasonable Just because he tried to kill her does not automatically make him evil
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for him not being evil that is perfectly reasonable Just because he tried to kill her does not automatically make him evil
How so?
Is your logic assuming we dont have the rule story of why he tried to kill her? I do think her duping the paladin would make for a good story.
Or is it more like:
Bad guy takes shot at someone rolls a nat 1: So he is not evil because he had a bad aim that day
VS
Bad guy takes shot at someone rolls a nat 20: So he is evil because he had a good aim that day
Basically he is only not evil because he was imcompetent, but if he was better skilled at planning murders he would then be evil?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Queen is trying to Break The law by killing of the usuper without the trial that is his rigth. She need the paladins help to remain a lawful monarch and not become a tyrant that regard herself as being above the law. This is a Classic start on a slippery slope. First they took the usuper and no nobody protested, then they took the halforcs and still nobody protested, and so on.
It seem the young prince is trying to use the law to commit future evils. Also if he tried to have her killed he would be evil if I was the GM. His plot failing does not make him any less evil, so in my game he would have been smited and dead. I also think that if a paladin has to choose between legitimate authority and good, he does what is good.
I also think a paladin would have some idea of what his deity would want, so asking the GM "Will I fall if ____" should be a valid option without needing some silly magic item. I say that because there is a magic item in the game that lets you know if you are about to mess up in the eyes of your deity.
Your GM runs the game differently than I do so you will have to ask him.
it seems is hardly enough Reason to kill someone Without a trial. At least not in a World/story with a bit of moral complexity.
Interesting question/situation.
I would argue that yes, he would fall. This guy is not evil, though he is sleazy.
He should marry her, consummate, and then state in court that due to his wife being pregnant with the heir to the kingdom, this man is now threatening his child, and therefore he is legitimately able to defend his family through any means necessary.
If the brother can twist the law to his advantage, so can he.
Attempted to kill or actually succeeded could be argued into any " Chaotic" role with the story line which I admit I have no knowledge of.
Chaotic good - Believed she was going to commit some sort of evil
Chaotic Neutral - Well don't really need an example for this one
Killing an opponent who surrendered and wants a lawful trial? That'd Certainly be against the ideals of paladinhood. If he did it I'd say he'd fall. He should instead try to convince the queen that it is not the way a fair ruler should act and that it would do her well to show the people that she does follow the law.
..also detect evil on HER, maybe she's the one toying with you.
On a side note I bet the paladin is not the only character in party and the others might not have that moral issue to cut the guy down where he kneels "for thegreater good". The paladin could not do much else than frown if that happened. It is war after all.
|
It seem the young prince is trying to use the law to commit future evils. Also if he tried to have her killed he would be evil if I was the GM. His plot failing does not make him any less evil, so in my game he would have been smited and dead. I also think that if a paladin has to choose between legitimate authority and good, he does what is good.
Given Muddman's previous posts...the woman he tried to kill is both the main villain and basically trying to end the world.
The PCs don't know that (and it's thus not relevant to the Paladin's actions being discussed here), but the prince (being her brother) might easily have some idea that she's, y'know, a complete monster. At which point, killing her isn't the kind of thing that indicates an Evil alignment.
And, knowing he isn't Evil and simultaneously having the option of a fair trial, I'd agree that the Paladin can't just execute him without falling.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...The new Queen doesn't want to give it to him, worried that her brother has too many contacts and friends among the noblemen to make for a fair trial. She wants the paladin (team leader and her betrothed) to execute him immediately for crimes against the throne. He is torn, after all, he knows the young king is not evil (his smite evil didn't work) and he is no immediate threat. Then again, if hes found innocent of his crimes by the moot, he'll be allowed to slither away to raise an army of his own.
So would carrying out this order (or allowing another to do it for him) cost the paladin his powers?
If you're working from Core rules on alignment, then yes, it is an evil action to carry out that order. If you're using non-core material such as Champions of Purity, the answer is maybe - ask your GM.
You could still do well with asking the GM, anyway.
-Nearyn
EDIT: if you are the GM, it's decision time. But I will offer you my opinion: Core rules on alignment are perfectly sufficient for running the game, and alot of the alignment dicussions that pop up, are as a result of people not reading/using the core alignment rules.
Keep in mind, that was just my opinion.
|
The Queen is trying to Break The law by killing of the usuper without the trial that is his rigth. She need the paladins help to remain a lawful monarch and not become a tyrant that regard herself as being above the law. This is a Classic start on a slippery slope. First they took the usuper and no nobody protested, then they took the halforcs and still nobody protested, and so on.
The whole point of being king is to craft new laws and ignore old ones. There is a reason democracy was created after much bloodshed you know ?
just saying ...
|
|
The whole point of being king is to craft new laws and ignore old ones. There is a reason democracy was created after much bloodshed you know ?
just saying ...
This is not remotely true of many monarchies. The king generally has great but not absolute powers, and generally needs to go through a process and get the approval of a variety of important nobles (and occasionally others) in order to impose a new law.
Absolute monarchies are different, but from context this pretty clearly isn't an absolute monarchy.
The Queen is trying to Break The law by killing of the usuper without the trial that is his rigth. She need the paladins help to remain a lawful monarch and not become a tyrant that regard herself as being above the law. This is a Classic start on a slippery slope. First they took the usuper and no nobody protested, then they took the halforcs and still nobody protested, and so on.The whole point of being king is to craft new laws and ignore old ones. There is a reason democracy was created after much bloodshed you know ?
just saying ...
That is the kindergarden version of the story. Just saying;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to give the Paladin leeway to avoid falling in any case where there's a reasonable case to be made for either course of action.
I don't think the Paladin is required to follow the law of the land when that law is being manipulated by their enemies to further evil ends. Paladins ultimately serve highers laws than those of mere kings and queens. That said, it would be perfectly reasonable for a Paladin to balk at the idea of executing someone without a trial they have a legal right to.
Basically, I tend to limit the paladin falling to doing something black, not just a shade of grey.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Paladin prays to his deity, asking for advice in this decision.
Paladins who are beholden to a deity (not all are, but the majority are) should be doing this pretty frequently; I mean, when you live in a world where the gods are as certifiably real as anyone else and they regularly send down representatives to speak with their favored followers it would be pretty silly not to pick up the phone every once and a while.
As for him not being evil that is perfectly reasonable Just because he tried to kill her does not automatically make him evilHow so?
Is your logic assuming we dont have the rule story of why he tried to kill her? I do think her duping the paladin would make for a good story.
Or is it more like:
Bad guy takes shot at someone rolls a nat 1: So he is not evil because he had a bad aim that day
VS
Bad guy takes shot at someone rolls a nat 20: So he is evil because he had a good aim that day
Basically he is only not evil because he was imcompetent, but if he was better skilled at planning murders he would then be evil?
That should be "full story" and "incompetent". grr...
All for the power to grant the queen the power to execute military rivals in times of war?
OH look I am!
Off with his head.
it seems is hardly enough Reason to kill someone Without a trial. At least not in a World/story with a bit of moral complexity.It seem the young prince is trying to use the law to commit future evils. Also if he tried to have her killed he would be evil if I was the GM. His plot failing does not make him any less evil, so in my game he would have been smited and dead. I also think that if a paladin has to choose between legitimate authority and good, he does what is good.
I also think a paladin would have some idea of what his deity would want, so asking the GM "Will I fall if ____" should be a valid option without needing some silly magic item. I say that because there is a magic item in the game that lets you know if you are about to mess up in the eyes of your deity.
Your GM runs the game differently than I do so you will have to ask him.
Pathfinder morality is pretty objective, and I was running under the assumption that the "lady in distress" is not lying.
In real life people get trials. In fantasy land they tend to get stabbed in the face.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And again, you're falling for the trap of basing your expectations on a modern society.
No, I'm not. A Paladin in a lawless wilderness can execute people summarily if they believe it necessary. A Paladin in a 'civilized' society whose laws he doesn't recognize as legitimate can do the same. A Paladin who knows someone is Evil and has no other recourse may do the same as well.
On the other hand, a Paladin who has already gone to war to preserve the laws of a nation (and thus values them) doesn't get to start breaking them as soon as they win said war, especially not to kill someone who's not even Evil.
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.
Interesting question- if there is a fear that the nobles might support the prince in a trial (at least to the point that he may be 'exiled'), where does the common man's loyalty rest? Or at least the smaller, petty nobles (the ones that don't run cities).
Also, an interesting side effect if she does go without the traditional form of trial- she may set a precedent that changes how the royalty are called to task.
For example, if she creates a trial where representatives of the lower classes have a say, then she herself can be called brought into the same system for her misdeeds.
So lets break down the moral problems here:
-executing a 'good' man- this is the 'good issue. However, even if a person is 'good', they can still commit murder, and should face the punishment. If the prince's crimes are sufficient for execution (and it is not just trumped up political charges- I do not know the character or campaign), then that is not an issue.
-flaunting the CURRENT legal system- this is our big one here. But if the queen abolishes the current system for royal trials, and instates a new one (minus the alleged 'corruption'), and she leaves herself subject to the same system, then there is no problem. The core lawful part here is whether there is a system that tries to rend fair and equal judgment for everyone that faces it. If she is just as much at risk under the new system... then it is likely not a problem.
it seems is hardly enough Reason to kill someone Without a trial. At least not in a World/story with a bit of moral complexity.It seem the young prince is trying to use the law to commit future evils. Also if he tried to have her killed he would be evil if I was the GM. His plot failing does not make him any less evil, so in my game he would have been smited and dead. I also think that if a paladin has to choose between legitimate authority and good, he does what is good.
I also think a paladin would have some idea of what his deity would want, so asking the GM "Will I fall if ____" should be a valid option without needing some silly magic item. I say that because there is a magic item in the game that lets you know if you are about to mess up in the eyes of your deity.
Your GM runs the game differently than I do so you will have to ask him.
Pathfinder morality is pretty objective, and I was running under the assumption that the "lady in distress" is not lying.
In real life people get trials. In fantasy land they tend to get stabbed in the face.
And i am sure that it is great in your game. But in some games NPC Can decive the PCs and going by a moral code that some times is inconvinient is what keep the good guys on the straigth and narrow. Fanstay World moral dosent need to be two dimensional.
I think in a story letting the usuper live so he can reform or come back for vengence is a more interesting story than killing him off. If you kill everybody for looking at you the wrong way you will never get epic hero stories, and i assume epic hero stories is part of a paladins fantasy.
And if you let him live you May get the chance to "harvest" him for treasure and xp again.
Edit: i undestand that you are the GM, Yes? If that is the case it is important to not make paladins fall for stuff that the player dosent consider Evil. If your player think that the end justify the means or that kill them all and let the gods sort it out is proper paladin behavior then he need to undestand that you dont think so before he get in game penaltyes for it. Else it will led to resentment and get in the way of the story.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And again, you're falling for the trap of basing your expectations on a modern society.No, I'm not. A Paladin in a lawless wilderness can execute people summarily if they believe it necessary. A Paladin in a 'civilized' society whose laws he doesn't recognize as legitimate can do the same. A Paladin who knows someone is Evil and has no other recourse may do the same as well.
On the other hand, a Paladin who has already gone to war to preserve the laws of a nation (and thus values them) doesn't get to start breaking them as soon as they win said war, especially not to kill someone who's not even Evil.
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.
Laws dont determine good and evil.
And i am sure that it is great in your game. But in some games NPC Can decive the PCs and going by a moral code that some times is inconvinient is what keep the good guys on the straigth and narrow. Fanstay World moral dosent need to be two dimensional.it seems is hardly enough Reason to kill someone Without a trial. At least not in a World/story with a bit of moral complexity.It seem the young prince is trying to use the law to commit future evils. Also if he tried to have her killed he would be evil if I was the GM. His plot failing does not make him any less evil, so in my game he would have been smited and dead. I also think that if a paladin has to choose between legitimate authority and good, he does what is good.
I also think a paladin would have some idea of what his deity would want, so asking the GM "Will I fall if ____" should be a valid option without needing some silly magic item. I say that because there is a magic item in the game that lets you know if you are about to mess up in the eyes of your deity.
Your GM runs the game differently than I do so you will have to ask him.
Pathfinder morality is pretty objective, and I was running under the assumption that the "lady in distress" is not lying.
In real life people get trials. In fantasy land they tend to get stabbed in the face.
This is not a "my game" situation. This is the base rules. In a game any GM including myself is free to include as much ambiguity as he feels is needed.
I think in a story letting the usuper live so he can reform or come back for vengence is a more interesting story than killing him off. If you kill everybody for looking at you the wrong way you will never get epic hero stories, and i assume epic hero stories is part of a paladins fantasy.
And if you let him live you May get the chance to "harvest" him for treasure and xp again.
Interesting is subjective, and you are hyperboling now. Killing someone for looking at them wrong would most likely be evil, assuming no gaze attack is attached to it.
Interesting is subjective, and you are hyperboling now. Killing someone for looking at them wrong would most likely be evil, assuming no gaze attack is attached to it.I think in a story letting the usuper live so he can reform or come back for vengence is a more interesting story than killing him off. If you kill everybody for looking at you the wrong way you will never get epic hero stories, and i assume epic hero stories is part of a paladins fantasy.
And if you let him live you May get the chance to "harvest" him for treasure and xp again.
I yes it does look a bit hyberbolic in the context but it is nevertheless still true even if you tone it Down a bit.
This is not a "my game" situation. This is the base rules. In a game any GM including myself is free to include as much ambiguity as he feels is needed.And i am sure that it is great in your game. But in some games NPC Can decive the PCs and going by a moral code that some times is inconvinient is what keep the good guys on the straigth and narrow. Fanstay World moral dosent need to be two dimensional.it seems is hardly enough Reason to kill someone Without a trial. At least not in a World/story with a bit of moral complexity.It seem the young prince is trying to use the law to commit future evils. Also if he tried to have her killed he would be evil if I was the GM. His plot failing does not make him any less evil, so in my game he would have been smited and dead. I also think that if a paladin has to choose between legitimate authority and good, he does what is good.
I also think a paladin would have some idea of what his deity would want, so asking the GM "Will I fall if ____" should be a valid option without needing some silly magic item. I say that because there is a magic item in the game that lets you know if you are about to mess up in the eyes of your deity.
Your GM runs the game differently than I do so you will have to ask him.
Pathfinder morality is pretty objective, and I was running under the assumption that the "lady in distress" is not lying.
In real life people get trials. In fantasy land they tend to get stabbed in the face.
There is no good stab first and ask questions later rules in my books. And i just realized that this is a GM asking how to handle if the PC paladin let him self be decived by the bad guy to kill someone that May be on the rigth side. And i dont advocate just make him fall.
You had me at "tried to have her killed" and "smite evil didn't work".
had you how?
Edit: the last sentence of the post above was missing when i quotet it.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like it better when you take away the whole GM-induced falling system. If you have mature players, they can decide for themselves as paladins when to fall. You can get some interesting, dark, and gritty stories when agents of god are dispensing questionable "justice".
My favorite paladin was a friend's who was a racist @$$hole who thought he was better than everyone. Almost all buffs, healing, etc. were saved for himself because he truly believed he was the only important member in his party (and therefore the only one capable of disposing evil). The fact that he had divine authority with that awful personality was surely more memorable than your standard "always-do-gooder".
My point is, keep the GM (and god's) nose out of it and you'd be surprised how well things turn out. You can better work on building a more interesting story together. Grey-area paladins make the best stories.
He should fall for supporting a needless war that must have led to the deaths of hundreds of decent people for the sake of overthrowing a non-evil king and installing a slightly more legally legitimate but probably no better monarch in his place.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Laws dont determine good and evil.
No, they don't. But executing people who you're not sure deserve it when you have other options is Evil.
It's not Evil if you're positive they deserve death, but the lack of Detect Evil sorta indicates that they might not. And it's not necessarily Evil if you lack options, but there are alternate options here.
So, in short, there are options to deal with him permanently other than execution and there's a lack of surety that his death is deserved. So...yeah, I'd call killing him Evil.
In a meta-sense (which doesn't determine the act's morality, admittedly), the guy is actually probably innocent of any immoral (as opposed to illegal) acts, since all he did was try and kill a horrible monster trying to destroy the world.
And you can argue the Paladin doesn't know that... and you're right. But he should certainly smell something fishy when the guy doesn't ping as Evil after trying to kill his sister. That's an indication that either he didn't do that (and thus shouldn't be killed), or that there's more to the story than there appears.
|
|
You had me at "tried to have her killed" and "smite evil didn't work". Premeditated murder is still evil. );
Again, based on previous posts by the OP, the 'her' in question is the main villain and trying to summon an Evil god to end/take over the world. The PCs are unaware of this, but the guy in question might easily be more aware of it.
So...him not being Evil after trying to save the world from his nutjob sister? Not actually that weird.
I say "not fall". Here's why:
Instead of a fall now, let him justify it to himself, let him rationalize it. Afterwards give him more chances to push the boundary between good and evil, some by her wish, others by his choice. Let it stretch a little further each time. Finally, place before him a truly evil option. It can go one of two ways at that point. Either he recoils in disgust at what he's become, and tries to redeem himself, or he accepts Evil and becomes the Queen's Dark Champion (Lawful Evil Paladin).
Obviously this requires rule flexibility, but I think it makes for a good story.
You had me at "tried to have her killed" and "smite evil didn't work". Premeditated murder is still evil. );
After I thought about that I was wondering if the lady in question is not the real villain, which I alluded to upthread.
PC's tend to trust NPC's too much at times, sometimes never even trying to make a sense motive check.
PS:Some people think the GM should automatically make them secretly.
Laws dont determine good and evil.No, they don't. But executing people who you're not sure deserve it when you have other options is Evil.
You can be sure and still be wrong, so are you saying being wrong is evil, or not being confident in your choice to kill is evil?
There is magic that can fool alignment spells.
Personally I think the Princess is setting him up. However the question of wrongful death and it being evil is a table variation thing. I guess the question is "Is it an evil act if you were played for a fool?"
If he kills the guy and he is not sure/confident, I would say that is evil. If he is wrong it is like a cop/soldier shooting someone who they (soldier)thought had a gun, when they(dead person) did not. It is a tragedy, but I don't know if I can say it's evil.
|
|
You can be sure and still be wrong, so are you saying being wrong is evil, or not being confident in your choice to kill is evil?
I'm saying that if you have evidence someone isn't as Evil as you've heard (ie: they detect as non-Evil even though they can't cast spells and have no items, and haven't for the last day), ignoring that and killing them anyway is Evil.
There is magic that can fool alignment spells.
Not Smite Evil there isn't. He tried that and it didn't work. That's a solid indication right there.
Personally I think the Princess is setting him up. However the question of wrongful death and it being evil is a table variation thing. I guess the question is "Is it an evil act if you were played for a fool?"
If he legitimately believed the guy was Evil, I wouldn't have him fall even though he was wrong. But we were told he knows the guy isn't Evil...which makes killing him anyway when all he's asking for is a fair trial a fairly Evil act.
It's not the being fooled, it's what he's doing from his own perspective (ie: killing someone non-Evil because it's 'too dangerous' to give him a fair trial).
If he kills the guy and he is not sure/confident, I would say that is evil. If he is wrong it is like a cop/soldier shooting someone who they (soldier)thought had a gun, when they(dead person) did not. It is a tragedy, but I don't know if I can say it's evil.
I don't exactly disagree with this, see above.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good above all, honour above all else (my personal shorthand description of the paladin code).
Killing a surrendered enemy is not honourable (nor is bypassing legal and legitimate trials, for that matter), so the only question left is whether killing him is Good.
Since he's apparently not evil, though may have acted evilly in the past (looks like he's Lawful Neutral to me), and doesn't come across as a tyrant or cruel dictator, deposing him doesn't immediately strike me as in itself being a good thing, so I can't see killing him as the means of deposing him as a good thing, either. That doesn't make it evil, though.
At best the paladin is on shaky ground if he follows through. Personally, I'd say it's a fall-worthy act, and let the paladin's player decide if he wants to do it.
Note that a paladin is never responsible for the actions of others (evil he might do in the future is completely beside the point). He is only responsible for what he chooses to do in a given circumstance.
To me, the paladin's best response is "I'm sorry, my queen, he is still a man, and still deserves the rights of men. I cannot be the executioner unless he has been tried, found guilty, and execution is the punishment. This is the battlefield of politics, not war, and I am a warrior, ever faithful to you, but I cannot be your weapon of political action, nor will I ever be, for I need you to trust that I will always, always, be your greatest weapon against physical threat, and for that to remain true, I must tell you: use the rule of law, not your personal hatred. Should I face him upon the field of battle in the future, I will do what is necessary. But in the field of politics, I must allow your laws to guide my hand, and those laws insist that I stay my hand at this time."